Saturday, 16 July 2011

Additive manufacturing video report | In-depth | The Engineer

Additive manufacturing video report | In-depth | The Engineer

Get ready for your next job

A report last week claimed that, as well as the many people currently looking for work, some 36% of UK workers are seriously thinking about leaving their job. With competition for jobs already at an all-time high, this means that an already crowded job market is only going to become more challenging to jobseekers. But the simple fact remains: good jobs still exist for good candidates, and your challenge is proving to potential employers that you have the qualities they require. Here, we show that, whether you're trying to escape from a job you no longer love or you're trying to get back into work after being unemployed, there are a few tricks you can use to help you get the job you really want.

1. Find the right job for you

No matter what position you're in, it makes no sense whatsoever for you to steam in and apply for every position you find. Apart from anything else, this could lead to you getting a job that you want to leave as soon as you start. Take time to check out the jobs market properly, and see what roles are currently available. Our job search tool will let you find the roles you want, but browse a number of roles to make sure you know what is expected. And please don't just apply for all kinds of jobs - one carefully-prepared and targeted application will have much more impact than 10 hastily scribbled email for an irrelevant job.

2. Get your CV up to date

If there's one thing we feel is worth repeating here on totaljobs, it's that a good CV is the most important element in getting a new job. Spending valuable time on your CV will let you create a positive document that details everything you've done, without any of the negativity you might have come to associate with your last job. Even if you feel your CV is bang up to date, you should take time to read our CV advice to re-acquaint yourself with what companies are expecting from your resume.

3. Practice your interview techniques

If you're just emerging from a fantastically exciting job you've loved and that has challenged you in all the right ways, there's a good chance that you could walk into any interview and dazzle them with your off-the-cuff comments on your achievements. Leaving a job you've grown to dislike or coming from a period of unemployment, however, are different matters, so take time to think about what points you'd like to bring up during the interview. Our interview advice section should stand you in good stead, reminding you of everything from body language to the questions you should be asking interviewers. And make sure you prepare for the inevitable questions about your time out of work and your last job.

4. Follow it up

Getting to the interview stage is great, dazzling your interviewer is great, but that still might not be enough. Why? Well, your interview might have been the first of six your interviewer conducted that day, and the impression you made could have merged in his or her mind with subsequent candidates. Thankfully, you can get round this easily by sending an email to your interviewer the next day, thanking him or her for their time and reiterating your desire to get the job. If you really want to impress, send a few ideas in the email on how you think you could do the job. All of this will put you back at the forefront of the interviewer's mind, and will give you a much better chance of getting the job.

5. Don't be despondent

With so many people looking to move jobs, not to mention stories of redundancy in the press every day, you will probably have to face the fact that it will take a while for you to move on to the job you want. It's imperative that you approach every potential new employer with the same enthusiasm and vigour as the first one; spending a couple of minutes regurgitating old CVs and cover letters instead of tailoring your communications to fit the job in question is a surefire way of winding up in the reject pile.

http://www.totaljobs.com/careers-advice/news/get-ready-for-your-next-job-083?linktype=copylink

Government reveals plans to reform UK's energy landscape

The government has announced its plans to reform the UK’s energy landscape in what has been billed as the ‘biggest shake-up of the market since privatisation’.
At the heart of yesterday’s white paper is a drive to encourage investment in new low-carbon energy production; a need to bolster the UK’s creaking energy infrastructure; and an attempt to stabilise prices for consumers with a more secure energy future.

To achieve this, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has set out four partially overlapping — and, some have argued, overly complex — measures, which take effect in 2013.

The Carbon Price Floor, first announced in the Budget in 2011, ensures a minimum price for carbon emissions permits for fossil-fuel plants.

At the moment, companies have to buy carbon allowances to cover every tonne of emissions they produce, but depending on market forces this can dip to quite low unit levels. Having a floor price is supposed to prevent this and, in theory, reward those who invest in clean energy.

The introduction of new long-term contracts — contracts for difference (CfDs) — guarantees low-carbon energy generators a fixed, higher-than-market-value price for their electricity.

Meanwhile, an emissions performance standard (EPS) has been set at 450g of CO2 per kilowatt hour to reinforce the requirement that no new coal-fired power stations are built without carbon capture and storage (CCS) but also to ensure that necessary investment in gas can take place. Finally, a capacity mechanism ensures the future security of electricity supply to ‘keep the lights on’.

Favouritism

The plans are largely seen as favouring new nuclear build, giving more confidence and certainty to the big players such as EDF and RWE npower that have plans for new build at various stages. What is less clear is how other low-carbon industries will fare.

‘The white paper may throw a few crumbs of comfort to the renewables industry, but in reality it is all about getting new nuclear power stations built,’ said Catherine Mitchell, professor of energy policy at Exeter University.

At a roundtable event of green investors hosted today by Triodos Renewables, Gordon Edge, policy director at trade body RenewableUK, said the announcement was a mixed bag for the industry.
‘I think yesterday’s white paper underlines the government’s commitment to the EU target of 15 per cent of energy overall and 30 per cent of electricity from renewable [of total energy/electricity mix].
‘That means that, some time in the middle of this decade, renewables, and particularly wind, will be producing more electricity than nuclear and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future — so why all this focus on nuclear? We’re the ones who will actually be giving you more electricity, so why are we being sidelined? But it’s not a terrible package overall; we’ve got a half result.’

He told The Engineer that the key concern for the renewables industry with regards to CfDs was how the contracts would actually be awarded through the proposed auction system.

‘What that does is deeply inhibit investment in the development phase, because if you have a project coming out of development and you don’t know if it’s going to win the competition to get a contract and at what price, then you think twice about investing in that project,’ said Edge.

Renewables output

In the midst of all the furore surrounding the white paper, the panel of investors noted a report released yesterday by REN 21 showing that renewable energy supplied an estimated 16 per cent of total energy usage and 20 per cent of electricity generated globally in 2010 — a jump of 32 per cent from 2009. 

‘The UK has come so late to the party and I really hope we’re at a point now where we are going to play catch-up very rapidly, because as an investor in large-quoted companies we don’t see many opportunities in the UK generally,’ said Clare Brook, fund manger at WHEB Asset Management.

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Rise of the cyber attacks

It seems with each passing week another big name ‘scalp’ is added to the growing number of organisations that have been subject to major cyber attacks, in a list that now includes Sony, Amazon, the IMF and the CIA among its ranks.

At this moment teenager Ryan Cleary, alleged member of the LulzSec ‘hacktivist’ outfit, is in custody accused of infiltrating the UK’s Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCAO) and quite possibly others too.

But arguably, it is attacks on the likes of US defence contractor Lockheed Martin last month that have awoken engineering and infrastructure organisations to the risks they potentially face.
And perhaps one of the most worrying implications of cyber attacks for engineers is that the damage isn’t always limited to data in networks and systems – rather, it can get very much physical too.
While details are still sketchy (especially with regards to the perpetrators), it looks like the stuxnet worm that infected the Natanz uranium-enrichment plant in Iran last year seriously set-back their (apparently peaceful) nuclear programme by crippling vital centrifuges.

Given the proliferation of automated systems it should perhaps come as no surprise to the engineering community that infrastructure is vulnerable – and indeed warning signs were there well before stuxnet.
In 2007 an experiment dubbed ‘Aurora’ conducted at the US Department of Energy’s Idaho lab showed that a remote hacker with a basic internet connection could completely take out a generator. Apparently, engineers who were fully aware of the experiment were nevertheless aghast at hearing a grinding snap from within the 27-ton steel giant as black smoke began pouring out.

And back in 1982 the CIA launched a ‘logic bomb’ attack on a Soviet gas pipeline in Siberia causing it malfunction to explode in what was described by a air force official Thomas Reed as ‘the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space.’
The big question is how can engineering firms protect themselves against a threat that is so diffuse and that so few people understand.

A few weeks ago I attended an award ceremony for Cyber Security Challenge UK – an initiative with some powerful corporate backers that hopes to find talent and ensure it doesn’t end up on the path Clearly seems to have taken.

The heads of cyber security for some major names spoke, including National Grid, BT, and the London Clearing House (where billions of pounds of critical economic transactions pass through each day) – all giving rousing lectures on ‘keeping the barbarians from the gate’ in the case of the LCH.
You would expect, and certainly hope these outfits have the finances and resources to tackle threats, but what about companies where cyber security has not previously been seen as a priority.

I spoke with Mohan Koo, head of cyber security consultants, Dtex Systems, which has previously worked with Barclays and T-mobile, but is increasingly seeing smaller engineering clients.
‘For engineering companies one of the things that needs to be recognised is that security can not be developed as an afterthought to the projects they’re building. Generally priority is given to the availability of services and facilities, and that usually outweighs the requirement to have them 100% secure.

‘Security needs to be built into the framework and foundation of each engineering project to ensure that the security concerns are tackled from the root so then it’s very easy to manage going forward.’
And Koo argues that it’s not just about ‘holding the fort’ and erecting barriers to the outside world – companies need to accept, and deal with, the uncomfortable truth that sometimes the threat comes from within.

‘These are not opportunistic attacks, they are specifically targeted with a concerted effort, whereby these outsiders have to have had some internal assistance – whether knowingly or unwittingly – about the security of that network and infrastructure because they need that information to a certain level.’
In 2007 F1 team Mclaren was fined a record US$100 million and excluded from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship for being in possession of Ferrari technical data. After the incident Koo said he was approached by another F1 team keen to protect its innovative assets.
‘They started to realise that their intellectual property was extremely valuable – years of hard work in research and development that need to be managed in the same way you would protect money in a bank.

‘The industry woke upto the fact that they really need to know where their data is going and who’s got access to it – and not only who’s taking their data but who’s bringing data onto the premises because they can be punished for that.’

But generally Koo says most companies approach his firm after a breach has occurred when it’s a case of damage limitation. Ultimately, he says an entire culture change is needed whereby every single employee is a ’security operative’ and is savvy to the risk their employer faces.
I suspect the reality at the moment is probably somewhat short of this in most engineering firms.

Centre of the Universe?

So the BBC is flogging Television Centre in Shepherd’s Bush and the great and the good of the media are sobbing hot tears while spinning fond tales of this wonderful, vintage institution.
Bless.

However, truth be told, TV Centre is a rather ugly old pile with insufficient parking and the feel of a late 1960s hospital with budget problems. Most of the people who worked there had little good to say about the place and the nation’s favourite uncle, Terry Wogan, often called it ‘the deserted doughnut’. Now history is frantically being rewritten and the structure is presented as an emblem of an imaginary, golden era of broadcasting, long since abandoned to the garish vulgarity of reality shows and Sky 3.

So what’s really going on here? Well, principally something called Media City UK. Media City is a rather spectacular, purpose built complex, overlooking an attractive expanse of water and conveniently situated near some very amenable restaurants and shops. It has its own public transport station and regular services to and from the buildings. This is to be the new home of various BBC projects, some displaced by the sale of TV Centre. It’s an impressive development and most non-media folk would be delighted to work in such a modern, well-equipped facility.

But it’s in Manchester (or Salford Quays to be precise). And that will never do.

Yes, incredibly in 2011, the ridiculous and wholly unnecessary snobbery of the north/south divide is alive and thriving at the BBC.

When the idea to move a substantial mass of the Beeb to the former dockland area on the far side of Salford, it was met with doubt, derision and denial. Many in the capital’s media cliques thought it would never really happen and scoffed at the notion that successful programming could be created anywhere that far north of Oxford. But the time for skepticism has passed. The project is happening and shows (mostly radio) are already being made at Media City. Before long BBC Breakfast, almost all of 5Live and all children’s shows will be created there.

Presenters, staff and unions have been up in arms. How can their employer seriously expect them to leave London and relocate? It is so unfair – they claim.  To an extent I do have some sympathy with anyone who has been disrupted by changes within the organisation for which they work. It can be a huge upheaval and genuinely unwelcome. But guess what? Companies have taken decisions like these many times before. Either for strategic, financial or market reasons, they have relocated (sometimes to other countries) and insisted their employees move with them or move on. However unpleasant these instances have been, they have always gone largely unreported outside the business pages, because they are really little more than the cut and thrust of the fragile, commercial world of employment.

However, when a similar arrangement involves lifting myriad journalists, writers, presenters and producers out of the metropolis, it is deemed such a blow to their self-image and self-respect, it is tantamount to a national crisis. Even though covering the events and activities of a nation from one city in the south east clearly defies good sense and logic.

Of course, the media has always been particularly guilty of such regionalism.  I don’t perceive engineering companies indulging in a pecking order based on their proximity to Trafalgar Square, nor construction firms or opticians. But the advertising, broadcasting, design and creative industries have persistently had a foolish hang up about their post codes. Despite some of the finest creative work being produced in the regions. –  Aardman Animations (Wallace & Grommit) are in Bristol, director Shane Meadows is Nottingham based – there is still an enormous bias towards London. Indeed, in my time in the advertising business I have seen accounts and clients gravitate to the capital for no other reason than it is … well … the capital.

This attitude is not only tiresome, counter productive and a little silly – in a digital age, it is completely archaic.

Moving a swathe of the BBC to Salford Quays may inconvenience a few people, upset one or two egos and drive the more stubborn souls out of the corporation. But if it lifts the creative industries out of a single-city mentality and into a more inclusive frame of mind, I for one am all for it.

Magnus Shaw, blogger & copywriter

Prime time manufacturing

Following Alan Sugar’s now-infamous dig at engineers, the BBC was back on more industry-friendly ground this week with the first episode of “Made In Britain”, a documentary which attempted to debunk the notion that British manufacturing is dead.

This week, the show’s host, Evan Davis, turned his attention to high-value manufacturing, and the sectors of industry where the UK continues to boast world-leading skills and expertise.

It was generally watchable stuff, and although there was nothing much to surprise Engineer readers, it’s certainly plausible that many of the technologies featured - from Mclaren’s MP4-12C sports car to BAE’s Mantis UAV - would confound the expectations of non-specialist viewers convinced that the UK no longer makes anything.

Davis was inevitably stronger on analysis than he was on technology, and his comments on how foreign ownership has helped British carmakers embrace once unthought-of of levels of sophistication provided an intelligent rebuff to the still widely-held notion that foreign ownership is undesirable. Meanwhile, Will Butler-Adams, managing director of Britain’s largest bike manufacturer, Brompton, suggested that China far from being seen as threat to the UK’s manufacturing base should be viewed as an emerging customer.

For all the industry drum banging there were also some pertinent warnings. Despite being the world’s seventh largest manufacturer, Davis explained that the UK’s exports still don’t pay for its imports and that if manufacturing is really going to drive the economy we’re going to need hundreds more examples of the kind of companies featured.

But as the programme sought to capture the full sweep of the UK’s advanced manufacturing industry there were some glaring omissions.

Rolls Royce, the world’s second largest manufacturer of aircraft jet engines didn’t get a mention, neither did the composite expertise of the likes of Airbus and GKN, and the UK’s buoyant space sector - a world-leading manufacturer of satellites - was also left out in the cold. Away from the aerospace sector, the UK’s much vaunted potential as a renewable energy manufacturer was notable by its absence, and Britain’s burgeoning low carbon vehicle sector was similarly overlooked. Assiduous readers will no doubt spot other examples.

It’s perhaps inevitable that anyone immersed in the UK technology industry will pick holes in the programme, but to be fair on its makers it was always going to be impossible to squeeze a detailed overview of UK manufacturing into a one hour programme. Ultimately, despite its shortcomings, “Made in Britain” was a valuable addition to the public debate over Britain’s industrial future and a welcome televisual fillip for an industry still seething over Lord Sugar’s ill-considered put-down.

“Don’t make it cute."

I’m taking a punt here, but I’ve got a feeling you may be aware of the logo for Apple. It is of course one of the most recognized in the world and one that breaks away from convention because it doesn’t have the company name on it. Some say that the design was a kind of homage to Alan Turning, the father of modern computing who committed suicide using a cyanide-laced apple. But the truth is Rob Janoff, an art director, liked the idea that something as complex as a computer was named after a fruit.

The year is 1977 and Rob Janoff is a young twenty-something art director working in a small advertising

Logo designer Rob Janoff
and public relations agency in Palo Alto California called Regis McKenna. One day, the creative director tells Rob the agency has picked up a new client and he’s the guy to work on the account. The creative director suggests Janoff meets up with a couple of guys who are making something called a ‘home computer.’ The name of their company is Apple.

The first meeting Janoff attends proves to be memorable. As he puts it, “The head of the company was Steve Jobs. He was not your typical CEO. He had long stringy hair, wore jeans and came in wearing sandals. I first met Steve when he brought his prototype of the new computer to our office. This was the point in time I think he knew he needed a new logo for his new computer. His old logo was a line drawing of Sir Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree.”

The brief he received from Jobs was wide open. Back in 1977 the future Head of Apple Inc didn’t really have an idea about the brand he was creating. “Really there was no brief. But the really funny thing was the only direction we got from Steve Jobs is: “don’t make it cute”. There were briefs on subsequent jobs. First there was the logo, then there was an introductory ad and a sales brochure. But it was pretty lose at that time.”

The design process started with Janoff going to the local store and buying a bag of apples. He put them in a bowl and drew them for a week or so and worked on simplifying the shape. Once he had developed something he liked he realised that it needed something extra. “The reason why I did the bite is kind of a let down. But I’ll tell you. I designed it with a bite for scale, so people would get that it was an apple not a cherry. Also it was kind of iconic about taking a bite out of an apple. Something that everyone can experience.”

Janoff’s final design was a simplified silhouette of an apple with multi colored stripes and a bite taken out of it. The contour of the bite matched the contour of the letter “a” of the name of the new computer, the Apple II.

Selling the idea proved more difficult than he expected. “Steve liked the idea, because he liked things that were outside the box. And, it’s not so revolutionary now, but it was a little different then. However I did get a lot of opposition from one of the higher account executives at agency. He was sort of working against me on the meeting where I presented the work to Steve. He made a comment that if this new company went ahead and produced stationary in all these colors they will go bankrupt before they started the business. That was kind of the attitude that I was facing from the agency. But Steve liked it right off. He’s a pretty perceptive guy as we later learned and he liked the uniqueness of it as well. Also, I should add that the idea of a computer going into people’s homes was a little bit threatening because up to then computers were for big businesses, who were highly technical and sensitive and all that stuff. Most of the personal computer products that were coming out at the time had very techno names. TRS-80 and things like that, so that’s why the name Apple was so golden because it was basic and not technical.”


“For me, though, one of the things I think makes Apple’s logo so iconic is that it’s used sparingly. As I type this on my MacBook, an iPod and iPhone on the desk before me, the only Apple logo visible to my eyes is the small one in the top left-hand corner of my computer display. Apple doesn’t beat you over the head with its logo, but it does use it effectively, and that’s part of the reason it’s so imprinted upon our memory.”

John Fountain is senior writer at Avvio

Friday, 8 July 2011

Strong demand for science, engineering and technology graduates

The CBI/EDI’s Education and Skills survey 2011, released last week, has found strong demand for employees to fill graduate jobs in science, engineering and technology (STEM) – so students in these areas can feel confident about their prospects. It found that 43% of employers surveyed were having difficulty recruiting graduates into these areas, while 53% expected to have difficulty doing so next year. Of those surveyed, 40 per cent of science and IT employers and 33% of construction employers reported that STEM graduates were likely to earn more than other graduates over the course of their careers.

These findings are in line with other positive reports on the science and technology sector, as featured on targetjobs.co.uk over the last few months, for example that the IT services sector has returned to growth, that manufacturing was the strongest-performing UK sector in the first quarter of 2011, that technology vacancies and salaries have risen overall and that the renewable energy sector is a good growth area.


Engineering - the longer-term view

The longer-term view is also positive, particularly for the engineering sector. The Engineering UK 2011 Report, published in December 2010, found that between March 2008 and March 2009 the total number of engineering enterprises in the UK rose by 12,575, to 482,880. In March 2009 these employed 4,566,316 people and had a turnover of £848.6 billion. These figures were despite the fact that the data was collected over the period that the UK was officially in recession. Their contribution to UK GDP also increased by 6.2% over this time period, to 19.6% of total GDP. This compares positively with the financial services sector, which, the report highlights, employs somewhere over 1,000,000 people and contributes around 7% of UK GDP. An analysis by location found that the number of engineering enterprises had increased in each UK region apart from Northern Ireland, where there was a fall of 1.9%. The area with the greatest percentage growth was London (6.8%), followed by Scotland (4.7%), the North East (3.9%).

Has your design job gone overseas?

Jobs are on everyone’s mind. Recently, a longtime reader sent me the following career note:

“John, this has brought me to my breaking point.

“I understand that we have companies struggling for profitability throughout the U.S., and cutting corners has become everyone’s mantra. However, I never expected for my design services to be outsourced to foreign countries for cheaper rates.

“Earlier today, I was shocked to learn that another former client has outsourced web and graphic design services to a firm in Colombia. Initially I thought they were joking, until it became apparent that the vast majority of the work is being assigned to a Colombian agency for $11.50 US per hour.

“I have already lost a significant amount of business to companies working out of India. Their rate of $30 US per hour was less than half of mine. My client openly boasted about the amount of money he was saving as he gave me a look that said I’d been overcharging him. Evidently, the quality is good enough.

“In all my years as a designer and marketing director, I have never felt so hopeless or disgusted. I can’t be the only one affected by this trend. It’s putting me in a position where I need to be looking for clients once again. The last thing I expected after all these years is for clients to look past my skills and years of experience only to see my services as another commodity to leverage against.”

Dear readers, it’s a difficult position to be in, and painful. Reminds me of the Chutes and Ladders game. The last thing you want near the end of a career is to slide down a long chute back to the beginning, but it’s happening to many.

The recession gets the blame, but it’s more than that. It’s that the world has changed. Technology has erased borders and barriers. Anyone can now connect with anyone, anywhere. Result: We all compete globally, and our high American lifestyle has us at a disadvantage. If Colombian designers can do for $11.50 what you charged $75 for, that’s where the work is going to go.

Recessions end, but this change is permanent. Our world will never again be as it was. It is not a passing phase. It’s a new day.

Global is the new local.

It’s a great time to be young and fresh. For those of us who aren’t, there is loss to suffer. Don’t underestimate your need to grieve, but then get your game face back on, and remember that you have the advantages of experience and perspective. Thing is, the playing field has never been so level. Everyone can compete — or cooperate — with everyone. Literally.

From my vantage point, I can see another perspective. Over three-quarters of our Facebook fans are international, from nations on every continent. They are eager to join the party. When you say of the Indians, “evidently, the quality is good enough,” I can tell you that yes, it is, and often it is better. There is a lot of design talent beyond our borders — educated, clear thinking, visionary, with great enthusiasm and a tremendous work ethic. To us insular Americans, this may be shocking. Get unshocked, and get ready to play. It’s a good thing.

Hey, some Irish kid just tore up the U.S. Open.

Before & After has felt the change, too. For our part, we’re spreading into video, iPad design, podcasts, webinars, and live seminars. Our focus is a little diffused right now; you may have noticed the slowdown. It’s the learning curve.

Keep me posted.

By John McWade

Miss or Mrs Keys

Words of Wisdom

"If you change the way you look at things the things you look at change."
 
God is Love
Rev Run