ngineers and managers in past surveys have named the top national and industry issues; the hottest technologies; and the leading nation in technology. This year we got more personal. For the first time, the EE Times "Salary & Opinion Survey" asked its readers to rate their own companies. Not on the more common measures of profits and market share, but on measures that hit closer to home: Salaries. Flexible hours. Number of hours worked. Work/life balance. Child care. Available stock options. Bonuses. Respect for engineers. Competency of management. Community service. Diversity of the work force. While readers may rate their individual companies, we don't know what those companies
are. The salary survey is anonymously mailed on a random basis to the EE Times readership. Survey respondents have the option to tell us their names, but 90 percent don't. And we don't ask readers to tell us where they work. By an 85 percent to 15 percent margin-the highest since 1989-American design and development engineers say their companies are good places to work. With a 58 percent approval rate, our Japanese respondents are cooler about their employers.

What do EEs and computer scientists like about their employers and workplaces? And what don't they like?

The industry gets a thumbs-up from its employees on pay scale. More than 60 percent rate their companies as good or excellent on salaries.

"Good salary and benefits," said a senior engineer about his company.

But 31 percent rate their companies as only fair.

"Lower-level engineers are not rewarded for their innovative work projects compared to executive rewards," one engineer wrote.

Nearly 9 percent describe their companies' salaries as poor.

"I enjoy my work and I like my company," wrote a test engineer, "but I have recently made the transition from technician to engineer and I'm disappointed in the compensation."

Another rapped chief executive salaries: "With the billions of dollars of profits that the electronics industry makes each year, why does a CEO's compensation have to be so much larger than the engineers that generate the profits?"

Our Japanese design engineers and managers are more critical of their companies on salaries, even though their mean salary-$74,400-is $7,000 more than American engineers get.

Half the Japanese respondents rate their companies fair on salaries, and another 25 percent consider them poor. Only 1.4 percent of the Japanese (vs. 11 percent of Americans) give their firms an excellent rating. We will see this pattern throughout much of the survey; poll takers note that the Japanese tend to be more critical when responding to surveys and underplay their feelings. Hence, more fair and poor ratings than the more effusive Americans.

Companies score well on offering flexible hours.

One-quarter of the American engineers rate their companies excellent on flexibility, along with 8 percent o f the Japanese. Some 43 percent of Americans and 41 percent of the Japanese rate flexible hours as good.

With so many engineers and managers working long-and odd-hours, many corporations have adopted flex time. Not only does the policy give engineers some personal leeway, but it allows EEs in the United States to better choose a time to talk with team members in Asia and Europe despite multiple time zones.

One of the 9.5 percent of Americans who rated their companies poor on hours complained of "too much emphasis on 'face' time."

Earlier in this report, we noted that readers give employers favorable ratings on striking a balance between work and personal life. That shows up here, too. A majority have no complaints about the hours they're working, but 11 percent do.

"My company encourages long work days and weeks without compensation," said one of those who complained about hours.

In Japan, as expected, companies received lower ratings on working hours. Half rate employers fair in this regard, and another third describe them as poor. The Japanese say they work about 51 hours a week, though this conflicts with a later question, where 80.5 percent reported working late three to five nights a week. That doesn't mesh, but we don't have an explanation. Are the Japanese respondents putting in only one or two hours overtime each night?

Eight out of 10 Japanese engineers and managers say the balance is out of whack and rate companies fair or poor. In the United States, only four out of 10 give such low ratings.

No wonder. Besides working three to five nights a week, some 25 percent of the Japanese are also likely to work at least a "few weekends."

Altogether, U.S. firms get high marks on this facet of work life.

U.S. engineering employers are scrooges in offering child-care benefits, according to our readers. More than half flunk their companies, calling child-care benefits poor. Only 2.5 percent score them as excellent. "No benefits, no help," explained one engineer. Th e story is the same in Japan.

Falling under this category are day-care centers, on site or off, sick-child benefits and late-afternoon alternatives for "latchkey kids."

Some efforts are being made in the United States, however. Though few companies offer on-site child care, some are participating in national cooperative campaigns to boost availability of off-site centers.

Another, perhaps surprisingly poor rating was in regard to the availability of stock options for our American respondents. Half knock their companies as poor. Only 6 percent describe the effort as excellent, and most of these were higher-ranking managers.

"Stock-option plan is a joke," a New Jersey test engineer complained.

For most respondents, the situation is closer to this engineer's experience: "Company has not issued stock, so stock options are not applicable."

"Management has constantly lied to employees: i.e., offering bonuses, then reneging," a California project engineer said. He is one of the 40 percent who rated their companies as poor on bonuses. A mere 7.2 percent describe their plans as excellent, with 21 percent calling them good.

American employers do much better in respecting their engineers than the Japanese, according to engineers from both sides of the Pacific.

More than 40 percent of U.S. respondents rate their employers' respect for engineers as good. Some 15 percent think it's excellent.

"Employees just a cog (a replaceable cog) in the machine," said one of the 13 percent checking off poor on "respect."

In Japan, once again, companies get only a fair rating.

Surely, you say, the Japanese give their management high marks for competence? Well, it's slightly better than for our other factors, as more than one-fourth rate their managers' competency as good or excellent. Still, it's a lukewarm assessment.

The U.S. respondents gave managers a less-than-enthusiastic rating as w ell, with 40 percent calling them fair and 20 percent, poor.

"Every move a company makes (benefits, community service) is done to benefit the company in internal or external visibility," wrote a skeptical design engineer. "This is not something to admire, it is business."

There is truth in that observation. When a company sponsors a high-school technology fair, it is hoping to attract students into the engineering profession. Companies make no bones about an ulterior motive in promoting the profession.

"Why community service?" another reader asked. "This should be handled by the church, not the company."

Nevertheless, community-service sponsorships allow for win-win situations where corporations, the public and the recipients all benefit. Nine percent of respondents call their employers' community-service efforts excellent, and one-third rate them good. But one-quarter think their employers falls short on getting involved in the community.

"Employers complain about welfare taxes, " observed one reader, "but are unwilling to let good people have time off to do community service."

A lot of time and money has been spent to promote diversity in the work forces of our engineering corporations. Have companies done enough?

Yes, said 18 percent of engineers, rating their companies as excellent in diversity. Another 44 percent called them good.

Some question the role of diversity.

"What do you mean work-force diversity? I thought we were supposed to not be prejudiced? You should not employ someone just because they're different," one reader complained.

"I suppose 'diversity' is supposed to mean having enough people of the right skin color . . . what we need is competence," said another reader.

But "diversity" is more than that, according to such organizations as the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering. It's the opportunity to succeed . . . or fail. Too many Hispanics and African Americans, said NACME, never consider an engineering career or b elieve they can afford to pursue a degree.

For more than 10 years, EEs and their managers have rated Hewlett-Packard as the "Most-Admired Company." HP repeated its feat in 1997, when one-third of those surveyed cited it in an open-ended question.

An HP employee explained his vote: "They are very concerned about each individual. You are ranked by your peers, not one manager."

"It's a great company," a member of a startup wrote of HP. "I worked there 15 years and would recommend HP to anyone, without reservation."

Second was Intel. A California technical director admired the company "because of its ability to continuously bring increasingly complicated chips to market in shorter design-cycle times."

Here are some other nominees, and an explanation of why they belong on a "Most-Admired Company" list:

• Lockheed Martin. "I work for them; quite a breadth of opportunity."
• Sun Microsystems. "Great engineering company, not like Microsoft, which is just marketing and b uying out technologies."
• Microsoft. "Their ability to develop and release new technology."
• Linear Technology. "Fully rewarding; the design engineers are well respected and credited for their work."
• King Semiconductor. "They were the company in California that made lots of money and turned around and gave every single employee a $75,000 bonus."
• Lucent Technologies. "Leading edge of software development."
• Motorola: "They seem to be pushing ahead on various technologies, cell phones, computers and peripherals, ICs and semiconductors."
• Qualcomm. "Leader in growing mar-ket segment. Good location. Good staff engineering."

Some readers see nothing to admire in any company. From Texas: "I have yet to see a technology company that didn't abuse its engineers."

From Illinois: "I'm not aware of any company that takes into consideration the whole person: technical, financial, family, beyond what is required to keep a working staff."

From Pennsylvania: "All now res tructure, divest, merge and dumb-size with minimal regard to their employees."

Reader satisfaction rolls with the economic curve. The 85 percent who pat their companies on the back represents a seven-year high. Is it a coincidence that 1997 happens to be a terrific year for the industry?

Optimism pumps up the scores. In the good years, employers, like U.S. presidents, get great ratings. In the bad years, they catch grief. Take 1993, lousy for both corporation and work force, generating a "good to work for" rating of 71 percent (though some would say that's nothing to scoff at; many industries would love to collect approval ratings of seven out of 10 workers in an off year).

There shouldn't be too many off years for the industry, according to the engineers in the trenches. It's full steam ahead. A stunning 86

percent of the American engineers perceive the United States as the world technology leader today, with 72 percent believing it will retain that title through 2010.

The U .S. industry is progressing, according to 70 percent of our readers, with a mere 5.5 percent thinking it's in a decline (the remainder see it as flat). Our Japanese respondents agree: 63 percent see U.S. progress, with only 3 percent disagreeing.

Of course, engineers' perceptions are colored once again by the economic environment of the time. In 1992, at the nadir of the recession, a fraction of the readership saw the industry as on the rise. In fact, it was remaking itself for an economic surge.

While engineers are optimistic about their industry's prospects, they do say it faces some key concerns. Here are the top issues, ranked by percentage:

• Foreign competition (22 percent): "Just take a walk through any store and look at the 'Made in . . .' tags. Automation development [is] the only way we can compete with the slave labor of China."
• Maintaining technological leadership (7 percent).
• Inadequate R&D/R&D funding (6 percent).
• Engineering shortage (5 percen t). This is new to our list, as 1997 became the year that engineers finally agreed there is, in fact, a shortage.
• One technical director says the industry must figure out how to "utilize existing engineers by retraining to solve design and development needs."
• Lack of long-term planning (5 percent).
• Education/training (3 percent). "It seems more engineers coming out of college are focusing on digital electronics or fields related to computer science/engineering," says an Ohio design engineer. "I think universities need to focus more attention on analog electronics."

Lack of standards bothers at least one Valley senior engineer. In his opinion, there are both "too many standards" and "too many not decided yet (like DVD, 56-k modem technology). Should be able to use a standard and follow through." He criticized the standardization process as being "too political."

The top national issues follow a pattern seen in many previous surveys. Economic issues-especially the budget deficit-lead the way as more than one-third express concern about U.S. financial health.

"If I'm personally responsible to budget my money, balance my checkbook and pay off my debts, why isn't the federal government obligated, too?" asked a Colorado design engineer.

He, like most readers, returned his survey in June. Since then, Congress has passed an economic plan that calls for a balanced budget by 2002. Will they achieve it? With the help of the products that engineers produce, perhaps they can.

Half the engineers cited a social problem as a top national issue. Among these was education, mentioned by 13 percent.

"Very little is done in regards to education and preparing the next-generation work force," one reader wrote.

Related to that is this reader's concern about the "dumbing down of our culture. This leads to poverty, crime and disinterest in the things that have made this country great."

Crime was cited by 7 percent. "Inexcusable in a country this rich," said a reader.

Some other top national issues:
"Drug abuse," said the owner of a Texas company. "Either directly or indirectly, quite a few of our problems are traceable to [drugs]: crime, poor education, trade imbalances, loss of tax revenue, foreign relations and immigration difficulties. It may not be an actual root cause, but it is very close."

"Citizen reluctance to participate in the political process" bothers a software engineer. "People get the quality of government they deserve. The poor quality of our leaders reflects the apathy of the people."

A design engineer said we ought to "keep defense spending at the same level," while another Californian decried military spending as "200 percent more than needed in peacetime. $$ should be redirected to a) reduce debt; b) social programs; and c) help industry compete with cou ntries that have no real military (Japan)."

Engineers are paid, in part, to look ahead. So we asked, "By 2010, how do you think your job will change?"

"Completely different," a principal engineer replied. "I am glad I do not know how different. The discovery is what makes the engineer's job exciting."

Some focused on technology:
"I will have more efficient tools. I will also have to learn many more tools. I am sure," said this BSCS, who will be in his late 40s by 2010, "I will experience age bias."

"All things analog will become modular and digital will be the only field," a Wisconsin engineer wrote. "Power-analog guys like me will find small niche markets like audiophile tube amps."

"Systems-on-silicon or other substrates will be possible," ventured a North Carolina group leader.

"Firmware and embedded systems will no longer be as they are today," predicted a Nevada engineer. "It will all be integrated."

Others see a future in software, like this other Ne vada engineer: "Knowledge and use of software will increase even in management roles."

Other predictions:
"Much more abstract languages to describe hardware/software. More work with IP [intellectual property] vendors and engineering suppliers."

"It will require multidisciplinary experience like electronic/mechanical engineering and biotechnological knowledge."

Some describe the future in personal terms:
"I will be specifying electronic subsassemblies designed and manufactured elsewhere."

"At the rate my company is getting bought and sold, I'll be working for 20 different companies by then."

And others offer a humorous glimpse at their futures.

"I will be a lumberjack-if any trees are left!"

"I will be a technologically obsolete manager of engineers."

Wry as that last comment sounds, there's a grain of truth in it. Management is a full-time job. Staying ahead on the latest technology is tough. On the whole, though, most engineers th ink their cohorts keep up.

Some 49 percent say they don't work with any technologically obsolete engineers; 44 percent spot a few laggards, while 7 percent dismiss most of their coworkers as hopeless.

So what do the leading-edge engineers and managers in the United States and Japan think are the hottest technologies these days?

In the United States:

1. Wireless technology (90 percent call it "on the rise")
2. Digital TV (88 percent)
3. DVD (80 percent)

1. Optical computing (83 percent)
2. Digital TV (81 percent)
3. Interactive media (79 percent)

The differences, no doubt, reflect the advancement of those technologies in the respective countries. The United States and Europe own the wi reless-communications markets. Japanese companies have had to set up communications engineering units in the United States in order to tap into this area.

There's little disagreement between the two Pacific-bordering nations concerning digital television. Some 88 percent of Americans and 81 percent of Japanese engineers detect sizzling activity in DTV. But at least in the United States, the planned digital-TV spectrum auctions appear to be hung up in a personal-computer vs. broadcasters' battle over standards. Watch this station for future developments.

Digital video disks (DVD) have only now arrived in the consumer marketplace, and apparently EEs think they'll be a hit. Usually, engineers are the first to get off the train in a design cycle: they've done their job. But 80 percent of Americans and 73 percent of Japanese see DVD as on the rise, with more products to come. Manufacturers are eyeing recordable DVD players to replace today's analog VHS VCRs.

The hottest technology from the Japane se point of view-optical computing, at 83 percent-is cited as an up-and-comer by 71 percent of the Americans. But neither nation appears to be first in line on optical ICs.

The world's first silicon wafer fab to make optical ICs is being built in England. Andrew Rickman, founder of Bookham Technology (Didcot, England), predicts "monolithic integration of photonic circuits with electronic circuits" in the next five years.

Another technology that divides engineers is artificial intelligence. With a clear lead in applications of AI, Japanese engineers are far more enthusiastic (73 percent) than Americans (59 percent) about the future of this technology. Indeed, 28 percent of Americans see AI as "fading," probably because of a perception that AI never became dominant or overriding. Instead, it's being implemented here and there.

Slipping off the radar screens of both countries' engineers is fuzzy logic. More than half think fuzzy logic is a fading or mature technology. Again, we speculate that e ngineers perceive it as another tool in their arsenal. It's not new and, therefore, not hot.

Salaries are up, the job market is excellent and engineers feel good about their companies, their country and the state of technology.

"I got into engineering because it's always challenging and changing," a Pennsylvania senior engineer writes.

But let's not kid ourselves; this industry is one whale of a challenge.

A California principal engineer outlined the kind of people who will succeed: "Highly skilled professionals with a precise technical background. We need multiple skills in one person, able to drive a project from A to Z on his/her own, and at the same time, be gifted communicators and fighters."

He goes on to predict, "I shall be networked from morning till night, embedded in communication; it will be a challenge to master this new manner of being in the information age."

Indeed, in this, the 25th year of EE Times , the 50th anniversary of the transistor and the dawn of a new Information Age, electronic engineers, computer gurus and software experts appear well-positioned to climb to the very top of the professional ladder. You've told us that your companies are in good shape, your salary levels are good, if not spectacular, and the economy tops in the world.

Whoa. Time out for a little perspective. Recall, at the beginning of our Career chapter, that eight out of 10 engineers said there was no shortage of engineers in 1992.

Recall that in 1991, more U.S. engineers thought Japan would be the lead nation in technology by the end of this century. A mere seven to eight years later, those comments look quaint, short-sighted.

A systems engineer-only in his late 30s-offers a sobering counterpoint to the rosy 1997 numbers.

"Since entering the profession 16 years ago, I am with my fourth employer. The previous three are no longer in business. Also, a large percentage of the companies with which I have interviewed over the years are no longer in business. "

The respondent, based in New York, continues, "I have been with my current employer five years, and I am hopeful that it will continue until I retire. One more stint of unemployment will result in bankruptcy."

Free Subscription to EE Times First Name Last Name Company Name Title Email address   Click here for your Free Subscription to EETimes Europe