Talk:Industrial engineering

Building from the start.
It could be argued that Industrial Engineering was seeded by the work done by Frederick Taylor. In trying to explain what Ind Eng is today and how it relates to other eng disciplines track its history. See link

[]

Damowe (talk)

Requested move
Hello, The compared to other disciplines section seems subjective and does not have a source. Is there anyway we can provide a source or make it a little more factual? Thanks Jeshgus (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Industrial engineering → Industrial Engineering – The word Engineering must be in capital, because Industrial Engineering is a proper name. SimonFD (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose (although appreciate the good faith). Nope. Although "Industrial Engineer" is often capped as a job title, and "Industrial Engineering" is often capped as part of a proper noun (as in Department of Industrial Engineering, which is a specific designator type of proper noun), the term industrial engineering in its common-noun sense is the sense that serves as the article title here, just as with mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, and others. If you look up the headwords in dictionaries, they are lowercased to reflect their primary sense, the common-noun sense. (For example: Merriam-Webster, "industrial engineering". By the way, in case you might wonder, the "I" would be lowercase as well in this article title, except that when they made MediaWiki, they decided that all article titles had to start with a capital letter. This was a poor choice in retrospect, because headwords should really always be 100% significant capitalization (not artifactual). Early in the development of Wiktionary, this was so completely unacceptable that they actually changed the MediaWiki rules for Wiktionary. But for some (no doubt poor) reasons, they fossilized the mistake in Wikipedia by retaining the nonsignificant caps. Cheers, — ¾-10 03:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CAPS and ¾-10, who explains much better than I ever could. Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In what way is industrial engineering a proper name? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy oppose per WP:CAPS. Beagel (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First section. Review by reading.
Highly recommended to remove the term money, which has nothing much to do with any instance. The correct term is a derivate of the term leverage, however that is not applicable, energy leveraged isn´t that good either. A phrase that describes that term is in relation to Leveraging Aeon Savings, which is defacto what a monetairy circulation, valuation, is about, where the economic unit can be saved up, amortized, but in reality never depreciated without incurring a loss in enthropic relationships.

The term people is not appropriate either, in that that should be species, industrial engineering being validatable for any species in terms of people, AND for any species, where there are no people.

Read the change, keep perspective, and if within 3 to 5 days the change grinds on innumerous nerves, revert.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.123.72 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest adding a reference to Alpha Pi Mu the "Alpha Pi Mu is an honor society for Industrial and Systems Engineering students." I took this from another article in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhorse2000 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Industrial Engineering (IE)
This article begins by defining IE as the "branch of engineering which deals with the optimization of complex processes or systems". However, it makes no attempt to define what might be regarded as a "complex" system. The article also fails to discuss the means by which a system characterised by its inherent complexity might be optimised.

Contemporary research relating to the behaviour of complex systems may still be considered as being in its infancy. However, accepted definitions and examples of complex systems are more than sufficient to assert that, due to the nature of complexity, it is not possible to predict their behaviour. Hence, in relation to this article, a pertinent question is: How can a complex process or system that is characterised as being unpredictable possibly be optimised?

Simply put, the article destroys it's own credibility from the off by presenting its subject matter in terms that the remainder of its narrative fails to acknowledge, far less discuss in the context of an "engineering" discipline. Thus, the dilemma is a case of either: o1/ Changing the terminology used to define IE or o2/ Provide a satisfactory narrative to substantiate its defining terms (a course of action that applies irrespective of the chosen terminology). 77.100.175.181 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, given the definition provided, I would posit that any curriculum purporting to cover the various subject matter required for IE should include complex systems. Again, this article fails to mention this as does the brief description of methods used by IE, non of which are fit for purpose for dealing with complex systems. The same argument applies to the various overlapping disciplines cited in the article e.g., project management, which continues to promote methods despite valid criticism of their usefulness (or lack thereof). 77.100.175.181 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Lemonsc27 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)