Digital Software Support Engineer Review

I worked within Tata Steel’s Asset Improvement team at the Shotton manufacturing site. Approximately half of my day-to-day role involved working with the AVEVA PI ecosystem rather than conventional software development. This included creating and maintaining operational dashboards, configuring asset and sensor data, supporting monitoring systems and helping engineers access manufacturing information.
Although this was advertised as a Computer Science placement, programming was not a clearly defined or guaranteed part of the role. The software-development work I completed came almost entirely from my own initiative. I was determined to gain genuine development experience, so I repeatedly identified operational problems that could be solved with custom software, proposed my own projects and continued pursuing them despite limited technical guidance.
Through this, I independently designed and developed several full-stack applications using Python, Flask, React, TypeScript, SQL and AngularJS. These included an alarm-limit optimisation tool, an operational event dashboard, automated reporting and data-integration tools, a digital audit system and production-planning software.
My development work involved speaking directly with engineers, identifying requirements, designing systems, writing and testing the software, deploying it and supporting users. However, this was not a structured development programme provided by the placement. Previous and subsequent placement students did not necessarily receive the same opportunities. The amount of programming experience I gained was primarily the result of being persistent and actively creating that work for myself.

I was given a considerable amount of freedom and responsibility once I had established my own projects. I frequently owned systems from the initial idea through to development, deployment, user training and ongoing support. Some of the tools I developed were used in production and helped reduce manual work, improve equipment monitoring and identify potential failures. Myself and the other placement student have contributed to literally millions of pounds saved over the past few years at Tata Steel Shotton, but its funny as it feels like maybe the management don't really realize the value of it, as they had their hands tied by the people above them.
However, there is an important distinction between being intentionally given responsibility and being left to work independently because of limited management and supervision. There was no senior software developer overseeing my work, no structured technical training and no clear software-development pathway. Almost all of my technical learning was self-directed, and all of my programming development was effectively self-taught.
As the placement progressed, management, priorities and communication became increasingly inconsistent. At times, the other placement student and I were largely left in a room to work independently, with limited supervision, feedback or communication about the wider direction of our roles. Despite the value delivered by our projects, including systems that saved significant amounts of engineering time and supported the detection of equipment problems, there was also limited discussion about retaining or developing us further.
I am grateful that the placement gave me access to a real industrial environment and enough freedom to prove what I could achieve. It played an important role in helping me progress into a dedicated software-development career. However, I would be hesitant to recommend the placement to another Computer Science student without significant changes to its structure.
A student who is highly independent, persistent and willing to create their own opportunities may gain valuable experience. A student expecting organised software projects, technical mentorship, consistent management or a defined development programme may find that these are not provided.

I developed a wide range of technical, industrial and personal skills during the placement. However, it is important to distinguish between skills gained through formal training and skills I developed independently.
The placement gave me exposure to the AVEVA PI ecosystem, industrial sensor data, asset monitoring, manufacturing processes and predictive maintenance. I learned how operational data is collected, structured and presented to engineers, and how digital systems can support the identification of equipment problems and potential failures.
I also significantly developed my software-engineering skills by independently creating my own programming opportunities. I improved my abilities in Python, Flask, React, TypeScript, SQL, API development, data analysis, system design and deployment. I gained experience owning production software from requirements gathering through to implementation, user training and ongoing support.
There was no senior software developer providing structured mentorship, so effectively all of my programming development was self-taught. I learned through research, experimentation, solving problems independently and repeatedly proposing software solutions where I believed they could provide value. The coding experience was not an established part of the placement and largely depended on my persistence in ensuring that I completed work relevant to my Computer Science degree.
I also developed important personal skills, including independence, resilience, initiative and confidence when communicating with engineers and other stakeholders. Working with limited supervision forced me to become comfortable making decisions, managing my own workload and taking responsibility for complete systems.
These skills have been extremely valuable to my career. The portfolio, technical experience and confidence I developed helped me move into a dedicated software-development role. However, much of this development came from the opportunities I created for myself rather than from the training or structure provided by the placement.

Overall, I received limited structured support and guidance throughout my placement.
At the beginning, colleagues were welcoming and helpful in introducing me to the site, the manufacturing processes and the AVEVA PI environment. Engineers and other members of the Asset Improvement team were generally approachable when discussing operational problems or testing software, and I appreciated the trust they placed in me to develop solutions.
However, from a software-development perspective, there was very little technical guidance. There was no senior software engineer to mentor me, review my code or help me develop as a programmer. Almost all of my software engineering knowledge during the placement was gained through self-learning, research and experimentation.
As the placement progressed, management and communication became increasingly inconsistent. Priorities often changed, there was no clear development roadmap, and the other placement student and I were frequently left to work independently with limited supervision or feedback. While this gave me a great deal of freedom, it also meant that much of my progress depended on my own motivation and persistence rather than structured support.
I am grateful for the opportunity and for the trust I was given to work on real production systems. The freedom allowed me to build a strong portfolio and gain valuable experience. However, I believe future placement students would benefit greatly from clearer management, regular mentoring, defined objectives and access to an experienced software developer who can provide technical guidance and feedback.

The company culture was mixed and changed significantly during my placement.
At the beginning, there was a positive atmosphere within the Asset Improvement team. We had our own office, there was a good sense of teamwork, and people were generally approachable and willing to discuss ideas. The freedom to explore solutions and improve existing processes was something I really appreciated.
However, this changed over time. The team became more fragmented, our office arrangement changed, and there was increasing uncertainty around management and responsibilities. Someone who was not originally my manager became my line manager, and there often wasn't a clear management structure or direction for the software-development side of the team.
Communication became less consistent as the placement progressed, and the other placement student and I were frequently left to work independently with little supervision or regular feedback. While the autonomy allowed me to pursue projects that interested me, it also reflected a lack of coordination and technical leadership rather than an intentional development programme.
Overall, I enjoyed working with the people on site and found the engineers and wider team friendly and supportive. My concerns relate more to the organisation and management of the placement than to the individuals themselves. With clearer leadership, better communication and more structured support for placement students, I believe the experience could be significantly improved.
There were almost no social opportunities.
It's also like 95% men. I guess thats nobody's fault, unfortunately that's how it ends up being in factories. There wasn't hiring bias really for women, they would defintely prefer women to make it make it more diverse.

I had a mixed experience overall.
On a personal level, I enjoyed the placement because I was determined to make it into the software development experience I wanted. I was fortunate to identify opportunities to build production software that solved real engineering problems, and I genuinely enjoyed designing, developing and deploying those systems. Those projects ultimately helped me secure a dedicated software development role after university, so I will always be grateful for the opportunity and for the trust I was given to pursue them.
However, I don't think my experience was representative of what most Computer Science students should expect. Much of the programming work I completed came from my own persistence rather than from the structure of the placement itself. Students should not expect a traditional software engineering placement with experienced developer mentors, regular code reviews or clearly defined programming projects. The core responsibilities are much more focused on AVEVA PI administration, dashboards, Microsoft tools and supporting operational systems.
The placement also changed considerably over time. The environment was positive and well organised at the beginning, but management and communication became increasingly inconsistent as the placement progressed. I was engaged as a contractor rather than as a Tata Steel employee, although I was grateful to be offered the opportunity to continue working part-time after my original placement year. That additional experience was valuable and something I genuinely appreciated.
Overall, I enjoyed the experience because of the opportunities I created for myself and the people I worked alongside. However, if I were advising another Computer Science student, I would encourage them to ask detailed questions about the day-to-day responsibilities before accepting the placement. Someone looking specifically for a structured software engineering internship may find that the role does not consistently provide that experience. For me personally, it was closer to a 4/5 because I managed to turn it into an excellent software engineering experience through my own initiative. As a placement programme that I would recommend to the average Computer Science student, I think 2-3/5 is a fairer reflection. They did warn us it was not lots of programming in the interview, but in this job market what choice do you really have?

No