|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
BACKGROUND
The Academic Advisory Board of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
identified the adaptability of the engineering work force as an issue with important
implications for the United States' ability lo exercise technological leadership and compete
effectively in international markets. Adaptability has been one of the strengths of the
United States' science and engineering work forces. For the purposes of this report,
"adaptability" is defined as the ability to transfer a given set of engineering skills among
engineering fields and activities, between engineering and noneng~neering fields and
activities, and among sectors of the economy; transform new scientific and technological
knowledge into product and process applications; and seek out and apply ideas from
outside sources to He engineering process when needed. As defined, "adaptability" is not
only reactive in the sense of being limited In its capacity to adjust to change, but also
proactive in the sense of having the flexibility necessary to initiate change.
Historically, the United States' engineering work force has been able to meet
rapidly expanding needs for engineers in such fields as aeronautical engineering, computer
engineering, and materials science and in areas driven primarily by national policy, such as
defense, energy, and space. For example, adaptability facilitated the adjustment to sudden
unexpected declines in demand in such areas as nuclear power and petrochemicals:
engineers in these areas were able to find jobs elsewhere; unfortunately, the data are sparse
on the quality of their performance on these new jobs. Now, however, the United States is
in a fundamentally new situation in which competitiveness is qualitatively different from
what it was in the past. As our national priorities shift and as our economy becomes more
service-onented, American society must be able to move workers around in response to
changes In demand. The question is "Does the arrangement that we now have provide us
s
OCR for page 6
with the kind of flexibility that will be needed as we look toward the future and the Ends of
forces that we will face as a nation and as an engineering corrununity?"2
Accordingly, NAE asked the National Research Council's Office of Scientific and
Eng~neenng Personnel (OSEP) to conduct a study of what is known and what needs to be
known about adaptability among the engineering work force in the United States. The
overall objective of this activity is to increase our understanding of adaptability as a way to
enhance the United States' capabilities to meet changes in both technology and national
needs. Three major outcomes were anticipated:
.
.
· a background paper summarizing what is known and what needs to be known
about adaptability;
a one-day workshop to evaluate the state of existing knowledge about adaptability
by assessing how well this knowledge informs the major policy issues associated
with adaptability, identifying important gaps in this knowledge, and fonnulating a
long-range research agenda that would ultimately Educe these gaps; and
a proceedings volume based on the workshop discussion.
In response to this request, OSEP convened a steering committee of engineers and
scientists from industry, academe, and the professional engineering societies to guide its
efforts and to prepare a report summarizing its findings and conclusions.
The committee concurs with the finding fimm a recent National Research Council
report that since the m~-1960s, as the economy has become increasingly international, the
United States' economic penance has detenwated and changes in the international
economic environment have narrowed the technological gap between Me UnitM States and
other industrial economies in many industries.3 Any technology-based advantages held by
U.S. firms and workers over foreign firms and workers are likely to be more fleeting in He
future, not only because new knowledge and technologies developed in the United States
are transferred to foreign competitors more rapidly than they were in Be past, but also
because technology-based advantages will originate in over countries. This means that, in
the future, the United States will have less conmo} than previously over the pace at which
2Robert M. White, "Opening Remarks to Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change:
Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force9" September 1989.
3Richard M. Cyert and David C. Mowery (eds.), Technology and Employment, Innovation and Growth in
the U.S. Economy, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987.
6
OCR for page 7
new knowledge and technologies are disseminated; therefore, it will become Increasingly
important for the U.S. engineering work force to be able to accommodate to rapidly
changing employment priorities without significant stress or strain. Technological skill
allows a company-or a nation-to be competitive, but no single technological
achievement yields a lasting competitive advantage.4 "New design and manufacturing
strategies are perhaps the most interesting ways of turning technology into advantage."5
The cycle lame for engineering education-on average, four to five years is longer
than the cycle time for many new technologies and new products. This means that the
demands of industry are more likely now than in the past to change while a student is
enrolled in an engineering program; consequently, students need to adapt faster to changing
technologies and markets now Dan they did in the past. It seems reasonable to conclude
chat adaptability win become increasingly important as a way for the United States to adjust
to changes in technology and demand.
The committee saw its charge as conducting an exploratory assessment of
adaptability. Two basic underlying assumptions informed the committee's deliberations:
An adaptable engineering work force is a valuable national asset because it
facilitates adjustments to technological change and shifting national priorities
through field switching, industrial mobility, or reallocation of work activities
among engineering functions.
The relationship between adaptability and education and gaining is strong and
complex: the type and level of education and Gaining-both in school and on He
job-play important roles in creating an adaptable engineering work force; and the
need for adaptability can have Important consequences for education and gaining
policies.6
A sizable part of the committee's deliberations focuses} on conceptualizing
"adaptability" because, like quality, adaptability is easier to recognize clan to define. To a
4"Compeiing Beyond Technology," Harvard Business Review 67(6):93, November-December 1989.
SKim B. Clark, "What Strategy Can Do for Technology," Harvard Business Review 676:94-9,
November-December 1989.
6Pamela H. Atkinson, "The Relevance of Career-Long Education to Creating and Maintaining an Adaptable
Wow Force," a paper prepared for the Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering
Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, September 29, 1989.
7
OCR for page 8
certain extent, adaptability is lake the archetypal black box: we know Mat the input is an
engineering work force with a particular mix of skills and that the output is an engineering
work force with a different mix of skins. We also know that overeat market forces have
resulted in meeting at least our quantitative needs for engineers in general, and certain kinds
of engineers in particular. We do not know about the quality of these adjustments, nor the
factors that facilitate and impede them.7 After considerable discussion, the committee
agreed to define "adaptability" as the ability to accommodate smoothly and efficiency to
changes in demand for engineering work by applying products, processes, sldlls' and
resources including knowledge and human resources in different ways; adaptability
also refers to the ability to exploit new technologies effectively and quickly. The committee
broadly defined the "engineering work force" to include individuals who meet at least one
of the following cnteria: earned a degree in engineering; are employed as engineers;
identify themselves as engineers based on their education and work experience. These
def~ninons are consistent with those used In an earlier NRC study on engineering
employment charactenstics.S
Although adaptability is not directly observable, it can be infested from mobility
patterns among fields, work activities, and sectors of the economy. Therefore, the
committee examined the following questions:
What is lmown about mobility among engineering fields and between engineering
and nonengineenng fields? How much of this movement is mu, and how much is
te~minological~hat is, an artifact of how and why tile data on mobility are
collected?
What are the implications of tills knowledge for education and training policy?
Where are the gaps in our knowledge and how can these gaps be closed?
The committee commissioned special data tabulations and papers reviewing what the major
data bases tell us albeit indirectly-about adaptability. To supplement this quantitative
7Cheryl B. Leggon, "National Needs~and Technological Change: A Background Paper," pnqx~ed for dhe
Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in Be Engineering Work
Force, September 29, 1989.
8Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer, Commission on Engineering and Technical
Systems, Engineering Employment Characteristics, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985a.
8
OCR for page 9
information, case studies were prepared on He fields of chemical engineering, nuclear
· · -
eng~neenng, and computer science.
To assess the extent to which both Be quan~atai~ve and qualitative knowledge bases
reflect He actual experiences of engineers-and those who educate, train, employ, and
study engineers the committee invited representatives from industry, academe,
government, and the professional associations to an intensive one-day Workshop on
National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work
Force.
The committee's findings and conclusions are based on information developed from
these ac~avii~es.
9
OCR for page 10
Representative terms from entire chapter:
fostering flexibility
