|
Items in cart [1] |
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 21
The U. S. Manufacturing Engineer:
Practice, Profile, and Needs
FORREST D. BRUMMETT
The future of manufacturing will involve processes, materials,
products, industries, and applications of technology that will open new
markets and provide new challenges for manufacturing. Yet there is
great concern that the United States no longer has the reservoir of
expertise in manufacturing to take full advantage of these exciting
opportunities and to meet the challenge posed by foreign competitors.
Over the last two decades, U. S. manufacturers have been complacent
and product quality has suffered. This fact, coupled with the Japanese
determination to be a commercial leader based on product quality,
began the decline of U.S. dominance in world markets for manufactured
goods. Today, U.S. managers are automating manufacturing plants
and instituting managerial innovations to survive in international
markets.
Knowledge of what other countries are doing to prepare for the
1990s and beyond is also cause for serious concern. While many
countries appear to have well-defined goals for developing human
resources to accomplish needed progress, U.S. industrialists tend to
look more at hardware. As a result, U.S. technological superiority
may be easily jeopardized simply by not educating enough qualified
scientific and engineering professionals to research, design, and pro-
duce competitive technology. This paper addresses the need to improve
Forrest D. Brummett is chief engineer of Detroit Diesel-Allison, Martinsville, Indiana,
and president of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
21
OCR for page 22
22
BRUMME~IT
the practice of manufacturing engineering and the quality of U.S.
education for manufacturing, since both are important to the national
response to changing technology and international competition.
THE MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS OF TODAY AND THE
FUTURE
Manufacturing engineering is that specialty of professional engi-
neering able to understand, apply, and control engineering procedures
in manufacturing processes. A manufacturing engineer needs the ability
to plan manufacturing practices; research and develop tools, processes,
machines, and equipment; and integrate the facilities and systems for
producing quality products with optimal expenditure. He or-she must
understand production, production control, design, facilities planning,
plant layout, methods engineering, quality control, work standards,
systems engineering, statistical process control, processing, and man-
ufacturing engineering management in other words, the whole spec-
trum of manufacturing concerns.
Based on an education that provides the ability to adapt to changing
requirements, both organizational and technological, manufacturing
engineers of the future must seek change and be willing to learn
throughout their 35- to 45-year working life. Skills of the twenty-first
century factory professional must include communication and problem
solving, as well as scientific technological grounding and superior
personal skills for team problem identification and resolution.
Although manufacturing is often regarded as a mature or even
declining factor in our society, the profession of manufacturing engi-
neering is an emerging discipline that is practiced in different forms,
depending upon the manufacturing enterprise. As a result, it still differs
from the established engineering disciplines, such as mechanical and
electrical engineering, which are defined traditionally in terms of both
educational degree and specific expertise. Manufacturing engineering
is, in contrast, more defined by function and demands multidisciplinary
capabilities in mechanical, materials, industrial, and systems engi-
neering. As the basic concepts of technology, applications, and man-
agement merge, the discipline of manufacturing engineering becomes
better defined.
In recent years, this emerging profession has been driven to change
by two powerful forces: development of new technologies and a fiercely
competitive international marketplace for manufacturers. In addition,
practicing manufacturing engineers must increasingly grapple with
rising manufacturing costs relative to manufacturing productivity as
OCR for page 23
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
~3
well as societal constraints. These constraints include the supply of
motivated manufacturing workers, the need to bring sociotechnical
improvements into manufacturing, safety and health protection in the
workplace and the product, and prevention of pollution during the
manufacturing process.
Manufacturing engineers also need to think about and receive training
for whole new areas of operation such as manufacturing in space. It
is likely that high-value production requiring extreme accuracy and
cleanliness can be profitably done in the microgravity vacuum of space
in the foreseeable future. Medical manufacturing, also requiring-ex-
treme precision and reliability, is becoming a major industry. Medi-
cine's replacement catalog alone has grown to include almost 1,300
natural and artificial spare parts. Collaboration among manufacturers,
the health care sector, and academia in biomedical engineering probably
has great potential.
Unfortunately, few educational institutions whether they are col-
leges, universities, apprenticeships, or continuing education pro-
grams provide the necessary curricula, lab facilities, or qualified
faculty to educate students adequately in manufacturing engineering
and technology. As a result, most major industries must invest
significantly in educational facilities and personnel training to supple-
ment the graduate's knowledge. Most industrial training programs
require a minimum of two years to produce a quality manufacturing
engineer because of the need for additional manufacturing-specific
knowledge and skills.
In the future, major changes must be made in education and training
to prepare those who will be responsible for the direction of manufac-
turing. Industry, academia, and government have important roles to
play in this effort. Specific recommendations for change must be
identified, and a cooperative effort to develop revitalized programs
needs to be mounted as soon as possible.
THE CHANGING DEMANDS ON MANUFACTURING PERSONNEL
In the United States, manufacturing engineers and managers have
traditionally come from the ranks of machine operators with significant
on-thejob training and experience, but little or no advanced education.
These individuals were successful in a labor-intensive manufacturing
plant using conventional equipment, much of which is still in our
factories. Without the computer, most technical support activities were
manual and time-consuming, and most activities such as setting
standards; writing process routines; designing tools, gauges, and
OCR for page 24
24
BR UMME IT
fixtures; production scheduling; and plant layout required many
employees skilled in the basics of manufacturing.
In the past, university-educated engineers were frequently engaged
in mundane tasks routing changes, running prints, filing prints, and
basic clerical tasks allowing them little time for utilizing engineering
abilities to implement innovative manufacturing concepts. Products
were commonly designed by product engineers with little or no counsel
from the manufacturing, quality, or technical support groups in the
same firm.
As a result, many products were needlessly costly to produce and
required special equipment to maintain tolerances and surface finishes
that did not improve product performance. Communications were
difficult in manufacturing plants with multisegregated functions, leading
to extreme delays and losses. With little foreign competition and
several layers of management in all phases of the manufacturing
function, any problem could be resolved by throwing more money or
more labor into that particular operation.
Competition in the world marketplace has accelerated the imple-
mentation of new technologies in American industry and forced changes
in manufacturing operations and management (see Table 1~. Products
must now be designed both with careful consideration of cost and
producibility and with the participation of the entire manufacturing
organization. Under the heading of "concurrent engineering," manu-
facturing engineers work as a team to coordinate product design
between the product engineer and the manufacturing support groups
and to evaluate the feasibility and producibility of the product. Once
the product has been reviewed and approved by each group, it is
released to production. The team approach to solving manufacturing
problems and planning manufacturing operations is widespread in
industry today. To work well, team members must have well-developed
interpersonal skills. The importance of these skills may increase with
further integration of manufacturing operations.
A manufacturing team will include many different titles, job descrip-
tions, and technical backgrounds, depending on the industry. However,
three general personnel categories make up most manufacturing teams:
production personnel, technical personnel, and managers. Production
and technical personnel, designers, and managers are all required to
understand the total system. Increased automation will affect manu-
facturing personnel at three levels of production: (1) the element level,
which involves the process mechanization and the informational
component, (2) the cell level, which is composed of a combination of
automation elements, and (3) the plant level, which includes multiple
OCR for page 25
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
TABLE 1 Preparing for the Factory of the Future
25
Present Organization:
Off-line Management
Future Organization:
Real-time Management
Manual
Outdated policies, systems, and
procedures supplemented by informal
organization
Divisive
Overly divided into work tasks and
between functions and layers
Disengaging
Hierarchical approach which narrows
and restricts elective problem
solving, causing people to retreat into
their own worlds
Declarative
Top-down commands with little
listening or feedback
Computer-aided systems
CAD, CAM, EMS, text processing,
electronic mail, etc., supported by
flexible policies, systems, and
procedures
Integrative
Integrating information network
relying on some functional expertise,
but in a more open and cooperative
context
Interactive
Interaction both internally and
externally with vendor base and
client system internationally
Interrogative
Active use of "what if'' scenanos,
with heavy graphic support
NOTE: CAD computer-a~ded design; CAM~omputer-aided manufacturing; FM0flexible
manufacturing systems.
SOURCE: Reference 1.
cells. Computer-integrated manufacturing ties these levels together
with common data bases.
Production Personnel
On the production floor, line personnel work at either parts making,
parts assembly, or inspection and quality control. The assembly line
has already been affected by~ automation, as demonstrated by the
robotic assembly lines in U.S. auto companies.2
If not involved in assembly, most production personnel perform set-
up and monitoring tasks for highly automated material-handling de-
vices. These same people will, in turn, provide the support for
automated machine tools in a cell or flexible manufacturing system
and monitor for problems that cannot be resolved by automation. Such
a change in duties means that greater technical skills will be required
of the shop floor worker in the factory of the future, when retraining
production personnel will be a critical factor for achieving successful
factory operations. Retraining must include developing new thinking
regarding the integrated work process and transforming the conven
OCR for page 26
26
BRUMMEIT
tional attitudes deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of both labor
and management.
An area in which present skills will be relegated to off-line program-
ming is inspection and quality control. The "inspector" will simply
monitor the output from numerically controlled coordinate measuring
machines or some other type of electronically controlled inspection
device. For the most part, inspection of fabrication or assembly
operations in the factory of the future will take place during the actual
fabrication or assembly process.
Technical Personnel
Technical personnel carry much of the burden for making the factory
of the future a reality. The technical category includes engineers and
designers, data processors (e.g., programmers/analysts, data base
administrators, and systems analysts), scientists, and manufacturing
technologists.
Engineers from most engineering disciplines especially industrial,
mechanical, and electrical-become manufacturing engineers by par-
ticipating in production operations. Industrial engineers, with their
work in methods improvement, work standards, facilities design,
systems analysis, and justification, are natural candidates. Mechanical
engineers and electrical engineers also become involved in production
processes, automated equipment, testing systems, capacity manage-
ment systems, tool/fixture/gauge/machine design, graphics systems,
and facilities planning.
In the future, a major role for technical personnel, especially data
processors and engineers, will be building and maintaining "expert
systems" and knowledge bases for artificial intelligence applications.
Knowledge bases will consist of the processing logic and techniques
necessary to perform functional activities such as detail design, process
planning, numerically controlled machine programming, and facilities
layout. Knowledge of how to perform each step in the production
process, and of how to link these steps so that the planned product
emerges, has always been necessary for production.
In the factory of today, this knowledge rests in large part in the
minds of the workers. In the factory of the future, it will be the task
of technical personnel to document this knowledge thoroughly in forms
computers can manipulate and transfer to the common information
system where anyone may use it. More specifically, they will:
· Document manufacturing and engineering processes for appropri-
ate computer manipulation;
OCR for page 27
TlIE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
27
· Assemble necessary data on materials, vendors, products, and
production processes (e.g., machining, composites, sheet metal, and
assembly);
· Encode manufacturing know-how into expert systems;
· Conduct research to improve product/process technology; and
· Maintain, service, and monitor information systems.
Since technical personnel are primarily responsible for providing
product definition and planning information, their roles become sig-
nificantly more important as the information processing in a factory
becomes more unified. Support and production personnel will work
directly with information and through automated equipment systems
supplied by the designers and engineers. The entire enterprise will be
more integrated, allowing less opportunity for the discontinuity, con-
fusion, and inefficiency so commonplace in today's factories.
In some firms, the computer already links designers and others in
the organization. Designers of the future, however, will interact even
more closely with other professionals in the organization. For example,
designers of today view information on material and process costs,
field service requirements, and some customer needs as largely advisory
rather than constraining. As with catalog-type information, cost and
process data must be developed and stored in a form a designer can
retrieve and use if these data are to influence design just as strongly
as form, fit, and function constrain it today. Current computer-aided
group technology coding and classification systems used for process
planning systems are inadequate for this purpose. Because the payoffs
for guiding design concepts with early cost information are consider-
able, these systems will be improved and their outputs made available
to designers.
To relate design better to producibility, the designer of the future
must be thoroughly familiar with the firm's manufacturing processes.
Designers must be prepared to perform stress, thermal, and vibration
analyses, which were once the province of engineering analysts. Work
methods will also change as computer-aided design systems become
more nearly able to replicate the true geometric model of an object.
Most current and near-term systems enhance the designer's ability to
retrieve, communicate, and analyze information, but the decision
making has remained with the designer. Expert systems will enhance
this capability. As CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing) systems become more prevalent, the designer will carry
out most analyses, reserving only exceptional tasks for engineers on
the factory Door.
OCR for page 28
28
BRUMMEIT
Managers
Managerial qualities for the factory of the future are essentially the
same as those desired today: leadership, integrity, intelligence, fore-
sight, flexibility, ability to make decisions, and an open mind. However,
some attributes may become increasingly important:
· Capacity for strategic thinking and ability to react to major
change-economic, political, or social-early enough to benefit the
enterprise;
· Ability to cope with social forces that require changes not only in
business strategy but also in management structure and style;
· Ability to cope with internal forces in managing human resources
affected by changes in technology and employment; and
· Ability to understand government and regulations and capacity to
influence government actions.
Despite the widespread cry that the economic vitality of the nation
depends on restoring and upgrading its manufacturing expertise, U.S.
factories are largely managed by those relatively unfamiliar with
manufacturing. Senior corporate managers often have degrees in law
or business and little grasp of new technologies or methods that can
raise productivity and product quality. Even those who are engineering
graduates are apt to have been taught little about manufacturing and,
for example, problems of CAD/CAM systems.
Those who do understand manufacturing processes, tooling, mate-
rials handling, and systems the manufacturing engineers-often learned
their profession on the factory floor. Manufacturing engineers know
how factories are run but, lacking sufficient education in either modern
technologies or the business environment, they are ill-prepared for
leadership in the factory of the future.
Tsurumi argues that too many U.S. managers are technologically
illiterates In comparing the top three executives of 25 leading Japanese
manufacturers with the top three executives of 20 leading U.S.
competitors in such diverse fields as semiconductors, computers,
consumer electronics, steel, autos, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, indus-
trial equipment, and processed food, he found that two-thirds of the
Japanese executives had science or engineering degrees compared with
only one-third of the Americans. Furthermore, no Japanese executive
without technical training rose through their legal or financial ranks,
but over two-thirds of the American executives reached the top through
careers as corporate lawyers, accountants, and financial officers. The
OCR for page 29
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
29
Japanese executives with nontechnical backgrounds had experience in
domestic and international sales operations, while the American ex-
ecutives with nontechnical backgrounds had risen mostly through
advertising and corporate planning. The latter is a typical career track
for the new brand of American manager with a master's degree in
business administration (MBA).
Preparation of U.S. executives allows them to remain aloof from
the factory floor and the people expert in the day-to-day task of making
products. If Americans entering leading business schools are techno-
logically "illiterate," the current business school curriculum is likely
to distance them farther from engineering and technology and perhaps
even increase their disdain for hands-on experience. Once an MBA
joins a typical company, opportunities for experience on the factory
floor are limited and sometimes discouraged, with the result that many
people managing U.S. companies are unfamiliar with crucial parts of
the firm's operations. It is thus no surprise that U.S. corporations tend
to be drawn to legal or financial solutions rather than technical ones.
Middle managers and supervisors make daily operating decisions.
The factory of the future will continue to demand both practical
technical and social skills on their part, in light of integrated commu-
nication networks; a larger cadre of knowledgeable workers and
technical specialists; and increased artificial intelligence capabilities,
office automation, common data bases, and decision support.
Some say that management is basically the same regardless of what
is being managed, but this is not true of engineering management. The
best-qualified engineering managers are those who combine both
technical and management skills, since they must understand and
apply engineering principles while they organize projects and direct
people. They are uniquely qualified for managing either technical
functions in any enterprise or broader functions (such as marketing or
top management) in a high-technology enterprise. Unfortunately, many
engineers do not realize what an important asset their engineering
background is in pursuing a management career. Technical expertise
is certainly not all there is to being a manager, but it is a primary
requirement in manufacturing.
As U.S. industry begins to focus on strategies for developing per-
sonnel who can function as part of a manufacturing team, the skills and
knowledge crucial for the unique circumstances of the manufactur-
ing manager must be identified. These skills should, in part include expe-
rience in production, experience in sales, and understanding of the
engineering and science base of the product.
OCR for page 30
30
DRUMMED
SHAPING THE CAREERS OF MANUFACTURING PROFESSIONALS
To pursue a productive and enduring career in this era of revolu-
tionary industrial change, the manufacturing engineer must be versatile
and have knowledge of and experience in the many manufacturing
operations. Industry can provide this exposure for recent graduates
and other individuals through in-firm work experience programs which
place each engineer in a series of diverse assignments over two or
three years. Part of this career path plan should be related coursework
in computer uses, new technology, maintenance services, and human
resource management.
After working in manufacturing, however, highly qualified engineers
often transfer into nonengineering or nonmanufacturing classifications
that offer salary increases or other rewards. Manufacturers must
recognize the loss they suffer when an experienced manufacturing
engineer leaves the production function because there is no salary or
promotion incentive to stay in that classification. Many times an
individual would prefer to work in engineering, but he or she has found
that moving up the promotional ladder requires a shift to a new type
of work or a move into management.
The underlying concept of structuring a full career path provides a
good example of an alternate way of creating a major resource of
competent engineers and managers. Recently, a new professional
classification, "advanced manufacturing engineers," has been imple-
mented in large companies such as General Electric, General Motors,
Ford, and Caterpillar. This classification encompasses major respon-
sibilities in research, design, project management, and manufacturing
management and can help retain and reward outstanding engineers
who might otherwise move into sales, finance, or other service areas.
In many companies, the "manufacturing engineer" is replacing the
separate classifications of industrial engineer, methods engineer, tool
engineer, and process engineer. Interestingly, some of these same
companies are asking for new curricula in the universities on manu-
facturing systems engineering to develop the skills needed to manage
large integrated manufacturing systems.
These developments indicate that industry recognizes that the
manufacturing engineer of the future will require work experience to
understand manufacturing problems and a formal education in theo-
retical knowledge. The efforts under way focus on the critical issues
in manufacturing operations today: quality, resource management,
human resource management, the engineering-manufacturing interface,
OCR for page 31
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
31
managerial leadership, strategic planning, and computer-integrated
manufacturing.
The use of better information systems can release the manufacturing
engineer from more mundane activities and free valuable time for
creative activities. They can provide powerful new tools for simulating
new methods and concepts of manufacturing. More time and techniques
will be available to develop research projects for product design and
producibility. Then perhaps for the first time in a long while, manu-
facturing managers, even though they may be fewer, will have more
time to devote to the human resource management and strategic
planning so vital in the competitive marketplace.
Having the practicing engineers and trained technicians and tech-
nologists who share the core task in manufacturing engineering work
closely together is in the best interest of the profession, industry, and
our society. In working with the manufacturing engineer, the manu-
facturing technologist will be assigned to projects on design, devel-
opment, and implementation of engineering plans; drafting and erecting
manufacturing engineering equipment; estimating and inspection; main-
taining manufacturing machinery or manufacturing services; assisting
with research and development; sales and presentation; and servicing
and testing of materials and components.
To perform these functions, the technologist must have sound
knowledge of materials and manufacturing processes. Because formally
educated technicians and technologists are certain to increase in
numbers and in quality, it is better to ask what expertise is needed
and then determine who can best provide that expertise.
It is important that manufacturing education at all levels incorporate
the social and psychological interests of the individual and group as
an integral part of learning. The status and condition of those who will
work in manufacturing in the future are of great concern today. Foreign
competitors have demonstrated that maintaining the good efforts of
the entire manufacturing work force is indispensable to formulating
and implementing strategy in the factory of the future. Manufacturing
engineers must be aware of the new considerations that are part of
the manufacturing revolution and must be prepared to handle the
situations that arise. The factory must be reevaluated, recognizing it
as a system of people and equipment with opportunities for a variety
of interventions that will influence the people much more than equip
ment.
For example, a factory designer, factory manager, or (more rarely)
a production worker can restructure work methods, rearrange tech
OCR for page 37
TABLE 4 Accredited Programs in Manufacturing Engineering and
Technology for Year Ending September 1984, Accreditation Board
of Engineering and Technology (ABET)
Study Area
Accredited Programs
Engineering
Manufacturing engineering
Engineering technology
Manufacturing engineering
technology
Manufacturing processes
Manufacturing technology
Manufacturing engineering
technology
Master's degree
University of Massachusetts (Amherst)
Bachelor's degree
Boston University (Boston, Mass.)
Utah State University (Logan, option in
mechanical engineering)
Bachelor's degree
Arizona State University (Tempe)
East Tennessee State University (Johnson
City)
Milwaukee School of Engineering
(Milwaukee, Wis.)
Murray State University (Murray, Ky.)
New Jersey Institute of Technology
(Newark)
Oklahoma State University (Stillwater)
Pittsburgh State University (Pittsburgh, Pa.)
Rochester Institute of Technology
(Rochester, N.Y.)
University of Nebraska at Omahaa
Weber State College (Ogden, Utah)
Wichita State University (Wichita, Kans.)
California Polytechnic State University
(San Luis Obispo, Calif.)
Bradley University (Peoria, Ill.) (mechanical
design or operations option)
Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah)
Indiana-Purdue at Fort Wayne (option in
mechanical engineering)
Memphis State University (Memphis,
Tenn.)
University of Houston (Houston, Tex.)
Associate degree
Central Piedmont Community College
(Charlotte, N.C.)
Forsyth Technical Institute (Winston-Salem,
N.C.)
Hartford State Technical College (Hartford,
Conn.)
Ricks College (Rexburg, Idaho)
Thames Valley State Technical College
(Norwich, Conn.)
University of Nebraska at Omahaa
Waterbury State Technical College
(Waterbury, Conn.)
a Both associate and bachelor's degrees are ABET-accredited.
OCR for page 38
38
BRUM1VET7
recruiting and hiring, training, additional work done, and release time
for permanent employees. To be effective, a program must make the
student's work experience an integral part of the firm's work schedule.
Cooperative efforts over time have led to programs whose graduates
have better academic and professional performance than their "non-
co-op" peers. Companies such as IBM and Rockwell International
have integrated their well-established co-op programs with their long-
term goals to provide a potential work force familiar with corporate
goals and philosophy.
Many large firms are implementing new cooperative work experience
programs in which a few students and faculty members can utilize the
firm's CAD/CAM systems for training and development projects.
These firms have taken the initiative in opening their doors and
becoming an active partner with the educational institutions. Detroit
Diesel-Indianapolis, for example, has initiated a program which allows
students and faculty to use selected equipment during slack time.
Implementation of additional cooperative work experience programs
in manufacturing engineering will mean productivity earlier in manu-
facturing careers. This will, in the long run, help industry increase
productivity and address the problems of applying new technologies.
Corporate colleges have been a part of formal education for many
years, and are currently institutions of renewed interest.~° During the
boom years of the 1920s, the General Motors Institute (GMI) was
started in response to the emergence of a new technology and a new
product. GMI, which is now sponsored by several corporations, served
as a model for many programs which followed World War II, when
corporate education again responded to increased diversity and pro-
liferation of new products.
Corporate and academic educational programs will, to some extent,
compete for the potential student population in manufacturing. This
will be particularly true for the high-technology fields, where industry
should lead in the latest equipment and expertise. Similarly, schools
and industry will recruit competitively for qualified manufacturing
faculty.
Competition may also extend to external funding. Accredited cor-
porate colleges are eligible for government funding, and in most cases,
these institutions are becoming eligible for funding at a time when
state legislatures are not sympathetic to new requests. This is partic-
ularly true in the northern industrial states where many corporate
educational programs are located. Conversely, public and private
colleges are approaching industry for endowment and other financial
OCR for page 39
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
39
support which it may prefer to retain for its own educational and
research endeavors.
Competition may be mitigated by reexamining the mission of the
university: not a "college education" per se, but lifelong learning. In
that context, the colleges would be one part of an educational system,
including corporations, community groups, professional associations,
and libraries. Each organization would benefit from open lines of
communication.
Continuing Education
Continuing education can take many forms. Because it is increasingly
important for the manufacturing engineer to be involved in lifelong
learning, several options in the form of cooperative programs involving
industry, educational and professional organizations, and government
need to be available at all levels of career development.
Although various forms of corporate educational institutions are
growing, the stronger trend is probably toward a working relationship
between existing colleges and universities and corporations. One good
example of this cooperation is the program developed at Pfizer, Inc.
and Marymount Manhattan College, which established a "satellite
college" as a part of the corporation's training and development center.
The program integrates the liberal arts and the specific job training
needed by the company. As a result, a classroom-workplace bond is
developed that allows both parties to achieve their continuing education
goals. Other companies having similar programs include R. J. Reynolds
Industries, Inc., and Tektronix, Inc., which also offer on-site higher
education programs. The other types of corporate cooperative efforts
with educational institutions may or may not include the granting of
degrees.
Many colleges and universities are expanding their continuing edu-
cation base, which includes working directly with industry in identifying
needs and providing quality training. Most courses are flexible, being
offered both on campuses and at corporate sites.
Although continuing education activities and cooperation have in-
creased significantly, there is still a tremendous need for more than
can be provided in the next several years. Even so, it is not at all
clear that new educational institutions must be developed. Even in
manufacturing education, the solution may be to enhance existing
institutions. Academic and corporate colleges have, or can assemble,
OCR for page 40
40
BRUMMETT
the expertise to develop programs for new technology-related jobs. It
is important to support the few existing manufacturing-related programs
while refocusing manufacturing education on the needs of the future.
THE NATIONAL RESPONSE: WHAT IS HAPPENING
AND WHAT IS NEEDED
Enhancing the quality of our manufacturing education system will
require closer collaboration among manufacturing engineering and
engineering technology educators, industry, professional organizations,
and government. Toward this end, the Society of Manufacturing
Engineers (SME) has been providing continuing education for engineers
in the field since 1932. SME is now sponsoring 30 to 40 major
conferences and expositions a year, attracting more than 250,000
attendees. It also sponsors annually more than 300 clinics, seminars,
and workshops devoted to single subjects such as lasers, robotics, and
machine vision. Finally, SME offers between 30 and 45 in-plant courses
each year, and many of its publications are used in the classroom as
textbooks and reference books.
At the present time, there are few places where college and university
faculty can obtain concentrated upgrading in emerging technologies
without committing extended periods of time and meeting the associated
financial requirements. In early 1985, the Society of Manufacturing
Engineers initiated a new continuing education program for those in
the field of manufacturing. This new Center for Professional Devel-
opment emphasizes manufacturing management and offers training in
planning, organizing, and controlling manufacturing systems for au-
tomation and integration. Relevant courses for those involved in
manufacturing education, taught by leading experts in the field of
manufacturing, include classroom instruction with demonstrations,
simulations, and hands-on experience with computer hardware and
software. In addition, students can visit Detroit-area industrial instal-
lations.
SME also works closely with the colleges and universities in
accreditation activities in which both academic and industry represen-
tatives visit campuses for evaluations. Over 125 student chapters on
campuses throughout the country are sponsored by the local area
senior chapters, providing an opportunity for students and engineers
to meet.
The SME Manufacturing Engineering Certification Institute certifies
two general levels of manufacturing personnel. For certification, a
manufacturing technologist takes an exam after four years of experi
OCR for page 41
THE U.S. MAIVUFACTURING ENGINEER
41
once, which can be formal education. A certified manufacturing
engineer must have 10 years of experience and pass the exam. Both
are required to be recertified every three years, which promotes
continuous learning.
The SME Education Foundation has given over $2 million to colleges
and universities during the last five years for equipment, scholarships,
curriculum, faculty development, and research initiation. Through its
Faculty Travel Fellowship Program, the TRW corporation provides
funding through the foundation to defray travel expenses for faculty
attending SME continuing education activities. In other cooperative
efforts, a number of equipment manufacturers donate equipment,
which is distributed through a foundation-administered proposal pro-
gram to select recipients.
It is in the interest of industry to support graduate study and research
in manufacturing, because industry benefits from the resulting increased
productivity. Means of support might include, for example, funding
for graduate study, stipends for company employees, fellowships, and
funding for research through either individual corporations or consortia,
with prior agreements to protect proprietary information. Industrial
consulting and exchanges of faculty and industrial professionals are
also a means of keeping educators apprised of practical industry
problems and new technologies.
A recent innovation in industry-academia collaboration, developed
in Great Britain, is the nationally funded "teaching company." This
sometimes takes the form of a partnership between a manufacturing
company and a university, in which young graduate engineers work
in the company and are supervised jointly by a manager and a member
of the engineering faculty. The graduate engineers work individually
or in a team on a substantial engineering task agreed upon by the
company and the university and aimed at improving the company's
manufacturing methods and performance. Faculty become involved in
management decisions and contribute to improving industrial practice,
while the program educates manufacturing engineers of high quality.
The program helps some schools build their strengths in teaching
fundamental engineering science while developing a stronger orienta-
tion toward engineering practice. Implementation of the teaching
company program should be expanded in the United States.
In computerized manufacturing technology for a broad range of
industries, the example provided by Japan is worthy of study and
possibly of emulation. Japan has set up a national program in which
work is distributed among universities for basic research in a multitude
of small projects (average funding, $30,000 per project); government
OCR for page 42
42
BR UMMEIT
laboratories for applied research in a variety of medium-sized projects
(average funding, $300,000 per project); and industrial companies for
development of a limited number of large projects jointly funded by
government and industry (average funding, $3 million).
Background study, planning, and coordination are accomplished
through committees that include members from industry, universities,
and government. Organizational and administrative work is performed
by appropriate trade associations and professional societies. Govern-
ment and industry provide the necessary funding.
Another national program recently developed in Japan, "Method-
ology for Unmanned Manufacturing," will both study and construct
automated and computer-optimized manufacturing plants. An early
step in the program is development of a small prototype, scheduled
for operation in 1985. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry
has contributed $50 million to this effort, testifying to its seriousness.
In the United States, establishment of a system of institutes at
selected schools with the best productivity-oriented manufacturing
engineering capability could be an important vehicle for improving
industry-academia collaboration and productivity in manufacturing.
Funded by industry and government, a multidisciplinary staff would
provide technical assistance to industry on manufacturing methods
and productivity. Other nations developing similar cooperative pro-
grams are the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, the German
Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union.
Fortunately, in the United States there are signs of improvement in
the atmosphere for collaboration. For example, the government has
shown a willingness to reform the capital cost recovery accounting
system (e.g., accelerated amortization of machine tools), to assist
research and development cooperation between academia and industry,
and to credit taxes for corporate contributions to U.S. university
research. More tax incentives for industry/university cooperatives are
needed, however, to provide adequate education for manufacturing
professionals. Although schools can obtain assistance through hard-
ware donations, industrial assistance in programs which develop people
or course materials is much more difficult to obtain.
Several universities have launched collaborative programs with
industry. In October 1981, Brigham Young University formed an
"Alliance with Industry" to speed the development of new computer
technology and to increase its rate of adoption by industry. More than
100 industrial representatives from 46 companies have met with the
university faculty and administrators to discuss ways in which they
could cooperate with Brigham Young in developing CAD/CAM ca
OCR for page 43
TlIE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
43
pabilities and training personnel to meet industry's needs. Current
membership in the alliance includes such leading manufacturing firms
as Boeing, General Electric, Exxon, B. F. Goodrich, and GTE. Leading
CAD/CAM and equipment supplier members include Applicon, Com-
putervision, Calma, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Digital
Equipment Corporation. Membership costs $10,000 per year, or an
equivalent grant in equipment.
Alliance members benefit by gaining:
A larger number of graduates with computer skills;
Preferential treatment in recruiting employees through the univer-
sity and increased corporate visibility among students;
New applications software developed at Brigham Young at no
cost;
· Assistance in training employees in new techniques;
· Close contact with a center of research on new methodologies
and applications; and
· A ready source of consulting expertise and talent for solving
technical problems.
Brigham Young benefits from:
· Students gaining experience using the latest computer and high-
performance graphics equipment;
· Students using advanced software tools for class assignments and
research projects;
· Faculty, in close association with industry, developing research
projects on current industrial problems; and
· Faculty, with industry support, developing computer-related man-
ufacturing curricula to better prepare students for industrial careers.
Among the more interesting collaborative initiatives coming from
industry are those of IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Control Data. In
September 1982, IBM announced a $50 million grant program, in the
form of both cash ($10 million) and equipment ($40 million), to help
universities develop and update graduate curricula in manufacturing
systems engineering (MSE). The program is designed to enable uni-
versities to teach up-to-date and cost-effective design and manufac-
turing concepts and techniques that require more attention in engi-
neering curricula than they are receiving today.
Within two months, over 150 universities submitted preliminary
proposals to IBM for MSE curricula, setting forth university qualifi-
cations, the proposed program, university resources available to
support the program, commitment to a continuing MSE education
OCR for page 44
44
BRUMMEIT
program, the university's ability to attract students, a timetable for
implementation, and any constraints or dependencies for implemen-
tation. In addition to the 150 preliminary curriculum proposals, 112
separate proposals were submitted for CAD/CAM equipment, and 20
schools were eventually awarded a total of $40 million in CAD/CAM
systems.
In mid-December 1982, IBM awarded planning grants to 46 univer-
sities to prepare final proposals for an MSE education curriculum
grant. Following a comprehensive review, IBM awarded grants of
approximately $2 million each to five universities for developing
graduate programs: Lehigh University, Georgia Institute of Technol-
ogy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Stanford University, and the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Two other computer industry giants, the Hewlett-Packard Company
(HP) and the Control Data Corporation (CDC), have also established
innovative business-university partnerships. HP invested some $20
million in the college system during 1984, making it one of the top five
U.S. corporate contributors to education. It supports education in
traditional ways by donating new electronic equipment and funding
research grants, for example but the company gives more than money;
it also gives time. Its engineers teach full time in community colleges
or universities for one school year. Loaned employees receive full
salaries and benefits from HP, so there is often no cost to the school.
In this way, students gain a valuable educational perspective, the
school gains an additional faculty member and insights into the current
needs of electronics employers, and HP increases its understanding of
university capabilities.
CDC is developing a different type of program with a consortium of
six universities. Dubbed the "Lower Division Engineering Curriculum"
or LDEC, the program will be a computer-based curriculum for the
first two years of an engineering degree. In particular, the educational
language PLATO will be used to allow technicians to tie into the
universities via LDEC for basic engineering courses. This program
demonstrates CDC's commitment to providing accessible training and
development opportunities for employees.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
A major refocus is needed to revitalize this nation's manufacturing
systems using cooperative educational efforts. Through some fledgling
ventures and emerging cooperative programs between industry, edu-
cation, professional societies, and government, the revitalization of
OCR for page 45
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
45
manufacturing engineering is already under way. However, these
efforts must be expanded to reach full manufacturing potential and to
allow the United States to compete strongly in the international
marketplace for manufactured goods.
· Increased funding should be provided for studies in manufacturing
engineering education to complement funding directed toward manu-
facturing research.
While manufacturing research is extremely important, education is the
base upon which significant research and applications are built. This
country's future will depend upon the preparedness of engineers to
develop and manage highly technical and highly specialized manufac-
turing operations. As technology changes manufacturing, it should
also change manufacturing education. Funding studies and experimen-
tal programs in manufacturing education could provide the direction
and impetus for educational change.
· More schools should develop manufacturing options within existing
engineering degree programs as well as start new manufacturing
. .
engmeerlng programs.
Engineering faculty shortages, inadequate funding to begin new pro-
grams, and the traditional academic departmentalization of engineering
disciplines should not prevent the implementation of new manufacturing
programs. The "option" within an existing engineering discipline
allows students to gain a specialty by taking a core of manufacturing
courses drawn from several disciplines, while still obtaining the primary
degree. In many cases, therefore, only a few new courses would need
to be developed to implement new manufacturing engineering pro-
grams. Where feasible, these programs should be implemented as soon
as possible.
· Industry needs to support more aggressively manufacturing edu-
cation in colleges and universities.
For most industries it makes little sense to develop training programs
that provide basic manufacturing preparation for their engineers. More
direct support would allow colleges and universities to continue to do
what they do best: educate well-qualified engineers. While financial
and equipment assistance is extremely important, joint efforts in
curriculum development and faculty upgrading as well as cooperative
education programs for students can also provide a more solid foun-
dation for developing cooperative education-industry programs.
OCR for page 46
46
BRUMMEIT
o The skills needed by manufacturing engineers, technologists, and
technicians should be defined based on the factory of the future, not
on the traditional academic degrees.
As disciplines merge and new skills are required, alertness is needed
to ensure that personnel are not overutilized or underutilized in their
jobs. A continuing analysis of changing roles in the workplace should
serve to guide development of educational programs as well as provide
reference definitions of job titles.
· The undergraduate preparation of engineers must be~broadened
to include topics in management, economics, and interpersonal skills.
In many cases, knowledge in these areas is weak or absent in
engineering graduates. The inverse is true in schools of business and
management, where training in technology is generally deficient.
· More tax incentive and other programs should be initiated by
government for industry-university cooperation.
Government must continue to provide tax incentives that allow industry
to contribute equipment and facilities to secondary schools and uni-
versities for their laboratories. The U.S. government should also
examine programs, such as the Japanese basic research projects for
educational institutions and industry and the "teaching company"
concept in England, that could further enhance transfer of technology
nationwide.
· Strategic planning is a must for the survival and growth of
manufacturing engineering education. The basics of a specific strategy
and policy must be formulated so that action plans can be documented
and implemented.
Manufacturing engineering is a relatively new discipline in the United
States. As in any emerging discipline, an extended period of time is
required for a new philosophy and the accompanying practical ideas
to be widely accepted. This period can be drastically compressed by
good planning strategies and fostering of critical growth patterns.
NOTES
1. Modern Machine Shop. October 1983.
2. J. Holusha. 1984. New ways at 2 G.M. Plants. New York Times, April 10, D1, D9.
3. Y. Tsurumi. 1983.... And the incompetent Americans U.S. managers are
'technically illiterate' and out of touch. Washington Post, July 31.
4. S. Langer. 1984. Compensation in Manufacturing (Engineers and Managers). Fiftieth
edition. Chicago: Abbot, Langer and Associates.
OCR for page 47
THE U.S. MANUFACTURING ENGINEER
47
5. S. Langer. 1984. Income in Manufacturing Engineering and Management: An
Update. Chicago: Abbot, Langer and Associates.
6. D. P. Gardner, et al. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform. An Open Letter to the American People. A Report to the Nation and the
Secretary of Education. No. 065-000-00177-2. National Commission on Excellence
in Education, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
7. T. Husen, et al. 1967. International Study of Achievement in Mathematics, A
Comparison of Twelve Countries. 2 volumes. Hamburg, West Germany: Interna-
tional Project for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
8. Engineering Manpower Commission of the American Association of Engineering
Societies. 1983. Engineering and Technology Degrees, 1983, Part I. AAES.
9. Society of Manufacturing Engineers. 1984. Directory of Manufacturing Education
Programs in Colleges, Universities, and Technical Institutes, 1984-1985. Dearborn,
Mich.: Education Department, SME.
10. N. Eurich. 1985. Corporate Classrooms: The Learning Business. Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
manufacturing engineers
