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 93
The Issues and Some Answers:
Recommendations
of the Working Groups
The goal of the Symposium on Education for the Manufacturing
World of the Future was to propose elements of an agenda that would
revitalize and refocus manufacturing education and act as a catalyst
for action by educators, employers, and practicing engineers. More
specifically, in sponsoring this symposium the National Academy of
Engineering hoped to encourage:
.
· Engineering and business schools to consider developing initiatives
In manufacturing education;
· Companies to articulate their educational requirements for man-
ufacturing professionals;
· Local, state, and national governments to examine their roles in
supporting manufacturing education; and
· Schools and companies to reinforce cooperation in manufacturing
education and research.
To these ends, symposium participants met in separate sessions to
consider five diverse aspects of manufacturing education:
Structuring the Manufacturing Education System
Industry-University Cooperation in Education for Manufacturing
Industry-University Cooperation in Research for Manufacturing
Keeping Current in a Manufacturing Career
National Priorities in Manufacturing Education
The working groups acted as a forum for discussing present efforts,
93
OCR for page 94
94
WORKII!iG GROUPS
identifying broader needs and opportunities, and "sounding out" new
ideas and untapped opportunities for revitalizing and strengthening
manufacturing education.
In addition, each group sought to formulate recommendations for
action by both those who educate professionals and those who manage
and operate manufacturing systems. The small group settings stimulated
the flow of ideas for transfer of experience and practice between the
factory and the educational system, while offering a way for both
educators and manufacturers to articulate their needs and capabilities
related to manufacturing education.
The following reports of the working groups were authored by the
chairmen of the respective groups based on their perceptions of where
agreement was reached and on what basis. Just as important, the
reports also specify where no agreement was possible and articulate
the basis for disagreements. Chairmen of the five working groups listed
above were Robert Ayres, James F. Lardner, John Wilson, M. Eugene
Merchant, and Jordan J. Baruch, respectively. The groups' members
are listed in Appendix C.
Structuring the Manufacturing Eclucation System
The technologies of manufacturing are changing in three ways that
call into question the usefulness of current education for manufacturing.
First, a revolution is under way in manufacturing systems, so that
both process and discrete parts manufacturing will depend increasingly
on a wide range of technologies such as computers, robotics, artificial
intelligence, and flexible automation techniques. The underlying prin-
ciples for these mechanisms are, however, traditionally taught in
different engineering curricula, resulting in an educational format
inadequate for the needs of those who will have to understand the new
manufacturing technologies.
Second, the use of new materials in manufactured products may
force extensive changes in manufacturing systems over the next 15
years. For example, the manufacture of large-scale integrated circuits,
optical fibers, and ceramic engine parts will require a set of manufac-
turing skills significantly different from those needed to assemble the
current generation of products.
Third, much of the economic potential of computers in manufacturing
systems arises from their capability to establish an improved infor-
mation flow between financial management and activity on the plant
floor. Those who design and operate the plant floor, however, must
be capable of designing and operating information systems that link
the plant floor to the front office.
OCR for page 95
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
95
With these changes in mind, this working group was asked to
investigate ways in which to establish and sustain an educational
system in manufacturing engineering.
THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
Should the content and structure of professional education change
in response to current changes in manufacturing technologies and
organizations? After agreeing that the answer to this question is yes,
the working group proceeded to discuss the design and implementation
of a new educational system in manufacturing engineering and to
answer such questions as: What institutional and financial resources
are required for a viable program? What are the most effective ways
to organize and implement a manufacturing education system?
Underlying this discussion was an issue of particular importance to
group members from industry: What kind of manufacturing engineer
will be needed in the future? This consideration raised a controversy
within the group that was not resolved. Some members felt that
universities should provide industry with educated individuals capable
of evaluating alternative proposals, choosing the right vendor, and
organizing maintenance and service. In other words, the educational
product sought is not so much the individual who will design, adapt,
or install a new manufacturing system, but one who is able to deal
effectively with the specialized outside organizations that will design
and maintain manufacturing systems in the future. Other members of
the group felt that universities should provide a more fundamental
knowledge of manufacturing processes which, with experience, will
develop into the ability to select and implement effectively vendor-
provided technology. The question certainly deserves further consid-
eration.
Another unresolved controversy concerned the level of manufac-
turing engineering sophistication to be taught at the bachelor's and
master's levels. It was not possible, of course, to evaluate fully the
trade-o~s that must be made between four- and five-year manufacturing
curricula. The group did, however, recognize the trade-offs between
engineering fundamentals and a manufacturing systems education per
se, and theory and applications in engineering more broadly. There
was general agreement that "systems integration" cannot be taught
effectively below the master's level and that a wide range of funda-
mental skills needs more attention at the bachelor's level. In addition,
undergraduate engineering students should:
· See manufacturing examples and solve manufacturing problems
in traditional disciplinary coursework,
OCR for page 96
96
WORKING GROUPS
· Be exposed to system and product costing,
· Have some integrative, cross-disciplinary project experience,
· Have some experience working in groups, and
· Be oriented toward problem solving rather than rote answering.
It is probably fair to say that there is not any single best type of
education for manufacturing. Different kinds of institutions will pro-
vide, of course, different kinds and levels of manufacturing engineering
education; some will specialize in undergraduate training and others
will focus primarily on graduate education. There is certainly room
for two-, four-, five-, and six-year programs, but the group did not try
to resolve how all these will fit together.
The group also tried to identify the unique core content of the
manufacturing engineering discipline as opposed to other engineering
disciplines. Perhaps 90 percent of the curriculum of a future manufac-
turing engineering educational system is already available from other
departments, especially mechanical and industrial engineering, and to
some extent electrical, chemical, and civil engineering. Is there then
a critical 10 percent unique to manufacturing engineering, and if so,
what is it? Or, stated differently: What underlying science content of
manufacturing might serve as a basis for research? Again, the group
was unable to resolve these questions, but most group members agreed
that the primary research direction desired in manufacturing is that
taken toward more cross-disciplinary 'isystems integration" work.
Finally, it was recognized that manufacturing engineering education
will probably emerge at many universities as an interdisciplinary
program at the graduate level, a likely direct result of funding for
faculty research in manufacturing. At the undergraduate level, manu-
facturing engineering might initially surface through the addition of
specialized coursework and projects to existing curricula in the de-
partments of mechanical, industrial, and electrical engineering. De-
velopment of manufacturing engineering as a durable, separate engi-
neering discipline will likely require convergence of these two trends.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The working group recommends that educators recognize that:
· Undergraduate students have a critical need for knowledge of
manufacturing processes and process selection criteria, with emphasis
on the process in the context of the overall manufacturing system.
· Undergraduate students have a critical need for implementation
training beyond design problem solving, with special emphasis on
producibility.
OCR for page 97
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
97
Although U.S. schools of engineering may emphasize problem
solving more than schools in some other countries, problem solving,
especially in design, needs more emphasis in undergraduate education.
In particular, a greater focus is needed on integration between the
design end of the problem and the manufacturing (or producibility)
end of the problem. This feature is generally lacking in existing
conventional engineering courses.
It is further recommended that educational institutions recognize
that:
· All manufacturing students have a critical need for "people" skills,
especially leadership and communication. Often missing in a conven-
tional engineering education, these skills are probably best developed
through project courses-that is, group projects in which students
learn to accommodate one another, to cooperate, to subdivide prob-
lems, and to schedule.
· There is a faculty gap in integrative (i.e., process, design, and
systems) and cross-disciplinary problem solving and a lack of focus
on faculty development in these areas.
Finally, it is recommended that industry and government, including
the National Science Foundation (NSF), recognize that:
· Since faculty development depends on availability of a critical
mass of research opportunities, it is especially important that research
monies be available to support interdisciplinary and integrative re-
search.
Institutions develop in accordance with incentive structures. In
universities, faculty development is driven by the availability of
research funds in particular areas. Obviously, a very close connection
exists between the recognition of interesting intellectual problems and
the availability of funds, but it is often difficult to determine which
comes first. In the case of universities, there will be no significant
development of faculty capable of handling systems integration and
developing manufacturing science unless funds are available for that
specific purpose.
Funding agencies, and NSF in particular, prefer to support "bite-
size" projects of $30,000-$50,000 and provide support for perhaps one
graduate student per year. It is true that some projects have longer
life two- and three-year projects are possible- but these are increas-
ingly scarce. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that a proposal
to develop a science of manufacturing, integrating factors at all levels
of aggregation and involving a number of different disciplines, would
survive the existing peer review processes.
OCR for page 98
98
WORKING CROUPS
Industry-University Cooperation in Educatior~ for
Manufacturing
In a field as industry-dependent as manufacturing, it is imperative
to establish and maintain strong ties between universities and industries.
Cooperative programs in engineering education, combining classroom
studies with intervals of industrial experience, have existed since early
in this century. In many industries and regions of the country, however,
these close ties have not existed in the manufacturing area.
Over the last few years, initiatives have sprung up in university-
industry cooperation in numerous fields, particularly in high-growth
fields with strong commercial interest such as biotechnology and
microelectronics. Recognizing needs and opportunities in the area of
manufacturing, several firms and universities have experimented with
new forms of industry-academia cooperation, going well beyond
traditional concepts. For example, innovative programs have been
launched at such schools as Lehigh, Rensselaer, and Carnegie-Mellon,
and the IBM Corporation has fueled the challenge to universities to
increase their efforts with grants for program development in manu-
facturing systems engineering. Added impetus has been provided by
new state and federal programs; one example is the Engineering
Research Centers of the National Science Foundation.
The task of this working group was to assess the benefits and perils
of such programs, to highlight successes, to propose ways to reduce
obstacles to future successes, and to provide a realistic assessment of
what university-industry cooperation in manufacturing education might
achieve. This task also meant seeking answers to related questions
such as: What sequence of events is necessary to establish industry-
university cooperative programs in education? To what extent do
facilities and infrastructure account for inadequacies in university-
based education for manufacturing?
TlIE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
General Issues
A number of general issues in industry-university relations set the
context for cooperative efforts in education for manufacturing. First,
there is the lingering mutual suspicion arising from the different cultures
and, to some degree, the different value systems that industry and
university represent. In the 1960s and 1970s, university-industry
relations were not only suspect, they were often adversarial.
OCR for page 99
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
99
Second, even as we are moving toward a much more sympathetic
atmosphere between the two communities, practical considerations
such as time frames and resources still tend to inhibit cooperation.
The time frames of planning and operations are far different in industry
and universities. A university typically takes the long-term view, which
is appropriate to education and the search for the advancement of
human knowledge. Industry, however, must focus primarily on real-
time, immediate problems. A distinguished university expects to live
forever; the life of a firm is much more perilous. While in some ways
universities are more stable, they are also weaker in some respects.
Research resources of both industry and universities are limited, but
they are especially limited on university campuses.
Third, related to the questions of time frames and resources is the
issue of sustained participation. Frequently, criticism is voiced that
industry support is not stable enough. Because of the nature of
commitments to students and to faculty, a longer time frame is required
on university campuses in terms of support and funding than in the
more flexible year-to-year planning of industry.
A fourth issue concerns attitudes toward knowledge and information.
Industrial firms tend to think in terms of proprietary information, while
universities encourage and defend the free flow of information. For
some collaborative efforts between industry and academia, concern
about proprietary information may be a serious obstacle to success.
Overall, experience suggests that it is an exaggerated and a diminishing
problem, but it still exists and provides an excuse for avoiding closer
cooperation. It is much less demanding to argue about how to handle
proprietary information than it is to find ways to promote cooperation
between industry and universities.
A fifth issue is the problem of the science and engineering language
as it is used in both cultures. Although everyone supposedly speaks
the same language, each uses it differently. Differences in what words
mean and how terminology is used create barriers to industry's and
universities' understanding of one another's problems. As the rela-
tionship grows between the two, the need for translation and interpre-
tation will diminish. At present, however, a large part of time spent
together is still used to establish a basis for effective communication.
Finally, there is a basic problem of differences in incentive structures,
and the fact that industry and university people dance to rather different
tunes. Universities tend to recognize and reward individual achieve-
ment and promote heterogeneity, while industry places greater em-
phasis on group achievement, material rewards, and homogeneity.
Although none of these differences between industrial firms and
OCR for page 100
100
WORKING GROUPS
universities is likely to change significantly, a tremendous benefit can
be realized by increased cooperation between these two kinds of
institutions. Existing examples of successful cooperation leave no
doubt that relations can be improved locally and in aggregate at the
national level, perhaps by a quantum amount. The key is to focus on
specific programs and provide specific incentives so that barriers to
cooperation are minimized. Universities are certainly ready to partic-
ipate as evidenced by the vigorous and widespread responses to the
new Engineering Research Centers program of the National Science
Foundation and the program for manufacturing systems engineering
curricula sponsored by IBM.
A Specific Issue
In discussions of education for manufacturing, one oft-heard, emo-
tional issue concerns the perceived low image and status of the
manufacturing engineer (or any engineer who deals with manufacturing
problems). Industry and universities perceive the excitement and
challenge of manufacturing quite differently, although even industry
is far from universally supportive with rewards, money, and respon-
sibility. Certain steps can be taken to increase the prestige of engineers
involved in manufacturing, both in industry and on the university
campuses, including perhaps widely publicized statements-encour-
aged by the National Academy of Engineering that, indeed, manu-
facturing has changed. The message should take an appropriate form
and be delivered from selected platforms by industry leaders, university
leaders, and the Academy leadership. It should reach not only a general
audience but also the schools of business and management.
Representatives from industry will not change universities by going
on campus and telling students or faculty about the marvels of
manufacturing today and the challenges it represents. As Robert
Cannon (in this volume) points out, a "conversion of faculty interest"
must be based on faculty understanding of what is the best manufac-
turing practice industry has to offer, what is needed, what the problems
are, and what kind of intellectual challenges and career opportunities
manufacturing represents. There is a persuasive argument for con-
verting the faculty first because in terms of total student exposure
(ranging from college freshmen to graduate students working on thesis
projects), faculty members, not the occasional campus lecturer, have
the greatest opportunity to influence students. A student's summer
work experience in industry is seldom equal to faculty influence.
OCR for page 101
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
101
RECOMMENDATIONS
National Faculty Advanced Training Program
Discussion about recent advances in manufacturing and the need
for diffusion of knowledge about these advances led to an intriguing
and exciting idea: establishment of a national faculty advanced training
program in manufacturing. This concept, which is not as elaborate or
as complicated as it may sound, will give university faculty an
opportunity to learn firsthand why manufacturing is exciting, why it
is a challenge, and how it has changed. Thus this working group
recommends that:
· Individual companies arrange to conduct one-week manufacturing
seminars for 20-30 engineering and business faculty members at a time.
Possibly held in the summer period when faculty can commit themselves
to attend for a week, these seminars should be a high-quality presen-
tation of the nature and the problems of manufacturing. More specif-
ically, seminars would elucidate why university professors should be
aware of what is going on in manufacturing and why their students
might wish to seek employment in this area. Expenses for seminars
would be covered in part by the sponsoring companies. Incentives for
companies to support this activity include the opportunity to influence
the education of future employees.
What might help define and encourage such a seminar program in
manufacturing and give it coherence? It is recommended that:
· The Academy complex consider taking a leading role in fostering
this program and creating both its substance and structure.
Because of the varied nature of manufacturing activities in the United
States, there appears to be a need for the careful and thoughtful design
of regional seminars. Travel distances may impede attendance for
some people and subsequent cooperation between companies and
universities. For example, it seems foolish to hold a seminar on chip-
making in the Silicon Valley for faculty surrounded by midwestern
metalworking industries where the only chips are metallic shavings.
The programs of advanced training seminars should continue for three
to five years, or until they have reached a significant percentage of all
engineering and business school faculty in the United States.
Manufacturing Curricula
Both academia and industry question the pertinence and realism of
what is being taught in engineering schools. With the exception of
OCR for page 102
102
WORKING GROUPS
certain areas of engineering research, the problem is widespread in
areas dealing with manufacturing.
Are engineering faculty members becoming too theoretical and too
analytical? Could it be that one generation of analysts is teaching a
second generation of analysts who in turn will teach another generation
of engineering faculty, and yet none of them will have ever even
manufactured anything secondhand? Although this group did not reach
a full consensus, it was concluded that the present situation is not too
bad. An analytical capability is expected from universities and a
practical hands-on capability from industry. These two groups may
not be fluent in each other's language and may not fully understand
each other's problems, but they have the skills, knowledge, and
experience which, when put together, can become a powerful resource
for improving productivity and the competitive position of U.S.
industry.
How then can efforts in the university world be brought closer to
current manufacturing practices and problems? One possible strategy
is the use of industry advisory boards. When properly chartered and
directed to offer broad guidance on content and direction of education
and research, they can be very helpful. In addition, individual practicing
engineers can serve on campus in more ways than simply as guests
who appear occasionally as role models for students. They could, for
example, assist faculty members with problem and project definition.
The traditional cooperative education (co-op) programs and senior
projects are also valuable ways of stimulating exchanges between
industry and the university community. Co-op programs can open to
young engineers vistas not accessible in any other way. Fortunately,
co-ops are widely recognized as beneficial and are a part of many
strong educational programs. They lend themselves well to a manu-
facturing-related education. Unfortunately, senior projects are disap-
pearing simply because no funding and no faculty are available to
support such projects. Senior projects are one of the most expensive
undergraduate activities and thus are the most vulnerable to budget
cuts. Yet, these projects are a superior means of bringing together the
various disciplines of engineering into a comprehensive whole.
A properly designed senior project provides the integrative environ-
ment that industry finds lacking in most engineering schools. Efforts
to reinstate senior projects into the curriculum as part of an engineering
education relevant to manufacturing should be encouraged.
This working group also found that too frequently the team nature
of manufacturing is neglected in the university environment. Group
activities should be an essential part of the manufacturing curriculum.
OCR for page 103
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
103
The manufacturing problems studied on the campus may not be
realistic, but the human relations problems that arise in multidiscipli-
nary efforts certainly can be!
While it is important that universities have a certain amount of
modern manufacturing hardware in their labs, no university can afford
to have its own modern factory. Thus alternative means are required
to provide a real picture of the complexity, breadth, and depth of
manufacturing, starting with product design and ending with a manu-
facturing operation servicing the product in the field. Computer models,
for example, can portray some of the real complexities of manufac-
turing. Via simulation, manufacturing problems can be relayed to
university campuses; they do not require manufacturing hardware for
learning and for research. However, real data must be put into the
model and that industry should be able to supply.
Video is an another important means of conveying realistic images.
The technological capabilities are available to make video real-time
and interactive. Universities and firms should exploit video technology
further to extend the effective size and extent of university laboratories.
The ferment currently under way in manufacturing-related education
raises then a number of questions: Is there a single best model for a
curriculum? Should there be a strictly prescribed manufacturing en-
gineering curriculum? Should it be only a graduate program? Should
manufacturing be an option within existing degree programs? Should
it be developed as an autonomous, separately accredited program?
This group concluded that, given the diversity of industrial sectors
and geographic regions of the United States, the rapidly evolving
nature of industry and its problems, and the various levels of sophis-
tication in the current industrial environment, the response to this
challenge demands a pluralistic approach. Moreover, action on several
levels in the educational system is necessary. It is unrealistic and
unwise to propose a national, standard curriculum. Rather, it is more
feasible to build on the strengths of each university and region and
provide opportunities for addressing manufacturing in a variety of
ways.
While this is a time for diverse experiments by individual institutions,
good opportunities for initiatives by groups of firms and universities
probably exist as well. Such consortia could be a particularly useful
mechanism for firms and schools not having large resources. In fact,
some larger firms may prefer to develop or expand in-house programs
of postgraduate education for engineers. For smaller firms, more
extensive university training programs may be the only practical
solution.
OCR for page 106
106
WORKING GROUPS
the "best effort," which is standard in university research contracts.
University personnel need incentives to engage in useful research.
Incentives could include more refereed journals, more dollars for
awards for young scientists, a more active exchange between industries
and universities, and more support for co-op programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This working group recommends that:
· A message be transmitted nationally on the seriousness and high
priority of the manufacturing problem.
The high priority of and potential for joint efforts by the university
and industry research communities in manufacturing must be well
publicized at both the university and industry levels.
· A better data base be compiled on current activities in manufac-
turing research.
There is a strong sense that industry is unaware of a wealth of resources
existing in the various technical departments of engineering colleges.
A better system of exchanging information would enable representa-
tives of an individual firm or an industry association looking for help
in a research effort to know where to go.
· The need for more aggressive participation by academia in man-
ufacturing research be publicized.
This message has to be transmitted generally and translated into
practical and specific terms of where constructive things can be done.
Today, the usual transmission of the message about manufacturing in
the press is, "Company 'X' has gone out of business because of
external competition," with few proposals offered about constructive
responses.
· Some accounting methods be addressed.
As a practical matter, firms take research efforts seriously only when
they understand the actual bottom-line benefits. Over the long term,
this means that as university-industry consortia are promoted, the
engineering division of the university and the business schools should
both be involved. Group members differed on how that involvement
should go forward, but they did agree that if the people who will
undertake the financing, accounting, and management of manufacturing
and manufacturing research are not engaged, a serious aspect of
OCR for page 107
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
manufacturing technology implementation, from
view, will not be considered.
107
il
ndustry's point of
· More government funding be sought for existing manufacturing
research programs.
The manufacturing problem is a systems problem. The use of a systems
approach to manufacturing to solve the systems problem should
permeate all research activities and research results, but it is a larger
problem than some individual industries can tackle. Since the needs
for such research projects and facilities often extend beyond university-
level regular funding, the national interest clearly dictates that existing
manufacturing research programs remain fully funded, enjoy a regular
growth in appropriations, and develop cooperatively with industry.
· Tax incentives continue to be improved for university-industry
-
cooperation, particularly with regard to research.
The jury is still out with regard to the effects of such tax incentives
on research spending. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that the
incentives are effective, and that additional incentives would also have
a marked and positive result.
· Manufacturing engineering research be funded at an early point,
as curriculum changes at engineering schools usually follow from
research projects being undertaken by individual professors.
Usually, a critical mass of research is required to generate material
that can be taught to students. Thus, if manufacturing engineering
research is adequately funded, curriculum development will come
automatically.
· A more well-developed theoretical basis for manufacturing-one
that encompasses a systems approach be devised.
Keeping Current in a Manufacturing Career
Those who work in manufacturing usually find it neither appropriate
nor possible to become a full-time student or a full-time educator. The
obligations of family and career and the costs of tuition make it
untenable for most people to break away from their present job without
severely disrupting both their professional and personal lives. Yet
these manufacturing professionals are being inundated by information
on new technologies that eclipse the production processes they know
well, management practices that challenge all the lessons they were
OCR for page 108
108
WORKING GROUPS
taught, and investment decisions that defy evaluation by the standard
techniques.
For the ranks of manufacturing professionals that is, the engineers,
managers, and finance officers who make decisions in a manufacturing
firm keeping current in their manufacturing career is crucial if they-
and their firms-are to prosper in the manufacturing world of the
future. Only easier access to more educational opportunities in more
flexible formats at a lower cost per student will permit manufacturing
professionals to harness the potential of the new manufacturing
technologies, make and sell quality products, and have a satisfying
career all the while.
This working group examined the manufacturing career by seeking
answers to three questions posed in its charter: (1) Why does anyone
go into manufacturing as a career? (2) How does one maintain the
vitality of a manufacturing career? and (3) What is needed in a
continuing education program adequate to serve the diverse needs of
manufacturing professionals?
THE PROBLEMS, ISSUES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Without continuing education, our national manufacturing capabili-
ties and excellence will decline. It is not only a question of keeping
current, but also one of becoming current. The recent rapid rate of
change in manufacturing has created a large group of manufacturing
professionals whose skills have been made obsolete. Thus this working
group addressed the issues involved in bringing these individuals up
to speed as well as keeping those who are current in that state.
Correcting a Poor Image
In undertaking its mandate, the group defined the critical issues and
the actions needed to resolve the three questions posed earlier. The
first question, however- "Why does anyone go into manufacturing as
a career?" was immediately changed to "Why don't more first-class
engineers go into and stay in manufacturing careers?" It is not only a
question of getting into a manufacturing career; it is also one of staying
in that career. The working group felt as well that the original question
implied that only runners-up go into manufacturing careers.
A review of the range of contributing factors pointed to one obvious
critical issue: in this country, manufacturing has a poor image and
manufacturing careers have a poor status. To upgrade this image,
industry (both individual firms and industrial associations) and profes
OCR for page 109
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
109
signal societies must share the excitement of today's manufacturing.
Potential candidates for engineering careers must hear more about the
"action" in manufacturing today, and primary and secondary school
teachers, as well as the general public, must be aware that real and
significant career development opportunities exist in manufacturing.
Industry needs to take one further action. Firms must bear witness
to the value of the present manufacturing personnel and structure good
professional career paths in manufacturing. Furthermore, these de-
velopments should be publicized to all current and potential employees
to let the community at large know that real professional career paths
and opportunities exist in their company for manufacturing profes-
sionals.
Staying Current
How does one maintain the vitality of a manufacturing career?
Manufacturing engineers face the same threat of obsolescence as all
engineers, but keeping current in a manufacturing career in this time
of rapid change is even more difficult than usual. Some engineers seem
to resist adjustments to new technologies, but most wish to stay current
and yet are unaware of how to go about it. In examining the incentives
for both employers and individual engineers to stay current and the
role of employers in providing such, it became evident that having the
incentive to keep current is just as important as the availability of
continuing education.
This observation raises two issues. First, employers fail to evaluate
the educational needs of manufacturing professionals to identify the
skills or education they lack. An excellent prescription for doing just
that is presented by Robert M. Anderson (in this volume), and this
working group endorses his prescription. It thus recommends that:
· Employers use Anderson's prescription as a basis for this evalu-
ation, being very certain to involve the engineer in the evaluation.
It is crucial that such an evaluation not be "management only" and
that the engineer participate in identifying gaps and how they should
be filled. Subsequently, the company must follow through and work
with the professional to fill the identified gaps.
The second issue is that many manufacturing professionals lack a
sense of responsibility about the need to maintain the vitality of their
careers in manufacturing. This attitude, however, is not totally the
fault of the professional; generally, he or she has had no incentive to
feel this sense of responsibility. More often than not, the individual
OCR for page 110
110
WORKING GROUPS
has moved out of manufacturing to advance his or her career or to
maintain professional vitality. Thus it is recommended that:
· Industries, universities, and professional societies provide realistic
incentives for professionals to maintain the vitality in their manufac-
turing careers. These incentives should include existing incentives
such as certification.
For example, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers offers manufac-
turing engineers a series of examinations to acquire certification
voluntarily (see Brummett, in this volume), and such programs may
merit greater recognition from industry as a real measure of competence
in the field. Clearly, greater recognition of certification as a measure
of professional competence and support for those who pursue it will
serve as a real incentive for an engineer to become and to stay certified.
Other incentives to keep current might include tuition support or
release time to attend continuing education activities. It is recom-
mended that:
· Further innovative incentives be sought to encourage professionals
to maintain the vitality in their manufacturing careers.
Continuing Education
What is needed in a continuing education program adequate to serve
the diverse needs of manufacturing professionals? This question touches
upon a number of diverse issues, for example: the different needs of
the chemical versus the electronics industries; whether the employees
of larger manufacturing firms have an advantage over the employees
of smaller machine shop-scale firms; the value of full-time continuing
education courses versus intensive short courses; and the value of the
"nuts and bolts"-type courses now available.
Consideration of these issues led to two observations by the working
group. First, in firms where continuing education for manufacturing
professionals is a recognized priority, the demand for such education
quickly outstrips the ability of the firm to either develop the courses
in-house or support course attendance elsewhere.
Second, manufacturing professionals need an opportunity not now
available- to take "refresher" courses in the scientific and technolog-
ical principles newly important to manufacturing applications. Only
by understanding the flow of changes taking place around them can
they contribute to making those changes happen and learn to innovate
within the integrated system.
OCR for page 111
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
111
Despite these insights, the provision of continuing education remains
a problem of substantial proportions across the spectrum of manufac-
turing industries. The key issue is that there is no system for continuing
education for manufacturing professionals equal in scope and effec-
tiveness to that existing for entry education into manufacturing careers
through the university system. Thus it is recommended that:
· The National Academy of Engineering or the Manufacturing
Studies Board of the National Research Council conduct a study to
define a system for the continuing education of manufacturing profes-
sionals. Such a study should involve strong industry participation,
including industrial associations, as well as the participation of profes-
sional societies, universities, service organizations, and other educa-
tional agents.
For a successful study, industry must specify early in the process the
features it perceives as needed for a continuing education system.
These can then be debated and refined and the study can define and
structure a system having the desired features. Clearly, no one of the
groups listed in this recommendation can by themselves define and
operate a continuing education system. The system and the study must
include all these groups to be effective.
National Priorities in Manufacturing Education
Education for manufacturing has not been a social priority in the
United States for the past quarter century. As a result, the number of
manufacturing education programs has remained very small, and the
prestige of being either a student or an educator in manufacturing has
been similarly small.
In the face of increasingly proficient international competition,
concern for the quality, prestige, and extent of manufacturing in the
United States has risen to the forefront as a technological and social
priority. Consequently, many new university programs will be estab-
lished across the country over the next several years. Many people,
however, have questioned whether new university programs are either
an appropriate or a sufficient response to the national need for increasing
manufacturing expertise.
As the use of new manufacturing technology transforms the profile
of skills needed to operate and manage a factory, job definitions and
work structures will evolve as well. It is still an open question whether
more skilled, less skilled, or differently skilled people are needed. At
OCR for page 112
112
WORKING GROUPS
this stage of the national wave of manufacturing education develop-
ment, it is important to consider whether the programs in operation
and the programs on the drawing board will be appropriate to national
needs a decade or two from now.
The task of this working group was to speculate on the types and
number of programs needed, their value in the spread of new knowl-
edge, their accessibility for working professionals, and their ability to
adapt to the continual change certain to take place in manufacturing
and information technologies until the next century. The recommen-
dations of this group were addressed to federal, state, and local
agencies who fund and regulate education programs; prospective
students who must have better information about the manufacturing
education options available; and any organization that is considering
setting up its own manufacturing education program outside of a
traditional university curriculum.
THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
In arriving at a set of national priorities in manufacturing education,
the group began by attempting to define manufacturing engineering,
how one learns it, and what this involves. Group members repre-
senting academia, government, both sides of Congress and the exec-
utive branch, industry, consumers of engineering, and suppliers of
engineering recognized that everyone participating in manufacturing
engineering is having a problem.
The working group generally agreed that manufacturing engineers
must have a thorough grounding in fundamentals. With this background,
they are then able to shift their activities as changes are made in
technology, in the demands on the manufacturing system, and in the
potential for manufacturing. More and more the task of manufacturing
involves not just unit processes or manufacturing elements, but also
manufacturing subsystems and systems, and these pose some very
special problems.
Engineering schools in general have an adequate number of appli-
cants, although few overall in manufacturing engineering. Furthermore,
the quality of the students and the general health of engineering
education seem good. Many schools are initiating programs in manu-
facturing engineering, but they are facing problems.
One problem identified quite early by the group is that a good faculty
member in manufacturing engineering is an asset not only to a school
but also to a manufacturing company. Therefore, perhaps more than
in other fields of engineering, the schools and the industry are faced
OCR for page 113
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
113
simultaneously with the tasks of competing and collaborating- a
conflict that must be resolved.
A model for the clinical practice of manufacturing engineering can
be based in part on that used for the clinical practice of medicine.
Much of the underpinning for the modern clinical practice of medicine
in the United States stems from the support, direction, and intellectual
involvement of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). For manufac-
turing, there is no equivalent to NIH in the federal, state, or local
governments despite the fact that manufacturing is as much a profit-
making, private enterprise as the physician's health care practice. In
manufacturing, too, there are strong reasons for society to participate
in ensuring excellence in the United States, ranging from jobs created
or saved to the central role that manufacturing plays in establishing
both a standard of living and quality of life, our defense posture; and
even our national pride.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on a strong consensus that society, in addition to the companies
involved, has a stake in the excellence of our manufacturing enterprise,
the group recognized that a mechanism is needed so that society can
share the cost of developing the resources necessary for excellence in
manufacturing. It is therefore recommended that:
· The National Science Foundation, which in Fiscal Year 1985 has
only a $7.5 million budget for manufacturing, significantly increase its
funding for the support of manufacturing engineering.
Just as NIH has the resource of the teaching hospitals, an equivalent
is needed in industry. It is therefore recommended that:
· A national priority be industry-university collaboration to assure
the relevancy of research and the availability of industrial facilities for
manufacturing education.
This collaboration can be exercised through the National Association
of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other orga-
nizations influential in industry. This does not mean that industry
directs the research and education; only that closer collaboration can
acquaint faculty and students with industry's problems, particularly
with those of the future. Research and education start to pay off
especially when oriented to anticipated future developments.
Salary disparities between academia and industry are a major issue
within the profession nationally. For example, an assistant professor
OCR for page 114
114
WORKING GROUPS
in manufacturing engineering today may earn $27,000 a year, while his
counterpart in industry may earn 50 percent more. It is recommended
that:
· Steps be taken, with the help of industry, to either provide funding
to make up that differential or create a system of side employment or
a program that will permit qualified industrial manufacturing profes-
sionals to serve as faculty members in the universities.
The primary value of research in manufacturing engineering is to
the industries themselves. It is therefore recommended that:
· Industry sectors work out mechanisms, as they have in some
specialized fields such as semiconductors and petroleum refining, to
provide adequate nongovernmental sources of funding for research
and other manufacturing-related activities at universities.
A bill submitted in 1984 to the U.S. Congress (Senate 1286) to
support manufacturing delegates a set of research activities to the
Department of Commerce. This working group believes it is appropriate
for the National Academy of Engineering to suggest such legislation.
It is also recommended that:
· The National Academy of Engineering use its charter to take an
aggressive posture to encourage implementation of government policies
that support manufacturing research, education, and related activities.
The need for an education for engineers and others involved in
manufacturing does not stop at the university gate. In fact, productive
learning continues after engineering students are employed by industry,
and particularly when they participate in a program of continuing
education. In much the same way, finance officers, personnel officials,
and corporate lawyers should as well broaden their knowledge of
manufacturing to increase the nation's competitiveness. Unfortunately,
recent changes in the tax law reduce the incentives for engineers and
other professionals to pursue an education to broaden their base or to
extend their knowledge in the field of- manufacturing. It is therefore
recommended that:
· The tax law be adjusted to give professionals in manufacturing,
whether they be engineers, managers, or finance officers, incentives
to pursue continuing education and to broaden their background in
manufacturing.
Many in our society are unfamiliar with technology. Many younger
people have no idea of the relevancy of technology to their life and
OCR for page 115
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
115
rarely know how the things they take for granted are made. It is
therefore recommended that:
· The Commerce Department be encouraged to establish a program
for the public's understanding of technology, including manufacturing,
in collaboration with industry and the media. This program should
emphasize educational activities for students, from primary school
children to high school seniors.
This program could, for example, arrange for primary school children
to see how bread is baked on a mass production basis, or urban
children could visit a farm to see the amazing amount of technology
being used today. Many young farm people are already familiar with
farm equipment, but they may not be acquainted with a new factory
to generate alcohol from corn. Such a factory is becoming an important
factor in determining the price of corn, and it uses some innovative
technologies. For example, in one factory even the carbon dioxide
and excess heat are used to grow lettuce hydroponically, at a rate of
20,000 heads a day. The National Association of Manufacturers could
also encourage its members to host visits and tours of their plants for
primary and secondary school students.
Finally, it is critical that students at all stages learn why mathematics,
physics, and other sciences that underlie manufacturing are important
and appreciate their value in everyday terms. Students should graduate
from secondary school with an understanding of the role and essence
of manufacturing in our society. This would encourage students to
recognize manufacturing as a possible field of study in their university
program. It is therefore recommended that:
· A concerted effort be made to demonstrate to state and local
boards of education that familiarity with manufacturing processes is
an important component of both primary and secondary education.
OCR for page 116
Representative terms from entire chapter:
manufacturing education
