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 13
3
FINDINGS
Adaptability as an Issue
Interest in adaptability stems from concern over whether there will be enough well-
trained people to do engineering jobs in the future-although rapid technological
development makes it virtually impossible to foresee what these new jobs win be. The
committee found that adaptability is not a new issue: historically, the United States'
scientific and engineering work forces have adjusted to shifts in demand. However, the
committee did find that the current context for examining adaptability to be different in two
malor ways:
I . Whole complexes of new technologies-for example, information
technology, biotechnology, and genetic engineering~eqmre rapid
adjustment to their use and commercial exploitation.ll
Although technological change is not new to engineering, the rate of change in
some areas may make it more difficult than ever before to remain current. Engineering has
always been among the faster-changing disciplines;l2 this will probably become more
pronounced in the future as new technologies are developed and disseminated more rapidly
than in the past.
2 . The erosion of its technological leadership means that the United States
is less able to control the pace at which new technologies and
knowledge are disseminated; consequently, the need increases for the
~ ~ ~ nese sentiments were also expressed by M. P. Manahan, W. B. Ashton, and G. S. Stacey in "Who's on
Watch?," Manufacturing Engineering, June 1989, p. 54.
12Saul Gorn, "Adapting to Computer Science," a paper prepared for the Workshop on National Needs and
Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, September 29, 1989.
13
OCR for page 14
United States' economy to respond to new challenges from international
~ e e e
scientific, engineering, and economic commutes
Some of the ways in which supply has adjusted in the past to changes in demand
are no longer sufficient. For example, because of demographic changes in the United
States, companies can no longer expect to hire substantial numbers of new engineers every
year from traditional sources-that is, white males. We must think in terms of, and act on,
bolder initiatives, such as tapping more effectively new sources of engineering talent-
women and underparticipating minorities (black Americans, Native Americans, Mexican
Americans/Chicanos, Puerto Ricans). Moreover, if dhe United States is to remain
competitive internationally, we must enhance our understanding of what facilitates and
impedes-adaptability to maximize our capacity to adjust smoothly and efficiently to
changes in knowledge and technology.
Although technological sow qualifies a nation to enter Me competitive arena, no
single technological achievement yields a lasting competitive advantage.l3 During the
1920s Europe excelled in scientific discovery, while the United States excelled in worker
productivity, per capita income, and trade surplus. Now the U.S. excels in scientific
discovery, while Japan excels in trade surplus. Product leadership can be built without
scienuf~c leadership, if companies excel at design and He management of puce on. For
example, market shares already lost by U.S. consumer electronics and automobile
producers can be Debuted neither to fairies of new science nor to failures of ~nnovanon,
but rather to failures to make such refinements as customizing a product for more and more
market segments, malting it more reliable, and gelling it to market more cheaply. 14
Mobility Among the U.S. Engineering Work Force
3 . There does not appear to be a lack of mobility Among individuals in the
engineering work force.
13"Compeiing Beyond Technology," Harvard Business Review 67~6):93, November-December 1989.
14Gomory, op. cit.
14
OCR for page 15
Mobilit~v refers to movement of various types-changes in employer, occupation,
and responsibilities. Estimates of mobility rates from 1976 to 1982 indicate that among
engineers, almost 22 percent changed employer, l l percent changed occupation, and 32
percent changed responsibilities. During this period, a larger percentage of engineers
changed responsibilities than did physical scientists, biological scientists, and social
scientists.lS The mobility data tell us that some mobility is self-generated by such things
as a better job, and some is forced by such things as layoffs or being fired. This only
indicates that engineers are employees subject to the vagaries of the economy; it says
nothing about the quality of the move-for example, the ability of a vacuum tube engineer
to switch to transistors with a minimal reduction in productivity.
Analyses were done on data from three sample-based surveys of scientists and
engineers sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF).l6 The data were on
persons with degrees in engineering and working as engineers in 1980, who were re-
surveyed in 1982, 1984, and 1986; this does ant include persons with degrees in
engineering who were already working in conscience or nonengineering positions in 1980.
Between 1982 and 1986, the data indicate that about 20 percent of the total with B.S., or
M.S., degrees in engineering switched either out of or back into engineering employment.
These analyses identified two groups: one group who are "stayers" in the same
engineering field and another group of "switchers" who, once they have switched, continue
to switch at relatively high rates either to other engineering fields or to conings ing
fields.
First, the following character sacs that might differen~aate between switchers and
stayers were idendf~ed: age; number of years since the last degree in engineering was
earned; primary work activity; and degree field of study. Then, comparisons of desc~iphve
statistics were made to identify differences between switchers and stayers on these
charactelis~acs. Sampling complexities and urne constraints precluded tests for staDshcal
15Robert C. Dauffenbach and Michael G. Finn, "Evidence of Adaptability in the Labor Market for
Engineers: A Review of Recent Studies," a paper prepared for the Workshop on National Needs and
Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, September 29, 1989.
16Data on persons with a doctoral degree in engineering are from the 1987 Survey of Doctoral Scientists
and Engineers, a biennia longitudinal survey conducted by the National Research Council's Office of
Scientific and Engineering Personnel. Data on experienced world force participants with bachelor's or
master's degrees in engineering are from the 1986 National Survey of Natural and Social Scientists and
Engineers, conducted by the United States Census Bureau. Data on 1984 and 1985 graduates with
bachelor's or master's level degrees in engineering are from the 1986 Survey of Science, Social Science, and
Engineering Graduates, conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University.
15
OCR for page 16
significance. The findings consistency indicate that there appear lo be some differences
between switchers and stayers. The committee found it useful to examine the
characteristics of stayers and switchers by degree level-separating those with bachelor's
and master's degrees In engineering from those with Me doctorate in engineering.
Ph.D.s in Engineering
Among those with the doctorate in engineering, there are no significant differences
in average age between the groups of stayers and switchers. Switching does not appear to
be related to the number of years since We doctorate in engineering was earned. Switching
employment fields does not appear to be strongly related to degree field of study.
Switchers are somewhat more Idcely than stayers to be employed in business, industry, and
government and much less likely to be employed in education institutions. As Compaq to
stayers in terms of primary work activity, switchers are much less likely to be involved in
teaching and research and development (R&D); about as likely to be involved In R&D
management; and more likely to be involved In other management and "operat~ons/oth=."
However, note that managing engineers or R&D management is in the strictest sense not
switching out of engineering but pursuing the management track instead of the technical
track.
B.S. and M.S. Degrees in Engineering
Age does not appear to be related to employment field switching for those with the
B.S., or M.S., degree in engineering: the difference in average age for those in engineering
employment versus those in nonengineering employment is only about Me years. In
general, switchers to nonengineenng employment from engineering employment have had
their degrees longer than stayers in engineering employment. Among B.S., and M.S.,
degree holders in eng~neenng, switchers from engineering to noneng~neenng employment
tended to be more expenenced than stayers. This is consistent with anectiotal evidence that
older engineers that is, late 40s and older-often have been laid off and replaced by
younger engineers who are both cheaper to employ and weD-versed in the new "hot"
engineering technologies.
B.S., and M.S., switchers are more likely to be employed in business and industry
and less likely to be employed in government than stayers; this could be at least partially
attributable to government pensions, which make staying appear to government engineers
16
OCR for page 17
to be a more attractive option than leaving. As compared to stayers, B.S., and M.S.,
switchers to nonengineering employment fields are more likely to be involved in the
primary work activities of R&D management and other management-and therefore to be
managers by occupation. According to the data, those with B.S., and M.S., engineering
degrees in civil, mechanical, and petroleum engineering have somewhat higher proportions
staying employed in the same field as their degrees.
Among all B.S., and M.S., degree holders in engineering, those with degrees in
industrial, chemical, and mining engineering have somewhat higher proportions switching
into nonengineering employment. One reason for this might be the poor employment
opp~uni~aes for chemical and mining engineers at the time of the surveys. Among new
B.S., and M.S., engineers (i.e., the classes of 1984 and 1985 surveyed in 1986), the
fields with the highest percentage of switchers are chemical, industrial, mining, nuclear,
and mechanical. The data indicate that earning a nonengineering degree is positively
correlated win switching. For example, those staying in the same engineering field or
switching back to engineering from nonengineering tend to have quite low percentages
earning a nonengineering degree. However, the data do not enable us to determine whether
the degree is earned before, after, or during the switch.
4 . In quanatanve terms, there does not appear to be a lack of adoptability
among the U.S. engineering workforce. Extant data are inadequate to
assess the qualitative aspects of adaptability.
If one indicator of adaptability is Be correspondence between occupation and
education, then the extent of adaptability among scientists and engineers seems quite
large.17 Analysis of data from the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP) shows that 45 percent of all working engineers did not have an exact
match between their detailed field of employment and the detailed field in which they earned
their highest degree; and, perhaps even more noteworthy, 20 percent earned a degree in a
nonengineering field.l8 Unfortunately, we lack sufficient data to assess the qualitative
aspects of adaptability among the U.S. engineering work force.
Dauffenbach and Finn, Op. Cit.
18Ibid.
17
OCR for page 18
Education and Training
While e~lonng the roles of education and training In enhancing adaptability in the
engineering work force, He committee focused on how to reduce the degree of mismatch
between the competencies required in industry and Be competence of both new and
experienced engineers. First, the committee identified the characteristics of an adaptable
engineer:
.
technical ability
· ~
Cl~lOSlty
ability to see interconnections between scientific discovery and commercial product;
new technical developments and Heir potential applications; and such corporate
functions as R&D, design, engineering, and sales.
Then, the committee med to identify He kinds of education and training that promote the
development of these characteristics.
5. Adaptability results as much from socialization as education.
Adaptability is fostered by a mind-set~reated In school and nurtured in the
workplace- that inculcates into engineers their professional responsibility to remain
current. Perhaps the most important lesson of undergraduate engineering education is that
continuing education is necessary for engineers to be technically current professionals.
Academic faculty could illustrate the need for adaptability by continually providing
examples of new applications of products, processes, and procedures; they could teach the
importance of flexibility by exampl~that is, by remaining current themselves. Many
engineering schools make the curriculum more consistent with the needs of professional
practice. Some institutions allow graduation of engineers whose skills are entirely analync:
these engineers are clearly needed-mainly at He doctoral level to pursue research careers
in ~ndus~y or in academia. However, it becomes a problem when Ph.D.s teaching
undergraduate students most of whom will become practicing engineers cannot address
in their courses the issues and techniques required for successful practicing engineers.
18
OCR for page 19
Undergraduate Engineering Education'
6. Adaptability among engineers is enhanced! by goods grounding not only
in the basics mathematics, statistics, physics, chemistry, and
engineering-but also in problem-solving.l9
Most engineers go through a two-year common core followed by a two-year upper
division sequence that continues development of the core in context and focuses on special
topics. Within the constraints of a four-year undergraduate eng~neenng education
curriculum, more courses in the basics mean fewer specialized courses. Yet, rapid
technological development results in the need for more specialized courses. This
exemplifies a widely recognized issue in undergraduate engineering education-that is, the
conflict between preparing students to be practicing professional engineers and providing a
base for lifelong learning in specialties that may not yet exist.20 Additions to the
curriculum are resisted because they entail either eliminating existing requirements, or
increasing the total number of courses required for the degree (which means increasing the
length of time required to acquire a B.S. degree in engineering; or both. Therefore, it is
not likely that significant quantities of new core material can be added to meet the projected
needs of the profession and increase the adaptability of engineers. One way to add
information to a curriculum is to develop better ways to systematize the information.
Recent developments in computer and information technologies suggest new ways
whereby more infotma~aon can be taught in a given period of time.21
Although most U.S. engineering schools educate well in the science underlying
engineering, many engineers graduate from college without realizing that at the core of their
chosen profession are such matters as designing products and systems of quality that can
19Michael L. Dertouzos, Richard I. Lester, and Robert M. Solow, Made in America: Regaining the
Productive Edge, Cambndge,Mass.: The MIT Press, 1989.
20Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer, Commission on Engineering and Technical
Systems, Engineering Education and Practice in the United States: Foundations of Our Techno-Econorruc
Future, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985b, p. 68.
21J. S. Watson, "Adaptability in Chemical Engineering," a paper prepared for the Workshop on National
Needs and Technological Change: Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, September 29,
1989.
19
OCR for page 20
be manufactured, implemented, and used in a cost-effective way.22 In the final analysis,
however, industry gives the signals: for example, a computer company will prefer to hire a
digital systems "hot shot" rather than a broadly educated but unspecialized graduate.23
The committee found that
7. What impedes production of adoptable engineers may not be the
engineering curriculum but how that curriculum is Slivered.
Academic disciplines do not reflect actual eng~nemng work are ties. As existing
fields and new disciplines develop, these disciplinary boundaries will appear to be even
more arbitrary.24 For example, a recent National Research Council study assessing areas
of likely growth in opportunities for chemical engineers identified areas that an involve
. . tic
interdlsc~plmary activates.
Continuing or Lifelong Education and Training
The committee found that
a. Continuing Canon could enhance adaptability in the engineering
work force.
Within the next decade, the concept of lifelong education win gain greater
prominence in the workplace as workers of an ages and levels of employment win need to
be retrained several times throughout their working life to keep pace wid1 the changing
demands of the work env~nment.26
22Simon Ramo, "National Secunn,r and Our Technology Edge," Harvard Business Review 67~6~:115-12O,
November-Decenaber 1989.
23This point was provided by a reviewer of this report.
24Although Watson (op. cit.) makes this point about undergraduate chemical engineering education in
particular, it applies to undergraduate engineering in general.
25Committee on Chemical Engineering Frontiers, Frontiers in Chemical Engineering: Research Needs and
Opportunities, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988.
26Population Reference Bureau, Inc., America in the 21st Century, A Demographic Overview, May 1989,
p. 19.
20
OCR for page 21
Engineering is a profession whose success is measured by its solved problems.
Consequently, not only must all engineers be educated and trained throughout their careers,
they must also acquire an understanding of the problems in the discipline to which their
work is being applied.27
Although some workshop participants suggested the need to educate for
adaptability, we do not know how to do it. Nevertheless, engineering undergraduate
education can impart to students a sense of professional responsibility to keep current
throughout their engineering careers. Not only must schools socialize for adaptability,
companies must manage for it. Companies should set lifelong education and training as an
expectation for employment and then facilitate the realization of this expectation by doing
such things as building into product plans and work schedules time for continuing
education and training. Further, companies should examine their policies and practices to
determine whether the ways in which they do business encourage-or discourage-
adaptability in their engineering work force. Do early retirement policies and practices
convey the message that industry wants to send to its engineering work force-that is, that
their careers are going to peak at age 50? The cycle time for engineering education-that is,
on average =5 years-is longer than the cycle time for many new technologies and new
products; if industry asks its employees to be ready to fill future needs without forecasting
what those needs are, industry has not adequately addressed the issue of adaptability.
Companies should articulate to their work force where the company sees itself going in the
next 10 years in order for employees to assess where their talents and skins will be
nee~ed.28
Companies have problems with engineers becoming obsolete. Relying on in-house
training and guidance is problematic when a company is not sure that it knows which of its
senior technical people are technically current. It is difficult not only to identify engineers
who do not remain current, but also to motivate those so identified to become current.
Obsolescence is a problem-even for newly twined engineers In fields in which the
technology is rapidly changing. Not surprisingly, adaptability is less a problem for new
eng~neenng graduates than for more experienced engineers. New engineering graduates
have good basic skills and are motivated to continue their education they want to take
27Gorn. op. Cit.
28The number of years given is 10 because, depending on the discipline, obsolescence can begin to overtake
engineers as early as 10 years after graduation, according to the National Research Council report
Engineering Employment Characteristics.
21
OCR for page 22
courses to increase their understanding of their field and often ask potential employers
about educational opportunities; anecdote evidence indicates that this trend seems more
pronounced possibly because today's young engineers are less likely than in the past to
expect to work for the same company throughout their careers.
Much of our interest in adaptability stems from concern about whether there will be
enough well-trained people to do engineering jobs in the future. Actually, the concern will
be more over the readiness of the work force, than its actual size. Between 1989 and the
turn of the century, the rate of growth of the U.S. labor force win steadily decline; yet, the
number of workers in the labor force is projected to be more than 140 million by the year
2000 (as compared with the 120 minion in 1989).29 Moreover, the composition of the
U.S. labor force is changing: between 1985 and 2000, U.S. minorities and immigrants to
the United States win account for approximately 42 percent of the growth of the U.S. labor
force; white males win account for 16 percent.30 Because of these changes, companies
can no longer expect to hire an adequate number of new engineers from traditional
sources that is, white males. This leaves companies wad two choices: either lure
talented professionals from their competitors or upgrade their own professionals; of these,
tile latter has the Neatest long-term potential for achieving national economic goals.3
Although the private sector is expected to forecast future demand and then act on that
forecast, the largest single uncertainty is the supply of people.32 People do not have a
problem making these shifts if there is both an economic force to compel them to do it
(push) and a shortage of people in the new position (pull). Companies are concerned with
moving people Tom current jobs into new positions but generally lack specific,
standardized ways of bringing new skills to those people, and them to the new jobs. The
issue is not whether an employer can move an engineer, but whether that engineer can
handle the new job.
29Population Reference Bureau, Inc., op. cit.
30Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenry-First Century, William B. Johnston, project
director; Arnold E. Packer, co-project director; with contributions by Matthew E. Jaffe, et al., Indianapolis,
Indiana: Hudson Institute, 1987.
3 1Atkinson, op. cit., p. 3.
32From Peter Cannon's charge to the Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change: Fostering
Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, September 29, 1989.
22
OCR for page 23
Continued investment in on-thejob training is needed-especially in situations
where engineers have highly specialized training and the demand for that training
evaporates. According to a recent study, computer-based tools continue to change the
practice of engineering dramatically and challenge the engineer's ability to remain current;
since it is impossible to predict what these changes will be and where they Will take place,
achieving technical currency within a business is management's responsibility.33
Regardless of size, companies "must encourage engineers to keep up-to-date and know
what is going on in the outside world so that when the time is right engineers can pus new
technology rather than oppose the unfamiliar being pushed at them."34 This entails
commitment not only of time from the engineer, but also of both time and money from the
company. Attitudes of line managers are critical in this regard: line managers are willing to
give their engineers released time for in-house courses with immediate, short-range
application; they seem less willing to do so for courses with less immediate, longer-range
application. Although many companies consider education and training to be as crucial to
their success as research and development, education funds are often the first cut and the
last reinstated when those companies experience economic difficulty.35 Many engineers
do not work in companies with large in-house education and Raining faciii~aes; therefore, at
die present lime, their only alternative for continuing education is to reman to academe.
When experienced engineers reman to academe, they find Mat She content is not
geared to the monvanon and leanung style of older, experienced engineers but rather to
those of the young person Gaining to become an engineer. Few colleges and universities
provide ~ns~uchon Trough Weir eng~neenng departments rather than extension
divisions without in-class exam~nanons; these exa~nanons can be difficult for
individuals who have been away for a long time fiom both We classroom and the student
role. This is interpreted as an indicator of lack of responsiveness on the part of academe
to the needs of the expenenced engineer and to industry, which wants high-quality, need-
spe~fic, weD-produced programs designed for adult lean~ers.36 Despite their concern
about the need for continuing education of engineers in industry, many engineering schools
33Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer, 1985b, p. 32.
34Gomory, Op. Cit., p. 103.
35Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 6.
36Atkinson, op. Cit., p. 10.
23
OCR for page 24
view this as industry's problem-not academe's; consequendy these schools choose not to
be involved. Some academics view current training programs as being more concerned
with fixing immediate problems than with preventing future ones; although they decry the
lack of structure, quality control, and planning of these programs, they refuse to be directly
involved in remedying Me situation
.
Continuing professional development is needed not only for engineers
in industry, but also for engineers in academe.
Because most undergraduate students go into engineering practice- rather than
research or academe-engineering professors must be able to address in their courses the
issues and techniques required for successful careers as practicing engineers. This means
that undergraduate engineering professors should be aware of current engineering
practice particularly in industry. This awareness can be maintained through attending
meetings, workshops, seminars, and short courses sponsored by professional engineering
societies. One frequently cited example is the Faculty Professional Development Program
sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). This program "is
uniquely designed to maximize the inclusion of recent technological developments into the
ever-changing undergraduate curriculum. The ultimate goal is to enhance the teaching
capabilities of faculty members so they can return to their campuses with new material
enabling them to teach with greater knowledge and effectiveness."37 Senior faculty and
corporate staff who are leaders in their disciplines teach the courses, which focus on topics
Tat belong in a modern undergraduate or f~rst-year graduate program rather Wan
emphasizing only the latest research techniques and developments. Since its inception in
1986, this program has been attended by approximately 350 professors of all ranks.
According to an ASEE survey, 95 percent of professors who attended this program in 1989
rated it as excellent or very good. Perhaps accreditation organizations such as the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) could make continuing
professional development of faculty a c~itenon for accreditation.
37ASEE Faculty Professional Development Program brochure, 1990.
24
OCR for page 25
.
An ongoing exchange between academe and industry is needed to better
target education arm training to meet the needs of industry as well as
those of the individual engineer~oth new and experienced.
To facilitate the transition from school into the engineering work force, both faculty
and students would benefit from visiting industry to see how it applies processes and
techniques taught in the classroom; industry could develop and implement special courses
for faculty concerning these applications. Engineers from industry would benefit from
visiting colleges and universities to see how engineering is currently being taught so that
industry could make better-informed decisions as to what equipment to donate to academe
and how best to instruct faculty to use it. To facilitate the participation in such an exchange
of engineering educators from smaller and less well known departments or institutions, an
organ~zanon like ASEE could play a broker role.
Data and Knowledge Bases
9. Taxonorrues usually used to collect data on engineers are not adequate to
capture the kinds of shifts of specialties anal skills occurring in the
engineering labor market.
For example, the SIPP data provide practically the only evidence available on the
correspondence between education and occupation in the U.S. labor force. This evidence
is highly aggregated and subject to large sample variation because of the relatively small
sample base. The Occupational Employment Statistics Survey (OES) obtains only wage
and salary employment data about employees; because data are obtained from employers,
the results count jobs, not individuals.38 The absence of demographic data limits the
usefulness of the OES survey in examining the adaptability of engineers. One limitation of
the Current Population Survey (CPS) data is that they understate entrants because the CPS
excludes individuals who change residences between surveys. Since many individuals are
38Alan Eck, "Adaptability of the Engineering Work Force: Information Available from the Bureau of
L abor Statistics," a paper prepared for the Workshop on National Needs and Technological Change:
Fostering Flexibility in the Engineering Work Force, September 29, 1989.
25
OCR for page 26
likely to move after completing school, they are not counted in the second survey, even
though they are likely to be working as engineers.
It is difficult to determine how much of the movement is real and how much is
term~nological-that is, due to different survey definitions of engineers in general and
subcategories of engineers in particular, as well as to people reclassifying themselves
without really changing their activities. Suggestions to remedy this include standardizing
data categories or classifications and devising cross-references or translations among data
bases. Although the data indicate a fairly high degree of adaptability among engineers
insofar as more than 50 percent of those with bachelor's and higher degrees in engineering
work outside science and engineering-they tell us nothing about the extent to which these
individuals are both willing and able to return to science and engineering careers.
One major gap in our knowledge at present is the lack of data on the quality of the
adaptation of engineers who change fields or functions. Another major gap is the lack of
data on those engineers who stay in their field or function but are adaptable insofar as the s
make Increment improvements' In products, technology, or process.
Research is needed to find out how We success of the firm is linked to how it uses
its engineering work force. The subjects of this research should include not only the
engineering work force- traditionally line and bench engineers and technicians but also
project and group leaders, upper-level management, and chief executive off~cers.39
Systematic research needs to be conducted to identify the link between continuing education
and adaptability-including the relationships between the success of the firm, how it
develops and uses its engineering work force, and the amount of money it spends on
various types of continuing education and training.
Because so little is known about the costs and effectiveness of programs designed
to upgrade engineering skills, pilot projects and demonstrations should be developed and
put in operation to increase the stock of knowledge. Moreover, mechanisms should be
devised and implemented to collect, evaluate, and disseminate information on these pilot
projects and demonstrations. If implemented, these suggestions could enhance the
systematic collection, evaluation, and dissemination of information; facilitate the
communication of successful interventions; and perhaps encourage their implementation
elsewhere.
39Atkinson, op. cit., p. 1.
26
OCR for page 27
Unless there is a way to make it clear to all the key institutional players industry,
government, academe, and the engineering professional societies that having a flexible
eng~neenng work force benefits all of us, adaptability will be seen as somebody else's
issue, and some doable changes will not be made. Since the process of change is
influenced by top-level endorsement, any initiatives proposed to enhance adaptability
among the eng~neenng work force should be endorsed on a national level by an
organization that commands the attention and respect of the engineering community.
Therefore, it seems warranted to begin planning the kinds of activities for example,
forums, symposia, action-oriented, problem-solving sessions that bring together these
key players to initiate ways to enhance our knowledge as a prerequisite to devising,
implementing, and monitoring policy to enhance adaptability among the United States'
engineering work force.
27
OCR for page 28
Representative terms from entire chapter:
continuing education
