National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×

6
Minority Opinion

Mr. Robert A. Pritzker and Mr. Paul D. Rimington, as members of the Committee to Assess Barriers and Opportunities to Improve Manufacturing at Small and Medium-Sized Companies, disagree with the opinions of the committee majority that a national industrial assistance system is justified. To a large degree, the disagreement is ideological. However, it was not until late in the project that we discovered a mutual belief that federal government intervention or ''help'' is more costly and less efficient than natural market forces. Our view did not alter the project schedule or goals (1) to identify major barriers, (2) to determine the means to overcome those barriers in the context of the NIST Manufacturing Technology Centers, and (3) to identify how the MTCs could best be focused. As a result, our minority opinion was not the basis for any fact finding related to the project.

In their opinion, the committee's charge implies that there is a need for a national policy. The minority opinion feels strongly that this report should not be treated as a blanket endorsement of a national industrial policy. Our interpretation of the results is to resist the temptation of a national cure-all.

Although our minority opinion is not written based on the data gathered, it does provide an alternative perspective derived from substantial industrial experience and expertise and also draws on our participation in committee meetings, discussions during workshops with smaller manufacturers, and conversations with Manufacturing Technology Center staff.

Our perspective is summarized in the following points:

Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×
  1. Establishing public sector organizations to assist smaller manufacturers is not an effective means of improving the competitiveness of manufacturing in the United States. Sufficient private sector resources are available to smaller manufacturers that are willing to make the commitments necessary for improving their competitive capabilities. These include, but are not limited to:

    •  suppliers that are happy to demonstrate their new machines, products, or technologies and teach buyers to use them;

    •  customers, particularly larger ones, are more and more demanding of high quality and will assist suppliers in various forms of quality improvement. Even the second and third tier of suppliers are influenced by the quality requirements of the subcontractors so that one large customer can influence hundreds of smaller supplier firms.

    •  industry groups, such as the thousands of trade associations in the United States, sponsor seminars and meetings to discuss problems unique to their industry and to educate their members;

    •  consultants, in addition to large consulting firms such as Arthur Anderson and McKinsey, there are thousands of very small firms with modest costs but great expertise;

    •  universities and community colleges, besides working directly with companies, also furnish individuals who provide direct consulting services, hold seminars and classes, and offer other forms of assistance to smaller firms;

    •  published materials, as a source of information about new activities, already exceed the time business people have available to read and digest; about the last thing they need is to receive more of these mailings.

    •  special business groups, such as the Young Presidents' Organization, disseminate considerable information to smaller businesses; and

    •  professional societies such as the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and so forth.

  1. The Manufacturing Technology Centers (MTCs) have not proven their ability to substantially influence the overall competitive performance of U.S. industry. There is a dearth of metrics for properly evaluating the success of this and other federal and state funding spent to date. The MTCs are a series of small-scale experiments investigating

Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×

various ways of assisting manufacturing companies, but anecdotal evidence should not be the sole basis on which to conclude that they have demonstrated that they are the best means of improving the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing companies.

  1. There is insufficient talent available to the public sector for adequately staffing a national system of manufacturing assistance. It is likely that those people initially employed and trained by the assistance centers would subsequently be hired by companies offering higher wages and benefits.

  2. The MTCs would constantly be in doubt as to long-term survival. The MTC program would be extremely expensive and we believe that it would have great difficulty securing the local components of the funding for long periods.

  3. The MTCs tend to be in direct competition with small consulting companies. We believe the government does not wish to compete with private sector service providers but the present structure of the MTCs encourages such competition.

  4. MTCs are not a particularly good manner of achieving technology transfer. It is difficult for the government to know what is the best technology for a given situation, and if the small businessperson does not know much about the appropriate technology, the project is likely doomed.

  5. MTCs offer no help in alleviating the regulatory burden of manufacturers. The single biggest assistance that government could provide to manufacturers is to reduce the amount of regulation to which smaller manufacturers are subject and really incapable of handling.

Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"6 MINORITY OPINION." National Research Council. 1993. Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2239.
×
Page 98
Next: APPENDIXES »
Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of Smaller Manufacturers Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Manufacturing firms—large and small—face massive change and adjustment as they move from a stable, fault-tolerant environment of long production runs to a volatile world in which production runs are short; product characteristics are changing constantly; and defect-free, on-time production at decreasing prices is a condition for survival. The necessary changes in the production organization include everything from the layout of the shop floor to the distribution of authority between managers and workers. The magnitude of these changes threatens to overwhelm the managerial capacities of firms, regardless of their size.

This study examines the particularly vulnerable situation of small and mid-size manufacturers and considers ways in which to help them undertake the many changes and adjustments necessary. These include assimilating the new tools, disciplines, and philosophy of lean manufacturing; embracing new ways of delegating responsibilities; and developing new kinds of partnerships among customers, suppliers, and employees.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!