|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 48
Meshing Education and Industrial
Needs: Two Views
A View From Industry
EDWARD A. STEIGERWALD
WlIAT IS THE PROBLEM?
The clearly declining competitiveness of the United States in the
world marketplace has prompted increased concern about the health
of U.S. manufacturing. Considerably shaken by foreign competition,
the U.S. long-standing market dominance in manufactured goods is
now threatened and, in some industries, lost. No longer is the future
of American industrial development a clear extension of the past. In
a great many cases, this problem derives from an earlier attitude of
complacency, which resulted in a less than adequate job of evaluating
and implementing new procedures and techniques that would enable
U.S. industry to cope better with changing market conditions and
competitive pressures.
Another basis of this problem is that insufficient resources have
been devoted to the manufacturing function. Thus it has not progressed
at the required rate and major changes are needed to create a
manufacturing base able to compete successfully.
Several trends within both individual firms and industry sectors have
contributed to the loss of manufacturing dominance:
· The shift away from manufacturing and industrial engineering as
the driving function in manufacturing operations;
· A separation of production and manufacturing from other corporate
functions, such as research and finance; and
· The decline of investment in manufacturing resources.
Edward A. Steigerwald is vice-president of productivity, TRW Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
48
OCR for page 49
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
The Shift Away From Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering
49
During the early fifties, there was a strong emphasis on the role of
the manufacturing and industrial engineer in improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of manufacturing operations. Companies encouraged
these professionals to establish engineered material and labor stand-
ards, methods studies, attention to plant layout, toutings, and sched-
uling. This concerted effort led to strong manufacturing operations.
Since then, however, the number of students studying the industrial
engineering disciplines has declined. Simultaneously, engineering schools
have shifted from an educational emphasis on the basic manufacturing
industries toward the more glamorous applications of engineering that
have not yet been fully applied to the manufacturing floor. Although
there is a growing understanding of the importance of manufacturing
as an engineering discipline, most students, counselors, and teachers
are still deluged with statements dealing with the decline of the
traditional manufacturing-oriented industries and a transformation into
an information society.
Separation of Production and Manufacturing
The second trend has been a strong tendency to divide functionally
and conquer. The engineering perspective has broken down manufac-
turing operations into small segments, which has tended to maximize
the performance of each segment often at the expense of optimum
integration of the whole manufacturing operation. This problem be-
comes even more severe when the interface of manufacturing with the
other company functions is considered for example, more effective
coupling of both the manufacturing and market strategies into a cohesive
competitive strategy.
Decline of Investments
The third trend has been a tendency to minimize financial investment
in manufacturing resources. Classic accounting principles have stressed
short-term cost reduction or short-term return on investment, resulting
in an improper job of anticipating and managing the change process.
Progress requires making investments in new equipment, new proc-
esses, and human resources.
Only recently has the importance of continued broad investment in
manufacturing to take advantage of innovations been reemphasized
(see Figure 1~. Most processes involve an incubation period, followed
by a steady, relatively rapid increase in the output parameter. At some
OCR for page 50
so
STEIGERWALD I CANNON
IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
o
/EW TECHNOLOGY
/
/OLD TECHNOLOGY
/
TIME
_ J
FIGURE 1 Characteristics of rapid productivity development.
point, the process reaches maturity and process productivity slows
considerably. To maintain a steady, high rate of progress, continual
moves must be made to new processes (a new technology curve) so
that an average performance characteristic of the rapid growth portion
occurs continuously. Indeed, outstanding manufacturing operations
clearly operate and invest on this basis.
WHAT ARE THE NEEDS?
The needs for manufacturers and educators can be simply stated as
attaining "excellence in manufacturing." Satisfaction of this need can
take many forms and many paths, but it requires five elements:
1. Competent people
2. Elimination of waste
3. Functional integration
4. Implementation of advanced methods
5. A manufacturing strategy
The need for competent people may appear obvious, but neither
manufacturers nor educators have done a good job of giving high
OCR for page 51
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
51
priority to attracting the best to the manufacturing discipline, or
rewarding and retaining the outstanding people who are there. From
a manufacturing management standpoint, the key way to obtain and
retain good people is to provide clear, attractive career opportunities
and interesting and personally rewarding tasks at every stage of career
development. Excellence in any field of endeavor will be achieved by
people who thoroughly enjoy and thrive on their work.
In industry, "career opportunities" are often interpreted as the
opportunity to move out of manufacturing to administration and
management, but this is a narrow view. Equally important are the
opportunities for working within manufacturing to make strong con-
tributions, to learn new skills and grow in maturity and judgment, and
to be rewarded for this expertise. Employers must move to recognize
and encourage the good work of those in the manufacturing function
by applying the same key rewards that are so useful in other divisions
of the company.
Both short- and long-term effects are needed to increase the number
of competent people in manufacturing. On a short-term basis, outstand-
ing qualified individuals must shift from product engineering or research
and development (R&D) to manufacturing. On a longer term basis, a
steady influx of properly trained graduates with new ideas and tech-
nologies should enter manufacturing and regard it as a challenging and
rewarding career.
A comparison of the traditional and progressive characteristics of
the work force is summarized in Table 1. Future manufacturing
environments will depend on utilizing the entire work force to operate
successfully, and manufacturing managers of the future must be able
to tap this resource fully.
TABLE 1 A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive
Characteristics of Work Force Management
Traditional Characteristics
Progressive Characteristics
Control
Management of effort
Coordination of information
First-order control
Process stability
Worker-independent
Learning
Management of alternatives
Problem-solving information
Second- and third-order control
(Systems procedures vs. standards
and norms)
Process involvement
Worker-dependent
SOURCE: From an address by Professor Steven C. Wheelwright, Stanford University Graduate
School of Business, to a TRW Inc. manufacturing conference, Chicago, 1984.
OCR for page 52
52
STEIGERWALD I CANNON
The selection of competent hourly workers as well as managers
must receive the necessary time and effort to support these future
needs. Many current manufacturing operations select prospective
workers after two to three interviews with fellow workers, supervisors,
and the plant manager. At the TRW plant in Douglas, Georgia, for
example, a preselection/training process spends up to 80 hours on
training and performing job tasks in a separate facility. A potential
worker is evaluated in this work atmosphere prior to final job selection.
This effort is worth it, considering that a new production employee
earning $15,000 per year plus 30 percent in fringe benefits will cost
the company more than $400,000 over 20 years. The time spent on
selection of a $400,000 piece of equipment can serve as a comparison.
People selection has been underemphasized compared to the effort
expended on equipment selection.
The second requirement for achieving excellence in manufacturing
is to eliminate waste: reduce scrap, control inventory closely, use
human and capital resources effectively, and pay attention to the many
small factors that contribute to an efficient operation. The best
operations emphasize these principles and apply high-quality systems,
"just-in-time" scheduling, manufacturing resource planning, personnel
flexibility, and "flat" management structures. Manufacturing managers
and technologists must learn how to make use of these emerging
techniques and to develop them further. But how can this best be
accomplished?
The third requirement for achieving manufacturing excellence is to
integrate functions within manufacturing organizations. In each oper-
ation at TRW, a strong partnership is built of equals R&D, design,
manufacturing, marketing, sales, and all the supporting functions
working as a closely knit team to execute the unit plan. Although each
of these functions has different core responsibilities, there should be
no isolation. It is not sufficient to get together just for the checkpoints-
the design reviews and production release meetings. All functions must
be continuous partners with a deep mutual interest in each other's
success.
Dramatic changes can emerge, for example, from a strong, continuing
partnership between design and manufacturing engineers such as a
change in a minor feature of the design, selection of an alternate
process, or a better specification of tolerances. Suddenly the product
is better, more readily manufactured, and far more reliable.
Implementation of advanced methods is another of the five discrete
actions necessary to achieve excellence in manufacturing. Many
manufacturing personnel are so overwhelmed by short-term production
OCR for page 53
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
53
pressures that they become isolated and lose sight of developments in
the field. Perhaps the most urgently required initiative to improve
manufacturing is the identification of obsolete facilities, equipment,
and processing technologies, followed by the appropriate corrective
action. Encouraging excellence, professionalism, and investment in
both equipment and people must be kept constantly at the forefront
to improve competitiveness.
Developing and applying a proper manufacturing strategy is the final
item on the list of requirements to achieve excellence. Manufacturing
units must have a clear vision and sense of purpose. Manufacturing
managers need to think about and to participate more fully in developing
production strategies that are totally consistent with the firm's business
plan. What is the competitive strategy? What is the understanding of
the manufacturing tasks? How do quality, delivery, price, and focus
fit into these plans? Is the manager's perception of purpose and
priorities consistent with those of the worker and first-line supervisor?
These questions should be clearly answered to achieve the goal of
manufacturing excellence.
FUTURE ACTION
industry usually looks to the academic community as a resource
that can contribute and develop:
· Educated people,
· Basic and applied research from which the products and manu-
facturing processes of tomorrow will evolve, and
· Expert, independent advice with specific knowledge not normally
found in manufacturing operations.
These three activities are often combined. For example, the areas of
expertise sought in potential faculty members are often dictated by
the basic or applied research being funded. Outstanding students are
then attracted to the disciplines taught by these capable, interesting
faculty. Industry must therefore provide funding for manufacturing-
related research and development to generate the interested faculty
base.
The availability of faculty with the empathy and skills to motivate
and to educate students to meet the requirements for a manufacturing
career is limited. Thus attention must turn to developing faculty
competence. Many remedies, ranging from increased funding for
equipment to sabbatical leaves into industry to part-time teachers from
industry, have been attempted. These are acceptable solutions provided
OCR for page 54
54
STEIGERWALD I CANNON
that they form part of an integrated solution that creates a strong
manufacturing program rather than piecemeal or stop-gap measures.
Since many of the changes occurring also involve the challenges facing
major industrial organizations, the same condition applies to business
faculty and business students.
Manufacturing will compete with many other disciplines for the
attention of good technical students. In attracting competent people,
industry must develop visible, well-paid, exciting career paths so that
manufacturing is not a poor second cousin to corporate research and
development, design, and marketing. Exposure early in a student's
career, as an intern or a participant in a summer program, may
effectively attract good people because manufacturing is exciting and
often "gets into the blood." A properly designed assignment in the
manufacturing function can get people "hooked" on the potential
opportunities and contributions, leading them to decide to apply their
talents there.
The working environment on the factory Hoor is changing dramati-
cally with the advent of the computer and with renewed emphasis on
productivity and quality as crucial factors of competitiveness. Use of
the computer as a tool is becoming more pervasive in product design,
machine control, production scheduling, and inventory control. Greater
investments are being made in automation, robotics, continuous ma-
terial handling, and flexible manufacturing, and this will continue and
expand across American industry. A basic issue involves the actions
needed to create an awareness of these rapid changes in technology.
How can one develop the ability to utilize and cope with them, while
still making a specific contribution in the manufacturing environment?
From an educational standpoint, a slight controversy exists between
two overall options. Should the primary emphasis be on creating
generalists with a broad knowledge of manufacturing or on developing
a student with more detailed expertise in a particular manufacturing
specialty? Although successful examples supporting either approach
are available, knowledge of a specialty improves the acceptance of a
beginner in the manufacturing function. The fact that a newcomer can
contribute quickly in an area of expertise provides a useful base for
developing confidence and integration into broader manufacturing
needs. Industry often has difficulty placing "generalists" into the
organization, the extreme case being the liberal arts graduate.
Whatever the proper mix in creating generalists versus specialists,
one must not lose sight of the need for good engineering studies.
Superior execution of the manufacturing process requires careful
attention to the fundamentals that undergird new technologies and
OCR for page 55
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
55
organizational concepts. Building advanced manufacturing technology
systems on top of poor engineering can never achieve the required
results.
The proper curriculum for useful preparation in manufacturing is a
key discussion item of this symposium. Recently, IBM launched a
program to fund graduate curriculum development in manufacturing
systems engineering. The many schools responding to the initiative
defined core knowledge as elements of the proposed curriculum. These
elements are:
· Manufacturing systems,
· Product and process design for manufacturing,
· New manufacturing and engineering technologies,
· Manufacturing processes and materials,
· Control of manufacturing processes,
· Production planning and control,
· Management of industrial systems,
· Modeling and simulation, and
· Business and economics.
In principle, these nine areas encompass the basic content of a
manufacturing education. Execution of the program using the proper
faculty, adequate facilities, participative teaching methods, workshops,
exposure to real manufacturing problems, and the proper response by
industry in defining career opportunities is absolutely essential to
obtain sustainable results.
For the United States to retake its position as a world leader in
manufacturing technology, industry and academia must jointly move
the best people into manufacturing; provide adequate faculty, facilities,
and curricula to educate them; and keep them. This is the challenge
for the remainder of the 1980s.
A Response From Academia
ROBERT H. CANNON, JR.
What is the best way to get universities and industry on the same
team to make headway on the national productivity problem? Mr.
Robert H. Cannon, Jr., is chairman, Stanford Institute for Manufacturing and
Automation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
OCR for page 56
56
STEIGERWALD I CANNON
Steigerwald aptly stated the problem: U.S. industries are suffering a
declining ability to compete in the world marketplace as a result of
falling productivity. This has happened, he added, because insufficient
resources have been focused on the manufacturing function. He then
developed the theme that the most important resource is the human
one: top students have simply lost interest in manufacturing. He is
right.
BUILDING EXCITEMENT
Addressing this point from the educator's perspective requires the
first of five precepts presented here:
Precept 1: Students, faculty, and professionals will be attracted to
university research and to careers where there is the excitement of
newness and of doing something for the first time, where they can
have mainstream leverage, and where there are resources to support
them.
To excite students about manufacturing, one must first excite the
faculty about the prospects in manufacturing. Top engineers will move
into factories if this appears an exciting thing to do. Top professionals
are the way they were when they were students: they want to move;
they want to do new things.
Historically, one national focus after another has rallied resources
and bright, motivated technical people to its cause in large numbers.
These national crusades have included national defense (World War
II and the "missile gap"), the journey to the moon, environmental
protection, the energy crisis, and the productivity gap, and possibly
include the computer gap, and the bioengineering gap.
Top students are not motivated to go into manufacturing careers by
hearing, "Everybody who is going to be a manufacturing engineer,
line up and take the following courses." A more effective method is
to say, for instance, "Here are some exciting problems and some ways
that new applications of basic physics can contribute to solving them."
For example, top-notch students are attracted to the Stanford
laboratory in large numbers to work on robots unlike any seen before.
These robots are flimsy, with very flexible manipulator elements not
the big, clumsy devices seen in factories today. Clearly, the next
generation of robots will be light, graceful, precise, and intelligent and
will know what they are doing and how to do it deftly. These
characteristics will require not only applying but also advancing the
basic theory of automatic control. Theoreticians send students to the
OCR for page 57
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
57
Stanford laboratory to find out what theories they should investigate
to support the new applications. This challenge excites and attracts
good students and academic researchers because it generates basic
advances in a fundamental disciplinary area, which, of course, allow
the advancement of applications as well.
Mr. Steigerwald also made a strong point about enterprise integration:
The engineering perspective has broken down manufacturing operations
into small segments, which has tended to maximize the performance of each
segment, often at the expense of optimum integration.... Dramatic changes
can emerge, for example, from a strong, continuing partnership between
design and manufacturing engineers.... Suddenly the product is better,
more readily manufactured, and far more reliable.
One must look at the whole enterprise and design, balance, tune, and
operate it as a system. Reconfiguring the engine of production to take
advantage of new and fast-changing technology is a research oppor-
tunity that generates excitement in a university atmosphere. It is also
the kind of bait that will attract some top engineers, given that there
are the resources to support them.
ATTRACTING STUDENTS
The remaining question is how best to use that bait to develop
effective partnerships between universities and industry with the clear
goal of getting good people and good new technical ideas into manu-
facturing. This requires three steps:
1. Attracting students to manufacturing-related courses of study and
research and keeping them interested
2. Attracting graduates to the manufacturing arena
3. Attracting professionals to move to manufacturing as part of their
career progression
Mr. Steigerwald addressed steps 2 and 3 in saying, "The key way
to obtain and retain good people is to provide clear, attractive career
opportunities . . . for working within manufacturing to make strong
contributions, to learn new skills and grow in maturity and judgment,
and to be rewarded for this expertise." He added that excellence is
achieved by people who thoroughly enjoy and thrive on their work,
and concluded that the number of competent people in manufacturing
must be increased.
The shift, however, must go in both directions. A bright individual
with substantial manufacturing experience can raise a lot of interest
OCR for page 58
58
STEIGERWALD I CANNON
and influence the direction of product R&D in very cogent ways. The
way to move ideas is to move the people who have them. Could this
kind of movement for stronger motivation be a prerequisite to
promotion in some areas? Experience in design and manufacturing
should be one central requirement for future leadership at higher levels.
In addressing step 1 attracting students into manufacturing-related
studies-one must note Mr. Steigerwald's perceptive observation that
outstanding students are attracted to the disciplines taught by faculty
undertaking exciting research. Thus industry must provide funding for
active manufacturing-related research and development-to generate
the interested faculty base. Professors are successful because they
have good students, not the other way around. How does one generate
the interested faculty base? In this regard, Mr. Steigerwald suggested
some mechanisms, which are examined rather specifically from the
university viewpoint in the following section.
BUILDING THE INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP
This section introduces two motivational issues related to research.
The first will probably not appear immediately relevant to manufac-
turing, whereas the second will seem obvious.
Precept 2: Universities people and teams-do what they are good
at: advancing knowledge and teaching basic disciplines.
At first glance, this statement may make the game look hopeless.
Nevertheless, engineers, even those in universities, like to work in a
real world context, and this can ensure the movement of some university
resources to manufacturing. This is, of course, related to Precept 1.
Some basic research areas relevant to manufacturing are:
Computer science,
Computer-aided mechanical design,
Computer-aided very large systems integration (VLSI),
Automatic control,
· Robotics,
· Behavior of materials,
· Expert systems,
· Chemical processes, and
· Operations research.
These currently exciting basic research areas relate to the five "man-
ufacturing excellence" issues listed by Mr. Steigerwald. In academia,
there are several dozen basic discipline areas that concern manufac
OCR for page 59
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
59
luring. Thus this subject can be researched and taught without, for
example, deciding to set up a new school of manufacturing.
The next issue is obvious:
Precept 3: Basic research and therefore student and faculty interest
and much of the teaching context-will focus on applications where
there is fiscal support.
Money is a great facilitator, especially money to support students.
Engineering schools are seeing larger numbers of excellent-quality
applicants than ever before, but the competition among schools for
these students is fierce. Students can therefore choose where they will
go, and they will obtain fellowships. They will subsequently apprentice
themselves to professors who have research support. If some of the
fellowships and the research support are in manufacturing-related
areas, these students will point their careers in that direction.
GEIlING THE BEST RESULTS
What then are the mechanical details of industry-university inter-
actions? The effective mechanisms were mentioned by Mr. Steigerwald:
sponsorship agreements, summer jobs, internships, and, one could
add, reverse internships-making it enjoyable and possible for industry
personnel to spend substantial time on campus.
Precept 4 concerns interactions between industrial sponsors and
university principal investigators (not university administrators). The
initial connections are, of course, facilitated by the university admin-
istrative structure, and a number of universities now have manufac-
turing institutes just for this purpose.
The following precept addresses the companies directly:
Precept 4: The second most important thing companies obtain when
sponsoring a university researcher is his or her insight into what new
research might contribute to new opportunities for the company.
As bright students and faculty members become familiar with real
manufacturing problems and opportunities, they will identify ways in
which their research and teaching can contribute to the solution-new
ways often not considered by those in the industrial community. The
IBM grants program to encourage graduate-level engineering programs
in manufacturing systems (see Brummett, in this volume) has very
much operated from this precept, and it has expressed the tone and
effectiveness desired by both sides.
OCR for page 60
60
STEIGERWALD I CANNON
Precept 5 concerns curricula:
Precept 5: Truly strong academic programs strong curricula
derive from strong research programs; not the other way around.
Related to this precept is the idea of developing a Ph.D.-level research
program that creates a new component for the M.S.-level management
teaching program. For example, a Ph.D.-level research student could
simulate a manufacturing enterprise on a computer. This kind of effort
requires an individual who has been in manufacturing for a good while,
who has hands-on experience, and who has come back to the university
for an advanced degree that is, someone who is quite knowledgeable
about the cause and effect and the dynamics of what goes on in a
factory. He or she might ask, for example, what effects will occur on
the time constants of other things throughout the system if the inventory
period is shortened?
The computer simulation would probably be simpler than real life
in terms of number of products, number of machines, and so forth. It
would contain, however, the cogent dynamic characteristics of the
real enterprise, enabling one to learn something about what is important
to the performance of the enterprise. This approach is similar to that
used by engineers in simulating an aircraft to find its sensitivities. For
example, a change in one aerodynamic coefficient makes no difference,
but if another is changed, the aircraft becomes unstable. The second
coefficient must be controlled carefully. The factory computer simu-
lation research project could make the same kind of sensitivity analysis
of manufacturing.
The important educational link in the proposed idea is that the
simulation is made part of the M.S.-level program curriculum. Each
master' e-level student would operate the simulation to respond in real
time, as a manager, to crises such as, "The widgets will not arrive on
time, what should be done?" Or, "The paper broke on the printing
press and you have a deadline to meet, what is the back-up position?"
Students could then see how their actions reflect back through the
system. This simulation appears to be a good training tool for aspiring
managers of manufacturing enterprises, but the important point is:
research serves as a beginning.
In this same vein, and to respond to Mr. Steigerwald's view about
specialists or generalists, one does not want to educate specialists or
generalists. The goal of a curriculum is to train people who have a
deep grounding in fundamentals. This grounding can be learned in any
number of contexts, one of which might as well be manufacturing.
Pursuing a curriculum of basic technology in the manufacturing context
OCR for page 61
MESHING EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL NEEDS
61
will work, whereas pursuing a curriculum of procedures and details
will not work.
Finally, if an industry and a university wish to design a program in
manufacturing productivity that will work to their mutual benefit, it
must be custom-made. That is, it should build on the university's basic
disciplinary and interdisciplinary strengths in computer science, ma-
terials formability, mechanical design, chemical processing, automatic
control, expert systems, and so on. Such a program should be exciting
to faculty and students alike. This requires that it contain a heavy
component supporting basic research which will generate new direc-
tions for technology, and that it develop many mechanisms enabling
faculty and students to become deeply acquainted with what is
important to their industrial partner. These are the goals around which
the mechanical details of structure, funding, interaction, and fair
participation should be built.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
meshing education
