Giving women a start in manufacturing

Yesterday I attended an event that was positive on many levels. It was an event recognising the participants in a program called "Women Who Weld". A Brisbane manufacturer, Atlas Heavy Engineering has taken on the first participants in a program which encourages young women, of varying ages, to learn to weld. Once they've completed the program it counts towards a Certificate I in Engineering (Welding).

The first Women Who Weld participants as well as:

Local Member Lisa France MP (far left), Rex Vegt (second from left) and

Assistant Minister for Technical and Further Education Saxon Rice (far right).

Atlas General Manager Rex Vegt said the program has many aims but the primary one is to give these young women a 'start'. A start in a profession that will give them many skills, that they may not have otherwise had, to further their career in welding or another associated trade.

What a great sentiment! Isn't that what we all want(ed)? - a chance, a start to a career that offers opportunities, rewards and challenges. While the Women Who Weld program is obviously targeting women, it has a broader purpose of recruiting from:

• a wider age group - the first intake ranged from 16 to mid-30s
• varying backgrounds - four indigenous participants took part in the first intake
• those that are out of work 

All have the opportunity to get a start - and get a start in an industry that can take them to a range of sectors and career pathways into other industries.

Assistant Minister Saxon Rice is taught to weld

by Women Who Weld student Zoe Girgenti.

The program is to be extended with the second intake underway and with further plans to expand it across other areas of Brisbane.

The evolution of (new) manufacturing

There is much conjecture about the future sustainability of the manufacturing industry, especially in industry news out of the US. Previously, some economists predicted the need for a more service-based economy as, they argue, manufacturing is now the primary domain of the lower-cost BRIC nations. Contrarily, stories are now emerging where large manufacturers are 'reshoring' or coming back to the west - up to a third of manufacturers are looking at reshoring according to a recent Boston Consulting Group Survey.

There's no doubt the industry is at a watershed in its global relevance. To date, the focus has been on an emerging China and the low-cost production and vast consumer market it offers. The balance is due to shift, as outlined in a previous post on MIMOC. Manufacturing In Markets Of Consumption is where production is determined by proximity to markets and is expected to be felt in large consumer markets such as Europe, US and China. Some will say it is jobs coming back to their rightful place and well... let them say that.

In consuming various facts and opinion, I've reached a number of conclusions that both resonated with and challenged my previous beliefs:

The business case for manufacturing
The business case for manufacturing must be compelling enough to convince economic rationalists and those in positions of power as to its worth. These stakeholders will be supportive of the industry if they recognise its long-term value - at present, most do not.

It is likely industry will change it spots - perhaps a third Industrial Revolution is on its way, led by a digital manufacturing movement? Adjusting to such change will be difficult at worst, but not impossible. Its resilience has been proven in the face of natural disasters, economic volatility and competitive pressures in times gone by, and there's no doubt our approach needs to change. I recently became engrossed in a presentation by Professor Goran Roos who noted that Australian manufacturing, mainly because of its parity with the US dollar, has moved from a low-cost competitive environment into a high-cost one and has to shift its approach accordingly. He makes salient points in his 2011 report "Manufacturing into the Future" such as - advanced economies need manufacturing because:

• nations that emerged best from the GFC were based around high-value add export oriented manufacturing
• it is the biggest spender on applied research and driver for productivity
• it is the largest generator of employment
• manufacturing is at the forefront of applied technology and innovation
• the resources boom may be shorter than expected

It is people like Professor Roos that will help build a sound business case for manufacturing that will resonate with economists and influencers, minus the sentimentality.

Blatant promotion: Professor Roos is a keynote speaker at our upcoming Manufacturing Skills Conference on 18 May.

Let's address the career path
Many governments and industry associations have orchestrated campaigns to make manufacturing "sexy" or "cool" to kids. I read an article on the manufacturing skills shortage that examined the deep psychological roots the industry has for Gen Y and thereby influencing their choice of manufacturing as a career path. AJ Sweatt says its not that people are smarter, that they don't want to make things or even that they don't think manufacturing is "cool". He says:

"The problem is that for a generation, US manufacturers outsourced the jobs of fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters in search of cheap labor...the factory/mill/shop/plant was shutting down, and the manufacturing job that had given them a decent life, pride, and dignity was no more. There were probably tears. Moods changed, relationships suffered, some families shattered. These kids watched their parents and communities face a dust-bowl reality that said they were expendable....How do you tell someone to ‘un-live’ that?"

Is this the same for Gen-Y and Gen-Z in Australian manufacturing? Perhaps. In my encounters with Gen-Y, it seems that remuneration, status (career progression) and lifestyle are the determining factors in a career choice. Much is being done to re-educate Gen-Ys about the changing nature of (new) manufacturing careers, but this is a long-term challenge requiring a long-term commitment. If we do not continue this campaign, we will reduce the future capability of (new) manufacturing. We will only know if it has been successful once all of Gen-Y are in the workforce and by then, we should be wising up Gen-Z that manufacturing is "mental"(?)..watch that phrase catch on in a couple of years.

The "S" word
Now here's a dirty word... "subsidies" a.k.a. "protectionism". I know it is US-centric, but I refer you to a great article on how "Balancing Trade is not Protectionism". The author Mike Collins argues that the US trade balance is not based on a level playing field as China manipulates its currency to force a trade deficit. He says the only beneficiaries are US multinationals (who produce in these low-cost countries) and those nations that manipulate their currency, likening the relationship as trying to sustain a heroine addiction. His argument that the US should be using the "S" word to protect its future from the ultimate collapse that will happen from an ever-expanding trade deficit.

I tend to agree that why wouldn't we, as part of a manufacturing policy, identify key manufacturing sectors of strategic importance and support them in preparation as future economic cornerstones? As those sectors mature, ultimately other low-cost providers will emerge which is when the free market should take over and we should look at the next wave of strategically important sectors.

Well, that's my brain drained. What do you think?

Skills development: are manufacturers shooting themselves in the foot?

A pertinent question as asked by the Manufacturing Executive blog. It aligns with one of our previous posts about the benefits of recruiting mature-aged workers. But in the long-term does this benefit the industry?

Will this practice of hiring mature-aged workers ultimately discourage Gen-Y and the long-term sustainability of the manufacturing industry?

Comment below or on the post at Manufacturing Executive.   

Offshoring in the west. Viable in the long-term or just lucky?

I found this a very interesting article to come out of WalesOnline. Major multi-national Tata, which makes everything from trucks to tea, has invested £800M in Welsh steelworks facilities. The Tata Steel spokesperson said the reasons for this investment were because of the quality of the workforce, strong industrial relations and a supportive Welsh government.

It's welcome news for the 8000 people employed by Tata in Wales, but more broadly offers an interesting twist on the offshoring issue and its implication for Western manufacturers.

Could manufacturers in the US, Europe and other western nations be genuinely considered as viable offshoring alternatives for the big manufacturers? eg those from India and China. The majority of economic arguments up to now would say otherwise.

Two of the reasons why you might think western manufacturing nations were unattractive offshoring alternatives; a quality (highly paid?) workforce and industrial relations practices, were some of the reasons why Tata were drawn to investing in Wales. Are these features that much of an enticement for overseas investment?

Another byproduct of the success was the Welsh government was able to 'on-sell' education via its FE colleges to the Indian education department - this may have helped seal the deal.

What do you think? Is it a viable alternative for western manufacturers to attract BRIC-type (Brazil, Russia, India, China) investment?

News coverage of Obama's $1 billion initiative to boost manufacturing

Some recent news coverage from the Society of Manufacturing Engineers on Obama's announcement to boost manufacturing:  

CNN (3/9, Aigner-Treworgy) reported, "President Barack Obama traveled Friday to a Rolls-Royce jet engine facility in Virginia, where he outlined a proposed network for manufacturers to share 'access to cutting edge capabilities.' Obama, speaking in Prince George, said the National Manufacturing Innovation Network is meant to link industry stakeholders in a national conversation about best manufacturing practices. The cost of the president's new proposal is $1 billion, but the White House is committed to creating a pilot program using appropriated funds from various departments, rather than waiting for Congress to approve funds requested in the president's budget."

        The Washington Post (3/10, Wilson) reported, "The centers would bring together industry, colleges and universities, and government agencies, as well as invest in new technologies, to help train workers for what the president has called the manufacturing jobs of the future. Obama also announced steps to use executive authority to authorize $45 million in existing resources to develop a pilot program for those institutes. The money does not require congressional approval, which he joked during his remarks was hard to come by."

        Bloomberg News (3/9, Runningen) reported, "Each of the technology hubs would focus on a specific manufacturing technology geared to the region, such as developing lightweight materials for use in next-generation automobiles, aircraft, ships and trains."

        Voice of America (3/9, Robinson) reported Obama said, "We have got to have this all across the country. I want everybody thinking about how are we making the best products, how we are harnessing the best ideas, and making sure they are located here in the United States. And sparking this network of innovation across the country it will create jobs and will keep America in the manufacturing game."

        Also covering the story are the Los Angeles Times (3/10, Hennessey), McClatchy (3/10, Clark), the National Journal (3/10, Quinton, Subscription Publication), The Hill (3/9, Sands), the Milwaukee Business Journal (3/9, Rovito, Subscription Publication) and other media sources.

The disappearing of exports

An opinion piece in the New York Times explores and compares the world of a politician and that of the CEO. Politicians see the world as dominated by voter geography, while CEOs see the world as a global supply chain where anything can be sourced, made and sold.

The author, Thomas Friedman, quotes a Hong Kong manufacturer who says, “Source everywhere, manufacture everywhere, sell everywhere. The whole notion of an ‘export’ is really disappearing.”

But until we vote a one global community, the tension will still exist. So the focus of our elected officials is as key enablers; immigration for the skills, protection of ideas, funding research and provision of logistical infrastructure.

Freidman also alludes to the long-term debt problems of the US, which is not enabled by the four year election cycle. One way around this may be a long-term (longer than four years anyway), bi-partisan, debt-reduction strategy committee - my 2 cents worth, not Freidman's. That is, only if debt-reduction strategy is an important goal for governments.

Click here to read the full article.

To Innovate We Must Make

While this has a distinctive US flavour, it does reinforce the inextricable linkage between manufacturing and innovation. The post comes from John B Rogers on INC.

* * * *

One of my favorite quotations is from Thomas Edison, who said the "value of the idea lies in the using of it." I never understood it as deeply as a student, but now running a car company in America today, I see the brilliance of Edison's simple aphorism shining through.

Innovation—the art of coming up with something that, moments before, was not there—is a mercurial process. Just look around today at the country's fastest-growing companies, you see a new kind of CIO springing up. Not the "information"-warden-type CIO, but rather, a Chief "Innovation" Officer. It's a sign that corporations and governments are wringing their hands and sharpening their focus, all on the hunt for new ideas.
Click here to read the full article.

Why doesn't Britain make things any more?

This is such an interesting post by Aditya Chakrabortty in The Guardian. It reflects on the decline in manufacturing - de-industrialisation -  in the UK, which by any comparisons is significant (66%). It particularly focuses of the past glories industry in the north-east and the angst and uncertainty of what has replaced these industries. Some quotes from the article to whet your apetite:

"There is a popular argument which holds that all the rot in the British economy began in 1979. I don't believe that. Nor am I spinning a tale of leonine industrialists being led by Westminster donkeys. Pearson Engineering's Tom Clark has a good story about how the firm's previous owners used to handle industrial relations. Every time the workforce went on strike, which was often, one of the Pearsons would buy a new Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud and drive through the picket line, waving two fingers at his own staff."

"The real charge against Blair and Brown is that, rather than focus on this problem of underpeforming managers and shareholders, they chased the fantasy of the knowledge economy. In their wake trailed a whole phalanx of propagandists."

"Last year, we British bought £97bn more in goods from other countries than we sold to them – the biggest shortfall since 1980."

"..or you hear American economists arguing that free trade may have reduced salaries for blue collar workers in the west, but they can now buy cheaper Chinese imports. In other words, you may have lost your factory workshop – but at least you've got a pound shop."

Click here to read the full article.