If You Had the President’s Ear on U.S. Manufacturing, What Would You Say?
The thrust of the plan - which will receive an initial $500 million in funding - is to create those jobs by investing in emerging technologies and helping U.S. manufacturers reduce costs, improve quality, and accelerate product development, according to information released by the White House.
“Today, I’m calling for all of us to come together … to spark a renaissance in American manufacturing and help our manufacturers develop the cutting-edge tools they need to compete with anyone in the world,” President Obama said.
“With these key investments, we can ensure that the United States remains a nation that ‘invents it here and manufactures it here’ and creates high-quality, good paying jobs for American workers.”
The partnership’s major players include the manufacturing industry, universities and the federal government, and appointed AMP leaders are tasked with identifying “the most pressing challenges and transformative opportunities to improve the technologies, processes and products across multiple manufacturing industries.”
Being the curious sort, we reached out to the ESPRIT community to ask, “If you had the President’s ear on the future of U.S. manufacturing, how would you advise him to carry out his new plan?”
“‘Invent it here and manufacture it here’ are indeed important factors for the U.S. to be competitive,” says Programmer Nathan Ellinger of Single Source, Inc., a manufacturer of precision parts in North Liberty, Ind.
“I’m in favor of research, as I think it’s very important, but the U.S. already has the competitive edge in the ‘invent it here’ category,” he says, adding that, while the U.S. sees innovative competition, especially from Germany and Japan, it isn’t hurting so much when it comes to keeping that inventive spirit alive.
“Where we’re being hurt the most in the big picture of manufacturing is when it comes to manufacturing it here,” Ellinger says. “We do a lot of research and development work for the medical industry, yet we seldom get the production orders. Why?”
As it turns out, Ellinger says, it’s a matter of dollars and cents - if not sense.
“When we asked one of our medical customers that same question, they told us that the tax incentives from our government were so strong that they couldn't afford not to send their production overseas,” he says.
“You can't blame the companies, but for our government to offer such a strong monetary incentive to export production and then wonder why the United States can't be competitive in the ‘manufacture it here’ arena, is just ridiculous.”
Bob Lewis, a CNC programmer for Metalore, an El Segundo, Calif.-based manufacturer of precision racing parts and more, also has his thinking cap on when it comes to doling out advice for the President.
As Lewis sees it, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology needs to “look at the goal of the program and determine realistic targets and a methodology that accomplishes real success.”
Having said methodology and goals could very well negate any “here we go again” feelings about the new endeavor.
“The government needs to take care to look for companies ... in which to infuse grants to further the advanced manufacturing goal,” he says.
Furthermore, Lewis notes, let’s not forget that businesses will protect what sets them apart.
“It should be kept in mind that companies large and small looking for that competitive advantage in manufacturing will also protect intellectual property no matter who funded or aided in the development of the processes,” he says.
In order to “establish the target, focus and finish,” Lewis would advise the President to adopt a three-pronged approach:
Firstly, have the council establish real targets.
“These can probably be provided by the Caterpillar, Ford and Honeywell-type companies. What are their most expensive manufacturing processes? What issues prevent them from being more efficient?”
Secondly, Lewis says, the council needs to decide who is best qualified to address the issues once established.
“It’s pretty safe to assume the company with the problem should not be given money to try to correct it,” he explains. “They’ve had the opportunity and failed, and that’s why the problem still exists. The council will probably find a mixture of academic institutions, small companies and some large companies where the resources and intellectual resources exist to really move on viable solutions. There are people with open minds who will find solutions.”
Thirdly, he stresses, the results of the partnership’s efforts must be available for review.
“The most important thing will be that whatever ideas - good, bad and in between - are provided to the council and distributed to anyone interested since the results are for all manufacturing entities and need to be available to everyone,” Lewis says.
“If we, as taxpayers, are going to fund some of this research, we should benefit as much as the companies that asked for it.”
Thus far, the partnership is tasked with building domestic manufacturing capabilities in critical national security industries; reducing the time needed to make advanced materials used in manufacturing products; establishing U.S. leadership in next-generation robotics; increasing the energy efficiency of manufacturing processes; and developing new technologies that will dramatically reduce the time required to design, build, and test manufactured goods, according to information released by the White House.
“If our government can step back from the overstated goal of the press release and focus on specific areas that would benefit manufacturing, we can improve our competitiveness,” Lewis says. “We have the people who can do this, but we bury them in these political sound bites and spread the money so thin that nothing gets accomplished.”
Comments