On September 20th I attended a meeting at the U.S. Senate Building to discuss two reports that offer a path forward to increase the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. I was struck not by the number of recommendations between the two reports but the similarities between both.
The first, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing was delivered to President Obama in July 2012 by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The second, Fifty Ways to Leave Your Competitiveness Woes Behind: A National Traded Sector Competiveness Strategy by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, continues the work that authors Rob Atkinson and Stephen Ezell have been doing to advocate for a national manufacturing strategy.
It strikes me that we are at a tipping point of individuals, organizations, reports and studies, and strategic recommendations that make sense. Consider that ITIF sponsored A Charter for Revitalizing American Manufacturing that was signed by 19 people across 17 different organizations, all advocating for similar “big issue” solutions to increased manufacturing competitiveness.
A saying that a mentor once told me about policy – “it’s not rocket science but it’s really hard, dirty work” – applies here. Most people that are open to the idea of a national manufacturing strategy know the elements that are needed, but getting them done is really hard, for many and varied reasons.
What do both of these documents, plus the Charter from earlier this year, share in common as “big picture” things that must get done? In the case of ITIF, it includes a focus on technology, taxes, talent, trade (promotion, enforcement, and market opening) as well as finance, regulatory, and competiveness assessments. Similarly, the PCAST report focuses on enabling innovation, securing the talent pipeline, and improving the business climate. Meanwhile, the previously released Charter document included recommendations in the broad areas of support for SME manufacturing and entrepreneurship, finance and credit provision, trade strategy, tax policy, and talent policy.
The overlap amongst these reports is not hard to see. But there are many ways in which we could get started. In the case of the “Fifty Ways” report from ITIF, the document indicates areas that are “Just Do It” recommendations that are revenue-neutral, policy-oriented solutions. There are 19 such “Just Do It” recommendations in the “Fifty Ways” report, or roughly a third. Others require funding, or changes to the tax code, or Congressional or White House action.
I for one feel really good that so much attention is being paid to the importance of manufacturing strategies to increase U.S. competitiveness. Clearly we are at a tipping point in the identification and understanding of the major elements of what a national strategy might look and feel like. The PCAST report provides a path forward, and other reports like “Fifty Ways” and the “Charter” help color in the lines. We are getting there, one “Just Do It” and one “wow, this is really hard work” at a time
From: Ken Berg [mailto:bergk@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:35 AM
To: Kenneth Berg (bergk@cox.net)
Subject: STEM Competitiveness
Dear MEP/Manufacturing Innovation:
Yesterday, in response to ‘Just Do It’ of 3 Oct. I suggested we get serious about filling the talent pipeline by uncovering and supporting more gifted students. This is based on local information that 30-40% of students drop out before graduating high-school—and that 20-30% of them might be gifted, and that of those remaining in class–another unknown percentage might be gifted, unrecognized, bored with classroom irrelevance, and just marking time. What a waste of talent!
The reports referred in the article contain the same stale rhetoric aimed at: Congress, the Administration and the States we’ve been looking at since the Gathering Storm (2005) report brought the failure of STEM education and Competitiveness to our attention as a national imperative needing expedited solutions. Since then, according to Carl Wieman’s report to the Jay Rockefeller 20 September 2012 committee reviewing ‘progress under the America Competes Act’, “There has been very little change in the level of interest in STEM or the mastery of STEM subjects by US students in the past few decades”!
Enough with the reports! Let’s try to make sense of the elements involved by commissioning an engineering study, paid for by industry, to draw the elements together for concerted, expedited action! This would be no small matter, and costly—but could be done to get us out of the quagmire we find ourselves in. Industry would receive tax set-offs for their investment in education. The quagmire is the choke point preventing improvement of STEM Competitiveness!
Engineers have the project expertise to uncover the elements involved and suggest ways to align them for greatest effect at least cost. They would examine the many fine programs now in play, draw Lessons Learned of best practice and suggest ways for disseminating best practice among classroom teachers and students. This would be of immense benefit to the 100,000 new STEM teachers sought by the Administration.
My own suggestions, most of which have already been posted with AMP and similar entities are:
A glossary is needed, showing scope and specification for the key terms. Eg. Education, Life-long Learning, STEM, Competitiveness …
Recognition and solution of drop-out rate among gifted and other learners
Digital education might involve: digitized text, on-line courses, supplemental A/V materials involving the genius and skills of the digital games and entertainment producers to persuasively present academic and social, life-long teaching/learning (another costly venture) while providing interactive, one-on-education, continuously improved by teachers and students. NOT involving crash and burn, shoot-em-up thrillers.
Recognition of a work-force for the factory floor with a Playmate on the wall …
… having the academic and social skills to wind up on the executive floor with a Picasso on the wall
Industry must put up new money and partner-up with education to secure their corporate investment, and get tax set-offs for their investment in education
Educators must find ways to accommodate industry in education, including personal and intellectual security
Currently $1billion is sought for 15 research centers
$70 million is budgeted for 1 center in Youngstown
Instead, ATE and similar entities, given increased support, could embrace industry, K-12, current and future research and development, and the social skills needed for implementation … in a competitive fashion … for continuous improvement. Additive manufacturing and other processes will benefit from a wide mix of teachers, learners, and industry mentors, designs, systems etc. This is already being done at certain levels and can be expanded to meet all of the comprehensive needs of industry as they bring their needs directly into industry/education ‘incubators’, campus laboratories, factory laboratories, public research facilities and other resources offering a melding and increase of knowledge and competitive implementation of knowledge and technologies.
I will welcome any questions or suggestions on this matter.
Respectfully submitted …
Kenneth L. (Ken) Berg
The Motorsports Education Foundation
Co-chair MSWG of INCOSE
Member, UCI Performance Engineering Competitions
(949) 830 6888
Motor Sports Accelerates SySTEM Learning