Advanced Manufacturing Technologies And Workforce Development

This study examines the relationship between organizational performance, advanced manufacturing technologies and workforce development activities. In response to domestic and international competitive pressures, manufacturers are making increasing expenditures in both labor and technology. Both corporate and government surveys report that billions of dollars a year are spent for worker training and new technology by U.S. manufacturers. Despite these expenditures, little empirical evidence exists about the relationship between worker development activities and advanced technologies or the organizational outcomes from their combined use. In this study, multiple workforce development activities and advanced technology were defined and compared to several types of organizational performance at a variety of manufacturing plants in the Midwest. Human resource managers completed surveys that assessed areas of worker development, technology, environment and technology-driven workplace needs. Results indicate modest support for the relationship between technology, workforce development and organizational performance. Strong support, however, was found for the relationship between relational and skill needs due to changes in technology and the plant emphasis on process and individual worker development. This suggest that managerial perceptions regarding workplace changes from technology may be amore important factor than the technology itself in determining the type of workforce development activities provided. In addition, findings supported the use of multiple workforce development activities.

This study examines the relationship between organizational performance, advanced manufacturing technologies and workforce development activities. In response to domestic and international competitive pressures, manufacturers are making increasing expenditures in both labor and technology. Both corporate and government surveys report that billions of dollars a year are spent for worker training and new technology by U.S. manufacturers. Despite these expenditures, little empirical evidence exists about the relationship between worker development activities and advanced technologies or the organizational outcomes from their combined use. In this study, multiple workforce development activities and advanced technology were defined and compared to several types of organizational performance at a variety of manufacturing plants in the Midwest. Human resource managers completed surveys that assessed areas of worker development, technology, environment and technology-driven workplace needs. Results indicate modest support for the relationship between technology, workforce development and organizational performance. Strong support, however, was found for the relationship between relational and skill needs due to changes in technology and the plant emphasis on process and individual worker development. This suggest that managerial perceptions regarding workplace changes from technology may be amore important factor than the technology itself in determining the type of workforce development activities provided. In addition, findings supported the use of multiple workforce development activities.

The Manufacturing USA initiative seeks to reinforce U.S.-based advanced manufacturing through partnerships among industry, academia, and government. Started in 2012 and established with bipartisan support by the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, the initiative envisages a nationwide network of research centers for manufacturing innovation. As of May 2017, 14 manufacturing innovation institutes had been established to facilitate the movement of early-stage research into proven capabilities ready for adoption by U.S. manufacturers. To better understand the role and experiences of the Manufacturing USA institutes to date, a committee of the Innovation Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop on May 23, 2017 drawing together institute directors and manufacturing policy experts along with leaders from industry, academia, and government. Participants addressed the role of the manufacturing institutes in increasing advanced manufacturing in the United States, examined selected foreign programs designed to support advanced manufacturing, and reviewed recent assessments of existing institutes. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

A roadmap for how we can rebuild America's working class by transforming workforce education and training. The American dream promised that if you worked hard, you could move up, with well-paying working-class jobs providing a gateway to an ever-growing middle class. Today, however, we have increasing inequality, not economic convergence. Technological advances are putting quality jobs out of reach for workers who lack the proper skills and training. In Workforce Education, William Bonvillian and Sanjay Sarma offer a roadmap for rebuilding America's working class. They argue that we need to train more workers more quickly, and they describe innovative methods of workforce education that are being developed across the country.

To effectively mature and transition DoD manufacturing science and technology advances into production, DoD must have access to a robust and responsive U.S. industrial base which is often driven by advanced manufacturing technologies. The Manufacturing USA institutes are considered crucial and game-changing catalysts that are bringing together innovative ecosystems in various technology and market sectors critical to DoD and the nation. Since 2012, DoD has invested $600 million directly in its Manufacturing USA institutes with the understanding that the initial federal investment included (1) core funding and (2) one-time, start-up funding to establish the institutes within a period of 5 to 7 years. As the institutes now begin to reach year five, DoD is evaluating the effectiveness of the institutes in fulfilling their goals and the best on-going roles for the federal government, including on-going funding options, to ensure optimal benefit to U.S. competitiveness. This report reviews the role of DoD's investment to date in establishing its eight institutes as publicâ€"private partnerships and its engagement with each institute after it has matured beyond the start-up period.