CONNSTEP is pleased to present this quarterly column profiling leaders in the Connecticut manufacturing community - sharing their thoughts, insights and predictions.

Jack Crane
Director, Growth Strategy Services

After five decades in manufacturing throughout the Northeast, I have seen a lot of changes in manufacturing, particularly here in Connecticut. While I neither knew Thomas Edison personally growing up in New Jersey, nor hung out with Eli Whitney when I came to Connecticut, I did experience firsthand the impact of their work on the development of manufacturing in the U.S.

I continue to be amazed at the accomplishments of manufacturing; and the transitions that have occurred over the years reveal the vitality of the industry and its innovative capacity to find sophisticated answers to complex human needs.

There is a remarkable story to be told about the evolution of manufacturing in Connecticut. Brass, hand weapons, machine tools, bearings, aircraft, and submarine industries, were major factors in the state's economy in the middle of the 20th century, but by the first decade of the 21st, the first three industry segments have all dwindled to less than minor players, the fourth narrowed its market to bearings for aircraft, and the latter two have continued to reduce employment levels.

UTC, General Dynamics, and GE, have significantly less employees today than even 25 years ago. Anaconda, Bridgeport, Kennecott, Scovil, and Olin, which made Connecticut the core of the world's brass industry, are all but gone from the state. Pratt and Whitney, Bridgeport, Torrington, all major names in machine tools are all but extinct. And Winchester, Colt, and Marlin, are shadows of their former selves.

But in their downward spiral, they left a legacy of highly qualified people who did not want to leave the quality of life in Connecticut. They also left rich technologies in their wake related to materials, optics, energy, composite materials, etc. And perhaps even more important, they left a can-do atmosphere, knowledge that manufacturing was capable of effecting great change in people's lives. Many of the improvements in medical care for example, are the result of advances in diagnostic equipment, prosthetic devices, and monitoring apparatus, all manufacturing achievements.

The result was that many of the personnel who stayed went to work with other local companies, many in aerospace and defense. Some startups evolved, and as new industries developed, particularly energy and medically related products, they joined those ranks. There was still much untapped technical creativity however, that was going to waste because of a lack of adequate support infrastructure and a lack of understanding of how to commercialize technology.

I have, as a materials specialist, had the opportunity to witness firsthand the transition at P&W from the military to the first commercial axial turbojet engine that went into the Boeing 707. I worked on development of nuclear fuels and shielding materials for use in power plants and naval vessels; on development of copper alloys for use in packaging silicon semiconductors and specialty connectors that helped speed the development of microprocessors for laptop computers and automotive engine controls; and saw the first composite coinage from the Olin labs go commercial for the US Mint.

I was fortunate to share in Connecticut's economic and technological growth in these areas. I learned how to commercialize the technical developments that grew out of the laboratory. I enjoyed the challenges, and the satisfaction that comes with making something of value that didn't exist before.

Manufacturing over those years became more productive, more globally competitive, and unfortunately, more undervalued in the U.S., in favor of other more glamorous but less useful activities. The supply chain that fed so many useful OEM pursuits has become more vulnerable to OEM global pressures.

I retired from Olin Corporation when this transition was well advanced. It also coincided roughly at a time when much of our educated younger population left the state to find areas with better opportunities. Most that remained here pursued careers in medicine, law, and investment finance; not many entered manufacturing and engineering.

The decline in the overall younger professional population was filled in part by growth of a population far less educated and with a more limited professional horizon. They filled the lesser skilled jobs in manufacturing, but there was a substantial deficiency in the higher skilled jobs.

The urban population in Connecticut, as elsewhere in the U.S., was suffering from high drop-out rates in high school, typically 20 to 40%. Careers among this population were very predictable: they would occupy the lower economic rung.

So when I retired from Olin, I committed to two things: work with the school system to get students excited about learning and especially getting involved with science, and help people and companies bring new products to commercialization.

The education side of my retirement now is focused on developing partnerships among the three different cultures in Greater New Haven-business, higher education and the public schools; and creating the infrastructure to allow those three cultures to work together. The New Haven Science Fair Program has been working at this activity for 15 years mentoring students and teachers, getting parents involved in the program, and managing the Citywide Science Fair.

We need to improve education in the earliest years, and convince middle grade students that there is a link between educational accomplishments and career opportunities. As human beings it's the right thing to do. And the future of the U.S. economy, our health, and our leadership in the world, demands we do it. Failure in this area is not an option, and we are not yet winning. Too many wasted and unproductive lives of urban America are at stake, and along with it our world position. We are surely headed now to become a country whose major products will be entertainment and financial instruments. And we will be dependent on Asia and Central and South America for all of our useful products.

It's exciting to work with young people who are given a chance to develop. Helping them get excitement from learning and become scientifically literate is critical to their success and ours. Not only are the kids enthusiastic, but also the parental involvement, despite the popular misconception, is impressive and affirming. There's progress but we have a long way to go to truly make a substantial impact. I encourage the business community, and especially manufacturers to support the schools in their community by getting involved.

And that takes me to the other path I have travelled with CONNSTEP the past 14 years: working with manufacturers to make them more competitive by becoming more strategic in their thinking and devoting more effort in seeking new customers, new markets, and new products to improve their top line and grow profitably.

In 2008, most companies I worked with closely knew the economy was headed down, and they were already planning for the downturn ahead. They began preparation for the expected downturn well in advance, and in this way have been better equipped to weather what for many has been the Mother of Recessions. Today these same people are planning for economic recovery, readying their companies for what we hope and anticipate will come in expanded demands.

While being Lean is a requisite to run a successful manufacturing business today, there is a greater than ever need to look for an edge in technology and innovation. If your technology advantage is just a faster and more complex CNC machine, then surely tomorrow your global competitors will match that because it is an item of commerce they also can access.

Many companies have not been able to understand the financial aspects of their business sufficiently to best utilize and prioritize Lean activities, and they are not actively seeking new developments; they are, in too many cases, just trying to make ends meet and take care of today. They invest too little time for strategic thinking or developing new products and processes.

I do see progress in this area, but it needs improvement. The recent overwhelming response to the State's offer through SBIR to match funds up to $25,000 for innovative ideas for new processes or products has been encouraging. We are hoping manufacturers will continue to realize the greater potential in new technology, and that the State and Federal government will offer additional inducements to encourage these kinds of investments and in turn help to minimize the risk of unknown payoffs and lack of engineering or R&D expertise. I hope the State can supplement those efforts by offering to coordinate partnerships, assist with exploring SBIRs, provide coaching, and more.

So if I have any message to manufacturers it is:

1) Consider Lean as a necessary requisite to stay in business and recognize that it gives you added capacity to grow;

2) dedicate sufficient time to strategic thinking and adequate investment in new technology and new products to assure growth; and

3) hire and promote people who share these goals.

Finally, I encourage you and your employees to get involved in the educational process of young people in your community so they can see the value of making things, and develop the skills to learn the new technologies and apply them.