Reviving Whitney

Jack Crane

The efforts of inventors including Eli Whitney, Charles Goodyear and Samuel Colt, gave birth to manufacturing in Connecticut.  New products and production technology developed in Connecticut spread quickly, and the state emerged as a powerhouse in innovation and manufacturing.

Unfortunately, today, trends have Connecticut ranked among states with the slowest projected job growth over the next few years. An odd predicament for a state which arguably has a great workforce, access to technology and some of the most innovative minds in the country.

So how do we turn this boat around and improve Connecticut's manufacturing competitiveness in the global economy? 

Jack Crane believes a better future can be found with collaboration.

 

With some help, this grim projection has a potentially bright future in its midst for manufacturing to lead the way in promoting job growth. Certainly there are many issues to be confronted, such as the state business climate and the influence it has on expansion in the coming years, but there are others.

The manufacturing community is paranoid about the adverse impact of the current business environment on the industry. But, as a friend concerned about his personal safety once said to me: I may be paranoid, but that does NOT mean my life is NOT in danger.

It is in fact true that government at many levels has undervalued manufacturing's effect on our economy. Accordingly, the negative consequences of some legislative and executive policies have not been appreciated and government efforts on behalf of manufacturing have too often lacked the perseverance to maintain the supportive efforts which were initiated.

Considering that Thomas Jefferson argued strenuously in the 1700s against this country
ever engaging in manufacturing, the track record could be much worse.  However, there is an apparent recent desire to be more supportive of manufacturing both locally and nationally; and recent successes in permitting and taxing restraints supported by Connecticut legislators, recognizing manufacturing as an
important job creator, suggests support for restoring employment is possible.

Over the past five years there has been a coming together of manufacturers in Connecticut, recognizing that improving their position in the business environment demands collective action. Their successful achievements in gaining government support have come largely on the strength of concerted action; not by railing against the power structure. The collaborative action involves three necessary sequential steps:

• Get quality information from professionals about what is happening that affects manufacturing;
• Get educated about possible courses of action; and
• Take effective actions through a variety of venues.

This diligence can never be diminished and should become routine: you cannot ignore the squeaky wheel principle.

While realizing that legislative pressure is an ongoing activity, there are other things manufacturers can do to help their own valuations and move towards profitable growth. The trends noted below are likely
to have substantive effects on manufacturing and the suggestions that follow are things manufacturers can do to minimize the threats and take advantage of the opportunities.

First the Trends
Despite increasing dissatisfaction with Asian imports, increased re-shoring efforts, and constraints imposed on importing manufactured goods, Asia will continue to be both a thorn in the side of local manufacturers, as well as an opportunity for enlightened collaboration, and a market for local products.
Other international markets will continue to offer expanded opportunities for Connecticut manufacturers, particularly with the soft dollar which will be around for awhile.

Trends evidenced today project that Connecticut, a state with some of the best workforce, technology, and innovation, will rank among the lowest for job growth in the US over the next several years. Skilled graduates at all levels will be in short supply for manufacturing companies at the same time the graying Connecticut workforce will be reduced by retirement.

Increasing global access to modern equipment will tend to minimize superiorities built wholly on the strength of equipment advantage. Companies whose technology is largely based on tribal knowledge will be even further disadvantaged as the tribal chiefs retire and as the overseas companies continue to learn their technology based on understanding the science and engineering of metal working, metal machining, composite materials, energy conversion, etc. (It has been true for some time that foreign born students dominate enrollment in engineering and the physical sciences in U.S. universities, public and private. What is new is that instead of staying in the U.S. after graduation, many foreign born graduates of U.S. universities are returning to their country of origin where they will bring back this technology to industries in their countries.)

Major Aerospace OEMs in the state will continue to seek growth in other states or countries instead of in Connecticut.

Suggested Responses
Clearly, developing an organization with a Lean culture, with the accent on culture, will be extremely important. Companies with Lean cultures will have an advantage compared to those whose focus is still on the point solution and view Lean more as a cost cutting initiative than the broader role of a growth strategy.

This suggests the importance of developing real Lean leaders, not CEOs, who assume that if they order up a Lean event they are a "Lean enterprise." The latter will fail to see the real benefits of Lean to continually remove waste and increase capacity, and will generate policy waste, contributing to reduced profits and slow or no growth.

Leadership trained to guide and inspire Lean cultures will be an important asset to manufacturing companies as they go to the next higher level. The standard workforce training in Lean must continue, but there should be greatly increased activity in developing Lean leadership. A partnership between manufacturers and the government to support Lean leadership training is important for
continued manufacturing productivity and profitable growth.

The advantages of increasing capacity cannot be fully realized without a vision of the future and a marketing strategy to fill that capacity with new business. Accordingly, developing a marketing
plan, no matter how crude, that is compatible with the vision, is key. It should determine which products, services, customers, and markets work or don't work for the company, and should serve
as the guide for expanded activity.

A company without a vision has no destination; a company with a vision and no strategy, has no guide to reach that destination; and a company with a vision and a strategy with no metrics, will never know where they are. They may in fact get somewhere very fast but it may not be where they want to be.

Collaboration with manufacturing associations, private groups, and with the government offer numerous
opportunities to achieve these marketing capabilities. Support by Department of Commerce and the
Connecticut Department of Economic Development (DECD) to improve export capability by manufacturers should be better utilized by the manufacturing community, but the marketing plan needs to be in place. There is also assistance available for expanding web based marketing and use of social media.

In order to achieve a Connecticut workforce that is really world class, in addition to Lean training, there needs to be more effort to upgrade the core technologies on which the business depends. Upgrading training of staff and networking with associations and others who can supply this training should be
ongoing. A major collaboration with state supported colleges, community colleges, and the other public and private sectors to upgrade core technologies of our manufacturing workforce will be required to achieve this world class position.

Companies involved in contract manufacturing, make what they are asked with defined processes specified. However, for those companies that produce a product, upgrading the products and processes is an ongoing requirement. Improvement requires innovation and often also includes new technology.
Collaboration with other companies and a select group of universities is essential to maintain that leading edge. UCONN has an outreach capability in business, engineering and materials. This outreach needs to be extended geographically, and made more user friendly. The state has shown signs of supporting a major outreach in engineering and materials for industrial partnerships that will be based in Storrs. There needs to be a critical mass for this to be successful; hopefully it will also include regional satellites, and industry will need to be a full partner.

A number of companies participated in a survey of the METAL Cluster in 2005 which identified their  needs and requirements  for success in the future. This was part of a DECD effort to assist development of Clusters. Many of the above suggestions can be found in the report out of the METAL Cluster in 2005. The information was and still is valuable. Perhaps it should be explored once again and those aspects still useful should be implemented.

As a final consideration for collaboration, the manufacturers in this state know a lot about continuous improvement. This knowledge is transferable to other business and services sectors. Both government and healthcare could benefit by learning from manufacturers how to reduce costs and improve operations.