1. No category

Polishing Hephaestus's Tarnished Image
By Michelle Bennett
Since the time of the Greek gods, manufacturing has always been the black sheep of the family. Steeped in
images of smoke, soot, grime, and slag heaps, not to mention clanging noise, unbearable heat, and arduous
labor, it is the less-respected sibling of the professions of law, medicine, and agriculture, even though it is of
equal antiquity, and arguably produces things of just as much value.
According to the myths, the Olympian gods have given us just about everything. Knowledge, wisdom, and law
are the province of Athena. Medicine, music, and the liberal arts belong to her brother Apollo. Demeter is the
goddess of agriculture; Hermes the god of commerce, communication and travel; and we have Dionysus to
thank for the invention of wine. Love and war are the respective realms of Aphrodite and Ares.
At the same time, Hephaestus, god of metalsmithing, technology, and craft, may be better known for his
crippled legs and his rocky marriage to Aphrodite. But he was a born inventor. By age nine he had made a
brooch so beautiful it attracted the attention of Hera, the highest of all Olympian goddesses. He is the father of
metallurgy, of skillful workmanship, and even of robotics, creating mechanical people to assist him in his
workshop. He is the god who is equated with technical ingenuity and excellence in craftsmanship.
He made some priceless gifts for his powerful siblings. He crafted a silver bow and arrows for his sister Artemis,
goddess of the hunt; he fabricated the magical winged sandals worn by his brother Hermes, which 'carried him
about with the swiftness of wind'; and he forged weapons for his sister Athena, during the Trojan War.
But his status is still comparatively low amongst Olympian gods. How can Hephaestus's profession be raised to
the same level as those of his more respected siblings? The answer is through education.
What if today's students were taught in early grades the fundamentals of engineering, including applied math,
physics, and chemistry? What if they were shown a direct relationship between principles and products? What
if they worked out a design on paper, and were given the knowledge and tools to build it themselves? What if
they were encouraged to ask questions about how everything is made, especially the things that they use every
day? These changes in education could ignite a powerful interest in the technological fields across a much
wider spectrum of learners.
Actually, it *is* within the reach of young technicians today to design and create a brooch, a shield, a sword,
even a robot. But their ranks could be greatly increased by an early technological education that puts basic
engineering ideas alongside reading, writing, and arithmetic. Students who previously only wanted to read a
book might start asking how the book was made. Students who were only interested in drawing might start
wondering if they can turn their sketches into three-dimensional realities.
With a new emphasis on the engineering sciences in education, this country could once again be a global
innovator. Fresh minds could be working on the practical problems that plague the world: how to provide
nutritious food for the entire population; how to create energy without polluting the planet; how to live without
banishing hundreds of species to extinction.
We need engineers and scientists to find solutions to the world's biggest problems, but also visionaries to create
things that have not yet been imagined. Let us invite students to be both engineers and visionaries, to follow in
the footsteps of Hephaestus: not his hobbled footsteps, but his innovative, creative footsteps.
In the spirit of the inventor Hephaestus, let us challenge the students of today, and ask them, who will be the
first to make the winged sandals that will take the one who wears them, anywhere he or she wants to go?
References:
Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths, volume 1. Penguin Books, 1955: reprinted 1977.
Educating Manufacturing Leaders: Creating an
Industrial Culture for a Sustainable Future
Ronald J. Bennett, PhD and Elaine R. Millam, EdD
ASEE Annual Conference 2011 to be published
Abstract
Manufacturing is about processes, materials, systems and competitive strategy. It is also about people, how
they perform and how they are led. Most research on manufacturing has been conducted on processes,
materials and systems. The time has come to devote more attention to people and competitive strategy.
With the persistent, chronic public perception of manufacturing as a smoky, dirty, dimly lighted 19th
Century factory, we need to highlight and emphasize the positive, societal benefits that manufacturing
brings in order to attract more young talent to manufacturing and bring more manufacturing back to the US.
A new kind of leadership is needed. This paper discusses a course in leadership development in a graduate
manufacturing program for working adults. It contains results based on interviews with alumni that
demonstrate the power of this process and the new competitive capabilities enjoyed by the companies at
which these alumni are employed.
The Future of Manufacturing
The United States needs a strong manufacturing sector to face the challenges of this Century. The strength of
the manufacturing sector is the supply chain of smaller manufacturers. While some manufacturing companies
are very advanced and innovative, they tend to be the larger organizations. We need more small and medium
sized manufacturers to be innovative. Why? So they can take a larger role of greater value in the supply chain,
keep pace with and support the most innovative organizations, become more competitive and ultimately more
sustainable as an economic contributor.
Manufacturing is not just the traditional machining of steel of the 19th Century. Advances in new materials and
processes make manufacturing much more complex and much more exciting. Small manufacturers need to
invest in R&D, in training, and in modern leadership who will create organizational cultures that provide
incentives for innovation. We need incentives to help these companies to collaborate and build teams with
skills to meet the daunting challenges we face today, and which will become even more challenging in the
future.
Small companies are often private firms. They enjoy a major advantage in that they are flexible and responsive.
They are not being driven by short-term thinking and erratic valuation of their stock, as are many of the larger
firms. These companies can make decisions that are in their best long-term interest, and the best long-term
interests of the economy. They need to capitalize on this advantage to revitalize the strength of the
manufacturing sector in the US and take charge of our economy.
In addition, public relations for manufacturing need updating. To do this, manufacturing leadership in
organizations large and small must make the image, and the reality, of manufacturing in the United States more
visible. They must be more active in their communities, creating awareness of the value that manufacturing
brings to the economy. Manufacturing factories are viewed by the public as ‘black boxes’ with hidden contents.
Manufacturers must open their doors to the public, especially to students, to show how manufacturing has
changed and demolish outdated perceptions. This will take leadership.
Manufacturers need help in developing leadership. There are many opportunities, but it takes initiative to make
the connections needed. Manufacturers need to reach out to post-secondary institutions in their communities.
Post-secondary educational programs are ready to partner with manufacturers in providing education, training
and on-site programs beyond production methods that include content covering leadership. They can help
leaders develop the characteristics needed to create the environment for the employees to become more
innovative and see their role in the larger systems context. This has been the objective of the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers and the program specific curriculum criteria they have established for Engineering
Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET accredited manufacturing engineering programs.1
ABET Manufacturing Criteria
The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET program criteria for manufacturing1 requires that
programs demonstrate that graduates have proficiencies in five specific areas: 1) materials and manufacturing
processes, 2) process, assembly and product engineering, 3) manufacturing systems design, 4) laboratory
experience, and 5) manufacturing competitiveness. Manufacturing competitiveness requires understanding the
creation of competitive advantage through manufacturing planning, strategy and control. While the first four
requirements are primarily about things, the competitiveness requirement is all about people. To fulfill this
requirement, students need to understand and exercise leadership. We manage things, but we lead people.
Manufacturing planning, strategy and control are elements of management, but leadership goes far beyond this.
Thinking of these requirements in terms of just management is of another era; as an old saying goes, it is
‘mistaking the edge of the rut for the horizon’. These requirements must be viewed in the context of leadership
that fits the needs of the 21st Century. The complexities of planning and developing strategy in a global
economic manufacturing environment have become much more difficult than in the last century. The approach
to leadership for this environment must keep pace. Internally, leadership must draw on all the skills of every
employee to develop the innovative processes and products that meet the challenges of global competitors.
Externally, these leaders must change the face of manufacturing to the public, showing the tremendous impact
of manufacturing on our quality of life2, and making a career in manufacturing an attractive option for students.
These leaders must also make the case to the general public and to public servants for strengthening
manufacturing at home. In addition to the short term requirements of increasing the attractiveness and
competitiveness of manufacturing in the United States, these leaders must keep an eye to the future and
develop sustainable processes and products that consider the long-term effects of their decisions.
Value Creation Model
How can this be done? An instructive diagram that helps us understand this process is provided by the Value
Creation Model (Figure 1) developed by Arnie Weimerskirch and others at Honeywell3. Exciting products that
generate repeat business, and lean operations that reduce waste and cost, are all created by innovative
employees working in a supportive environment created by management.
Value Creation Model
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
M
M
I
T
M
E
N
T
Relationships
Revenue
Growth
Imaginative
Products
Delighted
Customers
Committed
Employees
Delighted
Shareholders
Innovation
Improved
Margins
Refined
Processes
Improved
Quality
Shortened
Cycle
Times
Improved
Asset
Utilization
Improved
Competitive
Position
Figure 1. Value Creation Model
Interviews with alumni of the graduate programs in manufacturing at the University of St. Thomas have
illustrated how this not only can be done, but how it is being done. Several of those cases will be cited later.
The key point here is that leadership is needed at all levels, and programs in manufacturing education need to
make the development of leadership skills and attitudes of their graduates a priority.
Changing the Perception of Manufacturing
Manufacturing engineers and manufacturers in general seem always to be on the defensive. There are frequent
stories about the negative 19th Century image of manufacturing, how it is difficult to attract young people into
manufacturing, and how it is difficult to get parents to encourage their children to go into manufacturing. In an
article published in Measures of Success2, a case was made that the high standard of living that millions
experience, previously reserved for kings and the richest few, would not exist were it not for manufacturing. In
the article, we discussed the key role that manufacturing has played in increasing the quality of life. People
today live better than the kings of past centuries, due largely to the ability of manufacturers to produce quality
products and services that are affordable to large numbers of people.
To reinforce the importance of manufacturing in the United States, the Presidents of Harvard and MIT have
recently come out in support of strengthening manufacturing in the United States4. Said MIT president Susan
Hockfield, “if manufacturing is old-fashioned, then we’re not doing it right.” It’s time to change that negative
image, and it’s time to change manufacturing.
Manufacturing engineers need to raise the perception of their profession as being a major contributor to our
standard of living. Without cost reductions created by manufacturing engineers, we wouldn’t be able to
produce and buy all the great things that improve people’s lives. The abundance of affordable products, once
considered the luxuries of the elite if they were available at all, are the result of a strong manufacturing sector.
Such products as food, medical products and procedures, communications, entertainment, transportation - the
list goes on forever - would not be commonplace were it not for a strong domestic manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing engineers have the skills to produce very cost effective products. In manufacturing organizations
of all sizes, they must now add the skills and attitudes of leadership to plan, strategize and control their internal
operations and supply chains, and to lead the initiatives to re-establish public perception of the importance of a
strong manufacturing sector to our economy.
The ‘Circle T’® Shaped Engineer
Some authors have referred to the need for the ‘T’ shaped engineer. The notion is that the vertical stem in the
‘T’ is technical depth, and the horizontal bar is systems breadth. We are expanding this to the ‘Circle T’® shaped
engineer, with the ‘Circle’ representing the larger context that is leadership. To be an effective leader requires
technical depth and the broader education that enables engineers to understand the systems in which their
technology operates. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. It also requires an understanding of
systems and relationships for manufacturing engineers to be really effective leaders. The EAC of ABET program
criteria for manufacturing programs call for just that; “the understanding and creation of competitive advantage
through manufacturing planning, strategy and control”. The leadership skills needed to serve that criteria are
those of the ‘Circle T’® shaped engineer who has a broad education that enables her/him to have a vision, see
the manufacturing operations in a systems context, and to take the initiative to create change.
The Bicycle Model
One can think of the engineers and manufacturers role as a leader in terms of a bicycle5 (Figure 2). The technical
skills are represented by the rear wheel and the power train. These skills give the leader a strong basis in
understanding the nuts and bolts of what needs to be done. The front wheel, representing the leadership skills
and systems knowledge, allows the leader to steer her/his technical skills in the desired direction.
Communication
Leadership
Initiative
Steering
Power
Technical Skills: Math,
science, engineering,
critical thinking
Creativity
Figure 2. Bicycle Model of leadership
Without steering, this power will take the engineer in no particular direction. She/he needs a front wheel to
control her/his direction. The front wheels are the right brain elements like reflection, leadership,
communication, courage, initiative, creativity and innovation. These capabilities make the engineers ‘bicycle’
complete and will keep him/her on the right path. During the development of the engineers technical
capabilities, the skills needed for his/her front wheel may have been neglected. That can be fixed through
appropriate leadership learning opportunities.
Sustainability
Many engineering programs have students participate in the Order of The Engineer ceremony. This ceremony
arose from the failure of a Canadian bridge as a result of poor engineering, and is meant to emphasize to the
graduates the importance of their work in providing for the safety of the public. The Obligation of the Engineer6
states that engineers have three responsibilities: to act fairly, to conserve nature’s resources and to serve the
public good. Conserving nature’s resources of materials and energy is at the center of what manufacturing
engineers do, since a central theme of manufacturing engineering is to take cost out of products and processes.
This is done by identifying the most appropriate and cost-efficient materials that will satisfy the design
requirements, and to make processes lean to reduce their cost. Both of these requirements make it incumbent
on the manufacturing engineer to lead in considering and evaluating alternative materials and processes for any
given application, and for manufacturing leadership to create the culture that fosters innovation and a positive
change in the perception of manufacturing.
The manufacturing engineer has an additional obligation, and that is to help design products that are compelling
to customers, products that customers want to buy, and products that they want to continue to buy. This
requires that the manufacturing engineer become much more engaged with marketing, design engineering and
customers to aid in the creation of these products. All of these requirements are contained in the Value
Creation Model previously described.
Summary of 2004 Paper on Leadership Development
At the ASEE annual conference in 2004, a paper titled “Beyond Professionalism to Leadership: Leveraging
Leadership for a Lifetime” was presented by the authors on the motivation for a course that helped working
adult graduate students assess their leadership capacity and skills, discussed the nature of the course and
reported the results observed at that time.7
The idea for this course series began in 2000 when our Industry Advisory Board was reviewing the program
objectives and mission. This discussion ranged into the definition of leadership and professionalism. At the
same time we began a benchmarking initiative of six other university engineering schools, searching for best
practices. These benchmarking visits and advisory board discussions provided ideas that we incorporated into
our plan for a new approach to assessing the effectiveness of our masters programs.
After considerable discussion engaging many stakeholders, we created a new three-part course titled
“Leveraging Leadership for a Lifetime” (LLL-I, II, III). Course details can be found on the University of St. Thomas
School of Engineering website.8 This sequence of three one-credit courses, spread throughout all masters degree
programs, was designed to provide the student with an ongoing close look at herself/himself as a learner, a
leader, and the person in charge of her/his life-long plan. The series intended to answer the question, “How do I
get the best possible results for my life goals from this graduate program?”
With faculty and industry engagement, we identified specific learning outcomes for the
leadership series, critical features for the process and expected outcomes for each of the courses. We used a set
of critical design assumptions as our guide for development. These assumptions were based on adult learning
theory as well as motivational theory. Furthermore, we felt the students should take personal responsibility to
be actively involved in their learning agenda, shape a vision for their leadership and learning that would guide
their planning process while they deliberately focused on increasing their self-awareness and understanding of a
leader’s social/ethical responsibilities.
The three-course series began with a thorough base-line assessment of the individual graduate student’s
competencies, personal values, learning style, leadership aptitude and other data (both qualitative and
quantitative) regarding their personality profile and emotional intelligence. Each of these areas was seen as a
critical ingredient contributing to the leadership capacity building process. Students used the data as a
foundational building block in designing their roadmap for learning and leading.
The key to understanding and developing one’s leadership abilities lies in understanding ones beliefs. It requires
looking inside to find your inner leader. This has been with working adults in the graduate programs at the
University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, including those in the Master of Manufacturing Systems
Engineering and the Master of Science in Manufacturing Systems programs.
At the time of the initial survey documented in the 2004 paper, students were excited about their learning
pursuits, engaging others to support them and beginning to demonstrate their leadership talents as they
learned, stretched and grew. They were feeling real strength and power in coming to better understand
themselves and taking charge of their own learning outcomes. With an additional six years experience, the
power of this approach in releasing the leaders within is becoming much more clear and compelling. Alumni of
this program are now convinced that this course has had a profound effect on the way they view the world as an
interconnected system, on their role to lead and make a difference, and as a result has changed the way they
think.
Alumni Interviews
Many of our alumni, particularly from the Master of Manufacturing Systems Engineering program and the
Master of Science in Manufacturing Systems program, were traditional manufacturing people when they
entered the graduate program. As they learned about the importance of people in the manufacturing
organization, they have grown into leaders who are changing the way manufacturing is viewed. Several
examples stand out. [Note: interviews were done under a research project covered by the University of St.
Thomas Institutional Review Board. In accordance with the agreement, anonymity has been maintained by
using pseudonyms for alumni. The industries represented and stories are factual.]
As a student in our Master of Manufacturing Systems Engineering program, Alumnus Nate Keyes was then an
engineer at a company that manufactured ammunition. He is now President of a company that manufactures
high end machine tools and is changing the culture.
Nate was hired as the vice president of manufacturing at a company that manufactures high-end
tooling. As good as this company was, there was work to be done, and his personal leadership skills
would be tested. He recalls first meeting the manufacturing manager and asking, ‗how‘s your
quality?‘ The answer, ‗It‘s so good we don‘t measure it.‘ So now what? Nate suggested to the
manager that he get some orange buckets and place them around the plant. If by chance there should
be some defect, the part could be put in the bucket. When the bucket became full, they would place
it in the front entrance for all employees to see. It didn‘t take long to fill one bucket, then two, then
many. One of the seasoned manufacturing people soon stopped by Nate‘s office and said, ‗Nate, I
think you‘re onto something.‘ He helped the employees discover the problem for themselves and
created an environment for them to solve it. While Nate had position power, it was his personal
power and individual leadership that made the difference.
Nate has made his company a model of modern manufacturing by viewing the organization as a
collection of people who are empowered to be innovative. Another example is that of Hank Bolles who
learned how to lead a culture change.
Hank began his career as a manufacturing engineer in a company that produces fluid handling
equipment. In the early 1990s, Hank was assigned to a lead team that was transforming their
production from a factory functional structure to a cellular, focused factory. This transformation was
cutting-edge at the time and game-changing for the company. Not only were they transforming to
cellular manufacturing, they had to keep production going in two plants while they were moving
equipment. This experience showed Hank what he could do. Also, being on the lead team was
highly visible, up to the CEO. He got to know the leadership of the company personally. He learned
how they thought. During the transformation he gave numerous presentations to other employees,
explaining why the change was important and why it made sense. He learned about change
management, used the company newspaper to communicate, and explained what was happening. In
one presentation he used a graphic showing old vs. new product flow – going from a ‗spaghetti
diagram‘ with miles of product travel to the simple and elegant flow of cellular. It made the point.
The experience proved to Hank he could make change happen, he learned how to effectively speak
before groups, and he learned how to communicate to all levels in the organization. He did this all
from the position of an engineer. It gave Hank visibility and confidence that has led to new
opportunities he never imagined.
Nate and Hank have continued to plan the futures of their organizations manufacturing operations, have
developed and implemented strategies to carry out those plans, and have established controls to keep
their organizations on course. They have done this in the format of the Value Creation Model, engaging
everyone in their organizations to be active participants, tapping into the energy and creativity of every
employee. Dan Jansen had similar experiences of taking on a leadership role. In his case, he had no
position power, only personal power, and yet accomplished exceptional results.
Dan recalls his first significant leadership role in industry. He was a manufacturing engineer in an aerospace
engineering company. A major aircraft project on which he was working was experiencing cost and
schedule overruns. With that project completed, he was assigned to another project on the next generation
product. Dan gathered some of his engineering colleagues together and, using learning from past
experiences and from our graduate manufacturing program, he proposed changing the way they did this
project. He recommended point of use stores near production, pull vs. push methods, and disposition of
nonconforming product on the spot and other modern manufacturing thinking and methods new at the
time. He didn’t ask permission to do this, he just did it. It was the right thing to do. He taught the approach
to those not familiar with these methods and because he had thought them out well, his colleagues saw the
merits and joined him. It just made sense. Members of the group saw the benefits from their own
perspective. They made sweeping changes that took management aback. The result was dramatic
improvement: it took 180 days to get the first components manufactured; by the end of year one, they were
producing one unit per day. He did this all without official sanction. The other engineers worked with him
to develop a vastly improved process that resulted in on-budget and on-schedule performance. Dan was
not asked to do this: he took the initiative to take charge, for the benefit of his company and of their
customer.
Individual initiative based on ‗doing the right thing‘ and on understanding what motivates people is a
theme that emerged again and again in these interviews. Ellie Fitzgerald and Bobby Bridges are two
more examples of heads-up initiative.
As the leader of a small team in a medical device company, Ellie was confronted with a situation
where four team members each had different points of view on how to handle a specific situation.
Ellie set up a two hour meeting and stood at the board, laying out the pros and cons to each approach
by asking the team questions and documenting their responses. Doing this exercise systematically
helped all the team members realize the appropriate path, and all she did was facilitate their
discussion in a productive manner. The team agreed on one approach and all left the room win-win.
Bobby was an engineering manager at a truck assembly plant. For many years, the corporate quality
group had tried to establish a top-down process to monitor and correct cab welding problems, but it
never caught on. Bobby had developed a process to do this in his plant. Every weld could be traced
to a specific machine and tool, so defects could be detected and corrected quickly. He shared this
with his colleagues in other plants, and word spread. It was readily accepted, and is now the
corporate standard. Bobby had unassumingly shared the methods he developed, and was recognized
corporate wide as the leader of this initiative.
There are many more examples, but these five show how real manufacturing people are innovating and
creating cultures for sustainability. They are changing the perception of manufacturing in their own
organizations. They are creating value and making their organizations more globally competitive.
These are individuals that are fully developing the horizontal part of their ‗Circle T‘® and steering their
technical power in the direction of manufacturing competitiveness.
Survey of Engineering Deans
During the past year the authors have conducted surveys of engineering school deans9 to determine their views
on the need for leadership education for engineers, and on their current capacity to deliver this kind of
education. While just 46% of the schools responding said they offered leadership education for their
undergraduate students and 21% to their graduate students, fully 100% felt leadership education for engineers
was important.
Research over the past several years has provided evidence of the success of the approach taken in the School
of Engineering at the University of St. Thomas. This model demonstrates a proven process for delivering
graduate leadership education to engineers and can be expanded to other adult practicing engineers to become
leaders.
Despite the survey responses regarding the perception of importance of leadership skills for engineers, many
programs find it difficult to incorporate into their curricula as a separate course because of the demands of
other curricular elements. There is a clear need to find alternative ways for these programs to provide
leadership education.
The components of the leadership development curricula at the University of St. Thomas could be integrated
into other courses in the manufacturing engineering curriculum and even into extracurricular activities like SME
Student Chapter programs. Any course that is used to meet the EAC of ABET manufacturing specific curriculum
program criteria would be a good candidate. Work is ongoing by the authors to assist programs who want to
use this approach, including documentation of the process in a handbook5.
What’s needed in Manufacturing Engineering Programs
Manufacturing engineering programs need to build on the manufacturing competitiveness criteria. There is a
strong need for manufacturing planning, strategy and control. This requires change, and the strong leadership
needed to make change happen. The global economy has thrown old assumptions out the door, and today’s
manufacturers need to have leadership to bring manufacturing and jobs back to the United States. This is being
done in some places already, and we can spread it to others.
This will require changes in these programs. Many will interpret this as a need to ‘add more courses’, but this is
the linear left-brain approach. We need to be more creative as faculty to first better understand leadership and
find ways to integrate leadership education into our programs. It does not require a new or stand-alone class;
we can integrate leadership into existing courses and extracurricular activities. While we strive to develop
courage, creativity and competence in our students, we need to do the same in our faculty.
Faculty interested in pursuing ways to introduce leadership into their curricula can use the model developed at
the University of St. Thomas as a start. Detailed syllabi for the Leveraging Leadership for a Lifetime (LLL) courses
are readily available on the website.8 Using this same approach may not work for all programs. We suggest
using the elements included in the LLL classes and adapt them to your environment. You may decide to put
segments into existing classes, or partner with your university counseling office to administer assessment
instruments, or build some of these ideas into student chapters of SME. It is the leadership concepts that are
important, not the specific way you decide to implement the learning.
What can practicing manufacturing engineers do?
Practicing manufacturing engineers can play a major role. They can identify the opportunities and needs in their
organizations to enhance their competitiveness, create value in their organizations and become more
sustainable. They can seek out and partner with their local educational institutions to identify how these
programs can enhance their learning outcomes and deliver the program objectives that manufacturers want and
need. They can work with nearby post-secondary institutions to bring leadership education into their
companies. In practicing their own leadership development, each manufacturing engineer can seek to find their
inner leader, and build conscious competence, confidence and courage. Each person, in their own unique way,
can make a difference.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2010 Accreditation Cycle. Engineering Accreditation Commission, ABET,
Inc. 111 Market Place, Suite 1050, Baltimore, MD. 21202
Bennett, Ronald J (2009). The Noble Cause of Manufacturing. Measures of Success. Minnesota Center for Engineering
and Manufacturing Excellence.
Weimerskirch, Arnold M. and Ronald J. Bennett (1998). ―Developing a Customer Centered Strategic Planning Model for
an Academic Institution‖. SME International Conference on Education in Manufacturing.
Gavin, Robert. “Retooling an industry”, Boston Globe, October 17, 2010.
Bennett, Ronald J. and Elaine R. Millam. “The Magic of Mindset: Liberating the Leader Within.” In preparation, 2011.
Order of The Engineer. http://www.order-of-the-engineer.org/?page_id=6
Bennett, Ronald J. and Elaine R. Millam (2004). “Beyond Professinalism to Leadership: Leveraging Leadership for a
Lifetime”. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference.
Course details for Leveraging Leadership for a Lifetime. LLL-I:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/graduate/syllabi/201120/etls550-01.pdf; LLL-II:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/graduate/syllabi/201040/etls650-01.pdf; LLL-III:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/graduate/syllabi/201040/etls850-01.pdf
Bennett, Ronald J. and Elaine R. Millam (2009). Survey of engineering school deans. Unpublished.
The Noble Cause of Manufacturing
Published Fall 2009 in Measures of Success
Once only royalty enjoyed extraordinary conveniences, today the extraordinary is the ordinary thanks to
manufacturing.
By Ronald Bennett, Executive Director, Minnesota Center for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence
Imagine you are King in the 16th Century. You live in a cold, stone palace with no central air or heat. There’s no
running water or indoor plumbing. With no radio, television or newspapers to keep you informed, the world
seems small and isolated.
Fast forward to the 21st Century. We have comfortable, climate controlled homes. We turn a faucet and water
comes out. The world’s events are literally at our fingertips 24 hours a day. Thanks to technological advances,
many of us now live better than the royalty of the past, even on modest incomes. The industry that makes
this possible? Manufacturing.
Manufacturing is the life sustaining force that touches every single thing around you—from the furnace in
your home to your laptop computer to the pacemaker that may someday save your life. Manufacturers are
central in creating a better, more convenient, cleaner and healthier life; but few of us focus on the positives,
and that’s a mistake.
To reach and recruit the next generation of would-be manufacturers, it is imperative that we—the old
guard—talk about the benefits of a job in manufacturing, rather than just its features. When reaching out to
young people, talk about manufacturing’s role in the stewardship of our planet through recycling and ecofriendly practices. Talk about how it helps people in need through bio-manufacturing and work in the health
industry. Play up the myriad products that make people’s lives better and create a safer world.
To talk the talk, of course, we must walk the walk. Jump on the green bandwagon by using lean and
sustainable practices to conserve nature’s precious resources. Open your minds—and the doors of your
shop—to new technology, energy and water conservation, affordable health care and other modern
elements. Not only will you attract the best and brightest of today’s generation, you’ll be involved in work
that is rewarding. And, you may even boost that bottom line.
If you are still skeptical about your role in creating a better world, here’s some food for thought: You may just
stamp hinges in your factory, but somewhere down the supply chain, you’re contributing to an energyefficient freezer. You may just solder circuits, but the pacemaker you helped create saves lives. You get the
idea.
What does your manufacturing operation do to benefit mankind? If you can make that clear, you stand a
good chance of attracting the talent you’ll need this century to have a sustainable business, maximize
Minnesota’s competitiveness and maybe even change the world.
Indiana Jones and the future of Minnesota: Helping students choose an
engineering or manufacturing career. What does it take? How early should
we start?
By Ron Bennett
You think Indiana Jones has adventures? Or Harry Potter? They’re peanuts compared to the exciting adventure of creating
the future that engineers and manufacturers experience every day. It takes more imagination and creativity than you see in those
stories to create a sustainable global environment and economy in the 21st Century.
So why, you ask, don’t I know about this? Who’s keeping this secret from me? And why are they keeping this a secret?
Good questions.
Well, actually, we engineers and manufacturers are not good at the marketing part. We don’t have a television series. We
haven’t produced any movies or iPod downloads. We don’t even have a good manufacturing or engineering video game. We
keep our plants and workplaces closed to the public. We just haven’t reached out much. Sure, there have been some exceptions,
but not widespread. We have also not talked about engineering and manufacturing in terms of the benefits they provide society,
and the fun and feelings of contribution from those careers. So how would anyone know that there are exciting opportunities in
these fields? Well, there is new energy being created by a group of dedicated and passionate people.
The new Minnesota science and engineering education standards are a beginning, along with K-12 programs like Engineering is
Elementary, Gateway Academy and Project Lead The Way. So are engineering summer camps like ZAP Camps organized
by MNCEME in its partner schools, and STEPS at the University of St. Thomas, and hands-on experiences like The
Works and Leonardo’s Basement. There are many more. Creative communities are organizing open houses at manufacturing
companies, like those arranged by the Central Minnesota Manufacturing Association (CMMA) in St. Cloud, and initiatives
by the Minnesota Precision Manufacturing Association to link schools to engineering and manufacturing companies.
All of these groups are coming together in a new voluntary statewide organization called the Minnesota STEM Network to
coordinate and communicate STEM learning opportunities, and the importance of STEM to jobs and the economy. A major
collaborative experience organized through this group is STEM at the Fair, a day-long event on August 26, the opening day of
the Minnesota State Fair. In our January BLOG, we pointed out the relationship of STEM and the needs of industry for
advanced skills. At the Minnesota State Fair, you will see the STEM program in Carrousel Park immersed in examples of
the applications of STEM in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, health care, the hospitality industry and entertainment.
From the latest agricultural machinery and midway carnival rides, to the mini-donut stands and food on a stick, to the
horticulture and animal husbandry buildings, you cannot get away from engineering, manufacturing and STEM.
But the most important stakeholder to get this message out is parents. In a recent survey of post-secondary students, parents
were cited by 80% of the respondents as having greatest influence on their selection of education and career. So we as parents
need to become aware and actively engaged in understanding the role of STEM, engineering and manufacturing in the health of
our economy, and to help our children realize the fun, creative and important role they can play be engaging in engineering and
manufacturing. In fact, we need to start very early, before our kids are in school. Parents need to read to their children; one
youngster said her favorite book before kindergarten was on the digestive system. We need to get involved with our schools, and
to open our industries to the public to see what we do. And we need to take advantage of every opportunity for our children to
engage hands-on in STEM activities.
We are faced with a staggering list of issues to address this Century that all depend on technical advances and solutions, and
cost-effective manufacturing and delivery mechanisms. From energy, environment and water to transportation, health care
delivery and security, we need the passion and active engagement of every mind in America to meet the challenge. So, get
engaged. You’ll find this an adventure in itself.
This edition of Measures of Success gives examples of programs supported by MNCEME to advance this cause. Enjoy.
Beyond Professionalism to Leadership:
Leveraging Leadership for a Lifetime
Elaine Millam, Ronald J. Bennett, Ph.D.
Engineering and Technology Management
University of St. Thomas
St. Paul, Minnesota
From 2004 ASEE Proceedings of Annual Conference
ABSTRACT
In 2000, our Industry Advisory Board asked how we knew that we were achieving our mission, how could we
determine that our students were becoming the leaders as we claimed and, further, how would we know what
our program was contributing to student personal growth? The ensuing discussion among industry
representatives, faculty and students on what it meant to be “professional” and a “leader” resulted in the
creation of a three-part course in our Master of Science in Technology Management degree program. The three
parts – one at the beginning, middle and end of the degree program, were designed to determine the students’
initial leadership capacities and then engage the student in more self-awareness assessment, planning and
developing a learning roadmap. Finally, we would show how the students had grown their capacities
throughout the program.
At the onset of the program, students are assessed on their emotional capacity, their leadership characteristics,
their personality inventory, competencies that align with program objectives and their life-learning process. The
resulting assessment profile helps the student to plan for their graduate program-learning journey. They
intentionally set forth a roadmap and identify a network that will support their learning throughout the
program, using key faculty, friends and business colleagues on-the-job to enhance their learning agenda. They
come to recognize themselves as leaders in the making. They make commitments to themselves for how they
intend to develop on-the-job as well as on the campus and in their communities.
Throughout the learning process, they have checkpoints built in to re-assess themselves and witness their
progress. They focus their leadership journey on self, their team, their organizations and their intended
contributions. By the end of the program, they receive feedback from all stakeholder groups who are witnessing
their progress and commenting on their results.
Students so far are excited about their learning pursuits, engaging others to support them and are
demonstrating their leadership talents as they learn, stretch and grow. They feel real strength and power in
coming to better understand themselves and taking charge of their own learning outcomes. We, as faculty, are
prepared to support their journeys and wonder with them about their lifelong possibilities.
Mission
We provide a practical, values based learning experience that produces well-rounded, innovative engineers and
technology leaders who have the technical skills, passion and courage to make a difference.
Background
After many years of offering Masters degrees in engineering and operations, we identified a need for a new type
of degree in our market to serve the needs of individuals in organizations where technology was changing
rapidly. The knowledge and skills needed in this challenging environment called for creating a new program that
dealt specifically with unarticulated customer needs, change, risk, courage and leadership. In response to that
need we created the Master of Science in Technology Management (MSTM) in 1997.
When the MSTM program was created, we established specific program objectives and educational outcomes
which can be found on our website listed in the bibliography. We also put in place a well-defined process for
admitting students to the program. The objective of this process was to ascertain that the MSTM program was a
good fit for each student, and that the students resonated with the objectives of the program. Required for
admission were: 1) a goal statement, 2) a letter of endorsement from their manager and 3) a personal interview
with the Program Director to review student and program goals and engage in a discussion to establish
expectations of student and program.
Among the expectations of the student are 1) to have a mentor and 2) to take learning from each course back
into their organization. The role of the mentor and mentee are outlined and methods of taking learning back
into their organizations are discussed. The goal in both cases is to help the students develop their leadership
potential, give the students visibility in their organizations to a wide audience, helping them establish their
expertise and initiative and bring value to themselves and their organizations. Students respond very favorably
to this process and the goals.
Periodic breakfast, lunch and dinner meetings have enhanced these methods with students and their mentors
that began in 1998. Resources on mentoring have been provided at these meetings, and an atmosphere of
discussion and sharing among students and mentors has resulted in energetic and stimulating conversation.
Still, we knew more could be done to help the students take full advantage of their learning and more fully
develop their leadership skills.
Enter the Industry Advisory Board
In 2000, our Industry Advisory Board was reviewing the Program Objectives and Mission and asking the
question, “How can we measure whether these goals are being achieved?” and “Is our program making a
difference?” This discussion of assessment also ranged into a discussion of the definition of leadership and
professionalism.
Built on the ideas expressed in our Mission, Program Objectives and definition of leadership, a draft of an
approach was created in 2000 and reviewed by faculty. In early 2002, we also undertook a benchmarking
initiative of six other universities, searching for best practices that might assist in this process. These
benchmarking visits provided ideas that we incorporated into our plan for a new approach to assessing the
effectiveness of our MSTM program.
After considerable discussion, revision and refinement, a proposal was submitted to our Graduate Curriculum
Committee in 2002 fro a new three-part course titled “Leveraging Leadership for a Lifetime”. The course was
unanimously approved.
This sequence of three one-credit courses, spread throughout the full MSTM degree program, is designed to
provide the student with an ongoing close look at herself/himself as a learner, a leader, and the person in charge
of her/his life-long plan. The series intends to answer the question, “How do I get the best possible results for
my life goals from this graduate program?”
Development of the Leadership Series
A Design Committee including key faculty and other department staff worked together to clearly articulate the
intentions for the Leveraging Leadership for a Lifetime (LLL) wrap around the MSTM Program. They identified
specific learning outcomes for the leadership series, critical features for the process and expected outcomes for
each of the courses. We used a set of critical design assumptions as our guide for development. These
assumptions were based on adult learning theory as well as motivational theory. Furthermore, we felt the
student should take personal responsibility to be actively involved in their learning agenda, shape a vision for
his/her leadership and learning that would guide their planning process while they deliberately focused on
increasing their self-awareness and understanding of a leader’s social/ethical responsibilities.
The three-course series would begin with a thorough base-line assessment of the individual graduate student’s
competencies, personal values, learning style, leadership aptitude and other data (both qualitative and
quantitative) regarding their personality profile and emotional intelligence. Each of these areas was seen as a
critical ingredient contributing to the leadership capacity building process. The student would use the data as a
foundational building block in designing their roadmap for learning and leading.
Several instruments were reviewed and carefully selected that would provide reliable and valid measures of
each of these areas. Each student would engage with others in his/her workplace to gather feedback and inputs
that would give him/her others’ perceptions of their leadership characteristics and capabilities. Some of these
same people were invited to be ongoing supports for the student’s learning process, continually providing
feedback on demonstrated progress. Key support people include a mentor selected by the student, most often
from his/her workplace, the students’ advisor and others who work closely with the student.
The initial course within the series sets the stage for the 3-5 yearlong learning process. The students spend time
shaping their own vision and accompanying plan for how they will integrate all their classroom learnings, their
work experiences and their personal inventories to reach their desired vision for their graduate program. They
identify key players who will serve as their personal and professional Board of Directors. They determine how
they will use this Board, and build an action plan for achieving each of the milestones along the way.
Tom is a dynamic, entrepreneurial student in the program who has his sights set on launching his own business.
He currently serves as an Engineering Director in a Power Plant facility. He knows he has the capacity to grow
his strategic leadership prowess and wants to build an empowering workplace that will align people with his
vision of making his company attractive and profitable. Some of his milestones for achieving his goals, include
expanding his present responsibilities to include more strategic planning and directing, to demonstrate effective
lateral team building in his organization and gain financial expertise in order to feel nimble with crafting and
executing his business plan. He exudes energy and determination, knows how to enroll others to get excited
about his vision and openly welcomes coaching support for building an ambitious timetable for accomplishing
each step along the way. He knows where he is headed and has the courage to confront any obstacles along the
way.
Launch: The First Phase and Students’ Responses
In January of 2003, the first class of 22 students began the series of LLL courses. The students represented a
broad array of occupations and industries including IT, manufacturing, banking, law, public government, medical
technology, product design and development, electrical engineering and engineering management to name a
few. The students were invited immediately to work in small teams to share experiences, identify common
goals and shape their notions of leadership for their graduate program outcomes.
Each student received data from five separate assessment processes—leadership potential, emotional
intelligence, personality preferences, learning styles and competencies reflecting MSTM program objectives.
Students carefully reviewed their data, looked for correlations across the data and began to shape goals for their
learning process that would enhance their strengths and eliminate gaps between their ideals and their present
capabilities.
Through interactive explorations (individual and small groups), they shaped a collective definition of leadership,
received interpretative guidance on four of the assessment instruments, assessing strengths, talents, values and
learning styles. All of this was integrated with leadership and learning theory to shape an individualized plan of
action. The plan flowed naturally from their uniquely articulated vision for the kind of leader the student had
chosen as their ideal. This expressed vision and accompanying roadmap was articulated in a final writing
assignment as well as a presentation to fellow classmates.
Students learned coaching skills to help one another identify appropriate milestones to accomplish their goals,
both personal and professional. The final session in the class became a forum for sharing their proposed plans,
sharing how they would hold themselves accountable and how they proposed to use their support structure.
Students feel extremely positive about their initial experience in the series. Many say, “I can’t wait for next
class…this was the best class I’ve ever had.” Other typical responses to this first session are:
“I loved learning about myself and realize I have more leadership
skills than I thought I did.”
“This was a friendly, optimistic, positive, wonderful experience!”
“This course was a perfect introduction to the program and also
provided me with knowledge that I can immediately use in my
personal and professional life.”
Present Situation
Since the initial launch, 51 students have completed the first of the required series of Leveraging Leadership for
a Lifetime courses. Each of these students are presently working with their mentors, advisors and Board of
Directors to follow their plan of action to become a more intentional leader in their workplace, their social
environments and their families. There is excitement, high energy and serious commitment.
Several of these students have completed approximately five other courses within their graduate programs and
are now registered for the second of the series of LLL. In this second course, the students will review and
measure their progress in all areas, will adjust their learning plans accordingly, expanding their leadership
capacity building to include team effectiveness and organizational influence. Their leading and learning plan
adjustments will reflect the integration of new knowledge and lessons from experience. The students will be
asked to continually update their plans to reflect new learning, new progress and new information about
themselves.
Much remains to be done in order to know the overall impact of this innovative design. Questions abound such
as:
Will students find creative ways to support each other, use their support structure, seek and give feedback,
hold themselves accountable? How will this get demonstrated, monitored and measured?
Will students take responsibility for their learning commitments? Will they establish a practice field within
their work environments to test their skills and newfound capabilities? How will they document their
learnings?
How will mentors, advisors, students and faculty collaborate to support the students‘ plans?
Will the UST faculty be able to more explicitly identify which variables truly make the difference for a
student?
Future Directions
As we look to the future, we have some hunches about overall outcomes. One would naturally expect that
those students who truly use their support structure (Board of Directors and others) will have accelerated
learning and growth. Those who value the experiences embedded in their leadership and learning journey, track
their progress and learn from it will be motivated to continue to grow and learn beyond their graduate program
experience.
It is our intention to continue to monitor the individual and collective outcomes as the students move forward in
their learning pursuits. Documentation of results will be important in order to understand what is working well
and why as well as what might be improved. The student will play a key role in this process, reflecting on their
experience both on-the-job and in the classroom and providing ongoing feedback. A focus on documenting the
students’ stories of real-time learning and leading will help everyone know just how this process will affect lifelong results.
Bibliography
Goleman, Daniel, Boyatzis, Richard and McKee, Annie. Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence.
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
Loehr, Jim and Schwartz, Tony. The Power of Full Engagement. New York: The Free Press, 2003.
Owen, Hilarie. In Search of Leaders. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
University of St. Thomas MSTM Program Objectives and Educational Outcomes
http://www.stthomas.edu/technology/GRAD/ETM_PgmObjectives.htm.
Vaill, Peter B. Learning as a Way of Being. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1996.
Vaill, Peter B. Spirited Leading and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1998.
Biographical Information
ELAINE MILLAM is an adjunct faculty member in the Engineering & Technology Management graduate program at the
University of St. Thomas. She presently owns and runs her own coaching and consulting firm, following over 30 years of
leadership experience in the corporate world—most recently as Director of Individual and Organizational Effectiveness at
Honeywell. She currently coaches executives, provides consultation to leadership teams in business and helps organizations
navigate through positive change.
RONALD J. BENNETT is Director and Chair of the Engineering Programs at the University of St. Thomas. He holds a
Ph.D. in Metallurgical Engineering and an MBA. With a background of 20 years in industry, Bennett teaches and publishes
on diverse topics including materials engineering, technical innovation, technology transfer and engineering education. He is
an EAC of ABET program evaluator and is currently Chair of the Graduate Studies Division of ASEE.
DEVELOPING A CUSTOMER CENTERED
STRATEGIC PLANNING MODEL
FOR AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION
Arnold M. Weimerskirch, PE
Vice President, Corporate Quality
Honeywell, Inc.
And
Ronald J. Bennett, Ph.D.
Director and Chair
Department of Manufacturing Systems and Engineering
University of St. Thomas
ABSTRACT
To be worldclass, a university aspires to academic
excellence, breakthrough research, and operational
efficiency. To attain this vision it balances a diverse and
sometimes conflicting set of stakeholder expectations.
The University of St. Thomas (UST) Programs in
Manufacturing Systems and Engineering, in partnership
with members of its Industry Advisory Board, is working
from a strategic planning model based on the three key
elements of vision, mission and values. This provides a
foundation on which we assess information, think
creatively, and set priorities. Resources such as
partnerships and alliances, endowments and investments
provide the competitive advantages. This model has led
us to identify long and short-term objectives, strategies
and current year actions.
At St. Thomas, our curriculum is designed around a
broad, strategic definition of “manufacturing” called the
Customer Value Stream that we believe gives companies
an advantage in the global marketplace. We have
performed a stakeholder analysis to guide us in
developing programs that prepare our students to
implement the Customer Value Stream concept.
We measure our progress toward our vision by jointly
assessing ourselves against the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology Engineering Criteria 2000
and against the Education Criteria of the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award.
INTRODUCTION
At the University of St. Thomas Department of
Manufacturing Systems and Engineering, we have
developed a vision to be recognized internationally as
one of the top ten programs in applied engineering. As
we reach for this vision, we expect to be noted for
teaching excellence and applied research. We are
working to turn our vision into reality through a
comprehensive strategic planning process and a set of
realistic assessment criteria. Our approach is presented
in this paper.
The UST Programs in Manufacturing Systems and
Engineering are based on the fundamental belief that
manufacturing, broadly defined, plays a vital role in the
post-industrial society. We believe that when viewed in
the context of global distribution networks, a
comprehensive strategic manufacturing system provides
a competitive advantage which outweighs lower labor
rates available in developing countries. Our aim is to
provide our students with the knowledge necessary for
careers in this new manufacturing environment and to
perform research on worldclass manufacturing practices.
HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF ST. THOMAS
The University of St. Thomas was founded in 1885 by
Archbishop John Ireland. What began as the St. Thomas
Aquinas Seminary - with 62 students and a faculty of five
- has grown to be Minnesota’s largest independent
university with four campuses and more than 10,000
students.
After 92 years of all-male enrollment, St. Thomas
became coeducational in 1977. Today, 50 percent of the
undergraduates and more than 40 percent of the
graduate students are women.
Coeducation, coupled with new graduate programs as
well as new campuses, contributed to St. Thomas’
growth over the past two decades. Enrollment increased
from fewer than 2,500 students in 1970 to more than
10,000 today. The graduate programs currently enroll
approximately 5,000 students.
Graduate programs in management were begun in
1974. Graduate programs in applied sciences and
engineering include the Master of Software Design and
Development begun in 1985, and the Master of
Manufacturing Systems Engineering started in 1986.
These programs serve a working adult population
centered in the metropolitan Minneapolis/St. Paul area
from the new 200,000 square foot Frey Science and
Engineering Center. Remote campuses and distance
learning facilities extend the reach throughout the state
of Minnesota and into Wisconsin and South Dakota.
While there have been many changes in the University
of St. Thomas over the years, the fundamental objectives
have remained consistent with those at the inception. A
portion of the current Mission Statement exemplifies
both the change and the consistencies:
“Graduate programs emphasize the integration of
theory with practice, enhance the professional
competence and ethical judgment of their students, and
foster personal growth and an appreciation of lifelong
learning. In all of its academic programs and other
educational enterprises, the university is committed to
meeting the diverse, changing needs of the community.
Throughout, the university fosters in the student a
tradition of service to the public welfare and an
energetic, thoughtful approach to the challenges of
contemporary life.”
The university seeks to create an international
perspective among its students, including an
appreciation of cultural diversity. It strives to anticipate
and respond appropriately to changes in its environment.
The university’s metropolitan setting challenges it to
participate in community life and to develop innovative
programs for persons of all ages within the community.
The mission, vision and values of the Graduate
Programs in Manufacturing Systems and Engineering
described below are a logical and consistent extension of
those of the greater university.
OUR MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES
Executive leadership is crucial to the success of an
academic organization. The job of the leaders in an
organization is largely inspirational. The job begins with
the establishment of three important organizational
underpinnings: mission, vision and values. With this
guidance firmly in place, faculty and staff can do their
jobs, and serve their stakeholders, with fewer procedures
or less supervision. This empowerment helps employees
do their jobs better.
A mission states the organization’s reason for being,
and express what need is being fulfilled. Mission
statements remind leaders, faculty and staff where their
activities lead.
Vision offers the inspiration. Leaders must provide
guidance and set examples as employees ask, “What do
we aspire to?” and therefore, “Where are my
opportunities to make a difference?” A clear, broad
vision statement can help steer an organization as it
adapts to, improves and creates in an ever-changing
world.
CUSTOMER VALUE STREAM
CUSTOMER
REQUIREMENTS
AND
EXPECTATIONS
PRODUCT/
SERVICE
DEFINITION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
SUPPY
CHAIN
MANAGEMENT
PRODUCTION,
DISTRIBUTION
AND
SUPPORT
CUSTOMER
DELIGHT
Values express the organizational character. They are
the intrinsic, bedrock behavior to which employees
revert when there is no other guidance. Aligning
organizational values with individual faculty and staff
member values is therefore very important.
We believe that the Customer Value Stream concept
provides a competitive advantage in the global market
because it assures that our processes deliver everything
that is of value to the customer and nothing that is not of
value. This concept underlies our curriculum.
At UST Manufacturing Systems and Engineering we
have put this leadership structure in place with the
following mission, vision and value statements:
At the front end of the Customer Value Stream is a
complete and comprehensive understanding of customer
requirements and expectations including both articulated
and unarticulated needs. We define and measure
customers’ perception of value using four major
categories:
Figure 1
MISSION:
1. Products and services
To deliver the knowledge necessary to
make manufacturing a central
competitive advantage.
2. Relationships
VISION:
3. Brand promise
• Be recognized by our customers and
the community as one of the top ten
programs in Manufacturing Systems
and Engineering.
• Gain global recognition for teaching
excellence and applied research.
VALUES:
• Being a teaching institution
• Emphasis on application
• Instructors with extensive leading edge
industrial experience.
• Close contact with the community
THE SME “NEW MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISE WHEEL”
The University of St. Thomas Programs in
Manufacturing Systems and Engineering have translated
the SME New Manufacturing Enterprise Wheel into a
broad, strategic definition of “manufacturing” that we
call the “Customer Value Stream” shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
4. Price.
Customers make purchase decisions based on their
perception of the value offered in each of these four
categories.
Once the customers’ perception of value is
understood, that perception must be transformed into
creative products and services that deliver only that
value - no more, no less. An efficient design process
should be used to assure that products and services are
robust, that is that the effects of natural variation are
minimized in the product/service function. Design for
producibility methods should be employed to maximize
the function per feature of the product and service.
Process development must be comprehensive and span
the spectrum of activity from supply management,
through production, distribution and support to the
customer experience at the end of the Customer Value
Stream. Processes must therefore be designed and
installed for relationships as well as for products and
services.
Two new degree initiatives have resulted from the
implementation of the Customer Value Stream concept.
By building on our core competencies, program flexibility
and responsiveness to our markets, these initiatives
provide learning and credentials needed and valued by
industry. Another hallmark of our programs is that they
are applied, rather than theoretical. This is driven by the
needs of industry and made possible by the extensive
industrial experience of our faculty.
needs and, accordingly, guide our strategic planning
priorities. Figure 3 shows that we identified nine
One of these initiatives is the Master of Science in
Technology Management. This program is in response to
needs expressed by local industry and our graduate
students for a degree that provides knowledge in
strategic management of technology, from identification
of technology needs to evolution management. It
provides a compliment to our Master of Manufacturing
Systems Engineering and Master of Science in
Manufacturing Systems degrees, and the Master of
Business Administration with a concentration in
manufacturing which we support.
After the stakeholder needs were identified and
ranked, we defined the processes by which we deliver
stakeholder value. They are shown in Figure 4. Each of
the primary processes has one or several subprocesses.
Our future work will be to map each of these processes
and subprocesses, reengineer them as necessary, and
then continually improve them so that they deliver
maximum value at peak efficiency
primary stakeholders and, in turn, nine key stakeholder
needs. This analysis was performed using
environmental, demographic and stakeholder
information. We will validate and evolve the information
through our stakeholder satisfaction measurement
process.
Figure 3
The other degree, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
Engineering, is tailored to the needs of local industry, and
interest expressed by parents and students, by providing
a concentration in Mechatronics. This degree also builds
Undergraduate Students
Employees
Alumni
Faculty
UST
Community
Prof. Assoc.
Suppliers
Total
We examined a host of alternatives before focusing on
these two initiatives. Throughout we used our strategic
plan as a guide, involving stakeholder groups in the
process. And as we worked through these decisions, we
modified and refined the strategic plan as well.
Stakeholders
Graduate Students
on strengths within the department and compliments
the existing Bachelor of Science in Manufacturing
Engineering.
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
1 Brand reputation and recognition
9
9
6
9
9
9
3.8
1.8
6
62.6
2 Accessibility
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
1
9
61
3 Recognized degrees: reputation
9
9
3
9
9
9
3
1
9
61
4 Relevant courses
9
9
9
3
9
9
1
1
9
59
5 Improved image of manufacturing
6
6
9
9
9
9
1.5
3
4
56.5
6 New curricula
9
9
9
3.8
9
5.5
0.5
3.3
5.5
54.6
7 Development of qualified graduates
9
9
9
5.3
6
9
1.8
1.3
3.8
54.2
8 Academic rigor and quality
9
9
6
5.3
9
9
1.1
1.1
3.1
52.6
9 Short courses and certificates
3
0
9
9
9
3
1
3
0
37
72 69 69
62.4
78
Stakeholder Needs
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
As a prerequisite to our strategic planning process and
to assure consistency with our mission to deliver
knowledge within our broad, strategic definition of
“manufacturing”, we have performed the following
stakeholder analysis. The stakeholder analysis uses a
“voice of the customer” approach to rank the needs of
each stakeholder. Our rating system of 9-3-1 was
designed to accentuate the most important stakeholder
Figure 4
65.5 16.7 16.5
49.4 498.50
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Learning
Professional Credibility
Faculty/Staff Support
& Development
Industry Contact
Marketing
Partnerships
NonCredit Activities
Funding
Student Service
Alumni
Total
Activities/Processes
1 Improved image of manufacturing
9
9
6
9
9
6
9
3
0
6
66
2 Accessibility
9
3
9
9
6
6
9
1
9
3
64
3 Brand reputation & recognition
9
9
9
9
9
3
1
3
6
6
64
4 Recognized degrees: reputation
5 Relevant courses
9
9
9
6
9
9
9
6
3
3
9
6
0
1
6
6
3
0
3
3
60
49
6 Short courses and certificates
6
6
3
9
9
0
9
0
3
3
48
7 New curricula
9
9
9
9
1
3
0
3
0
1
44
8 Development of qualified graduates
9
9
6
3
0
1
0
3
3
0
34
9 Academic rigor and quality
9
9
6
3
0
3
0
1
1
0
32
66 66 40 37 29 26 25 25
461
Stakeholder Needs
78 69
The UST Department of Manufacturing Systems and
Engineering has developed, over the years, several
sustainable competitive advantages, that differentiate it
from other universities. We divide our sustainable
competitive advantages into two components as follows:
1. Core Competencies
-
Close contact with employers
-
Flexibility in course offerings
-
State of the art knowledge
2. Entitlements
OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING MODEL
With the foregoing information and analysis in place,
we are now in a position to implement our strategic
planning model (Figure 5) noted in the abstract. Other
sections of this paper have discussed our mission, vision,
and values, our information and decision making process
and our value-adding processes. Two other parts of the
model deserve some discussion.
-
St. Thomas name
-
Central location in the metropolitan area, the
state and the United States.
Our aim is to continually extend our sustainable
competitive advantages through wise use of
endowments and investments and by forming focused
partnerships and alliances with other institutions.
We have developed a set of strategies by which we will
achieve our vision to be recognized as one of the top 10
programs in Manufacturing Systems and Engineering and
to gain global recognition for teaching excellence and
applied research:
Figure 5
Strategic Planning Model
MISSION
FOCUS
VISION
VALUES
INSPIRATION
CHARACTER
TRUSTWORTHY
INFORMATION
CREATIVE
ALTERNATIVES
CORRECT
LOGIC
1. To teach from leading edge materials and encourage
critical thinking.
2. To offer cyber-degree programs with wide
accessibility.
3. To offer mass customized degree programs tailored
to individual student needs.
Sustainable
Competitive
Advantages
4. To develop individualized student roadmaps for
lifetime learning plans.
5. To use ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 and the
Malcolm Baldrige Education Criteria to assess and
drive our performance.
OBJECTIVES
LONG TERM
SHORT TERM
STRATEGIES
CURRENT YEAR
ACTIONS
These strategies are translated into action plans on an
annual basis.
ASSESSMENT AGAINST WORLDCLASS PERFORMANCE
An academic institution achieves excellence by
measuring itself against worldclass benchmarks, learning
from “best in class” and then continually improving its
performance in key areas. At UST Department of
Manufacturing Systems and Engineering, we perform a
dual assessment; one against the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology Engineering Criteria 2000
(EC 2000) and the other against the Education Criteria of
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA).
There is a close correlation between the two as shown in
Figure 6. The objectives of ABET accreditation as stated
in EC 2000 are:
1) assure that graduates of an accredited program are
prepared adequately to enter and continue the
practice of engineering
2) stimulate the improvement of engineering education
3) encourage new innovative approaches to engineering
education
4) identify these programs to the public.
Figure 6
ABET EC 2000  MBNQA
CORRELATION
Criterion 1 - Students
Results
Item 6.1 Student Performance
Criterion 5 - Faculty
- quality
Item 4.1 Human Resource Planning
Item 7.1 Current Student Needs &
- size
& Evaluation
Expectations
- qualifications
- performance
Item 4.2 Faculty & Staff Work
Item 7.2 Future Student Needs &
Systems
Expectations
Item 4.3 Faculty & Staff
Development
Criterion 2 - Program Educa-
Item 3.1 Strategy Development
Item 4.4 Faculty & Staff Well-Being
tional Objectives
Item 3.2 Strategy Deployment
& Satisfaction
- objectives
- process
Criterion 6 - Facilities
Item 5.4 Research Scholarship &
- curriculum
- conducive to
Service
- evaluation
learning
- faculty - student
Criterion 3- Program Outcome Item 6.1 Student Performance
Results
& Assessment
- skills & knowledge
of graduates
- feedback to
improve program
Item 7.4 Student & Stakeholder
Satisfaction Determination
interaction
- modern engineering tools
Satisfaction Results
Item 7.6 Student & Stakeholder
Criterion 7 - Institutional
Support & Financial
Resources
- program quality
Component
Item 5.6 Business Operations
Management
Item 6.4 School Business
Performance Results
Item 7.5 Student & Stakeholder
Satisfaction Comparison
Criterion 4 - Professional
Item 5.5 Enrollment Management
Item 5.1 Education Design
Item 5.2 Education Delivery
& continuity
- faculty development
- content of courses
- equipment
- quality
- support personnel
Item 1.1 Senior Administration
Leadership
Item 2.1 Management of Information
and Data
Item 4.3 Faculty & Staff
Development
Item 5.3 Education Support Service
Design & Delivery
Item 5.6 Business Operations
Management
Item 6.4 School Business
Performance
The Baldrige criteria, in turn, serve as an academic
excellence model. They are:
1) a comprehensive communications vehicle
2) a realistic self assessment tool
3) a mechanism for continual improvement
Criterion 8 - Program Criteria
- SME required
Item 5.1 Education Design
Item 5.2 Education Delivery
content
4) a framework for learning.
Applied in tandem, the EC 2000 criteria and the
Baldrige criteria form our Value Creation Model shown in
Figure 7. This model is the underpinning of our drive to
be renowned globally for teaching excellence and applied
research and to be recognized as one of the top 10
programs in Manufacturing Systems and Engineering.
Figure 7
Value Creation Model
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
M
M
I
T
M
E
N
T
Conduct
Research
Knowledge
Processes
World
Changing
Knowledge
Enhanced
Civilization
Committed
Faculty
Global
Reputation
Revenue
Growth
Superior
Education
Teach
Delighted
Students
Innovation
Business
Processes
Committed
Staff
Shortened
Cycle Times
Improved
Service
Reduced
Waste
Improved
Asset
Utilization
Greater
Productivity
Lower
Costs
Continually
Refine
Processes
Delighted
Stakeholders
REFERENCES
Jakubowski, Gerald S., Mel I. Mendelson
Loyola Marymount University
“Using Customer Feedback for Improvement of a Graduate Program”
Transactions of the 1997 ASEE Annual Conference, June 15-18, 1997
Engineering Criteria 2000
Second Edition
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
Weimerskirch, A.M., Baldrige for the Baffled, Honeywell Publication
Education Pilot Criteria, 1995
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Bennett, Ronald, “Industry/Academia Collaboration:
Developing a New Master of Science in Technology Management Degree Program”
1998 ASEE Annual Conference (To be published)
Manufacturing Competitiveness Chapter
Enterprise Minnesota Book
November 13, 2008
RJ Bennett
“In a period of rapid change, to adapt is too dangerous because it means you are always running behind.
You have to find a way of getting ahead . . . call it vision, call it mission, it’s basically taking responsibility
for shaping events.”
Peter Drucker
There are three ways of creating wealth: agriculture, mining and manufacturing. As
manufacturers, you are not only a key player in creating wealth, you are transforming designs,
energy and materials into products that help people fulfill their needs and wants. With your
lean manufacturing processes, you are providing high quality products at low cost so that
increasing numbers of people in the United States and worldwide can improve their standard of
living. You are an essential component to building the middle class, improving the lives of
billions and creating a more stable world. This is no small responsibility.
So how do you as manufacturers continue to improve and thrive under increased cost and
competitive pressures? How do you increase the value of your organizations so that they
continue to be competitive? We know that many commodity products with high labor content
are being produced offshore. Sure, variable currency exchange rates and high transportation
costs mitigate this somewhat, and the long supply chains can be a problem with more complete
information channels and high inventories in transit. But in the long run, we can only compete
if we produce products with lower costs through automation and waste reduction, and focus on
higher value products and processes.
As Drucker notes in the quote at the beginning of this article, it is too dangerous to be adaptive;
we as manufacturers need to get ahead. So, how do we do that?
Arnie Weimerskirch and others at Honeywell have developed a Value Creation model that helps
understand our opportunities.
VALUE CREATION MODEL
A manufacturing organization creates value by increasing revenues and decreasing costs.
Everyone knows that. But how? On the revenue side, companies build relationships with
customers and develop imaginative products, leading to delighted customers, repeat business
and revenue growth. On the cost side, companies refine processes, improve quality, shorten
cycle times, reduce waste and take non-value added steps out of their processes. This is also a
rather simplistic description.
But it isn’t really companies that do this. It is employees; passionate, committed employees
who are motivated and empowered to be creative, make decisions and, yes, make mistakes,
that create these innovative products, build relationships and refine processes. But they need
three things: a culture of innovation, created by an enlightened management; the tools
(education) to know what new things to try; and the empowerment to make mistakes on the
way to these transformations. When you’re exploring new turf, there is no fool-proof recipe, so
mistakes are bound to happen. But if we stick with the old methods, we cannot expect
anything but the same old results. Chances are, those same old results will not be enough to
keep manufacturing competitive into the coming century, or even the coming decade.
So the big burden is on the leaders of our manufacturing organizations. It will require some
changes, sometimes major changes, in the way the leaders do things, and in fact, in the way
they think. However, do not despair, others have made the journey, and there is lots of
support available. The only real requirement is passion, that strong will to make each
manufacturing organization as innovative and competitive as you can. The alternative is simply
not acceptable.
CHALLENGES FACING MINNESOTA MANUFACTURERS
Challenges facing Minnesota manufacturers are not new and not unique to Minnesota. In fact,
they are worldwide. Actually, these challenges have been around for a half century; they just
weren’t as critical in the past.
We have often had labor shortages in one area or another, but the looming shortage of
technically educated workers is exacerbated by the demographic changes occurring in
Minnesota. Despite an influx of immigrants from many diverse communities, the number of
students graduating from high schools over the next decade will diminish, providing fewer
potential new employees. This is compounded by the declining graduation rate. On top of
that, there are a growing number of “boomers” who are scheduled to retire during the same
timeframe, not only diminishing the skilled technical workforce, but taking valuable knowledge
out of the system.
The growth of the world economy is of course a major challenge, with production of many
commodity items requiring extensive labor content moving to lower wage regions. Countering
the lower cost of these commodities are the rising transportation costs, valuation of the dollar
against other currencies, the communications complexities often involved in international
commerce and the inventory problem of a boat load of obsolete product in transit to your
warehouse. Despite the worldwide competition, many Minnesota manufacturers are
manufacturing products that are sold – competitively – into countries with much lower labor
costs. How are they doing this? By designing and building higher-valued products using
advanced technology – and innovation.
Which gets to the other point, and that is emerging and disruptive technologies. For the
manufacturer caught unaware, these can be devastating to Minnesota manufacturing.
However, for companies aware of these technologies in advance, and with employees trained
in their application, they become a real competitive advantage.
The worldwide competitive position of Minnesota manufacturers is a challenge, but the picture
is not bleak. Well, that is, it doesn’t need to be. There are many pro-active measures that
manufacturers can take, in Drucker’s words “taking responsibility for shaping events”.
INNOVATION
William Wulf, former President of the National Academy of Engineering, stated in a lecture at
the University of St Thomas in 2006 that to compete globally, we in the United States need to
be more innovative, adding value that supports our higher wage base. The basis of innovation
is creativity. In his view, creativity is simply the process of taking two ideas that seems
disconnected, and connecting them. He went on to say that the more diverse the group, the
more individual ideas we have, so by working collaboratively we have the opportunity to be
much more innovative. Our American culture supports this behavior better than any other.
The job of leadership in manufacturing companies is to create a culture of innovation. Develop a clear
vision, mission and values with your organization. Develop goals and a strategy to achieve them. Share
your vision, mission and goals with employees, empower them to be creative, and create a culture of
innovation. Engage employees in redesigning their jobs to be more exciting, filled with meaningful
content. Have employees meet customers, ask them what they could do to improve the product from
their perspective. This is not easy. It is difficult to “let go” and trust employees. You and your
employees may need some coaching in the process.
As part of your strategy management process, think about your customers. Do you have good
relationships? Will their products be in demand in the future? What can you do to make your
customers more competitive? And in the process, ask yourself whether you have selected the
customers you want to achieve your own goals?
TALENT
What is the make-up of your employee talent and the supply chain of future employees? Do
you have an adequate supply now, and what will your needs be in the future? Many
manufacturers are concerned about their workforce, particularly about how they will fill
positions when the current employees retire. Will there be an adequate supply to meet future
needs?
This is your most critical challenge. What skills do you need now, and what will you need in 5
years? Or in 10 years? Have you established an estimated personnel need list? You’ll need one
if you want to compete, and if you want to develop the supply of talent you’ll need.
There are several things you can do proactively to address the talent need. First, you already
have employees. Get them engaged in ongoing education and continual learning. There are no
better resources than this critical group. They know your business. Through continual learning,
they will develop the new skills you need. They will keep an eye on emerging and disruptive
technologies and give you early notice of what you will need to do to continue to be
competitive in the long term.
Second, for those employees that may be thinking of retirement, or for those that are
considering leaving your employ for other reasons, explore options. Would flexible work hours,
job-sharing or some other variation in standard employment help? Can you retain the skills and
knowledge of expert retirees, bringing them back to mentor less experienced employees?
Third, there are many with talents who have left the workforce to raise families and for other
reasons. Have you tapped that resource, and do you have the flexibility to incorporate them
and other who want part-time, flexible employment?
Fourth, for entry level employees, have you developed a presence in K-12 schools, particularly
high schools, to create awareness of your needs and opportunities for students? Don’t forget
to mention the exciting jobs, compensation and benefits, and what your products are doing for
society. Millennium students have a profound interest in helping society. Also, have you
developed a close working relationship with a technical college or university? Do you know the
faculty? Have you sponsored internships? Or scholarships? Or design projects? There are a
host of opportunities in the Minnesota State University and College system, the University of
Minnesota, and a large body of private universities and colleges. And they are spread all over
the state, so one of them is close to you, no matter where you are. And keep in mind, for the
public institutions, you are already paying for them through your taxes. Why not take
advantage of this tremendous resource which is right in your back yard?
MANAGING COSTS
One of the major topics in all industries today is Lean, taking waste and non-value added steps
out of your processes. Cost containment is becoming like quality; once quality was a
differentiator, now it is an expected requirement. Same today for lean. Managing inventories
and supply chains, using appropriate technology to take non-value added processes out of your
system, takes job redesign. Build jobs to require advanced skills, making the jobs more
interesting and higher value, which will make them more attractive. At the same time, you will
be building competitive advantage into your workforce to use advanced technologies.
PRODUCTS
Commodities will be produced by the low-cost manufacturer. It’s possible that you can compete with a
low-cost strategy. Those that are doing that now are using advanced technology to make them low cost,
so to compete in this category, there is little doubt those that succeed will need to adopt appropriate
technologies.
A better strategy will be to look to emerging trends, those areas in which there are severe problems are
the ones offering the greatest business opportunities. Areas such as energy, environment, water, health
care products and other areas where a long physical supply chain is a problem. There are opportunities
in several ways. One is to employ state-of-the-art technology to reduce energy costs, improve
environmental compliance, use water and other resources more efficiently in your processes. Another
is to explore using your manufacturing capability to supply OEMs in these fields, developing new
products and markets. Think about how you can leverage your existing products or manufacturing
capabilities into these areas? Develop new customer bases that have potential for growth in these
areas. Identify your own competitive edge and capitalize on it.
RESOURCES
The availability of resources is excellent, particularly in Minnesota. There is a vast technical community
employed in our technology-leading companies. These individuals are a rich resource for networking.
There are a large number of excellent K-12 educational systems in Minnesota, and an equally excellent
and geographically dispersed array of 2 year and 4 year educational institutions.
Begin with your own employees. Transform the jobs in your organization to take advantage of their
knowledge of your industry. Require continuing education for your employees, and support it. There
are many organizations, including the MnSCU system, that provide on-site custom training for your
specific needs, plus many other forms of continuing education opportunities. An empowered workforce
will help you track emerging technologies and identify disruptive technologies, as well as improve
current operations.
Work with your customers, and even your competitors. Customers can help you understand their
competitive environment, and help you understand how you can make them increasingly competitive.
And there are increasing number of instances where customers may also be competitors. The term “coopetition” has been applied to this relationship. Evaluate when and where it might be appropriate to
develop collaborative relationships further.
Network extensively with education. Develop personal contacts in your regional high schools, and offer
to provide plant tours for student and faculty and counselors, bring experts in your industry into the
classroom, judge design competitions, or offer job opportunities to high school students during summer.
You may want to establish scholarships for students to get 2 year degrees that bring skills to your
company. Develop these relationships early, not at the last minute when you are under pressure to
hire.
Develop similar contacts in two year technical colleges and four year schools. Meet the faculty, explore
doing design projects related to your industry. Provide internships for students and faculty. Work with
faculty on new curricula that will support your current and future business. Participate actively in
advisory boards of these institutions, and provide resources to keep the programs state of the art.
Identify major opportunities and threats. Use your most valuable resource – your employees, plus
technical college and university faculty, professional societies and other network contacts to watch
emerging and disruptive technology trends, provide an early warning system and identify opportunities
in products and new markets. Identify methods to reduce energy costs and address environmental
compliance, because it’s good business, not because it’s required. Stay close to your customers, getting
early notification of changes in product requirements and geographic location.