Comments on: Manufacturing Innovation http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/05/mep/ Progressive approaches to science policy Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:54:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dean S. Santopoalo http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/05/mep/comment-page-1/#comment-6656 Dean S. Santopoalo Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:12:34 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2931#comment-6656 Justin, Very detailed overview of some of the issues manufacturers are dealing with regarding companies being unable to quickly introduce new products and technology, reduce costs, increase quality. Also being unfamiliar with changing production technologies adn latest business management practices with many companies not having top line growth strategies to position them to the next level. This article, very descriptive and good I want you to know, never mentions anything about "Leadership" and what it should look like or even come from. I have been reading so many articles that identify the technical constraints but hardly ever mention leadership and that most of the issues could be addressed if shop folks would be included in one way or another. But we know this does not alway happen becasue it makes the managers look as thought they are lacking something, which they often are, with all due respect. I think 2010 has to be the decade where "Leadership" will allow U.S. Manufacturers to regain some of what we have lost. Thank You Justin,
Very detailed overview of some of the issues manufacturers are dealing with regarding companies being unable to quickly introduce new products and technology, reduce costs, increase quality.
Also being unfamiliar with changing production technologies adn latest business management practices with many companies not having top line growth strategies to position them to the next level.
This article, very descriptive and good I want you to know, never mentions anything about “Leadership” and what it should look like or even come from.
I have been reading so many articles that identify the technical constraints but hardly ever mention leadership and that most of the issues could be addressed if shop folks would be included in one way or another.
But we know this does not alway happen becasue it makes the managers look as thought they are lacking something, which they often are, with all due respect.
I think 2010 has to be the decade where “Leadership” will allow U.S. Manufacturers to regain some of what we have lost.
Thank You

]]> By: Monish Gandhi http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/05/mep/comment-page-1/#comment-5580 Monish Gandhi Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:51:23 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2931#comment-5580 Hi Justin, great - very timely - article! We would love to hear your thoughts on - Manufacturing Innovation Network here in Canada (http://www.waterloomin.com). It leverages social networking to help manufacturers by creating a replicable, self-sustaining and networked local innovation centre. Do you know of anyone else who would be interested in this? Thanks. Hi Justin, great – very timely – article!

We would love to hear your thoughts on – Manufacturing Innovation Network here in Canada (http://www.waterloomin.com). It leverages social networking to help manufacturers by creating a replicable, self-sustaining and networked local innovation centre.

Do you know of anyone else who would be interested in this?

Thanks.

]]> By: Basil Akers http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/05/mep/comment-page-1/#comment-5278 Basil Akers Wed, 20 May 2009 20:58:00 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2931#comment-5278 A key impediment to innovation progress is that it requires a renaissance in thinking in conventional manufacturing companies. This change in thinking requires investment in reorganized processes and people to implement and carry out a new process or project that is related but outside the current standard processes. This will require a different level of funding and financing and the most likely avenue will be grant organization that support design and manufacturing innovation. The grants could be repaid but the time frame will lengthen beyond the current yearly funding and financial results will concretely demonstrate the effectiveness and commitment of those that risk to innovate. A key impediment to innovation progress is that it requires a renaissance in thinking in conventional manufacturing companies. This change in thinking requires investment in reorganized processes and people to implement and carry out a new process or project that is related but outside the current standard processes. This will require a different level of funding and financing and the most likely avenue will be grant organization that support design and manufacturing innovation. The grants could be repaid but the time frame will lengthen beyond the current yearly funding and financial results will concretely demonstrate the effectiveness and commitment of those that risk to innovate.

]]> By: Justin R. Masterman http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/05/mep/comment-page-1/#comment-5174 Justin R. Masterman Fri, 08 May 2009 19:28:09 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2931#comment-5174 Mr. Goozner, Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with you that the burden placed on small and medium-sized manufacturers by our failing healthcare, education, and retirement systems is substantial and a significant hurdle for relatively small businesses to overcome. However, from my discussions with current administrators at MEP, it is clear that the program continues to be remarkably successful at pushing small and medium-sized manufacturers to not only modernize, but to look at ways to develop new products, enter new markets, and innovate. These "growth strategies" are essential to the survival of these firms as they struggle against the effects of globalization and the systemic inefficiencies here at home. Mr. Goozner,

Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with you that the burden placed on small and medium-sized manufacturers by our failing healthcare, education, and retirement systems is substantial and a significant hurdle for relatively small businesses to overcome. However, from my discussions with current administrators at MEP, it is clear that the program continues to be remarkably successful at pushing small and medium-sized manufacturers to not only modernize, but to look at ways to develop new products, enter new markets, and innovate. These “growth strategies” are essential to the survival of these firms as they struggle against the effects of globalization and the systemic inefficiencies here at home.

]]> By: Merrill Goozner http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/05/mep/comment-page-1/#comment-5167 Merrill Goozner Fri, 08 May 2009 03:36:49 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=2931#comment-5167 Thanks for the update on this crucial program. I wrote a four-part series for the Chicago Tribune on the start-up of what is now MEP in the late 1980s, and my recollection is that it wasn't about tech transfer. Rather, the program was heavily focused on training managers and workers to use modern manufacturing techniques like just-in-time inventory management and statistical process control. The driving issue throughout the Midwest was helping major manufacturers' suppliers adjust to their evolving just-in-time and quality demands. The Big Three, Motorola, Caterpillar, Cummins, John Deere, etc. were desperate to catch up to their their Japanese and German rivals on quality and cost, and they supported the program because they knew their suppliers badly needed the help (as did they, but they had the resources to do in-house training). Today, my sense is that small and medium-sized manufacturers are hamstrung less by lack of access to technology or modern management techniques than by a social system that puts them at a severe disadvantage compared to their overseas rivals -- for instance, by not providing a reasonably-priced health care system or that failing to provide adequately prepared non-college-educated workers. MEP remains an important venue for keeping small and medium-sized manufacturers up to speed on the technology front. But the best manufacturing modernization program in the world can never make up for a dysfunctional public sphere that breeds mis-education, ill-health, and retirement insecurity in its workforce. Thanks for the update on this crucial program. I wrote a four-part series for the Chicago Tribune on the start-up of what is now MEP in the late 1980s, and my recollection is that it wasn’t about tech transfer. Rather, the program was heavily focused on training managers and workers to use modern manufacturing techniques like just-in-time inventory management and statistical process control. The driving issue throughout the Midwest was helping major manufacturers’ suppliers adjust to their evolving just-in-time and quality demands. The Big Three, Motorola, Caterpillar, Cummins, John Deere, etc. were desperate to catch up to their their Japanese and German rivals on quality and cost, and they supported the program because they knew their suppliers badly needed the help (as did they, but they had the resources to do in-house training).

Today, my sense is that small and medium-sized manufacturers are hamstrung less by lack of access to technology or modern management techniques than by a social system that puts them at a severe disadvantage compared to their overseas rivals — for instance, by not providing a reasonably-priced health care system or that failing to provide adequately prepared non-college-educated workers. MEP remains an important venue for keeping small and medium-sized manufacturers up to speed on the technology front. But the best manufacturing modernization program in the world can never make up for a dysfunctional public sphere that breeds mis-education, ill-health, and retirement insecurity in its workforce.

]]>