This finding is very important to the arguments I will make later regarding the importance of education to the new basis of competition. Let me say again that Swyt has other important results which I believe are relevant for this committee. As I said before, we will not automate manufacturing and thus move to a service economy in the same way we moved to a farm economy. That is not to say that we will not use a great deal of automation in the manufacturing sector. For we will. Nor do I mean to imply that there will not be a shrinkage in the unskilled labor force employed in manufacturing. For again there will. We are now very successful at automating the "brawn" role of man in manufacturing. We have in fact moved beyond using technology to amplify the "muscle power" of the worker, and now we have turned to amplifying the "brain power" of the worker. We are expecting great strides in the development of more and more advanced tools for man to use in engineering, technical and professional tasks. Note the similarity with the predictions of Dennis Swyt. The technological developments in man-machine symbiosis are only beginning to appear, and innovative utilization of these tools will, in my mind, be the basis for competition in the future. In discussing the importance of manufacturing to the United States, I must mention the role of manufacturing in support of the DOD. The frequency of change and increased utilization of technology in weapon systems has increased significantly the importance of manufacturing capability to the DOD. The capability of the US industrial base in both peacetime and in a national emergency for surge mobilization, etc., have been the focus of much debate in other forums. Let me say that, in my mind, there is a deep and mutual dependence between the DOD and the manufacturing sector. While there are other reasons that can be discussed, I hope I have at this point established why the health of the U. S. manufacturing sector is critical. I would now like to turn to the issues raised in my invitation to testify. One factor necessary to improve the health of manufacturing is education. Manufacturing is becoming a highly technological field. Strong evidence in Dennis Swyt's paper and elsewhere indicates an increasing demand for engineering and technical professionals. Early evidence shows that we might not be turning out enough of these people from our universities and colleges. Nor are these individuals being sought after in numbers that seem appropriate to me. Should the awareness of this need reach the majority of employers, it is not at all clear that the academic system has either the capacity or expertise to turn out the volume of required professionals in the near term. important strides are being made at Lehigh and at other institutions toward these objectives. Nevertheless, I would like to address your interest to the manufacturing Systems Engineering (MSE) Program at Lehigh University at this point. Our MSE program is rather unique with respect to normal graduate programs, both at Lehigh and at other universities. It is unique because: It is interdisciplinary; the faculty who conceived of and operate the program represent three engineering departments and the college of Business and Economics. The students enroll in one of six engineering departments and MSE. They represent a mix of disciplines and expertise which matches those required in modern manufacturing systems. Half of the students are on leave from their companies at full salary and are assigned to Lehigh to earn an MS in MSE. The program employs a mix of formal and informal learning and emphasizes teamwork and group assignments. The program is highly structured, and it focuses on the manufacturing system life cycle and the systems' nature of modern manufacturing. The goal of the program is to develop engineers who can design, install, operate and change manufacturing systems made up of people, machines, new materials, information systems, and appropriate technology. Students and faculty work toward a high degree of interaction with industry. This is manifest in laboratory assignments, seminars, trips, and in the topics chosen for theses and special projects. Applied research and development activity at Lehigh is a critical part of the MSE program as well as the basis for advanced and theoretical research which complements this activity. Beyond being unique or special in the ways described above, we have been successful in the ways which count the most. Our graduates are running away with the placement records for highest number of offers and highest salaries offered. Our customers include the industrial firms which send their employees back to Lehigh and who hire our graduates. They recently joined with us to form an Advisory Board. The Advisory Board companies provide the critical mix of financial support, advice and guidance necessary to be successful in this type of program. Together with the Advisory Board companies, the Lehigh faculty maintain the relevance of this program and focus on preparing our students to deal with the factory of the future. I will turn now from the details of our program at Lehigh to some remarks on the "Factory of the Future." The factory of the future should not be thought of as separate from the rest of the enterprise in the future. The term computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) was invented for the factory of the future, and CIM began to be a popular acronym for describing advances to be made. More recently, however, the letters CIM have been redefined to mean "completely integrated manufacturing". Thus, the factory of the future will be an integral part of the enterprise and have close connections with marketing & sales, engineering & planning, shipping & service, etc. In fact, it is safe to say that traditional organizational lines will change drastically as we define and organize the enterprise to meet a changing set of competitive factors and employ the new technologies. With respect to technology transfer and applied R&D, the State of Pennsylvania has been a leader in this area with its Ben Franklin partnership program. Because the State uses its funds to leverage those of industry and has not used a crystal ball to decide what research or development industry should be encouraged to follow, I find the program to be a very good one. A Pennsylvania company teams with an academic partner of its choice. Together they select a team project (for both industry and academic players) which will either transfer, develop or apply technology beneficial to the company. The state measures results in terms of jobs created or retained, new products, new processes, new patents, or other developments that strengthen the competitive nature of the company in Pennsylvania. Since its inception in March of 1983, the Ben Franklin Center at Lehigh has helped companies develop more than 400 new products or manufacturing processes. This program has had benefits well beyond those measured by the state. It provides to the academic partners: A real perspective on the problems and constraints of industry; an opportunity for students to work on meaningful projects; and a test bed for their ideas and concepts for modern manufacturing. It provides to the industrial partners: an exposure to faculty, students, laboratories, equipment; and an air of excitement that manufacturing professionals have lacked in the past. In all, I would rate this program as win-win-win for the state, industry, and academia. It has been replicated and cloned by many other states some because they saw it in operation and some because they thought of it on their own and each such program has - - variations to suit individual needs. Missing are: (1) The complimentary programs which fund the establishment of centers of excellence with the requisite facilities; (2) Adequate funding 89-609 0 - 88 - 2 |