We develop applied training curriculum for technical jobs in the private sector and have helped guide the curriculum development for a career-oriented magnet public high school. When we approach curriculum development for industrial clients, we keep as a guiding principle that the content should directly relate to the conditions and processes that will be faced by the industrial students. We do this so they have real world examples – based on their real world – to help them absorb and understand new concepts. It’s a curriculum development process that works very well, and it transfers well to the academic environment.
Let’s take one of the curriculum clusters being taught at the career magnet school I referred to above: Advanced Manufacturing. The curriculum emphasizes mastery of the fundamentals of the physical world, mechanical and electrical. As the students progress, they will be taught a thought process that works well with troubleshooting – learning to observe symptoms (effects) and think their way back to the root cause – through hands-on work with real equipment and processes that have real problems. This is an effective approach to teaching individuals how to work their way through problems – mastery of the fundamentals and the thought process to determine root causes.
The laws of physics don’t change (well, at least the ones we know about now!), and the equipment and processes you learn with and work with in the real world don’t physically morph and change on you – a gear can’t by itself change from having 32 teeth to having 48 teeth; PLC I/O programming won’t change a circuit containing a relay from being normally open to normally closed by itself.
Or can it?
Those gears and circuits and software are static, not dynamic: they don’t change unless you change them, they aren’t moving targets. But what if they were?
Let’s take one of the other curriculum majors at the career magnet school – Cyber Security, which emphasizes basic computer systems and software, network hardware and software, and the internet. The same curriculum approach is also there – understanding the fundamentals of how hardware and software work, and the thought processes that allow you to work your way through problems – but can you consider the software static?
Not once you cross the boundary into the internet world.
Ever since I became aware of Stuxnet and the damage it did to the PLCs in Iran used to enrich high grade uranium, I’ve made an effort to stay informed on what is being reported in the world of internet security issues and events, because of my belief and concern that internet-based intrusion will eventually be a high risk issue for industrial organizations around the world.
Most industrial organizations, I expect, are probably not fully ready to handle internet-based intrusions into their facilities. ”Oh,” they may think, “that’s a credit card fraud issue.” Or, they may think, internet security is something for the US Government and the NSA alone to worry about. Or they may think that their existing IT department is fully-staffed and ready to deal with intrusions. Maybe, they should think again.
What would be the economic implications of taking down most of the production of one of the larger automotive manufacturers in the US for a month via its PLCs – the industrial computers that run the production lines? Or crippling the power transmission controls for a large regional power utility through their remote condition monitoring hardware? Scary, is what they are. Hacking events take place all the time, and the targets are changing. Sony Pictures, anyone?
In the world of cyber security, we need employees and therefore students learning more than the fundamentals and troubleshooting thought processes – we need them to learn to create and adapt, create and attempt, create and fail, create and succeed. The emphasis on “create” is intentional; the laws of physics may not change, but the laws of the internet universe are changing each day, and industry will need to be creative to maintain its security in the “real” world of the internet.
It’s a good time (some might say past time) for industrial companies to be asking questions about their own capabilities, and for schools to be asking questions about their curriculum. Are we prepared for what will be, I believe, an inevitable risk?
It’s time to turn to our schools and their curriculum and see where the fundamentals end and where the creativity – and the protection it can provide – begins.
Time to up our curriculum game.
We’re in the business of assessing whether someone has the knowledge, skills and abilities to successfully perform the required tasks and activities of a specific job. Companies have us develop these assessments in order to have an objective, fair and thorough determination of who knows what. Usually, these “who” are external or internal candidates, but sometimes the assessments are used for their incumbent workforce, in order to determine skill gaps and training priorities.
We’re also in the business of developing curriculum to address those skill gaps and training priorities, from complete apprentice programs to individual topics.
We’ve used our expertise in assessments, curriculum and the industrial world to support the efforts of secondary and post-secondary educational institutions to revisit and revision their curriculum and its implementation.
This is our way of saying that much of our work is immersed in the world of jobs, skills, education and training.
We see a large population of people who are under-employed or not employed, or resigned to going to college (not everyone belongs there) or resigned to just getting any job they can. Our existing educational systems, processes and opportunities don’t really help many of these people.
It’s a complex situation. We have, in this country, a shortage of skilled workers, yet there are many challenges for people looking for jobs. We have significant issues with students dropping out of high school and early years of college. For those who stay in college and graduate, only half who seek jobs are employed full-time. We have a disconnect of massive proportions.
How do we help make the connections between individual and job? A different job – one that doesn’t necessarily require a college degree – that may lead to a different life?
We have ideas and a plan. More to follow….
There are some things you shouldn’t learn just from a book.
Like driving a car.
I hope most of us would agree that it would be unsafe for people who have never driven a car before to just hop in, crank it up (assuming they knew how to do that) and lurch out onto busy highways.
Instead, we have Driver’s Ed classes, where students get classroom training and instructor-led hands-on training before they go take the license test and the driving test. Everyone has to demonstrate that they have the knowledge, skill and ability to actually drive a car on public roads.
Sensible. Protects lives and property.
Advanced manufacturing these days is all about automation: PLCs, fluid power devices, robotics, and computer-controlled machine centers – an intense combination of customization and flexibility.
These systems are expensive and require expert operation and maintenance – uptime, reliability and process control is crucial. Assigning an employee to operate or maintain them who hasn’t already demonstrated they can competently do the required work is the industrial equivalent of handing someone the keys to your $150,000 car without knowing if they can drive it without wrecking it.
Students training to become advanced manufacturing operators or maintenance technicians will need a thorough understanding of how and why things fundamentally work as well as the ability to apply that knowledge to the variations and situations that occur each day. They have to know, think and do.
The hardest of the three to achieve in an educational environment, in many ways, is the “doing”. Schools provide the teachers and curriculum to transfer knowledge to students, helping them learn to think their way through problems, but the most difficult to reproduce is the opportunity to “do” – to actually apply the knowledge they learn in a realistic manner using equipment and systems that replicate the reality of the work they hope to undertake.
Hands down, the most important technical skill for a potential employee is the ability to demonstrate relevant applied skills – can you do the work in an efficient, competent manner?
Here’s an example of a hands-on assessment task that represents a typical and important work activity for many advanced manufacturing employers:
The clock starts, and I’m given a problem: a faulty sensor is inhibiting a production path from operating. Can I demonstrate in a timely manner that I know how to troubleshoot this production path, determine that a sensor has failed (and why), correct the cause of the failure, select its appropriate replacement, properly configure the new sensor, safely remove the old and correctly install the new, start it up and assure proper performance?
That’s what counts.
You can’t do that in a normal instructional classroom. You can’t do it using an online application, because online you are not actually doing the work with real tools and real equipment. You learn hands-on skills by doing it with your hands, so that when you get to the job, you – and your employer – know you can do the work.
What’s required in the educational environment is an instructor-led training lab with equipment and processes that can be set up to present real problems, be worked on by students, torn down and reconfigured with the next problem. Over and over until they have mastery.
Is it necessary that the school attempt to replicate all of the tasks and activities of the target job? No. The fundamentals of knowledge, problem solving and hands-on skills can be demonstrated using a smaller set of tasks and activities – sufficient to give the students and the prospective employers the confidence in their ability to do the work.
What is important is that you have the opportunity to learn with your hands until you get it right and can demonstrate your proficiency.
Then you get the keys to the car.
It happens all the time.
You are on an entrance ramp for the interstate, the lane you are trying to merge into has cars, but you are accelerating up to speed to join the flow…
And the car controlling the gap you are trying to merge into will not give you space, apparently pretending you and your car do not really exist.
When I was growing up in the Northeast, we lived out in the country and were not daily visitors to the interstates, but we visited or drove through New York City often enough to know that on the freeways where the entrance ramps came in, New Yorkers would give you a gap – just a little one – and you better be prepared to take advantage of it!
The point is that, even if it were for just a few seconds, they would give way and let you onto the freeway. It was the way New Yorkers worked together – a grudging acknowledgement that you gave a little help, and could in turn expect a little help when it was your turn to merge into traffic.
I believe our culture has largely forgotten the concept of “giving way” - working together by giving a little help and in turn being able to expect some – and its place in our civilized society.
I believe how we drive our cars – how we interact with each other on the road – is an indicator of our attitude towards personal interaction.
Too many people drive their cars on the highways as though the road exists solely for them and all the other cars and trucks are no more real than internet game images – and are accorded the same amount of attention, respect and courtesy.
It’s just an effect, though, of the underlying root cause: an “it’s all about me” society.
So what’s the solution? I’m not sure. Patience, perhaps.
But I know I add a small counter to the “all about me” when I’m driving. I’ll continue to give way when people need to merge, and I’ll continue to look for drivers to give way when I need to.
And hope that, on occasion, someone new learns to give way.
When you hear someone say “hypothetically speaking…” there’s a good chance that it’s not hypothetical at all. They might be using that phrase to provide some discrete conceptual space between reality and the conversation they are hoping to get started.
In general, if someone is providing a worthy and acceptable service and their customers continue to be appreciative of it, why be critical of their service or success just because it is possible to find shortcomings in the product? The buyer/seller relationship has reached a happy equilibrium; perhaps we should merely observe, nod, comment “good for them”, and move on.
If, though, those observed shortcomings become important enough to me, then I may make suggestions to the seller or buyer or start my own business incorporating the improved services or products. A classic example of an open economy market opportunity.
Hypothetically speaking, it could be that the buyer is a farmer who works his fields by hand and the seller offers a horse with a plow, and to the farmer the idea of a horse and plow is a gift of great value.
But what I have in mind is a tractor. In that case, even if the farmer has paid a good amount for that horse, I’m going to ask him to metaphorically look that gift horse in the mouth in order to compare its value to that of the tractor.
Further, let’s say that while secondary school systems have in general drifted away from providing curriculum that would be meaningful in addressing this shortage, many post-secondary schools have some relevant curriculum in place, and, essentially, their graduates are selling like hotcakes.
Let’s revise my original scenario to be jobs-centered: the buyers – our employers with the skilled jobs – are struggling to find qualified candidates for skilled positions and have to make do with employees who might have only 40% of the skills needed to fully perform the tasks of the job. Along comes the seller – our post-secondary schools – with their graduates who are better skilled, enough better that the buyers are very happy to hire them.
Let’s say that I observe that the post-secondary school graduates have only 65% of the skills needed to fully perform the tasks of the job. That leaves lots of room for improvement. While 65% is much better than 40%, wouldn’t an employer probably prefer to hire a qualified candidate who has all of the skills needed?
I believe we can turn the corner with secondary schools’ career and technical education (CTE) curriculum to make it more rigorous and relevant; in fact, for me, locally, that’s happening.
These changes in CTE curriculum will make a terrific foundation to be built upon by post-secondary schools, which can result in complete pathways from 9th grade to job. But the complete success of this effort – graduating students who have all of the skills needed, not just 65%, will require curriculum changes by the post-secondary schools, too.
Working together, they can do better than sell a horse – they can sell a real hot rod of a tractor.
I read an article online that attracted my attention because this was the headline:
Ask The Headhunter: The Talent Shortage Myth and Why HR Should Get Out of the Hiring Business
Here’s the link to it: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/04/ask-the-headhunter-the-talent.html
My immediate reaction is that it is no myth that there is a talent shortage, at least not for the technical, skilled jobs that I see go unfilled on a routine basis. But I admit I was curious about the rationale behind suggesting that HR (Human Resources) should get out of the hiring business.
I read it with an open mind, but was expecting the bias of someone who wants the hiring work instead of HR. Unfortunately, my expectations were met.
While I think the author makes some valid points, I think they represent what usually dwells in more extreme cases of HR isolation. While even the best-run organizations have occasional HR/Line/Staff excursions away from best practices into the realm of disaster, most make their way fairly well through a difficult jobs environment.
I say difficult in the sense that I do believe (and many facts bear this out) that there is in general a shortage of qualified candidates for skilled positions, which forces the broadening of recruiting practices in an effort to increase the population of viable candidates.
This presents a double-edged sword: the larger pool requires more initial screening to find viable candidates, and the larger pool potentially may prompt abbreviated screening in order to get through all of them, with the risk that some qualified candidates get screened out.
I found it also revealing that the majority of comments to this article were written as though HR is a monolithic silo within a larger entity, without connection or engagement with the actual hiring managers. While I have had a few clients that match that description, most well-run, well-led large organizations make a concerted effort to keep recruiting/hiring practices and procedures relevant to the end user – they wouldn’t continue to be functioning well if they didn’t. Most middle-size and small companies have management staff that necessarily covers so much ground that they typically are at full capacity – hence line and staff managers don’t have the time (nor the hiring expertise) to also take on the initial time-consuming task of preliminary screening. They should, of course, be involved in the review and selection of the final candidates, as they are the ones to determine personal, behavioral and technical fit within their organizations. Additionally, most trained HR staff are mindful of the legal do’s and don’ts of the hiring process, something that most line and staff managers are not knowledgeable of.
There are good reasons why HR departments exist.
Turning hiring over to a headhunter removes the ease of integration between hiring stakeholders – headhunters can’t walk down the hall to talk about a job or a candidate. Nor are headhunters essential stakeholders in the long-term success of the hire – if a hire doesn’t work out, the headhunter can always walk away. The company can’t.
Headhunters play a role, certainly, but they are no substitute for an HR department.
…it’s worth saying again.
In December of 2010, I wrote a blog entry regarding China that focused on the argument that China has a bigger problem than we do.
I believe not only that China has a bigger problem than we do, but that it’s gotten worse, and will continue to worsen, while our situation will only improve.
Look at what’s going on at home in the U.S.:
- Unemployment is down to 7.8% in December 2012 from 8.5% in December 2011.
- Manufacturing continues to grow – output is up 4% in 2012 over 2011.
- Manufacturers are bringing more offshore jobs back home – “reshoring” is now something you can search for and find many solid results.
- The economy is slowly picking up steam – GDP up 3.1% for the 3rd quarter of 2012.
Let’s look at what’s going on in China:
- Demands for a greater voice in the political control of certain regions is growing, even if in fits and spurts.
- Wages are rapidly increasing in the coastal areas where the greatest concentration of manufacturing is located.
- Working conditions have become a flashpoint that manufacturers are responding to.
- Access to the internet via cell phone is rocketing up.
It was the last point that caught my eye and prompted revisiting this topic.
In an article from Technology Review (MIT’s magazine) it is mentioned that there are 420 million cell phone users accessing the internet in China and overall 564 million online users in the country in 2012. In 2010 the number was 450 million. Keep in mind the U.S. population at the end of 2012 was roughly 315 million. At this rate, by the end of this year China will have twice our entire U.S. population with internet access.
What does that mean?
In the Technology Review article, Chinese users are hugely susceptible to cell-phone-based viruses.
But from my perspective, it also means they are, again, more and more able to see what “everyone else” in the developed world has that they don’t: dishwashers, microwaves, flat screen TVs, comfortable chairs, different food, more stylish clothes. Those accessing the internet are also the ones manufacturing all those goods that are shipped overseas to everyone else.
At some point, their economy will tip in the direction of building those products for themselves – a consumption economy – instead of shipping them elsewhere – an export economy. When that day happens, and it is getting closer and closer, we better be ready to make those goods ourselves.
This is the time for us in the U.S. to lay the groundwork for our industrial renaissance – the concatenation of causes, as George Washington referred to them, is pointing to the inevitable upsurge in industry and manufacturing that we will need in order to remain self-sufficient as China undergoes its consumption-economy upheavals.
It was worth saying in 2010; it’s worth saying again now.
I once worked for a global auto parts manufacturer where I was responsible for putting in place our version of the Toyota Production System in my Division’s facilities.
One of the aspects of that job was also acting as a corporate auditor, going to other Division’s plants to audit production cells that had reached our “World Class” targets to verify that their success was fundamentally built upon real and lasting changes, not superficial window-dressing.
This “external” audit (performed by auditors external to each Division) was crucial to establishing that the improvement process couldn’t be short cut and for verifying that a consistent standard for proficiency in our process was being met. We auditors were the gatekeepers.
But not Ghostbusters kind of Gatekeeper…
Gatekeeper. That’s the role of many of our assessments when used as part of a selection process for jobs with specialized knowledge. With a gatekeeper, only those who can come in the door and successfully function – who are sufficiently proficient to do the job – pass.
Companies who use our assessments rely on us as “external” auditors of what constitutes proficiency. It’s one of the most valuable aspects of our services.
For the last year I’ve been involved with developing a community effort to put in place complete education pathways for students that will lead to skilled jobs in our region. I’ve written about both the growing need for skilled employees, where they may come from, and the obstacles that have been in place for students whose personal gifts are to be found in places other than attending college. Our local efforts include our school system’s Career and Technical Education (CTE) department, our largest regional two-year community college, our Chamber of Commerce and, soon, our regional industrial partners.
We have a unique situation in that our school system has the potential to co-locate a CTE school within a new campus of our largest community college. This presents a dazzling number of new opportunities for adding 1 + 1 and getting way more than 2 through maximizing shared resources: instructors, students, curriculum and facilities.
The critical part of developing these pathways for our students, though, is gaining the involvement of industrial partners. We need them to provide on-the-job training opportunities, from job shadowing and internships to summer jobs and apprentice hiring – and the skilled jobs that are at the end of the pathways.
To make our pathways development work, instead of asking “what can you (industry) give us?” we instead must ask, “what can we give you?” Our pathway project can, and should, develop job candidates who meet industry’s needs. It is reasonable, though, for our potential industrial partners to ask this crucial question:
“What are you going to do to assure that these students – these potential employees that you are asking us to commit to hiring – can actually perform the work required of our jobs?”
Being able to answer this question to the satisfaction of our industrial partners will be a significant step towards establishing their engagement in our pathways project.
I believe the answer to this question is that no matter what the curriculum is, no matter what the passing grades are, no matter what the high school or community college certificates represent, when the students reach a hiring point on their pathway, whether for an internship, a summer job or apprentice work, they will need to pass a gatekeeper exam, to assure their proficiency.
By implementing an external assurance that student proficiency standards are met or exceeded, we can open the gate to the students so they can complete their paths.
I’m educated as an engineer and worked extensively in maintenance, where I learned to place significant value upon identifying the root cause of a problem, instead of reacting to the symptoms or effects of the cause.
Often, though, in the real world, you can see people scratching their heads puzzling over why they can’t fix an effect, because they aren’t aware of the cause.
Let me give you an example.
I’ve been volunteering my time with our local school system’s Career and Technical Education (CTE) Department, with the end goal of helping them review and revise their curriculum to make it relevant and rigorous regarding industrial content. As part of that work, I attend CTE’s Advisory Committee meetings, made up of businesses and other entities interested in CTE’s success. In a related effort, I’m part of a Workforce Development committee hosted by our regional Chamber of Commerce. For both groups, one of the topics of discussion is how the groups can be more successful in their engagement with industrial companies regarding skilled jobs.
At meetings earlier this year, I had the opportunity to address both groups and in so doing asked for a show of hands of those who represented industrial businesses or industry in general.
In both cases, the only hand raised was mine.
In my opinion, active engagement by our potential industrial partners in our educational and economic development goals will be crucial to the success of those goals.
However, the future engagement of industrial companies in CTE and Workforce Development plans and activities won’t be the cause of success, but rather the effect: the cause will be because we have made our plans and actions relevant and valuable to them.
How will we know?
By a show of hands.
When I was growing up, my family was the proud owner of a 1962 Buick Invicta Station Wagon. Ours was metallic beige. The third seat faced to the rear, which was a crucial feature as far as I was concerned. Why? Because of our road trips.
Each summer, we would all pile into the car and head off on a multi-week trip, usually to my Grandfather’s farm near Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia, or up into Ontario, perhaps to arc back down through the Soo (Sault Sainte Marie, the narrows where Lake Superior flows into Lake Huron), or some other exotic locale. The rearward facing back seat was the prime location from which to see the world.
You may think I’m kidding about their being exotic locales – I mean, how exotic can a farm on the Shenandoah River be, or the crystal clear (and freezing cold) lakes a couple of hours north of Ottawa?
It all depends on you.
I grew up wanting to see different places, learn how things were done differently, or said differently (in Ontario it is “al-u-min-ium” not “a-lum-in-um”). Any place was new, even the farm – it was different one year to the next. The Soo? You bet it was exotic.
My family and I have just returned from our first long road trip, from Tennessee to New England and back. While we’ve been to the Northeast before, we’ve always flown. Because we were on a road trip, however, we were able to experience exotic locales along the way that we’d never see if we flew, such as Point Judith, RI or DUMBO (“Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass” in Brooklyn).
What did I see that was new or different? Lots, but here’s one in particular. In Rhode Island, every little community anywhere near the water (which is pretty much the whole state) has its own local ice cream joint with 30 or more homemade flavors. Every flavor we tried was amazing. Ginger ice cream, with chunks of crystallized ginger, the ice cream not too sweet. Perfect. From Aunt Carrie’s.
What do I want at home now? Either we concoct ginger ice cream ourselves, or try to persuade Cruze Farms (here in Knoxville) to make some.
So, what’s the point of this travelogue? What’s it got to do with business?
It’s the idea of the road trip.
For most who work for a business, the on-going environment, however dynamic it might be on a given day, generally remains the same.
For example, let’s take a manufacturing plant, where the processes, equipment and people are pretty much the same, each day. You can work well together to be creative, and continue to improve things as time goes by. But you don’t see, and don’t experience, new or different things – your context doesn’t change.
Take a road trip. You don’t need to visit a competitor – you’ll probably benefit more from going outside your area of experience and comfort. How much you learn, how much the road trip benefits you, will depend on you. Are you willing to look at something new or different and be open to a new idea to take back with you?
- Your company makes auto parts? Go see how medical devices are made.
- You make appliances? Go see how hybrid car engines are assembled.
- You’re in maintenance? Go see how Internet retailers pick orders flawlessly.
You get the idea.
Take a road trip.
See some exotic locales, come back with the business equivalent of ginger ice cream.
The hard part will be finding a good ride.
If this idea intrigues you, but you need help with figuring out how to make a road trip work, we can help. Call us.