1 / 34

Building the 21st Century National Aerospace Workforce

“Right Skills, Right Place, Right Time”. Building the 21st Century National Aerospace Workforce. ASME International, Congressional Briefing May 5, 2003 Presentation by: Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, MIT.

mechelle-pace
Download Presentation

Building the 21st Century National Aerospace Workforce

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Right Skills, Right Place, Right Time” Building the 21st Century National Aerospace Workforce ASME International, Congressional Briefing May 5, 2003 Presentation by: Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, MIT For more information on aerospace workforce research at MIT, see the publications presented by MIT’s Labor Aerospace Research Agenda http://mit.edu/ctpid/lara and MIT’s Lean Aerospace Initiative http://web.mit.edu/lean. For more information on the IAM and High Performance Work Organizations, see http://www.goiam.org under “visit IAM Headquarters.”

  2. Mission and Vision • Overall Mission for the Aerospace Industry: • Enable the global movement of people and goods; • Enable the global acquisition and dissemination of information and data; • Advance national security interests; and • Provide a source of inspiration by pushing the boundaries of exploration and innovation Source: Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT’s Lean Aerospace Initiative (Palgrave/MacMillan, 2002) • 21st Century Workforce Vision: • Attract and retain a 21st Century aerospace workforce with the skills, capabilities and commitment to enable transformation and success in the aerospace industry

  3. Strategic Challenges in Aerospace • Knowledge and Capability • Demographic “cliff” • Underutilization of women and minorities • Gaps in “pipelines” – skilled apprenticeships and aerospace engineering programs • Outsourcing knowledge and skills • New technologies and changing skill mix requirements • Competitive Challenges • Global competition and organizational instability • Institutional barriers, monuments and gaps in the “social infrastructure” • Plummeting research and development spending • Reduced attractiveness of careers in aerospace

  4. A New Mindset is Required “Investing in R & D as a “pull” for the 21st Century workforce is not a new idea, but it gets to the root cause. . . How do we look at R & D from the point of view of building future capability – investing in human capital – not just completing a given project or program? This means that the definition of R & D priorities must be made with multiple stakeholders’ input to anticipate future needs – taking more of a long-term, strategic approach to such investments.” • Dr. Sheila Widnall, former Secretary of the U.S. Air Force and MIT Institute Professor (in forward to Developing a 21st Century Aerospace Workforce, Policy White Paper submitted to the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, 2002)

  5. Institutional Opportunities • Aerospace Inter-Agency Task Force • Spanning the Department of Defense, NASA, FAA, Departments of Labor, Education, Commerce and Homeland Security – to coordinate government aerospace workforce initiatives • Aerospace Capability Network • Public/private partnerships spanning all key stakeholders – business, labor, government, universities and community groups • Industry Promotion and Development • National campaign on aerospace opportunities – primary schools, secondary schools, community colleges and universities

  6. Aerospace Workforce Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: A Conceptual Map Government Policies and Initiatives (within and across agencies) on Aerospace Workforce Workplace-Specific Initiatives (public and private facilities) National, Regional & Local Aerospace Workforce Initiatives (Industry / Labor / Government) Curriculum Innovation University / Industry Skill Standards and Certification Apprenticeships and OJT Initiatives Industry/Workforce Skills Assessment Knowledge Maintenance Life-Long Learning Initiatives Industry/Workforce Needs Assessment Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Utilization Knowledge Enhancement Industry/Workforce Retention Initiatives School-to-Work Initiatives Displace Worker Initiatives Aerospace Programs in the K-12 Schools Knowledge-Driven Work Systems (Lean, Six Sigma, etc.) Knowledge Management Skill and Knowledge Initiatives Across Individual Careers/Lifecycles K-12 . . . College & University . . . Early Career . . . Mid-Career . . . Retirement/Post-Retirement Skill and Knowledge Initiatives Across Multiple Enterprise Value Streams Basic Science . . . Conception. . . Design/Development . . . Production . . . Sales/Sustainment Source: MIT’s Labor Aerospace Research Agenda

  7. Focus of Funding: Environmental Aircraft R&D Initiative Rotorcraft Aircraft R&D Initiative Civil Supersonic Transport R&D Initiative University-Based Centers for Research on Aviation Training Aviation Weather Research Air Traffic Management R&D Initiative High Leverage Applications: Knowledge & the Demand for labor Assessment of current and future R&D skill / knowledge requirements in each sector Knowledge & the Supply of labor Assessment and action around demographics (current distribution, prospective restructuring / retirements, and anticipated flow of new entrants) Knowledge Across Value Streams Projecting skill / knowledge implications of R&D investment forward across value streams . . . All broadening the focus beyond training to knowledge-driven, lean work systems Application to House (H.586 and Senate (S.309) Aviation Revitalization Bills

  8. Ensuring a Pivotal Impact of R&D Investment in Aerospace • Attract next generation aerospace workforce – the best and brightest • Maintain knowledge and capability in the context of the “demographic cliff” and other challenges • Optimize the current mix of knowledge, skills and abilities • Identify future skill requirements • Dual bottom line: • A strong return on R&D investment • Reinvigorate the aerospace vision – A renewed sense of wonder and excitement! “Right Skills, Right Place, Right Time”

  9. Appendix • Careers in aerospace – defense aerospace platforms by decade • Individual survey data – next generation in aerospace • Aerospace employment and sales data • U.S. engines and parts imports as a share of total aircraft sales, 1981-2000 • Instability and program cost/schedule performance • National aerospace facility survey • Apprenticeship data • Global footprint data

  10. 40 Year Career Span Retired Retired XP5Y XFY A2D F8U XC120 F6M1 F4D U2 F3H SY3 B52 F105 A3D X13 X3 C133 S2F F107 X2 B58 F10F F106 F2Y F5D F100 X14 B57 C140 F102 T2 R3Y1 F4 F104 A5 A4D T39 B66 T38 F11F AQ1 C130 X15 F101 F5A T37 X1B Retiring Experience: 6+ Programs Mid Career Experience: 1-2 Programs Experience: 1 Program A6 B52 SR71 SC4A X21 X19 C141 B70 XC142 F111 A7 OV10 X22 X26B X5A X24 “We believe that a declining experience level has been a contributing factor to the problems we observe in many recent aircraft programs.” RAND F14 S8 YA9 A10 F15 F18 YF-17 B1 YC15 YC14 AV8b F/A18 F117 F20 X29 T46 T45 B2 V22 F22 EMD YF22 YF23 JSF X36 JSF X37 C17 JSF EMD UCAV BX 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s Source: RAND Study (chart by Northrop Grumman) -- Vertical Bars: Military Aircraft Program Starts Careers in aerospace – lifetime defense aerospace platforms by entry decade

  11. Individual Survey Data – Next Generation in Aerospace “I would highly recommend that my children work in this industry” (Agree or Strongly Agree, n=482)

  12. Chart 1: US and EU Aerospace Employment since 1980

  13. Chart 2: Major Non-U.S. Aerospace Employer Countries since 1980( > 30,000 employees with time series data available)

  14. Chart 3: Sales and Employment for U.S. Aerospace Industry (SIC 372 and 376) since 1980

  15. Chart 4: Sales and EmploymentSIC 372 - Aircraft and Part since 1980

  16. Chart 5: Sales and EmploymentSIC 376 - Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles, and Parts since 1980

  17. Chart 6: Sales and Employment for EU Aerospace Industry since 1980

  18. Chart 7: Sales and Employment forCanadian Aerospace Industry since 1984

  19. Chart 8: Sales and Employment for Brazilian Aerospace Industry since 1995

  20. Chart 9: Sales and Employment for Japanese Aerospace Industry since 1988

  21. U.S. engines and parts imports as a share of total aircraft sales, 1981-2000

  22. Instability and program cost/schedule performance Table 1. Average Annual Program Cost Growth and Its Sources Table 2. Sources of Program Schedule Slip Source: Eric Rebentisch, MIT Lean Aerospace Initiative, 1996

  23. National Facility Survey: Overview and Process • Cross-sectional data – longitudinal results in some cases • Single respondents from facilities • Post 9/11– current data but a major discontinuity • Analysis just beginning • Causality not always clear • Overview: • A nationally representative sample of aerospace facilities to examine instability, new work systems, skills & capability, intellectual capital, and related matters • Process: • Sample drawn from national aerospace directory • Mailed survey to approximately 2500 facilities • Special panel established for respondents to 1999 National Facility Survey – drawn from same source • Second mailing and follow-up telephone calls • Data presented based on 362 responses • Note: Over 200 returned as “not in the aerospace industry” or returned to sender as bad addresses CAUTION

  24. Facility Profile Average Number of Employees: 558 employees Average Year Began Operations: 1976 Average % Sales to Largest Customer: 30% Average Number of Major Government Programs: 5.4 Programs Average Number of Major Commercial Programs: 8.9 Programs Product Volume – Primary Product: Low: 60% Med: 32% High: 8% Unionization Among Respondents: 15% Industry Sector Distribution Aircraft Frames/Structures: 24% Aircraft Engines: 13% Avionics: 15% Spacecraft and Missiles: 6% Other (mostly suppliers): 42% Respondent Profile Average Years of Experience in Aerospace: 24 years Average Age Range: 46-55 years Average Education Level: Undergraduate Degree and some Graduate Education Profile Data on Facilities and Respondents

  25. Recent Changes in Employment: 1999 and 2002 Survey Data More than half of aerospace facilities report a decrease in employment over the past three years – a deterioration from the employment picture in 1998.

  26. Recent and Prospective Retirements: 2002 Survey Data The proportion of the workforce eligible to retire in next three years is substantially higher than the past three years – with the greatest impact on large employers.

  27. US DoL and Other Apprenticeship Programs: 2002 Survey The vast majority (85%) of aerospace facilities do not have apprenticeship programs and of those that do, approximately 2/3 have had no graduates over the past three years and have no one in the programs.

  28. Percent of US Respondents Reporting Suppliers in Each Location Russia, CIS: 4% Europe: 35% Canada, Mexico: 23% Japan, China, Korea: 22% US: 95% South America: 3% Other: 3% Key: Blue: Under 25%;Red: 25-50%;Green: Over 50%

  29. Percent of US Respondents Reporting Customers in Each Location Russia, CIS: 5% Europe: 75% Canada, Mexico: 56% Japan, China, Korea: 50% US: 98% South America: 29% Other: 18% Key:Blue: Under 25%;Red: 25-50%;Green: Over 50%

  30. Percent of US Respondents Reporting Joint Ventures in Each Location Russia, CIS: 1% Europe: 18% Canada, Mexico: 7% Japan, China, Korea: 11% US: 40% South America: 1% Other: 3% Key: Blue: Under 25%;Red: 25-50%;Green: Over 50%

  31. Percent of US Respondents Reporting Strategic Partners in Each Location Russia, CIS: 6% Europe: 22% Canada, Mexico: 10% Japan, China, Korea: 11% US: 50% South America: 1% Other: 5% Key: Blue: Under 25%;Red: 25-50%;Green: Over 50%

  32. Percent of US Respondents Reporting Current Competitors in Each Location Russia, CIS: 6% Europe: 66% Canada, Mexico: 25% Japan, China, Korea: 31% US: 92% South America: 5% Other: 5% Key: Blue: Under 25%;Red: 25-50%;Green: Over 50%

  33. Percent of US Respondents Projecting Future Competitors in Each Location Russia, CIS: 20% Europe: 58% Canada, Mexico: 33% Japan, China, Korea: 68% US: 73% South America: 13% Other: 10% Key: Blue: Under 25%;Red: 25-50%;Green: Over 50%

  34. Selected Written Comments on 2002 Surveys • September 11 has had a severe impact on our industry which has influenced this survey. Airlines have received government support, however none of these funds have provided GSE manufacturers stability or longevity. • Over the last two years we have been working very hard on upgrading Quality Systems (AS9000), implementing LEAN manufacturing, training, while at the same time diversifying the business and trying to penetrate new markets. Our products (cargo systems) are installed on older aircraft and those were affected heavily by the down turn in the economy as well as the events of sept. 11. • Can't get domestic labor - skilled or otherwise. HELP! • Since September 11, 2001, there has been a significant downturn in the volume of our business. I know for a fact that our facility and at least three of our most valued suppliers face an almost insurmountable challenge to stay afloat over the next 90 - 120 days if something doesn't change. • We withdrew from the aerospace markets in 1997 and moved our manufacturing capabilities to the energy equipment markets. • OEM's are using DOD funding to develop new technologies, practices & procedures and then turnaround and subcontract work overseas to the lowest bidder. They also utilize these advances on their commercial products which are primarily subcontracted to Asia & Mexico under the guise of mandatory offsets.

More Related