Graduating from West Point in 1907, Arnold learned to fly from Wilbur and Orville’s Wright’s flying school in 1911.  Arnold from early in his career had a vision of a mighty air force for the United States, even in the pre-WWI   era when the U.S. had only a handful of military flying machines. Yet, by the end of WWII, Arnold over the years helped to create the mightiest Air Force in the world, and then set it on course for the world of nuclear weapons, jet aircraft, and ICBMs in the post-WWII era.  Clearly his visions, and subsequent plans and strategies to make those visions real, were tempered by what was technologically feasible—how did he do this in the rapidly changing world of 20^th century aviation technology?

The answer in some ways is simple, yet important to fully comprehend.  Arnold always maintained close contacts with the “thinkers and doers” of aviation and related technologies.  Donald Douglas (Airplane designer/manufacturer) , Elmer and Lawrence Sperry (Avionics Pioneers), Charles Kettering (Chief engineer of General Motors, Orville Wright, and  Theodore von Karman (Aerodynamicist at Cal Tech) were just some of the important figures in aviation and automotive industry who Arnold often turned to for technological advice as he moved up in the chain of command.  His visions of air power in the 20s and 30s—formative years for what was to become the modern U.S. Air Force in the late 1940s—were always tempered and informed by his constant interaction with individuals who were helping to shape that future.

At the end of WWII, understanding the importance of vision coupled to technological reality, he commissioned Von Karman and the then new Air Force Scientific Advisory Group to write a report on possible developments in science and technology that would have a bearing on the developments of the U.S. Air Force that Arnold was about to retire from. That 1946 report, “Towards New Horizons” foresaw systems such as advanced radars, ballistic missiles, and what we would call today, UAVs. In some ways, this multivolume report was Arnold’s legacy to the Air Force, and helped to set the stage for many of the developments that we now know occurred in subsequent decades.   His technological vision over the decades, welded to reality, did lead to “new horizons” for U.S. airpower and aerospace development in general.  Today’s aerospace leaders therefore would be well served by studying Arnold’s example in establishing realistic visions for their organizations in today’s rapidly changing technological world.

Breaking through the educational barriers by focusing on outcome versus grades, there are several STEM+M (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Manufacturing) high schools surfacing across the country.  At the 2012 Aviation, Aeronautics, Industry, and Manufacturing Summit (AAIMS) Joe Lubenstein discussed the part-time academy Greater Hartford Academy of Mathematics and Science that expanded into a full-time grade 6-12 Academy of Aerospace and Engineering.  Mr. Lubenstein is a proven leader in manufacturing, assuming a variety of leadership roles including positions in engineering, finance and manufacturing operations. Currently Mr. Lubenstein is the Director of the Marcum Cronus Partners LLC, and brings this breadth of expertise to The Academy, of which he is also Director.

The Academy forms a much needed partnership between high school science and mathematics courses and industry internships designed to build student aptitude in the areas of Aerospace, Engineering, and Biomedicine, all of which are areas that rely heavily on innovative manufacturing. The Academy continues to impress with its new Windsor Campus opening in Fall 2014.  The Academy successfully combines state-mandatory curriculum with cutting edge educational initiatives to empower its students to become thinking, creative individuals.

The Manufacturing Institute is an extensive organization that encompasses a multitude of manufacturing initiatives, drives innovative manufacturing research, and develops and supports many creative education outreach programs.  Its Board of Trustees consists of the top leaders in manufacturing, giving The Institute an insurmountable amount of strength, as is seen through all its many accomplishments.   Further adding to this is The Manufacturing Institute’s Education Council, which again includes a highly refined group of leaders.  The author strongly suggests readers familiarize themselves with The Manufacturing Institute.

The Manufacturing Institute sponsors “Dream It, Do It” in states all across the country. The “Dream It, Do It” initiative is designed to spread the awareness of the manufacturing industry through national and local activities that are aimed at educating future manufacturing leaders.  Moreover The Manufacturing Institute developed a NAM-Endorsed Skills Certification System designed to train employees to meet the rigorous demands of manufacturing today.  Although results-driven data is not provided on the website, the concept itself is highly laudable as it illuminates the driving force of Manufacturing: Innovation. Finally, The Manufacturing Initiative partners with Project Lead the Way, who provides outstanding curriculum to participating middle schools, high schools, and colleges that is designed to promote creativity and innovation employing the STEM subjects into real-world problem solving.  In June 2012, Project Lead the Way was endorsed by the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers (KAM), in addition to supporting the Manufacturing Institute’s Skills Certification System.

The Manufacturing Industrial Council (MIC) is an exemplary example of the power instilled in unifying diversified leadership under a common vision.  The MIC was formed in 1998 by volunteer’s dedicated to preserving and expanding Seattle’s Industrial business sector.  These volunteers consisted of large manufacturing powers coupled with the family businesses, which are the heart of all great communities.  The powerful drive these volunteers brought to the forefront of Manufacturing has grown extensively over the past 14+ years, and its impressive manufacturing initiatives can be explored here.

The MIC supports several programs designed at raising the bar in Manufacturing Education. First is the Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship Committee that is designed to develop Aerospace Apprenticeship Programs (Way To Go!).  In education the MIC is supporting a new multi-craft construction program at the Puget Sound Skill Center (a technical high school in Burien Washington).  The construction program curriculum was developed by the US Building and Construction Trades Council (be sure to check out the construction math toolkit).  A third initiative is a job training program at South Seattle Community College and the Puget Center.

Although a biased sample, these manufacturing leaders demonstrate there is a new wave of thought within the manufacturing sector: Dreamers and Doers Are Welcome!  I commend these select organizations, and will continue to highlight others in an effort to revitalize our evolving right-brained Manufacturing Industry.

Over the period of the past twenty or so years, Indian economic liberalization has allowed the entry of other participants into the airline business, experiencing various degrees of success. At the same time, the Indian government and its states are building airline/airport infrastructure to accommodate the industry.  What is interesting to note is that unlike the United States, where the airline industry developed in sync with aviation technology, in India, the problem is very different. Since airline technology already exists so the aviation industry is being built in a very different manner. Some would say this gives the industry an advantage in that many technological problems have already been solved by the aviation industry in Europe or the United States and can be transferred. That is in fact partially true…and the existence of a Boeing or Airbus series of passenger aircraft does negate the requirement to go through that process of indigenously building and developing commercial aircraft. So, in effect, one might say the learning curve is much steeper in a country like India and therefore progress can be achieved much faster.

However, from a leadership perspective, the issues are much more complex. India does not have a ready reserve of aviation industry people who have grown with the industry. Rather, in many cases its leadership has come from other economic sectors, and is replete with entrepreneurs who are attracted to the idea of flight but have little real aviation experience. Also, the leadership must deal with consumers who are not aviation savvy and an intensely bureaucratic government apparatus which has historically governed all aspects of the industry in a very controlling manner, not to mention global competition. As a result, the Indian aviation industry lacks a solid base of experienced leadership and finds itself in the middle of a highly complex fluid environment. As we all know, aviation is not always a forgiving enterprise, so Indian aviation leaders have much to be cognizant of as they move forward. The best news was that we found these leaders to be highly enthusiastic and motivated to succeed despite the difficult circumstances they find themselves in!

Look at these data from the Aerospace Industry Report 2011:

• Since 2000, the annual payroll for Aerospace has increased 70%, while the payroll for overall manufacturing in the U.S. fell nearly 15%.
• Aerospace remains one of the highest paying sectors in manufacturing with production workers averaging $33.65 per hour in 2010.
• The average workweek for production workers in 2010 was 43.8 hours – compared to over 60 in many professions.
• Wonderful opportunities for youth. Almost 25% of the existing Aerospace workforce is 55 or older and almost 60% of the workforce is 45 years old or older.

What Can You Do Today?

We need to start recruiting Aviation and Aerospace students earlier! Why not visit the third grade – help expand young boys and girls dreams to include Aviation and Aerospace? Why not ask your School System if they offer “dual credit” courses to High School Juniors and Seniors? Imagine today’s students at graduation – receiving a High School Diploma + up to 24 Semester Credit Hours from a Regionally Accredited University. That lowers the cost of tertiary education; let us help the traditional learners!

The bottom line is go to school, stay in school and graduate. Remember, the only difference between age 20 and age 40 is twenty years; why not a degree or two along with those 20 years? – It’s never too late! The United States Aviation and Aerospace field is still growing; if Engineering is not your “cup of tea,” then why not consider Manufacturing, Management, Marketing, Logistics, Airport Management, Safety and Security, Finance, Accounting or Economics? One last thought; if you had the power and prestige of Walt Disney and could “imagineer” a perfect High School, what would it look like?

Four years ago I began thinking quite a bit about how and in what ways the U.S. could remain the leader in the aerospace industry, particularly in aerospace manufacturing. A number of the more traditional (and important) ideas came to mind: new machine technology, the use of modeling and simulation, education and workforce training, and government policy and law. Then a thought came from my professional training as a logistician—data/information analysis. Logistics is in many ways the premier user of the science of analysis.

I began to look into this approach and in the course of doing the research found Tom Davenport and Jeanne Harris’ book, Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning. In a nut shell, Davenport and Harris illustrate how to use “data, statistical and quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive models, and fact-based management to drive decisions and actions.”

There is a vast quantity of data, which the aerospace industry can use to understand the nature of competition and where to look for insights. Good insight can lead to better business decisions and better utilization of resources. One of the insights we’ve had at CAAL since we started our Aerospace Manufacturing Initiative has come from looking at the content of export sales. What we’ve found is that while aerospace products and parts continue to have a large trade surplus, the value of the content of U.S. manufacturers has been decreasing. This points to an erosion of the domestic aerospace supply base. This is not necessarily a new revelation, but if this trend is not checked, it could threaten the innovative capabilities and competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry.

In future blogs we’ll present more information about what our aerospace manufacturing data is showing.

I think my definition is good, but perhaps there are better definitions. In Learning to Think Things Through, Gerald Nosich offers three:

1. Critical Thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or what to do. (Robert Ennis)
2. Critical Thinking is skillful, responsible thinking that is conducive to good judgment because it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting. (Matthew Lipman)
3. Critical thinking is thinking about your thinking, while you’re thinking, in order to make your thinking better. (Richard Paul)

The inference here is that the best leaders develop feedback mechanisms for their thought processes that result in better decisions. The more we practice, the more critical thinking becomes part of our natural thinking process. This is important, because we are normally wired to take shortcuts in an effort to conserve our energy, to survive, or just to move on. If our thought processes are normally intellectually lazy, can we expect to be able to turn on the critical and creative juices in a crunch?

So, how do we practice critical thinking? Nosich offers the acronym SEE-I as a tool to get started. State the question as briefly, clearly, and as precisely as possible. Elaborate on the question by expanding and explaining in your own words. Exemplify by creating a good example that captures the essence of the question. Finally, illustrate the question by crafting an appropriate metaphor, concept map, or some other illustration of the question.

The SEE-I acronym can be applied to fundamental questions about leadership and developing critical thought.

State – how can leaders improve critical thinking competencies?
Elaborate – how is leadership thinking different than leadership critical thinking? How do leaders develop critical thinking? What is the best way to learn and retain important skills, behaviors and competencies? For leaders to be as effective as possible, how should they approach and solve problems? Is critical thought a necessary component of leadership? How do you recover if you make a mistake? How would a leader know if he was not thinking critically, given his own blind spots?
Exemplify – An example of leadership critical thinking is trying to reason through what cognitive biases I or my team have related to a particular decision. What am I missing that is informing the viewpoint of someone who disagrees with my position? Non-critical thinkers might just ignore that disagreement. Critical thinkers would ask “why would a normal, rational person have this point-of-view?”
Illustrate – The conceptual map below is an adaptation of 8 elements of reasoning described by Vosich. The 8 elements fit within the context of the decision, in this case leadership. The alternatives are the choices that could be made as a result of the reasoning. According to Vosich, each of the 8 elements of reasoning is present in every case of critical thinking.

How would you describe critical thinking? Which definition above works for you and why?

However, the road to graduation has changed.  Joel Barker would call this phenomenon a “paradigm shift” (a set of rules and regulations that does two things, establishes boundaries and tells you how to be successful inside those boundaries).  Drive by your local High School before lunchtime, you might see several teenage students leaving campus early.  Why? It’s because their school day is over, they take the few subjects they need to graduate and then head home.  On the other hand, plenty of High School seniors are enrolled in full schedules because they have failed at least two courses their first three years and won’t accrue the credits needed to graduate.

To improve our Secondary Education dismal diploma graduation rates, we have to change the STEM paradigm.  Why does science have to be physical science?  Why can’t science be Economics, Finance, or Accounting?  Why does technology have to be computer based?  Why does engineering have to be design, why can’t engineering include Leadership, Purchasing, Managing Teams, Logistics, and Project Management?  There are very few of us in this world who really enjoy teaching and learning Mathematics – or even worse Statistics.

I am a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed Secondary Educator in Math and Physical Science; why teach a class if only 3 students out of 45+ see any relevance to the course – or even worse, don’t even care and are forced to be there because the course is “required.”  Why not change the model to accommodate new student needs to something that is “business based” so that we can cast a broad net and recruit more women and traditionally underrepresented minorities into the STEM fields.

Last, as General Mansfield previously reported, we need to add a capstone course in Manufacturing, changing the original Roosevelt model to STEM+M, incorporating business and leadership based courses and making each course a “dual credit” course where students receive High School as well as University credit. Imagine graduation from High School with 24 University STEM+M semester credit hours on your transcript.

Why does the “farm based” education model no longer work everywhere?  Students are raised in an environment that demands one set of skills and cast into a work environment that requires a different set of skills –no wonder they fail!  If America wants to continue to be the leader of the free world, it has to change its education model.

In order to excite the youth of America about manufacturing in the modern age, we need to raise the awareness of the youth. There are many programs across the country that attempt to address this. These programs include after-school opportunities, vocational and technical schools, university programs that offer manufacturing course work and degrees, professional organizations that offer awareness programs and scholarships, as well as local programs offered by not-for-profit organizations. And even though many of these programs are quite good, unfortunately, they are often not coordinated. In my view, the success of organizations like the Future Farmers of America, the 4-H, and Junior Achievement needs to be replicated in manufacturing. So, once again, we are talking about leadership. More specifically we are talking about the need to build a national program that is focused on the breadth of modern day manufacturing – from engineering to design and operations on the factory floor – to increase the awareness of American youth of the good jobs that are available to produce the next generation of products that the U.S and the world will demand.

Maybe it’s time to think about a “Future Manufacturers of America” organization? Let me know what you think.

I believe, however, there is something missing in this discussion. Most all the discussion is about education. More attention and ink needs to be given to the use of such an education that would excite American youth about what basic knowledge of STEM subjects can provide them. Jobs, well paying jobs in manufacturing, particularly aerospace manufacturing, are one such way. (Bureau of Labor statistics have shown aerospace manufacturing jobs can exceed $1,400 a week.) Manufacturing is unique in its ability to provide an important entry into STEM-based careers. For a large segment of the US population, formal education is halted after high school due to the need for financial stability and a general lack of interest in a college pathway. Manufacturing has traditionally been a path to well paid jobs for segments of society. A financially rewarding manufacturing job is readily attainable with additional basic and some advanced skills training. Manufacturing jobs can serve to provide additional hands-on education and, if the person so inclined, an entry into further STEM based education that can lead to community college or full college education—to become the scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians who solve problems, create new materials and explore the unknown. But at the end of all this is the need to make something—something manufactured. To loosely paraphrase the business philosopher Charles Handy, “To make smart products require smart people producing them.” As the 2007 National Academies report stated, “Our economy depends on the knowledge that fuels the growth of business and plants the seeds of new industries, which in turn provides rewarding employment for commensurately educated workers.”

We need to add an “M” for manufacturing to STEM. I’ve often said, “to be effective STEMM needs 2 M’s; the second one has been silent for too long.” A former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, for Science and Technology, Terry Jaggers, coined the term STEM+M during a briefing I once gave him on strengthening the U.S. manufacturing supply chain. He was correct. We need to add manufacturing to our discussion of STEM. As surely as there is a need for growing the numbers of U.S. students in STEM, there is an equal need for exciting the youth of America to enter manufacturing as a profession. A profession that is not only about services and design, but also making things of durable value is very important.

How do you see the importance of manufacturing in relation to STEM? I’ll give some further ideas in a later blog entry.