James L Adams—People and Products

Stanford Product Realization Laboratory 1 - The Birth

When Stanford University opened in 1981, Mechanical Engineering had the second largest enrollment of any department on campus (36 students out of 376 total).  One third of the course offerings in Mechanical Engineering were shop courses, one third were machine design courses, and the remainder were spread between drawing, materials, steam engineering, and pumping engineering. Of course, in those days, mechanical engineering was heavily about machines, and industries were focussed on cutting, joining, and casting—no making of silicon chips or use of 3d printers.

 By 1904, Stanford had outstanding shops for students, occupying three entire buildings— the present Building 530 being the machine shop, 540 the wood shop, and 570 the foundry and forge.  During the period from then to 1930 there were four shop instructors teaching these subjects, As time passed, the total time required in shop courses was reduced by the addition of general study requirements, but in 1930, the shop offered ten shop courses and the equipment was the envy of competing schools.

 But a slow decline began in 1930 for a number of reasons.  Engineering was becoming much more complicated, requiring courses in other topics and leaving less time for shop practice.  And then during World War II the engineering profession realized the importance of “high” technology (radar, communication systems, nuclear weapons) and a much greater emphasis was put on science and mathematical analysis, with a corresponding reduction in design and shop courses.  By the time I reached the campus as a graduate studentin 1958, the shop was staffed by only one and a half people and only used directly by one course and by individuals making projects for other courses.  I was one, since I made the apparatus for my Ph.D. research there (a remote vehicle with a variable time lag in the control system – think of a  human on earth driving a vehicle on the moon). 

 But a remarkable man named John Arnold had been brought to Stanford from MIT in 1957 to strengthen and update design, and he and two graduate students he brought with him, Peter Bulkeley and Bob Keller, were committed to retaining and upgrading the shops.  By the time I joined the faculty in 1966, the shops had benefitted from some new machinery and more student participation, but were under attack because of the need for space for new experimental programs.  A compromise was reached on this point, but the shops were still in a stressed state because of budget restraints, and the difficulty the shop supervisor had in dealing with not only the students, but also the political climate on campus during the late 1960’s and his failing health.  John Arnold had died, Bob Keller had gone, and Peter Bulkeley was the director of the then named Design Division.  Since I was a shop person and had managed a small model shop at JPL, and since I took over the manufacturing course and was teaching in the Product Design Program (both of which depended upon the shop), I became involved.  Peter left Stanford in 1969, and I became Director of the Division, and even more involved. 

 The nature of the work being done in the shop had changed greatly over time, because rather than asking many of the to make the same parts from drawings, students were asked to design parts and then make them – in fact often to make entire products they had designed.  The operation was becoming more complicated and I was all of a sudden up to my ears.  I was simultaneously fighting the people trying to steal space from the shop, trying to get the shop budget increased, and argue the importance of shop work not only for allowing students to pick up some tacit knowledge about manufacturing, but to bring a bit of balance to a curriculum that seemed to me to have moved too far toward science and theory. I was also  teaching my courses, advising lots of students, consulting, running a NASA summer program in system engineering, and doing administrative work, when a miracle happened.

  A present photo of the miracle is to the left, and his name is Professor David Beach (he had more and darker hair in 1972).  He was a student in the graduate product design program (a cooperative program between mechanical engineering and art), who loved the shop and was trying to figure out where to go after his graduation.  He had been a teaching assistant in the manufacturing course, which I was then teaching, and was a superb teacher and a wonderful person.  Our shop supervisor was about to to retire, so one day I asked Dave if he would like a full time job running the shop and to my great joy, after thinking it over a bit, he said yes.

The rest, as they say, is history, which I will relate in my next blog.  I consider Dave an unsung educational hero, and I will sing of him and his program, the Product Realization Lab.

In the winter quarter, beginning after Christmas, Dave will be teaching the Stanford Course ME 314, Good Products Bad Products, and you will be hearing much about the course, which uses my book of the same name as text.

Manufacturing, Skills, and Education

The media seems to have gotten the message that there are many jobs available in manufacturing for “adequately skilled” people.  The Nov 24-Nov 30 issue of The Economist has an article entitled “The New Maker Rules” that discusses this. 

 When I first began work as an engineer, “skills” referred to things having to do with hands and eyes, learned through practice.  Now “skills” seem to also imply competence with mathematics, science, and such things as computer programming, typically learned through formal schooling.  So maybe we are finally realizing the advantages of bringing theory and practice back together a bit.  It’s about time.

 In my next blog, I am going to talk a bit about a group of people at Stanford that call themselves the Product Realization Laboratory, and are led by Professor David Beach, that have been emphasizing this for years.  They are part of the Design Group in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and if you like a quick glimpse at what they do, look at their web site here.  But to my mind, they are undervalued in the academy, even though the students who go through their program are just what the U.S. manufacturing industry needs.

 We are not going to get these “adequately skilled” people unless we make some major changes in our industries and educational institutions, and embarrassingly enough, some of them seem to require turning the clock back a bit. 

 I have these “adequate” skills, but I was fortunate enough to have several resources at my disposal, all now rare.  First of all I grew up on a farm which included a machinist uncle (four year apprenticeship in those days) and a blacksmith grandfather.  Much of the equipment and many of the tools on the farm were to some extent made, and all were maintained, by my uncle and grandfather, with me being allowed (required) to help.  I did not go to a school system oriented toward preparing people for college, but I not only took a fair amount of math and science (because I liked it) and took courses in wood shop and metal shop (including what was then called mechanical drawing) through high school.  My high school, incidentally, included a very broad array of vocational programs ranging from such things as auto shop and machine shop through printing shop, painting shop,  and plaster shop to boys foods and boys tailoring. Thinking I wanted to be a machinist, I worked my final summer in a large machine shop as a flunky, despite a bit of pressure to work on the farm

 My counselor sent me off to Caltech, which at that time was quite active in building large instruments and included the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (still the case).  Summers I worked in the same large shop, but gradually was moved into their small engineering section (which was made up of people who had “come up through the ranks” as machinists (no graduates of four year engineering programs— these were perhaps the “adequately skilled” people in demand right now).

 When I graduated from Caltech, companies were typically offering two year training programs for their new engineers, in which they would be moved around through several activities and would learn company-related skills.  I almost went to work for a machine tool company named Warner Swasey, in which I would have been hired as an engineer at the appropriate salary, but would have spent my first two years working in their very impressive shops.  Instead I went to Shell Oil Company as a production engineer, but even though I graduated first in engineering in my class, and was being paid a satisfying salary as an engineer, I began working in the field as a roustabout (pick and shovel), then was part of a well work-over crew, and then a member of a drilling crew. I left after a few months for active duty in the Air Force, but intended to return and finish my two years at a series of other training activities designed to help me apply what I had learned at Caltech to the company— in other words to learn the oil game.  I never did return to Shell, but this was not uncommon, and companies seemed to be willing to conduct training programs whether people left or not, on the grounds that industry in general would benefit.

 It takes  a lot of work and time to acquire the range of knowledge and experience desired in future manufacturing workers.  Schools are being expected to produce students that do better on math and science tests, but these tests do not measure ability to apply the knowledge.  Industries expect schools to deliver graduates who already have a good sense of  what they like to call “the real world” without much training.  Both have to do better.  And working in manufacturing must be made a more appealing career in the U.S.  Would you rather have your kid work in a factory, or in financial services?

 

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO YOU.

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL DAY HERE AT STANFORD, AND MARIAN AND I ARE EXTREMELY THANKFUL FOR EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES...........EXCEPT MAYBE SOFTWARE UPDATES.

                                               

Intelligence, Training, and Employment

 A Stanford Professor named Gerald Crabtree recently published a two part paper in the journal Trends in Genetics suggested that evolution is making us dumber.  An article about it from Time Newsfeed is here.                 .

 The article resulted in a great amount of conversation on the internet, pro and con.  Many people used events they disagree with (the election, etc.) to prove he is right.  Many disagreed with him.  I am of the latter camp.  I have never thought we humans are as smart as we think we are.  Nor do I place much faith in the way we try to measure intelligence. But I think that life is getting more complex as our population and our desires increase, and that we are becoming less capable of dealing with it.  Moore’s law says that the number of devices on integrated circuits doubles about every two years.  The number of neurons in the adult human brain definitely does not. But I don't think it is decreasing.

 I seem to often agree with New York Times columnist  Thomas Friedman, and this was the case with his editorial in the November 18^th edition, entitled “If You’ve Got the Skills, She’s got the Job.”  He begins by writing about Traci Tapani and her sister, who  are co-presidents of Wyoming Machine, a metal shop in Stacy, Minnesota, and have had difficulty in hiring people of the skill level they need—in particular welders.  As she says about the applicants for her work, “They could make beautiful welds, but they did not understand metallurgy, modern cleaning and brushing techniques, and how different metals and gases, pressures, and temperatures had to be combined”  As she also explained, her company does a wide variety of small high technology jobs, so her welders must be able to read and understand a number of complicated design drawings per day.  The article goes on to talk about the need for higher skills, and the need for educational institutions to deliver them.

 I had an uncle who spent his career as a machinist and then a shop superintendent.  He began in 1932 with a four year apprenticeship, and when he retired at the age of 65, the same machines that he had learned on (with some improvements)  were still being used. Little computer aided design, few digitally controlled machining centers, no plasma cutters, and certainly no 3d printers. I learned to work metal on essentially the same machines my uncle did, and in fact still use a Bridgeport mill (with no digital control), a South Bend Lathe (with all manual controls), and things like Vernier Calipers.  But my shop is more of an antique than a symbol of modern practice. Design used to be done with pencils, not powerful computers.  Most manufacturing used to consist of relatively simple cutting, bending, casting, and welding of metals such as steel and aluminum, and did not include such things as photolithography and computer controlled robots.  Welders could get by with hand, eye, and experience.  No longer.  As Traci Tapani says in the Friedman article, “If you work in a manufacturing facility, you use math every day.  As Friedman says “Who knew, welding is now a STEMS job—that is a  job that requires knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and math. The photo here is of me doing some mig welding (I know, without adequate protective clothing).  I know science, technology, engineering, and math.  Maybe I should build up my welding skills and apply for a job with Traci.

  In design and manufacturing, not only has theory become more complex, but increasing creativity and business ability is being required of those involved. New materials and processes, expectations of performance, light weight, and precision, and the increasing sophistication of technology and technical products, are simply raising the bar on what is required to work in many areas. When I was a simple mechanical engineer involved in making spacecraft 50 years ago, I didn’t have to deal with such things as carbon filaments, integrated circuits, software bugs, and additive manufacturing. 

 I may have become somewhat dumber.  But the game  has definitely become more difficult.  And simultaneously, not only have vocational courses in schools in areas having to do with manufacturing not kept up, but such programs, along with rigorous training programs in industry (four year apprenticeships?), are disappearing fast. Lowering unemployment requires both improving the economy and much more training.  And making better products requires more education and  higher skill levels.

 

 

 

 

Metropolitan Opera HD Simulcasts - an outstanding product

I have always occasionally listened to an opera recording at home, and have seen a few operas live, but never considered myself an opera fan.  I never much liked sopranos and was not thrilled by the traffic, the cost, and the crowds involved with live opera, and could hardly believe that people actually sat through Wagner’s Ring cycle, a couple of the operas being some five hours long.  But I must admit I did not sit very close to the stage.  In fact, one might say I occupied the cheap seats.

Two years ago some friends of ours suggested that my wife and I attend one of the New York Met Simulcasts , and now I am an extreme opera fan.  Purist friends of mine claim that these simulcasts cannot compare with being at a live production, but maybe there is an analogy between being at a live football game and watching one televised with high definition onto a huge screen with outstanding sound, except met simulcasts are not interrupted by commercials, action is continuous, and the camera work and sound are to my mind far superior to those bringing you football games.  Also, the subtitles are superior to haranguing football announcers, and the behind the scenes interviews and insights into the productions are wonderful.  There is something to be said for live events, but also a great deal to be said for these simulcasts.

 To mention a few related advantages, the theater where we watch these is only a couple miles from our home, parking is plentiful and free a hundred feet from the entrance, seats are large and comfortable with immense leg room and arms with cup holders, everything from popcorn to ice cream and coffee are available in the lobby, and extreme informality in clothing is welcomed.  Finally, tickets are $20 or so. In my personal opinion these productions are much superior to the cheap seats at live performances.

 What have I learned?  Opera performers are incredible actors if watched up close, modern technology and huge screens do justice to the productions, and the subtitles and information that are available at the productions make operas easy to follow.  I am now most fond of Wagner’s Ring cycle, and I now like sopranos.  Finally, the productions do an excellent job of humanizing the performers and give insight into the impressive staging required. 

 To me, these simulcast performances are a use of technology I have difficulty criticizing (a  unique experience for me).  I often curse my computer, sometimes my car and leaky toilets, and always automobile traffic, but never these performances.  To me they are miracles worth far more than $20, and I cry when the hero/heroine dies—which is usually.   

 

Industrial/Manufacturing Policy in the U.S.

By the end of World War II, Japan’s industry, and in fact their economy, were in shambles.  In 1949, a  new ministry entitled the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) was created, and given extremely broad powers, including lead roles in such things as Japan’s international trade policy, research funding,  investment,  and providing guidance on such things as technology,  help in licensing foreign technology, access to foreign funding, and mergers. 

  During the glory days of Japanese industrial growth (1960’s, 70’s, 80.s, MITI almost seemed to be running Japanese industry,  and Japanese industry was becoming very powerful indeed.  In fact, it was eating what we believed to be our lunch.   Many people in the U.S. felt that the link between Japanese Industries and this powerful government agency was cheating.  After all, we believed the private sector should be separate from the public sector. Many people  thought we had too much government meddling in business, and businesses should be freer to operate independently with the goal of making money that would trickle down through society.  If we did not have a national industrial/ manufacturing policy, those who did must not be playing fair.  Somewhat comparable to U.S. feelings about China — there is something wrong with a nationally run capitalistic system.  It must not be fair competition.

 But we  have always had industrial/manufacturing policy, or perhaps I should say many government influences on industry and manufacturing.  We just have not had as coherent and powerful an industrial/manufacturing policy as Japan had in the days of MITI,  or perhaps as China now has. 

 A friend of mine was responsible for foreign operations of a large U.S. company before his retirement.  He claims that the largest factor responsible for outsourcing is not wage level, but rather tax policy.  In fact he goes so far to say that the tax advantages to building overseas factories and outsourcing  are so large that companies would be crazy not to do it.  Our tax policy certainly influences industry.  And our government influences industry and manufacturing through its very large consumer footprint.  The total amount of manufacturing in the U.S. these days is on the order of 2 trillion dollars.  But our foreign arms sales in 2010 was some 65 billion dollars and the Department of Defense spent 140 billion on procurement, and 79.1 billion on research, development, test, and evaluation.

 U S.  government funded research and development, although representing only a fraction of overall research and development in the U.S., is highly influential in determining future directions of industry, since it is more basic in nature.  After all, the development of the transistor the GPS system, and the boosters for our space efforts were funded by the government.  In the Stanford Engineering School, the majority of research is funded by government agencies, with the Defense Department providing a large share.  None of this D.O.D. funding goes toward developing actual weapons.  In fact, the Defense Department is now extremely interested in alternate sources of energy, because of the expense and difficulty of transporting petroleum fuels over long distances in areas such as the Mid East.  But the nature of government sponsored research and development cannot help but influence future directions of industry (nanotechnology?).

 And then there are patent policies, rules and regulations having to do with everything from toxic materials to fairness of competition, tariffs, education, setting the minimum wage, immigration policies,  legislation on such things as unionization, social security, and medical care, and a myriad of other factors that directly or indirectly affect industry and manufacturing.  So it is fairly naïve to say that we do not have a national industry/manufacturing policy.  The question is should it be more coherent, more transparent,  and more consistent with national goals.  For instance, if employment continues to be a problem due to changes in global business patterns and technology, should the government more actively encourage activities that either hire or train people whose knowledge and skills no longer match opportunities?

 

 

U.S. Manufacturing in the future

These days, there is a great deal of attention being paid to manufacturing in the U.S., partly because of unemployment, and partly because of changes in technology and global competition.  In the recent election, both presidential candidates often spoke of their plans to increase manufacturing employment in the U.S.

 An interesting article on the topic is Empire of the In-Between, by Adam Davidson, in the November 4^th New York Times Sunday Magazine (Photos by Pieter Hugo).  It talks about the industrial corridor between New York and Washington, and what has happened to it over time.  As an example, in 1940 half of the New Jersey work force worked in factories, and today only 7 percent do.  As a particular example of change, it singles out Wilmington Delaware, a former industrial city, which is apparently now a major service center of lawyers and accountants helping companies take advantage of Delaware’s regulations and rules (which are extremely hospitable to business).   According to the article, the state’s web site claims that 63 percent of Fortune 500 companies, and half of all publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware. Of these only two have headquarters there (Dupont and Sallie Mae)

 I was discussing this article with my friend and colleague Professor Dave Beach, who is the director of the Product Realization Laboratory at Stanford University,  an outstanding program which stresses integrated design and manufacture and is somewhat unique in that students actually design and manufacture products in final form.  He is optimistic about manufacturing in the U.S., but sees it moving to more diversified, smaller, and more numerous firms producing more sophisticated products—and incidentally, providing more satisfying work for employees.  The two of us agree that traditional labor-based manufacturing will continue to occur in countries with extremely low labor rates, but as their economies strengthen, they too will become increasingly automated, and produce more indigenous and high value-added products.  The type of factory shown in the photo below is definitely a thing of the past in the U.S.  In Professor Beach’s opinion, that is okay, since traditional assembly line work was not exactly uplifting to the human spirit.

I am not as sanguine as the presidential candidates that a stronger economy will solve the perceived unemployment problem easily or rapidly.  The U.S. has always loved such things as growth, productivity, and jobs in which hard manual work resulted in advancement in life.  As the New York Times article points out,  such things were abundant in the 1950’s and 1960’s,. But global competition, computers, and increasingly powerful digital control of machinery will continue to change manufacturing.  We are going through a change that is perhaps less major, but somewhat similar to the one that occurred when agricultural employment dropped from a large percentage of the population to 2 or 3 percent.  In that case, people no longer needed in agriculture went to industry.  Where do they go now?  

 A stronger economy will help the manufacturing sector.  If U.S. products increase in quality, thereby resulting in a more positive balance of trade, more manufacturing jobs will result. Increased training and education, either in schools or companies, is obviously needed to support the changing manufacturing scene. More university programs such as Professor Beach’s Product Realization Laboratory would help.  However, the trend toward automation will continue to shrink the number of people needed to manufacture goods, and I don’t see anything in the philosophy of capitalism or the nature of companies that would cause companies to continue to employ people they do not need.

 To what extent should government be involved in this transition in which—although many people receive more satisfaction from being involved in the manufacturing sector than in other occupations and manufacturing is certainly essential to a balanced economy— fewer people are needed to produce products,?    Next post.

 

 

Good Can Opener, Bad Can Opener

The photo shows two can openers that live in my kitchen,  One is an electric model designed by Michael Graves (a very famous designer) as part of a line of kitchen utensils for Target and manufactured by Black and Decker, the one in the foreground is a traditional hand operated one made by Norpro.  The Michael Graves design has a sleek, sophisticated shape,  is easy to clean (the cutting unit slips off and into the dish washer),  and has a cute/humorous look about it (note pink and blue knobs).  My wife loves it, and in fact has our kitchen liberally equipped with Michael Graves designed utensils,   The Norpro one is a mechanism that has been around for many years, now outfitted with larger, easier to use handles.  I would describe the Graves can opener as a delight to have on one’s sink, and the Norpro one as an honest and perhaps brutally functional design.

But, the Norpro device opens cans beautifully, and the Graves machine does not.  The Norpro version allows one to clamp the rim of the can tightly between the blade and the serrated drive wheel as the blade does its work.  The blade rotates along with the drive wheel, helping the process and delivering a rotary cut.  The Graves version requires that the can be held rather skillfully against a stop as the smaller drive wheel drives the can against a stationary blade.  My wife has learned the necessary skill to hold the can in exactly the proper position in the Graves can opener so that the can will behave.  I have not learned the necessary skill, and have to put up with re-starting the cut several times as the can is rejected, hopefully into my hand rather than onto the floor.

To me, two great lessons are apparent from these two can openers.  The first has to do with the power of the more emotional aspects of product quality discussed in my Good Products, Bad Products book.  For my wife, these are more important than the crummy can opening job the Graves model does.  The second is that good performance should be required before a product can be called good.  Designers are often justifyingly criticized for exciting and beautiful products that don’t do their job well.  For me, the Norpro can opener does its job so well in comparison with the Graves can opener that it is an excellent product, independently of its lack of sophisticated form.  Furthermore, the Norpro model costs less and has fewer parts to break.—and it opens bottles to boot.

Finally, why do we need electric can openers?  Years ago, cans were heavily used to preserve and distribute food, but now we have gone toward plastic containers and packages,  frozen food,  and rapidly delivered fresh food.  We use much less canned food than we used to, so the can opener does not see nearly as much service.  The hand-operated device can easily be dropped into a drawer when not used, dropped as a unit into the dish washer, and does not require an outlet plug or use electrical energy (not that energy for electric can openers ranks high among global problems).

 I have an old electric lunch box in my office.  It is made of aluminum and shaped like a standard lunch box, except it has a heating element in the base and an electric cord coiled in a compartment.  Above the heating compartment is a chamber with a lid to heat soup or other hot food, and a small surface to make toast or grill a sandwich.  I show it to people because most of them have never seen such a thing, and it invariably makes them laugh, because it seems like a foolish thing.  But I don’t think it is as foolish as an electric can opener.

C.P. Snow, the Two Cultures, and Product Quality

C.P. Snow, a scientist turned novelist, is remembered partly for a talk he gave (the Rede Lecture of 1959 ) entititled "The Two Cultures", in which he made the point that the intellectual life of western society was split into two cultures, the humanistic and the scientific, and that this hindered our ability to solve many problems. This was followed  by a widely read book of the same title. I talked about this in my post of 07/29/2012.

 From my experience in industry and in academia, the issue is very much alive.  The illustration by Matt Collins is from a column by Lawrence Kraus in the 07/29/2009 Scientific American, which celebrated the 50^th anniversary of the Snow’s Rede Lecture. His column can easily be applied to the present election campaigns. I am personally a believer in Snow's thesis, and since I enjoy both of these cultures, I have been often frustrated by people’s tendency to join one and criticize the other.

 The outlooks of both cultures are necessary to secure high product quality.  In a classic article entitled Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality in the November 1987 Harvard Business Review, David Garvin discussed the topic of product quality, and then listed the following necessary elements— Performance, Features, Reliability, Conformance, Durability, Serviceability, Aesthetics, and Perceived Quality.  This was a time when U.S. industry had spent great effort on, and achieved great success in radically improving the quality of its products, spurred on by Japanese competition and the realization that improved quality led not only to added value, but decreased costs.

 But although recognizing the importance of the final two elements, Garver did not emphasize them as hard as the others, because as he explained, he felt that judgment was not as universal in the case of aesthetics, and intangibles, such as advertising and brand names, influenced the customer"s perception of quality. The first six of his topics are  easier to quantify, and be handled in a more scientific way (measured), but aesthetics and perceived quality certainly play a large role in the decision process of the consumer. 

 When I wrote my Good Products Bad Products Book I suggested a number of elements that were perhaps more on the humanistic side than the scientific—perception of performance and cost, human fit, craftsmanship, overall emotional impact, aesthetics, elegance and sophistication, symbolism and cultural fit, and finally consistency with global limits ( a topic both scientific and humanistic).  I did so because I felt that they received less attention than they deserved in Industry, compared with the first six listed by David Garvin.

 Although both scientific (if you would technical and quantitative) thinking and humanistic thinking are required for high product quality, continual effort is necessary to cause such a thing to happen.  Even in the relatively large design activity in the Stanford Engineering school, where my office is located and where everyone would probably claim they support the merging of Snow’s two cultures, a walk around shows local areas where the  white boards are covered with equations, and others where they are covered with sketches and post-it notes—not many with both.  Much of the university, like much of the world, seems to tend to divide over mathematics.  A few years ago, the  Stanford Anthropology Department actually formally split into those who worshipped such things as probability and statistics, and those who did not.  Fortunately, it has now been put back together, and can resume arguing about which of two equally necessary approaches is more important.

 In many companies with which I am familiar, the split is even more apparent.