Silicon Valley’s Processing Needs Versus San Jose State
University’s Manufacturing Systems Processing Component: Implications for
Industrial Technology
By
Dr. Samuel C. Obi
Department of Aviation and Technology
One
Phone: (408) 924-3218
FAX: (408) 924-3198
E-Mail: sobi@email.sjsu.edu
Background and Rationale
Manufacturing
professionals within universities tend to view manufacturing systems from
a global perspective. This perspective tends to assume that manufacturing
processes are employed equally in every manufacturing enterprise, irrespective
of the geography and the needs of the people in those diverse regions. But in
reality local and societal needs influence the manufacturing processes employed
by a region’s manufacturers. To design better and more useful curricula that
meet local needs, manufacturing systems professors and administrators need to
understand the nature and magnitude of this issue.
Material processing is a major
component of manufacturing systems (
To investigate how this applies
to the manufacturing systems curriculum at San Jose State University (SJSU), a
case study was undertaken in the spring of 2002. The results are contained in
this article, which examines the processing needs of manufacturers in the
Silicon Valley of Northern California and compares the findings with the
contents of SJSU’s manufacturing systems program.
Procedure
This study was undertaken in two phases. The first
phase determined which manufacturing processes generated more activities in the
Silicon Valley of Northern California, as evidenced by the frequency of their
use in the commercial advertising by the region’s job shop manufacturers. An
underlying assumption was that the frequency of use in a major advertising
publication was an indication of the need and popularity of a process. To
accomplish this, a special group of manufacturers was selected as the main
population. This group included all the commercial and professional job shop
manufacturers who participated in the 2001 and 2002 Job Shop Shows at the
A total of 42 processes,
together with their respective frequency scores for 2001 and 2002, were so
identified. They included: brazing (4,
4); chemical etching (1, 3); coating (3, 4); deep drawing (3, 3); die casting
(8, 9); die cutting (1, 4); EDM (7, 11); electroforming (2, 3); electron beam
welding (1, 1); extrusion (12, 10); finishing (3, 8); grinding (3, 5); heat
treating (2, 3); hydroforming (2, 1); injection molding (7, 13); investment
casting (3, 1); laser cutting/drilling (5, 9); laser etching (2, 1); laser
marking (4, 5); laser welding (2, 3); machining (42, 44); mold design (6, 1);
molding (0, 2); perforating (1, 1); photochemical machining (3, 9); plating (4,
6); powder coating (2, 2); punching (1, 2); roll forming (0, 1); rubber molding
(9, 8); sand casting (0, 1); sheet metal fabrication (6, 3); sheet metal
forming (1, 5); springs (10, 11); stamping (18, 22); thermoforming (2, 2); thread
rolling (0, 1); tooling design/fabrication (2, 5); tube bending (1, 1); water
jet cutting (3, 3); welding (2, 9); and wire forming (9, 5). Processes that
received a score of 5 or higher were given more attention in this study.
The second phase of the study
determined the degree to which SJSU’s related manufacturing systems processing
courses addressed these advertised processes. The premise here is that whatever
is practiced by the manufacturing companies (which is an indication of what the
society needs) is, to some degree, a reflection of what should be taught (Obi,
1991). To accomplish this, SJSU’s manufacturing systems’ key material
processing courses were identified. They included: Tech 20 (Computer-Aided
Design); Tech 046 (Introduction to Machining Processes); Tech 103 (Industrial
Materials); Tech 104 (Manufacturing: Planning and Processes); Tech 142 (Product
Prototyping and Manufacturing); Tech 143 (Polymers and Composites Fabrication
Technology); and Tech 144 (Computer-Aided Manufacturing). The courses were then
matched with their related processes according to their respective contents.
This helps in visualizing processes that received coverage and those that did
not, a picture that would help professors and administrators to make appropriate
corrections if need be.
The study revealed several observations: (a) one
process received too much coverage, (b) some processes were covered adequately,
(c) some processes received too little coverage, (d) some processes were not
covered at all in the program, and (e) some processes were not advertised but
were taught in the program. These processes and comments essentially constitute
the findings from this study and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
It is encouraging to note that
only one process (sand casting) appeared to be receiving too much coverage in
the manufacturing systems concentration at SJSU. Perhaps this was because
manufacturers now increasingly employ other casting processes. In fact, some
casting processes such as die casting and shell mold casting have actually
gained more popularity and use in recent years than other more traditional
techniques such as sand casting. Fortunately, only one course (Tech 142) has a
significant sand casting content. Perhaps, SJSU’s manufacturing systems
professors should switch to an alternative casting process to reflect current
trends and help address this problem. If this happens to be the case, then
consideration must be given to such factors as cost of die casting equipment,
ease of maintenance, space availability, and so forth.
It was also encouraging that the study indicated
adequate coverage of 25 (or about 60%) of the 42 processes advertised,
including brazing, chemical etching,
coating, deep drawing, die cutting, EDM, electron beam welding, finishing,
grinding, heat treating, injection molding, investment casting, laser welding,
machining, mold design, molding, perforating, punching, roll forming, sheet
metal fabrication, sheet metal forming, thread rolling, tooling
design/fabrication, water jet cutting, and welding. However, students received
significant practical experience performing grinding, injection molding,
machining, sheet metal fabrication, and tooling design/fabrication in courses
containing those processes. But lectures, videos, and field trip activities
alone provided enough learning experience for students in courses containing
processes that received low advertising frequencies, since they are not
considered to be high-demand processes.
On the other hand, the study
indicated that eight processes received little coverage in SJSU’s manufacturing
systems program: die casting, extrusion,
laser cutting/drilling, photochemical machining, plating, rubber molding,
stamping, and wire forming. Little coverage here means that these
processes are covered only in classroom lectures, which does not match the high
frequency scores received by the processes. Although the lectures often include
videos and field trips, the actual performance of the process by students (a
critical component of technology education) is missing. The absence of this
applied component in a manufacturing systems program renders its graduates ill
prepared to perform effectively when they enter the workforce. These graduates
are expected to supervise working people and processes. A good familiarity with
the processes that they will supervise will help equip them with the critical
knowledge and skill needed in today’s industrial environment.
Correcting this problem could require significant
investment in equipment, space, and training, something SJSU’s administrators
are not willing to do because of their limited budget. But this is a problem
that SJSU’s manufacturing professors have to deal with in order to help meet
those challenges and improve their manufacturing systems program. Therefore,
some creative approach may have to be employed to address the problem. One
possible idea is to help students complete their internships in companies where
those processes are performed so they can learn those skills. Another idea may
be to recommend that manufacturing systems students take courses containing
those processes in a junior college and then transfer them to SJSU.
Of the eight processes that received no coverage at all
in the program, namely, electroforming, hydroforming, perforating, plating,
powder coating, spring forming, tube bending, and wire forming, only plating,
spring forming, and wire forming are of major concern to the program because
the rest did not receive as high scores as these three did. The processes that
received lower scores can be included in lectures. But to implement plating,
spring forming, and wire forming will again require significant investment in
equipment, space, and training. Therefore, a possible solution here will be the
industrial internship and junior college credit transfer ideas already
discussed above.
The case of missing processes is the last observation
to be mentioned here. These are processes that were not advertised by the
participating companies but are taught in the program. Slush casting and open
die forging, for example, were not advertised by the companies but are
discussed in lectures at SJSU’s manufacturing systems program. Such a situation
may be due to a number of reasons, such as the case with a government
contractor on specialized processes, a small business that cannot afford to
participate in the show, a business whose process may not be needed locally, or
simply a business that usually gets enough customers and does not care or want
to participate in the job shop show. SJSU’s professors and others in such a
situation should use their judgment in configuring their curriculum to match
companies’ needs, especially if those same companies are also area employers.
It should also be mentioned
that the view taken in this study represents only manufacturing-related
entities that actually advertised their services in the job show. One
should not interpret this group to represent all manufacturing companies in the
Implications
for Manufacturing and Industrial Technology Programs
This case study was an attempt to
determine the processing needs of
As has been demonstrated in
the foregoing discussions, this kind of study helps educators and
administrators to visualize the content matter of their programs more precisely
and then determine whether they are meeting their intended goals and
objectives. In other words, it acts as a tune-up whenever educators are in
doubt about what they should be teaching. It also acts as a check and balance
for a program. Since curriculum development is the core function
of education, ensuring that essential and appropriate materials are
covered in a program is critically important if manufacturing systems graduates
are to be competently knowledgeable when they enter the workforce. This
practice more directly affects the students and graduates of the region where
the programs are located. Designing program content to reflect the industrial
tasks of the area will certainly be a plus for the graduates and the
manufacturing organizations that hire them when they graduate.
Also, this practice essentially
makes the programs more functional in the communities that they serve. Students
in such programs will more easily relate to the manufacturing jobs advertised
in their locality when they see one. And program educators and job providers
will tend to be working together toward a common goal, since they can now see
their commonality more easily. The result is that the manufacturing programs in
the region will be more robust and the graduates more educated.
Finally, this study is
recommended for all manufacturing programs, not only to help visualize how
different localities and economies influence the manufacturing processes of
their respective locations but also to ensure that the needs of students and
employers in such regions are being met. It potentially can result in stronger
manufacturing systems programs that will be in business for many years to come.
Reference
Obi, S. C. (1991). Manufacturing for
quality: Implications for industrial technology.
Journal of
Industrial Technology, 7, (4),
18-21
Seymour, R. D. (1995). Manufacturing technology
education. In Foundations of
Technology Education: 1995
(44th CTTE Yearbook).
Technology Teacher Education.
Short, M. (2001, October). Outsourcing solutions for product manufacturers. Job
Shop
Technology (Western
Edition), 16(4), 1-103.
Short, M. (2002, January). Outsourcing solutions for Product Manufacturers. Job
Shop
Technology (Western
Edition), 17(1), 1-87.