The Future of Engineering Skills

A business breakfast organised by Harvey Nash – October 2012

At 8am in the morning (ugh), the great and the good of the engineering world (well some of them anyway), plus me, were arriving at the Lanesborough Hotel in Knightsbridge, central London, for a free breakfast. For those of you who don’t know the Lanesborough, when it opened some years back, it announced that it was London’s first 7 star hotel! Far be it from me to comment on that claim, but it is definitely plush, and I can think of worse places to hold a breakfast meeting. Actually I can think of lots and lots of worse places; and that’s without really starting to think at all.

I thought that Harvey Nash would only be inviting their closest friends, but far from it; it was rent-a-mob and we were about 60 strong. To be honest, I am not a close friend of Harvey Nash; in fact I didn’t even know who they were. Their website says: “a global professional recruitment consultancy and IT outsourcing service provider.” I was invited because I am a friend of Semta, the UK’s Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies.

I went with two hats on: the first is my day job — as CEO of A1 Technologies, a company with plans to dominate the world of education in 3D technologies, in particular enabling kids in school to design in 3D and then turn those designs into 3D models. In a way, that is just a mechanism; a mechanism to encourage, enthuse and motivate kids, to get them excited about being creative, about innovation, about science, about entrepreneurialism. It also acts as a precursor and a gateway to the sciences and to engineering in general. It also helps them develop all the soft skills valued by employers; not just engineering employers, but employers of every hue – skills such as teamwork, presentation, analysis, problem solving, and, very important, learning to fail, learning why they failed and learning how to do better next time. This is after all grist to the mill for every designer and inventor who ever lived.

That’s one hat. The other is that in my spare time (I always have an internal chortle when the concept of ‘spare time’ is raised; my wife just groans) I chair LASER. LASER stands for London and the South-East Region Manufacturing Alliance. LASER represents the interest of every manufacturing and engineering company in the south-east of England and there are a lot of them. Many of them work in traditional ways, and many are high tech and high growth. The majority are inevitably SMEs but we have some great well known companies in the region such as Ford, Coca Cola and, although perhaps less well known, one of the UK’s largest exporters, Case New Holland who manufacture tractors.

Both hats were suitable and both were useful at this event. After breakfast (and I did stay on after the breakfast, which was probably better than the breakfast cereal I would have had at home), the CEO of Harvey Nash got the event started with some of the findings from their annual manufacturing survey. It was interesting but although it provided some statistics, it did not tell us much we did not already know – that there is a shortage of engineers and technicians, and that the skills gap is going to get worse.

There were two main speakers, both with a great pedigree and both with insights to share that were well worth hearing. Professor Dame Julia King was obviously suffering from a bad cold but she did not let that get in the way of her speech. For those of you who do not know, Dame Julia is Vice Chancellor of Aston University. The University website states: “Julia is a member of the Board of Universities UK and Chair of the Higher Education Statistics Agency, as well as Non Executive Director of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. She is frequently called upon to advise Government on education and technology issues, and was appointed by the Prime Minister as the UK’s Low Carbon Business Ambassador in November 2010.” So she has form and impressive credentials.

She used information from her low carbon activity to scope some of the energy problems we face and used that to show the energy and skills issues of that industry, using it to illuminate the wider problem throughout industry. She spoke cogently and interestingly, and shed light (carbon free naturally) on information that might otherwise be hidden in the small print of academic papers, but which was  very telling in the context of skills shortages. She is also passionate about the issue of women in industry, in engineering and in manufacturing, and showed that if we did a better job of encouraging women into our sector, skills problems would be substantially reduced.

She was followed by someone I did not know and had not heard of before. Nigel Whitehead is Group Managing Director Programmes & Support for BAe Systems. His job clearly gives him a great deal of spare time; he is also, and I quote the BAe Systems website: “a Council Member of the Royal Academy of Engineering, a Commissioner on the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, a Trustee of the Whitehall and Industry Group, Chairman of the UK Council for Electronic Business, a Member of the Apprentice Ambassador Network and a Council Member, of A|D|S (Aerospace, Defence, Security).” Wow. And I thought I was busy!

He is in effect running a £6 billion operation, more than most CEOs. I used the word passion for Dame Julia’s speech, and her passion was matched by his, even on the subject of women in engineering as well as women at Board level. An interesting aside on this topic; exploring their absence in the highest ranks of BAe Systems, women below this glass ceiling were asked about their aspirations. The message was that they had looked through the glass ceiling and didn’t like what they saw. Apparently the company is now looking to see what can be done to make the top roles more attractive to women in general (and to those who valued their home life in particular, not just to women). It will be interesting to see if anything changes, but I admired his candour.

It was not just Nigel’s candour I admired, nor just his passion, although both were impressive. He was one of the best speakers I have ever heard, and if he were to be speaking again, I would travel a long distance to hear him; I suggest you ought to do so too. He had some notes (I think), but he hardly used them. He had figures and statistics at his fingertips. His speech was fluent and fascinating. He did not make fantastic claims for BAe Systems but matched things they did well with (more candour) things that could be improved. But it is clear that the company is doing a great many things on the skills front incredibly well, and sets a very high standard for British industry as a whole. In a climate where only about 8% of companies have any apprentices, BAe has over 1,000, and within the company, starting from an apprenticeship rather than an engineering degree is not a drawback; in fact it can be a real advantage to career progression. If we could bottle Nigel and BAE System’s methodologies, British industry would take a great leap forward.

But: that only goes so far. Let us now turn to question time. Several questions were asked and both speakers responded as well as I had come to expect. Then came an excellent question, or perhaps a better description would be an observation and a plea, which I found particularly interesting and important. Possibly because I was the one who spoke! I spoke using information gleaned from both my hats, from my experience of working with schools and kids and from the feedback from manufacturers in my region. If we are to fill the huge skills gaps of the future, there is a need to persuade children that engineering and manufacturing are fun, stimulating and offer both good money and great career prospects. Our industries must do more to engage with schoolchildren and get that message across. Starting at primary level. My products help to achieve this, but more schools need to invest to make it happen. There are of course other mechanisms, but A1 Technologies’ works brilliantly. And I am of course totally unbiased. I also spoke forcibly of the need to engage with government to retain Design & Technology as a core part of the curriculum. So, back to the event.

I expected both speakers to agree with my premise, but it was the passion (that word again) and the enthusiasm with which they responded that both staggered and delighted me. They did not just agree but reinforced my message to the meeting again and again. Fantastic response. I also learned of BAe Systems’ road show for schools and the great work they are doing. I learned a bit more by talking to Nigel at the end, and it made me want to work with him and his organisation with both my hats on. I gave him my card, so I hope he gets back to me on this topic.

In the end there didn’t need to be a breakfast and it did not have to be at the Lanesborough for me to be wowed by the event and deeply impressed. I learned afterwards that it was Jinny McDonald-Matthews who chose the speakers, so well done Jinny; great choice. A thank you to Semta for inviting me, and also giving me a chance to meet Sarah Sillars, Semta’s brand new CEO, who seems to have a great attitude and I think I am going to enjoy collaborating with her and her organisation in the future.

Martin Stevens

CEO – A1 Technologies Ltd

Chairman – LASER (London and South-East Region) Manufacturing Alliance

Technicians and Engineers of the future – how will we find them?

A justification for 3D design & print in schools

A programme proposal

Martin Stevens, A1 Technologies

There is a drastic need to prevent a significant skills gap occurring amongst technicians and engineers. The gap exists now, but will be massively exacerbated in the future as the older generation currently in employment starts to retire.

There are two key issues to be addressed to alleviate, and hopefully resolve this impending crisis.

The first is to increase awareness of engineering and manufacturing as potential careers. Manufacturers are aware of the problem and are starting to take action themselves to address it.

This proposal addresses the second, which is to increase excitement and enthusiasm for the subject that does more than any other to generate the engineering employees of the future – Design & Technology.

The problems currently facing many schools at both primary and secondary level, include:

• Lack of expertise in IT-based technologies
• Current equipment used in, and supplied to schools is often old fashioned, out of date and used by technicians, not pupils
• Too much teaching, not enough learning
• Not of enough interest to motivate all pupils
• Not enough to prepare them with 21^st century skills
• Too much CAD, not enough design
• Not enough to interest girls

A1 Technologies has a solution to all those issues, and one which solves others as well, such as engendering entrepreneurialism whilst helping generate the soft skills sought by all employers. Furthermore A1’s solution, although perhaps embedded within D&T, is of significant relevance within Art & Design, and can also help enliven and concretize learning within other subjects (particularly but not exclusively the sciences) by the creation of physical 3D objects from which pupils can learn.

The solution is based around the implantation of extremely low cost (but high value), quick-to-learn and easy-to-use equipment, equipment which can be happily used in primary schools, but which equally will deliver results at GCSE and A Level, which is about designing and printing 3D models.

The equipment consists of:

• Chameleon 3D creative design package (UK designed) with a hapticated mouse; this allows all youngsters to engage in creative design, without having to learn 3D CAD. Teenagers have declared this to be “cool” (what a compliment) and it has been used by children as young as 3 years of age. Haptication refers to the force feedback on the 3D mouse, so that virtual objects are felt as real (virtual sculpting and virtual clay modelling are both terms used in this context). By using both visual and kinaesthetic senses, pupils’ design experience and skills are reinforced.
• David 3D laser scanner, which enables physical objects to be scanned and then saved as 3D files, either for copying (reverse engineering) or as the start of a new design, since the files can be imported into the Chameleon for morphing.
• Maxit 3D printer, another British product, is the only 3D printer in the world specifically designed for the education market. It comes in kit form, with the premise that it will be assembled by the pupils themselves, which will be part of their learning.
• All the necessary software, training and printing material, so that schools can integrate the various products and start work.

How does this solve the issues faced by schools and pupils?

• The equipment is simple, and with the provided training, will not frighten those teachers who are not IT-literate, whereas 3D CAD does.
• This equipment is bang up to date; it represents what is possible now — and in the future. It is all designed to be used by the pupils themselves, and does not have to be guarded by teachers and technicians.
• Because the pupils learn by doing rather than by being shown, learning is much more powerful and better embedded.
• From our experience, pupils find this equipment and this technology fascinating, inspiring and motivating. It allows them to express their creativity and innovation, and once they have a design, that design can be printed. Showing such 3D models to friends and relatives is a powerful motivator, above and beyond the potential for improved examination results.
• 3D printing is going to be one of the great disruptive technologies of the 21^st century. So say Forbes, the Economist and many other leading observers of the technology scene. Bringing this to pupils at an early stage will give them tools to employ in their future careers. If they choose other directions, it will at least make them informed citizens, as well as preparing them for employment in a broader sense.
• 3D CAD is a great tool for those who can use it effectively, but in a school context, that percentage is small. Our Chameleon does not replace CAD but sits alongside it as an alternative design methodology for those who are too young, those who do not do D&T, those who want to be more creative or those who just find 3D CAD too difficult.
• Finally, our technologies are not gender specific. They can equally be used to design and make engineering objects and creative objects, an impeller or a piece of jewellery, an engine block or a mobility aid. As well as producing physical objects, our technology also allows pupils to create animations and avatars for virtual use.

The logic may appear impeccable but the perceived risk for schools, with their restricted (and uncertain future) budgets, alongside uncertainty about the future of D&T, and with the lack of knowledge of D&T specialists, never mind that of the Heads and Bursars of our schools about 3D technologies means that this is a difficult message to get across to schools.  What is needed is for a number of schools (we suggest 10) to try the equipment and prove to their satisfaction that it will deliver as claimed.

If a school buys one set, this does not really work, as it restricts access and use to a small percentage of pupils. D&TA (the Design & Technology Association) is the subject association for D&T. In order to check our perception of the value of our products, we gave a presentation to their Innovation Group, a collection of young leading D&T teachers from across the country. They validated our claims for our products, and suggested that for the equipment to deliver against its potential, it had to be able to allow full class teaching and learning.

To that end, we have put together a package which will allow this to happen. We propose that this package consists of 6 sets of equipment. The rationale for this is that in a typical class of 24 pupils, they can work together in teams of 4, thereby enabling everyone to take part, everyone to have access to all the equipment, and everyone to explore their own ideas as well as work in teams to turn concepts into finished products. We have also commissioned some curricular material from a leading D&T teacher to remove another potential barrier to the successful use of this equipment.

Within D&T, many schools have already spent heavily on cutting machines (lathes, mills and routers) as well as, more recently, on laser cutters. All of this equipment tends to be expensive to purchase and run, and it is easy to spend 10s of thousands of pounds. Furthermore it is usually only used by teachers and technicians rather than by the pupils themselves, and can only do one job at a time (not quite true of laser cutters, where a number of jobs can be ‘nested’ on the bed at one time, but only to produce flat sheets of material).

Our equipment is low cost, and even when sold in sets of 6, the total cost for any one school will be under £15,000. That includes everything they need to get started (including in house training) plus enough printing material (biodegradable PLA) to last them some time. Furthermore, unlike some systems, the ongoing cost of printing is very low indeed, with typical printed models costing pence rather than pounds, so future print material will not break the ongoing departmental budget. This is critical, both from the point of view of budgets (and ongoing use of the equipment), and also because it allows schools to give pupils the freedom to iterate their designs, standard practice in industry but often denied pupils in school.

We posit that like IT equipment, 3D design & print should be treated as a whole school investment, the cost of £15,000 can also be amortized across departments throughout the school, as many departments can benefit from the outputs of the equipment; the school can also recover some of the investment by encouraging pupils to design and make items which can subsequently be sold at Open Days and the like.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed that sets of the above equipment be supplied into 10 schools, which will act as test beds and trail blazers for the education system as a whole. 10 schools will need to be identified where the Heads of school, the heads, teachers and technicians within D&T, along the rest of staff throughout the school will be willing to collaborate and cooperate across departmental boundaries to see just how much value can be generated from the use of this equipment. To that end, they will be supported by the staff of A1 Technologies, to ensure that as much benefit can be generated as possible. As part of the trial, the schools will need to keep records of their experience and of their experiments, so that if (when) successful, their learning can be disseminated for public benefit.

The total cost of the programme will be £150,000, which will allow the 10 schools the opportunity to explore the value of using 3D equipment to change the future of technology, engineering, design and manufacture in the UK. A1 is looking for a sponsor, or multiple sponsors, to make this programme a reality.

This programme will support the use of British equipment, the British education system and its pupils, and ultimately the British manufacturing sector, its economy and society as a whole.