U.S. manufacturing continues to spiral downward. There is a bottom line, but it is dreadful to contemplate. One look at the U.S. trade deficit is a reminder that we are importing far more than we are exporting. Of more consequence, we export a great amount of raw materials and import products like luxury cars, cell phones and computers, not to mention almost all of the shoes and clothes we wear.
The fall off in the U.S. share of the car market continues, even with ridiculous rebates. Another example: the fall-off in the U.S. production of printed circuit boards. From 2001 to 2003 the U.S. share fell 40%.
It would be false reporting to state that we are not aware of this situation. Many efforts have been discussed, planned and initiated. Efforts have been made by prestigious organizations such as SME, NACFAM, The Council on Competitiveness, IMTI (Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative), DOD (with aggressive research and support of academia), ATI (Advanced Technology Institute) and NGMTI (Next Generation Manufacturing Technology Initiative).
For years, if not decades, corporations, universities and research centers have been in programs devoted to saving U.S. manufacturing. We have centers devoted to lean manufacturing, agile manufacturing and flexible manufacturing and yet, what impact have they had? There is no question that these efforts may have slowed down the decline but they have not stopped it. The question now is why does U.S. manufacturing still continue to erode?
Let us ask another question or two. Do we hear discussion of our manufacturing plight in our favorite watering holes, on late night talk shows, in newspaper editorials, or op-eds? Do cell-phone users weep over the loss of most of our machine tool industry? Clearly they don't, and Tom Cruise has not yet starred as a heroic savior of manufacturing. He is too busy saving the Samurai tradition.
The efforts being made are championed, for the most part, by government agencies like the DOD that have strong internal agendas, or by associations that historically are representative of positions and standards rather than as implementors of initiatives, or by universities that have a tradition of consideration, investigation and analysis, but little tradition of action.
Bureaucracies dominate these efforts and bureaucracies are made, not born. They are made for several essential purposes: self-perpetuation, production of red tape and boilerplate documents. Their principle method of operation is a system of committees and sub-committees. Are some of these reports good? Of course. Some make a difference, but the difference fails to stem the tide of diminishing manufacturing.
Committees too often take sense and create nonsense or take action and turn it into delay. The noble organizations we have listed do not intend such an outcome. None wish to cripple U.S. manufacturing. However, their methods have left us sinking.
When all else fails we have only one recourse, and that recourse is our own person. We are what must make a difference. We must find a way to increase our effectiveness in promoting U.S. manufacturing.
As the comedian George Carlin says, think "off-center" and come up with a way to better serve U.S. manufacturing. The alternative: learn Chinese-in fact, that might not be a bad thing regardless.
Let me know how you are making a contribution.