Category: InterAct Blog

Categories
InterAct Blog

How co-working spaces can boost local economies

Mariachiara Barzotto (University of Bath), Felicia Fai (University of Bath), and Phil Tomlinson (University of Bath)

The routine of commuting five days a week to and from an employer’s office now seems somewhat old fashioned. Flexible and remote working have become much more common – and popular.

One global survey found that 68% of employees prefer flexible working. In the US, when given the option of remote work, 87% of employees take up the offer. It has also been estimated that up to 25% of workers in some of the world’s largest economies could work remotely for three to five days a week without any loss in productivity.

Improvements in digital technology and better broadband connections have made this drastic change possible. COVID then sped up the whole process, with remote working becoming a necessity for many.

Traditionally – and during COVID lockdowns – remote working meant working from home. But research suggests that much of the recent uptake in remote work is occurring in “co-working spaces”, where people from different professions and organisations work side by side.

These spaces provide flexible access to shared workspaces, with a range of facilities such as decent coffee, good wifi, digital printing and postal services. They range from basic to funky in design, some with natural features or social spaces equipped with table tennis and pool tables, boxing bags and PlayStations. Dogs and other pets are often welcome.

Since they first emerged in the US in 2005, co-working spaces have seen significant growth in both urban and rural locations. They have also been set up in tourist hot spots, catering for workers who wish to combine their jobs with travel on “workcations”, while others are designed for specific groups such as female entrepreneurs.

Some are run by large global companies while others are set up by local independent providers. But they are all designed for workers in search of a flexible approach, a decent location and an appealing working environment.

Part of this appeal comes from the social interaction they provide, reducing the isolation of working from home. They may also be located more conveniently than traditional places of work, reducing commute times and helping parents manage childcare commitments.

Commercial collaboration

The main feature of a co-working space is that the people who use it come from different backgrounds and are not employed by a single company. Such a diverse community can open up new opportunities for collaboration and the exchange of ideas – and even the potential for new commercial partnerships.

Indeed, some research suggests that co-working spaces are similar to “industrial clusters”, where groups of businesses in similar sectors are concentrated in a particular location, such as the Square Mile in London, or the area near Silverstone in England nicknamed Motorsport Valley.

Co-working spaces can be good for employers too, broadening their geographical reach. They may be cheaper than traditional office space, and provide a flexible option to scale up or down depending on economic circumstances.

And while most co-working spaces are designed for desk workers, there are an increasing number of manufacturing and engineering companies getting involved. Spaces which provide access to things like CAD software, 3D printers and lathes are particularly useful for small design or artisan businesses.

A role for policy?

This ease of access to tools and technology can encourage start-ups, or promote the re-emergence of small scale manufacturing in “left behind” places. In the US, for example, there has been a political push to promote co-working spaces as seedbeds of entrepreneurship.

In Italy, a similar policy in Rome has received the same kind of encouragement, while Ireland’s government announced plans for investment in 400 co-working hubs in rural areas to create a national network of facilities.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has also expressed interest in the potential of co-working spaces to boost regional development.

But so far in the UK the role of co-working spaces has largely been absent from any political party’s vision for developing regional economies. Instead, it seems to have been largely left to local authorities and businesses to take the lead.

In Stoke-on-Trent, for example, a new co-working space development has been launched in a partnership between the local government and private sector investment. Elsewhere, Devon County Council coordinates its own network of co-working hubs.

They have understood that the move towards more flexible working is surely here to stay. For many, it provides a sense of freedom and independence in their working lives.

Overall though there seems to be a lack of strategic thinking from the national government on the funding and location of co-working spaces. In tough economic conditions, this may turn out to be a significant missed opportunity.

Mariachiara Barzotto, Senior Lecturer in Management Strategy and Organisation, University of Bath; Felicia Fai, Associate professor in International Business and Innovation, University of Bath, and Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy, Co-Director Centre for Governance, Regulation and Industrial Strategy (CGR&IS), University of Bath.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Categories
InterAct Blog

Unlocking human insight: a summer school journey

Stephanie Yao Gou (Loughborough University)

The InterAct Summer School, co-hosted by InterAct and Atlantic Technological University, at the ATU Letterkenny, Donegal Campus was a truly enriching experience. As a PhD researcher from a Creative Arts background, exploring human insights surrounding digital technology diffusion, I found the program to be incredibly valuable in expanding my knowledge and identifying potential collaborative opportunities.

Throughout the summer school, we had the privilege of visiting prominent industry players like Coca-Cola Ballina and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), delving into digitalization from both operational and strategic perspectives. We encountered examples of how digital transformation is having huge impacts on the ways these businesses operate and how they plan to develop their functionality in the future.

Attending the interactive workshops led by esteemed professors exposed me to cutting-edge concepts such as “IOT,” “Inclusive Growth,” and “Distributed leadership,” which broadened my understanding and inspired further exploration in my research.

However, the summer school offered much more than just academic knowledge. As a storytelling practitioner and pre-journalist, I make a habit of collecting feedback and stories while engaging with people. During the summer school, everyone I spoke to expressed fervent enjoyment, deeming it a “best ever” event. This was particularly resonant in this post-Covid era, where virtual gatherings have become the norm. The summer school provided an invaluable opportunity to reconnect in person, bridging the gap left by social distancing, masks, and hand gels.

Three key observations stood out as significant contributors to the strong bonding and collaborative culture we experienced throughout the five-day event:

Firstly, leadership through storytelling played a crucial role. Professor Janet Godsell and Professor Jillian MacBryde set the stage by sharing their personal journeys into engineering and manufacturing, inspiring authenticity, and trust among the participants. Professor George Onofrei with his wisdom gained from industry and academia, emphasized the soft skills: networking, resilience, and the importance of never burning bridges. These narratives not only fostered knowledge-sharing but also created an emotional connection among all of us within the organization of the summer school.

Secondly, teamwork was instrumental in our experience. For each workshop, we were randomly assigned to different teams to work on assignments and present our findings. During our industrial visits and sightseeing excursions, we demonstrated the spirit of teamwork through good timekeeping and looking after each other to ensure no one was left behind. Additionally, we formed an unofficial “social committee” to secretly collect signatures for a thank-you card for Professor George Onofrei and a birthday card for Anastasia Kulichyova

Lastly, the inspiration of creativity played a significant role. The warm hospitality of Ireland, represented by live music and Guinness, contributed to fostering a sense of togetherness. Our group ventured to local pubs, where the singer encouraged us to sing along with him. Our brave icebreaker Isaiah Nassiuma, a PhD researcher in Engineering, even took the stage to perform, creating a lasting memory. This spirited act was recorded and shared within our WhatsApp group, igniting more people to join in the celebration of Irish live-music-in-pub culture on day three, which coincided with Anastasia’s birthday. Dancing in a circle accompanied by fiddles and pop bands invoked a sense of trust and inclusivity, fostering an environment where creativity thrived. Such collaborative creativity reaffirmed the essence of our humanity, which may sometimes be buried as we grow older, but can easily be rediscovered when we come together.

As the summer school drew to a close, we found ourselves discussing ways to stay socially connected and eagerly anticipate InterAct’s next event. Even after returning to our respective cities, we continued to share personal news on WhatsApp and engage in thoughtful discussions on LinkedIn. Undoubtedly, the InterAct-ATU summer school stands as a highly successful event, with the true key to its success lying in “the success of people”.

In the digitalization era, where A.I. threatens human involvement in the workplace, I feel that I encountered a profound example of the power of human insight. Walking past a Turkish delight shop in the U.K., my mobile phone may instantly send me a pop-up advertisement, courtesy of A.I., catering to my preferences with collected data. However, it does not compare to the feeling when I receive a image of Pistachio Baklava, sent by my new friend Nader El Tibi from the airport, after our engaging conversation during the summer school gala dinner.  The sweetness of human insight is something that A.I might never be able to replicate. This is the priceless reflection I took from the summer school. 

Categories
InterAct Blog

Toyota, you and a “human centric” digital manufacturing future

Russell Watkins (Sempai)

The Interact tagline was carefully crafted when Made Smarter and ESRC stumped up the money to make this network a reality. That tagline being: “pioneering human insight for industry” with the spoken aim to create a “network that aims to bring together economic and social scientists, UK manufacturers, and digital technology providers to address the human issues resulting from the diffusion of new technologies in industry”.

Yes, yes and yes again – this is what drew me to interact in the first place. It makes perfect sense when you think about it; in our factories, to make things, you need to bring machines, materials, and a method of doing it together with people. People are the glue that make the 4Ms work in harmony. And yet, walking the halls of Smart Factory conferences – the exhibitor wares on show are 95% things or data.

IoT, Sensors, robots, cobots, AI and data analytics are all critical, in tandem with people. We need to concurrently invest in skills to get the best out of these innovations, especially if we want a long term functioning society to manage this nascent 4th industrial revolution, without unrest and social upheaval.

Ponder for a second on any investment you make in a manufacturing business. The following are likely to be true:

Somebody has to research the market

Somebody has to talk to vendors

Somebody has to negotiate and buy it

Somebody has to commission it

Somebody has to programme it

Somebody has to maintain it

Somebody has to load and unload it during the shift

Somebody has to change the kit over or update the programme/parameters

Somebody has to respond to it when the Andon goes off

Somebody has to act on that

Somebody has to interpret the data that comes out of sensors

Somebody has to troubleshoot

Somebody has to problem solve and…

…a number of people have to find kaizen to keep you competitive.

‘Somebody’ might be multiple people for each of these activities. What is clear is that ‘Somebody’ needs to considered alongside the physical and data innovation that Industry 4.0 has to offer. InterAct are, comfortingly, working in that space.

This raises an important question about where manufacturers should invest in digital manufacturing. Investment always warrants head scratching as capital dollars/pounds/euros and yen are scarce, but thinking is free. The mantra I’d advise you to adopt underpins the model below. Invest where you SHOULD, not just where you CAN.

This requires pausing, thinking and coming to the CapEx table with a business problem to solve – low productivity or persistent specific quality issues for example. Having said that, the lean start-up principle of creating proof-of-concepts means we can place multiple bets (run trials) on various technologies, as long as we treat them like little experiments to learn whether they’re worth investing in further.

A smart way of thinking about all of this is the Toyota style thinking that I experienced on my last two trips to Japan. They think of it as a numerator and a denominator. The numerator represents the equipment you use to create value that your customers will buy. The aim is to improve the equipment work. The denominator represents the people working in the manufacturing business and asks whether we can improve people’s work.

Within this model, the categories to invest time and resources in are those that:

For the Equipment – “predict problems” or detect “early symptoms” of problems (both of these are likely Safety, Quality or Delivery related)

For the People – “eliminate low value added work” (like walking around checking things at the start of the shift or the admin burden of logging results/performance) or “reduce variation in standard work” (as an example, think 2 setters on opposite shifts changing the same machine from part A to part B, but the first setter takes twice as long)

The real gold to be mined is in the 2 bubbles that serve both. Digital manufacturing done well can “visualise issues” that are hidden to the human eye or our current data harvesting and sensor inputs. Rather nicely, if you listen hard enough to the data, it can identify the next, best kaizen to take you forward.

The idea is this; if you focus on both Equipment and People you’re going to open up a bigger benefit by improving both the numerator and denominator. That sounds very much like competitive advantage to me. As Eddie Jones (yes, the former England Rugby coach) said in his recent book on Leadership “The only reliable advantage we’ve got is to learn faster than the opposition”

InterAct is the best game in town, looking into the future to secure the role of human skill in our bright digital future. Get involved, you can either snooze your way to 2040 and then stand, blinking into the sunlight, complaining about the outcome. Or you can help shape and secure the UK’s place in manufacturing’s coming world order. Interact is moving into an exciting phase in 2023/24 where the research bears practical fruit. There are various ways to get involved, and you can keep up to date with all the latest news and opportunities here.

For more information about Sempai and the support they provide to employers, please click here.

Categories
InterAct Blog

Why flexible working is part of the ‘future of work’ for manufacturers

Lisa Gallagher (Flexibility Works)

While hybrid working stole the limelight during the pandemic, we’re hearing about increasing numbers of employers with frontline staff that are now creating greater flexible working for people who can’t work from home. 

The manufacturing sector is a case in point. Until recently, employers generally told us that flexible working just wasn’t possible where machine operatives and production lines were involved. And yet, we recently spoke at an event with InterAct at Strathclyde University about the ‘future of work’, and we heard from a range of manufacturing and engineering firms that are implementing different kinds of flexibility that support their people and their business. 

For example, The Alex Begg Group, based in Ayr, has moved production staff that handcraft luxury scarves and blankets on to annualised hours. This means staff work four-day weeks at the start and end of the year, and five-day weeks in the busier middle period. Staff benefit from longer weekends in quieter periods, and the business benefits from having staff on hand when they’re most needed without increasing costs.

Livingston-based precision engineers, Almond Engineering, haveintroduced more flexible hours. Staff need to be in work during the core hours of 9am-3pm but people can start and finish before or after these times as long as they work their 39 hours in the week.  

Energy solutions firm Aggreko is promoting more roles as part time, in part to retain older, more experienced workers who are key to training and supporting new recruits and apprentices.  

In each case there are mutual benefits as workers have more choice and control over how they manage their work and home responsibilities, which we know boosts wellbeing, while employers benefit from retaining loyal, engaged and productive staff, and employers are more attractive to a much wider pool of potential new staff. Flexible working is very much part of the future of work for manufacturing firms. 

If you’d like to create more flexible ways of working for frontline manufacturing staff, here are out top 10 practical tips. Many are seemingly very small changes but they can make a big difference. 

1.    Advanced notice of shifts 

If you can plan ahead and give people more notice of their shifts, including specifics about location if this varies, it gives them more control over the rest of their life. They can book medical appointments, arrange childcare, or just know when they can go for swim or take the dog for a walk.  

2.    Reliable, predictable shift patterns 

Creating a regular shift pattern also helps people have more control over work and life outside because they can anticipate shifts, and plan accordingly.  

3.    Know your team 

Understanding someone’s personal circumstances can help you create a shift pattern that works. You might not be able to accommodate everyone’s preferences all the time. But knowing what employees prefer means you can design rotas that keep people happier in general, and need fewer swaps. 

4.    Direct rota input for employees 

Have you ever tried letting your team put together their own rota? You might need to intervene if there are gaps. But you can be sure staff are getting more of the shifts they want if they’ve chosen them directly.  

5.    Easy shift swaps 

Make it simple for people to change shifts with a colleague if they need to. There are good apps that can help teams communicate clearly, view rotas and swap shifts quickly, as well as email and group messaging. 

6.    Small adjustments 

Allowing staff to make small, guilt-free adjustments when the unexpected happens – a broken boiler, poorly child or elderly relative who needs support, for example. This makes a huge difference to how stressed people feel, if it’s ok to make small changes to their working pattern to deal with something important happening at home. 

7.    Flexible hours and shifts 

Would part-time hours work for some people in some roles? This can instantly open up roles to more people, especially parents, carers and people with disabilities who can’t work full time. It can also save the company money by only paying salaries for the time you really need. Would two people job-sharing be able to deliver the same outcomes for customers? Or compressed hours (doing fewer, longer days)? Would a twilight shift suit some people better, or fewer, longer shifts? Think about what sort of flexibility could work for your teams, and remember ost people only want relatively small amounts of flex. 

8.    Small amounts of working from home 

Could some parts of roles could be done at home? Whether it’s admin tasks, some staff meetings or training. Even just a small amount of home working, where possible, can make a difference to someone’s busy week. 

9.    Talk about existing flexible working and wellbeing benefits 

Many companies have brilliant support and benefits that some employees have no idea exist. It’s an easy win to shout about what you already have. Make sure your staff take their leave entitlement, and understand what’s available to support parents and carers. Remind them there’s an employee network that might be helpful, that there are mental health first aiders they can talk to, or simply flag lunchtime activity classes if you have them. Make sure your people know all the support they can tap in to. 

10.  Train great line managers 

Managers who can communicate effectively and empathetically with their teams will get the best from them. This includes ensuring colleagues who aren’t always sat at computers have the information they need and the ability to share their opinion freely, as well was understanding changes in people’s circumstances and being open to sensitive discussions, such as people having too much work. 

For more information about Flexibility Works and the support we provide to employers, please visit flexibilityworks.org 

Categories
InterAct Blog

Future workforces: job quality & perceptions of UK manufacturing

Dr Robert Stewart (University of Strathclyde)

Has the impact of the global pandemic and spiralling household living costs changed what people in the UK value in jobs? If so, what factors are important for people looking at jobs in 2023 and what are the implications of this for UK manufacturers?

As part of the recent InterAct Making Things Work Survey , we asked people what things they would look for in a new job. We found that the top five reasons are an interesting mix of the usual economic and non-economic (i.e. the quality of work settings) suspects. Our top 5 job choice factors are: pay and benefits; well-being and flexibility; clean and safe work settings; contractual security and stability; and having an employer who listens and values people’s opinions (voice).

The prominence of these five job quality factors is probably not surprising. Apart from the legion of Health & Safety sceptics on social media, what manufacturing workforce wouldn’t prioritize a safe and clean working environment? What is surprising is that both pay and wellbeing are rated equally highly by our sample because in survey questions of this type, pay is usually out on its own as the main reason for job choice. This makes perfect sense for those of us who don’t live to work, or who aren’t strongly morally and vocationally wedded to our labour or employer. The importance of pay and reward and these other job quality factors should never be understated: especially in competitive labour markets with shortages of people and skills.

All of these top five factors play very nicely into wider debates about job quality and what we mean by ‘good jobs’. For manufacturers, understanding what people value in jobs and tailoring the recruitment messaging towards this should keep you up and running with the talent war pack. Good jobs are essential for successful recruitment and retention. As every decent manufacturing employer knows, if people’s working needs are being supported, the better the chances are that you’ll get the talent you need for the business, be more able to keep your ‘key’ people and get performance and productivity benefits over the longer term: ‘happy people, happy customers, better productivity.

In our sample, there wasn’t too much statistical distance between the top five factors. The relative prominence of wellbeing is interesting. Although wellbeing always been a central topic in conversations about job quality, the pandemic shone a unique spotlight on health at work. Wellbeing issues have come a long way from the days when it was mainly about masking or softly managing people’s problems, or just tackled by asking people to try whistling a happy tune.

Part of our new normal seems to be having a reset on long hours culture and achieving more work-life balance. The pandemic also showed us that discussing different ways of working was not only possible but operationally practical (especially non-production staff) in manufacturing businesses, though this remains a work in progress for production staff. Take a brief look across many manufacturers’ websites today and you’ll see that most companies do explain how they support people’s wellbeing.

We know about job quality, but what are people’s perceptions about what manufacturing jobs offer? We are only at a very early stage of survey analysis and getting under the skin of the topline figures, however we can examine pay as an example.

Unfortunately, for UK manufacturers, the great British public are telling a familiar tale. The good news is that most people think that manufacturing jobs offer comparable levels of pay and benefits to those in other industries. The less great news, however, is that there are just as many who are sceptical or unsure about relative pay rates in the sector.

These figures look consistent with what we know from the past about public perceptions of manufacturing jobs in the UK and the US: that while the sector objectively pays people comparable or higher than average levels of pay, this reality doesn’t carry through into public opinion . In other words, there still seems to be a reasonable gap between what most people would want in a job and what most people think is on offer in manufacturing. This latter point also seems to hold true across all of the top five job quality factors that we outlined at the start.

Therefore, an early message from our survey may be that many people are largely uncertain about the quality manufacturers are offering in terms of jobs: a persistent perception that will influence the attractiveness of jobs in the sector. Going forward it may require more focused attention from employers, industry shakers and policy makers if they want to remake the image of jobs in the sector.

Read the first entry in the the ‘future workforces’ series: ‘advanced manufacturing & Generation Z’.

Categories
InterAct Blog

Putting the East Midlands at the heart of the future UK manufacturing ecosystem

Professor Jan Godsell (Loughborough Business School)

The UK was at the heart of the first industrial revolution. Powered by coal, the UK was able to move from craft to mass production, creating new jobs, increased wages, and improved standards of living. Consumption driven economic growth was fuelled by huge increases in productivity. Key to the UK’s success, was its global access to raw materials, its local access to energy (coal), and innovation to develop the technology to enable the shift to mass production.

Little thought was given to the broader environmental and social considerations, with cities engulfed in smog, and children working in factories.   Over time, these issues were addressed but the long-term impact is only beginning to be fully realised.

We are now in the era of Industry 4.0, or the 4th industrial revolution. Initially a name for the German Government’s strategy, to reinvigorate German manufacturing post-2008 global economic crisis, the term has gained widespread popular appeal. At its core was the adoption of digital technologies to create the Internet of Things (IoT).  Over the last decade, with increased awareness of the environmental and societal impacts of consumption driven economic growth, it signifies a more fundamental shift.

There is increasing recognition of the need to decarbonise the manufacturing ecosystem if the UK is to meet its Net Zero 2050 goals. This is driving the adoption of low carbon energy sources, and more resource efficient methods of production. It is also creating a more fundamental change. United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, identifies the need for more responsible consumption and production.

There is a pressing need to consider new models for economic and business development that decouple consumption from production.  Business models have traditionally been built on ‘linear economy’ models where raw materials are mined, converted into components, assembled into products, that are used, and sent for recycling, energy recovery and land fill at end of life. As consumers have valued newness over utility, and manufacturers have sought to make products as cheaply as possible, the ability to reuse, repair and remanufacture products has become more difficult. 

The future manufacturing ecosystem is built on the principles of a ‘circular economy’. An economy where we seek to keep products in their highest possible value state, through reuse, repair and remanufacture.  A future where recycling is a last resort.  Digital technologies enable the more effective monitoring of the physical location of assets, their condition and usage. They can also enable digital payment, and technical support. 

Innovation is key to supporting the transition to a more circular economy.  It starts with the innovation required to develop the new digital technologies to enable the transition. Innovation may be more transformational and involve the development of new business models. HP Instant Ink is a great example of how IoT technology in home printers enables the provision of home printing as a service.

For a fixed rate, subscribers can print an agreed number of pages per month with a guarantee that they will never run out of ink. The ink levels are remotely monitored, and new cartridges sent in the post when required. Used cartridges are returned to be refilled and reused. These new business models are often run in parallel with existing business models (e.g., traditional purchase of ink cartridges) that may use innovation to improve the productivity and sustainability of existing manufacturing processes or supply chains. 

At the heart of the UK manufacturing ecosystem, the Midlands can lead the UK in creating the first regional manufacturing ecosystem, that is low carbon and supports the principles of the circular economy.  Using innovation to create new business models, products, services, and technologies that enable economic prosperity in a responsible and sustainable way.   Through the Made Smarter Innovation (MSI) funded Interact Project, Loughborough University are working with key stakeholders in the region to develop a 2040 Future Digital Manufacturing Ecosystem roadmap for the Midlands.   Be part of the change, reach out and start to Interact.

Categories
InterAct Blog

Future workforces: advanced manufacturing & Generation Z

Dr Robert Stewart (University of Strathclyde)

Forget some of the negative media hype and concern that you sometimes see from some social commentators and employers about Generation Z (Gen Z). Unlike us Boomers, Generation X and Millennials, Gen Z are the first truly ‘native’ digital generation, more tech savvy, nurtured on constant access to new technologies and more likely to be comfortable in the newly emerging worlds of digital manufacturing[1]

The high digital literacy of Gen Z offers many benefits for advanced manufacturers. They are more multi-skilled and able to execute (simultaneous) work tasks and roles across different digital platforms, while being more readily plugged into virtual and augmented realities[2]. As a workforce, they will be great for advanced manufacturing in the years to come; very likely to tell you that your technology and IT might not be as cutting edge (or confusing) as you thought. If this is not enough, given the right in-work supports – from ‘onboarding’ and beyond – they will allow manufacturers to create better value from problem solving, innovation, and creative roles using their digital toolboxes.

In many ways, the entry of Gen Z to the labour market is ideal for advanced manufacturers adopting new technologies, and their great potential to further change workplace people practices and business models. However, as in all happy(ish) marriages between the needs of employers and younger people’s lifestyle interests and skills, both partners may have some underlying issues that will make an effective relationship based on new technologies difficult to sustain unless they both work at it.

There should be no doubts about the high demand for digital skills in advanced manufacturing. Employers need to understand some key elements of Gen Z thinking and to build this into their recruitment and retention strategies. Ongoing staffing shortages, the seemingly blurring pace of digital and technological change, ‘quiet quitting’ and some issues with workplace upskilling have all helped to accelerate industry demand for digital and multi skilled workforces.

These changes have pitched advanced manufacturers into the ‘talent war’ to attract, retain and develop the most skilled and capable young people. Attracting and keeping the best talent, however, is highly competitive and many industries (including manufacturing) are reporting skill shortages and high levels of unfilled vacancies[3]. Very simply, manufacturers without the right set of people capacities (and practices to support these), digital skillsets, and multi-skilled workforces will struggle to capture and use those advanced technologies to help them compete and innovate.

These labour demand and supply issues pose some interesting questions about how UK manufacturers should be competing for Gen Z talent in terms of job quality. A downside? Well like Millennials they are very values driven and possibly sensitive to your image as an employer on social media. Image matters for the new generation. For advanced manufacturers, one major challenge is the problem with some of the wider UK manufacturing sector. This comes with some powerful historical baggage.

Manufacturing is sometimes be seen by young people in the UK and US as an old-fashioned industry, low paying and male-dominated, offering large numbers of dull, insecure, and dead-end shifts in factory jobs[4]. Forget those images you may have in your head about the emerging SMART factories of the near future, this legacy persists, particularly among the older population segments who remember it and whose opinions may negatively shape their children and grandchildren looking for jobs and careers in today’s labour market. They are not flattering perceptions of a sector looking to recruit ambitious and creative digital talent or even broaden its appeal among older or mid-career workers, or people in under-represented groups such as women and minorities.

On a positive note, these perceptions are very unlikely to match the reality of many or most modern advanced manufacturing settings, particularly in big multinational companies and those who‘ve adopted and transitioned into digital technology. These settings offer (less monotonous) more interesting, exciting, highly technical and financially rewarding work. The recruitment messaging needs to dispel the old legacy of your sector, show the augmented reality, the AI of the bots, the predictive and the multi-purpose data analytics, and whatever metaverse you can conjure.

Apart from showcasing exciting, innovative clean tech, what else should manufacturers be doing to better attract and retain Gen Z talent? There is no shortage of commentary on what Gen Z expect in the workplace, so let’s take three of the more important issues that often feature in wider discussions about them: values, diversity, and flexibility. Helpfully, all of these things connect with each other.

We know that an employer’s image, brand, reputation, prestige, mission, vision and values really matter in recruitment, commitment and retention. Its’ not just about pay, it really isn’t. Values make a big difference in competitive labour markets with restrictions on supply. Potential recruits and employee’s want to know something about your identity and values: how these resonate through your products, people practices, and culture.

Ideally, younger employees want to share in the positive impact and success of your business, be ‘proud’ to work for you and share that in their social media networking and posts. This means that the backstory (and the ‘future-story’) of who you are as an industry, sector and employer is a key part of attracting and keeping the brightest, the capable and the digitally skilled. You can be as sceptical (or ‘boomer’) about this as you like but realising the importance of the ‘image’ and what you stand for, and how you show and tell people your story is something that. For example, big UK-based multinational manufacturers who compete across international markets understand very well. It works.

Your values should set the tone for a whole series of complimentary policies and practices at work that help young people see meaning and purpose in their work. For advanced manufacturers, investing in people, developing their skills and caring about their wellbeing play very well to younger and early career audiences who will still be unsure about their place in the labour market.

A focus on Net Zero and the principles of the circular economy has a strong appeal to the wider social values of many young people keen on environmental messaging and actions around reducing waste and your carbon footprint. Employer values tell people what you care about: whether you look at your workforce as individuals and people; whether you care about their wellbeing and development; and whether you really are asking them to help make ‘useful’ products and have processes that are helping to make a more sustainable world.

Employer values and practices also feed into areas like diversity and being clear about your recruitment messaging. Why is diversity important? Well it isn’t about the numbers of women in your workplace, or those coming through the STEM pipeline. Research shows that gender diversity in manufacturing leads to greater innovation and profitability, and the benefits of having women in leadership positions are even greater. In other words, the implications of diversity (and more representative workforces) seem to be reasonably clear. The more diverse you are as a workforce and the more this is represented in the higher strategic decision making levels of companies, the more you will be likely to be able to harness these different views and experiences, produce better products more geared to different customer segments and better innovate than your competitors.

You can disagree about the need for diversity but the figures tell a different story. Manufacturers need to be much more proactive (and transparent) about equalities, diversity and inclusion at work, particularly when it comes to gaining ‘fair opportunities’ for career progression. Gen Z are more racially and ethnically diverse than previous UK cohorts and there has to be a bigger focus on minorities, and on women.

Only around two-thirds of manufacturing firms currently have an EDI strategy or even an intention to develop one and not surprisingly, minorities only make up 5% of boards and women only 18%[5]. Both groups still largely occupy supporting administrative and clerical roles, or in HR and marketing: far removed from key areas of senior management, making executive decisions and having a strategic influence in their firms. On these figures alone, you would be doing well to describe manufacturing as offering modern, equitable and progressive working environments. For Gen Z talent looking for employers who mirror their personal and social values around racial, ethnic and gender equality, these numbers will make depressing reading.

So how do you address this? At the very least, sense-check or independently audit the recruitment messaging to make sure you are maximising your appeal. In terms of the career progression of women and minorities there are also a few useful ways of addressing some of the internal cultural barriers that they face in moving into senior management roles: mentoring and sponsoring. To some these approaches are probably not as ‘bombproof’ as deciding promotions out with the lads on the golf course, but they are likely to be more effective in helping the business keep good talent.

One popular (post-pandemic) way of addressing the diversity issue concerns giving people greater flexibility at work, through re-designed shift schedules and working from home. Easier said than done for production staff than their non-production co-workers. There are certainly strong hints in the literature that greater flexibility and hybrid working (with some task autonomy) is very well suited to Gen Z workers. Perhaps too suited! Hybrid models bring positive wellbeing benefits for workers, allowing women to balance work and domestic schedules. However, we need to be cautious about visibility at work and that out-of-sight working from home does not translate into out-of-contention workers when it comes to promotions and rewards.

In short, there are sound reasons for believing that Gen Z will be ready-made for advanced manufacturing. To capture the benefits, advanced manufacturers need to understand this audience. They must ensure messaging, imagery and marketing addresses some of the more unhelpful legacy images of their sector, treat their own values and story seriously, and deliver on EDI and flexibility.

Read the first entry in the the ‘future workforces’ series: ‘advanced manufacturing & Generation Z’.

References

[1] Francis, T. & Hoeful, F. (2018) ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company.

[2] Gomez, K., Mawhinney, T. & Betts, K. (2022) Understanding Generation Z in the Workplace. Deloitte US.

[3] For example, The Manufacturer (2022) We need a super solution for fixing manufacturing talent issues (https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/we-need-a-super-solution-for-fixing-manufacturing-talent-issues/)

[4] For example, Deloitte (2017) A look ahead: how modern manufacturers can create positive perceptions with the US public. (https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/manufacturing/us-public-perception-manufacturing-study.pdf)

[5] MAKE UK (2021) Manufacturing Our Recovery Through Inclusion (https://www.makeuk.org/insights/reports/manufacturing-our-recovery-through-inclusion)

Categories
InterAct Blog

Supply chains need buoyancy, not just resilience

Professor Janet Godsell (InterAct), John Burdett (McCormick and Company) and Dave Food (Board International)

Pre-pandemic, businesses were already working through the challenges of a VUCA world – where volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in general conditions and situations were often seen. Faster technological changes, digitization, shortening product life cycles, rapid changes in consumer preferences, and political changes all contribute to this view.

The events of the last three years have created even more instability in Supply Chains, and resilience is now a key topic of debate. We can define resilience as the “capacity to recover quickly from difficulties,” but this implies a return to how things were rather than a new, constantly changing paradigm. It is the challenge of an increasingly uncertain future that forces the question of Supply Chains’ purpose and how they should be designed, governed, and operated to continue running productively in the face of whatever challenges are thrown at them.

Just as a ball will float in a storm on the sea, so must our Supply Chains! They need to be buoyant.

Purposeful Supply Chain design

The purpose of a Supply Chain is to get products to people who need them, when they need them, and at an affordable price. This is the definition of a productive Supply Chain.

supply chain productivity model

This should be done sustainably and responsibly. Supply Chains often operate in a non-responsible way, presenting numerous examples of unfairness in the distribution of value along the chain. The control of data and information is a key enabler of negotiating power plays between parties – it is incredibly challenging to get two entities to collaboratively plan just for mutual benefit.

Large enterprises often optimize their operations to the cost of their SME suppliers. From a Supply Chain finance perspective, the bigger players have better credit terms but pass the risk and costs to their supply base – increasing their own cost and risk and leaving the Supply Chain sub-optimized.

Key supply chain design considerations

As part of a Business Model Design, product and marketing strategies should inform and drive Supply Chain strategy and ensure strategic alignment.

supply chain business model design

In a fast-moving consumer goods context, the Supply Chain design requirements for an everyday low-price (EDLP) pricing strategy with relatively stable demand differs from one with deep-dive Hi-Lo promotions and unpredictable demand. The challenge of the Supply Chain design is that within the life cycle of assets, a business may switch between EDLP and Hi-Lo many times. If the design is optimized for EDLP or has high predictability, there will be issues!

The design principles need to work through the infrastructure and operating model to deliver the necessary level of structural flexibility and dynamic flexibility.

Structural flexibility concerns the infrastructure and set-up of the physical Supply Chain and the assets. This includes:

  • in-house capacity
  • outsourced manufacture capability
  • multiple supplier capability
  • geographic location (in-country, near-shore, off-shore)
  • the option to extend or move nodes in the supply chain.

Dynamic flexibility focuses on the operating model – how the physical assets will be managed. The model covers the following:

  • business processes
  • governance and decision rights
  • organizational design
  • performance management processes (e.g. who determines the levels of stock, where it should be held, and the approval processes for those decisions).

Orchestration and synchronization of the Supply Chain are critical enablers for ensuring it is as productive as possible. This is achievable by maximizing flow through the Supply Chain and rightsizing the buffers for stock and spare capacity.

Actions are driven from the source

The signal from the head of the chain closest to the point of final demand should drive actions across the whole chain. Essentially, interactions between business entities within the Supply Chain should be principally taken from a planning perspective rather than a procurement perspective.

There is a need to understand the constituent elements of the buying demand behavior, such as surge and base volumes, to inform the decisions taken in the chain. For example, increased demand for mobile phone gifts may be seasonally driven by Christmas versus purchases for birthday presents or end-of-contract replacements, which are more likely to be spread throughout the year.

A segmentation approach to the demand signal is required to determine the right supply action – an example being the setting of production wheels within a factory or a runners/repeaters/strangers approach to planning.

supply chain flexibility model

Decisions on the required level of dynamic and structural flexibility are critical for businesses. There is a direct cost for resilience as businesses choose to move to lower-cost, more efficient Supply Chains from ones more sensitive to shocks. The positive financial impacts are facilitated by delivering a more responsive approach. An adaptable Supply Chain model, in short, brings new capabilities into the network.

We can consider this cost in a similar way to an insurance premium. Business cases for resilience will be needed – but how is that developed, measured, and articulated against traditional business cases optimized to ROI cash? A traditional business case based on a single number and set of assumptions is inadequate for the unknown storms which may lie ahead. They must incorporate tolerance for different assumptions to give range and richness to thinking.

A balanced response enabling flexibility

Business processes need to develop. One example would be the S&OP process. A traditional S&OP process focuses on dynamic flexibility – aligning Sales and Supply Chain plans to meet demand – often over a relatively short time frame. So, what is the trigger for a structural network design change? How would a review of structural flexibility sit alongside the S&OP process?

Supplier resilience strategies also need development. If one of the needs for structural flexibility is multi-sourcing – how will volume be allocated? Will businesses pay for suppliers to be ready to supply (just in case they are needed), even in a high-inflation economy? Supplier relationship management will need to develop longer-term, more collaborative processes rather than playing a zero-sum transactional game where the price is the key focus.

Top tips for improving Supply Chain flexibility and resilience

So, what are the actionable insights?

  • Commercial and Supply Chain Strategies need to work together over the lead time for structural flexibility.
  • Creating the capability to react to unknown future Supply Chain shocks will increase upfront costs. This needs to be reflected in business cases. Scenario evaluation tools provide insight into the decision-making process.
  • Design for uncertainty and segment the Supply Chain. Actively manage the inventory and capacity buffers to enable a stable beat.
  • Collaboration for network orchestration, both within and between enterprises, needs visibility of data across end-to-end Supply Chains. The use of advanced planning systems is an enabler for decision-making. Procurement’s role and behavior are likewise critical to supplier relationship management.
  • Businesses need to develop collaboration and governance processes for business process design and decision-making. Self-sufficient, empowered teams are enablers for dynamic flexibility.

One of the lessons from the last five years within Supply Chain management is that simply being resilient to recreate the previous conditions and Supply Chain set-up is no longer sufficient for future success. Teams constantly battle from one shock to another – and this is not sustainable. A reactive way of working creates burnout and costs businesses money.

Businesses must actively decide the right level of dynamic and structural flexibility they need. This creates the required capabilities, so they can bounce back from Supply chain Disruptions, use the next crisis to produce opportunities, and create competitive advantages.

Supply Chains need buoyancy, not just resilience.

Ready to learn more?

The insights in this blog are taken from our Innovating Profitable Manufacturing Supply Chains with Resilience webinar organised by
Board International. 

Watch it on-demand now to take a deeper dive!

Categories
InterAct Blog

Making investments into digitalisation – the manufacturer’s perspective

Dr. Andreas Schroeder (Aston University), Dr. Yang Zhao (Aston University) and Dan Andrews (Aston University)

Digitalisation offers significant opportunities for manufacturers. By leveraging digital technologies and data, manufacturers can generate substantial efficiency gains in their own processes, create new forms of value for their customers, and develop innovative business models. These digitalisation opportunities are critical to address the productivity and sustainability demands the manufacturing industry is facing.

Although the range of opportunities digitalisation offers to the manufacturing industry is widely recognized, it is of concern that only 35% of surveyed firms have adopted digitalisation solutions at scale[1]. One of the root causes of the lack of adoption in the UK is the lack of investment[2]. According to the Manufacturing Digital Productivity Report from iBASEt[3], 94% of UK manufacturers believe their industry has already fallen behind the US because of a lack of investment into digitalisation, and more than half of UK manufacturers are losing sales as a result. It is even more worrying that 93% of respondents expect that this lack of investment into digitalisation will lead to many UK manufacturers going out of business in the next decade.

To help manufacturers invest effectively in digitalisation, it is important to understand the range of challenges manufacturers commonly face. Only then can the appropriate solutions be identified and put in place. Aston University used a systematic review method to study the challenges for manufacturers and identify critical questions. The results are summarised in Table 1 and discussed below.

Digitalisation goalsThe lack of agreement on the goals of digitalisation encumbers the investment process.
The lack of ambitions in the goals of digitalisation limits the leaders’ ability to justify significant investments.
Investment processDigitalisation integrates a wide scope of investment domains which makes it difficult to apply established processes to assess and prioritise investments. 
The metrics used to evaluate business cases for investment do not relate to the opportunities that are particular to digitalisation.
Digital technology attributesThe high cost of digitalisation and the high uncertainty of return make it difficult to justify investments.
The rapid innovation (and obsolescence) of digital technology acts as a discouragement to making substantial investments.
People and their expertiseThe lack of expertise on acquiring external funding for digitalisation creates an investment barrier.
The lack of senior leaders with digitalisation expertise hampers investments into digitalisation.
Organisational cultureThe difficulty of accepting investment uncertainties inhibits investments into digitalisation.
The lack of openness and trust creates barriers to making effective investments into digitalisation.
Business networkThe lack of digital readiness of the wider network limits investments into digitalisation.
The lack of experienced or relevant finance partners reduces the opportunities for making investments into digitalisation.
Table 1. Challenges for manufacturers investing in digitalisation
Digitalisation goals

In manufacturing, digitalisation affects a wide range of stakeholders and they all feed into the development of the goals. The lack of a specific and widely agreed goal is a critical barrier to making investments into digitalisation.

Digitalisation offers manufacturers opportunities to significantly change how they operate, what kind of relationship they have with their customers, what products or services they offer and who they offer these to. However, many manufacturers restrict their goals to incremental changes and, therefore, struggle to justify making the necessary investments.

Investment process

Digitalisation cuts across established investment categories as it involves aspects of R&D, employee training, and education, as well as the acquisition and implementation of technology solutions. The multi-dimensional nature of digitalisation challenges the traditional investment processes of manufacturers.

Manufacturers traditionally rely on internal rates of return or net present values to justify their investment decisions, and these are not well suited to the possibility of dynamically adjusting an investment after it has been initiated. With digitalisation opening future and potentially unknown opportunities, metrics are required that reflect the flexibility to adjust an investment, change a technology or even abandon it.

Digital technology attributes

The research identified the high costs of required technologies as a major reason that manufacturers do not carry out investments into digitalisation. The cost of technology is particularly high to early adopters, before economies of scale are achieved. Furthermore, while digital solutions are highly scalable, the returns on investments are limited if scale is not achieved.

The pace at which digital technologies develop is unprecedented. Any technology manufacturers choose could become outdated rapidly and require updating, which increases costs. Manufacturers may, therefore, decide to wait for the next digital technology generation to become available or for further standards to emerge before making investments.

People and their expertise

To make significant investments requires manufacturers to raise external finance; but manufacturers often lack the expertise to raise external finance for investments into digitalisation, which significantly differs from raising finance for investments into capital equipment: it requires different funders, business case details and preparations.

Also, decisions on investments in production machinery are often made at the plant level, and are aligned with responsibilities for performance and quality. As digitalisation affects the direction of manufacturers, with implications for their customers and wider networks, identifying the right locus of decision-making is critical for making effective investments. It requires a senior leader with the authority and expertise to make such wide-reaching decisions.

Organisational culture

Creating value with digital technologies requires product and process experimentation following test-learn-tweak cycles. Organisations need to develop a ‘tolerance for uncertainty’ to make effective investment decisions within this context. For manufacturers with limited R&D activities, dealing with these uncertainties is particularly difficult.

Although digitalisation will require changes in organisational roles and processes, the creativity and imagination of staff members across the organisation need to be drawn on to capture the opportunities presented. It is critical to ensure that digitalisation is not perceived as a cost-cutting exercise aiming to create redundancies to ensure the widespread support and effectiveness of investments.

Business network

It is not only the manufacturer’s own investment into digitalisation but also that of their customer and wider network that is critical to making an effective business case. Ultimately, value is co-created by the customer and the wider network, and if these parties do not make investments into digitalisation themselves then the manufacturer’s chances of deriving a return from their investments are reduced.

Making investments into digitalisation also puts a focus on the external finance partner as a member of the network. Finance partners are often overlooked in industrial value networks, but in a digitalisation context their role is critical. This is because these partners are not just financing a machine but also a business process or business development, which requires a much closer relationship.

Making effective investments into digitalisation is a critical challenge for manufacturers. These investments not only determine the success of current digitalisation initiatives but also affect the viability of future digitalisation journeys. It is today’s investments into digitalisation that enable the future competitiveness of the manufacturing industry. Manufacturers need to rethink their established investment processes and organisational practices as many of them stand in the way of making effective investment decisions into digitalisation.

Download the full report
References

[1] https://stories.ability.abb.com/better-decisions

[2] https://www.makeuk.org/-/media/files/insights/reports/infor-make-uk-innovation-monitor-report-final.pdf

[3] https://info.ibaset.com/hubfs/ibase_PDM_090522.pdf

Categories
InterAct Blog

Actionable insights from the past: what can we learn from history in the new industrial transition?

Dr. Brian Sudlow (Aston University) and Dr. Ahmad Beltagui (Aston University)

Consider a company like Mueller Inc, an American manufacturer of steel buildings and metal roofing, among other things. Prior to their digital transformation, they were facing multiple issues. Their open-source management system lacked flexibility and their online presence was outdated. The buyer journey was far from clear, and customers needed to visit stores to complete purchases. In short, their future seemed increasingly uncertain. Could the answer to these dilemmas have lain in the past?

***

‘History is the teacher of life,’ goes the saying of the Roman statesman Cicero. But is that still true? More to the point, can it be true in this period of the Fourth Industrial Revolution when the rate of innovation far outstrips anything seen during previous industrial revolutions?

Our project for InterAct, undertaken by teams at Aston and Cranfield, is currently testing the hypothesis that historical examples provide actionable insights for contemporary manufacturers, and that manufacturers can leverage such histories as they adopt the next generation of industrial technologies. Our preference is not to talk about revolutions, but rather about transitions: periods of occasionally spectacular innovation, followed by a halting or gradual readjustment across industry, with occasional sallies back into earlier practices or technologies. Industrial transitions are less like sudden grand revolutions and more like the stop-start evolution of our own lives. As Melvin Kranzberg, one of the pioneers of the history of technology, said “Technology is a very human activity.”

Discovering actionable insights in history

For our project, the team at Cranfield set out to tackle a systematic search of literature about the challenges of digitalisation in industry, finding and analysing 278 articles. Most of the present-day challenges they identified concerned questions of technical innovation, marketisation, or the future of employment.

The Aston team (the authors of this blog post) set out to look at mechanization (18th and 19th centuries), electrification (late 19th and 20th centuries) and computerization (20th century) – the earlier processes of industrial transition.  What was clear from their review, however, was that the spectrum of industrial transition challenges is a lot broader than the perceived issues around technology and its monetisation. In this light, it is reasonable to argue that understanding digitalization needs a wider field of vision, one that is broadened by history, to tackle the challenges of the future and avoid the mistakes of the past.

By widening their field of vision through cases from history, we argue that today’s manufacturers have the chance during this digital transition to increase their appreciation of the potential risks and opportunities that lie ahead, and perhaps even stimulate creative solutions to them. Our historical case search reveals that there are dozens of issues that merit attention both within manufacturing operations (new safety questions, choices of innovation pathways, naivety about technical solutions) and outside of them (the power of location, globalization and culture, negative social consequences of innovation) which hardly figure on the lists of challenges for digitalization.

***

Returning to Mueller Inc’s dilemma, perhaps inspiration could have been found in historical cases such as the electrification of Zurich’s streetlighting. Over 100 years ago, the town council’s dilemma was whether to invest in AC, DC, or their alternatives. There was little room to manoeuvre, and the recently installed gas-powered streetlighting could have risked looking like an expensive mistake.

Zurich’s response, however, was to focus on stakeholders and to choose the technology that would be more affordable and scalable – AC as it happened – allowing the city to grow by serving surrounding populations more effectively. The solution was technically elegant, but above all politically savvy. Likewise, our friends at Mueller Inc did not focus on which technology was best in its class, but on which digital solution would help their customers achieve their needs. The company opted to move their business to a major digital platform that greatly improved the customer experience while providing big data and analytic tools for their management.