Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume 12/No. 2

EDITORIAL

Reframing the

F or more than 10 years, I 've been involved with industrially funded consortia, supporting instructional

and research programs at the Georgia Institute of Tech- nology. Without question, these consortia have had a major impact on the quality of our manufacturing educa- tion and research. Yet, even after 10 years, relevance is still an issue. We've been asked, "Why do you want to develop a generic conceptual model when the quick and dirty simulation model you gave us lets us solve our prob- lem? Why do you want your PhD students to study analy- sis and topology, when we want them to teach robot sys- tem planning and programming? Why do you spend time working with other faculty who prove theorems about hon- eybees and voting systems? None of this seems relevant to reducing manufacturing costs or improving products."

The problem we face is that relevance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The ongoing debate about rel- evance has been framed in terms of "academic versus practitioner." Frankly, not much progress has been made, in part because academicians and practitioners have such different perspectives. I believe we can make much more progress if we reframe the issue in terms of four disci- plinary role models.

The practice of manufacturing requires problem solvers to debug hardware, reduce process variability, plan new parts, etc. In fact, much product and process design is simply a certain kind of problem solving. Today, manu- facturing problem solvers are called upon to work in mul- tidisciplinary teams, creatively applying engineering sci- ence, principles, and methods to continuously improve the manufacturing enterprise. Problem solvers often face new problems, but generally apply strategies or techniques that have been used before.

The direct benefit from problem solving accrues to the "owner" of the problem. When industry calls for greater research and teaching relevance, I believe the true agenda is more proficient problem solving. Nevertheless, a spe- cific practitioner or firm wants greater proficiency in solving a specific problem, not some "generic problem- solving ability."

Researchers create new technologies, techniques, and methods, perhaps in response to problems for which existing solutions are inadequate. The essence of research is discovering or creating new knowledge. Research may be done by a problem solver who has a flash of insight and inspiration, and discovers a new way to solve a prob- lem. It may also result from formal scientific study.

Research has always been a difficult activity to man- age because it is hard to predict when any investment in research will yield a return. Academicians generally per- form generic and fundamental research, which helps improve our understanding of the world in which we live and work. In short, they strive for a long-term payoff. Practitioners, on the other hand, want research that has a short-term payoff, preferably within one or two quarters.

Relevancy Debate When industry calls for greater research relevance, the true agenda is to narrow the focus of research and to shorten the time between research and benefits gained.

To be effectively transmitted, understood, and used by others in the discipline, new knowledge should be placed in the context of existing knowledge. Scholars systematize and codify what is known, so it can be taught, learned, and used. Scholars also may be researchers, and vice versa. Industrial relevance is not necessarily a prerequisite for good scholarship because eventually any useless knowledge will be winnowed in the education marketplace.

Practitioners frequently undervalue scholarship, because of their emphasis on problem solving. How often has an academic suggested a research project only to be told, "We 've already solved that problem." Unfortu- nately, new knowledge is often not captured in corporate memory. The industrial researcher goes on to a new job or employer, and the next time the problem arises, the company has forgotten the solution. Practitioners often fail to recognize that even if their specific problem has been solved, there is still a role for scholars to capture and pass knowledge to the next generation of problem solvers. When industry calls for greater relevance, it is often a plea to reduce the emphasis on scholarship, which is not viewed as improving problem solving.

Finally, any discipline requires teachers who dissemi- nate knowledge, making it available to problem solvers, researchers, scholars, and other teachers. In the past, rel- evance has not been essential for the success of teachers, because we placed more value on the process of educa- tion than on the specific content. In today's manufactur- ing environment, we 've come to realize knowledge-- specific knowledge--is a valuable resource. We now place more emphasis on the relevance of teaching con- tent. Teachers are still the single most important means of technology dissemination.

Industry is less and less willing to do "on the job train- ing." Perhaps this is simply an artifact of our prolonged recession. Companies want their new hires ready to solve specific problems. Unfortunately, universities do not have the resources to teach everything known about manufactur- i n g - w e are forced to omit many topics. Often, industry's call for greater teaching relevance is a wishful request that we do what is impossible for us to do. A healthy discipline of manufacturing requires strength in all four roles--prob- lem solving, research, scholarship, and teaching.

Here comes the dangerous generalization: practitioners tend to be researchers because they are problem solvers; tend not to be scholars; and as teachers, focus on narrow, task-specific information. In contrast, academics tend to be researchers because they are scholars and not because they are problem solvers; and as teachers focus on funda- mental, generic knowledge. We have fundamentally dif- ferent views and motivations.

Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume 12/No. 2

editorial |

We have accepted a primary role for research in schol- arship, and we have adopted a peer review process to ensure the quality of research results that enter the accepted body of knowledge. Today, research and the peer review process have by far the greatest impact on the success of university faculty. The resulting promotion and tenure process, and its impact on behavior, is baf- fling to most practitioners. They are even more distressed when they try to read published research papers, which all too often are arcane and seem far removed from com- mon experience. Does this represent a failure of the sys- tem? An excess perhaps, but not failure.

The US university system has been immensely success- ful over the past 100 years, in part because of its founda- tion on the principle of scholarship. Our devotion to scholarship, our increasing specialization, the influence of federal funding, and the peer review process have given us "too much of a good thing." The solution is not to demolish the system, but adjust it. We shouldn't expect academics to become practitioners any more than we should expect practitioners to become academics. What we should strive for is a better alignment of their goals and activities. The key is this realignment must recognize and be consistent with our commitment to scholarship.

Asking faculty members to be more involved in indus- trial problem solving is asking them to jeopardize their careers, unless it is consistent with the existing academic success model. Good problem solving abilities require a depth of domain knowledge that is time-consuming to acquire. If acquiring that domain knowledge diminishes contributions to research and scholarship, it is risky, especially for untenured faculty.

The solution is to make greater involvement in prob- lem solving consistent with the academic success model. One excellent way to do this is through NSF faculty internships, which are designed specifically to get faculty into industry for extended periods. In addition, NSF internships pay part of the faculty member's salary, reducing the cost to the company. Other mechanisms include student projects and consulting.

Greater relevance in academic research requires industry-university collaboration. Meaningful research collaboration between practitioners and academics abso- lutely requires time; time for the academic team to under- stand the problem, martial resources, and to develop, test, verify, and document the solution--all while time- sharing the many competing demands on faculty and stu- dents. Industry may need to be more thoughtful about the kinds of problems chosen for collaborative efforts. "More important and less urgent" is a good guideline. Making a long-term commitment is also a good idea. That has been the guiding principle behind NSF's successful Industry- University Cooperative Research Centers program. The Material Handling Research Center at Georgia Tech demon- strates how successful that approach can be.

Another way to encourage greater relevance in research is to alter the academic definition of "good research." Practitioners and researchers must take a more active role in the editorial process for archival journals in manufacturing to influence what is published and what is considered "good research." Practitioners can also exert influence through alumni advisory boards.

Clearly, there is much to do to improve the relevance of academic teaching and research within the context of the academic system. Attempts at improvement will fail if they do not recognize the system's structure and philoso- phy, however. We must take the debate beyond the "us versus them" inherent in the "academic versus practitio- ner" approach. Recognizing and understanding the four disciplinary role models will help us focus on results and find successful strategies for change.

Leon F. McGinnis Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA