Without an improved talent pipeline we risk being unable to keep up with the pace of technological change writes Engineering UK Chief Executive Paul Jackson
Last month we were looking at submissions to the industrial strategy and just four weeks on it’s all about election strategy. It is time to make sure one of them, the industrial one, doesn’t get lost in the rhetoric of the other.
The next government needs to deliver an industrial strategy that breaks down barriers and sees real alignment of policy, industry and education. We are heading for an industrial revolution in manufacturing and a revolution in the way we organise and live our lives. The success of those developments and all their future applications is dependent on strong engineering skills. To be innovation leaders rather than followers we need to build on our engineering talent.
I hope that post-Brexit Britain will continue to welcome talented professionals from abroad, not least because there is not currently the capacity or funding within the education system to harness the undoubted talent of the future workforce. But, we are selling short a generation of home grown talent if we don’t do all we can to unlock the opportunities ahead of us and give them access to the highly paid, skilled jobs that will drive the transformation.
Industry 4.0 will be as transformative as previous industrial revolutions and will spawn new industries and opportunities. It will, however, look very different. Data exchange and connectivity are not just buzzwords but the building blocks of a new way of doing things. As our phones, homes and working practices become smarter we are ever more reliant on the digital applications of those exchanges and connections. But, without an improved talent pipeline we risk being unable to keep up with the pace of change and falling behind as a nation and an economy.
A couple of recent discussions have struck on how much engineering is already changing. Talking with a senior exec from an energy company I heard about how the engineering function was being developed along systems integration lines rather than the disciplines that we all recognise from the 19th Century. A visit to the Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging at UCL reinforced that view. Brilliant work is going on with all sorts of imaging and masses of data processing and the Centre is part of the medical faculty rather than engineering. Why? Because it is closer to the customer so clinical trials at University College Hospital can be undertaken more easily. Systems, data, customers. They’re all important.
This integration in application will increasingly need to be reflected in the integration of various aspects of engineering technology. The next generation will develop and deliver that integration and that starts with science, technology, engineering and maths subjects at school. We owe it to the engineering workforce of the future to ensure that as young people today they are fully supported in understanding and developing the skills they’ll need to be part of changing the world in which we live.
Wherever they hear about future opportunities in engineering and technology, be it from professional bodies, industry, teachers or the media, they need clear and consistent message – studying science and maths keeps your options open. That’s how we’ll inspire tomorrow’s engineers.
Paul Jackson is chief executive of Engineering UK
Generally I am in agreement with Mr. Jackson.
The UK’s history of strategic planning in any sphere that I have come across has been poor: probably, the UK more than most suffers from a total divide between political and technical expertise. There are now no engineers in Parliament and most top civil servants are PPE men. This has led to the situation in post 1970-UK that the role of engineering and manufacturing have been relegated to minor inputs compared with financial shenanigans which they understand better.
The issue of inspiring the young to become engineers suffers from a similar disconnect with the popular media – it is associated with engineer = technician ; the cause of all pollution; causing global warming damage; historical trade union madness and manufacturing companies collapsing (steel, textiles, power…). Engineering UK needs a meja expert like Alistair Campbell to change the public misconception of what we do.
Jack – good to see you’ve picked up on the idea that is rarely acknowledged. Engineering and manufacturing is seen as causing environmental damage and not as the bringers of a better environment – albeit with some problems which generally get addressed. We need more than media experts we as engineers – Inc the Engineering ‘Establishment’ such as the Royal Academmy of Eng, the Institutions and even The Engineer – need to be more bold in how they approach this. Instead we get limp attempts to support clean tech and environmental engineering as the way to create new sectors. ie cutting back on production and reducing our ‘foot print’ when really the job of engineers is to increase our footprint – of course not destroying nature – but modifying and utilising it to our ends.
“they need (a) clear and consistent message – studying science and maths keeps your options open. ” Even better, follow the Scottish system of ‘Highers’ -which allows all students to start courses across the spectrum in HE -Arts and Sciences -rather than the rest of the UK which ‘plumps’ for “A” levels which have to be ‘decided/selected’ at far too early an age?
“A” levels? Unfit for purpose? almost totally. What to do about it? get rid of the Gastly Gove.
and remember,
“Education is what remains when all that has been learned has been forgotten.”
” we risk being unable to keep up with the pace of change and falling behind as a nation and an economy.”
Come on Paul, we are right-up-there with the best of ’em in technology. Just a year ago, I put a cross in a space on a piece of paper (using a pencil tied to the booth where my secret? ballot was given with a piece of string!) I am going to do the same again (actually perhaps not, even though my own father and many millions of others died defending my right to do that in WWII) in a month or so: so that a political party can see its interests served, rather than those of the Nation it purports to serve and represent. Lunatics, asylum, harking back to the Stone Age….make up your own?