Since the 2015 general election we’ve heard a lot from government about their plans to improve productivity and make the UK the richest of all the major economies by 2030.
Similar proclamations were made in the Budget on November 22, 2017, and the publication of the government’s Industrial Strategy white paper on November 27, 2017 identifies the ways in which government, industry and academia can collaborate to pull the UK up the G7 productivity rankings and boost prosperity.
There are many targets for investment that have been suggested as a solution to raising industrial productivity, and we asked Engineer readers what they thought would be most effective.
The majority of respondents (58 per cent) thought skills and training as foremost in the battle to improve productivity, an issue addressed in part in the chancellor’s Budget, which allocated funds toward to education and training.
Just under a fifth (19 per cent) thought robotics the key focus area, whilst 10 per cent opted for Industry 4.0/Big Data. Of the remaining 13 per cent, nine per cent thought advanced machining/additive the key area for improved productivity, and four per cent went for ‘other’, an option that encouraged participants specify their alternative solution to the productivity puzzle.
Of those in the ‘other’ four per cent, Another Steve said: ‘The weak link for UK industry, in my opinion, is middle management. Too many managers with no qualifications, winging it or learning on the job. Doesn’t matter how good the technical staff are if their managers aren’t competent. This directly affects productivity.’
Andyg added: ‘Give the right motivation. Give people pride in what they do, why they do it and its place in the scheme of things. Treat staff like people – not “resources”. Provide good career structures, pensions etc. Recognise that productive does not equal cheap. There is too much emphasis on cheap – not enough on quality – viz the austerity programme. It seems that all the emphasis is on driving down costs and not enough on raising quality and value. But then that’s the basic flaw with a system based on infinite growth.
Ian Downie commented: ‘The best way to start improving productivity would be to remove all the non-value added activities from our daily work. Such as irrelevant training. Someone told whoever is in charge that training is a good thing, so as soon as someone thinks of new training, like how to use a ladder, they send us all on the course, whether we will ever use a ladder or not. Almost every week we are sent to irrelevant training and irrelevant meeting.’
What do you think? Keep the conversation flowing in Comments below.
Click here to read The Engineer’s latest blog post on Britain’s productivity crisis
Other, should read all, no one area should forge ahead, engineering is a team effort, each part dependant to some extent on other parts. Skills are possibly the most important but this shouldn’t be invested in to the detriment of other areas.
There is only one answer to the question that was asked – robotics takes out people, so output per worker or per hour worked (productivity) rises. The question you meant to ask was “what would make the best overall contribution to UK economic wealth” – the answer to this is skills & training.
Correct and full implementation of Lean or the TPS. So many places talk about it but virtually none do it properly and stick to it rigorously. Then you would see where you actually need to spend money and in what areas for correct sized equipment for the process requirement. Rather than oversize everything.
Small to medium size businesses would soon find manufacturing is surprisingly very profitable in the UK if they started there before spending 00’000’s.
Other – The best way to start improving productivity would be to remove all the non value added activities from our daily work.
Such as irrelevant training. Someone told whoever is in charge that training is a good thing, so as soon a someone thinks of new training, like how to use a ladder, they send us all on the course, whether we will ever use a ladder or not. Almost every week we are sent to irrelevant training and irrelevant meeting.
After that, all the others would be good (including training where it is relevant) .
I voted for skills & training; for surely our politicians/managers need training (or perhaps robotics — an AI??); and I was not sure what was meant about advanced machining and additive manufacturing (which, quite often, ain’t) .
Advanced manufacturing I would like to see – but it is plain to see that managers concentrate on TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels) rather than on MRLs (Manufacturing Readiness Levels) – despite the later’s importance in boosting rapid New Product Development & innovation; good tools/machines (for manufacturing) should be a major factor in boosting productivity
I left ‘advanced manufacturing’ off the list because I wanted to separate out the Internet 4.0 technologies from the shaping and forming ones, and they’re often all grouped together.
Oh. Thanks for the intriguing comment.
I had not considered them as being even related – and not quite sure why (except where it is for big companies and that is more related to customer delivery, of details – like car colour… – or use of “lean”).
I would consider advanced manufacturing to be doing new things (such as graphene or vacuum insulation or emergent- or meta-material) – and/or doing so affordably – and these are often related to (solid) shaping & forming – and quite often require simple & sophisticated sensors/actuator control.
Intrigued as to who groups them, in the way you suggest, and why.
My recommendations are
i) Invest in all of these technologies and more – including MATERIALS research developments for use in additive and other manufacturing techniques such as carbon composites.
ii) Yes manufacturing productivity growth rates may be less of a concern compared to other sectors – but it can NEVER be productive enough.
iii) Construction, especially house building is appalling in its productivity growth – so REPLACE it with offsite, undercover manufacturing – on a huge scale – and with an eye on export. There are big challenges here (transportation for one) but that is what engineering is about. If the government really want to build more places for people to live although land cost is the main barrier significantly reducing production costs will still help.
iv) Skills – well yes – but don’t forget skills generally support the technologies of the past. New productive Industries will need skills for processes which have not been invented yet. The main skill which is needed is not to see everything through the lens of today and only see incremental improvements.
I suspect that the main difficulties for C, SiC and metal matrix composites is more to do with the manufacturing processes and their design – rather than the materials…. which suggests manufacturing research.
However(ii) , (iii) and (iv) are definitely very good points — and not forgetting the lessons of history – which show how important a careful appreciation of the NEEDs of a manufacturing process – rather than buying the new latest machine
Thanks Julian – I guess I had in mind new materials which may actually require new manufacturing processes to be useful. Of course if I could think of one I’d be trying to develop it.
I agree that buying the latest machine is not always appropriate – but often the needs of a production process can mean that a “we’ve always done it this way” mentality can mean that new ways that can take advantage of new types of machinery are avoided or not appreciated.
Lessons and an appreciation of history are always good. Until automated looms etc were invented I presume people thought that the only way of weaving was by hand or by more primitive machinery. It took visionaries with a wider appreciation of technology and economics even, to make the technological leaps to utilise say steam and electrical power to reconfigure existing or create industries and to dramatically increase productivity. Customers and users with exceptions of course are often to busy or blinkered to spot these creative leaps.
So yes we need to look back and look forward.
An interesting case is the Eiffel Tower; very material efficient —but, now, one could not afford such lightweighting
Also the Enterprise Research Centre have some good articles and data on the reasons for low productivity in the UK. Poor performing companies stopping (not conciously) the reallocation of people to the better performing ones being one reason I gather. Maybe one of the reasons for the skills shortage in engineering. It is perfectly possible for highly skilled people to be working in unproductive companies – an be unproductive themselves (lack of latest equipment etc.
https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ERC-ResPap48-DuBonner-final.pdf
Might be worth having an article from one of their people?
Interesting; but I found it a very hard read. I have found it interesting that some SMEs innovate (& increase productivity) out of desperation and, when successful, stop and concentrate on development – when further innovation/collaboration would be synergistic .
Robotics will give the greatest productivity increase but at what cost. Its easy to replace people with machines only then to find society crumbles because the great and good politicians don’t allow the ‘redundant’ people to afford a decent standard of living. Crime rates increase as desperate people seek unlawful ways of getting what they want/need. Too much time on their ‘idle’ hands will lead them down the wrong path. There has to be a balance possibly by creating different roles for people to play in industry?
Yes David,
History can teach us a thing or two. We must remeber the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Ludites. Could the same happen today if too many skilled people where put out on the street by robots.
I guess many Robotics are very expensive as are the maintenance charges, so until this landscapes changes wholesale I don’t think the risk is too great ,except for the Automotive sector. where there are practically no painters and welders left in mass production. Fairly horrid trade to do anyway, subject to fumes and gases. so some justification to take out of the hands of workers.
What is the point of producing more, if you have not got a market for it? Know your market (or potential market), then make what it needs and sell it to them.
Productivity isn’t about volume. It’s about income generated per employee.
It is also about asset productivity The transport sector is pretty poor in this regard. Locomotives and wagons making a leisurely one round trip per day between major ports and inland terminals with long dwell times as cargo is handled are a prime example. If they all carried an ownership/operating cost per minute meter then that would make the accountants gasp. Ditto trucking with tractor units held up at depots or in traffic. Better systems to monitor the location and status of road and rail kit would be helpful plus some decent systems to minimise the impact of internal and external disruption events. Perhaps the real productivity gains could flow from getting rid of large tiers of ineffective bureaucracy that impinge on business sectors including transport but bear no responsibility for the constraints they create. The top heavy superstructure is sinking the ship.
The Vote for “Other” is really a vote for all of the above.
Chosing one over the other is a bit like asking,”what is most important, having a car or having petrol!”
You cannot do any of these things without skills but you can have all the skills in the world but they are useless without investing in up to date production technology to apply them to.
Technology wise, the future is in additive manufacturing. Put your money there.
Skills and Training is the biggest issue and allegedly the one that businesses complain about the most. Unfortunately the bean counters and shareholders tend (in general) to view training as giving things away to other people that increases their value and ultimate cost undermining dividends and shareholder returns.
So while business expects (demands?) that Government provude better schools, universities, etc, it forgets that these have to be paid for. Low taxes means low levels of public services which includes education and training!
This means that business ends up having to poach staff from each other or import cheap labour from outwith UK, who get trained up and gain experience which they then take away with them back to the countries they came from!
Other – Give the right motivation. Give people pride in what they do, why they do it and its place in the scheme of things. Treat staff like people – not “resources”. Provide good career structures, pensions etc. Recognise that productive does not equal cheap. There is too much emphasis on cheap – not enough on quality – viz the austerity programme. It seems that all the emphasis is on driving down costs and not enough on raising quality and value. But then that’s the basic flaw with a system based on infinite growth.
The weak link for UK industry, in my opinion, is middle management. Too many managers with no qualifications, winging it or learning on the job.
Doesn’t matter how good the technical staff are if their managers aren’t competent. This directly affects productivity.
Is our low productivity due to inefficiency or is it that the industries we have in the UK produce less £s/h than industries in other developed countries?