Addressing the Future Workforce: Will curiosity, initiative, & tenacity be enough?

So welcome everybody to today's Industry 4.0 Club's fireside chat. So the Industry 4.0 Club, our purpose is to engage the power of diverse worldwide talent to accelerate the global evolution to Industry 4.0. We accomplish this by hosting and supporting respectful, thoughtful, and interdisciplinary open conversations and creating quality content on wide-ranging Industry 4.0 topics to expand the reach of our community. We're really glad today that you've decided to join us for our fireside chat with Andy Henderson. Andy has a diverse technical and managerial background with a broad expertise in Industry 4.0. We're going to introduce him a little bit further in just a moment. So my name is Mike Ungar, and I'm an Industry 4.0 Club co-founder. For the past 2 and a half years, I've been a Focal Point business coach and executive coach. Prior to that, I spent 35 years at Michelin North America in a variety of continuous improvement, operations, finance, and human resource roles. I'd like to introduce my co-host, Mike Yost. Mike, could you introduce yourself, please?

Absolutely. Nice to see everybody. Nice to see you here, Andy. My name is Mike Ghost, and as Mike said, I'm one of the co-founders of the Industry 4.0 Club, and I am the founder of a company called Bennett, where we work to connect people to solve problems in industry, typically around the areas of technology and technology adoption for manufacturers. So been in industry for over 30 years, industrial automation, industrial software background, and really passionate about sharing knowledge, sharing experiences, and really excited to have Andy here to share that with us.

Thanks, Mike. So let me introduce Andy for a minute. Andy's a manufacturing technologist. That's what he says on his LinkedIn profile anyway. He has a broad background, having started his career as an engineer for Caterpillar, followed by several years at GE, in a variety— in various manufacturing engineering roles. More recently, Andy has worked for a company called Premo. Premo is revolutionary— revolutionizing how industrial companies think about the role of digital technology inside their operations. They help customers reduce equipment downtime, optimize production processes, manage risks, all resulting in improved productivity, lower costs, and more— a more sustainable operation. He also recently started his own company called Hentek. In addition to Andy's diverse engineering background, he's a board member for the South Carolina Career Kids, and he's board chair for Clemson University's Thinker Advisory Board. Andy, could you tell us a bit more about these volunteer activities that you're involved with?

Sure. So I've been involved in mentoring, and I I've been engaged with academic programs for a number of years now. The other thing that I'd add in that background there is the PhD in automotive engineering from Clemson. And since that time, I've been really actively involved in programs at Clemson as well as Georgia Tech and a few other universities. And the, so the, the 2 programs that you mentioned, as our Thinker, Clemson Thinker and SC Career Kids. Clemson Thinker is a, it's an NSF-funded program that focuses on graduate level education, so master's and PhDs. It's not exclusive to master's and PhDs, but that was the focus of the NSF grant. The program is a bit unique in that it is led by Clemson, but it also engages tech college students from Greenville Tech here locally, as well as undergraduates and those master's and PhDs. And the premise is all around researching and improving our understanding of how machine— humans and machines interact, specifically as it pertains to manufacturing. So that's— and it's led by a diverse coalition of professors as well. Of course, automotive engineering is in there, mechanical, industrial, psychology is involved, human factors, and computing. All those different disciplines at the college level are involved in this program. So that's Clemson Thinker. And the other one that I've recently become engaged in is SC Career Kids. So my wife is a— her back— she's an elementary educator. She works for a public school for the Greenville County Public School System. But I was introduced to another educator not far from here in Columbia, South Carolina, also at the elementary level. And she started a nonprofit focusing on career exploration for elementary grade level kids, which I think is fantastic. I've been— I get on my soapbox. I get asked to speak at various events, and I get on my soapbox around how manufacturing is challenged with attracting people. And part of that is related to the fact that I don't think young people are aware of manufacturing and what's involved in manufacturing. And if they are aware, it's the perception that manufacturing is dull, dark, and dangerous.

Yeah.

And a lot of that comes from parents and other adult mentors. But when I get on my soapbox, I say things like, we have to go and approach children when they're young in those very formative years And show them, explain to them that manufacturing isn't just dull, dark, and dangerous. And so that's what SC Career Kids is all about. Sorry, Mike, go ahead.

No, no, no, no, I'm sorry, I had to talk over you. I'm fascinated by it because I saw some research a while ago that said essentially by the time the kid reaches the age of like 13, there's like an 85% chance that they their career decisions are set for them. Not that they know exactly where they're going, but it's pretty much solidified into a particular path. So the idea of exposing kids early to manufacturing at the elementary school age sounds fantastic. So are they receptive? How's your message received when you're talking to these folks?

Well, I mean, so what I can speak to is the fact that her program, The, and the ladies in the educator's name is Katie Wiggs, by the way. But her program is booked, like she stays, stays booked. So there is a demand there for it. And she's looking to expand. So it's, it's been centered in the Columbia region, South Carolina, and looking to expand into Greenville next summer for the summer camp. So there's 3 different things. There's an ongoing There's these ongoing sessions where they, where they'll meet once per week. And then in the summer, they'll do a week-long camp. And then the third thing that's also really, really interesting is the virtual—

the—

I forget what it's called— a virtual career platform. And why I think that's interesting is because if Manufacturing, there's lots of rules and regulations about who can come in and out of a manufacturing site. And it'd be really, really difficult to bring a classroom full of elementary grade kids into a manufacturing plant.

Right.

So this career platform, one aspect of it is doing interviews with people inside of companies, but also doing the 3D virtual walkarounds. inside of different businesses. So it's not— she's not specifically focused on manufacturing, but I'm trying to push in that direction. So that's one of the aspects that I find really interesting, especially— so I mentioned my wife, she's at a Title I school, which for those people that aren't familiar what that means, Mm-hmm. it's typically a, what, poor area, right? So, and a lot of those kids, when you think about what careers they're exposed to in the first place, it's, it's, you know, it's not necessarily engineers or lawyers or doctors or whatever, you know, those different kinds of careers.

Right.

It's probably store clerks and, and various other things and other careers that on the, on the illegal side of things, just as a, as a matter of fact, right?

Right.

And so this, and they don't have the opportunities to go and see the way, say, my kids might, because when I was at GE, when I worked for GE, GE was great. It had a family day where they would open up the factory and families could come in and come see. Not every kid's gonna have that opportunity. So this virtual platform at least gives them that. I'll always say it's better to be there in person and walk the floor, right? But this is another thing that's really interesting.

Yeah, that's neat. So Andy, how'd you get— how'd you first, or when did you first get interested in Industry 4.0?

So in Industry 4.0, I guess when I was building computers as a kid, I was sort of on a path. But really, Industry 4.0, that term came to be when I was working at GE. And so my role at GE was manufacturing technologist. I would work with the operations inside of GE's plants to understand, first of all, how are you doing things today? And then is there a technology that exists that we might be able to use to make parts better, faster, cheaper? And then if there was something that was compelling from a business case standpoint, then I would work with them through the implementation of it. And so I would say that's where I really got involved, engaged in Industry 4.0. And then over time it became a lot of, well, how do we get access to the data that exists? Because the data is what's gonna drive our decisions about these things. And okay, well, now we can get access to the data, but how do we actually use it? And You mentioned Premo. Premo was really focused on the, okay, we've got data, how do we make use of it side of things?

Good. Yeah, so that's great. So you kind of, I guess, if I summarize what you said, you kind of grew into this through what the natural evolution of what we all saw in manufacturing, it sounds like.

Yeah, I would say that My roots go back to at Caterpillar. I was doing diesel engine testing and development. So that was all about designing experiments, speccing sensors, setting up data acquisition systems, collecting data from pre-production or prototype engines, and then doing analysis on that data to try and identify those issues before the product gets released to the customers. And then working with the design teams to say, here are the issues, how can we resolve them? So I would say it goes back even further. Industry 4.0 is a nice way of talking about where we are today in industry, but the concepts go far back.

Yeah, well, that makes sense. And so let's jump a little bit into today's topic, talking about the workforce, the manufacturing workforce of the future. From your perspective, what does that look like? I mean, when we think about the future, I mean, that's a— we talk about the kind of a buzzword, you know, like the manufacturing workforce of the future, right? The question is, what does that look like to you?

Yeah, so on one side of things, there's a fear that, you know, the technology is going to take my jobs, take my job. And that's, again, that's nothing new. You could go back to the Luddites. tossing the looms over the— off the cliff way back in the industrial, early Industrial Revolution in England. But, but that— and what we always say in response to that is, well, it's not— your job's not going to go away, it's going to transform into something else. And I do believe that. So we'll introduce new technologies into manufacturing. And people will have to learn how to work with and make use of those technologies. I also believe that the introduction of technology is going to open up manufacturing jobs to people who may not have had those opportunities before, meaning that we talk about the skills gap, how we need a certain level of skills before people can be productive on the manufacturing floor. Well, Technology is going to change that a bit, and it's going to make it easier for people who may not have the skills to get onto the floor and start being productive quicker, more faster. And so the— I think it's going to— the manufacturing workforce of the future is going to be as varied as it is today, from people with high school diplomas up through advanced degrees such as myself. And I think we're, we're still going to be working on a spectrum of technologies.

Yeah, just to go along with that, Andy, one of the things I've seen— so that conversation about displacing jobs and replacing workers, you know, is like you said, it's been around for ages, right? I used to sell automation systems, and it used to be the, boy, how are we gonna make this go without, you know, stepping on that conversation? But what's happened over the past couple years with the pandemic and the worker shortage and such is, um, that's flipped a lot. People don't have enough workers today, so they're saying, how do I take the workforce that I have, make them more productive? What tools can I give to my employees that allow them to cover 3 cells where they used to just cover 1 and things like that. So I do think you're spot on track there as far as empowering the workers to do more and potentially opening up the opportunities for folks that have not traditionally been in manufacturing to have better tools to help them do those kind of jobs.

When you think about You know, I was thinking about some of the things you said there. You talked about opening it up, the future, you know, manufacturing workforce for some folks who maybe aren't there today with technology. What gaps do you see in the future for the workforce over the next decade that will become more pronounced?

So what gaps exist that are going to become more pronounced? So there's There's always been— I've been in the data analysis side of things for a little while, and there is a— I'd say there's a gap between the folks that understand the industrial operation side of things and the folks who understand how to work with data and extract information out of data. And so there's a That, that void, I've seen it getting better in some places where you have the folks that are, that are, that are well-versed on the industrial operations side of things. They've started to pick up more of the tools as the, as the data science side of things starts making the tools more accessible. And I think that's going to come and they're going to meet in the middle in the future. But, you know, there's no— there are— well, I can't say no because I'm aware of a few, but there aren't that many programs that are trying to teach people how to bridge that gap. And so that's— I'd say that's an area where we can use some improvement. And that's actually kind of where Thinker sits as well, the Clemson program.

Would love to hear more about that because Would it fall into the area of what you consider to be— I've heard people talk about data literacy, right? So being able to interpret, understand, and use data. Because I remember years ago sitting in some conversations and hearing people say that the biggest missing piece for manufacturers is a lack of data scientists. And I almost fell off my chair going, wait a second, right? I mean, We're not going to have data scientists running around plant floors. We can't get the folks in operations to listen to IT people. How are we going to get them to listen to data scientists, right?

I think it's going to take almost another industry to develop the tools that are— so I have been known to say that I don't see the manufacturing engineers, the ops leaders, the whomevers on the factory becoming software programmers and data scientists all on their own. Give them credit, they are good at doing those activities when they have time to do it. But it's their main job is to make sure that the operations are running and you're getting products out the door.

Mm-hmm.

And so I don't know that I agree that, that they are going to have to take on the role of data scientist as well. I think it's going to take some pretty clever data scientists and those industrial operations folks working together to develop specific tools to help the industrial operations folks. So, you know, machining is my what I— where I focused on during my PhD research, and it's what I did a lot of at GE. And cutting tool life is an important problem in machining.

Sure.

And there are technology solutions today that will monitor the various signals coming from the machine, and they can be trained, if you will, to recognize when a cutting tool needs to be replaced. And then what the feedback that comes to the operator, the person running the process, is just the sensors, the data analysis is saying that you're going to have to replace that tool in 5 minutes. And so I think that's— it's— that doesn't take them away from their job to go do that analysis themselves, that is an enabler that sits on top of their current role to help them.

Yeah, it's like I always talk about, you know, my parents use AI every day, but they have no idea what it is, right? You open Google Maps and you're using this powerful technology, right? And you have the really unique vantage point of being on both sides, right, on the manufacturer side, and if I understand The, the Pramo solutions, right? That's, that's on using the data itself, right? And being solution on the solution side of things. That's a really unique perspective that you have. And I think to your point, when it serves the workers and it's served up, or it's the OpEx lead, or it's the quality engineer, or the plant manager, or whatever, they're getting the information they need the way they need it, or the operators are getting information about tool life, then they can use these technologies, but not in a way of having to go, you know, pull reports and do analysis and that kind of stuff.

Yeah, I completely agree. And I do think, so in my early days, I was on the buying side of technology and then I was on the supplying side of technology. And today I'm just trying to help people navigate all of this.

Yeah, how does— you said something about the ops guys not taking time to implement software, I think, or program. But what about no-code or low-code sort of programming? Do you see that being something that's done by the ops guys or still by someone supporting them?

I'd say it depends. I would assume, though, that it's not going to be as heavily adopted by the ops people because again, it's not— it's secondary to their main priority, their main task, their main job. But you'll see some— I'm not— there's going to be those that are really, really interested in building a solution that they— that's going to help them do their job better, and they will go to something like a no-code or low-code environment and they'll build it out. But those environments have to, have to be ready for that, for that type of person to come along. I mean, it's nice to say no-code or low-code, but they're not— even those aren't— they've been designed with maybe a certain type of user in mind, and if that user is not the operation, the leader at a plant, then they're still going to struggle and have a hard time.

Yeah. Do you see the gap being more pronounced for the, for the leaders in manufacturing or for the line workers?

So the— I would say, if we're talking about people becoming data scientists, again, then I'd say the gap is larger on the, the operator side of things.

Mm-hmm.

But again, I don't know that I would go so far as to say that everybody needs to be a data scientist or needs to be a software developer. So I don't— we'd have to, we'd have to caveat it and, and say, yeah, that there's a gap there. But How important is that gap? Because those folks are in charge of making sure that operation, that specific part of the operation runs.

You mentioned to us when we were talking offline earlier about the idea that curiosity, initiative, and tenacity can help to overcome the skills gap. Can you talk about that? What were you— what do you mean? I mean, that really was an interesting comment to me.

So this actually comes from— I was doing a webinar not long ago with the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and it was a gentleman named Andrew Johnson with a company named ShelfAware. He was describing the journey that his company went through to develop a software-based inventory solution. And I was asking him about the skills gap because I was moderating the webinar, and he went on to talk about how Nobody within his group was a programmer or understood databases or, you know, and, and, and, and, but they, they were interested in, in the technologies. They were curious about where it would go. They took some initiative to go do it. And they, they stuck with it to develop this, this, this software that they now provide. And so I summarize it down to curiosity, initiative, and tenacity. And it resonates with me because that's exactly where I— where those early adopters that I've worked with over the years, none of them were trained in the technology, in the various technologies and how to use them and how to make— how to get value from them. It was all— every bit of it was somebody was curious. They didn't just sit and say, oh, that's interesting. I'm— I like to— I think it could be good. I think it could be a good thing. They took some initiative, they went and did something about it, and then stuck with it to see it through. And so the— a lot of the talk about the skills gap is we just have to institute better training programs. And we have to build out these these, these learning initiatives for people to, to force people to pick up these skills. And, and I think those are important. And over time, we're going to get more structured. And everybody will have some introduction to, say, data science. But I think How we address it today is we go and we find those folks that are curious, starting to take some initiative, and then we empower them. We give them a tool or we give them leeway to go try things and see what happens.

I don't know, Andy, if you remember, I think we actually met at the the launch of SESMI, the Smart Manufacturing Institute. I'm not sure if you remember that or not, but I know they've been talking about basically citizen technologists in the IT/OT space. Are you familiar with that work that they're working on through their workforce development group?

No, I don't recall that one.

Yeah, we should plug you in with those folks 'cause it's along the same lines of the, How do we get the right skills in there with the right— I don't want to say layers or levels, but we have the people in the different roles and what are the expectations. And I think people will become more— well, I think by nature, right, the younger generation is, you know, they're digital natives and they're very familiar, very comfortable with technology, etc. So as they're in the workforce, obviously there's more receptive to using technology and things like that. So, but they're building out curriculum, looking at pathways to take someone from an operator into more of understanding process, understanding the networks and those sorts of things, and being able to play that role as a citizen technologist, they call it.

Yeah, I think that's great. I'd love to get plugged in there. And to go back to a comment you made that there, that younger people are more adept with technology. I'd say this is true. But I'd also, you know, we used to have this quote, I forget where I was at when I first heard it. But interns are great because they don't know what's not possible. Meaning, once somebody's been ingrained so long in a job, they say, oh, we're not even going to entertain that thought.

Right.

Because it's just not, it's not possible. We've tried it and we failed. Whereas folks that are coming in fresh, they just don't— they haven't had those same experiences, and they're willing to try a new thing just because why not, right?

Your, your example is really interesting. I was thinking about when Michelin started its digital transformation. And I remember we sat in, in rooms, and we got briefed by the digital gang, so to speak, central team about needing to move forward. In the past, in the company, we would always designate which function would do what, okay, structurally. But we didn't do that for digital transformation. What they said is, here are some of the roles that you need. Look inside your plants, find those who have curiosity, the area, and take the initiative and have the tenacity. And whether they're in, in progress or in quality or in operations, give them the task, let them go to work. And so your point's really right. Rather than dictating that, you find those individuals that are willing to lead there and take that stuff on. They're the ones that you gave Power BI to and PI, and they started to work on how to leverage the data and put it together. It was really quite interesting. I guess I just reinforce what you said about curiosity, initiative, and tenacity. I think it's really true. At least that's what we saw. When we launched digital transformation at Michelin.

Yeah, and there are going to be formal education programs to teach people the skills that they need to do this in the future, to do data science for industrial operations in the future. But in the meantime, somebody has to, you know, in effect, create the playbook. And so it's going to take those that are curious and willing to willing to step out on a limb and try it to write those initial playbooks.

I wanted not to take us backwards, but along the lines of— you mentioned Thinker and you mentioned that it's graduate-level work, I believe. Because one of the things that I think has been interesting to watch over the last several years is I know a few years ago, the Industry 4.0 credentials and degree programs and such in Germany were only taught at the graduate level, right? And so here in the States, it's come down. We have, you know, 4-year degrees, we're having certificate programs, we have community colleges that are starting to teach it and such. So I guess your thoughts on that, like the different types of education or layers, and I don't know if the Thinker is a model to consider, but what do you see as far as these processes or this— I'm sorry, this discipline of Industry 4.0, you know, across the spectrum of, you know, education offerings?

Yeah, and I should clarify, so Thinker, so the grant that was received that got Thinker off the ground, that was primarily geared towards master's and PhD students.

Okay.

However, the program itself, what's really interesting about it is that there's a large focus on building teams, so, and diverse teams. So there's engineers working with psychologists, and there's also undergraduates, and there are also folks from Greenville Tech, the local, the local technical college in maybe a 2-year mechatronics program, for example. And so that, that is one of the aspects of Thinker that I, that I find very interesting and intriguing. And that's because those are the types of groups that you'll find when you're out in industry, in a business.

Right.

You're not gonna, you're You're not going to be secluded. And so part of what you asked was, is that a model to— is that a model that we could possibly use in other places? I think so, strictly because of this very diverse way of thinking about the challenges. And if an industry, if a company wants the thinker students to work on a problem, then they can come in and a project gets— can get— can be created. And when you have that, that thinker team project, you get all of those different backgrounds and experiences, skill sets working on, on your, your industry-backed problem. And so, and I don't, I don't know that that particular aspect is, is only at Clemson in this program. I've heard it from a variety of other colleges as well. And so I think it's definitely something that people should look into and consider because you tend to get some really interesting solutions and More so than that, you identify those people that are going to be— you identify talent, right? The folks that you can hire who have already gotten some practical experience working on projects, these kinds of Industry 4.0 projects that you can just hire and bring straight in. And then does it work at all levels, I think was another part of your question?

Yeah, just wondering if you see— I mean, one of the things that I love of what's going on right now is that everybody's diving in, right? And everybody's diving in. So I could say, well, I'm creating an Industry 4.0 program at a community college and somebody else is doing one at the graduate level. And are we teaching the same things? Likely not, right?

Right.

But the broad spectrum, it's wide enough. And go back to your opening statement that, you know, you've really been working on this your whole life since you've been tinkering with computers and things like that, right? We don't have to have a forced box that says this is the only definition of Industry 4.0 and this is the only way that you teach it. And I love to see the fact that we're teaching it on so many different ways, and I'm sure things will tighten up over time where we have more agreed-upon definitions and things like that. So I was really thinking more along the lines of the different areas where you see it applied and You know, if you like what you're seeing, I guess, from all the different levels.

I think, I think what the way you see it manifest at different levels, so, so maybe at a technical college level, it's going to be very pragmatic around how do you, how do you set up a PLC to, to store various data variables in a register and then forward that onto a database.

Maybe.

So it's going to be very pragmatic about how you do, how you connect, say, the dots, for example. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum, maybe at the PhD research level, you're thinking about, hey, collaborative robots are great the way we talk about them today because they're not going to injure a person if they bump into them. But what does it truly mean to be collaborative with a robot? Is it that the There's some artificially intelligent brain watching the person work, and they've learned to recognize that at a certain stage in the process, they're going to need a screwdriver. And so the robot presents the screwdriver to the person at the right time so that all they have to do is grab it and use it, or the robot does the operation because it's—

Right.

So what does it truly mean to be collaborative? And I think that's always going to be the case. You'll have a very pragmatic view on one end, and then you'll have this, hey, what does science fiction look like? If Asimov was here today, what would he—

Yeah, I love it. So we've been talking a lot about the, you know, kind of how we get to the future. What other things should manufacturers be doing today to help them prepare for the future? You know, I think about When in the '90s, again, my career at Michelin in the '90s, we spent a lot of time working with individuals on basic skills because we were adding a lot of computers to the shop floor and people had to be able to read and write, okay, in order to succeed on the shop floor. And there, so we worked on basic skills and some folks retired because they couldn't make that transition and others changed, learned, and went on to to have longer careers. Thinking about the future, thinking about that as an example, and thinking about where we're going with Industry 4.0, what should manufacturers be doing today to help them be ready for that, for the future?

Making the tools available and exposing people. I would say it's very similar to what you're talking about. You learn basic skills. I'm assuming that's like How to use a word processor, how to use a spreadsheet, how to use those kinds of things. Right.

Basic computer, you know, basic computer skills. That's right.

Yeah. So one of the things that I've seen companies do is that we talk a lot about additive manufacturing. And for a large company, it's probably easier to do what I'm about to say than it is for a small company. But I've seen large companies just buy desktop 3D printers and say, If this is something that you are interested in, just raise your hand and we'll deliver one to your desk and it can sit on your desk and you can have a 3D print, a little simple 3D printer there that you can play with. And that's fantastic, right? Why not do that? That's how ideas will be generated. People will play with it and say, well, if I had a bigger version, I could do this, or if I had a metal version, I could do this. And then that turns into those, those really value-adding projects that we want to see.

Good.

So it's all about exposure, I guess.

Yeah, well, that makes sense. I mean, because I think, I think people can surprise themselves how, especially if the technology is well designed, how easily it is to learn something if they just decide they're going to, you know. Or they want to.

Well, and I was just going to ask, from a readiness perspective or a skills perspective, or what should manufacturers be doing, what do you think about mindset? Because when I talk about Industry 4.0, I agree completely with what we've discussed, that we've been doing a lot of these things for a long time, right? And we've been doing automation and we've been doing data collection and we've been visualizing and connecting supply chains and all that kind of stuff. What really I think is missing in the conversation, or I would offer that I think should be part of the discussion, would love your thoughts on it, Andy, is whether we're talking to everybody involved at all levels about what's possible, right? And this new mindset, just like you said about the 3D printer, if I had this, boy, what could I do differently, right? And if I had this information or if I got more visibility into, you know, demand or availability of assets or whatever, like, what could I do? How could I change things? I was just thinking that, I guess, your thoughts, Andy, on where mindset comes into the conversation about Industry 4.0.

When I think mindset, I think, and how you started the question around, does a person have the mindset to be closed off or do they have the mindset to being open? Is that what you're asking? When you say mindset, is that kind of what you're getting at?

Yeah, I think too, are people of the mindset that, wow, there's something different today? Because if we go back and say, even as we started and say, well, we've been doing this for a long time, and I've been 35 years in industry and most of it industrial automation, right? So we have been doing this stuff for a long time. So what's different? What's gonna make people behave differently? And I think if we can get to Mike's question, like people started, like start to think differently, right? Start to think about what's possible today that wasn't possible 10 years or 20 years ago. And a lot of them have to do— a lot of the things have to do with these breakthrough technologies and no-code, low-code and the cloud. And like all of a sudden data science is potentially at work for us. So how do you think differently? That's really where I'm going with it, you know, from a mindset perspective?

Yeah, I guess, I guess there's a few things that I would say on it. One of, one of the things is, I believe you're always going to have people on the spectrum, on the side of the spectrum that says, you know, I, I've been doing this for 30 years, I don't want to learn something new. I'm happy with the way things are. And you're on the opposite end, you're going to have the people that don't know what's not possible. And they're gonna say, what if I did this? Oh, that didn't work out very well.

I'll do—

I won't do that again. But I'll maybe I'll try it this way instead. And so I think you're, you're going to experience that everywhere. You're going to have some of those, some of those leaders sitting like a plant, you'll have You, if you put 10 plant managers together in a room, you're going to have some on the very conservative side, some on the very forward-thinking side. That's just human nature. I don't know that we're going to change it. But in terms of like what you're getting to around how do we get people thinking differently, again, it's— I don't— I would say start with a brainstorming session. Start with What is your business challenge? What are you, what are you trying to do as a business today? And what's preventing you from reaching that goal? Okay, now we've got a specific thing that we can try and go tackle in some way. And then we can start poking, well, what if, you know, suspend all disbelief that it's not possible? What if you could do teleportation today? Well, we can't do teleportation, but But now that we know the scope of the benefit, let's see how we can fit an actual real technology in to do— to get you closer to where— to that vision than you are today. I still don't know if I answered your question though, did I?

Yep, yep, absolutely.

Yeah, I'm good.

I'm going to put a question up from one of our listeners and I'm going to try to interpret the the question a little bit. Why have some industries adopted the technologies of Industry 4.0 to a certain level, others have yet to realize the benefits it can offer? Can you list some of the facilitators for seamless implementation? I think the question is, maybe I'm gonna interpret that a little bit and say, how do folks really get started from your perspective?

So, so how do people get started? I've, many times in the past I've said think big, start small, scale rapidly, meaning begin with those big business ideas, the big, the big what, why are we doing this for the business perspective, and then what are the small things, the actual tangible things that we can go do today? And then once you've identified that, how do you— you should be thinking about how to take it and replicate it over and over and over again, to how to scale it out. And, you know, we get a lot of flak, technology providers, or Industry 4.0 in general, I guess, gets a lot of flak today about we've been in pilot purgatory, we've done those small things.

Right.

but very few have actually scaled out. And so that is an interesting problem that I don't know that I have an answer to. I've had conversations with many people about it, trying to figure out how do we take these pilots and scale them out. And I think part of the question that was posed was, why have some industries adopted it and some industries not, or why have some industries adopted? And so I don't know that I have— I don't— in every single industry I can point to, if I sat and thought long enough, I'm sure I could point to a leader and a laggard. And even within, within, inside of a large organization, like a large company that might be from the outside perceived as a leader, you're going to have laggards. And so I don't know that I would say that there are certain industries that have done a better job of adopting than others. I guess you could always say like automotive. Automotive has been a forward thinker in this realm for a while.

Yeah.

But I'm sure there's automotive companies out there that That maybe not so much.

Yeah, I was going to comment on that too, Andy, because I grew up in the automotive Tier 1 space. So, you know, build to sequence, error-proofing, and if you didn't ship on time in sequence, you were getting $15,000 a minute while you fixed your problem at the automotive assembly plant, right? So that was a real driver for people to have the processes in place, have the automation, the systems, the software, the backup, everything you can think of, right? And whether it's that or it's, you know, food and, you know, regulations or it's, you know, the food and drug requirements for traceability or those sorts of things, I think there are a lot of things that have historically pushed industries themselves to have the need for these types of solutions. Right, and I think what we're seeing now is you have others who are looking and saying, well, we can adopt those from a competitive perspective. We'll use that to give us a competitive advantage as opposed to just doing it because it's a requirement.

Yeah, no, that's— those are great points. And I would also go so far as to say that in some cases, healthcare companies have not adopted a thing because of those requirements.

Yeah.

Because of the rigor of going through and being certified after they've adopted something new. So there's both sides of the equation, but I think you're exactly— you're 100% right. Where we are today is the folks— there have been a number of studies out there that have extolled the benefits of adopting these technologies and what it's going to do for a business. And so There are a bunch of folks out there who have been running pretty hard trying to, to get a— get ahead of the curve in order to, uh, not get, um, not get eaten up by their competition, so to speak. And another industry that I'm— that I— my family is in logging, timber harvesting. And, um, it's when I asked my brother, what's the last major technological innovation in logging? He says, well, I guess it was back in the 1990s when we switched from a shear head to a rotary saw head. Like, '90s?

Yeah.

And that's not to say there hasn't been innovation, but, but the way innovation reaches logging is by— like, diesel engine technology has been a big, has been a big change for loggers over the last couple of decades. But all of that has stemmed from other industries, and it's just made its way into logging. And so, and why— so why hasn't logging been a forward-thinking adopter of new technology? Well, it's because if you look at the demographic of logging businesses, most of them are 10 people, 2 of which are family members. And, and every, every person on deck to focus on Production, production, production, production, right? And, you know, they come up with creative solutions to problems, which is innovation, right? But it's just not of the, say, the AI ilk, right? Or the, or the, the robotics ilk. Anyway, sorry.

That's great.

Appreciate that.

So we're, we're kind of reaching the end of our time together, Andy, and one of the things we always like to do towards the end is ask our guests to share one final thought for the audience. We started the conversation or titled this about the manufacturing workforce of the future, how things like tenacity and curiosity initiative can overcome that skills gap. Can you share one final thought with us as we get ready to wrap up this afternoon?

Yeah, sure. I guess if you're a business leader and you're trying to think about this problem, I would say, What I, what I said earlier, go find those people that show some curiosity and some initiative and empower them, give them tools, give them— remove bureaucratic roadblocks out of their way so that they can go try these things and, and find out what they don't know. So that would be my, my final, my final thought.

Thank you, Andy. I appreciate that a lot.

Yeah.

So, um, as we wrap up here, I want to thank Andy and Mike for joining us today and for this very insightful discussion that we've had. I also would like to thank everybody who joined us, um, and Muhammad, your question from the audience as well was helpful. So if you like conversations like this, please look for them on LinkedIn Live or LinkedIn Audio through our Industry 4.0 Club or group page on LinkedIn. We host conversations on alternating weeks with Mondays being dedicated to women in manufacturing Tuesdays to the future of manufacturing. Wednesdays is dedicated to our fireside chats. And Thursdays we focus on people, process, and culture. And again, please join us. Please join our LinkedIn page and visit our website at www.industry4.0club.com. And I'd like to wish everybody a great rest of the day and rest of the week. And again, thanks, Andy, for taking the time to join us.

Thank you. It was a pleasure.