Technology Transfer: An Education Process For An Engineering Organization

Abstract

HE transfer of technology within a large, dynamic T aerospace company is an essential function that ensures product quality and professional development. The ability to close the gap between engineering skill needs, based on current and strategic views, and the level of skill proficiency that currently exist is a challenge. The solution to this challenge can define what training is needed and be the basis for financial decisions. The financial decisions center on how much money can be budgeted to support employee training. The solution can also aid in verifying the effectiveness of training expenditures. This paper will examine one process developed within the McDonnell Aircraft Company (Fig. 1) and will focus on the application and results of that process in one Engineering department of McDonnell Aircraft. An effective method used to transfer technology is training. Traditional methods of managing an individual’s technology training as they arrived “new” to an engineering team included the assignment of the individual to a seasoned or experienced engineer. This “on-the-job” method assured only one thing, the loss in productivity of the experienced person, because it took time from his or her primary responsibilities. The time lost by the experienced person is difficult to measure and the quality of the technology transferred is vague and difficult to measure. The question always remained, how much was an individual’s skill proficiency raised as a result of “on-the-job” training? An aircraft manufacturer may have more than one product line in operation at any one time. One goal of a Total Quality Management system is to insure an even application of resources to all programs. This means that no one program will suffer because of an insufficient number of skilled engineers. The improvement of engineer’s skills and the consistent application of engineering resources across product lines is essential in developing quality products. The organization of McDonnell Aircraft is product oriented with a strong Engineering central core organization. The core organization is charged with responsibility for: Transition of Technology from one program to another, training of engineers, providing the engineering tools and processes, and developing the careers of its engineers. The core is made up of forty four The author is Engineering Manager of McDonnell Aircraft Company. engineering departments, each the home of unique technologies. The core becomes the base of supply of trained engineers for program organizations. It is a policy of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation that training will be “needs based.” Quality results combined with lower costs is an objective of the enterprise. The current operational process for the Engineering Division, managed by core engineering, has as a first step to assess skill needs. Skill needs are based on contractual tasks of the company (current business) and future workload as defined by identified strategic technologies. The Engineering Division of McDonnell Aircraft has developed a process designed to make skills training “needs based.” The focus of this discussion at this point will be placed on one engineering department. The Avionic Support Equipment Engineering Department has identified its skill needs based on task descriptions developed as part of program team deployment requirements. The minimum educational requirement for engineers working in this department is a BS in Electrical Engineering. The consensus of senior managers of the department was obtained to establish the primary skill needs of the product teams over and above the skills that an engineer would have as a result of obtaining a BSEE. Two broad categories of skills were established: 1. Engineering division-wide common skills and 2. Department unique skills. Identified skills in this first category included: statistical process control, quality functional deployment, supervisory skills and technical writing. The department unique skills were identified by focussing on the day-to-day work of the department members. The second category included, as an example: testability analysis, electronic circuit design, and RADAR systems maintenance test requirements. Twenty four skills were identified and these then were categorized into fourteen skill groups. Each skill was further broken down into proficiency level identifiers. The levels were: 1. Expert, 2. Practitioner, and 3. Working knowledge. At this point in the process it was necessary to identify the number of people, skills, and skill levels needed to conduct the current contracted work load and projected work load of the department. The department engineers are assigned to fifteen product teams which are part of five programs. The result of this exercise is a profile of engineering skills needed in each job as they makeup teams. The profile could serve as a check of how