Manufacturers Look Homeward, Boosting Domestic Production and Spending as Overseas Gains Overseas

By Kate Linebaugh and James R. Hagerty
via The Wall Street Journal

U.S. companies, facing slowing markets and rising costs around the world, are taking a new look at their home market.

With growth slowing in China and a slump gripping much of Europe, companies are adding capacity in the U.S., replacing aging equipment and even moving overseas production back from low-cost labor markets, a sign that corporate America could be poised to take a bigger role in the economic recovery.

The pace of earnings growth at companies slowed in the fourth quarter, and there are signs that profitability is falling. That is prompting companies ranging from beverage maker Coca-Cola Co. to industrial supplier Emerson Electric Co. to disclose cost cuts. But after keeping a tight lid on costs for the past few years, many other companies are expanding capacity to meet rising demand.

United Rentals Inc., the world’s largest equipment rental company, plans to increase its capital spending by about a third, to $1 billion, this year as more construction and industrial companies opt to rent rather than own equipment like elevated forklifts and backhoe loaders. Cummins Inc., which makes engines for trucks and heavy equipment, is boosting its capital spending to more than double the rate of two years ago.

Carlisle Companies, a small conglomerate that makes insulation, tires and restaurant supplies, plans to open two new plants in the U.S. and bring tire production back to the U.S. from China. Union Pacific Co. expects to buy twice as many locomotives this year, spending upward of $400 million. The auto industry is dusting off idled U.S. factories, adding work shifts and expanding production from Chattanooga, Tenn., to Belvidere, Ill., on rebounding car and truck sales. Some auto makers even hope to use the U.S. as a manufacturing base to export autos and auto-parts to Latin America and Asia.

“It is an environment that feels like it is building momentum,” William Plummer, United Rentals’ chief financial officer, said in an interview. “We are coming out of the depths of the recession and are starting to build momentum on the upside.”

U.S. businesses increased their investments in December. According to the Commerce Department, new orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft, a proxy for how much companies spend on equipment, climbed 2.9% from November. That ended two months of declines, suggesting businesses are becoming more confident. Compared with a year earlier, companies shipped 9% more.

“Companies have piled a lot of cash on the balance sheet and delayed a lot of purchases,” said Joseph LaVorna, Deutsche Bank’s chief U.S. economist, who expects capital expenditures, or capex, to grow in excess of 10% this year. “The capex story is very much alive and well, and capex and hiring go hand-in-hand.

There are signs that hiring may be picking up as companies expand facilities. Job growth in January was its highest level since April, with unemployment falling for the fifth consecutive month.

In addition, stubborn construction markets are showing signs of life, and that is helping companies like Caterpillar Inc., according to Andy Kaplowitz, a Barclays Capital analyst. The Peoria, Ill.-based equipment maker notched a 31% increase in its North American construction business, compared with Barclay’s estimate of a 20% gain.

“I’m feeling better about the U.S. economy than I was 12 months ago, for sure,” said Patrick Ward, chief financial officer at Cummins.

Fortune Brands Home & Security Inc., whose products include Master locks and Moen faucets, recently boosted its capital spending plans for 2012 to $80 million, up about 17% from last year, after seeing modest improvement in the U.S. economy, said Chris Klein, CEO of the Deerfield, Ill., company.

“It isn’t off to the races yet,” Mr. Klein said of the economy, “but it is definitely firming up.”

That may not mean major job gains. Most of the capital spending is on equipment that will improve production efficiency. For now, Fortune Brands has plenty of spare capacity and isn’t envisioning new plants. Its 12,000-person U.S. work force probably will expand only slightly this year, with gains mainly in product development and marketing, Mr. Klein said.

On the whole, fourth quarter earnings were weaker than expected amid sluggish growth in Europe and China, and executives voiced caution about 2012. Among the 301 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index that have reported their quarterly earnings thus far, 28% missed analyst expectations, a greater proportion than the typical 20%, according to Thomson Reuters.

Companies that are making first-quarter forecasts are striking a mostly downbeat note. Of the 55 that have provided earnings forecasts, 43 said they expect the first quarter to be weaker, according to Thomson Reuters. That is the worst ratio since 2001. Profits for the final quarter of 2011 are up an average of 8.9% from a year earlier, and revenue is up 8.3%.

While the impact of the European slowdown has been muted, analysts have noted how China’s slowdown has eaten into profit. United Technologies Corp. said its Otis Elevator unit sales in China dried up in the fourth quarter compared with swift sales the quarter before. 3M Co. expects below-trend China growth for the first half of this year, after sales slowed markedly at the end of last year.

Despite China’s slump, companies still see opportunities overseas to buoy growth, which means the U.S. won’t grab all of the capital spending. Caterpillar, for instance, said about 60% of the $4 billion it earmarked for this year will be invested in the U.S. largely to expand existing facilities. Auto parts supplier Tenneco Inc. will boost capital spending as much as 15% as it expands business in emerging markets. Charlotte, N.C.-based Carlisle will be expanding a plant in Italy and building a new one in India.

But rising wages overseas, higher transportation costs and the shipping time of goods from China have prompted Carlisle to move tire production to Tennessee from China.

“We find it as cheap to manufacture in the U.S. as China,” Carlisle Chief Executive Dave Roberts wrote in an email. “We will still manufacture in China, but the idea would be to manufacture product for Asia in Asia, for the U.S. in the U.S.”

And strong domestic growth is driving Carlisle to open new factories in Seattle and Kingston, N.Y. “We are starting to see the nonresidential construction market strengthen a bit,” Mr. Roberts said in an interview. “The momentum continues.”

—Bob Tita contributed to this article.

Write to Kate Linebaugh at kate.linebaugh@wsj.com and James R. Hagerty at bob.hagerty@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications

Fortune Brands Home & Security has about 12,000 U.S. employees. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said it has a 16,000-person U.S. work force.

By Bryan Walsh
via time.com

The solar panels sparkle on the rooftop of HelioVolt’s 12,000 sq m manufacturing facility. Inside, an elaborate line of printing machines, lasers, chemical baths and ovens — with help from the occasional white-coated human being — transforms a sheet of glass less than a centimeter thick into a solar module in just over two and a half hours. The sheets are a far cry from the thick, polysilicon-based photovoltaic panels that still dominate the solar market. HelioVolt manufactures thin-film solar panels, so called because the modules are made by depositing an ultra-thin — a few micrometers at most — layer of the photovoltaic chemicals copper, indium, gallium and selenide directly onto a glass backing. Compared with conventional modules, the engineering and manufacturing processes are more complex, and thin-film panels are less efficient at converting sunlight to electricity. But their lower cost has many in the solar world — like HelioVolt CEO Jim Flanary — convinced that thin-film panels are the way to go as the industry matures. “If you can do this really cheaply and really quickly, you’ve got a winner,” says Flanary as he leads a walkthrough of HelioVolt’s pilot plant. “We want to scale up as soon as we can.”

It’s not just the how of HelioVolt that makes it unusual in the solar space; it’s also the where. The company isn’t based in southern San Francisco or Boulder, Colo., or the Boston area — the bright green regions that tend to lead the national conversation on clean tech. HelioVolt calls the Texas state capital of Austin home. B.J. Stanbery, the solar veteran who founded HelioVolt in 2001, is a native Texan who got his bachelor’s degree at the University of Texas just down the road from the company’s factory, but he kept his business in Austin for more practical reasons. “The manufacturing skills that workers have here are directly transferable to a thin-film solar company like us,” he says. “And the business culture is attractive here because people are used to taking risks in the energy space.”

Of course, when people think about the energy space in Texas — home to wildcatters and J.R. Ewing of television’s Dallas fame — they probably picture oil rigs and natural gas wells. The current governor of Texas, after all, is the far-right-leaning Rick Perry, who made it known early in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination that he was a climate-change skeptic. “I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry told voters in New Hampshire in August. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”

But as politically conservative as Texas tends to be, it’s kept an open mind on renewable energy, which is one reason more wind power has been installed in the state than anywhere else. And within Texas, Austin has always been an outlier: a fairly liberal college town that has managed to marry high tech with hipster culture. Now that’s paying off in the renewable-energy sector, as Austin contends with Silicon Valley as a top clean-tech hub. The city is home to dozens of green start-ups like HelioVolt, many funded by homegrown venture capitalists. Some 15,000 Austin residents are employed in the broader green economy, and the municipal utility, Austin Energy, has pledged to get 35% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Over the past eight years, the number of clean-tech jobs has grown more than twice as fast in the Austin metro area as it has in San Francisco. With its background in information technology, Austin is set to take the lead in one of the most exciting areas in clean tech: the marriage of new energy technology with the Internet. “Austin is already a high-tech city,” says Jose Beceiro, the director of clean energy at the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. “Now it’s becoming a clean-tech city.”

Keeping It Weird

For Austin, high tech had to come before clean tech. The city has long been a science-and-technology hub, thanks to the presence of the sprawling main campus of the University of Texas, with a student body of 50,000. In the mid-1980s one of those students was Michael Dell, who founded his eponymous computer company in a University of Texas dorm room before moving Dell to a sprawling campus north of Austin. Around the same time, the federal government and U.S. semi-conductor manufacturers launched a research consortium — based in Austin — called Sematech, pooling public and private investment to compete with Japan, which was threatening to dominate the semiconductor industry.

Sematech and Dell helped create a high-tech boom in Austin through the 1990s, luring tens of thousands of talented engineers who came for the jobs and stayed for the Austin lifestyle — best exemplified by the metastasizing South by Southwest festival, an annual pilgrimage of the hip that brings together music, film and interactive media. “It’s a great place to live, and that matters in this industry,” says Brewster McCracken, the executive director of Pecan Street, a smart-grid research project in Austin.

So as clean tech began to heat up in the early part of the past decade, Austin was a logical place for start-ups and entrepreneurs to set up shop. An experienced technical workforce was already available, ready to shift from manufacturing computer chips to building solar panels. SolarBridge Technologies, which makes microinverters that improve the efficiency of solar modules, spun off from the University of Illinois, but when it came time to scale up, the company picked Austin over other clean-tech hubs like the Bay Area and Boston. “We like the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and there’s just a ton of talent here that you can’t get in Illinois,” says Joe Scarci, SolarBridge’s vice president of marketing. “It’s a great place to recruit.”

This is how industry clusters build: companies come for the employees, and they in turn attract more capital, more workers and more start-ups. That critical mass of innovation is one reason SustainLane Government, a network for green business, has ranked Austin the top city in the U.S. for clean-tech incubation. Austin-based green start-ups can also count on help from the University of Texas and the city government. The Clean Energy Incubator at U.T. supports young green start-ups, providing some initial seed money and holding networking events that can connect entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. The Texas Clean Energy Park — a public-private program in Austin — provides facilities and training for the smallest clean-tech start-ups.

Clean tech, however — much more than information technology — is still dependent on direct government policy, subsidies for renewable power and regulations that mandate energy efficiency and greener buildings. And that’s where Austin’s progressive-leaning politics — Barack Obama received 64% of the vote here in 2008, even as Republican John McCain handily won Texas — pay off. The presence of the university, the slacker subculture of the 1990s and the influential live-music scene has helped make the city, whose unofficial motto is “Keep Austin weird,” far more liberal than most in Texas. Austin has more 100%-green-powered businesses than any other city in the country, and all the municipal government’s electricity comes from renewable sources. Consumers and businesses can receive handsome rebates for installing more energy-efficient appliances and photovoltaic systems — all of which means that clean-tech companies can come to the city knowing there’s a built-in market for their products. “The city here does an excellent job of supporting green tech,” says Bill Sims, CEO of the biofuel company Joule Unlimited, which recently opened a pilot plant in Austin.

But perhaps the single biggest factor behind the greening of Austin is an institution that in most cities stands in the way of clean tech: the utility. Because the city of Austin owns its utility — and because politically progressive Austin residents have shown support for renewable power — Austin Energy has more latitude for experimentation than most of its counterparts around the U.S.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the Pecan Street project, a pioneering smart-grid research and demonstration program based in Austin’s historic Mueller neighborhood. Pecan Street is a collaboration between Austin Energy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the city of Austin and the university, with much of its financing provided by the 2009 federal stimulus bill. The study is detailing energy and water use at the residential level, gathering data that most utilities barely have a handle on. The Pecan Street project, which is also experimenting with residential solar energy and electric vehicles, aims to use that information to create a smarter and more efficient grid, one that is far less wasteful than the rickety power systems throughout the U.S. And it’s something that could have only happened in Texas, where deregulation has forced utilities to compete for profits by investing in technologies that help their customers use less energy. The transition hasn’t been perfect. Some consumers complain about higher costs, and there have been unexpected blackouts. But deregulation does free up utilities to experiment. “Getting this data is the first step to figuring out how to be really efficient,” says Pecan Street’s McCracken. “And Austin is the place where we can get that done.”

With its mix of high tech and clean tech, Austin is well positioned to take advantage of the next major phase in green development: the energy Internet. Ubiquitous digital connection has helped transform the way we communicate and the way we work, but most of us are barely aware of how we use energy. The energy Internet can change that. Green software start-ups like Austin-based Incenergy have developed online energy-management systems that allow building owners to remotely manage smart thermostats, reducing wasted heat and air-conditioning. Companies like Tendril are bringing that capacity to the residential level, creating home energy networks that will enable us to control our energy use as intelligently as we now control our digital video recorders. And the Pecan Street project is the perfect place to test some of these new technologies on a connected and greener-than-average populace. “A lot of my prospective customers are here,” says Jim Balthazar, explaining why he moved his clean-tech start-up Nuventix from Atlanta to Austin. “And he who has the money makes the rules.”

So what could go wrong? Austin faces the same challenges the larger clean-tech sector is confronting: a drying pool of venture capital, the forbidding cost of scaling up and the uncertainties around national climate policy. But the city’s biggest obstacle might be the man who lives in the governor’s mansion in the heart of Austin: Rick Perry. If Perry — or just about any of the other climate-change-doubting Republican candidates on the campaign trail — were to win the White House, it’s hard to see much support for clean tech surviving the budget ax. But even if that happens, Austin may well endure. This is a city that takes pride in going against the grain — and doing things itself. “I’m a native Texan, and I know about the entrepreneurial spirit here,” says HelioVolt’s Stanbery. “People believe that if you want to do well, you need to work hard.” That’s an ethic clean tech will need in the difficult days ahead.

By Adam Davidson
via npr.org

Three months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Angus Echols, a member of DuPont’s executive committee, began shaping the chemical giant’s plans for the coming decade. The U.S. would soon be at war, he explained in a series of memos and high-level discussions, and the company needed to aid the effort. But it also needed to think far ahead. When the war ended, Echols argued, women would want to buy cheap stockings. And where was DuPont on this crucial matter?

Echols got his way. While DuPont provided nylon (among other things) to the U.S. military for parachutes and tires, its research department studied how to make stockings on the cheap and did work that eventually led to Orlon and Lycra. And eight days after the Japanese surrender, DuPont announced that it would shift nylon production from war materiel to ladies’ undergarments. Not only did veterans have solid jobs to return to, but the company dominated the burgeoning synthetic fiber and plastics business for decades to come.

The image of thousands of industrial researchers in white lab coats and thick black glasses may seem antiquated, but corporate research and development is more important to our economy now than ever. Whereas a company used to be able to invent some new thing — nylon stockings, say — and spend a decade making money off it, today’s products have much shorter shelf lives. The venerable Western Electric 500 telephone — you know, the boxy one with the slanted face for the dial or, later, touch pad — was developed in 1949 and remained one of the most popular models through the 1980s. Now a phone like the Motorola RAZR or the first-generation iPhone goes from coveted totem to valueless relic (to hipster accessory) in a year or two. I recently visited an Amish buggy auction where salespeople were showing off the awesome features — easy-clean windows, retractable carved wooden cup holders — on the new year’s model. These days, all successful U.S. businesses have become innovation-based companies.

As consumers, we don’t care if our products are invented in the U.S. or in some other country. But as a work force, we should. While much has been written about Chinese factories’ stealing U.S. manufacturing jobs and destroying our businesses, the two countries have reached an uneasy, unspoken economic agreement over the past decade. American firms find they can compete with low-cost manufacturing by constantly developing new products. This has worked out well for U.S. companies — though, notably, not for U.S. manufacturing workers — because there are much fatter margins in owning the intellectual property of a hot new thing than there is in churning out a huge volume of cheap components. And these higher margins manifest themselves in higher salaries for American workers.

Partly as a result, the U.S. still dominates the world of research and development, as it has for more than a century. The country spends nearly double the annual R.-and-D. budgets of Japan and Germany combined. But China’s decadelong rise from a nonplayer in R. and D. to the world’s second-largest spender poses a serious threat. A recent study by the Battelle Memorial Institute, a research firm, predicts that China’s spending will match ours around 2022. In research terms, that is effectively today.

China already has plans to focus on exciting but vague ideas now — like green energy and bio- and nanotechnology — that will most likely become products in the 2020s. And if U.S. government labs, university departments and corporate researchers aren’t already on top of the next generation of breakthroughs, the country will very likely fall behind in 10 or 20 years when those innovations become marketable products. Our global competitiveness is based on being the origin of the newest, best ideas. How will we fare if those ideas originate somewhere else? The answers range from scary to scarier. Imagine a global economy in which the U.S. is playing catch-up with China: while a small class of Americans would surely find a way to profit, most workers would earn far less, and the chasm between classes could be wider than ever.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much to prevent this trend. Overall government research spending (relative to G.D.P.) has been heading down since its peak in the space-race years of the 1960s. And because it’s nearly impossible to imagine Congress significantly increasing research financing, any growth in long-term R. and D. will be, largely, up to the private sector.

And that’s the real problem. From a C.E.O.’s perspective, long-term R. and D. is a lousy investment. The projects cost a lot of money and often fail. And even when they work, some other company can come along and copy all the best ideas free. Charles Holliday Jr., the C.E.O. of DuPont who retired three years ago, told me that it’s tough to get investors to think more than two years ahead — at most. “The stock market pays you for what you can do now,” he said. As a result, DuPont isn’t the only American company changing the way it does R. and D. Corporate research labs at I.B.M., AT&T, Xerox and others have also been slimmed way down or cut altogether.

The government can’t simply pass a law forcing companies to think longer-term, of course. But Congress can do other things, like shift incentives away from rampant short-termism. It could, for example, reduce capital-gains taxes on stocks held for many years. Alternately, companies could create different classes of stock, giving more voting rights to those who hold the stocks longer. Another idea popular among businesspeople: enticing foreign Ph.D. students to develop their new ideas in the U.S.

The question of how U.S. companies will make a buck has probably never been more important. With one war over and another winding down, thousands of young men 25 and under, many without college degrees, will soon enter a work force with no place for them. (Their unemployment rate is nearly double the already miserable national average.) We have no idea how an Iraq war veteran will make a living a decade or two from now. We can only hope there is someone still being paid to figure it out.

By Jim Witkin
via www.nytimes.com


In the world of computers, Silicon Valley is recognized as the spawning ground of technology start-ups. For financial institutions, Lower Manhattan has long been the place to set up shop.

And of course Detroit has historically served as the epicenter of American automaking, evolving in recent times from a manufacturing center to a headquarters city. Still, there is no guaranty that its dominance is permanent.

Among the places vying to become a nexus of automotive development is this college town of 140,000 at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, some 1,300 miles from the Motor City. Already it has earned a reputation as one of the country’s leading engine and transportation research centers, digging into the dirty business of civilizing some of the industry’s biggest and least sophisticated engines.

The Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory here, part of Colorado State University’s school of mechanical engineering, was founded 20 years ago by Bryan Willson. The results of its work, especially in fuel injection and ignition systems, have been adopted by major industry suppliers like Delphi, Bosch and Eaton, component providers to auto, truck and industrial engine makers.

Work at the laboratory also involves emerging technologies — smart grids, electric vehicle components, alternative fuels and new twists on conventional drivetrains — that will be vital for transportation systems of the future.

Bringing this work to market will require a new approach. “With such a diversity of new technologies, you are starting to see expertise emerge and new businesses form in places like Silicon Valley, Austin and Colorado,” Dr. Willson said. “I expect much of this will not happen in Detroit.”

Many start-ups, hoping to commercialize these new technologies, have already formed or been drawn to the area as a result of programs sponsored by the city of Fort Collins in collaboration with local companies. The goal, according to Josh Birks, the city’s economic adviser, is to build a critical mass of clean tech and transportation-related businesses.

This transformation started with a competition. In 1990, General Motors, with the Energy Department as a co-sponsor, challenged 25 engineering schools around the country in a program that converted GMC 2500 Sierra pickups to run on natural gas. Though the Colorado State University team did not win the competition, placing second, the technology it developed proved useful for a fleet of natural gas hybrid buses operating in Denver.

From that experience, Dr. Willson took away a guiding principle that would inform his future work. “We didn’t want to just conduct experiments or write papers and have them sit on a shelf,” he said. “We wanted to have impact, so what we do here is the messy work to make sure these innovations actually become products.”

The lab’s messy work was evident on a tour through the facility. In one corner sat an enormous 140-liter natural gas-powered engine that once turned a compressor used on natural gas pipelines. Over the years, Dr. Willson and his students have pioneered several improvements to a computer-controlled fuel delivery system that greatly reduces the engine’s nitrogen oxide emissions.

Today the technology can be found on almost every gas pipeline engine in the country, and it has helped establish a national reputation for the laboratory. Enginuity, a start-up working here, commercialized much of this technology and in 2008 was acquired by Dresser-Rand, which supplies equipment to the oil and gas industry.

Nearby, a team of graduate students huddled around a large engine connected to a bank of diagnostic machines by a tangle of wires. A test of a laser ignition system, in which light rather than electric current runs over fiber-optic cables to optical spark plugs, was under way.

“If you look at the future of automotive engines,” Dr. Willson explained, “you are going to see higher levels of exhaust gas recirculation and a much more difficult ignition problem, one that we are looking to lasers to solve.”

Exhaust gas recirculation directs some of the engine’s exhaust back to the cylinders, where it combines with the air-fuel mix to help reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Many automotive engines depend on this technology to meet emissions standards.

In the building’s basement is a small-scale electricity grid where, among other projects, students study the impact that a growing population of electric vehicles may have on the power distribution network. Behind the building, a company co-founded by Dr. Willson, Solix Biofuels, is developing a low-cost system for producing fuels from algae. Solix intends to license the technology to large energy producers.

In the far corner of the building was a Cummins diesel engine owned by VanDyne SuperTurbo, a spinoff from Woodward Governor, a large Fort Collins-based energy management company. VanDyne pays to use the laboratory’s resources, including several students, to conduct durability and emissions testing on its SuperTurbo technology, a device that adds a two-way mechanical drive to a turbocharger.

In this wrinkle on conventional turbocharger design, the engine can drive the turbo directly, and the turbo can push power back into the engine through a direct mechanical link, a system known as turbocompounding. Testing suggests that the technology could offer fuel efficiency gains and carbon-dioxide-emission reductions of 30 percent, enabling automakers to use smaller engines.

VanDyne is in its second round of venture financing and talking to several truck and auto diesel engine manufacturers, according to its chief executive, Ed VanDyne. It recently signed a deal with the Army, which will test the SuperTurbo on its tanks and heavy vehicles.

For its first three years, VanDyne occupied space at the Rocky Mountain Innosphere in Fort Collins, a nonprofit business incubation program started in 2007 and supported by the university, local businesses and the city. Since then, the program has created 27 companies that now employ 133 high-tech workers, according to Mike Freeman, who serves as chairman of the Innosphere board.

Mr. Birks, the Fort Collins economic adviser, said the Innosphere was emblematic of the city’s commitment to what he called “the front end of business formation.” Through this program, VanDyne received low-cost office space and free access to patent lawyers and accountants, as well as help developing business plans and raising financing.

High-tech businesses in the area can also participate in one of the local innovation clusters where local start-ups and established companies in related industries work together, with help from the university and city on marketing and skill-building. Initiatives typically involve projects in the community that allow member companies to showcase their capabilities.

Once these start-ups can stand on their own through the efforts of Innosphere or one of the cluster programs, most are choosing to stay in the area, Mr. Birks said. “What we are seeing is that corporate headquarters, research and development and the prototyping all stay fairly close to where the company was incubated and founded,” he said.

Other companies are choosing to move to the area. One, Czero, is working with the engines laboratory to develop a hydraulic hybrid kit that recovers energy when a vehicle is braking and is particularly suited for vehicles that make frequent stops.

“We moved our company from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins because the university and the city have created an amazing atmosphere here, very pro- business and pro-innovation,” said Guy Babbit, chief executive of Czero and director of the newly formed Colorado Engine and Transportation Innovation Cluster.

Because demands on the university’s engine research are increasing, it is planning a large addition, expected to begin construction next year. Dr. Willson has been approved by the city’s planning commission to rebuild the original smoke stacks on the historic Art Deco-style building. But he plans to replace them with wind turbines to generate electricity for the laboratory.

by Jon Roberts, TIP Strategies

No topic is of more immediate, more urgent concern than America’s job situation. The unemployment rate remains stubbornly high, the op ed pages overflow with prescriptions, warnings, and admonitions, entire communities are at financial and social risk. Among all these issues, there is a deeper discussion to be had. It goes something like this: what is a job – really – and how does it fit into the larger historical framework?

Before we tackle this question, there are a few related problems worth exploring. Whose job is it to create jobs? Well, not the public sector. At least we know that from the current giddy assault on government employment. Yes, cities, states, and federal agencies hire people but we are right to be suspicious of their contribution to the economy. They are doing work that we are paying ourselves to do. Or so the argument goes. They are like paying your own kids to mow the neighbor’s lawn. Your neighbor may like it (let’s assume he does), but your family is earning no additional income. It’s not a sustainable business model.

There’s more to be said on that topic, but let’s leave it at that. Then if not the public sector, who else? The private sector? Really? In what sense is it a reasonable expectation that the “private sector” should add employees? No private business exists in order to create jobs. It really is that simple. Businesses add employees when they have to add employees. Not before, and for no longer than they are needed. Any other attitude would result in . . . (you guessed it) an unsustainable business model.

But certainly there’s more to it than that. In a healthy economy jobs are created. It is in the interest of businesses to add employees. But this “interest” is self-interest, it is not for the good of economy as such. That can’t be a business concern. Which leads us to an interesting question: Can we have a healthy economy that isn’t producing jobs? Those who want jobs to be created, for whom it is a bit of crusade (the public sector) are powerless to do so directly. Those who could create jobs (the private sector) put themselves at substantial risk by adding workers when it compromises their competitiveness – thus making their model unsustainable. We are looking at a huge disconnect.

All these thorny questions and we haven’t even come to the really difficult one yet (what, after all, is a job?). Suffice it to say that if we ask whose job it is to create jobs, there is no easy answer – or perhaps no answer at all. We need to be asking a different question. Something like this: what are the conditions under which jobs will be created (by the private sector, of course). Are the answers easier to come by? Let’s try. Jobs get created when two things happen: there is a steady demand for product and services, and new workers are required to fulfill that demand. So what are the conditions under which this occurs? Consumers are confident and have the income (or credit) to act on their desires. And workers are able to increase the productivity of the company. Not just one of these things needs to happen. Both do. If I can increase my productivity (i.e., satisfy the demand for goods efficiently) without adding workers, I have no economic motivation to do so.

Before we leave this topic, we need to see the paradox this represents. If the only way I can sell my goods and services is to have customers able to do so, but the only way I can stay competitive is to reduce my labor costs, then who will there be to buy what I have to sell? As paradoxes go, this one is a doozy. Against this background we’re ready to ask our question:
What is a job?

Some historical context is relevant here. The concept of a job is not something we should take for granted. By that I mean people working directly for a company (an employer) who provides wages for specific activities. In fact, it’s a relatively recent development. Industry as we know it – and the structures that support industry – are a recent historical phenomenon. Prior to the 17th century, a merchant class was something of a novelty. There were farmers, to be sure, and craftsmen. Farmers typically worked for themselves, or they were indentured, but no one gave them a paycheck. Craftsmen did not go to a job in a factory and punch a clock. People did jobs, but they didn’t have a job. Even the rise of the merchant class did not immediately usher in an employer-employee structure, at least not in the corporate sense.
So you know what comes next (what always comes next in economic history). You guessed it. The Industrial Age. The 19th century changed everything. The idea of a workforce preceded the idea of a job. To put this somewhat differently, we were creating an economy that required specialized skills. Highly specialized skills – the ability to do one thing very, very well. This economy resulted in corporations, something that also had never existed before. The idea of a workforce had an almost transformative effect. If you weren’t “working for” a company, you weren’t working at all. Freelancers, housewives, apprentices – these all existed largely outside of the idea of the workforce.

Now all this is grossly over-simplified, but not entirely without basis, and certainly not without a point.
The point is that the notion of a job is not a fixed idea. It can change, it has changed, and it will (we think) change again. To explore this idea is to engage in a thought experiment. It is to imagine a growing cadre of highly talented individuals who fit their skills to the specific needs of corporations. They see that corporations have less and less need for things that machines can do. To put this more provocatively, the industrial age is over, and the machines have won (“I, for one, welcome our robot overlords,” to paraphrase from the Simpsons.). An economic model that seeks to create jobs by ignoring this reality is a failed model.

If we begin from that premise, entirely different models open up to the imagination. A flexible talent pool that moves to solve problems. A new cooperative corporate model in which consumers are themselves marketers, testers, and shareholders. Social innovators who build networks of services and products that operate first in a closed, then an open system. – Can we imagine any of this? Yes, because it is already happening. Social networking is redefining traditional sales models. “Professional services” are reconsidering where their value lies as search functions redefine legal analysis and insurance claims.

Simply put, there is no sector of the U.S. economy that is not fundamentally altering its business models. In this series of radical changes, why would we expect to solve the jobs question (i.e., to reduce unemployment) by expecting companies to hire people into permanent full-time jobs? This conception of “jobs” fits a model that simply doesn’t conform to business realities. And, for that matter, it doesn’t conform to the needs of the would-be worker.

None of this is simple. None of this will happen in a predictable way. None of this will be painless. But the changes have already begun. It works as a thought experiment not only because we can imagine it, but because we sense its inevitability.

The future of jobs is that they have no future. Passive job seekers desperately hoping to find job postings that fit their skills is the sad and painful dead end of an economic system that has run its course.

To say that the transition will be hard is more than an understatement. In fact, it will be as wrenching as the shift away from an agrarian economy was. Entire industries will cease to exist, communities will be in turmoil, families will suffer terrible indignities.

We could, perhaps, have eased the blow of this transition, but that opportunity has passed (if it ever was an option). Just as in the private sector, more efficient government is more efficient because it can do more with less. And in these times, that means fewer people. And fewer people employed (regardless of which sector) means higher unemployment.

This is not an economic forecast. Employment in the traditional sense will continue to go up and down. But the pattern, the move away from a 20th century employment model, is inevitable. Anything else is… unsustainable.



Jon will be presenting on this theme as an IGNITE presentation at IEDC’s 2012 Leadership Summit, January 29-31 in San Antonio, TX.

via Harvard Business Review

by Thomas Duesterberg

In what now seems a distant past, company research facilities like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs fueled innovation and growth for dominant American manufacturing firms. As the pace of technological change has quickened and the costs of R&D have grown, that model has ceased to work. Meanwhile, global competition has intensified the imperative to innovate; even long-standing manufacturing companies, such as Parker Hannifin, Timken, Kennametal, and United Technologies, strive to have 20% or more of their products be new or substantially revamped each year. Although many companies still maintain proprietary research operations (Google X lab, for example), they’re increasingly turning outward and depending on distributed or open research, in which firms or clusters of firms tap into larger networks of academic and applied work to drive new product and process development.

Of course, no single model of distributed R&D works for all companies. Large firms like Proctor & Gamble can push R&D and product innovation out through their supplier networks. P&G maintains a goal of 50% of its total innovation from outside the company, and half of that from outside suppliers. As Henry Chesbrough has argued, such a model requires rethinking internal organization as well as effectively working with the broader research community. Japanese automakers have long relied on their suppliers as innovation partners. U.S. automakers too have pushed product and process improvement out through their supply chain via the relentless drive to achieve 3% cost reduction year after year and still build competitive new models. Large firms can also buy smaller ones to acquire new technology.

Smaller companies in the manufacturing sector, competing in a global environment for increasingly sophisticated products, often don’t possess the financial strength or the in-house technical expertise to take advantage of the available science and engineering resources that can help them innovate and grow. New types of local and regional consortia or clusters are popping up in response to this problem, sometimes facilitated by public-private partnerships. An interesting example, just getting under way, is the Midwest Project for SME-OEM Use of Modeling and Simulation–a consortium of large OEMs like General Electric, Proctor & Gamble, and Deere; the State of Ohio; and several projects funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), including the Center for Manufacturing Services, the Ohio Super-Computer Center, and the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN). NCN serves as a virtual laboratory through online simulation and education. It develops models and simulation tools to predict behavior at the device, circuit and system levels for nanoelectronics, nanomechanics, and nanobio systems. It serves over 180,000 users and mounts over 10,000 simulations a year, and also provides access to supercomputers to its users as needed.

The idea behind the Manufacturing HUB, a NSF-funded initiative at Purdue and a key part of the Midwest Project, is similar to the NCN but more explicitly designed to aid small and medium manufacturers (SMEs) in getting access to models, computing power, and technical expertise to aid their product and process innovation. The models and computational resources will give SMEs access to the resources needed to solve advanced problems in areas like fluid flow, structural behavior, and material strength which are crucial to building advanced products and processes.

The common thread of these developments is building and accessing larger networks — beyond the single firm or even clusters of small firms — to create the new products and processes needed to compete in a global manufacturing market. Many questions about these models remain to be solved with actual experience — systems integration, disconnect between R&D and production, intellectual property rights issues, tragedy of the commons, leaking competitive advantage — but the trends are well embedded at this point.

What are you seeing in your business or research that can point to the strengths and weaknesses of these models?

THOMAS DUESTERBERG

Thomas Duesterberg is the executive director of the Program on Manufacturing and Society in the 21st Century at The Aspen Institute.