Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/699765
66 SMT Magazine • July 2016 think what has happened is that, except for 3D printing and some other sexy advancements in manufacturing, the elite still associate electron- ic product assembly with the skills that Henry Ford required for his assembly line 3 . Who's driving this STEM train—academia, industry, or government? It's money that drives the train in this top down push for better educa- tion in science and math. But, where is the train going? The money, as with most government social engineering programs, goes to grants, and the grant money will be spent whether it results in an outcome the has value or not. Many times the result is that "we need more money." Let's review the government track record on some other programs. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Energy through a rearrangement of existing departments and creation of new agencies. This occurred while the U.S. was in the throes of an energy crisis that begin in 1973. One of the stated goals was to make the U.S. less dependent of foreign oil imports. The result: in 1977 the U.S. imported about 2.4 billion barrels of oil. In 2015 the number was about 2.7 billion barrels, after a previous decade of average im- ports well over 3 billion barrels a year 4 . The War on Poverty began in 1964 as part of President Johnson's Great Society. The goal was to eliminate poverty in the U.S. At that time the poverty rate was about 19%. The government programs that were created included the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. By 2012, about 126 anti- poverty programs were in operation. In 2014 this government attempt at social engineering turned 50 years old. After spending about $16 trillion during those 50 years, the poverty rate was about 15 percent 5 . The cost has significant- ly contributed to a national debt in 2016 of over $19 trillion. In our industry, those of us that have been around a while have seen a common theme repeated every few years. Some person, com- pany or government agency comes up with a catch phrase or new methodology. A new in- dustry is generally built around this revelation. "You must incorporate this in your company or risk missing the train and being left at the sta- tion." The furor over the new idea usually lasts for a couple of years and then the gets tossed on the ash heap of tech history. Remember TCM, ISO 9000, Six-Sigma, and Lean Manufacturing? They are all still around but continue to upgrad- ed with the next great new idea. When is the last time you've heard the Malcolm Baldrige Award discussed around the water cooler? The problem is that most of this stuff is self- evident and has been just packaged repackaged in attractive ways by consultants. For example, search the Internet for Total Quality Management. What you get is: • "The 14 Principles of TQM" • "The 3 Principles of TQM" • "The 5 Principles of TQM" • "The 7 Principles of TQM" • "The 8 Principles of TQM" And it goes on. So which one is it? Many people quickly tire of the hype when it becomes clear that the virtue (i.e., value-added results), has become dominated more by poli- tics, open-looped, unaccountable, grant money and consultant fees. More often than not the investment just doesn't pay back. ISO 9000 is a good example. There are many valuable aspects of this certification, but here's what has happened in many cases. Companies usually apply for ISO 9001 certification because their customers require it, or it's thought to pro- vide a competitive advantage to have it. The cer- THE STEM TRAP " Who's driving this STEM train—academia, industry, or government? It's money that drives the train in this top down push for better education in science and math. But, where is the train going? "