A TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MAINE'S METALS, ELECTRONICS, AND INSTRUMENTATION INDUSTRIES
by Bruce H. Andrews, Professor of Business Administration; John B. Jensen, Assistant Professor
of Business Administration, both at the University of Southern Maine; and Thomas E. Lynott,
Project Manager, Center for Technology Transfer
Technology Use Among Maine's Precision Manufacturers
The Center for Technology Transfer (CTT), the Maine Metal Products Association (MMPA), and the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER), participated in this project to assess the level of manufacturing technology used in Maine's metal products, electronics, and instrumentation industries. These industries form the core of precision manufacturing in Maine. The 15 hard and soft technologies identified for this study are enumerated in the following table:
| Table 1 |
| TECHNOLOGY (including abbreviation, where applicable) |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
In a statewide mail survey, metal products, electronics, and instrumentation manufacturers in
Maine were asked to rate (high, medium, low, or none) their current and planned future skill levels
in these technologies. They were also invited to rate the importance of common reasons for either
adopting or not adopting these technologies. After two rounds of pretesting, the survey was sent
to executives at more than 450 companies and, of these, 68 (approximately 15%) responded.
Technology Skill Level
As shown in Figure 1, manufacturers most frequently reported that, at some skill level, they were currently using CAD, JIT, TQM, CNC, and LANs. Since CAD is often considered a foundation technology for acquiring other advanced technologies, it is very encouraging that 78% of the reporting manufacturers use CAD to some degree, for it demonstrates that Maine manufacturers use advanced technologies on a significant level. Among these five most frequently used technologies, CAD and CNC stand out as technologies in which more firms have attained a high level of skill. For each, over 35% of the respondents reported that they were already highly skilled. The technologies with the lowest reported overall usage are AGV, Robots, FMS, Auto-Inspection, and MRP II. It is not surprising that MRP II ranks among the bottom third technologies in terms of overall usage, since 64% of the reporting firms are job shops and would be inclined to use other forms of automated planning and scheduling systems.
The survey also asked executives to indicate their planned future skill levels (high, moderate, low, or none) for the same 15 technologies over the next one to two years. As seen in Figure 2, manufacturers most frequently reported that, at some skill level, they planned to use CAD, JIT, TQM, CNC, and CIM in the near future. The top four of these five match the top four in Figure 1, thus indicating that manufacturers plan to continue playing on their strengths. Also noteworthy is the movement of CIM, which has jumped from ninth to fifth place. This suggests that Maine manufacturers are anxious to further integrate computers on their shop floors. The proportion of firms which are planning to become highly skilled in CAD, JIT, TQM, and CNC within the next one to two years appears to have substantially increased. Table 2 contrasts the percentage of firms currently highly skilled in these continuing top four with the percentage planned for the future.
| Table 2 | |||
| Technology | Current High Skill Level | Future High Skill Level | Change |
| CAD | 36.8% | 47.1% | 10.3% |
| JIT | 25.0% | 44.1% | 19.1% |
| TQM | 17.6% | 38.2% | 20.6% |
| CNC | 35.3% | 41.2% | 5.9% |
This table shows that reporting manufacturers are planning to emphasize the development of high
skill levels in the two soft technologies, JIT and TQM. This may be explained by the nature of JIT
and TQM, which require cultural changes and alterations in management processes rather than
large capital investments.
Reasons for Adopting and Not Adopting Technologies
For each of the 15 technologies, precision manufacturers were asked to rate the level of importance (high, moderate, low, or none) that they attached to each of the following four common reasons for adopting a technology:
These reasons for adopting technologies were adapted from the National Association of Manufacturers' recent technology assessment survey.
In stacked form, Figure 3 displays, for each competitive advantage, the percentage of manufacturers reporting a high level of perceived importance in making a decision to adopt each technology (whether or not they have actually installed it). Collectively, for one or more of the four competitive-advantage reasons, the five technologies most often rated as highly important are CNC, CAD, TQM, CAM, and JIT. Among these five, all but CAM appeared in the top five in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Thus, there appears to be a strong three-way connection among the technologies in which manufacturers perceive themselves to possess an important competitive advantage; the technologies in which they are currently skilled; and the technologies in which they plan to remain skilled in the near future. The Venn diagram in Figure 4 portrays this relationship graphically.
The questionnaire also asked manufacturing executives to measure the degree of importance that they place on five common barriers (again, as adapted from the National Association of Manufacturers' technology assessment survey) to adopting new technologies:
Figure 5 displays, for each of the five barriers, the percentage of manufacturers who reported a
high level of perceived importance in making a decision not to adopt each of the 15 technologies
(whether or not they actually installed it). The five technologies perceived as most burdened,
collectively, by one or more of these five obstacles to adoption are Robots, CIM, AGV, CNC, and
FMS. Among these, Robots, AGV, and FMS appeared in the bottom five technologies in Figure
1 and Figure 2. Thus, these three technologies, which executives perceive to be most burdened by the
five obstacles, rank very low both in terms of manufacturers' current and planned future skill
levels. The Venn diagram in Figure 6 captures this three-way overlap graphically. Among the
firms which reported a high level of perceived importance on one or more barriers across most of
these 15 technologies, large capital requirements appears to dominate as being the most prevalent
obstacle to adoption. This is particularly true of the five technologies most heavily burdened by
one or more barriers, and may partially explain the reason for their high ranking.
Conclusion
In spite of the modest number of firms reporting, at present, Maine precision manufacturers appear to be holding their own in the never-ending race to successfully adopt technology. Moreover, their plans to improve skill levels in manufacturing technologies over the next two years are nothing short of aggressive. Nevertheless, substantive barriers to adopting new technologies still exist.
In the near future, MMPA, CTT, and CBER hope to repeat this project in order to measure the
short-term progress made by Maine's precision manufacturers. As a continuation of reporting on
the present survey, the authors of this article intend to publish an article in the next issue of the
Maine Business Indicators examining how precision manufacturers in Maine compare with those
in the rest of the United States.
The Maine Science and Technology Foundation funded this study through state appropriation for the Center for Innovation Program.
