CompanyWeek Q&A: CMTC’s Jim Watson on growth strategies for middle-market manufacturers

As much as forecasts of an impending recession shape the business news today, manufacturing is in growth mode. Despite a gloomy macro-economic narrative, June’s Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) measured a solid 53, squarely in ‘expansion’ territory.

Moreover, against the backdrop of recession fears, manufacturers are increasing staff. In the same ISM survey, an “overwhelming majority” of companies said they were hiring.

In our ongoing series, we circled back with Jim Watson, CEO of California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC), to talk manufacturing and prospects for growth.

CompanyWeek: Jim, great to chat with you again. How do we parse the conflicting news? Is growth still on tap for manufacturing, or are we to interpret a slight downtick in the PMI as others have — a sign of contraction to come?

Jim Watson: No, growth is still on the minds of manufacturing leadership. However, while opportunities for growth exist, seizing new business is encountering some strong headwinds. The rise in inflation has increased materials cost, which is stressing margins and bottom lines. Supply chain issues continue to bring uncertainty in securing sufficient materials in time to meet demand. Also, finding skilled workers has inhibited many manufacturers from aggressively looking for new business. Today, growth is definitely an aspiration but proving to be elusive for many small- and mid-sized manufacturers (SMMs).

CW: We hear more and more about automation as a catalyst for growth. Can automation alleviate some of the pressure manufacturers are facing in trying to grow?

JW: Yes, manufacturers need to make automating a priority. In a manufacturing survey commissioned by CMTC last year, 61 percent of respondents said they will have a significant or moderate increase in automation in the next three to five years. However, because of the continuing need to increase productivity — that for the most part will be driven by automation — automation deployment timeframes will need to be expedited.

CW: I wrote last week that automation is becoming a magnet for attracting new workers. Are you seeing manufacturers improve workforce prospects via automation?

JW: Great question. The need for skilled workers is at an all-time high. In fact, California has a significant appetite for high and high-to-medium technology jobs — 51 percent of all manufacturing jobs in California fall into those two categories. In comparison, the nation has a lower level of tech employment at 43 percent of their manufacturing jobs. In addition, according to a CMTC-commissioned study by Beacon Economics, 63 percent of manufacturing jobs require a high school diploma (or equivalency) for an entry-level job.

The challenge is that, if you are not already automating, getting sufficient skilled workers to automate is a tall order. What comes first? The chicken or the egg? It’s estimated that there are presently more than 50,000 open manufacturing jobs in California. Upskilling existing workers could provide some relief in the tight labor market.

CW: Let’s switch gears. What role is the supply chain having with those manufacturers who want to grow?

JW: Those who want to grow will need to rethink their supply chains and look for ways to improve their own performance as a supplier to secure additional business. Effective supply chain management is becoming increasingly data driven. Today, close to 70 percent of supply chain functions are handled on spreadsheets; and, only 17 percent of manufacturers have extended visibility into their supply chains. Moreover, most manufacturers agree that they do not have the necessary digital skills to meet future goals. Without automating supply chain functions, increasing visibility to their supply chains, and reevaluating their suppliers, manufacturers will continue to struggle getting the right materials delivered at the right time to meet demand.

To grow as a supplier, internal processes need to be improved to eliminate waste then automated to expand production. Suppliers will need to focus on building operational efficiencies, managing costs, and enhancing their resiliency to increase the ability to overcome supply chain and environmental challenges.

CW: Has inflation impacted growth plans for manufacturers?

JW: Higher costs are lowering bottom line profits and reducing cash reserves. For many manufacturers, this has diminished financial resources that were going to be used to expand automation, sales, and marketing programs. This has greater implications in California due to already high costs associated with manufacturing. Cost control takes a front seat to reduce the impact of inflation. Also, the Great Resignation has significantly increased the cost of acquiring a skilled workforce, which is adding to the inflationary challenges for manufacturers.

CW: How would you sum up the outlook for growth?

JW: Growth opportunities exist in many manufacturing sectors, but challenges remain in the form of rising costs, supply chain issues, material, and labor shortages. Manufacturers will be tasked with acquiring new talent, adding capabilities, and diversifying product portfolios to act as a foundation for growth. Manufacturers must remain agile and be prepared to take action to build resiliency in the short term to set up future successes. Technologies will create both a challenge and opportunity for manufacturers to seize the opportunity to grow.

Reach Jim Watson at watson@cmtc.com; or Bart Taylor at btaylor@companyweek.com

Manufacturing is turning the corner on its workforce challenge, with technology as the catalyst

Jon Emont’s Wall Street Journal story, “How Singapore Got Its Manufacturing Mojo Back,” is required reading for city and state planners intent on developing more local manufacturing. If we read closely, Singapore’s experience is a road map for how manufacturing will likely develop in communities across America — and the news is good.

Emont first notes that Singapore’s manufacturing employment has declined as a percentage of the whole. For those who follow manufacturing, it’s a symphony of numbers we’re all familiar with. “The manufacturing sector’s share of Singapore’s employment declined to 12.3 percent last year from 15.5 percent in 2013,” Emont writes. “The number of manufacturing workers has shrunk for eight years straight.”

More: “The city-state had faced industrial decline, with World Bank figures showing manufacturing falling to 18 percent of gross domestic product in 2013, from 27 percent in 2005.”

Then manufacturing made a comeback, Emont says, “rising to 21 percent of GDP in 2020, according to the World Bank’s latest figures. Singapore government data shows manufacturing made up 22 percent of its GDP in 2021.”

The most telling number is how Singapore’s new manufacturing economy has fundamentally changed, to where today, “the share of manufacturing jobs held by resident workers classified as high-skill — professionals, managers, executives, and technicians — has risen by 8 percentage points to 74 percent last year.”

This is a huge number. As Emont concludes, “Manufacturing is becoming a white-collar profession in Singapore.”

One barrier to a full-on manufacturing comeback in the U.S. has been the perception of a dumb and dirty sector. If the global trend is similar, and we know it is, then American communities, many who flash significant assets fueled by R&D and technology, are poised to play host to more manufacturing.

On one hand, it’s counterintuitive: We equate tech economies with everything but manufacturing. But what’s evident is that technology will be the catalyst for more advanced manufacturing — and more jobs.

To be sure, America’s manufacturing workforce hasn’t reached “white collar” status; and it’s unclear what an ideal mix looks like in the U.S., home to an infinitely more complex and diverse economy. Yet Jim Watson, CEO of California Manufacturing Technology Consulting, told me earlier this year that “36.9 percent of manufacturing employment is in high technology” in the Golden State. (Watson has since revised that number up.) It may not be a precise equivalent, and we lag considerably behind advanced manufacturing outposts like Singapore. But the gist is the same: Manufacturing’s future workforce is trending high-tech. California, for one, will benefit.

Yes, companies must get on the automation bandwagon. Investments in new equipment and processes are the cost of entry to compete for employees. And as always, it’s our collective responsibility to upskill American labor. We owe it to manufacturing’s workforce.

But for communities intent on building a more robust and diverse manufacturing sector, today the intersection between high-tech jobs and growth in manufacturing bodes well. It’s no longer a stark choice: high-tech or low-skilled manufacturing jobs — but not both.

Tomorrow, advanced economies will be manufacturing economies.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Email him at btaylor@companyweek.com.

U.S. manufacturing at a crossroads — again

And suddenly, it’s gone.

After a feel-good decade when the prospects of a sustained American manufacturing renewal seemed tantalizingly close, the news this month of soaring U.S. trade deficits and declining manufacturing output and GDP is sobering.

David Goldman summed up the wreckage last week.

“U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) shrank at a 1.5% annual rate during the first quarter, more than the preliminary estimate of -1.3%, the Commerce Department reported on May 26. The worst trade performance on record took 3.2% off GDP, more than accounting for the entire drop. Nothing like this has happened before.”

America’s trade deficit in goods spiked to $128 billion in March, or an annual rate of $1.54 trillion, while U.S. manufacturers’ sales plunged after adjustment for inflation. In real terms, U.S. factory sales have fallen by nearly 10% since 2018, and by nearly 20% since 2007.

Consumers spent the lion’s share of the $6 trillion Covid stimulus on imports. That’s another first: U.S. manufacturing never contracted in the past following a big increase in demand.”

At the same time, Goldman notes that, “The biggest increase in U.S. imports came from China, which shipped 55% more to the United States in April 2022 (in seasonally-adjusted dollar terms) than it did in August 2019, when then-president Trump slapped 25% tariffs on most Chinese imports.”

Tariffs are intact. So much for the notion that tariffs slow down imports.

Yet tariffs alone were never going to compel companies to move production onshore without a strategy to also increase domestic manufacturing options. As much as supply-chain disruptions are forcing U.S. companies to rethink where to make products, without stateside options, many will fall back on offshore supply chains.

If that doesn’t change, then the positive news released earlier this month by Harry Moser’s Reshoring Initiative may be all for naught. Moser tracks the stated intentions of companies to reshore manufacturing jobs or invest in U.S. factories (FDI, or Foreign Direct Investment), and the trend continues to be positive.

Moser reported last week that in 2021, “[T]he private and federal push for domestic supply of essential goods propelled reshoring and foreign direct investment (FDI) job announcements to a record 261,000,” adding, “[T]he number of companies reporting reshoring and FDI set a new record of over 1,800 companies.”

More than that, with “5 million manufacturing jobs still offshore, as measured by our $1.1 trillion/year goods trade deficit,” there’s room for more growth in the U.S. sector.

If, of course, we’re successful nurturing a more capable manufacturing ecosystem. Moser isn’t as sanguine as his data suggests: “We see the administration applying tourniquets rather than addressing the underlying issue of U.S. manufacturing cost being uncompetitive.”

Yet we’ve had bad news before, and as Moser also tells me, “There’s a lag from reshoring announcements until production, sometimes years for the megafactories,” meaning the 2021 announcements aren’t manifest on the ground, yet. We need to ensure these companies can follow through on their stated plans.

Here then, is our crossroads. Moser would reverse what he calls America’s “deindustrialization” policy. “If you want to destroy your manufacturing, you’d do what we do,” he says. “Every poor country you want to help, you’d give them favored-nation status to import products to the U.S. with lower duties than they give us; you’d spend billions protecting the rest of the world from pirates and terrorism; you’d allow your universities to flourish in liberal arts and your skilled workforce to decline; and you wouldn’t have a value-added tax to protect your key industries. If you want manufacturing to disappear, that’s what you’d do. And we’ve done that,” he told me last June. It’s worth reiterating.

We’d also focus the national discussion around improving U.S. supply chains on specific action, to the refitting of U.S. suppliers and transparent mapping of supplier networks, across multiple industries, so that buyers can find expertise stateside where it exists.

As Goldman concludes, “China’s strong supply chains and robust manufacturing ecosystem attracted more foreign investment than ever from US companies such as Tesla, accelerating the shift out of onshore manufacturing.”

We’ll revisit what’s happening to reengineer the U.S. supply chain next time, as we push to enable more U.S. companies to manufacture closer to home. Our economy depends on it.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.

City Plating and Metal Finishing

Welcome to the AZ Manufacturing Report

Nine years ago this fall, we launched CompanyWeek to report on Colorado’s over-performing manufacturing economy. Along the way, we added Utah, California, and Texas editions of CompanyWeek Mfg. Reports.

This week we open a new chapter. With the launch of the AZ Manufacturing Report, we arrive in one of America’s most dynamic economies. A business-friendly reputation, access to labor, a rich R&D ecosystem, and high interest in diversifying from real estate and tourism portend great things for us — and for Arizona.

In every edition (published twice each month), we’ll report on Arizona’s growing sector through the people and companies reimagining manufacturing here and throughout the region — companies across multiple industries with varying backgrounds. It’s a content lens that has served us well: today we reach over 40,000 professionals in 20,000 manufacturing companies across the West.

We write about manufacturers and manufacturers are our audience. This is your publication.

There are no fees to be featured. We’re not a pay-to-play platform. Writing about your companies is our core content. You’ll experience the challenges, opportunities, and needs of every company we write about. You’ll gain insights, meet new people, and be advocates for the sector, as we are, through the stories of Arizona manufacturers.

We’ll also partner with economic and business stakeholders that support your companies — advocates all for Arizona manufacturing.

Today we’re excited to announce a partnership with Arizona State University to develop America’s first Factory Fitness Index — and we’re starting from Arizona. We’re looking for a dynamic sample of companies we survey every month to gauge the overall manufacturing health across industry verticals, and size.

You can contact me, or ASU’s Hitendra Chaturvedi, professor of Supply Chain Management at the W.P. Carey School of Business, to become part of this important group.

Here are other important connections:

Contact Angela Rose, editor of the AZ Manufacturing Report, to have your company featured. There are NO FEES.

Contact Stacy Feeney to participate as an advertiser or sponsor events.

Click here to connect with other Arizona manufacturers on Sustainment. It’s your online manufacturing community that helps you showcase your capabilities, find, connect and collaborate with other manufacturers, discover new opportunities, and access state and local manufacturing support resources.

Or contact me for more information on any and all of the above.

We’re thrilled to be here to advocate for Arizona’s manufacturing ecosystem.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.

Precision Group

Knight Aerospace

CompanyWeek Q&A: CMTC’s Jim Watson assesses the current state of California manufacturing

The narrative of California manufacturing can be a dizzying array of good news mixed with bad. Yet one reliable marker underscores the story: California’s manufacturing ecosystem is still the largest and most influential in the U.S.

At a time when interest in domestic production is higher than it’s been in decades, it’s enough to rally action to strengthen and enhance California’s invaluable economic asset. That first means ensuring that manufacturers operating here get what they need to prosper and grow.

We circled back with CMTC’s CEO Jim Watson as part of our Q&A series to assess the current state of California’s sector, gauge how we’re doing in keeping companies healthy, and to discuss what lies ahead.

CompanyWeek: Jim, remind us what’s at stake here. Where does California’s manufacturing ecosystem rank nationally in terms of size?

Jim Watson: California’s manufacturing community is the largest in the U.S., with more manufacturers and more manufacturing employees than any state in the union. In total, California has roughly 36,000 manufacturing establishments and 1.2 million manufacturing workers.

California is also the largest state contributor to U.S. manufacturing GDP, representing 14.5 percent, followed by Texas at 10.9 percent. Far behind are the contributions made by Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

And, manufacturing’s contribution to California’s GDP continues to grow. In 2020, manufacturing reached $324 billion, with $134 billion in manufactured goods exported (representing an 85 percent share of total goods exported in 2020).

There’s a lot at stake for us. About 75 percent of California manufacturers are small, employing less than 20 employees. And, as illustrated during the Great Recession and the pandemic, these small manufacturers are the most vulnerable to economic downturns and catastrophic events. Losing California manufacturers — be it to another pandemic or migration to other states — will have significant consequences on our economy.

CW: Describe the industry makeup of California manufacturing.

JW: The manufacturing ecosystem here is quite diverse — especially when looking at the difference between Northern and Southern California.

In Northern California, manufacturing is concentrated in the high-technology industries related to computers, software, communications equipment, and pharmaceuticals. More than 62 percent of all manufacturing employment is in high technology or medium-high technology. In addition, Northern California has high profile food, wine, and agriculture sectors in the manufacturing community.

Southern California, on the other hand, is varied, with companies in fashion, food, metal fabrication, plastics, aerospace parts and instrumentation, computer and electronic components, and medical devices.

Several key industries in California have contributed to both wage and employment growth. Industries such as aircraft and spacecraft, pharmaceuticals, computer and electronic products, communications equipment, medical, and precision and optical instruments fall into that category.

CW: The national narrative tends to focus on the efforts of other states to entice companies to leave. What are companies telling you about the reasons they’re staying in California?

JW: Lifestyle, for one. Let’s face it: California’s a high-cost state for manufacturing. But people want to live here.

Of course there are other factors. California manufacturers rank very high in the nation for productivity, providing a buffer to some of the higher costs. California’s consumer market is one of the largest in the U.S.

For manufacturers, California’s large manufacturing base provides access to a broad range of suppliers for sourcing parts and components. If you leave, you’ll be leaving America’s most robust manufacturing supply chain. So, there’s also the advantage of selling California-made products to Californians.

Our educational system is second to none, comprised of 260 colleges/universities and 110 community colleges. We turn out talent from machine operators to engineers.

The two largest seaports in the Western Hemisphere (L.A. and Long Beach) provide access to products from the Pacific Rim and beyond.

All of these factors combine to provide ample reasons to stay in California.

CW: To your point about Northern CA’s manufacturing workforce, I also think that an increasingly tech-driven manufacturing sector aligns with the state’s technology and R&D ecosystem, which is second to none. Agree or disagree?

JW: Agree. California’s employment is more concentrated in the higher paying, high-and-medium technology industries, with 36.9 percent of manufacturing employment in high technology. These jobs drive innovation, new products, and technology deployment.

The average manufacturing job in California pays $112,000 a year, and each job supports another 2.5 non-manufacturing jobs. These non-manufacturing jobs that are created contribute to the state through consumer spending and taxes — and they only exist in California because the manufacturing jobs are here.

I think the positive alignment goes beyond that. Overall, manufacturing’s critical contributions to defense, commercial aviation, satellites, motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, and computer/electronics keeps our state and nation safe and strong.

CW: So, what does the future hold for California manufacturing?

JW: California’s manufacturing community, like the nation, will be impacted by workforce, supply chain, and technology challenges.

Jobs EQ, which provides timely data on workforce, indicates that over the next year, the demand for manufacturing jobs will exceed 135,000. Supply chain shipping backlogs are not expected to ease until the summer. And, while technology demand is growing, the pace is not sufficient to keep California manufacturing competitive over the next five years.

These are big challenges. Small manufacturers make up most of California’s manufacturing establishments, and they have the fewest resources to meet these challenges. The size of the problems and number of manufacturers will require a broad collaborative of academia, industry, and technical assistance programs to provide solutions.

To accomplish this, it will take a statewide manufacturing strategy to drive focus and assistance to keep manufacturing and high-paying jobs in California.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com. Jim Watson is CEO of CMTC. Reach him at jwatson@cmtc.com.

Cox Manufacturing

Outdoor Relocation: OR ditches Denver to return to Salt Lake City

Four years ago, I wrote this about Utah’s devastating loss of its prized, homegrown trade show, Outdoor Retailer (OR), to its neighboring über-competitor:

“Last week’s news of Denver’s successful bid to land Outdoor Retailer (OR), the industry’s most important trade show fumbled away by Utah, again highlights prospects for a new industrial play.

Here’s the opportunity in a nutshell: Of the thousand or so brands traveling to Denver in January 2018 . . . most manufacture offshore. Yet more and more want to shorten supply chains and make more things in the U.S.

The measure of how successful any city, or state, or region will be in developing the outdoor industry will depend not only on who reaps tourism and trade show business, but on who will develop supply chains for companies poised to create jobs to manufacture the toys of this multibillion dollar industry.”

Four years later, OR has failed in Denver. The only thing we know for sure is that little has been done to reimagine the outdoor industry manufacturing ecosystem – in Colorado or in the West. Nor did OR or its partner, the Outdoor Industry Association, rally to the opportunity. Instead, as companies struggle with supply-chain disruptions and production issues, the lingua franca of outdoor industry leaders continues to be themes that led OR out of Utah to begin with, as articulated by Conor Hall, the new leader of Colorado’s Outdoor Recreation Industry Office, or OREC.

Hall said this last week, in an interview with the Colorado Sun, that the departure of Outdoor Retailer should be seen as “a really exciting opportunity” for the state: “We are hearing from our industry partners that they’d like something that is more of an event or festival that convenes around all these issues, like public lands and diversity and inclusion. What can we create here in Colorado that not only fills the void left by Outdoor Retailer, but matches the evolution and transformation this industry is going through.”

We talk to “industry partners” all the time, the product companies and brands outfitting outdoor enthusiasts. Public lands, diversity, and inclusion are important topics, but today they’re back-burner issues for most companies. Why else would OR set them aside in a stunning move back to Utah?

Instead, the “transformation these companies are going through” is framed by acute supply chain issues. By the struggle to keep employees healthy, happy, and well-trained. By an insatiable thirst for innovation and technology – and more, an ecosystem driven to provide more local production assets, to enable companies that must manufacture offshore, a pathway to shorten supply chains, closer to where products are inspired and used.

[Related: New Balance bulks up manufacturing presence in U.S. amid global supply chain backlogs]

These imperatives seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Colorado doesn’t need another outdoor industry event focused on public lands and diversity. The industry would benefit from a more expansive agenda; a focus on helping companies manufacture more in U.S. fits the bill. It’s well-aligned with the industry’s progressive agenda: shorter supply chains are inherently more sustainable — and greener. More OI production may best be located in rural communities, where housing is more affordable and economic prospects are lacking — call it rural renewal.

More local production would also enable brands to fulfill brand promises made to customers. Utah-based Kuhl is deservedly proud that its products are Born in the Mountains — even as they’re manufactured in Asia. It’s a tough circle to square.

Yet today, to the winner go the spoils. And Utah’s always been an outdoor industry leader, as I noted in 2018. “The irony of OR’s move is that Utah has been better at recruiting outdoor brands than Colorado. Development of Ogden’s outdoor industry (OI) cluster has been deliberate — and successful.” It’s now left to outdoor industry leadership including the Outdoor Industry Association, OR, and the economic development team in Utah state government, to steer the industry ecosystem in a different direction.

Outdoor Retailer’s embrace of education and training that helps companies reimagine the global production ecosystem holds so much promise. Let’s hope OI leaders expand their gaze.

Bart Taylor is publisher of CompanyWeek. Reach him at btaylor@companyweek.com.