ComputerAided_Design_Engineering_amp_Manufactur.pdf

When a new technology is brought into a firm, management must decide to what extent they are going
to train the workforce. Specifically, the individual workers within specific functional groups that will
receive training must be identified. Although much is being done in universities and technical schools
to provide future workers with specialized technological skills, 1,2,18 almost all firms find the need to
re-train a group of their existing employees to operate and work with a new system. From a financial
standpoint, it is appealing to set up a specialized group within the firm to be trained, while the rest of
the employees remain untrained. By doing so, the firm would limit its training expenses. This might be
feasible if only part of the design work will be utilizing the new CAD system, while the remaining work
will be done using existing methods.
Another tactic used to limit training costs restricts training only to new hires. Although these policies
may sound appealing, in practice they often have led to counterproductive results. 18,22,27 Research shows
that the deliberate exclusion of a portion of workers from a training program leads to perceptions of an
“elite” group of workers; other untrained workers may feel they are being “put out to pasture.” Such
feelings frequently lead to poor morale and an erosion in worker/manager relationships.
Some firms avoid this training problem by hiring employees from other companies who are already
trained. 22,27 In larger firms with established design teams, this has led to morale problems and results
similar to those where workers were excluded from training. It is an interesting, but not surprising,
finding to note that when companies choose to offer training only to select employees, there seems to
be an age bias. Studies have found that although managers would not say that age entered into their
decision process, the probability of being chosen to be a CAD user drops by 2% for each year of age. 22
For example, a six-year age difference would correspond to a 12% difference in the probability of a worker
being selected for training. In this study, the average age of users was 39 years, while the average age of
non-users was 48 years. This apparent bias may not be unfounded: Gist, Rosen and Schwoerer studied the
ability of workers to learn new computer software and concluded that younger workers (under 45 years
old) performed significantly better than their older counterparts on comprehensive examinations given
after the training session. 20
Training must also be considered for members of management. Research suggests that training multiple
layers in the firm’s hierarchy (e.g., both workers and managers) is beneficial, if not necessary, in many
applications. 1,11,18 Brooks and Wells found that managers who are not familiar with the new CAD system
may have trouble supervising workers because they fail to understand the implications of the changes in
design work. 11 Often a skill differential arises between a trained worker and an untrained supervisor
which creates conflict or a loss of status for the manager. An untrained supervisor may also experience
difficulty in effectively planning and controlling the work flow since he or she has no basis from which to
estimate drawing and alteration times. Evaluating the worker’s progress and assessing performance of the
individual also becomes difficult for the supervisor. The combination of these problems often leads to
the untrained supervisor’s “losing track” of the workers. The result can be a strained worker/supervisor
relationship and a loss of productivity. The literature on Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) corroborates
the above observations of CAD experiences. Carter, Monczka, Clauson and Zelinski note that management
training in EDI is a major factor in increasing the probability that managers responsible for
implementing EDI will succeed. 13 Thus, managerial training may well be a critical determinant to a
successful CAD implementation.
The firm implementing a new technology must also select the method it will use to train the workers.
In addition, management must decide whether the training will be conducted in-house using its own
personnel or conducted externally by a vendor or an outside consultant. These decisions are often based
on the firm’s need for either a highly formalized or a more tutorial-oriented training program. Internal
training programs can often be customized for the firm’s specific needs relative to CAD and facilitate a
more informal and open exchange of ideas than external programs. External education, on the other
hand, is frequently more formalized and has the additional advantage of being less expensive. Often it
is the only option for smaller firms that may not have the money, facilities, or personnel to conduct
internal training. 29,42 Externally conducted training programs have the disadvantage of being more generic
and, therefore, frequently less useful in meeting the unique needs of the firm.