Worker Training: How Important Is It? | training programs, technical universities

Area Development Homepage >> Corporate Survey Series>>

Worker Training: How Important Is It?

Access to training programs — and proximity to a technical university — are really more important than reflected by the low ranking given these factors by the respondents to Area Development’s 2007 Corporate Survey.

Ed McCallum, Senior Principal, McCallum Sweeney Consulting, Inc. (Oct/Nov 08)

According to Area Development’s 2007 Corporate Survey, training programs as well as proximity to a technical university as factors in the site selection process were only rated as “very important” or “important” by 56.6 percent and 32.7 percent of the survey respondents, respectively. This seems to be at odds with what our clients have consistently vocalized as an area of concern.

There is shortage of labor force skills in the United States that is starting to have far-reaching impacts. The United States granted 53,000 L-1 visas in 2006, up 33 percent from the year 2000; it is estimated that this number will climb to 65,000–70,000 in 2008, with the primary impetus being a severe shortage of skilled workers. In fact, it has been our experience and those of our peers in the industry that the lack of skilled workers is affecting some companies’ ability to grow and pursue market opportunities.

Additionally, by 2015, nearly 20 percent of the nation’s workers will be 55 years old or older (up from 13 percent now) — a statistic that should be unsettling to manufacturers. This means a transfer of organizational knowledge needs to commence quickly, or this knowledge could disappear very quickly — and permanently — with retirements just around the corner.

So while the survey conducted in 2007 may have stated that training programs and proximity to technical universities are not such important site selection factors, the fact remains that the fourth-ranked factor in this survey was skilled labor. These factors are all interrelated and will become increasingly important over time.

Corporate Survey 2007
Combined Ratings* of 2007 Factors

Site Selection Factors 2006 2007

Ranking

1.	Highway accessibility	90.9	96.9
2.	Labor costs	95.0	92.3
3.	Energy availability and costs	82.4	89.0
4.	Availability of skilled labor	85.1	88.7
5.	Occupancy or construction costs	85.5	88.2
6.	Available land	73.3	85.4
7.	Corporate tax rate	90.8	83.8
8.	State and local incentives	88.6	83.4
9.	Environmental regulations	68.9	83.2
10.	Tax Exemptions	86.7	82.8
10T.	Proximity to Markets	76.9	82.8
11.	Availability of advanced ICT services	N/A	82.2
12.	Low union profile	78.4	80.6
13.	Availability of buildings	N/A	79.3
14.	Right-to-work state	67.1	72.1
15.	Proximity to suppliers	49.3	71.8
16.	Expedited or “fast-track” permitting	N/A	71.5
17.	Availability of unskilled labor	65.3	65.2
18.	Availability of long-term financing	64.1	63.0
19.	Raw materials availability	64.1	62.5
20.	Training programs	56.0	56.6
21.	Accessibility to major airport	61.4	54.4
22.	Railroad service	20.8	38.1
23.	Proximity to technical university	30.0	32.7
24.	Waterway or oceanport accessibility	17.0	15.2

*All figures are percentages and are the total of “very important” and “important” ratings of the Area Development Corporate Survey and are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.

Different Industries, Different Needs
Of course, the importance of both training programs and technical university proximity is a function of both the type of industry and the complexity of the jobs. Add to this the disparity in the quality and availability of these factors from community to community and state to state, and you would be hard-pressed to find total agreement on this issue.

In general, the greater the degree of complexity, innovation, and face-to-face collaboration required in a particular industry, the greater the desire to be close to a technical university. For instance, in the pharmaceutical and biotech sector, there is a direct correlation to the location of research and development centers near universities, where the spillover effect of knowledge can be capitalized upon. In contrast, for both the chemical and automotive sectors, proximity to a university is not so important; however, the availability of training programs is extremely important. These training programs are not only useful to further develop the company’s existing work force, but also to create a constant stream of skilled workers to draw upon for growth needs and/or employee attrition.

Of course, a university is a static factor. This means that while the curriculum and funding can be changed to provide special programs to meet industry needs, the university itself is not mobile. The only outreach that can be achieved is through telecommunications and remote campus location. This is not true of training programs. Training programs that specifically address the needs of an employer can be delivered anywhere. The best of all worlds is one where state and local training programs are capable of incorporating expertise from universities, community colleges, and technical training centers, as well as having the ability to tap into private for-profit training centers and being able to deliver this when and where needed.

Page1 2 Next >>

Article Tools


Print	Email	RSS Feed	Bookmark

NEWS ITEMS

AROUND THE WEB

STUDIES/RESEARCH

NEWS ITEMS

AROUND THE WEB

STUDIES/RESEARCH

Economic Index Points To Slow Economic Recovery Mid Year

Ward van den Berg, Senior Research Associate, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

U.S. Outward FDI: Current Flows Lowered in Weakened Global Economy but Attraction of Emerging Markets Remains

Karl P. Sauvant, Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International

Manufacturing Resurgence | A Must for U.S. Prosperity

Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe, National Association of Manufacturers and the NAM Council of Manufacturing Associations

Cleantech Revolution: Building Smart infrastructures

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Quality Counts 2010 - Education Week’s Annual Education Report Card

Education Week

All Studies/Research/Papers

Area Development Homepage >> Corporate Survey Series>>

03/18/2010

03/18/2010

03/18/2010

03/17/2010

03/17/2010

03/17/2010

03/17/2010

Josh P. Cole and Doug B. Schrock

Tom Tveidt, Garner Economics, LLC

Supply Chain Consortium

AWEA

Ross DeVol and Perry Wong, Milken Institute

Ward van den Berg, Senior Research Associate, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

Karl P. Sauvant, Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International

Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe, National Association of Manufacturers and the NAM Council of Manufacturing Associations

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Education Week

Home | Back to Top | Current Issue | Archives | Annual Reports | Corporate Survey Series | Special Publications | State Resources

Consultants Forum | Opt in Newsletter | Subscribe to Area Development Magazine | About Us | Contact | Advertise | RSS

	"Site and Facility Planning Insider"

	"Site and Facility Planning This Week"