Summary
- Manufacturers continue to invest billions in automation and advanced technology expecting it to solve workforce and operational problems, but 40% of automated systems face major failures
- The root issue isn’t the equipment – it’s the lack of foundational processes, workforce education, and institutional support needed to make technology successful
- The Third Industrial Revolution’s wartime economy of scale created manufacturing precedents that still shape (and sometimes limit) how we approach modern challenges
- Leading California universities like UCLA, UC Riverside, Cal State Northridge, and Cal Poly are developing new trade-focused programs and certifications to bridge the education gap
- Gen Z shows renewed interest in trades, but there’s a disconnect between perception and the reality of hard work required to succeed
- The path forward requires balancing automation with workforce development, socializing opportunities, and building educational pathways that prepare the next generation for advanced manufacturing careers
Walk into any manufacturing conference, scroll through LinkedIn, or sit through a vendor pitch, and you’ll hear the same drumbeat: automation, Industry 4.0, smart manufacturing, digital transformation. The promise is always the same – buy this equipment, implement this technology, and your problems disappear. Higher efficiency. Lower labor costs. Competitive advantage.
Except it doesn’t work that way. Not really.
Here’s a statistic that should make every manufacturer pause: roughly 40% of automated manufacturing systems face major failures. I’ve presented this statistic before, and quite frankly, it’s getting old – even for me. And before you blame the robots (because that’s usually where fingers point first), here’s the kicker: 80% of those failures have nothing to do with the equipment itself. The robots work fine. The technology performs as designed. Plus, robotic adoption isn’t even prolific enough to matter.
The real issue with these failures is what happens – or more accurately, what doesn’t happen – before that technology hits the factory floor.
Building on Sand
There’s a conversation we’re not having in manufacturing, and it’s costing us billions. We’re implementing sophisticated automation solutions on top of broken, unstandardized, undocumented processes. We’re asking technology to fix operational problems that have never been properly diagnosed or understood (not YET literally talking to machines, but you get it). And we’re doing it without the workforce education, institutional support, or foundational knowledge required to make any of it sustainable.
It’s the equivalent of building a house on sand. Sure, it’ll stand for a while. It might even look impressive. But it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable becomes apparent, and I think we’ve been stalling out on successful implementations as a result.
Technology vendors aren’t necessarily the villains here. OEMs and equipment suppliers are doing what they’ve always done – selling solutions to problems. The issue is that manufacturers have become convinced that the solution is the equipment itself, rather than understanding that equipment is only as effective as the foundation it’s built upon. When you standardize processes first, automation amplifies efficiency. When you automate chaos, you amplify and multiply it.
The Legacy We Inherited
To understand how we got here, we need to rewind to the Third Industrial Revolution and the economic transformation driven by World War II. Between 1939 and 1945, the United States emerged as the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. By the war’s end, more than half of all industrial production globally took place in the U.S. We built an economy of scale unlike anything the world had ever seen – mass production, round-the-clock shifts, standardized components, massive output.
That wartime manufacturing model worked because the federal government orchestrated it, drove it, and dictated the cadence. Strategic resources were allocated centrally. Investment in infrastructure was massive and coordinated. And critically, there was an entire generation of workers trained, deployed, and supported through deliberate workforce development programs.
Those were simpler times, however, and complexity had not yet taken root in manufacturing processes. This was really driven by the capitalistic need to create captive solutions that could compete and monetize in a crowded economy. The 1950s into the early 1990s drove these unique, ultra-competitive manufacturers to fight for space by meaninglessly innovating old products in a new way to create market separation. There was a time when you would find the same type of products, parts, or consumables that were all made in different ways (processes and/or equipment) across the country. Technology and innovation would drive consolidation, where smaller manufacturers could not compete with the speed and scale of larger manufacturers. Machine builders followed suit, as those adopted by larger manufacturers often survived to outpace the competition and saturate the market with advanced solutions. And the era of consolidation, driven by a machine and solution-centric approach, continued to help companies win their fair share of the market and provide value to the U.S. economy. With the space race came the rise in consumerism, driven solely by the fight against Communism and the need to push Capitalism into every living room, kitchen, and bedroom. The U.S. experienced a massive economic boom, driven primarily by industry’s need to implement new methods to keep costs low and production high. We won’t get into the other factors here, but there were certainly other measures that helped manufacturers remain competitive.
Anyway, let’s fast-forward to 2025. We’re still operating with mental models shaped by that era. We believe that by scaling up, automating more, and pushing harder, we can recapture that competitive edge. However, we’ve lost: the institutional support, a coordinated workforce development, and the cultural understanding that manufacturing careers require serious education, training, and dedication.
The Third Industrial Revolution taught us to build at scale. What it didn’t teach us – or what we’ve forgotten – is that you can’t sustain that scale without continuously investing in the people and processes that make it work.
The Education Gap No One Wants to Talk About
Every conversation about the manufacturing skills shortage eventually circles back to the same conclusion: we need more people in the trades. And that’s true. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 2.1 million jobs could go unfilled by 2030, potentially costing the U.S. economy $1 trillion in lost output. This is a statistic we have shared with many conference attendees and industry enthusiasts time and time again – another one of those tired, albeit relevant and ominous statistics.
But here’s where the conversation gets even more uncomfortable. We’re not just missing bodies on the factory floor. We’re missing the educational infrastructure, institutional credibility, and frankly, honest dialogue about what careers in manufacturing actually require. And let’s face it, we haven’t exactly been prioritizing education or the democratization thereof.
For decades, we’ve pushed college as the default path. We’ve stigmatized trade work as “lesser than” white-collar careers. The 2000s certainly taught us that white-collar is viable and alluring. As a result, we’ve underfunded vocational programs, closed technical schools, and sent a clear message to young people: if you’re smart, you should go to college. If you’re not, you work with your hands.
That messaging is not only elitist – it’s economically destructive. And now we’re scrambling to reverse decades of cultural conditioning while simultaneously asking a generation raised on screens (my children included) to embrace physically demanding, technically complex, and often uncomfortable work.
Here’s the truth that makes people avoid the conversation altogether: manufacturing and the skilled trades are hard. They require grit, problem-solving skills, adaptability, and a strong work ethic. The environments change constantly, are sometimes uncomfortable, and quite frankly, very demanding of one’s time. You must sometimes (less more so now) put up with frustrating legacy leadership and outdated opinions (my career in a nutshell). Worst of all, you can’t phone it in. You can’t work remotely from a beach in Bali. You show up, you do the work, and you earn your place through competence and effort.
There’s a small but vocal minority who believe we’ll see a reversion to white-collar preference once younger generations realize just how rigorous the trades actually are. It’s a fair concern, and one that we will have to face head-on. Gen Z has shown renewed interest in vocational training – however. Enrollment in trade-focused community colleges increased 16% recently, and construction trade programs saw a 23% rise. But interest is one thing. Retention and long-term commitment are another.
The question isn’t whether Gen Z wants trade jobs. It’s whether we’re preparing them for the reality of those jobs and whether we’re building educational pathways that set them up for success rather than disillusionment.
Universities Are Starting to Fill the Gap
One area of hope that I have learned about is that leading universities and colleges are beginning to take meaningful steps.
UCLA has launched new semiconductor workforce development programs in partnership with community colleges, providing hands-on training in chip design and manufacturing. The program includes paid internships at assigned labs, giving students real-world experience while removing financial barriers. UCLA Extension also offers short-term manufacturing engineering courses and certificates designed for working professionals who want to upskill without committing to a four-year degree.
UC Riverside has structured its Bourns College of Engineering (BCoE) curriculum – of which several Live Solutions employees are alumni – around hands-on experience that employers actually value. Students work with advanced finite element methods, mechatronics, and combustion systems, as well as real-world capstone senior design projects that mirror industry challenges. It’s not just theory – it’s applied engineering that prepares graduates to make a meaningful contribution from day one. In addition, they are quietly building infrastructure to support trade proliferation in the Inland Empire and Greater Los Angeles Area. Whether this comes to fruition is another matter altogether. But there is interest!
Cal State Northridge offers a Master of Science in Manufacturing Systems Engineering alongside undergraduate minors in Manufacturing Systems Engineering and Automation/CAD-CAM. They’ve also developed certificate programs in Quality Management and Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, creating pathways for both new students and experienced professionals to gain relevant skills.
Cal Poly Pomona and Cal State Fullerton have developed Advanced Manufacturing Engineering certificate programs that emphasize both technical knowledge and hands-on lab work. These programs are shorter, more affordable, and directly aligned with industry needs – making them attractive alternatives for students who don’t want to accumulate massive debt for a traditional four-year degree.
San Diego City College and San Diego State University both offer Manufacturing Engineering Technology programs with options in electronics and fabrication, covering a range of topics from CAD/CAM applications to CNC programming and quality control.
These programs are intentionally designed to work alongside, not replace, traditional degree pathways. Some can be completed in parallel with a bachelor’s degree. Others are standalone certificates that take six months to a year. The key is that they’re responsive to industry demand, focused on practical skills, and accessible to students who might not have considered manufacturing as a career.
But here’s the challenge: How can we make these programs more appealing? How do we raise awareness? How do we communicate the benefits not just to students, but to parents, counselors, and communities that still view manufacturing through an outdated lens?
The Benefits We’re Not Selling
Many trade jobs pay more than entry-level positions requiring a bachelor’s degree – and without the crushing student loan debt. Sterile processing technicians, CNC machinists, mechatronics engineers, and automation specialists can earn solid middle-class incomes with room for advancement. This could be the new medical pathway alternative to replace imaging techs, radiologists, nurses, and medical technicians. Not that those are not in-demand positions, but they certainly are demanding and extensive in terms of education.
While automation is changing the nature of manufacturing work, it does not eliminate the need for skilled workers. It’s increasing demand for people who can operate, maintain, program, and optimize advanced systems. The jobs aren’t going away – they’re evolving. So take your programming skills and put them to good use. There are pathways that can and will combine the use of traditional coding with industrial coding and controls.
There is real satisfaction in building something tangible, solving complex problems, and knowing that your work directly contributes to products people use every day. For a generation seeking purpose in their careers, manufacturing offers that in ways many white-collar jobs don’t. There is still the issue of career pathing and growth in a manufacturing plant compared to traditional white-collar jobs. But the experience you get in manufacturing far exceeds anything you would get by sitting at a desk all day or picking up someone’s coffee order.
There are still pathways, however, to start as a technician, move into engineering, transition into project management, and ultimately become an operations leader and beyond. It may take time, but you will gain the knowledge and resourcefulness that this country needs to rebound and become hyper-competitive again. The industry values competence and results, which means there’s real opportunity for people willing to learn and grow.
The problem is that we’re not telling this story effectively. We’re not engaging with high schools early enough. We’re not partnering with universities to showcase what modern manufacturing actually looks like. And we’re not creating visibility into the career pathways that exist for people who choose this route. These conversations are starting. They are happening more and more every day. There are real people taking matters into their own hands and crafting the narrative that will inspire change within our local communities. These conversations need to grow in scale just like our ability to adopt new career paths in manufacturing and the trades.
The Controversial Truth
The reality is that not everyone is cut out for manufacturing or the skilled trades. And that’s OK.
We’ve spent years pushing everyone toward college because we wanted to democratize opportunity, and that’s OK. The intention was good, and much benefit was gained as a result. But the execution created a false narrative that college is for everyone and that all other paths are inferior.
The reality is that manufacturing requires a specific set of attributes: physical stamina, problem-solving ability, attention to detail, willingness to work in less-than-comfortable conditions, and genuine interest in how things work. You can’t fake those things. You can’t train someone to care about their craft if they fundamentally don’t.
So yes, we need to expand access to manufacturing careers. Yes, we need to remove barriers and make education more affordable. But we also need to be honest about what the work entails and stop pretending that everyone who shows interest will thrive in this environment.
The goal isn’t to funnel everyone into the trades. The goal is to ensure that people with the aptitude, interest, and work ethic who would genuinely succeed in manufacturin area aware that this path exists and is valued. It’s about balance and swinging the pendulum back in the direction of moderation – not extreme one-sided thinking. This is seemingly not an issue unique to this facet of our society – but let’s not delve into that right now.
Finding the Balance: Automation and Empowerment
So, where does this leave us? Do we abandon automation because it’s hard to implement? Do we give up on attracting younger generations because the work is demanding?
Absolutely not.
The answer AGAIN is balance. I’ve mentioned this earlier and will reiterate it because it is important. We need to find the sweet spot between automating the most rigorous, repetitive, and dangerous aspects of manufacturing while empowering the future workforce to step into roles that leverage their human capabilities – critical thinking, adaptability, creativity, and problem-solving.
Some tasks should be automated, not because we’re trying to eliminate jobs, but because they’re physically taxing, monotonous, or unsafe for humans to perform long-term. Automation should free people up to do higher-value work, such as troubleshooting, optimizing, innovating.
Automation does not and should not need to be the first move. Process standardization comes first. At Live Solutions, our core philosophy – and one that resonates with our entire team is that process always wins out. It’s a must to document your workflows, eliminate inefficiencies, train your existing workforce, capture tribal knowledge before it walks out the door with retiring employees, build a foundation that’s solid enough to support the technology you’re about to implement, and support the growth of your workforce to encourage retention by way of positive culture. It’s almost as if I’m saying we need to go back to basics. Might make a lot of people mad, but it’s true.
Then, and only then, introduce automation in a measured, and intentional way that complements your workforce, rather than replacing it without a plan.
The Path Forward: Socialization and Action
The only way we navigate this paradigm is by continuing to socialize these opportunities and putting action behind the narrative.
We can’t just talk about the manufacturing skills gap. We need to action it, and soon:
- Partner with universities and high schools to create visibility into modern manufacturing careers
- Host tours and open houses that show students what factory work actually looks like – fast, precise, collaborative, and technology-driven
- Develop apprenticeship and internship programs that pay students while they learn, removing financial barriers to entry
- Mentor young people who are curious about manufacturing but don’t have role models or guidance
- Advocate for policy changes that fund vocational education and technical training at the state and federal levels
- Share success stories of people who’ve built fulfilling, lucrative careers in the trades
And critically, we need to stop spinning narratives without backing them up. If we’re going to say that manufacturing is the future, we need to show it. I’m tired of listening to the same old rhetoric from people who have never even set foot in a factory. If we’re going to claim that trade jobs offer economic mobility, we need to prove it. If we’re going to ask young people to consider this path, we need to ensure that the necessary infrastructure, support, and opportunities are actually in place when they arrive. This is not a time to half-ass a solution. We only have one shot to get it right before the social media hounds come for us.
So, What Happens If We Get This Right?
Can you envision a future where the adoption of advanced manufacturing technology rises in parallel with robust workforce development programs? Where universities and community colleges work hand-in-hand with manufacturers to create curricula that meet real industry needs? Where high-school students see manufacturing as a viable, respectable, and desirable career path? Where automation amplifies human capability rather than replacing it haphazardly?
I can. I dream about this all the time. Weird, right?
But honestly, the economic benefits would be staggering. Manufacturers could finally fill those 2.1 million open positions, and we can stop talking about this number once and for all. Productivity would increase – not just because of better technology, but because we’d have skilled workers who know how to leverage it. Innovation would accelerate as more people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives enter the field. And we’d rebuild the middle class by creating pathways to economic stability that don’t require six-figure student loan debt. And best of all, equipment vendors and OEMs can go return to selling their products without worrying about disrupting the harmonic balance, as now there is standardization and processes in place to support these new technologies. Finally!
Realistically, achieving this requires honesty, investment, and effective coordination. It requires manufacturers to stop looking for “silver-bullet” technology solutions and start investing in their people and processes more broadly. It requires educators to build programs that are practical, accessible, and aligned with industry needs. It requires young people to accept the reality that meaningful work often demands effort and perseverance. And it requires all of us to value the skilled trades as much as we value knowledge work.
The real problem with manufacturing isn’t technology. It’s that we’ve tried to build a high-tech future on a foundation that was never properly laid.
We’ve bought equipment without standardizing processes. We’ve implemented automation without training the workforce. We’ve pushed technology solutions without addressing the cultural, educational, and institutional gaps that determine whether those solutions succeed or fail.
And now we’re at a crossroads. We can keep repeating the same pattern – chasing the next piece of equipment, the next software platform, the next technological fix – and watch those investments fail. Or we can do the more complex, less glamorous work of building the foundation first.
I’ve stated the “how”. Go back and read my points. It’s not rocket science – it’s just basic common sense that has seemingly been lost and replaced by rhetoric and shiny new things.
It might not be the only way forward, but it might actually work. At the end of the day, there’s no harm in trying. What’s the worst that can happen? Don’t answer that…
Because at the end of the day, technology without foundation isn’t innovation – it’s just expensive chaos. Sounds more like our current political climate than how our economy should be represented. Whoops…did I say that out loud?
