Training: are the fundamentals being left behind?

Australia finds itself in a very curious position in the global family. Blessed with an abundance of natural riches, it seems we keep forgetting that mass manufacturing is part of a major contribution to a nation’s wealth. Perhaps innovation is cheaper than manufacturing? But that means that our education and training system also needs to provide the right basis for this type of work and the necessary infrastructure. The proliferation of smart devices and the ability to collect data in ever greater amounts not only requires a better understanding of analysis methods to arrive at meaningful information, but also requires increasingly smarter, smaller and reliable sensors. The profession of instrument scientists and technologists is in a state of change, with greater demands for different control algorithms and automation methods. We are experiencing exciting times in the changing world of the fourth industrial age where we will see further advances in the traditional approach to process control that we may not even have thought of.

Even as we acknowledge that changes in technology require an adaptive approach to extract the best outcomes from those changes, we still don’t educate many that need to be trained in the fundamentals of control and automation. The processes may be understood, but too often the art of deciding which technology to implement and which sensor or instrument is really right for the application is left to the vendor sales personnel. Who trains them in systems thinking and applications? Technicians often have to cope with systems they have little understanding of, especially when PLC and more complex programming tasks are required. Networking, integration of platforms and the management and validation of data collected (in any form) are becoming more and more dominant in our landscape of instrumentation, controls and automation disciplines.

There is some confusion about technician qualifications. Who can really choose appropriately from the nearly 200 competency items identified for our profession at the technician level? And is engineering education adequately supporting these competencies? Talking to lecturers and trainers deepens the concern about the future of the industry and the development of the required skills and competencies. We see that education politics, naming of technical institutions and funding models change as often as a new minister arrives on the scene. This cannot be beneficial for the profession in the long term. While the federal government promotes innovation, we need to consider our manufacturing — and therefore our skills — future. Failing to plan is equivalent to planning to fail (to use a well-worn platitude).

A strategic approach and plan to deal with the requirements of our changing industrial landscape is needed. It would provide the direction and certainty for the many that are involved in this stimulating profession. The professional and representative organisations such as the Institute of Instrumentation, Control and Automation have something to say in this — but even so there may be little appetite for appropriate action at the Ministerial levels. In the meantime, IICA provides to the interested a variety of internationally renowned training courses catering for a variety of needs. Will this be enough though in the long run?

Ernst Krauss is the current Vice President of the IICA. He holds the status of a Fellow of the IICA, is a certified Fellow in Asset Management and has lifelong experience in oil and gas, mining and general industries in instrumentation, control and electrical engineering, both overseas and in Australia. His current interest and activities focus on the whole of life asset management, where technical, organisational and operational competency converge to provide capability to effectively manage large or small production or service systems.

Image credit: ©stock.adobe.com/au/christian42