By Buddharatn Ratawal, DELMIA
The skills gap in manufacturing has been a consistent issue for many years now, with an aging workforce and lack of incoming skills from those who have freshly graduated from their engineering courses. According to data from consultancy McKinsey, 87% of businesses report that they are either facing a skills shortage or expect to do so in the next five years. Deloitte reports that over 2 million jobs could go unfilled in the manufacturing space, due to a shortage of skilled workers. Now really is the time for industry experts and educators to come together and work together on closing the skills gap at the earliest possible opportunity, in higher education.
But what steps need to be taken to make this a reality, and what gaps are currently adding to the skills gap we’re seeing in the manufacturing space? To help answer these questions, Buddharatn Ratawal, Senior Manager of Strategic Business Development at DELMIA spoke with Professor Adam Słota, an Assistant Professor and the Chair of Production Engineering in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at Cracow University of Technology.
What Engineering Students Learn vs What the Industry Expects
There’s no denying that the skills gap hasn’t been addressed in recent years, with many manufacturers around the globe reporting that students coming out of higher education aren’t fully equipped to replace more experienced employees.
Whilst newly qualified students would be expected to learn skills on the job to gain experience, the disconnect between what the industry requires, and what is taught during higher education courses, appears to be wider than ever before. This has inevitably led to increasing pressure on universities to change the curriculum to be more in line with what the industry requires from graduates, with more emphasis being placed on ensuring students are more practice oriented.
Speaking of the increased pressure, Prof. Adam Słota said: “Industry increasingly expects graduates to understand not only design, but also how products are manufactured, validated and automated. Universities are under pressure to make education more practice-oriented, so the challenge is to teach not just theory, but how design decisions affect manufacturing, robotics and production performance.”
“If graduates arrive with strong CAD knowledge but little understanding of manufacturing flow, robot behavior, process constraints or automation logic, companies need to spend more time bringing them up to speed. The closer education gets to real industrial workflows, the faster young engineers can become productive.”
Manufacturers are right to place emphasis on exactly what engineering students are trained in, as once they graduate, the newly qualified students are expected to take on increasingly important roles in manufacturing settings around the world.
The skills gap is a particularly big issue in countries like USA, Germany and Japan, as their aging workforce is retiring and taking years of expertise and experience with it; something that simply can’t be replaced.
One thing is clear; more must be done to close the gap between what engineering students are taught in the classroom versus what skills and knowledge they require to make a real difference in the workplace.
Prof. Adam Słota believes that the key to solving this issue lies in university studies going beyond teaching students how to use software, and giving them a deeper understanding of how their decisions have real-world impacts:
“They should collaborate more closely around real workflows, not just isolated tools. The goal is not simply to teach software. The goal is to teach engineering decisions in context: design, process, automation, validation and execution. That is where both academia and industry can benefit.
“This is why we prefer to utilize platforms that extend thinking beyond design. Students and engineers can move from product definition into layout, process validation, robot simulation and offline programming. That makes it relevant not only as a teaching tool, but also as a bridge to how industry actually works.”
Emphasis on Robotics Competency from Employers
Employers in manufacturing have moved toward making robotics literacy a non-negotiable for any incoming hires, and it’s easy to see why. With increasing reliance on robotics within the manufacturing, particularly in the automotive sector, even junior staff need to have a level of competency to understand various aspects of how robots operate within the manufacturing system.
There’s also an increasing requirement for newly qualified engineers to have an understanding of the benefits of design, process planning and robotics being fully integrated into workflows. Whilst this had historically been something that more experienced members of the team would be expected to understand, with the increasing reliance on robotics in the sector, junior members of staff need a level of understanding too.
Prof. Adam Słota continued:
“Because robotics increasingly affects the overall manufacturing system. Even if an engineer is not a robot programmer, they still need to understand issues like reachability, sequencing, collision risk, tooling interaction and process feasibility. Those are not isolated robotics questions; they are manufacturing questions. When design, process planning and robotics are more connected, it reduces fragmentation. In many organizations, design, tooling, manufacturing engineering and automation still work in partially disconnected ways. When those worlds are more closely connected, there is less duplication, fewer misunderstandings, and earlier validation. That improves both quality and speed.”
Students being fully versed in how robotics play a vital role in a modern manufacturing setting is essential from an operations perspective, but Professor Slot believes that students must be educated on the value that robotics bring to the business side of manufacturing.
Ensuring that robotics work in a harmonious environment, seamlessly bringing together various tools, is an essential part of the value that robotics bring, and newly qualified students need understand just how vital this is to increase profitability for organizations.
When asked about the genuine value that is brought about by a more unified robotics environment, Prof. Adam Słota said: “From an engineering perspective, it simplifies learning and execution. Instead of switching between many brand-specific tools, engineers can work in a more consistent environment. That is valuable in education, but it is even more valuable in industry, where complexity, variants and collaboration across suppliers create additional overhead.”
“The main value is earlier validation and fewer surprises. If you can test feasibility, process logic and robot behavior before installation, you reduce rework later. In industry, that means less commissioning pain, less delay, and faster ramp-up.”
The message to the industry and educators is clear: the skills gap can be closed, but the way in which higher-education approaches teaching must be in line with what is expected from the industry. This will not only benefit manufacturing organizations around the world, but it will also ensure newly qualified students come into the workplace better equipped to make a genuine impact in the sector.
