FandMmag.com |

"I don't get no respect," was Rodney Dangerfield's signature catchphrase, a cliché that might equally be applied to today's worker in the metrology industry: "We don't get no respect ... the government agency that measures occupational statistics won't even recognize measuring as an occupation."

You heard right. Reports are circulating that the U.S. Department of Labor rejected a petition that would recognize metrology job descriptions in the proposed 2010 Standard Occupational Classification system (SOC). The SOC is used as the basis for the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) that is, in turn, used by educators and counselors to inform students about potential careers. The SOC is updated only once every ten years, the last revision being published in 2000.

What's particularly mystifying is that the petition to add metrology descriptions has been rejected in light of the fact that today's metrology professionals have no true place in the SOC at all. Conduct a search of SOC materials for the term Quality and you will find nothing. Calibration, nothing. Inspector yields jobs in agriculture, transportation, construction, and an odd category in Other Production called "Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers," hardly terms I would use to describe today's CAD-savvy programmers who have more in common with a design engineer than someone who "sorts". The machines we use and program do sort and sample, in effect, but these tasks hardly describe a metrology professional's chief skill.

In fact, the only real option to classify a metrology professional within the most relevant major group "Metal Workers and Plastic Workers" is "Lay-out Workers, Metal and Plastic" — a listing that will be helpfully revised in 2010 to remove the hyphen between lay and out. No disrespect intended whatever to metrology's old guard, but most folks who think of themselves as "layout workers" were hired roundabout the time Nixon was president.

So why should we get all worked up over the OOH? What does the future hold for the next generations of metrology professionals? The old guard of metrologists trained in layout are steadily retiring, and with them, whole careers worth of valuable knowledge and experience that simply aren't being transferred to the next generation.

One developing concern in the metrology industry is the apparent dwindling interest in the field, both in its visibility as part of the overall scheme of manufacturing and in the difficulty of finding and training qualified staff. This difficulty isn't just a problem for the manufacturers, it's also a problem for our customers.

Quality is no less important now than before — in fact, it's more important than ever. But as quality and metrology become more mainstreamed into the production environment, is it losing its identity? Is ensuring quality product simply risk management? (Indeed, some companies have actually placed Quality departments under the risk management umbrella.)

If indeed quality is important enough to be considered a form of insurance policy (and I don't know anyone in the field who would argue this isn't the case), then doesn't it deserve more respect in the broad economy — especially in educating students for the challenges of the field? New entrants in the metrology field might have good computer skills and an understanding of CAD, but they often lack a fundamental understanding of the basics on how to measure: of good technique, best practices, and wise choices. Though many methods often measure something, good and bad techniques still exist.

As a manufacturer of hardware and software, we see this play out daily in our training centers across the country. We move over 2,000 people a year through our training classes. These are not primarily intended to teach people how to measure something, but instead to apply modern, high-tech tools to the process. Where we once saw students with great fundamental knowledge but limited computer skills coming to training, that situation has now reversed.

Young entrants into the field come into our software training classes with good computer skills, but a poor understanding of measuring technique and basic metrology fundamentals. Many of the layout engineers might not have been the fastest programmers in the world as they made the transition from surface plates to computers, but their programs were solid. Where are the crops of technical school and college graduates with solid training in the fundamentals? Sadly, these individuals seem few and far between. This is possibly due in part to a lack of programs in general, and a lack of recognition of the profession in particular. Indeed, many entrants to the field have no formal training at all.

All of this is worrisome for our industry and for America, because to maintain a competitive edge in the world, our manufacturing (or what's left of it) must be the most productive, most capable, and most innovative. Without the best metrology professionals, we won't measure up.