Of all the compelling reading in the new 2007 PIA/GATF Forecast: Technology, Trends, Tactics, nothing is more urgent than the essay titled, "Whose Job Is Training? An Open Letter the Graphic Arts Community." The author, Larry Kroll, vice president of print media relations for Heidelberg USA, warns that the industry is "losing the fight to attract the attract the best and brightest job candidates" despite many well-intentioned efforts to recruit the next generation of operators and managers.
It's a point that's been made before, but seldom with the bluntness that Kroll employs here. He notes, among other inconvenient truths, that:
- high-level educational initiatives by industry trade associations are failing to reach the most likely candidates for careers in the graphic arts
- colleges and universities commit the same error by restricting their graphic arts curricula to degree candidates
- given the industry's fragmentation, its training and education efforts are "piecemeal" and in serious need of alignment
"We need an organized, cooperative initiative that transcends the special interests of the participants and focuses on the preparation of our next generation graphic arts workforce," writes Kroll. "It is vital that our institutions and enterprises coalesce around this fundamental goal as soon as possible."
In our opinion, Kroll's call for coalescence goes straight to the heart of what's wrong with the industry's diffuse and too often ineffective campaigns for recruitment and professional development.
There's no coordinating council: no broadly endorsed, independently operating policymaking group that identifies resources, formulates strategies, and devises implementation plans that every industry organization with a commitment to education can use.
There's no focal point for accomplishing what ought to be priority number one: sharing the industry's rich educational resources with the teachers, students, and employers who need them the most.
Here's an example. One of the industry's best and most frustratingly kept secrets is the great volume of training material that it produces, chiefly for marketing purposes, in the form of printed publications, PDFs, videos, and online interactive content. Much of it is perfect for the classroom. Little of it gets there, though, because most instructors simply aren't aware that it exists. What's frustrating is knowing that with the backing a coordinating group representing all of the vendors and associations that publish such material, a clearinghouse for promoting these valuable training aids to instructors wouldn't be difficult to organize.
If there's a CIP4 organization for JDF workflow, why can't there be a similar cooperation for the larger goal of graphic arts education? Previous initiatives tell us that it's not for lack of commitment, imagination, or financial support. As Kroll says, the time has come for a truly unified effort. He concludes his open letter with a call for a "graphic arts education summit" at Graph Expo 2007, inviting all who are interested in participating to contact him at [email protected]. We think that a summit of this kind could be historic. Your presence and support can make it so. Please send him your thoughts.
Discussion
By drjoewebb on Mar 05, 2007
Let's go through the three items: • high-level educational initiatives by industry trade associations are failing to reach the most likely candidates for careers in the graphic arts I don't know if that is true. If you look at the major printing companies, they are run by graduates of a wide range of institutions and a wide range of majors. In my own doctoral study in the mid-1980s, top executives of printing companies with business degrees were twice as profitable as those with technical degrees. Much of the "old" graphic arts training was related to prepress. That has been replaced by desktop publishing, and that training is done at community colleges, technical schools, what used to be secretarial schools, and many arts programs. In addition, much of desktop publishing can be taught by a combination of formal training and self-training. For digital printing, much of that training is through manufacturers. Other kinds of equipment are often taught on shop floors. As far as attracting students to the graphic arts, one must really wonder why that would be the case. Media has become so incredibly diverse and our need to integrate with so many current and emerging communications platforms that graphic arts training may actually be limiting to the students and to our industry. Part of the problem is that we are still converting from craftworker to technology-intensive process workers. Press companies themselves have removed skill from press operations by automating and improving the factors that separated great press operators from mediocre ones. That is a good thing. Customers see a lesser range in variability in their products, and printing companies are more productive. So in some ways this is like complaining because of one's success. • colleges and universities commit the same error by restricting their graphic arts curricula to degree candidates As far as I know this is not entirely true. We are going through the process of college evaluation in our own family and I must say that in our small sample of colleges the opportunities for electives and for selecting subjects as "minors" is greater than ever. We have also been surprised at the amount of technology now available in college communications programs, where students get hands on with the creation process and the equipment that makes it possible. Sure, they are not running presses, but if they were majoring in pre-med, they would not be doing surgery either. • given the industry’s fragmentation, its training and education efforts are “piecemeal†and in serious need of alignment It is not many years ago that I remember this same argument being offered. How does one align a fragmented industry? One can't. Let's remember that the current printing "star" as far as Wall Street is concerned is VistaPrint. The company is designed and run by computer systems analysts and violates most everything that would have been taught in graphic arts programs. Their growth rate and bottom line embarrasses us. Good for them. Fragmented industries are fragmented for a reason: customer needs and requirements are diverse, and there are numerous tools and ideas to satisfy them. Therefore one needs to concentrate on the basics that will lead them to the future: clear thinking, analytical workers, who have insightful capabilities with technology. This also means that it is harder for schools to create a program that is focused on a particular tool or a particular skillset. They are changing too rapidly for something as serpentine and bureaucratic as an academic institution to deliver on time: by the time the course would be approved, and a teacher hired, it would be out of date. It is common that the developers of new printing technologies themselves don't know all of the answers for their own products. Are we to believe that even the trainers at Adobe, for example, know their products better than full-time practitioners who use them every day? They actually don't. The trainers are good, but there is nothing that beats hands-on for a thoroughness and robustness of learning that academic institutions cannot deliver. Let the academic institutions create knowledgeable and curious alumni in the fields of their choosing, and let them join our industry and renew it. If anyone has ever used the phrase "this is an incestuous industry" then that is an admission of the exact problem I have described. I have so many comments I could add to this, but many of them were contained in an earlier WTT column from 11/6/06. http://members.whattheythink.com/home/drjoe163.cfm
By Randy Davidson on Mar 05, 2007
I read Larry's article in the GATF Forecast Sunday night and I agreed with most points. Not that the industry needs more groups and councils and so forth, but I agree with Pat's comments that this group could be a support area for educators. Pat, among his many talents, also teaches at New York City College of Technology. If I am correct, Joe seems to think that we should not try to influence market forces and just let people come in and enhance our industry with their diverse talent and skills. That will happen no matter what any group does, but a diverse industry group could help organize resources and offer direction to education participants - especially educators.
By Brian Regan on Mar 06, 2007
Frequently in the past 3 years have I spoken with industry people about the need to have an organized approach in regards to this issue. There does seem to be some fragmentation involved here. The pressure to be competitive, yet still earn enough to survive is what many firms are focused on. that leaves little room for training programs and reaching out to younger people as they decide what they want to do in life. As the local tradeshows drop off so does one important way getting students to see what the industry is about. Thus leaving an empty space that I think needs to be filled. At this point I personally feel compelled to not talk but do and am talking with PGSF to become a board member. Action is always a great way of creating a solution. I recently opened an office in the virtual world Second Life. I see a lot of potential there, enough so that I spoke to Michele Makin about some sort of location that brings awareness to the Print Industry and possibly attract some of the bright young people that inhabit these spaces. For me it is thinking outside the box, looking at what is happening and then getting the right message in front of young people that are looking for something to grap hold of. My $.02
By Patrick Klarecki on Mar 09, 2007
I am please to see that Larry Kroll took the time to put his thoughts in print. I know Larry and I know the pressures placed upon his time – If he is willing to devote time to call attention to the lack of focus on education, publicity and organization of our industry - the issue is serious. I am the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and a Professor of Printing Management at Ferris State University. Larry is right on track with his comments. Dr. Joe – sorry - but the perception you paint only exemplifies the problem Larry writes about. Yes our industry has and continues to undergo a massive transition from craft to technology, yes media has become incredibly diverse, yes top executives with business degrees run companies that are more profitable than those with technical degrees and yes, equipment companies have developed and driven technology away from the craft. All the more reason for our industry to get behind education to provided needed tools and knowledge and to present an accurate image of what we are and what we do. At our university, I am proud to say we were the first to introduce a program in new media. The program integrates technology from data base management, server and network administration, color management, digital work flow and business management into one management degree. I have to fight my colleagues in our IS&T program, our Graphic Design program, and cadre of others that recruit the same types of high quality students. Why? Because who wants to be a dirty printer? Our industry will always draw expertise from other industries and that is good. It helps to drive innovation, improvement and open new doors of opportunity. However we need to nurture our own talent and present our industry as one of opportunity. That starts in the schools. There is and always will be something in our industry for every interest and every level of talent and knowledge. We need that diverse collection of talent to not only survive what the future may hold but to flourish. I encourage everyone who reads this to invite a class of students to visit your various media related businesses and talk to them about the future. Let them know about the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead. Let them know they could be part of something great. Show them the level of technology used at your business. The world is changing and we can drive that change through people; people who are educated, innovative, and motivated. Or we can become victims of change; I’m putting my money on the people of the future who have the skills to continue the journey to transformation of the most exciting industry around, Print Media.
By Henry Freedman on Mar 10, 2007
The printing industry has been moving from craft to technology since the 1450's.
By Steve Aranoff on Mar 11, 2007
When manufacturers supply equipment that fits into the workflow processes already in use, finding talent to run the equipment is much easier. Proprietary requirements make for harder to find operators. Isn't the convergence of technology supposed to open our print market, rather than close it?
Discussion
Only verified members can comment.