1 / 17

U.S. Space Industry ‘Deep Dive’

U.S. Space Industry ‘Deep Dive’. A Collaboration Between the DOC and the USAF, NASA, and NRO. Final Dataset Findings. AIAA: Engineering Global Space Leadership with STEM September 10, 2013. Brad Botwin Director, Industrial Base Studies.

gavivi
Download Presentation

U.S. Space Industry ‘Deep Dive’

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. Space Industry ‘Deep Dive’ A Collaboration Between the DOC and the USAF, NASA, and NRO Final Dataset Findings AIAA: Engineering Global Space Leadership with STEM September 10, 2013 Brad Botwin Director, Industrial Base Studies

  2. U.S. Space Industry ‘Deep Dive’ Assessment - Background • Partnership with the U.S. Air Force, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Reconnaissance Office. • The principle goal is to gain an understanding of the intricate supply chain network supporting the development, production, and sustainment of products and services across the defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space sectors. • Mandatory data collection authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950. • Objectives: • Map the space industrial base supply chain in unprecedented detail; • Identify interdependencies between respondents, suppliers, customers, and USG agencies; • Benchmark trends in business practices, competitiveness issues, financial health, etc. across many tiers of the industrial base; and • Share data with USG stakeholders to better inform strategic planning, targeted outreach, and collaborative problem resolution.

  3. Survey Topics(Covers 2009-2012) • 205 USG Space Programs • Suppliers (U.S. & non-U.S.) • Customers (U.S. & non-U.S.) • Top competitors (U.S. & non-U.S.) • Codes: DUNS, CAGE, NAICS, Inventory • Rare Earth Elements and Counterfeiting Issues • Challenges to Competitiveness • Financials • Research & Development • Capital Expenditures • Employment • Mergers & Acquisitions • Sales • Areas of Potential USG assistance for Respondents • Impacts of decreased USG demand This presentation only scratches the surface of our data.

  4. Overview of Respondents 62% of respondents are small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration 611 respondents declared that they were dependent on current USG space programs for their continued viability.

  5. * Commercial organizations only

  6. Fluctuations in Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff Aging workforce Lack of proper skills/qualifications Geographic issues Others… Current Workforce and STEM-Related Issues in the Space Industrial Base

  7. Issue I: Fluctuations in Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff • 838 respondents decreased their engineers, scientists, and R&D staff from 2009-2012. • 2009-2012 Change in Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff: • Universities: +9,958 • Small businesses: +4,762 • Respondents that worked on Space Shuttle/Constellation: -7,955 • Respondents with no space-related sales: +13,788 • Respondents with >35% space-related sales: -6,307 Very Large respondents constituted the majority of decreases in employment for those dependent on current USG space programs.

  8. Issue II: Aging Workforce * Excluding universities

  9. Issue II: Aging Workforce (cont.) 32% of respondents have 50%+ of these FTEs over the age of 50. * Based on 2,841 respondents that provided data, excluding universities.

  10. Issue II: Aging Workforce (cont.) • Aging workforce issues are of particular concern to smaller respondents. • Larger respondents are attracting a greater portion of the limited supply of young engineers, scientists, and R&D staff.

  11. Issue III: Lack of Proper Skills/Qualifications • Respondents identified how many unfilled vacancies they currently have for the following positions: • Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff • Production Line Workers • Testing Operators, Quality Control, & Support Technicians • 1,234 respondents (33 percent) currently have 24,836 vacancies for these positions. • Respondents cited lack of proper skills/qualifications as the most prominent issue. • Within their explanations, respondents cited particular difficulty finding qualified engineers, machinists, and programmers/developers.

  12. Issue III: Lack of Proper Skills/Qualifications (cont.) Sample Comments: • “Difficulty in finding fully qualified, experienced candidates in specific areas of mechanical and electrical engineering” – Small company. • “Due to the skill set required for our employees, there have been times it has been difficult to find them. Therefore, we have had to hire individuals that are not US citizens and require sponsorship” – Medium company. • “Difficulty is mostly in finding engineers/scientists/R&D staff with the right combination of aerospace skills, software development experience, security clearances, with ability to be ‘customer-facing’” – Large company.

  13. Issue IV: Geographic Issues • 92 respondents specifically cited geographic issues as the reason they are having difficulty filling vacancies for skilled positions. • Based on the number of unfilled vacancies, the top five state locations are Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado. • 36 percent of these vacancies were with very large-sized companies; 21 percent were with large-sized companies. • Geographic issues primarily relate to: • Difficulty finding qualified and/or experienced workers within a specific area; and • Inability to find workers willing to re-locate to a specific area.

  14. Issue IV: Geographic Issues (cont.) Sample Comments: • “The manufacturing location of the company is not a desirable place to live for some candidates” – Medium company. • “Many of our available skilled positions are located in production facilities that are in remote rural areas. It is difficult to find candidates that are qualified for these positions that are willing to relocate to these locations” – Large company. • “Geographic locations of manufacturing facilities limit the talent pool. Qualifications of candidates in these remote locations are not to standard for technical requirements” – Large company.

  15. Other Workforce/STEM-Related Issues • Lack of experience in areas of the workforce • Competition for employees • Citizenship issues • Security clearances More information will be available on this topic and others in our final reports.

  16. BIS/OTE Contacts • Brad Botwin • Director, Industrial Base Studies • (202) 482-4060 • brad.botwin@bis.doc.gov • Christopher Nelson • Trade and Industry Analyst • (202) 482-4727 • christopher.nelson@bis.doc.gov • Jason Bolton • Trade and Industry Analyst • (202) 482-5936 • jason.bolton@bis.doc.gov • http://www.bis.doc.gov/DIB • Find us at Booth #103. • For further results from this assessment, see: www.bis.doc.gov/SpaceDeepDiveResults

More Related