IBJOpinion

SHOBERT: Could new model save manufacturing?

Benjamin A. Shobert
June 5, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Benjamin A. ShobertGoing to China is always a mixed experience for me. Not because of the food, or language or the seemingly innumerable opportunities for me to make some sort of awful faux pax; no, because the moment the ferry from Hong Kong slips away from the dock and pushes towards Shenzhen, the muscular manufacturing power of China comes into full view.

On my most recent trip to China, it was not without some heaviness of heart that I again found myself comparing the newness of the country’s infrastructure—and the teeming activity that seems to have enveloped this part of the world—with much of what I see, or do not, around Indiana and the United States.

As much as I want to believe America’s economic future will be built on a technology-based economy, I have a small tug on my mind—memories of growing up in northern Indiana surrounded by manufacturing, the biannual field trip to Chicago that drove us past the hulking steel-producing factories that seemed to dwarf whole parts of the lakeshore, and the family members who then and now rely on manufacturing for their futures.

It can be easy to dwell on abstractions when we talk about globalization. In particular, those of us who have built the skill set to navigate the current form of the world have grown used to casually mentioning how business, workers and whole national economies must change. And while I completely agree that change is necessary and would adamantly defend the good that open markets have done for us, I wonder if we have too easily ejected the role of manufacturing from our state and national economy.

Most responses to this question inevitably draw in politics and the over-arching question of economic nationalism; however, influencing this is well outside my grasp, and I suspect it’s equally outside the ability of our highest state officials or business leaders to meaningfully influence. That leaves me wondering what we, as average businesspeople in central Indiana, can do to become more proactive at protecting and nurturing our local manufacturing.

As a state, we have struggled with this and similar questions before. We possess a strong and diverse manufacturing base, with a constant flow of engineering talent from some of the best schools in the country. And while I respect the need for government to be an involved partner in answering this question, I also wonder what the private sector can do to propel Indiana’s unique manufacturing assets forward.

Could we draw from venture capital an investment model that might make it possible for manufacturing businesses to more aggressively develop products and invest in new technologies, once again becoming job-creating engines? Doing so would be an adjustment not only to how manufacturing traditionally accesses capital, but also how and where VC looks for investment opportunities.

VC firms would bring to the table a unique perspective on what it takes to germinate and vet new products, markets and business models. Manufacturing would bring established distribution channels and infrastructure, along with successful management teams and a highly motivated work force. Yes, VCs would need to accept lower returns on their capital, but their “at-bat” averages would likely go dramatically up.

I have a suspicion that nationally our way forward will actually prove to be a more holistic balance between the high-risk, high-reward technology markets and the “base-running” potential of newly invigorated manufacturing businesses, once again thinking like the entrepreneurs who founded them. Because of this conviction, I believe Indiana is in a unique position to see, respond to and benefit from shifting our focus more toward these traditional, and many times smaller, investment opportunities. Doing so may well pave the way forward for more than just Indiana.•
__________

Shobert is managing director of Teleos Inc., a local firm specializing in taking products and technologies to market.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Back to the future
    The USA use to be a great manufacture power house. Then as my mother would say " then the 60's wreaked it" People were looking for the easy way. I know people can work hard if they believe in the future. Though I fear a lack of resilients to work hard and take pride is still a hold out from the 60's or whatever reason. Small local business is a future people can believe in.
  • US Manufacturing
    With manufacturing becoming more complex and less labor intensive, one would think that it would be a significant competitive advantage to avoid high transports costs by placing factories in the US close to their markets. Would it not be accurate to say that the US has more efficient capital markets, a more straightforward legal framework, and perhaps cheaper or equal electricity costs? Could over time, more automated and elaborate manufacturing setups overtake the advantages of outsourcing to China? I agree that the VC/PE world might need to look at this sector as a safer play in their portfolios.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT