Beyond an operator’s know-how, is it also possible to preserve the technical intuition that enables them to recognize and interpret subtle signals such as vibrations, changes in sound, or minor variations in machining conditions?
I believe the real question is not whether this expertise can be preserved, but whether it can truly be replaced by technology alone.
Today’s machines are capable of collecting data, monitoring processes, and integrating increasingly sophisticated functions. As a result, they are often presented as the solution to the shortage of skilled personnel, with the promise that they can also preserve a company’s know-how. But is that really the case?
It depends.
First and foremost, it depends on how the technology is used. I have often seen the very same machine installed in different companies achieve dramatically different results. The technology itself does not change; what changes is the environment and, above all, the expertise of the people operating it. The same machine can therefore become a powerful tool for tackling highly complex machining operations, or it can simply be used for relatively straightforward tasks, leaving a significant portion of its capabilities untapped.
In most cases, then,
the issue is not the technology itself but the operator’s competence: the ability to understand the process, interpret how the machine responds, and make informed use of its available functions.
However, these skills rarely develop on their own.
This brings us back, once again, to the importance of training. The initial training required to commission a machine and learn its basic functions is, in most cases, not enough. Modern technologies require structured, multi-level training programs, much like those needed to master complex software. There is a basic level of use and an advanced one, and the difference between the two has a direct impact on manufacturing performance.
The key issue, therefore, is not simply how advanced the machine is, but how much the company that purchased it invests in enabling people to exploit its full potential.
It is not uncommon for machines designed for highly sophisticated machining operations to end up producing relatively simple components. In these situations, the problem is rarely technical; rather, it is organizational and strategic. Either the machine was selected without a coherent production strategy, or the workforce has not been given the opportunity to develop alongside the technology.
The loss of expertise, therefore, is not caused solely by experienced operators leaving the company, but also by the absence of a structured process for transferring their knowledge.
The bottom line
Technology can support, simplify, and improve the efficiency of manufacturing, but it remains a tool. Without the operator’s experience and a well-structured training program, the risk is ending up with increasingly sophisticated machines and increasingly less capable manufacturing processes.
Know-how is not preserved automatically within a software system. It continues to exist only when people put it into practice, refine it, and pass it on to the next generation.
