Last week, we discussed how technology can support, simplify, and improve the efficiency of work. However, it remains a tool whose effectiveness is closely tied to the operator’s skills: their ability to understand the process, interpret machine behavior, and make informed use of the available functions. When this expertise is missing, even the most advanced technology loses part of its effectiveness. And when an experienced operator leaves the workforce, part of the know-how that makes our machine investments truly productive may leave with them.
In my view, however, the loss of expertise is not solely linked to the departure of senior operators.
The issue is often more structural and concerns the difficulty—often the absence—of a method capable of turning that experience into training that is accessible to younger generations.
Let me explain what I mean.
When moving from operator expertise to the interpretation of process parameters, the boundary is not as clear-cut as it may seem. Today, thanks to advanced sensors, machines can detect vibrations, abnormal loads, and out-of-spec operating conditions with a level of effectiveness that often exceeds human capability.
The key point is no longer the ability to measure, but the ability to interpret. There are situations where monitoring a single parameter is not enough; multiple factors must be considered together, such as the clamping method, workpiece position, spindle speed, and tool geometry. This is where the operator’s experience becomes crucial. A seemingly minor decision can determine whether a machining operation will be safe or whether the workpiece may shift—or even be ejected from the fixture.
This type of expertise falls squarely within the realm of tacit knowledge and also includes basic concepts that are often taken for granted but, in reality, are not. A young technician graduating from a technical school may never have seen a gear hobbing machine or a machine tool in operation. In such cases, starting from overly advanced topics means building training on fragile foundations.
The challenge, therefore, is to bring instruction back to a “technical zero point,” returning to the explanation of concepts that may seem obvious to those who have spent years working on the shop floor.
And this is precisely where one of the greatest difficulties emerges: identifying the correct starting point.
There is no universal baseline that applies to everyone. Each individual arrives with a different background, and at the same time, those responsible for training do not always realize whether what they are explaining is truly elementary or already advanced. An experienced operator’s sensitivity is reflected not only in technical competence but also in the ability to understand where training should begin, avoiding both the assumption of skills that are not actually present and excessive oversimplification.
The issue often becomes more complex when training is entrusted to senior operators who, despite being highly skilled, are not always able to transfer their knowledge in a structured way. Some fundamental steps remain implicit because they are part of established habits and expertise that are applied every day without being consciously articulated.
This is also why, during the recruitment process, we consider certain soft skills to be essential: the ability to ask questions, recognize one’s own limitations, and face new situations without becoming rigid or resistant to change. Training is an unavoidable part of professional development, and what we try to understand during an interview is whether a candidate is genuinely willing to learn.
