Commentary: Training our Workforce to Meet Demand

| FROM THE PRINT EDITION |
 
 

Business and community leaders in Seattle and the Puget Sound region have built a strong foundation for a diverse economy, but developing a vibrant economic base is not enough. Making it sustainable is critical. In order to maintain the regional competitive advantage we have built, we must deepen our local talent pool to support the businesses that create new, innovative jobs.

An increasing number of those jobs require advanced education and training in critical sectors. In fact, Washington needs to add 9,000 graduate degrees per year in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields through 2019 to keep up with employer demand. Seattle, like Boston and San Jose, has a bachelor’s degree attainment rate of nearly 25 percent. However, when comparing graduate degree attainment, Seattle has a rate that is only two-thirds of those cities. It would take more than 100,000 graduate degrees to reach the per capita rate of Boston and San Jose.

Further highlighting our needs in higher education, Seattle ranks comparatively low when it comes to availability of part-time graduate degree programs that can support the schedules and goals of our region’s working professionals. Per capita, Seattle’s supply of part-time graduate degrees is less than half of cities with similarly high attainment levels of bachelor’s degrees.

Seeing this educational gap, Northeastern University, a global, experiential, nonprofit research university based in Boston, is opening a graduate campus in Seattle’s burgeoning South Lake Union neighborhood in January 2013. Northeastern has developed 15 professional graduate degrees tailored to Seattle’s needs in science, engineering, technology, health care, business, education and nonprofit.

Each degree is specifically designed to meet the talent demands of our local innovation economy. A master’s degree in information assurance, for example, is regionally in high demand and also tailored to some of Seattle’s top-tier IT companies and their workforce needs.

We have worked closely with local business leaders for the past year—through more than 250 meetings—to identify the areas of graduate education needed to propel our economy forward and to retain companies known for innovation, companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, Seattle BioMed and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

We’re also responding to the need for more accessible graduate degree programs through a hybrid delivery system that combines classes at the South Lake Union campus and online course work. This hybrid approach is designed to suit Seattle’s high-tech culture, combining mobile and wired education with the benefits of face-to-face faculty/peer interaction and teamwork. It provides high-caliber learning with a level of flexibility that allows both busy professionals and stay-at-home parents to get the education they need to take the next step in their careers.

We are inviting companies to get directly involved through partnerships that enable them to help design curricula and customize programs in a way that produces the skilled workforce those firms need to prosper and compete globally.
But purely educational partnerships can only be part of the solution to the challenges faced by our region. We need to develop a strategic approach to broader partnerships involving business and higher education. One possible model for this is the collaboration between the Northeastern Integrated Initiative in Global Health, driven by faculty in Boston, and Seattle BioMed, to develop tailored graduate courses for Seattle and explore joint research initiatives.

Institutions of higher education should be committed to collaborative relationships with area employers who are driving the local economy, thereby creating a truly educated, highly skilled and competitive workforce that aligns talent with industry needs. It’s innovation at work.

Tayloe Washburn
is the graduate campus CEO and dean of Northeastern University–Seattle. He has held leadership roles in education throughout his career. He was recently named Economic Development Champion of the Year by enterpriseSeattle, a regional economic development council.

Final Analysis: Won’t You Come Home, Bill Boeing?

Final Analysis: Won’t You Come Home, Bill Boeing?

How can we celebrate such a momentous birthday when the honoree doesn’t even live here?
FROM THE PRINT EDITION |
 
 

Elsewhere in this month's issue you’ll find congratulatory notes honoring The Boeing Company on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. Allow me to add my own felicitations.

I just wonder if we all might get a little more jazzed about this upcoming centennial — the actual date is July 15 — if Boeing were still an honest-to-goodness Seattle company.

Sure, it still employs nearly 80,000 people in the Puget Sound region and helps drives our economy. But the day 15 years ago when Boeing announced it was going to move its corporate headquarters to Chicago is the day it essentially placed thumb to nose and said, “Buh-bye. We’re bigger than Seattle.”

I remember thinking at the time, “This makes no sense.” It still doesn’t. It was a move calculated by a CEO more interested in expediency than in legacy. Former Boeing CEO Phil Condit said it wasn’t unusual for a big corporation to have its headquarters distant from its factories. “What we are doing is being done for the benefit of the corporation,” Condit told shareholders at the time. “We want to grow The Boeing Company. If headquarters is to do its job, it must stand separate from any one of the business units.”

Seriously? Boeing is hardly a conglomerate. Despite the acquisitions of recent years, Boeing is and always will be a maker of airplanes and other things that fly through air and space. Condit wanted Boeing to be another United Technologies or another Textron, but it was really more of a true conglomerate in the 1930s, when it operated airlines, engine makers, propeller companies and other enterprises before the feds put the kibosh on all that vertical integration.

Boeing has prospered — and has helped thousands of Puget Sound families prosper — for generations. To suggest that the company is better off by having its corporate headquarters 1,700 miles from its main factories and most of its employees is just silly. What’s more believable is that Boeing wants to isolate itself from the fallout as it continues to ship jobs from Washington to less union-friendly states like South Carolina and Oklahoma. Since November 2012, Boeing employment in Washington state has declined by more than 10 percent — around 8,600 jobs — despite spectacularly generous tax incentives extended by the state Legislature to persuade Boeing to keep production of the 777X airliner in state.

It’s this kind of “thank you” — and the decamping of the corporate HQ staff to Chicago — that rubs Seattle the wrong way. We should be jumping up and down, waving balloons and having parades in Boeing’s honor next month. But am I the only one who gets the feeling that Boeing is still doing business in Washington state because it simply doesn’t want to spend the stupid sums of money it would take to move its Renton and Everett operations to cheaper “right to work” states?

Condit changed the culture at Boeing, and, judging from the difficult launch of the 787 Dreamliner, it’s a culture change that didn’t take. I’m inclined to believe his predecessors from Bill Boeing on would never have moved the company headquarters to Chicago, and I’d be willing to bet that the people who run the commercial airline business here would rather have the 500 or so headquarters people back in Seattle where they belong.

Whether that ever happens depends on what Boeing’s future CEOs value more: being proud of Boeing’s remarkable history or being fearful that its remarkable history somehow diminishes its opportunities.

John Levesque is the managing editor of Seattle Business magazine