Approaches to, and Perceived Benefits of, Training in the Secondary Wood Industry
Keywords:Training, competitiveness, secondary wood industry, furniture, cabinets, millwork
AbstractPractitioners and researchers alike have noted that a well-trained workforce is an important component of the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers in the global economy. This study compares four secondary wood industry sectors on their approaches to, and perceived benefits of, training production employees. The study was based on an Internet survey in the autumn of 2003 of subscribers to a major wood industry publication. A sample of 197 firms was split into four type categories (cabinets, household furniture, contract furniture, and millwork) and two size categories (fewer than 50 employees and 50 or more employees) and compared on several questions related to training of production employees. Some differences were found among the firm types and between the firm sizes. However, the firms were similar in a number of respects. The majority indicated that the return on training was positive, and firms agreed on average that training was critical to their future competitiveness. Implications for domestic competitiveness are noted based on the findings.
Baldwin, B. 2003. Stemming the turnover tide. Modern Woodworking. July: 35-40.nBarrett, J. D., and D. H. Cohen. 1996. Wood products education: the Canadian strategy for renewal and growth. Forest Prod. J. 46(9):15-20.nBowe, S., R. Smith, J. Massey, and E. Hansen. 1999. A methodology for determining extension constituent needs: a case analysis in the forest products industry. J. Extension. 37(4).nBratkovich, S. M., and L. E. Miller. 1993. Perceived educational needs of innovative Ohio sawmill operators. Forest Prod. J. 43(3):35-40.nBrown, T. D., and S. S. Niemiec. 1997. Survey of the training needs in Oregon's lumber manufacturing industry. Forest Prod. J. 47(1):29-32.nBuehlmann, U., M. Bumgardner, A. Schuler, and R. Christianson. 2003. How can the U.S. wood products industry compete? Wood Wood Prod. 108(1):37-46.nBumgardner, M. S., U. Buehlmann, A. Schuler, and R. Christianson. 2004. Domestic competitiveness in secondary wood industries. Forest Prod. J. 54(10):21-28.nCohen, D. H., and T. Maness. 1995. Educational needs of the Canadian solid wood products industry. Wood Fiber Sci. 27(2):126-133.nGreen, P. E., and F. J. Carmone. 1978. Some methodological alternatives in the analysis of life style data. J. Econ. Bus. 30(2):158-161.nGreenspan, A. 2004. The critical role of education in the nation's economy. Remarks at the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004 Annual Meeting. February 20. Omaha, NE. (internet reference). http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/. (september 2, 2004).nHansen, E., and R. Smith. 1997. Assessing educational needs of the forest products industry in Oregon and Virginia. Forest Prod. J. 47(4):36-42.nMalhotra, N. K. 1996. Marketing research: An applied orientation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.nMichael, J. H., and R. M. Leschinsky. 2003. Human resources management and training needs of Pennsylvania lumber producers. Forest Prod. J. 53(3):28-32.nMoriarty, R. T., and D. J. Reibstein. 1986. Benefit segmentation in industrial markets. J. Bus. Res. 14:463-486.nRaymond, A. G. 2004. Lessons learned: The furniture and cabinet universe. In Program of the 2004 Hardwood Industries Leadership Conference: Competitiveness in the Global Marketplace. May 24-26. State College, PA: Penn State University. Unnumb.nSchuler, A., and U. Buehlmann. 2003. Identifying future competitive business strategies for the U.S. furniture industry: Benchmarking and paradigm shifts. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-304. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 15 pp.nSinclair, S. A., B. G. Hansen, and E. F. Fern. 1993. Industrial forest products quality: an empirical test of Garvin's eight quality dimensions. Wood Fiber Sci. 25(1):66-76.nSmith, R. L., R. J. Bush, and A. L. Hammett. 1998. Evaluating the subject needs for wood science and forest products curricula. Wood Fiber Sci. 30(1):105-112.nVlosky, R. P., and N. P. Chance. 2001. Employment structure and training needs in the Louisiana value-added wood products industry. Forest Prod. J. 51(3):34-41.n
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.