21st July 2024
A major competition designed to get more young people involved in manufacturing has recognised the talented engineers of the future.
The Design & Make Challenge 2024, which is organised and run by the Manufacturing Assembly Network (MAN), attracted nearly 100 pupils from 15 schools in what is one of the largest independent STEM events ever held in the UK.
Southam College, Barclay Academy and Lawrence Sheriff High School took the main prizes, winning the Efficiency, Innovation and Manufacturing Awards respectively for the way they tackled the challenge to use a box of simple materials to build a device that could securely lift a 23kg metal block with nothing more than a pulley system.
PICTURED:
Barclay Academy: (l-r) Ke Hong Wei, Charlie Barton, Sophia Healy & Ethan Matthews | Lawrence Sheriff (l-r) Rhianna Lear, Daniel Harker, Alex Jackson, Tabitha Kimberley | Southam College: (l-r) James Dawson, Ollie Macvarish, Lola Holden and Edward Taylor, with Mr Paul Ray and Mrs Emma Holloway
The Year 10, Year 11 and Year 12 students split up into teams of four to design, test and build their solution, working closely with apprentices from the eight MAN companies and graduate engineers from WMG’s SME Group, who were also the hosts for the day at the University of Warwick’s Innovation District.
“What a fantastic way to celebrate the 5th year of the Design & Make Challenge, with the biggest turnout of students we’ve ever had – that really shows the appetite to learn more about a possible career in industry,” commented Austin Owens, Managing Director at Grove Design and Co-Chair of the Manufacturing Assembly Network.
“The competition is all about inspiring young people to get hands-on with design and engineering skills, working together to come up with a solution that then competes with other schools in terms of efficiency, innovation and design for manufacture.”
He continued: “All of the MAN companies were so impressed with the quality of thinking and the sheer commitment from pupils to see their ideas through – even though it may have taken several iterations to get there. That’s what our sector is all about and I’m sure we’ve seen tens of potential engineers in the room during this competition.
“We’d love to make it even bigger and are urging other manufacturers, funders and schools to come forward and get involved. Together we can start to bridge the skills gap industry continues to battle against.”
Southam College, Barclay Academy and Lawrence Sheriff High School each received a 3D Printer as part of their prize package, which was sponsored by 3DPrint UK. These were taken back to each of the schools and will be used to develop additive manufacturing and design skills.
There was a fourth prize given out to recognise the different careers in engineering, with Thomas Telford UTC beating off competition to win the ‘Communications’ Award.
This saw the Shropshire school praised for the way it told the best story of the day through the use of social media, with a single post racking up more than 347 likes and over 2,000 views in just a few hours.
PICTURED: (l-r) Amelia Bennett-Pike, Sehajpreet Kaur (both Thomas Telford UTC) with Richard Spears (PP Control & Automation)
PICTURED: PP Control & Automation helpers on the day; Sophie Young, Scott Ward and Richard Spears
Dr Mark Swift, Director of SME Engagement at WMG, University of Warwick, whose team supported the students on the day, concluded:
“Design & Make connects young people with dynamic manufacturers whilst they are still at school and making future career decisions – this is critical for addressing the UK’s engineering skills gap and fostering a culture of innovation.
“Early exposure and practical experience help to inspire the next generation of engineers, equipping them with the necessary skills to ultimately develop new technology and grow our world leading manufacturing sector.”
Check out the Design & Make 2024 image gallery!
All photography by Rob Finney.
Formed in 2006, The Manufacturing Assembly Network is made up of Alucast, Brandauer, Fluxsys, Grove Design, James Lister & Sons, KimberMills International, Nemco and PP Control & Automation.
The six sub-contract manufacturers, a specialist in electrical machines and drives and a leading engineering design agency form the unique global collective that works together to share best practice and secure contracts for UK industry. Together, the group employs over 1,000 people, operates across twelve factories and exports to more than 35 different countries.
Ian Knight, Chief Information Officer at PP Control & Automation (PP C&A) challenges the prevailing, often vague narrative around AI adoption and reframes the conversation around a more practical starting point: operational constraints.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant concept for manufacturers. It is already being explored across quotation, production planning, engineering, quality, supply chain and customer service functions. Yet, for many organisations, the gap between experimentation and meaningful operational impact remains difficult to close.
A leading aquaculture specialist – that is changing the way fish are vaccinated safely – has signed a major manufacturing deal.
On paper, defined discipline-specific suppliers can look organised. However, every additional supplier introduces another handoff, and every handoff creates another point where time, quality, communication and accountability can be lost.
Very rarely does growth not surface because an OEM lacks ambition. Shortcomings arise because operating models built to support such ambition don’t evolve quickly enough.
Recent weeks have brought two important industry moments into sharp focus, concluding that demand for AI and automation is rising, but investment, skills, and long-term thinking must follow.
For decades, one question has sat at the heart of operational strategy for machine builders and OEMs: make or buy? It’s a familiar debate and it isn’t the wrong question by any means, but perhaps it is an incomplete one.
In most machine building businesses, change is still treated as an exception. A late-stage drawing revision, component substitution, or wiring tweak discovered during build. Each one is handled, resolved, and signed off. And then everyone moves on. But what if that’s the wrong way to think about it? What if change isn’t the disruption to the system but the system itself?
