Industrial Policy Series: Rethinking Industrial Engineering for the Reindustrialization Era

As the United States pursues its vision of reindustrialization, there’s a noticeable gap in the talent pool that threatens the success of this movement. While much of the workforce development focus is rightly placed on building skilled operators and technicians for modern factories, industrial engineers (IEs), who play a crucial role in optimizing complex manufacturing systems, are often left out of the conversation. Industrial engineering programs, by and large, have not adapted quickly enough to the demands of this reindustrialized economy. For U.S. manufacturing to thrive in the coming decades, we need to rethink how we’re training engineers, particularly industrial engineers.

This post is a collection of thoughts and conversations I’ve had over the past several months exploring the current misalignment between industrial engineering education and the reindustrialization efforts championed by the New American Industrial Alliance (NAIA) and similar initiatives. By examining the gaps in industrial engineering curricula and the real-world experience many graduates lack, we’ll discuss how these programs need to evolve to support the next generation of resilient, adaptable manufacturing systems.

The Vision for Reindustrialization

The reindustrialization movement goes beyond simply bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. It’s about creating a flexible, resilient industrial ecosystem that can adapt to the challenges of the 21st century. As policymakers, industry leaders, and organizations like NAIA look to strengthen domestic manufacturing, they envision a future where advanced technologies like automation, AI integration, and new manufacturing approaches play a key role in production systems. This vision also includes building more resilient supply chains, reducing reliance on global trade routes, and fostering local manufacturing ecosystems.

For this vision to succeed, we need a workforce that can navigate this complex landscape. We need engineers who not only understand how to optimize systems but who can also adapt them in response to rapidly changing conditions. The question remains: are our industrial engineering programs preparing students for this critical role?

The Deindustrialized Industrial Engineering Programs

Industrial engineering programs have long been focused on the principles of efficiency, teaching students how to streamline operations, minimize waste, and maximize output. Over time, however, the discipline has increasingly shifted toward areas like data analysis, logistics, supply chain management, and operations research. While these areas are important, they reflect a broader trend of deindustrialization, moving the focus away from manufacturing itself. As a result, many IEs now find themselves filling roles more akin to data analysts or supply chain specialists, rather than being directly engaged in optimizing production systems.

This shift has left a gap in the core mission of industrial engineering: improving manufacturing processes. While traditional methods like lean manufacturing and Six Sigma are still emphasized, they no longer fully align with the needs of modern manufacturing. The reindustrialization movement requires industrial engineers to return to their roots, working directly within manufacturing environments to integrate these cutting-edge technologies, ensure adaptability, and build resilience into production systems. Without refocusing on manufacturing, industrial engineering risks becoming disconnected from the core drivers of economic growth in this new industrial era.

Where Industrial Engineering Programs Fall Short

1. Limited Real-World Experience

While industrial engineering students are trained in problem-solving using quantitative methods, optimization techniques, and data analysis, many programs fail to teach the essential skills of identifying problems and gathering data from real-world environments. Students are often trained to tackle theoretical problems with elegant solutions, but they lack the experience of identifying issues in actual manufacturing settings or collecting relevant data to understand those issues fully. This gap leaves students with a solid foundation in analysis, but without the critical context needed to apply their knowledge effectively in dynamic, complex manufacturing environments.

In practice, many industrial engineers find themselves relegated to “Excel jockey” roles, analyzing pre-collected data, running simulations, and working with spreadsheets, rather than engaging directly in the identification and resolution of operational problems on the factory floor. While these data-centric tasks are valuable, they do not equip engineers with the hands-on experience necessary to engage with the nuances of production processes. By not emphasizing real-world problem identification and data gathering, industrial engineering programs miss an opportunity to fully prepare students for the complexities of modern manufacturing, where adaptability and direct involvement in operations are key to success.

2. Misalignment with Modern Manufacturing Needs

The reindustrialization effort requires a new generation of engineers who can design flexible, resilient systems capable of withstanding supply chain disruptions, technological shifts, and changing policy landscapes. However, many IE programs remain focused on traditional methods of process optimization, with little attention paid to these emerging challenges.

For instance, IEs need to be prepared to integrate new technologies like predictive analytics and automation into existing systems. Yet, many industrial engineering curricula still emphasize legacy tools and methodologies that are better suited to older, more stable manufacturing environments. Students often graduate with little understanding of how to work with digital systems, artificial intelligence, or data analytics, all of which are critical for creating adaptable, efficient, and resilient production lines in the modern world.

3. A Lack of Systems Thinking

Industrial engineering is, at its core, about systems optimization. Yet, traditional programs often focus too narrowly on efficiency within individual production processes rather than taking a holistic view of the entire manufacturing ecosystem. To truly support the reindustrialization effort, industrial engineers must have a broad understanding of the entire lifecycle of products - from raw material sourcing to the final delivery - and the factors that influence this system, including global trade, labor policies, and environmental considerations.

Engineers must also be able to bridge the gap between the technical side of manufacturing and the strategic decisions made by business leaders. Effective communication, project management, and policy awareness are essential skills that many traditional IE programs fail to adequately address.

What Needs to Change

To ensure that industrial engineering education aligns with the needs of reindustrialization, several key changes must be made to curricula, industry collaboration, and faculty development.

1. A Curriculum Overhaul

Industrial engineering programs need to shift from a narrow focus on optimization to a broader focus on systems leadership. This would involve introducing students to concepts such as supply chain resilience, economic policy, labor relations, and workforce development. Students should also be taught how to design systems that can adapt to disruptions, not just optimize for efficiency. As part of this overhaul, programs should integrate case studies from the reindustrialization movement and hands-on projects that tackle real-world challenges.

2. Real-World Experience

To bridge the gap between theory and practice, industrial engineering students need more hands-on experience in real-world manufacturing environments. Internships, co-ops, and embedded design projects should be a core part of IE education, allowing students to work directly with industry partners to solve pressing manufacturing challenges. This kind of experience will ensure that graduates are not only technically proficient but also familiar with the complexities and unpredictability of modern production systems.

3. Digital and Technological Fluency

In an age where automation, AI, and digital technologies are reshaping manufacturing, it’s critical that industrial engineering programs integrate these tools into their curricula. Students should be trained to work with emerging technologies like machine learning, digital twins, and predictive analytics, as these technologies will be essential for designing systems that are not only efficient but adaptable to change.

4. Faculty and Industry Collaboration

One of the challenges industrial engineering programs face today is the decreasing investment from industry in academic partnerships. As manufacturers focus more on immediate operational challenges, long-term collaborations with universities have become harder to sustain. This makes it difficult for engineering programs to keep up with the latest industry trends, technologies, and practices. At the same time, without these collaborations, students miss out on the real-world context they need to succeed.

To address this, both academic institutions and industries must find new ways to engage with one another. This includes incentivizing faculty members to participate in industry research and consulting projects, and forging partnerships with regional manufacturing hubs, workforce development programs, and policy organizations. Only through these partnerships can both sides address the evolving needs of the workforce and ensure that industrial engineering programs are preparing students for the challenges ahead.

A New Model: The Industrial Resilience Engineer

To meet the demands of the reindustrialization movement, we must redefine what it means to be an industrial engineer in the 21st century. The next generation of industrial engineers must evolve into systems thinkers: individuals who can design resilient, adaptable manufacturing ecosystems. These engineers will integrate emerging technologies like automation, artificial intelligence, and data analytics with the world of atoms and production. The role will go beyond optimization; they must also be able to anticipate and manage disruptions in real-time. The Industrial Resilience Engineer will be skilled at ensuring production systems are not only efficient but can quickly adapt to unexpected challenges, whether arising from supply chain issues, technological shifts, or policy changes. By embracing a systems-thinking approach, these engineers will design flexible systems that can withstand and thrive amid inevitable disruptions.

Conclusion

The reindustrialization of the United States is an urgent and transformative goal that requires a workforce capable of driving its success. To achieve this, we need engineers who are not just proficient in traditional optimization methods but are also equipped to think holistically, designing flexible, resilient systems that adapt to the evolving demands of modern industry. Industrial engineering programs must undergo a comprehensive overhaul, recentering on manufacturing, enhancing real-world, hands-on experience, and integrating digital technologies throughout the curriculum.

By preparing industrial engineers to think as systems thinkers, we can ensure they will be ready to lead in rebuilding and revitalizing U.S. manufacturing.