I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet a few figurative pounds that UKCES used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) to frame its survey.
One of the issues with which the electronics industry has been wrestling with over the years is the SIC system. SICs were first used in the UK in 1948 as a way to understand which particular markets a company engaged in and to help generate statistics that showed the health, or otherwise, of particular markets.
The latest version is SIC 2007, which has rolled up a lot of categories into 'manufacturing'. Findlay Media uses SIC 2007 as the basis of its data collection but even though we've been doing this for more than 40 years, we still find the use of SICs in general to be 'challenging'.
There is also the long held belief that few companies take SIC codes seriously and that, consequently, the statistics gathered don't reflect the 'real word'.
It was an issue highlighted a decade ago by the Electronics Innovation and Growth Team. It concluded that, because SICs weren't being taken seriously, Government and other bodies could be using unreliable data to make decisions on issues that affect the industry – and therefore take the wrong decisions.
It might seem a trivial argument, but it does result in some apparently crazy things.
UKCES notes in its report that 'assemblers of electric and electronic products are part of a wider group of assemblers and routine operatives, including tyre and windscreen fitters and sewing machinists'.
It seems to me that the issues that affect contract electronics manufacturers are likely to be significantly different to those affecting employers of sewing machinists and certainly different to those affecting electrical product assemblers. Perhaps that's why the report could only reach the broad conclusion that everyone needs to upgrade their skills.
