Introduction

The highlight of the annual meeting of the American Foundry Society is the invited lecture, now known as the Hoyt Memorial Lecture. The Technical Council’s Honorary Lectures and Papers Committee choose a speaker for this lecture over a year in advance, offering the individual free rein to speak on whatever topic they feel is in the best interest of the Society. Speakers are chosen on the basis of their widespread credentials in the foundry industry and their ability to address the Society at large in a formal lecture setting with a topic of importance and passion.

This body of material taken as a whole represents a rich source of wisdom for the foundry industry and its leaders. Speakers were invited to address topics of interest in that day, creating year by year a history of the best advice to the Society from its premier spokesmen. In the reading of these lectures, one can discern the repeated themes that have engaged the foundry industry and see the interaction that the industry has had with historical events and with government.

This paper provides a synthesis of the key themes that have occupied our industry, as seen through its leading lights, in an effort to not only preserve the history of the Society but to present to this generation a bit of the wisdom of the past. While there is historical and some scientific interest in tracking the state of the art of foundry technology or metallurgical advances through the references in the Hoyt Lectures, the great majority of the material and enduring value of the lectures derives from their advice and counsel to their listeners on how to do the business of the foundry in human and management terms. Therefore, the author has focused his research into these lectures in these areas.

History

On April 29, 1943, John Bolton, a metallurgist from Lunkenheimer Company, delivered what he described as the “first foundation lecture” of the American Foundrymen’s Association. Entitled “Foundry Metallurgy in the Castings Industry,” Mr. Bolton described his task: “It was suggested that this lecture be a general review of progress, specifically metallurgical progress, in the castings industry.”1 He described his freedom in topic selection as well, “For the Foundation Lectures of the American Foundrymen’s Association, restriction is but to the castings industry.”

What was launched in 1943 as a Foundation Lecture was the formal commitment to continue a practice that preceded John Bolton’s lecture: an invited lecture to the whole gathering of the (at that time) association at its annual gathering. This invited lecture material was published each year as a separate pamphlet prior to 1943 and the library of the American Foundry Society does not have a full collection of this material.2

In 1947 Dr. James MacKenzie, Director and Chief Metallurgist for American Cast Iron Pipe Company spoke to the Association and this lecture was the first named the Charles Edgar Hoyt Annual Lecture. His topic (and title of his lecture) was simply, “The Cupola Furnace.”3

Charles Edgar Hoyt was honored by the Association for extensive work for the organization spanning the years of 1916 through 1946. Hoyt served as a Director of the Association from 1916 to 1942, Executive Vice President from 1937 to 1941 and Treasurer from 1943 to 1946. Hoyt was a practicing foundryman, an instructor at Michigan State University and heavily involved in the planning of many significant industry gatherings. Hoyt’s vision made the decision to name the foundation lecture series after him obvious: he was an educator with a dream to link foundries in such a way that they could share their knowledge and technology in a way that would promote the kind of positive competition that would improve the foundry industry as a whole.4 Few that have given the Hoyt Lecture have not expressed both awe and admiration for Hoyt’s legacy and fewer still have failed to express humility at the task of following in his footsteps. An invitation to deliver the Hoyt Memorial Lecture continues to be one of the highest honors the Society can bestow, coming with it honorary lifetime membership as an alumnus.

Overview of the Corpus of Material

The available lectures examined for this paper begin in 1943 and are available for consecutive years through 2018, spanning 75 years. All were published in the Transactions of the organization, noting that the current American Foundry Society has gone through a few name changes over the years.

Over this 75-year period, the individual lectures vary widely in length from barely three pages to over 55 pages. Some are profoundly technical presentations of research and others are almost whimsical reflections on life and doing foundry work. Some are didactic, factual surveys and others are almost sermons for a cause. While all were intended to move the foundry industry forward in the spirit of C. Edgar Hoyt, the full range of human endeavor and creativity is present in this material.

To describe this body of literature as a whole, three aspects of the lectures were tabulated. This included a tabulation of the position or title of the lecturer, the type of presentation and the primary subject of the lecture.

It should be noted that the earlier years of the lecture were primarily technical presentations given by chief metallurgists or managers of research. Over time, it became more popular to have foundry executives address the Society, and by 1958 even suppliers to the foundry industry were occasionally invited to speak! Topics became more diverse over time and in the last 20–30 years of the lecture many speakers have focused on the practice of managing a foundry and specifically the people side of the business.

The first female Hoyt Lecturer presented in 1995, Diana Waterman of Waterman and Associates, who provided a truly insightful lecture entitled “Metalcasting Confronting Government Policy: Yesterday’s Lessons, Today’s Challenge, Tomorrow’s Vision.” Since Ms. Waterman’s presentation, two other women have been honored: Dr. Kathy Hayrynen (2014) and Sara Joyce (2015).

The presentation format and style also have changed somewhat over the 75 years of lectures examined. Many of the early presentations were technical research papers. A popular and frequent format is the historical survey of a technology or an industry or metal segment. In recent years, the managerial persuasive or “pointed advice” presentation has been very popular, offering the speaker an opportunity to highlight best practices for management from essential principles and/or their experience. This advice also extends to the industry as a whole and AFS in particular, as the industry itself is considered vulnerable or at risk in the competitive landscape.

Figure 1 provides a ranked frequency chart of the job position of those who provided the Hoyt Memorial Lecture. Figure 2 provides a graphical summary of the type of presentation and Figure 3 below provides a tabulation of the primary subject presented. It should be immediately noted that it was not always easy to classify these unique and widely diverse presentations and, in some cases, the selection of a single topic was challenging due to the wide-ranging nature of the presentation. However, it is hoped that by these listings, not only will the material be more succinctly summarized, but future honorary lectures and papers committee chairman will have a better perspective on the lecture and the potential speakers.

Figure 1
figure 1

The diagram shows a breakdown of the positions held by the Hoyt Lecturer at the time of their presentation and their frequency.

Full size image
Figure 2
figure 2

The diagram shows a breakdown of the type of presentation provided and their frequency.

Full size image
Figure 3
figure 3

The diagram shows a breakdown of the primary topic presented in the Hoyt Lecture over the years 1943–2018 and their frequency.

Full size image

Despite the multiplicity of topics covered, the presenting author’s credentials or position, or even the overall format of the material, key themes continued to reveal themselves throughout these lectures. Reading and taking notes from 75 years of lectures over the span of a few weeks made this very apparent. The Society’s honored men and women continue to touch on treasured wisdom and vital topics that survive the movement of time. The world has changed dramatically since April 29, 1943 the date the first foundation lecture was delivered. The world was deeply entrenched in WWII, D-Day not even planned. Yet over the wars, the changes of government administration, the regulatory changes and America’s cultural shifts, the wisdom of these leaders returns again and again to vital areas of concern for our future and for the continued health of our industry.

These themes include:

  • The nature and importance of research

  • Our responsibility to our people

  • The importance of education

  • The relationship between foundry and government

  • Quality

  • The art of management

It is to these themes that the remainder of this paper is devoted.

The Nature and Importance of Research

It is not surprising that the first foundation lecture of the American Foundrymen’s Association (AFA) touched squarely on the subject of research as it was delivered by a metallurgist as he reviewed the status and progress of the various casting metal groups. Bolton’s lecture speaks to the proper balance between theory and practice in research and this endures as wisdom for today.

Research involves both how and why, often called “practice” and “theory.” Immediate interest usually is in the how. Impatience if not scorn often are vouchsafed the why. True enough, the how often precedes the why, at least to outward appearances. The how may be empirical, it may be skill, it may even be but rule of thumb, or it may be based on a why. Once a why is mastered and applied many hows almost automatically suggest themselves. We consider Newton and Pasteur great because their discoveries of some whys revolutionized the fields of mechanics and medicine respectively. We honor Howe and Merica because their whys opened veritable floodgates of practical discovery. (emphasis in the original)

Bolton goes on to recommend that because of this necessary interplay between how and why, those engaged in research ought to have had practical and personal experience in a working foundry. “Industrial research men are far the better for practical experience. Close contact with operating conditions is both revealing and stimulating. Some actual contact with the many and varied conditions of foundry practice should be sought, even by workers in pure theory.”

Bolton reminds us of the necessary engagement with the foundry conditions required to make research meaningful and relevant. “Application often requires considerable skill. In some research work, the variables are kept to a minimum, so that basic reactions and principles can be understood. The child of the laboratory may find tough going in a foundry—it is not sheltered from the variables. Someone with understanding of both research and practice must bridge the gap. Keen power of observation and real ingenuity are needed. Proficiency in the art as well as in the science is essential.”1

Harry Schwartz, the Manager of Research for Steel Castings Co., echoed Bolton’s need for a sense of balance between theory and practice and how this must be embodied in an individual skilled in both: “What industry most needs is a group of people who can interpret the findings of the pure scientist for the benefit of industry.” He also described the need for research to account for real life; to help the foundry to understand what simplifications and approximations were warranted because theoretical conditions are never present in the foundry. “The greatest opportunity for research in this field (heat transfer) perhaps lies in the study of how nearly such simplifying assumptions will reproduce the facts, and what simplifying assumptions are warranted.”5

Gillett spoke to the same need a year earlier in his foundation lecture: “Experiments are always right. Inanimate objects are perfectly honest, they do just what they ought to do under the conditions imposed. It’s our failure to know just what every condition is, and our human limitations in interpretation of experiments that get us all mixed up.”6 Bolton, Gillett and Schwartz all offer the wartime wisdom that research is vital, that it must focus on both the how and the why, and that it must be carried on by practical people acquainted with real-world conditions of the foundry so that it may be applied effectively.

In the years following the war, research continued to be a significant priority among Hoyt lecturers but the emphasis changed to focus on the management of research and the need to do it so that it was efficient: moving ideas smoothly into practical changes in the foundry. Probably James Zeder, a Vice President of Chrysler and Director of Engineering and Research, speaking in 1951, offered the most succinct advice on these matters.

On its importance he wrote, “The vital, basic part of the life blood of your company—of any company—if it is to survive in a highly competitive economy: industrial research.” Zeder linked this to profitability and viability of a company: “Doing no research does not guarantee your current level of earnings. Your greatest need for research might not be to increase your profits but to maintain them.” Speaking on the means to smooth transfer of research ideas into practical use, Zeder writes, “We have learned one thing, however, and that is to allow the research idea to continue to the point where its acceptance by development or production engineering groups is assured on at least as sound basis as their own developments. Only too often we attempt to pour the new wine of research into the old bottle of convention and lose both the wine and the bottle.” Zeder defends this kind of research (and the money expended upon it) with this observation: “Research has sometimes been characterized as a gamble. In the sense that it is an investment in an enterprise with an unpredictable outcome, it is a gamble; but the fact that its success is dependent on the quality of its direction and execution makes it a game of skill rather than one of chance.” (emphasis in the original) Zeder’s perspective on research certainly reflects the time period in which he spoke, the United States having won the Second World War America was proving to be the most powerful country on the planet and full of optimism. Yet Zeder knew that this would not continue to be the case unless research was fully at the forefront of our industry and our personal attention.

The men of engineering, the men of science, and the men of business and industry have always before them a dual purpose, whether all of them realize it or not. This purpose is to so serve their company that its competitive position in the industry shall not be successfully challenged. In doing this they also serve their country—so that the position of leadership of the United States shall not be successfully challenged by any power on earth. (emphasis in the original)7

By 1972 and Millis’ Hoyt Lecture, the need for research was still a high priority, but not for the survival of the country but for the survival of the foundry industry. Competitive forces had been engaged that could only be fought off by research and advancement in the use of technology. “I suggest, however, that the increase in casting sales has not kept pace with the increase in population, the increase in gross national product or any indicators normally used to illustrate growth. Doesn’t this mean that much more research is needed in order to combat the inroads being made by other competitive industries? Doesn’t it further indicate that much, much more research is necessary to enable us to invade the markets enjoyed by the competition?”8 It is relevant that Millis position at International Nickel was that of Sales Manager yet his lecture was titled, “Research and the Foundry Industry.” He knew what his former Hoyt lecturers knew: research was vital for the health of the industry because the world does not stand still: it demands more for less every day.

T. K. McCluhan almost a decade later (1983) continued to remind the American Foundrymen’s Society of the theme of research. He appealed for 1) a better understanding of the basic fundamental metallurgy (ala Bolton’s why); 2) dramatically improve the communication bridge between theory and results (ala Schwartz in 1945) and 3) bring to bear other technical disciplines to the problems and opportunities of our industry. McCluhan saw this in terms of Millis’ concern for the competitive position of the foundry industry: “To better understand technologies, we, as an industry, need to become involved in basic, fundamental research. If we are unable to develop a basic understanding of materials, we will limit ourselves to knee-jerk metallurgy and the ultimate loss of markets which become too sophisticated for our capabilities.”9

Katz in 1990 speaking as the head of GM’s Research Labs, again struck the same themes as Bolton, Schwartz and Gillett over 40 years earlier, interestingly not only arguing for more research and its funding, but that foundries themselves be involved to a far greater degree. Katz argued that foundries ought to be research centers, sharing their results (and failures) using AFS as the nexus for communication about what was being done for the benefit of the industry as a whole.10

Dr. Carl Loper in 1992 again appealed for more research, using his lecture to trace the history of cast iron foundry methods and illustrating each positive development as an outgrowth of new learning fostered by research. He specifically appealed for research to be based to a greater degree in the USA, believing that not only the US-based foundries but the USA’s competitive position was at risk.11

More recently in 2009 Dave Weiss, heavily involved in the very kind of research Katz spoke about, asked his listeners to imagine the future 1000 years from now and where today’s and tomorrow’s research might take the industry. A Star Trek buff, Weiss’ plea for more research sought:12

  • Greater financial support for research from government

  • An attitude adjustment by foundries and suppliers (toward the necessity of funding, and engaging in, research)

  • Improvements in a basic tool of casting research (namely, casting solidification modeling)

  • A focus on a specific promising area: high strength composites (from which star ships could be built!)

These several examples throughout the history of the Hoyt lecture create a consensus: research is a vital component of the success of the foundry industry and as the foundry industry goes, so does the USA. This research must be carried on with the significant involvement of working foundries, not exclusively in the halls of academia. This is why Bolton spoke of “industrial research men” and Zeder referred to it as “industrial research.” Research must strike a wholesome balance between theory and practice, the why and the how. Research ought to be considered an investment that entails risk, though that risk mitigated by good management produces benefits that are the future of our industry.

Doug Trinowski in 2017, after reviewing a good portion of the history of research and its successes argued vigorously that while research was “a cornerstone of our industry, vital to its continued growth, prosperity and competitiveness in the global market” the greatest need was the process of technology transfer—to actually get this research both available and applied in the foundry.13

Clearly, the research pipeline needs to be of larger diameter, with greater flow (volume and rate) and with a larger number of branches reaching into our foundries. This connects to both institutional behavior and support (as Trinowski eloquently delineated in his lecture) and a commitment by both academia and foundries to combine efforts to overcome the natural obstacles to application.

Our Responsibility to Our People

The foundry industry has always had a reputation—and a self-image—of being populated by a hardworking, upright groups of citizens, perhaps since the birth of the nation and foundrymen signed the Declaration of Independence. Those who brought the Hoyt Memorial Lecture however, those men and women who were chosen to speak to the Society about matters of their interest and passion, often reminded their audience about people care. This began explicitly in the 1952 lecture when for the first time an executive with responsibility for “industrial relations” (today’s Human Resources) from Ford Motor Company spoke.

John Bugas titled his lecture “Industry’s Responsibility to Youth” and the concern of the day was fear of the spread of communism. Bugas’ lecture was aimed at describing the antidote to political and moral decay of youth as it applied to the foundry industry. He asked foundries to act responsibly as covenant keepers of three enduring promises:

  • To keep open the doors of opportunity to youth

  • To provide the conditions where youth can move forward for something in life (provide a path of advancement and personal development)

  • To set an example of citizenship acting with regard to the rights of others

Bugas wrote further regarding a foundry’s responsibility toward its people and its community.

A corporation has duties and responsibilities to match the privileges it enjoys in doing business under a system of keen competition. It must act continually with an awareness of the public interest. It has a responsibility not only to produce a good product at a fair price but to behave in such a way that it contributes to the good of the nation and each of the communities in which it operates.14

Bugas declared that foundries have a kind of stewardship responsibility for the people they employ, the community in which they operate and even of the nation in which they enjoy their freedoms. This philosophy contains enduring wisdom beyond the time and social setting in which Bugas spoke and was picked up repeatedly over the following years of the Hoyt lecture.

By 1976 Bugas’ theme was taken up by several in two key directions: how then should management operate this stewardship responsibility and how shall educational opportunity be provided to enhance foundry workers and professional people, but the industry and nation? These subjects receive separate and focused attention under separate headings below.

Yet in 1976 the Chairman of the Board of Grede Foundries was given an opportunity to present the Hoyt Lecture. He was not content to think of the country and its bicentennial year, but instead named his lecture “2001, A Foundry Odyssey” asking his hearers to imagine what it would take to get just 25 years into the future. Jacobs was not thinking about new technology that would be required to make it successfully into 2001, but that it would require a return to fundamental principles, an enduring commitment to doing the right things. “For what appears more evident every day is that much that is called ‘old-fashioned’ is, in fact, the backbone of growth, and no odyssey to the future will get anywhere unless it brings along a healthy measure of the good things of the past.” Included in Jacobs’ review of the old-fashioned things that we must maintain is our respect and care for those whom we employ.

One of those old-fashioned values we each must take along on our odyssey is personal pride and independence. A man at work must feel that he is an individual with a unique skill and a unique contribution to make, and our operations must grow to allow this independence. Disturbing reports of people’s attitudes toward work make clear that (we) must have as a primary goal the reintroduction of dignity into human efforts to create quality products. Our present waste of human energy is no less important than that of fossil energy, for the human mind has far greater potential for all of us than any new conservation gimmick in the energy field.15

It was people care and the stewardship responsibility that foundries share for their people that led the industry to respond to the new government organization, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the way that the 1978 Hoyt Lecturer from Deere and Company did. Sacks, the Director of Safety and Environmental functions at the company spoke of the need for companies to undertake care for their people not because of the new regulations from OSHA (then only 7 years old) and the federal government, but because it was the right thing to do. This certainly was an area of need in the foundries of 1978. Sacks quoted 1974 statistics that were no cause of pride:

  • Ferrous foundries averaged 30.4 TCIR and 11.6 LCIR

  • Non-ferrous foundries averaged 27.6 TCIR and 11.1 LCIR

  • All private manufacturing averaged 14.6 TCIR and 4.7 LCIR

Sacks’ proposal to deal with safety more effectively echoes modern thinking and Bugas’ wisdom about management responsibility of stewardship:

The nation’s progress toward the goal of improved workplace safety and health need not depend on massive, federal, adversary enforcement program relying on compliance with complex, detailed body of standards. Instead, a program based upon professional safety and health principles, administered to encourage and harness the strength and efficiency of private enterprise could be developed. This would place responsibility for employee safety and health on the employer, where it must be, and free government to assume a supportive role of establishing fair rules and providing much-needed research, consultation and incentive.16 (emphasis added)

Sacks’ proposal for safety improvement embodies the essential elements of an approach for today:

  • Risk analysis and hazard identification

  • Management planning, oversight and goal setting

  • Education and training in safe work practices

  • Investigation, cause analysis and corrective action for each injury and incident

  • Open review of the effectiveness of safety plans based on bottom line results

Sacks’ views on the role of government are considered under a later subhead.

A few years later Knight used his lecture invitation to speak to AFS about proper management practices to seize the opportunities in the 1980s. These heavily leaned on the core principle of people care. Knight’s contention was that management failed when it did not “create an environment where people can make a difference.” He wrote that, “Fundamentally, people want the opportunity to grow up and to be paid fairly for their performance. Management has the responsibility to create an environment in which people can achieve these simple objectives. It is important to recognize that significant increases in productivity are only gained through people.”

Specific practices in people care on the management side included personal involvement, priority setting, fairness even with challenging excellence goals and allowing people the opportunity to experiment and try new things where failure is not punished but used as a means of learning.17

Carl Weigell made these same points in his 1984 lecture.

First, we must in our foundries develop a corporate culture based on excellence. That begins with our people and their development. Always remember, we hire minds; the hands and feet, the eyes and ears are splendid extras. We must listen to one another and create an in-plant and in-office atmosphere in which minds can grow.” He wrote further, “Between management and workers, there must be mutual trust and respect. We should never manage by fear. Give your people the right to fail, to undo a mistake and learn from it.18

Weigell titled his lecture “The Winning Edge” and Ray Witt picked up the same themes of winning in the 1980s via proper management. Witt also emphasized the need for a corporate culture that was about caring for people.

We must develop a positive attitude and sense of confidence amongst employees. We must have high expectations. Working for a living takes up a very large portion of our time. We need an atmosphere that results in self-satisfaction and improves our feelings of self-worth.

More pointedly, Witt exhorted his hearers:

Organizations must constantly shift and make changes to adjust to the talents of individuals in key positions. Everyone likes to think of themselves as winners and this is important to success. People need meaning in their lives. All business cultures must stress first-class business integrity and fair treatment of employees. The organization and the employees must move in lock-step. Consideration must be given to the motivation of an individual. Don’t ever assume that people know what is required. Most of us lack proper communication. A strong corporate culture enhances profit.19

George Booth of Ford Motor Company and Manager of its Foundry Casting Division, echoed Witt in his excellent talk on leadership by saying, “The challenge facing us will be to equal or surpass our business and technological accomplishments in terms of how we relate to one another as human beings.”20

Again in 2003s Hoyt Lecture, Conner Warren of Citation Corporation focused the Society’s attention on people care and effective management through stewardship (though he himself did not use that word) of employees. He shared Morris Hackney’s (Citation’s visionary leader) corporate guidelines that incorporate the principles necessary for the preservation of a proper company culture of respect and the mutual attainment of goals through communication and basic courtesy.21

The most recent and likely best summary of the integration of people care into management stewardship over all phases of a business is Denny Dotson’s 2011 Hoyt Lecture entitled “Engage, Empower and Align—The Core of Next Generation Manufacturing.” Dotson makes explicit through his use of Dotson’s Iron Castings’ business philosophy graphic the scope of this stewardship and the values in which it is rooted.

Dotson’s employees are engaged, innovative, successful and community-minded working in an environment where they feel valued, respected, secure, safe and rewarded; their leaders inspire, build trust and empower the organization.

Dotson’s employee value proposition is undergirded by the organization’s values bedrock, described in six points identified in the same graphic:

  • Integrity

  • Respect and serve others

  • Excellent execution

  • Hold self-accountable

  • Employee engagement

  • Celebrate successes22

Dotson’s concept of engagement is a modern term for Weigell, Witt, Booth and Warren’s ideal relationship with the employee in a foundry: to so motivate, communicate with and empower that worker (whether he/she be on the melt deck or the engineering office) to desire to effectively participate in the organization’s ongoing improvement journey.

A few years later Sara Joyce amplified these concepts, and especially teamwork based on Dotson’s concept of engagement, as the ideal management stewardship expression. Her contention was that organizational quality improvement in all its elements is well founded on a teamwork environment where employees are engaged and empowered.23

This corporate sense of responsibility for the industry and the individuals that compose it among Hoyt lecturers is a primary driver for the next theme considered in this paper: education.

The Importance of Education

Dotson well summarized the historical pressures foundries have experienced to survive by citing a few key statistics: “One of the first facts about our industry is that it is declining in both number of foundries and in total capacity. My grandfather started in 1923 when 20,000 iron foundries operated in the U.S. When my father started in 1943, the number had dropped to 6000. By the time I started in 1972, there were fewer than 2000. Today, according (to) the AFS industry census, there are only 492 iron foundries.”22 This decline has not gone unnoticed by Hoyt Lecturers through the years—and its antidote (beyond an increasing urgency to improve both management practices and technological sophistication via research) was a high degree of emphasis on supporting education.

Education was observed as a means of supporting the fundamental research needed to drive understanding into the whys and hows described by Bolton in 1943. So important was the institution of the Foundry Education Foundation to the foundry industry that Loper, the distinguished academic described it in 1992 as equally important to iron foundries and their survival into the future as the discovery of ductile iron.11

In 1947, the same year that the Hoyt Lecture was first delivered under that name, the Foundry Education Foundation (FEF) was incorporated a couple of months earlier. By 1953 and the lecture of James Smith from General Motors, the role of FEF and the need to support foundry education had become one of the top five “outstanding opportunities for the foundry industry.” Smith was greatly concerned that of the college graduates in engineering class of 1952, less than 1% chose for their career the foundry industry (which Smith described as the fifth largest durable goods industry in the country at the time). Smith’s proposal for encouraging more engineering students to enter the foundry industry was threefold:

  • Develop methods to influence students to enter engineering curricula

  • Influence students already in engineering programs to start the “foundry sequence” where it exists

  • Concentrate on making a foundry program available in more schools and universities

Smith appealed for greater industry support of FEF, especially for financial contributions to the new organization that Smith praised for its initial work: by 1953 there were 990 FEF graduates and 1450 FEF interns in summer programs.

Yet Smith also proposed that foundries themselves take a more proactive approach to educating their workers as a fundamental responsibility. This included establishing educational qualifications for supervisory positions, providing ongoing training for all those in technical and supervisory positions and operating apprenticeship programs for skilled trades.24

While Smith saw the need for education improvement as one of five “opportunities” in the foundry industry, just 2 years later Fred Walls, an executive with International Nickel, described education as the priority for the industry:

The future of the foundry industry lies in the human resources available to us. It is for our own benefit that we should assume a greater interest in the development of these resources. In this age of increasing mechanical and technical complexity, the highly developed skills and technical knowledge are at a premium.

Walls built on the foundation Smith had described 2 years earlier by exhorting his hearers to encourage youth in very specific ways. These included asking foundries to get directly involved in their local schools (high school and elementary grades, not just colleges) by helping them to solve problems and by providing technical expertise in instruction and curriculum development friendly to the foundry industry. He asked foundries to financially contribute to local schools as they struggled to deal with higher enrollments projected (what is now known as the “baby boom”). Walls felt it was of particular importance to acquaint students even in grades below the eighth grade to foundry science and technical concepts applicable to the foundry. Like Smith, Walls strongly encouraged foundry involvement in training programs and the strengthening of technical qualifications for positions of responsibility in the foundry. He explicitly encouraged foundry management to pay for their employees to attend AFS meetings and training.

Walls cited approvingly the recent addition of an Education Director to AFS staff and the work of an Education Division within its committee structure including technical committees on

  • Apprentice training

  • Foreman training

  • Cooperation with engineering schools

  • Youth encouragement25

Walls wrote, “That which we need most in any industry and particularly in the casting industry, is mental work.” He defended this focus by reminding his hearers that no technological invention “can be substituted for brains when something goes wrong.” This remains wisdom worth remembering even for today.

By 1966, Nass observed in his Lecture that the cast metal industry was growing (despite fewer overall foundries) but that growth demanded further human resources, specifically maintenance workers, engineers and management staff.

Nass predicted that by 1970 18–20% of those employed by the foundry industry would be in some maintenance role and that “… the selection, training, scheduling and upgrading of maintenance workers will become a vital function of management.” In regard to the need for engineers, Nass praised FEF noting, “The FEF has done an outstanding job and will continue to do so to the extent of the support it receives from industry.”

As Nass looked forward to future growth, he singled out the need for a greater degree of management talent, specifically because of the greater complexity of their jobs. He highlighted five factors that increased the complexity of a management job that still resonate today:

  • The increased use of computer process control

  • Higher casting (quality) standards

  • Upgraded technical management (i.e., the need to manage a more sophisticated technical organization structure/research)

  • Added government controls

  • New technological processes26

By 1982, the shortage of engineers was considered a near crisis by Knight, who identified this issue as a top management priority. Citing several factors impacting the trend toward a reduction in total engineering students and in fewer of those students becoming part of the foundry industry, he again encouraged management to be involved in schools and support FEF. “The Foundry Education Foundation is an important part of an industry program to accomplish the job of attracting new engineers to the industry, and it is management’s challenge to maintain the FEF’s effectiveness and to find additional ways to support the development of engineering talent.”17

Hugh Sims a decade later highlighted the other side of foundry education needs by calling attention to the need to develop the workers on the shop floor, including basic skills such as math and reading. In 1991, a kind of education crisis was developing according to Sims, one where “50% of our industrial workers read at or below the eighth grade level” and “the national high school dropout rate is 25%.” Citing Fred Walls’ lecture of 1955,

We will need more, highly skilled and better-trained employees. What our educational system is giving us is (sic) more poorly trained and less skilled candidates. These are the same problems Fred Walls addressed in 1955. It seems we did not learn much from his message.

Sims appealed to foundries to initiate or strengthen workplace training programs to teach not only foundry subjects but basic skills such as reading and math to address the crisis. He asked foundries to be compassionate in their hiring practices and bring in candidates that could be trained, not only those who were already qualified, in order to support the families and the communities affected by this education crisis.27

Dwight Barnhard focused his entire lecture to the need for an improved education process, titling his 2001 lecture, “The Knowledge Equation: Formula for Wisdom.” Barnhard cited both Sims and Walls, insisting that “There cannot be developed a sufficient supply of skilled workers, trained engineers and scientists of the required stature without greater cooperation between leaders in industry and leaders in our educational system.” He reminded the industry that education was the required process to translate noise to data to information to knowledge to understanding and finally to wisdom (the ability to effectively apply what one knows). He used the model of compound interest and applied it to education, promoting the idea that education of foundry people at all levels was an efficient investment that yielded outstanding returns.28

D. F. Hoyt in 2002 began his lecture surveying the historical progress of casting technology and attributed this growth to the effective transfer of knowledge from foundry man to foundry man. Hoyt’s concern was that this effective transfer was breaking down under the challenges of our modern society and the loss of focus on education and apprenticeship. His paper provides not only a primer on how to effectively conduct workshop training programs and instruction, but a long list of external assistance resources upon which to draw for further assistance.29

It is clear that over the years of the Hoyt Lecture, not only was providing education to all its workers a foundry responsibility and a necessary priority but that the cast industry as a whole, through its leadership was required to take part. Since FEF’s founding in 1947, Hoyt Lecturers have repeatedly appealed to their hearers for increased support (both financial and otherwise) of this organization. While they have made this appeal from various perspectives, each generation of foundrymen has heard the call.

Foundry and Government

The foundry industry has always recognized that because of its significance to the overall prosperity of the nation and its ability to produce hard goods, it had some necessary relationship to the country’s government. The nature of this relationship has changed over time, but the vital and symbiotic relationship remains. The collective wisdom of the Hoyt Lecture’s literature defines the outline of an effective relationship with government, one that supports the country and one that prospers the cast metals producers.

During the war years (WWII), the foundry industry was tapped to supply goods for the war effort. While generally the government took exceptional steps to organize all manufacturing to efficiently produce war materials, and cooperation with these actions was the definition of patriotism, it was also observed that a cooperative and mutually supportive relationship with government was seen as an attractive thing.

Quoting Steinebach (The Foundry, vol 71, No. 1 (1943) p.65) ‘Today the war effort and the foundry industry suffer from lack of united action on foundry problems. Both government and industry are at fault.’ Whether it be war or peace, united action is necessary. Courage and vision are needed for unity within our industry and in our Association. Beyond these, unity is needed in industry in general, and integration of all with the affairs of government.1

The nature of this integration has been refined over the years. In the post-war years, Zeder and Bugas saw the foundry industry as having a citizenship responsibility to contribute to the good of the country, supporting its prosperity by caring for its people and improving technologically to maintain the USA’s superiority over foreign threats (i.e., communism).

Yet by 1960 Grede saw government as not returning the favor—a new progressive income tax structure had been by then instituted that had taken a bite out of Grede Foundries profits. Yet even as Chairman of the Board, Grede saw that it was in the industry’s best interest to engage government for the continuing good of the foundry: “Unlike American business that rewards the productive, our government penalizes the productive. This plagues all American industry and, therefore, there are some skills and techniques, as well as some substantial effort that we must develop outside of our technical problems and in the area of public and political relationships.”30

Over the next couple of decades government involvement in the affairs of business became more challenging, as described by Sacks in his Hoyt Lecture:

Until recently, government regulations were relatively few and were aimed at prohibiting undesirable activities. Today, there are over 83 regulatory agencies and the thrust of regulation is to tell business what to do and how to do it.16

Sacks primary focus in his lecture was the issue of safety management and as has been already discussed, this was a critical element in the industry’s sense of proper people care. Yet as much as Sacks shares concerns over the intrusion of government into the affairs of business (even in this area), he espouses an active engagement strategy that echoes Grede in 1960.

As businessmen we need to constructively face the substance of these issues which involve public goals. They call for early response and adaption (sic) by business. Ignoring them or rejecting them, or putting them off without a positive response as though they themselves were a threat to the free-enterprise system leads politicians to find solutions which may well be impractical and encourages over-regulation by government. On the other hand, business involvement, leadership and responsiveness in offering positive, realistic alternatives, based upon creditable facts, can result in practical solutions without need for massive government intervention.16

Carl Weigell commenting on the 1984 election campaign picked up the wisdom of active engagement with government, taking it to a more direct and personal level:

…Those politicians must become our partners … Let’s get serious about inviting those politicians and bureaucrats into our foundries. Use some show-and-tell psychology. Show them what we do, tell them how we do take care of the state and nation when we succeed. They must understand that in so many ways we give a lot back to society and we are striving to do more. Remember, the elected officials work for us. We hire them; we pay them to serve us. Let’s give them a first-hand opportunity to see and understand our burden of leadership. If that burden is our opportunity, it is why we in the foundry industry must succeed in our constant search for the winning edge. (emphasis in the original)18

Perhaps the finest expression of wisdom in the Hoyt Lecture series addressing the proper relationship between the foundry industry and government was delivered in 1995 by Diana Waterman. Her approach to government was first based on her understanding of the principles upon which the foundry industry rested: technological ingenuity, integrity in how business is conducted, a strong work ethic and unwavering pride in the industry. She then proceeded to describe three key lessons that apply universally but certainly to the industry’s relationship with government:

  • Principles withstand time

  • Perspectives must adapt to change

  • Ideas have consequences

The active, intelligent engagement by industry with government then follows logically from these principles. Her argument begins with a question:

The chief question we must ask ourselves, now, as we confront our policymakers and regulators, is not whether we need government, but whether government needs us. The answer is, emphatically, yes. Our government desperately needs us. It needs the wisdom of foundrymen and women, your insights, your skills, your knowledge, your experience in dealing with today’s problems.

We have the ability, but we also have the obligation, to work with our lawmakers to reinforce those principles upon which our nation was built, to move our government to adapt to a changing world, and to challenge our government to understand that the ideas they act upon today have powerful consequences for our industry tomorrow.31

Waterman’s message of active and informed engagement was echoed by Daniel Oman in his lecture in 2018.32 Oman, coming from the perspective of a consultant in the environmental arena, and with the backdrop of recent significant impact of government rulemaking regarding silica exposures, addressed the question, “How do we succeed in changing the perception of our industry?” Using three examples from the public perception of foundry sludge and sand as hazardous waste, Oman reflected on what was required to move the needle of public (i.e., government) perception. He noted four steps to the process: recognition of the negative perception, engagement with a focus on face-to-face interaction for understanding, education/innovation to supply the information needed to address the negative perspective and continuing advocacy to disseminate the truth and adopt the new understanding to practice and policy.

This wisdom of active and intelligent engagement, understanding that foundries come to the politician with something significant to offer (their perspective) and as customer (with critical needs, both short and long term), undergirds today’s government affairs division and enlightens the management of AFS. Indeed, as Oman pointed out, the three pillars of AFS are aligned closely with his process being Advocate, Educate and Innovate.

The Pursuit of Quality

The Hoyt Lecture speakers regularly spoke to the need to supply products that met customer expectations, that is, were of acceptable quality. As early as Bolton’s lecture in 1943 this was described as the goal of foundry metallurgy.

The ultimate objective is to provide a suitable material of construction at a price which will permit successful competition with other materials of construction. It should be realized clearly that the foundry sells service per dollar rather than pounds of castings. Serviceability of the material in the casting is determined by the foundry metallurgy behind it. For given serviceability of material in a casting, foundry metallurgy often affords a number of approaches. Among these, choice can be made on the basis of cost or economy.1

Bolton’s brief description contains several key thoughts that foreshadow very modern concepts of quality today. These include:

  • The customer determines what quality is because quality is conformity with the customer’s requirements. (predating Crosby’s definition of quality33)

  • Requirements are not merely specifications but functionality, “serviceability” (predating Juran’s “fitness for use” definition of quality34)

  • The potential to make quality the basis of business competitiveness

  • The recognition that quality and cost are intertwined, both for the customer and the supplier.

The first Hoyt Lecture given over wholly to quality was given in 1959 by Harry St. John describing “The Control of Quality in the Brass Foundry.”35

St. John first kills off the lingering belief that newfangled concepts of quality are a waste of time.

At this point, it may be well to mention a fallacy which still lingers in some foundries. In these, it is believed that tests and records are a waste of time and money, that a good foundryman, by the exercise of intelligence and experience, will produce a maximum of good castings and a minimum of rejects. Nothing could be further from the truth.

St. John then describes the “philosophy of foundry control” which is to control quality in two aspects: first, to guard against the delivery of unsatisfactory castings to customers and second, to control the losses due to defective castings in-house. The concept of quality cost and internal and external failure elements would only later be described fully by Harrington in 1987.36

St. John also espoused the application of statistical quality control to foundries, advertising the then recent publication of a new AFS publication, “Statistical Quality Control for Foundries.” St. John encouraged its use to put numbers to foundry capability to maintain tolerances, using the term “potential” as a means of communicating the modern concept of statistical process capability.

Flin in 1981 addressed the growing concern over products liability risk and foundry products. His solution was multi-faceted but focused on prevention via the achievement of good quality products.

In a successful production sequence, the thought in each department should be to make castings as though there were no final inspection. In sharp contrast, there is the attitude: Let’s turn out the volume and they’ll catch the bad ones later. There are two fallacies in the latter approach. First, it is expensive to continue processing bad castings. Second, the entire level of quality falls and many marginal castings can enter service.37

Flin, a professor at the University of Michigan, was expert at failure analysis and fracture evaluation. Yet his prescription for quality assurance was not microscopic in focus but broad based—planning for product conformity at each stage in the production process.

A good quality assurance program has two parts: 1) an engineering study to determine what needs to be controlled to avoid failure in service; and 2) assignment of accountability through the stages of pre-production, production and service.

By 1986 Rowley (retired VP of Technology for AFS) devoted another full lecture to “In Search of Quality.”38 A thoroughly researched presentation was made of the need to transition from “old school business thinking” focused on getting customers to (merely) accept product to a more enlightened view of customer satisfaction. Rowley also challenged the “inevitability of defects” highlighting Crosby’s zero defect concepts as applicable even in a foundry. He also emphasized the need for planning throughout production to achieve quality conformity goals, but added particular emphasis on statistical process control (SPC) as a means of reaching stable, conforming outputs. Central to the message about quality for Rowley was the fact that the customer was the ultimate arbiter of quality and the entire organization ought to be focused on either understanding what the customer wants/needs or providing it. Thus, Rowley introduced Feigenbaum’s concept of Total Quality Control39 to the society, encouraging its broad acceptance.

Ray Witt in the following year after Rowley would declare, “For the long term, I do not believe that any company will survive that has not instituted statistical process controls to produce a quality product.”19

John Jorstad, the highly honored aluminum metallurgist, exhorted the industry to think of quality as the “challenging horizon” that could revolutionize the casting market. He was not interested in merely lowering the reject rates to competitive levels, but to think in terms of zero defects, not just to the customer but zero bad castings produced internally. His desire in 1994 was to express the potential to achieve zero defects produced through careful planning (made possible by understanding why the metal behaves as it does) and by application of appropriate control technology to the business. He illustrated these processes by referencing work done with the 390 alloy of aluminum.40

Ezra Kotzin, reviewing the history of metal casting insisted that quality needed to be improved, particularly in the finishing room and the nooks and crannies in the foundry where extensive and excessive rework was being done – an often hidden cost to quality. Ezra referenced Jorstad’s goal of zero defects and reminded his hearers:

…We are closer to Mr. Jorstad’s goal. But the reality is that, until our people develop a work ethic of pride in workmanship and an in-depth personal involvement and pride of accomplishment, we will continue our extensive and expensive rework. Contrary to Crosby’s title “Quality is Free,” we must acknowledge that this is not true. Casting quality obtained through rework is expensive and takes its toll on the margin of profit.41

Through the 80s and 90s quality was undergoing a renaissance as a result of an influx of new ideas among quality practitioners and the growing influence of Japanese companies that were demonstrating a high degree of delivered quality and competitive pricing. In particular, Japanese automotive companies (notably Toyota’s venture in California with GM and Honda’s plant in Marysville, Ohio in 1985) began eroding the comfortable market share and marketing ideas of the “Big Three.” These events provided an undercurrent for the Hoyt Lecture that influenced its speakers on both quality and what effective management looked like.

By 2005, quality again was the full focus of the Hoyt Lecture. Schorn saw that quality in all of a company’s operations (not just product quality but service and design quality in the manner of Feigenbaum’s Total Quality Control) was the prescription to successfully fight the growing trend to source castings off shore, specifically to low labor cost countries such as China. Schorn more fully introduced 5S, a shop floor management methodology building on past papers that defended quality improvement through this technique.42 Schorn took a more seasoned perspective on the quality tools (SPC being one) noting that these tools each had their place and were to be used in the right situation and not indiscriminately.43 Not every handyman project requires a hammer to be employed, and it might cause more harm than good if always applied to every situation!

Most recently, Sara Joyce (also responsible for quality for her organization as was Schorn earlier) emphasized the proper role of people and the function of teams in achieving quality, setting quality firmly as not only a cost issue and a competitiveness issue, but a management responsibility integrally connected to its people care.23

Over the years of the Hoyt Lecture, quality was initially considered simply a part of doing good business, an element of integrity; it then became a cost issue, then a critical factor of competitiveness, yet finally as Denny Dotson and Sara Joyce have well illustrated, it remains a management responsibility linked to its stewardship of the company, including its people. Various technical means have been developed over the period of the Hoyt Lectures to achieve quality and these have increased in sophistication, but emphasis has been uniformly placed on competence and craftsmanship of the people who are making products, diagnosing problems or addressing them via quality improvement tools.

The Art of Management

Management and its practice have, in some specific aspects, been in view since the first foundation lecture given by Bolton in 1943. This paper has already examined key aspects of management in considering people care, the primary function of management, and the achievement of quality objectives, another management responsibility.

While Zeder in 1951 addressed the management of research, it took until 1973 for the Hoyt Lecture to see management of a foundry itself as a proper topic for focus in what had been up to that time as a very technically oriented presentation. However, once the topic had been raised directly, it has recurred with increasing frequency to today. Clearly, the foundry industry not only wants to hear about foundry management but needs to hear about it in the minds of those invited to speak.

C. A. Sanders spoke in 1973, entitling his lecture, “Management—Are You Ready?” His lecture was classically structured: present the problem and propose a solution. The problem was described as a confluence of challenges that threatened foundry survival; they included:

  • Increasing foundry complexity, mechanization and automation driven by

    • The need for productivity increases to maintain demand

    • A rising sense of “welfarism” that Sanders described simply as “less workers wish to toil for their daily bread.”

    • Less ability to depend on craft as a result of the loss of experienced, older workers

  • Changing market demands forcing

    • New casting methods

    • Higher quality expectations

    • Overall improvements lest larger customers simply bring casting production in-house

    • Foreign competition

  • Growing Federal regulation of the foundry industry, citing safety, health and environmental changes: “Government is going to become more of a chore than the casting production.”44

While the description of these management challenges may be rooted in the language of the 1970s, each of these three broad categories (and many of the smaller ones) continues to challenge foundries now 40 or more years after Sanders spoke.

Sanders begins his prescription for these challenges by describing the characteristics of a proper manager.

A ‘manager’ in the metal casting industry does not earn the title like one earns a medal. The title ‘manager’ is not awarded in recognition of past services. It is a meaningful appointment with new expectations. The title ‘manager’ means that his ability is to continually increase skills and the responsibility rests with the ‘manager’ to improve the work of the organization under the ‘manager’s’ supervision. Management is accountable for the successful outcome of a ‘team effort.’ A ‘manager’ must plan, improve, initiate action, marshal affairs and guide the organization into a purposefully and harmoniously profitable solution.

A metalcasting manager requires mental, moral and physical strength. He must be dependable, reliable and loyal. He must be careful, but at the same time he must be progressive and persevering. It is not always the essence of good management to wait for all the desirable data to make a decision. No ‘manager’ can relax or be wrapped in narrow interests. He cannot wait for favorable opportunities offered by his people to suggest plans for his success. Good management studies all systems pertaining to office and plant. Management must manage today but must glance at what is happening tomorrow.

Planning is not forecasting, but a good ‘casting manager’ executes his energy of mind, upgrades the skills of others, cultivates poise and builds pride into the system. Tomorrow’s metalcasting manager must be a more skillful person.

Sanders placed great emphasis on the kind of person that was required to be an effective manager and thus deal with these challenges. This is certainly a proper starting point, and the metalcasting manager described above would be welcomed into any foundry of today.

By 1980, the threat of foreign competition and government regulation was so great that Drury again addressed management practice improvement as the great need of the day. He had a broader prescription for management change; the keys of which were:

  • Aggressive salesmanship and marketing

  • Embracing new technology

  • Taking better care of people (along lines already discussed)

  • Supporting AFS, FEF and other foundry groups

  • Being involved in the political process to a greater degree45

While Sanders emphasized the character and traits of the manager and Drury spoke about what foundry managers should do, Knight in 1982 talked about the management process itself.

Knight too, emphasized planning as a priority function of the management process.

First, management must be committed to planning. This is the process through which management identifies and analyzes the investment opportunities required to meet the growth and profit targets of the company. If there is one single element that differentiates well-managed companies from others, it is management’s emphasis on and commitment to planning.

Second, a strong system of control and follow-up is essential to successful implementation. There are many documented case histories of companies that have spent tremendous energy and time on organization and planning, and then failed in implementation. Well-managed companies have records of consistently successful implementation because their management does not delegate key responsibilities. Instead, they are actively involved in the control and follow-up on important programs. This is vital to successful implementation.

Third, it is necessary to build an action-oriented organization – a do it, try it, fix it kind of environment in which the emphasis is on getting things done, rather than on form and structure.

The fourth key to an effective management process is the creation of an environment in which people can make a difference.

These characteristics – a commitment to planning, a strong system of control and follow-up, an action orientation, and creation of an environment in which people can and do make a difference – are all fundamental to excellence in management.17

Knight’s concise description of the elements of good management remain valid for today and his sense of management stewardship and the details he provides under these four elements are worth more careful study by the reader.

In 1988, Shulhof from GMC’s Central Foundry spoke about the need to build on good management by developing the concept of leadership. He wrote:

Often programs of tremendous benefit to the company have a negative, usually temporary impact on cost, quality, efficiency, etc. on the shop floor. Management, who sees the potential benefit, cannot conceive why the worker does not. To seek, to implement and to exploit innovation, top management must play a leadership role. To do this, it must be clear on the direction of its business.46

Shulhof, speaking from the perspective of the onset of serious Japanese competition in the automotive market, felt that leadership in innovation was a necessity. He spoke under the title “A Journey Into the Discomfort Zone” because he felt that changes were required in order to meet this challenge and these changes (such as embracing technological innovation as earlier Sanders had recommended) required more than management – they required leadership. Leadership for Shulhof entailed four keys:

  • A clear vision communicating the need for change

  • Capitalizing on the control of the basics already in the organization

  • An authorization to take risks

  • The will to support a project even through short-term loss

The following year Booth built on the leadership concept and particularly the people-side of leadership.

A leader helps the organization create a vision, a mission or sense of purpose. This visioning involves taking stock of where you’re at today, looking ahead at where you’d like to be in the future, and making plans to get there. Without this vision – this ‘pull’ towards the future – we’ll never achieve our potential. The leader rallies the group, gets people to see what they could accomplish, and inspires them to go after ambitious accomplishments. This means creating the right environment for personal and professional growth.

If we want to be effective leaders, we have to empower our people. We have to give authority and accountability to the people who do the actual job.

As leaders, we should be positive role models for our people. We must lead by example. If we want our people to be committed to their work, we’d better be committed to ours. To be positive role models, it’s absolutely necessary that we demonstrate the highest levels of personal and professional integrity – without compromise. Our own integrity forms the basis for how we treat our suppliers, customers, and each other. Our behavior sets the standard others will follow.

Above all, to be effective leaders we have to be caring. We have to be as enthusiastic about people as we are about our own mission or objectives. The goal of many managers is to get people to think more highly of them. But the role of a leader is to get people to think more highly of themselves.20

Booth’s wisdom regarding leadership has provided the foundation of later exhortations to metal casters when it has been forgotten or not applied effectively. Hence, Paul Mikkola, a true leader of people, organizations and later of AFS reminded the society that past performance does not necessarily predict future success.

The casting industry has a never-ending dedication to continuous improvement, making significant strides in productivity gain and cost reduction in the recent past, but at a slower pace. But it will not be enough for the future. As managers and leaders of the industry, we must be more aggressive in the five areas outlined below. Each of us will approach these differently—there is no single answer to this complex question. But without action on each front, success will not happen and the past will predict an uncertain future.47

Mikkola’s five areas were very closely related to those of Sanders, Shulhof and Booth:

  • Attract, motivate and retain talent

  • Empower employees (to make improvements)

  • Learn to operate on a global basis

  • Apply technology at every turn

  • Take the offensive (in the areas of sales and marketing)

More recently, Gene Muratore described the six factors necessary for success in a foundry – all of which depend on management involvement and support.

  • Education (formal and on the job, life-long learning)

  • Marketing (translating technical capabilities and connecting them to the customer’s benefit)

  • Recruitment and retention (to foster the sustainability of new ideas and to pass on knowledge to the next generation)

  • Safety (as a moral imperative and a business necessity)

  • Research (to drive the future improvements and efficiencies, creating new opportunities)

  • Service (to give back to the industry through the sharing of one’s knowledge with others likeminded)48

These factors are interrelated and indeed, build on one another as was amply illustrated in Gene’s lecture. They emphasize the necessity for management to be involved in the areas which have been the themes of the Hoyt Lecture from its earliest days. They reflect the responsibility of thoughtful men, charged with the task of creating profit for their businesses and offered the opportunity to address their society, their peers, for their mutual good. This is clearly the wisdom of the Hoyt Memorial Lecture and to the extent that it reflects Hoyt’s own visionary ideal of a metal casting association facing the day’s challenges together, it is the wisdom of the American Foundry Society.

Conclusion

It appears prudent and far sighted that a lecture be delivered each year to this foundry society. Such lectures have brought news of technical advance, have given hearers historical perspectives and have fostered needed change in the industry. This opportunity appears to bring out the best of the individual given the honor of addressing the society at large, and this tends to encourage passionate speaking on topics of importance to that day.

It is interesting that given the diversity of people involved in such a lecture and the length of time over which the Lecture has been given that familiar themes continue to present themselves. This is not the result of mere imitation or a lack of creativity; though many of the lecturers admit to having read prior lectures or having been influenced by them.

No, it appears that each generation, in its search for the truth, the essentials of reality that will most aid the industry, continue to affirm the points that a Denny Dotson, a Paul Mikkola or a Gene Muratore brought to the society recently, or that Bolton, Zeder, Sanders and Booth (to name a few) brought to earlier generations.

The Hoyt Lecture also invites those highly technical voices to offer words of advice about the application of technology—and speak directly to the industry about what they ought to do to prosper via that technology. As an example, Gundlach, a metallurgist and failure analyst, against a fair survey of aluminum and iron defects and their impact on mechanical properties, insisted that the flexibility offered to the casting process be fully appreciated.49 He noted that casting technology has advanced to the point that defects affecting functional attributes such as strength and fatigue durability could be reasonably controlled. Yet he also noted that effective design strategies (quoting work done in the 1960s) could minimize the residual impact of defects and that casting as a production methodology was supremely flexible allowing the variety of design shapes that might be necessary. It was this “power of knowledge” that secured our future as an industry that was referenced in the title of his lecture.

The truths that appear to be affirmed repeatedly thus shine as wisdom; a wisdom that can only be fully appreciated by taking in the whole of this material and observing the repetition, the growth in application and the delightful reminders of the very best of the American Foundry Society. Hoyt lecturers frequently acknowledge the work and perspective of their predecessors, appreciating their place in a line of thought that did not initiate with them and would not end with them.

This paper is written in the hope that some of this rich history can be more deeply appreciated and its enduring truths more closely held as the Society faces the next 75 years of its existence.

It is hoped as well that future Honorary Lectures and Papers Committees, those authorized to select future Hoyt Lecturers, and the Lecturers themselves, would gain from this review a deeper sense of their place in the history of AFS and their responsibility to add to this deep and abiding wisdom.

Suggestions for Further Reading

It should be clear to the reader that the intent of this paper was not to summarize every Hoyt Lecture, or even to identify each of the topics raised within this body of literature. Therefore, no slight was intended to any lecture not specifically cited. Many fine Lectures covered subjects that were technically significant but not included for purely topical reasons.

This author was privileged to read all the Hoyt Lectures (though hearing the last three decades personally was far more enjoyable as seldom do lecturers put as much humor and candor in their formal papers!). This was no small task and while it is a task that comes with this author’s full recommendation, it is realized few will undertake it. However, there are some lectures that are truly timeless and if the reader has the opportunity, the author recommends the papers cited be read in full to gain a better historical perspective on the material and to see the illustrations and graphics often included in these materials.

Beyond these, on the topic of marketing, it is strongly recommended that lectures by Massari,50 Krueger51 and Hayrynen52 be read.

On the subject of foundry education, specifically university education, it is recommended that one read Diran Apelian’s 2007 fine lecture.53

On the environment and sustainability of a foundry, Gary Gigante’s 2010 lecture ought to be read.54