Click for next page ( 29


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 28
Appendix A ANALYSIS OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS The committee supplemented its interviews with an in- depth analysis of 238 Manufacturing Technology projects. The 238 projects are all those that (1) had total ManTech funding of at least $1 million and (2) received some ManTech funding during 1985 or 1986. They comprise 40 percent of the projects during that period. The services provided summaries of the objectives and approaches of all of their ManTech projects. We coded each project according to its characteristics in four areas: 1. Purpose: What was the purpose--i.e., the antici- pated benefits--of the project as stated in its proposal? 2. Material: What materials (e.g., steel, composites) were involved? 3. Breadth: What was the degree of applicability to various processes, materials, facilities, or products? 4. Technology: To what manufacturing technology was the project directed (e.g., forming, welding, inspection)? The tabulation of the answers to these questions for the 238 projects forms the basis for the committee's judgments concerning: the strategy that was implicit in the selection of projects, the priorities in the program, and differences in the program across the services. The projects analyzed by service are shown in the chart on the following page. The value of these projects, more than $800 million, is equivalent to 4 years of the pro- gram's total funding at its highest level of $200 million. 28

OCR for page 28
29 Total Percentage Total Cost Projects Number of Projects of Projects Service Funded Analyzed Analyzed Analyzed Amy 332 111 33 $328 million Navy 125 35 28 81 million Air Force 129 92 71 402 million Total 586 238 40 $811 million All of these projects were active during 1985 or 1986. They represent, however, a spectrum of program initia- tives. Some began in the late 1970s and others commenced as late as 1986. This analysis, therefore, reflects decisions made over the past decade. SUMMARY OF RESULTS The results of the analysis supported the message that had emerged throughout many interviews: the ManTech program lacks an overall strategy. The services appear to have programs quite independent of each other. Within the services, the Air Force has the only program with a discernible pattern of projects toward a technical or managerial objective. The Air Force also has the program supporting the largest percentage of large projects. The characteristics of the projects also suggest that individual efforts are likely to be limited in their impact. Many projects replicate existing technology and are for unique or limited applications. Few of the projects are likely to stimulate contractors to invest in follow-on work, thus limiting the leverage of ManTech funds. While the program's impact is limited, in part, by the characteristics of the chosen projects, it is also limited by current program regulations. The vast majority of ManTech funds is used to determine if existing technology can be applied in a production environment. ManTech funds are prohibited for process technology that has not been proven feasible in a laboratory. Because DOD has no research program for initial development of manufacturing technology, the ManTech program is limited to research that has been completed. It cannot direct research itself.

OCR for page 28
as RESULTS BY CRITERION AND SERVICE . Purpose: The two most commonly cited purposes for projects in all three services were reducing costs and improving quality. More than 40 percent of all projects and 30 percent of funds were for projects citing cost reduction as the primary purpose; many more mentioned it as a secondary objective. Improving performance and increasing capacity were the least cited objectives, as Chart A.1 shows. Chart A.1 2ao 2BY} 240 2ZO 1JO 1 60 140 1 20 100 80 60 40 O ~ : COS- QUALI~ WN W\Y /,//A F~OI~ICE FCASSlI=~ /1 Army E 9 leave ~ Ajr Force , \\\\N _ it_ _ ~/,/~3 CA?ACT" ORSON The frequent listing of cost reduction in approved project requests suggests either that actual cost reduction projects are more likely to be funded or that packaging projects in cost reduction terms is a good strategy for companies seeking ManTech funds. In either case, the projects that are selected, for the most part, are rarely high risk, long term, or significant technical advances. The emphasis on quality improvement appears to be commendable. Unfortunately, many of the projects that cite quality as the primary objective are directed at improving the inspection process, rather than at reducing the need for inspection. While certain inspection processes could clearly benefit from ManTech projects, projects that aim to eliminate defects, and thereby

OCR for page 28
31 eliminate rework and inspection, would have a greater impact on the overall production system. Materials: Approximately 36 percent of the projects were aimed at processes affecting metals as opposed to other materials such as composites, plastics, or ceramics (see Chart A.23. Further, much of that funding was devoted to steel. Within the services, the Navy expended 63 percent of its funds on metals, compared to the Army's 20 percent. Although some projects are necessary for developing processes to handle complex shapes or new alloys, the emphasis on metals--especially steel--seems inconsistent with the needs of future weapon systems. Much less work in ceramics, electronics materials, infrared sensors, and plastics has been funded than seems warranted. Chart A.2 moo ~ IN ~ !-ALS P' AS-:CS F.;EC.RO2i;CS CE=MICS NONE O=R Fez Arm', C=,J Novy I or force In some instances, work on traditional materials may be appropriate because a vast quantity of a product is required. Many of these projects, however, lack the breadth and degree of risk that are necessary to achieve significant results. Particularly in the Army, the expenditures for munitions are largely straightforward production engineering, which will improve safety and efficiency but have limited applicability.

OCR for page 28
32 Breadth: The wide variety of technologies included in the HanTech program testifies to the number and diversity of opportunities and needs for new process technology. It is this enormous breadth that requires choices and careful structuring of projects so that limited funds are not dissipated across many technologies. Such choices appear not to have been made, and projects, in general, have been designed to narrow the focus rather than broaden it. In all of the services, the preponderance of projects have narrow technical objectives (see Chart A.3~. If successful, they will help only a single product, fre- quently only a single step in the production process, and often only a single facility or weapon system. Chart A.3 Too 280 211D 220 ~ ~~ 180 - 160 140 ~ 120 - 100 80 60 - 40 - 20 - ~ O- I , 0 - Interim More rhea On. One Fistic of l~ter's1 ''steria1e . ~ _; era ~y ~ - " Or'. Process Factors, One F-cilirv Indenendent of Independent of teria1 Product b process Amp ~ fores In contrast, the Air Force has funded several groups of projects that relate to overall thrust areas. The projects are concerned with generic issues, such as flexible machining of short runs of spare parts or original equipment, and offer wide applicability and significant results. Technology: The manufacture of weapon systems involves a wide variety of production processes, such as welding, forming, machining, casting, and assembly. In this area, the projects differ markedly across services; each service has concentrated on different processes (see Chart A.41.

OCR for page 28
33 Chart A.4 loo 120 - O - 00 - 90 - c 70 - _ _ 64 ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 20 - 10 - O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L/~ extrude Wd ~~ C_t Form i 1_~ ~ BraArc_ Infirmd Horning PI ~ /| Array ~ Nat ~ Air Force The Army has focused over 30 percent of its funds on inspection. While improving inspection is important, im- proving other aspects of the production process to reduce the need for inspection would have greater benefits. o The Air Force has equally supported projects in casting, assembly, production of integrated circuits, and forming. The Navy has also focused on several production processes, such as welding, machining, and assembly. Extrusion, forging, and lamination are examples of production processes that receive little support from any of the services.