Appendices



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 67
--> Appendices

OCR for page 67
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 67
--> Appendix A Summary of Workshop on Visionary Manufacturing Challenges Irvine, California, April 1–2, 1997 Welcome and Purpose of Workshop John Bollinger, Chair John Bollinger welcomed the participants to the Workshop on Visionary Manufacturing Challenges and explained that for the next two days the participants would attempt to develop a vision for a small but critical aspect of the future. He noted that he could not think of a better day for the workshop to begin than April 1st. Bollinger expressed confidence that this vision would be pertinent to many changes in society between now and the years beyond 2020. Bollinger defined the objective of the National Research Council Committee on Visionary Manufacturing Challenges, which had organized the workshop, as the identification of technologies and systems that are likely to be important for manufacturing in the decades after 2020 as a guide for funding current and future research. He said that the study would be based on the following premises: The manufacturing environment will continue to change rapidly. Competition will be intense. Dramatically new products and processes will emerge. New management and labor practices will emerge. Manufacturing will remain one of the principal means of creating wealth. Bollinger told workshop participants that the study, which would be international in scope, would be informed by three sources: past studies, a Delphi-type survey, and this workshop. The challenge facing the workshop participants would

OCR for page 67
--> be to identify "leapfrog" opportunities, to define the challenges for future manufacturing enterprises, and to define enabling technologies for meeting those challenges. Bollinger quoted from a recent article by Peter Drucker in Forbes magazine describing his vision for 2050, in which he made the following predictions: The poor will rise up against the rich. Chinese clans will control world markets. Industry will be too dependent on computers. Academic institutions will be redundant. Bollinger pointed out that approximately 50 percent of Drucker's predictions have been correct in the past and that greed is already rampant, China is the acknowledged new market horizon, and industry is becoming increasingly dependent on computers. Never before, however, has industry so emphatically asserted the necessity for employee training and education. Bollinger emphasized that the ideas brought forward at the workshop need not be verifiable because the workshop was a vehicle for exploring the possibilities of the year 2020 and beyond, and participants were not necessarily expected to be right. He pointed out that a recent project, Next Generation Manufacturing (NGM), had focused on evolutionary transitions, ideas that could be conceived today and applied tomorrow based on existing initiatives. The purpose of this workshop, however, was to focus on the next century, to imagine the challenges and needs that could shape investment strategies for manufacturing research. Finally, Bollinger described the workshop itself, which was divided into four sessions, each of which would begin with thought-provoking presentations. After the presentations, participants would be divided into small brainstorming groups, with committee members acting as facilitators. Each group was asked to select one person to act as a "reporter" and present the results of the discussions at the plenary session at the end of each day. Bollinger closed with the hope that participants would enjoy the workshop and thanked them for their participation. Workshop Organization Workshop participants (see Box A-1) were divided into six discussion groups with the goal of generating original ideas and new insights. The discussion groups were asked to consider the opening presentations as food for thought rather than as boundaries for their discussion. The groups met twice each day and presented the results of their discussions during the plenary sessions that followed. They were given specific questions to answer at each session. A committee member served as facilitator for each group. After each group had restated the question and the objectives of the session, a brainstorming period ensued during which everyone provided ideas and suggestions without discussion. This material was then organized and prioritized for presentation by the reporter at the plenary session.

OCR for page 67
--> BOX A-1 Workshop Participants Richard Altman, Communication Design Debra M. Amidon, Entovation International John Bollinger, University of Wisconsin-Madison Steven J. Bomba, Johnson Controls Philip Burgess, Center for the New West Charles Carter, Jr., The Association for Manufacturing Technology Nathan Cloud, DuPont Thomas Crumm, General Motors Corporation John Decaire, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Rick Dove, Paradigm Shift International Gordon Forward, Chaparral Steel Barbara Fossum, University of Texas Donald Frey, Northwestern University H.T. Goranson, Sirius Beta David Hagen, Michigan Center for High Technology William Hanson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Hardt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology George Hazelrigg, National Science Foundation Robert Hocken, University of North Carolina-Charlotte Richard Jarman, Eastman Kodak Company Bill Kay, Hewlett-Packard Company Richard Kegg, Cincinnati Milicron, Inc. Louis Kiefer, International Association of Machinists and Auto Workers Howard Kuhn, Concurrent Technologies Corporation Eric Larson, Rand Corporation Edward Leamer, University of California at Los Angeles Ann Majchrzak, University of Southern California Mike McEvoy, Baxter International, Inc. Rakesh Mahajan, DENEB Robotics, Inc. M. Eugene Merchant, Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sciences David Miska, United Technologies Corporation Richard Morley, Morley and Associates Richard Neal, Lockheed Martin Woody Noxon, CAM-I Leo Plonsky, U.S. Navy Industrial Resources Support Lawrence Rhoades, Extrude Hone Corporation Heinz Schmitt, Sandia National Laboratories F. Stan Settles, University of Southern California Paul Sheng, University of California at Berkeley Wilfried Sihn, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation James Solberg, Purdue University Brian Turner, Work and Technology Institute Mauro Walker, Motorola Kathryn Whiting, Boeing Defense and Space Group Patricia Whitman, Los Angeles County Office of Education Eugene Wong, University of California at Berkeley

OCR for page 67
--> Part I Global Issues and Competition in 2020 Drivers for Industry in 2020 Philip Burgess Center for the New West, Denver, Colorado Philip Burgess began by stating that forecasting is a tricky business and that the records show we're not very good at it. For example, Alexander Graham Bell predicted in 1887 that the telephone was such an important invention that "someday every community would have one." In 1889, Western Union decided not to purchase all of Bell's patents for $100,000 because they did not believe there was a market for this "electronic toy." In 1899, the U.S. Patent Office director, Charles Duell, stated that everything that could be invented had been invented. Wilbur Wright predicted in 1901 that humans would not fly for another 50 years. In 1903, Horace Rackham predicted that the horse was here to stay and that automobiles were just a fad, although he also bought stock in Ford Motor Company. In 1911, Ferdinand Foch said that, in his opinion, although "aeroplanes" were interesting they were of no military value. In 1927, Warner Brothers wondered who would want to hear actors talk. In 1943, Thomas Watson forecast a world market for about five computers. In 1977, Kenneth Olsen, founder and president of Digital Equipment Corporation, said no one needed to have a personal computer at home. In 1981, Bill Gates said that 640K would be enough memory for anyone. In 1989, Irving Fisher said that stocks had reached a permanently high plateau. Burgess went on to say that major changes are occurring in the United States and worldwide and that he believes we are entering a new age, characterized by the growing importance of intellectual capital and its impact on all areas of life. He also believes we are entering a new economy, characterized by expanded global competition, with the focus on new methods of distribution and delivery and the integration of these functions with the manufacturing process. The social and political manifestations of this new regime include dramatic demographic shifts, democratization, decentralization, and other developments that will limit institutional power. For example, new technologies like the Internet will continue to empower people, thereby threatening institutional power. Burgess believes that some of these social manifestations constitute a "value revolution," although he thinks "value restoration" might be a more descriptive

OCR for page 67
--> term. He suggested that a new Luddite movement might be in the making. As evidence, he cited the recent controversy over cloning and noted that only one of the three major news magazines had focused on the promising aspects of cloning technology; the other two had focused on human cloning and other sensational aspects of the topic. He also cited a renewed interest in fundamental values around the world. According to Burgess, the new regime will reward people and organizations that are fast, flexible, focused, customized, networked, and global. The broad forces at work are distributive, moving power and control from the center to the periphery. He believes that the United States is especially well suited to prosper in this new regime, which will include on-site manufacturing and the capability of producing customized products quickly. In contrast to the United States, the European Union will have problems in the new regime because it is a "mainframe" concept in a "PC" world and has created a new layer of centralized bureaucracy. None of the world's leading industries is headquartered in Europe. Burgess calls the driving forces for change "TIDES of the Millennium": Technology, International commerce, Demography, Entrepreneurship, and Standards of living. Technology. The importance of technology, which has been and will continue to be a driver, cannot be overemphasized. The technology-driven industries of the next century will be civil aviation, biotechnology, materials, microelectronics, computers and software, telecommunications, robotics, and machine tools. International commerce. The Anglo-American way of doing business is being adopted worldwide, including accounting practices, advertising, corporate finance, business education, and business ethics. English is the language of commerce and diplomacy, and more Chinese are learning English today than there are Americans. The Anglo-American diaspora is larger than the Jewish diaspora and more influential than the Chinese diaspora of 55 million. Demography. People are an economy's most important asset because only people have the ability to sense, judge, create, and build relationships. The United States has a big advantage because it is a magnet for immigration. First-generation immigrants from Taiwan, Yugoslavia, and Pakistan currently run six of the top fifteen corporations in southern California; three more are being run by second-generation immigrants. In Silicon Valley, one-third of the engineers is Asian. The United States has a huge asset in these people. Entrepreneurship. The United States has one of the strongest family-based entrepreneurial cultures in the world, matched only by the Chinese, including the Chinese in Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Today, the United States has 22 million business enterprises. Of these, only 14,000 have more than 500 employees. The action is therefore with small enterprises, which have accounted for 100 percent of net new job growth in the past seven years. In the economy of the

OCR for page 67
--> future, many small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) will operate through networks, such as learning networks, intelligence networks, resource networks, distribution networks, co-marketing networks, co-production networks, and joint-procurement networks. Attempts will be made to drive cost out of the system. As an example of a seamless link between manufacturing, distribution, and delivery, Domino's pizza could be produced in mobile units, thereby reducing costs and speeding up delivery. Standards of living. Standards of living are rising all over the world. The net result of this is positive. In the future, travel will increase, and because of higher per capita income, the investment in a clean environment will also increase. Tremendous new markets will open up for environmental technologies, new infrastructures will be built, and manufacturing will become even more important than it is today. At this point in his talk, Burgess turned to a more in-depth discussion of technology, the first of his five TIDES. He cited a recent MIT study that identified the following major technology-driven industries: Civil aviation. The United States is strong in this industry, with only one major, heavily subsidized competitor, Airbus. Biotechnology. The United States is also a leader in this industry in which "the sky is the limit" and new discoveries are being made every month. Biology-based nanotechnology may someday be able to manufacture one atom at a time from locally available atoms. The biotechnology industry represents the convergence of several technologies, including computers, telecommunications, genetics, and micromachinery. New materials. Steel, aluminum, plastics, and composites are current examples of new materials, and important new materials are still to come. Microelectronics. The United States is the leading producer of high-value-added chips. Japan, which has focused on commodity chips, must now compete with the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Korea, and others in the commodity chip market. Computers and software. Because the United States has nearly 50 percent of the installed computer capacity in the world, it is in a strong position in the computer and software industry. Japan is second, with about 10 percent of installed capacity. The business world is interested in computers, but computers take a while to internalize, and the first generation of users may actually be less productive. This is in contrast to the Xerox machine, which changed behaviors and roles (e.g., the role of the secretary) very quickly by eliminating the need for carbon copies. Recent OECD data indicate that the United States is first in the growth of the service sector, which shows that U.S. business enterprises are effectively digesting new computer technologies. Telecommunications. The United States is moving rapidly toward a high-speed,

OCR for page 67
--> broadband, interactive information superhighway, provided it is not hi-jacked by government regulations. Telecommunications has had a real impact on everything from education (making home schooling and many other options possible) to decisions about location (largely eliminating the importance of distance). Robots and machine tools. Robots and machine tools is the one major sector in which the United States is not even on the radar screen, although there are signs that it is making a comeback. Many other "comeback industries" in the United States, including heavy motorcycles (Harley Davidson), that were about to go out of business are now world leaders. Photocopiers (Xerox) is a resurgent industry in which developments in digital high-definition television have leapfrogged the Japanese. The Hewlett Packard inkjet printer also leapfrogged old technologies produced by Asian competitors. Burgess noted that even though it is difficult to predict the importance of specific technologies, the United States is strong in six of the seven technology-driven industries. Burgess then went on to discuss important historical changes that resulted from new ideas. For example, Jesus' ideas of love and hope changed the world, and Einstein's idea of relativity fundamentally changed perceptions. These pure ideas were not technology driven or coupled with experimental science. Burgess called Christopher Columbus and Martin Luther the two most important examples of men whose ideas, coupled with technology, have changed the way we think. Christopher Columbus had a "big idea," namely that you could sail west to go east. His voyages were made possible by technological advancements, namely the astrolabe, which made it possible to locate the latitude of a sailing vessel on the globe, and the caravel, which made it possible for ships to sail into the wind. Political factors were also important. The fall of Constantinople to the Muslims forced Western Europeans to find an alternative route to the East. Burgess noted that all of the major figures in the Renaissance were less than 25 years old when Columbus came back from the New World, except for Leonardo da Vinci, who was 40 but who did his most important work after that. Twenty-five years after Columbus, Martin Luther expounded the idea of the priesthood of all believers in his 99 Theses. Burgess noted that Luther's idea was made possible by the invention of the Gutenberg press 62 years earlier. Within 10 years of that invention, the Bible had been translated into 10 languages, including German and French, which enabled people to read the Bible themselves. New technologies have unleashed powerful social and economic forces that have had an enormous impact on our lives. Dramatic changes have been made in the workplace as the result of telecommunications technology. The number of temporary employees has increased, and freelance professionals (nomads) can move from job to job, enabling companies to adapt to a "project management" approach. The increasingly mobile workforce is possible because of "telecomputing" technology (the combination of computers and telecommunications).

OCR for page 67
--> Burgess believes these are positive changes. Nomads, for example, who continue to learn as they provide advice, counsel, and other services and then move on, are conduits for the rapid spread of ideas and the rapid diffusion of technology throughout the country, which has contributed to rapid innovation. Burgess believes that in the long run everyone will benefit from this trend. Burgess also believes that telecommunications have enabled the just-in-time (JIT) office. Offices are becoming smaller, and the average office area, per professional, has dropped from 330 square feet to 110 square feet in many business and professional enterprises that are taking full advantage of new communications technologies. This change will have a profound effect on the real estate market. In addition, the spread of telecomputing technologies has had a profound effect on lifestyles. Compared to 1989, twice as many people work at home. A dramatic example is the phenomenon of ''Lone Eagles," freelance professionals (knowledge workers) who have moved to small cities and towns and rural areas, especially in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain region. This trend has been enabled by faxes, modems, express mail, and other transportation and telecomputing-based services and is creating a rural renaissance in the United States and a new way of thinking about economic development. Geo-Economics of 2020: The Global Macroeconomic Background Edward Leamer University of California at Los Angeles The subject of Edward Leamer's presentation was the effect of technology on the standard of living. He pointed out that since the 1970s, real wages in the United States have declined, the inequality in incomes has increased, and the gap is growing (see Figure A-1). Compensation rates for the lowest 20 percent have fallen, which has had a dramatic effect on the political scene. The forces driving inequalities in income in the United States are education, immigration, globalization, and technology. According to Leamer, inequality in incomes has increased as the quality of a high school education has deteriorated. Immigration, predominantly low-skilled workers from Mexico and Central America, has increased the supply of low-skilled workers and lowered wages. Leamer believes that globalization has increased the fluidity of products and financial capital. Manufactured products tend to level wages because they represent durable and transportable "stores" of human-value input. As more and more previously isolated economies, such as China, India, and Brazil, increase their trade with industrialized markets, huge numbers of unskilled workers enter the manufacturing labor force in which U.S. laborers must compete. If wage levels were equalized globally, they would equal $2/hour for all countries. Leamer believes

OCR for page 67
--> FIGURE A-1 Measures of inequality in U.S. incomes. Gini coefficient is a measure of income equality that ranges from 0 percent (indicating perfect equality) to 100 percent (indicating perfect inequality). Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Reports. that global wage leveling has increased inequalities in incomes in the United States. If low-cost, third-world labor can be substituted for high-cost U.S. labor, wages for low-skilled U.S. jobs will be limited or might even decrease. At the same time wages for more-educated workers with higher skills will increase. Industries that require substantial numbers of low-skilled laborers (e.g., manufacturers of shoes and apparel: see Figure A-2) are moving their operations to countries with low labor costs. Leamer pointed out that new technologies can increase or decrease inequality in incomes. Some technologies, such as the forklift, increase the output of the operator in such a way that the physical capabilities of operators are equalized, because with a little bit of training, everyone can lift the same load and be paid the same amount. Therefore, "forklift" technologies tend to equalize incomes. Technologies that amplify the execution of tasks, such as the microphone, television, and CDs, enable single, talented individuals to reach much larger audiences than before. These "microphone" technologies create high rates of compensation and tend to increase inequality in incomes, which cannot be undone by education. Leamer asked workshop participants to consider whether the computer is a forklift or a microphone technology. Despite advances in transportation and communications. Leamer asserted that proximity to major markets is still a principal factor in determining a region's per capita income (see Figures A-3 and A-4). He defined "law of gravity in trade"

OCR for page 67
--> simple rules. For example, conventional wisdom has it that the dispatcher knows where the cabs are and that he directs available cabs where they are needed. This is not the case, however. In reality, taxis taking fares follow the basic "I'm empty, you need a ride" rule. This system is effective because most people can get a ride within a short period of time anywhere in the city. Another example is a dozen elevators servicing a 72-floor building. According to conventional wisdom, the computer dispatches the elevators and optimizes their use. In reality, these elevators operate very effectively according to the rule that the closest elevator answers a call and stops at that floor only if the call is for the same direction as the direction of the current passengers and only if there is room for more passengers. According to Morley, there is no agreed-upon definition of complexity. However, he gave a list of systems that are generally considered to be complex, including DNA, the immune system, the brain, fluid turbulence, economies, and manufacturing. He described how nature develops systems for managing complexity by following a few simple rules that enable individual members to act together in a way that demonstrates collective intelligence. He cited the example of a flock of birds that can maneuver around buildings and trees without breaking up the flock. The birds follow a few simple rules: head for the nest, stay a fixed distance from other birds, fly at a constant speed, and slow down at corners. This "group intelligence" seems to solve the very complex problem of hundreds of components working toward the same goal without central control. Morley believes that this "nobody-is-in-charge" approach can be applied to the complex system of manufacturing. Morley then described "spontaneous order" or "emergent behavior." When many independent elements following simple rules interact, they create a new system. This system is robust, deterministic, bound but not predictable, easily computable, understandable, easily changed, and adaptable. The system is probably more intelligent than the sum of its parts and behaves in complex ways. He described the system for painting truck bodies at General Motors as an example. For each truck every paint booth bids on the job. There was no central control, and no one knew which paint booth would do which job. The system allowed the components of the paint process (robots) to decide how to paint the trucks and which portions to paint when. This method resulted in efficient, high-quality painting and saved millions of dollars. Other examples cited by Morley included: a power plant boiler control system developed in a week with only 120 lines of code; the Baltimore Highway Control System developed in two weeks with 718 lines of code; and a self-managing assembly plant control system developed in five days with 632 lines of code. Each of these systems illustrates that complexity can be managed most efficiently by minimizing the number of rules. The fewer rules there are, the easier it is to create the overall control system and the easier it is to change it. The main obstacle to the widespread implementation of complex systems is resistance to changing the paradigm that complex systems require complex control systems to manage them.

OCR for page 67
--> Group Discussions Group assignments on the second day were different from day one and were as follows. The first name indicates the committee member who acted as facilitator for the group and the names in italics indicate the spokespersons who presented the results: Group 1: Ann Majchrzak, Charles Carter, George Hazelrigg, M. Eugene Merchant, Mike McEvoy, Brian Turner, Patricia Whitman Group 2: Barbara Fossum, William Hanson, Richard Jarman, Richard Kegg, Louis Kiefer, Rakesh Mahajan, Kathryn Whiting Group 3: David Hagen, Debra Amidon, Rick Dove, John Decaire, David Miska, Leo Plonsky, Heinz Schmitt Group 4: Eugene Wong, Nathan Cloud, Thomas Crumm, H.T. Goranson, Woody Noxon, Wilfried Sihn, James Solberg, Gordon Forward Group 5: Donald Frey, Richard Altman, Steven Bomba, David Hardt, Robert Hocken, Richard Morley, Richard Neal Group 6: Lawrence Rhoades, Bill Kay, Howard Kuhn, Eric Larson, Edward Leamer, F. Stan Settles, John Bollinger The groups were asked to consider the following questions: What are the top technical challenges to the achievement of our vision for manufacturing in 2020 (including enabling technologies and manufacturing technologies)? What research and development should be done now to meet these technical challenges? Group One The group identified six categories of technological challenges: tools for simulation, planning, and design intelligent communication systems conversion processes and tools sustainability materials new products for which manufacturing processes still need to be developed Some of the group members believed that another important technical challenge is the capacity to visualize organizations, interactions, and other complex processes. For example, before learning tools can be incorporated into the process, there must be an understanding of the process as a whole. The following technical challenges and research and development areas were developed for each category:

OCR for page 67
--> Tools for Simulation, Planning, and Design Technical Challenges integration of design and manufacturing that includes detailed modeling of manufacturing processes to enable joint optimization of design, manufacturing, and organization incorporation of learning within tools incorporation of training within tools simulation of organizational issues development of theory/science of engineering design, manufacturing, and subcontractor management that includes values and preferences development of planning tools (e.g., simulating new business processes, market forecasting, and factory planning) incorporation of methods to accelerate the characterization of materials for production development of simulation-based learning tools (e.g., simulators and virtual reality) for current and future (K-12+) workers Research and Development standards for software compatibility or robust software that does not need standards transparent systems understandable to everyone methods to make data accessible to everyone (protocols, security, format, interoperability) information filtering representation of social and organizational processes across cultures in formats accessible to nonexperts intelligent agents interactive, 3-D, simulation-based visualizations of complex structures integrating behavioral, organizational, and people issues with other analyses using sound and color for pattern analysis methods to merge historical data with simulation systems simulation of alternative business processes methods to capture and catalogue development and problem-solving decision processes for real-time data retrieval Intelligent Communication Systems Technical Challenges involving of all enterprise operations in information exchange systems compatibility between subcontractors and partners

OCR for page 67
--> global systems to enable communication and cooperation superior to face-to-face methods incorporation of learning within communication systems incorporation of training within communications systems systems that deal with the nondeterministic nature of manufacturing incorporation of scheduling systems that allow for coordination of autonomous holonic agents (vs. centralized scheduling systems) with few simple rules (e.g., chaos theory) techniques that take advantage of the village cooperative (e.g., a small factory in the Philippines that assembles motors for elevators without advanced technologies) Research and Development large-scale, real-time simulation mind-to-mind communication (e.g., analysis of brainwaves, intentions) increased bandwidth/data compression information filtering (method for figuring out what needs to be filtered for different uses) delivery system and interfaces that can accommodate individual styles and preferences methods for remote transfer of skills remote access to experts (syndicated experts, centers of excellence) Conversion Processes and Tools Technical Challenges processing tools for flexible and customized manufacturing process technologies to produce lot sizes of one competitively basic understanding of conversion processes to allow modeling and simulation incorporation of learning and real-time training equipment and methods for portable manufacturing sensors for process controls in closed-loop systems equipment and methods for small-scale manufacturing manufacturing processes that can "grow" products processes that can create products using ultrafine particles sensory feedback and data transmission technologies to enable remote manufacturing application of rapid prototyping technology for designing and producing tooling

OCR for page 67
--> Research and Development integrated systems that combine software, sensors, and actuators process models and supporting data for conversion processes intelligent process representations and models for conversion processes intelligent process algorithms that can create flexible process models smarter equipment that uses modeling and simulation tools for learning remote sensing of human feedback faster nanotechnology processes Sustainability Technical Challenges new technologies for handling manufacturing process waste methods of portable manufacturing for reclaiming process waste incorporating environmental sustainability into engineering design processes manufacturing practices and policies that support sustainable, global environments heat exchangers and efficient co-generation processes to recovery energy from waste more energy-efficient products and systems Research and Development lighter, smaller equipment efficient manufacturing processes with reduced scales of operation simulations and databases for engineering design methods and data that can predict the effects of alternative manufacturing processes on the global environment Materials Technical Challenges advanced nanoparticle materials applications of genetic engineering to high-volume manufacturing materials that decompose to elementary particles New Products Technical Challenges portable energy storage (e.g., fuel cells and polymer batteries) human interface components (e.g., speech recognition) mass memory storage technology (e.g., giant magneto-resistance)

OCR for page 67
--> Group Two Question 3: Technical Challenges Produce and maintain a workforce with the training and capability to add high value. To gain maximum value from the workforce, manufacturing enterprises must integrate human capital into their business processes; acquire and use knowledge more efficiently and effectively; make the innovation process more efficient and effective; create the pull for knowledge; reward and create incentives for learning; develop affordable group education tools that can change behavior (e.g., interactive computer learning); determine how to make prescriptive learning more effective and affordable; and determine the costs and benefits of knowledge acquisition and learning. Foster innovation. Rapid change could cause significant problems for manufacturing. Manufacturing enterprises will have to foster innovation among all employees; create an environment that encourages innovation; link innovation to business strategy; and teach and apply creative thinking skills. Provide real, physical experiences to supplement simulations for training. Some participants were concerned that simulations would not provide realistic experiences for teaching operators to run processes. Physical experiences should also be integrated into learning environments. Resolve problems of connectivity and data representation. This will require expediting digital design data to the shop floor (for process planning and control); providing easy-to-use and easy-to-connect computer systems; and creating flexible automation that can receive and use digital design data. Question 4: Research and Development After identifying the technical challenges, the group discussions focused on research issues. The following research opportunities were identified by members of the discussion group: greater bandwidth for communication systems the equivalent of generally accepted accounting principles for human capital, including quantifying human knowledge; quantifying the value of knowledge alliances, partners, suppliers, and customers; and calculating the economic value of industrial training methods and tools to facilitate decision-making processes, including consensus decision making, managing risk, and managing collaborative projects (i.e., ''alliance tools") multimedia electronic learning based on the most current knowledge about the learning process; shells for subject-matter experts to develop techniques and tools methods to expedite digital design data to the factory floor (e.g., for process planning and production), including software and hardware that is connectable automatically and can use digital design data without human intervention

OCR for page 67
--> integrating creative thinking skills into management practices Group Three Question 3: Technical Challenges Group discussions initially focused on identifying the top technical challenges for manufacturing. A significant amount of time was spent discussing the interplay and interdependencies of the following three technical challenges: creating, designing, and exploiting knowledge systems developing real-time, on-demand learning at individual, team, and company levels and tailoring course designs and delivery methods to the learning modes of the students developing information technologies, including network and user interfaces, software libraries for manufacturing, "plug and play" systems, and software productivity Other challenges that received strong support from individual participants included the following: revolutionizing unit process technology with quantum leaps in process capabilities. the capability to predict product reliability assessing collaboration strategies and processes to determine the best ways to develop and implement collaborative relationships designing and managing reconfigurable factories Additional challenges that were suggested by individual participants included the following: managing nonlinear systems measuring performance holistically developing life cycle engineering approaches to design reusable, recyclable products economically integrating product and process designs Question 4: Research and Development The research and development areas discussed are listed below: techniques to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge that is usable at several levels (e.g., individual, team, and organization levels)

OCR for page 67
--> determination and identification of individual learning styles to facilitate the development of appropriate learning materials and delivery systems with emphasis on real-time and on-demand learning system-independent knowledge representations that can distribute knowledge throughout the entire manufacturing enterprise breakthrough technologies in free-form fabrication, micro-manufacturing, nanomanufacturing, and biomanufacturing processes simulation technologies that can predict product/process reliability tools for collaboration Group Four Various members of the group discussed the following technical challenges for manufacturing in the year 2020: implementing computer-based information systems for modeling, synthesis, optimization, and on-line control of manufacturing, from the process level to the enterprise level representing human components, not only for accurate modeling, but also for feedback on an individual's impact on the overall system developing mechanisms of self-organization for manufacturing organizations in a variety of settings (e.g., self-assembling teams of workers with limited skills that exhibit a high degree of collective capability for efficient manufacturing and solving the social problem of the have-nots) developing robust design methodologies that can accommodate technological and market changes developing a science-based understanding of the physical phenomena (mechanical, thermal, and chemical) that occur in manufacturing unit processes considering alternative manufacturing paradigms (e.g., non-assembly-line approaches and customer-performed manufacturing) developing a "language" that describes manufacturing in terms of basic production operations and rules (syntax) that can represent the manufacturing process as a program and represent actual manufacturing as the execution of the program (A very high degree of flexibility is achieved in this way because the same parameters and syntax can describe a wide variety of products.) developing biomanufacturing processes based on genetic engineering techniques applying life cycle engineering approaches to the development of environmentally-friendly manufacturing that considers the entire life cycle of a product, including disposal

OCR for page 67
--> Group Five Question 3: Technical Challenges Discussion participants suggested that the technical challenges for manufacturing in 2020 will be to manufacture products "cheaper, better, and faster." The most important characteristics of manufacturing will be precision, speed, control, and cost. Precision and speed can increase value; control and cost can decrease costs. Question 4: Research and Development The group participants identified the following areas for research and development: real-time enterprise controls and interoperability standards and protocols for complex systems process controls based on parallel (computer) processing (fractal systems design) rather than sequential processing (von Neumann) microscale processes and machines (e.g., data links and sensors) including focused, extreme-UV precision processes, molecular assembly, and atomic processes biomanufacturing processes for the food, drug, and chemical industries (Agro-based chemicals [biomanufacturing/processing] are already being produced [e.g., growing insulin in alfalfa]. Medical implants were discussed, including "add-plants" or implants that will grow after implantation.) processing technologies for personal, neighborhood, and point-of-sale manufacturing (The group considered these concepts to represent the shifting economies of scale.) Group Six The discussion participants identified a number of technical challenges and related research and development areas to realize the goals of visionary manufacturing for 2020: engineering the "sociotechnical interface"; finding and keeping high-performance workers; constructing high performance work group and organizational/enterprise structures; providing materials/process/product modeling at all enterprise levels; optimizing the use of information/knowledge; reducing the "footprint" of manufacturing processes; and determining the roles of local government and business in education. Engineering sociotechnical interfaces. Many discussion participants felt that it would be important to understand the role of the sociotechnical interface

OCR for page 67
--> (i.e., the soft factors that can enable more effective and efficient manufacturing processes) at the individual, group, and enterprise levels. Some participants suggested that research and development should begin with reliable computer simulation models that systematically relate the value of soft factors to the product. Unless these soft factors are accounted for in the bottom line, they are likely to be undervalued by manufacturers. Soft factors include: the quality of human capital (e.g., education, skill sets, and intelligence); education and training programs to improve worker productivity and performance; and other human and group factors that contribute to high-performance organizations. Interdisciplinary teams (e.g., engineers, industrial psychologists, and economists) should develop models relating soft factors to costs. Finding and keeping high-performance workers. Visionary manufacturing enterprises will be competing for, hiring, training, and refreshing the skills of the most-qualified employees. Manufacturing enterprises will also be concerned with protecting and quantifying the value of knowledge imparted to workers through education and training. As a consequence, it will become increasingly important to understand how employees learn so that knowledge can be developed, maintained, and refreshed cost-effectively. Constructing high-performance work groups. Visionary manufacturing enterprises will have to combine highly skilled individuals from different cultures and with different educational backgrounds, skills, personalities, and styles in ways that will foster highly productive work groups. Creating high-performance organizations/enterprises. At the enterprise level, visionary manufacturing enterprises will constantly strive to optimize the balance of manufacturing technologies with human/group factors to meet performance goals. Manufacturing technologies will have to be adaptable to evolving organizational structures, product lines, and processes. Enterprises will require near real-time measurements of outcomes, including a far wider range of measures than are currently used. Finally, firms will need incentive structures (e.g., equity arrangements, performance-related bonuses) to ensure that employees have a strong stake in the performance of the enterprise and to protect the knowledge and skills valued by the enterprise. Providing materials/process/product modeling at all enterprise levels. Simulation models will have to link materials, processes, and products at all levels: molecular, discrete, and continuous. Visionary firms will use these models and systems to integrate product designs, materials, and process life cycles. Models could also include social and economic considerations that can identify the best candidates for jobs and combine individuals to form optimal work groups. Optimizing the use of information/knowledge. Information and knowledge will be important to future manufacturing enterprises. For example, enterprises will have to understand fundamental scientific principles, readily available materials/processes/product information, materials properties, and other manufacturing information. Research should focus on the analysis, synthesis, and problem-solving

OCR for page 67
--> capabilities of enterprises, how these relate to organizational culture, processes, and tools, and how these capabilities can be nurtured. Reducing the "footprint" for manufacturing processes. Manufacturing technologies in the future should be small, inexpensive, adaptive, highly flexible, and redeployable. The goal is to improve efficiency and ease of use and to reduce power consumption. Determining the roles of local government and business in education. Many of the discussion participants perceived a widening gap between the growing need for highly skilled job candidates and the apparently diminishing ability of the public education system to produce these candidates. This led to a discussion of public and private roles in education and the responsibilities of educating and training the future workforce and the fundamental issue of who should pay for kindergarten through "nth" grade (the group was uncertain what the value of n should be), and for technical and scientific education in secondary and higher education. Some participants suggested hybrid options, such as partnerships between industry and school districts, that might ensure the availability of individuals with the education and skills necessary for manufacturing jobs. Some participants also noted that because educational performance was closely related to family (especially parental involvement) and socioeconomic circumstances, employers could develop incentive systems to nurture better parenting, teaching, and academic performance.