Click for next page ( 45


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 44
Linkages between the MS&E and End-User Communities THIS CHAPTER PRESENTS ~ TRYSTS of the five main types of linkages be- tween the MS&E R&D and end-user communities industry-industry; industry-university; industry-national laboratory; industry-government; and government-research institution. University-national laboratory linkages are not discussed in this chapter because the sole reason for their interaction is to augment their multidisciplinary programs with additional expertise. The number of interactions and collaborations that can be envisioned be- tween the various segments of the MS&K R&D and end-user communities is nearly boundless. Nevertheless, focusing on the simplest form of each linkage can reveal specific strengths and weaknesses. Thus, this chapter will examine each type of linkage as a one-on-one interaction. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of consortia, which is the main mechanism currently used for joint ventures and interactions with participation from multiple segments of the MS&E and end-user communities. INDUSTRY-INDUSTRY LINKAGES Interactions among industries form the basis of all business. Since the objec- tive of this report is to strengthen the connections among the MS&E and end-user industries, the discussion in this section focuses primarily on MS&K R&D link- ages among industries. The committee divided the typical user chain for the materials production cycle into four main sections to simplify the description of linkages between materials-based industries (Figure 3-1~. The first section, materials suppliers, includes companies that produce the raw or semifinished materials used in the 44

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES Extraction - iron ore - bauxite . - crude oil - natural gas Synthesis - iron - alumina - polyethylene ~_ Parts fabrication Systems integration - casting ~ - dashboard assembly - molding =ssembly Original equipment manufacturer - automakers - computer manufacturers - jet engine manufacturers ~_ End-use - transportation - entertainment - shelter ~, Disposal - reuse - recycle - landfill 1 reuse :/blending Materials + - steel suppliers - aluminum - molding compound J ' - recycle 45 Parts suppliers Original equipment manufacturers Consumers Disposers/ recyclers FIGURE 3-1 Typical user chain for materials production cycle, from raw material to the ultimate destiny of all materials. fabrication of subcomponents or parts for finished products (e.g., Oremet or Carpenter Technology for the jet-engine industry; Alcoa for the automotive in- dustry; Shipley or Ciba-Geigy for the integrated circuit fabrication industry). These companies may be involved in the extraction, synthesis, or refining/ blending processes shown in Figure 3-1. The second section, parts suppliers, includes companies that produce the parts used in the assembly of the final product or its subcomponents (e.g., Howmet or Ladish for the jet-engine indus- try; Eaton or Budd for the automotive industry; Intel or Motorola for the com- puter-component industry). This section is shown in the parts fabrication segment of Figure 3-1. The third section, original equipment manufacturers, includes both assemblers of major subcomponents (e.g., Lucas or Bendix for the jet-engine industry; Delphi or Nippondenso for the automotive industry; ReadRite or Seagate for the computer-component industry) and the main assemblers and distributors of final end-use products (e.g., GE, Pratt and Whitney, or Rolls-Royce for the jet- engine industry; Ford or Honda for the automotive industry; Compaq, Apple, or IBM for the computer industry). This section encompasses the systems integra- tion and OEMs boxes in Figure 3-1. The fourth section, disposers/recyclers, includes disassemblers, recyclers, and disposers of the final products at the end of their service life (e.g., Huron Valley Steel drains, disassembles, separates, shreds,

OCR for page 44
46 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING and recycles cars for the automotive industry).] This section encompasses the disposal box of Figure 3-1. Materials Suppliers Primary materials suppliers (e.g., steel, aluminum, and plastic resins) supply raw and processed materials to both parts suppliers (at all tiers) and OEMs. Generally, materials suppliers sell their products to many industries and are, therefore, not commercially dependent on any one business for their livelihoods. In the past, primary materials suppliers were only involved peripherally in the design process. As the competition for primary materials has intensified, how- ever, they have become increasingly involved in developing their own design activities. Many materials suppliers are now being driven further up the value chain of the materials production cycle and have become involved in the OEM's product development and design processes. This is especially true for new mate- rials concepts, for which the supplier infrastructure might not be able to meet the needs of industry or for which prospective suppliers may have underestimated the challenges of scaling up an unproven technology. In many cases, primary materials suppliers are supplemented by specialty materials suppliers, which produce more advanced materials. Specialty materials suppliers can often be classified as "value-added distributors." For example, jet- engine alloys require specialty materials suppliers because they are a complex and carefully controlled combination of many elements combined by special processes and equipment. Although proprietary alloys are frequently developed by OEMs, specialty metals companies melt and combine the ingredients that go into a jet-engine alloy and perform a host of additional value-added activities to ensure the quality and integrity of the alloys. Similar specialty materials produc- ers are involved in other industry supply chains, even though the supplier, not the OEM, usually develops the materials. For example, compounding companies that supply materials to the molded-plastic component industry combine constituent ingredients to create customized plastic compounds. Producing and supplying polymer compound materials for the electronics industry is a $4.0 billion busi- ness (e.g., Shipley formulates photosensitive polymers used to pattern integrated circuits, Ciba-Geigy supplies polymers used in printed wiring boards). The sources of materials/processes innovation vary from industry to indus- try. For example, materials innovations in the jet-engine industry originate pre- dominantly in the OEM's laboratory. Each innovation is considered proprietary and is a carefully guarded secret because of its potential competitive advantage, 1 Similar disposal companies do not exist for the computer or jet-engine industries. OEMs in the computer industry recycle some materials, but most systems currently end up in landfills. Jet engines are too valuable to be junked entirely. Most engines are rebuilt piecemeal during repair using re- placement parts. The parts suppliers usually recycle the materials from old parts.

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 47 which could translate directly into increased market share. The automotive indus- try, however, relies heavily on materials suppliers for materials/process innova- tions. These firms range in size from small, niche enterprises to very large corpora- tions (e.g., Alcoa). In the automotive industry, suppliers market their innovations by developing ties with OEMs and parts suppliers and publicizing the potential advantages of their innovations. Materials suppliers must present material proper- ties in terms that are relevant and understandable to designers, who are most likely to decide which materials will be used (Buch, 1998~. Recommendation 3-1. Materials suppliers should collaborate with end users to determine the type of data most useful for product designers in assessing new materials/processes and determining their suitability for incorporation into a prod- uct. Materials suppliers should be responsible for conducting performance tests to reduce the redundant materials testing by many industries. The factors that limit the ability of the materials-supply industry as a source of innovation are similar to the problems facing parts suppliers (e.g., large capital investments, limited resources, equipment manufacturer's need for multiple sup- pliers). The problem is exacerbated, however, by three factors. First, the profit margins for many materials innovations are minimal, at best. The initial produc- tion volumes for advanced materials are usually limited, and alternate markets that could provide large returns on investment are rare. Thus, many potentially useful materials are not developed beyond Phase 1 because it is simply not cost effective for a materials supplier to use its limited resources to develop and market them. Second, materials suppliers for OEMs that usually develop their own materials (e.g., jet engines) must circumvent the "not-invented-here" fears latent in those industries (Maurer, 1998~. The ability of end users to exploit new technologies is limited because even seemingly insignificant changes in materials (e.g., the presence of trace elements in bulk materials or a change in surface treatments) can disrupt a production process or reduce the efficiency of a system and present very real risks. Third, most materials suppliers cannot overcome "the tyranny of existing infrastructure" (Bridenbaugh 1998~. Most industries are based on the design of subsystems and parts, all of which have their own needs for materials and their own supply chain. The complexity of the supply chain makes it difficult to implement a change. Recommendation 3-2. Materials-supply companies should be encouraged to conduct materials/process R&D. Three potential methods that should be investi- gated are: mechanisms for larger original equipment manufacturers to assist and encourage materials suppliers to conduct R&D (e.g., guarantees to use the new technology); government programs, such as the Advanced Technology Program, to help defray some of the costs of industrial R&D; and tax incentives to encour- age investments in R&D and reduce the risk to the supplier companies.

OCR for page 44
48 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Parts Suppliers The linkages between OEMs and part suppliers are generally considered to be the strongest in the materials-production cycle. Parts suppliers are usually purveyors of particular manufacturing technologies that convert the semifinished materials produced by the materials suppliers into finished components ready for installation into final products. Parts suppliers are predominantly contracted by OEMs to make specific parts and subassemblies according to approved specifica- tions and procedures. For example, Howmet, the jet-engine parts supplier, buys components of a superalloy material from materials suppliers and casts the mate- rial into single-crystal turbine blades for GE Aircraft Engines and Pratt and Whitney for insertion in their engines. For many advanced technologies, linkages between OEMs and parts suppli- ers are predominantly technological oligopolies, with a steady-state number of suppliers for most mature industries of approximately three. Although no deliber- ate attempts are made to limit the number of suppliers, OEMs tend to have difficulty supporting and managing more than three; fewer than three leaves OEMs at too great a risk of supplier shutdowns or disruptions. In the jet-engine supply chain, for example, there are typically no more than three superalloy producers, titanium producers, forgers, and foundries servicing the industry. The suppliers are almost entirely dependent on the OEMs for their survival and are responsible for producing a significant fraction of the technological content and the majority of the weight of the OEM's product. Although parts suppliers would seem to enjoy certain privileges and oppor- tunities to profit from this arrangement, there is little evidence that they have benefited. Instead, the suppliers to the jet-engine producers, for example, seem to exist in an unhappy state of "life support," desperate to diversify in "good times" and fiercely competitive in down times. One reason for this is that OEMs are being increasingly pressured by product end-users who demand greater value in a competitive marketplace. This pressure is felt throughout the supply chain. Because parts must meet precise specifications defined by the OEMs, the strongest links in the relationship tend to be between the design and engineering elements of the OEMs and the corresponding elements of parts-supplier organi- zations. In the electronics industry, for example, an enormous amount of infor- mation is exchanged between the magnetic-head or chip-manufacturing indus- tries and their parts suppliers to ensure that the suppliers' products meet the needs of the OEMs. The high level of standardization of many features (e.g., inputs, outputs, and performance indicators) strengthens this relationship. Although linkages between OEMs and parts suppliers are strong, the con- flicting needs for new, yet totally reliable, technologies can strain the relation- ship. OEMs generally do not consider themselves developers of supplier infra- structures for new materials/processes. In fact, because of economic concerns and potential liabilities, most OEMs have instituted rigid purchasing systems

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 49 with known and approved parts suppliers and are skeptical of technologies and suppliers that do not have track records of supplying high-quality parts in high volume. A discontinuous (i.e., revolutionary) technological change is more problem- atic than a continuous (i.e., evolutionary) technological change because incum- bent suppliers often cannot incorporate the new technologies and produce the new components. Although the configuration of the overall supply network does not substantially change, a discontinuous change in technology often means that incumbent suppliers must be replaced with new, equally reliable suppliers. OEMs often delay incorporating a new technology until the technology and supplier infrastructure has been developed for other products. For example, the use of engineered plastic components for interior/exterior trim on passenger cars and trucks was delayed while the supply industry gained experience with other industries. Mature industries (e.g., the jet-engine and automotive industries) also have greater difficulty incorporating new technologies than developing industries (e.g., the computer industries). The opportunities for implementing substantial changes in developing industries are numerous as the technology matures and efficiency increases. Once industries become more established and materials/process tech- nologies have been optimized, however, OEMs tend to become assemblers and to reduce R&D on new technologies in favor of evolutionary process improve- ments. Note the similarities, for instance, between the first 30 years of progress in the automotive industry, when great leaps in technology were made and new records for production and vehicle speed were constantly being set, and the computer industry over the past 30 years. As the automotive industry matured, however, increases in speed and efficiency have become much more difficult to attain. OEMs urge subassembly and parts suppliers to conduct R&D in technolo gies for incremental improvement in processes to improve the performance of their products and reduce their costs. On the one hand, parts suppliers are often reluctant to conduct joint R&D projects with OEMs because of the problems involved in convincing OEMs to incorporate new techniques into their products. On the other hand, suppliers are also reluctant to conduct R&D on their own. First, industry's demand for supplier-base reliability can best be met by a small, but not single-source, supplier base. Thus, any innovation a supplier discovers might have to be shared with competitors to ensure that sufficient sources are available to OEMs. Second, OEMs are usually under no obligation to adopt a new technology once it has been developed, thus increasing the risk to the parts supplier. Third, supplier industries usually have large capital investments in pro- cessing technology, which increases the costs of introducing new technologies into the market and retards innovation. Because of the high cost of capital equip- ment, the implementation of new processes and materials can only be accom- plished if they can be used on the existing manufacturing tool set. If higher levels

OCR for page 44
so MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING of systems integration are required and product liability is increased, this technol- ogy lock-in becomes even more entrenched. For example, the consumer electron- ics industry has fewer problems with technology lock-in than the jet-engine in- dustry because of the higher modularity of computer systems and the lower liability in the event of failure. Finally, if the time required to test and certify a new material/process approaches the limits of the patent-protection period, a company may not have time to recoup its R&D investments before its competi- tors can legally exploit the technology. Thus, the parts-supply industry tends to be biased toward technologies that are more developed and can be implemented quickly. Recommendation 3-3. Parts-supply companies should be encouraged to conduct materials/process R&D. Three potential methods that should be investigated are: mechanisms for larger original equipment manufacturers to assist and encourage parts suppliers to conduct R&D (e.g., guarantees to use the new technology); government programs to help defray some of the costs of industrial R&D; and tax incentives to encourage investments in R&D and reduce the risk to the supplier compames. Recommendation 3-4. Consideration should be given to extending the period of patent protection, especially for applications that require extended certification periods. Industrial Research Organizations Many of the companies in the industrial sectors that were studied in prepara- tion for this report (i.e., jet engines, automobiles, and computer-chip and information-storage computer components) conduct internal R&D to provide competitive advantages for their future products. The committee found that the industries represented at the workshops sponsored very little Phase 0 MS&E research and that most of their funding was directed toward meeting their short- term needs. Although this focus on development rather than research may shorten the time from invention to product implementation and may lead to evolutionary product improvements, it does not provide the innovative impetus for the devel opment of revolutionary products for the future. This has not always been the case. For example, in the recent past, strong basic MS&E research was conducted at large industrial laboratories, such as AT&T (Bell Laboratories) and IBM. This basic research provided much of the technology and materials for the semiconductor and information-storage industry to grow into economic powerhouses. The current electronics industry is an outgrowth of basic research conducted at Bell Laboratories that led to the invention of the transistor in 1948 and the fabrication of the first integrated circuit at Texas Instruments in 1955. These developments also resulted in the formation of new tooling and materials

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 51 companies to provide production infrastructure and an increase in academic re- search. The research conducted at industrial laboratories was necessarily multi- disciplinary and provided industry with strong patent portfolios to protect their innovative products. It also provided in-house sources of expertise that could quickly address and solve fundamental problems encountered during implementa- tion and accelerated the introduction of new technologies. Many industrial participants at the workshops recognized that the downsizing of corporations and refocusing on the short-term horizon of stock markets in the 1980s and 1990s had substantially affected the ability and willingness of industry to fund exploratory research. The trend has been for industry to reduce long-term, in-house R&D and to look to academia to fill the void. Industry has also become more involved in industrial consortia to pool research dollars and share results. Although some of these consortia have a long-term vision, most of them are still focused on short-term goals. Relying on university research and consortia also has some drawbacks: the coordination of collaborative projects, the communica- tion of results, and the negotiation of intellectual property rights can be time consuming, problematic, and contentious. Recommendation 3-5. Industries should establish funding mechanisms and im- prove its methods of communication and collaboration to support precompetitive, long-term, high-risk research at industrial laboratories, with the participation of academic researchers and suppliers. Recycling and Disposal Linkages between the OEMs and the firms that refurbish or recycle products, assemblies, subassemblies, components, and materials are becoming increasingly important both economically and technologically as so-called "take-back" regulations spread from Europe to the United States. Take-back regulations re- quire that manufacturers take back their products after consumers are through with them and refurbish and reuse the components or recycle the materials. These regulations will increase the flow of used materials back into the economy and will raise a number of new challenges, such as designing materials so that they can be easily reused. For example, the inclusion of heavy-metal stabilizers and polybrominated fire-retardants in the molding resins used in current computer casings inhibits the recycling of the material when the product is returned. Because of the scale and complexity of current economic and technological systems, MS&E and end-user communities will have to be more aware of, and concerned about, life-cycle patterns of material use beyond simple disposal and recycling. Material technologies that are useful and benign at a small scale or in the context of a laboratory pilot process can have social, economic, and environmental implications in practice that must be taken into account by materials professionals. Regulatory initiatives focused on specific materials or applications can disrupt

OCR for page 44
52 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING product and process designs that would otherwise be economically and techno- logically feasible, resulting in potentially substantial economic penalties. The scope and potential impact of regulatory initiatives varies widely. For example, several European countries are considering bans on polybrominated fire-retardants in plastics, which is an important but specific material application. At the same time, they are being urged by environmental groups to ban the commodity plastic PVC altogether. Materials professionals, particularly those working for or collaborating with industrial interests, must be aware of these types of potential changes for new materials and designs to be economically viable. More important, the MS&E community should bring its expertise to bear on social and legal decisions involving materials choices and technologies. In the highly evolved, complex, service-dominated economies characteristic of developed countries today, it is becoming increasingly important for materials professionals to be sensitive to the social, economic, and environmental context within which materials and products are designed, produced, used, and managed at the end of their life cycles. Fortunately, the developing field of industrial ecology is based on a life-cycle, systems-based view of materials from initial acquisition; to formulation, processing, and manufacturing; to distribution as a material or part of a product; to operational use; to recycling as part of a refur- bished product, assembly, subassembly, component, or material; and, eventually, to disposal as waste. The failure to consider all stages of the material life cycle can result in a technology that may be desirable, technically suitable, or manage- able at a small scale or in certain uses but that may have substantial social costs at a larger scale or in actual commercial use. Two illustrations are the use of arsenic and silver in the United States (see Box 3-1~. The MS&E community can also make significant contributions to the rational selection and use of materials in the recycling stage of the life cycle. First, the MS&E community can help end-users and the public understand when recycling is, in fact, a good idea, and how optimal networks can be designed. For example, it would be environmentally wasteful (in terms of transportation energy consumption and emissions) if the use of refillable glass bottles results in empty glass containers, which are quite heavy on a volumetric basis, being shipped long distances for refilling. Similarly, shipping lightweight plastic containers long distances for mate- rials recovery to meet a recycling requirement would also be wasteful because significant transport resources would be used for minimal material recovery. There- fore, although materials recycling may be a good idea in general, specific circum- stances of recycling determine whether or not it is advisable. Optimal recycling also requires knowledge of available technologies, for which the expertise of the MS&E community is invaluable. In general, many recycling technologies are fairly primitive, reflecting the fact that virtually all R&D has been directed toward the front end (e.g., material processing, selection, and use) rather than the end-of-life materials management. Thus, for example, the material content of a personal computer from the circuit board and chips to the

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 53 solders to the plastic and metal components of the case and ancillary assem- blies has been carefully selected and designed. The end-of-life fate of a per- sonal computer, however, is usually simple disposal in a landfill or, at best, shredding of the product in a hammer mill, followed by secondary smelting of the materials stream to recover metals. As the high social costs of this primitive treatment of materials and products at the end of life, ranging from the waste of potential material streams to toxic effects on humans and ecosystems, are real- ized, the incentives for the development of more efficient end-of-life material management technologies will grow. The MS&E community will be a critical contributor to the development of these technologies. Knowledge of industrial ecology is no longer a luxury but a necessary com- ponent of technology development that must pervade all of the linkages in the value chain for the materials-production cycle (see Figure 3-2~. Industrial ecol- ogy is not yet widely taught as part of the traditional MS&E curriculum, however. This deficiency is partly a reflection of the time lag between the rapidly changing social and industrial climate and the traditional MS&E academic focus on the purely scientific and technological dimensions of materials. Industrial ecology is still a young field, and industrial and academic MS&E professionals could make valuable contributions to its development. Recommendation 3-6. To ensure the appropriate design, production, use, and end-of-life management of materials and products in the future, industrial ecol- ogy should be made an integral part of the education and expertise of both MS&E researchers and product designers. INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY LINKAGES The committee found that the linkages and interactions between industries and universities were critical. Barriers to effective interaction range from differences in ultimate objectives to product cycle times. In this section, the committee describes the differences in the fundamental principles of industry and universities. The role of universities in industrial research has become increasingly impor- tant. Universities conduct a broad spectrum of R&D throughout Phase 0, Phase 1, and Phase 2 of the materials/process development timeline and even assist in Phase 3 development as subcontractors or entrepreneurs (e.g., research parks, campus- based industrial-segment research centers, start-up companies, consultants). For example, university researchers have been instrumental in developing process- modeling systems to optimize materials production (Olson, 1998~. The committee found that the relationships between industry and universities are in the midst of a fundamental readjustment. First, industries have been reduc- ing their long-term, in-house basic and applied research in favor of short-term development. As a result, industry has increasingly looked to universities as a source of long-term research. Second, universities are apparently increasing their

OCR for page 44
54 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING BOX 3-1 Arsenic and Silver-Laced Water Every material has a life cycle. Ingredients are formulated, processed, and manufactured into high-tech and low-tech materials or directly into products. These are distributed, sold, and otherwise used until they can no longer serve their orig- inal purposes. They are then refurbished, recycled, or used for some other pur- pose. Sooner or later, the materials end up as refuse to be discarded or managed as waste. Materials scientists used to be concerned almost exclusively with the early phases of a material's life cycle. Keeping costs down while maintaining marketable quality were the major goals. But the latter phases of the materials life cycle have been slowly infiltrating the general mind-set of the materials community. Creating new, affordable, more capable materials is no longer enough. New drivers to min- imize negative social, economic, and environmental consequences of materials throughout their life cycles have become part of the equation. The following exam- ples suggest the new kinds of cognitive skills necessary to adapt to the cradle-to- grave perspective. For the past 30 years, the United States has used about 20,000 metric tons of arsenic annually about two-thirds of the world's arsenic consumption. In the past, the major uses of arsenic, including pesticides and drying agents, were dispersive, and the arsenic was essentially unrecoverable. Now, the toxic metal is heavily regulated, and its use in obviously dispersive applications has been considerably curtailed. Still, arsenic-bearing compounds have been widely dispersed into the environ- ment through an unexpected channel. Each year, 5 billion board feet of pressure- treated wood are protected from termite damage and dry rot using chromated copper arsenate, which accounts for 90 percent of worldwide arsenic demand. These agents have almost completely replaced organic wood preservatives like creosote. On small scales, arsenic compounds would not be troublesome. But arsenic- based preservatives have become the lumber industry's standard. Every year, 15 cubic miles of arsenic-containing materials diffuse across the landscape in the form of architectural framing, decks, and hundreds of other structures. As a result, a toxic metal continues to be dispersed throughout the environment, and there appears to be no simple or inexpensive way to recover it. pursuit of industrial funding, either because of an overall decrease in government funding for MS&E R&D or because of the general reallocation of government R&D funding to other important fields (e.g., biomedical research) or because of a general increase in the number of MS&E researchers applying for grants (which has increased the competition for government funds). Of course, the pursuit of industrial funding by universities could also reflect a genuine desire on the part of university researchers to see the results of their Phase 1 and Phase 2 research implemented. In any case, universities are focusing more on short-term industrial

OCR for page 44
58 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Policy for Interaction The third weakness in industry-university linkages is the lack of a standard policy and procedure for interaction. Universities devote considerable time and resources to establishing links with industry and developing contracts that in- clude intellectual property rights and the licensing of new technologies. How- ever, no standards have been developed defining the responsibilities of all parties and eliminating the need to reinvent contracts and contacts with each new project. Recommendation 3-9. Standard university-industry contracts for sharing intel- lectual property rights and licensing new technologies should be developed. These contracts should clearly define the responsibilities of all parties. Standard contracts would reduce the time and legal costs required to establish industry- university research programs. To ensure that standards were acceptable and equi- table to all parties, they should be approved by industry, academia, and govern- ment (e.g., professional societies, academic deans of research, and high-level government funding organizations). Industry Access to Research Results The fourth weakness in industry-university linkages is the inaccessibility of many university research results. As described in Chapter 2, the results of most basic research programs are disseminated via academic conferences and journals. However, the number of experts in industry who can evaluate this information and assess innovations is decreasing as industrial basic research declines. The remain- ing industry researchers have less time and fewer resources to keep abreast with new developments than they had in the past. Therefore, technological innovation might not attract their attention, and promising innovations may be overlooked. Recommendation 3-10. Industry should establish methods for identifying and assessing materials/process developments from universities and disseminating the results to industry. One possible method for improving industry's access to university research is through the development of a nonindustrial, worldwide-web-based research clearinghouse that could make the results of independent research easily search- able and thus more accessible to industry. However, this method would not address industry's problem of the lack of expertise and resources to assess this information. An alternative method might be for consulting companies to assess research results in a given field and bring the consequential innovations to the industry' s attention. One advantage of this method would be that linkages could be established before the research results were published when industry could take full advantage of the innovation.

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES TABLE 3-1 Characteristic Time Scales for Academia and the Automotive Industry 59 Academia Automotive Industry 2 years: capital budget cycles 2 years: Masters of Science project 3 years: typical government grant (5 years for centers of excellence and NIST's Advanced Technology Program) 5 years: Ph.D. project 6 years: tenure probation period Lifetime: disciplinary focus (tenure outcome) 1 quarter: shareholder profit expectations 1 year: budget cycle 1-3 years: typical automotive grant to university (l-year grants renewable at automaker option) 2 years: typical Phase 3 horizon 3 years: sign-off to production 4-10 years: typical production run Differences in Time Scales The fifth weakness in industry-university collaboration is the frustration caused by differences in time scales and process cycles (e.g., Table 3-1~. The critical and most variable delay is in moving from material concept development (Phase 1) to product integration and sign-off (start of Phase 4, end of Phase 3~.2 As Table 3-1 shows, an industrial concept, such as a new vehicle concept, is developed over the two-year period before sign-off, and during this period the most intensive consideration is given to new technologies (e.g., the use of tailor- welded blanks or hydroformed tube chassis). Although production tooling and procedures must still be developed, all of the technologies used in the vehicle must be ready for implementation at sign-off, with complete economic justifica- tions and selection of suppliers. Even if an attractive new technology appears within a month or two after sign-off, it usually cannot be included in the product. Universities, however, cannot operate on a two-year cycle and still educate students. Unlike industry, whose primary research objective is to develop new 2 For some purposes, such as patent lifetime and cost recovery considerations, it may be useful to include the time from Phase 4 to production (or profit making). From this perspective, the typical product production lifetime and time to sign-off-for-production are both relevant. A production- ready process will remain on the shelf until a new product passes sign-off and the product enters production. This factor is actually less important in the automotive industry than in the aerospace industry, because of the many product lines that must be redesigned and produced, perhaps an average of one per year for each manufacturer. In the jet turbine industry, however, it may be many years between new product sign-offs. In the electronics industry, however, most of the technology is developed in response to a market pull, as embodied in an industry road map, so much of the new material/process comes to Phase 3 quickly.

OCR for page 44
60 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING technologies or improve existing ones, university graduate students are required to teach and be taught as well as to conduct research. Students are also largely unknowns as they enter graduate programs, and most projects rely on the work of a small number of students (so there is little statistical evening). Furthermore, projects must be considered, designed, proposed, and developed before the stu- dent arrives on campus so equipment can be designed and materials and supplies ordered. The longest step in the preproject timeline is usually project design, proposal writing, and consideration of the proposal by funders of the project. Recommendation 3-11. Industry should develop mechanisms to coordinate industry-sponsored research with university research cycle times without com- promising university or industrial missions and timelines. Differences in Objectives and Reward Schemes The sixth weakness in industry-university linkages is differences in motiva- tion. An academic R&D program requires not only funding and equipment but also a consensus that it fits into the academic culture and is in keeping with the educational mission of the university. A common problem encountered by uni- versities is evaluating junior faculty members engaged in industrial R&D. Tenure appointments are generally based on the publications of the candidate and the evaluations of recognized faculty members at other institutions. Industry- imposed limitations on publishing the results of research in the open literature or on collaborating with other faculty members puts junior faculty members at a disadvantage for tenure. Recommendation 3-12. Academic administrators should consider the value of industrial (and other nonacademic) interactions typical of industrial research in their faculty evaluations. Relationships between industry and universities also have an educational com- ponent. Industry relies on universities to educate technical and management per- sonnel. Therefore, industry is concerned that the current MS&E curriculum is turning out graduates with narrowly focused knowledge of materials that are cur- rently of little economic consequence instead of graduates with a broad general knowledge of the materials that are the mainstays of industrial competitiveness. Better communication between industries and universities could help determine an appropriate balance between materials innovation and industrial relevance. Recommendation 3-13. Industry and universities should develop mechanisms to increase personal interactions and communications and to determine an appropri- ate balance of training and education to ensure the continued success of the MS&E R&D community, as well as satisfying the needs of industry.

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 61 Potential mechanisms for increasing personal interactions include (1) increas- ing adjunct professorships for industrial scientists and engineers; (2) encouraging joint research projects; (3) increasing the flexibility of exchange programs between universities and industry to allow representatives of either community to spend as much time as necessary and appropriate (e.g., from single day visits to full year sabbaticals); (4) organizing seminars and workshops to introduce university faculty members to the complexities, intricacies, and economics of manufacturing; and (5) enabling students to conduct research in industry (e.g., cooperative programs that provide both undergraduate and graduate students with opportunities to work in industry prior to graduation). Mechanisms to Improve University-Industry Interactions Industry and universities are reexamining their relationships. University pro- grams that have revised their research agendas based on the problems identified by their industrial partners are finding it easier to find industrial partners, secure funding, and, presumably, facilitate the adoption of research results. This new market-driven research agenda is in stark contrast to the more traditional, inde- pendent, idea-driven research of single-investigator, university laboratories. In the traditional climate, which works extremely well for developing basic knowl- edge and preparing students for careers in basic or academic research, students conduct curiosity-driven research in relative isolation, using university labora- tory space and equipment, and with minimal concerns about the practical applica- tion of their work. The center of excellence is a new model for university research that is rap- idly gaining acceptance. Centers of excellence, in sharp contrast to the traditional model of university research, have a clear research focus, involve collaboration by several faculty members (often from different disciplines), provide shared facilities, and have proactive industrial outreach programs. Interdisciplinary teams are better able to meet the needs of industry for relevant university research. The advantages of a center of excellence over the traditional model include: (1) it creates a critical mass for the rapid exchange of information; (2) it identifies industry segments interested in specific research projects; and (3) it provides investigators with greater access to the increasingly expensive and sophisticated equipment required for materials research. A center of excellence provides indus- try with a single location from which to anticipate relevant research results and a pool of recruitable students with immediately applicable skills and experience working in teams. Centers are also better able to respond to multidisciplinary federal research initiatives that require industrial outreach (e.g., the National Science Foundation's Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers and Science and Technology Centers Program). Centers of excellence commonly recruit industrial participants using an established fee structure and a common intellectual property agreement.

OCR for page 44
62 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Membership in a center provides industry with access to the output of all of the research performed at the center, which may have a research budget 10 to 100 times the membership fee. Research results can be shared with industrial mem- bers through activities such as on-campus research reviews and workshops, fac- ulty visits to member sites, and student internships in industry. Participation in research programs supported by industrial consortia can provide a venue for university/industry collaborations and facilitate efforts by new faculty to estab- lish research programs by providing them with access to well equipped facilities. Recommendation 3-14. Universities should consider establishing centers of ex- cellence as a mechanism for "marketing" their research, promoting customer- oriented research at their universities, improving the chances of successful tech- nology transfer, and improving linkages to industry. INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT LABORATORY LINKAGES Government laboratories also play an important role in industrial research because they conduct a broad spectrum of R&D throughout Phases 0, 1, 2, and 3 of the materials/process development timeline. The committee found that the relationship between industry and government laboratories has changed substan- tially in recent years. Changes in government policy since the end of the Cold War have resulted in significant changes in government laboratories. For example, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories previously conducted a great deal of MS&E re- search related to the development of new weapons platforms and equipment (e.g., new stealth fighter planes). Since the end of the Cold War, however, DOD has been more concerned with maintaining current capabilities then developing new ones and now relies on industry to lead materials production and R&D. The same is true of the U.S. Department of Energy' s (DOE) national laborato- ries. At the end of the Cold War, the three large DOE defense laboratories (Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia) were directed by the government to refocus their research programs on industry needs. The national laboratories faced many of the same barriers to working with industry as universities (e.g., different motivation, intellectual property rights issues, and cumbersome contracting proce- dures). Nevertheless, over a period of five or six years, many cooperative R&D projects were initiated. At the same time, the seven multiprogram civilian DOE laboratories increased theirindustrial cooperation. In the mid-199Os, the three DOE defense laboratories redefined their defense missions, focusing on the stewardship of nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation. At about the same time, the federal government decreased its support for cooperative work with industry. Most of the research previously conducted at the DOE weapons laboratories was not directly relevant to industry. Industrial representatives at the three work- shops suggested that an increase in short-term research at federal laboratories would be beneficial for both industry and the laboratories (for much the same

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 63 reasons as for university laboratories). However, most also believe that the labo- ratories should continue to conduct some long-term R&D to maintain the innova- tion pipeline. In addition, they recommended that the peer-review process for DOE laboratories be augmented to ensure the quality of the research and the applicability of results to the needs of industry. Like their university counterparts, laboratory representatives expressed their concern that the general trend toward short-term research and greater alignment with industry would move the laboratories away from their main mission of long- term research. Recommendation 3-15. The federal government should continue to encourage interaction and communication between federal laboratories and industry and to establish partnerships, in keeping with laboratory missions, in areas that will benefit industry. Potential mechanisms for increasing personal interactions include fostering more joint research projects; increasing the flexibility of exchange programs between government laboratories and industry; and organizing seminars and workshops to introduce government laboratory personnel to the complexities, intricacies, and economics of commercial manufacturing. Most industry representatives at the jet-engine workshop were extremely concerned about changes in the DOD laboratories. For example, the domestic jet- engine industry has been closely linked with, even reliant on, basic materials/ process R&D conducted and funded by the Air Force. Most major improvements in the efficiency of jet engines have resulted from DOD initiatives funded and/or conducted by the Air Force, which also provided the basis for implementation, reliability testing, and scale-up. In a dramatic reversal of roles, the Air Force now relies on industry to lead materials/process research initiatives. The industry, however, which has just emerged from an extended period of low profitability, severe downsizing, and reorganization, cannot support these initiatives. Industry representatives feared that, without the support of the Air Force, no long-term research would be conducted and that the competitiveness of the domestic jet- engine industry would suffer. In short, the jet-engine industry believes it is in the national interest for DOD to continue to support basic materials/process research and to remain closely linked with the domestic industry, while DOD representa- tives believe that industry should assume greater responsibility for long-term research because it would be in its own best interest. INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT LINKAGES The relationship between government and industry is extraordinarily com- plex, but there are three main methods by which government affects industry: direct funding of R&D; business regulation; and environmental regulation. Gov- ernment regulation of business (e.g., liability, international trade, antitrust, and

OCR for page 44
64 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING tax legislation) is beyond the scope of the committee's charge and expertise and, therefore, is not discussed further. This section focuses on the effects of environ- mental regulation on industrial materials and process development. Environmental regulations can compel industry (1) to modify or replace an existing manufacturing process or production facility to reduce harmful emis- sions or (2) to modify or augment a product design to improve safety or reduce harmful emissions. Either of these changes can cause manufacturing delays and add to the cost of materials implementation. More important, however, replace- ment technologies must not only satisfy government regulations but must also maintain required quality and performance levels. Regulatory changes also affect government operations. For example, continued changes in standards and regula- tions can cause backups in permit approvals, which can slow the implementation of new technologies. Although, in general, industry is opposed to government interference in commerce, the committee found that industrial participants in the workshops did not believe that product regulation was a major deterrent to industrial competi- tiveness because all companies must comply equally with new regulations. In fact, regulation can stimulate innovation by motivating companies to conduct cooperative, precompetitive research and by helping them overcome the cost barriers that limit the introduction of new materials/processes. Government regu- lation can also limit liability in certain industries. In the aerospace industry, for example, industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) tend to see their relationship as a partnership with respect to the introduction of new materi- als and processes. By working closely with the FAA, the aerospace industry can ensure that safety issues and liability concerns are fully addressed. Recommendation 3-16. Government regulatory agencies and the industries they regulate should attempt to change the current regulatory climate to mutually constructive cooperation and goal setting to promote the adoption of new materi- als that further societal goals. Many government agencies fund Phase 0 and Phase 1 materials/process R&D. For example, the National Science Foundation funds basic research and education in science and engineering, principally in academia. DOE and DOD have similar programs to fund Phase 0 and Phase 1 R&D. In the past decade, as federal programs have focused more on the development of precompetitive tech- nologies (e.g., improving automotive fuel economy and reducing pollution), more funding has been used for Phase 2 R&D. Many state governments have also established programs to support technology areas as a way of attracting new high-technology businesses to their states. The Technology Reinvestment Program of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was a four-year program to shift DARPA's defense- oriented manufacturing research to a more commercial-industry-oriented

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 65 program. The program was managed jointly by DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and DOE. The program recognized that DARPA would be less able to support and implement cutting-edge manufacturing technology re- search as defense budgets decreased. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP), sponsored by the National Insti- tute of Standards and Technology, is intended to benefit the U.S. economy by stimulating the development of innovative technologies at the preproduct stage. Joint ventures must account for at least half of the project costs, and single compa- nies are required to pay all of their indirect costs. Universities may participate in joint ventures or as subcontractors. Funding for ATP has averaged around $200 million per year for the past five years. ATP has established 17 focused programs, seven of which are principally oriented toward materials or processing. DOD supports manufacturing technology through the Manufacturing Technol- ogy Program (ManTech), which supports 15 centers of excellence in manufactur- ing fields ranging from apparel to electro-optics. ManTech also funds the Best Manufacturing Practices Center of Excellence to make the results of R&D at the centers and other defense-related industry knowledge available to industry at large. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is a partnership of 20 federal laboratories and Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors to improve U.S. competitiveness in automotive manufacturing through the evolution of an environmentally friendly car with triple the fuel economy of today' s midsize car. Seven agencies and the automakers jointly fund PNGV, and DOE directs the program. Materials and manufacturing are main areas of investigation. Four programs of the NSF Directorate of Engineering are noteworthy for their interaction with industry. Industry/university cooperative research centers (I/UCRCs) leverage a modest investment by NSF into a focused cooperative research program with industry support. More than 25 I/UCRCs have been estab- lished in the past 15 years. They represent one of the best examples of industry- university interaction and cooperation. State/industry university cooperative re- search centers (S/IUCRCs) extend the I/UCRC model, focusing on state or regional economic development, often including proprietary projects with both industry and state support. Engineering research centers (ERCs) represent an integrated university-industry focus on complex engineered systems. Two exist- ing ERCs, at Purdue and Ohio State, focus on manufacturing. The Grant Oppor- tunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) program brings individual engineering faculty members and industry into close working contact. The GOALI program provides funding for industry engineers to work in academia on collaborative projects. The Industries of the Future (IOF) Program was established to help the DOE Office of Industrial Technology leverage government and private funding by focusing research on industry-developed visions and technology road maps (NRC, l999b). The objective of the IOF program is to improve government-industry partnerships, ensure the relevance of research projects, encourage industry

OCR for page 44
66 MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING participation, and facilitate the commercialization of new technologies. The long- term goals are a 25-percent improvement in energy efficiency and a 30-percent reduction in emissions for the IOF industries by 2010 and a 35-percent improve- ment in energy efficiency and 50-percent reduction in emissions by 2020 (OIT, 1997). The New York State Science and Technology Foundation is a public corpo- ration that administers a range of financial- and technical-assistance programs designed to stimulate economic growth and job creation in New York through the transfer of technology from the laboratory to commercial application. One of its three main endeavors is the Centers for Advanced Technology program, which encourages new and high-technology product and service development through R&D, technology transfer between universities and industry, and education and . . training. All of these Phase 2 government/industry/university cooperative programs require significant industry matching funds. Their overall focus is primarily based on meeting industry goals and objectives. Recommendation 3-17. Federal and local governments should expand their pro- grams to fund joint industry-university research programs to enable new tech- nologies to make the transition from the laboratory to industry. These programs should focus on involving both original equipment manufacturers and suppliers in the selection and management of research projects. CONSORTIA The formation of consortia to conduct precompetitive research is a relatively recent phenomenon that started in 1984 with passage of the National Cooperative Research Act. The original objective was to provide a mechanism to enable product manufacturers to coordinate their Phase 0 and Phase 1 precompetitive research in response to foreign competition without violating antitrust laws. Since then, the missions of most consortia have been expanded to include: (1) conducting joint Phase 0 and Phase 1 research on high-risk, precompetitive technologies; (2) obtain- ing government funding; (3) developing technology road maps; (4) maximizing the value of university research; and (5) acting as industry spokesgroups. Consortia, which can include major suppliers and manufacturers, applicable university programs, and relevant government laboratories and agencies, are funded by contributions from major participants. Consortia generally have four types of members: . full industrial members, who pay dues in the tens or hundreds of thou- sands of dollars and generally have full and immediate access to R&D results, as well as full participation in decision-making processes

OCR for page 44
LINKAGES BETWEEN THE MS&E AND END- USER COMMUNITIES 67 partial industrial members, who pay dues in the tens of thousands of dollars or less and generally have limited access to the R&D results research members, who conduct the R&D governmental agencies, which provide a large share of the funds for R&D . For rapidly changing, high-profit industries, research may be funded exclusively by industry. The electronics industry, for example, has established several industry- funded consortia to develop visions of the near future and fund R&D projects. Consortia accomplish their objectives in two ways. First, they provide neu- tral territory on which competing industries can meet to identify, develop, and maintain the research initiatives most important to their competitiveness. Second, they serve as links among industries and research institutions to ensure that short- term and long-term research initiatives are effective and efficient. The main mechanism by which consortia operate is through industry road maps, frame- works for setting priorities in materials research. Road maps have been very useful for establishing goals and priorities that have led to the development of advanced technologies in newer industries, such as electronics. Some advantages of road mapping are listed below: Road maps are high-level mechanisms for identifying and disseminating information about the problems, challenges, and opportunities in a given field. Road maps help define the issues facing industries and identify gaps in technology. Road maps are communications tools that enable all segments of an in- dustry (e.g., researchers, suppliers, systems integrators, and recyclers) to contribute to the industry' s development. Road maps bring all segments of the industry into the development pro- cess from fundamental R&D to final assembly in a coordinated way. Road maps must be sufficiently detailed so that each segment understands the R&D areas to be pursued. Road maps based on the input of industries, suppliers, academia, and government represent a consensus on R&D goals and directions. They also provide a way of leveling the playing field among researchers and industries, lowering the overall risk, and ensuring that a market will exist for innovation. Road maps are tools for helping funding agencies determine which projects to fund. The process of developing industry road maps encourages the participation and interaction of experts across institutions and disciplines, which fosters under- standing and communication between materials experts and product designers,

OCR for page 44
68 both within and across opportunities." MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING . industries and research institutions, and minimizes "missed Recommendation 3-18. The MS&E communities should promote the use of road maps (1) to identify the issues facing industries and the gaps in the technol- ogy; (2) to serve as a means of communication for all segments of an industry to contribute to the industry's development; (3) to serve as an organizational mecha- nism to coordinate all segments of an industry; (4) to provide integrative struc- tures through which all segments can "buy into" the goals and research directions of the industry; and (4) to provide funding agencies with the information neces- sary to manage their research budgets. The development and implementation of road maps are not free of risk, however. First, an industry that simply follows the schedule stipulated in a road map will not survive. To control or increase its market share and maintain its competitiveness, a company must attempt to preempt its competitors by introduc- ing new technologies before the dates established on the road map. Because of the constant pressure to beat the deadline, road maps are usually obsolete within two years. Thus, road maps must be treated as living documents rather than set guidelines. Unless consortia vigilantly maintain and update their road maps, the competitive advantage they provide will be lost. Second, road maps could lead to technology lock-in. By necessity, road maps are mainly concerned with evolutionary R&D and cannot identify or sup- port revolutionary innovations. Industry must be careful not to eliminate revolu- tionary research in the name of efficiency and leave themselves vulnerable to competitors developing leapfrog technologies. Once the industry recognizes the limitations of a road map, however, revolutionary ideas can be developed by veering off the incremental course set by the road map and envisioning leapfrog technologies based on completely different paradigms. The most effective way to avoid technology lock-in is to use road maps to forecast and prioritize needs, not solutions. Third, road maps can only be truly successful if the participants remain involved and provide conduits for the transfer of results. Road maps must also clearly define precompetitive and proprietary interests to ensure that companies have a basis on which to compete once the R&D stipulated in the road maps has been completed.