National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was sponsored by the United States Army under Grant No. Army/DAAE 30-99-1-0801. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.
Available online at the
National Academy PressWeb site at
<http://www.nap.edu>.
Available in limited quantities from:
Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20418
202–334–3124
Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an advisor to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE TOTALLY INTEGRATED MUNITIONS ENTERPRISE (TIME) PROGRAM
JOE H.MIZE,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater (Ret.),
Chair
JOHN G.BOLLINGER,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
REGGIE J.CAUDILL,
New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark
RAY E.EBERTS,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
MARK S.FOX,
University of Toronto, Ontario
RAJIT GADH,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
DAVID GREENSTEIN,
Commerce One, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
THOM J.HODGSON,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
RICHARD L.KEGG,
Milacron, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio (Ret.)
RICHARD E.NEAL,
Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative, Heiskell, Tennessee
DEBORAH S.NIGHTINGALE,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JEFFREY L.RUCKMAN,
Resultant Manufacturing Services, Walworth, New York
PAUL K.WRIGHT,
University of California, Berkeley
NRC Staff
PATRICK J.DOYLE, Program Officer (since September 2000)
JOHN F.RASMUSSEN, Program Officer (until September 2000)
BONNIE SCARBOROUGH, Program Officer (until November 1999)
TERI THOROWGOOD, Research Associate
JUDITH L.ESTEP, Senior Project Assistant
BOARD ON MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING DESIGN
JOSEPH G.WIRTH,
Raychem Corporation, Mt. Shasta, California (Ret.),
Chair
F.PETER BOER,
Tiger Scientific, Inc., Boynton Beach, Florida
JOHN G.BOLLINGER,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
PAMELA A.DREW,
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
ROBERT EAGAN,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
EDITH M.FLANIGEN,
UOP Corporation, White Plains, New York (Ret.)
JOHN W.GILLESPIE, JR.,
University of Delaware, Newark
JAMIE C.HSU,
General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan
RICHARD L.KEGG,
Milacron, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio (Ret.)
JAY LEE,
United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, Connecticut
JAMES MATTICE,
Universal Technology Corporation, Dayton, Ohio
CAROLYN W.MEYERS,
North Carolina AT&T University, Greensboro
JOE H.MIZE,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater (Ret.)
FRIEDRICH B.PRINZ,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
JAMES B.RICE, JR.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JOHN B.STENBIT,
TRW, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia
DALIBOR F.VRSALOVIC,
AT&T Labs, Menlo Park, California
JOEL SAMUEL YUDKEN,
AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
NRC Staff
TONI MARECHAUX, Director
Preface
The U.S. Army has, as one of its responsibilities, the role of single manager for conventional munitions for all of the armed services. In this role it is responsible for ensuring that an adequate manufacturing capability is maintained within the munitions industrial base (MIB)—the total collection of munitions manufacturing facilities in both the private and public sectors—to meet the combined services’ munitions requirements. The Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) current replenishment policy stipulates that the munitions stockpile must be able to meet peacetime needs (training, testing, replacement of obsolete weapons, sales to foreign governments, and weapons upgrading) and support two near-simultaneous major regional conflicts. It further stipulates that sufficient manufacturing capability be retained to replenish the stockpile within 3 years following such conflicts (GAO 1996a). Under this policy, there is no longer a requirement to surge the MIB (rapidly increase production) during conflicts. However, production rates are to be increased following conflicts until the stockpile has been replenished to its specified level.
The Army has a twofold plan to achieve rapid replenishment by (1) increasing production at dedicated munitions manufacturing facilities, and (2) subcontracting to qualified commercial facilities that agree to maintain dual-use manufacturing capabilities. The Army’s ability to utilize commercial firms for rapid replenishment by means of technology and process transfer, however, is severely hampered by the relatively primitive state of government-owned munitions facilities, which generally are not equipped to make effective use of information systems and modern manufacturing technologies.
Similarly, the Army’s ability to introduce new munitions within a reasonable time frame is unacceptable by modern industrial standards. Its munitions development and manufacturing enterprise lags far behind that of most commercial organizations in the use of commercially available information technologies, such as computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing systems, communications networks, commercially available process controllers, and Internet-based communications. Consequently, design and development cycles are far too long, and transferring a new munition into full-scale production is a lengthy, inefficient, and costly process of trial and error. The lack of state-of-the-market information systems inhibits effective communication within the supply chain. The Army has yet to take advantage of the information and
communications technologies mentioned above for creating direct, real-time links between manufacturing and business (or enterprise) processes such as financial and management reporting and production control systems.
The Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise (TIME) program was initiated in 1997 with the objective of updating the Army’s munitions manufacturing capability. The program was to focus on reducing the time required for the development of new munitions and their transition to production. It was also to focus on creating the ability to communicate electronically among various elements of the MIB in order to more rapidly and cost-effectively replenish stockpiles following conflicts. One of the goals of the program was to achieve an integrated solution that tied together all elements of the business enterprise from the Department of the Army down to the shop floor, including product design and testing, the supply chain, production, logistics, production scheduling and control, financial accounting, performance measurement, and overall management reporting.
The TIME program is being managed by the Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) of the Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. ARDEC’s mission, which may be found online at <http://w3.pica.army.mil/ardec/>, is as follows:
…to provide research, product development and full life cycle engineering for ammunition, weapons, sophisticated fire control (targeting) technology, and explosives and propellants. We serve our customers by exploring advanced technologies, designing new products, supporting the manufacturers with product and manufacturing know-how, trouble shooting user problems in the field and supporting demilitarization (demolition).
TACOM-ARDEC requested that the National Research Council (NRC) evaluate the TIME program and make recommendations for future direction. In response to that request, the NRC established the Committee to Evaluate the TIME program under the direction of the Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design. The statement of task is included in the Executive Summary and in Chapter 1. The committee based its findings on detailed presentations by participants in the TIME program, site visits, a review of selected literature, and, perhaps most important, a diverse base of experience in industry and academia.
Chapter 1 of this report provides background information on the U.S. munitions industrial base and on DoD’s changing policies and requirements and describes the TIME program. Chapter 2 assesses TIME’S approach to enterprise integration (enterprise architecture, networking, and systems); Chapter 3 assesses the program in terms of its impact on routine munitions production and replenishment. TIME’S approach to product realization, with an emphasis on the introduction of new products, is covered in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 looks at machine tool controllers, particularly TIME’S heavy investment in the Open Modular Architecture Controller. Chapter 6 describes the various demonstrations that TIME includes for validation purposes, and Chapter 7 benchmarks the TIME
program against two previous NRC studies dealing with manufacturing: Visionary Manufacturing Challenges for 2020 (NRC 1998) and Defense Manufacturing in 2010 and Beyond (NRC 1999). In Chapter 8 the committee presents its overall conclusions and recommendations. Appendixes A, B, and C describe some related efforts, Appendix D consists of short biographical sketches of the committee’s members, and Appendixes E and F contain a glossary and an acronyms list, respectively.
Joe H.Mize, Chair
Committee to Evaluate the TIME Program
Acknowledgments
The Committee to Evaluate the Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise Program would like to thank the following individuals for their presentations: Robert Burleson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; David Carey, Primex Technologies; David Fair, U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC; Nat Frampton, Real Time Development Corporation; Carol Gardiner, HQ U.S. Army Materiel Command; Al Gonsiska, TIME program; Tony May, Raytheon Consulting Group; Thomas McWilliams, U.S. Army WECAC; Tom Miller, Raytheon Consulting Group; Ed Morris, Lockheed Martin; Charles Osiecki, U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC; Sam Rindskoph, Louisiana Center for Manufacturing Sciences; Robert Rohde, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology; Steve Rosenberg, U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC; Eric Stevens, VEPortals.com; and Jerry Yen, General Motors Powertrain Group. The committee would also like to thank the Raytheon Consulting Group for hosting a committee meeting.
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The contents of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to the thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Henry Alberts, University of Maryland; Richard Curless, Cincinnati Machine; George J.Hess, Ingersoll Milling Machine Company (retired); Richard H.Johnson, consultant, Alexandria, Virginia; Kenneth J.Laskey, SAIC; Thomas Munns, ARINC; Hyla Napadensky, Napadensky Energetics, Inc. (retired); and John Stenbit, TRW, Inc.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations and they did not they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by James J.Solberg, Purdue University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Finally, the committee gratefully acknowledges the support of the staff of the Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design, including Bonnie Scarborough, study director (until November 1999); John F.Rasmussen, study director (until September 2000); Patrick J.Doyle, study director (since September 2000); Teri Thorowgood, research associate; and Judith L.Estep, senior project assistant.