National Academies Press: OpenBook

Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems (1988)

Chapter: Manufacturing Systems: Meeting the Competitive Challenge

« Previous: Integrated Manufacturing Systems: An Overview
Suggested Citation:"Manufacturing Systems: Meeting the Competitive Challenge." National Research Council. 1988. Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1100.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Manufacturing Systems: Meeting the Competitive Challenge." National Research Council. 1988. Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1100.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Manufacturing Systems: Meeting the Competitive Challenge." National Research Council. 1988. Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1100.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Manufacturing Systems: Meeting the Competitive Challenge." National Research Council. 1988. Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1100.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Manufacturing Systems: Meeting the Competitive Challenge." National Research Council. 1988. Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1100.
×
Page 11

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS: MEETING THE COMPETITIVE CHALLENGE ERICH BLOCH AND KATHY PRAGER CONRAD The current heightened interest in man- ufacturing is long overdue. It follows a pe- riod during which manufacturing was ne- glected, often being considered merely a necessary task. Because manufacturing has not been viewed as an intellectual chal- lenge, its intellectual base has not expanded as the products being manufactured have increasingly become more complex. The manufacturing enterprise is under- going fundamental change. It both uses and produces sophisticated technology. It is as much a software system as it is a hardware system. The human-factors aspect of man- ufacturing is also gaining in importance. With this expanding complexity, we need to look at manufacturing as an integrated system and optimize it as a total process, from product design to marketing, instead of suboptimizing on a tool-by-tool or ma- chine-by-machine basis. We must recog- nize that manufacturing increasingly is driven by advances in science. 7 Several articles in the recent literature highlight the problem. A recent publication of the Manufacturing Studies Board of the National Research Council noted that "There is substantial evidence that many U.S. manufacturers have neglected the manufacturing function, have overempha- sized product development at the expense of process improvements, and have not be- gun to make the adjustments that will be necessary to be competitive" (National Re- search Council, 1986, p. 2~. Jaikumar (1986) has analyzed the rela- tive levels of use of flexible manufacturing systems by U.S. manufacturers and their Japanese competitors and has noted that Japanese use substantially exceeds that of comparable U.S. systems. He concludes that this is because U.S. companies are buying sophisticated hardware but using it to re- place existing tools rather than integrating it into a new manufacturing system or pro- viding a new approach.

8 Perhaps the most telling comment about the understanding of manufacturing is the following anecdote recounted in the Japan Times: "Official data shows that U.S. tele- phones are likely to cause trouble three to ten times more than those made in Japan. When tthe author] told this to a U.S. Con- gressman, he said 'Then all we have to do is increase the number of repairmen'" (Karatsu, 1987, By. Unfortunately, this re- sponse is not so different from that of many industry managers we have known over the years. It does not represent an atypical attitude. In fact, many of the problems for the manufacturing sector started when main- tenance and servicing of the product were established as separate profit centers, cre- ating a unit that is expected to be evaluated like other profit centers and to provide a return on investment. Making a profit on product design errors or on the lack of prod- uct reliability does not provide a strong in- centive to improve customer satisfaction. Just at the time that manufacturing was being given low priority in this country, the world economy was undergoing dramatic changes. Global competition has now in- tensified to the extent that we are being challenged on every front. This competition is not just for commercial markets. In basic research and even in education, areas in which the United States has long been the unquestioned leader, our competitors have made vast inroads. Competitor nations are now recognizing the validity of a strategy that has long been followed by the United States, namely, that top research universities can be the genesis for it&D-intensive companies. The com- mitment of these countries to strengthen their basic research in manufacturing could be especially significant, since our basic re- search efforts in this area have been mini- mal until now. We see this approach being taken in both Japan and the Federal Republic of Ger- many. Japan is planning a new mechanism ERICH BLOCH AND KATHY PRAGER CONRAD to breed strong basic researchers the so- called technopolis project (The Economist, 1986~. On various sites, each called a tech- nopolis, a university, local government, and industry are being brought together. The technopolis is intended to promote basic re- search, with the goal of founding new high- technology companies. About 18 of these new units have been-approved. Similarly, the German government has just established a major new center for production technol- ogy (The Economist, 1986~. This center will be jointly used by the Technical University of Berlin and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. The emphasis will be on computer-inte- grated manufacturing, with state-of-the-art equipment and strong industry involve- ment. The investment in this single center will be the equivalent of about $67 mil- lion more than the total committed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to the Engineering Research Centers that are con- centrating on manufacturing technology. In the face of these efforts and our gen- eral lack of interest in manufacturing, the United States has adopted a primarily de- fensive strategy. We have blamed unfair trade practices, the overvalue`] dollar, and lower wage scales of other nations. Instead of criticizing our competitors and trying to create a level playing field not unimpor- tant but not sufficient we must examine our fundamental approach to the problem and adopt a tough offensive strategy. Historically, our comparative advantage has been knowledge and our ability to de- velop new bases of knowledge rapidly through our universities. In manufactur- ing, however, we are not developing suffi- cient new insights to support the next gen- eration of production processes. Neither are we deploying the knowledge and technol- ogy that we have in a timely and appropri- ate way. Many things need to be done to change this situation. One obvious need is for more interaction among universities and indus- tries. This is essential because technology

MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS: MEE TING THE COMPE TI TI VE CHALLENGE transfer is really knowledge transfer. Bring- ing university researchers who have ideas together with industry colleagues who can use those ideas to solve problems will ulti- mately lead to new or improved products and processes. But this is not happening to a sufficient extent in the manufacturing arena, partly because of several more fun- damental problems facing both universities and industries. Consider the universities first. As noted earlier, manufacturing has held little at- traction in our universities over the past decades. Manufacturing programs have only recently begun to develop, with less than six accredited manufacturing engi- neering programs at the bachelor's and master's levels in U.S. engineering schools. Although a large number of manufactur- ing-oriented programs have sprung up in the past few years, few have gained the accreditation that gives them the stature necessary for long-term continuity. Unfor- tunately, the mind-set that fails to reco~- a . · . - . emergence of a few strong programs, there is no universal recognition of the need. In fact, many university researchers are hesitant to tackle the critical issues. They are skeptical of the intellectual challenge and concerned that the relevance to indus- trial needs might be misunderstood by their peers. This situation is particularly discon- certing because basic research is needed in many areas. Examples include the integra- tion of information into manufacturing sys- tems, particularly in achieving designs that optimize the manufacturability of the prod- uct, process planning, and the innovative use of new materials. These are good topics for university researchers. They should be considered valid areas of intellectual in- quiry by the academic community-at-large, not just the handful of schools now making efforts in these fields. To make progress, the university system must recognize the value of investigating relevant problems and en- 9 courage young faculty members to take on these important research questions. This is not likely to happen overnight or on its own; catalysts for change are needed. The National Science Foundation is in- creasingly playing such a catalytic role. In addition to encouraging individual investi- gators in this direction, it also supports multi-investigator efforts through the En- gineering Research Centers, the Materials Centers and Groups, and now the Basic Science and Technology Centers. These ac- tivities provide opportunities for students and faculty to move outside the boundaries of the traditional disciplines and work with people having different perspectives. In multidisciplinary areas such as manufactur- ing, which cut across the disciplinary struc- ture of universities, this is especially criti- cal. University and industry researchers are brought together in an interactive setting, developing partnerships that are based on more than money to support the research. Further interaction depends on the quality nice manufacturing as a ~eg~mate aca- and continuity of these relationships. demic field persists, and despite the The attractiveness of these programs to r ~ ~ I' researchers interested in manufacturing is evident from the high proportion of the En- gineering Research Center proposals that have addressed manufacturing research ar- eas and from the high number of these pro- posals that have received funding. A1- though such developments are encouraging, clearly much more needs to be done. States are playing an increasingly active role in bridging the gaps between universi- ties and industries. Currently, 27 states have started programs to develop university- industry research partnerships. In many cases, the NSF Engineering Research Cen- ter program has been used as a model. The problems that need to be solved are not just in the universities. The industrial sector has both an immediate and a long- term challenge. Even in high-technology sectors where the United States once held an unqualified world lead, its position is now threatened. In some cases, the gravity

10 of the situation is drawing industries to- gether, and new offensive strategies are be- ing developed. An example of this can be seen in the semiconductor industry. There is wide- spread agreement that steps must be taken now to restore the U.S. edge in semiconduc- tor technology and manufacturing. A recent survey of the Semiconductor Research Cor- poration's-member companies suggests that the U. S. lead in several critical semiconduc- tor areas is expected to drop substantially by 1991 (Burger, 1986~. In response to con- cern for the declining competitiveness of the semiconductor industry, the Department of Defense convened a special panel to exam- ine the situation. Its recently released report calls for the establishment of a manufactur- ing consortium that would concentrate on advanced equipment and process research, providing a resource that member compa- nies could use in the marketplace to further their competitive advantage (U.S. Depart- ment of Defense, 1987~. It is clear, however, that creating a new research consortium will not solve all of the semiconductor industry's problems. A1- though new knowledge and technology will be generated and the interactions that are necessary for progress will be improved, these institutional and research tools alone will not be sufficient. More basic challenges face U.S. companies: to learn to think and work with entire systems and to adopt an overriding concern for the quality of the product. In addressing the issue of quality, several myths about the relationship between qual- ity and productivity need to be dispelled: · The first is that quality is an extra, a luxury desirable to the extent it is feasible. In fact, quality is an essential requirement and does not come in increments low quality is not an acceptable or meaningful standard. · The second is that quality is not quan- tifiable—that it is a subjective judgment by ERICH BLOCH AND KATHY PRAGER CONRAD the consumer. It is, in fact, precisely mea- surable. · The third is that quality is expensive. This is a short-term management attitude that ignores the long-term savings achieved through quality management. · Finally, there are many misconcep- tions about the causes of poor quality. By ignoring measures such as error rates, scrap, and other indicators of the integrity of the design and manufacturing process, this myth attributes poor quality to lazy work- ers, labor-management disputes, and other environmental factors. The reality is that there is a strong cor- relation between quality and productivity. By using a quality management system, companies can make better products more efficiently, thereby increasing their produc- tivity and their ability to compete. Com- mitment to such a system requires a long- term outlook. U.S. managers have been preoccupied, however, with short-term results and quar- terly reports. As a result, they have lost sight of long-term goals and the strategies needed to achieve them. For example, when labor costs in this nation rose, many companies turned to overseas production without proper concern for quality, responsiveness, or the impact on the total enterprise, its product line, and the servicing of its prod- ucts. In many cases, fixing the shop at home through new processes and approaches would have been a more viable solution for the long term. Any improvement in quality must be achieved by people, and this will require changes in the attitudes and practices of today's work force and management and in the way we educate the scientists, engi- neers, managers, and production workers of tomorrow. New linkages must be estab- lished, not only between universities and industries but also among the various com- ponents of individual institutions. In our companies the research people need.to talk

MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS: MEETING THE COMPETITIVE CHALLENGE to designers, assembly workers need to talk to system engineers, and so forth. In the universities, schools of business should be addressing important manufacturing issues from a broader perspective than finance or management. Curriculum changes are needed in the business schools and the col- leges of engineering and science. Students and faculty of the various disciplines must become familiar with each other's language and tools. These issues are indicative of one of the main problems in U.S. manufacturing a lack of contact and communication among the different sectors and organizations that have a stake. This is as true in the govern- ment as it is in any other sector. One effort to foster such interaction is the Manufactur- ing Forum, to be established by the Na- tional Academy of Engineering in coopera- tion with the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation. The Forum will bring to- gether cabinet- and subeabinet-level gov- ernment executives, chief executive officers of several manufacturing companies, uni- versity presidents, and representatives of la- bor. The objective of the Forum is to pro- vide an environment that will promote open discussion of manufacturing issues. It is hoped that this focus on an important na- tional problem will be productive and will 11 facilitate cooperative initiatives among the participants that otherwise might not occur. Such activities show that we are making progress. Additional effort is needed, how- ever, to speed the positive action that is already occurring and to encourage further initiatives. We need to establish a sense of national priority in manufacturing and manufacturing research. Manufacturing should be at the top of the agenda in gov- ernment, corporate board rooms, factory floors, and universities across the country. Working together, we can trade on our strengths the inventiveness and declica- tion of our people to enhance our compet- itive position. REFERENCES Burger, R. 1986. Semiconductor Research Corpora- tion Newsletter 12:4-8. The Economist. 1986. Japanese research: More sol than tech. Nov. 22, p.94. Jaikumar, R. 1986. Postindustrial Manufacturing. Harvard Business Review Nov./Dec.:69-76. Karatsu, H. 1987. Healthy economies are founded on sound manufacturing bases. Japan Times, Jan. 22, p.Bl. National Research Council (NRC). 1986. Toward a New Era in U.S. Manufacturing: The Need for a National Vision. Manufacturing Studies Board. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. U.S. Department of Defense. 1987. Report of Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Semiconduc- tor Dependency. Washington, D.C.

Next: Design and Analysis of Integrated Electronics Manufacturing Systems »
Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems is a fresh look at manufacturing from a systems point of view. This collection of papers from a symposium sponsored by the National Academy of Engineering explores the need for new technologies, the more effective use of new tools of analysis, and the improved integration of all elements of manufacturing operations, including machines, information, and humans. It is one of the few volumes to include detailed proposals for research that match the needs of industry.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!