Innovation and Transfer of U.S. Air Force Manufacturing Technology (1981) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Contents of Report
Contents of Report
Pages 1-18
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
From the evidence provided, the committee developed a model to describe the decision-making process used by potential adopters of innovations. Its objectives were to explain why attempted transfers of militarysponsored manufacturing technology succeed or fail and to propose changes in contracting procedures to increase the diffusion of such technology.
|
From page 2... ...
3. Hot isostatic pressing, Automatic assembly drilling, and Advanced composite tape-laying head.
|
From page 3... ...
Potential adopter of 1 Grumman John Huhner Originator of 2 Bethpage, Long Island Carl Micillo Potential adopter of 3 General Dynamics James Ashton Potential adopter Forth Worth, Texas Grant Davis of 2 Wendal1 Eliot Orig inator of 3 McDonnell-Douglas Terry Howick Potential adopter St. Louis, Missouri Paul Meyer of 2 Potential adopter of 3 Northrop Don Stansbarger Potential adopter Los Angeles, California of 2 Potential adopte r of 3 *
|
From page 5... ...
The industrial buyer behavior studies, for instance, apply diffusion research to marketing. Webster and Winds identify five 5
|
From page 6... ...
HIP Casting Consolidation Technology Originators Both General Electric Evendale, which was the AFML contractor, and Howmet Turbine Components Corporation were originators of the hot isostatic pressing (HIP) casting process.
|
From page 7... ...
Battelle's publicity for the techn igue prompted both General Electric and Howmet to consider further development programs. For both companies the original benefit of HIP appeared to be casting repair (scrap reduction for Howmet and salvage reduction for General Electr ic ~ rather than product enhancement.
|
From page 8... ...
Findings from the HIP Casting Case 1. The AFML has termed the hot isostatic pressing contract with General Electric a case of successful transfer.
|
From page 9... ...
The Air Force Materials Laboratory chose Grumman as its contractor to develop and demonstrate automated drilling in preference to General Dynamics, which was also competing for the contract. The Grumman approach was preferred because it added a scanning mechanism as a locating device in addition to the computer control cuff the dr illhead .
|
From page 10... ...
Adopters Since all airframe manufacture requires drilling numerous holes, the Grumman device was viewed by Grumman and the AFML as highly generic and potentially transferable to all airframe manufacturers. Immediate potential adopters were those companies tooling up for new contracts in 1974, Fairchild and General Dynamics.
|
From page 11... ...
Evaluation of the Grumman approach ultimately revealed poor applicability without extensive modif ication . There was high perceived risk in replicating equipment that was not built by a machine tool maker.
|
From page 12... ...
4. The Grumman device would have been much more likely to spread in its embodied form if a machine tool builder had replicated the device.
|
From page 13... ...
The broadgoods philosophy won enough converts to narrow the field of potential adopters considerably. Three different groups emerged: companies such as General Dynamics that stayed with tape, companies such as Grumman that adopted a hybrid philosophy, and companies such as Northrop that moved entirely into broadgoods.
|
From page 14... ...
In 1975-76 the AFML funded Grumman ' s integrated laminating center, thus leading the firm permanently away from the advanced tape head concepts. When broadgoods appeared in the early 1970s, other companies reassessed their entire composite production systems.
|
From page 15... ...
Some embodiments, such as that of hot isostatic pressing, are more permissive In this sense than others. While there has been concern about the amount of capital investment involved, perceived risk is related as much to flexibility, reusability, and adaptability as it is to actual risk.
|
From page 16... ...
Minor differences can be modif led, but the costs of modif ication and communication soon exceed the cost of in-house development for most system embodiments. This factor is one of the main reasons that machine tool builders often play an important role; the value they add as a neutral party reduces the urge to redo the embodiment.
|
From page 17... ...
The Air Force should broaden its interpretation of successful transfer to recognize the benefits of transferring the concept. If a generic embodiment transfer is really required, the embodiment might be developed cooperatively or in cooperation with a machine tool builder at the start.
|
From page 18... ...
To test these inferences we recommend the study of one or more additional cases involving the transfer or potential transfer of a computer-aided manufacturing technology where embodiment is a computer code. As manufacturing systems become more complex and more integrated, transfers of hardware/software combinations will be increasingly common.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.