Tighter linkages among product designers, manufacturers, and their associated supply chains are also seen as innovative ways to add value to the manufacturing process. Zysman and other experts who study the decline of US manufacturing stress that it is the ability to generate new intellectual property and add value to products during the manufacturing process that are among the key innovations needed to revive US manufacturing.
Dave Lentz, supply chain solutions program manager with Avnet Inc., said that the electronic components distributor is working to deliver supply innovations that will help manufacturers cope with shrinking product cycles and the resulting need to get products to market sooner.
The role of government in fostering innovation remains a subject of sharp debate. A recent hearing before the House Science Committee panel on technology and innovation underscored the partisan divisions over the government’s role in promoting innovations. “We should enact policies that ensure this country remains the best place to launch or expand a business,” Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., the subcommittee’s chairman, said during the hearing. “Excessive regulations and red tape increase the cost of doing business and create uncertainty for private sector companies.”
Several members of the DESIGN West panel agreed with that view, arguing that the government’s role is to get out of their way. Others said the best way for Washington to foster innovation was to create a level playing field in global markets. “What I want from my government is to break down market barriers” that make it harder to compete in the global electronics industry, said Jeff Lawson, an embedded design engineer with Shockwave Impact.
Truchard of National Instruments stressed that, despite heavy private investment in areas like clean technology, there is a continuing government role in supporting “precompetitive research” needed to generate the next round of US innovation.
The comment about fostering tighter linkages between product designers, manufacturers, and their associated supply chains is a theme I hear constantly as CAD, PLM, and other design tools vendors position their offerings. The ability to nurture a universal backbone for product development that lets all the various constituents in the product design chain around the globe share ideas and collaborate early on on the evolving product record can certainly promote innovation and help manufacturers more effectively transform ideas into working, production-ready products. These shared systems of record can also be instrumental in cutting some of the fat and design rework that goes on, thus aiding in leaner, more flexible product development and manufacturing processes.
George, Great topic. Flexible manufacturing is definitely critical to U.S. manufacturing, and the next wave of tighter integration of manufacturing into business systems could help create the stronger linkages needed. In heavily automated processes, the combination of highly flexible automation and communications technology should outweigh our labor costs since fewer workers are required. The U.S. government needs to create an environment where our technological strengths can be used to create a good business case. Plus we can't afford to be a country that has lost its core capability to build things.
One area where flexible automation can and will continue to get stronger is the linkages between the manufacturing floor and the enterprise system. Certainly these linkages using networking have been around for a long time, but making them better and more comprehensive is vital to reaching the next level of flexible manufacturing. More real-time data on the details of production, better communication with the supply chain and the ability to quantify the energy required to create specific products, for example, are current areas of focus. The ability to easily and effectively use manufacturing and process data is key.
First let me say this is a good article and a timely topic.
What strikes me though is the statement that 1B iOS apps have been created. What that has to do with manufacturing is not obvious. It reminds me of the early days of the PC. The Microsoft powered PCs won the battle against the Apple PCs due to the application count. The fact is, only a small number are used by most people.
Let me give an example of why I am reacting to this. The reality is that the value of these apps is very low for most. I was talking to a guy at lunch one day. He had shown me an iPhone app he had commissioned. I was interested in doing the Android version. Usually I would take a percentage of the profits. So, I asked him what he was making on it. He said his monthly take would pay for about half the bill for the lunch we were having. I didn't bother following up.
One thing that strikes me is the constant talk about the role of government. In many other countries, believe it or not, the government stays out of the way until something bad happens. This is especially true in China. It takes a different turn than here in the US. There are lots of regulations in China. On the other hand, they are not generally enforced. I have some knowledge of this from conversations with Chinese industrialists.
On the business formation end, the US has done fairly well, but we are making it more diffucult. This is the wrong trend.
As for companies with overseas manufacturing moving back to the US, that is actually a bright spot. Recall that most of these companies manufactured in the US before. They did not move overseas because there was lots of expertise there. They typically had to send their own people to set things up. Japanese companies are increasing their manufacturing in the US, at the expense of their home operations. So, lots of manufacturing could very quickly and easily move back to the US. The level of the workers and the management is much higher here. It is a matter of government policy, relative to other locations, that affects currency, cost doing business and markets that matters. Most of the workers in overseas low cost manufacturing move to those jobs from a subsistence farming background. We are not there because of the skill level.
I agree with you on this Apresher. The integration between manufacturing and the enterprise side helps not just the manufacturer, but the whole supply chain, from suppliers to customers. It seems that for many manufacturers, the war between IT and control seems to have eased. Interestingly, this was a management problem that stood in the way of technology advancements. I think vendors have played a crutial role and brokering the peace.
It appears that the linkages between manufacturing and value-added services are growing. John Zysman of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (and coauthor of the 1987 book Manufacturing Matters) stresses that automation and emerging technogies like the cloud can be used to revive U.S. manufacturing by producing what he calls "cloud-enhanced services." Therefore, the "direct linkage" between services and manufacturing is strengthened. The result should be agile manufacturing the produces more than just the apps mentioned by Truchard in my piece.
I asked the panel about the role of government. Most said the feds should stay out of their way. But it's also likely that foreign government policies like massive subsidies will hamper the revival of U.S. manufacturing as much or more than federal red tape. One panelist noted that once you ship materials to Brazil for assembly, you cannot get those materials out of the country. That sounds like a trade barrier to me.
We don't need trade wars with China and Brazil, we need to compete.
George, it's my understanding that a good amount of linkages are already getting deployed in manufacturing, particularly greenfield plants. The use of cloud-based applications are getting accepted far more quickly than I would have expected. Add to this vendor-managed maintenance as well as some areas of control. The new plant is part of an extended network these days.
More coordination and much higher levels of data between the factory floor and the enterprise/supply chain would be a way for many manufacturers to greatly enhance their use of flexible automation. Some industries such as pharmaceuticals are much more advanced in collecting information on production processes but there is a lot of room for improvement/innovation among the majority of manufacturing companies.
The legacy endpoint devices that control our critical infrastructure (utility systems, water treatment plants, military networks, industrial control systems, etc.) are some of the most vulnerable devices on the Internet.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.