O³neida participated by invitation at the Smart Assembly Conference organized by NIST in the USA in October 2006. The Report posted below is a summary of the results of that conference. O³neida continues to be an active participant in this initiative and there will be regular updates published to the O³neida Web Site. Please contact Allan Martel at allanmartel@oooneida.org for further information on O³neida involvement.

For those O³neida members interested in participating in this project, the Smart Assembly WikiSpace website contains copies of all workshop materials and this final report. This site is a COLLABORATIVE site and all participants/interested parties are encouraged to utilize the site as a “living forum” to support a Smart Assembly Community of Practice:

http://smartassembly.wikispaces.com/

Please identify yourself as an O³neida member when posting material to the WiliSpace website.

The Smart Assembly Draft Report is attached below.

---

A Report on “Smart Assembly”

Prepared for the National Institute of Standards and echnology By IMTI, Inc.
P.O. Box 5296
Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

December 1, 2006

Preface

The purpose of this report is to document and summarize material presented or generated during a Smart Assembly workshop held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on October 3-4, 2006.

Introduction

Manufacturing operations involve the preparation and processing of raw materials, creation of components, and assembly of components into subassemblies and finished products. The broader scope of manufacturing embraces innovation, design, engineering, and management of life-cycle performance. While these basic steps remain unchanged, over the last decade we have experienced a global redefinition in the distribution of manufacturing functions and operations. What was a trend toward outsourcing has become a fundamental shift in the way products are manufactured. Twenty years ago if it was said that “the big three automakers make cars,” the meaning was clear. In their factories and in a small network of affiliated companies, they made most of the components. They built transmissions and engines and drive trains and bodies, and the parts and subassemblies came together in their assembly plants. Smaller companies like Levi Strauss made clothing in small factories across America. 

Today, many manufacturing sectors – such as the textile industry – have mostly gone offshore except for high-end and specialty products. The former vertically integrated manufacturing companies have become systems integrators, marketers, and distributors, and supply chain management has become a key competitive discriminator in assuring the quality and timely delivery of all of the components of an assembly.

There is a great opportunity within this shift. The importance of assembly to our economic well being remains very high, and to remain strong in the global marketplace, we must maintain our ability to cost-effectively produce excellent products. This is not an easy challenge. The reports from last year’s international auto shows observe that Chinese automobiles are not yet ready for global competition, but are only a few years away. "We're very confident that we will have a five-passenger family sedan ready to import to the United States, fully in compliance with U.S. emissions and safety regulations, that we can sell for less than $10,000," says John Harmer, vice president and COO of Geely-USA. The car, probably to be renamed for the USA, is about the size of a Honda Civic, he says. When one considers that the manufacturing cost of a product produced in China is 30% to 50% lower than the same product produced in the U.S., the near-term threat to our nation’s manufacturing base is very real. 

The longer-term threat of losing the edge in technological sophistication that is sustaining many U.S. manufacturers is growing rapidly. Offshore manufacturers have, in their home locations and U.S.-based operations, brought a willingness and a commitment to automation. This challenge introduces technological and cultural challenges that require a response.

U.S.-based manufacturers are certainly not being left behind. The quality of the products made by U.S. manufacturers is excellent. Our manufacturing productivity increased by 94% from 1992 to 2005, exceeded only by Sweden and South Korea over that time period. Assembly methods have improved dramatically, aided by automation and systems integration. A notable example is the elaborate integrated supply chain created by Boeing to enable 3-day final assembly of the 787 aircraft, and there are many others.

While much progress has been made, there is much more to do. To remain competitive – to offset wage differentials and counter the increasing technological capability of our offshore competitors – we must improve assembly operations. The improvement should come from a balance of technologies including better design for manufacturability, modeling and simulation for process optimization, and effective use of both automated and human-assisted systems, to assure that every component placed and every product produced is exactly as required.

In light of the increasing importance of assembly processes, approximately 60 researchers, software and equipment manufacturers, and end users convened at a Smart Assembly Workshop at NIST October 3-4, 2006. The purpose of the workshop was to assess the current state and to determine needs in smart assembly processes, thereby establishing a broad industry/academic vision and laying the groundwork for a Smart Assembly initiative.

Workshop participants were asked to focus on the activities needed to put parts and components together to make a product, concentrating on process planning, process design, engineering, validation, construction, installation, launch, and operation of assembly processes and systems. Activities and issues involving product design and modeling for assembly, supply chain, and enterprise analytics are recognized as extremely important, but are considered topics for another forum.

The results of that workshop are documented in this volume with the hope that the seeds planted in October will bear fruit in a collaborative and highly leveraged cooperative relationship, led by industry, and patterned perhaps along the lines of the NIST Smart Machining Systems program, in which government agencies, academic and other and research organizations, and industry can work together to deliver dramatic successes.

The Business Case for Smart Assembly

Assembly represents a large portion of the manufacturing wealth creation for the U.S. economy, and the importance is growing. There is a systematic shift from manufacturing and assembling products under one corporate label, to outsourcing of component supply and then managing assembly, marketing, and distribution to generate revenue and profits. This trend presents an opportunity and a threat. While lower offshore labor costs make it difficult for U.S. manufacturers to produce cost-competitive components in the United States, similar arguments are now being made for assembly of increasingly complex and high-value products. It is alarming to pick up most any product and check its country of origin. The U.S. content in manufactured goods dropped from 83% in 1973 to 24% in 2004, and there is no sign that this trend will reverse itself. 

The challenge is to sustain the wealth-creation engine of U.S. manufacturing. As the share of manufacturing content declines, so does the share of the revenue stream and the control of the generated wealth. Hence, as a nation, we must be aware that while we now live in an increasingly global economy, control of assembly operations is imperative to our economic well-being.

Manufacturing creates wealth, and the manufacturing sector is critical to maintaining our standard of living. Every dollar invested in manufacturing spawns another $1.43 for the economy – called the multiplier effect. Private industry is the largest source of R&D funding in the U.S., providing 65.5 percent ($193 billion) of total R&D funding in 2002. U.S. manufacturing R&D accounted for two-thirds of this investment, or over $125 billion in 2002 . Manufactured products also account for two-thirds of our exports. While the U.S. is still the leading exporter, there are both alarming and encouraging signs on the horizon. The 2005 deficit in net exports of over $700 billion (up from about $100 billion in 2000) was to a large extent the result of the imbalance between our exports and imports. On the other hand, the GDP from manufactured products (as of November 2006) continues to grow each month, increasing by 9% over the two year period of 2004-2005. Productivity continues to increase, and capacity utilization is over 81% – higher than the 1972-2005 average.

It is difficult to assess the impact of the assembly element of manufacturing in the U.S. economy. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes against which data is reported do not group the various categories in such a way that assembly contribution is visible. However, we can make some informed estimates. The total value of U.S. manufactured products produced in 2004 was slightly more than $4 trillion, while the cost of raw materials was slightly more than $2 trillion. That means that the manufacturing value added was approximately $2 trillion.

It is reasonable to postulate that on average, across the range of products manufactured in the U.S. each year, assembly accounts for more than 25% of manufacturing cost – or roughly $500 billion. One goal of a smart assembly initiative should be to achieve an improvement of at least 20% in assembly related manufacturing cost, representing an increase in productivity conservatively estimated at $100 billion annually. The examples below provide evidence that such a cost reduction is within the realm of possibility.”

While this analysis may vary greatly across different sectors of manufacturing, it certainly illustrates the point that there is very high value in improving technologies and processes associated with the assembly of components into final products.

In the narrower perspective, assembly efficiency and capability is a key competitive discriminator in every product manufacturing sector. Assembly time is a key driver of time-to-market. Companies that can move an innovative new product from the drawing board to the loading dock before everyone else, gain a huge advantage in profitability. The ability to quickly retool and reconfigure an assembly facility to produce the “hot product” is critical to sustaining competitive advantage. Boeing, for example, has enjoyed a tremendous advantage in obtaining orders for the in-production 7E7 Dreamliner, while chief competitor Airbus struggles to get its first A350 XWB counterpart out the door – a market swing easily measured in the tens of billions of dollars.

While the value of assembly to the manufacturing sector is clear, the true question is, can we contribute to improved assembly? The answer to this question is clearly “yes” – numerous case studies show dramatic results from applying the tools and technologies that would be contained in a smart assembly toolkit.

Toyota’s V-Comm Digital Mockup program validates the entire vehicle and the vehicle process through digital assembly. Before the program, 80% of problems were related to assembly issues. With V-Comm, the lead time for production has been shortened by 33%, design changes reduced by 33%, and development costs lowered by 50%.

Boeing is a pioneer in smart assembly and supply chain integration. In the 777 aircraft program, they reduced product cycle development time by 91% and reduced labor costs by 71%. Using virtual assembly tools for one defense program, the company:

• Identified and eliminated 160 interferences and “unbuildable” conditions
• Reduced rework flow time by 1 to 2 months
• Reduced final assembly personnel by 40%

Lean Practices are certainly a major component of a smart assembly activity. In a case study reported by Oracle, a test equipment manufacturer implemented a lean assembly program and realized benefits including an 80% reduction in unit cycle times, 70% reduction in direct labor costs, and a 90% decrease in part shortages.

Maple Landmark Woodcraft is a company of 33 employees that makes high-quality toy trains. By implementing an assembly cell and optimizing the flow, they were able to reduce the number of times the product is handled from 15 to 12, reduce processing time from 5 days to 4, slash assembly labor by 50%, and maintain a 95% on-time delivery rate (shipment within 24 hours). This example in particular shows that Smart assembly works for any size of operation.

NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS/READERS

Can you provide additional success stories for this section that make the business case???

These are just a sampling of cases where implementation of improved assembly technologies and practices are dramatically reducing the cost of assembly while improving product quality. Companies are investing in specific solutions that meet their individual needs. However, there are infrastructure tools and capabilities that are needed across sectors and, in some cases, by all manufacturers. These challenges are too large for any one organization to undertake alone, and it is impossible for a single organization to justify the investment. Therefore, delivering success requires a cooperative activity that will define the priorities for smart assembly and deliver the puzzle pieces to achieve a major success for U.S. manufacturers.

Vision for Smart Assembly

Defining requirements for development of Smart Assembly technologies requires an accepted definition of the characteristics and attributes of a smart assembly system. The vision suggested below is a summary/synthesis based on the detailed workshop results contained in the Appendices.

In the extreme futuristic visionary case, all assembly would be done by automated systems with sensory abilities that enable machines to replace the human element. It is also tempting to define an environment where modeling and simulation systems would respond to product and business requirements by automatically developing optimized processes for most efficient assembly. It could be proposed that, with sufficiently robust process models, automated equipment could be instrumented to enable the execution of all operations required to ensure the quality of all products – in-process. Finally, this concept could be extended to include a prognostic capability wherein the health of a machine or system of machines is monitored and controlled to create a self-diagnosing, self-healing manufacturing environment. 

The vision presented below highlights key elements of “smart assembly” that are within the realm of technical feasibility and provide impetus for collaboration to fill the technical gaps. 

A Smart Assembly System is:

Collaborative: People and automation work collaboratively in a shared environment.

Re-configurable: The environment can be re-configured/re-programmed (at minimal cost) to accommodate new product, equipment, and software variations and to implement corrective actions related to fault conditions. The assembly systems consist of modular, plug-and-play components that enable flexibility.

Model and Data Driven: 

Modeling and simulation systems allow all designs to be fully evaluated and all design/engineering changes are made first in the computer (virtual) and are propagated to the plant floor (physical).

In process measurements (of both continuous and discrete variables) are utilized to:

• Continuously update the virtual representation to match physical reality
• Control and optimize product quality, throughput and cost during routine operation
• Predict, diagnose and implement effective corrective actions related to non-routine operations (e.g. failure modes and fault conditions)

Capable of learning: The same “mistake” is never made twice, and lessons from past operations prevent the first occurrence.

Logical Structure for a Smart Assembly Initiative

Workshop attendees were divided into four groups to address smart assembly issues from four different perspectives:

• End use
• Research
• Infrastructure and standards
• Integration and deployment

In a structured process, each group defined the key attributes and characteristics of smart assembly. After identifying and discussing key characteristics the participants responded to the question, “what needs to be done and why?” in the context of the group perspective. In this way, the key ideas for success were identified and elevated. A consensus was sought concerning the most important topics, and a 1-page description of the key recommendations was prepared. (See Appendix B for details). 

Based on an analysis of the detailed workshop results, we have organized the recommendations into areas of common interest. Table 1 is an initial attempt at creating such a grouping. Figure 1 depicts a logical structure for a Smart Assembly Initiative based on this grouping and on the detailed results in Appendix B.

The four common themes include:

• Flexible Assembly Systems
• Model-Based Assembly Operations
• Intelligent, Closed-Loop Assembly
• Infrastructure, Standards, and Interoperability

Advances in robotics, materials, sensors, controls, effectors, and assembly concepts will support the emergence of assembly systems that enable concurrent production of increasingly disparate and customized products in a single manufacturing cell or production line. Modular, multifunctional assembly system components will be readily reconfigurable – ultimately autonomously reconfigurable – allowing rapid changeover to initiate production of a new product variant or an entirely new member of a product family. These assembly systems will be self-integrating and self-configuring, negotiating their respective “roles and responsibilities;” based on digital knowledge of product, process, and business requirements as defined by applicable product and process models. People and automation will work together safely and effectively, in a shared environment

Model-Based Assembly Operations:

A virtual environment will enable optimization and error elimination in assembly processes. Product requirements and manufacturing capabilities/infrastructure will drive the creation of product models for smart assembly. The product models will support the definition and development of the best assembly processes, with optimization and evaluation done in “model space” of the virtual environment. The process models will be proven before operation begins and will be robust enough (accurate and with sufficient fidelity) to directly transfer to operations. The parameters that ensure satisfaction of requirements in operation will be included in the models. Hence the result: an environment wherein all assembly processes are validated before operation and where all operating parameters are included in the model-based assembly system. The model then becomes the basis for intelligent closed-loop process control and health monitoring (see below) and provides the foundation for error-free assembly. These parameters will be continuously updated so that the virtual environment remains an accurate model of the plant floor throughout the product life cycle.

Intelligent, Closed-Loop Assembly:

The assembly floor will be a sense/analyze/advise-and-respond environment. Sensors will monitor every parameter that is important to the operation, and control limits will be set for all parameters. The human in the loop will be aided by excellence in information, instructions on what and how to perform, and monitor assurance of acceptable completion of tasks. The state of the assembly will be evaluated at all times, with any deviation made known. The assembly environment will function in a manner that is similar to the immune system of the human body, wherein anomalies that have no symptoms are responded to in a very effective manner. This mindset is giving birth to a new discipline called immune systems engineering. It is an environment wherein there is sufficient intelligence to monitor key parameters and determine, mandate, and ensure execution of the best response. Self-diagnosing and self-healing will be attributes of the systems. The intelligent closed-loop assembly environment will be achieved through advances in control and manufacturing diagnostics/prognosis technologies that embrace open architecture and modular functionality. The control/diagnostic function will be linked to the model-based environment to support the application of knowledge with data to enable automated generation of the necessary information to drive, control, monitor, and maintain assembly operations.

Infrastructure, Standards and Interoperability:

The smart assembly environment will be interoperable at all levels (e.g. tool, cell, zone, line, plant, enterprise), with plug-and-play systems (both “virtual” and “real-time”) that communicate seamlessly across domains and different commercial toolsets. The right standards will be in place to assure that data and information are transferred for easy interpretation and action. Both the sending and the receiving devices will speak the same language or have integral real-time translation incorporated into the communications systems. While unified standards are desirable, such total agreement may threaten competitive environments. Therefore, harmonization of standards for sufficient coverage of all assembly functions is the minimum requirement of the future state.

Table 1 : Recommendations from the workshop are shown grouped by common themes (categories).

Source	Recommendation	Category
User 1	Reconcile models and physical systems	Model-Based Assembly Operations
User 2	Provide an architecture for modeling Assembly operations and systems	Model-Based Assembly Operations
User 3	Provide "plug-and-play" assembly systems	Flexible Assembly Systems
User 4	Provide intelligent, safe devices (safety engineered in)	Intelligent, Closed-Loop Assembly
User 5	Provide modular, low cost, reusable assembly systems	Flexible Assembly Systems
User 6	Provide real-time decision making from shop floor data	Intelligent, Closed-Loop Assembly
Research 1	Provide additional capability and adaptability in assembly systems	Flexible Assembly Systems
Research 2	Provide improved, standard programming capabilities	Model-Based Assembly Operations & Infrastructure, Interoperability & Standards
Research 3	Provide improved sensing and control systems for human/machine interaction	Intelligent, Closed-Loop Assembly
Research 4	Improve integration of modeling systems: fill gaps in modeling capability	Model-Based Assembly Operations
Research 5	Improve decision support systems for real-time operation	Intelligent, Closed-Loop Assembly
I&S 1	Provide a systems engineering approach to create and manage a persistent capability and requirements model throughout the life cycle	Model-Based Assembly Operations
I&S 2	Develop an assembly taxonomy and populate with associated models	Model-Based Assembly Operations
I&S 3	Harmonize assembly standards and assure consistent application - at least across common applications	Infrastructure, Interoperability & Standards
I&S	Provide traceability, forward and backward, for assembly requirements	Model-Based Assembly Operations
Deployment 1	Mitigate the risk of technology deployment for assembly through collaboration
Deployment 2	Provide interoperable systems for data exchange	Infrastructure, Interoperability & Standards
Deployment 3	Provide tools for collaborative systems engineering	Model-Based Assembly Operations

Conclusions and Next Steps

The workshop provided a substantial first step towards the formulation and launching of a Smart Assembly initiative. The characteristics and attributes for the future vision state were clearly defined, which fed the definition of priority recommendations. With this document, the recommendations were placed in a structure (Figure 1) to support the next steps. The structure addresses the functional areas for a unified program and recognizes that there must be sector-specific “slices” within a broader Smart Assembly initiative to develop coordinated “technology” and “business” roadmaps.

The following specific steps are recommended:

Early in 2007, NIST should convene a larger body to build common technology roadmaps for the “horizontal” swimlanes of Figure 1 . These roadmaps will provide a much richer view of smart assembly technology. Details contained in the Appendices should provide a starting point for the technology roadmaps.

• Sector-focused teams should be formed around the “vertical” swimlanes in Figure 1. These teams would build implementation/deployment roadmaps and end-user application scenarios for integrating smart assembly technologies in their businesses. The sector roadmaps will share the common foundation of the Smart Assembly initiative, and will address additional needs specific to that sector. Establishment of sectors for initial focus will be based on industry leadership and interest. It is emphasized that the goal is to create a living program to address the challenges of smart assembly. It will be a federated program with common goals and common activities, and with interest groups focused on specific sectors. A notional view of a smart assembly program is illustrated in Figure 2. The specific mechanism for organizing/empowering these sector-focused teams is yet to be determined; however NIST might play a facilitating role.


• To facilitate the development of integrated technology and business roadmaps, NIST (possibly with additional support from end users) should commission a special study to benchmark current technology trends and business oriented application use case scenarios for smart assembly systems. 


• Assuming successful development of integrated technology and business roadmaps with strong industry leadership, NIST should consider the creation of a National Smart Assembly Testbed in cooperation with industry sponsors to validate the interoperability and performance of smart assembly modules and systems. Use case scenarios identified in the business roadmaps should provide the primary requirements for interoperability and performance standards and testing.

In closing this discussion of path forward, let’s re-visit the vision for smart assembly. In the future, next-generation assembly equipment and systems will be flexible, agile, and with the appropriate level of automation. People and automation will work together in a shared and highly collaborative environment.  Flexible systems will respond at minimal cost to changing requirements and will provide processes that ensure the satisfaction of each assembly process. Automated equipment will embrace modular construction that supports reconfigurability and provides immunity from obsolescence. Special-purpose assembly systems will become commonplace for small-lot production. These systems will be designed or configured for assured satisfaction of requirements and produce dramatic cost savings over conventional assembly. Safe operation of processes and assurance that the resulting products will operate within a compliant and safe envelope will be designed and engineered into the products and processes. The systems will also support intelligent conveyance of components and subassemblies.

Call to Action

The organizers of the workshop call upon the participants to spread the word. Share this work with your colleagues and urge them to get involved. It is our desire that a fire will be kindled that will grow to a powerful program to define a new standard of excellence and capability in assembly operations.

This document is released to the participants in the workshop for review and comment. It is a draft document that will be refined before its final release, before the end of 2006. Comments, corrections, and additions are welcome. Most importantly, ideas for moving forward are strongly encouraged.

The Smart Assembly WikiSpace website contains copies of all workshop materials and this final report. This site is a COLLABORATIVE site and all participants/interested parties are encouraged to utilize the site as a “living forum” to support a Smart Assembly Community of Practice:

http://smartassembly.wikispaces.com/

All comments should be addressed to Dr. Robert Tilove at robert.tilove@nist.gov. His phone number is (301) 975-4345.

Thanks to all who contributed, and we look forward to moving ahead in this important arena.

http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.jspa?forumID=10&threadID=24751&messageID=563493

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/prodsuppt02.txt

Presentation by Richard Neal, “Transforming American Manufacturing”, NGMTI Technology Forum, May 8, 2006, Andover, Mass.

National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c4/c4s1.htm#c4s1l7.

Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N

Industry week, October 2006, http://www.industryweek.com

ThomasNet Industrial Newsroom, Industrial Market Trends, http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2006/10/aircraft_design_king_of_sky_boeing_dreamliner_versus_airbus_a350xwb.html?t=recent

From materials provided by Delmia, Inc.

http://www.oracle.com/industries/high_tech/bringing_lean_ems_oraclewhitepaper.pdf

Success stories from the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership