Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
Trends and Perspectives
Industrial Perspective on Research Needs and
Opportunities in Manufacturing Assembly
Louis A. Martin-Vega, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Harold K. Brown, W a d e H. Shaw, and T h o m a s J. Sanders, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida
Abstract
a task force was created to respond to this requirement. Issues discussed included the need for DoD to
continue to provide increased flexibility and
enhanced capabilities in the face of reduced funding; the need to ensure that next-generation weapons
systems would be developed in a timely, cost-effective manner; and the identification of manufacturing
technologies that should be optimized to yield the
highest return for DoD investment. The task force
also sought to identify those manufacturing costs
that are expected to consume a major share of
defense procurements over the coming decade and
those manufacturing technology barriers, or gaps,
that are obstacles to effective weapons production. 1,2
The strategic plan developed by the task force is
contained in a report submitted to Congress by the
DoD in March 1992.2 Details on the methodology
followed by the task force subgroup responsible for
identification of manufacturing process costs are
found in Reference 3. The following main observations emerged from the process cost analysis:
This paper investigates whether investments in research
and development (R&D) could have a significant impact on
reducing the cost and/or enhancing the effectiveness of
manufacturing assembly. It also recommends a research
agenda that from an industrial perspective would result in
the highest return on investment in assembly R&D. The
assessment was conducted on 24 product lines across
companies ranging in size from $10 million to $2 billion in
annual sales. Approximately 64% of the assembly dollar
value surveyed corresponded to Department of Defense
(DOE)) products.
A needs and trends analysis was conducted to determine
the perception of industrial participants regarding their current investment, need for investment, and cost impact
potential of assembly activities. Findings for government
contractors versus commercial firms, for prime contractors
versus subtier contractors, and for electrically intense versus mechanically intense operations are presented. The
research methodology also included analysis of qualitative
data from open-ended questions and interviews. This resulted in identification of three major assembly issues: R&D
opportunities, R&D inhibitors, and technology transfer.
These findings are also summarized.
Keywords: Assembly, Assessment, Research and
Development, Needs, Opportunities, Industrial Survey, DoD,
Design for Assembly
•
Introduction
•
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program sponsors research aimed at developing new and innovative manufacturing technology and advanced manufacturing
processes for more economical, timely, and reliable
production of defense products. Changes in global
political structures, shifting economic priorities, and
advancing technology have affected the role and
requirements of DoD so greatly that in 1990 Congress required the agency to develop a strategic plan
for allocation of ManTech investments that would be
more responsive to these new realities. During 1991,
•
•
Parts, subassemblies, and materials purchased
from subcontractors and vendors represent 60%
of the product cost.
Manufacturing support activities, including material handling, manufacturing engineering, production management, and overhead costs, account for
approximately 20% of the product cost.
Traditional "hard" manufacturing processes
were found to account for approximately 20% of
the product cost.
The unit processes dominating the production
cost were electronic assembly, inspection, and
mechanical assembly.
Because ManTech efforts have traditionally concentrated on reducing "hard" or direct labor costs,
the analysis suggested that significant gains could
45
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
cation of those technological developments that
would most significantly contribute to a reduction in
the cost of assembly operations. This assessment
included the manufacturing p~ocess categories of
"mechanical and structural assembly" and "electrical and electronics assembly."
be achieved by expanding efforts to include "soft"
manufacturing support costs, such as production
management and manufacturing engineering. While
data on the 60% of manufacturing costs incurred by
the subtier suppliers were not formally analyzed by
the task force, a survey of defense industry experts
led to the conclusion that a similar manufacturing
cost profile was to be expected for parts and subassemblies. For example, a breakdown of electronics
purchased parts resulted in the identification of fabrication, assembly, and inspection as the dominant
cost drivers among the unit processes required to
manufacture these parts and subassemblies.
The analysis of ManTech gaps, or barriers, in the
production of a defense product within its performance, cost, and schedule constraints, yielded
another perspective on the role played by assembly
operations. The study found that the distribution of
ManTech gaps is skewed strongly toward hard manufacturing processes as compared to manufacturing
support activities.
An overlay of cost driver results and the ManTech
gap results I identified opportunities that have not
been addressed and that are considered primary candidates for ManTech attention. Most gaps were in
the process areas of forming, fabrication, mechanical assembly, and electronics assembly. A major recommendation of the task force was that attention be
focused on identifying technical developments that
would address these gaps. It is this recommendation,
along with the role played by assembly as a dominant unit process cost driver, that provided justification for this study.
Methodology
The methodology consisted primarily of an intensive on-site data-gathering effort during which the project team interacted with those involved in the day-today operation and management of assembly processes.
Their responses were subsequently interpreted in light
of the two questions that drove this study. The methodology can be summarized as follows:
1. Development o f an industrial survey instrument
This interview document was designed to capture
benchmarking information on company costs,
detailed information on assembly process costs and
the cost of assembly support activities, and information on assembly R&D needs, opportunities, and
inhibitors. The format included questions amenable
to direct quantitative assessment and open-ended
questions requiring more detailed analysis. 4
2. Industrial on-site visits
In most cases this consisted of two visits to each
site. The first visit served to explain the objectives of
the study and to go over the survey document with
participating personnel. It was then requested that
the survey be filled out and returned to the project
team prior to the second visit. Where geographical
location and/or other circumstances made two visits
infeasible, this step was accomplished by faxing the
survey form and conducting telephone interviews.
The second visit served to clarify and expand on
the information captured through the survey and to
identify relevant issues not captured. Interview
schedules set up by participating companies provided numerous interactions with personnel
involved in all aspects of assembly operations and
support activities.
Objective
The following main questions were addressed by
this study:
1. Can investments in research and development
have a significant impact in either reducing the
cost and/or enhancing the effectiveness of
assembly?
2. If so, then what should the research agenda be to
achieve the highest return on investment in
assembly R&D?
3. Data analysis and interpretation
Design of the survey form allowed analysis of
cost data and also a quantitative analysis of assembly needs and opportunities for major assembly
process and support categories. Answers to open-
The first question forced the study to consider the
focus of R&D efforts within the ManTech program
and the role that assembly R&D should play within
this scenario. The second question led to an identifi-
46
Journal of Manufi~cturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
ended questions as well as other information gathered during site visits were subjected to content and
lexical analysis for collection and interpretation.
Information gathered through the industrial visits
was complemented by interviews with selected
experts in manufacturing assembly, a review of
R&D efforts in assembly reported in academic literature and trade journals, and an assessment of prior
ManTech efforts in assembly. This assessment was
facilitated by information provided by the ManTech
Information Access Center (MTIAC), interaction
with ManTech program directors, and interaction
with program managers of ManTech projects. This
information was included in the database and analyzed concurrently with site visit information.
The companies surveyed were a representative
cross section of DoD and commercial manufacturers
at both the prime and subtier level. A number of the
companies had government and commercial operations at the same facility, which allowed assessment
of the differences between technological opportunities in both of these domains.
Aircraft
Microelectronic Devices
Electronic Assemblies
Communication Devices
Missiles
Computer Systems
Mechanical Assemblies
Welded Metal Products
Figure 1
Types of Manufactured Products
part of the survey also requested percentage
breakdowns between manual and nonmanual
assembly operations and among 10 different
assembly support categories.
3. Estimates of assembly costs were also requested
by technology employed. This information was
categorized by either mechanical, electrical, or
semiconductor assembly operations.
Figure 2 illustrates that approximately 64% of the
assembly dollar volume corresponded to DoD products. The assembly dollar activity surveyed was
divided almost equally between mechanical (51%)
and electrical (49%) assembly.
Figure 3 breaks out the cost information by major
assembly categories, including those costs associated with assembly setup, intermediate operations,
final assembly operations, other direct operations,
and finally, assembly support activities. This distribution illustrates that setup activities, such as parts
retrieval, kitting, and fixturing, constitute approximately 12% of assembly costs. Assembly process
costs--be they manual, semiautomated, or automated--were estimated to be 48% of assembly costs
and were distributed almost evenly between intermediate and final assembly operations. Finally,
assembly support activities, such as quality management, design for assembly, facilities support, and
various others, were estimated at 40% of the total
assembly cost portfolio.
A detailed summary of the data compiled from
the survey is provided in Martin-Vega et al. s The
main observations are described in the following
paragraphs.
The average percentage of unit production cost
attributable to assembly was 20%. Of this 20%,
slightly less than half, or 8.7%, was attributable to
intermediate and final assembly operations, while
10.5% was attributable to setup and other assembly
support functions. The implication here is that R&D
activities that focus on assembly support activities
Findings
The industrial survey was conducted on 24 product lines across manufacturing companies ranging in
size from $10 million to $2 billion in annual sales.
The types of products they manufacture are listed in
Figure 1.
This section summarizes our findings based on
these data. Details on the companies participating in
the survey are provided in Martin-Vega et al. 4
Cost Analysis
The nature of manufacturing costs generally requires collection of cost data in a different way than for
traditional cost accounting. Cost data related to manufacturing assembly were collected as follows:
1. Each facility was asked to focus on a specific
product or product family. (If more than one
major item was considered, the facility was asked to fill out a separate survey for each product.)
The facility was then asked to estimate the percentage of unit production cost attributable to
assembly.
2. The facility was then asked to distribute the
assembly percentage between assembly process
operation and assembly support activities. This
47
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
Commercial
(36.2%)
DoD (63.8%)
Figure 2
Distribution of Assembly Cost
may have as much or more impact, from a cost perspective, than efforts focusing on the assembly
processes themselves.
Approximately 59% of assembly operations are
manual. These operations, however, constitute 77°,4
of assembly operation costs. The 19% of assembly
operations that are totally automated constitute less
than 1% of assembly costs. The implication is that
R&D efforts focusing on the reduction of manual
assembly through either semiautomated or fully
automated assembly still constitute a significant cost
reduction opportunity.
Figure 3
Assembly Cost Breakout
those assembly operations most prevalent in
mechanical and electrical assembly. Figures 4 and 5
illustrate distribution of the assembly processes
included in the survey.
Assembly support activities focused primarily on
management and planning functions. Figure 6 illustrates the cost distribution of support activities.
Figure 7 summarizes the overall results of the
quantitative assessment of importance versus need
versus cost. Design for assembly was the dominant
activity. This was followed by a set of assembly support activities [statistical process control (SPC), quality management, and process planning activities].
Wiring and fixturing were the assembly processes of
highest concern, followed by a mixture of process and
support issues [material flow management, cabling,
and just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing]. Surface mount
technology (SMT) rounded out the list of functions
with an overall rating of somewhat important" or
higher. (Refer to Martin-Vega et al.4 for details on
how the priority scores were determined.)
Figures 8 and 9 break out this same information by
government contractors versus commercial firms.
Design for assembly (DFA) dominated all other activities in both sectors. While assembly support activities such as process planning and SPC followed as the
most dominant among government contractors, it is
important to note that SMT surfaced as a major R&D
need and opportunity among commercial firms.
Figures 10 and 11 contrast the rankings for prime
contractors versus subtier contractors. The main difference was in the stronger emphasis placed by the
subtier firms on the support function of quality control
Needs and Trends Analysis
The objective of this analysis was to identify
those assembly processes and support activities that
hold the greatest potential for reducing the cost
and/or improving the effectiveness of manufacturing
assembly. Although the prime data source for this
analysis continued to be our industrial survey, this
information was complemented by expert opinion
and a selective review of academic trade journals
and industrial trade publications.
To simplify this part of the information-gathering
process, each facility was asked to rate a set of
assembly processes and support activities based on
the following:
1. The amount of resources currently invested in
each process or activity
2. The relative need for furore R&D investments in
each process or activity
3. The potential cost impact of new investments in
each process or activity
This part of the survey provided a quantitative
assessment of importance versus need versus cost of
48
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
Envm/Sfty (0.3%)
Other Elec (29.8!
~g (12.1%)
Other Support (24
Training (0.4%)
Facilities (2.1%) - SMT (15.4%)
R&D (11.7%)
Assrnby SlOt
(20.1%)
I (5.3%)
)
Indrct Lbr (2
Figure 4
Electrical Assembly Operations
Figure 6
Distribution of Support Costs
Other Mech (3
planning was dominant, followed by DFA and the
assembly processes of through-hole mounting and
fixturing.
The "mechanically intense" houses ranked DFA,
SPC, quality management, and process planning as
their prime support concerns. Wiring and fixturing
also rated high among the process needs categorized
by these companies. Those companies with a mix of
electrical and mechanical assembly tended to rank
soldering and SMT as high "process" concerns,
although DFA continued to stand out as the highest
ranked assembly issue. DFA also ranked highest
among the semiconductor houses, followed by interconnect technologies, die attach, and hermetic seal
technology. The issue of robotics did not appear as
extremely important in any of the assessments.
The following observations summarize the major
findings of the needs and trends analysis:
Pressing (6.0%)
Plugging (0.4%
Figure 5
Mechanical Assembly Operations
or management. Wiring and/or interconnect issues
were of significant concern to prime contractors.
Figures 12-15 segregate the companies surveyed
into four categories: "electrically intense," or those
companies reporting that more than 70% of their
assembly activity was in electrical assembly;
"mechanically intense," or those companies with
more than 70% of the assembly functions in
mechanical assembly; "electrical and mechanical
assembly," that is, neither function dominant; and
semiconductor manufacturers.
The most significant observation is related to
Figure 12, the "electrically intense" assembly companies. It is the only case where DFA was not the
major driver and reflects the much stronger technology process oriented nature of the business. Despite
the relative maturity of technology in this area, soldering, flow control, and particularly SMT issues
were the highest ranked activities within this category. Of the support functions, assembly or process
1. The dominant role played by DFA across practically all priority score breakouts marks it as the
most important candidate for R&D investment.
2. Among the other assembly support activities,
both process planning and SPC and related quality management activities rate consistently high
in terms of importance, need, and potential cost
impact.
3. Dominant assembly process activities are soldering, interconnect issues, and SMT. This is
particularly the case in the "electrically intense"
companies, where investment in these technologies continues to be viewed as a major R&D
need and opportunity.
49
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No, 1
I
1
2
3
,~om (5 ie Max Priority)
4
~
Figure 7
Overall Priority Scores
(5 is Max Prk~ty)
Figure 10
Priority Scores
Prime Contractors
3
Score (5 Is V a x Priority)
1
Figure 8
Priority Scores
Government Contractors
2
S~
3
(5 is IVl~ PTiO~y)
Figure 11
Priority Scores
Subtier Contractors
4
Research and Development Opportunities
Design for Assembly. The design of products,
tools, and processes for ease of assembly was mentioned extensively as a major need and opportunity
for the reduction of assembly costs and increased
effectiveness of assembly operations. This result
complemented the outcome of the quantitative
analysis where DFA was dominant across practically
all companies in the survey.
The breadth of support for DFA provides strong
evidence of its current importance and projected
long-term value. Clearly the concept is not new; successful implementation of DFA projects and application of DFA software in commercial environments are
well documented in the literature and also well known
by most participants in our study. 6 The notion that
"more than 70% of product cost is committed at the
design stage" was also repeated frequently and with a
certain amount of reverence. The key message, par-
5
~ a r e (5 I~ M i x Prlaflt'~
Figure 9
Priority Scores
Commercial Firms
Content and Lexical Analysis
The needs and trends analysis was complemented
by an extensive content and lexical analysis that was
used to assess responses obtained by the open-ended
questions and the discussions carried out during onsite visits. Table 1 illustrates the major categories
identified by this analysis. The following sections
describe the categories in Table 1.
50
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
3
3
~e
Soofe (5 is II~x Pl~orlty)
(5 IS Max Prl(~ltyl
Figure 14
Priority Scores
Electrical and Mechanical Assembly
Figure 12
Priority Scores
Electrically Intense Assembly
2.6
3
Score (5 is I d ~ Prioaty)
~.4
4.2
5.0
Prlodt,/S¢~,e (I:LOW, ~ HIGi'~
Figure 15
Figure 13
Priority Scores
Mechanically Intense Assembly
Priority Scores
Semiconductor Firms
ticularly from the DoD contractors, was that regardless of past or present successes, investments in DFA
research and development have not been nearly sufficient to realize the full benefits of this technology for
assembly and manufacturing in general.
The breadth of support for an R&D focus in
design for assembly is also due, in part, to the various interpretations of the concept across the manufacturing spectrum. The impact of designing the
product to be assembled as simply as possible not
only reduces the number of parts, but also simplifies
all of the related assembly support functions of
materials management, inventory control, and even
accounting and purchasing procedures. Design of a
product for automated assembly often results in a
design that makes manual assembly very straightforward, in which case the predominant role of the
operator shifts to a monitoring and quality management role. The design of tools for ease of assembly
brings into play the role of ergonomics and its
Table 1
Assembly Needs and Opportunities
Research and DevelopmentOpportunities
• Designfor Assembly
• ManufacturingAssemblyIntegration
• FlexibleAutomation
• CriticalTechnologiesfor Assembly
ManufacturingAssemblyInhibitors
• EnvironmentalIssues
• Accounting/GovernmentContracting
• MilitaryStandardsand Specifications
• Dependenceon InternationalSuppliers
TechnologyTransferOpportunities
impact in the creation of a safer, more reliable work
environment. Design for product supportability
forces consideration of lifecycle aspects of manufacturing, including issues such as maintainability
and reliability. Finally, design of the process for ease
of assembly forces integration of product and
process design, thereby creating the environment
commonly referred to as concurrent engineering.
51
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
Apart from the often-mentioned need to move
toward concurrent engineering, the most notable
human resource related comment was the need to
integrate key suppliers into the design process.
Integration of manufacturing assembly is important because investment in single isolated technolo:
gies or support functions does not necessarily yield
anticipated strategic results. For example, a majority
of those surveyed did not feel that investment in
automation by itself was warranted. A better goal
identified by several firms was "enterprise optimization," where the entire manufacturing system is
viewed as a collection of tightly coupled, interrelated subsystems. It was also noted that limited interest
was expressed in R&D investment in assembly
alone. Manufacturing assembly does not exist as a
separable business function. In the gradually less
common world of linear, high-volume production,
one could generally find assembly between fabrication and test. In the world of low-volume, custommade production, assembly is interwoven with practically every process and support function. The ultimate goal of real-time responsive integrated manufacturing will not be achieved unless the proper
attention and investment is focused on the integration issues related to assembly.
Flexible Automation. It was clear throughout the
study that there was a desire and need to automate
many manual assembly tasks; however, the domestic
infrastructure that once Supplied industries with
components to automate various tasks has eroded
significantly. The specific need is for standard highly flexible and reusable components that can be integrated to configure automated equipment to support
selected assembly operations. Robotic equipment
presently does not meet specified needs.
Each industry has unique requirements in terms
of the type of components required to support specific automated equipment needs. For example, the
microelectronics industry needs standardized handling equipment to handle tapes to which dies are
attached prior to bonding and packaging. The printed circuit industry needs vision components to aid in
the placement of surface-mounted parts, in addition
to board-handling equipment that will allow interface of high-volume equipment to various other
equipment types during the assembly process. The
aerospace industry could use automated components
to handle pieces during the assembly and riveting
Regardless of how the concept is defined, R&D
activities that strive to either eliminate, reduce, or at
least incorporate production constraints within the
design process are destined to significantly affect
the cost of assembly and manufacturing in general.
Because product design is the major driver of production costs, it is only natural to expect that effective design will reduce production costs, especially
if the function is carried out with the complete product lifecycle in mind.
Manufacturing Assembly Integration. Integration of assembly functions means ensuring that
assembly processes and assembly support work
together to consistently deliver quality manufactured
products on time, within budget, and to acceptable
performance measures. Successful integration of
product and process design and manufacturing activities requires an investment in a key core of assembly
support technologies. The support activities identified by our survey as predominant needs and opportunities drivers were assembly or process planning;
quality-related activities, including SPC; and material flow management functions, including JIT.
The potential impact of investing in "integrationrelated support functions" in assembly can be measured from two perspectives. From a cost perspective, our analysis has shown that more than 50% of
what were identified as assembly costs correspond
to assembly support costs. Integration R&D efforts
primarily address this aspect of the assembly cost
profile. From the perspective of manufacturing
effectiveness, the impact lies in the role played by
assembly within the production process. In the
words of one of the experts surveyed during this
study: "I am interested in assembly because it is the
'pacer'; it sets the production rate of my facility."
Integration-oriented policies, such as linking the
assembly schedule to fabrication and ordering policies, greater movement toward pull-oriented assembly processes, and the implementation of "qualityoriented" measures to facilitate the integration of
assembly with test and inspection, will significantly
improve overall capability and capacity of any production environment. Other needs and opportunities
related to integration include computer-based and/or
visual assembly instructions as a route toward
"paperless assembly" and the use of simulation and
modeling tools including virtual reality for the representation and analysis of assembly operations.
52
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
can be illustrated by the assembly of surface-mounted components and other related components to
printed circuit boards. Presently this industry relies
heavily on equipment that is supplied by foreign
competition. In our interviews it was mentioned that
some foreign competitors have waited up to two
years to supply US industries with the latest automated equipment to perform printed circuit board
assemblies. This places our entire printed circuit
board industry at a great disadvantage. Representatives of this industrial sector also suggested the
need for a consortium to design and build automated equipment that would provide the highest
throughput available in the world along with the
proper registration and yield.
Foreign industries have systematically taken over
industries that supply automated equipment to our
assembly operations in this country. Because domestic companies that supply such equipment are small
and revolve around a single product, all foreign
competitors need to do is offer the same type of
automated equipment at lower prices, thus driving
domestic suppliers out of business. Once foreign
suppliers control the market, US companies are
forced to feed them with ideas and innovations,
which they roll into their own assembly operations.
This has occurred in the pharmaceutical area, electronic board assembly area, integrated circuit die
attach area, machine tool area, and basically every
segment of domestic manufacturing operations. The
key to addressing this problem does not lie in a protectionist attitude, but in a concerted effort to develop a domestic capability for production of automated equipment for assembly.
Critical Technologies for Assembly. When characterizing assembly operations, it is clear that
assembly functions alone cannot achieve cost-effective techniques for manufacturing products. There
are selected technologies that are critical to assembly processes. These technologies deal with sensors,
materials, computational requirements, and simulation tools. Even when the assembly process is 8090% of a particular operation, supporting technologies that service this assembly process are needed to
make the assembly possible. There is a need and an
opportunity to improve assembly operations by
addressing these critical technologies.
Interconnect Technologies. In practically every
industry that participated in this study, the intercon-
phases. At one time, it was thought that the robot
arm could solve many of the automation needs in a
general way; however, this has not been the case due
to the throughput requirements of the various industries and the lack of acceptable tolerance levels
under which a robot arm can operate.
Many of these components could also be utilized
by small companies, who would integrate them to
form specific automated equipment to support
selected industries. Availability of standardized
components ready to be assembled into fully automated equipment would provide emerging industries
with the flexibility required to capitalize on automated technology for assembly. At present, US
industry across all spectrums relies heavily on foreign equipment. Basic research aimed at developing
the components to create automated equipment
would allow automation to be utilized to its fullest
potential and to significantly help US industries
compete with their counterparts overseas.
A number of respondents at the facilities surveyed discussed specific assembly operations that
they felt would continue to be very time consuming
even if automated. The equipment needed in these
cases was described as fully configured automated
equipment that could support a specific assembly
process within their facility. The operations
described were cornerstones of their assembly
process and considered critical to the success of
their manufacturing operation. These were cases
where the cost of automation inhibits its development despite the need.
An example in the aerospace industry is the assembly process for a wing. This involves putting the frame
of the wing together and then riveting the skin of the
wing to the frame. At present this process has not been
automated due to the high cost and low volume prevalent in this industrial sector. The desire, however, to
automate this process is very high. Representatives of
this industrial sector expressed the need for a consortium or SEMATECH-like effort to develop and deliver
fully automated equipment with the flexibility to handle wing assemblies from many different companies.
This effort, which could also be expanded to other
manual aircraft subassemblies, is unlikely to occur
without the shared R&D investment and leveraging
obtained through a consortium arrangement.
Lack of flexible automation equipment also
impedes the development of flexible workcells. This
53
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
nect issue is constantly being reviewed for improvement. For example, within the aerospace industry,
many wires run from the cockpit area to the rest of
the airplane. This wiring typically controls engines,
lights, air conditioning, radar equipment, navigation
equipment, and other electronics systems. Feedback
from the people interviewed indicates that installation of this wire within the aircraft and testing of the
wiring is tedious and time consuming. An alternative interconnect technology is fiber optics; however, in some industries, such as aircraft, fiber optics
may not be practical because present systems do not
support it. It may be viable to take these systems and
introduce better methods of interconnect to achieve
desired objectives.
A printed circuit board manufacturer addresses
interconnectivity by making a printed circuit board
that connects various integrated circuits. International competition has pushed fine-line printed circuit board technology beyond the abilities of domestic suppliers. As a result, board-level components
produced by foreign suppliers are more reliable, less
expensive, have higher densities, and have better
general functionality than boards supplied by
domestic suppliers.
Many of the facilities surveyed mentioned advancement of interconnect technologies as critical to
their survival. Specifically, most parties agreed that
significant R&D effort needs to be put forth to produce next-generation solutions to present wiring
problems as well as other related interconnect issues.
Materials. Advancements in material science as
related to the use of material formulators for glues,
epoxies, and plastics was expressed as an R&D need
by various participants in the survey. The current
problem is that when a material with certain properties is required, a standard materials handbook must
be consulted. When existing materials do not meet
the requirements of the application, engineers must
"make do" with whatever materials are documented
as available. A number of participants expressed the
desire for a material formulator that, when given the
material requirements, would suggest a material
meeting the requirements. Simulation tools for predicting performance of injection-molded plastics
were also conveyed as a need.
Piece Parts. Most of the piece parts used by the
microelectronics industry come from overseas suppliers. Piece parts include plastics that go into parts, lead
frames for integrated circuits, ceramic packages, and
printed circuit boards. As the commercial supply
shifts overseas, the cost of providing components for
this sector will increase due to the fact that the commercial infrastructure is being eroded. At some point,
it may be difficult if not impossible for military suppliers to maintain the infrastructure required to deliver the appropriate military piece parts to support that
segment of the business. Also, some of the participants surveyed expressed the opinion that some overseas suppliers keep higher quality piece parts for use
by industries at home, thereby supplying US industry
with piece parts of lesser quality. If the domestic
industry infrastructure for piece parts is not maintained, US companies will be progressively weakened
by dependence on foreign suppliers.
Analysis of the survey comments reveal several
issues that either inhibit R&D investment or are
obstacles to adoption of manufacturing assembly
technology. Inhibitors do not necessarily represent
needs for national research and development efforts;
however, diminished impact of R&D investment due
to these inhibitors must be considered to fully savor
a successful technology transfer to US industry.
ManufacturingAssembly Inhibitors
Environmental Issues. Numerous comments
across all industrial segments identified environmental concerns related to manufacturing. The environment is defined as the ecosystem in which the
manufacturing system must coexist. Typical concerns included the use of chemicals and solvents,
cleaning and degreasing, and unknown environmental impact of planned manufacturing processes. A
secondary concern was the limited availability of
alternative chemicals as various industrial products
(such as FreonTM) are removed from the market.
The motivation for expressed environmental concern is predominantly driven by regulations affecting the industries. The majority of respondents indicated that environmental issues should be considered in the same context as any other dimension of a
design problem.
The primary need is for a repository of information describing substitutes for those chemicals
restricted from use. This implies some research
effort to categorize restricted-use chemicals and
develop alternatives. A broader, more comprehensive need is for environmental guidelines that could
54
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
An alarming finding was that most of the commercial firms indicated that they did not intend or
wish to contract with the government. The contracting process was viewed as a lengthy exercise that
limited their ability to adopt technology and constrained their manufacturing operations.
No specific needs were identified except the need
to minimize excessive and sometimes conflicting regulations. Opportunities in this area are likey
to be coupled with modifications to cost-accounting
practices.
Military Standards and Specifications. The
general areas of standards and specifications were
often cited as inhibitors to improvement in manufacturing assembly. The majority of manufacturers
agreed that military standards are needed and are
often appropriate. The issue appears to be that many
standards are misapplied or are inconsistent and
contribute to excessive manufacturing cost. The
majority opinion was that standards, while vital
toward ensuring performance compliance, are no
substitute for high-quality manufacturing processes
using modern assembly technology.
Standards and specifications drive a large part of
the manufacturing process. Developing standards is
widely known to be a lengthy, detailed, and exacting
process. Many companies indicated that standards
are out of date and applied to products with little
regard or knowledge of cost ramifications. Companies were puzzled by government attempts to minimize cost with commercial off-the-shelf equipment
while maintaining exacting standards on items
developed exclusively for the military. Several companies remarked that building to military standards
was in fact a step backward from the state of the art.
The principal need is for guidance and tailoring of
standards. A "standard on standards" was mentioned
as a way to allow interpretation of existing standards
to determine when and how a standard is applied. An
exceptions procedure may also be considered. A second need was for standards to be reviewed for compatibility with other standards. For example, the ISO
9000 series was viewed by many in the commercial
world to be a useful process for auditing their manufacturing systems. Government contractors tended
to view the ISO program as another compliance
requirement to be sorted out.
be incorporated into product and process planning.
Accounting. Accounting and cost estimation were
repeatedly identified as inhibitors to technology
adoption. Current accounting practices are anchored
to old, vertically oriented firms with monolithic
product lines. Traditional cost accounting does not
provide reliable part/product cost information.
Poor cost accounting practices yield cost data that
does not reflect true cost or profit margins. Without
valid cost data, companies make needlessly shortsighted decisions about products and processes. A
majority of the companies surveyed indicated that
current accounting practices discourage investment
in manufacturing due to the up-front nature of the
expense. New technologies, new materials, and better design work are not adopted because of how
these costs are charged as overhead under current
accounting systems. Typically, unit overhead costs
are determined by dividing overhead charges by production volume to arrive at a cost per unit. For many
DoD contractors with low production volumes or
erratic production schedules, this implies a large
cost per unit, which does not reflect the true distribution of cost.
The single specific need mentioned by a majority
of those surveyed was for some type of activitybased costing (ABC) system. This approach is gaining considerable attention nationally and is recommended as a solution to the current accounting problem. Adoption of ABC in DoD contracts represents a
significant departure from established procedure.
Several commercial firms indicated they were
already beginning to use activity-based costing to
identify and eliminate nonvalue-adding operations.
Government Contracting. The issue of government contracting procedures was mentioned by
numerous companies in the industrial survey. The
general finding was that contracting procedures
based on least cost do not reward investment in manufacturing assembly. Due to the emphasis on cost
control and the accounting practices mentioned
above, companies stated that the financial risk to
adopt new manufacturing technology for government contracts inhibited their willingness to attempt
new ideas. Another aspect mentioned was the turmoil in the manufacturing process brought about by
government inspection requirements. Contracting
with the government was viewed as difficult, costly,
and a large consumption of manpower.
Dependence
on
International
Suppliers.
Several companies indicated a severe dependence on
55
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
least a prototype mode should clearly be a major priority of any R&D agenda in assembly.
For technology transfer to be effective it must
entail more than just exchange of information. For
example, funding that requires the physical transfer
of assembly processes and support technologies to
two or more active production sites would be a
mechanism that would greatly assist in bridging the
gap between current DoD investments and the shop
floor. Similar goals should be placed on technology
projects in automated design for assembly as well as
other projects currently sponsored by the ManTech
program.
foreign assembly equipment and tooling. Firms indicated that delays in delivery of assembly equipment
forced slippage in their production schedules and
adversely affected design of new products.
The implications of dependence on foreign tooling are ominous. The immediate impact is delayed
production and disorder caused by changes in
assembly equipment during a product's lifecycle. A
more serious implication is the reluctance (or even
worse the inability) of designers to design new
processes or products without knowledge of assembly equipment capabilities. Ultimately, lack of timely delivery of key assembly equipment means loss of
the US technological edge in those product lines and
industries dependent on foreign suppliers.
The need exists for an assessment of what types
of manufacturing operations depend on predominantly foreign assembly equipment. No data are
available on the degree of this problem or the trends.
Following such an assessment, recommendations for
action would be possible.
Conclusions
This study was driven by the need to answer the
following two fundamental questions regarding
R&D efforts in manufacturing assembly:
1. Can investments in research and development
technology make a significant impact on reducing the cost and/or enhancing the effectiveness
of assembly?
Technology Transfer Opportunities
The message received from both DoD and commercial suppliers was that R&D efforts that focused
"strictly on assembly" or "assembly processes" would
have less impact on reducing the cost or enhancing
the effectiveness of assembly than efforts that considered assembly within its organizational context. It was
rarely the case that assembly was not mentioned in
conjunction with test or inspection or linked to fabrication. Discussions regarding the impact of assembly
technologies invariably led to issues of a broader
nature than just assembly processes.
The need to consider R&D investments in assembly in a broader context than "strictly assembly
processes" is also reflected in the results of the cost
analysis. Whereas previous studies have identified
assembly costs as 4-8% of the manufacturing cost
profile, ! our responses indicate that assembly costs
represent closer to 20% of manufacturing costs. The
difference is that our respondents include assembly
support costs in their estimate and that these costs
are estimated to contribute more than half (10.5%)
to this estimate. While the two estimates of cost of
"assembly processes" are very close, the nature of
our responses indicates the context in which assembly is viewed within both DoD and commercial
manufacturing environments.
The need for a more progressive posture in transferring technology developed through ManTech
efforts was one of the findings elaborated on in the
1992 National Defense Manufacturing Technology
Plan. 2 Interaction with both DoD and commercial
suppliers throughout this study revealed that most of
the subtier firms were not familiar with the
ManTech program or were not aware of ManTech
projects with potential for commercial application.
Even though the majority of the prime contractors
were familiar with the ManTech program, results of
most of the assembly R&D projects sponsored by
the program have not been disseminated to the level
where they have made a major impact on either the
assembly process or support activities of the firms
interviewed in this study.
A considerable amount of effort and investment
has already been made by the ManTech program in
the direction of automated aircraft assembly.4Yet this
same topic was mentioned in various visits as an area
where "we would like to see R&D" by suppliers who
were either unaware of these efforts or unable to
accomplish a viable transfer of these results to their
facilities. The need for follow-on investments for
programs like the automated aircraft assembly effort
and the progression from a conceptual mode to at
56
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
Critical Assembly Technologies
In synopsis, investments in assembly R&D have
the potential to significantly affect assembly costs
and effectiveness only if the R&D agenda does not
focus solely on assembly processes and integrates
assembly, test, and inspection or assembly support
activities within its scope. A number of inhibitors to
successful R&D in assembly must also be addressed
to reap the full benefit of any R&D investment in
this area.
Industrial participants also identified a set of
technologies critical to assembly processes as major
needs for R&D investment. The most dominant was
the need for R&D on interconnect issues ranging
from wiring in aircraft assembly to printed circuit
board assembly. The need for advancement in material science as related to the use of material formulators for glues, epoxies, and plastics was also highlighted. Lack of domestic suppliers of piece parts
was also viewed as critical in microelectronics
assembly environments.
2. What should the research agenda be to achieve
the highest return for DoD investment in assembly R&D?
Recommendations
The assembly R&D investment portfolio that
emerged from our study consists of the following
four thrust areas.
Investments in these four areas would provide a
balance between the need to invest in enabling systems for assembly and the need to invest in enabling
technologies for assembly. Because these thrusts
overlap with parts of current or projected ManTech
thrusts (for example, Assembly Integration Issues
with manufacturing systems and Critical Assembly
Technologies with materials), any future development should also strive to integrate these assembly
needs within the larger context of existing or projected ManTech programs.
Previous assessment studies in other technology
areas 7have suggested that ManTech consider enlarging its charter to include manufacturing support
activities. Results of this study serve to confirm the
need for ManTech to reassess its mission statement
and R&D emphasis along these lines. Both design
for assembly and assembly integration issues represent thrusts with large "assembly support" components. With the exception of companies involved in
"electrically intense" activities, these functions represent the dominant needs and opportunities across
the industrial survey.
The need for a more progressive posture in transferring technology developed through ManTech
efforts has also been referred to in previous studies. ~
Interaction with DoD and commercial suppliers
throughout this study confirmed that most of the
subtier firms are largely unaware of ManTech projects that may have commercial application. While
the majority of the prime contractors were aware of
ManTech, results of various assembly projects sponsored by the program have not been disseminated to
have a major impact on assembly processes or support activities of the firms in this study. A prime
Design for Assembly (DFA)
The need for an R&D investment in the design of
products, tools, processes, and workplaces for ease
of assembly was the most dominant theme across all
aspects of this study. Clearly, the concept is not new;
the key message, particularly from DoD contractors,
is that regardless of past or present successes, investments in DFA have not been nearly sufficient to realize the full benefits of this technology.
Assembly Integration Issues
Successful integration of product and process
design and manufacturing activities requires an
investment in a key core of assembly support technologies. Support activities identified by our survey
as predominant needs and opportunity drivers were
assembly or process planning; quality-related activities, including SPC; and material flow management
functions, including JIT.
Flexible Automation
Two areas within flexible automation were identified as major needs and opportunities for assembly
R&D. The first area was related to the development
of flexible automated equipment. The second area
was in the development of dedicated workcells to
support the assembly of selected classes of subassemblies. Both are driven by the continuing need
to convert manual tasks to automated tasks, thereby
affecting the highest cost component of assembly
operations. Robotic equipment presently does not
meet specified needs.
57
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 14/No. 1
7. L. Plonsky, ed., "Manufacturing Systems Strategic Plan," Report of
the Manufacturing Systems CommitteeManufacturing TechnologyAdvisory
Group, Draft Version 4 (Sept. 4, 1992).
example is the considerable effort and investment
made by ManTech in automated aircraft assembly.
The need for follow-on investments that would allow
programs such as the automated aircraft assembly
effort to progress from prototypes to active production environments should be a major priority of any
ManTech investment in assembly.
Finally, the success of any R&D investment will
also depend on how well inhibitors such as environmental concerns, accounting/contractual issues, and
military standards and specifications are addressed. To
state that these issues are beyond the scope of
ManTech is to ignore the vital impact they will have on
moving R&D closer to commercial application. While
it might be difficult for ManTech to justify significant
investments in inhibitors, small investments in joint
initiatives with agencies more directly responsible for
these activities (for example, EPA and environmental
concerns) could go a long way toward facilitating
major investments in any of the recommended R&D
thrust areas or other ManTech programs.
Authors' Biographies
Louis A. Martin-Vega joined Lehigh University in 1994 as professor
and chairman of the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems
Engineering. From 1991-94 he was the Lockheed Professor of Industrial
and Manufacturing Systems Engineering at Florida Institute of Technology.
From 1989-92 he was a senior program director in the Division of Design
and Manufacturing Systems at the National Science Foundation, where he
managed research programs in engineering design, computer-integrated
manufacturing, operations research and production systems. He also served
as acting division director in 1991. He received his BS in industrial engineering from the University of Puerto Rico (Mayaguez), his MS in operations research from New York University, and his ME and PhD in industrial and systems engineering from the University of Florida. His research
interests are in manufacturing systems and production and operations management. He is a fellow of liE, a member of SME, and a registered professional engineer in Florida and Puerto Rico.
Harold K. Brown is an associate professor of electrical and computer
engineering at Florida Institute of Technology. He received his BS in electrical engineering from Florida Institute of Technology and MS and PhD in
electrical engineering from Ohio State University. His research interests
include electronics packaging, assembly, and manufacturing and the design
of massively parallel architectures for high-performance computing. His
industrial experience includes senior development engineer positions with
Intel Corp., Automation Intelligence, and as president of Adroit
Electronics, Inc., a company dedicated to the design and development of
communication products. He is a member of IEEE and a registered professional engineer in Florida.
Wade H. Shaw, Jr., is a professor of engineering and technology management in the School of Business at Florida Institute of Technology. He
received his BS in electrical engineering, MS in systems engineering, and
PhD in engineering management from Clemson University. He is an active
consultant, educator, and researcher in the areas of engineering technology
and organization strategy. His interests include survey design and analysis
for technology assessments, design and development of computer information systems, operations and production management, and statistical analysis and design of experiments. He is a senior member of IEEE and liE, a
registered professional engineer in Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina, and
a member of the Tau Beta Phi, Eta Kappa Nu, and Beta Gamma Sigma honorary societies.
Thomas J. Sanders joined Florida Institute of Technology in 1989 as the
Harris Professor of Electrical Engineering. He is also director of the College
of Engineering's Division of Electrical and Computer Engineering and
Computer Sciences. He received his BS, MS, and PhD degrees in electrical
engineering from Purdue University. His research interests include microelectronics design for manufacturing, semiconductor devices and processing, and advanced microelectronics packaging. Prior to joining Florida Tech
he spent more than 20 years at Harris Semiconductor. He was elected vice
president and chief scientist of Harris Semiconductor in 1984, leading the
company's research and development efforts in computer-aided engineering,
process development, and advanced manufacturing technologies. He is a fellow of IEEE, holds 11 patents, and serves on numerous technical advisory
boards of both public and private manufacturing organizations.
Acknowledgment
This research was sponsored in part by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
under Grant No. 60 NANB 3D1361.
References
1. E.L. Gentsch and J. W. Mclnnis, "A Profile of Defense Manufacturing
Costs and Enabling Technologies" (Logistics Management Institute: Jan.
1992).
2. "Report to Congress on the Development of a National Defense
Manufacturing Technology Plan" (Washington, DC: Department of
Defense, Mar. 1992).
3. "National Defense Manufacturing Technology Plan: Process Cost
Methodology," prepared for the DoD Manufacturing Technology Task
Force (Feb. 1991).
4. L.A. Martin-Vega, H.K. Brown, W.H. Shaw, and T.J. Sanders,
"Assessment of Research Opportunities in Manufacturing Assembly,"
Interim Report submitted to NIST (April 1993).
5. L.A. Martin-Vega, H.K. Brown, W.H. Shaw, and T.J. Sanders,
"Assessment of Research Needs and Opportunities in Manufacturing
Assembly;' Proceedings of the 1993 Defense Manufacturing Conference,
San Francisco (Nov.-Dec. 1993).
6. G. Boothroyd, Assembly Automation and Product Design (Marcel
Dekker: 1992).
58