the design of a computer integrated electronics manufacturing system

The design of a computer integratedelectronics manufacturing system

by Hugh B. Allderdice and Robert I. KingLockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

The Advanced Operations System for electronics design,manufacture and test being used by Lockheed Missiles & SpaceCompany's Space Systems Division represents a realisation of theconcept of computer integrated manufacturing. This paper describesthe system and the evolutionary phases leading to its developmentand implementation. The strategies and tactics adopted, as well asthe management issues encountered, are also discussed.

Introduction

The Space Systems Division of Lock-heed Missiles & Space Company, Inc. isin the process of installing an AdvancedOperations System for the design,manufacture and test of electronicprinted wire boards, electronic printedwire assemblies and electronic as-semblies.

The Advanced Operations System isan approach to computer integratedmanufacturing (CIM), electronically link-ing and integrating the information ofcomputer-aided preliminary design(schematic capture and circuit analysis),production design (product geometry),computer-aided manufacturing engin-eering and production and test centralprocess controllers, which drive individ-ual process controllers in productionand test equipment on the factory floor.A prototype of this system is in placeon the shopfloor. The pilot line with allthe components and electronic linkagesin place is being installed and will beready for productive use in mid-1985.But for every computer-aided design

and manufacturing (CADCAM) or CIMsystem installation there must be a re-quirement and the system must exist inan environment.

The Space Systems Division is a com-ponent of Lockheed Missiles & SpaceCompany, Inc. (LMSC), a member of theMissiles, Space & Electronics Group ofthe Lockheed Corporation. The corpo-ration consists of three other productgroups — Aeronautical Systems, MarineSystems and Information Systems —and two corporate staffs — Marketing,Science & Engineering, Operations; andAdministration & Finance. The four pro-duct divisions of LMSC — Space Sys-tems, Missile Systems, AdvancedSystems and Tactical Systems — aresupported by LMSC centralised stafforganisations for Human Resources, Fin-ance, Facilities and Information Pro-cessing.

Matrix management is the operatingphilosophy of Space Systems Divisionwith product requirements, schedule,funding and design authority vested inProgram Offices. Functional line organ-isations of Advanced Program Develop-

Computer-Aided Engineering Journal April 1985

ment (Marketing), Engineering &Technology, Financial ManagementControl and Operations (consisting ofMaterial, Manufacturing, Product Assur-ance and Systems Test) perform toProgram Office product direction. Fig. 1illustrates this organisational structure.

The Space Systems. Division of Lock-heed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.produces space systems, space supportsystems, ground systems, communica-tion systems and the componentsthereof, consisting of hardware, firm-ware and software. Of interest in theCIM area are the hardware items ofspace vehicle structures, electronicblack boxes, solar arrays, handling andsupport equipment assemblies andpiece parts manufactured from metals,composites and ceramic raw materials.Fig. 2 illustrates a number of our deliver-able products.

The nature of the aerospace marketand the high technology of Space Sys-tems Division products — 'productsthat would normally be considereddevelopmental — result in design andmanufacture only to contract require-ments, with no in-house off-the-shelfand little vendor off-the-shelf content. Itis normal for Space Systems Division tohave 30 projects in various phases ofthe product cycle, with five of theseprojects in the new model product defi-nition release cycle. Thus the marketand the product dictate a very lowvolume of production with a highdegree of change during the productproduction cycle.

57

This environment and the productresult in a 'generalised' factory — a fac-tory equipped with a wide capability —to produce a variety of high-quality,technologically advanced space-oriented products. There are no 'pro-duction lines' in the Space SystemsDivision manufacturing organisation. Itis recognised, however, that certainsub-elements of Space System Divisionproducts are generic in nature and inmanufacturing process, and that com-puter and automation techniques canbe applied effectively.

Description of past operationalsystems

Recognition of the generic nature of theelectronic component of Division deliv-erable end-products, realisation of thecommonality of the design, manufac-ture and test processes to producethese items, and an awareness of theuses of automation technology in com-mercial industry together led to areview of internal methodology. Thisreview revealed that although veryhigh-quality, high-technology productswere being produced, the methodology,and in most cases the processes, usedhad not changed since the introductionof numerical control (NC) machines inthe early. 1960s.

Prior to this time, electronic productperformance requirements had beenmanually interpreted by engineering

personnel; schematic drawings, logicanalyses and production designs forboard and circuit geometries had beenprepared manually. Paper drawings,parts lists and circuit art masters hadalso been manually issued and transmit-ted to manufacturing engineers.

Manufacturing engineers manuallytranslated the engineering informationinto shop routings and work instruc-tions. A computer system was used tocorrelate the schedule, quantity andwork instruction requirements to pro-duce work authorising documents forapproximately 60% of the shop workeffort, while the other 40% was produc-ed manually. Shopfloor control of workpriority and expediting were performedmanually. Shopfloor operations, exceptfor seven NC metal-working machines,were performed manually or were ac-complished using manually controlledequipment. This description applied toall Space Systems Division shops —metallic, composite and electronic.

Not only were engineering and sup-port functions performed manually, butinventory and kitting functions weremanual. Single-unit kitting and as-sembly was the norm. Layer and boardfabrication, printing and etching, and in-spection were all manual operations. Inprinted wire board assembly, for exam-ple, component preparation, com-ponent insertion and inspection weremanual. Soldering utilised wave soldermachines, but inspection of the solder

joint was manual. Testing was accom-plished at the black-box level usingautomated functional test equipment(control media were manuallyprepared). Fig. 3 shows the perceptionof this manual system.

All, functions of design, manufactureand test necessary to produce elec-tronic printed wire assemblies in an in-tegrated computer automation modeare. addressed in the Advanced Oper-ations System being installed in theSpace Systems Division. Fig. 4 is theperception of the new Advanced Oper-ations System.

Design of the new computerintegrated] operational system

The Advanced Operations System is anapproach to CIM, integrating and elec-tronically linking computer-aided pre-liminary design (schematic capture andcircuit analysis), production design(product geometry), computer-aidedmanufacturing engineering and pro-duction, as well as test central processcontrollers which drive individual pro-cess computers in production and testequipment on the shopfloor. The foursubsystems of the Advanced Oper-ations System are:

• engineering product definition, forthe creation and control of product re-quirements information• operations resource control, for the

LockheedCorporation

ICorporate Staffs

I

ILine Organisations

Finance &•. ly

MarketingScience frtng'ineerihg AdministrationOpe'naf.ions- ' *

AeronauticalSystems

MarineSystems

InformationSystems

Missiles, Space &Electronics Systems

•Lookne,ed _Electronics-Go.

Lockheed Engineering &Management Services Co.

Lockheed SpaceOperations Co.

Lockheed Missiles& Space Co.

Statf DivisionsI.

IProduct Divisions

FacKi-tSiesResources

Finarice* < Information. - Services

MissileSystems

AdvancedSystems

ILMSC Austin Space

SystemsSpaceOperations

IAdvanceProgram..Development'

I . I . IProgram Engineering^ Management

. O.ffiices .. Technology ControlOperations

Material Manufacturing ProductAssurance

Systemstest

-.•:.**»<-*

Fig. 1 Lockheed organisational structure

58 Computer-Aided Engineering Journal April 1985

Fig. 2 Space Systems Division — products

authorisation, direction and control ofwork• material supply and inventory, forthe acquisition, storage, disbursementand control of material• automated production, inspectionand test, for the translation of engineer-ing information and the control ofshopfloor equipment.

This system was developed based onthe concepts of computerised workautomation, electronic data transmis-sion, direct entry of data at point ofgeneration into a databank and thesupply of data and material to the pointof use. Automatic data capture is usedextensively with product identificationand traceability utilising bar code me-thods. .

The key new technology in this inte-grated system is the computer conver-sion of engineering product definitiondata to machine instructions withouthuman part-peculiar programming. Themost difficult technology applicationwas interconnecting and integratingcomputer and software building blocks.Fig. 5 illustrates a conceptual frameworkof this Advanced Operations System.

The engineering product definitionsubsystem consists of four modules. Thefirst module is computer-aided sche-matic capture, circuit logic analyses andsimulation; the second module iscomputer-aided production (geometric)design, including automatic circuitlayout and component placement; the

third module is the bill of materials in-formation; and the fourth module is thereleased engineering requirements database.

The product definition process beginswith the project engineer utilising theLockheed Electronic Analysis andDesign System (LEADS) and inputtingthe electronic system definition in blockdiagram form via a computer graphicsterminal. Each block is further dividedinto detailed diagrams of intercon-necting information. This information isupdated and maintained in the com-puter for later use during system inte-gration, check-out and test. Thistop-down design leads to the assign-ment of detail design to individual elec-tronics designers who create schematicdrawings directly on the computergraphics terminal. Logic analysis andsimulation capabilities are provided andoperated from the design terminal.

Upon completion of preliminarydesign, the electronic design database istransferred electronically to the pro-duction design system. The product de-signer creates the geometry of thecircuit and board and prepares theparts list (bill of materials). Electricalinterconnects in the form of wire har-nesses and backplanes (mother boards)are designed using the same design da-tabase. Prior to formal release of theproduct design requirements definition,advance bills of materials are prepared,maintained and released for long-leadprocurement into the bill of materials

system. After completion of engineeringproduct definition activity and thereview of design by the affected parties,formal release is accomplished and thedesign is transferred electronically tothe 'read-only' released engineering re-quirements database.

The operations resource control anddata subsystem is the centre of theAdvanced Operations System. Throughits five modules, it authorises, controlsand tracks the flow of materials andwork throughout the system. The ordergeneration module receives the end-item schedules, contract quantities andthe work charge structure from theProgram Office and the bill of materials(product structure) from the engineeringsubsystem via the computer network.This module converts these data into,scheduled work and the necessaryauthorisations for procurement of rawmaterial and components and pieceparts fabrication and assembly. Thescheduled requirements are then fed tothe material control module, the workcontrol module and the capacity plan-ning module.

The material control module controlsthe procurement of raw material andpurchased parts, and the storage anddisbursement of both material and workin process. This module provides inven-tory status and location, inventory andshortage forecasts, automatic stocktransfer between contracts and single-point kitting capability.

The work control module provides

Computer-Aided Engineering Journal April 1985 59

status and location of work in process,'held for' conditions, equipment status,automatic 'expediting' via real-time pri-ority sequencing of work, and per-formance reports by workstation andorganisation.

The capacity planning module oper-ates in both finite and infinite modes toprovide information of actual and fore-cast bottlenecks, including the fore-casting of work which will not becomplete in time to support scheduledrequirements in production, inspectionand test processes; and it predicts thecompletion dates of work in process.

The material supply and inventorysubsystem consists of automated ware-house facilities and the material hand-ling systems. It is triggered by workauthorisation records from the oper-ations control subsystem's order gener-ation module, which produces piecepart and raw-material bulk disburse-ment demands for the transfer of itemsfrom Material Stores to work in processstock.

A key concept of the inventory andmaterial handling subsystem is theconsideration of all materials, parts andsubassemblies either in the stockroomor at a workstation on the factory flooras part of a controlled inventory. Allmaterials, parts, tote pans and bins arebar code identified and both fixed andwand bar code readers are used to col-lect the material element information,which is then transmitted to the inven-tory module of the operations controlsubsystem. The mechanics of this sub-system include an automatic storageand retrieval stockroom with a com-bination of mobile 'smart' carts andconveyer systems. The 'smart' carts areused to transport materials betweenwork functions, and the conveyers areused within functions for transport

between work cells. The operationscontrol subsystem provides the 'when'and 'where' direction information, andon-board computers provide the 'how'movement information.

The automated production, inspec-tion and test subsystem consists of twomajor modules: the operations processcontroller and the workstation module.

The operations process controller(two identical computers to provideredundancy) contains the generic prog-rams to convert engineering productdefinition data into information neededto run the production, inspection andtest equipment. The operations processcontroller is triggered by a scheduledrequirement from the work controlmodule, which causes the operationsprocess controller to interrogate anddraw down from the released engineer-ing module the latest-release designdata of the part number to be manufac-tured. The operations process controllerconverts and holds the data until re-quested to download the converteddata to the workstation controller.

The second module of this subsystemconsists of the workstation and theworkstation controller — one for eachprocess or piece of shopfloorequipment. The workstations identifiedfor this system include automatic dipand radial component inserters, axialcomponent sequencers and inserters,automatic and semi-automatic' wire-wrap machines, circuit analysers, func-tional test equipment, DITMCOequipment, board drill and routeequipment, chip testers, robots, and cir-cuit application equipment.

As the work piece is presented to theworkstation and identified to thesystem by in-line bar code readers, asignal is passed to the operations pro-cess controller to load the program for

that part number to the workstationcontroller. The workstation controllercontains programs describing the work-station configuration which convert thegenerically translated engineering datainto specific information necessary totell the workstation what to do andhow to operate to perform the work-station function. Each workstation com-municates to the operations resourcecontrol subsystem its condition, com-ponents available to it and the partnumber upon which it is working. Fig. 6illustrates the Advanced OperationsSystem network of computers and soft-ware.

Technical stages of implementation

Two evolutions must occur to reachsome semblance of CIM. The first is theevolution of technology, and thesecond is the evolution of managementthought and acceptance. Computer in-tegrated manufacturing systems do notspring into being overnight. They re-quire careful nurturing, generous fiscalsupport and ample time. Enabling tech-nology has to be conceived, developedand then put to use in the right applica-tion within a conceptual framework atthe right time. Six years of preliminarywork preceded the creation of the con-ceptual framework of the AdvancedOperations System, and two years is re-quired to bring the full system into pro-ductive use.

The genesis of computer integratedmanufacturing began with the intro-duction of NC machines and NC prog-ramming in the 1960s. CIM continuedto develop with the introduction ofcomputer graphics design systems inthe early 1970s and the advent of or-ganisations like CAM-I. Initially CADand CAM were thought of as computer

4 #

Fig. 3 Manual system — perception


systems to aid people in the per-formance of manual tasks. More recentthought is towards computer systemswhich automate these tasks. The con-cept of design as an integral part of themanufacturing process has also sur-faced. Fig. 7 reflects the perception oftechnology evolution.

The technology of utilising computerstQ direct and control factory equipmentis state of the art. The technology ofmaterial resource planning and manu-facturing resource control is also stateof the art. Computer graphics systemsfor design and NC programming arestate of the art. These software systems

can be purchsed off-the-shelf. What isnot available is the technology of inte-grating all of the parts into a coherentsystem. As Gutshall of Price Water-house [1] points out, the individualtechnologies have been available over^aitime line and integration is now theissue. Among the areas that need fur-ther leading-edge technology develop-ment are:

• computer graphics design systemsto. provide three-dimensional solidmodel design representation that isboth machine and human readable• computer systems to 'read' this

three-dimensional solid model designdatabase which, when coupled withcomputerised factory modelling soft-ware, will direct the flow of work andmachines to produce the product• computer communication andinterface systems to allow the 'easy'transmission and translation of informa-tion between different computer oper-ating systems and software languages.

The technological issues and problemsrequired to implement computer inte-grated manufacturing systems can beand are being solved. The most chal-lenging and difficult issues are the man-

v-iu,

Fig. 4 Advanced Operations System — perception

_JS « ^

?g@?\ Ecasocaaaaoco®

amR/trow r = = =

s<® © a s e s s tso?

8 ® @

= ^ | csa?(§

Fig. 5 Advanced Operations System — concept

Computer-Aided Engineering Journal April 1§85 61

Fig. 6 Advanced Operations System computer and software network

agement thought processes which mustprecede the application of the tech-nology.

It is easy now, using perfect hind-sight, to recognise the six phases of pro-gression to the Advanced OperationsSystem. These six phases, which all whotread the computer integrated manu-facturing path will probably encounter,are:

perception of needknowledge acquisitionislands of automationrecognition of integration needconcept developmentimplementation.

The awakening, the perception of need,surfaced in the period 1976-1977, whenit became apparent that, althoughSpace Systems Division was very profit-able and its products were satisfying themarket, the techniques and systemsbeing used to produce the productshad not changed significantly in 15years. The symptoms were clear. All theindicators used to measure the per-formance of the product-producingprocess were showing indications oftrends in the wrong direction.

Knowledge acquisition blossomed inthe autumn of 1977, continues tobloom today, and will continue toflower as long as there is either a newthought or a new concept on the hori-

zon. A wealth of information was dis-covered that others who had faced orwere facing similar problems were will-ing to share.

It was also discovered that completeadvantage had not been taken of exist-,ing computer-aided technologies. Thislatter discovery led into the islands ofautomation mode. Although the inter-relationship between marketing, engin-eering and manufacturing wasrecognised, the need to integrate andcommunicate between their functionalsystems was only an emerging thought.Thus the decision was made to installavailable technology.

In December 1977, the Space Sys-tems Division (SSD) manufacturing en-gineering organisation selected theLockheed CADAM system as thecomputer-aided tool for the preparationof NC programs and tool design. Thefirst tool design using the CADAMsystem was produced in August 1978.SSD engineering management and thedesign organisations quickly followed,and today virtually all designs forstructural products are created usingthe CADAM system. Concurrently, theelectronics design organisation selecteda Computervision system as thecomputer-aided design tool for elec-tronics.

In early 1978, SSD manufacturing en-gineering selected GENPLAN, a gener-

ative process planning system, thenunder development by Joe Tulkoff ofthe Lockheed-Georgia Co., as thecomputer-aided tool for the creation offactory work instructions. GENPLANbecame operational at Lockheed-Georgia in May 1978 and the tech-nology was transferred to SpaceSystems Division, creating the first workinstruction in April 1979. Initially GEN-PLAN was used only for machine parts;today GENPLAN produces work instruc-tions for machine parts, sheet metalparts, electrical and electronic com-ponents and assemblies, compositematerial parts and assemblies and struc-tural assemblies. CAM-I shares in thecredit for GENPLAN. Tulkoff was, for anumber of years, an active participantin the CAM-I Process Planning Projectand has served as the chairman of theCAM-I Advanced Technical PlanningCommittee. A product of the CAM-IProcess Planning Project, CAM-I CAPPbecame the foundation upon whichTulkoff created the GENPLAN system.

An effort was initiated in 1979 to pro-vide computer enhancements to theequipment on the factory floor, andthat effort continues today. New andadditional NC and CNC machines wereinstalled in the machine and sheetmetal shops. Computer controls wereadded to the autoclaves, andcomputer-controlled filament winding


machines were installed in the compos-ite shop. Computer-controlled platingfacilities were added to the electronicsshop. Advanced systems were devel-oped and installed for the developmentof cost and schedule baselines and thetracking of performance for manufac-turing engineering activities. An officeautomation system was installed and isbeing used by managers and staff toimprove the administration and themanagerial productivity of the manu-facturing organisation.

An Advanced Manufacturing Re-source and Control System (AMRACS)has been developed and installed.AMRACS interacts with the masterschedule and product structure and hasmodules for:

• work order and detailed part sched-ules• shop work authorising documentgeneration• shopfloor work control and status-ing• project tool control and statusing• finite shop capacity planning andestimated completion date prediction• budget and schedule performancereporting• inventory control and status.

Throughout the period starting in 1978,there have been other system develop-ments, system enhancements andapplication of computer-aided tech-nologies to the Space Systems Divisionproduct-producing processes toonumerous to mention. This does notimply that these other improvementsare insignificant, but as computer re-sources were provided useful applica-tions were created exponentially. It wasnot until after the 'islands of automa-tion' technologies were digested thatthe nagging thought of 'integration'emerged into a requirement in 1982and not until the spring of 1983 that theopportunity presented itself to satisfythis requirement. The Advanced Oper-ations System is the first attempt tocomputer integrate the creation, com-munication and translation of informa-tion necessary to accomplish materialtransformation from design to product.

During the period 1980-1982 theterms 'computer integrated manufac-turing' and 'factory of the future'emerged to reflect the concept of inte-gration of the product-producing pro-cess as an interrelated series of activitiesinvolving the functions of marketing(when, how many, and should cost toproduce) and engineering (what toproduce) with the manufacturing pro-cesses (manage and execute the trans-formation of the design into theproduct). Also these two terms impliedan architecture (rational understanding

of the interrelationships) between mar-keting, engineering and manufacturing,and between the quality, manufacturingengineering, material acquisition andsupply, and production process com-ponents of manufacturing.

A significant body of work exists onthe subject of the architecture ofmanufacturing — outstanding examplesare the CAM-I Standards CommitteeDiscrete Parts Manufacturing Model[2], the US Air Force ICAM Manufac-turing Architecture [3] and the USNational Bureau of Standards' 'TwinTowers' [4] — and of manufacturingcomputer systems, most of it at eithervery high levels or very detailed levels;all of it useful, but none of which canbe applied without modification to aspecific enterprise.

It is necessary to gain an understand-ing of this body of work to provide afoundation for the application of com-puter integrated technology to a spe-cific activity, for the AdvancedOperations System could not havebeen conceived without this founda-tion. The concept development for theAdvanced Operations System depend-ed upon the creation of an 'architec-ture' identifying the functions to beperformed, determining how thesefunctions were performed in the current('as is') environment and thendeveloping a future ('to be') en-vironment to meet the integratedcomputer-automated objective.

This 'to be' architecture was present-ed to and approved by management.Teams from the functional organisationsinvolved were formed to investigate thedesign concept for feasibility. A finaldesign evolved and final managementapproval was given. Space Systems Di-vision is now in the implementationphase. A prototype line, utilising the en-gineering product definition linkage tothe production workstation, is in thefinal implementation phase. Full imple-mentation of all subsystem modules ofthe Advanced Operations System isscheduled for 1985.

All the foregoing, however, is fornaught unless this technology is activelypromoted. In this area, the role of the'champion' has been identified byTepsic [5] and Thompson [6] as key tothe successful implementation ofadvanced technology. Another equallykey role is that of the 'technologist'.These two roles of the 'technologist'and the 'champion' are vital to concep-tion, development and implementationof computer-aided technologies andparticularly computer integrated appli-cations. Advanced technologies and ap-plications for advanced technologiesare 'discovered' by technologists. Thetechnologist is a person, with an entre-

preneurial spirit, interested in a particu-lar field either by necessity, desire ordirection.

Successful application of the tech-nology, especially in the systems arena,is solely dependent on the ability of thetechnologist to educate subordinates,peers and superiors to the potentialuses and benefits of the technology andto sell the use of the technology to theultimate user. The technologist mustexercise extreme care in this 'educateand sell' process to avoid the percep-tion of a technology looking for ahome. He must match the technologyto satisfy a need acknowledged bymanagement. The role of the technolo-.gist does not shift from person toperson as time passes or as the tech-nology changes from concept to reality.To be successful, the technologist mustshepherd the technology from dis-covery, conception, implementationand use until the technology becomesan accepted part of the standard oper-ating procedure.

The role of the champion, however,does shift from person to person. Thetechnologist is the initial champion. Asthe technologist educates and sells thebenefits of the technology, as he con-vinces superiors that the technologysatisfies a perceived need, the cham-pionship (sponsorship) role shifts to thesuperior. The championship of the tech-nology shifts to successively higherlevels of management throughout theselling process as these higher levels ofmanagement perceive the advancedtechnology satisfying their short- andlong-range goals.

These two roles are vital, for withoutsuccessful achievement of the tech-nologist role and the champion rolefunction new technologies will not beimplemented.

Management aspects of automation

The introduction of any CIM systeminto a factory has critical managementimplications. According to Carter ofCincinnati Milacron [7] success re-quires that managers:

• develop an understanding of pre-sent practice and where change wouldresult in a significant improvement inproductivity• identify those technologies and de-vices required for change that are reli-able• appreciate the impact of the changeon the total manufacturing organis-ation.

Most engineers and managers familiarwith the introduction of automationwould concur with Carter and wouldfurther insist that the transition from


manual to computer-automated pro-cedures requires a major change inmanagement techniques and organis-ational structure.

A high level of creativity and soph-istication is required in the approach toboth management and industrial engin-eering. An organisation which hasbecome accustomed to stability and a'no change' policy for many years willlikely have great difficulty in automatingexisting standardised manual processesunless appropriate outside assistance isobtained. Even then, a large psychologi-cal and/or political adjustment is nor-mally required. The preferred approachis to infuse the organisation with inno-vators at all levels with appropriate in-centives. According to Lane ofInternational Management Co. [8] (andall Skinnerian psychologists): 'The mainingredient required for successful inno-vation is incentive. Innovators, at anylevel in the organisation, must be ade-quately rewarded for their creative ef-forts . . . . Creative people must besought after, encouraged, supported,and equitably rewarded.' This adds tothe equation normally used in mostmanagement incentive programs. It isno longer sufficient to grade managersonly on the productivity of today'ssystem.

There are many management road-blocks that need to be recognised andaddressed during the process ofautomation. Many authors have dis-cussed this issue, but Prof. Dorf of theUniversity of California [9] appears tohave stated the key problem:

'Corporate managers are hesitant tocommit large sums of money to ma-chinery that has not existed longenough to have proved itself worthy ofthe investment required. Fearful thattechnological advances might maketheir equipment obsolete, they demandone- to two-year payback periods onthese systems, compared with eight toten years for more conventionalequipment.'

A more realistic period for the automa-tion transition is clearly indicated. Sev-eral other roadblocks are frequentlybrought up that can be either technicalor psychological:

• Long-term benefits of automationare considerably less important to manymanagers than short-term productivity,upon which their performance is evalu-ated.• Factory floor managers are even lesslikely to urge adoption of computerisedprocesses than senior managementsince most floor managers are not aswell informed about commercially avail-able systems.

• Few factory managers are equippedwith the broad background required tomanage a combined work force ofpeople and computerised machinery,and therefore they fear that their capa-bilities may be perceived as obsolete.• A higher level of technical stan-dardisation is required in all operations,compared with conventional manualmethods, in order for automation to bepractical.• Fear of the unknown.

It would appear that Niccolo Machia-velli summed up the managementproblem of automating the factoryquite well in his book The Prince' (1513)when he stated:

'It must be remembered that there isnothing more difficult to plan, moredoubtful of success, nor more danger-ous to manage than the creation of anew system. For the initiator has theenmity of all who would profit by thepreservation of the old institution andmerely lukewarm defenders in thosewho would gain by the new ones. Thusit arises that on every opportunity forattacking the reformer, his opponentsdo so with the zeal of partisans; theothers defend him half heartedly, sothat between them he runs greatdangers.'

The management decision to automatemust be carefully done, based upon thebest available technical information,and with both tactical and strategic ob-jectives in mind.

There are two aspects of economicjustification and evaluation that bearserious consideration since normal orconventional practice may have to bemodified:

• cost accounting methodology• economic justification.

In the post Second World War era,direct labour accounted for as much as50% of total production cost, accordingto Tepsic of Ingersoll Milling Co. [5],with the remaining split about equallybetween material and burden cate-gories. However, present projects indi-cate that direct labour will be reducedto only 10-15% of product cost. Onthe average, approximately 75% ofmanagement resources continue to bespent to obtain further reductions indirect labour. Experience indicates that,although some direct labour reductionscan be obtained by incorporatingautomated integrated systems into thefactory, the most significant savings arein categories such as work in process,material handling, inspection, and scrapand rework.

Most cost accounting system datahave been based on direct-labour-

based system data. The data providedcan determine how many minutes areassociated with each part number butcannot indicate the total cost. Costaccounting systems should be changedfrom a direct labour basis to one oftotal product output. As automationprogressively assumes its proper role inindustry, direct labour (as it presentlyexists) will be reduced significantly andreplaced by service functions(frequently included in the overhead orburden costs).

Automated integrated manufacturingsystems are different from conventionalmanufacturing systems in that they re-quire a stronger dependence on inter-disciplinary activities and long-termstrategic considerations. Strategic eco-nomic justification factors must shiftfrom conventional, tactical, short-termissues to those of a strategic nature. Thereturn on investment decision in thefield of automation is not one of ashort-term nature.

According to Van Blois of IBM [10]:'(automated) systems help mould thestrategic direction of a business in theyears ahead. Strategic production sys-tems must bend to change and allow acompany to react rapidly to technologychanges and product mix custom-isation.' He defines tactical economicjustification to be concerned primarilywith discrete units of capital investmentrequired for the next six months to twoyears. He goes on to define strategicplanning in terms of numbers of pro-grammable automated systems to betied into a hierarchical factory com-puter system, extended periods of timefor pay-off, additional business op-portunities, and competitive position tobe obtained or retained. In summary, herelates strategic planning to businesssurvival.

Van Blois expands and paraphrasesthe discussion of Tepsic as follows:

'The commonly accepted discountedcash flow (DCF) methodology, often re-ferred to as internal rate of return, is anexcellent barometer for measuring capi-tal alternative . . . Many managers havebecome too absorbed with DCF to theextent that practical strategic direc-tional considerations have been over-looked. DCF analysis tends to look atdiscrete investment opportunities,which are perhaps myopic when com-pared with the urgency of implement-ing (automated) integrated systemsleading to vast productivity improve-ments.'

His reasoning clearly identifies an arearequiring change and one of the factorsin the reluctance of factory manage-ment to accept automation. Assumingthat it is prudent to consider automa-


ting a factory system, then planningmust go forward to develop the necess-ary database, incorporate technical andmanagement computer capability, andappropriately standardise methods andprocedures to accept the change. Inaddition, it is necessary to review staffcapabilities and limitations, organis-ational functions and systems of com-munication. The entire span-of-controlconcept within the management struc-ture will be significantly changed, andsome roles will be added and othersdeleted. A strategy of personnel acquisi-tion and training will have to be devel-oped compatible with the new order.

Most experts would concur that, if itis not practical to automate (integrate)the entire operation within a factory,there are areas which should be con-sidered ahead of any others. Engelber-ger of Unimation [11] gives areasonable listing of those applicationsthat should be considered first:

• tedious exacting micromanipulation(such as in microelectronic assembly)• highly repetitive and dull operations• hazardous tasks (such as painting,radioactive handling and loadingexplosives)• virtually impossible manual oper-ations (such as the control of multiple-axis milling machines)• physically tiring tasks.

Obviously the above is only a partiallisting, and one must consider the eco-nomics of various aspects of all oper-ations and establish a list of priorities forconversion to automation and integra-tion. It must be kept in mind that aseach operation is automated and beforeall operations are integrated, appropri-ate interfaces must be establishedamong operations such that they canbe integrated at some point in time.

Conclusions

The viability of computer integratedmanufacturing concepts are no longerin question. Ingersoll Milling MachineCo., Deere & Co. and others, and nowSpace Systems Division, have computerintegrated manufacturing. Each has ap-plied these CIM concepts as appropri-ate to their business.

The feasibility of applying computerintegrated technologies to the product-producing process is no longer in ques-tion. The technologies required areavailable or are being developed. Theselection of the appropriate technol-ogies is dependent upon the.nature ofthe product and the enterprise. The'how' of implementation is dependentupon the business process and manage-ment style of the enterprise.

The accomplishment of computer in-

Fig. 7 Technology evolution

tegrated manufacture from a technicalviewpoint requires progression throughthe six phases of:

perception of needknowledge acquisitionislands of automationrecognition of integration needconcept developmentimplementation.

It requires an understanding of the'architecture' of the product-producingprocess, that series of interrelated activ-ities of marketing (when, how many,and should cost to produce), engineer-ing (what to produce) and manufac-turing (transform the. design into

product). It requires the roles of the'technologist' and the 'champion' to beplayed to the fullest.

Management is the key issue in theattainment of computer integratedmanufacture. Management must beeducated in CIM concepts and mustunderstand and accept, the changes inmanagement techniques and organis-ational structure. Management mustview the product-producing process asan integrated entity, not as the separatecomponents of marketing, engineeringand manufacturing. Management mustshift from short-term productivity goalsto strategic goals for the product-producing process.

References

1 CUTSHALL, R. E.: 'Technology integration . . . the time has come'. Proceedings ofAUTOFACT 5 Conference, Detroit, Ml, USA, 1983

2 Discrete Parts Manufacturing Model. CAM-I Standards Committee Report R-83-SC-01,CAM-I, Arlington, TX, USA, 1983

3 US Air Force Report AFML-TR-81-4023, ICAM Program Office, Air Force Material Labor-atory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH, USA, 1981 (Nine Volumes)

4 ALBUS, J. S., BARBERA, A. J., and NACEL, R. N.: 'Theory and practice of hierarchicalcontrol'. Proceedings of 23rd IEEE Computer Society International ConferenceCOMPCON Fall 81, Washington, DC, USA, 1981, pp. 18-39

5 TEPSIC, R. M.: 'How to justify your FMS', Manufacturing Engineering, 1983, p. 506 THOMPSON, H.: 'Technology — can US management meet the challenge?' Pro-

ceedings of AUTOFACT 5 Conference, Detroit, Ml, USA, 19837 CARTER, C. F., Jr.: 'Toward flexible automation', Manufacturing Engineering, 1982, p. 758 LANE, D. F.: 'Methodologies for boosting productivity — part 3', Mechanical Engineer-

ing, 1978, p. 479 DORF, R. C.: 'Robotics and automated manufacturing' (Reston Publishing Co., 1983), pp.

141-14310 VAN BLOIS, J. P.: 'Economic models: the future of robotic justification'. Proceedings of

13th International Symposium on Industrial Robots and ROBOTS 7, Chicago, IL, USA,1983, Vol. 1, pp. 4-24-

11 ENCELBERCER, J. F.: 'Robotics in practice'. AMACOM, A Division of American Manage-ment Association, 1980, pp. 3-17

This paper was'presented by the authors to the CAM-I International Spring Seminar onComputer Integrated Manufacturing — The Management Challenge of the Decade held inMontreux, Switzerland, on 8th-10th May 1984

H. B. Allderdice and Dr. R. I. King are with Space Systems Division, Lockheed Missiles &Space Company, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA 94086, USA


the design of a computer integrated electronics manufacturing system

Documents