12-13 July 1994
Dayton Marriott Hotel
Compiled and Edited by
Lawrence Associates Inc.
This report summarizes the issues, conclusions and recommendations generated at
the Virtual Manufacturing User Workshop held in Dayton, Ohio on 12-13 July
1994. In addition, it contains the viewgraphs, breakout session reports and
selected commentary from participants. The commentary contained in this report
does not necessarily represent the views held by the Department of Defense or
Lawrence Associates Inc.
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. VM Vision
Figure 3-1. VM Scope & Integration with Enterprise Functions
Figure 7-1. VM Scope
List of Tables
Table 1. Breakout Sessions
Air Force ManTech, in coordination with the Joint Directors of the Laboratories
(JDL), launched a Virtual Manufacturing (VM) initiative in order to facilitate
realizing VM's potential benefits in defense manufacturing. The VM initiative
has become a key component of the JDL's Manufacturing Science and Technology
(MS&T) strategy. During the plenary session of VM User Workshop, held on
12-13 July 1994 in Dayton, Ohio, Dr. Kessler of Air Force ManTech described the
major elements of the MS&T strategy as (1) a much earlier manufacturing
involvement in the product/process development from requirements to design, (2)
a focus on process understanding, emphasizing Cp and Cpk (from the 6-Sigma
approach), and (3) a lead role in catalyzing government and industry to use
best practices in weapon systems design and production, e.g., Lean Aircraft
Initiative. The VM initiative is a key component largely due to its potential,
significant impact in enabling strategy element number (1).
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. VM Vision
Figure 3-1. VM Scope & Integration with Enterprise Functions
Figure 7-1. VM Scope
List of Tables
Table 1. Breakout Sessions
Over the past year, the VM initiative has generated wide interest and support
in government, industry and academia. In addition, many manufacturers have
begun implementing facets of VM in order to gain tangible benefits already
available. In order to ensure that the needs and directions of those involved
in and responsible for defense manufacturing are accommodated in the VM
initiative, an invitation to solicit input and broad industry involvement in
this new initiative was extended (reproduced in Appendix B).
What is VM All About
The vision of Virtual Manufacturing is to provide a capability to "Manufacture
in the Computer" (see Figure 1-1). In essence, VM will ultimately provide a
modeling and simulation environment so powerful that the fabrication/assembly
of any product, including the associated manufacturing processes, can be
simulated in the computer. This powerful capability would take into account all
of the variables in the production environment from shop floor processes to
enterprise transactions. In other words, VM will accommodate the
visualization of interacting production processes, process planning,
scheduling, assembly planning, logistics from the line to the enterprise, and
related impacting processes such as accounting, purchasing and management.
Click here for Picture
Figure 1-1. VM Vision
Two events have combined to launch the VM initiative. First, the evolving defense environment and acquisition strategies require development of the capability to prove the manufacturability and affordability of new weapons systems prior to the commitment of large production resources. In some cases, the production resources may never materialize, but provision for subsequent production must be possible should the requirement arise. Furthermore, the "near zero" production paradigm places increased emphasis on methods for maintaining manufacturing proficiency without actually building products. "Manufacturing in the Computer" has the potential of redressing these issues. Second, the last decade has witnessed tremendous advances in modeling and simulation technologies affording a realistic opportunity to build such a computing capability. For example, the Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) program has demonstrated the usefulness of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) in an environment rivaling manufacturing in complexity.
Prior to the workshop, VM was defined simply as an integrated, synthetic Manufacturing environment exercised to enhance all levels of decision and control. This short definition attempted to capture the notion of "Manufacturing in the Computer" in a rigorous manner, and simultaneously encompass its various applications from the shop floor across the enterprise. However, as indicated in much of the commentary, a single definition of VM probably cannot suffice.
Three overarching paradigms emerged during the workshop. For each of these paradigms, a definition of VM is proposed to capture the view of VM within that paradigm. For each of these definitions, the term "Manufacturing" should be construed in a broad sense to include not only production, but also suppliers, customers, and other processes that impact production (This broad sense is often referred to as "big-M").
¨ Design-Centered VM: VM adds Manufacturing information to the IPPD process with the intent of allowing simulation of many Manufacturing alternatives and the creation of many "soft" prototypes by "Manufacturing in the Computer."
à A near-term definition: VM is the use of manufacturing-based simulations to optimize the design of product and processes for a specific manufacturing goal such as: design for assembly; quality; lean operations; and/or flexibility.
à A longer-term definition: VM is the use of simulations of processes to evaluate many production scenarios at many levels of fidelity and scope to inform design and production decisions. An advanced example would be "Combat Customer Empowerment."
¨ Production-Centered VM: VM adds simulation capability to manufacturing process models with the purpose of allowing inexpensive, fast evaluation of many processing alternatives.
à A near-term definition: VM is the production-based converse of IPPD which optimizes manufacturing processes, potentially down to the physics level. An example would be evolutionary re-engineering/optimization of a fabrication facility.
à A longer-term definition: VM adds analytical production simulation to other integration and analysis technologies to allow high confidence validation of new processes and paradigms. Examples would include revolutionary re-engineering of a processes or factory, and/or introduction of virtual corporation paradigms.
¨ Control-Centered VM: VM is the addition of simulation to control models and actual processes, allowing for seamless simulation for optimization during the actual production cycle.
à In general, the workshop participants did not consider a "control-centered" use of VM a high priority; for some, such use was opposed.
In summary, Design-centered VM provides Manufacturing information to the
designer during the design phase. Production-centered VM uses simulation during
production planning to optimize lines/factories, including the evaluation of
processing alternatives (one would expect to do this sort of trade during IPPD,
however, the evaluation during this phase has more to do with equipment and
people availability). Control-centered VM uses machine control models in
simulations, the goal of which is process optimization during actual
production. Production-centered VM may or may not use actual control models
for the simulation. Using them is desirable, however, this may not be possible
because the models were not designed for simulation purposes or because they
may simply be code without the knowledge/information necessary for simulation.
In one sense, production-centered VM will "control" the factory because the
factory will "operate" according to the plan created with the assistance of VM.
As a result of these changes to defense manufacturing, VM will contribute to
realizing the following benefits:
· AFFORDABILITY -- Reliable cost and process capability information
that can impact key design and management decisions, and support balancing
weapon system performance with manufacturing cost, schedule and risk.
· QUALITY -- More producible designs moving to the shop floor and
higher quality work instructions to support production.
· PRODUCIBILITY -- First article production that is trouble-free,
high quality, involves no reworks, and meets requirements. Optimize the design
of the manufacturing system in coordination with the product design.
· FLEXIBILITY -- The ability to execute product changeovers
rapidly, to mix production of different products, and to return to producing
previously shelved products
· SHORTER CYCLE TIMES -- Increased effectiveness of the IPPD
process and the ability to go directly into production without false starts.
· RESPONSIVENESS -- The ability to respond to customer "what-ifs"
about the impact of various funding profiles and delivery schedule with
improved accuracy (credibility) and timeliness.
What Benefits Does VM Promise
Virtual Manufacturing is one of the key technologies which allows us to go
beyond the assumptions driving the historic acquisition strategies. It
provides four fundamental changes for defense manufacturing: (1) VM can
be used to prove the production scenarios, resulting in "pre-production
hardened systems" (i.e. systems which are developed and verified but never
actually undergo actual production runs); (2) VM can support the generation of
more reliable estimates of production costs and schedule because the models are
based on actual processes, not just parametrics; (3) modeling and
simulation (M&S) can significantly improve production flexibility, hence,
reducing the "fixed costs"; and (4) reliable predictions of costs, risk and
schedule can substantially improve the decision making process of acquisition
As a result of these changes to defense manufacturing, VM will contribute to realizing the following benefits:
· AFFORDABILITY -- Reliable cost and process capability information that can impact key design and management decisions, and support balancing weapon system performance with manufacturing cost, schedule and risk.
· QUALITY -- More producible designs moving to the shop floor and higher quality work instructions to support production.
· PRODUCIBILITY -- First article production that is trouble-free, high quality, involves no reworks, and meets requirements. Optimize the design of the manufacturing system in coordination with the product design.
· FLEXIBILITY -- The ability to execute product changeovers rapidly, to mix production of different products, and to return to producing previously shelved products
· SHORTER CYCLE TIMES -- Increased effectiveness of the IPPD process and the ability to go directly into production without false starts.
· RESPONSIVENESS -- The ability to respond to customer "what-ifs" about the impact of various funding profiles and delivery schedule with improved accuracy (credibility) and timeliness.
VM is being actively researched and implemented. In fact, over 50% of the
participants responding to the survey indicated that VM is being prototyped or
is a major thrust at their organization. However, the workshop issues
documented in this report show that significant effort is necessary for the DoD
to gain the benefits.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the issues, conclusions and
recommendations generated at the Virtual Manufacturing User Workshop held at
the Dayton Marriott in Dayton, Ohio on 12-13 July 1994. It contains the
viewgraphs, breakout session reports and selected commentary from
A great deal of workshop commentary was collected and summarized into this document in order to provide the reader a full spectrum of views generated at the workshop. The commentary was primarily collected during the breakout sessions, and the breakout session facilitators were responsible for summarizing and accurately reflecting the views of the participants (see Table 1 for the session topics and facilitator names). As a result, it is important to note that this commentary reflects the views, opinions and beliefs of many of the participants and is not necessarily consistent with the views of Department of Defense, the facilitators, or even the majority of the participants..
Section 2.1 provides background on the origin and processes used to conduct the
workshop. Section 3 discusses the VM concept, describes the "going-in"
definition and participant comments on that definition, and provides several
general views concerning VM. Section 4 describes how VM is expected to be used
and who will use it, while Section 5 presents the business issues relative to
VM including cultural impacts and metrics. Section 6 provides a brief
introduction to the technological issues of VM, from the viewpoint of the
users. These technological issues will be more fully explored in VM technology
workshops being planned for FY95. Section 7 summarizes the workshop issues
relative to the VM. Section 7 lists the workshop recommendations. The
Appendices contain (A) a list of acronyms used in this report (B) the workshop
agenda and invitation, (C) the list of participants, (D) the plenary
session viewgraphs, and (E) the breakout session summary viewgraphs presented
at the concluding plenary session.
About the VM User Workshop
The objective for the workshop was to generate requirements from a user
perspective, that is, from the perspective individuals and organizations whose
decision making process may be influenced by VM.. Users from government and
industry were encouraged to the potential roles for modeling and simulation in
manufacturing; identify key technical, cultural and business barriers; and feed
this information back to the DoD and industry for planning purposes. One
secondary purpose of this workshop was to establish the direction for a series
of follow-on technical workshops which will match user requirements generated
at this workshop with technical capabilities. The workshops are laying the
foundation for the VM initiative.
Dr. Kessler highlighted this objective by challenging the participants to (1) view themselves as the customer of the VM initiative, take a stake, and help the government maximize its investment in VM, (2) establish and prioritize requirements for a solid program, and (3) set a framework for technologies and future weapon systems.
A total of 83 individuals attended the user workshop came, 49 representing
industry, 7 from academia and 27 from government. (The List of Participants is
provided in Appendix C.) In terms their employment, approximately 40% were
involved in research, 29% were in management, 28% were in engineering, and 14%
were involved with production.[3 In terms of
experience with VM, 11% had little or no prior experience, 39% were
investigating VM, 26% had a prototype implementation of VM underway, and 25%
viewed VM as a major thrust at their organization.
The workshop was organized around two plenary sessions, six breakout sessions
where most of the intense work occurred, and a concluding wrap-up session. The
plenary sessions introduced many of the current issues and activities
associated with the VM initiative, while the breakout sessions provided a forum
for focused group discussion and recommendation development. During the
wrap-up session, volunteers from each breakout session presented their
conclusions (these are included in Appendix E).
Each breakout session addressed VM from a different perspective. Although the
original plans called for six different perspectives, the education and
training session was dropped because of limited interest among participants
(or, perhaps because the other topics were of higher priority), and the
manufacturing production and operations session was split into two groups it
was oversubscribed. The session objectives and framing questions are presented
in Table 1 below.
The workshop was organized around two plenary sessions, six breakout sessions where most of the intense work occurred, and a concluding wrap-up session. The plenary sessions introduced many of the current issues and activities associated with the VM initiative, while the breakout sessions provided a forum for focused group discussion and recommendation development. During the wrap-up session, volunteers from each breakout session presented their conclusions (these are included in Appendix E).
Each breakout session addressed VM from a different perspective. Although the original plans called for six different perspectives, the education and training session was dropped because of limited interest among participants (or, perhaps because the other topics were of higher priority), and the manufacturing production and operations session was split into two groups it was oversubscribed. The session objectives and framing questions are presented in Table 1 below. ]
Table1. Breakout Sessions
SESSION FRAMING QUESTIONS 1: VM & Manufacturing Production 1. What are the primary goals of VM in Sub-Session 1 Operations Objectives: · Explore the Manufacturing Production Operations? 2. What are Facilitator: Dr. J. use of VM in production operations · the major benefits of achieving those goals? 3. Brink Presenter: Mr. Assess the ability of VM to help What are the technology challenges in achieving S. Potts Sub-Session 2 maximize throughput · Identify & rank those goals? 4. What will/should industry do in Facilitator: Dr. R. needed modeling & simulation achieving those goals? 5. What can/should Thomas Presenter: Mr. capabilities · Identify current government (DoD) do to help achieve those goals? M. Golden limitations 2: The Impact of VM on the Business 1. What are or should be the primary current & Facilitator: Mr. B. Culture Objectives: · Analyze the role potential future impacts of VM on the (defense) Kosmal Presenter: Mr. of management in an environment where business culture? 2. What are the major benefits B. Kosmal VM and physical production are of realizing those impacts? 3. What are the strongly mingled · Assess the cultural technology & policy challenges associated with barriers to implementation of VM · achieving those impacts? 4. What will/should Identify change agents that will industry do in achieving those impacts? 5. What support employing VM can/should government (DoD) do to help achieve those impacts? 3: Quantifying VM Benefits Objectives: 1. What is the significance of the measurement Facilitator: Dr. W. · Explore the measurement of benefits systems in making decisions? 2. What are some Henghold Presenter: of using VM · Identify and rank areas potential examples of metrics that will quantify Mr. J. Custer where significant improvement is VM benefits? 3. What are the primary issues needed and how VM will accomplish it associated with developing metrics or approaches for quantifying VM benefits? 4. What must the measures show to encourage adoption of VM technologies? 5. What will/should industry and government (DoD) do in addressing those technology and policy challenges/issues?Table 1. Breakout Sessions (Continued)
SESSION FRAMING QUESTIONS 4: VM in Design Objectives: · Explore 1. What are the primary goals of VM in the Design Facilitator: Mr. G. areas where VM can be used to reduce process? 2. What are the major benefits of Peisert Presenter: Mr. risk and cost · Explore areas where VM achieving those goals? 3. What are the technology M. Heller can be used to improve quality · challenges in achieving those goals? 4. What Analyze how VM fits in with TQM and will/should industry do in achieving those goals? IPPD 5. What can/should government (DoD) do to help achieve those goals? 5: VM in Education Objectives: · 1. What are the primary goals of VM in education? Session Dropped Analyze the education opportunities of 2. What are the major benefits of achieving those VM and prioritize them according to goals? 3. What are the technology challenges in benefits · Assess the utility of VM in achieving those goals? 4. What will/should preserving manufacturing knowledge industry do in achieving those goals? 5. What can/should government (DoD) do to help achieve those goals? 6: The Technology Push Objectives: · 1. What are the primary technology issues & Facilitator: Mr. T. Identify and rank VM technologies · associated potential benefits of VM: · a. In Goranson Presenter: Define the extent, nature, and metrics Manufacturing Production Operations · b. Over the Mr. R. Joy for subsequent technical workshops on whole Manufacturing enterprise · c. During the VM Design Process (conceptual and detail) · d. Over the whole acquisition life-cycle · e. In Training and Education 2. What will/should industry do in addressing these issues? 3. What can/should government (DoD) do to help address these technology issues?
Virtual Manufacturing (VM) is an integrated, synthetic manufacturing environment exercised to enhance all levels of decision and control.
To elucidate the semantics:
synthetic: a mixture of real and simulated objects, activities and processes
environment: supports the construction and use of distributed manufacturing simulations by synergistically providing a collection of analysis tools, simulation tools, implementation tools, control tools, models (product, process and resource), equipment, methodologies and organizational principles (culture)
exercising: constructing and executing specific manufacturing simulations using the environment
enhance: increase the value, accuracy, validity
levels: from product concept to disposal, from the shop floor to the executive suite, from factory equipment to the enterprise and beyond, from material transformation to knowledge transformation
decision: understand the impact of change (visualize, organize, identify alternatives)
control: predictions effect actuality
Commentary on the Proposed Definition
The proposed VM definition caused a lot of discussion in each of the breakout
sessions. Many of the issues raised are listed below in order to provide
insight into the revised definitions presented in Section 1.1. Before the
plenary session began, the participants were asked to (1) define VM in
their own words, (2) state the most significant benefit of VM environment, and
(3) describe the single hardest problem to be solved to accomplish a VM
environment. The breakout session discussions began there.
¨ It allows the IPPD engineer to aggregate processes into an arbitrary level of aggregation to validate/analyze soft prototypes. Often IPPD benefits do not scale through aggregation (several best individual processes do not necessarily mean the combination will be best, or even good).
¨ It allows the "P"'s (process focus rather than product focus) to be reversed so that the process owner can be in control, either re-engineering the product, his/her own process, and/or a process which is somewhere else.
· CORPORATE MEMORY -- Corporate memory will be enhanced in the near-term through the increased development and use of expert systems to capture the knowledge of subject-matter experts. Over the long-term the impact will be much more significant. While the details of product design are presently captured as part of the corporate memory in a fairly systematic way, manufacturing process details often are not. Using expert systems in conjunction with VM would be a significant improvement by providing process capability and cost information to guide the product design process as well as adding some viability to the concept of "shelf technology" where a product might go into production long after the initial design prototyping and testing are completed.
· CAPITAL INVESTMENT -- Manufacturing models and simulations will and are having some influence on capital decisions currently, but this use is isolated to a few companies and not widespread within those companies. In the longer-term, VM should be widely used in capital investment decisions since it should allow more credible comparisons of investment alternatives and should also provide history on the performance of past investments which is frequently hard to obtain in the current environment.
· SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT -- The current VM impact on suppliers is probably rare and the use of VM by suppliers themselves would probably be limited to the largest companies because of the anticipated large investment required to install VM. The future impact on supplier management, however, is expected to be very significant. Make/buy decisions will be enhanced through easy access to better quality and more detailed information on costs, capacity, process capability and lead-times as part of the make/buy decision process. Cost control would also be enhanced because of the more accurate cost information available about suppliers. Major suppliers will have early involvement in product design and planning through the Integrated Product and Process Design (IPPD) teaming approach that is likely to be an accelerating and long-lasting trend and will interact with VM in that context. Smaller suppliers will probably be positively impacted by getting much better and more stable product requirements information from their customers and the customers should be positively impacted by not having to invest so many resources in having to solve problems with their suppliers.
· PRODUCT DESIGN -- In the near term, available and emerging modeling and simulation will enhance the effectiveness of systems integration in the design process, and as a result, improve the fit of components, minimize interference between subsystems and, and reduce the dependence on hard-mockups. Also in the near term, electronic co-location of IPPD team members will become more practical and widespread. In the longer term, major improvements to the transition from design to production are envisioned because of much stronger and more effective influence of process capacity and manufacturing cost information on the product designer as well as the ability to do many more design iterations prior to committing to hardware. One spin-off result should be in providing materials that come out of VM and the design process to be used in training the manufacturing workforce the computer based models and simulations could be readily adapted to work instructions or training materials.
· COST ESTIMATING -- The move toward VM will necessitate finer-grained, more accurate cost information than can typically be provided by current cost accounting systems (and VM cannot succeed without this kind of information). This will, in turn, accelerate the current trend toward activity-based accounting systems and other accounting system changes that allow detailed and accurate product costing. Some current reliance on "semi-expert" systems for cost estimating were identified, but these were little more than advanced parametric estimating systems. These systems are not very satisfactory and will be abandoned as the industry moves into VM and better data becomes available to support more accurate approaches. Future VM systems will provide accurate cost data throughout the design, development, and production process. Cost estimating systems will become fully integrated with design and manufacturing databases and will have access to detailed process-level design feature related data.
· RISK MANAGEMENT -- In the near term, VM is expected to see only isolated use in risk management because available models and simulations are exercised to identify risk areas for added management attention. In the future, the role of VM could evolve into having a major influence on management identification of risks and the merits of alternative courses of action at all levels of management. It is likely that the interfaces with VM would be different at each level of management or within each function. The net result would be to understand and manage risks better.
· CUSTOMER INTERFACE -- The interest and enthusiasm of the customer for VM could potentially lead to a temptation for companies to exaggerate the use and impact of VM in their dealings with the customer. In spite of this risk, near-term impacts are likely in more effective inclusion of the customer in the IPPD process; the inclusion of some requirements for VM in customer statements of work; and better responses to customer "what-if" questions about changes to budgets and delivery schedules. In the longer term, VM will enhance the credibility of responses to "what-if" queries significantly and this, in turn, will have an important impact on program stability by allowing decisions about program budgets and delivery schedules at all levels of the government to be based on accurate and credible information. The customer's ability to participate in the IPPD process should be greatly improved. Uncertainty remains about what changes might evolve in customer oversight as a result of the enhanced visibility available. The risk that extensive "how to" requirements for VM might be placed on future contracts might suboptimize the effectiveness of VM deployment and use.
· FUNCTIONAL INTERFACES -- VM will potentially accelerate the current trend toward weaker functional distinctions within companies by promoting the widespread sharing of information and enhancing close inter-functional working relationships within the IPPD process. This trend, in the longer term, should lead to weakening of the influence of functional departments within the companies and their customers as information sharing becomes even more widespread and effective, and as work efforts are more likely to be organized on product basis rather than being functionally oriented.
· SHOP FLOOR -- In the near term, shop floor people and concerns
should have a greater influence on the design process, and manufacturing
approaches that have been modeled and simulated above the shop floor will be
brought out on the shop floor to validate the models and simulations. In the
longer term, significant improvements to work instructions will be seen through
the ready availability of graphics. Much better tooling will be available on
the shop floor with features that make it easier for the worker to succeed via
access to better instructions and illustrations to promote error-free tool use.
This will also make it easier to accommodate the envisioned drop in the average
skill and education level of shop-floor workers. The proofing of designs and
manufacturing processes in the computer prior to commitment to hardware should
sharply reduce the problems on the shop floor. Labor relations issues are
anticipated to arise as the character and/or existence of some unionized
positions such as process planning is impacted by the evolution of VM.
Commentary on How VM Will Be Used
· AFFORDABILITY -- A dramatic and pervasive benefit is expected to emerge in the area of affordability. Many of the risks and problems that have driven the costs of weapon systems in the past will be positively impacted as reliable cost and process capability information impacts key design and management decisions.
· QUALITY -- Product quality should be greatly enhanced through the more producible nature of the designs that will move to the shop floor and the higher quality of the tools and work instructions available to support production.
· PRODUCIBLE PROTOTYPES -- The very first article produced in hardware should be relatively trouble free if VM realizes its full potential since the manufacturing process and the design will have been modeled and simulated and refined in the computer prior to reaching the shop floor.
· SHORTER CYCLE TIMES -- The development cycle should be substantially shortened through the increased effectiveness of the IPPD process and due to the ability to go directly into production without false starts.
· RESPONSIVENESS -- The ability to respond to the needs of customers for product capability should be significantly enhanced in both cost and timeliness. The ability to respond to customer "what-ifs" about the impact of various funding profiles and delivery schedule should be markedly improved in both accuracy (credibility) and timeliness.
· CUSTOMER RELATIONS -- The benefits cited above coupled with the
increased participation of the customer in the IPPD process should result in
improved customer relations. Customers will appreciate lower costs, better
schedule performance, improved quality, and greater responsiveness.
Potential Near-Term Benefits (<5 years)
However, workshop participants saw a number business and cultural issues that must be addressed to deploy VM, and offered several culture/business policy and process changes.
¨ The unit process/production view can measure benefits in terms of fewer engineering change notices, reduced MRB actions, reduced process variability, etc.
¨ A system level/concept development viewpoint would be much more interested in benefits measured in terms of less time to market, bigger market share, etc.
¨ A system level/concept development and subsystem level/DemVal viewpoint would be interested in benefits measured in terms of "better" design trades.
¨ Viewpoints which take in the entire diagonal of the VM matrix would be interested in such items as better profit margins, and for the defense, the elimination of a life cycle phase. (See the Quantifying VM Benefits breakout session viewgraphs in Appendix E.)
¨ Validation is critical, with the tie to system/ enterprise level tools being a potential Achilles heel. As you traverse the VM matrix from lower right to upper left, you get further from physics and near term feedback of the goodness of decisions. The natural tendency is to look for the high payoff of early VM influence. However, how the results will be validated/proven becomes more and more questionable. You must show the benefits of VM in a non-disputable manner.
¨ Quantification in easily understood terms is paramount. How do you quantify the details of abstract processes such as design? Part of this issue points also to attribution discussed above as related to aggregation/dis-aggregation.
¨ The generation of benefits absolutely demands the existence of baseline data. Industry has not shown a willingness to share baselines.
¨ VM will be used only if users are convinced that the potential risk adjusted benefits outweigh the costs.
¨ The users (and eventually the sponsors) determine the metrics/benefits as well as the priorities.
¨ The benefits must be demonstrated and the application risk must be reduced in an evolutionary manner.
¨ VM will be used only if users are convinced that the potential benefits outweigh the costs. In defining the benefits, each user will adjust their potential for his or her feel of the risk. Thus the benefits must be demonstrated and believable.
¨ Metrics that currently exist should be used. The hard part is developing the management science that makes the linkage of traditional "big" metrics (cost, quality, cycle time) to the functions of the new infrastructure. This should be done by empirically validated mathematical linkages, and intuitive "small" metrics. Small metrics for lean (for example) are: percentage of empowered process owners; floor space; distance the part travels; percentage of excess materials. etc.
¨ The benefits for the incremental implementation must use the benefit measures that each component buyer/user employs. Since these are already accepted and linked to the business's metrics, we don't need to develop new metrics and measures.
¨ High confidence, formal methods must be developed which map the
simulations to common metrics in the enterprise. Perhaps new metrics may be
required; these must still feed the high level metrics of cost, schedule and
One breakout session was devoted to addressing the technologies of VM. The
name of that breakout session, Technology Push, was deliberately chosen so that
participants would focus on technologies that can or will support user needs,
rather than starting with a technology and determine which needs it might solve
(the proverbial solution-in-search-of-a-problem). The Design group also
contributed significantly to technology issues.
¨ Also associated with this model is the capability to assemble a particular edition of the model when needed. This edition will contain information abstracted from many local models which use differing representations and methods. Therefore, an abstracting federation (or federating abstraction) tool is needed. This tool would abstract from diverse models (necessarily including process/control models) to "build" the model needed for the specific view, analysis or tool. The component models would be then be relatively unconstrained and could exist in their peculiar diversity, yet still be distributed, collaborative models.
¨ Note, the group was convinced of the importance of 3-D models in tools, so stressed the 3-D model as the normal form of the infrastructure. But this supposition is not fully supported. Perhaps a normal form more sensitive to event information would be more appropriate.
¨ The Technology Push group suggested there is possibly a short cut. If DoD (and DoE/DoT/NASA) mandated 3- D surface models in their acquisitions, then the market would be incentivized to create infrastructure. Either way the government pays.
¨ Note that such a requirement is unrealistic and probably not wise even
if it were possible. Without a commercial user pull, DoD-specific
infrastructure will die. There is another possible shortcut. If there could be
found a federating mechanism that allows all tools to retain their
models/representations in their native form, then these ponderous
infrastructure requirements shrink to near-term achievability. (Reporter's
personal interest disclosure here.)
The Technology Push group identified five tools areas. The first four of these
probably has individual merit without the long-range VM infrastructure and is
accomplishable in the near term (less than five years). The first three are
tools which require "standards."
Click here for Picture
Figure 7-1. VM Scope
¨ How do we deal with configuration management, metrics, and security?
¨ Examine the shortcomings of IGES and other data exchange systems and, working with other agencies such as NIST, organize a program to pursue technologies for as near universal data transfer as can be achieved.
Conduct a survey of users/customers to get detailed metrics which they would
enable them to adopt VM.
Create an Industry/Government Consortium for
Several breakout sessions recommended the formation of consortium for VM. The
consortium might be a loosely organized forum for sharing VM technologies,
advancements, and activities; or a continuing or long-lived consortium to
validate (and possibly develop) VM components, which many referred to as a
Based on the studies mentioned in Section 7.4, it should be possible to
identify potential members of university/industry/government consortia wherein
each group would be based on common VM interests.
Incrementally Develop VM Capabilities for Specific Production
3-D modeling 3-Dimensional modeling
ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency
CAD Computer Aided Design
CE Concurrent Engineering
DIS Distributed Interaction Simulation
DoD Department of Defense
DoE Department of Energy
DoT Department of Defense
ECO Engineering Change Order
EMD Engineering Manufacturing Development
IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specification
IPPD Integrated Product Process Development
IPT Integrated Product Team
JDL Joint Directors of the Laboratories
M&S Modeling and Simulation
MRB Mission Requirements Board
MRP Materials Resource Planning
MS&T Manufacturing Science and Technology
NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology
NSF National Science Foundation
PDES/STEP Product Data Exchange using STEP which is the
Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data
TQM Total Quality Management
VE Virtual Enterprise
VM Virtual Manufacturing
Appendix B. Workshop Invitation & Agenda
Times Topic Speaker
0800-0830 Registration, Coffee & Danish
0830-1130 Opening Plenary Session
0830-0835 Welcome Bill Taw (on Leo
0835-0855 Lean/Agile Manufacturing, 2005, & VM Dr. William Kessler
0855-0900 Description of workshop goals [[yen]] Agenda Bill Taw
0900-0925 New Acquisition Strategies impact on LTC Benjamin Jubela
Manufacturing [[yen]] What, when, importance AFMC/ENME
0925-0950 Industry Experiences, would VM help? Ray Walker (P&W)
0950-1010 Coffee Break
1010-1035 C-17 Experience, Would VM have helped? LTC John Campbell,
1035-1100 Virtual Manufacturing Initiative [[yen]] Mickey Hitchcock
Overview: definition, benefits, history
1100-1110 Charge to Breakout sessions Mickey Hitchcock
1115-1215 Breakout Sessions - get acquainted, set agenda
1300-1615 Breakout Sessions (including break at 1430)
1615-1700 Afternoon Plenary Session
1615-1700 Simulation Based Design Program Gary Jones, ARPA
1800-1930 No Host Reception
0730-0800 Registration, Coffee & Danish
0800-1015 Breakout sessions
1015-1030 Break (& preparations)
1030-1230 Concluding Plenary Session [[yen]] Breakout
session reports (20 min ea)
1230 Adjourn Workshop Mickey Hitchcock
1315-1630 Facilitators Wrap-up
C. List of Participants
Appendix D. Plenary Session Speaker ViewGraphs
¨ Presenter: Mr. S. Potts
¨ Presenter: Mr. M. Golden
¨ Presenter: Mr. J. Custer
¨ Presenter: Mr. M. Heller
¨ Presenter: Mr. R. Joy