The following article appears in the journal JOM, 47 (6) (1995), pp. 20-21. JOM is a publication of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Megatrends in Manufacturing IV: Perspectives on Metalworking and the Government's Role

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 30 people attended the entire session to hear John Meyer of the National Science Foundation, Stephen Gilby of Armco Research & Technology, Stuart Keeler of the Budd Company, and Graham Mitchell of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Although the unifying focus of the session was to be metalworking, the more generalized opening and closing presentations from government representatives provided attendees an opportunity to hear about the federal government's position on the direction of U.S. manufacturing policy. These presentations, along with the ensuing discussions, made this year's program particularly timely given the divergent positions on the issue from the Clinton Administration and the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress.

The symposium was ably organized and moderated by Paul Follansbee of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

THE GOVERNMENT AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

In the opening presentation, John Meyer of the Division of Design, Manufacture, and Industrial Innovation at the National Science Foundation discussed manufacturing technology development within the federal government.

For background, Meyer noted that manufacturing represents about a fifth of the U.S. gross domestic product (more the $1 trillion) and employs 75 percent of scientists and engineers. He also said that the general philosophy about manufacturing in the United States is undergoing a paradigm shift, with a greater emphasis being placed on downsizing, flexibility, cooperative relationships, and customer satisfaction.

To be sensitive to this shift, the government has been examining government agency efforts in manufacturing. The Manufacturing Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Civilian Industrial Technologies Committee of the National Science and Technology Council was formed in 1994 to coordinate these activities across federal agencies. The focus in manufacturing infrastructure has been on five cross-cutting elements elements: advanced manufacturing systems, engineering tools for manufacturing and design, advanced processing and equipment, manufacturing training and education, and technology deployment. With regard to the latter element, Meyer observed that there is a large gap between the state of the industry and the state of the art.

For fiscal year 1996, when approximately $2.6 billion will be spent by the government on manufacturing and process development, the high-priority research areas will be agile and flexible manufacturing, rapid prototyping, intelligent controls and sensors, and environmentally conscious manufacturing. To effectively deploy these funds, Meyer said that interagency activity is key for purposes of knowledge integration.

During the discussion period, the first question involved how shifts in political power can significantly alter the government's approach to science and technology from election to election. In response, Meyer commented that some departments and programs are more susceptible to changing political scenarios.

A separate question involved to what degree manufacturers are involved in program development. Meyer responded that considerable effort goes into getting them involved early in the process (e.g., through workshops), but participation could be better. He said that it is important to recognize that no one individual or group speaks for industry, per se, making it difficult to get complete involvement.

LOWERING THE COST OF SPECIALTY STEELS

Although Stephen Gilby of Armco Research & Technology was the next scheduled speaker, he was unable to attend the meeting; thus, his coauthor, James Cordea (also of Armco), delivered the presentation—"Lower Cost Future Manufacturing Process Technology for Specialty Steels." Cordea began by saying that Meyer's comments were correct, especially with regard to the paradigm shift that is underway in manufacturing. He then described the state of specialty steel manufacturing in general and stainless steel in particular.

As background, Cordea pointed out that stainless steel shipments have had an average annual growth rate of 4-5 percent over the last ten years, although the U.S. per capita consumption of stainless is only about 50 percent of that in Europe and Japan. Although the initial cost of stainless can be higher than conventional steels, Cordea pointed out that life-cycle thinking tends to favor the use of stainless. Based on these factors, stainless steel manufacturers in the United States are looking to expand their markets and lower costs for products and process implementation.

Today, many hot-rolling mills are more than 50 years old, and very few of the production steps are continuous. A more integrated approach (which Armco is adopting) should enable significant savings in production expenses. He then described the potential for eliminating hot rolling all together, and outlined how single-roll and twin-roll processing are promising techniques for lowering costs and improving yields. Their flexibility might even allow the company to develop more niche products based on a specific customer's needs.

He speculated that twin-roll strip casting will become commercial in 1-3 years. Cordea said that the processing steps are reduced but product strength and homogeneity remain about the same. Most importantly, cost reductions from $350 per ton to about $40 per ton are anticipated. Cordea then described alternative annealing approaches that provide more attractive economics by saving as much as $300 per ton.

During the discussion period, he observed that despite the great usage of stainless outside of the United States, the primary market for U.S. producers will remain domestic for the foreseeable future. He also credited the high level of stainless use in Japan to a cultural orientation toward long-time application rather than disposal. When asked why most U.S. plants are so old, Cordea answered, "The capital expenditure is just enormous."

Queried for advice to students, Cordea said that students should equip themselves with a strong economic background as everything must be cost justified. He also suggested they be flexible and have more than one specialty.

THE PRACTICAL SIMULATION OF DEFORMATION

The third presentation, "Deformation Processing Simulation for the 21st Century," was delivered with a shop-floor perspective, and in a spirited fashion, by Stuart Keeler of the Budd Company Technical Center.

He began by defining deformation processing as the transformation of a metal or material from its current shape into a more useful shape. He then described, through example, the formation of a single part as the summation of all deformation processes.

Keeler next observed that a significant shift in deformation processing is underway, and the drivers of change include time (which is unpredictable) and skill (which is based on trial and error). A prominent aspect of change at present is the need to reduce time for greater competitiveness ("We can't have a 60-72 month car development cycle when the Japanese are pushing for a 12-24 month cycle."). He believes that these drivers are signaling a death-knell for the "artisan" systems of deformation processing. Now, simulation technologies and hours of computer time are replacing months of trial and error.

He underscored that the system itself has not been reinvented, but it has simply been adapted to a computer that performs essentially the same steps at reduced time and expense. Finding the right software that provides the appropriate balance of results and trade-offs is a current need of manufacturers, however. Many analysis techniques are now available that allow for different trade-offs in terms of time versus accuracy. For example, detailed models and simulations can be carried out with great accuracy on a supercomputer, but many can also be performed quickly and with sufficient accuracy on a personal computer. Said Keeler, "We can make anything if the funds are unlimited," but this is not a practical scenario. He also noted that a model can only be as good as our understanding of the materials' behavior.

What industry needs, he said, is to be able to look at a desired end product and then determine the best avenue to get to that part by examining a number of variables simultaneously. A major infrastructure change in software is necessary, he suggested, so that all materials can be handled interchangeable in one program. It is necessary to find ways of effectively determining the impact of options. This can be done through better design.

In summary, Keeler, said, a simulation should provide a means to explore alternatives and optimization. In the coming years, such a system might be operable by secretaries as well as Ph.D.s.

During the discussion period, he urged students to get practical experience and fundamental knowledge in order to be better prepared to enter industry. He also considers having a variety of skills and a team orientation to be critical to succeeding as well.

CIVILIAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Following the two industry-based speakers, the final presentation, "Technology Policies and Partnerships for Economic Vitality," was delivered by Graham Mitchell, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Mitchell began by saying that a historical change is underway for U.S. technology policy, as the end of the Cold War has positioned the United States for a leadership position. Much of the growth of R&D is happening outside of the United States, however, although a significant portion of it is being performed by foreign affiliates of U.S. companies.

As did previous speakers, Mitchell also noted that quality issues, flexibility, etc. on are driving decision making in industry. This trend underscores the fact that the power in manufacturing has shifted from the producer to the consumer. As a result, bigger is not always better, and niche companies are increasingly challenging larger firms for specific markets.

Recognizing this state of transition, Mitchell said "Our economic well-being depends on our ability to manage technology. . . . If the United States fails to create its share of innovation, others will and will then reap the benefits of wealth creation." He then said that history shows that technology growth and automation always foster economic growth and job creation. Firms that use advanced technology pay higher wages and are more profitable. He noted that the United States has a tradition of pursuing and developing many such advanced technologies.

Concerning the role of government, Mitchell said that the overall source of R&D funding comes from industry. To complement this effort, the Clinton Administration is taking a broad view of technology and endeavoring to facilitate it as an engine of economic growth. The focus is on people, investment, innovation, and open markets. In particular, the administration views the modernization of small- and medium-sized manufacturers as being critical (hence, the Manufacturing Extension Centers program).

In essence, he said, "Government has moved from being a customer of industry to being a partner." Toward this end, the development of a less adversarial relationship between government and industry is viewed as essential. Since the perceptions of the customer are key, the administration believes that government must listen to industry to hear their needs. Mitchell stated that there must be an integration of policy agendas to focus on competitiveness and productivity. This perspective must simultaneously recognize that the interests and needs of industry are diverse and that there can be no one-size-fits-all approach.

Mitchell concluded by saying, "If we are rich in anything, it is in complexities rather than certainties." To move forward, he said, it is necessary for the government, universities, and industry to work together.

During the discussion period, Mitchell was asked, "With so many multinational corporations, who is the real competitor?" The assistant secretary observed that we now live in a much different world than we did only a few years ago and no one—public sector or private—clearly knows what the new rules are as of yet. He said there are some certainties, however, and they include the facts that "we must be better hunters and gathers of technology" and that there will be more globalization rather than less. He also noted that just as the U.S. political establishment is having difficulty adapting to these changes, the same changes and difficulties are happening in other countries as well.

For information on Megatrends in Manufacturing V, contact Paul Follansbee, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution, NW, Washington, D.C., 20230; e-mail pfollansbee@banyan.doc.gov.