**[Breakout Session]{.smallcaps}**

**[Getting Started]{.smallcaps}**

**Participant Introductions:**

-   Name, Organization

-   Area of Expertise

-   What are your "hot buttons"

**[Activity Diagram]{.smallcaps}**

1\. Create an Activity Diagram for your topic area. An example is shown
below.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="7.277777777777778in"
height="4.909027777777778in"}

**Measurement -- acquiring number**

**Inspection - and comparing to**

Process plan -

Part program -- instantiates a plan

Measurement planning -- more generalized

2\. From the activity diagram, define key functions that should be
addressed:

Note: The draft activity diagrams define few key functions. If they are
complete, that is fine, but be sure that all key functions in your topic
area are identified. List the key functions here.

**[Current State Assessment]{.smallcaps}**

**Definitions:**

-   **Deficiencies** -- Activities where a lack of interoperability
    causes "pain". Quantify the pain to the best level possible.

-   **Barriers** -- Obstacles that stand in the way of achieving
    interoperability -- barriers to overcoming the deficiencies.

-   **Emerging best practices** -- What is being done today that is
    eliminating the "pain" and overcoming barriers? Try to capture as
    much content about the best practice as is possible,

**[Current State Assessment for\
]{.smallcaps}**Process Definition

+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **[Key      | **[Deficiencies  | **[Barriers --   | **[Emerging\    |
| Fu          | -- Where Does it | What's in the    | Best            |
| nctions]{.s | Hurt? How        | Way              | Practices       |
| mallcaps}** | Badly            | ?]{.smallcaps}** | ]{.smallcaps}** |
|             | ?]{.smallcaps}** |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **Resource  | -   Lack of      | -   Lack of      | -   B5.59       |
| de          |     digital form |     digital form |     (machine    |
| finitions** |     of measuring |     of measuring |     centers)    |
|             |     system       |     system       |                 |
|             |     capabilities |     capabilities | -   ISO 10360   |
|             |     --           |     --           |                 |
|             |     performance, |     performance, | -   B89         |
|             |     uncertainty  |     uncertainty  |                 |
|             |                  |                  | -   B 5.54      |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |     performance |
|             |     resource     |                  |     testing for |
|             |                  |                  |     machining   |
|             |    configuration |                  |     centers     |
|             |     information  |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  | -   B 5.57      |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |     performance |
|             |     analytical   |                  |     testing for |
|             |     capability   |                  |     turning     |
|             |     --           |                  |     centers     |
|             |     instrument   |                  |                 |
|             |     and software |                  |                 |
|             |     limitations  |                  |                 |
|             |     (hard versus |                  |                 |
|             |     soft gauges) |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Interactive  |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |  query/discovery |                  |                 |
|             |     for machine  |                  |                 |
|             |     capabilities |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   I++ limits   |                  |                 |
|             |     the full use |                  |                 |
|             |     of lower     |                  |                 |
|             |     level        |                  |                 |
|             |     systems      |                  |                 |
|             |     feature      |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |   functionality. |                  |                 |
|             |     Need ability |                  |                 |
|             |     to           |                  |                 |
|             |     interrogate  |                  |                 |
|             |     lower level  |                  |                 |
|             |     system       |                  |                 |
|             |     capability.  |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **Product   | -   "no GD&T" -  | -   Lack of CAD  | -   AP 203      |
| de          |     AP203 2nd    |     interest     |                 |
| finitions** |     Edition      |                  | -   AP 203      |
|             |     defined but  | -   Untested,    |     2^nd^       |
|             |     not used in  |     and still    |     Edition     |
|             |     practice     |     incomplete,  |                 |
|             |                  |     no           | -   Y14.41      |
|             | -   Tolerance    |     parametrics, |                 |
|             |     definitions  |     surface      | -   AP 224      |
|             |     --           |     finish tied  |                 |
|             |     incomplete,  |     to AP224 and | -   Y 14.5      |
|             |     inaccurate,  |     no CAD       |                 |
|             |     wrong,       |     vendor       |                 |
|             |     ambiguous    |     support      |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   No change    |                  |                 |
|             |     capability   |                  |                 |
|             |     or feedback  |                  |                 |
|             |     back into    |                  |                 |
|             |     CAD product  |                  |                 |
|             |     design.      |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   DMIS has no  |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    associativity |                  |                 |
|             |     back to a    |                  |                 |
|             |     CAD          |                  |                 |
|             |     parametric   |                  |                 |
|             |     model.       |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |                 |
|             |     continuity   |                  |                 |
|             |     between CAD  |                  |                 |
|             |     and CMM      |                  |                 |
|             |     measurement  |                  |                 |
|             |     reference    |                  |                 |
|             |     frames       |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |                 |
|             |     consistency/ |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    associativity |                  |                 |
|             |     between      |                  |                 |
|             |     product      |                  |                 |
|             |     geometry     |                  |                 |
|             |     feature      |                  |                 |
|             |     (e.g.,       |                  |                 |
|             |     AP224) and   |                  |                 |
|             |     tolerance    |                  |                 |
|             |     feature      |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Inconsistent |                  |                 |
|             |     tolerance    |                  |                 |
|             |     datum        |                  |                 |
|             |     between      |                  |                 |
|             |     machining    |                  |                 |
|             |     and          |                  |                 |
|             |     measuring    |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |                 |
|             |     measurement  |                  |                 |
|             |     requirements |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Constraints  |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Inability to |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | visualize/filter |                  |                 |
|             |     GD&T from    |                  |                 |
|             |     full product |                  |                 |
|             |     definition   |                  |                 |
|             |     in a         |                  |                 |
|             |     paperless    |                  |                 |
|             |     environment  |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **Ma        | -   No (or       | -   Lack of      | -   Cut and     |
| nufacturing |     recently     |     CAD/CAM      |     paste       |
| Knowledge** |     emerging)    |     interest     |                 |
|             |     digital form |                  | -   Some        |
|             |     of knowledge | -   Difficult    |                 |
|             |     based        |     problem      |   manufacturing |
|             |                  |                  |     knowledge   |
|             |    manufacturing |                  |     data base   |
|             |     -- now just  |                  |                 |
|             |     a lot of cut |                  | -   AP238       |
|             |     and paste    |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  | -   AP240       |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    acceptability |                  |                 |
|             |     -- no        |                  |                 |
|             |     standard(s)  |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **Part      | -   Create you   | -   Cost         | -   DML         |
| Measurement |     own          |                  |                 |
| analysis**  |                  | -   No interest  | -   DMIS        |
|             | -   Software     |     beyond       |                 |
|             |     limitations  |     inspection   | -   AP219,      |
|             |                  |                  |     AP223,      |
|             | -   Outlier      |                  |     AP229       |
|             |     handling and |                  |                 |
|             |     filtering of |                  | -   B 89.3.1    |
|             |     inspection   |                  |     roundness   |
|             |     and analysis |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |   specification |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **Task      | -                | -                | -               |
| specific    |                  |                  |                 |
| un          |                  |                  |                 |
| certainty** |                  |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| **Micro     | -   No common    | -   Craft        | -   DMIS        |
| Planning**  |     language for |                  |                 |
|             |                  | -   No rules     |                 |
|             |    microplanning |     definitions  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Inability to | -   Rules not    |                 |
|             |     transport    |     documented   |                 |
|             |     rules from   |                  |                 |
|             |     one process  | -   Inspection   |                 |
|             |     plan into an |     techniques   |                 |
|             |     instance of  |     not          |                 |
|             |     an           |     documented   |                 |
|             |     inspection   |                  |                 |
|             |     plan with    |                  |                 |
|             |     specific     |                  |                 |
|             |     resources    |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   lack of      |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    rules/filters |                  |                 |
|             |     for product  |                  |                 |
|             |     family?      |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Requirement  |                  |                 |
|             |     of knowledge |                  |                 |
|             |     before you   |                  |                 |
|             |     can apply    |                  |                 |
|             |     rules -- are |                  |                 |
|             |     they         |                  |                 |
|             |     generic?     |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Patents on   |                  |                 |
|             |     some         |                  |                 |
|             |     inspection   |                  |                 |
|             |     filter/rules |                  |                 |
|             |     technology   |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Lack of      |                  |                 |
|             |     sequence of  |                  |                 |
|             |     operation -- |                  |                 |
|             |     necessary    |                  |                 |
|             |     for          |                  |                 |
|             |     optimization |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -                |                  |                 |
|             |    Associativity |                  |                 |
|             |     of           |                  |                 |
|             |     tolerances   |                  |                 |
|             |     and output   |                  |                 |
|             |     --           |                  |                 |
|             |     parametric   |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    associativity |                  |                 |
|             |     back to CAD, |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |   multi-revision |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             | -   Lack of DMIS |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    compatibility |                  |                 |
|             |     and          |                  |                 |
|             |     (interactive |                  |                 |
|             |     and/or       |                  |                 |
|             |     static)      |                  |                 |
|             |     conformance  |                  |                 |
|             |     classes.     |                  |                 |
|             |     Support      |                  |                 |
|             |     levels and   |                  |                 |
|             |     disparity of |                  |                 |
|             |                  |                  |                 |
|             |    functionality |                  |                 |
|             |     -- only      |                  |                 |
|             |     constant are |                  |                 |
|             |     the          |                  |                 |
|             |     features.    |                  |                 |
|             |     Question     |                  |                 |
|             |     concerning   |                  |                 |
|             |     the amount   |                  |                 |
|             |     of control   |                  |                 |
|             |     over the     |                  |                 |
|             |     inspection   |                  |                 |
|             |     process --   |                  |                 |
|             |     who's in     |                  |                 |
|             |     charge: end  |                  |                 |
|             |     user or cmm  |                  |                 |
|             |     vendor?      |                  |                 |
|             |     Varying      |                  |                 |
|             |     degrees of   |                  |                 |
|             |     need --      |                  |                 |
|             |     novice user  |                  |                 |
|             |     to expert    |                  |                 |
|             |     user.        |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+

**Notes on the Current State Assessment:**

**Tabulate any points that arise during the current state assessment
that are not part of the table here.**

-   execution of on-machine probing

-   process plan versus part program

-   quality certification of calibration

**[Vision For]{.smallcaps}**

**[Process Definition]{.smallcaps}**

1\. What is the envisioned future state for Process Definition?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Vision for Process Definition:**                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Product definition data from any CAD/CAM system run on any            |
| CMM/Measuring Equipment appropriate to requirements                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**2. Identify the attributes of a Vision for each of the key
functions.**

-   Product definition data from any CAD/CAM system run on any
    CMM/Measuring Equipment appropriate to requirements

-   Represent results back to CAD

-   Accessible and extendible knowledge base -- not invisible/lost in
    black box

-   Auto process/program generation

-   Standard graphical representation deviation

-   Retain representation of raw data throughout manufacturing life
    cycle, and

-   Lossless compression

-   Keep all data all the time, forever

-   Results feedback into process planning at different timescales to
    optimize measurements

-   Link Everything back into enterprise content management **(beyond
    PDM)**

-   Cost predictive tool -- design for manufacturability, tolerance for
    inspectability (ABC, history based)

**Checkpoint: It is important that you get the issues identified by the
end of the day. Try to adjust your time schedule to be sure to do that.
Don't worry about what you might not spend as much time as you would
like in fleshing out. There will be input after the fact, and there will
be a review and update cycle.**

**[Issues For Process Definition]{.smallcaps}**

**Developing Issues:**

An **Issue** is any technology void, cultural attribute, or process
characteristic that impedes progress or is a barrier to the optimal
successful execution of the subject function. Issues may be generic, or
they may apply to specific products, processes, etc.:

-   Product-Specific -- Issues that deals with design or performance of
    the topic. Ask the question; are there issues associated with a
    product or class of product? Are there specific issues associated
    with any sector or application?

-   Process-Specific -- Issues that deals with execution of the topic.
    Are there processes or activities that lead to the identification of
    issues? For example, inspecting large structures with laser trackers
    might raise different issues than a touch probe for a CMM.

-   Other -- Standards, Emerging Technologies, Disruptive Technologies,
    Infrastructure. Are there issues that fall in the catch
    all categories? What margining technologies could greatly change the
    metrology landscape? What practices (like in process certification)
    present issues? What emerging technologies or practices would be
    implemented if cultures were changes or infrastructure was not an
    issue?

Evaluate the work that you have done in getting to this point, and
tabulate the issues. Keep in mind that the Issues may or may not align
with the Key Functions, but be sure that you do tabulate all issues
associated with executing the key functions. Also, remember that there
are crosscutting issues that someone must address. Tabulate them
separately.

Use the space below to tabulate issues, and when complete, tabulate in
the table on the next page. It may be necessary to group and screen
issues. All important issues should be tabulated, but be sure to keep
them at a high level -- this is the top of the hierarchy (at the program
level).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Top Issues]{.smallcaps}**                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Lack of CAD vendor interest                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Parts that don't have CAD models                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Culture change necessary to align design/manufacturing/measure    |
|                                                                       |
| -   How comprehensive to shoot for?                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Addressing needs for small manufacturers                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Education and lack of knowledge                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Understandability/unambiguous of standards and units              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Balance between need for static and dynamic future proof of       |
|     standards                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**Update Activity Diagram**

Copy the "as is" activity diagram and update it to reflect the vision
and include, where applicable, the issues.

**Note:**

**It is not possible to gauge pace in a roadmapping exercise. It is also
variable because the richness and breadth of the topic areas are not
equivalent. If you are not at exactly the "right point" at the end of
the day, don't feel badly. We'll catch up. Try to have the issues
defined.**

**Preparation of the Presentation**

Transfer from this template to the Power Point template for Presentation
1, and gain group consensus on:

Your activity diagram

Key points from your current state assessment

Vision

Issues

Updated Activity Diagram ("To Be")

**[Building the Roadmap]{.smallcaps}**

**[Defining Major Issues -- Solutions and Actions]{.smallcaps}**

**[You will not populate the roadmap in process. The model is shown to
make you aware of the form of the result.]{.smallcaps}**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 19%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Priority</strong></td>
<td><strong>WBS</strong></td>
<td><strong>Roadmap Hierarchy</strong></td>
<td><strong>Metric</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>FY2008</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY2009</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY2010</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY2009</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>Topic Area e.g. Process Definition</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong>1.1</strong></td>
<td><strong>Issue: Text</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Future</strong></p>
<p><strong>Medium</strong></p>
<p><strong>High</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>1.1 1</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Solution:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Text</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Definition of Metric</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Maturity</strong></p>
<p><strong>Start</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Action</strong></p>
<p><strong>Benefit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Cost</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Maturity Final</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Maturity Start</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Action</strong></p>
<p><strong>Benefit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Cost</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Maturity Final</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>1.1.2</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Solution</strong></p>
<p><strong>Text</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Maturity</strong></p>
<p><strong>Start</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Action</strong></p>
<p><strong>Benefit</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Cost</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Maturity</strong></p>
<p><strong>Final</strong></p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

A **solution** is a critical capability that must be achieved to solve
an issue. Keep in mind that parallel paths are often the best methods
for assuring resolution of technical challenges, as illustrated by the
following example for fuel cells:

-   **Example Solution 1: Reduce variety and strictness of fuel
    requirements.**

    -   Task 1: Determine and issue standards for challenging but
        attainable baseline fuel specification for use by several major
        classes of powered devices.

    -   Task 2: Retrofit existing devices (for given major class) to use
        baseline fuel within two years.

-   **Example Solution 2: Provide compact and flexible fuel reformer for
    environmentally benign field use.**

    -   Task 1: Provide advanced filtration and sulfur removal system.

    -   Task 2: Eliminate/minimize water requirements from fuel
        reformation process.

**[List the Issue and then develop the solution. The faciltator will
have to make a determination as to whether there is time to flesh out
solutions and actions. If there is, it is usually better to do that in
one-pass. If not, list the solutions and come back to the actions. It is
preferable to complete the additional information for the solution set
than to add actions and fail to complete.]{.smallcaps}**

**[issue 1:]{.smallcaps}**

**Solutions:**

-   List Solutions Here

    -   **Actions:**

        -   List Here

**[issue 2:]{.smallcaps}**

**Solutions:**

-   List Solutions Here

    -   **Actions:**

        -   List Here

**[issue 3]{.smallcaps}:**

**Solutions:**

-   List Solutions Here

    -   **Actions:**

        -   List Here

**[The Issue Assessment]{.smallcaps}**

Suggested timeframes:

-   0-3 years (short)

-   4-7 yrs (medium)

-   8-12 years (long)

**[Issue]{.smallcaps} X:** Name goes here

**SOLUTION X:** Name goes here

-   **Priority (H/M/F):** Enter data here

-   **Duration: How long will it take** -- enter data here

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?** Enter data here

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?** Enter data here

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?** Enter
    data here

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?** Enter data here

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much? Provide any
    information useful for a business case**

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes**

-   **Notes:** Enter data here

**Priority Solutions**

For the closing presentations, select the most important solutions from
your solutions list. The maximum is 10, so, if you have more than 10,
you will need to group and prioritize. Insert piority solutions into the
PowerPoint template provided

IMIS Planning Breakout Session Raw Notes

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

# 

# Scope -- measurement planning not just inspection planning

# "As-is" Macro process planning 

### Inputs: Product definition: (geometry & tolerances), tools& machine resource, goals, constraints

1.  Product Data -- geometry and tolerances

2.  Purpose of inspection: measurement with derived requirements.

3.  Constraints

    a.  Economic consideration

    b.  Maximum uncertainties

4.  Equipment and Capabilities:

    a.  Machines: CNC, gauge blocks, calipers, probe, CMM, etc.

    b.  Tools

    c.  Certification/calibration/qualification

### Decision Process:

1.  Match equipment resources to handle the inspection requirements

2.  Generate process plan -- with alternatives

### Outputs:

1.  Machining plan/program

2.  Equipment decision

3.  Decide what measurements to make -- measurands (measurement method)
    and purpose

4.  Desired uncertainties

5.  Outlier handling and filtering of inspection and analysis

-   **Deficiencies** -- Activities where a lack of interoperability
    causes "pain". Quantify the pain to the best level possible.

    -   Resource definitions:

        -   Lack of digital form of measuring system capabilities --
            performance, uncertainty

        -   Lack of resource configuration information

        -   Lack of analytical capability -- instrument and software
            limitations (hard versus soft gauges)

        -   Interactive query/discovery for machine capabilities

        -   I++ limits the full use of lower level systems feature
            functionality. Need ability to interrogate lower level
            system capability.

    -   I++ to XML?

    -   Product definitions:

        -   "no GD&T" - AP203 2^nd^ Edition defined but not used in
            practice

        -   Tolerance definitions -- incomplete, inaccurate, wrong,
            ambiguous

        -   No change capability or feedback back into CAD product
            design.

        -   DMIS has no associativity back to a CAD parametric model.

        -   Lack of continuity between CAD and CMM measurement reference
            frames

        -   Lack of consistency/ associativity between product geometry
            feature (e.g., AP224) and tolerance feature

        -   Inconsistent tolerance datum between machining and measuring

        -   Lack of measurement requirements

        -   Constraints

        -   Inability to visualize/filter GD&T from full product
            definition in a paperless environment

        -   Y14.41

    -   Manufacturing Knowledge

        -   No (or recently emerging) digital form of knowledge based
            manufacturing -- now just a lot of cut and paste

        -   Lack of acceptability -- no standard(s)

    -   Part Measurement analysis --

        -   Create you own

        -   Software limitations

        -   Outlier handling and filtering of inspection and analysis

    -   Task specific uncertainty --

-   **Barriers** -- Obstacles that stand in the way of achieving
    interoperability -- barriers to overcoming the deficiencies.

    -   **Lack of CAD interest**

-   **Emerging best practices** -- What is being done today that is
    eliminating the "pain" and overcoming barriers? Try to capture as
    much content about the best practice as is possible,

    -   **Relation to STEP AP240 -- action item**

Process control

Conformance to tolerance -- inspect against check list

Product design and development

Calibration -- validate artifact

Issues:

-   execution of on-machine probing

-   process plan veruss part program

-   quality certification of calibration

# "As-is" Micro Planning Pain Points

### Common: 

In: inspection program

Current: inspection sequence programming

Problems:

-   No common language for microplanning

-   Inability to transport rules from one process plan into an instance
    of an inspection plan with specific resources

-   lack of rules/filters for product family?

-   Requirement of knowledge before you can apply rules -- are they
    generic?

-   Patents on some inspection filter/rules technology

-   Lack of sequence of operation -- necessary for optimization

-   Associativity of tolerances and output -- parametric associativity
    back to CAD, multi-revision

-   Lack of DMIS compatibility and (interactive and/or static)
    conformance classes. Support levels and disparity of functionality
    -- only constant are the features. Question concerning the amount of
    control over the inspection process -- who's in charge: end user or
    cmm vendor? Varying degrees of need -- novice user to expert user.

Issues:

-   Scope: off-line or in front of machine?

-   Contact versus non-contact inspection -- need different rules?

-   DML need CAD coordinate descriptor for graphic display of measured
    tolerance

Best Practices to achieve interoperability:

-   Least common denominator

-   Requirements at purchase for data interoperability

Tobes:

-   DML needs to handle algorithm (e.g., least squares), filter,
    temperature, time

### CMM: 

In: inspection program (DMIS?)

Issues:

-   Cartesian versus non-Cartesian

-   automated versus semi-manual

-   2D, 3D Cartesian, 3D cylindrical

Problems:

-   interoperability

-   manual systems don't have automatic programming

Tobe:

### Hand gauges

In:

Problems:

-   NO standardized approach to communicate for reporting output

-   NO ability to communicate how to perform the inspection.

-   Lack of work instructions

Tobe:

### Machine tools

In:

Problems:

Tobe:

### Vision

In: Plan, not all systems DMIS enabled

Issues:

-   Without identical optics, plan invalidated

-   How do yo udefine surface properties for features relative to
    lighting conditions settings for optical measurement

-   Surface finish

-   Could you optimize the process if you were given a full set of the
    device parameters

Problems:

-   Not all systems DMIS enabled -- patent issues?

-   Lighting control not a standard

-   Variety of vision performance and capabilities limits ability to
    standardize interface

-   Not interoperable, intrinsic to vision unless physical device
    standard

-   Portability limited to same family of devices

Tobe:

### Large Scale Metrology

In: Plan and execution that can be portable across laser trackers

Issues:

-   Portability

-   speed

> Problems:

-   defining process

-   different methods -- record and report versus record directly to
    analysis

-   multi-vendor archiving -- no standard

-   I++ DME issue: make sure that specification is standard

### Machine calibration 

# Vision for Process Definition

-   Product definition data from any CAD/CAM system run on any
    CMM/Measuring Equipment appropriate to requirements

-   Represent results back to CAD

-   Accessible and extendible knowledge base -- not invisible/lost in
    black box

-   Auto process/program generation

-   Standard graphical representation deviation

-   Retain representation of raw data throughout manufacturing life
    cycle

# Discussion:

Buzz: Planning not just for CMM.

Curtis Brown: On-machine probing, Macro and Micro planning

Joint venture: process and quality engineer

IMIS Planning Breakout Session -- Issues/Solution Raw Notes

Thursday, March 30, 2006

+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **    | *    | **Issues**                                            |
| PRIOR | *SCO |                                                       |
| ITY** | PE** |                                                       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       | **Y  | **Resource definitions**                              |
|       | ES** |                                                       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       | YES  | *No digital form of measuring system capabilities* -- |
|       | w/   | performance, uncertainty, configuration               |
|       | exec |                                                       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | *Lack of analytical capability* -- instrument and     |
|       |      | software limitations (hard versus soft gauges)        |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | I++ limits the full use feature functionality.        |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Sampling plan and statistical business rules and      |
|       |      | process control definitions and good business         |
|       |      | practices                                             |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | **Product definitions**:                              |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| > 10  | CAD  | *ASSUME FIX: Bad Tolerance Information* --            |
|       |      | incomplete, inaccurate, wrong, ambiguous,             |
|       |      |                                                       |
|       |      | "no GD&T" - AP203 2nd Edition defined but not used in |
|       |      | practice                                              |
|       |      |                                                       |
|       |      | Missing: material properties(shiny, color, flimsy),   |
|       |      | gear standards,                                       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       | YES  | Associativity Feedback - DMIS has no associativity    |
|       |      | back to a CAD parametric model, No change capability  |
|       | j    | or feedback back into CAD product design.             |
|       | oint |                                                       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Lack of continuity between CAD /CMM measurement       |
|       |      | reference frames,                                     |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Lack of consistency/ associativity between product    |
|       |      | geometry feature (e.g., AP224) and tolerance feature  |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | *Inconsistent tolerance datum* between machining and  |
|       |      | measuring, Lack of consistency/ associativity between |
|       |      | product geometry feature, between CAD and CMM         |
|       |      | measurement reference frames                          |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Lack of measurement requirements                      |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Constraints                                           |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Inability to visualize/filter GD&T from full product  |
|       |      | definition in a paperless environment                 |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       | **   | **Manufacturing Knowledge:**                          |
|       | Futu |                                                       |
|       | re** |                                                       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | No (or recently emerging) digital form of knowledge   |
|       |      | based manufacturing -- now just a lot of cut and      |
|       |      | paste                                                 |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Lack of acceptability -- no standard(s)               |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | **Feature Measurement Algorithms:** lower-level       |
|       |      | feature measurands algorithm and rules for specifying |
|       |      | DML output                                            |
|       |      |                                                       |
|       |      | DONE: capabilities(devices) + specification (INPUT TO |
|       |      | Part Program)                                         |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Create you own -- no common rules specifier           |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Software limitations                                  |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Inspection techniques and algorithm: plus outlier     |
|       |      | handling and filtering of inspection and analysis     |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | **Macro-Micro Interface:**                            |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Common format for input from macro-micro programming? |
|       |      | (Candidate: AP219, AP240)                             |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Does DMIS support all forms of microprogramming       |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Inability to transport rules from one process plan    |
|       |      | into an instance of an inspection plan with specific  |
|       |      | resources                                             |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | lack of rules/filters for product family?             |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Requirement of knowledge before you can apply rules   |
|       |      | -- are they generic?                                  |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Patents on some inspection filter/rules technology    |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Lack of sequence of operation -- necessary for        |
|       |      | optimization                                          |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Associativity of tolerances and output -- parametric  |
|       |      | associativity back to CAD, multi-revision             |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|       |      | Lack of DMIS compatibility and (interactive and/or    |
|       |      | static) conformance classes. Support levels and       |
|       |      | disparity of functionality -- only constant are the   |
|       |      | features. Question concerning the amount of control   |
|       |      | over the inspection process -- who's in charge: end   |
|       |      | user or cmm vendor? Varying degrees of need -- novice |
|       |      | user to expert user.                                  |
+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------+

# Issue 3a: Lack of resource definition -- performance, uncertainty

**Solutions:**

-   **Assess various measuring system capabilities & resource
    configuration information**

    -   **Actions:**

        -   Assess ASME B5.59 series, explore whether the ASME B5.59
            applies to CMM

        -   Assess DMIS machine configuration

        -   Assess I++/Renishaw XML machine configuration work

        -   Assess ISO 10360-1Machine type and definitions

-   **Need better sensor model for plug and play**

    -   **Actions:**

        -   Produce laundry list of sensor models

-   **Define a common standard method of communicating resource
    information .**

    -   **Actions:**

        -   Collate various resource equipment standards to revise
            standards

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Priority (H/M/F):** High

-   **Duration: How long will it take** -- enter data here

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?** Enter data here

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?** Enter data here

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?** Enter
    data here

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?** Enter data here

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much? Provide any
    information useful for a business case: allow you to optimize your
    capital investment, optimize ROI, enterprise wide measurement
    resource planning,**

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes**

-   **Notes:** Enter data here

# issue 1: Lack of comprehensive non-shape product definitions -- CAD Tolerance Data, material properties, optical properties would be etc.

**Solutions: Showstopper -- must be resolved**

-   **Evaluate GD&T in AP203 2nd Edition - consider material properties,
    surface finish,**

    -   **Action:**

        -   Assess AP203 measurement completeness

        -   Discrepancies reported to NIST

-   **Put GD& T definition in a derivative environment other than CAD
    and verify schema**

    -   **Action:**

        -   Not ideal, put plug-ins available to extract information
            into AP203(Ed. 2)

-   **Push CAD vendors to supply associative GD&T**

    -   **Actions:**

        -   Nag

-   **Educate users to prevent incomplete, inaccurate, wrong, ambiguous
    GD&T**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Priority (H/M/F):** Highest

-   **Duration: How long will it take** -- immediate

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?** In process

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?** Get buy-in from CAD vendors

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?\
    **You would have the information for automated measurement process.

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?**

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much?\
    **You would be able to match equipment to manufacturing
    requirements. Enable production process optimization. Reduce
    measurement process planning time by 50% (estimate). Road to six
    sigma. Significant improvement of machine utilization. Eliminate
    duplication and errors from reentering data. Eliminate 80% of
    program rework due to incorrect tolerance entry. You would be able
    to check for completeness of product definition -- complete,
    unambiguous. Enable off-line vision inspection process development.

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes\
    **CAD vendor buy-in**.** Silo problem.

-   **Notes:\
    **CAD seat costs and performance prohibits downstream activity

# issue 3b: Does DMIS support all measuring devices

**Solutions:**

-   Verify DMIS against various measuring devices

    -   **Actions:**

        -   Gap analysis for vision, laser tracker, on-machine CNC
            probing, etc.

        -   Is DMIS sufficient to span across I++ functionality

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Priority (H/M/F):** Medium

-   **Duration:** 3 year startup then ongoing

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?**\
    now

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?**\
    none.

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?**\
    Extension of standards framework to other measurement technologies.
    Demonstrated technology.

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?**

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much?**\
    Use same software to produce programs for different measurement
    devices (maybe). Reduced training costs.

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes**

-   **Notes:**

# ISSUE 3c: The macro-to-multiple-micro planning interface is not well defined.

> **Solution: Define content of the interface.**
>
> **Action: Evaluate candidate solutions, if it is DMIS. If not create
> one or enhance DMIS.**

-   **Priority (H/M/F):** Medium

-   **Duration: How long will it take**

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?**

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?** Solve GD&T issue for automation.

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?** Enter
    data here

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?** Enter data here

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much? Same as
    microplanning benefits + ability to manufacturing verification.
    Adaptive manufacturing, with in-process changes.**

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes -- lack of knowledge,
    education. Cooperation with CNC suppliers and vendors.**

**Notes:** Enter data here

# ISSUE 2: Lack of standard mechanism to capture and exchange knowledge including methods, practices, rules

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Solution**       **Define extensible interface standard**

  **Priority**       **High**

  **Duration**       3-7 years

  **Timeframe**      Start today

  **Dependencies**   Resource definitions

  **Metric**         Knowledge will be captured and shared with your
                     suppliers, unified best practices for your
                     business**.**

  **Benefit**        Documenting corporate practices, reduce part
                     programming time, improve the measurement process,
                     adds consistency to the process across enterprise,
                     works for customers and suppliers, better control of
                     measurement costs.

                     
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

> **Solution: Define extensible interface standard**

-   **Priority (H/M/F):\
    **High

-   **Duration: How long will it take\
    **

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?\
    **Today

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?** Resource definitions.

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?\
    **Knowledge will be captured and shared with your suppliers, unified
    best practices for your business**.**

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?**

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much?\
    **Documenting corporate practices, reduce part programming time,
    improve the measurement process, adds consistency to the process
    across enterprise, works for customers and suppliers, better control
    of measurement costs.

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes:\
    **Potential Intellectual Property issues,

-   **Notes:**

-   **Priority (H/M/F):** Enter data here

-   **Duration: How long will it take** -- enter data here

-   **Timeframe: when does it start?** Enter data here

-   **Known Dependencies: what has to be done as a prerequisite or in
    parallel?** Enter data here

-   **Metric: What is the achievement that will be realized?** Enter
    data here

-   **ROM Estimate (\$): How much will it cost?** Enter data here

-   **Benefit: What good thing will result and by how much? Provide any
    information useful for a business case**

-   **Change to MRL (see chart in methodology handout) -- don't try to
    be too analytical -- a subjective evaluation is fine. Record
    starting and ending MRL.**

-   **Organizational barriers and required changes**

-   **Notes:** Enter data here