1

NISTIR 7723
Disclaimer

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or 

materials are identified in this report to specify the 

experimental procedure adequately. Such identification 

is not intended to imply recommendations or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or 

equipment identified are necessarily the best available 

for the purpose.
3

Challenges to Innovation in 

Advanced Manufacturing:

Industry Drivers and R&D Needs

Final Report

of a Workshop Sponsored by the 

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland

November 3-4, 2009

Workshop facilitated 

and report prepared by 

Barry Lawson Associates

Peacham, Vermont

January 2010

1

Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................2

Workshop Structure.............................................................................................................4

Purpose and Organization ................................................................................. 4

Participants and White Papers ........................................................................... 4

Principal Issues – Background Questions........................................................... 4

Workshop Program..............................................................................................................5

Workshop Agenda ............................................................................................. 5

Opening Remarks ............................................................................................. 5

White Papers Plenary Presentations.................................................................... 5

Organization And Facilitation Of Five Breakout Sessions ....................................................7

Results.................................................................................................................................8

Crosscutting Issues ............................................................................................ 8

Drivers To Innovation ...................................................................................... 10

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation ....................... 13

Sustainability ........................................................................................ 15

Modeling and Simulation...................................................................... 18

Robotics and Automation...................................................................... 21

Data and Data Sharing.......................................................................... 24

Interoperability...................................................................................... 26

Energy................................................................................................... 29

Raw Materials....................................................................................... 31

Standards and Measurements................................................................ 33

Appendix I: Detailed Workshop Agenda............................................................................38

Appendix II: Workshop Organizing Committee .................................................................41

Appendix III: List of Participants.........................................................................................42

Appendix IV: White Papers ................................................................................................44

Appendix V: NIST’s Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory................................................71
2

Executive Summary

Representatives from manufacturers, academic research laboratories, the federal government and 

other organizations met on November 3rd and 4th, 2009 

in Gaithersburg, Maryland to discuss the drivers that 

are encouraging companies and industries to introduce 

and develop manufacturing innovations. Attendees also 

identified major challenges to current and future manufacturing operations and their concerns for the future of 

manufacturing, including common challenges such as 

the availability of raw materials, the likely increased cost 

of energy, and the changing needs they have for data 

and data systems, models, standards and measurements.

Several dozen critical factors were highlighted from 

each of five topic-specific breakout sessions, spanning 

five principal areas of interest: Sustainability and Energy, 

Simulation and Modeling, New Manufacturing Processes, Manufacturing Information Technology (IT) and 

Interoperability, and Robotics and Automation. Among 

the most frequently mentioned drivers to innovation

cited in the workshop were the following:

• Competition within industries, including 

competing companies located in other countries

• Perennial challenges to reduce costs and improve 

profits in the face of this competition

• The need to modernize and improve product 

quality and reliability

• Recognition of the benefits of increased flexibility 

in manufacturing production

• Requirements to comply with an increasing 

array of national and international regulations, 

standards and controls.

Considerable discussion centered on the short-term and 

long-term challenges to innovation. These included:

• Encouraging an overall revival of U.S. manufacturing with emphasis on education, workforce 

development, and corporate responsibility

• Integrating production models and production 

processes, enhancing capabilities to improve 

models and thus eliminate costly and timeconsuming trial and error procedures, such as 

prototyping

• Pursuing enhanced interoperability and extending collaboration of production and the supply 

of intermediate products, both within individual 

plants and across companies’ supply chains

• Maintaining a qualified and skilled labor force, 

including utilizing appropriate human resources 

where automation cannot fill the bill

• Capitalizing on the potential of automation to 

reduce costs, meet increasingly demanding 

standards to enhance quality, improve inspection 

processes, improve efficiency, and stress 

better intelligence and the optimization of 

manufacturing systems

• Promoting the concept of sustainability across 

plants and industries as an important goal, not 

only for corporate citizenship but as a long-term 

beneficial economic goal

• Developing standards that provide consistency, 

enhance integration, and reduce costs

• Projecting supply and demand for raw materials and the availability and potential use of new 

materials, including reliable substitutes where 

necessary

• Improving data collection, high-accuracy measurement technologies, and data management, 

as well as the protection of property rights, and 

security

• Improving simulation and modeling capabilities 

between model shops and plant floors to aid in 

reducing cycle times from concept to delivery 

and production costs

Executive Summary
3

A major portion of this report is devoted to summarizing 

the major challenges and presenting a host of recommendations that evolved from the many discussions 

that occurred during the workshop. While the list of all 

the suggestions offered is not included in this report, its 

preparers have endeavored to identify those that seem to 

be the most relevant and viable.

An analysis of the results of the breakout sessions also 

yielded an array of issues that seem to have cut across 

most, if not all, the breakout sessions. These crosscutting 

issues are discussed in the report and include: 

• Sustainability

• Standards and measurements 

• Interoperability

• Data collection and management

• Models and simulation

• Agility

• Raw materials

• Reviving U.S. Manufacturing

Several workshop participants prepared papers for the 

workshop. They proved to be significant contributions 

to the overall discussion during the two-day session and 

are all reproduced as part of the report.

Analysis, Conclusions, and 

Recommendations 

The results of the workshop will be circulated to attendees as well as to other interested individuals 

and companies who were unable to attend the workshop. NIST and other agencies will use these conclusions, which are based on consensus views of the 

workshop attendees, in their programmatic planning 

and development. It is hoped that these results will also 

be useful to companies, manufacturing engineers and 

executives, industrial associations, academic and other 

research groups, as well as to other government agencies 

that can assist and support innovations to manufacturing 

in the United States.

Executive Summary
4

Workshop Structure

Purpose and Organization

The objective of the workshop was to identify the key industry drivers for innovation in advanced 

manufacturing technology and the measurements- and 

standards-related R&D needed to realize these innovations. Drivers, needs, and technologies that span multiple manufacturing sectors were of particular interest, 

as were the needs in infrastructural technology areas 

including measurements, performance metrics, test 

methods, and standards. Representatives from a number of manufacturing sectors and other manufacturing 

stakeholders present were encouraged to discuss current 

innovations initiated by their companies. This final 

report includes those infra-technologies that workshop 

participants identified as necessary to catalyze innovations in advanced manufacturing.

Participants and White Papers

A cross-section of leaders from representative manufacturing companies and associations from around 

the United States were invited to participate in the 

workshop. Seventy-seven people attended, representing 

diverse interests and organizations, including industrial, 

academic, and governmental. They shared a set of common interests, however, and the workshop program was 

designed to identify and discuss these commonalities, 

particularly as they related to the challenges to innovation in their respective areas.

Each of the invited participants was offered the opportunity to prepare a brief, two-page “white paper” in 

advance of the workshop. It was not the intent for these 

papers to be highly polished, formal, and of archivalquality, but rather to communicate thoughts and ideas 

simply and effectively. In crafting these papers the 

authors were asked to consider the following questions: 

• What are key drivers for innovation in advanced 

manufacturing technology? 

• What are the most important areas where R&D 

is needed -- particularly in measurement and 

standards -- to overcome barriers and accelerate 

innovation in manufacturing technology? 

These papers reflected their authors’ ideas and opinions 

relevant to the workshop objectives. The papers were 

assembled and made available to all participants prior to 

the workshop. Some of the white papers were selected 

for presentation at the workshop but all the papers 

received are reproduced in full in Appendix IV at the 

end of this report. The visual presentation of each of the 

five papers selected for the workshop plenary session 

can be found on the workshop’s website: http://www.

nist.gov/mel/advmanuwkshp.cfm.

Principal Issues – Background 

Questions

The workshop team, in structuring the two-day program, designed six questions to help focus 

discussion in the workshop breakout sessions. While 

each of these questions could easily lead the dialogue 

in several directions, the breakout session facilitators 

used these questions to help guide their respective 

discussions towards the identification of manufacturing 

engineering issues some, and perhaps many, of which 

would cut across industrial sectors. The white papers 

solicited helped to determine the six common questions 

listed below:

1.What are the major ‘drivers’ toward innovation in your 

company or industry? What related concerns keeps 

you awake at night? Let’s differentiate between the 

‘macro’ issues (e.g., world security, economic recession) 

and ‘micro’ issues (e.g., adjustments to your plant and 

machinery). Both types of issues may be significant.

2.What are the biggest technological hurdles you currently 

face in achieving improvements in your manufacturing 

processes?

3.What are the biggest technological hurdles you think you 

will face five years down the road, in achieving improvements to your manufacturing operations? How do you 

plan to overcome them?

4.How are you addressing the concerns for raw material 

supplies and higher energy costs (or more efficient energy 

use) in plant operations?

5.What are the major challenges you face (or successes you 

have had) in bringing those in your supply chain into synch 

with your company’s technology goals and objectives?

6.What concerns does your company/industry have about 

the availability and quality of data, measurements and 

standards?

Workshop Strucure
5

Workshop Program

Workshop Agenda

The complete detailed workshop agenda is in Appendix I. It provided a structure for the workshop that 

included opening and closing plenary sessions as well as 

breakout sessions for detailed discussion of the questions 

presented and other related issues. The agenda format 

was designed to maximize and promote interactions and 

discussion among participants, both in formal breakout 

sessions and during breaks and meals.

Opening Remarks 

By Howard Harary, Acting Director of Manufacturing 

Engineering Laboratory and Barry Lawson, President of 

Barry Lawson Associates

• The opening of the plenary session on the workshop’s first day began with a short introduction 

by Howard Harary, Workshop Chairman and 

Acting Director of the Manufacturing Engineering 

Laboratory (MEL). He noted that the purpose of 

the workshop was to focus on the challenges to 

innovation in advanced manufacturing, including 

identifying key drivers for that innovation and the 

key areas where industrial leaders believe that 

R&D is needed. He reminded attendees that NIST 

is particularly interested in standards and measurements and that the Institute stands ready to 

assist companies in meeting their challenges.

• Barry Lawson, whose firm provided neutral facilitators and note takers for the workshop and prepared this final report, explained the structure of 

the workshop and facilitated the plenary session. 

He introduced the five individuals who presented 

10-minute overviews of their white papers as well 

as Vijay Srinivasan, who summarized the conclusions of an earlier NIST Sustainability workshop. 

Each presentation was followed by questions and 

comments from the workshop attendees.

White Papers Plenary Presentations

The workshop organizing committee selected the following five papers out of the thirteen white papers 

submitted. These were intended to help “prime the 

pump” for discussions during the two-day event. Each of 

these paper’s authors was invited to present in the opening plenary session as well as to use it as a starting point 

in one of the breakout sessions. All of the submitted 

papers appear in Appendix IV at the end of this report. 

Several of the observations, ideas, and suggestions in 

these papers also influenced the common questions 

developed by the facilitators and the issues raised in the 

five breakout sessions. The following lists the plenary 

papers, along with a summary of their key theses and the 

relevant breakout sessions.

A. Sustainability and Energy

“Distributed Power - Aware Machinery as a Foundation 

for Next Generation Sustainable Manufacturing”

Dr. Fred M. Discenzo, Dr. Ram Pai, Dan Carnahan, P.E., 

Rockwell Automation

I

n order to compete in a dramatically changing manufacturing landscape, U. S. manufacturing leaders must 

demonstrate responsible behavior with regard to energy 

usage, waste disposal and recycling. The transition to 

sustainable manufacturing must be done in the context 

of increasingly complex manufacturing processes and 

related processes and enterprises. Organizations cognizant of these trends, and who accordingly shape their 

strategies and execute their tactics, will become the 

winners in the next decade. The integrated enterprise 

that effectively achieves process and personnel safety, 

environmental protection, and superior energy efficiency 

will realize faster time to market, lower total cost of 

ownership, excellent asset optimization, effective risk 

management, and economic excellence.

This paper outlines five critical drivers that will accelerate these changes, transforming virtually every manufacturing sector in the U.S. and seven areas of R&D 

needs that will provide the foundation for manufacturing 

success in 2025.

Workshop Program
6

B. Modeling and Simulation

“Dual Manufacturing: Manufacturing Both Real and 

Virtual Products”

Dr. Michael Grieves, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 

/University of Iowa

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) is redefining the use of information throughout the product lifecycle and specifically in the manufacturing phase of that 

lifecycle. Manufacturers need to consider two products: 

the physical products that they have always produced 

and the virtual product that is the information about the 

physical product. This virtual product can provide manufacturers with a new source of value with myriad uses, 

not only in the manufacturing phase, but also throughout the product lifecycle.

C. New Manufacturing Processes

“Challenges in Net-Shape Manufacturing of 

Metallic Parts”

WT Carter, JS Marte, SR Hayashi, SV Thamboo, GE 

Global Research Center

The benefit of net shape processing to the U.S. manufacturing infrastructure is clear. It reduces 

wasted material and machining costs as well as energy 

and greenhouse gas emissions associated with production, transportation, and recycling of wasted metal. Such 

reductions would positively affect material sustainability 

and availability for high-tech manufacturing, and provide a competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers. 

The full benefits of net shape processing to the U.S. 

manufacturing infrastructure have not been exploited 

because of economic and technical challenges. This 

paper identifies progress that has been made in the following areas: net-shape deformation processes, material 

additive processes, and joining and advanced machining. It also presents recommendations for the R&D 

needed to overcome the challenges of net shape 

manufacturing.

D. Manufacturing IT and 

Interoperability

“Product Tolerance Representation: Critical Requirements for Product/Process Interoperability”

Curtis W. Brown, Engineer Principal Mechanical, 

National Nuclear Security Administration’s 

Kansas City Plant1 and Daniel A. Campbell, Software 

Director, MetroSage, LLC 

Current electronic product definition systems (i.e., CAD Systems) represent unambiguously only a 

segment of the product’s design. Product tolerance 

presentations are generally of the form of mere textual 

annotations, devoid of any meaningful association to 

the product geometry. This gravely limits the designer’s 

ability to create and communicate complete and 

unambiguous tolerance information efficiently, and 

it cripples downstream applications that depend on 

such information.

This problem could be resolved through the use of a full 

semantic representation of 3-D geometric dimensioning 

and tolerancing (GD&T), within or tightly coupled to the 

product definition system. 

E. Robotics and Automation

“Ushering in the Next Generation of Factory Robotics 

& Automation”

Leandro G. Barajas, Ph.D., Manufacturing Systems 

Research Laboratory, General Motors R&D Center; 

Andrea L. Thomaz, Ph.D. School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology; Henrik I. Christensen, Ph.D., College of Computing, Georgia Institute 

of Technology

State-of-the-art, cost-effective Robotics and Automation (R&A) is vital in helping U.S. industry regain 

ground lost in the global market. Using the latest in 

dexterous and intelligent robotics and lean production 

technologies, next generation manufacturing assembly 

processes will provide the necessary competitive edge 

for affordable products and help retain jobs with shifts 

from line work to technical support and operation of the 

robotic systems. A new generation of assembly automation will reduce the current “robot capability gap” by 

exploiting the existence of a flexible robot perception 

system, a component of a three-part strategy including: 

Workshop Program

White Paper Plenary Presentations
7

1) highly flexible robots/end effectors, 2) flexible perception, and 3) safe integration/harmony with people. Nextgeneration, “safe robots,” will also substantially reduce 

R&A support investment. 

Standards of performance and test methods are critical 

in the evolution of next generation R&A. NIST can assist 

by establishing system standards and evaluation metrics 

with specifications that encompass hardware and software metrology targets and high-level system qualitative 

and quantitative capability measurements.

Report: NIST Sustainability 

Workshop

NIST Sustainability Workshop –Vijay Srinivasan, NIST/

Manufacturing Systems Integration Division

Three weeks prior to this workshop, NIST sponsored another workshop focused on Sustainability. That 

event drew nearly fifty people representing a variety of 

companies in several industrial sectors to present and 

discuss current approaches that firms are making toward 

sustainable manufacturing. Because sustainability was 

anticipated to be one of several principal topic areas for 

this workshop, the workshop organizers invited Vijay 

Srinivasan, an organizer of the earlier workshop, to 

make a brief presentation summarizing some of the results and conclusions of that workshop. His report highlighted that sustainability: (1) is having a material impact 

on how companies think and act; (2) is a key driver of 

innovation; (3) must be viewed as an opportunity; and 

(4) can only be fully realized if many challenges, including the development of appropriate measurements and 

standards, are overcome.

Organization And Facilitation 

Of Five Breakout Sessions 

Although the workshop began and ended in plenary sessions, the major discussions regarding drivers, 

challenges and recommendations took place in each of 

five breakout sessions. These sessions, facilitated simultaneously, provided an opportunity to subdivide the 

participants into areas of common interest for more personal dialogue. Note takers were present to record the 

principal ideas set forth in each of these five sessions, 

and facilitators provided guidance, focus on common 

questions and unique interests, and assistance in formulating summary statements that were reported back to 

the final plenary session.

Each breakout session, consisting of twelve to eighteen participants had a focus for discussion, and each 

of white papers prepared in advance featured a focus 

and perspective for one breakout session. As a result, 

the papers and their authors provided a valuable starting point for discussion. The facilitators and note takers 

worked closely together throughout the workshop to 

identify the issues that seemed to cut across most, if not 

all, the individual sessions. The answers to the common questions asked in each session provided an added 

degree of cohesion among the various groups.

The five breakout sessions were:

Breakout Session A: Sustainability and Energy

Breakout Session B: Modeling and Simulation

Breakout Session C: New Manufacturing Processes

Breakout Session D: Manufacturing IT and 

Interoperability

Breakout Session E: Robotics and Automation

The results of the breakout session deliberations as well 

as the plenary summary sessions were then categorized 

for this report, not by breakout session, but by major 

topic and by which group (government, corporate, or 

mixed) was the most appropriate group to meet the identified challenges and to undertake the recommendations.

These results are presented on the following pages, by 

major subject area.

Organization And Facilitation Of Five Breakout Sessions 
8

Results

The results of the workshop presented here reflect the discussions that developed in both the plenary and 

breakout sessions. Note takers recorded the principal 

points made in both types of sessions and those points 

have been analyzed and compared and then organized 

into three major components for this report.

The first component is the array of crosscutting issues

that permeated the workshop sessions. These are the 

issues that were mentioned in most, if not all, of the 

breakout sessions and were, in effect, major threads that 

evolved from the workshop session. In fact, the importance of these issues as basic concerns is reflected in the 

use of these issues to help structure the challenges and 

recommendations starting on page 13.

The second component is the set of drivers identified 

independently by the workshop participants in each session. Some of these drivers were highlighted in the white 

papers prepared in advance of the workshop and reinforced in discussions. These drivers represented the principal factors that are creating the challenges, serve as the 

basis for many of the recommendations that follow, and 

are leading or pushing manufacturers to consider innovative changes in their manufacturing processes. 

The third component of the findings in this report is the 

listing of challenges and recommendations from the 

workshop. The lists of both the challenges and recommendations are long, yet they represent the major points 

made by participants. However, the list of priorities does 

provide a starting point for highlighting actions that 

should be considered as next steps in strengthening the 

manufacturing sector in the U.S.

The challenges and recommendations have been further 

aggregated by those that seem to fit within the following three categories: those most relevant for the federal 

government, those most appropriate for consideration 

by manufacturing corporations, and those that call for 

collaboration between government and business and 

perhaps even require assistance from others as well.

Crosscutting Issues 

Agility

Today’s companies need to be agile in order to adapt to changing customer demand, foreign competition, declining natural resources and unforeseen world 

events. At present, implementation of agile production 

among companies and industries is uneven, particularly 

in the case of the smaller manufacturers. Agility requires 

science-based knowledge of product, processes and 

equipment. Factors leading to greater agility include 

flexible assembly systems, models and simulation, 

virtual products, personalized production solutions, and 

the consideration of movement towards the localization 

of manufacturing and innovation. Agile manufacturing is a basic component of innovation and sustainable 

manufacturing.

Sustainability

 “The ability for U.S. manufacturers to meet today’s 

needs without compromising the needs of future generations is the essence of sustainability,” said one workshop 

participant. Long-term sustainability is the ultimate 

corporate innovation, with ramifications for every facet 

of business. It requires absolute commitment from 

corporate leaders and employees. Contentment with 

short-term profits, out-of-date equipment and tools, an 

inefficient supply-chain, and workforce limitations deter 

companies and industries from pursuing sustainable 

manufacturing goals. Many of the recommendations that 

follow in this report call for concern for the environmental and social “footprint” of a company as additional 

criteria (beyond profit) for success. Possible incentives 

for increasing awareness of sustainability initiatives 

included the creation of a new criterion for the Malcolm 

Baldrige National Quality Award or perhaps a completely new award.

Results

Crosscutting Issues
9

Interoperability

Resolving interoperability issues, particularly throughout the manufacturing supply chain, is key to maintaining the strength of U.S. manufacturing and meeting 

global competition. There is an urgent need for crossdomain tools for industry-wide standardized languages; 

for standardized data formats and messaging capabilities 

among devices to harmonize systems; intelligent sensors; and improved data collection and control systems, 

as well as for increasing information on the value and 

impact of interoperability. There is also a desire to further 

increase the interoperability between CAD and CAM to 

exchange information among suppliers. Additional advances in this area could be realized with the development of window-based tools, open source systems, and 

customer consortiums to influence tool vendors. 

Standards and Measurements

There is a strong call for more comprehensive standards in the field of manufacturing. At the same 

time, some participants expressed a lack of trust in the 

stability of standards in the present climate of rapid innovation. Manufacturers are asking for consistency among 

standards; for standardized methodologies, particularly 

in modeling and simulation; for more comprehensive 

CAD standards; and for the development and dissemination of best practices, guidelines, policies and definition 

of taxonomy. Other suggestions included the creation 

of test beds, a need for performance metrics, and the 

creation of a guide to current standards, including white 

papers demonstrating how to use standards that are 

already in place. Participants underscored the desire for 

government to lead the way in the adoption of standards 

across agencies for government procurement, with the 

belief that these standards will lead to faster resolution of 

interoperability problems.

Modeling And Simulation 

The evolving technology of modeling and simulation is critical to the future of U.S. manufacturing 

competitiveness. Essentially every plant and industry is 

concerned with improved product models, while simulations aid in the reduction of cycle times from concept to 

delivery, and of production costs. Simulations can also 

identify important modifications in the manufacturing 

process to attain efficiencies in raw material consumption and energy usage. Virtual models that distinguish 

product information from the product itself will continue 

to become an indispensable means for predictive knowledge, risk management and product redesign.

Data

I

nnovation usually requires data management, data 

storage and data appropriate to the task. When considering data management, among the issues cited were 

propriety, intellectual property, security, trust, deception, 

standards, measurements and tolerances, and competition. Participants agreed that there is often a lack of reliable data to develop decision-making tools, for example, 

virtual product modeling or Life Cycle Analysis. A new 

version of STEP (STandard for the Exchange of Product 

model data, ISO 10303) was also cited as a requirement 

for innovation.

Raw Material Supply

Concerns on raw materials was expressed in each breakout group, with a focus on availability and cost 

of future raw material supplies and the identification or 

development of adequate, quality substitutes. There are 

international implications relating to foreign markets, export controls, and international regulatory compliance.

Results

Crosscutting Issues
10

Reviving U.S. Manufacturing

This topic was of paramount concern in all of the breakout sessions. Suggestions in this area fell into 

four subtopics: Education, Workforce, Corporate Policy, 

and Government Support, all elaborated upon below.

Education

Manufacturing must be made more attractive to 

young people from the primary levels of education through the university levels. Increased 

funding will seed advanced research and innovation. The way we think about computers 

needs to change from serial, procedural thought, 

to parallel thought. 

Workforce

Who will be trained for high technology work 

in the future is an overriding concern of U.S. 

manufacturers. Labor productivity is a critical 

issue and a moving target, with international 

competition being based on this factor. Paramount in this debate is the challenge of attracting more students to manufacturing and offering 

education, training (and re-training,) and 

apprenticeships, as well as addressing the loss 

of skills inherent in an aging/retiring workforce.

Corporate Policy

Education at the executive level will lead to increased support and funding for innovations for 

modeling and simulation, robotics, sustainability, etc. This, in turn, will help foster an environment that welcomes innovation, not only at the 

top but also throughout an entire organization. 

Government Support: U.S. Policy and/or 

Department of Manufacturing

At the time of the workshop there was no explicit U.S. policy objective to support advanced 

manufacturing and no U. S. agency dedicated to 

directing and overseeing research and funding 

in manufacturing.1 This is an urgent need, not 

only for the promotion of advanced manufacturing and innovation, but also for the support and 

promotion of an educated workforce.

1 Since the workshop, the Obama Administration has released “A 

Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing.” (December, 

2009)

Drivers To Innovation 

The workshop explored the factors that influence innovation in U.S. manufacturing and what may 

be done to promote innovation. Manufacturing in this 

country has taken several hits in recent years – from the 

outsourcing of manufacturing to countries with lower 

labor costs, to adapting to changing consumer preferences. Other factors are in play, of course; but the net 

effect has been the loss of manufacturing jobs, a focus 

on short-term returns, and scrambling to find niche 

markets, all within a tight capital market and a severe 

reduction of consumer demand.

The workshop provided a productive forum for identifying these challenges as well as for discussing solutions 

to them. Moreover, the gathering helped to uncover 

other possible ways to help revive domestic manufacturing. This indeed was one of the significant results of the 

workshop. Session after session resulted in a list of 

possibilities for creative and innovative change.

In some cases, the work requires strategic planning 

and long-term investments. In other cases, it calls for 

assistance from researchers, for information sharing, and 

for contributions from industrial associations and government. It was argued that a successful manufacturing 

industry is in the national interest.

The following pages highlight these points and provide a 

list of initiatives, or innovations, that participants thought 

were worth considering in further detail.

In many companies, a successful (financial) bottom line 

is the number one goal. Without such success or promise of it in the near future, businesses simply drop by the 

wayside, get absorbed into more successful ventures, or 

restructure. Short-term viability is a principal and necessary goal; however, long-term viability is also critical. As 

discussed later in this section, many of the challenges to 

innovation relate directly to companies and industries 

not being able or willing to think long-term, especially 

to make the long-term investments that will ensure a 

competitive edge in the future. In some respects, the 

workshop was an initial dialogue on the long-term 

vision that businesses need to have, given the challenges 

and opportunities in current national and world markets.

Results

Crosscutting Issues
11

The factors (or drivers) identified during the 

workshop can be categorized into six, somewhat 

interrelated groups. 

Basic Economic Forces

Profit is typically the number one goal for business, not only for innovation but also for any capital 

investments, product development, and human resources management. While increasingly such phrases as the 

“triple bottom line2,” “social responsibility factors,” and 

the like are heard, the questions on how to lower cost, 

and increase profits and productivity tend to rule. 

There are several aspects to the financial bottom line, 

including meeting or beating the competition, maintaining or increasing market share, considering short- and 

long-term returns, and the overall return on investment. 

Because this important financial bottom line reflects 

both costs and revenues, many aspects of manufacturing 

production come into play – whether it is raising capital 

for investment, developing a more productive workforce, 

improving product quality, lowering raw material and 

utility costs – all of which are concerns that capture the 

attention of manufacturers. Seeking innovative ways to 

improve a company’s financial picture is fraught with 

many challenges, many of which will be highlighted in 

the next major section of this report.

Closely associated with the bottom line are the concerns 

and demands of non-investor company stakeholders. 

These include customers for products and services, 

companies on either side of the supply chain (suppliers 

and purchasers of intermediate products), neighbors, 

and social and industrial interest groups. All of these can 

and do place demands on the manufacturer - demands 

that have a direct effect on the bottom line. Addressing 

these demands, whether it is the development of niche 

markets or reducing a factory’s effect on adjacent or 

‘downstream’ properties, calls for innovation.

Another, more directly related set of stakeholders is a 

company’s labor force. On one hand, the drive to lower 

labor costs has driven many companies’ manufacturing 

production offshore for lower cost labor. On the other 

hand, there is an evolving crisis for companies who are 

finding home-grown skilled labor in shorter supply for 

a number of reasons, including the lower esteem that 

manufacturing jobs have in the United States. Finding 

ways to maintain a skilled labor force in this country is a 

critical driver for many of the workshop participants.

2 “People, planet, profit”

Quality of Product and Performance

Being competitive in the free marketplace demands a focus on the quality of the manufactured product 

and how it performs. What the consumer gets for the 

price charged is critical. How good and dependable is 

a product? Scrutiny in this realm increases on a daily 

basis. Consumer rating services, competitive forces looking for the best price or the best performing product, or 

the most dependable supply, all are related to the issue 

of product quality, its dependability or effective life, and 

efficient and cost-effective delivery. 

Setting and meeting standards in the production and 

performance of products are related to quality. 

Innovations to differentiate a product and guarantee 

its performance, and agreements to provide service to 

maintain the product, drive companies to change and 

improve. 

Energy and Raw Materials

Although a company’s energy and raw material sources influence the corporate bottom line, other 

factors beyond cost are drivers for many companies. 

Some companies currently worry little about energy 

costs, according to some workshop participants. A 

primary reason: sweetheart deals that power companies 

have negotiated with large energy-consuming industries 

and plants. The incentive for being creative and energy 

efficient does not touch every company evenly. Yet, it 

will be the unfortunate plant that does not consider its 

costs and sources of power in the future. Innovation and 

creativity in the use of electric power in the future will 

be essential.

There are many factors to consider in the energy equation – emission controls, available and dependable 

sources, long-term energy efficiencies – and all of these 

are drivers for innovation. Many companies are taking 

steps to significantly reduce their total energy use. Others who have had less incentive to reduce their energy 

usage will at least start with basic conservation measures, i.e., shutting off lights and equipment when not 

necessary; developing ways to integrate power systems, 

locating close to a power plant or generating their own 

power, and selling excess power back to the grid. Energy 

conservation appears to be a major opportunity for creativity and cost savings.

Results

Drivers To Innovation
12

The availability of raw materials is also a major factor driving companies to innovate. Challenges include 

dwindling world supplies and the associated higher 

costs, questionable availability due to global demands, 

and the need to find or develop cost-effective substitutes. This is an ongoing process for most manufacturers. 

The drive to be innovative is significant, and can lead 

to major changes in production processes and in the 

products themselves.

Meeting Government Regulations; 

Providing Public Incentives

Frequently, social concerns, expressed in the form of government regulations, serve as significant drivers 

for innovation for industries. Among the most familiar 

regulations are labor laws (including health and safety; 

environmental controls and limitations), product liability 

laws; and export controls. Meeting or exceeding these 

regulatory limits is an important driver of innovation. 

Government incentives in the form of direct subsidies, 

publicly supported research, government purchase of 

products, tax breaks for new plant construction, and tax 

credits to stimulate socially-responsible investments all 

provide incentives, or drivers, for companies and industries to innovate.

Sustainability and Corporate Social 

Responsibility

Sustainability is an increasingly important and popular driver for many U.S. companies. Sustainability 

may mean different things to different manufacturers. 

A definition that emanated from the workshop seems 

appropriate: “meeting today’s requirements without 

compromising the needs of future generations.” Implicit 

in this definition is the concept of long-term sustainability of the company along with limited adverse impact on 

workers, neighbors, natural and energy resources and 

the environment. This is an ideal goal perhaps, and one 

that a small, but increasing number of (primarily small) 

companies are embracing. These companies have found 

that considering both environmental and social effects 

can be a positive boost to the traditional, single bottom 

line. For these companies sustainability is a major driver.

Very much related to sustainability is corporate social 

responsibility. Mentioned ocassionally during the workshop, social responsibility is an intermediate stage in the 

drive for sustainability. It is an awareness and concern 

for all that touches or is touched by a company. Other 

countries have embraced social responsibility more 

fervently than the United States, but there are significant 

exceptions. Achieving corporate social responsibility 

and seeking sustainability are two drivers that affect 

many aspects of a manufacturing concern. 

Safety, Security and Protection of 

Intellectual Rights

Protecting the property rights of a company - the unique qualities of its products and their performance - can directly affect the company’s competitive 

edge. Threats to this protection can come from the 

sharing of data in the supply chain to working in other 

countries that have no intellectual property rights laws. 

Data sharing can lead to better efficiency along the 

supply chain, so finding ways to do it in a fair and safe 

manner is a driver with many challenges that will be 

explored in the next section.

Concern for the health and safety of workers and users 

of manufactured products drive innovations across 

American manufacturing. Security at a different level of 

magnitude has come to the forefront in the past decade 

in response to potential terrorism. The need for security, 

which would include protection of products in transit, 

drives the search for innovative devices, advanced 

security systems, and new regulations and controls.

Results

Drivers To Innovation
13

Challenges to and 

Recommendations for 

Realizing Innovation 

Workshop participants identified many challenges to promoting and supporting innovation in U.S. 

manufacturing. These challenges are summarized in 

the following pages, organized around subject areas 

that evolved from the workshop and the papers 

prepared for it.

Some of the most basic challenges can only be met with 

a strong contribution, and often a leadership role, from 

the federal government. The first group of challenges in 

each subject area, therefore, relates to considerations at 

the national level. The second group focuses on corporations, and the third group concerns either a combination 

of government and corporate or challenges to other 

entities (e.g., industrial associations).

To meet these challenges, workshop participants offered 

many recommendations. The ones chosen for this report 

are those that were heard most often and/or were perceived by the workshop facilitators and note takers as 

most relevant. Some of the recommendations address 

one or more of the challenges identified, and not all 

of the challenges necessarily have an obvious, directly 

related, recommendation identified. These recommendations are presented in boxes that follow each list of 

challenges in each section. 

Overall Challenges at the Federal level: 

• The federal government does not sufficiently 

recognize that it is in the public interest to have a 

solid, dynamic and creative manufacturing sector. 

This includes an educated and trained workforce, 

capital markets, sufficient independence for private enterprise in critical areas, and support 

for standards, tools, data management and 

regulations.

• The federal government does not adequately 

understand the importance of having a manufacturing sector that is competitive in world markets, 

not for all products and services perhaps, but for 

many critical industries and products for which 

the country can have a comparative, if not absolute, competitive advantage.

• Despite NIST and other Department of Commerce efforts, there is no one agency devoted to 

supporting manufacturing in the United States.

• There is not enough support for research and 

development and pilot programs in more sophisticated data management, simulation and modeling and intelligent systems to support manufacturing processes.

• Particularly in the current economic climate, 

innovation requires a variety of tax credits, 

research and development grants and loans, and 

other assistance.

• Greater support is needed for selective import 

controls and for navigating the range of international export controls to support and encourage 

U.S. manufacturing.

• The federal government doesn’t sufficiently 

recognize the direct connection between 

having a strong domestic manufacturing sector 

and maintaining military security.

• The federal government should be prepared to 

assume the following critical roles: 

– Assess the areas in which U.S. 

manufacturers have (or could 

realistically have) comparative 

advantages in the world market;

– Provide research and technical 

assistance grants and tax credits to 

support the diffusion and adoption of 

innovations at the corporate level;

– Establish guidelines and standards 

to assist industries and companies in 

revitalization; and 

– Help industries navigate the 

international labor, raw material, and 

product markets.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
14

Recommendations:

Overall Recommendations at the 

Federal level:

• Establish a strong national manufacturing policy at the highest levels of government, a policy that 

sets out goals and a national strategy for attaining them – not unlike the NASA initiative begun 

decades ago.

• Designate an agency within the federal government that has the lead responsibility and accountability for implementing the above national strategy, and that coordinates the participation of 

many federal agencies and the integration of programs that contribute to this implementation. 

• Encourage partnerships that include government assistance/tax credit/capital devoted to investment in capital equipment and the development of new tools to help U.S. manufacturing maintain its role as a world leader.

• Create a U.S. Department of Manufacturing to support all aspects of U.S. manufacturing and to 

help the country maintain its role as a world leader in this area. The Department of Commerce is 

a logical option; but whatever agency plays this role, a review of existing mandates and capabilities to perform the role(s) is necessary. Efforts to restructure, re-orient or eliminate existing programs and introduce new ones must be supported by the executive and legislative branches. 

This also applies to other agencies with roles to play in this endeavor. Identifying this federal 

“team” and creating an appropriate way for that team to work together in pursuing a common 

strategy is a critical element.

• Promote collaboration among appropriate agencies and between the federal government and the 

manufacturing establishment. Provide incentives for companies and industries to move away from 

the focus on short-term monetary profit because it inhibits long-term innovation and goal setting. 

Help small businesses take a longer-term view of innovation.

• Create federal and state government initiatives that encourage companies to work towards a 

common goal and to further public appreciation of the benefits of maintaining a healthy 

manufacturing sector in this country.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
15

Recommendations:

Sustainability

A major element of the strategy for a reinvigorated and innovative manufacturing sector is a commitment to long-term viability and to a “sustainable” 

economy, which emphasizes economic success, but not 

at the expense of national goals related to environmental 

and social values and international responsibilities and 

concerns, such as national security, climate change, 

globalization, and human welfare.

In order for sustainability to take hold in this country, 

there must be corporate commitment. The principal 

aim of such commitment is to empower individual 

companies and industries to assume a new perspective 

on success, to “invest” in innovative strategies, and buy 

into a new era of corporate responsibility. 

A host of challenges to pursuing sustainable manufacturing were expressed during the workshop. Many of these 

challenges require a new outlook, a new paradigm and 

philosophy about manufacturing and the role of the 

individual company within society. Many companies 

are not yet prepared to accept these challenges; but this 

should not stop efforts to work toward a new paradigm. 

In fact, working toward that paradigm can improve the 

financial bottom line of a company.

Challenges in and Recommendations 

for the Pursuit of Sustainability

Government

• Standards compete to frustrate, rather than 

harmonize to facilitate, sustainability goals;

• Industries are not inspected often enough on 

meeting emission standards, as are automobiles;

• Younger generations lack enthusiasm for 

participating in making American manufacturing 

viable and sustainable;

• There is insufficient correlation between manufacturing sustainability efforts and national energy 

independence goals and the Smart Grid;

• Toolkits (such as those from The Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

OECD) for corporate and manufacturing sustainability have not been adequately disseminated or 

expanded;

• Focus government assistance (e.g., tax credits, grants and loans) on infrastructure with a goal 

toward sustainability.

• Recognize industrial examples of excellence in sustainable manufacturing – one possibility being 

adding criteria to the Malcolm Baldrige Award. 

• Develop a universally appropriate definition of sustainable manufacturing and a national goal 

towards achieving it. These are essential to ensuring consistency and integration between public 

and private sectors and among various industries.

• Develop and disseminate case studies where companies have successfully pursued 

sustainability goals.

• Establish and/or fund pilot programs to explore methods and techniques that companies can 

adopt in their pursuit of sustainable manufacturing.

• Assist small companies in designing and utilizing affordable and accessible simulations that help 

in adopting innovations for more sustainable manufacturing.

• Expand the OECD toolkit for corporate and manufacturing sustainability.

• Promulgate strong regulations on national and international scales that protect people and other 

living organisms in the environment and that do not inappropriately favor one company or one 

country over another.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
16

Corporations

• Manufacturing is undervalued in the United 

States, and the country is behind Europe in 

intelligent and sustainable manufacturing.

• Senior management lacks commitment to sustainability strategies and greater corporate social 

responsibility.

• Businesses are unwilling to make changes in 

plant infrastructure and to support systems that 

have positive long-term benefits, such as more 

agile manufacturing processes, because they may 

undercut short-term profits.

• Finding new ways to reduce wastes and 

emissions and promote cost-effective recycling 

programs is difficult.

• Companies have not adopted a “triple bottom line” approach - encompassing social and 

environmental, as well as financial criteria and 

incorporating this information into annual reports 

to stakeholders.

• Companies are not doing enough in conducting energy audits and analyzing life cycle costs 

to foster understanding of where innovations or 

changes in operations are appropriate.

• Companies are not doing enough to minimize 

wastes and their disposal that cause both shortand long-term adverse environmental impacts.

Recommendations:

• Develop manufacturer sustainability plans that incorporate every aspect of a plant’s operation – 

from procurement to production – from supply chain to marketing and distribution.

• Undertake life cycle analysis and assessment programs at the company level and apply life cycle 

and integrative planning throughout a company’s supply chain to strengthen and support 

interoperability and sustainability.

• Create a sustainability “philosophy” and discipline that can be applied to plant operations and be 

embraced by industrial leaders and senior plant managers.

• Create sustainability plans that seek to reduce emissions and wastes, minimize the use of raw 

materials, promote worker and product safety, and strive for greater energy efficiency.

• Consider adopting a “triple bottom line” to reflect the commitment to sustainable operations and 

corporate responsibility.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
17

Joint Corporate/Government

• The full range of traditional and alternative 

energy sources is not being considered, including 

co-location with energy sources and cooperative 

programs with other energy users.

• More agile and sustainable manufacturing 

practices can represent a major step toward 

producing high-quality, higher-value products, 

but this is not adequately recognized.

Recommendations:

• Design risk models that provide the insight for making choices that embrace sustainability 

as the overriding long-term goal.

• Develop sustainability certification programs, such as Energy Star, to help manage energy use, 

and utilize eco-labeling – with criteria that reflect the long-term goal of sustainability - for tools 

and equipment and industrial process improvements.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
18

Modeling and Simulation

Being innovative means thinking creatively, considering options, being open to new ways of conducting 

business, and researching ways to use or create sophisticated hardware and software tools. Modeling and 

simulation can be major tools in the innovation toolbox. 

All interests need to be knowledgeable of the critical 

role that models can play in helping companies to be 

creative. Government has a large role to play in supporting modeling and simulation, whether it be supporting 

research, setting appropriate standards, or disseminating 

information. Here are the challenges and some recommendations from the workshop participants for modeling 

and simulations.

Challenges in and Recommendations 

for Creating and Using Models and 

Simulations

Government

• More research and development are needed to 

develop pilot programs in simulation and modeling to support the manufacturing processes.

• Accessibility of modeling and simulations to 

small manufacturers is limited because of 

high costs.

• Developing sophisticated models, simulations 

and creating virtual designs often depends on 

accurate, high quality and precise data and 

validation, which are lacking.

• How something is modeled is not always 

transparent to the user.

• Models by themselves do not necessarily ensure 

good products.

• There are security issues related to transferring 

data and design models throughout a supply 

chain - valuable property rights might be 

compromised.

Recommendations:

• Develop guidelines for accuracy, precision and transparency in simulations and models to ensure 

high-quality products. (“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”)

• Develop standards, regulations and guidelines to promote high quality, accurate data in models 

and simulations to help determine the risk, cost and inherent problems in product development.

• Create economic stimuli, tax breaks and government funding to make modeling and simulation 

affordable to small manufacturers.

• Develop a standard, consistent interface that contains certain concepts regardless of the tool (such 

as the cut/paste feature in all word processing programs).

• Promote standards for building and validating models, including a focus on best practices and 

harmonization.

• Provide funding for research projects that can have important ramifications for small businesses, 

which, alone, are unable to make such investments.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
19

Corporations

• Companies often fail to recognize that it is less 

costly to discover problems in the early stages of 

product development, and that virtual modeling 

programs can greatly assist in such discovery.

• Virtual designs are underutilized in cutting costs 

and economizing on materials during product 

development.

• Virtual modeling is underutilized for improving interoperability in a company’s supply chain 

and for promoting cooperation between model 

designers and plant production workers.

• Risk and cost models to plan systematically for 

future resource use are underutilized.

• Companies are not using product life cycle analysis and modeling to help get a holistic view of the 

various elements of the production process. 

Recommendations:

• Use virtual modeling to design and exchange transparent models that can share data, 

information and production modules all along the supply chain and promote cooperation 

between model designers and plant production workers.

• Design and/or employ models and simulations to use real-time data and databases to optimize 

raw material use, reduce waste, and improve the product quality.

• Develop virtual modeling programs to assist in problem identification and to cut costs in the early 

stages of product development.

• Integrate modeling and simulation into the tools that companies already use.

• Develop means for exchanging data and information among production modules as needed to 

develop product simulations throughout the supply chain.

• Address the need for assembly analysis of models—either by software or by people.

• Recognize the value of creative workers because model building is often an art as much 

as it is a science.

• Utilize risk and cost models to plan systematically for future resource use.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
20

Joint Corporate/Government

• Company executives are not well educated about 

the value of modeling and simulation during 

product development.

• There is not currently a highly trained and skilled 

workforce that can design and use increasingly 

sophisticated simulations and models.

• Risk models for making choices that embrace 

sustainability as the overriding long-term goal 

have not been designed.

• Designing and employing models and simulation 

using real-time data and data-bases (e.g., intelligent systems) are not widely available or used to 

optimize raw material use.

• The usability and interface of tools does not 

allow for personalized natural language (i.e. the 

language of the customer).

Recommendations:

• Encourage government, private and public initiatives and partnerships to support pilot programs 

and multidisciplinary research in simulation and modeling of manufacturing processes.

• Develop white papers and case studies on modeling and simulation targeted to company executives, to increase their awareness of the value of these tools.

• Develop government, business and educational initiatives to train and/or retrain a workforce to 

design and use sophisticated simulations and models.

• Create a clearinghouse of information and/or a standardized framework for modeling and simulation to stimulate use among more manufacturers. These could be linked into the public domain.

• Provide technical training and recruit skilled computer-based modelers who can create and 

manage models and simulations that are essential for innovation, whether they be on the 

administrative, marketing or production sides.

• Design risk models for making choices that embrace sustainability as the overriding 

long-term goal.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
21

Robotics and Automation

The workshop devoted a specific section of the program to discuss the role that Robotics and Automation could play in reinvigorating U.S. manufacturing. 

One problem, however, is that the robotics industry has 

not gained a strong foothold in this country, certainly not 

as it has in other countries, notably Japan and Germany. 

Therefore, the challenge is twofold: getting the robotics 

industry better established in the U.S. and using it for 

innovation.

Challenges to and Recommendations 

for Strengthening the Contribution of 

Robotics and Automation

Government

• There are no standards or specifications for 

determining noise/variation/motion in a 

measurement, assuming near-perfect dimensional 

quality, measuring uncertainty or randomness, 

nor methods or procedures for calibrations of 

cameras and robots.

• There are few industry-consensus performance 

measures for robots and other equipment.

• There are no standards or certifications for robots 

and automation systems.

• The country lacks a manufacturing and technological policy that will trickle down into schools, 

businesses, and professional associations, and 

also lacks support systems for advanced manufacturing, including robotics and automation.

Recommendations:

• Create a manufacturing and technological policy -- National Innovation Foundation, Science 

Technology Innovation and Diffusion policy -- that will trickle down into schools, businesses, 

and professional associations to support existing systems and to bolster public support for 

advanced manufacturing.

• Create standards and measurements for robots and other equipment that focus on performance 

rather than design.

• Include intelligence software and its integration into a national policy. 

• Establish an agency of the government dedicated to funding research on manufacturing automation, including support for relevant university efforts.

• Create a policy to define how robotics and automation fit into the supply chain, both working collaboratively or solo.

• Develop guidelines, white papers and other specifications to help manufacturers integrate robots 

into existing manual operations.

• Focus increased funding towards engineering of robotics and automation.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
22

Corporations

• Robots from different manufacturers must be able 

to work together, via interoperable systems

• The manufacturing industry has not yet 

determined how robotics and automation fit into 

work within the supply chain.

• Manufacturers have not fully and holistically 

integrated robots into existing manual operations/

assembly/work.

Recommendations:

• Be aware of the research being undertaken regarding the development of robotics and the 

introduction of automated systems in production processes.

• Provide wireless, energy-efficient power for industrial applications on the plant floor and explore 

technical advances to satisfy the large power consumption needs of industrial robots.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
23

Joint Corporate/Government

• Funding for research, development, integration 

and innovation for all aspects of robotics and 

automation is lacking.

• Industry is not able to make maximum use of 

actuators and genius sensors

• Industry is currently unable to model complex 

robots with higher dimensional mechanics. 

Models and simulations for robot and automation 

systems are inadequate.

• Wireless power for industrial applications on the 

plant floor is not available.

• Industry and educational institutions do not collaborate in robotics and automation research.

• Public awareness to generate more interest in 

robotics and automation is lacking.

• There are not enough incentives for workers to 

seek education and employment in the field of 

robotics and automation.

• Robotics is a multi-disciplinary field, and thus it 

is difficult to find dedicated/directed funding in 

this area.

• The public perception of manufacturing in 

general, and robotics in particular, is neutral or 

negative.

Recommendations:

• Identify sources of funding for research, development, diffusion and innovation for all aspects of 

robotics and automation, including software development, sensors, actuators with high power density, 

flexible perception, dexterous manipulation, social interface/interaction between humans and machines 

(including safety), high-level cognitive abilities, generation of automatic behaviors for repetitive tasks, 

high power density actuators, high degree of freedom manipulators in modeling and in control, and 

design and control of compliant (non-stiff) robots.

• Create a consortium to address standards and certification for robot and automation systems. NIST could 

help with standards development, and a third party could certify.

• Create more and smarter sensors, including genius sensors that are self-calibrating and self-aware, plugand-play-sensors, sensors that are more easily re-programmed and which distribute sensing responsibilities across systems of sensors

• Educate the public about the use of robotics by creating partnerships between universities and industry and publicize their work. Increase the public’s understanding of robotics, through the creation of 

national center that has the equivalent high-visibility of an Apollo program or National Institute of 

Health (NIH). Expand the National Science Foundation to be a national science and technology foundation.

• Create guidelines or specifications that enable robots from different manufacturers to work together, 

particularly in the areas of robot vision, manipulators and communications.

• Research practical solutions for modeling complex robots, including higher dimensional mechanics and 

complex simulations.

• Encourage research to determine noise/variation/motion in a measurement, to measure uncertainty or 

randomness, and to develop methods or procedures for calibrations of cameras and robots. 

• Create grant opportunities for academic liaisons with industry (GOALI) to pursue joint projects on robotics and automation between universities and industry, making research and outcomes public. Allow 

both to keep some intellectual property.

• Support robotics for young men and women at the secondary school level through robotic competitions 

(games or grant proposals) and university and industry partnerships with high schools.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
24

Data and Data Sharing

Data, data collection, data sharing, data quality and reliability, and data use were integral topics at the 

workshop, particularly in reference to the role that data 

plays in the design, calibration and evaluation of models 

that can be used in businesses to generate and support 

innovation. Many of the current issues revolve around 

the data that is now collected and the relevance and 

dependability of that data.

Moreover, the need to share data (and models) with 

others, particularly in a company’s supply chain, raises a 

whole set of other issues, often in the context of protection of intellectual property rights and the threat of competitors gaining access to confidential data. Some of the 

challenges and recommendations that concern standards 

and measurement will appear in a later section. 

Challenges and Recommendations 

Related to Data and Data Sharing

Government

• There is need for models and simulation to use 

real-time data and databases to optimize raw 

material and energy use.

• Virtual designs are not being used sufficiently to 

work out design and production problems early, 

before actual production occurs.

• There is currently no national advocate for the 

establishment of data standards.

• Increasingly complex models will require much 

larger data storage capacity.

Recommendations:

• Review intellectual property issues that affect the sharing of data to facilitate interoperability 

within supply networks without compromising a company’s competitive advantages.

• Support training and retraining of the evolving labor force to take advantage of the availability of 

new data management, simulation and modeling programs.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
25

Corporations

• In some cases there are no methods for transferring data and design models throughout a supply 

chain while ensuring the protection of valuable 

property rights.

• Not enough attention is being given to the 

quality of data used in models and simulations– 

among them consistency, accuracy, reliability, 

applicability and cost.

Joint Corporate/Government

• There is inadequate funding for pilot programs 

in data management, simulation and modeling, 

robotics and automation, and intelligent systems 

that support manufacturing processes.

Recommendations:

Recommendations:

• Explore ways to promote trust between manufacturers and suppliers in the broadest meaning of 

the term – who, for instance, has access to data and when should they have access.

• Invest in improved and reliable data collection (including measurement) essential for developing 

sustainability models.

• Solicit support through government agencies, research organizations, and appropriate partnerships for research and development to support pilot programs for more improved applications of 

data management, increased application and sophistication in simulation and modeling, robotics 

and automation, and intelligent systems that support the manufacturing processes, including the 

following: (1) Visualization tools for understanding impacts and prioritizing efforts for modeling 

and simulation; (2) A new version of STEP; and (3) Case studies to model appropriate use and 

storage of data among supply chain partners.

• Develop open source programs for data management to promote the sharing of data throughout 

the supply chain.

• Create a clearinghouse for information and data to help in the adoption of innovative strategies 

for data collection, application and storage.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
26

Interoperability

One of the major themes of the workshop was the importance of interoperability within a manufacturing supply chain. Among the keys for realizing 

interoperability are data and virtual modeling, such that 

all those along the supply chain are aware of, and can 

respond appropriately to specifications based on a common and mutual knowledge of the final product. This 

includes factors such as dimensions, composition and 

performance qualities, and tolerances. Companies bear 

the brunt of the challenge of being interoperable. For 

many, this will mean transforming the production and 

material supply process dramatically and developing 

new models based on better and more reliable data and 

data collection.

Challenges to and Recommendations 

for Enhancing Interoperability in 

Manufacturing

Government

• Government is not supportive enough of 

interoperability and the promotion of agile 

manufacturing as key innovative steps in streamlining supply chains. There have been no studies 

on the impact of greater interoperability on the 

manufacturing sector.

• Interoperability is where the requirements for 

accurate data and measurement and for creative 

modeling and automation come together, allowing for more agile manufacturing processes and 

a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. 

Government needs to understand this.

• Government is not sufficiently active in supporting and disseminating information to encourage 

interoperability.

• There is not enough financial support for 

innovations to enhance interoperability within 

manufacturing processes.

Recommendations:

• Study the value and impact of adopting procedures that promote interoperability for companies 

or an industry in a manner that can be shared by all stakeholders along the supply chain to 

promote more agile and sustainable manufacturing.

• Embed intelligence in data in a way to allow it to flow to other systems including to 

the shop floor.

• Include interoperability in compliances such as ISO 9001 to eliminate the need to regress to pencil and paper.

• Support CAD-CAM (Computer Aided Design-Computer Aided Manufacturing) as a means to show 

CAD data, and find ways to diminish the cost and encourage implementation, especially of downstream users.

• Initiate a pilot project to standardize data formats and software to resolve issues of exchanging 

information between modules of different product simulations to demonstrate that this is technically feasible and to overcome cynicism.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
27

Corporations

• There are no procedures to promote interoperability within a company’s supply chain that 

can be shared by all and that promote common 

understanding, cooperation and consistency 

throughout the supply chain.

• There is concern that sensitive data about a product will be used by those in the supply chain to 

help competitors.

• Companies are not widely using virtual modeling, consistent standards, measurements and 

tolerances to increase interoperability within the 

supply chain.

• Having information incompatibilities within the 

ISO 9001 system sometimes means that people 

have to rely on “paper and pencil” approaches, 

rather than being able to use more sophisticated 

electronic analyses (e.g., Excel.)

• Value and safety are threatened because of 

“translation” problems between manufacturing 

software, especially supposedly compatible CAD/

CAM systems. 

• Companies have not figured out how to balance 

security issues with interoperability.

• Companies are not showing CAD data to people 

who need to see it.

• It’s difficult to share information between 

different product simulations modules.

• There is not a marketplace for data exchange 

similar to RosettaNet for small shops with 

software underpinnings.

Recommendations:

• Apply life cycle and integrative planning throughout a company’s supply chain to strengthen and 

support interoperability.

• Design and develop sustainability plans that incorporate every aspect of a plant’s operation – from 

procurement to production – from supply chain to plant operation.

• Design and develop transparent models and product simulations that can be shared within the 

supply chain to promote shared understanding and cooperation among those involved.

• Develop standards all along the supply chain to identify errors and problems as early as possible.

• Work toward interoperability between CAD and CAM to allow the passing of information 

among suppliers.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
28

Joint Corporate/Government

• Security protocols often run at cross-purposes in 

the drive toward interoperability.

• There are problems with STEP that, if addressed, 

would promote greater use, diminish cost, and 

validate accuracy.

• Protocols for power-aware machines used in 

in-shop planning and scheduling are outdated.

Recommendations:

• Create a richer STEP so that more vendors will use it. Solve problems of overly large files, especially when translated, reduce the cost of implementation, make it more user-friendly, make sure 

that standards keep up with the technology, and most importantly, certify that the machine is telling the truth.

• Research and create guidelines for exchanging important information without compromising a 

company’s competitive advantages.

• Develop protocols and define and create modeling software for power-aware machines 

used in in-shop planning and scheduling, thus allowing for better energy monitoring, 

planning, and usage.

• Create a data exchange marketplace for small shops. Consider including an area for specific bids 

in the “National Innovation Marketplace,” a third party player in the Job Shop Network, and, 

within MEL (NIST’s Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory), explore hooking up the “plug and 

play” opportunities with suppliers’ networks.

• Create a consortium of supply chain companies to conduct common research and share solutions 

to common problems for the mutual benefit of all in the consortium.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
29

Energy

Overseeing the drive toward more efficient use of energy, diversifying the sources of available energy, and securing greater energy independence for the 

nation is the role of the federal government. This mandate has been in place for years, but much work remains 

to be done. Industrial energy consumption represents 

about one-third of total energy use in the country, so 

identifying and meeting the challenges in the manufacturing sector requires leadership to transition to a new 

and more comprehensive way of looking at energy use.

Many companies have embraced energy efficient ways 

of doing business, primarily as an economic measure. 

Other companies, often benefiting from low-cost energy 

arrangements, have taken relatively few steps to be 

energy conscious. This will inevitably change.

Challenges in and Recommendations 

for Pursuing Greater Energy Efficiency

Government

• Government is not making a strong enough connection between sustainability and the national 

goal of energy independence as a major element 

of national security.

Recommendations:

• Embrace and encourage such new technological advances as the Smart Grid, and tie 

sustainability efforts to national energy independence.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
30

Corporations

• Companies are not fully using energy audits 

and analysis of life cycle costs to discover areas 

where innovations or changes in operations are 

appropriate.

• Increasingly complex models may require additional computer storage capacity.

• Many companies fail to reduce long-term costs 

by considering ways to be more energy efficient.

• Companies are not considering the full range of 

traditional and alternative energy sources, colocation with energy sources, and cooperative 

programs with other energy users, and are not 

identifying the lowest cost energy source(s).

• Companies fail to integrate energy management 

with throughput and quality, so that all too often 

it has become an after-thought.

Joint Corporate/Government

Recommendations:

Recommendations:

• Take immediate and relatively simple steps toward energy conservation that might save 10-15 % 

of energy use. Identify the biggest users of energy at the plant level.

• Reduce energy costs through comprehensive audits and appropriate investments in intelligent 

monitoring systems, best management practices, and new technology such as integrating with 

evolving “smart grids.”

• Everything on the plant floor has an energy impact. Install low-cost intelligent sensors to measure 

(and perhaps manage) energy use and waste, including measuring the energy function at the 

machine level as well as point-to-point in the production process. 

• Apply life cycle and integrative planning throughout each company’s supply chain to strengthen 

and support interoperability.

• Undertake energy audits, not only of plant operations, but also of each stage of the supply chain, 

including the extraction of raw materials.

• Establish energy-use criteria to guide the planning and implementation of improvements in-line 

with long-term sustainability.

• Synchronize machines to run at non-peak hours, as practical, and develop 

“sleep modes” for machines.

• Adopt certification programs, such as Energy Star, to help manage energy use.

• Define energy use criteria to guide the planning and implementation of improvements that are in 

consonance with long-term sustainability.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
31

Raw Materials

Considerable workshop attention focused on the challenges related to securing raw materials for 

manufacturers, especially in this era when many of these 

are procured in the world market. The changing and 

competing demands for materials, especially from other 

countries, provides a backdrop that requires government 

cooperation and leadership for innovative and creative 

approaches. Manufacturers, of course, have the basic 

challenges in responding to the availability and cost of 

raw materials used in their manufacturing processes, as 

well as contemplating the use of substitutes for improved 

product performance or perhaps because of the uncertainty of maintaining a dependable supply of an important material. 

Cooperation will also be essential in studying the world 

markets for raw materials as well as researching new 

candidates for substitute materials. Reducing waste, setting realistic goals for reuse and recycling, and perfecting the production process to minimize trial and error 

will also be important. Cooperation in establishing international agreements and long-term contracts will involve 

both the private and public sectors.

Challenges in and Recommendations 

for Securing Raw Materials

Government

• Government is not adequately assessing factors 

that affect the world raw materials market for the 

next 20-25 years. 

• Government is not providing enough support for 

developing long-term international and bilateral 

contracts and agreements to support the manufacturing industries’ technical, raw material and 

energy needs.

• Manufacturers that depend on rare earth materials need to compensate for this dependence by 

better planning 20-25 years in advance for where 

those rare materials will be found, or, more likely, 

what for substitute materials may be available.

Recommendations:

• Participate in and assist companies in developing long-term contracts for raw materials from 

other countries.

• Promote the use of Enterprise Resource Planning, or something similar, to assure consistent, 

dependable supplies of raw materials.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
32

Corporations

• Companies often don’t identify the source of raw 

materials used in various stages of production to 

create transparency and interoperability. 

• To ensure product performance, users may 

require knowledge of how it was assembled 

and of the raw materials that were used in 

manufacture.

• Companies are not actively pursuing 

re-manufacturing through buy-back or take-back 

programs that may be cost effective and reduce 

raw material costs.

Joint Corporate/Government

• Manufacturers need help in anticipating the 

availability of raw material and the world’s 

market, especially if it is difficult to learn the 

origin of (and trace the process of acquiring) 

those materials.

Recommendations:

Recommendations:

• Extend the use of intelligent systems throughout the supply chain, including the extraction of 

minerals and other raw materials, with regard to cost and environmental impact.

• Analyze the extent of raw material waste in the total production (and recycling) process and participate in recycled materials and product reuse initiatives.

• Develop a system of metrics to ‘score’ raw materials according to their capacity to be reused or 

recycled and their degree of scarcity and toxicity. Score alternative raw materials also according 

to their flexibility, reliability, and performance characteristics.

• Analyze the effects of import regulations on manufacturers, especially the Berry 

Amendment and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that affect their ability to procure 

materials for national defense purposes from other countries.

• Develop and use risk and cost models to plan systematically for future resource requirements.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
33

Standards and 

Measurements

Standards that set the basis for almost all aspects of manufacturing will be key ingredients in the overall 

strategy for re-invigorating the nation’s industrial sector 

and implementing the innovations required to achieve 

that goal. All of the areas considered above require, in 

some way, a review and analysis of existing standards 

and their impact on manufacturing. New or revised standards will almost assuredly be required.

It is at the corporate level that most standards and measurement requirements get implemented, so it stands 

to reason that companies should avail themselves of 

opportunities to influence them. The challenges include 

those that could simplify or rationalize interoperability 

initiatives.

Challenges to and Recommendations 

for Improving Standards to Facilitate 

Innovative Practices 

Government

• Some current standards are out of date and some 

are difficult to comply with.

• Variations between international standards and 

U.S. regulations affect U.S. manufacturers.

• It is often too costly for companies themselves to 

establish standards in cooperation with others in 

the same or related industries.

• Industries need help in promulgating industrywide standardized language, including industries 

that cross national boundaries.

• The development of performance standards for 

products has been neglected in favor of focusing 

on design standards.

• No one is promoting standards for building 

and validating models, including those that 

focus on best practices and the harmonization 

of standards.

• Some factors require better or improved measurement other than the so-called “carbon footprint.”

• Standards are not being implemented due to 

the cost, poor interaction among many software 

programs and other resistance.

• CAD standards are not comprehensive enough 

and need to be updated.

• Manufacturers are not convinced of the benefits 

of STEP.

• There is no semantic web for product data to 

interface with standards.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
34

Recommendations:

• Prepare a ‘white paper’ to serve as a guide on how to use standards that are currently in place 

that affect manufacturing. Develop a pilot demonstration project for a prototypical architecture for 

a manufacturing enterprise showing how standards can be used.

• Create a taxonomy for scoring alternative raw materials according to their flexibility, reliability, 

and performance characteristics, their ability to be reused or recycled, and their degree of 

scarcity and toxicity.

• Develop design and production standards and tolerances and apply them all along the supply 

chain to identify errors and problems as early as possible, to ensure greater consistency in the 

production process.

• Create data collection standards for equipment to help predict machine errors and to 

detect reasons for failures that include a time correlation with the data collected from 

different machines.

• Create a semantic web for product data to interface with standards.

• Develop, promote and enforce international standards for the protection of workers from poor 

working conditions, unsafe machinery, and handling hazardous material.

• Expand current CAD standards to make them more comprehensive.

• Address the need for a common manufacturing model of IT, and define how to address gaps.

• Work with federal agencies to develop a pilot project that demonstrates the use of standards and 

prove that the process can be used with the Department of Defense.

• Develop a cost metric for standards so that end users can see the benefits of STEP.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
35

Corporations

• Companies struggle with the fact that specification sheets from different suppliers for the same 

product can be different, and this can affect 

quality and performance. The gap between 

those specifications and the realities of what is 

produced is too large.

• Manufacturers don’t trust the stability of 

standards, and are reluctant to embrace new 

versions of software.

• Manufacturers don’t understand Product Life 

Cycle costs, which have not been adequately 

described, measured or projected, especially 

because of regulations.

• Companies don’t understand how to use the 

standards that are in place currently.

Joint Corporate/Industry

• There are no design and production standards 

and tolerances to ensure greater consistency in 

the production process.

Recommendations:

Recommendations:

• Invest in more, better, and more reliable data collection (including measurement) essential for 

developing sustainability models.

• Explore the use of low-cost intelligent sensing and measurements to understand and control 

energy use and minimize waste.

• Develop sustainability certifications for tools and equipment and industrial 

process improvements.

Results

Challenges to and Recommendations for Realizing Innovation 
36
37

Appendices

I - Detailed Workshop Agenda

II - Workshop Organizing Committee

III - List of Participants

IV - White Papers

V - Information on Key Participating 

Organizations

Appendices
38

Appendix I: Detailed Workshop Agenda

“Challenges to Innovation in Advanced Manufacturing: Industry Drivers and R&D Needs”

Workshop Sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

Gaithersburg, Maryland, November 3-4, 2009

Program

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 – First Day of Workshop

Time Activity(ies)

8:00-8:30 AM Arrival, Registration, Assignments and Administrative Information

8:30-10:30 Plenary Session – “Setting the Table”

• Welcome and Purpose of the Workshop – MEL Acting Director Howard Harary

• Roles of facilitation team and workshop procedures – Barry Lawson, Barry Lawson 

Associates

• Assignment of participants to each of five break-out sessions

• Ten-minute presentations of selected white papers, with clarification questions 

(see below)

• Report from the October 2009 NIST Sustainability Workshop

Papers:

G. Sustainability and Energy

“Distributed Power–aware Machinery as a Foundation for Nest Generation sustainable Manufacturing”, Dr. Fred M. Discenzo, et al., Rockwell Automation

H. Modeling and Simulation

“Dual Manufacturing: Manufacturing Both Real and Virtual Products”, Michael 

Grieves, NASA-MSFC/University of Iowa

I. New Manufacturing Processes

“ Challenges in Net-Shape Manufacturing of Metallic Parts”, Judson Marte, GE 

Global Research Center

J. Manufacturing IT and Interoperability

“ Product Tolerance Representation: Critical Requirements for Product/Process 

Interoperability”, Curtis Brown and Daniel Campbell, NNSA and MetroSage

K. Robotics and Automation

“Ushering in the Next Generation of Factory Robotics and Automation”, Leandro Barajas et. al., GM, and Georgia Institute of Technology

L. Report: NIST Sustainability Workshop

NIST Sustainability Workshop – Vijay Srinivasan, NIST/Manufacturing Systems 

Integration Division

Appendices

Detailed Workshop Agenda
39

Time Activity(ies)

10:30-10:45 Short Break

10:45-12:00 Break-out Sessions – facilitation - Barry Lawson Associates

• Introductions and procedures

• Brief review of the white paper prepared for each session by author – with clarification 

where necessary

• Common questions that each session is asked to address

• Begin substantive discussion

12:00-1:00 PM Lunch (in assigned breakout sessions)

1:00-3:00 PM Breakout Sessions (continued)

• Facilitators pose common questions, then lead discussion on participant perspectives 

and ideas on what’s needed to encourage and support innovations in manufacturing 

• Seek agreement where possible, noting differing opinion

3:00-3:15 Short Break

3:15-4:30 PM Breakout Sessions (continued)

• 10-minute summary by facilitator of progress 

• Address any remaining questions 

• Develop consensus on answers and ideas for actions participants would like to see 

• Develop an agreed-upon summary of each group’s progress to be delivered back to 

plenary session

4:30-5:15 Plenary Session

• Each facilitator (or other representative from each break-out session) makes a five-minute report to a plenary session on progress toward answers to questions posed as well 

as other ideas and observations groups wish to share 

• Brief discussion and preparation for second day

5:15-6:00 Break 

6:00-6:30 Reception and Cash Bar

6:30-7:30 Buffet Dinner 

Appendices

Detailed Workshop Agenda
40

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 – Second Day of Workshop

Time Activity(ies)

8:00-8:30 AM Arrive and relaxed discussion

Posting of any changes in schedule, availability of summary from Day One

8:30-9:45 Breakout Sessions (same alignment as in the first day)

• Working from results of the first day, complete the questions (if necessary), consider 

possible modifications, identify factors that could influence actions (by NIST and/

or others) to address actions needed – lack of information or capital, lag in research, 

efforts by others, etc.

• Develop first-cut list of priorities among actions to be undertaken 

9:45-10:00 Short Break

10:00-11:45 Breakout sessions (continued)

• Final discussions in breakout sessions. 

• Draw conclusions on answers to questions, actions needed to address goals of 

agile and sustainable manufacturing, other factors the groups feel important to 

underscore

12:00-1:00 PM Lunch – informal discussions 

1:00-2:00 Plenary Session

• Final 10-minute reports back to full plenary session. 

• Opportunity for final comments on key points made (or not made) during 

the workshop

2:00 Adjourn Workshop 

2:15-4:30 Optional tours of NIST facilities

Appendices

Detailed Workshop Agenda
41

Appendix II: Workshop Organizing Committee

Dr. Howard Harary (Workshop Chairman) NIST

Dr. John Slotwinski (Workshop Coordinator) NIST

Albert Wavering NIST

Elena Messina NIST

Kevin Jurrens NIST

Dr. Barry Lawson Barry Lawson Associates

Appendices

Organizing Committee
42

Appendix III: List of Participants

Name Organization Title

Dr. Jorge Arinez General Motors R&D Center Staff Researcher

Dr. Leandro Barajas General Motors R&D Staff Researcher

Dr Dean Bartles General Dynamics Vice President & General Manager

Mr. Bruce Borchardt NIST Metrologist

Dr. Michael Burstein, 

EMCP, CEI Society of Manufacturing Engineers International Director

Daniel Campbell Metrosage Software Director

Dr. Barbara Cuthill NIST Technology Innovation Program Impact Analyst

Eric Detlefs Sandia National Laboratories Manager

Sha-Chelle Devlin 

Manning Zyvex Labs

Dr. Alkan Donmez NIST Group Leader, Machine Tool Metrology

Roger Eastman Loyola University Associate Professor

Richard Echenrode BAE Systems Project Engineer

Dr. Ronnie Fesperman NIST Mechanical Engineer

Dr. Steven Fick NIST Electrical Engineer

Nathan Forbes GE Global Research Business Development Manager

Lisa Fronczek NIST/MEL Science Advisor

Dr. Mike Grieves NASA MSFC

Dr. Howard Harary NIST, MEL Director, MEL

Dr Martin Hardwick RPI & STEP Tools, Inc.

Jack Harris Rockwell Collins

Director, Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology

Dr. Rob Ivester NIST/Program Office Program Analyst

Mr. Kevin Jurrens NIST Acting Division Chief, MMD

Sharon Kemmerer NIST Deputy Division Chief, MSID

Bob Kiggans SCRA

Chief Operating Officer & President, 

Federal Sector

Kevin King

National Tooling & Machining 

Association Manufacturing Technology Director

Dr. John Kramar NIST Group Leader

Dr. Barry Lawson Barry Lawson Associates Principal

Mrs. Silvia Leahu-Aluas Sustainable Manufacturing Consulting Owner - Principal Consultant

Mr. Kang Lee NIST

Group Leader, Sensor Development and 

Application

Swee Leong NIST

Georege Lo Siemens Automation & Control Dept. Head

Kevin Lyons NIST Research Engineer

Jud Marte General Electric Metallurgist

Jennifer McAllister Rockwell Collins Manager, Adv. Operations Engineering

Richard McDaniel Siemens Research Scientist

Charles McLean NIST Guest Researcher

Appendices

List of Participants
43

Name Organization Title

Ms. Elena Messina NIST/Intelligent Systems Division Acting Division Chief

Dr. Young B Moon Syracuse University Associate Professor

Dr. Shawn Moylan NIST Mechanical Engineer

Dr. Nagen Nagarur

Systems Science and Industrial 

Engineering Dept., Binghamton U. Chair

Mr. Richard Neal IMTI, Inc. President and Executive Director

Dr. Ram Pai Rockwell Automation Director

Lalit Patil University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Research Fellow and Lecturer

Mr. Marc Pepi Army Research Laboratory Materials Engineer

Chris Pfeifer

Connecticut Center for Advanced 

Technology Applications Engineer

Margaret Phillips NIST/Technology Innovation Program

Dr. Michael Postek NIST/MEL/Procision Eng. Div. Division Chief

Mr. Fred Proctor NIST/Intelligent Systems Division Group Leader

Dr. John Randall Zyvex Labs Vice President

Mr. Thomas Rose AvPro, Inc. President

Mr. Gary Sera Texas Engineering Extension Service Director

Dr. Michael Shneier

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Perception Systems Group Leader

Jon Siudut Binghamton University

Dr. John Slotwinski NIST Strategic Planning Manager

Dr. Johannes Soons NIST

Group Leader, Manufacturing Process 

Metrology

Vijay Srinivasan NIST

Chief, Manufacturing Systems Integration 

Division

Mr. Raj Talwar The Boeing Company

Greg Tassey NIST Senior Economist

Sam Thamboo GE Global Research

Brian Tucker University of Alabama in Huntsville Research Scientist

Steven Turek Air Force ManTech

Dr. Shuji Usui Third Wave Systems Lead Developer

Marlon Walker NIST/Technology Innovation Program

Wencai Wang University of Michigan

Mr. Paul Warndorf

AMT - The Association For 

Manufacturing Tech. Vice President - Technology

Al Wavering NIST/MEL Deputy Director, MEL

Mr. Jack White VRC/TTGSI VP

Appendices

List of Participants
44

Appendix IV: White Papers

Challenges and Opportunities to 

Realize Sustainable Manufacturing 

Page 1 of 2 

F.M. Discenzo 

R. Pai 

D. Carnahan 

Distributed Power-aware Machinery as a 

Foundation for Next Generation Sustainable Manufacturing 

Dr. Fred M. Discenzo, Dr. Ram Pai, Dan Carnahan, P.E. 

Rockwell Automation 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. manufacturing landscape is changing dramatically. Future markets will favor 

manufacturers that demonstrate responsible behavior with regard to energy usage, waste disposal 

and recycling. To compete, future manufacturers must maximize economic value-add from 

intellectual and physical capital investments, operate as part of a larger ecosystem of linked 

environmentally responsible global customers, suppliers, and partners. True leaders of tomorrow 

will play a global leadership in innovation of novel products and solutions. The transition to 

sustainable manufacturing must be done in the context of increasingly complex manufacturing 

processes and connected processes and enterprises. Organizations that are cognizant of these 

trends and accordingly shape their strategies and execute their tactics will define the winners in 

the next decade. 

II. Critical Drivers 

The events surrounding 9/11 coupled with recent worldwide financial instability, aging 

workforce, volatility and insecurity of world energy supplies, and the need for environmental 

stewardship foreshadow an onslaught of a dramatic shift in values and priorities that is beginning 

to transform how consumers behave and manufacturers operate. Changes in technology, public 

policy, world security, and the financial and energy markets changes are among the factors 

accelerating the change in manufacturing. We see five major drivers that are transforming 

virtually every manufacturing sector in the US. These drivers are: 

No Drivers Expectations 

1 Energy & Waste Effective utilization of resources to reduce waste and energy consumption, 

while optimizing production. 

2 Safety & Security Inherent Security and Safety of human, physical and intellectual capital 

across the connected supply chain. 

3 Social 

Responsibility

Assessment and availability of information on Carbon and GHG emissions 

across the Product Life Cycle. 

4 Harmonized 

Standards

Supply chain integration with availability and automated interpretation of 

digitized global standards across interoperable systems. 

5 Globally Linked 

Enterprise

Global communication supporting a fabric of enterprises capable of 

exchanging and making decisions on information in real-time across the 

globe. 

II. R&D Needs 

Specific developments are needed to efficiently promote the transition to a new manufacturing 

paradigm. There are seven areas of R&D need that will provide the foundation for manufacturing 

success in 2025. These areas are: 

1
45

Challenges and Opportunities to 

Realize Sustainable Manufacturing 

Page 2 of 2 

F.M. Discenzo 

R. Pai 

D. Carnahan 

No R&D Needs Scope of Development Required 

1 Sensing and measurement Cost effective distributed sensing for energy, waste, process 

fluids, and airborne chemicals. Sensor fusion & wireless-selfpowered sensors coupled with smart sensor networks. 

2 Modeling & Simulation Design and operational (i.e. control) models for sustainability 

3 Dynamic link to plant 

manufacturing equipmdent 

and energy sources 

Standards to support dynamic grid interface and linkages to 

plant MES and level 0/1 plant control to drive sustainable 

manufacturing and optimal economic performance. 

4 Knowledge Standardized approach needed for encoding process and 

product information –critical gap now beginning to occur. 

5 Distributed energy & energy 

storage 

Reference implementations based on Smart Grid standards to 

accelerate the adoption of energy aware eq. & processes. 

6 Manufacturing Technology New Pinch and other manufacturing with less energy, smart 

energy-aware machines and controllers, more efficient OEM 

equipment. 

7 Methodologies for agile 

integrated manufacturing 

Vertical and horizontal integration capabilities to support 

demanding requirements for capturing core capabilities and 

integration of those capabilities up and across the supply chain 

Mechatronics standardization and integration. 

The topic area noted as “Methodologies for agile integrated manufacturing” is considered 

foundational and will form the cornerstone for future sustainable manufacturing. It is essential to 

provide a standard framework for distributed plant machinery such as ovens, fryers, boilers, fans, 

pumps, and other process equipment to exchange information on energy and process information 

in real-time and to respond to dynamic information provided by the grid in a timely and 

coordinated manner. This permits unprecedented capabilities for dynamically altering plant 

operations in an effective way to protect productions processes and safeguard machinery and 

personnel while achieving targeted energy usage and manufacturing sustainability objectives. A 

representative framework for smart distributed energy-aware machines is provided by distributed 

agents. This framework, based on a biological analogy, has a rigorous underpinning and has 

shown to provide superior performance in a variety of complex and critical manufacturing 

processes1

. There is a need to explicitly embed standard energy, risk, and economic protocols to 

permit this open, integrated system to dynamically link process equipment with plant scheduling 

and machinery control. As shown in the plant 

diagram multiple distributed processes must be 

coordinated and scheduled in real time to achieve 

new performance levels in energy utilization, 

waste reduction, and sustainable production. The 

scope must include plant facility services, supply 

chain partners, energy providers and customers. 

V. Summary 

Recent events have triggered an irreversible change in manufacturing and necessitated the rapid 

transition to environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manufacturing. The integrated 

enterprise that effectively achieves process and personnel safety, environmental protection, and 

superior energy efficiency will realize faster time to market, lower total cost of ownership, 

excellent asset optimization, effective risk management, and economic excellence. These factors 

will determine the winners in U.S. manufacturing in the next decade.

 

1

 “Intelligent Systems: Architecture, Design, and Control”, A.M.Meystel, J.S.Albus, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2002 

2
46

Innovations in Energy Measurement and Control for Manufacturing Systems

Jorge Arinez, Stephan Biller

Manufacturing Systems Research Lab

General Motors Research & Development Center

Warren, MI U.S.A. 48090

jorge.arinez@gm.com, stephan.biller@gm.com

Abstract

This white paper discusses the need for innovative technologies based on measurement and

control to make manufacturing systems and equipment more energy efficient. Two objectives

related to technology development are presented. The first is to obtain finer granularity in energy performance information from systems to improve current operations. Secondly, use such

information along with lifecycle analysis to improve the energy efficiency of future designs for

both systems and equipment.

Numerous studies have reported that industrial energy usage represents approximately 30% of the

total U.S. annual energy consumption. Reducing the level of energy consumption serves many interests related to national security, the environment, and the economy. Energy saving technologies

have already been developed which according to some accounts offer U.S. industry the ability to

save 10% in present operations. However, to meet ambitious national energy reduction goals for

industry, further technological innovations are needed.

To identify and develop the requirements for such technologies, we need to first understand the

detailed nature of energy consumption in manufacturing systems. Clearly, the measurement of

electricity and of other utilities exists and is well understood. The utility metering of large areas

of industrial operations provides an overall indication of gross energy usage, however, details of

energy utilization of individual pieces of equipment is not easily obtained and in many cases does

not even exist. As costs and regulatory pressures mount to achieve ever increasing levels of efficiency, energy consumption information at a finer granularity will need to be probed to identify

demand patterns. Given such knowledge, appropriate strategies and technologies may then be more

effectively deployed to address energy reduction opportunities. Also, as the capability to measure

detailed energy utilization grows, insight into sub-system interactions will lead to further efficiency

improvements.

Broadly speaking, there are three basic ways to reduce energy consumption. The first and most

immediate deals with real-time control. In simple cases, control consists of simply turning a device

or process on or off. In more complex processes, advanced multivariable control algorithms may

be employed. The second approach is to modify or change some fundamental parameter or constraint of a manufacturing process so that a greater efficiency is achieved beyond real-time control.

This approach requires more time as it may involve detailed engineering analysis, optimization,

and validation before a redesigned process is commissioned. The third way to reduce energy has

the longest time horizon since it involves the design of new energy efficient equipment. This last

approach offers the greatest opportunity for achieving large energy savings because all currently

available advances in technology may be integrated into the design of new equipment. Depending

on the manufacturing industry, this opportunity may only occur infrequently so when the occasion

arises, effort must be made to incorporate all existing knowledge into the design of higher efficiency

systems and equipment.

NIST National Workshop on Challenges to Innovation in Advanced Manufacturing: Industry

Drivers and R&D Needs, Gaithersburg, MD, November 3-4, 2009. 3
47

For all of these three general approaches, information obtained about the system’s energy performance behavior through detailed measurement of sub-systems and individual equipment can yield

improvements in energy efficiency. For each of these paths to energy reduction, there are corresponding technical challenges and barriers which need to be overcome. It is here where advances

in measurement methods and standards are particularly critical as a basic data and information

infrastructure is needed to enable the desired improvements in energy efficiency.

For example, given that there is already throughput, cost, and quality data being collected, how

should real-time energy data be acquired and integrated to provide a meaningful metric of system performance for effective energy-related decisions to be made? This question spans multiple

domains resulting in the need to make correct tradeoffs to achieve energy savings and meet production objectives. Furthermore, since there will be a greater amount of data required to execute

real-time monitoring and control of energy, naturally there will be additional costs to be borne by

manufacturers. In some scenarios, it is quite plausible that deploying new measurement devices

may be cost prohibitive and therefore implicit methods to determine energy consumption will need

to be devised. The specification and subsequent development of low-cost, energy-aware sensors

and actuators will need to occur simultaneously to allow for such pervasive monitoring and energy

control. Also, standards for the design and deployment of optimal sensor networks for such “smart”

energy devices will need to be in place for integration with higher level energy management systems.

Another challenge is the lack of integrated data between energy management systems and lower

level processes. As an example, with high-level energy reporting, detection in the degradation of

energy performance of individual processes is obscured by the large amount of aggregation in energy data which occurs. Therefore, meaningful hierarchical organization and aggregation of energy

data is necessary to identify and isolate faults, leaks, or other process parameter fluctuations which

result in poor energy efficiency. Measurement and diagnostics of the “health” of equipment and

processes is a vital aspect of an efficiently performing system. Processes can only perform efficiently

if they are maintained in a state of continuous calibration where drifts in set-points are prevented.

In addition to improving current operations, consideration must also be given to the performance

of future systems and equipment. For this, lifecycle analysis which uses historical data having the

fine resolution described above must be communicated to system and equipment designers alike.

This data will permit designers to develop systems which can be more easily adjusted to reduce

peak energy requirements and provide overall gains in average consumption. Furthermore, designers will not only have a better knowledge of expected energy efficiency, but will be able to better

model and design the system to achieve even greater savings. Hybrid simulations which not only

model discrete quantities such as throughput, cost, and quality but also incorporate continuous

energy consumption profiles will undoubtedly improve the design and validation of energy-efficient

manufacturing lines.

In conclusion, to obtain transformative changes in the energy consumption of manufacturing systems will require advances in all of the three approaches described. The foundation of detailed

energy performance information which is both reliable and accurate rests on a core infrastructure

of standards and measurement methods.

2

4
48

Manufacturing and the Smart Grid 

Today there is a growing emphasis on the environment and particularly on energy utilization. 

The main point being addressed here is the future of electrical power demand and the realization 

of a ‘smart power grid.’ As programs are being developed to address the makeup of a smart 

power grid, attention also needs to be placed on tools to assist in coping with changes in power 

consumption requirements when a smart grid poses a demand to change (lower) power usage. 

That is, the requirements to reduce ones draw on the grid to permit power to be allocated to a 

higher demand need. 

One area that will potentially have to react to power demand changes is small- and mid-size 

manufacturing enterprises. Today, tools do not exit to aid a manufacturer in determining how to 

react to a power demand change. There are no smart tools to interface with the smart grid at the 

manufacturing shop level. 

Some large companies are beginning to look at power consumption and are addressing it by 

monitoring the use of power at the equipment asset level. With this, it can be determined what 

assets consume what levels of power as they operate. In turn, it can then be determined which 

may need to be turned off to meet various demand needs. This method, however, is not 

necessarily the most efficient way to run an operation having to maintain a high level of asset 

utilization to maintain a profitable business. While it does provide a relative level of decision 

making capability, it does not carry the level of intelligence required to determine how to 

maximize asset utilization. 

A better concept is to understand how various processes consume power during each segment of 

performing a task (e.g. a machining operation) to permit a change in the process to an alternate 

process plan. This approach will aid manufacturing engineers to develop process alternatives to 

produce product while maintaining a relative high utilization of plant resources. This 

methodology permits a company to optimize production to match power constraints. 

This advanced type of decision capability does not exist today to permit “dynamic” production 

and process planning based upon power demands. To provide this capability, developments are 

required from various new enabling technologies. From technologies providing common data 

acquisition capabilities at the individual process level, to new applications and computing 

capabilities. The task being, the ability to match actual process steps to power usage and provide 

alternate process steps during low demand timeframes. If this is achieved, then various process 

recipes can be formed to meet varying power demands while maintaining sustainable production 

needs.

In the past this was not possible since data could not effectively be extracted from manufacturing 

equipment to make the necessary correlations to determine what steps consume what amount of 

power. Alternatively, to plan for executing certain manufacturing steps during low electrical 

demand intervals. 

Recently a new standard has been developed, and is being further enhanced, to provide a common 

protocol and communication structure to acquire the necessary data to permit the linking of 

process steps to power usage. This standard is MTConnectSM. A royalty free open standard 

based upon Internet Protocol and XML language (refer to MTConnect.org web site for more 

information). 

10/27/2009

5
49

10/27/2009

With the use of this standard, data can be collected or acquired by applications from discrete 

equipment, using standard networking technologies, to provide the necessary information to 

structure the above goal. This is the enabler to permit innovative technology developments that 

can be utilized in a myriad of ways to structure solutions to meet the future demands that will be 

placed on small- and mid-sized manufacturers by a ‘smart power grid.’ 

Proposal 1: 

Develop software tools and applications that can assist small- and mid-sized manufacturers in 

addressing power requirements requested by a smart grid. 

Program Components: 

1) Develop products and components that permit the adjustment of process 

requirements based upon energy demand loads. 

2) Provide resources to permit enhancements to the MTConnect open standard and tools 

to address new data requirements. 

3) Investigate new computing technologies and concepts that may be utilized for 

implementation. 

4) Additional software development incorporating “cloud computing” through internet 

connections and MTConnect data capture that also includes a customer’s power 

usage, rates, high/low demand time intervals and potential variability of dynamic 

electrical usage during manufacturing processes. 

Proposal 2: 

Develop and promulgate Energy Star criteria for “Industrial Machines” (a new category) for both 

U.S. machine tool builders and their customers. All benefits of the existing Energy Star Program 

would convey that currently exist. This effort would provide a competitive edge to manufacturers 

and users of U.S. machines while in parallel providing energy savings within the manufacturing 

sector.

Program Components: 

1) Develop products, and components, that are themselves more energy efficient 

(Energy Star), and 

2) Assist manufacturers and users in becoming more energy efficient with their own 

buildings and operations in preparation for “smart grid” connections. 

3) “Industrial Machines” would become a separate and distinct category under the 

Energy Star Program coordinated with EPA and DOE. 

4) Both the “Industrial Machine” manufacturer and the user of the “Industrial Machine” 

are tethered through a “smart grid” for measuring efficiency over an extended 

timeframe. Analysis via “cloud computing” will determine where and how 

additional efficiencies can be realized and improvements for greater energy savings. 

Contact:

Paul Warndorf 

VP-Technology 

AMT – The Association For Manufacturing Technology 

703-827-5291 

pwarndorf@AMTonline.org 

6
50

Dual Manufacturing: 

 Manufacturing Both Real and Virtual Products 

Dr. Michael Grieves, NASA MSFC/University of Iowa

Introduction

 Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) is redefining the use of information throughout the product lifecycle 

and specifically, as discussed here, in the manufacturing phase of the product’s lifecycle1

. Product 

manufacturers need to consider manufacturing two products: the physical products that they have always 

produced and the virtual product that is the information about the physical product. This virtual product can 

provide manufacturers with a new source of value. 

Information Mirroring Model and Virtual Products

PLM depends on the conceptual idea of real and virtual products. Before the advent of computer systems that 

could handle the massive amounts of information about a product, the only practical way to have information 

about a product was to physically possess the product itself. 

If a quality inspector wanted to check the dimensions on a batch of components, then the components were 

physically shipped to the inspector. (In many firms, inspection of the received product at the firm’s site is still 

the primary quality control practice.) While blueprints were available on the “as-designed” component or 

product, “as-built” information on each instance of the component or product that was built from that design 

rarely, if ever, existed. 

All products start out as virtual products. That is ideas and information about what the physical product should 

be. These virtual products are then realized in physical form through the manufacturing process. The 

manufacturing of products can be divided into three phases: making the first one, ramp-up, and making the rest. 

“Making the first one” entailed getting a physical product that embodied the ideas of what the virtual product 

was required to accomplish. Ramp-up and production (“making the rest”) relied on the premise that these 

products would be close enough to the first one so as to be functionally and physically equivalent. The accuracy 

of that premise varies widely even today, which is why 

expensive quality audit inspection processes are 

required of the actual product instances themselves. 

Progressive manufacturing processes now capture data 

about the product as it is being manufactured so as to 

create not only integrated product and process 

traceability, but a virtual product model as the physical 

product is being built. As inspection processes become 

more technologically sophisticated and automated, the 

ability to create robust virtual representations of 

individual physical components and products becomes 

not only possible but also necessary. 

These virtual representations form one of the components of the PLM Information Mirroring Model (Figure 1) 

and are a main element to allow Product Specification Management (PSM) to exist and perform a critical role in 

enabling quality as part of PLM. Product Specification Management consists of three components: the physical 

inspection hardware (gauges, CMM, scanners, etc.) to collect data as product is manufactured, middleware to 

take and organize this station-based manufacturing data and build a cohesive virtual products, and an 

Manufacturing Execution System (MES) to serve as a repository for this “as-built” virtual product. 

The Value of Virtual Products

There are a myriad number of uses that can be made of the virtual product created through PSM. In the 

manufacturing or build phase, the “as-built” virtual product is immediately available and can be transmitted to 

customers and other parties in the supply chain who need the information about the product to assure 

themselves that the product is actually being created to the required specifications. 

Page 1 of 2 Dr. Michael Grieves, NASA MSFC 

© 2009 Michael W

GrievesLLC 
51

Page 2 of 2 Dr. Michael Grieves, NASA MSFC 

© 2009 Michael W. Grieves, LLC 

Unlike the physical product itself, the virtual product can be sent over large geographic areas instantaneously 

and can be sent to multiple locations simultaneously. As described elsewhere2

, the new slogan of “transmit us 

the virtual product and we will then tell you whether or not to ship the physical product” may define a new 

paradigm in purchasing and manufacturing. 

One automotive manufacturer has created a collaborative virtual space with its suppliers where the inspection of 

component parts at the supplier and later at the OEM is correlated down to the inspection point – though each 

may use different inspection methods and devices. The introduction of this collaborative model contributed to 

an 85% reduction in build issues in the subsequent model year as reported by the OEM. 

In the create phase, the as-built virtual product can be used to validate the design of new, similar products. The 

data collected on actual results compared against specifications is invaluable in assessing manufacturing 

validity of new designs. By providing a feedback loop, the engineering / manufacturing divide can be bridged, 

reducing the slow iterative process of trial-and-error typically performed by manufacturing companies.3

For instance, while a specification and its associated tolerances may be manufacturable for the beginning of a 

production run, it may be that tool and die wear over a much larger run does not allow for those specifications 

to be met. Having the sequence of virtual products allows designers to understand either the requirement for 

different specifications or understand when new tool and/or die replacement is required. 

At another automotive manufacturer, historical process capability information contained in the as-built virtual 

product of current and previous product models is being captured in the early design of new product models. 

This is in the form of dimensional tolerances that can realistically be expected to hold using similar 

manufacturing methods. In the absence of PSM technology, defining the proper tolerances in design for 

manufacturability (DfM) is a notoriously uncertain and difficult exercise, where the risk is that improperly 

assigned tolerances will lead to costly rework in design and tooling. 

In the support phase, the issue of product liability often hinges on proving whether or not the individual product 

was manufactured to the required specifications. Without the ability to present data about the manufacture of a 

specific product, companies are at the mercy of plaintiff attorneys who raise doubt about the manufacturing 

process by asking “Isn’t it possible that the bolts holding my client’s seat were not tightened properly? Having 

the as-built virtual product, especially after the physical product may have been destroyed in an accident, gives 

the manufacturer protection against such an accusation. 

Already, the US government has legislated detailed traceability at the level of individual product instances as a 

requirement on the F-35 JSF aircraft program, necessitating the implementation of PSM technology by the 

prime defense contractor and its suppliers. NASA has a one-hour informational demand in the event of an onorbit anomaly for the Constellation project. 

Conclusion

We have only manufactured physical products in the past, because we could not manage the amount of data that 

virtual products need. The exponential advances in computer technology are making virtual products feasible. 

Virtual products, i.e. the information about the product, have a myriad of uses, not only in the manufacturing 

phase, but also throughout the product lifecycle. Product Specification Management as part of Product Lifecycle 

Management defines the components necessary to capture and organize manufacturing data into virtual 

products. Manufacturers need to consider moving from single manufacturing to dual manufacturing: 

manufacturing physical and virtual products. 

 

1

 See Grieves, Product Lifecycle Management: Driving the Next Generation of Lean Thinking (McGraw-Hill, 

2006) 

2

 See Dr. Michael Grieves, MES: Achieving Real Quality through Virtual Products, 2008 Whitepaper 3

 See Dr. Michael Grieves, Multiplying MES Value With PLM Integration, 2007 Whitepaper 

8
52

Manufacturing Simulation: The Need for Standard Methodologies, Models, and Data Interfaces 

Charles McLean 

Guest Researcher 

Manufacturing Simulation and Modeling Group, NIST 

Simulation technology can provide a highly effective means for evaluating the design of a new manufacturing system or 

proposed modifications to existing systems. This technology can be especially useful in supporting agility, 

sustainability, supply chain integration, as well as the development of new advanced processes. Manufacturing 

simulations are often used as measurement tools that predict the behavior and performance of systems that have not yet 

been implemented, or to determine theoretical capabilities of existing systems. Simulations are essentially experiments. 

As defined in Jerry Banks Handbook of Simulation, a simulation is: “...the imitation of the operation of a real-world 

process or system over time. Simulation involves the generation of an artificial history of the system and the observation 

of that artificial history to draw inferences concerning the operational characteristics of the real system that is 

represented. Simulation is an indispensable problem-solving methodology for the solution of many real-world 

problems. Simulation is used to describe and analyze the behavior of a system, ask what-if questions about the real 

system, and aid in the design of real systems. Both existing and conceptual systems can be modeled with simulation.” 

Although the potential benefits of manufacturing simulations are significant, many problems still exist. For 

example, the development of individual simulations within industry is still often more of an art than a science. 

Simulation methodologies have not been standardized - the skills and experience of the simulation analyst may greatly 

affect the way a simulation that is developed, the type of model that is constructed, the time it takes to build the 

simulation, as well as the utility and correctness of the results. Another major problem, is the lack of standard models – 

with each new simulation study, models are often built from scratch, resulting in redundant development efforts and the 

possibility of introducing new modeling errors. Finally, the lack of standard data interfaces makes it costly and timeconsuming to transfer data back and forth between other manufacturing information systems and simulations. 

Key Drivers for Manufacturing Simulation R&D 

Agility – Wikipedia defines agile manufacturing as a term applied to an organization that has created the processes, 

tools, and training to enable it to respond quickly to customer needs and market changes while still controlling costs and 

quality. Although historically discrete event simulations have been focused on addressing a number of issues relating to 

agility, e.g., system performance, throughput, and operating costs, simulation technology does not currently meet all 

needs in this area. Its biggest shortfall is in the time and cost associated with developing the simulations themselves. 

Simulations may take months to develop and are often not built because manufacturing managers are looking for 

immediate answers. Solutions are needed to accelerate the modeling and simulation development process, as well as to 

insure the technical correctness of the simulations themselves. 

Sustainability - Simulation technology has been a significant tool for improving manufacturing operations in the 

past; but its focus has been on lowering costs, improving productivity and quality, and reducing time to market for new 

products. Sustainable manufacturing includes the integration of processes, decision-making and the environmental 

concerns of an active industrial system to achieve economic growth, without destroying precious resources or the 

environment. Sustainability applies to the entire life cycle of a product. It involves selection of materials, extraction of 

those materials, manufacture of component parts, assembly methods, retailing, product use, recycling, recovery, and 

disposal. Changes will need to occur if simulation is to be applied successfully to sustainability. Manufacturers will 

need to focus on issues that they have not been concerned with before. Since there has not been a demand for 

simulation technology with sustainability features, simulation software vendors and analysts have not typically 

addressed these issues in the past. 

Supply Chain Integration – To achieve supply chain integration, multiple enterprises often need to work 

cooperatively to deliver end products. Some examples of the functional elements of a supply chain may include 

component part and raw material suppliers, transportation networks, distributors, warehouses, final assembly plants, and 

retailers. Typically, some elements of a supply chain will cross enterprise boundaries. Simulation analysts building 

supply chain models may need to interact with peer analysts in other enterprises that use different simulators for their 

enterprises. Complete internal information on each supply chain element may not be available to the analyst due to 

proprietary issues. Major research issues that need to be addressed include the development of distributed supply chain 

simulations using different simulators as well as the exchange of information between these simulations, e.g., standard 

message formats and access to shared databases. Data specifications are needed to identify the types of information that 

will need to be exchanged between different suppliers models, manufacturing applications, and databases. Examples of 

data that needs to be shared includes orders; schedules; tooling, raw material, work-in-process (WIP), finished part 

inventory and tracking data; production capabilities and capacities; resource status and usage; reject and rework data. 

9
53

Other research areas include the development of simulation integration infrastructures using Web services technology 

that will allow supply chain partners to connect simulations of their facilities over the Internet. To address production 

requirements, simulations will need to include technical solutions for modeling manufacturing supply chains at multiple 

levels. Web-based solutions could enable the integration of multiple simulations at the supply-chain, enterprise, plant, 

and shop-floor levels. Off-the-shelf solutions do not exist today. 

Advanced Manufacturing Processes – Some of the issues associated with the development and implementation of 

new, advanced manufacturing processes includes process validation, process capability analysis, tolerance analysis, 

ergonomic analysis, and tool design. Simulations can support these activities through: the modeling of systems, the 

execution of manufacturing plans, programs; the use of statistical process control techniques to determine whether 

processes can be kept in control range; modeling the effects of tolerance stack up on overall tolerance budget for a 

product or machine setup configuration to determine the probability that an instance of the product will meet 

specifications; evaluation of ergonomic aspects of worker tasks for efficiency of operation, theoretical production rate, 

risk of injury, rest requirements; and the development of tool management plans, definition of standard tool sets, 

prediction of tool wear, etc. Although special purpose simulation tools have been commercially developed to support 

each of these areas, standard data interfaces that would enable the exchange of data between these tools is very limited. 

Need for the Development of New Simulation Standards 

Need for Standard Methodologies - Simulation case studies are conducted to analyze and improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of manufacturing organizations, systems, and processes. A study essentially represents a methodology 

for solving specific problems and getting answers to specific questions. Studies often model some aspect of current 

operations and validate the effect of some hypothetical change(s) to those operations. The performance of current and 

proposed systems are evaluated according to some set of metrics. Simulation textbooks typically recommend that a ten 

to twelve step process be followed in a simulation study. The recommended approach usually involves the following 

steps: (1) problem formulation, (2) setting of objectives and overall project plan, (3) model conceptualization, (4) data 

collection, (5) model translation into computerized format, (6) code verification, (7) model validation, (8) design of 

experiments to be run, (9) production runs and analysis, (10) documentation and reporting, and (11) implementation. 

Unfortunately, this approach often leaves considerable work and possibly too much creative responsibility to the 

simulation analyst. 

Each new simulation case study performed today probably repeats at least some work previously done by others. 

Case studies typically contain proprietary information that private companies do not want to share. For this reason, it is 

unlikely that most case studies will ever be seen outside of the company that commissioned them. How can the 

duplication of work be minimized? The development of standard templates for different types of case studies would be 

a step in the right direction. More work could be done to create case study templates that are generic but more problemdomain specific, e.g., scheduling, layout, and material handling. 

Individual case studies should be able to be used as modular building blocks and templates to solve more complex 

manufacturing problems. Ideally, case study templates should be “atomic,” i.e., unique, indivisible, and nonoverlapping. A rigorous analysis should be used to ensure that each case study forms a clean, basic building block. The 

analysis should aim to assign any specific objective or question type to only one type of case study. A major reason for 

this rule is to avoid the infinite proliferation of custom-defined case studies. Repositories would need to be established 

for the case study templates so that they could be readily accessed by simulation analysts and software developers. 

Resources in the academic, research, and standards communities could be applied to this problem, thus avoiding the 

proprietary information content issues. 

Need for Standard Models - Neutral model formats would help enlarge the market for simulation models and make 

their development a more viable business enterprise. Model libraries could be marketed as stand-alone products or 

distributed as shareware. Standard formats for models would make it possible for simulation developers to sell model 

libraries much the same way clip art libraries are sold for graphics software packages today. Simulation model libraries 

could be expected to increase the value of manufacturing simulators for industrial users much the same way graphics 

libraries increase the value of photo processing, paint, and graphics illustration software packages to their users. 

Need for Standard Data Interfaces - The development of neutral, vendor-independent data formats for storing 

simulation data could greatly improve the accessibility of simulation technology to industry by enabling the 

development of reusable models. Such neutral, simulation-model formats would enable the development of reusable 

models and reference data by individual companies, simulation vendors, equipment and resource manufacturers, 

consultants, and service providers. Reference data sets to support sustainability could also be developed to provide 

information on energy consumption, alternative processes and materials, pollution data, improved equipment 

capabilities, worker task analysis, job satisfaction evaluation criteria, material recycling and recovery opportunities, 

community impact, mitigation strategies, etc. Standard message formats are needed to facilitate the exchange of 

information between simulations built by different organizations within supply chains. 

10
54

Challenges in Net-Shape Manufacturing of Metallic Parts 

WT Carter, JS Marte, SR Hayashi, SV Thamboo 

 GE Global Research Center, Niskayuna NY 12309 

carter@ge.com 

Manufacturing of metallic parts can be accomplished by a large variety of processes including casting, 

forging, machining, powder processing, welding and countless others. Intrinsic to all of these processes is 

the desire to achieve a final in-service geometry – with requisite material properties – at the lowest possible 

cost. A typical cost flow analysis shows that cost quickly compounds late in the processing sequence. For 

example, in the processing and 

machining of a forged part shown in 

the figure to the right, the machining 

step (often viewed as an inexpensive 

process) actually adds significant cost 

because of the value of the metal 

removed and scrapped. If upstream 

processes to achieve net- or near-net 

shapes were fully developed, 

machining losses would be reduced to 

an insignificant level and the overall 

part cost would be far lower. 

However, achieving net shape early 

in processing is an elusive goal. 

Cost ($/lb)

The benefits of net shape processing to the US manufacturing infrastructure is clear in the reduction of 

wasted material and machining costs. Additional benefits include reductions in the energy and greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with production, transportation, and recycling of wasted metal. Such reductions 

would impact material sustainability and availability for high-tech manufacturing, and provide a 

competitive advantage for US manufacturers. Modern net-shape processes include the traditional (e.g., 

investment casting) as well as emerging (e.g., laser additive methods, isothermal forging, powder 

metallurgy) technologies. In addition to improved material utilization, many of these processes provide an 

opportunity to introduce technological and practical advances, such as location-specific properties, lean 

manufacturing cycles, and inventory reduction. However, the full benefits of the processes have not been 

exploited because of economical and technical challenges. Cost is a key driver, and cost is driven by 

process rate, yield, raw material cost, capital cost, repeatability and flexibility. Many of the technical 

challenges are similar to those faced by the established processes: microstructural defects, shape retention, 

equipment capabilities, etc. 

Net-Shape Deformation Processes 

It may seem obvious from the plot above that achieving near-net shape from a forging can reduce the 

machining cost. This is true, but forging press capacity, die material strength, and workpiece plasticity 

impose practical limitations that have not been overcome. Improvements in ingot and billet material that 

enable net shape forging can have a large impact. Superplastic forming, for example, has been 

commercialized for a few sheet metal applications, but shows promise for bulk deformation as well. 

Required developments include thermomechanical processing for producing superplastic billets, alloy 

design methodologies for meeting property requirements for both service and processing, (alloy 

developments to date have concentrated on in-service material property requirements, ignoring the 

processing limitations), and the development of advanced presses equipped with controls to forge to netshape. 

Material Additive Processes 

Material additive processes include laser-net-shape manufacturing, direct metal laser sintering, plasma 

transferred arc and electron-beam free form fabrication. They typically require expensive metal powder or 

11
55

wire as a raw material. Despite the high cost of raw material, these processes find niches in manufacturing 

where local additions of expensive metal is more economical than removing a large amount of less 

expensive metal from an over-sized workpiece. Where small numbers of parts are required, the additive 

processes obviate the need for expensive tooling, thus becoming economically favorable. Tailoring 

properties by tailoring chemical composition to the local requirements such as corrosion resistance, wear 

resistance, chemical resistance and hydrophobicity seems to be an obvious benefit of these processes, but 

this advantage has not been largely exploited. The largest obstacle these processes face is the presence of 

microstructural defects (e.g., voids, impurities, or inclusions) in the final product; such defects can lead to 

catastrophic failure. Developments in process monitoring and control with in situ defect detection and 

remediation could reduce or eliminate the cracks, inclusions, and pores between deposit layers. 

Joining

The advent of high brightness lasers makes it possible to weld thick gauge materials commonly seen in 

numerous industries including windmill towers, locomotives, and pipe. These high brightness lasers enable 

the welding of materials that are up to 1 inch thick in a single pass. This is significant. Utilizing today's 

technology (e.g., metal inert gas or submerged arc welding) requires a “weld prep” where metal is removed 

and scrapped, then replaced with weld metal filler wire. The ability to weld 1-inch plates in a single pass 

can lead to a 90% reduction in both energy consumed and CO2 emissions during the manufacturing 

process. For the heavy industrial manufacturing sector in the United States, this amounts to a reduction of 

2.98x109

 kWh/yr. Combined with technologies that reduce the forging envelope, research in advanced 

joining will provide additional opportunity to introduce net shape manufacturing into the supply chain. 

Advanced Machining 

Several new machining techniques that combine electrical, chemical and mechanical removal of material 

are emerging with the goal of increased throughput. These techniques apply lower mechanical loads, 

leading to lower capital equipment costs due to reduced machine stiffness requirements. They enable costeffective machining of high-performance materials that prove difficult or impossible to machine 

conventionally. Environmental stewardship adds a burden to these new technologies, requiring process 

developments. 

In line monitoring of the output of high-throughput machining centers is required to ensure that the product 

consistently meets geometric tolerances. However, conventional gauging and tooling is expensive and 

inflexible. High-speed, general-purpose, non-contact measuring systems could detect tool wear or 

alignment issues, allowing corrective actions to center products within customer tolerances. 

A review of the balance sheet of a typical machining center indicates that approximately 10% of income 

results from the sale of machining chips and scrap metal. As this amount represents the typical net income 

of such a center, the chips and scrap must be viewed as a product rather than waste. High speed detection 

and sorting of chips by alloy composition can add significant value. Reclamation of machining waste in 

electrochemical machining processes should be addressed. 

Recommendations 

While there has been impressive fundamental work in some of the above areas to develop new 

technologies, they have not been widely implemented. In some cases this is because of high initial 

investment. In other cases, new design practices to take advantage of new materials have not been 

established. The key areas in R&D needed to overcome the challenges of net shape manufacturing should 

include: 

• Development of new manufacturing technologies for net shape manufacturing 

• Enhancing current net shape manufacturing technologies 

• Modeling & simulation of net shape manufacturing processes 

• Developing design practices capable of taking advantage of the new technologies 

• Devising approaches for process control that incorporate in-line monitoring and adaptive control 

12
56

Third Wave Systems, Inc. 

The Future of Advanced Alloy Manufacturing: Material Modeling 

Advanced alloy development is an active area of research with pervasive impact on the United 

States’ manufacturing industry; indeed airframe, jet engine, power generation, medical device, 

defense, and automotive companies all stand to benefit from such research. We need to avoid 

time-consuming traditional methods of development and access state-of-the-art micromechanical 

modeling techniques that accelerate the development of these alloys and sustain our country’s 

global competitiveness. Unfortunately, a disconnect currently exists between alloy developers 

and the manufacturing base of industries that want to machine components utilizing new alloys. 

Time-to-market advantages are being lost while our manufacturing base struggles with 

machinability issues that accompany new, unfamiliar alloys. Additionally, new alloys are 

inhibited from broad-based dissemination due to prohibitive manufacturing costs. 

Computational alloy design is an emerging approach to new alloy development that relies on 

mechanistic and predictive material models. By working with the end-user of an alloy, the final 

microstructure is optimized for the best combination of relevant properties. During the 

computational alloy design process, structure-property models dictate optimal microstructure to 

achieve the desired properties; in turn, process-structure models dictate optimal processing to 

achieve the targeted microstructure. In the last decade, such physics-based material modeling has 

proven to be an effective method for reducing new process costs and accelerating process 

implementation. 

We now need to fill the void of structure-property models relevant to machinability using a 

combination of computational alloy design expertise and machining simulation leadership. 

Current computational performance levels often impede rapid tooling and process development, 

but these tools can be expanded and leveraged using advanced machining simulations to 

incorporate both alloy performance and manufacturability into a concurrent engineering 

framework for high performance alloys. By focusing on relevant microstructural features and 

their impact on properties that drive machinability, the United States can leverage the same 

process-structure models utilized in alloy design to develop an annealing cycle that achieves 

targeted microstructures. For example, it may be possible to design a titanium alloy annealing 

cycle that accesses a morphology of coarse alpha particles otherwise undesirable for material 

toughness, while being compatible with a subsequent final heat treatment to restore the 

properties of the final product. 

It is time for the manufacturing community to adopt integrated multiscale physics-based 

predictive modeling for the development of machinable advanced alloys and corresponding 

component machining processes. By incorporating micromechanical constitutive models from 

alloy development models into physics-based machining models, manufacturers will gain 

detailed microstructural information about new machined components. In addition, outputs from 

physics-based machining models will also serve as a machinability feedback loop during alloy 

development, enabling developers to improve alloy machinability in the development stage while 

maintaining high performance design properties.
57

Third Wave Systems, Inc. 

Technology is the wave of the future, and an industry driver for the United States’ emergence as 

the leader in developing advanced alloys both affordably and time-efficiently. The task is 

complex – finite element modeling must account for geometric, tooling, speed, feed, and other 

extrinsic machinability factors using validated experimental techniques – but not unfeasible. The 

reward will be simulation accuracy that provides insights to intrinsic material properties that 

influence machinability. The end result is a substantially more productive, more competitive U.S. 

machining sector, generating high profits and providing products to market much faster – 

particularly components made from advanced alloys. It’s time to start machining smarter. 
58

21st CenturyMethodsfor CompositeProcessing

Thomas Rose: Advanced Processing Technology, Norman OK, 73071, Ph405-360-4848 

Energy is a critical to the economy of the US. Composite materials address many of the energy issues both to 

produce energy in products such as windmills and to save energy in products such as car bodies and aircraft. 

There is also a need to update infrastructure to retain and regain jobs in the USA. 

By 2010, the global market for Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) composite materials is predicted to be 

worth $13.6 billion, representing a huge increase of 37% over 20061. CFRP also has a role as a replacement for 

metals in infrastructure. Corrosion of metallic structures has a significant impact on the U.S. economy. In a 

congressional study, the total economic impact of corrosion and corrosion control applications was estimated to 

be $276 billion annually, or 3.1 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). 2 Estimates for the DoD 

alone are between 10-20 Billion. 

While the use of composites has grown, many of the manufacturing and repair processes have remained stagnant. 

There is a large and growing need to update the underlying technology to take advantage of new tools developed over 

the past forty years. Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year using specifications and practices that had 

their genesis in the 1950�

s and 1960�s. 

The need to update these specifications and practices has a significant relevance to retaining jobs and advancing both 

defense and commercial industry within the United States. 

Background and Approach: Current specifications for composite materials were developed before it was possible to 

measure material properties during manufacture so the approach was to use the same material and process them the 

same way every time. The integrity of this practice relies on a “no change” policy. 

Stated another way, any change in the process is unacceptable because its effect on the performance of the material 

is unknown. The objective of this white paper is to increase the visibility of properties critical to performance 

during the process and thus enable far greater range of acceptability. This enables many more opportunities for cost 

reduction and performance improvement. 

Fundamental to all process improvement is the ability to link material properties to performance and then optimize 

around those properties. The improvements in computers, cure models, communication, instruments and sensors 

combine to make it possible to measure and link material properties to process actions with far greater accuracy that 

was available in the past. 

The benefits range from salvaging a bicycle part that might otherwise be scrapped, to the ability to build a 

complex bridge or sophisticated weapon that would be impossible using the legacy technology. 

Modern Laboratory 1970 2008 

Challenge: The barriers to change are high. Success requires new infrastructure. There is no requirement for 

change to infrastructure without a specified requirement. The „

catch 22�is that specifications cannot change 

without data and without a change to the infrastructure one cannot gather the data. 

By leveraging the knowledge gained from past processing science programs4 and substitution methodology 

projects5 and by using new instruments, computers and data management systems, an infrastructure can now be 

developed with the final goal of new specifications for manufacturing. 

Goals: The near term goal is to adapt instruments, equipment and software to create processing alternatives. During 

this phase the goal is more efficient and accurate methods evaluate materials, address production problems and 

improve manufacturing methods within the limits of existing specifications. 

The basic components to support the MSM approach have been installed and multiple milestones have been 

achieved. 
59

21st CenturyMethodsfor CompositeProcessing

Thomas Rose: Advanced Processing Technology, Norman OK, 73071, Ph405-360-4848 

• Instruments to measure state of prepreg during cure with linkage to controls. 

• Cure models that can be validated using low cost in process methods 

• Microwire sensors to determine temperatures deep within a laminate 

• Linkage of models and microwires for cure modeling 

• Remote link of process equipment to lab instruments 

• Real time and post process determination of visco-elastic state 

These technologies are ready to be tested and evaluated in manufacturing and, if properly supported, will 

provide durable jobs based on a domestic infrastructure. Many of these improvements can be targeted to 

applications such as bridges, and buildings whose jobs cannot be relocated. 

This will require a multiyear effort within the framework of a collaborative effort with industry, academia, and 

government. This work is still developmental and is expected to include failures and successes as the balance between 

sophistication and shop friendliness evolves. In the end such an approach will inevitably lead to major cost savings 

and performance improvements. 

AvPro has worked in collaboration with large (GKN, Spirit Aerosystems, Rockwell Automation Roper), small 

(Thermal Solutions, Helicomb, First Wave) universities (Wichita State, Oklahoma University, UCLA) and others to 

demonstrate proof of concept and lay the foundation. Much work needs to be done that can only be achieved with 

additional resources and beyond the scope of AvPro and much of which must ultimately reside in the public domain 

and therefore has limited potential for attracting private capital. 

Much of AvPro�s work has been within the aerospace community: thus emphasis on the catch 22 regarding 

specifications. However a similar catch 22 exists in the commercial world that is less defined and therefore a greater 

challenge. If it has not been done before and does not have an immediate ROI tied to a tangible product, venture 

money is extremely difficult to obtain. Thus truly innovative ideas that derive their utility from an existing 

infrastructure will not be funded until the infrastructure is in place but the infrastructure requires products, the 

development of which venture money will not fund. 

In summary: there is a significant opportunity to lead in many areas of composite processing if the tools to support it 

are developed. Personnel directly responsible for materials and processes from both the public and private sector 

support the concept. Funding of a team with the proper vision and capability with resources to move from proof of 

concept done “below the radar� to a program large enough to instantiate change has not been available. 

Many of the key drivers for this technology are the establishment of (a.) new methods based on (b.) new instruments 

that require (c.) data to determine repeatability, reproducibility of results and (d.) methods and standards to validate 

and substantiate the accuracy and precision of the results. 
60

Product Tolerance Representation:

Critical Requirements for Product/Process 

Interoperability

Curtis W. Brown, Engineer Principal Mechanical, NNSA’s Kansas City Plant1 and

Daniel A. Campbell, Software Director, MetroSage, LLC

The “perfectly nominal” part is an ideal never fully achieved in manufacturing; however industry 

can fabricate parts that fit and function when acceptable limits from tolerances are introduced. 

Therefore a critical responsibility of a designer is to define product acceptability by augmenting 

the nominal geometric shape with the appropriate set of tolerances. Within the past 60 years, 

we have seen the refinement and standardization of tolerance representation which, when 

implemented properly, control the location, orientation, form, and/or size of part features in a 

complete and unambiguous manner.

Statement of the Problem: Current electronic product definition systems (i.e., CAD 

Systems) represent completely and unambiguously only a segment of the product’s 

design. Product tolerance presentations are generally of the form of mere textual 

annotations, devoid of any meaningful association to the product geometry. This gravely 

limits the designer’s ability to efficiently create and communicate complete and 

unambiguous tolerance information, and it cripples downstream applications that 

depend on such information.

What is Needed: A full semantic representation of 3-D geometric dimensioning and 

tolerancing (GD&T), within or tightly coupled to the product definition system.

Meeting the stated need in an adequate manner will require software capable of:

• Augmenting a solid shape with tolerance definitions

• Implementing the notion of tolerance features (collections of one or more topological 

faces)

• Representing tolerances semantically (not just as annotations)

• Dimensional / coordinate tolerances

• Geometric tolerances

• Specifications (e.g., thread specifications.)

• General property attributes (e.g., notes, markings, cosmetics)

• Designating functionally important tolerance features as functional datum features

• Building datum reference frames (DRFs) from datum features

• Associating DRFs to appropriate tolerances

• Assigning tolerances to appropriate tolerance features

• Recognizing tolerance features automatically and interactively

• Inferring correct tolerances automatically

• Per ANSI Y14.5

• Per company standards

• Checking, validating, and scoring a piece-part’s functional tolerance definition

• Are all geometric faces assigned to tolerance features?

• Are all tolerance features properly constrained for location, orientation, size and 

form?

• Are there any unused DRFs?

• Publishing application programmers’ interface (API) suite

• Extending tolerance analysis

• Supporting downstream applications (e.g., inspection)

• Exchanging tolerance definition to other product definition systems

1

 The Kansas City Plant is operated and managed by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC, for the NNSA

17
61

The Key Driver: Efficient and Economic Manufacturing 

Tolerancing is an important aspect of design, plus the cost of correcting design errors during the 

design process is relatively low. Intelligent automated tolerancing capabilities and, in particular, 

the ability to independently check that a part’s tolerance definition is correct, complete and 

unambiguous, will ensure that tolerance errors are caught early in the product development 

cycle.

Having validated tolerance information as an integral part of product definition means that, with 

suitable interoperability, the same validated information can be used in downstream 

applications, such as measurement process planning, measurement results analysis, assembly 

analysis, CMM part program generation, etc.

A Case in Point: Intelligent, Automated, Economically Optimized Inspection

Process Planning

An important aspect of measurement planning is to ensure that the measurement devices and 

procedures to be employed are adequate for the precision required in the ensuing 

measurements. Another is to ensure that the measurements are carried out in an economically 

efficient manner, making optimal use of the measurement resources available. In inspection 

operations the precision of the measurements bears heavily on accept/reject decisions and can 

play a critical role in the risks of Type I and Type II errors, each of which has its own attendant 

economic consequences. Recent years have seen noteworthy advances in the theory of risk 

and cost analysis. National and international standards have addressed these concepts as well. 

Moreover, new software products now offer well validated estimates of measurement 

uncertainties via science-based modeling and simulation. Thus the essential theory and many 

component technologies exist for the implementation of an intelligent automated inspection 

process planning system, a software tool for use by the manufacturing community to enable the 

automated production of design-based measurement strategies of known reliability and high 

economic efficiency. Manufacturers using such a tool would find that they (1) could 

dramatically speed the production of measurement strategies for new or existing parts; (2) 

would know the reliability of these strategies; and (3) would know (based on their own 

assessment of cost functions for measurement, the costs of accepting a defective component or 

rejecting a good one) the economic consequences of each alternative strategy. Such 

capabilities offer the prospect of significant advances in profitability and product reliability.

With all that said, the problem 

stated at the outset of this 

document remains. Under 

current conditions, the 

potential user of such a 

system would not have ready 

access from the design 

system to validated tolerance 

information tightly linked to 

the part geometry. This 

presents an obstacle to what 

could otherwise provide a 

significant advance in 

manufacturing. 
62

Information models for machining interoperability, 

optimization, and simulation

Martin Hardwick

Professor and Acting Head of Computer Science, RPI

President STEP Tools, Inc.

Today, Computerized Numerically Controlled (CNC) machines are programmed using

Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) systems that receive their input from Computer 

Aided Design (CAD) systems. The CAD systems are used to define the nominal

geometry and required final dimensions and tolerances of a part. The CAM systems are

used to define processes that will make the part by adding material to, or more commonly 

removing material from, a workpiece. 

The input to a CAM system is a drawing or its equivalent and the output is a set of Gcodes (Gerber plotter codes) that tell a machine tool how to move its components in a 

sequence. If the machine is setup correctly then executing these codes will reveal the part. 

The antiquated G-code language is now being replaced with a modern associative

language that makes CNC programming more visual and easier to control. It builds on 

the STEP language that is implemented by nearly every CAD system. FANUC, the 

leading vendor of CNC controls, recently demonstrated a hybrid control that machines a 

part from a STEP-NC description. The figure below shows the data that was machined.

STEP Tools and an industry team of aerospace and heavy equipment manufacturers are

testing STEP-NC and extending its capabilities to enable cooperative process planning 

and simulation by teams of suppliers. The extensions include:

• Definitions to speed up or slow down a program in response to changes in the 

production schedule. The aerospace industry has estimated that the average time 

for a machining job can be reduced by 15% or more if the process can be fine 

tuned in this way. 

• Definitions to enable networked simulation so that a contractor can ask a team of 

suppliers to plan and simulate the manufacture of a part on multiple machines, at 

multiple locations and in multiple stages.

• Definitions to allow changes to the tooling so that an operator can make

adjustments to a program received from a supplier without having to ask a CAM 

programmer to make a complete new program from the original drawing. 

• Definitions to enable energy consumption estimates so that an enterprise can 

minimize the energy required to make a part by selecting the most appropriate 

machines and tooling.

19
63

• Definitions to adjust the machining programs using the results of measurements 

so that the form of a part can be adjusted to meet the current dimensions of a large

assembly.

The mathematics required for these capabilities is mostly defined in the literature. The 

STEP-Manufacturing team is assembling an infrastructure that allows the se definitions to 

be harvested in an open, shared framework defined by standards.

A new modeling method, called a Usage Guide, is being developed to add onto the STEP

standards for the new semantics. The first Usage Guide showed how gears can be 

represented as AP-214 data. STEP-Manufacturing is developing a Usage Guide to

describe the kinematics of machine tools in AP-214. Concepts first developed for

ontologies are being used to enable Dynamic Usage Guides that can be customized to 

the requirements of specific machines and operations. Examples include the operations 

specific to a particular CAM system, and the program cycles specific to a particular 

machine tool.

The new STEP-NC programs are a shared resource that can be stored in appropriate

media. The new programs can be edited and linked using software tools such as the 

STEP-NC Explorer illustrated below. Simulators are used to check the consistency of the 

programs. Engineers like to solve technical challenges but do not like to waste time 

because of antiquated methods such as G-codes. By making CNC programming more 

accessible, STEP-NC allows more innovative products to be developed more quickly. 

The definitions described here add new functionality to the standard so that the new

products can be made faster and more cost effectively.

STEP-NC Part machined by Fanuc at Boeing Renton Plant on 7.14.2009.

20
64

White paper submitted to the NIST Workshop, November 3, 4, 2009 

Personalized Production Paradigm

Y. Koren and W. Wang 

The University of Michigan 

How can we sustain a strong auto industry in the US? 

How can we create new Small Business industries? 

How can we create new manufacturing jobs? 

Our proposed personalized production of automobile interiors will boost the US economy, 

and create new jobs and new industries. Instead of compromising on an interior design offered 

by the auto manufacturer, buyers will be able to design their new car interiors to meet their 

needs: Starting from an open interior space and filling it with available modules. 

Automobile interior modules may include, computer stations, storage boxes, microwaves, 

refrigerators, beds, dog baskets, folding tables, clothing racks, and portable-potties for kids, 

etc. We are proposing an open-architecture structure for all these mechanical components, 

parallel to the i-Phone and PC electro-type open architecture software. 

When this approach is adopted by the auto industry and mechanical-electrical openarchitecture standards are established, dozens of small new companies will start to produce 

special modules (such as dog baskets and storage cabinets), which will evolve to several new 

industries. In addition to trading used cars, people will trade used modules as their needs 

change and they want to update and remodel their existing cars. Because this personalized 

production business model is beneficiary to both the manufacturers (that are being paid before 

the product is built) and to the customers (who are getting exactly the product that they need), 

and because it will generate new industries that produce innovative modules, it could be a 

giant booster to the US economy. 

The main engineering research challenges are 

1. Creating a new-generation of CAD based systems by which buyers, who are not 

necessarily engineers, could easily design their car interiors; it will apply control 

feedback principles, which will aid buyers to converge to arrive at their desired 

products.

2. Creating a new-generation of assembly systems that will be able to handle thousands 

of options, and still produce cars at mass-production cost. 

The main practical challenges are defining the regulations and standards for mechanical 

interfaces that will guarantee safety, as well as defining the standards for electrical and 

information interfaces. NIST should take a leading role and work with General Motors, Ford 

and Toyota on establishing these standards. 

21
65 22

Ushering in the Next Generation of Factory Robotics & Automation 

Leandro G. Barajas, Ph.D. 

Manufacturing Systems Research Laboratory, General Motors R&D Center, Warren, MI 48090 

Andrea L. Thomaz, Ph.D. 

School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 

Henrik I. Christensen, Ph.D. 

College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 

The manufacturing capability and sustainability of the U.S. industry has been losing ground to its Asian and 

European competitors for the last few decades. For example, Japanese and German companies currently dominate 

the market of industrial Robotics and Automation (R&A) solutions with the support of low price Chinese 

manufacturers. Given the high labor cost in North American markets, the only viable option for U.S. industries to 

compete with a global market is via state-of-the-art R&A. Furthermore, most capital-intensive and wealth producing 

industries in the U.S. neither have the technical expertise nor the manufacturing capability to survive without cost 

effective R&A, which places these industries in a precarious state of vulnerability to disruptive technologies that 

may redefine the value stream map of their respective businesses. 

The unfortunate reality is that the domestic production of consumer products using conventional processes 

could soon cease to exist based on a 30-year track record of global outsourcing pressure toward regions with low 

labor and investment costs. The transformational development and establishment of next generation manufacturing 

assembly processes using the latest in dexterous and intelligent robotics and lean production technologies will 

provide the necessary competitive edge for a variety of affordable products for the future. As a result, jobs will be 

retained as some will shift from line work to technical support and operation of the robotic systems. 

The structured environment existent in current production facilities that enables robots to perform their tasks 

actually limits flexibility and drives a significant cost penalty for using robots. There has been some progress in 

enabling robots to operate in manufacturing operations with less structure, but robot capability in this area is very 

limited. This “robot capability gap” persists and limits the range of applications and business conditions under which 

robotics provide a feasible commercial alternative to other means of implementing manufacturing processes. This 

gap is especially evident in the automobile industry when examining the final assembly process. 

From an end user perspective, we believe that a new generation of assembly automation can be anticipated to 

significantly reduce the reliance on fixturing, mechanized structuring, and conventional sense-plan-act 

programming. This capability would enable assembly automation with a set of little or no more infrastructure 

requirements than a completely manual process would. These new assembly processes will exploit the existence of a 

flexible robot perception system as an integral component of a three-part strategy that includes: 1) highly flexible 

robots/end effectors, 2) flexible perception, and 3) safe integration/harmony with people, which are also performing 

tasks in the assembly process. The cognitive component of the perception system would facilitate the “assignment” 

of the automation to a set of assembly tasks and/or assistance to others performing a task not yet appropriate for 

automation. This capability will also enable the rapid “reassignment” of the automation to other tasks as required by 

production mix and business needs. Many U.S. manufacturing domains stand to benefit from the flexibility and 

productivity that this form of dynamic automation brings to the assembly process. Multi-purpose robots that can 

23
66

safely collaborate with human workers will elevate the capabilities of existing assembly workers in the pursuit of 

providing quality products to end-users. 

A key factor in creation and adoption of the next generation manufacturing technologies is the development of 

flexible perception and human-like control technologies. In addition, by taking a leadership role in the development 

and adoption of such emerging technologies, we could ensure that the jobs created in this new area stay in the U.S. 

These jobs can only be created and retained if a technological edge can be found that overcomes the attraction to 

low-cost labor regions. Through the pervasive use of intelligent R&A that can be as flexible and as easily trained as 

people, related industry jobs could also be moved from offshore to the U.S. as a direct result of this new technical 

capability. 

Our goal is to see revolutionary advancements in dexterous robotics leveraged in a new energy efficient 

automation environment that combines the best possible mix of human and machine capabilities. These next 

generation robots include “safe robot” technologies that allow the seamless integration of people and dexterous 

robots in one lean process. The key factor for the success of this approach is that the new systems leverage the 

infrastructure and flexible material processes that traditional manual systems use rather than expensive and 

traditionally inefficient automation methods. This substitution enables a substantial reduction in R&A support 

investment that can normally be up to 10 times the cost of the robot themselves. 

From a scientific point of view, this endeavor encompasses a wide range of disciplines. Even when current 

commoditized hardware capabilities are almost at the level required to enable us to cross the capability gap, the 

actual integrated control and communications software systems are still lagging due to the heavy burden of current 

legacy systems. The historical paradigm for controlling R&A systems relies upon the system designer being able to 

specify a priori every requirement and possible condition of the system. This approach leaves no room for changing 

conditions, adaptability, plasticity, and in general, learning. 

One of the main hindrances that is currently preventing the evolution of the next generation R&A is the lack of 

standards of performance and test methods. Every R&A manufacturer attempts to keep their customer base captive 

by having closed and mostly incompatible systems. Most of the major specifications of these systems are given in 

terms of mechanical or electrical characteristics rather than in terms of overall system performance. NIST could play 

a vital role in advent of the new wave of R&A technologies by facilitating the dialog among interested parties and 

establishing both system standards and evaluation metrics in order to be able to track the level of capability 

improvement of such systems. Such specifications should not only encompass hardware and software metrology 

targets, but also high-level system qualitative and quantitative capability measurements for standardized processes. 

In a way, this will enable an R&A revolution equivalent to the one observed on the computer industry in the mid 

1980’s. Effects of this achievement will be reflected deep into the fabric of industry and ultimately into the entire 

society; but in this case instead of putting a computer in every home or pocket, it will enable the pervasive use of 

functional R&A in all areas of our daily lives, from the factory plant floor to even your kitchen floor. 

We predicate that there is a unique opportunity to make progress in this arena by harnessing collaborations 

between industry and academia. Our existing collaboration between Georgia Tech and General Motors is one such 

good example. In our collaborative efforts to bring cutting-edge R&A technology from the labs to the factory floor, 

we are forced to reconcile some of the real issues involved with integrating flexible R&A with existing 

manufacturing processes and to focus on technologies that deliver real value added to the end customer. 

24
67

Key Barriers to Rampant Random Bin Picking Retrofit Deployment 

Dennis Murphey dmurphey@braintech.com

Braintech Government & Defense Inc. McLean, VA 

 With an estimated 1,000,000 robots deployed by the end of 2010 the increasing requirement 

for Advanced Sensor Retrofits to deployed Robotic Workstations is expected to continue to increase. 

Retrofit solutions have always made good sense for complex substantial installations for discrete and 

continuous process manufacturing. The barriers however have remained the same throughout the 

years: controller interface, sensor compatibility, solution engineering and systems integration. Issues 

such as these become real barriers for complex applications such as Random Bin Picking 

 There is little doubt that Random Bin Picking (RBP) is a significant advanced manufacturing 

technology innovation. The key industry drivers for RBP include cost of manual operations, difficulty 

in material handling, and hazardous conditions. However the key drivers for Retrofitting are different; 

cycle time, error rates, down time and recovery processes. A common set of enablers to Robotic 

Retrofit experience would at the same time enhance additional innovations. We believe these enablers 

would also span multiple manufacturing sectors and would be of particular interest to the baseline 

infrastructural technology areas including measurements, performance metrics, test methods, and 

standards. 

Reasons to deploy advanced manufacturing technology innovations include: sustainability, flexibility, 

agility, reconfigurability, additive manufacturing, lifecycle information exchange and management, 

science-based modeling and simulation, intelligence and optimization of manufacturing systems, high 

throughput, high-accuracy measurement technologies, automation and robotics with increased pace of 

innovation. A good robotic retrofit candidate will naturally address many of these points. A good 

random bin picking solution will focus on solving some of the more complex issues for manufacturing 

such as: flexibility, agility, and reconfiguration. However, critical factors that are harder to achieve 

and that remain barriers to deployment are, front end engineering in order to complete deployment, 

sustainable high throughput, rapidly deployable enhancements and innovations. 

The front end application engineering includes: part programming, path planning, end effector design 

and build, sensor and controller integration and then the systems engineering to make the operation 

function as intended. We believe addressing all these front end technical barriers will dramatically 

improve the successful update of aging robotic deployments. It has been our experience just this year 

with a body assembly line in Ohio, that after the pain and agony of the “front end” the end result was 

beyond the customers expectation, in fact our retrofit of vision guidance to a 10 year old robot brought 

the solution beyond the original systems capability. However the weeks taken to get there were very 

costly.

25
68

 “What are key drivers for advanced manufacturing technology innovation?” 

1) We see a need for a new Vision Guidance Controller Architecture. With open standards that 

supports things like additive manufacturing, where vision guidance for example can also provide 

product quality and process validation. Higher speed device communication is critical to meeting 

throughput requirements. A more open solution would allow wider variety of sensors that could 

improve the accuracy as well. 

2) We see a need for modeling and simulation research where standards for object representation and 

solid model exchange could enhance the use of dynamic simulation. Simulation when uses effectively 

can help prevent engineering errors and solution gaps, however the pain and cost to produce effective 

simulations remain too high for routine everyday use. A simple pick and place dynamic simulation 

with complete robot model data still takes several days to complete in the most crude representation. 

 “What are the most important areas where R&D is needed (particularly in measurement and 

standards) to overcome barriers and accelerate manufacturing technology innovation?” 

1) We think an Adaptive Guidance Open Architecture standard could be a focus area that with 

Defense support and Manufacturing’s requirements could produce a serious dual use 

opportunity. Such an open standard would also allow a large body of research to produce innovation at 

a much increased pace. 

2) We also think Modeling and Simulation should be supported by a standards effort for information 

exchange as well as performance measurements. With strong simulation capable of emulating complex 

and complete intelligent automation systems designs could be validated before code is completed or 

machines are built. Performance enhancements could be identified and validated very early in the 

deployment cycle. Saving time and money for all involved. 

 Where is the next innovation? 

- Real-time instant sensor and device calibration process eliminate lengthy manual calibration 

processes. Embed calibration data such as fixed focal length or camera model specific information. 

- Real-time instant object pattern/feature learning, detection, orientation and inspection, How all this 

gets done is the challenge, once we are able to rapidly retrofit and deploy complex robotic solutions 

like random bin picking this is where we will turn our attention. 

- 3D Models of objects, workstations, devices, parts, environment and with dynamic information to 

drive simulations. We need solutions that can be engineered more accurately, and faster with 

validation of results before fully executed or deployed. 

- Bundled mechanical software solutions. In random bin picking we have found that the end effector is 

as complicated to design as the vision guidance application. Plus the need for the vision sensor to have 

clear FOV is becoming more and more an issue. We see two innovations in the horizon that can help 

rapidly deploy RBP and other advanced automation. 1) define a set or range of end effectors that are 

grouped by capability, flexibility, dexterity, power and pre-engineer them with universal wrist 

attachments base don a standard. 2) split the sensor positioning from the point of action, this means 

develop a robot arm just to position the lens, then maintain the muscle action to a separate arm that is 

able to maneuver into tight positions without a camera hanging off the wrist or having to move to an 

awkward location to get an image then relocate to pick the part. 

26
69

Sustainable Manufacturing 

Vijay Srinivasan, NIST 

After surveying thirty large corporations, a recent article in the Harvard Business Review 

declared that “there is no alternative to sustainable development”1. A parallel, more extensive 

study by MIT found that “there is a strong consensus that sustainability is having – and will 

continue to have – a material impact on how companies think and act”2

. These dramatic 

developments owe to the fact that the manufacturing sector, represented by these companies, has 

a significant impact on the economy, society, and the environment around the world. Close to 

home, the U.S. manufacturing sector contributes 11% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 

provides 10% of the nation’s workforce with high-paying jobs. It is also the largest consumer of 

energy (45%), the second largest consumer of mined materials (21%), a major producer of solid 

waste (10 trillion kg per year), and a significant user of hazardous materials – all of which are 

implicated in a growing number of environmental problems. These facts are not lost on the U.S. 

government. The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) recently named sustainable 

manufacturing as one of its key performance goals and called upon NIST to provide national 

assistance to realize this goal. 

 Recognizing the environmental impact of manufacturing and the products they produce, 

many countries and regions have introduced regulations such as RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous 

Substances), REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) and 

WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment) that restrict the sale of products 

containing hazardous or prohibited substances. Additionally, many companies have introduced 

consumer-oriented labeling to indicate various aspects of sustainability in their products, 

including Energy Star and labels for recycled content and recyclability of products. Some of 

these labeling are mandated by governmental regulations. Even if many of these regulations are 

local, their implications on the manufacturing sector are global – for example, the U.S. 

manufacturers are scrambling to comply with the European regulations because they do not want 

to be locked out of that lucrative market. 

 As the U.S. manufacturing sector sells globally, it also sources globally. It manages a 

global supply chain in all four major phases of a typical product’s life cycle: raw material 

selection, product realization, customer use, and material recovery. As the U.S. manufacturers 

and their global suppliers struggle with sustainability issues in the product life cycle, they are 

discovering that they need to measure, control, and manage sustainability in a complex mix of 

temporal (life cycle) and spatial (global supply chain) dimensions. Additionally, they have to 

respond to the impact of their actions on economical, social, and environmental issues in this 

complex space-time domain. Business executives often bemoan that “you are only as green as 

your supply chain”3

, and compare the global sustainability challenges of today to the ‘total 

quality management’ (TQM) challenges they faced nearly a quarter century ago4. They are also 

concerned about the dwindling supply of raw materials and resources (e.g., energy, water), and 

the sometime unfriendly sources of material supply. 

 At a recent summit organized by the DOC Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative, 

1

“Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Sept. 2009, pp. 56-64. 

2

 The business of sustainability, MIT Sloan Management Review Special Report, 2009. 3

 http://www.hbrgreen.org/ 

4

 “The green conversation”, Harvard Business Review, Sept. 2008, pp. 58-62. 

27
70

representatives of a broad spectrum of U.S. industries expressed their frustration over a vast 

number of inadequately defined measures of sustainability, the difficulties with collecting and 

exchanging sustainability information, and difficulties with working across enterprise supply 

chains to ensure meaningful improvements in sustainability and conformance to regulations.

 These concerns were echoed with greater technical depth and clarity in a Sustainable 

Manufacturing workshop hosted by NIST soon afterwards. The NIST workshop attracted 

participants from large and small companies in the U.S. manufacturing sector (GM, Ford, GE, 

Xerox, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Automation, P&G, Siemens, Harbec Plastics, Masco, URS), 

software vendors (Dassualt Systems, Siemens PLM, PTC), government (DOC, NIST, NASA, 

NSF), non-governmental organizations (WRI, NCMS, CAMDUS, ANSI, NACFAM, ASTM), 

and academia (Stanford, Purdue, Georgia Tech, RIT, U of Kentucky, Portland State U., Texas 

Tech).

 Most of the industrial concerns and lessons learned were summarized in the industrial 

panel convened by the NIST Sustainable Manufacturing Workshop. Some of the messages were: 

• Sustainability should start with leaders at the top. Also, bottom-up solutions are very 

useful and powerful (because people want to be part of the solution to an important 

problem). 

• Educating suppliers on sustainability is important and is a challenge. 

• Regulations drive a lot of engineering action – often, non-compliance is the fear that 

drives these actions. 

• Branding is very important for business. Many companies are positioning themselves at 

the forefront of sustainability movement to protect and/or enhance their brands. 

• Is sustainability an opportunity or cost? There was a general agreement that there is no 

choice but to treat it as an opportunity. 

In the NIST Sustainable Manufacturing Workshop we found evidence that the more experienced 

manufacturing firms see opportunities in sustainability beyond mere compliance with regulations 

– in fact, they view this as a driver of innovation. They find that by adopting lean manufacturing 

practices they can reduce waste (a sustainability goal) while saving associated costs. They also 

see new market opportunities if they can introduce innovative materials, processes, and products 

to meet the global economic, societal, and environmental sustainability needs. 

 In the meantime, several non-governmental and standards development organizations are 

actively engaged in proposing and issuing guidelines, standards, and regulations. It was clear at 

the NIST workshop that they need some urgent coordination. Several academics have studied 

these problems and are trying to bring some order and understanding to various sustainability 

practices. It is encouraging to see that the academic community that studies these problems 

includes economists, who are proposing methods to monetize many of the sustainability metrics. 

 Based on the NIST Sustainable Manufacturing Workshop, the major challenges faced by 

the U.S. manufacturing industry in their pursuit of sustainability goals can be summarized as: 

(1) they are unable to accurately measure economic, societal, and environmental impacts and 

costs of their products during the entire life cycle and across their supply chain; (2) full life cycle 

analysis (LCA) of products requires new methods to analyze, integrate, and aggregate 

information across hierarchical levels, organizational entities, and supply chain participants; and 

(3) they lack neutral and trusted programs to demonstrate, deploy, and accredit new sustainable 

manufacturing practices, guidelines and methods.

28
71

Appendix V: NIST’s Manufacturing 

Engineering Laboratory

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) served as the primary sponsor of this workshop. MEL promotes innovation and the 

competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing through measurement science, measurement services, 

and critical technical contributions to standards. MEL actively anticipates manufacturers’ changing requirements and pushes beyond the state of the art to solve tomorrow’s measurement and 

standards problems today. 

Developed collaboratively with its external partners in industry, academia, and other government agencies, MEL measurement and standards solutions allow its customers to overcome 

barriers to product and process innovation, to share manufacturing information seamlessly and 

accurately, and to take full advantage of the latest technologies essential to their competitiveness 

and future success. 

In sponsoring this workshop, MEL initiated an important discussion between manufacturing 

leaders on issues that those leaders feel need to be addressed at the plant level, at the industrial 

sector level, and at the national level. Additional detailed information on MEL can be found at: 

http://www.nist.gov/mel/