United States Department of Commerce

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NAT L INST. OF STAND & TECH R.I.C_ NtST

PUBLICATIONS

AiiiOM sstma

NIST Special Publication 877

Proceedings of the

Manufacturing Technology Needs and Issues:

Establishing National Priorities and

Strategies Conference

April 26-28, 1994

Gaithersburg, MD

Cheryl Albus, Editor

J. D. Meyer, Editor

QC

100

.U57

NO. 877

1995
The National Institute of Standards and Technology was established in 1988 by Congress to "assist industry

in the development of technology . . . needed to improve product quality, to modernize manufacturing processes,

to ensure product reliability . . . and to facilitate rapid commercialization ... of products based on new scientific

discoveries."

NIST, originally founded as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901, works to strengthen U.S. industry's

competitiveness; advance science and engineering; and improve public health, safety, and the environment. One of the

agency's basic functions is to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national standards of measurement, and

provide the means and methods for comparing standards used in science, engineering, manufacturing, commerce,

industry, and education with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal Government.

As an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration, NIST conducts basic and applied

research in the physical sciences and engineering, and develops measurement techniques, test methods, standards, and

related services. The Institute does generic and precompetitive work on new and advanced technologies. NIST's

research facilities are located at Gaithersburg, MD 20899, and at Boulder, CO 80303. Major technical operating units

and their principal activities are listed below. For more information contact the Public Inquiries Desk, 301-975-3058.

Office of the Director

• Advanced Technology Program

• Quality Programs

• International and Academic Affairs

Technology Services

• Manufacturing Extension Partnership

• Standards Services

• Technology Commercialization

• Measurement Services

• Technology Evaluation and Assessment

• Information Services

Materials Science and Engineering

Laboratory

• Intelligent Processing of Materials

• Ceramics

• Materials Reliability 1

• Polymers

• Metallurgy

• Reactor Radiation

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory

• Biotechnology

• Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics

• Analytical Chemical Research

• Process Measurements2

• Surface and Microanalysis Science

• Thermophysics2

Physics Laboratory

• Electron and Optical Physics

• Atomic Physics

• Molecular Physics

• Radiometric Physics

• Quantum Metrology

• Ionizing Radiation

• Time and Frequency 1

• Quantum Physics1

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

• Precision Engineering

• Automated Production Technology

• Intelligent Systems

• Manufacturing Systems Integration

• Fabrication Technology

Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Laboratory

• Microelectronics

• Law Enforcement Standards

• Electricity

• Semiconductor Electronics

• Electromagnetic Fields 1

• Electromagnetic Technology 1

• Optoelectronics 1

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

• Structures

• Building Materials

• Building Environment

• Fire Safety

• Fire Science

Computer Systems Laboratory

• Office of Enterprise Integration

• Information Systems Engineering

• Systems and Software Technology

• Computer Security

• Systems and Network Architecture

• Advanced Systems

Computing and Applied Mathematics

Laboratory

• Applied and Computational Mathematics2

• Statistical Engineering2

• Scientific Computing Environments2

• Computer Services

• Computer Systems and Communications2

• Information Systems

'At Boulder, CO 80303.

2 Some elements at Boulder, CO 80303.
NIST Special Publication 877

Proceedings of the

Manufacturing Technology Needs and Issues:

Establishing National Priorities and

Strategies Conference

April 26-28, 1994

Gaithersburg, MD

Cheryl F. Albus and John D. Meyer, Editors

Manufacturing Engineering

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Sponsored by

U.S. Department of Defense and

National Institute of Standards and Technology

February 1995

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arati Prabhakar, Director
National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Special Publication 877

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

Spec. Publ. 877

461 pages (Feb. 1995)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington: 1995

For sale by the Superintendent

of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
Introduction

These are times of unprecedented challenge and opportunity in manufacturing. The current

combination of market drivers - decreasing cycle times and costs, and increasing product

differentiation, quality, and global competition - is unique in the history of manufacturing and

is creating exceptional adversity. At the same time, as the manufacturing community learns

more about the physics and chemistry of processes and about process control, starts to grasp

how technology and people can be integrated, and incorporates the revolution in information

technology, new opportunities are opening up. Manufacturing is an arena where technology

truly is changing all the ground rules.

The many challenges and opportunities confronting manufacturers were addressed at the

conference described in these proceedings. The breadth and depth of interest in these issues

was reflected by the numbers and types of organizations and individuals involved. The

conference was cosponsored by 45 federal agencies and industrial organizations and attended

by more than 700 registrants. Presentations were made by representatives from a host of

manufacturing industries, each of which has been trying to chart its course for the future by

developing a "road map" of technology directions and needs.

The conference was a unique opportunity to examine the spectrum of manufacturing

industries, identify the commonalities and differences, and start assessing the value of road

maps. The conference also provided a glimpse of the full spectrum of government programs

in manufacturing technology. By comparing the industrial activities to the range and the

scope of government efforts, some perspective could be gained on the "fit" between industry

needs and government programs.

The ultimate goal was to develop a plan for moving forward to assure that the United States

maintains a strong, dynamic manufacturing sector that is globally competitive and capable of

meeting national challenges. Among other themes, the papers reflect growing government

collaboration with industry, increasing cooperation within and among federal agencies,

expanded technical agendas in government, and experimentation with innovative government

programs.

Except where attributed to NIST authors, the content of individual sections of this volume has not been reviewed or edited by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST therefore accepts no responsibility for comments or recommendations therein. The mention oftrade names in this volume is in no sense an endorsement or recommendation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

INDUSTRY MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY NEEDS:

Semiconductor Industry Needs

Owen Williams

Vice President of Technical Staff

Semiconductor Products Sector

Motorola, Inc.

Auto Industry Needs

Tim Adams

Director, Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

Chrysler Corp.

The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Road Map

John DeCaire

Vice President, Advanced Manufacturing Technology Program

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Agile Manufacturing Road Map

Robert (Rusty) Patterson

Operations Strategy Manager

Texas Instruments Defense Systems and Electronics Group

Product Data Exchange Road Map

Ian McEwan

Executive in Charge

Quality, Reliability, and Durability Validation Center

General Motors Corp.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS:

Setting National Priorities for Science and Technology Policy

John H. Gibbons

Director

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Textile Industry Needs

Thomas J. Malone

President and Chief Operating Officer

Mlliken & Co.
Food Industry Needs 47

Adolph S. Clausi

President

Institute of Food Technology

Electronic Industry Needs 53

Dieter Bergman

Technical Director

Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits

Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies 57

Anita K. Jones

Director, Defense Research & Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense

Department of Energy Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies 61

Victor H. Reis

Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs

U.S. Department of Energy

Department of Commerce Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies .... 63

Arati Prabhakar

Director

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Science Foundation Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies . . 71

Joseph Bordogna

Assistant Director for Engineering

National Science Foundation

MATCHING INDUSTRY NEEDS TO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS:

Overview of Panel Objectives 77

Thomas J. Murrin

Dean, School of Business and Administration

Duquesne University

Automotive Industry Viewpoint 83

Donald Campbell

Coordinator

General Motors Corp.

Labor Viewpoint 87

Howard Samuel

Senior Fellow

Council on Competitiveness

VI
r

Cooperative Technology Development 91

J. Clifford Schoep

President

National Center for Advanced Technology

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Viewpoint 95

Jack Swindle

Senior Vice President

Texas Instruments

International Perspective 97

Robert J. Herman

Senior Vice President

United Technologies

National Laboratories' Viewpoint 101

Heinz Schmitt

Vice President

Sandia National Laboratories

Defense Logistics Viewpoint 105

Lorna Estep

Technical Director, Information Technology Initiatives

Naval Supply Systems Command

Defense Manufacturing Science and Technology Viewpoint 109

Michael F. McGrath

Executive Director for Manufacturing

Advanced Research Projects Agency

U.S. Department of Defense

Defense Conversion 113

Dorothy Robyn

Special Assistant to the President

National Economic Council

Panel Discussion 119

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Government Directions in Advanced Manufacturing 127

Mary L. Good

Under Secretary for Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

vii
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Overview of Panel Objectives ... 135

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna

AAAS Fellow

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Competitiveness Viewpoint 137

Erich Bloch

Distinguished Fellow

Council on Competitiveness

National Labs Perspective 141

Jeffrey Bostock

Vice President

Martin Marietta Energy Systems

Electronics Industry Perspective 145

Herm Reininga

Vice President, Operations

Collins Avionics and Communications Division

Rockwell International

Small Business Viewpoint 149

Daniel T. Koenig

Vice President for Manufacturing

Steinway and Sons

Interagency Perspective 153

Joseph Bordogna

Assistant Director for Engineering

National Science Foundation

Office of Science and Technology Policy Viewpoint 157

Katherine Gillman

Special Assistant for Defense Conversion

Office of Science and Technology Policy

National Science and Engineering Perspective 161

Tom Mahoney

Director, Manufacturing Sciences Board

National Research Council

Panel Discussion 165

viii
Appendices

Appendix A 179

List of Participating Organizations

Appendix B 183

List of Steering Committee Members

Appendix C 187

List of Organizing Committee Members

Appendix D 191

Comments by Conference Attendees

Appendix E 197

Conference Final Participants List

Appendix F 223

Banquet Speaker

Appendix G 241

Advanced Technology Program Tutorial

Appendix H 265

Best Manufacturing Practices Tutorial

Appendix I 301

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements Tutorial

Appendix J 313

Flexible Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Tutorial

Appendix K 363

N^ufacturing Extension Partnership Tutorial

Appendix L 379

Manufacturing Science and Technology Program Tutorial

Appendix M 417

Technology Reinvestment Project Tutorial

Appendix N 469

Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Tutorial

ix

INDUSTRY MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

Semiconductor Industry Needs

Owen Williams

Vice President of Technical Staff

Semiconductor Products Sector

Motorola, Inc.

I will review how the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) put together a very

successful technology road map that has fostered consensus about the direction our industry

needs to go in research and development (R&D). The industry's history put us in an ideal

situation for developing a road map. The SIA recognized almost 12 years ago that we were

up against a very tough competitor in the Far East and that we needed to join forces in

precompetitive areas to enhance our ability to compete in those areas. We formed a

consortium, the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), with the intent of funding

research at universities to foster advances in semiconductor technology.

Five years later, we found our manufacturing capabilities were falling behind our competitors'

and we formed another consortium, SEMATECH, to establish and improve our manufacturing

infrastructure for semiconductors. Then, in 1992, we found we needed an industry-wide

strategy so that all the organizations pursuing R&D in the semiconductor field would have a

common set of goals. In November 1992, representatives from industry, government, and

universities throughout the United States met in Dallas to integrate all the activities of SRC,

SEMATECH, the universities, and the government, to produce a quality database outlining the

needs of the semiconductor industry.

We think about $5 billion is spent on semiconductor research in the United States each year.

Industry spends about $4 billion of that, focusing primarily on the current generation and the

next generation of factory processes and technologies. The national laboratories spend about

$1 billion. SEMATECH spends about $180 million on preparing for the third generation of

semiconductors. The universities and the SRC also focus on this futuristic type of research.

They have, compared to industry, less money to spend but a greater number of alternatives to

investigate. These options are becoming very, very expensive to pursue.

The objective in developing our road map was twofold. First, we wanted to set forth the

needs the semiconductor industry has to meet in order to compete in the next 15 years.

Second, we wanted to identify critical technical elements that had to be proven before a

1
complete solution was developed and commercialized. In this way, research dollars could be

applied in the proper places rather than wasted developing systems that might not work.

The term "road map" is actually a misnomer. We don't know where the technology is going,

we don't know which options will be selected, and therefore, we can't be sure of the path we

want to take. So the road map only goes so far; there are some trails off to either side, there

are some claims in the mountains, and there are some twinkles of gold way up in the hills.

The question is, which claim is the mother lode? The SIA does not want to try to

predetermine which solutions should be pursued. We want to look at all solutions, because we

don't want to stymie innovation or creativity.

We started out by looking at all the elements that go into a semiconductor factory. We

eventually put together 1 1 different road maps. Each road map outlines generic needs, specific

needs, and potential solutions. Thus, our road maps are linear projections of where we've been

and where we're going. The road map has been published, and 10,000 copies were mailed out

to the industry.

The specific needs are what we consider to be the deliverables from the research community.

We are not suggesting solutions but rather telling researchers what needs their solutions or

creative concepts would have to meet. We also list potential solutions. We got into trouble

here by not listing "new innovations," because some people thought they couldn't work on

anything that wasn't listed. Each of the basic road maps also has recommendations, a narrative

identifying the "show stoppers" and critical success factors. We also identified and described

pervasive, cross-cutting competency needs in process control and quality, modeling and

simulation of materials, metrology, software, contamination-free manufacturing, sensors, and

cost.

The road map was put together by a subgroup of the SIA Board of Directors, the Technology

Strategy Committee. Reporting to that committee is the Roadmap Coordinating Group, which

includes representatives from industry, government, and universities. There are also eight

working groups of representatives from other advisory groups in industry, government, and

academia. The road maps are reviewed and renewed every other year through a consensus

process, in which the semiconductor community can critique and suggest changes to the

roadmap.

2
Auto Industry Needs

Tim Adams

Director, Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

Chrysler Corp.

The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is an effort to achieve

technological breakthroughs that would permit the volume production of vehicles generating

up to three times today's fuel economy, or roughly to 80 miles per gallon. I will provide

background on this venture and address some of the manufacturing issues it raises.

The effort is a partnership of the U.S. government, led by the Department of Commerce, and

the "Big Three" auto companies ~ General Motors Corp. (GM), The Ford Motor Co., and

Chrysler Corp. The industry share of this effort has been folded under the umbrella of the

U.S. Council for Automotive Research (U.S. CAR), a joint venture of the three auto

companies to develop precompetitive technology. Within U.S. CAR, there are 11 or 12

consortia mat pursue development in areas such as materials, emissions, and recycling.

"Precompetitive" refers to technology that will not become a competitive differentiator in the

marketplace; these are areas we agree to work on together, where we can reach a consensus,

and there is sufficient competitive pressure to make sure we do it well.

The PNGV is evolving and will have to include other constituencies, such as the supply base,

which will be extremely important to the ultimate success of the program.

President Clinton provided the basis for the partnership in his new technology plan.

1 In early

1993, the chief executive officers of the Big Three began discussions with the Administration

that resulted in the signing of a declaration of intent to form the partnership in September

1993. The overall aim is to reduce demand for nonrenewable fuels from foreign sources and

to strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry, which has a significant impact on

the nation's economy. For example, the auto industry is responsible for producing as many as one in seven U.S. jobs.

The structure of the PNGV includes steering groups that focus on policy-level issues. The

steering group for the government side is chaired by Dr. Mary Good. On the industry side,

the co-chairs are the technical vice presidents of the three companies. We've also formed

1 Technology for America's Economic Growth: ANew Direction to Build Economic Strength,

February 22, 1993.

3
technical task forces that include representatives from the major government agencies and

laboratories and, on the industry side, myself and my counterparts from Ford and GM. This

structure seems to work extremely well in facilitating not only communication but also issue

resolution. The partnership represents a potential model for further industry-government

cooperation.

The PNGV has three broad goals. Goal 1 is to advance manufacturing technology to improve

competitiveness, in terms of not only cost, but also lead times. Goal 2 is to achieve near-term

advances in fuel efficiency and emissions. And Goal 3, which is long term ~ and the one

getting the most attention — is to achieve the kinds of breakthroughs that will permit the

volume production of vehicles achieving up to three times today's fuel economy.

To make Goal 3 meaningful, we need to define parameters for the end product. Clearly, one

parameter is cost; the target vehicle must cost no more to own and drive than today's

vehicles. The program is not merely a fuel research exercise intended to produce an

interesting concept car for auto shows. Rather, we intend to design a vehicle that can be mass

produced, so we really can reduce, for example, U.S. dependency on foreign fuels. This

means we have to meet the parameters for today's vehicles in terms of cost, performance,

size, utility, safety, and emissions. To help clarify this objective, we created a composite

based on existing mid-sized cars (the Chrysler Concorde, the Ford Taurus, and the GM

Lumina).

We have a broad time line for the program. We hope to create a vehicle concept within

approximately 6 years, roughly by the end of the decade, and a mass-producible prototype

vehicle by roughly the year 2004.

Like the Semiconductor Industry Association, we have a road map and are defining research

priorities based on needs, not solutions. In the beginning we are considering all technologies

that could become part of the ultimate solution. To achieve Goal 3, we are establishing a

construct that permits us to examine the interactions of factors, such as vehicle mass and

energy efficiency, to create a matrix of solutions. This matrix will be used to generate the

requirements for each technology, to help to focus the research priorities.

It is clear that, as we move down the road, we will have to narrow the range of technologies

under consideration. The identified needs and requirements will be used to measure the

progress of the various technologies and help make the "neck down" decisions. This "neck

down" process allows for more than one cycle for maturation of some of these technologies.

We will be able to pursue continued development of the technologies selected for the concept

vehicle and then reintroduce those technologies, as they continue to mature, into the

production prototype process and ultimately into the mass production process.

4
To help explain the requirements of the auto industry, it may be useful to draw some

comparisons with the aerospace industry, which often is perceived as using the types of

technologies that will be needed in new-generation automobiles. Both industries are very

capital intensive and involve product development processes with long lead times, but the

similarity basically ends there. The car business is characterized by high volume and low pervehicle cost, while the aerospace business is the opposite ~ low volume and relatively high

cost. More importantly, the automotive industry has to make products that meet the

requirements of relatively unsophisticated owners/users, who give relatively little

consideration to the maintenance cycle requirements of their vehicles. The auto industry,

therefore, tends not to be able to afford the redundancies incorporated into aircraft.

In addition, the environmental requirements for cars and trucks are severe. We also have to

work very hard to service the needs of our customers, who have become less and less brandloyal in recent decades; to get repeat buys, we must be very sensitive to their perceptions of

the value of our products. And finally, we have to take even bigger risks than does the

aerospace industry. A major auto product program can cost up to $5 billion. We can spend

several hundred million dollars on relatively minor changes in vehicle platforms, and lead

times of 3 to 5 years are typical. We're serving an increasingly niche-oriented market, with

continuously evolving customer requirements and, on top of that, social demands for

continuous improvement in fuel efficiency, safety, emissions, and recyclability.

Now for some details about how the PNGV works. First, we need to combine efficiently all

the relevant activities under way in government and industry. The government side is taking

an inventory of relevant work being pursued throughout the national laboratories and

agencies. The relevancy will need to be confirmed and, where necessary, activities redirected or enhanced to be compatible with our program. The same process is ongoing in the industry,

which tends to focus on near-term requirements relevant to Goals 1 and 2. We are depending

on the national labs for the longer-term, higher-risk work that would be relevant to Goal 3.

For all three goals, we are beginning to identify priorities and the technologies to pursue and,

as I mentioned earlier, to examine the relationship of the supply base to this process. As we

build the construct and identify priorities, we are going through a process of identifying the

detailed needs and the metrics.

The effort to achieve Goal 1 has two components. On one side are generic competitiveness

issues. If we can reduce lead times and increase flexibility with techniques such as rapid

prototyping, then we can apply those kinds of techniques across a wide range of

manufacturing processes. But we also have to consider the manufacturing issues as enablers

for Goal 3 technology. We need to start addressing these issues up front and pursue them on

a parallel path with technology development if we're going to design something we can

produce in volume. We can't afford to wait until we make technical breakthroughs to address

issues of manufacturability, cycle time, and cost.

5
I think our objective in the PNGV is very, very challenging. But I think those of us directly

involved in the program, on both sides, are encouraged by the attitudes and the cooperation

we've achieved so far. I think we have a much better chance of achieving the ultimate

objective if government and industry work together than if industry were to continue to

pursue incremental gains on its own.

Question: How much is the auto industry doing with and for small business, and is that

community interested?

Answer: The industry has a long history of supporting small business activity. Our

requirements tend to be very demanding, not only in terms of technical, testing, and

engineering support requirements but also in terms of volume. So our industry presents a

challenge for the supply base. But small businesses have been participating in our industry for

a long time.

In the PNGV, we are open to ideas and input from all corners. To echo something Owen

Williams said, we are not trying to identify solutions up front, but rather to identify needs.

We are encouraging all constituencies to bring us their ideas, so from that standpoint we're

encouraging the small business community to come forward.

Question: It looks like you are making things really hard on yourself. On the one hand, you

want to achieve these technical goals. Yet you want to keep the cost, performance, and size

the same as in today's cars. Don't you think the customer is willing to make some tradeoffs?

That is, if you offered them a car with three times the fuel efficiency, wouldn't they be

willing to give up some acceleration or something?

Answer: We don't think so. We've discussed that a lot. I think we have big hurdles to

overcome to produce a vehicle that consumers will want to buy in volume. There's very little

evidence that, at today's fuel prices, even a threefold improvement in fuel economy will

increase significantly the perceived value of a car and consumers' motivation to purchase it. There's quite a bit of data to support that position.

I'll also answer that question from another angle. To achieve our goal, we will have to reduce

vehicle weight significantly, maybe by 30 to 40 percent. Our information suggests that such a

weight reduction creates a problem with consumers' perceptions of safety. If today's car is

placed side by side with a car that is 30 to 40 percent lighter, and the prices are the same, it

is not clear which one consumers will decide to buy. We believe that consumers will be

reluctant to sacrifice utility and functionality. If we go into this project assuming we can

achieve our goals with a significantly compromised product relative to today's car, then I'm

afraid we may fail.

6
Question: Do you have published goals outlining what you wish to achieve as a function of

time?^-

Answer: We have the broad timetable, and we are developing a set of more detailed

priorities, which will be used to establish a work plan with timetable objectives. We have

probably two more levels of detail in our work plan than I was able to discuss today. But it will be some time before we're ready to publish a detailed plan.

Question: I understand that, a few months ago, the major automotive industries in Europe

and America signed an agreement to have their suppliers use the Standard for the Exchange

of Product Model Data. Ford was the only company that did not sign. Was there any reason

for this? Does Ford prefer some other standard?

Answer: I cannot speak for Ford.

7

The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Road Map

John DeCaire

Vice President, Advanced Manufacturing Technology Programs

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

First, I'll provide some background on the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

(NCMS), one of the not-for-profit research consortia established under the National

Cooperative Research Act. We have about 180 corporate members; about 25 are among the

largest U.S. corporations and the rest are small and medium-sized enterprises.

The NCMS began in the late 1980s with an emphasis on the machine tool industry but now

represents a wide range of industry types. We do not conduct any research and development

(R&D) internally but rather provide technical and administrative support to facilitate

collaborative research and accelerate the development and exploitation of technologies. Our

mission is to enhance both the global competitiveness of manufacturing industries and

national security. A major portion of our funding comes from the Department of Defense

through the Air Force Manufacturing Technology Office.

At any one time we typically have about 100 projects going, totaling some $150 million

annually. All projects are co-funded by industry. In fact, over two-thirds of the resources are provided by industry, mostly in the form of in-kind resources although some portion is in

cash.

Each NCMS project is really a vertical and horizontal consortium in itself. The basic core of

each project is a set of technology users and technology providers. We involve an end user, a

set of relevant vendors, and a research center of excellence, probably either a university or a

national laboratory. Each project typically has five to eight participants who are signatories to

a collaborative agreement. Through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements,

contract-type arrangements, or even informal working relationships, we typically leverage

each project with another eight to 10 contributors who do not sign the collaborative

agreement.

Our agenda is developed through a member-driven process, a combination of a top-down,

bottom-up flow of activities. The NCMS Board of Directors consists of about 20

representatives from member companies. We also have a Technology Review Board, which

consists of another 20 or so manufacturing technology generalists and strategists. Companies

are usually members of other consortia activities as well. The board establishes strategic

directions and sets project selection criteria.

9
The board also creates strategic initiative groups, of which we now have six: production

equipment and systems, manufacturing processes and materials, computer-integrated

operations, management practices, environmentally conscious manufacturing, and electronics

manufacturing. Each group includes a planning committee of 12 - 15 specialists in that

particular focus area, an inter-industry mix. They create specific project teams, tactical action

groups consisting of the technical principal investigators from the participating companies.

The NCMS tries to strike a balance between near-term and longer-term directions. The

Technology Review Board has adopted an agile manufacturing strategic vision as the general

precept for the competitive enterprise of the future. We tend to select projects that solve a

reasonably near-term problem for the collaborators while also moving us forward toward the

agile manufacturing competitive enterprise. With the Agile Manufacturing Enterprise Forum,

we are fleshing out the vision of agile manufacturing; Rusty Paterson will discuss that

research agenda and road map in detail.

We always allow for what I call "radical" technologies, because you never know when

someone will come out of the blue with something that's high payoff and worth doing. We try

to set aside about 10-15 percent of our overall agenda for those kinds of surprise activities

and follow up on ideas that are driven by opportunities rather than needs.

The agile manufacturing strategic vision includes 4 basic types of requirements. One key

requirement is flexibility. A second is environmentally conscious design, engineering, and

production capabilities. Concurrent development systems will be needed, as well as traditional

and nontraditional processes to make use of new types of engineered materials. Third, systems

will have to be interdependent and interoperable; agile organizations and agile practices will

require virtual shared capabilities and capacities, the so-called networked organization. The

fourth requirement is interactive customer and enterprise relationships. Some people refer to

this as the consumer- or customer-integrated enterprise; customer interaction and satisfaction

is the key driver and will be very important in the long term.

Each NCMS strategic program initiative typically has a lifetime of 3 to 5 years and probably

has three to six projects associated with it. Let me provide some examples of how our

mission of achieving global competitiveness and national security tracks through each area.

In materials and manufacturing processes, the fundamental drivers of competitiveness have

been identified as flexibility, time to market, rapid product realization, quality, and

environmental consciousness. Four research focus areas have been identified. One focus area

is quick prototyping. You can build up a model of a product directly from the design files

and then use it to do castings, molds, or dies. A number of direct, free-form fabrication

processes are evolving, using metal and other materials. The whole area of nontraditional

processes, such as water-jet machining and abrasive water-jet laser processing, is fundamental

to manufacturing advancement. Representative ongoing projects are focusing on thermal spray

10

i
coatings and "intelligent" cold extrusion, adaptive process control for composite materials,

microwave flow monitoring, and predictive modeling for complex processes.

In the computer-integrated operations area, there is a strong focus on software, particularly

top-level controls ~ autonomous agent technologies, platform enablers, and factory controls.

We have been very active in open-architecture controls and next-generation controller and

sensor-support systems. We think object orientation and agent-based types of programming

are absolutely essential to the future, where the emphasis will be on connecting reusable

objects and agents instead of developing new ones from scratch every time. In other words,

we will move from deductive to inductive software programming. It's interesting that, when

you ask manufacturing people about their top 10 problems, software rarely is listed. This

suggests a low level of awareness that new machinery advances often depend more on

software than on hardware.

We also are working on networking applications ~ the virtual capabilities for the National

Information Infrastructure and concurrent development processes. Our major thrust there is an

Advanced Technology Program (ATP) project addressing automated concurrent engineering.

Management practices warrant a mention as well. We have a focus here on what we call "The

Big M" extended enterprise, which incorporates all functions of the enterprise from the cradle

to grave, rather than just "The Small M' shop-floor manufacturing activity. The activities we

pursue in the management area are diverse. The aspect I want to address here is people. We

have a strong education and training initiative, which we think must be coupled with

technological advances. We have a mobile laboratories program that brings a hands-on

technology experience to students in K-12 and beyond. We think training, in terms of

deploying the technology infrastructure and brokering the expertise to small and mediumsized enterprises, is absolutely essential.

We also are trying to bring Total Quality Management (TQM) to educational institutions.

We're starting to work with the National Alliance for Business to incorporate TQM in

educational activities.

In the environmentally conscious manufacturing area, there are many activities focusing on

treatment, remediation, and minimization to remedy a backlog of problems common to many

industries. For the long term, there is a move toward preventing environmental harm in design

and practices. In the next few years, hazardous materials probably will dominate the agenda.

Eventually we will address multiple pollutants, closed systems, and a full industrial ecology

systems basis for working on environmentally conscious manufacturing issues.

Electronics manufacturing is the newest strategic initiative group. They are working their

strategic focus and have established a taxonomy. The cornerstone is an ATP project on

printed wiring boards that is producing significant results.

11
Finally, NCMS has established an infrastructure to support the information base, a number of

studies on and advanced deployment of information services. We have four support services

for the technology program. One service identifies technologies throughout the world so that,

rather than reinvent the wheel, we could turn to foreign sources, laboratories, universities, or

other consortia. We also have a deployment management activity, which establishes

partnerships with technology integrators, consulting organizations, and others in the business

of helping other companies.

Third, in partnership with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), we have piloted

some activities with shared-use "teaching factories" that we hope will be a valuable

complement to the MEP. And finally, we have a Manufacturing Information Resource Center,

which has compiled a tremendous amount of manufacturing-related information that is used to

support the overall agenda.

We have experienced a number of problems in developing the agenda. Vision clarification,

for example, is difficult when you are buried in day-to-day manufacturing problems. The

long-term vision needs to be reasonably detailed, yet you can't specify solutions. We deal

with this challenge by targeting program focus areas.

Another major challenge is getting the right participation — that is, from the strategic thinkers

in the right positions in a company. Usually, these individuals are also the busiest and don't

have time to travel to meetings and workshops. So we are piloting an electronic conferencing

system that will allow them to participate when they can find time.

We also are challenged continually in our efforts to integrate product engineering and product

manufacturing, balance short-term and long-term activities, define areas of and rules for

collaboration, accommodate the differences in priorities and timing among participating

companies, and renew the agenda.

In summary, we have a relatively significant agenda, but it is only a start, and we would like

to see development of a national manufacturing R&D agenda.

Question: Could you elaborate on the foreign technology sourcing activity?

Answer: The initial focus has been on the former Soviet Union. We've visited a number of

science institutes over there, looking particularly at technologies they developed in their Cold

War defense activities. We've identified three specific technologies to work on. One is

electron-beam fabrication - physical vapor deposition using electron beams. Another is highfrequency microwave radiation processing. The third is very lightweight anisotropic force

materials.

Question: Could you elaborate on the dual-use aspects of your work?

12

i
Answer: One of our project selection criteria is that the technology of emphasis must have

both military and commercial applications. Like any other activity, our projects eventually

focus on whatever the collaborating partners agree to work on. But we force them to address

dual use applicability up front, subject to management review and approval.

Question: Are the results of your projects publishable and can we obtain them?

Answer: Yes, with a time caveat. Because we are member driven and provide preferred

treatment to members, in some advanced projects the participants have approximately 18

months to use the technology exclusively. We then provide another 12 months of access for

the membership before results are released into the public domain. However, many of our

projects are not protected in this manner, and the collaborators are willing to release results in

real time. So, you can obtain results of the higher-technology projects on a time-delayed

basis, and the results of many other activities ~ in areas such as environmentally conscious

manufacturing and computer integration ~ in real time by participating in workshops or

obtaining reports directly from NCMS.

13
14
Agile Manufacturing Road Map

Robert (Rusty) Patterson

Operations Strategy Manager

Texas Instruments Defense Systems and Electronics Group

I will explore the concept of agile manufacturing, describe the road map for it, and explain

how you can take advantage of some of its evolving elements.

The basic premise is that the concepts of manufacturing are changing dramatically, and there

will be a complete shift in the requirements for competitiveness. Our old concepts of mass

production will not support us as we move into the next century, whether you focus on the

year 2000, 2005, or 2010. It doesn't make any difference whether you are a large corporation

or a small business. It doesn't make any difference whether you are in the defense industry,

which is being driven by world events such as the breakup of the Soviet Union, or you are in

the commercial sector, which is being driven by practices such as the development of a

brand-new model of Walkman every single week of the year. Successful manufacturers will

learn how to deal with change and turn it to their advantage.

In addition, quality and customer satisfaction will be evolving concepts. No longer is quality a

competitive advantage; it's a prerequisite for entry into the market. You either have zero

defects or you are not a player in the marketplace. Similarly, customer satisfaction used to be

considered only at the point of the sale. Now it is beginning to mean meeting the customer's

evolving requirements throughout the life of the product. This leads to the concept of

upgradable, reconfigurable products. Many new products on the market, whether in military or commercial use, have failed because they do not have those characteristics. And we've all

seen the trend ~ not only because of laws, but also because it makes good business sense -

toward environmentally and socially conscious products and processes.

If you assume that every manufacturer will have outstanding quality and meet the customer's

requirements throughout the lifetime of products, then you must recognize that rapid response

and reduced cycle time is absolutely imperative to survival going into the next century. And

you must incorporate these elements regardless of the type or size of your industry. You must

be able to pick the aspects that apply to your organization and tie them together in such a

way that you can compete. The precise definition of "lean" or "agile" is not the point; rather,

the point is to take the best pieces out of these concepts and put them into a road map.

The key word in the definition of agility is thrive. An agile organization is able to thrive -

not just survive — in an environment of constant and unanticipated change. An agile

15
organization can turn change into a competitive advantage and come up with market-driven,

value-based, customer-oriented products to support the market as it evolves.

The Agile Manufacturing Enterprise Forum (AMEF) is a non-profit, industry-led corporation

whose mission is to help U.S. industry make the transition so it can compete in the coming

environment where change is a given and must be turned into an advantage. The forum is

actually a collaborative effort of industry, academia, labor unions, and the government to

develop an industrial policy — to establish an environment where we can compete, and to help

provide a road map for carrying out the necessary research and concept validation. I am the

voluntary president of the forum until this summer; the president changes every year. A fulltime staff is based at our headquarters in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania on the Lehigh University

campus.

Our program has several phases. We have developed a vision, which is evolving. This is a

continuing process. You don't just come up with an idea, find a way to implement it, and say

you're done, as has been done in the past. We're constantly evaluating where the world is and

where it's moving. If it's changing rapidly in particular area, then we've got to take advantage

of that. So we're trying to come up with common tools and measures.

We're also proposing an agenda of research that needs to be addressed by industry in pilot

projects. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the National Science

Foundation (NSF) that have come forward with Broad Area Announcements (BAAs) to put

these plans into action. We also have Agile Manufacturing Research Institutes (AMRIs),

teams of universities that band together to conduct research on concepts of agility. The NSF

has awarded funds for three AMRIs so far, one led by the University of Illinois, one by

Renssalear Polytechnic Institute, and another by the University of Texas at Arlington. The

results of their research on concepts can be validated in pilot projects by teams of companies.

Thus, the research program is collaborative.

As we go through each phase of development, there has to be feedback. Our agility forum,

Agilenet, is a computer system into which we load all the concepts, thereby forming a

database complete with names and telephone numbers. This system enables us to reach and

link all the investigators who are doing the actual work, in order to develop a better

understanding and perhaps gather more data. We also are aligned with the Microelectronics

and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) and the Enterprise Integration Network

(EINET) so that we can participate in development of the National Information Infrastructure.

In this way, we can make sure all our agility concepts can be disseminated to every enterprise

in the country.

The AMEF is not a membership organization; it doesn't cost anything to participate or obtain

information about the concepts developed. We are trying to provide, in addition to an

industrial policy, a mechanism for reaching and providing information to all of industry.

16
r

We have several categories of activities. One category is for small to medium-sized

enterprises, because they have to be involved if we are to maintain a robust national economy

and take advantage of all these concepts we're developing. We are presenting training

programs, workshops, and case studies and working with other organizations to get the word

out to small to medium-sized businesses. We work through either a host company in a major

metropolitan area or a number of other mechanisms, such as the Manufacturing Technology

Centers and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

We have a number of education and training concepts. This summer, we will unveil three

modules designed to educate the executive level in an organization, the senior management,

and the work force. We have piloted the three courses, and we are trying to make them

adjustable to individual companies, regardless of size or background. We also are working on

two videos that will help explain what the courses cover. One is a "pre-agile" video. The

other is a much longer general overview of concepts and ideas, with anecdotal references so

viewers can grasp the type of structure we're talking about.

Another category of activities is focus groups. A couple of years ago, we established seven to

nine focus groups. We had, literally, 100 companies come together to wrestle with the issues,

and they did outstanding work. But we didn't have a process to take advantage of that

information ~ to replicate it and tie it all together. So we formed a Strategic Analysis

Working Group (SAWG) of more than 20 individuals from labor unions, industry, academia,

and government to help put together a research agenda and a road map. The members each

have a one-year term to help focus the agenda, update priorities, and put in place focus

groups. We have individuals such as Peter Brown from the National Institute of Standards and

Technology, and John DeCaire of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS).

The SAWG will complete its final work for this year by September. The focus groups

concentrate on four areas: agile people, agile operations, business practices, and virtual

enterprises. We're putting in place groups of individuals from a couple of hundred companies

to examine these four areas in depth, to flesh out the concepts and take the broad agenda to

the SAWG, which then can develop a more detailed concept that can be disseminated and

useful to a broad spectrum of users.

To start the process, the SAWG developed a set of agility issues and provided a framework

and resources. We sent this information to 500 focus group participants a few weeks ago. The

first of four groups will meet at Oak Ridge National Laboratory starting tomorrow; the rest

will meet within the next 30 days. The focus groups will begin to develop a very detailed

agenda and identify a number of issues that require quick further refinement. Then we will

put together small project teams of dedicated and knowledgeable individuals who want to

work on those issues. These small projects, which will be finished within a year, will help

verify that we have the right concepts and the right technologies in place.

17
The agenda for each focus group is rather lengthy. As an example of the types of concepts

examined, the focus group on agile people will address questions such as, "Does having selfdirected work teams make you agile?" The answer is, not necessarily. Many organizations

have self-directed work teams; the key is how these work teams are used. The emerging

environment of change will be characterized by a highly mobile work force, and companies

will have to move in and out of different market and product areas and form and re-form

teams very fast. Thus, agility depends on how work teams are employed, on whether and how

the organization is reconfigured over and over again. Another concept being addressed is best

practices; we added the idea of partial best practices, because in most cases no one

organization has all the answers.

Regarding agile operations, some of the requisite technologies were outlined previously by

John DeCaire. We're fortunate to be able to work with a number of different consortia and

have their representatives serve on the SAWG, so we can tie all the elements of agility

together. The forum is trying to provide an overall umbrella and integrate all the different

concepts into a roadmap, so we all can see how the pieces fit together, which areas need to

be funded, and where activities already are under way.

In virtual enterprise area, a key issue is how to integrate all the concepts and ideas, and

hundreds of companies, to develop a process model that makes sense? We've identified four

key areas for any enterprise. An example is agile customer-supplier relationships. 1 In

discussing this concept, it becomes clear that a virtual corporation must be able to develop

instant contracts. The enterprise must be able to put together a joint venture quickly, rather

than relying on two teams of lawyers to produce 6 inches of documents in 9 months. We

have encouraged individuals in the legal community to come with ideas on how to do that

and identify the laws that must be changed.

Each agility issue will be divided into subtopics, which will continue to be researched. In this

manner, we're starting to develop a pyramid, deepening the understanding of what is needed

is all areas so we can develop a complete agenda.

To validate this research, pilot projects will be conducted. We're fortunate that Stan Settles at

NSF and Mike McGrath at ARPA brought forward some ideas we could build upon to

1 This topic was addressed in the recently published first monograph in AMEF's agility series.

These publications are reviewed by an editorial advisory board, most of whom are not members

of the AMEF but are recognized experts from across the country. The board is continuing to

review the work done by focus groups, so we can make sure we have a valid, detailed,

acceptable, methodology for discussing the terms.

18

J

i
develop a process model. The model integrates the AMEF research agenda and priority road

maps and the research activities coming out of different organizations, so that we can come

up with concepts and requirements for validation. The actual design work will be carried out

by different organizations, sometimes AMEF, sometimes the AMRIs, or consortia such as NCMS, MCC, and the Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing International, or individual

companies.

Based on that detailed design work and the outputs of the focus groups, BAAs will be

developed to allow teams of organizations to conduct pilot projects to validate the concepts,

technology demonstrations, or pathfinders.2

I think our process model will allow us to validate concepts, feed the information back into

the research agenda, and put in place the industrial policy we need to succeed in the future.

The model still is being articulated, but it eventually will provide a feedback loop to get the

information and validated concepts to all the different arenas that need them.

We're trying to establish the idea that there are good programs across the country; I have

mentioned just a few. The AMEF would like to be the repository of all the successes and

failures and be able to update the road map and feed the information back to industry, so that

we can create the environment we need to take advantage of all the great programs discussed

at this conference.

Question: I really like what's happening in agile manufacturing, but I'm concerned that it's very difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. How much attention is given to start-up

companies, so that all these ideas could be disseminated at the very beginning level in

manufacturing? I don't see anything like that happening, and it sounds like your organization

could help.

Answer: I think you've got a very accurate vision. In most cases, there is no problem

convincing executive management and lower-level workers to adopt the new concepts. The

problem, whether in companies, labor unions, the government, or academia, is middle

management ~ people who have been there for 20 or 25 years and have achieved some level

of success. The concepts I'm discussing could threaten the way they've done business, even

their careers. Our training modules try to help individuals get over that fear and help put in

place a career development scheme that assumes change is how people grow. In other words,

we try to convince them there is no longer a corporate step ladder but rather a corporate step

stool, and they are valued based on the tools they bring to the party rather than the number of

people they supervise.

2 Pathfinders are U.S. Air Force (USAF) activities associated with the USAF 2005 Program.

19
We have a Chief Executive Officer Leadership Steering Committee, which gives us strategic

guidance. Some of the members will speak at this conference: Thomas Murrin, dean of the

School of Business and Administration at Duquesne University, and Thomas Malone,

president and chief operating officer of Mlliken & Co.

You're absolutely right that the key will be convincing people that it makes sense to employ

the new concepts. We need to show people that it makes economic sense to do this, and that

their success depends on it. You can draw an analogy to 30 years ago at a filling station,

where a guy is pumping gas, and you show up to explain why a self-service pump is a good

deal for him. You can explain that there will be car washes, mini-marts, and 20-minute oiland-lube operations and all these other things ~ that whole new industries will be created.

You need to give people a sense that they are not losing their jobs, they are creating new

industries.

20
Product Data Exchange Road Map

Ian McEwan

Executive in Charge

Quality, Reliability, and Durability Validation Center

General Motors Corp.

We hear a great deal about the National Information Infrastructure (MI), mostly about its

entertainment possibilities, such as 500 television channels. But the real value of the MI to

manufacturers is as a means to produce or manufacture the television sets to watch those

channels, as well as the trucks and cars for television workers to drive, and the trucks, trains,

aircraft, and ships to transport those televisions and thousands of other goods to every corner

of the global marketplace.

The ability to exchange product data by digital means is the key to making the information

age a time of productivity and prosperity. Digital product data exchange makes the

information highway useful and relevant and enables effective, concurrent engineering and

effective computer-integrated manufacturing. Product data exchange fosters the re-engineering

of our processes and the modernization of our plants and supply systems. If we focus our

efforts on speeding development of this capability, it will provide U.S. industry with a

competitive set of tools.

We all know that profits to go those who minimize production costs. Complex products, such

as automobiles or aircraft, require enormous inputs of information at every stage, from design

and manufacture through maintenance and disposal. We need information standards and

technology to support industrial products and processes throughout their life cycle, from

concept through recycling. With digital product data exchange standards, vendors,

manufacturers, and suppliers can share information in a way that will shorten development

cycles, enhance the quality of products, and reduce costs.

Today, as never before, the competitive edge goes to enterprises that can communicate rapidly

and accurately, both nationally and internationally. Increasingly, manufacturing teams are geographically dispersed. Yet engineering, manufacturing, and service companies must work

together to design, manufacture, and support products. Information also must flow freely

within corporations and, in joint projects, across corporate boundaries to and from

manufacturing partners and suppliers.

The Boeing Co. recently summarized the problem by noting that they had something like 30

to 60,000 different suppliers, depending on the size of the product being made. And just one

21
supplier had 17 different computer-aided design (CAD) systems. Boeing said this doesn't

make sense, that it adds no value to American products. We agree.

At General Motors Corp. (GM), we ran into the same problem soon after we started the C4

Program, which was aimed at providing a single technology product design platform for the

corporation worldwide. As with all programs of this type, the initial concern centered around

the technology to be used. The users quickly formed camps to defend their own favorite

hardware and software. However, as we installed more and more workstations, local area networks, and wide area networks, users quickly focused on their real problem: They could

not exchange data with their customers and suppliers.

While they had physical connectivity, they could not read the data they received without

massive manipulation. They could not send out data without long consultations with the

person receiving it, even when they were using the same software. The problem obviously

went far beyond the technology. Not only did they need compatible data formats, they also

needed to prepare that data in a consistent manner. They had to store the data in recognized

locations, provide for both access and security, and provide outside directories so the data

could be found.

We instituted programs to define corporate standards for data preparation, filing, and retrieval.

To address the data format problems, we standardized all software and hardware packages and

developed custom translators where necessary. Even so, data exchange remains our biggest

challenge in integrating all the company's activities.

We would not expect to run our businesses today without telephones, which can connect with

virtually anyone, anywhere in the world. Yet in the data exchange field, there is too often no

network, no connectability, no common language.

GM and every other major manufacturer in the industrialized world wants out of the translator

business. We need to be able to move our data from one system to another, from one location

to another, from one manufacturing site to another, from one user to another, without having

to convert it. This can happen only if we have both a standard data format and a single data

network.

The Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) is the digital standard that will

allow us all to move our data wherever we want. As a neutral standard to which all product

data exchange software can adhere, STEP will facilitate multi-enterprise, multi-vendor, multisupplier manufacturing efforts. The emergence of STEP is a triumph for industry-government

partnerships. Those who are putting together the MI would do well to study and learn from

these ongoing examples of industry-government partnerships aimed at keeping U.S. industry

competitive.

22
The automotive, aerospace, electronics, construction, and process industries are implementing

STEP projects. Much of the groundwork for the international standard was established in

Product Data Exchange Standard (PDES), a voluntary U.S. standards organization, through the

efforts of individuals from more than 200 companies. The U.S. Technology Advisory Group

(TAG) spearheaded the campaign last year in Italy to gain international standard status for

STEP from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The head of the U.S.

TAG is Dick Justice from the Automobile Industry Action Group, whose members are GM,

Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Corp., Lamborghini, and 700 suppliers in North America.

Brad Smith of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is chair of the

International Standards Committee for STEP. More than 25 major corporations and

government agencies have joined resources in PDES to accelerate STEP development. PDES

pursues STEP development efforts in sheet metal projects, electronic circuit boards, and

mechanical parts. With funds and staff from its member companies, PDES also evaluates

commercial STEP tools and provides education, training, and hands-on experience for

member company employees in STEP standards development and intercompany project

management.

PDES also has been a leader in urging increased commercialization of CAD, computer-aided

manufacturing (CAM), and computer-aided engineering products based on STEP. Last month,

PDES and the executive board of the National Initiative for Product Data Exchange (NIPDE)

hosted a special meeting, where 17 American and European computer software vendors told

business leaders of their plans to incorporate STEP in their products. The fact that

commercial STEP products are being produced by the computer software industry — including

giants such as IBM Corp., ComputerVision Corp., cisco Systems Inc., Digital Equipment

Corp., EDS Corp., Intergraph Corp., and Hewlett-Packard Co., as well as smaller firms ~

bodes well for our ability as a nation to compete and thrive in the emerging post-Cold War

world.

STEP is also an important part of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS)

effort in rapid response manufacturing. That program is helping manufacturers shorten

manufacturing lead time dramatically. Participants include GM, Ford, Texas Instruments,

United Technologies Corp., and Martin Marietta Corp. All told, there are more than 400

ongoing product data exchange research and development projects, accounting for

approximately $50 million to $70 million in annual corporate and government expenditures.

That estimate comes from NIPDE, an industry-led, government-facilitated partnership based

right here at NIST.

The NIPDE was established two years ago to bring order and focus to the field of product

data exchange. This is being done by accelerating product data exchange research and

implementation efforts through the coordination of hundreds of activities. The plan for NIPDE

was initiated, reviewed, and implemented by senior executives in industry and government;

23

//

/
members understand that each has nothing to gain and much to lose if individual efforts and

expenditures are duplicated.

The participants include representatives from individual companies and consortia, which

represent many other organizations and corporations. I am a co-chair of the NIPDE Executive

Committee along with Dr. Mary Good, the under secretary for technology at the Department

of Commerce (DOC). U.S. industries have a common goal in digital product data exchange,

and at last, through this forum, we're learning to work together to achieve the common vision.

The NIPDE is expected to have a lifetime of 3 years; the executive board and steering

committee are working on a transition plan to institutionalize functions that need to be

continued.

Industry and government staff members work full-time here at NIST on the milestones and

deliverables defined in the NIPDE plan. The initiative staff has developed a baseline of all

product data exchange activities that is available on the Internet. This directory lists more

than 400 projects addressing standards development, testing, software development and

deployment, education and training, and communications. Program managers use this database

to identify both gaps and interdependent activities. Along with representatives of participating

organizations, they plan workshops, advocate priorities, and establish and carry out action

plans to establish the needed product data exchange capabilities.

The NIPDE participants and staff also have developed a road map to guide national efforts in

product data exchange. This process involved reviewing the relationships among different

projects, determining the actual capabilities for exchanging product data provided by these

projects, and examining how these capabilities related to the business objectives,

modernization strategies, and requirements of different manufacturing industries. Participants

in this effort were from six major industries: aerospace, apparel, automotive, electrical,

shipbuilding and construction, and software. And this road-mapping technique can be

extended easily to other industries. Companies can use the methodology to evaluate product

data exchange strategies, establish plans for implementing these strategies, and monitor how

well they help achieve specific business goals.

The NIPDE is working with participants on plans to use the road-mapping methodology to

develop product data exchange capabilities in a wide range of areas, including digital mockups, electronic component information, electronic printed circuit assemblies, form features,

sheet metal composites, process plants, scientific and engineering data, technical publications,

and testing.

All these cooperative activities form the basis for the development of a master plan, which

will provide all U.S. industries with a summary of current activities, priorities, and schedules

that they can use to meet their specific requirements and to help coordinate and leverage their

24
implementation of product data exchange technology. Organizations interested in participating

should contact the NIPDE office at NIST.

Our national efforts to spur STEP development are not taking place in isolation. Rather, they

complement work under way in Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and even China, which

recently opened up a center to promote this most modem of manufacturing technologies. TV

vital nature of STEP was recognized in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed last

year by Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Fiat, GM, Mercedes Benz, and Opel, and in the U.S.

construction industry's creation of a new STEP development organization.

Someone asked earlier why Ford did not sign the MOU; I can report that Ford has become

very active in STEP, and I believe their signing is imminent. Ford has produced, in

cooperation with AlliedSignal Inc., a connecting rod part that is an early example of how

STEP can be used in the translation of data.

One of the most significant recent developments has been the discussions involving the

Executive Advisory Council of the Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistics Support

initiative, the NIPDE executive board, the DOC, the Department of Defense, the Department

of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration. A study team,

which I chair, was established under the oversight of NIST to explore issues relating to a

single industry-government board. The meeting was very positive and a proposed approach

will be reviewed in mid-May. Joint boards are discussing future activities, such as electronic

data interchange, electronic commerce, the Nil, and other key issues critical to U.S.

manufacturing industries.

I believe we already have achieved major successes in the field of product data exchange and

that we're on the threshold of major improvements in connectivity that will make it possible

for us to truly use the MI in manufacturing.

Question: Why will this program be any more successful than the Map Top program, which

a decade ago was supported by GM, IBM, and Deere & Co. with the same enthusiasm you

describe now?

Answer: Timing. I think industry is much more ready now to accept this type of program,

and the technology is much more advanced and used on a much wider basis. Map Top had

only three companies participating; STEP has some 400 companies, so it has a much larger

volume and much greater interest. So while Map Top laid some groundwork, we also learned

some lessons from it. We learned that you have to have sufficient interest and a sufficient

number of people, and that interest has to spread. STEP is an international standard now, it's not just in the United States. In fact, the United States has to get its act together quickly,

because Europe and the Far East are pursuing STEP vigorously, and we could get left behind.

25
Question: How will this technology be deployed to the small business community, which

probably can least afford it?

Answer: That's one of the major questions that drove GM to its C4 Program. Our suppliers are also Ford's and Chrysler's suppliers, and their very reasonable complaint was that they had

to have different CADCAM systems for each of us, a significant financial burden. We believe

STEP will allow suppliers to use any software and hardware they choose to provide data to

any auto company, because STEP allows data to be moved in and out of any system. Of

course, they will have to install some technology.

There is no question that we're moving toward transferring data in individual bits. We are moving away from paper. GM no longer pays paper invoices; we do everything electronically.

We still have to link our digital design data to that electronic system, so suppliers will have

to make some investments. But it should be one set of investments, and not 3, 5, or 17. So

STEP is aimed at helping smaller businesses as well as corporations.

Question: Are there small software vendors out there who pride themselves on providing

differentiation in their market niches?

Answer: That phenomenon is not limited to small software vendors. We do need

differentiation. Our problem in the C4 Program was everyone had their favorite piece of

software that handled their favorite activity. That software is a lot less useful when the user

can't send data to anybody. We have found it's far better to focus on obtaining common data

rather than specific pieces of equipment.

The challenge for all software vendors, large and small, is to provide something unique but at

the same time to produce a standard data set. This approach can be turned into a market

advantage. Because if you can sell us a standard data set, we will not focus on whether your

differentiation makes your data useful. We will take your data simply because we can plug it automatically into our current data sets. As computers become more powerful, our ability to

produce compatible data will continue to improve. (Both users and manufacturers are challenged by trends in the computer industry: New workstations double in power and have

their prices cut in half every 18 months.)

Question: What is the schedule for release of STEP software?

Answer: We posed that question to 17 software companies we invited to South Carolina

earlier this year. We should recognize that we had to wait for international acceptance of the

third part of the STEP standard, and that STEP is a very complicated standard, so we've only

released the first part officially. I think all the software companies are working on it now, so

we should see new STEP products certainly by the end of 1994.

26
Question: How are you dealing with the legacy systems that exist in all companies?

Answer: Very badly. Legacy systems are a major problem. Our vehicles are in production for

six or seven years, and some of our trucks even longer. In addition, we're required to keep

that data for 10, 15, 20 years afterwards. We're wrestling with how to keep the old software

and the updates available. As GM moves into new products, many of the parts carry over, but

we also have a lot of new parts. Our approach is to handle the new parts in the new system

and to carry over the old parts in the current system, unless the old parts are similar enough

to the new parts to make translation into the new system worthwhile. We make that judgment

on a part-by-part basis.

We certainly are not automatically translating all our legacy parts into the new system. That

would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and it would not necessarily be worthwhile,

because the machinery and equipment for making the old parts is tuned to the current system.

But we have been removing legacy systems division by division, as we standardize the C4

system and generate more new parts in new systems.

Question: How do you calculate and sell the return on investment in this activity?

Answer: The C4 Program we sold specifically on its ability to shorten cycle lead time. We

were able to calculate how much we could shorten our time-to-market cycle by moving to

standardized software and hardware and to digital data. Our financial data show that the

program more than paid for itself, based on improved efficiency, shorter time to market, and

faster reaction times. Now, this transformation also requires changing the processes that drive

the time-to-market cycle. We often talk of 10-fold reductions in cycle time for a first design,

and up to 100-fold reductions for a repeat version of it. Design engineers love this, figuring

they now have time to try 24 variants. So you have to change your cycles, to give them less

time to reiterate their designs.

Question: Rusty Patterson talked about agile manufacturing and the virtual enterprise, which

require very large systems integration efforts. You've been involved in that effort. Could you

reflect a bit on our abilities and what it will take, from your perspective, to develop a virtual

enterprise?

Answer: John DeCaire captured the essential steps very well. It's a big challenge. You start

with a vision. You have to get the key players together, and they have to agree on what they

want to do. Management has to pull this program; it can't be pushed by the underlying

technologies. There have to be business requirements and good business sense. You also have

to place limits on your vision. You should not bite off too much, and you should not get into

technology for technology's sake, which is a great danger with a program of this type.

27
You have to recognize that people are very territorial and are afraid of change. Someone else

talked about the problem of middle management. As we began to put all the CADCAM

systems into drafting offices, the individuals most threatened were the supervisors who had

begin their careers on the old drafting tables, whose expertise was in the old-style drafts. Now

this information is all in a tube, through a sort of magic these individuals neither

comprehended nor had any real expertise in.

You also have to recognize the differences among professionals in various fields. We worked

with a state university on a study that identified clearly the cultural differences among

engineering, manufacturing, and supply communities. Engineers love new hardware and

software and want to have the latest and greatest. But manufacturers don't want new

technology, because it has to be de-bugged, and they think it breaks down frequently. They

want "something we can use a sledgehammer and blow torch on." Their customers have to

tell them to use new technology. And the supply community is caught in between. They feel

a need to use new technology but fear the cost of it.

28
KEYNOTE ADDRESS:

Setting National Priorities

for Science and Technology Policy

John H. Gibbons

Director

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Ian McEwan spoke of how people resist change, and he's right, change is discomforting. How

many of you have changed professions at least once? It may have been discomforting at first,

but it probably was enlightening later on.

President Clinton keeps saying that his administration was "sent here to help change things."

Manufacturing is one of the areas where change is needed. It is heartening to see the kind of

enthusiasm evident at this conference for advanced manufacturing technology, which we

consider absolutely essential to the nation's economic future and to the creation of not only

profitable and resilient industries but also good jobs.

I will discuss the new direction and new ideas for science and technology developed under

the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore. Traditionally, U.S. science and

technology policy was aimed primarily at supporting basic science and defense-related

research. That was fine for the years when we were engaged so deeply in military activities

and keeping the peace and we dominated the world economy at the same time. But that time

is past, and a new paradigm is needed. Obviously, we need to maintain our historic support

for fundamental science and we have to continue to invest in advanced technologies to equip

the world's finest fighting force. We must maintain the defense technology base that keeps us

free. But the Cold War is over; today the challenge that unites us is the fight for economic

prosperity.

The administration sees technology as an indispensable engine for economic growth, and

science as the foundation on which all technical progress is based. Technological

advancement fuels economic growth and creates productive jobs. Furthermore, if we choose

carefully, technologies for energy efficiency and resource conservation will produce not only

a cleaner environment, but also expanded markets and increased profits. Technology also

promises new educational tools that will challenge and reward all our children and provide

innovative training that will help make our work force the best in the world.

These are noble ambitions, and we're trying to pursue them with a government we inherited

that is deeply in debt. We're heading toward a third successive year of a slirinking annual

29
deficit, but we're still in a pretty deep hole. As an ex-physicist, I have to derive a theory of

holes. The first principle of the theory of holes is that, if you're in one, you ought to stop

digging. So we place heavy emphasis on deficit reduction, and that means - especially at a

time when we're already fairly heavily taxed ~ we have to be very careful about expenses. In

the past couple of years we really have tightened the screws on Federal spending. We hope

there are more places to cut, because we're playing a zero-sum game. If we start anything

new, we either will have to terminate something else or increase our productivity to the point

where we have extra resources.

The second principle of the theory of holes is that, if you're in a deep hole, you have to

devise ways to climb out. One of the most important ways to climb out is to invest in science

and technology. There are other means as well: Investments in infrastructure and people are examples. But it will be crucial to invest in science and technology, and to shift our emphasis

on defense technologies toward a balance of roughly 50-50 between defense and civil

investments.

In contrast to some prior administrations, we also feel that economic growth and progress are not inconsistent with environmental progress. If we choose carefully and are elegant in the

use of technology, then we can provide not only for robust economic growth but also for

improvements in environmental quality.

We further believe there is ample opportunity to reinvent government, just as the private

sector has been transforming itself so impressively over the past decade. So we devised the

National Performance Review (NPR), which involves working agency by agency to take

advantage of the opportunities offered by technology to increase productivity and become

more client oriented or user friendly. The NPR also reflects a broader concern about

government being a productive partner with the private sector. In aiming toward opportunities

where public and private interests are aligned, we find opportunities for joint investments.

All of this leads up to the fact that a key element in this Administration's vision for science

and technology policy is support for advanced manufacturing. Of course, the idea that science

is fundamental to technological progress is not new. The transistor, for example, came out of

fundamental research in solid-state physics, which in turn was informed by basic work on

quantum mechanics performed years before. But we're reaching frontiers in manufacturing

technologies where scientific advances clearly are more important than ever before.

What is new is the recognition that the relationship between science and technology is not

linear. The model emerging now is not a straight line but rather a complex set of feedback

loops. Technologies hit barriers that cannot be overcome without an infusion of new scientific

knowledge. New demands for technology applications inspire scientific investigation, and,

conversely, scientific studies are enabled by the tools provided by technological advances.

30
A recent discovery demonstrates how scientific studies are enabled by advances in

technology. A planetary system was discovered around a dead star, in the first direct

observation of planetary systems beyond our solar system. This discovery was derived from

elegant measurements of the time variations in the rotation of a neutron star. The small

variations in this repetition frequency, which reflected changes in the neutron star's position

due to the orbiting of several planets, was made possible by our ability to make extremely

accurate time measurements. This work came out of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST).

Fascinating as it is to examine the outer reaches of the universe in the images that originated

billions of years ago, an equally amazing world lies within the Earth-based realm of

manufacturing. Let me offer a somewhat speculative example of a new world to explore in

the inner sanctum of manufacturing technology.

Quantum mechanics provides access to this sub-submicron territory. An intellectual concept

once confined to theoretical and experimental physics, quantum mechanics is now an

everyday engineering tool. It even appears in undergraduate engineering courses. Nanoscience

has become an engineering practice, thanks to recent theoretical and experimental advances,

and precise atomic and molecular control in the synthesis of solid state, three-dimensional

nanostructures is now possible. The volume of such structures is about a billionth of that of

micron-scale structures.

The next step is the emergence of nano-technologies with unprecedented features. The stage is

being set, I believe, for a wide variety of range of custom-made products based on the

emerging capability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules during the manufacturing

process. We are learning to synthesize devices such as molecular wires, resistors, diodes, and

photosynthesis elements for insertion into nanoscale machines.

Already, the use of optical materials assembled at the molecular level has reduced response

times and energy losses and increased transport efficiency in nanoscale materials. A not-soremote possibility now is molecular manufacturing for mass production of miniature switches,

valves, motors, or accelerometers, all at affordable prices. This new technology could fuel a

powerful economic engine, providing new sources of jobs and wealth and technology stores.

Fundamental understanding of basic physical phenomena at the quantum level will be needed

to understand and exploit these types of technological opportunities. New knowledge must be

gained with regard to superlattices and multi-quantum wells, localization effects of electron

and light waves, flux patterns and their pirining, the dynamics of superconductors, and

mechanical analysis of nanostructured systems. This basic scientific understanding will find a

very broad range of technological applications, from energy storage and generation to

magnetic storage and recording to supercomputers.

31
To an ex-physicist like me, these prospects are exhilarating. But our new understanding of the

complex, symbiotic relationship between basic science and technology draws attention to the

need to build strong bridges to cross that gap. The transformation of leading-edge

technologies into practice is a risky and arduous process. It's a long, long way from invention

to profitable production. Cooperative efforts by government and industry to advance

technology can help bridge that gap. One of this Administration's top priorities is to form

closer working partnerships with industry, as well as universities, state and local governments,

and workers to strengthen U.S. industrial competitiveness and create jobs.

The Clinton Administration defines competitiveness as the degree to which a nation, under

free and fair market conditions, can produce goods and services that meet the test of

international markets while simultaneously maintaining or expanding the real income of

citizens. This definition comes from a 1985 report of the President's Commission on Industrial

Competitiveness, 1 and I think it's a good guide for us. We want to boost the performance of

U.S. industry and see that it compares favorably against the best in the world. And we want

to accomplish this through increased productivity, improved quality, and rapid response to

customer demands - not by pinching the wages of American workers, or driving the dollar

down so far that our living standards fall, or degrading the environment.

Advanced manufacturing technologies are key to achieving the better, cheaper, faster, and

greener production we need to keep up with the rest of the world and set a good example.

These technologies are the focus of many of our partnerships with industry. Cooperation and

cost sharing often are indispensable, we believe, to getting high-risk but potentially very-highpayoff technologies off the ground. The reason is that, despite their potential for producing

significant societal benefits, high-risk technologies often don't promise a high enough rate of

return to individual firms to encourage investment and foster development. Without

government as a partner to share some of that risk, the investment might never be made.

This may be the case with nano-technologies for molecular manufacturing, which seems to

hold out possibilities for overall industrial growth but could be prohibitively expensive for

individual firms to pursue alone. Another example may be new pollution-reduction processes,

which could help preserve the environment but might not attract industrial interest without

government support. So there are natural environments for public-private partnerships that can

produce positive results on both sides. I'll mention a few of the partnerships of this type we've

undertaken recently.

The Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP), a cornerstone of the President's defense

conversion effort, offers technology extension services for manufacturing businesses. It has

1 President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. 1985. Global Competition: The New

Reality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. January.

32
proven highly popular with industry, universities, community colleges, and state and local

agencies. In the first call for proposals, the TRP drew almost 3,000 responses offering over $8

billion in private funds, which more than matched a relatively modest government investment

of roughly $500 million. In four rounds of awards extending into the fiscal year (FY) 1994

budget, the TRP has granted a total of $605 million for 212 well-qualified proposals selected

strictly on merit. Every TRP project is cost shared, usually 50-50, and all have dual-use

applications.

Incidentally, we have succeeded in incorporating into the language of the international

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)2 that 50-50 sharing is permissible under

GATT. These GATT changes are being considered by the Congress.

Many projects awarded TRP funds are focusing on advanced manufacturing technologies. One

project involves a team effort to develop manufacturing processes for multichip modules, a

method of interconnecting integrated circuits on a common substrate (as opposed to the

current approach of packaging them separately and then having to wire them together). The

goal of the project is to lower manufacturing costs by achieving all the needed technology

advances simultaneously. Project teams members include GM Hughes Electronics, IBM Corp.,

Micromodule Systems, Motorola Inc., nCHIP Inc., Polycon (a small business), Texas

Instruments, and Sandia National Laboratories, which will establish a test bed for the newly

developed technologies.

Another TRP award went to a team headed by Bath Ironworks, a shipbuilder for the Navy

and the major employer in its location in Maine. Shipbuilding is a moribund commercial

industry in this country, except for the defense business, but the industry might well be

revitalized by new manufacturing technologies. Bath Ironworks intends to create a globally

competitive shipyard with the aid of new technologies, such as computer-aided design,

process simulation, flexible automation, robotics, and real-time systems for process control

and production planning.

Another award related to shipbuilding went to a team headed by CYBO Robots, Inc. The

project team intends to integrate technical advances in the design of three-dimensional vision

and weld sensors, to create a mobile robot welding system that can be programmed, for

example, to help build ships. The project could cut the cost of these robots in half, and the

system would be able to do three-quarters of the welding work needed on ships inexpensively,

effectively, and accurately. The robot system also could be used in other activities, such as bridge construction.

2 GATT, which has 1 17 member nations, is aimed at reducing trade restrictions through the

gradual lowering of trade barriers, such as tariffs and government subsidies, during the next 50

years.

33
Just as exciting to me are the TRP projects in manufacturing education and training. These

are practical programs that prepare engineers and technicians for the real world of the factory

floor while making use of highly sophisticated education and training devices. For example,

Mississippi State University is teaming with industrial partners to create a master's degree

program in computer simulation for design and manufacturing. The New Jersey Institute of

Technology, in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will devise

computer-aided tools to teach engineering students systematic ways of developing clean

manufacturing processes.

In Detroit, a coalition led by Project Focus Hope that includes six universities, the "Big

Three" auto makers, and other industrial partners will develop modular courses for associate's

and bachelor's degree programs in manufacturing. The emphasis will be on developing handson skills integrated with engineering knowledge. The project will recruit pre-college young

people, especially women and minorities.

Another important partnership effort is the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) run by

NIST. Like the TRP, this is a strictly merit-based program of matching grants, but it focuses

on commercial and not necessarily dual-use technologies. Of course, almost all manufacturing

process technologies are applicable to defense as well as commercial production. The Clinton

Administration is committed to making the ATP a success. Despite our budget restrictions

and the theory of holes, we've succeeded in working with the Congress to raise ATP funding

from a pilot-level $68 million to $200 million in FY 1994, and we have requested $450

million for FY 1995.

The increased funding has enabled NIST to adopt a strategic approach to its investments in

industrial technology. NIST is creating programs in five major technology areas for focused,

long-range support. The government investment will total about $745 million over the 5 year

lifetimes of these programs, and industry participants will match the government share. NIST

also plans to continue its general competition for cost-shared proposals in any and all

technologies.

The five focused programs, first identified from more 150 White Papers sent in by the private

sector, were selected based on four criteria: (1) potential benefit to the U.S. economy, (2)

strength of the technology ideas proposed by the industry, (3) strength of industry

commitment to the program, and (4) potential for the ATP to make a significant difference.

Two of the focused programs directly target advanced manufacturing technologies. One will

support projects to improve significantly the processes for and reduce the cost of making

strong, lightweight, durable composite structural materials. These materials could be ideal for

use in highly fuel-efficient automobiles, for example, or long-lasting and easily repaired

bridges. At present, however, the cost of these materials is so high that it limits the market.

Composites now are used mostly for military aircraft or high-priced tennis rackets or golf

34
clubs. The foil potential of these materials can be achieved only if we lower costs through

improved manufacturing technologies.

Another focused program is in computer-integrated manufacturing for electronics. This

program is intended to develop a flexible, software-based framework for streamlined

manufacturing, improved productivity, and expanded product variety in the electronics

industry. The goal is to enable U.S. firms to readily scale up and reconfigure manufacturing

operations ~ in other words, to become agile.

I've discussed at length the leading-edge and beyond-the-edge manufacturing technologies.

But this is not the whole story. Equally important is the dissemination of existing best

practice technology and knowhow, especially to the roughly 360,000 small and medium-sized

U.S. manufacturing firms. Some of these firms are operating well below the state of the art,

using technologies from the 1950s and 1960s. Often, owners and managers are simply too

overwhelmed by day-to-day problems to learn about and invest in equipment and practices

that might help them grow, increase their profits, create jobs, and supply their customers more

effectively. The shortcomings of these suppliers then are passed on to their larger U.S. client

companies, thereby limiting overall competitiveness. By contrast, some of the largest Japanese

firms spend a fair amount of their resources helping their suppliers stay current with the state

of the art.

Therefore, another top priority of the current Administration is to establish a nationwide

network of industrial extension centers. Every one of our approximately 360,000 small

manufacturers should be able to obtain the types of services these centers offer. The centers

offer, for example, "house call" visits to individual plants. The centers also help firms find

expert assistance in meeting needs, such as those related to worker training, use of new

technologies, or solving environmental problems. Part of this network already exists and is

operating very well. NIST directly sponsors seven Manufacturing Technology Centers

(MTCs), sharing the costs with local governments and the private sector. Through the TRP,

we are supporting 28 additional centers across the country, also on a cost-shared basis.

To sum up, this Administration places a very high priority on supporting advanced

manufacturing technologies, as a means of achieving our overarching goals of fostering

economic growth and creating productive jobs while protecting human health and the

environment.

Our support has four components: (1) continuation of our historic support of basic science,

with a new recognition of the complex interaction between science and technology; (2) strong

support for cost-shared, competitively selected partnerships with industry to advance high-risk,

high-payoff commercial and dual-use technologies; (3) assistance for small manufacturing

firms in the use of best practice technologies, including training methods and environmentally

conscious processes, and (4) improved manufacturing education and training for engineers and

35
technicians. Combined, these components form a well-rounded program of true partnerships

between government and industry to strengthen manufacturing, which is the foundation of our

economy.

Question: Is "industrial policy" still a dirty word? Can something be done about it without

actually using this term?

Answer: I'll give you a personal response. I think industrial policy - like competitiveness and

sustainability — means different things to different people. In the eyes of Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin, and the framers of the Constitution, industrial policy was a means of taking

advantage of natural opportunities for society to protect and invest and encourage innovation

and investment. The formal concept of an industrial policy emerged in the 19th century, with

agricultural assistance programs and extension services.

In the 20th century, virtually every one of our successful industries has arisen from what I would call an industrial policy. Our work in aeronautics led ultimately to the space program,

and our work in fundamental biology led to biotechnology. That's not to say we should invest

in Chrysler Corp., for example, and not some other companies. Most of us would be put off

by that approach. So there is good industrial policy and bad industrial policy.

This Administration believes in industrial policy ~ at least my definition of it. We think the

free market is strong and needs to be protected because it works so very well. But we also

believe there are opportunities for aligning public interests with private interests in a way that

makes for very productive partnerships and helps both sectors win.

Question: A few of us considered the decision to cancel the Superconducting Supercollider

(SSC) unfortunate, given the cost of its shutdown. Is there any chance that decision might be

revisited?

Answer: I would not bet money on putting an accelerator in that hole any time in the near

future. The cancellation of the SSC arose from a variety of circumstances. First, it was

txirning out to be more costly than we had planned. Second, the project never was

internationalized, perhaps because we started it during the Cold War, so we had no partners to

help pay the bills. Third, the SSC hit the wave of cancellations intended to get the deficit

down. The SSC was an easy target because, while it was supported by all 50 states initially,

support dwindled after the decision to locate it in Texas. And finally, particle physics is an

obscure field, despite the efforts of some eloquent people to describe the excitement of

figuring out where mass comes from, and what the Big Bang looked like.

It is expensive to shut down the project, simply because of contracts, people, commitments to

the State of Texas, and other things. The High Energy Physics Advisory Panel is in the

process of detenrdning the best way to go from here.

36
We should remember, however, that the SSC represented only half of our high-energy physics

budget. The other projects continue. We're building a "B factory" (a high-energy accelerator)

at Stanford University and we're upgrading the Department of Energy's Fermilab in Illinois.

The SSC cancellation, if you want to make lemonade out of lemons, now gives us an

opportunity to get together with other nations, probably the European Center for Nuclear

Research3 group, and start structuring a truly international long-term vision of where particle

physics can go.

3 The center, known as CERN, is a multinational European consortium that operates highenergy research facilities near Geneva, Switzerland.

37

Textile Industry Needs

Thomas J. Malone

President and Chief Operating Officer

Milliken & Co.

I quote Dr. Jack Gibbons: "Competitiveness is in the eye of the beholder." In my eye, it's jobs

and standard of living.

What an exciting event this is. What a wonderful conference with so many world-class

"thought leaders" focusing on a fundamental driver of our nation's standard of living -

manufacturing. What a great opportunity for us to learn.

I am delighted to represent our very large, high-technology manufacturing industry ~ the

fibers, textiles, and fabricated products industry. The textile complex. Our industry is clearly a

major-league player in the manufacturing game. The U.S. textile industry is world class in

quality, productivity, delivery, safety, environmental concern, and customer satisfaction.

Like the other speakers representing various industries, I will share an overview of our key

technologies, our vision of how cooperative research and technology efforts can affect our

competitiveness, and our road map. However, I want to do this from a broad perspective in

order to cover our very large, multi-level, totally vertical industry. The specific technology

road map and needs are very different for each segment of our industry. We have developed

those maps; however, I won't be showing them. I plan to try to give you insight into our big,

complex industry, with a major focus on the lessons learned in driving our competitiveness

and how we have organized to survive and be world class. I believe our experience has direct

bearing on the overall success of manufacturing, and that such sharing will allow me to

contribute the most to this conference.

Our industry is layered, like most U.S. industries. We have three major layers:

o synthetic fiber and natural fiber (cotton and wool) producers;

o yarn and fabric manufacturers; and

o makers of fabricated products, including apparel, home furnishings, and a wide

variety of industrial products.

We are very typical of all U.S. manufacturing when we look at our textile complex by

company size. A majority (61.3 percent) of workers are in the 0.7 percent of manufacturing

companies with more than 1,000 employees. We have a "barbell" distribution of big and

39
small companies in the United States. That's a key factor when we focus on the

competitiveness of a total industry.

The textile fabrics industry is a carbon copy of America in general ~ only 2.1 percent of

textile manufacturers have more than 1,000 employees but they have 64 percent of the

workers. In the fabricated products segment of our industry, 30.6 percent of the employees are with the 0.6 percent of companies that have more than 1,000 workers. This is the most

fragmented part of our industry but it also is typical of U.S. industry in general.

Let's take a "big picture" look at the textile complex. How many of you ever have been in a

textile plant? We have very sophisticated, high-speed, high-tech manufacturing machines and

processes in our plants. The fiber through fabric-producing segments are very capital intensive

and have very high productivity — the highest of any nation in the world.

The fabricated products segment also has the highest productivity in the world, but it is still

labor intensive, which makes it vulnerable to competition from parts of the world paying

extremely low wages. Unfortunately, we have learned that loss of our labor-intensive

fabricated products segment leads to loss of our very sophisticated and capital-intensive fiber

through fabric segments within about 10 years ~ a very important lesson.

We are a very large and important contributor to the U.S. economy. We have 26,322

manufacturing companies in our industry ~ 39 synthetic fiber companies, 4,982 textile

companies, and 21,301 fabricated products companies. We employ about 2 million people at

plants in all 50 states; we provide 12 percent of the direct manufacturing jobs in the United

States. We invest about $4 billion per year in capital equipment to reduce costs and improve

quality, productivity, and consumer responsiveness. We pay about $4 billion per year in state

and Federal taxes. We use close to 5.5 percent of all the energy used by industry. And we

spend about $3.5 billion a year on research and development (R&D).

Our products are sold through 100,000 retail stores. Wholesale shipments to retailers total

$137 billion per year; our consumer sales are the highest of any manufacturing industry, $219

billion per year. Our industry generates $55 billion in gross domestic product, more than any

manufacturing industry except aerospace with $65 billion.

The market for our products has grown steadily for the past decade. Unfortunately, despite

our major improvements in productivity, imports have grown much faster than have our

markets since 1980, and our domestic production (in units) has declined steadily. In fact, the

U.S. trade deficit in textiles and apparel was nearly $34 billion in 1993, only slightly less

than the deficits in automobiles and oil. The net effect of these imports is the loss or failure

to realize more than 1.2 million jobs. Our goal has to be to retain or recapture a significant

proportion of these excellent jobs.

40
Some have said the textile industry should be a "sunset" industry. The primary basis for that

argument has been the belief that other developed nations, such as in Western Europe and

Japan, have dismantled their textile industries as their societies have matured. The facts do

not support this argument. For years, no one studied the facts ~ a lesson.

These are the facts: About 15 percent of all U.S. workers are in manufacturing, compared to

just under 23 percent in both Europe and Japan. The percentage of these manufacturing

workers in the textile complex (omitting cotton and wool growers) is just under 10 percent in

the United States, 10.9 percent in Europe, and 11.5 percent in Japan. Thus, it is a great

fallacy that these highly developed parts of the world have phased out their large and

important textile industries. Another important lesson.

Our industry has a very important uniqueness, which I believe has enabled its survival when

many thought it had no future in America. I also believe this may be a very important issue

for other industries to think about. A possible lesson.

What is this uniqueness? It is the extraordinary integration, both horizontally and vertically,

with several integrating organizations or consortia that have been in place 60 years or more.

These organizations are funded almost entirely by the industry. They provide leadership;

education; process R&D; technology road maps; technology assessment services; competitive

technology transfer from around the world into the domestic industry; and ongoing

assessments for their members of quality, cost, delivery, and environmental safety, educational

capabilities, and performance.

These industry organizations or consortia have been led by our company leaders, who have a

passion for driving our industry competitiveness while remaining ferocious competitors in the

markets we serve collectively. Lesson: leadership at the top.

Over many years, we have learned how to cooperate and compete simultaneously. We have

learned that consortia have to focus on process technology rather than on developing specific

products, and that their contributions have to be visible and measurable over time. These have

been crucial lessons for us.

In response to the dramatic increase in imports that started about 1982, the industry rallied

together to form the Crafted with Pride Council in 1984. Funded entirely by the industry

complex, the council was a totally vertical consortium tying all segments together. The

council had several objectives. One was to study the industry as a vertical system, to

determine how we best could increase our industry's competitiveness.

This initiative produced some spinning lessons. For example, despite the fact that each

segment of the industry had the best quality and the highest productivity in the world, there

was an enormous loss - or waste — in the vertical supply chain from manufacturers to the

41
retailers and the consumers. These studies revealed that there was typically a 66-week apparel

supply pipeline from raw fiber to the consumer. That long cycle resulted in a $25 billion loss

in 1984 — or 25 percent of our sales. These losses were a direct result of our industry's

inflexible manufacturing and inadequate forecasting, planning, and scheduling capabilities. Do

these conditions exist in other industries?

These studies led to the formal launching of "quick response" initiatives throughout our

industry. Studies showed that at least $12 billion in costs could be eliminated. However,

retailers had to invest about $3.6 billion to put in place point-of-sale information as the

starting point for a "consumer pull" system, as opposed to the "manufacturer push" system

that has prevailed in the United States. In recent years a new label has been given to this

approach, Demand-Activated Manufacturing (DAM) ~ the DAM against imports!

Despite our efforts, imports continued to increase dramatically in the late 1980s, creating

chaos in our vertical industry. We had to do more. The enormous upheaval brought into sharp

focus the need for additional resources from outside our industry — resources that could make

it possible for us to remain at the forefront worldwide by driving technology and its use. We

concluded that we desperately needed collaboration between our total industry and our worldclass government research laboratories and universities and other industry organizations.

We had in place the four industry research, education, and technology transfer organizations:

Cotton Inc., ITT, [TC]2

, and TRI. Driven by the vision of expanded research, the National

Textile Center (NTC) was established in 1991 with the four universities » Auburn, Clemson,

Georgia Institute of Technology, and North Carolina State ~ that produce about 90 percent of

the graduates in textiles and related industries. This is a unique consortium conducting cross- campus,- cross-department research, with our industry leaders providing oversight and

evaluating the results. Early results are very exciting and promising.

One year later, in 1992, our industry was one of four to be invited to the Department of

Energy (DOE) Critical Technologies Workshop in Berkeley, California. Our involvement in

that workshop led to the launching of the American Textile (AMTEX) Partnership. The

partnership involves the entire textile complex, both vertically and horizontally, as well as a

consortium of DOE labs. From the industry side, AMTEX is led by our four industry

consortia and the NTC. These organizations have been driving our road maps for years. Every

company in our industry has the opportunity to participate.

Working intimately with the labs, our industry has developed a broad vision of what we

would strive to achieve, working together. Our vision was to develop "leapfrog" technology,

or breakthroughs, as well as incremental improvements that would result in our total vertical

industry providing the highest-quality, best-value products with an environmentally conscious

DAM system that was world class in every aspect.

42
We are 2 years into this journey. It has not been an easy one; none of us expected it to be.

We knew there would be many hurdles and lots of reasons to say, "It's not worth the effort."

And that has almost happened several times. But we have not quit. The potential payoff is too

great for our nation, our industry, and the world-class scientists, engineers, and labs that have

made us the world leader in defense-focused research.

I believe we have dealt successfully with most of the many questions and problems we have

faced. None has been insurmountable to date, because we always have fallen back on the

basic premise that we're all trying to do the right thing for our country and our industry.

AMTEX is a very exciting collaborative research initiative.

We have an excellent vision, or road map, for the future of our industry. We are major users of the generic manufacturing technologies identified by the Council on Competitiveness. We

have exciting and important research needs and opportunities in the textile complex. We have

enormous needs for dynamic simulations, high-speed computing and analysis, systems

modeling, flexible computer-integrated manufacturing, "intelligent" processing equipment,

improved materials, environmental technologies (particularly for recycling and reuse of

materials), energy management, and biotechnology. We have the road maps that integrate

these technologies.

We all should ask, "Is our industry prepared and capable of effectively using successful

research results? Are we organized to do so?" We believe our industry is. Productivity

improvement is a good way to measure that. Let's look at the productivity improvement of

key segments of our industry over time.

Over the past 15 years, our industry has invested continuously in new equipment at the rate of

$4 billion per year, thereby producing at higher and higher speeds, and greater and greater

levels of productivity. Both our textile and apparel segments have increased productivity at a

faster rate (over 3 percent a year) than the average for all U.S. manufacturing (2.5 percent). I believe our industry consortia have driven this achievement.

We have made enormous improvements as we have competed vigorously to survive. Now,

where has this occurred? Let's look at yarn manufacturing, where productivity (measured as output per machine hour) has increased more than eightfold in two decades. And fabric

formation, where productivity has increase almost sevenfold in the same time period. Clearly

our industry is making enormous investments to drive technology.

Unfortunately, the major machinery developments that have brought about these enormous

increases in speed have been made, in large part, by about six companies, all foreign. And

they are selling the new-generation machines worldwide. We must make breakthroughs here

in the United States that are not readily available anywhere else ~ and we can.

43
Let's look at the dyeing and finishing of fabric, the step where we produce colors and product

features such as wash-and-wear properties, stain resistance, and anti-static and water-resistant

properties. There has been only a 40 percent improvement in process speed in this critical area in the past four decades. What an opportunity. This is a key industry segment; DAM

cannot achieve its full potential in our industry without major breakthroughs in this area.

Following are just a few of the specific technology needs in dyeing and finishing

manufacturing: new dyeing technology, precise color controls, new chemical application

techniques, chemical recovery processes, heat transfer technology, and high-speed fabric

stabilization.

No foreign companies dominate this important segment of our industry. Major developments

can give us opportunities to leapfrog the competition and create major machinery-building

opportunities in the United States. And this is just one specific area of opportunity. We have

many, many more, particularly in fabricated products, the most labor-intensive segment of our

industry.

Our industry is in real motion with the AMTEX Partnership. We are learning a lot. Projects

in progress are focusing on

o DAM architecture (DAMA);

o computer-aided fabric evaluation;

o textile resource conservation (including raw material recovery and reuse, generic

technologies, and new manufacturing processes);

o rapid cutting initiative,

o sensors for agile manufacturing, and

o embedded electronic fingerprint.

We have more than 120 companies working as research partners on these initial projects, and

we have only begun. I believe AMTEX will prove to be a great study in success for our

industry and for America. And we should share the lessons learned as we proceed.

I believe most of the generic technologies that can enhance the competitiveness of our

industry are equally applicable to many other industries represented here. No generic

technology has broader application than DAMA project, the bellwether project of AMTEX

Our industry is far along in implementing DAM, having been on this path for almost eight

years.

Our vertical industry already has invested about $4.5 billion of the estimated $6.9 billion

needed to implement DAM fully. An enormous amount of data must be handled to use these

concepts fully in our industry. Transferring the enormous amount of data from retail to the

suppliers is a big issue. The real challenge is to convert that data successfully into a highly

44
effective forecasting and planning system for each level of manufacturing. This is not in place

yet, and it is a must. That is the major objective of the DAMA project.

It seems reasonable to assume that there are tremendous opportunities to enhance

competitiveness in most industries through real-time transfer of consumer purchases into

effective forecasting, planning, ordering, and scheduling systems for the upstream suppliers.

We are far down this road. The textile complex seem to be positioned perfectly to ride the

information superhighway, using the DAMA to win the race for global competitiveness and

American jobs. In the meantime, we are moving ahead at full speed.

In summary, our large industry is a very important contributor to the nation's standard of

living. We are a major user of generic manufacturing technologies. We are organized

uniquely ~ and have been for a long time ~ to implement new technology rapidly and

effectively. Almost 50 percent of our markets are supplied from offshore, mostly low-laborcost countries. Each 10 percent of the business we can save or recapture means 124,000 jobs

in the United States. Agile manufacturing is a critical factor.

Through NTC and AMTEX, we are searching for opportunities to expand our effects on

behalf of the overall competitiveness of our industry and the nation. We are prepared and

anxious to work with any government departments and labs or other organizations to advance

cooperatively any initiatives that can enhance further our competitiveness, and that of other

industries.

We believe the key factor in success is integration through collaboration - in vertical

industries, in government, and in universities. We know such integration is difficult. However,

we believe we have learned how to do it. The ideal process is to use Total Quality

Management concepts break down the barriers.

In closing, thank you for this exciting event and the opportunity to share with you the story

of the U.S. textile complex and the lessons we have learned. We are dedicated to making the

next chapter of our industry a great success story of world-class collaboration of government,

academia, and the textile complex ~ a role model of competitiveness for our great nation.

45

Food Industry Needs1

Adolph S. Clausi

President

Institute of Food Technology

It's no accident that the U.S. food system is the most advanced in the world. It's not luck that

makes ours the most reliable, healthy, and abundant food in history. It's research. It's science.

It's technology. Food processing requires advanced manufacturing technology and the talents

of many scientific disciplines: chemistry, physics, microbiology, molecular biology,

mathematics, engineering, and nutrition. And advanced technology is the key to making

America even healthier, cleaner, and more competitive.

We are at the threshold of a better understanding of the complex relationships between food

and health ~ the relationship between heart disease and dietary fat, the interaction between

nutrients and the immune system, and the influence of diet on cancer. The food processing

industry seeks to enhance the nutritional quality of food, make healthier food choices

desirable and available, develop new foods to meet urgent health goals, and make the world's

safest food supply even safer. For instance, The Dupont Co.'s microbial typing technology

uses genetic analysis to identify bacteria in food definitively and rapidly.

Americans care about the environment. They want cleaner technologies that are protective of

natural resources. Food science research has led to new plant technologies that greatly reduce

the need for pesticides. We also have developed a laser device for peeling vegetables that

significantly reduces resource use and byproduct waste.

It is also no accident that food is America's largest manufacturing industry at $400 billion a

year. Research, science, and technology keep it in the forefront. Food is one of the top three

industries for value-added products, an engine for economic growth. For instance, Ocean

Spray Cranberries, Inc. sold $27 million worth of cranberry products in 1963; today, sales are more than $1 billion. That's a lot ofjuice from a little berry.

This kind of growth from new technologies and new food products creates American jobs.

But our competitive edge is eroding. We are losing industries critical to innovation and design

of new processes, and with them jobs and capital. Most food equipment development and

1 The first five (indented) paragraphs comprise the script for the video that introduced Mr.

Clausi's remarks.

47
manufacturing has moved overseas. Our competitors in Europe and Asia are better organized

than we are to achieve research and development (R&D) priorities. This is a wake-up call for

America to become healthier, cleaner, and stronger. We need industry, government, and

universities to work together to plant the seeds, nurture the ideas, and harvest the products of

the U.S. food system in the 21st century.

With all due respect to Tom Malone and the textile complex, I submit that food is the fabric

of America. We say things are "as American as apple pie." Food fuels not only our appetites,

but also our economy. Our ability to produce, process, and export commodities and valueadded food products at globally competitive costs is fundamental to our stature in the world

community. It distinguishes us from almost any other nation in the world, buttresses our

national security, and supplies our humanitarian relief efforts.

The U.S. food industry leads the world in its ability to convert raw commodities into finished

products and to deliver food to consumers in the safest, most convenient, and highest valueadded form possible. As I said earlier, the foundation for this leadership is provided by food

science, advanced technology, and research. Other speakers have described some of the

exciting prospects for semiconductors and automobiles. We in the food processing industry

are here today, alongside these sectors, not because we have the sizzle but because we have

the steak. The food processing industry offers equally exciting prospects that can help meet

the national goals of making America healthier, safer, cleaner, and more competitive.

Very few people recognize the true size, nature, and economic contribution of our industry, so

let me briefly describe it. Food is the nation's largest manufacturing sector. The annual value

of shipments by the nation's 16,000 food manufacturers approached $400 billion in 1987 and

is even higher today (at $404 billion). Some 1.5 Americans are employed adding value to

farm commodities by processing them into foods. In 1991, the industry contributed $145

billion in added value to the U.S. economy. That is comparable to the added value provided

by the chemical (including pharmaceuticals) and transportation equipment industries, with

$155 billion and $152 billion, respectively.

For the public policy makers present, I note that food processing is vital to the economy of

every state. Many food processing jobs are in states with small populations, in rural

communities, and in small business. Food processing is a first-tier industry from which many

other industries evolve ~ industries such as printing, packaging, transportation, and

warehousing. Thus, an investment in food jump-starts many other advanced manufacturing

sectors. Every job in food processing creates three additional jobs.

48
America's food technology needs have been articulated by the Institute of Food Technologists

in the report America's Food Research Needs: Into the 21st Century? This report drew on the

expertise of more than 200 individuals and the organizations they represent. The needs of the

food industry fall into three categories: health and safety, environment, and global

competitiveness. All three areas offer significant opportunities for ground-breaking research,

science, and technology.

In brief, this is our road map. In health and safety, the top priority is to improve the health

benefits derived from our food supply. To accomplish this, we need to improve understanding

of how the nutritional and non-nutritional components of food modulate biological processes

and influence the molecular and genetic aspects of health and disease. This field of inquiry

will continue to be significant, possibly predominant, in the decades to come and will be a

key component of health-related research in the next century. This research will lead to

increases in processing effectiveness that will enhance the healthful properties of food and

reduce health care costs through preventive medicine. If improved nutrition reduced health

care costs by only 10 percent -- which we believe is a realistic goal ~ then the savings to the

nation could be as high as $14.5 billion.

After all, food is preventive medicine. We envision using new knowledge to create foods

designed to meet health promotion goals, as well as the dietary requirements of individuals

who are pregnant, aged, or at special risk of disease. We can develop products to help control

allergies and other sensitivities as well as genetic and other types of disease. We also must

find ways to capture the fun in food without the fat. Entirely new molecules can turn this

hope into a reality.

Improving health also means improving food safety. The most critical food safety issue is

control of microorganisms, especially those that cause disease. We need technologies that can

distinguish pathogenic organisms from harmless or friendly organisms and can detect and

measure their presence rapidly, before they create health problems. Promising work is under

way in this area.

The Dupont Co. has developed a state-of-the-art genetic analysis technique that makes it possible to identify automatically, within eight hours, the species and strain of bacteria in

food or clinical or environmental samples. This process now takes up to two weeks. Thus, the

new technology heralds a new era of safety in food processing and in detection of pathogens.

It suggests that we also may be able to predict how harmful particular microorganisms are. Rapid pathogen detection and identification has enormous implications for food safety and

2 This report was published as a supplement to the March 1993 issue of Food Technology

(Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 1S-40S).

49
also may enable us to enhance the value of beneficial microorganisms, such as those in

cheese, yogurt, and beer.

Our second category of needs is environmental technologies. Not only do Americans want

and deserve foods that are healthier and safer, but they also want foods that are cleaner and

safer in terms of how they affect the environment. Advances in biotechnology have enabled

us to repel pests without pesticides. We can bioengineer crops with resistance to disease,

thereby greatly reducing the need for chemicals, and we can modify plant characteristics to

reduce the need for energy during processing. Advanced technologies such as the laser peeler

actually eliminate product waste.

Environmental concerns are driving the development of cell-free, enzyme-based systems to

convert food processing byproducts into useful food and non-food products. For example,

biotechnology-derived enzymes can convert byproducts from grain and rice milling, fruit and

vegetable processing, shellfish harvesting, and cheese production into products such as vitamin C, ethanol, or other alcohols. These processes not only reduce the waste stream but

also yield value-added goods.

Biosensors developed in the space program for atomic reactors are another environmentally

friendly technology. The food industry can use biosensors to detect marker substances in

foods, monitor antibiotic use, detect food spoilage, and measure the presence of contaminants.

These technologies have obvious potential for boosting the engineering and equipment

manufacturing segments of our industry. As food processors incorporate environmental

technologies and concepts throughout their organizations and relationships with other firms ~

a trend some have called industrial ecology ~ resources will be conserved and waste reduced.

Our third area of concern is global competitiveness. Currently, food is a bright spot in the

U.S. balance of trade. Not only is the rest of the world consuming our grains and farm

commodities, but also value-added foods that provide jobs for American workers are expanding our export markets. In the past three years, exports of value-added products for the

first time have outstripped the dollar value of exports of raw commodities, and trends are favorable for even further growth in this high-value trade.

As we look toward the 21st century, we must recognize that our food manufacturing base

depends on our competitive ability to convert raw materials into a variety of finished, valueadded foods. Increasing the U.S. share of the $140 billion world export market for consumer

foods from the current 8 percent to 15 percent would generate a 1 to 2 percent increase in the

U.S. gross national product and create about 1.5 million new jobs.

But our competitive edge is eroding; most of the equipment used in the food processing

industry is made in other countries. Packaging is another sector that is moving overseas. Equipment and packaging are crucial to innovation and product development. We should take

50
a lesson from the automobile industry; the loss of key suppliers to overseas markets was one

of the first harbingers of the decline of the U.S. auto industry a decade ago. The U.S. food

industry needs to recapture the equipment makers, engineering vigor, and $7.5 billion in

capital funds now at work overseas.

One factor in the erosion of U.S. dominance in the food industry has been the formation of

public-private alliances overseas. The Germans, the French, the Japanese, and the Koreans

have formed alliances of industry, government, and universities to conduct R&D in food

science and technology. We propose that such a partnership be established in the United

States ~ a U.S. Food Experts Alliance for Strategic Technology (USFEAST).

USFEAST would be a collaborative effort of industry, government, and universities, all

working together to achieve the scientific and technological breakthroughs needed to take the

U.S. food system into the 21st century. The name USFEAST symbolizes the goal of

providing Americans and other peoples with healthful, abundant, affordable foods while

healing the earth, water, and air and enhancing human health. USFEAST would attack the

complex barriers constraining the U.S. food system today. Private and public investments

would be used to refocus and leverage existing funds to achieve strategic applications

tliroughout the food system, with far-reaching implications for domestic and international

security. USFEAST could achieve breakthroughs in knowledge and technology over the next

decade.

Three interdependent, strategic initiatives should be pursued: (1) development of

commercially viable processes and foods to promote wellness and reduce disease risk; (2)

implementation of environmentally friendly technologies for conserving human and energy

resources, reducing pesticide and chemical use, reducing food processing wastes, and

improving environmental quality; and (3) application of innovative manufacturing strategies

that would enable improvements in productivity and maintain our global competitive edge.

USFEAST has the potential to reach and benefit every American household, measurably

improving how we eat and live and assuring America of a strategic position in the world food

supply system.

51

Electronics Industry Needs

Dieter Bergman

Technical Director

Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits

I work for a trade association that deals with electronic interconnections. It started out as the

Institute of Printed Circuits (IPC) many years ago, and the name was changed later when it became clear that the institute was addressing more than just printed circuit boards. The

Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits is similar to other trade

associations. Such groups conduct seminars, collect marketing data, and do surveys; some also

do workshop training and re-certification, and a few do research.

The major emphasis of IPC programs is establishing consensus. We are basically an

accredited standards developer, so we write many standards that relate to printed circuit

boards and electronics in general, such as for test methods and safety characteristics. Many

other groups in the United States and the rest of the world write standards and specifications.

In the United States, we in the private sector work under the auspices of the American

National Standards Institute. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

carries out the government standardization activities. Most of the standards in Europe are coordinated through the Committee for European Electrotechnical Standardization, and in Asia

most of them are written in Japan.

The standards-setting process relates to the reason IPC is in the road-mapping business. Every

organization has to have flexibility, direction, focus, vision, and structure. We start the

standards-setting process by identifying a need. We then go through an approval cycle: We

have a group that works out the details, which are sent to the companies affected for

comment. This process requires a road map, because you need the community - the map

makers - to be involved. You need to establish a direction, decide on the distance you want

to go, and find out the rules of the road.

In 1993, the IPC decided all the members of the supply chain should be involved in our roadmapping activity. The supply chain includes component manufactures, original equipment

manufacturers (OEMs), material suppliers, design tool and electronics makers, companies that

fabricate or assemble printed circuit boards, and, most importantly, customers. Customers are

critical because all too often they decide to buy products overseas. The reason all members of

a supply chain have to be involved in road mapping is, simply, they already are exerting

some influence. We recognize that the OEM drives the fabricators and the assemblers, and all

53
those companies drive the suppliers. We found we had to deal with three Cs: customers,

cooperation, and coordination.

The first step in our road-mapping activity was a survey. Our membership is international, but

we work under U.S. rules and we are trying primarily to bolster the U.S. electronics industry.

We decided to ask all 1,900 member companies what their needs were for the short term

(1993), medium term (1995), and long term (1997). We also sought their innovative ideas and

asked questions on certain topics. For example, in fabrication, we asked what kind of

conductor they planned to use (i.e., the number of holes, the size of the holes, the number of

layers). We were looking for technology trends.

Then the key issue was how to analyze all that data. In 1993, we had over 600 respondents

representing every level, from management to quality to process control to engineering design

to production. We had a snapshot of the opinions of many people who make things, who

produce things, and who buy things. Drawing meaningful results from this information was a

very complex process.

This is where the map makers come in. You call for a workshop, get some experts to attend,

and lock them in a hotel for three days with the survey data. We had nine teams of experts

work on our data at a workshop in 1993. We asked them to determine, for each topic area -

components, equipment, material, design, fabrication - the current status of the industry and

the outlook. We wanted to know where the United States has been successful, and what could

be done to ensure that we would be successful in the future.

Five major "show stoppers" were identified at this workshop: (1) limited methodology for

integrating new technology into manufacturing, (2) lack of a single set of industrygovernment economic programs for the supply chain, (3) lack of coordination between design

tools and the production process, (4) lack of environmentally friendly materials and processes,

and (5) poor customer-supplier relationships. I should add that the United States recently sent

a team overseas to talk to Japanese manufacturers. In January, the team reported that the

Japanese had been successful because they had the inverse of the five "show stoppers"

identified in the IPC workshops. In other words, we probably found the right problems.

The experts at our workshop also came up with 164 distinct recommendations. The IPC

decided to examine each one, to establish a priority order and gauge the level of effort

required for implementation. Was a national initiative required? Would the recommended

action duplicate some little-known activity already completed or under way? Or could the

recommendation be carried out as an IPC committee project?

The experts also decided it would be important to repeat the survey in 1994. We did,

although we changed the process slightly to concentrate on design, materials, fabrication, and

assembly. The new survey was conducted at the beginning of this year, and the road-mapping

54
workshop in March. An executive overview of the 1993 survey has been published, and we

are working on the 1994 overview.

As a result of these activities, we recognized that the U.S. electronics industry has to change.

We have to change the way we manufacture products, interact with the environment, transfer

data from the design phase to the manufacturing floor, service customers, develop new

technology, and, most of all, the way we purchase products and work together.

In our road-mapping activities over the past year and a half, it has become very clear that

U.S. industry is in a feeding frenzy. As Department of Defense (DOD) budgets have moved

away from military hardware, industry is dashing around looking for ways to get some of that

money. The IPC is less concerned about getting the money than it is about how to manage

the research projects. So we created the Interconnection Technology Research Institute (ITRI).

All levels of the supply chain, as well as government and academia, have made a

commitment to cooperative research through ITRI, which gives us an opportunity to create a

national strategy for printing board and assembly manufacturing.

The mission of ITRI is very simple: to enable revolutionary innovation and solutions for

nature requirements, and to improve existing technology. We need to borrow a technique from

the Japanese, who, instead of always developing new technology, continuously improve the

old ones. Our overarching goal is to ensure world-class, U.S.-based manufacturing capability.

We want to foster partnerships among all members of the supply chain and come up with

solutions for the needs identified in the road map. So a set of research projects has been

developed. The goals of these projects are to develop benign manufacturing processes; reduce

the total cost of manufacturing per square foot; develop new manufacturing materials; develop

methods to prove our products work and continue to work; and devise methods for

trarisferring new technology to the marketplace.

I worked 24 years for Philips Consumer Electronics, and some of the products I worked on

never reached the marketplace. That still happens today. We also have national laboratories

that do great work for the DOD, and very little of it has been transferred to the commercial

sector. So management of these projects is important, not only to improve the performance of

technology but also to ensure technology transfer and to do all the other things that are necessary.

The ITRI is an non-profit, industry-led public-private consortium administered with Federal

research and development funds earmarked for precompetitive projects (a funding strategy

now allowed under Federal laws). There will be a governing board. The chief executive

officer is Marshall Andrews, who formerly was with the Microelectronics and Computer

Technology Corporation. The IPC road map is the guide for ITRI projects. The details will be

addressed by technical project teams on design, base materials, board fabrication, assembly,

55
and so on. Our whole premise is to form work teams of manufacturers, suppliers, and users so

that we can regain the competitive edge we have lost over the last few years.

In summary, the United States must maintain leadership in electronics. It has been said that a

country that lacks a good electronics base is not a leader in the world. Japan recognized that

reality some time ago, and now the United States has too.

56
Department of Defense

Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies

Anita K. Jones

Director, Defense Research & Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an overview of the Department of Defense

(DOD) investment in manufacturing technology. The DOD has three objectives in this area:

(1) to drive down the costs of producing and owning defense goods, (2) to contribute to

national economic security, and (3) to integrate the commercial and defense industrial base.

The third objective is new under the Clinton Administration. This objective focuses not only

on defense technology, but also on applying these innovations to create new commercial

technologies and markets.

The DOD requires an affordable, multi-use manufacturing base. The metrics of success are reduced cost, reduced cycle time from design to production, assured access to the state-of-theart technologies, and the crafting of new products that contribute to military technological

superiority. One message I want to emphasize is that, despite declining defense budgets, we

will sustain our investment in manufacturing technology, now roughly $1 billion a year. We

will shift our investment focus, however, to emphasize defense-critical manufacturing needs.

The U.S. investment in manufacturing actually is increasing, certainly in industry but also

among a number of Federal agencies. For years, the DOD has collaborated on manufacturing

projects with the Department of Commerce (DOC), the National Science Foundation, and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration in particular.

The DOD has four major manufacturing programs. One is the scalable flexible manufacturing

program in the Advanced Projects Research Agency (ARPA). This program emphasizes

electronics, materials, and information systems. One topic of interest is electronic packaging,

specifically multichip. In 1990, DOD bought almost the entire U.S. market for defense-critical

technologies that offer increased speed and reliability of device interconnects.

Today we control 40 percent of a roughly $50 million market, which we believe is poised to

grow significantly. We look forward to dramatically increased commercial participation; we

expect to control about 10 percent of a $700 million market at the turn of the century. This is

a strategic, sustained investment. It's quite different from ARPA's Technology Reinvestment

Project (TOP) or the DOC's Advanced Technology Program, where projects are closer to

market and commercial industry assumes greater ownership of risk.

57
Multichip modules are a good example of a strategic DOD investment that starts when the

technology is in the cradle, and DOD continues to support that industrial sector as fabrication

and manufacturing capabilities mature. However, once market applications become defined,

DOD investment is reduced as industry investment becomes sustained.

The second DOD manufacturing program is a set of projects referred to as Technology for

Affordability, also managed by ARPA. The aim here is build portability into a particular class

of products. We develop pilot factories and experiment with technology. In one project we are assembling missile seekers for a variety of applications in the tactical missile industry.

The third program is the TRP - a cost-shared, merit-based program in which awards are made to companies and consortia for specific projects. Roughly half of the 212 awards made

so far (for a total of some $300 million) have been in manufacturing. These are late-stage

technology manufacturing efforts. For example, in one project we're using computer models to

develop molds for injection molding. The injector can make more complex molds, and make

them faster, than can be done with other kinds of technology.

The fourth DOD manufacturing effort is the Manufacturing Science and Technology Program,

also known as Mantech. This is a long-life program executed across the services and in the

Defense Logistics Agency. Here we invest in defense-critical areas, particularly where

industry is not investing. An example is advanced tooling for airframe composites, where we

established an integrated methodology for automating the tooling design functions; the designs

are created in part by expert systems. Another example is a laser-based optical gauge that can

inspect automatically for adequate size, contour, and surface defects of welds.

Funds appropriated for this program often are earmarked for specific projects. This is a

problem for those of us concerned with fielding the very best possible manufacturing

technology program. Fiscal year 1994 has been particularly difficult; we asked for $148

million and were authorized $112 million. Eventually $281 million was appropriated, but

some $241 million was earmarked.

We actually had to halt some merit-based industrial contracts that had been awarded by DOD.

We anguished over that. However, we continued to work on this problem, project by project,

and the comptroller last week released funds sufficient to continue these programs for the

remainder of the year. I am very pleased we're able to do that. It is a difficult situation.

The DOD has done a number of things in the past year to improve management and oversight

of its manufacturing programs. First, I created a manufacturing panel as part of Project

Reliance, the cooperative group that coordinates DOD's science and technology programs. The

panel will compare programs to eliminate duplication, chart the course for Mantech, review

plans, review center activities, and help with oversight.

58
Also, at my suggestion, DOD has created the Defense Manufacturing Council, which met for

the first time about 2 weeks ago. My objective is to remedy disconnects between science and

technology activities and reforms in procurement and acquisition. I wanted a forum where we

could deal with these issues.

The third change is that we have established a relationship with a multi-industry Task Force

on Affordability, which is chaired by Aris Melissaratos of Westinghouse Electric Corp. The

task force has representation from a number of world-class corporations. This group is

working with multiple manufacturing associations as well as DOD. I also have asked them to

work with our Defense Manufacturing Council, and they are developing action plans for

commercial characterization of military parts, one of the issues I'm most interested in, and for

constructing road maps for some manufacturing sectors.

So there is a great deal of activity, not only in DOD, but also in industry. But will the

changes really be significant? To answer that, let me go back in time. I once lived in

Pittsburgh. After World War II, the Japanese rebuilt their steel factories because they had

been bombed. The Japanese modernized, while U.S. steel manufactures did not. And as a

result, the steel mills in Pittsburgh are now museums, empty industrial shells. That industrial

sector did not enhance its infrastructure, did not move with the technology.

Going back even further, in 1851 Queen Victoria presided over a great cultural exposition at

the Crystal Palace. They were celebrating mid- 19th century British supremacy in industrial

practices and technology. At that show were Cyrus McCormick from McCormick Repeater

Works and Samuel Colt from the Colt Repeating Arms Company. They had some novel

manufacturing concepts such as mass production, interchangeable parts, and division of labor.

And they and their colleagues in U.S. industries, particularly manufacturing, became

preeminent just a few years after that.

Those are two good examples that illustrate how cataclysmic change can be in the

manufactiiring arena. I believe the same degree of change is occurring right now. The

manufacturing industries are changing at a pace that is very painful but also very

empowering.

Let me close by quoting George Bernard Shaw, who said: "The reasonable person adapts

himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.

And all progress depends on the unreasonable person."

Thank you again.

Question: A number of defense products require very-high-quality manufacturing. Often these

products, such as nuclear bombs, are made in small lots. There doesn't seem to be anything in

59
the defense conversion program to help industries that have produced these small-lot, veryhigh-quality products.

Answer: The DOD has taken the position that industry has to decide for itself how and where

to diversify. Also, a lot of markets require high quality. The electronics industry, for example,

has reliability requirements that are at least comparable to what you're talking about. I think

such requirements are best driven by the marketplace. The real issue there is how to get out

of the business of making an arcane technology. Some kinds of industrial activities will

remain defense unique.

Question: You said you wanted greater coordination between Mantech and activities such as acquisition reform. What role do you see Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced

Technology Larry Lynn's department playing in driving or demonstrating DOD science and

technology research?

Answer: Larry Lynn handles technology transition and oversees the creation of science and

technology programs that have substantial involvement by the operator community. The

objective is to get prototype weapons systems that seem realistic into the hands of the fighting

force. That way, the military can evaluate the technology and make more educated decisions

than we have made in the past. We feel strongly about this program, which is something we

did not do in a planned, programmed way in the past.

60
Department of Energy

Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies

Victor H. Reis

Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs

U.S. Department of Energy

Being a total quality guy, I have to tell the truth. The Department of Energy (DOE) does not

yet have a mature, department-wide manufacturing strategy. We're still working on one,

which I hope and believe will be a significant component of our overall DOE strategy. But I can describe some of the elements and themes of our manufacturing strategy.

The DOE has been a major manufacturer for the past 50 years. We are one of the government

agencies that actually makes things. Of course, nuclear weapons were among those things.

We're not making them anymore, but we are taking them apart. Nuclear weapons have

thousands and thousands of parts, and the process for taking a bomb apart is very much like a

manufacturing process. So many advances in manufacturing are helping us dismantle these

very complex devices.

Why did DOE get into manufacturing? Among other reasons, the law told us to. The National

Energy Policy Act (P.L. 102-486) says DOE should be in the manufacturing business for

reasons other than building nuclear warheads, that we should be concerned with efficiency

and productivity. We also are supposed to work with the private sector on advanced

manufacturing technologies, economic growth, and energy efficiency.

Because DOE budgets are dropping off, particularly in the defense programs, we are looking

to be at the forefront of the agile, lean, clean manufacturing movement. Thus, DOE, through

its laboratories and remaining production complex, represents a major national scientific and

technical asset, which is being applied to a wide variety of industrial problems. Of particular

interest to DOE is the whole idea of energy-efficient and pollution-free manufacturing. Both

characteristics increase productivity. The environment is a key focus at DOE and this niche

will become more and more important.

I want to emphasize the strength of the DOE laboratories. Every year, R&D Magazine

recognizes the best research and development projects across the country, and in 1993 they

gave some 25 of the 100 awards to DOE laboratories. So these laboratories are an enormously

powerful engine of technology. The issue is how to use that engine to produce the right

applications.

61
Finally, because we're not in the manufacturing business alone, DOE tries to work with other

Federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Each agency has its own special expertise and goals. When you add them all up, you get a

much more balanced, progressive, and coherent program.

All these elements will go into what I hope is a coherent, integrated, and aligned strategy. I think this conference will provide significant input for us, because, after all, we have to listen

to the customer.

Question: When a government laboratory is developing a manufacturing process, at what

point does it stop and let industry take over?

Answer: I don't know the answer. I think we're just beginning to learn some of those things.

You get into all sorts of issues with regard to intellectual property rights, and it gets very

complicated. But I think these problems are beginning to be worked out. These partnerships

will require a good deal of good will and patience on both sides. But it's remarkable how

attitudes have changed in a relatively short time. In a sense, the hardest part has been, not

with industry, but getting the government laboratories to work together.

Question: Will DOE be involved in development of the National Information Infrastructure

(MI)?

Answer: One role I think the weapons laboratories will play is related to supercomputers. I think we'll need a new generation of supercomputers to address the grand challenges that will

be drivers for the NIL The issue is how to maintain confidence in our weapons stockpile

without making or testing anything. The weapons laboratories will work with supercomputer

manufacturers on the technology needed to carry out that task. Of course, those computers

will be networked and will use software. And once you get into software problems, you have

switching problems. So I see the labs working with the computer manufacturers on all these

technology problems.

62
Department of Commerce

Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies

Arati Prabhakar

Director

National Institute of Standards and Technology

I will concentrate on Department of Commerce (DOC) programs and strategies, which are an

interesting microcosm of what's happening in Federal research and development (R&D). The

Federal Government funds 45 percent of all the R&D conducted in the United States. Many

different agencies and departments continue to pursue R&D to support their different

missions.

The new element in the mix of Federal R&D spending - one that responds to global

economic and technological realities ~ is more vigorous support of civilian technology. This

is a very deliberate change in strategy. Of course, it remains important to focus on national

security and on mamtoining our base of scientific knowledge. But with the end of the Cold

War and changes in U.S. industrial competitiveness, we also need to focus Federal R&D

investments on other areas.

So the overall trend is a much stronger focus on industry's needs, as reflected by this

conference. This change also has brought government agencies closer together. Having

worked for different parts of the Federal Government for several years, I now see an

unparalleled degree of cooperation and collaboration among programs.

The DOC is unique in that it focuses on civilian technology to foster economic growth. This

means we have to work with industry. This is not a mission the Federal Government "owns"

in the sense that it owns or is responsible for national security. Rather, our job is to contribute

to something that is driven by industry. This matters deeply to taxpayers, because the

economic growth produced by U.S. industry's success creates job opportunities and raises our

standard of living. Moreover, there are technologies that are critical to our long-term

economic growth but cannot be developed with private dollars alone.

The DOC technology program receives a tiny portion of Federal R&D dollars, less than 2

percent. We try to focus that small amount precisely where industry sees economic needs and

opportunities. That's our strength. But we can do little by ourselves. Everything we do is

through partnerships with industry and the broader technical community in government and

academia.

63
Our Technology Administration, headed by Under Secretary for Technology Mary Good, is

responsible for a variety of activities. Dr. Good chairs the Civilian Industrial Technology

Committee of the National Science and Technology Council, recently established by the

White House to coordinate R&D efforts. We have two primary efforts in civilian industrial

technology. One focuses on manufacturing infrastructure, and Joseph Bordogna of the

National Science Foundation (NSF) chairs that group. The other is the Partnership for a New

Generation of Vehicles, described earlier.

The Technology Administration also is responsible for serving as the U.S. secretariat for the

Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) program. This is an international program in which

U.S. companies, universities, and laboratories form consortia with their counterparts in 21

other participating nations. The program provides a mechanism for exploring best

manufacturing technologies and practices as well as new alliances for global marketing and

manufacturing, and perhaps a chance to influence standards setting as well. Andy Wan is the

point of contact for the U.S. secretariat, and you can contact him for more information.

The IMS program is an example of a joint effort where industry and other segments of the

technology community are doing the work and paying the bill, while DOC establishes the

government linkages needed to make an international effort work.

Finally, Graham Mitchell, who heads the Office of Technology Policy in the Technology

Administration, is planning a benchmarking effort that will provide detailed and thorough

information about U.S. manufacturing capabilities. This project should be useful not only to

the government, but also to the larger manufacturing community.

Now I will discuss the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the part of the

Technology Administration that co-funds and conducts industry-driven research and delivers

industry-directed services. NIST is in a period of dramatic change; we are addressing new

challenges as well as building on our traditional base. Typically, NIST has carried out 0.5

percent or less of Federal R&D, but we're at the beginning of what we hope will be fairly

dramatic growth. The President has proposed an increase that would take us to about $1.4

billion total by fiscal year 1997 ~ almost four times our current budget.

We're taking that growth very seriously. We think the type of dialogue taking place at this

conference is critical to helping us deliver value to industry rather than just building

bureaucracy.

NIST is really a portfolio of different programs. Almost everything we do relates to

manufacturing. Our story really begins with the job we were given in 1901, when the institute

was formed as the National Bureau of Standards. The original mission remains intact: to

provide the undeipinnings, the infrastructure that companies need to their job ~ the

technologies every company needs but no company would invest in developing on their own

64
because the returns are nonappropriable, diffusing across groups of companies. Infrastructure

technologies include measurement standards, measurement methodologies, data evaluation,

and test methods and protocols ~ the underpinning technologies that raise the level of play

for everyone.

Standards setting is much more technologically challenging and complex today than it was in

1901. NIST laboratories address an extremely broad spectrum of topics and have relationships

with every industrial sector. While our job is critical, our greatest successes are things you

should take for granted. We hope you use our technologies and capabilities and that they

become part of your infrastructure, so the problems they are intended to solve don't keep you

up at night.

During this administration, NIST is trying to strengthen that core capability. We have been

doing this job for nearly a century, and we have a good methodology for working with

industry. We think a lot more about technology transfer and technology partnerships today

than we did in the past. In particular, we are trying to strengthen our activities to meet

industry needs in key areas of manufacturing, such as process technology, standard reference

materials and data, metrology, and the use of information technology. Our efforts range from

very quick and practical assistance, similar to hotlines, to longer-range programs.

Back in 1988, when the Congress changed our name to NIST and gave us new jobs on which

to work with industry, it was clear that the Congress chose us because of our close connection

with industry. We have not only a broad set of interactions across the industrial base, but also

a mind-set for listening to industry and working as a partner.

One of our new assignments was to run the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). This

program funds industry projects on a cost-shared basis, to stretch the capability of private

R&D investments and to encourage the private sector to undertake longer-term or riskier

projects that require cooperation among companies or across industry boundaries. The ATP

funds projects that are critical to opening up new technology horizons and opportunities but

that could not be pursued without Federal dollars.

In its early years, ATP has functioned at the level of a pilot program. In fiscal year 1993, it awarded about $68 million. We have focused on establishing an effective system for working

with industry, trying to avoid some of the pitfalls of other civilian technology programs. A

great concern is that we'll get disconnected from industry, so we make sure that project ideas

come from industry, that the work is done in companies, and that the costs are snared by

companies. Those linkages have kept us closely coupled. That element will continue to be

crucial as we scale up the program.

The other key element is avoiding earmarked appropriations. So far, thanks to congressional

support and a lot of effort by the Administration, the ATP has managed to stay free from

65
political influence. I don't think that threat ever goes away entirely, but we will continue to

work hard on keeping it at bay. The whole community will have to continue to advocate a

rigorous, merit-based, competitive processes; this will be crucial for the future success of this

and other such programs.

In the fall of 1993, responding to plans to increase the ATP budget to about $750 million by

1997, we began to establish a focus so that we could produce dramatic advances in key areas

rather than spread this major investment across every project that might come in the door. We

will continue to have a general competition open to all areas of technology. But most of the

dollars in the ATP budget will be spent in focused program areas, each receiving annual

investments of roughly $20 million to $50 million over 5 years.

We've identified one set of focused programs and hope to announce as many as six more in

November 1994. This is a continuous process, so I encourage industry to give us input on

topics these programs should address. Our goal, as always, is to establish programs

comprising collections of individual awards to companies and teams. But now, weaving

together a community and taking this systems perspective on technological opportunities, we

can create dramatic new opportunities, and the ATP can have a far more dramatic impact than

it would by continuing with the "let a thousand flowers bloom" approach in all areas. Focused

programs are a very powerful management model, which we've copied in other programs.

We are very careful to coordinate all these projects, ensuring that they complement rather

than duplicate other government programs. In fact, when industry proposes ideas that would

fit into active programs run by other government agencies, we ship them over there.

Several other presenters at this conference have talked about the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP), another NIST program. Manufacturing extension is the newest recipe for

success in Federal R&D programs, although it is not new in many other parts of the world.

The notion here is to provide access to information and expertise for the approximately

360,000 small manufacturers (defined as having fewer than 500 employees). While most of

these companies excel at carrying out a specific physical or chemical process, many of their

costs result from inefficiencies in the rest of their manufacturing activities. The MEP

introduces them to new tools, new methodologies, and new industrial engineering practices

and helps these small companies implement new technologies and capabilities on the factory

floor. This is an activity where very few Federal dollars can have a tremendous impact.

Like the ATP, the MEP started in 1988 with new legislation and has been run as a very

modest pilot program. It has taken time to learn how to listen to small manufacturers and

figure out what they really need. Today, we have seven active centers. Through them, we

have figured out what this business is all about and have begun to deliver increased value to

businesses.

66
The MEP interacts effectively and seamlessly with the Technology Reinvestment Project

(TRP) run by the Department of Defense. In our interagency activities, we have been able to

leverage the TRP technology deployment funding, much of which is managed through NIST.

There are 28 new centers coming on board, funded through TRP and managed through NIST.

Our goal is to create a national network of 100 manufacturing extension centers by 1997.

This is not a case of government being the sole provider of bright new ideas for small

manufacturers. Rather, we see an enormous number of sources of business and technical

expertise across the country. We simply are trying to link manufacturers who are seeking to

upgrade their capabilities with the people who can help them accomplish their objectives.

Just a note about evaluating the results of these investments. For most activities in our

laboratories and in ATP, you have to wait several years to evaluate the results, and we have

established mechanisms to do that. The MEP provides more-immediate gratification, in the

sense that if we help a client company improve its manufacturing efficiency, then the

economic results become visible fairly quickly. We recently asked client companies to make

their own evaluation of the financial benefits they derived from the information or expertise

we provided. The total benefit was about $320 million, a sevenfold return on the Federal

dollars spent. This was not a thorough study by any means, but I am heartened by that

recognition of the value returned.

I also should mention the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program. This is not a

research program but rather an effort to convene the private quality community. The Baldrige

program highlights the best examples of quality practices in manufacturing, small businesses,

and the service industry. It is very important to hold up examples of how quality practices

have driven industry capabilities. But perhaps the bigger impact has come from our judging

criteria, which are used by hundreds if not thousands of companies across the country. About

a million copies of the criteria have been distributed over the years, and the program has

spawned a variety of state, local, and foreign programs built on the same model.

The whole idea of the government giving a quality award to manufacturers would have been

a joke a decade ago. But the program has served as a mechanism to pull together the private

community and help capture the vague notion of quality in specific criteria that are really

useful. This program has been very effective in the long run.

To sum up, the main theme of NIST activities is that we cannot just sit out here alone in

Gaithersburg and accomplish our mission. We have to establish links with industry and

universities. We have the opportunity now to build our capabilities to fulfill national goals.

We need your input and we look forward to continuing to work with you.

Question: My university colleagues and I are fascinated by the ATP, but we can't figure out

how we enter into the structure of program. With whom do we negotiate?

67
Answer: The ATP is designed explicitly to work with industry. The awards can be made only

to for-profit companies, or to joint ventures that include two or more for-profit companies.

Many other Federal R&D programs, such as those run by NSF and the National Institutes of

Health, are designed to work with universities. So, if you look at the entire $70 billion

Federal R&D investment, the ATP probably is not the easiest place for universities to get

involved.

Having said that, in many cases the best way to carry out an ATP project is for the company

or companies involved to link to the broader technology community, including universities.

Universities and other not-for-profit organizations and laboratories can serve as subcontractors or as team members in joint ventures. Many of the 89 ATP projects undertaken so far involve

interactions with universities and national labs. So you should get involved with a company

that wants to get involved with ATP. That's a tactical answer.

From a strategic standpoint, we've accelerated dialogue with other agencies, such as NSF,

about joining forces in strategic planning. So there may be opportunities in some areas where

we can connect closely with the university investments made by NSF in a related area. To

accomplish technological feats of the sort we are attempting, you have to move the entire

technology community, so these linkages will be crucial.

Question: I want to hear more about NIST benchmarking studies. I have a small company,

and we have an automated rapid prototyping system that makes functional prototypes out of

metals. We want a technology assessment and endorsement so we can approach big

companies, such as General Motors Corp. (GM), The Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler Corp., to

seek funding to develop and commercialize the technology. We submitted a proposal to a

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and, 6 months later, without any other

interaction, we received three evaluations. One said there was no market for these types of

systems, the second said quite the opposite, and the third basically said the proposal was

unreadable.

When you take the average of the three, I guess that makes us an average company. To make

a long story short, we were not awarded funding. I still stand behind the technology, but it would be nice to not have to waste 6 months and then find out NIST is doing benchmarking

studies for companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler to point out promising technologies, and

that NIST also is dealing with small companies like mine to help us assess whether we

outperform benchmark technology.

Answer: With respect to your story, I would not look to the government as a source of

wisdom on markets. In fact, we in government look to private industry as a source of wisdom

on markets. In ATP proposal evaluations, we've sought out experts in the private sector to

help assess business plans. I can't tell you what happened with your SBIR proposal.

68
With respect to benchmarking, perhaps I gave you far too glorious an impression of our

efforts in that area. We are not trying to identify the most promising technologies from the

market point of view. Rather, we are assessing the manufacturing base in terms of its

capabilities and international competitiveness. It is mostly a matter of gathering information,

much of which has been collected by one industry association or another. The results might

let your downstream customers know that you exist, but it will not be a technical evaluation

of the market worth of your product.

Question: I am a Ph.D. student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). You should

be aware that, by funding universities, you're funding middle management - the tenured

faculty. I feel lucky to have one of the 10 Department of Energy fellowships in integrated

manufacturing. But most students can make more money on Wall Street than in

manufacturing. I know of five students at MIT who are going into manufacturing, and if you

are serious and committed about trying to foster a new generation of Americans who are going to make a difference, you might think of some program to fund student work in

manufacturing.

Answer: I will pass that comment along to Joe Bordogna at NSF, who knows a lot more

about universities than I do.

Question: Critical issues must be addressed when universities work with industry, especially

intellectual property issues. The ATP prohibits a university from owning intellectual property.

I have been told that the Congress is working on new legislation to change that rule. Could

you elaborate on that?

Answer: Originally, if a university participated in an ATP activity, then all intellectual

property belonged to the university. But people complained, and the rule was changed so that

only for-profit companies could own intellectual property in any joint activity. This was an

overcorrection, in my view. In fact, neither of these artificial situations make sense to me. So

we have been urging a change to remove the government from intellectual property

negotiations. The government maintains no intellectual property rights in ATP projects, except

the march-in rights, should the technology fail to be commercialized.

So I hope this legislative change will be passed. Then the participants in any joint activity

would assign intellectual property rights among themselves as part of their other negotiations.

I think it is important to not make these decisions by law.

69

National Science Foundation

Manufacturing Technology Programs and Strategies

Joseph Bordogna

Assistant Director for Engineering

National Science Foundation

Let me first field the question posed to Arati Prabhakar about funding young people. I am

happy to announce that soon the National Science Foundation (NSF) will launch a new

program, CAREER, which gathers together all we've learned in the 40-year history of NSF

about investment in young faculty. Faculty members in their first 4 years will be able to

submit proposals outlining their integrated research, teaching, and education innovation vision

for their professorial careers and how it all fits into the context of national needs. In this way,

we hope to establish a competitive, merit-reviewed award process for the development of new

faculty as the academic leaders of the future.

Now I will describe how NSF spends its $200 million in annual funding in manufacturing --

quite a bit less than the Department of Defense, which spends $1 billion. The NSF has a

strategy for coordinating the spending of these dollars among all its directorates. To mention

several topics in particular, social, behavioral, and economic sciences are becoming more

important, because management of the manufacturing enterprise is of great research interest at

NSF. The cognitive revolution is also of increasing interest: We have to build intelligence

into our machines to help us handle the explosion of information.

NSF projects in manufacturing come out of the merit review process, based primarily on

unsolicited ideas but also selected in the context of national needs identified in partnership

with industry and academe. I also want to note that NSF funds integrated research teams as well as single investigators.

As the context for NSF investment in manufacturing research and education activities, I want

to address the process for bridging the gap from discovery to applications that can lead to

wealth creation and jobs. In the past, this process generally has been considered to be linear,

because technological change has been slow. But technology changes so fast now that the

process, which is clearly nonlinear, must be integrated and brought up to date. Jack Gibbons,

for example, spoke about feedback loops in this regard. There is a trend toward concurrent

integration of the whole enterprise, not just concurrent engineering with design and

manufacturing done together. NSF support catalyzes linkages to help bridge the nonlinear gap

from discovery to applications, not just piece work on individual concepts. Partnerships are

very, very important in this regard.

71
The NSF research and education activities that have been under way for a long time provide a

firm base for our new move toward increased interagency cooperation and increased

leveraging of and synergy among academic, industry, and government research and

development activities. I will describe some of these longstanding efforts.

The Engineering Research Center program is about 10 years old. We have 18 centers and will

open about four or five more this year. The original plan was to go to 25. Some 500

companies are involved. Engineering education has changed and become more holistic

because of the interaction that takes place through these centers.

The Science and Technology Center (STC) program is about 5 years old. Its mission is to

bring together scientists and engineers on a campus so that discoveries may be translated

more readily into applications. There is no requirement for industrial linkages but

increasingly, on their own initiative, STC leaders are beginning to cooperate with industry. At

present, there are 25 STCs in operation.

There are also more than 50 IndustryAJniversity Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC). This

program is 20 years old. These centers are organized by industry and academe to take

advantage of university expertise in a particular field. The centers mostly address industry's

generic needs, but any industry member can set up a joint project with a university partner on

a special topic.

We formed a variation of the IUCRC program with the states several years ago. We now

support 10 state IUCRCs and plan to double that number in the next couple of years. The

idea is to take advantage of state technology transfer initiatives and local economic

development initiatives. Industry pays a third, NSF pays a third, and the states pay a third, for

a total of about $900,000 for each center.

In education, we are in the third year of the Engineering Education Coalition (EEC) program.

This program was intended to effect a paradigm shift in engineering curricula ~ to make

undergraduate baccalaureate programs more integrative by establishing student teams and

addressing open-ended dilemmas, design, and manufacturing in the freshman year. The

coalitions are groups of engineering schools that band together, write proposals, and compete

in a merit-based review process. We have 60 schools involved. Each coalition must be

eclectic, representing a range of types of schools.

A very interesting EEC project is under way in Detroit that involves both technician training

and manufacturing engineering education. We find this coalition intriguing because it is aimed

at producing a skilled work force at the technician level while educating engineers in the

same group.

72
A relatively new program supports a partnership-building effort to leverage NSF funds for

addressing critical manufacturing issues. We call it Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison

with Industry (GOALI). This program links academic and industrial experts one-on-one or in

small groups and has three facets. One is manufacturing internships for engineering faculty,

who are given research sabbaticals on the production floor. Response from initial participants

has been uniformly positive.

The second facet is the Combined Research-Industrial Scholarship Projects (CRISP) program,

in which faculty members receive grants for 3 years, of which 2 to 6 months are spent in

industry. This is a research grant in the normal sense but the investigator has an intellectual

partner in industry and spends some time in industry, along with his or her doctoral student,

in the first 18 months.

The third facet is the Industry-University Cooperative Research Projects (IUCRP) program.

This programs funds professors who have ideas for marketable devices or processes and have

a connection with industry.

The NSF also funds a program to bring research discoveries into the curriculum more rapidly

than has been typical in the past. The Combined Research/Curriculum Development (CRCD)

program builds on and funds the work of research faculty to get their discoveries into the

curriculum immediately.

The NSF also is one of the six agencies involved in the Technology Reinvestment Project

(TRP), a $500 million program integrating technology development, deployment, and

manufacturing education. The agencies review and select the awards as a team; we have made

57 awards worth about $50 million in manufacturing education and training.

An eclectic array of interrelated projects is funded through the TRP. We want all engineers to

learn how to make things, so we award grants for teaching manufacturing across all curricula.

Grants also are awarded for development of practice-oriented master's degrees, so that these

programs are not just stepping stones to the Ph.D. but rather integrated programs to prepare

students for industry. We also fund efforts to work with defense industry engineers, to help

them change their design practices to meet commercial needs.

As other agencies do, NSF supports the new Small Business Technology Transfer pilot

program and the older Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, which fund

industry projects. About 20 percent of SBIR awards go to manufacturing enterprises. We are encouraging more manufacturing businesses to apply for these awards.

The Agile Manufacturing Initiative (AM), a joint effort of NSF and the Advanced Research

Projects Agency, has three components. One is the Industry Forum for Agile Manufacturing.

The second component is a set of three Agile Manufacturing Research Institutes (AMRIs)

73
focusing on industry sector-specific needs in electronics, aerospace, and machine tools. We

intend to fund additional AMRIs in other industry sectors during the next several years. The

third component involves prototyping, demonstrations, and test bedding.

The NSF just announced the Rapid Prototyping Initiative, which addresses virtual prototyping

(modeling, simulation, model validation, design tools, design techniques), physical prototyping

(machine design, process design, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing

integration), and the integration of virtual and physical prototyping. We will make 6 to 10

awards, $100,000 to $600,000 each per year, for up to 3 years. We're very excited about this

new endeavor, especially because it, like the AM, responds directly to the interagency

manufacturing inrrastructure strategy of the National Science and Technology Council.

Another new NSF program supports research on quality issues. We rarely think of the private

sector transferring money directly to NSF for support of research, but a partnership has been

announced involving NSF, the Leadership Steering Committee of the Total Quality Forum,

and the American Society for Quality Control. The objective is to support research to develop

or improve concepts, tools, and methods for improved management of the transformation to

quality organizations. The challenge is to determine the process underlying the continuous

transformation of a quality company. Most of the money for this $9 million program will

come from the private sector. That in itself is a new dimension of commitment to a

government-industry-university partnership.

Finally, we are funding research in Management of Technological Innovation (MOTI),

focusing on the complex process of bringing technology to the marketplace by making things

we can sell in a competitive atmosphere. This work is done by engineering and business

school teams with industrial partners. In this first year, we focused on soliciting proposals in

environmentally conscious manufacturing, in order to limit what we believe to be great pentup demand for funds to pursue research in the general MOT! field. The MOTI research effort

is important because innovative technology cannot fulfill its potential unless industry

improves its capability to manage assessment, validity, and market needs, as well as environmental quality and adoption of new materials, processes, and systems. Companies need

to integrate technology with business strategies that strengthen competitiveness and

productivity.

Question: I sat on an NSF evaluation panel last year. We were given 28 proposals and told

there was only enough money to fund two of them, which is very disconcerting when the

proposals are very good. I'm concerned that NSF is undercapitalized.

Answer: I think these decisions will get more difficult. This is a zero-sum game, as you have

heard before in this conference. We have to make hard decisions to put the money in areas

that seem most related to national needs as defined by the Administration and the community.

74
There is controversy about how to do this. One approach is to focus on high-risk projects that

might fail but also might lead to significant paradigm shifts.

We don't do a good enough job focusing proposals at the front end. We did a pretty good job

on the AMRIs, where we had 15 to 20 proposals and made three awards. In the TRP, we had

2,800 proposals and made 212 awards. We are trying to narrow down the number of

proposals. You'll see more of this. We'll probably have a system whereby we ask for brief

concept papers, have them reviewed by a panel, and then invite just twice the number of the

proposals that we can fund.

I should add that, even though the NSF budget has been increasing at twice the rate of

inflation in the last few years, we continue to receive many more excellent proposals than we

can fund.

Question: Stanford University has a new Ph.D. program funded by the Sloan Foundation

to produce researchers who will become professors of manufacturing. What do you think of

that idea?

Answer: That's a great experiment; we need an eclectic mix of experiments. If it works, then

maybe we should invest broadly in such programs. Obviously, the Stanford people have told

us they need money for it.

Question: I have received a few first-time SBIR grants from NSF, and I've noticed something

about the evaluation process, not only from my experience, but also from comments of other

people. Evaluators definitely are triinking more about marketability today than they did

before. But I find they really don't know much about marketability, so don't think they should

use it as a criterion. I have been an evaluator, so I have been on both sides of the fence.

Answer: I think we all agree with you. We're into a new mode and we don't necessarily

know how to do it very well. We have a lot of work to do in that respect.

75

MATCHING INDUSTRY NEEDS TO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Overview of Panel Objectives

Thomas Murrin

Dean, School of Business and Administration

Duquesne University

Let me briefly make three general comments about my reactions to being here and to this

conference ~ and then a few brief additional comments related to what we need from you and

how you can help make this a truly valuable undertaking.

First, it is a delight to be here! The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

has been committed from day one to working closely with and helping American industry. So

a culture exists here that is genuine in that regard - and NIST has an incredible array of

capable, committed, and compatible people. I hope you all become familiar with NIST, if you

are not already. As you see, it's quite a serene, attractive environment, almost campus-like. If

the trend toward privatization ever takes hold, we'd like to privatize NIST into a university

some day, and I'd apply for a job as the president.

My second point is that, in listening to and pondering the presentations, it has been great to see the extraordinary cooperation already well under way among key people in government,

industry, academia, and labor. Many of the cooperative consortia that have been described are well along in producing wonderful results. Others are exciting due to their promise. Perhaps

only five years ago, some things industry is doing now that are applauded and supported by

the government would have landed some folks in deep trouble with at least one Washington,

D.C.-based agency, the Department of Justice. So, I don't know whether our laws or our

attitudes have changed all that much — but whatever, I think this is a much healthier and

promising situation and it's a delight.

The thing that strikes me particularly about the presentations and mood of this conference -

and to some extent the mood in Washington and our nation ~ is that we seem to be at least

approaching consensus on how our top priority of global competitiveness relates to economic

growth, and how that in turn translates into jobs, jobs, jobs, and better jobs. I guess we're

reacting in large measure to our national economic problems, but, whatever the stimuli, I think it's extraordinarily appropriate and beneficial.

I won't tell any war stories, but I assure you that as recently as a few years ago, there was

nothing approaching consensus on these issues in Washington, D.C. If you were a visiting

martian in earlier years ~ observing our legislation and regulations and the like ~ I think you

77
would conclude that we were out to cripple ourselves in terms of global competitiveness and

were quite indifferent about economic growth. I guess for a lot of reasons we didn't have to

worry too much about jobs, jobs, and jobs. That has changed, and I'm delighted about that.

So those are very upbeat and positive comments. Let me just make a third comment that is

cautionary. As I talk with people at this conference and elsewhere, I don't find anyone

claiming they have everything under control. In fact, I find people quite challenged and

somewhat bewildered if they're honest about the incredible changes taking place around the

world ~ changes of all kinds, but certainly those relating to business.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit Tianjin, China. I couldn't spell Tianjin before I prepared for the trip and I'm a business school dean. About 9 million people live in Tianjin.

But what's more notable is that Tianjin now has several world-class manufacturing plants that are as good as or better than any others in the world. More startling is the combination of

work ethic and God-given mental acumen the Chinese people have. All this translates into

one of the most formidable competitive challenges ~ or, depending on how we approach it, teaming opportunities ~ that I've ever seen in traveling around the world for many decades.

Those of us who have been challenged by the Japanese in recent years have, at least in my

case, great respect for them. I also visited Japan on this recent trip. I think they're getting

ready to rebound, or, more appropriately, re-attack. So please don't be too comforted by what

you read in the newspapers about Japanese problems. But if you think our generation has

been challenged by the Japanese, then I assert that our children and their generation will be

challenged by the Chinese and their neighbors to an extent that will surpass what we've

experienced heretofore.

It may sound silly to note that the Chinese can tell jokes and laugh at them, and their English

is pretty good. These may seem like trivial characteristics, but in my experience they are very

important attributes that distinguish the Chinese from some of their Asian neighbors.

I recently received two books written in the spirit of caution. One is Quality Wars1 , written by

Jeremy Main, the former editor and magnificent writer at Fortune, now associated with the

Juran Institute. Speaking of quality, I think most if not all of you share with me the

conviction that Curt Reimann and his small but splendid organization here at NIST have done

a magnificent job advancing the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award process in the last

several years.

1 Main, J. 1994. Quality Wars: The Triumphs and Defeats of American Business, A Juran

Institute Report. New York: The Free Press.

78
Quality Wars is a captivating story about a lot of the victories of the last 13 years. But it also

reveals a lot about the countless failures and frustrations. The book talks about uncertainty

concerning what will happen when quality concepts and procedures are applied — as hopefully they will be ~ in government, health care, acadernia, and other sectors. The jury is

out. Indeed, Jeremy suggests that in some respects, for most of American business, the jury is

still out with regard to Total Quality Management. So I hope I have whetted your appetite for

reading and pondering this book. We haven't yet solved fully the quality challenge or

exploited that opportunity.

I make this point because throughout this conference we have heard repeatedly that quality is

a given, a necessity. I think it's a necessity, but in my judgment we have not yet achieved

widespread world-class quality performance. We have more to do.

The other book is Sea Change1

, written by Jim Abegglin. If you're not familiar with the

Pacific Rim, this book would really spoil your day. Jim has spent most of his life in Japan,

ever since he waded ashore as a Marine in World War II. He holds a doctorate from the

University of Chicago in macro-economics and is very, very bright. He is probably as knowledgeable about Japan and that part of the world as any American is.

The thesis of the book is that much of the industrial and business power center of the world

is leaving the United States and moving to eastern Asia. Fortunately or unfortunately, Jim has

data, statistics, and I think unassailable insights to support that assertion. If you're not familiar

with what's happening in this regard, then I urge you to learn about it. At least read the book.

And if you are familiar with this issue, then you ought to ponder the implications, as I have

suggested in my comments about China.

This is a rare opportunity to share these few simple views with all the brain power and

resources represented in this room. If we could ever get our act together like a world-class

team and get clicking, then we could re-establish ourselves in the industrial sectors where we

aren't quite there. We're working on that.

Now, a few comments about how the previous presentations relate to what we plan to do

now. So far, this conference has been a wonderful experience for me. I sense that maybe all

of you have been delighted as well. Following are my perceptions of some of the highlights.

Jack Gibbons ~ speaking on behalf of the President, the White House, the Administration,

and hopefully the Congress - said some very appropriate things to a group like this. Toward

the end he said that manufacturing is "the foundation of our economy." I think Jack really

2 Abegglin, J.C. 1994. Sea Change: Pacific Asia as the New World Industrial Center. New

York: The Free Press.

79
believes that, and I think a lot of people in the Administration and in Washington now

believe that. I think it is a truism. That is a wonderful commitment to the importance of this

undertaking.

There were also eight presentations by industry leaders, virtually all representing not only

themselves and their own organizations but also broad-based consortia of various kinds. They

were spectacular. I think I'm fairly knowledgeable about many of these issues, and I learned a

lot sitting here.

I never thought much before about the food industry, frankly, although if you look closely at

me, you can see I'm an over-consumer of food. (My wife will attest to this.) But I thought

Adolph Clausi's information was very ejilightening. He didn't make any reference to the

relative importance of potato chips versus computer chips (I was delighted by that) but he did

highlight the importance of potatoes and other food to our economy, health, and environment

in a way I hadn't quite thought of before.

I was struck also by one presentation that seemed to attract more attention than any other:

Tom Malone's description of the realities of the textile complex, which comprises about 12

percent of the jobs in the United States. This is the largest single segment of U.S.

employment and a major producer of value-added products. He talked about the prospect of

this incredible new consortium bringing together - again ~ government, industry, academia,

and labor. If we can pull this off, and somehow we must, then we really will have a paradigm

to follow in the future. So any of you at Federal agencies who have an opportunity to endorse

and support this exciting albeit challenging undertaking, I urge you to do so.

There were also brilliant presentations by leaders from the Department of Defense, the

Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation.

The task now is to figure out how to match up the industry programs to the government

efforts. No easy task, particularly with a room frill of folks who have disparate views. We

will have nine presentations from leaders in various fields and then get reactions and

recommendations.

I urge you to think about the following opportunities and challenges. What needs underlie

many of the situations in which U.S. industries find themselves? What is common to the

industrial sectors we have heard about? What are the critical cross-industry needs? It probably

would be impossible to establish national priorities here, as we could spend a week trying to

battle that out. But this is part of our task ~ not picking winners and losers per se, but trying

to arrive, in some Solomon-like fashion, at a set of national priorities. Participants in this

conference probably have as much insight about how this should be done as do any segments

of the citizenry.

80
Matching industry needs to government programs is easier said than done. Probably the

greatest value of this conference so far has been the opportunity to learn about what's going

on in different segments of industry and government that we normally wouldn't know about.

It can be tedious to observe all this and take notes, but there's probably no other way to

identify gaps or opportunities. Are we missing something really important? Are we apt to be

blindsided by developments by competitors that we aren't anticipating? Finally, we need your

suggestions on new strategies.

That's a tough set of tasks, and I doubt we will do this perfectly. But please think about these

issues. This is a one-of-a-kind opportunity!

81
i
Automotive Industry Viewpoint

Donald Campbell

Coordinator

General Motors Corp.

I will to try to build a bridge between what Tim Adams said about the automobile industry

and the various presentations on government research programs.

First, I want to commend Arati Prabhakar of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) for the new pathfinding efforts reflected in all the recent conferences. It seems like I have been a monthly visitor to this auditorium since late last summer, with all

the conferences on industry needs and working group sessions to structure programs. I trace

this back a couple of years to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) crosscut

initiatives, especially in advanced materials and manufacturing, in which industry participated.

Finally, after two or three years of percolating, many government programs appear to be

responding to the needs identified by industry.

I also notice that the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) is focusing some of

the Technology Reinvestment Project projects on specific industry needs. I go back a couple

of years to the work of General Motors Corp. (GM), our industrial partners, and various

national laboratories through the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (U.S. CAR). Now

ARPA is soliciting proposals from the auto industry to work with the labs.

Tim Adams talked about the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which is

still being defined. He also talked about our research and development (R&D) goals in

manufacturing. The near-term research is based on the recognition that the internal

combustion, spark-ignited, gasoline-fired engine is going to be around for at least 20 more

years. The average life of a vehicle produced today is more than 10 years, and obviously we

cannot make instantaneous changes in production. We also need to recognize that those

vehicles produce a lot of emissions, which we need to reduce in order to meet new Federal

and California emission standards. We're pursuing development of nitrous oxide catalysts,

which would enable development of more fuel efficient, "lean burn" engines.

Over the long term, we want to develop a vehicle that has three times the fuel efficiency of

today's car but is comparable in size, performance, utility, and cost while meeting or exceeding safety and emissions requirements. We'll probably have to reduce the weight by

one third, or 1,200 pounds, and that means new materials. Those materials exist but the auto

industry cannot afford them. A car is a $5-per-pound commodity, whereas an aircraft is a

83
$5,000-per-pound commodity. We have to find a way to reduce the cost of those lightweight

but strong materials.

The PNGV is looking at 14 technologies, three of which have a major impact on

manufacturing. Advanced lightweight materials is obviously critical. We're looking at glass

fiber, carbon fiber, polymer composites, metal-matrix composites, ceramics, engineering

plastics, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and alloys. We also have to be concerned about

technologies for joining dissimilar materials.

The second technology relevant to manufacturing is advanced analysis and design methods,

including simulations, fluid dynamics, structural mechanics, and virtual prototyping. Third, we

are looking at advanced manufacturing techniques, such as agile manufacturing, high-speed

data communication and data management, rapid prototyping, virtual manufacturing, and

supercomputing.

To achieve our ultimate goal of three times today's fuel efficiency, we'll probably have to

abandon the gasoline-powered piston engine in favor of either a fuel cell or a gas turbine, or perhaps a lightweight, super-efficient diesel. Energy storage devices will be required. The

high-speed flywheel shows a lot of promise. We also need much more efficient heating,

ventilating, and air condition systems, perhaps through recovery of exhaust energy. In an allelectric vehicle, for example, we could not afford to use one-third of the battery power just to

heat the cabin.

To accomplish all this, 11 research consortia are active under the umbrella of U.S. CAR.

Most of the consortia focus on manufacturing technology. CADCAM is obviously a

manufacturing consortium. The Low Emission Paint Consortium focuses on a new coating

technology ~ powder paint that is sprayed on dry, electrostatically bonded, and then heated to

fuse it. The Vehicle Recycling Partnership is looking at promoting intelligent manufactnring,

so that more of a vehicle is recyclable. Today, perhaps 95 percent of the steel is recovered, as well as most of the other metals, but most of the composites and plastics go into landfills.

And the Advanced Battery Consortium is examining future power supplies for an all-electric

vehicle.

The government is involved in many of these efforts. Research on and development of

advanced batteries is under way at the Department of Energy (DOE), a several-hundredmillion-dollar project with a 50-50 government-industry cost share. Another DOE contract is

for a Hybrid Electric Propulsion System. The Ford Motor Co. and GM have contracts in the

hundred-million-dollar range, again sharing 50 percent or more of the cost. Chrysler Corp. has

not yet received a contract, and I'm not sure what their status is. I assume they will submit a

proposal for such a development effort.

84
Advanced materials R&D also is going on, mostly in the form of Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements with DOE labs. Research to reduce emissions also is under way

with DOE labs. And the Supercomputing Consortium is working with some national labs to

develop software that will enable industry to employ concurrent design, engineering, and

manufacturing to shorten product development cycles.

Finally, let's look at some topics for potential cross-industry partnerships. Currently, the sheet

steel we use to stamp out most auto body parts is about 50 cents a pound. Lightweight

aluminum alloys are $2 to $3 a pound. Perhaps when we start producing 15 million aluminum

vehicles a year, using many millions of tons of material, those prices will come down. But

there are other ways to reduce costs as well.

Partnerships also could look at developing hybrid electric vehicles. Diesel-electric locomotive

and high-speed rail vehicles are all hybrid electric, and maybe some of those technologies can

be transferred to automobiles.

Meanwhile, the PNGV Technical Coordinating Group is continuing to develop a road map,

which hopefully will be completed by the end of the summer.

85

Labor Viewpoint

Howard Samuel

Senior Fellow

Council on Competitiveness

Let me begin by congratulating the Department of Commerce and the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) for sponsoring this conference. This conference is good

news, and it's even better news that a place has been reserved on the program for labor's

viewpoint. In past years, a forum of this type probably would not have been sponsored by any

government agency. And if one had slipped through, there surely would not have been much

interest in the viewpoint of the American worker.

The reluctance of prior administrations to become involved in advancing technology and

manufacturing has been rather astonishing, especially in view of what's been happening in the

rest of the world. Our most effective competitors long ago developed a strategy of

partnerships between the public and private sectors. As a result, Japan, Germany, and a

number of less-developed countries have narrowed the gap between their economies and ours.

The U.S. Government began providing support to agriculture almost 150 years ago, and the

result has been the development of a world-class agricultural industry. More recently, the

government played an important role in the creation of a dominant aerospace industry.

Despite these and other initiatives, there remains a consensus that the marketplace must be the

final arbiter, that government never should pick winners and losers. On the other hand, we

seem to be approaching agreement that government has a role beyond benign neglect, that

occasional sorties into particular industrial sectors can be useful supplements to

macroeconomic initiatives. This conference, I believe, symbolizes the ratification of our

growing awareness of government's responsibility ~ hence my congratulations.

As we move toward this new awareness, technology and manufacturing should take center

stage. Not so many years ago, as we began to lose manufacturing sectors to foreign

competition, beginning with such industries as textiles and apparel, it was suggested that we

instead base our manufacturing future on high-tech industries, such as consumer electronics.

Then, when we lost radios and television to the Far East, it was suggested that we make our

living on financial services, such as banking, and high-tech service industries, such as engineering. That was puzzling to some of us, because about that time we discovered that

only one U.S. bank made the list of the world's 10 largest. And countries such as Korea

began to capture our international engineering business.

87
I hope we have grown out of these theories and recognized that manufacturing matters and

that the development of technology is central to our prosperity in the global economy.

Unfortunately, technology development is neither cheap nor easy. It is no longer the preserve

of solitary inventors experimenting in their home laboratories. Companies large and small

must commit major resources to research and development, and occasionally the technological

goal is so large and complex that government resources are needed to achieve it.

Enter NIST, the Advanced Technology Program, the national laboratories, Cooperative

Research and Development Agreements, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the

Technology Reinvestment Project. When I was president of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union

Department, we supported initiatives such as these, out of a conviction that an active

partnership between government and the private sector was imperative to ensure economic

progress, full employment, and a rising standard of living. We still believe that, and I assume

we always will.

But technology alone is not a panacea. Technology must be part of an holistic approach to

manufacturing that embraces such principles as meeting the customer's specific needs,

flexibility, a commitment to continuous improvement in quality, a cooperative relationship

with suppliers ~ coupled with the elevation of worker skills and the involvement of workers

in the decision-making process.

When it comes to these last two elements, I regretfully suggest we are barely off the ground.

Flexibility and quality would appear to require a highly skilled work force, capable of making

decisions on the spot. But too many manufacturers still regard technology in the narrow

sense, as the whole solution to their problems, and they adopt technologies aimed at speeding

up or displacing workers. Too many manufacturers remain wedded to the theories of

Frederick Taylor, the manufacturing guru of the early 20th century, matching interchangeable

parts with interchangeable workers and reserving brain work for supervisors and management.

If we are to win the international competition, then we must abandon the mass production

assembly lines of the past and instead adopt the new principles of lean or high-performance

manufacturing.

A skilled work force, capable of mastering the new technologies and guiding the process of

continuous improvement, is a central feature in the workplace of the future. NIST is aware of

this and is committed to helping American manufacturers achieve this goal. The

Administration is offering support through the Goals 2000 Act and its provision for a skills

standards program, as well as the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The skills standards

program will provide us for the first time with a means of testing outputs as well as inputs in

our many public and private training programs. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act will

encourage the linking of academic education and on-the-job training in order to provide a

meaningful transition into the work force for non-college-bound high school graduates.

88
The labor movement also has an important role to play in improving our manufacturing

effectiveness. I can assure you that the Luddite spirit has disappeared; no American union

resists technology improvement today. They are not afraid of technology. Unions are committed to cooperating with the employers and managers who want to tap the creativity

and experience of their workers. There are ample examples of such cooperation in almost

every industry, including communications, steel, electronics, auto, apparel and textiles, rubber,

glass, and others.

Unions can point to research showing that the presence of support from an institution, such as a trade union, is essential in sustaining ongoing cooperation between management and

workers who are striving to wring maximum benefit out of new technology and new

manufacturing processes. The evidence from abroad is equally convincing: Labor unions in

Germany and Japan promote continuing consensus and improvement. American unions are not

afraid of technology; they fear and reject only those managers who have not yet learned the

true role of technology or the real lessons of international competitiveness. Thus, American

workers and trade unions are among those who look most eagerly to NIST to provide

leadership in the effort to make business and labor the masters of technology.

89

Cooperative Technology Development

J. Clifford Schoep

President

National Center for Advanced Technology

I was asked to discuss matching industry needs to government programs. I believe that is the

wrong question. The real challenge today is the reverse ~ matching government programs to

industry needs. I will expand on that idea in a moment.

First, let's look at government's role in technology. A year ago, Joe Bordogna of the National

Science Foundation (NSF) addressed the Industry Advisory Board of the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers. He identified three roles for government in technology: (1) invest in

long-term basic research, (2) participate with the private sector, and (3) disseminate results.

All these activities imply cooperation between government and industry, and all have or can

have a strong element of manufacturing technology.

The first government role Joe identified was investment in long-term basic research. We

usually associate this role with support of universities and the relatively small amount of basic

research conducted in private industry. But recent changes in emphasis at NSF have created

new opportunities for industry-government cooperation in this area. Earlier you heard about

the "long view" perspective that NSF has taken. Advanced manufacturing technologies are an

important element of the multidisciplinary research emphasis.

Industry must take the lead in identifying long-term manufacturing technology needs that can

be addressed in the NSF programs. And the partnership must continue through close

association with the academic world to capture the fruits of that research and provide an

occasional mid-course correction or sanity check.

The second role that Joe identified is participation with the private sector. This role has at

least two aspects. The first is to create and maintain an environment supportive of the freeenterprise system. This aspect includes things such as tax law and monetary policy, patent and

intellectual property laws, environmental policy, export controls, and so on. I'll leave

discussion of that aspect to others who may understand it better than I do.

I want to focus on the second aspect ~ the reversal of roles that has occurred in governmentindustry cooperation in funded programs. For the past half-century, cooperative governmentindustry technology development has taken place in the context of major production

programs. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration funded the vast majority of those programs. Requirements were determined by

the government in response to real or perceived threats. Often in consultation with industry,

91
future products were conceived, and technology paths laid out. Research and development

(R&D) budgets were developed and allocated to service laboratories, weapons laboratories, or

industry, to accomplish the needed tasks en route to the ultimate product. Industry participated

and invested its own earnings in anticipation of recovering those investments in the

production program.

Now the environment has changed dramatically. The end of the Cold War and attempts to

reduce the Federal budget deficit virtually have eliminated those future production programs.

Companies are eliminating layers of overhead, reducing R&D expenditures, and focusing on

the technology they are best at — their core competencies. Investments that do not

demonstrate a near-term payoff virtually are doomed, with financial hurdle rates the

determining factor in new products.

Government-industry cooperation is even more important in this new environment than it was

before, but the parameters have changed. In many ways the roles are reversed. There are no

big government new-start production programs, and those parts of industry that are waiting

for the government to tell them what's coming have a long wait. Government is no longer the

customer of industry. Industry is now the customer of government.

I suggest that the question I was asked to address be reworded. We should not be asking,

"How can we match industry needs to government programs?" The question should be, "How

can the government match programs to industry needs?"

Even for the few major defense programs that are on the horizon, the commercial industrial

base is being called upon to fill an expanding role in providing an affordable defense. This

will require close government and industry cooperation very early in the planning process.

Effective use of commercial products and practices in defense programs needs to be planned

up front, not the subject of mid-course changes, if the true benefits are to be realized.

The DOD is addressing seriously this issue of integrating the commercial industrial base into

defense products. An Industry Affordability Task Force has been formed, which serves as a

window to industry for the Defense Manufacturing Council. The National Center for

Advanced Technologies (NCAT) is proud to have been the forerunner of this activity through

our support of the affordability thrust of the Defense Research & Engineering Science and

Technology Program. We supported the formation of this task force and its working task

teams and NCAT is serving as the secretariat to the task force. You will hear more about

DOD manufacturing technology activities from Michael McGrath.

There is growing recognition that government's role is one of creating a supportive

environment for industry. This always may have been true for the Department of Commerce

(DOC), but its efforts were overshadowed by the "government as customer" image in other

departments. Is has been my observation that over the past year DOC has stepped up to the

92
challenge and is working with industry in a number of new and innovative ways. Active

support of U.S. industry in global commerce, reduction of export controls, opening of new

markets through the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade are just some of the recent actions.

The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) certainly emphasizes manufacturing technology, as do elements of the Technology Reinvestment Project. The National Institute of Standards and

Technology should be proud of the success of the ATP; the dramatic increases in funding for

the program bear witness to that success.

The third role for government is dissemination of the results. This conference bears witness to

the increased emphasis placed on this role. Support of manufacturing centers, such as the

agile manufacturing centers, the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, and the Lean

Aircraft Initiative, is a vital element of the diffusion of lessons learned to a broad audience.

The technology deployment segment of the ATP, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership,

and, of course, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program, are intended to

further the dissemination of improved manufacturing technology to widely dispersed segments

of the economy.

In summary, I believe that both industry and government are experiencing a new recognition

of the need and opportunities for cooperative development of manufacturing technology. Of

course, both industry and government are having difficulty breaking out of the old paradigms,

but the successes are outweighing the failures. And, as Alexander Hamilton said more than

200 years ago, it's about time.

The expediency of encouraging manufacturers in the United States, which was not

long since deemed very questionable, appears at this time to be pretty generally

admitted. (Alexander Hamilton, December 5, 1791.)

93

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Viewpoint

Jack Swindle

Senior Vice President

Texas Instruments

I will build on what John DeCaire said and discuss the National Center for Manufacturing

Sciences (NCMS) programs supported jointly by industry and government.

The NCMS is industry driven, and its Technology Review Board is made up of technologists

from our member companies who set the manufacturing agenda. We have programs in six

areas. I'll provide examples of programs that illustrate our priorities, then explain what you

can expect in the future.

In the area of manufacturing processes for materials, NCMS focuses on continuous quality

improvement, process improvement, design and manufacturing flexibility, and rapid product

realization. The programs are centered on manufacturing of materials and process selection,

predictive process controls, advanced processing technologies, and quick prototyping.

In production of equipment and systems, we focus on production systems and data-driven,

multipurpose equipment. We look at methodologies, equipment, technology enablers, and

tuning. The programs are centered on reliability and maintainability, metrology and

measurement, machine tool accuracy, advance machining technology, flexible assembly,

primary product shape systems, new technology for forming equipment and handling, and

manipulation systems.

The third and most rapidly growing area is environmentally conscious manufacturing (ECM).

In order of priority, we focus on prevention first, then minimization, treatment, remediation,

and monitoring. Our programs will be centered on life-cycle design, sensors for ECM

processors, reduced lead in manufacturing, packaging initiatives, environmental practices, and

many other topics. I should add that the U.S. Air Force, particularly, has been very active in

working with us to establish these programs.

The fourth and newest area is electronics. The roots of NCMS go back to the machine tool

industry, and we're now broadening our focus into electronics. Our flagship programs are in

printed wiring boards (PWBs) and rapid response manufacturing. The Advanced Technology

Program (ATP) addresses both of these topics. The ATP project in PWBs is only half finished

and already is making significant improvements in PWB processing, equipment, and

95
materials. The rapid response manufacturing project is intended to develop ways to bring

products to market faster than is possible now.

The fifth area is computer-integrated operations. This area focuses on business systems,

design systems, production support systems, and process and equipment control systems. The

programs will be built around autonomous agent technology, platform enablers, factory

controls, and sensor support subsystems.

The sixth and all-encompassing area is management practices, or what NCMS refers to as "The Big M", enterprise management. This area encompasses design, distribution,

engineering, human resources, rnanufacturing, marketing, purchasing, sales and service,

partnering, supply chain management, quality, and everything else that has to do with "The

Big M."

The key point is that NCMS is industry driven. Members set the priorities, and the requisite

work is done is our member factories. The other point is that our mission is to make U.S.

manufacturing competitive throughout the world. I just spent 3 weeks in Asia and came back

especially anxious to get on with NCMS programs. The world is catching up with us fast, and

the competition is fiercer than ever. The NCMS will not invent the new antigravity machine,

but NCMS will develop the manufacturing processes to make that machine.

Finally, to help match government funds to industry needs, I suggest that a steering team be

established involving industry, government, and academia, to establish priorities on an annual

basis and then let the National Institute of Standards and Technology manage the

implementation.

96
International Perspective

Robert J. Hermann

Senior Vice President

United Technologies

I am from a large, multinational, multiproduct corporation, so some of my perspective comes

from that platform. But I am here to provide one person's international perspective, with a bit

of nationalistic, patriotic fervor.

International perspective is so important. We work in an economy that is global in scope, and

we must recognize that as we strive to be a good nation, a competitive nation, a nation that

provides a good standard of living for our people. Our industrial base is distributed across the

globe, increasingly so. True, other nations are gaining on us, but this is inevitable and

essential if our political objective is to provide for human rights for all people. Furthermore,

for our own well-being, other countries must prosper so they can produce and consume,

because our economies are interconnected, as are our industrial bases.

The United States represents only 5 percent of the world's population. We cannot prosper

either as a company or a country with only a U.S. industrial base. We must find the right way

to achieve prosperity. We must be good at managing global enterprises, not just at

manufacturing parts and pieces at home.

This means, among other things, that we must be able to work across cultures, in all aspects

of the enterprise. We must look to other parts of the world to acquire capital, understand how

they govern enterprises, and learn about their social mores and industrial practices. We must

develop and use the latent human capability that exists across the globe. All of these activities

will require education and training.

I believe the government's role should be to make the United States a very good place to

work, make good products, and do business. Such an environment would enable business

leaders to create and sustain producing enterprises in our country, attract capital investment,

create jobs of the best kind, and ensure a robust economic future. The people of the world

should want to establish activities here, create wealth here, and be internationally competitive

from here.

A lot of tools are available to the government, beyond programs and subsidies for selected

industrial sectors. There is not enough collectible tax money to move the whole ship in a

different direction through subsidies. Direct investment in the Advanced Technology Program,

97
the Technology Reinvestment Project, and dual-use technology will help quite a lot, but this

is only part of the solution. So the government must change the environment, the rules of

doing business. Technologies are an important aspect of this.

Technology can be defined in different ways. I argue that we keep it in our people, and that

the skills and technical expertise of our people are a critical part of the U.S. technology

infrastructure.

To maintain that infrastructure, we probably also need to invest in strategic science relevant

to national objectives. It seems to me that the public and private sectors need to invest in

science and technology, both to derive products and to create the human talent that goes with

it. It is then important to retain that talent within our borders, so it adds to the wealth and

well-being of our country.

We have an accounting process to keep track of tangible assets or capital, but we have not the

vaguest idea of how to measure human capital. We know that the first-class nation and the

first-class corporation will be dominated by excellence in quality people and their processes.

But we need to get the accounting community to work on measuring these assets.

One element of a good living and working environment is a superior political system, which I believe we have. This gives us some advantages: a superior social, technical, and industrial

infrastructure; a superior university system and a well-educated work force; access to capital

and entrepreneurial skills; and a set of user-friendly governments at the municipal, state, and

Federal levels. Of course there are problems. I sometimes work with the Department of

Defense on acquisition reform; their procurement practices definitely are not user friendly. I also believe we may have a superior university system but not a superior overall educational

system.

But we really need to recognize our comparative advantages. First of all, we will be the only

major superpower. We are expected to lead in the world, to provide moral, ethical, and

political leadership. That implies having a certain amount of military force to back up our

leadership.

Second, the United States has a large, coherent internal market today, but it will not remain

dominant. In the long run, our 250 million citizens will not dominate the 1.2 billion in China,

a population that is increasing at a rather rapid rate. Third, we have to create a superior

capital marketplace. This is a difficult task, but one of the jewels of our country is the way in

which we can liquify not only capital but also human assets.

Fourth, one of our great virtues is that we have a multicultural society, one of the few in the

world. We are a multicultural society learning to work together in a stable, desirable political

environment. That is a tremendously valuable attribute that we should recognize and exploit.

98
Finally, we have the experience, the philosophy, and the political and human base to be the

integrating part of this world. We have the capability to integrate programs, cultures, and

processes; we have systems competence, and we think globally in a way that few other

societies do. These are our major assets.

There are also some roles we should not play, with our 5 percent of the world's population.

We're not going to be a low-cost labor supplier. We have no hope of being a follower nation.

And we have no hope of being the best at everything.

The United States should not be too much of a demagogue about creating domestic jobs now.

Also, I want to emphasize that we must be concerned with not only our jobs now, but also

the jobs of our children and grandchildren later. Because we have an important role to play as an integrator in the world economy, this role will be the basis for a substantial chunk of

relatively high-salaried jobs in the business of producing things in a global marketplace. We

need to remember the importance of foreign ownership and participation to our ability to

fulfill our role. Remember, as competing companies housed in the United States, we need

some reciprocity from other nations.

Furthermore, to enlarge the marketplace, to tap the 4 billion people who are not participating

in the world's wealth creation capability today, we need to learn to deal with people,

instruments, and processes at all levels of sophistication. We will not establish high-tech

manufacturing capabilities in what we would call primitive areas.

Finally, we cannot rely on current concepts of intellectual property. What is intellectual

property in today's environment? How do you know when you have some? How do you know

when it moves? Particularly in a world of the Internet and electronic mail, it is not clear

where sovereignty comes in and how you control this type of property.

I want to plug two international efforts I am involved in. One is the Intelligent Manufacturing

Systems (IMS) program, an initiative launched by Japan about 5 years ago. It has evolved

through a demonstration phase. I think the United States should take a leadership role in this

framework for international cooperation. I believe it suits our purposes better than it suits the

Japanese or the Europeans. I encourage you to explore IMS as a basis for U.S. governmentindustry cooperation and international private-sector cooperation.

The second area is international standards setting. The standards-setting system is good but

not ideally poised for the future, which will have a much more distributed industrial and

technological base than exists today. So I encourage you all to reexamine whether we are helping this country represent itself well, both internally and externally, in the standardization

process.

99
Finally, I think the Clinton Administration has recognized that competitiveness is a national

problem. The government is acting in a way that is consistent with the framework of ideas I presented. I believe that globalization is the most important single issue for most producing

enterprises. We have to deal with the multicultural globalization of the economy and industry

We can't do everything best, so we have to make some choices.

100
National Laboratories' Viewpoint

Heinz Schmitt

Vice President

Sandia National Laboratories

The national laboratories are facing highly significant changes. These labs represent a

significant investment on the part of this country, and by virtue of that investment they have

significant core competencies, outstanding facilities, and experience with manufacturing and

the related technology. We also recognize that these capabilities and experiences will be

useful only if we match them to industry needs.

I want to discuss the product realization process, because we need to think in terms of taking

innovation from the concept stage through prototyping, production, and disposal. It is in

viewing manufacturing in this way that we find opportunities to leverage the competencies

and experiences of the national labs. So we want to move toward an agile product realization

process and think about virtual enterprises, virtual prototyping, agile personnel, energy

efficiency, environmental responsibility, quality, and reliability.

We need to think about production and disposal up front, during the conceptualization phase.

And we need to think about realizing marketable goods from small and medium-sized as well

as large enterprises. The output ought to be jobs, market share, and economic well-being. All

this implies that we must have an information-driven product realization process. This means

accumulating an information base much richer than ever developed before on integrated

products and processes, business practices, modeling and simulation, material

characterizations, and "intelligent" processes.

In discussing the national labs, we also need to include the production agencies in the

Department of Energy (DOE) that participate in the product realization process. Teams of

production agencies and labs produce integrated systems, everything from plastic parts to

interconnects to major structures to mechanical and electronic assemblages. In the Kansas

City production agency, for instance, we have 3 million square feet of floor space and 168

processors. All of this can be leveraged and transformed from a national security asset into a

capability to develop prototype technology for making commercial products.

In the area of environmentally conscious manufacturing, for example, our product realization

team reduced the need for solvents through an integrated evolution of not only production

processes, but also product design. This eliminated the need for some solvents and increased

the efficiency of the manufacturing process. The achievement was possible because DOE,

101
Sandia National Laboratories, and AlliedSignal Inc.-Kansas City signed an agreement very

early stating that this was a collective objective, that we weren't just looking at the functional

characteristics of a product but also at an environmental opportunity and responsibility.

The labs' expertise in reliability and quality also can be leveraged for the benefit of

commercial industries. These characteristics are critical from a weapon security and safety

standpoint, to be sure, but they also are important in radars for an "intelligent" vehicle

highway system, in computerized automobiles, and in manufacturing equipment. In fact, this

is an area where we're finding many opportunities for Cooperative Research and Development

Agreements (CRADAs). We have six CRADAs in quality and reliability that are funded fully

by industry.

There is also tremendous re-configuration and downsizing going on in DOE. But this is an

opportunity, because DOE has made a commitment to transforming its product realization

capability into an agile enterprise. It is our intention to take the characteristics of agility and

deploy them and make prototypes in this transformation. Therefore, the agility demonstrations

actually will produce products, and most of the products will be deployed and produced in

industry. The DOE always has depended on industry to a large extent to make its products; in

the new strategy, roughly 50 percent of those products will come from industry.

With that summary of why DOE and the national labs can be valuable national assets in

manufacturing, the question is, how do we exploit some of these capabilities? Across all the

labs, there tend to be three categories of opportunities: deploying technology, research and

development partnerships, and spinning off technology into new companies.

You will see, at least at Sandia, changes at many facilities, such as the Integrated

Manufacturing Technology Laboratory in California and the Advanced Manufacturing

Technology Laboratory in New Mexico. In attempting to match our programs to industry

needs, we understand that our facilities must be more accessible to industry and other

agencies than they have been in the past. You'll find that these facilities now are outside the secure areas, allow visitors, and are ready to work with you.

There has been a significant increase in DOE-industry cooperation in the past year. Sandia is

involved in 160 CRADAs worth roughly $500 million. The distribution of projects depends

on who tallies the data, but I believe over 22 percent are in manufacturing, focusing on

automobiles, textiles, electronics, and many other areas.

Similarly, I think the spirit of cooperation across government agencies is increasing, although

I believe there should be even more teaming. For example, DOE has a partnership with the

Department of Defense to provide technology for the microelectronics and flat-panel display

industry. All proposals are industry led. A laboratory partner is required, but there is no

102
dictate on the distribution of funding, nor is there a mandate for how the money will be

distributed among Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia national laboratories.

Industry has to provide road maps. There are two types. Industrial sector-specific road maps

represent an important national step in the right direction, and this conference has shown me

that they require a lot more work than I had thought. But we also need a road map for the

technologies needed to make all the industrial sectors interoperable. For instance, it's important for textile industry executives to interact agilely with their counterparts in the

automobile industry.

Essentially, industry needs to define and prioritize its technological needs. Government then

should help you meet those needs. This set of needs and solutions must be those that enable

the United States to be economically competitive.

It also would be useful to have a national manufacturing agenda, which in my view we do not

have. We have national centers and programs, but no national program. We need a national

coalition. So this is an argument for integration of existing efforts. A lot of money is being

invested in a wide assortment of programs in manufacturing technology. With a national

agenda, these could be orchestrated and integrated so that the impact would be greater than

the sum of the individual parts. Government agencies have identical visions for agile

enterprises. We should integrate and leverage our programs to achieve our goals more

effectively and quickly. My anxiety level is quite high, and time is wasting.

So what's next? We need to establish national priorities and strategies and pursue them. First,

we need to complete the industry-specific road maps. Then we need to identify the

crosscutting needs, take an inventory of present and planned advanced manufacturing

technology programs, and define an integrated national program that addresses not only

technology, but also infrastructure. New manufacturing processes will not be very useful if we

don't have a work force that can function in that environment. People are our greatest asset.

103

Defense Logistics Viewpoint

Lorna Estep

Technical Director, Information Technology Initiatives

Naval Supply Systems Command

I will discuss the logistics infrastructure within the Department of Defense (DOD), and the

technology and business needs we see emerging as we downsize, or "rightsize". Let me start

with two key points. First, everything within the DOD logistics system depends on a cross- industry structure. We support weapons systems not only through the aerospace industry,

shipbuilding, and the automobile industry, but also by depending on the electronics, computer,

clothing, and fuel industries. So we need to look at mechanisms, business processes, and

technologies that cross all industries, and look for commonalities.

Second, our logistics process depends heavily on small businesses. So, as we look at new

technologies and the resulting changes in our processes, we are very concerned about bringing

not just our prime common industries together, but also our third- and fourth-tier business

structures.

Time is critical in industry's manufacturing strategies ~ time to market, design-to-manufacture

time, time to the customer, and so on. Time is also critical to the logistics infrastructure and

therefore may be a shared strategy. In the logistics process, time is an issue because we need

to support deployed operating forces. But we're also interested in the relationship of time to

our pipeline costs. In the U.S. Navy, one day of inventory in a logistics pipeline is worth $1

million, and it takes an average of more than 300 days to complete repairs and get spare

parts. That makes roughly $4 billion of inventory in our pipeline. So we incur substantial

costs in supporting that pipeline for that length of time. Therefore, rapid response makes a big

difference in our logistics infrastructure.

Unlike the private sector, we're not interested in market share and profits. But cost and

efficiency are still big issues for us, in terms of both acquisition and logistics support. Our

main goal is to support DOD operating forces. We now find ourselves in the position of

making trade-offs between acquiring new technology and supporting the operating forces and

our logistics infrastructure. We're trying to make balanced decisions about how many

operating forces we need, the nature and cost of our logistics infrastructure, and the types of

technologies we can buy to give the operating forces the tools they need. That logistics

irifrastructure will have to become more efficient in the next 10 years.

105
We're focusing on cycle time and cycle costs, not only for the manufacturing process, but also

for weapons repair and overhaul. In that quest, because DOD depends on industry to

manufacture parts and systems, we need to form partnerships with industry. We've heard a lot

about cooperation on technology development, but we also need cooperation in the business

process environment.

The first thing we need to do collectively is to break down technology and business barriers.

We've talked about technology sharing. We also need dual-use processes, not only on the

production floor but also in business, in terms of how we communicate with and relate to

each other.

We also need to exploit existing assets. The DOD has significant national capital assets,

including a tremendous infrastructure of commercial enterprises. We need to take advantage

of our tremendous investment in the small business community, machine tool industries, and

manufacturing processes. Our technologies need to accommodate the use of those existing

capital assets, because we can't afford to replace them wholesale.

Finally, we need to remember that cooperation depends on trust. Much of infrastructure and

past history does not support the development of mutual trust between industry and DOD. So

we are looking at ways to change the logistics and procurement infrastructure to foster

development of a more trusting relationship.

Now I will discuss technologies, what I call integration technologies. In our 300-day pipeline,

less than 10 percent of that time actually is spent on the production floor. Over 100 days are

related to procurement lead times in the acquisition process. The remaining 150 days are consumed by internal processes, including engineering, business, and procurement of raw

material. We're trying to integrate the procurement and other internal processes so we can

spend more time on the shop floor making products, and get them to the operating forces as quickly as possible.

If we could reduce the length of the pipeline by even 50 percent, then we would save some

$2 billion. That savings would help us make optimal trade-off decisions as we downsize.

The DOD also has some initiatives aimed at establishing partnerships with the small business

community and integrating our new data and business processes into production. The

Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistics Support initiative, the Flexible Computer Integrated

Manufacturing program, and the National Initiative for Product Data Exchange are examples.

Government-industry cooperation does not come naturally to DOD. In fact, there are numerous barriers. But I think the pendulum is swinging toward cooperation. I like to say the

stars and the moon are finally aligned, and we're beginning to make the crossover in business

106
activities that will help realize some of the technologies we've been working on for the last 15

years.

107

Defense Manufacturing Science and Technology Viewpoint

Michael F. McGrath

Executive Director for Manufacturing

Advanced Research Projects Agency

U.S. Department of Defense

I would like to discuss how, from the defense science and technology viewpoint, we look at

industry needs, and how government programs can be aligned with industry needs.

First, the Defense Science and Technology (S&T) program has to meet defense needs. We

have a customer in the military forces, so our S&T program is put together with priorities

based on military needs. In years past, that strategy has driven us to emphasize performance

and technological superiority. Those characteristics are still very important, but other key

considerations have emerged.

One of these concerns is affordability. Our procurement budget is about 40 percent of what it was at its peak during the Cold War. We also are concerned about having a robust,

responsive industrial base that we can count on. We can't afford a separate defense industrial

base, so we must look to an integrated civil and military industrial base.

These concerns lead us to a strategy that emphasizes investments in process technology as well as product technology, in areas where we can reduce weapon system costs. We'll pursue

these opportunities, wherever possible, with the objective of dual-use manufacturing. In some

cases, military and commercial needs are similar, and we can capitalize on that.

There are still areas where military needs are ahead of commercial market development, and

in those areas we need to make defense-specific investments. Over time, there may be spinoff opportunities where commercial markets can develop. Multichip modules are an example

of such an area, as Anita Jones mentioned earlier. We're still the dominant customer in the

marketplace but we see that, someday, we'll be just one customer among many.

We also recognize that technology alone will not solve our affordability problems, so there is

a strong emphasis on integrating technology programs with other initiatives, to change the

way we do business. We can't do this without continued dialogue with industry, so industry is

involved in our planning process.

With industry, we view manufacturing in "The Big M" sense, encompassing all the functions

of the manufacturing enterprise. We want to achieve in the defense business what world-class

109
companies have done over the past 10 years with their improvements in cost, cycle time, and

quality. To pull that off, we have to become a world-class customer, interfacing with our

suppliers the way world-class companies interface with their suppliers. We have to make a lot

of changes in our business practices. Our acquisition reform initiatives are an important part

of the overall strategy.

We also need our supplier base to become world class. That means industry has to make

some changes. Through agile and flexible manufacturing, cost has to be decoupled from lot

size. We need to expand Department of Defense (DOD) access to high-volume commercial

production lines that can make small lots for us. We have some examples of this today but

need to expand the envelope of flexibility to make dual-use manufacturing the norm.

The DOD also is investing in enabling technology. As the procurement budget has declined,

we've tried to keep the S&T budget roughly constant, so that we have the resources to invest

for the nature. An important part of our strategy is to use technology to reduce costs and

cycle time and improve quality.

Costs are hard to manage because so much is in overhead. But we can reduce overhead costs

through agile manufacturing, information integration, and electronic commerce, both within

and among companies. Costs also can be reduced on the factory floor through process

innovation, flexible manufacturing equipment, "intelligent" closed-loop process control, and

integrated product and process development. We have structured, integrated pilot programs

using combinations of these technologies, to evaluate the combined effects of acquisition

reform and our S&T investments.

The DOD is spending about $1 billion this year on science and technology related to

engineering and manufacUiring. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) has a large

program in manufacturing technology, focused primarily on electronics. We participate in big

projects, such as SEMATECH and one on flat-panel displays, and numerous smaller efforts.

These projects tend to be high in dual-use potential but also cutting edge. Decisions on

whether these programs ought to be cost shared with industry or funded totally by ARPA are driven by assessments of the risk involved and market conditions.

ARPA's nianufacUiring technology programs include several pilot factories established under

DOD's Technology for Affordability initiative, where we're installing the next generation of

factory systems to de-couple cost from quantity. These programs focus on components and

subsystems of importance to DOD. One key component area is infrared focal plane arrays

used in sensors and seekers for "smart" weapons. There is not a large commercial market for

these components, at least for cryogenically cooled arrays, so this is an example of a defensedriven program. Other programs, such as those addressing signal processors and fiber-optic

gyros, have high potential for dual-use manufacturing.

110
At the subsystem/system level, we plan to have a pilot factory for next-generation capabilities

in missile manufacturing. Materials processing is another important investment area. We work

closely with the Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) on many of these technology themes.

ARPA also is involved in other manufacturing technology programs:

o About half of the first year's Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) awards were

associated with manufacturing technology. The TRP is funded at about $600 million a year,

so that 50 percent is a big source of resources for dual-use technology development.

o The Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (CALS) Shared Resource

Centers recently were transferred from the U.S. Air Force to ARPA. Industry refers to CALS

as "Commerce at Light Speed." We're working with NIST and its Manufacturing Extension

Partnership to turn these CALS centers into national assets that can help manufacturers,

particularly small and mid-sized manufacturers, get on the information highway and do

profitable things.

o The Agile Manufacturing Initiative is a collaborative effort by ARPA and the

National Science Foundation. We made a number of awards last year, and we are about to

solicit proposals for pilot programs in agile manufacturing this year.

Finally, we need to continue our dialogue with industry at several levels. At the strategic

level, we've formed a relationship with a multi-industry Task Force on Affordability. The

executive group of this task force is chaired by Aris Melissaratos, vice president of

technology and quality at Westinghouse Electric Corp. They rely on the National Center for

Advanced Technology to be their secretariat and they have chartered a number of working

groups that are working with DOD, Mantech committees, ARPA groups, and other agencies

on manufacturing technology, acquisition reform, and industrial base issues. Yesterday was

the first meeting between the chairman of our new Defense Manufacturing Council and the

industry task force. We want industry to be involved in shaping the defense investment

agenda in the future.

Ill

Defense Conversion

Dorothy Robyn

Special Assistant to the President

National Economic Council

Did you know that the place we are meeting today, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), has the fastest growing budget of any Federal agency? The overall

Federal budget is in a hard freeze, but the NIST budget is growing by double digits. When

Leon Panetta, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, briefed members of the

Congress on the President's fiscal year (FY) 1995 budget proposal, the most frequently asked

question was "What is NIST?"

I want to discuss one aspect of defense conversion. There are really two broad challenges that

define the Administration's approach to defense reinvestment and conversion. The first ~ and

the one the press generally writes about ~ is economic adjustment, helping the men and

women in firms and communities who depended on defense work to adjust to downsizing in

the defense budget. The President refers to this as "not leaving the men and women who won

the Cold War out in the cold." That is enormously important, but I want to discuss the second

challenge.

This other fundamental challenge is to meet future military needs with a declining defense

budget in a world that still challenges our security and our interests. We plan to do that by

integrating the now-separate commercial and military industrial sectors.

It has become increasingly clear in recent years that, to maintain its technological advantage,

the Department of Defense (DOD) must bring down the barriers it has erected between

defense and commercial firms. Those barriers are the result of an enormously cumbersome,

sclerotic, unworkable procurement system, which has driven away many commercial firms

altogether. And firms that do business with DOD often "wall off' their defense production

from their commercial lines. As a result, over the last 20 years DOD has become increasingly

reliant on an isolated defense industrial base. That strategy is no longer appropriate, for a

couple of reasons. The most obvious is, as Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch says,

DOD no longer can afford the luxury of having its own private industry.

The DOD is paying $10 for integrated circuits, when equivalents are available commercially

for $1. The $9 difference is due largely to overhead resulting from an enormous number of

government-unique requirements. The Defense Science Board estimates that DOD can save

tens of billions of dollars a year by integrating substantial amounts of the commercial and

113
military industrial sectors. That's the most obvious reason for commercial-military integration,

but I don't think it is the most important one.

The most important reason is that, increasingly, DOD cannot get access to the critical

technology it needs. Leading-edge technologies in electronics, telecommunications, and

software increasingly emerge first in the commercial rather than the defense sector ~ a

reversal of the traditional pattern. That is not to say that DOD is not supporting leading-edge

technology. It certainly is. But the rate at which innovation actually moves into volume

production often trails well behind that of commercial industry. And given our procurement

system, DOD cannot be assured of access to that critical technology.

Let me give you an example, which the President used when he kicked off our procurement

reform initiative last fall. At the beginning of the Gulf War, the U.S. Army wanted to buy

6,000 commercial radio receivers from Motorola, Inc. But Motorola wouldn't sell the

commercial radio receivers to the Army, because Motorola's commercial division did not

follow cost accounting standards and a long list of other defense-unique requirements. Now,

the Army says we could have worked out this problem in a month or so, but we didn't have a

month. So we had the Japanese buy the 6,000 commercial radio receivers, and they donated

them to the war effort, crediting that expense against their contribution to the war. That kind

of back-door procedure is simply not acceptable.

There is also a third reason why we can no longer rely on an isolated defense industrial base.

As that industrial base declines in size, it is losing technological leadership and failing to

attract sufficient capital. It no longer is large enough to support surge capabilities. In the

words of Louis Branscomb, formerly IBM Corp.'s chief scientist, the defense industry is

becoming "ghetto-ized."

In sum, to reduce the cost of defense technology, get access to critical technology, and

broaden the defense industrial base, DOD has to bring down the barriers between the defense

and commercial sectors. Simply stated, the goal is to erase the distinctions between the two

sectors wherever possible.

Three pillars support this dual-use vision. The most important is procurement reform, which is

proceeding on two levels. One is statutory reform of legislative obstacles to buying

commercial products. Significant legislation was voted out of committee yesterday, to the

Senate floor. The legislation does not go far enough but it is a significant move in the right

direction. On another level, DOD is proceeding internally to eliminate what Secretary of

Defense William Perry calls "self-inflicted wounds," or administrative impediments to

commercial-military integration. This is the most important problem.

The second pillar is increased support, particularly through the Advanced Research Projects

Administration (ARPA), of dual-use research and development (R&D). Gary Denman, the

114
head of ARPA, characterized DOD's new approach when he said recently: "If a I put a stake

in the ground and commercial industry doesn't gather around that stake, then I'm going to

move the stake." That's very different from the attitudes of past years. About three-quarters of

ARPA's R&D budget now could be considered dual use. The Technology Reinvestment

Project (TRP) is the most visible but by no means the only dual-use program.

The third pillar is international cooperation. Technology knows no national boundaries, and to

get access to the very best technology for our weapon systems, we have to work with

companies in Japan and Germany. Bill Perry is pursuing this issue vigorously. When he was

director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) in the 1970s, he went to Japan; no

DDR&E went there again until Anita Jones visited last fall. This Administration is very

interested in both dual-use and international technology. In fact, there is a person who

oversees this activity: Ken Flamm, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for dual-use and

international technology. We see those two pieces as fitting closely together.

Let me turn to the TRP, the most visible part of what the Administration is doing to bring

about commercial-military integration. The mission of the TRP is "to stimulate the transition

to a growing integrated national industrial capability, which provides the most advanced,

affordable military systems and simultaneously the most competitive commercial products."

Let me also clarify what the TRP is not, because there has been some misunderstanding about

the meaning of "defense conversion." The TRP is not meant to be disaster relief for

beleaguered defense companies. It is not meant to convert large prime contractors from

making tanks to making toasters, nor is it meant to stimulate growth among small companies

in sectors unrelated to the industrial base on which DOD can draw. The TRP is designed to

stimulate the integration of the commercial and military sectors so that DOD can get

technology that is affordable because it is simultaneously appealing to the commercial sector.

There are three avenues of attack through the TRP. The first is technology development

programs, typically carried out by consortia designed to develop new dual-use product and

process technologies. The second avenue is technology deployment ~ getting technology into

small and medium-sized firms, the backbone of our industrial base. To reach these firms, we

are taking advantage of the very good existing programs at state and regional levels. The third

avenue is manufacturing education and training programs designed to raise manufacturing to a

level on a par with other engineering and scientific disciplines. Joe Bordogna of the National

Science Foundation has done a tremendous job putting that program together.

All TRP programs must be awarded on a competitive basis. In addition, industry must provide

at least 50 percent of the funds for each project. We actually did better than that in the last

round. This willingness to provide funds is the only way we have of knowing whether

industry trunks a technology is commercially viable. We're good at judging whether a

technology can meet defense needs, but we can't judge the commercial potential.

115
We identify focus areas and also encourage industry to submit proposals in other categories;

these latter proposals did extremely well in the first round. We were inundated with proposals

in the first year. We offered roughly $500 million in matching Federal funds and received

about 3,000 proposals requesting about $9 billion. So, the program was oversubscribed by

about 17 to 1 overall, and individual focus areas were oversubscribed by 30 or 40 to 1.

ARPA and the other five agencies involved went through an elaborate evaluation process to

identify 212 projects, for which we announced matching awards of $605 million. We ended

up using the entire $500 million in FY 1993 funds and then an additional $140 million in FY

1994 funds, in order to make awards to all the programs that were highly recommended by

evaluators. So even though we had to reject many very good proposals, we were able to make

awards to all of the highly recommended proposals.

Now let me describe what we see as measures of success. First of all, the response from

industry was very strong and enthusiastic. The degree to which the program was

oversubscribed and the quality of the proposals were positive signs, as was the amount of

matching funds offered. In addition, teams of firms often were willing to put up cash rather

than other resources. That put teams unable to offer cash at a disadvantage.

Another sign of success was the meaningful and unique nature of the collaborations. The

technology development teams were integrated both horizontally and vertically and

represented partnerships between defense and commercial firms - and that is exactly what the

six agencies that implemented the TRP were trying to bring about.

There was also relatively good small business participation, albeit not as much as we would

like. One or more small firms were involved in 60 percent of the partnerships. State and local

governments also were stimulated by this process. The TRP was the first program to provide

significant amounts of money for state manufacturing extension and technology

commercialization programs, and a number of states, such as California, set up their own

TRP-like programs to supplement the Federal program.

Finally, there was extraordinary collaboration among the six Federal agencies. That is a rare but growing practice.

We also are trying to make substantial improvements in a number of areas. I will mention

two. First, we want to reduce the number of unsuccessful proposals. We got 3,000 proposals

and only made 212 awards, so there were some 2,800 unhappy teams. One strategy is to

identify technology focus areas. We also are holding more outreach workshops than we did

last year - one in each of the seven technology focus areas in the recent solicitation. Finally,

we plan to encourage applicants to submit to ARPA a White Paper, a five-page description of

what they intend to propose. Then the other five agencies will give the applicants feedback,

which should improve their decision making about whether to bid.

116
Second, we also must improve the capability of small firms to compete. So small firms now

may use Small Business Innovation and Research grants as part of their cost share. In

addition, small firms will have three to four months following the announcement of an award

to come up with their share of the matching funds.

We announced the next competition in April. The focus areas are high-density data storage

systems, object technology for rapid software development and delivery, interoperability test

beds for the National Information Infrastructure, high-definition systems manufacturing, lowcost electronic packaging, uncooled infrared sensors, and environmental sensors. We're doing

a series of workshops now. More information on the workshops is available through ARPA's

toll-free dual-use telephone number (1-800-DUAL-USE). We will announce the first

competition next week. About $180 million is available in this round, of which about $25

million will go to manufacturing extension centers so they can carry out technology

deployment.

In late summer, we'll announce a second, more general competition that will include

technology development, regional technology alliances, manufacturing education and training,

and also small business innovation and research. That round probably will be worth about

$500 million. We will exhaust our FY 1994 funding and begin to draw on our FY 1995

funding.

Let me close by saying what a pleasure it is to be on a program along with other people from

the Administration, talking about manufacturing. Manufacturing was a bad word in the last

administration, because it was considered too close to market for the Federal Government to

get involved in. Manufacturing is now legitimate again, and it's wonderful to see this kind of

response to it.

117

Panel Discussion

Thomas Murrin: Thank you very much, Dorothy, that's not only captivating but very

courageous and candid.

I want to share with you one of the reasons why some of the things you've been hearing are so exciting and promising. A few years ago a Defense Manufacturing Board was established.

It was a very poor man's and poor woman's version of the Defense Science Board. It literally

had one staff person and a very modest budget, but we were asked to get into manufacturing

activities.

One of the things we did, and did really comprehensively, was to study the difference

between commercial integrated circuits (ICs) and Department of Defense (DOD)-procured

ICs. One of the highlights was to have the entire group and some government figures visit

Motorola, Inc. in Phoenix, where in virtually contiguous but separate areas, DOD ICs were

being produced and commercial ICs were being produced. The relevant procurement

regulations, and how to do it, that the DOD people had prescribed actually lay out on two

large tables. It took two large tables. I got in deep trouble as the chair for doing that.

Later, a few of us went to the very highest offices in the Pentagon to espouse a concept we

called "world-class customer." And that caused a great deal of trauma. But it is fascinating to

hear Mike McGrath talk now about world class.

I just want to share one final incident with you, because it might move some of you folks to

dig this out. After one year we were told to write a report and put in some recommendations.

Apparently we didn't follow all the protocols and bureaucracy of the Pentagon because,

literally the morning the report was to be released (I was to release it), it was seized. The

report literally was seized, never to be seen again. I know of at least one underground copy of

that report, in case anybody is interested in duplicating it. Believe me, it's nothing but

common sense, just what we are espousing now. I share this with you because it is such a

powerful insight into how this wonderful change in attitude is taking place and, I think, is

going to benefit all of us.

We have some time now to question, comment on, or discuss what we've been listening to

today. I don't want to constrain your comments; all I'm going to try to be is a facilitator. Let's

just look for a moment at some ideas Heinz Schmitt left with us, because he's one of our key

government executives who had to leave. I think you sensed Heinz's sense of urgency, which

is what I would like to share with you. We can talk about these things ad nauseam, we could

have conferences coming out the kazoo, but the world is turning and the realities we've been

119
talking about are very real. We have incredible resources ~ how do we really get our act

together and do something of great national benefit?

Shirley Willett, Stylometrics, Inc.: I want to bring up the issue of improving engineering

design, which is poor in all industries. I want to bring out three points. The first concerns

crossing disciplines. What I mean by that is, we've got to involve aesthetics, science, and

technology at the "points of design" in engineering design.

Second, we've got to make it cross-industry. As a winner of a Small Business Innovation

Research (SBIR) grant in the apparel industry, and being involved in conference papers for

the National Science Foundation (NSF), I was introduced to other industries. I was almost

shocked to learn of the common denominators among aerospace, automobiles, mechanical

engineering, architecture, and apparel. When I say apparel, I mean the actual geometric

structures within engineering design.

The third point is that I have been working with Howard Moncarz here at the National

Institute of Standards and Technology to develop and strengthen apparel engineering design.

This term is not even used in the apparel industry yet. I think we in the apparel industry need

some help from other industries. My point is, I know about product realization, and you all are discussing things I need to know about such as rapid prototyping, product life cycle, and

product data exchange standards in terms of engineering design.

Audience Comment: I'm from the University of Texas at Austin. I've been studying machine

technology for about 35 years and lecturing and doing research in the field. I've also been

looking at the history of technology over about 150 years, in some depth. Tom Malone's

presentation was the highlight of this conference for me. He showed that the textile industry

has to invest $4 billion a year in factory-floor technology.

I suggest that there can be just as much excitement about factory floor technology (e.g., wireby-wire technology, "intelligent" systems) as there is "above the floor." There is an enormous

gap in this country when it comes to machine technology. In 1950, about 90 percent of our

machines were U.S. made. Today, this figure is approaching 10 percent in virtually every

category, whether it has to do with paper, shoes, food, textiles, or microelectronics.

Why can't we address this problem? The machine tool industry is important, but it's only a

slice of the problem. Patching machinery, paneling machinery, and so on are equally

important.

Steve Robinson, Rock Island Arsenal, U.S. Army: I'm very much interested in technical

data exchange. The arsenal is a traditional ironworks, for which the Standard for the

Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) is very important. But the presentations have

touched on industries for which STEP may not be all that important. My impression of

120
electronics manufacturing is that it's two dimensional, with wiring diagrams in schematics and

printed circuit layouts. While there is a lot of enthusiasm for STEP, I don't see an integrated

market demand in terms of lowest-common-denominator, industry-wide needs for a more

coherent strategy for technical, engineering, and manufacturing data exchange.

Milton Chang, president, New Focus: I've been involved in starting 12 high-tech companies.

New Focus is a small company, with 30 people, in the laser-optics field. I would like to

present a small company perspective.

Small companies need special consideration from funding agencies, for the following reasons. We're an engine for renewal, because we are the future. We're flexible and agile, lean and

mean, and street smart. No other country has the infrastructure to spawn new high-tech

companies, not Japan, not Europe. This is an opportunity we should exploit.

Another reason is that, for small companies, small funding is equivalent to big funding,

because we can use a small award as validation to get more funding from venture capital

firms. Also, in a sense, at this meeting we are approaching productivity and competitiveness

as technical people rather than as businessmen, big companies already have financial

resources, and there are other ways, apart from direct subsidies, to encourage management to

invest these resources (such as with tax incentives).

Finally, I think we can learn from the track record of venture capitalists that there are very

few blockbuster successes, and the overall return is very low. With consortia, there are administrative costs and many cooks to spoil the soup. My point is, give special funding

consideration to small companies, much more than what the SBIR program allows.

Mike Kelly, Georgia Institute of Technology: I'm a former breakfast partner of Dorothy

Robyn at the National Academy of Sciences. I want to support earlier comments about the

importance of equipment for manufacturing. I recently participated in a study of Japanese

technology for electronic packaging. Every company we visited, without exception, controlled

all of their own design and building of equipment. It was the single factor identified as making them more competitive, not only with one another, but also globally.

In light of the government's increased emphasis on investing in manufacturing, how can we

get more people with industrial experience, particularly in manufacturing, working within the

Administration, so that the people who control the funding can begin to emphasize equipment

and the systems integration associated with "The Big M"?

Dorothy Robyn: I think we're probably moving in the opposite direction. I know the

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) used to have a much more rapid turnover in

program managers than they do now. Managers typically come from industry, but the problem

is the restraints on what ARPA program managers can do after they leave the agency. I think

121
there is a tradeoff between trying to avoid conflict of interest and discouraging industry

people from coming into the government.

Mike McGrath: I agree with Mike Kelly. I think this is a real need in government, certainly

at DOD, and I expect it's the case in other agencies as well. It's something we probably ought

to come back to.

Tom Murrin: Let me comment as a citizen. I think Mike's comments are right on, as always.

But the question really gets back to us as citizens. In my judgment, we have to raise hell with

the Congress to change the mindless process that talented, patriotic people have to go through

to apply for government work. Usually it costs you a fortune, you often break up your family,

and you end up in a milieu that is not fun and games. Washington is the strangest place I've

been in, and I've been in 42 countries. Someone asked me how long I was with the

Department of Commerce. Officially, I was here 18 months, but actually I was here 24

months and the balance of the time was spent going through forms.

Dick Enswald, Westinghouse Electric Corp.: I spent most of my life in the commercial

sector before coming to Westinghouse and have been one of those guys that grew up in

manufacturing. In fact, I'm on all the manufacturing committees of the various industry

associations ~ you never know which hat I'm wearing.

We hear all these things about dual use and one industrial base, which most of us have been

looking for and seeing evolve. The one issue that always gets me is that, in the commercial

world, we conduct a significant amount of our research and development (R&D) in

government language 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, with manufacturing an integral part of the team. We

keep dealing with Mantech and we're dealing with $100 million, now up to $300-plus million,

whatever it might be.

If you look at the amount of money we really spend on R&D and had it done by

manufacturing people, whether it be federal labs or someplace else ... Why can't we get a

percentage of Federal R&D funds to address the first part of the manufacturing process, so

you can design for dual use and design for manufacturing and production? This would reduce

greatly the number of problems arising on the factory floor. Even in the machine tool

industry, you have to design what the machines are capable of, and you have alternative

design approaches. How can we change the Federal approach to complement the dual-use

thrust?

Mike McGrath: Noel Longuemare, principal deputy under secretary of defense (acquisition

and technology) ran a Defense Science Board summer study a couple of years ago that

reached exactly that conclusion - that the real leverage is up front in design. You have to

design for manufacturing. That's now a criterion for the forerunners of tomorrow's weapons

systems. So we have made a real commitment, and I've seen a real shift in the science and

122
technology community as program managers start to come to grips with this issue and start to

ask manufacturing people, "What do I do? I need to worry about affordability in a way I never did before - what do I do?"

The problem, however, is that we have relatively few new starts in DOD. It will take a while

for the new approach to permeate the department, if we do it one new start at a time. That's

one reason why we're trying so hard to launch pilot programs, so that we can create more role

models and success stories and have this approach permeate the culture.

George Hazelrigg, NSF: I'd like to talk about education. We heard today that the U.S.

university system is viewed as the top or one of the top university systems in the world. I think that's a globally held view. But I want to comment on the K-12 system, because much

of the manufacturing work force comes out of that system.

I spent the last year teaching in and traveling around Asia. The U.S. K-12 system is vastly

inferior to many of the systems in Asia and we're losing quickly whatever edge we have. For

example, English is taught widely in Asia. It is taught to everyone in Korea. Yet the United

States does not emphasize the teaching of English. These things are really mind boggling to

me ~ the way we're losing out.

In manufacturing, we have several options. One is to throw our hands up in the air and say,

"We're going to lose." Another option is to design manufacturing equipment for stupid people.

The third option is to try to improve our educational system. Probably some combination of

those strategies is appropriate. But I'd like to hear comments from the panel on education.

Tom Murrin: In the interests of time, I will simply agree with you. We share your views.

And if you can take a similar trip to Europe, you'll feel even worse, I think.

Howard Samuel: You're quite right, our K-12 system generally is regarded as inferior to

many others. But you have to realize that the educational system does not exist in isolation. If

the educational system, particularly K-12, is to be improved, then we have to start before

kindergarten, with early childhood and prenatal programs that take into account problems

caused by, for example, social changes. These changes include the rise in immigration and the

breakdown of the family.

The Administration is trying to attack this problem. The School to Work Opportunities Act,

just passed last week, offers some improvement in moving youngsters who are not going to

college from the school climate to the workplace. But this is a very complicated problem and

cannot be attacked in isolation.

Bill Smith, Georgia Institute of Technology: I too was once a member of the no-name

group that met on Constitution Avenue. I have two comments. One is directed at Tom

123
Murrin. A topic worthy of some debate at the national level is the role that various

participants will play in making us globally competitive. There is no agreement, for example,

on the role the national laboratories should play, or that academic institutions or industry

should play. I think we need a common dictionary, a common understanding ~ at least some

consensus so we can move forward from that base.

My second comment is directed at my dear friend Dorothy Robyn. You are doing an

outstanding and exceptional job, but we can't stay on this course forever under the rubric of

defense conversion. Someday we'll have to make a decision about whether to continue this

kind of government involvement because we have seen a real change in the national security

posture, or whether we are going to convert it - institutionalize it ~ so there will be some

predictability and the private sector will have some assurance of where government is going. I suggest that as you make policy, you think about where we're going with all of this, and

where we want to be in 1998, 2000, or 2002.

Heinz Schmitt: I want to comment on defining the role of the participants. I think that's an

absolutely crucial step in what I proposed earlier. And I think you ought to avoid defining

iron-clad roles for agencies, laboratories, and industry. I think roles depend on the situation,

the technologies, the process, and the needs, so we shouldn't go for black-and-white

definitions. We also need to avoid defining roles when we don't know the characteristics of

the people doing the work. The capabilities of many people who are part of the necessary

integration are not known by those defining the roles. I think we need to understand each

other a bit better before we make those decisions.

That said, I think the national laboratories can add value to the transformation we're

discussing by providing enabling technologies and a link between universities and industry

and applications. There was talk earlier about where the dividing line is. I suggest there is no

line ~ it depends on the situation. We shouldn't try for a line. We ought to try for some

common sense participation and work toward a process that makes sense for the situation

we're talking about.

Gene Allen, MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.: I work with a company that provides computeraided engineering tools. I'd like to comment on a recommended strategy. This panel has

focused almost unanimously on the idea that the government is going in this direction, and

we're going to work with industry and we're going to make it happen. Let's assume that it happens, it works. In the year 2020, manufacturing follows the agricultural paradigm, where 1 percent of the population produces all the goods everybody needs. We have customized mass

production; if you want something, you just design it on your computer screen, and it's delivered to you the next day. That might be a little far-fetched, but if you take the

technology to its natural extension, that's where we're going to go. If we're not there in 2020,

then maybe it's 2050.

124
What I want you to consider is lifestyle, how the average person lives. Because all of a

sudden, productivity will be so great that people won't have to work 40 hours a week. How

do you maintain a middle class, not only in the United States but also worldwide, to ensure

that you have an economically stable population?

Bob Hermann mentioned that the United States has a leadership responsibility. So rather than

national goals, maybe there should be international goals. But what incentives should the

government put in place to ensure a stable middle class, and a stable economic system that is

viable? I encourage the group to look at that issue.

Denyse DuBrucq, E3TV Limited Liability Co.: I want to say that the national movement of

late under the Clinton Administration, with the grants for industrial expansion, while they

may not have awarded funds to every applicant, they certainly have stimulated companies to

organize for national advancement ~ and that's beyond cash involvement.

I learned many things at this conference, but the most significant thing is that all these

government activities ~ STEP, manufacturing associations, the agile manufacturing initiative -

- have been "snowballing" over the years. When we finish forming my company, a pilot

project sponsored by a group of large corporations, we will take advantage of these things

without having to instruct our people in each of the gargantuan piles of information that have

been put together so properly. I am most grateful for the conference.

Ron Selvidge, SDM Consultants: I am a management consultant. I think we need to walk

away from this conference having accomplished something. After listening to all the

presentations, I feel there is a consensus that there needs to be a single entity maybe it's an

agency, maybe it's not even established yet - to take the lead in coordinating all these

activities in manufacturing technology. Such an entity would set priorities for the nation,

define the agenda, and coordinate the programs.

Thomas Murrin: Thank you very much. We will follow up on that as best we can. Let me

take the last minute to thank you all for your attention and participation. It's been a great

honor for me to participate. I'd like to thank Arati Prabhakar, Mike Wozny, John Meyer, Matt

Heyman, and the others for their terrific arrangements and each of our presenters for their

contributions.

I would like to close by recalling that old adage about whether a tree falling in the forest

makes a sound. The answer is, only if it is heard. Applying that to the present situation, these

conferences only amount to anything if you take intellectual ownership of them and act with a

sense of urgency in a world-class way. I hope you all will do that.

125

KEYNOTE ADDRESS:

Government Directions in Advanced Manufacturing

Mary L. Good

Under Secretary for Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

We really appreciate the large contingent from industry and the academic community who

have come to this meeting to share their insight and views on advanced rrianufacturing

technology. This exchange of information among so many people who think manufacturing

matters provides a tremendous learning environment. I just want to reiterate that we from the

government are here to listen. We want to hear you, try to understand where you're coming

from, share with you some of our programs, and discuss our directions and get your feedback.

I want to integrate all the comments that have been made by speakers from the various

industries and government agencies. My aim is to provide some coherent perspective on and

understanding of how we can push our programs forward to make a big difference in the U.S.

economy.

Before the election, President Clinton commented that manufacturing remains the foundation

of the U.S. economy. For those of us concerned that we increasingly are viewed as a service

economy, that was a heartening comment. This is not an issue of numbers ofjobs, but rather

of quality ofjobs and of an infrastructure that combines manufacturing with service

organizations. It is important to remember that, in many ways, the service industry is served

by the U.S. manufacturing community, which supports 90 percent of the industrial research

and development (R&D) conducted in this country.

As many speakers have said, we have to deal with the powerful forces that are recasting the

competitive environment for U.S.-based companies. These forces have far-reaching

consequences and pose major challenges for the manufacturing sector. These forces include

rapid technological change, the birth of the information age, globalization of the world's

markets, and the press of global competition. New manufacturing and management

innovations are helping U.S. firms meet these challenges. Companies are becoming more

nimble and more flexible, and they are improving quality and reducing costs. Indeed, many

U.S. rrianufacturing companies literally are reinventing themselves in a process as profound

and dynamic as the shift from craft-based to mass production.

I was in Chicago yesterday, at the International Forum on Manufacturing, where about half

the attendees were U.S. vice presidents of manufacturing and about half foreign vice

127
presidents. They all are moving very quickly along the lines I just mentioned. However, when

you dig a little bit deeper, you find only a thin layer of top companies moving in this

direction. Beneath that veneer, the situation is less promising. So we need not only to discuss

what those world-class companies are doing, but also to diffuse those activities throughout the

manufacturing sector.

A theme underlying much of the discussion here is that information has emerged as the

lifeblood of modern manufacturing. Advanced technologies are essential for the effective and

efficient management and use of technology and information. But manufacturing technologies

pose a lot of challenges for many firms. New technology is a big commitment, for one thing.

It is complex and costly. Furthermore, it may take years to assimilate it — to learn to use it productively and gain a significant return on the investment. In a country with a relatively

little patience for waiting for such returns, these are issues we need to tackle.

Another issue is that major changes in the organization of production may be required, and

new management and labor skills clearly will be needed. I want to stress that the management

needs are as significant in many ways as the skill-base needs. In many cases, firms lack the

skills needed to be successful in the 21st century; they also may lack the requisite diversity in

the work force, the advanced technologies, and the ability to harmonize the work force skills

and the technology.

We also need to address the supply side of the manufacturing industry. Some technologies

require multidisciplinary R&D efforts that may exceed the capabilities of individual firms or even an entire industry. Often, our fragmented industry structure works against the

development and deployment of highly integrated systems that require components from many

different resources.

Combining all these issues, we are confronted with an array of financial, technical,

managerial, and organizational challenges that must be overcome if we're to exploit fully the

economic growth potential inherent in advanced manufacturing technologies.

In this environment, industry must be willing to take some risks, to invest wisely, to develop

technical capabilities, and to require new management and labor skills. The supply side of the

industry may have to explore alliances in order to obtain the financial resources and the scope

of skills needed to advance technologies in any useful way. Meanwhile, the academic

community can provide manufacturing managers and the work force with knowledge and

skills and also provide technical assistance, especially to small and medium-sized firms.

Regarding the debate over government's role in development of advanced manufacturing

technology, I think we have not yet articulated fully in the civilian sector the role of the

government. We have yet to articulate it in a way that has the same resonance as do the

government's arguments for intervening to improve technologies for the mission agencies in

128
defense, health, and space. We have not articulated our role in manufacturing in a way that

resonates with the public, and we need to try to do that.

We understand that investing in the development and application of new commercial

technologies is primarily the job of private enterprise. But the issue is how public policies can

provide an environment that encourages private innovation. Speakers mentioned low interest

rates, tax incentives for R&D, liberalized export controls, and improved conditions for trade.

The Clinton Administration has recognized these issues and is making some progress,

particularly in liberalizing export controls, improving the conditions for trade, and looking at

other incentives for R&D. Public investment also can complement private investment to

maximize the social return on R&D as well as provide a world-class playing field where

private companies can compete.

Some ask why the government should be involved at all in manufacturing. But we know that

individual companies can under-invest in certain new technologies for many reasons,

including the high technical risks and the long time frames involved. New technologies create

benefits for the overall economy but individual firms cannot recoup their investments if they

pursue development alone. Moreover, the integration of new process technologies into modern

manufacturing systems often involves advances in knowhow, organizational structure, and

standards that no one company can pursue alone.

Companies also under-invest in infrastructure, so this is another area where public investment

can raise the productivity of private firms across the board. In a knowledge-based world

economy, information and communications infrastructure takes on new importance, as do

enabling technologies such as standards, software protocols, measurement, and testing. In all

these cases, public actions can make up for under-investment by the private sector.

Furthermore, contrary to some of the rhetoric, broad-based public support of the private sector

has a long and rich tradition in this market-driven U.S. economy. Look at transportation,

agriculture, and standards, weights, and measures. These are all areas where the public sector

has had major impacts on markets and on the civilian economy.

One issue for us is to define more clearly an argument concerning where public resources can

make a major difference. At the same time, we must reassure people that we will continue to

support basic science and the vital Federal agency missions, particularly in defense, health,

energy, and space. But in a vastly changed world economy, I think the Federal Government

also must implement new strategies to develop and deploy advanced technologies in

partnerships with industry, and to help build a technology infrastructure that will support a

competitive 21st-century civilian economy.

All that was the background for President Clinton and Vice President Gore's ambitious

technology strategy, which outlines the framework for the Federal Government's role in

129
helping private firms develop and profit from innovations. New let me provide an overview of

the ongoing government programs that have been described at this conference.

We have a number of manufacturing initiatives. They are of two types: development of

manufacturing technologies, and deployment of technology into companies that cannot do this

for themselves. Technology development spans numerous programs, including the Technology

Reinvestment Project (TRP), the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and the National

Science Foundation (NSF) fundamental programs, particularly in the Engineering Directorate.

We also heard about the Department of Energy (DOE) programs, not only in technology

development, but also in deployment, where DOE is sharing its manufacturing facilities with

industry. There are similar programs in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

and the Department of Defense (DOD).

Our technology deployment programs are fewer in number than the technology development

efforts, but the TRP and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which are managed

together, form the basis for the manufacturing technology and outreach centers. We hope to

have 100 such centers by 1997. The integration of that program through the coordinated

efforts of DOD and the Department of Commerce is almost unprecedented in the Federal

Government. That effort functions as if it were a single program, and there is no overlap. The

result has been much better use of the limited dollars than would have been possible with two

separate programs run by two agencies.

Deployment is important because there are approximately 360,000 U.S. manufacturers with

fewer than 500 employees. Those businesses represent 95 percent of U.S. manufacturing firms

and account for over 75 percent of new manufacturing jobs. They also have major effects in

their communities. But these companies find it difficult to take advantage of new technologies

that will enable them to modernize and be competitive in terms of quality and cost. And

many of these firms are suppliers for big companies, which means quality must be the same

on both sides. So smaller firms must be able to accomplish the same things as do large firms

in terms of quality, cost reduction, and timely development of products.

We are pleased with our progress in deployment so far, and it will be interesting to observe

the overall effect in a year or two.

The rest of my comments are in response to the comment that we need a national vision and

a national policy. The question is how to organize all these programs and provide a national

vision, a set of goals, and a timetable. The best mechanism we have in place to do that is the

new National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which President Clinton appointed at

the secretary level, and the NSTC committees that handle most of the R&D and technology

issues. The Committee on Civilian Industrial Technology has taken on the role of

coordinating civilian technology initiatives.

130
We are fairly well organized, but it is very difficult to organize R&D programs on a

government-wide basis. The first thing we did was to address areas where there are

possibilities for making a major impact. So we have initiatives in development of automotive

technologies and manufacturing technologies for electronics. Other focus areas are under

review.

In the automotive area, we have an agreement with the "Big Three" auto makers to develop,

in 10 years, a family vehicle with all the amenities of today's cars but three times the fuel

efficiency. We also are identifying ways to develop new ideas that arise outside the program

objective. So, in addition to pursuing a specific objective we are trying to collect innovative

ideas from throughout the automobile industry.

The electronics initiative is focused on manufacturing. Several comments were made about

how, in the electronics area, the issue is how to manufacture in a way that is flexible, so less

capital will be needed to make more products, or at least products can be made cost

effectively. We know how to make electronics, but we don't have the manufacturing structure

in place to make them at a competitive price.

We also are looking very carefully at the construction and building industry, which is quite

good but relies on technology that is inferior to that used in Europe and the Far East. With a

small amount of leverage from the government, we might be able to make quite a difference

in this area. Furthermore, the industry has recognized the problem and therefore is receptive

to our efforts.

In addition, we are considering how best to promote environmental technologies - both the

"green" technologies of the future, which have to do with green manufacturing, and the

technologies of today, which have to do with monitoring current manufacturing facilities in a

more effective and less costly way than is now possible. We still are working out turf issues

in this area. When six or seven agencies are involved in an area, it is not always easy to

resolve organizational issues. But we're working hard to decide how to tackle that problem,

because environmental technologies are a significant factor in improving manufacturing.

We also want to focus government programs to improve the manufacturing infrastructure, to

improve controls and provide the foundation for agile manufacturing. Some of these issues

have been discussed at this conference.

The remaining focus area is materials, an arena in which in the United States probably is far

ahead of most of the world. On the other hand, our use of those materials in products has not

been exemplary. We hope to break that paradigm by shifting our attention to materials in

specific industries. For example, for the automotive initiative to succeed, we must develop

lightweight materials, because vehicle weight must be reduced. We have identified the

lightweight materials, but they cost too much. So, we're focusing our materials initiatives to

131
reduce these costs, to try and get to the point where some of the advanced materials we've

invented over the last 40 years can be used effectively in cars.

To outline the manufacturing vision for the nature, we need to agree on some goals. These

must involve more than just technology. We also must address education and training,

because the work force may not be equipped adequately, and the manufacturing inrrastructure,

which has to allow us to transfer technology information throughout the industrial sector. So

the National Information Infrastructure becomes very, very important, not only in terms of its

technology, but also in terms of its design, location, and uses.

In other words, we must look beyond R&D to an integrated technology infrastructure base.

This requires subjugating agency needs to national needs. This is difficult, because all the

agencies have their own goals and objectives. But we need to integrate government

manufacturing programs to keep them all moving in the same direction with the same set of

goals.

We must have very good industry input, so we can understand industry needs and directions.

In my view, we also must have much better public input. We must articulate the needs to the

public and get their input, so they will be willing to support initiatives of this type.

Having been in this office now for about 9 months, I have observed that communicating with

industry is by far our easiest task. It is not difficult to get industry's views; industry is very

willing to provide input and in some cases can be very critical, as it should be. The bigger

challenges are the infrastructure issues within the government and how we go about making

the case to the public.

Question: How can we get the providers of capital more in sync with the needs, so that they

will provide capital for small manufacturing firms?

Answer: This is an interesting dilemma in the United States. We have the front end of

technology development covered, and we sort of have the back end covered; the problem in

venture capital today is the middle part of the process, which sometimes is very difficult to

get through. We have a rather good R&D infrastructure; we can develop technologies. The

issue then becomes how can I get that technology into a prototype that will attract the interest

of a venture capital firm? If you have a really good idea, then you can get venture capital.

But small entrepreneurs have a very difficult time finding enough capital to take this

intermediate step.

This issue was brought out in the debate on the Senate bill on competitiveness. Senator Jay

Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) has some ideas about how to do that. Some TRP and ATP

projects can get relatively close to a prototype that might attract venture capital. We need to

look at how we can provide incentives to get capital coverage of that intermediate gap.

132
Question: Is industrial policy still a dirty word? Can we have it without talking about it? If

we equate industrial policy to picking winners and losers, of course that's contrary to our

culture. The market should decide that. However, in the past, NSF always accepted

unsolicited proposals, and now more and more the government is asking people to respond to

focused programs. So can we equate industrial policy to being focused?

Answer: We still have to debate that question and articulate it better. Semantics can get you

into trouble. If you mention industrial policy, everyone always worries that we'll decide to

bail out of dying industries — their industries. My view is that government moves very

slowly, and there's not a lot you can do to change that. So we should look for opportunities to

make a difference 5 years from now, to change the paradigm. That's what is meant by

strategic issues. If you want to call that industrial policy, be my guest, but I don't.

We need to look for places where the government can provide some leverage, where funding

is difficult for industry to afford. Industry is moving along very well, spending a lot of money

in manufacturing. I'm really very optimistic. At the same time, we have to think about who

will develop emerging technologies that will be needed 5 years from now. We need to look at

the systems, identify the holes, and figure out where the government can make a major

difference. We need to make choices, because resources are limited. We can throw 5 percent

at each hole and accomplish nothing or look for major opportunities. Maybe half the projects

will fail, but if the other half hit, then the money will have been extraordinarily well spent.

133

DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Overview of Panel Objectives

Cynthia ArnoId-McKenna

AAAS Fellow

Office of Science and Technology Policy

When I came to Washington about 2 years ago, I had to resort to "covert" activity to get into

the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Under the strict interpretation of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, no industrial scientist could work in OSTP, even though

industrial advice was very much needed. So Dr. Allan Bromley, then director of OSTP, and

Ralph Gomory of the Sloan Foundation decided to set up a fellowship managed by the

American Association for the Advancement of Science, so industrial people could work in

OSTP on temporary assignments.

We have come a long way, because here we have a forum with an open dialogue involving

industry, government, and universities, where issues of interest to industry are right here on

the table.

So where do we go from here? We have listened to industry representatives talk about how

they put their road maps together. These are interesting and complex processes and represent

a great accomplishment in and of themselves. We also heard government participants talk

about the programs at some of the major Federal agencies. Now we must start trying to mesh

our interests together to establish a national policy. Mary Good indicated the role of the

National Science and Technology Council in doing that. But today we will hear from

panelists offering their perspectives on how industry, government, and universities can work

better together.

I appreciate the nature of this challenge, due not only to my background at OSTP, but also to

the perspective gained in my current position at General Electric Co. (GE). I recently joined

GE in a "business interface" capacity. GE established this position to ensure that GE's

research and development (R&D) activities are coordinated and timely and that the results get

back into the businesses — the plastics business, in my case. I have a counterpart in every

other major GE business, including lighting, appliances, and power generation systems. The

business interface folks talk to each other and share practices, coordinating across business

lines.

135
So our activities at GE are a sort of microcosm of what is happening at this conference. It's hard to find common ground. When I talk to my business interface counterpart at NBC (a

division of GE), he thinks a high-technology operation is getting a contract with Jay Leno. So

we're coming at this from different perspectives.

But there is a lot of common ground, and our objective here is to find it and leverage it. We

want recommendations on how all these organizations can work together more effectively,

and what steps should be taken to develop and execute a national agenda for advanced

manufacturing. Some of the challenges were identified at the earlier panel discussion:

determining the cross-industry needs, establishing national priorities for advanced

manufacturing technology, and matching government programs to industry needs. In this

session, we need to identify the R&D gaps and recommend strategies to address them.

136
Competitiveness Viewpoint

Erich Bloch

Distinguished Fellow

Council on Competitiveness

When I came into the room, one of my friends asked, "How is competitiveness?" And my

answer was very simple: "Not good, otherwise I would be out of a job." You hear too much

these days about how we have regained our previous status in technology and how our

problems are solved. I think this is far from the truth. I hope we're not falling back into old

habits but instead are continuing on the path to change.

I hope I can leave you with three thoughts, which I will summarize right now. The first one

is, our economic and policy environment ~ and with it research and development (R&D),

manufacturing, and marketing — is changing in a very fundamental way. These are major

changes, really paradigm shifts.

The second thought is that there is no silver bullet, no single action that will make everything

all right. We need to experiment. We're not starting with a clean sheet of paper; history

cannot be denied, but much has been learned in the past few years, and let's not ignore that.

My third thought is that putting strategies in place means more than just starting programs. A

four-pronged effort is needed in which we define the problem, design a strategy for solutions,

put a program in place for carrying out the strategy, and then measure the results. We're

pretty good, as a country, at starting programs and writing reports on strategies and things

like that. I suggest that we're very deficient in defining the problem and measuring results.

The first issue is our economic and policy environment, past and future. Containment has

been a basic principle around which we organized not only our Federal activities, but also

many of our private sector and academic activities. That is changing. Today our national

policies are based on economic competition and global markets.

Research priorities also are changing, from defense technologies to civilian technologies. And

our timetable is changing from a longer-term focus to shorter-term goals and objectives.

Instead of science and basic research, we're now focusing on science and technology,

particularly in the current Administration. Today you hear about strategic R&D, to the

discomfort of some people. But I applaud that particular change.

137
Our innovation model is changing. In both industry and government, things used to move in a

sequential way, from basic research to applied, from design to manufacturing to marketing.

Now these activities are all overlapping, they are occurring concurrently, and they are influencing each other in a significant way. Also, our R&D program used to be single-agency

driven and project oriented. Today, we have at least the beginnings of an interagency-driven

process and a programmatic orientation.

Meanwhile, our government laboratories are changing in a dramatic way, from an agency or mission focus to a national goals focus. This is a difficult transition but one with potentially

great benefits. There is also a change in the practice of R&D, from individual researchers to

teams, centers, and consortia. They all have a role to play in the spectrum of activities.

My second major thought is, there is no silver bullet. There are many avenues, approaches,

strategies, and programs. Of course, they all should have some common elements. They

should be cooperative efforts, and the participants should share in expenses and results. I don't

think current activities are measuring up to the needs. It is difficult for industry to go it alone.

Government programs speak to national needs and objectives, either directly or as parts of a

bigger program. We've seen many examples at this conference. But to be successful,

government, the private sector, and academia will have to collaborate more effectively than

they do now.

The grandfather of all cooperative efforts is in semiconductors, first with the Semiconductor

Research Corporation (SRC) and now with SEMATECH. It's interesting to note the reasons

behind both efforts. The SRC was established as an answer to Japanese competition.

SEMATECH was established because of the non-availability of important components for the

national defense. So one activity was tied to a threat to industry and the other to a threat to a

national imperative. We need a credible driving force. For 15 years, the semiconductor

industry has been at the forefront ofjoined R&D, strategizing, road mapping, and marrying

technology and trade. This is the one industry that has been able to carry out technology

programs and link them to trade policies and objectives.

There are newer examples: the "clean car" initiative, the American Textile Partnership, and

today's announcement in The New York Times of the government's pursuit of a flat-panel

display industry. Mary Good was asked if industrial policy is still a bad word. My answer is

yes, it's still a bad word, but at least you don't get fired for using it.

My third point concerns the need for a four-pronged effort. First we need to define the

problem. Too often, there is only a hazy understanding of what the effort is all about.

Defining the problem is especially important in multiparty undertakings. However, you don't

need to adhere rigidly to problem statements, once they are developed; new insights and new

results may suggest that an effort should be modified or discontinued.

138
The second step is to design a strategy for solutions. I want to emphasize the requirement for

identifying and benchmarking the competition in this step, both before and after the program.

I don't think we're doing enough of that, in either industry or government.

The third step concerns putting a program in place. Part of any program is a set of qualitative

and quantitative measurements. One needs to be clear on how to judge success, not only by

schedules, but also by measurable output. I think this is a problem with many programs.

SEMATECH, of which I think very highly, didn't define its goals clearly and early.

Therefore, views are divided as to whether it is a success or a failure.

Last, but not least, a "sunset" provision has to be part of any program. We have a cultural

problem: we can start programs but never end them. Just this morning, I rode down New

Hampshire Avenue and saw a brownstone mansion with a neatly polished brass plaque that

read "Association of Colonial Dames." That's an example of an organization that cannot turn

itself off.

All of this requires a retWnking of problems and issues we thought we understood at one

time. It certainly requires a rethinking of the relationship between industry and government

and between academia and industry, on an international scale. We need to experiment to find

out what works, and we need to have patience and consistency. The world was not made in 7

days, but we're capable of destroying it in less time than that. At a minimum, we need to be

realistic about what we can achieve, and we need to measure the results.

139

National Labs Perspective

Jeffrey Bostock

Vice President

Martin Marietta Energy Systems

It's encouraging to see so many people dedicated to improving economic competitiveness and

national security through manufacturing. There truly is a revolution underway in

manufacturing. I am sure you are all as frustrated as I am at the report that the United States

is evolving into a service economy. We all know that is not true. According to the National

Association of Manufacturing, almost three-quarters of all U.S. research and development

(R&D) is carried out in manufacturing firms, and U.S manufacturing exports doubled between

1986 and 1991. A dollar increase in manufacturing output generates $2.30 in output in the

rest of the economy, compared to $1.60 for the service economy.

I will describe the Department of Energy (DOE) draft criteria for selecting major R&D

programs, some examples of existing programs, and finally a few specific recommendations

for improving our ability to identify and deploy technology.

This should not be thought of as a process of picking winners and losers. As Katherine

Gillman of the Office of Science and Technology Policy said recently, why would anyone

want to pick losers? We are all recipients of these major R&D programs, either directly or

indirectly, assuming the programs are selected correctly, because the resulting technologies

will fuel the economic engine. Of course, that assumes the fuel will get to the engine, and

that's a question of deployment.

It's important to emphasize deployment. Often the R&D is excellent but the results languish,

for a whole litany of reasons. We have to learn how to disseminate product and process

technology across industries. Bridging the gap between ideas and products is vital if we are to

be successful.

The DOE's draft criteria for choosing major partnerships are consistent with the comments

Mary Good just made. First, there must be high-level, dedicated industry and laboratory

leadership with a clear vision. As followers in the re-engineering and total quality movement

know, senior leadership involvement increases the probability of success; multiple leaders

with a common vision almost guarantee it!

The second criterion is a focus on long-term, high-risk programs. This means programs that

require government involvement, because otherwise the investment will not be made, at least

141
not in a timely fashion. Either the project risk is too high or the marginal rate of return too

low for industry to handle alone. Government resources can be used to mitigate the risk; after

all, taxpayers already have paid for this.

Third, we look at the potential for major economic impact. The focus on dual-benefit

applications that improve both economic and national security is essential in today's world,

and certainly at DOE, where we have limited R&D dollars. Many agencies have defined

critical materials — product technologies that are seriously affected by imports. It is clear that

we can add high-quality jobs in critical industry segments if we focus resources around a

strong leadership commitment from industry.

Finally, technology road maps are essential. Road maps for electronics, textiles, automobiles,

and the food industry have been discussed at length at this conference. We must find ways to

expedite the road-mapping process so we can use our limited resources effectively. The

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) road map is the model. Road mapping must be

industry led, with broad participation from the affected sector. A good road map is an

articulation of the leadership's vision and how to get there.

There are a number of examples of existing national programs that are good lessons. The SIA

effort, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), the flat-panel display

initiative, the American Textile Partnership, and the National Machine Tool Partnerships are

all good examples. Many of the lessons learned with semiconductors are being incorporated

into the PNGV.

Now for a few recommendations, or thoughts. First, we must learn to work together more as a

team. Collaboration is a very effective approach to achieving quality results fast with limited

dollars. We must be able to form strategic alliances quickly. We should exchange personnel

as much as possible. Many organizations should consider sending fewer people to

Washington, DC and more to trade associations and independent organizations working to

support and respond to industry needs. On the other hand, industry should send people to the

national labs and the manufacturing user centers.

Second, we need a well-defined commercialization plan for technology. Rapid deployment of

ideas is essential; we must expedite the movement of technology into products and processes

and then use the successes as benchmarks. The example of the four-minute mile still holds

true today: It's easier to perform very difficult tasks when you have a successful model to use

as a benchmark.

Third, success should be measured by more than process metrics, by numbers of cooperative

agreements, for example, or the amount of repeat business with a particular company. We

also should measure global market growth and specific benefits to the private sector. The

142
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Oak Ridge Center for Manufacturing

Technology are examples of programs where private-sector benefits clearly are measured.

Finally, let's be sure to balance our efforts and our policies among three components: R&D,

deployment of technology to the approximately 360,000 small and medium-sized

manufacturers, and education.

143

Electronics Industry Perspective

Herm Reininga

Vice President, Operations

Collins Avionics and Communications Division

Rockwell International

Many of you can remember when the Department of Defense (DOD) considered $100 million

a lot to spend on manufacturing. We were pushed off to the side. To have DOD spend $1

billion on manufacturing is really exciting. We're seeing many changes in our environment,

throughout the world and especially in the DOD electronics industry.

With the uncertainties we face in electronics, it's difficult to focus on the future. We see that

our volumes are decreasing and the government electronics market is downsizing. The total

market for electronics is increasing, from $650 billion in 1992 to a projected $1.2 trillion in

2002, but the defense portion is dropping from 20 percent to 7 percent. Meanwhile,

technology continues to advance at an ever-increasing rate.

We have made some progress through the programs that have been discussed at this

conference. The focused industry/DOD workshops have been successful, the surveys have

been successful, and we have numerous centers of excellence now. The joint associations and

services projects are showing some real success. There is an old saying out West that you

should "scout before you send out the wagons." I think we've scouted a lot, and it's about

time for us to get on with some real streamlining activities.

Both the commercial electronics industry and DOD require state-of-the-art electronics. Design

activities for manufacturability have to start up front. Manufacturability, producibility, and

supportability are determined during basic design activities. We need to understand the rules.

Engineering has to start producing designs for manufacturing, and manufacturing has to start

telling engineering about the characterizations of their processes so they can design

accordingly. We need, for example, improved characterization of materials used in

components, and we need to give engineering the results without stifling their creativity. We

don't do this well today. We keep telling engineering, "Design something I can use, but I'm

not going tell you what you've got to work with."

The forces affecting the electronic industry are about the same as those at work throughout

the manufacturing sector. We look at infrastructure, affordability, automation, and technology.

With respect to infrastructure, there is a lot of discussion about small, focused, self-sustaining

business teams, sometimes referred to as high-commitment teams, high-performance work

145
systems, or self-directed teams. If we continue to rely on our old paradigms and our old way

of doing business, then it will be like trying to put lipstick on a pig. You may get it on, but

you may not want to kiss it. It is important to use all employees to their fullest.

Companies are trying to form coalitions. On one hand, we are competitors fighting to get

some business. On the other, we're collaborating on one program and trying to move from a

competitive to a collaborative environment. Also, world-class companies need world-class

workers. I think we have world-class universities in the United States, but our K-12 and

technical schools have not done a world-class job of keeping their students up to date. The

government needs to help in this area by establishing curricula for our technical schools and

even high-school students.

I recently visited England, and in reviewing the Magna Charta I couldn't help but think that

the feudal system of that time resembles how I treat my suppliers today. I don't let them live,

but I sure don't want them to die. So I really have to examine that issue and start getting our

suppliers integrated into our process. They must be part of our design team, part of our

process characterization. We need to work toward becoming a virtual enterprise.

With respect to affordability, this is the only thing that will save your bacon today.

Technology is a way to develop and exploit affordability. The lean electronics approach is a

way to make a difference. The agile activities look a little further out, and they give us a

basis for expanding our current processes. The dual-use studies of the last couple of years

have been pathfinder projects; each one give us a direction to follow. This is not an exact

science, but it gives us a direction.

Overhead costs are really driving our activities. We're going into a period where we'll design

a lot and produce a little, so we'll need help from our accountants. We haven't talked about

them much, but we need their help to understand our costs and identify wastes so they can be

eliminated. The new technology that enables us to communicate with one another will allow

us to have a much flatter infrastructure than we've had in the past. Streamlining will be

essential.

Automation depends on process technology we're just starting to understand. Now we can get

equipment that tells us what to do, measures the operation of components, and determines

whether they worked. This gives us opportunities to improve our process continuously as we

goBut we haven't given the engineers everything they need for designing. We've given them

lists of parts, but we also need to give them the characteristics of those parts. We have the

ability to do that but have not done it. We also need open systems ~ seamless interoperability

of our computer-aided design and engineering and our information systems. We need

continuous, pioneering improvement.

146
The electronics industry changes engineering technology every 2 or 3 years, so we really have

to pay attention to our emerging technologies and characterize the critical requirements. That

doesn't mean we have to develop process technology down to the lowest level for an

emerging product, but we at least need to characterize the critical characteristics. Concurrence

is needed.

Simulation will be the key. I've been a proponent of simulation for a number of years,

because it is a way we can understand our process and develop strategies to focus on various

areas of the life cycle of our product. We have said that getting government, industry, and

academia to work together is probably like herding cats - I don't know if you can do it, but

we need to figure out how, and do it.

I want to touch briefly on several other areas. The industry task force of the Defense

Manufacturing Council is working on a number of projects. The council supports all DOD

agencies and services, industry associations, and industry. It would be wonderful to have an

interagency review of key technology projects to eliminate the duplication. I think the

program looks better on paper than it is in reality. But there are a lot of areas where industry

and DOD could work well together as a team.

I think the Industrial Modernization Incentive Program (IMP) was excellent in some respects.

It also had a lot of faults and I had no qualms about it being canceled. But that type of

incentive still is required by industry. The Defense Manufacturing Council could be the

vehicle for speeding development of IMP technology and matching the Federal funding

available for 1995. I also think working groups need to be established in industry, academia,

and government to develop the technology list. The tools are available, but coordination is

required in the process area to develop them into a national activity.

Finally, we need to expand automation and eliminate waste in the electronics industry. The

DOD has acted as a catalyst for new technologies to ensure affordability and producibility.

Academia also must change and help apply technology to reduce irifrastructure costs. The

Advanced Technology Program, the Technology Reinvestment Project, and Mantech all

provide incentives for experts in different areas to really work together. If a forum can be

developed for a common, coordinated, and waste-free approach in the manufacturing

technology area, then revolutionary ideas will be a reality rather than merely science fiction.

147

Small Business Viewpoint

Daniel Koenig

Vice President for Manufacturing

Steinway and Sons

I have the unenviable task of summarizing the viewpoint of 95 percent of U.S. manufacturing

businesses in 15 minutes — and to do it in some coherent fashion, and to come up with

recommendations on how to help that sector partake in industry-government partnerships

developing new technology. I will give it a try.

I spent a good deal of my career with General Electric Co. (GE), a very large company,

before moving over to Steinway and Sons. Also, for the past 4 years I have served on the

Board of Directors for the Industrial Technology Assistance Corporation (ITAC), a not-forprofit group of manufacturing businesses in the New York City area. Steinway is the largest

employer in that group, with 250 workers. Most members of that group have 25 to 50

workers.

The typical small manufacturer is an entrepreneur who is interested in making an honest

living, providing jobs for other people in the community, and trying to raise a family and be a

good citizen. They don't get involved much in the theoretical aspects of manufacturing. In

fact, they don't really get involved in anything much beyond what's necessary to stay in

business.

There are different types of small businesses. The most familiar type is the spinoff from a

large corporation, where some very bright technical people decided they could build a better

ashtray and went out and did it, because their employer had no interest in the project. These

people bring very high levels of technical competence to the marketplace. But that's probably

an aberration rather than the norm for small businesses.

Small firms are mostly oblivious to government technology development. Small businesses

also are very independent; they are not joiners. We have 17,000 small businesses in the City

of New York, and our total membership in ITAC is something like 368. So we have not even

begun to solve the problem of getting small business to be world class.

Is it necessary for small businesses to be world class, or is it sufficient for them to just be

productive enough to stay in business? From the macroeconomic viewpoint, we would say,

yes, they have to be world class if we in the United States are going to be leaders in business

149
and industry in the future, because small businesses make up the vast majority of industry in

our country.

But most small companies are "status quo" users of technology. They take little initiative,

mainly because they can't afford it. Their resources are scarce and they have cash flow

problems. They worry about meeting payroll and paying the bills, because they don't have the

credit reputation, staying power, or influence of, say, GE. Most small businesses, therefore,

look strictly at how they can create profits in the short term, giving little thought to long-term

capabilities or needs. They typically are not tapped into information networks, unless it is

related to their business and they see it as a means of creating wealth in the short term.

While there are some very bright, capable people in small business, we have to recognize that

this veneer is very thin. It's usually one or two persons deep, and they are engaged 150

percent in running their businesses and providing their products. They don't have much time

to think about the nuances of improving technology in their company. So they are pragmatists. They believe in the good old-fashioned American philosophy of pragmatism.

Small business can't afford to pioneer technologies, unless that is their business. They are too

busy trying to make a profit. There is no depth of talent available to permit the small business

owner to say, "I'll assign Joe to do this, and I'll pay him for the next year and a half even

though he's not making money for me."

Small businesses usually are more successful with tried-and-true technology. To give you an

example, lots of small machine shops use computer numerically controlled machine tools, and

they use them very successfully. But how many really think about computer-integrated

manufacturing? Most don't even know what it means. And unless they see it as a way of

making a buck tomorrow, they are not interested ~ they can't be interested, they can't afford

it. This may be myopic, but urifortunately it is how they think.

If we're going to create a dialogue between small businesses and the government on the topic

of technology needs, the government must find a way to become more customer oriented. We

see that already in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). We also need to show

that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between implementation of new technology

and profitability ~ that the status quo isn't good enough. There aren't too many successful

buggy whip makers left in this world. But that was a big industry back in 1875, and those

people probably didn't think much about the future, either.

How do we get small businesses away from the daily grind, to do a little a forward tliinking?

Small businesses are not very good at creating strategic plans and business plans,

understanding processes and value, and understanding what technologies are complementary

to theirs and what the marketplace is doing. That's why so many small businesses fail. We

need to find ways to get small businesses to do the types of things we take for granted in

150
large corporations. Otherwise, few small businesses will grow into big businesses, and a lot of

good ideas may never gel.

How do we get small business into the dialogue involving government, academia, and big

businesses concerning where our technology thrusts should be. I think the only practical way

to do that is through the MEP and its affiliates -- the ITACs of the world. We have to find

ways to provide small companies with the capabilities of larger companies. We have to

improve their planning, implementation skills, and identification-of-opportunity skills.

Someone said earlier that, perhaps, in the next century, 1 percent of the population will

provide all U.S. manufacturing products, and the rest of us will be wealthy enough to play

golf and go fishing every day. Well, if that's true then a lot of small businesses will have to

become very, very successful, because it won't happen with big corporations, which do not

have the most dynamic and entrepreneurial spirit.

We should use the model of the American farmer and the agricultural extension agent. We

need government initiatives, and I think MEP is one, to fund nonprofit organizations to help

businesses in New York, Chicago, and anywhere else. These nonprofits should serve as the

technical equivalents of the agricultural extension agent, to help small businesses develop

these skills and emulate what big businesses can do.

Perhaps the technologies most needed by small business are the software and programming

capabilities to make it easy to do strategic and business planning and to implement production

control and simulation technologies. Small businesses need to be able to do these things

without great consternation, and without losing money while preoccupied in developing new

technology.

We also need to create awareness of the potential benefits of technology. We need to help

small businesses see that there has to be government-industry partnership if the United States

is to have a growing economy and a good standard of living ~ and that they have to

participate in this partnership.

151

Interagency Perspective

Joseph Bordogna

Assistant Director for Engineering

National Science Foundation

The program says we should "find ways of improving how industry and government jointly

identify specific technologies that should receive future emphasis." To revise that statement a

little, perhaps we ought to identify the technology that supports national programs that we

jointly define in areas of need.

Someone in the audience suggested that a high-level entity in the government should

coordinate agency activities and oversee a national interagency effort, with industry an

intimate member of the team. Well, there is such an entity. Actually, there have been two

Federal groups. The old one was the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering,

and Technology (FCCSET), the interagency coalition from the previous Administration. The

FCCSET identified programs that are continuing, one of which is in manufacturing. The new

group is the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which is similar to FCCSET

but more action oriented, more industry sector-specific oriented.

The basic precept of NSTC regarding industry-government interaction is that government

should respond to industry needs. Also, someone suggested that we invert our original

approach so that government programs are designed to match industry needs and industry is a

party to program conceptualization, all within an envelope of national need. That is how we

do it, although this can be an arduously slow process. And all this is energized by

government acting as a catalyst for investment of public funds in high-risk partnerships.

Others have explained where the government funds go.

So government should do four things: respond to industry needs, make sure industry is

involved up front with conceptualization, pursue projects in keeping with national needs (we

can't do it ad hoc because of agency mission interests), and catalyze the process to make sure public investment is made in the high-risk end. I will discuss the interagency efforts and the

issue of getting industry involved up front.

There is a Federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that says industry can't be

involved up front. I was asked to chair the FCCSET Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Working Group when I first came to the National Science Foundation (NSF) a couple of

years ago, and, being naive then about government protocol but having worked in industry, I was chairing the first couple of meetings with 20 great people around the table. These are

153
government people who are smart, well versed in what's going on, and know a lot about what

industry needs. Two questions went through my mind that I was afraid to ask. One was, how

many people around this table ever actually made anything? It turned out some had, so that

made me comfortable. The other question was, why isn't industry represented at the table? I didn't know about the Federal law at that point. But I finally spoke up and the problem was

explained to me.

So we began looking for ways to get industry people involved. Cynthia Arnold-McKenna is

one of them. Then we went looking for someone else and found Stan Settles, who had a 30-

year career in manufacturing. We hired him at NSF and detailed him over to the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to work on the manufacturing initiative. Then we

went out and talked to some industry people. We connected with Jack Simon of General

Motors, who brought a variety of industry organizations together to work with us in

developing the plan for advanced manufacturing technology. We had good industry

interaction; we had a couple of meetings with 50 people and also workshops. But industry

still was not involved at the front end.

What is happening now with industry involvement is really different, perhaps the ultimate

experiment ~ to create a joint government-industry committee to pursue implementation of a

common project. The NSTC Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is an

example of the new approach. Some may argue about whether improving cars is a national

need, but there certainly is a need to experiment with PNGV-like committees. Industry input

is obtained at the front end with that group, and project conceptualization is truly a joint

effort. To me, this is a hard experiment that's fresh and mind boggling, a true partnership.

The PNGV team includes seven agencies ~ those involved in the Technology Reinvestment

Project (TRP) plus the Environmental Protection Agency. The TRP group has worked

together closely for a long time, so there is a lot of trust already developed for the PNGV

task. The three major car companies are involved, plus connections to supplier chains, so

small business is in there too. Thus, there is a richness in the vehicle group, with seven

agencies, major companies, and the supplier chain.

The PNGV started out as a "clean car" project, to make a car that is less polluting than are today's models. Supercar was another name for it, for those worried about energy efficiency.

Still others liked the name AmeriCar, because they wanted to see American cars make a

comeback. Eventually it turned into a Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which is

a much broader concept. The car will be safer, better, cleaner, and more energy efficient ~ all

those things.

There is also an NSTC electronics initiative. Now, there aren't three major companies in

electronics as there are in the automobile industry. Thus, we see that each industry sector

needs a different approach; for example, getting the electronics industry "team" involved at

154
the front end is a bit more complicated than it is with the auto industry. With the electronics

committee, a lot of companies come in and out of the meetings. It isn't clear yet exactly how

to get that up-front input.

Another theme running through all these meetings, more so than with FCCSET, is

simultaneous movement toward creating wealth while protecting the environment. The

environmental technologies committee is an example. We want to get into environmental

technologies because we need them in order to be cleaner in manufacturing, in cars, and so

on. The overarching goal is a cleaner environment, but if you develop these technologies well

then you also can create wealth by integrating them into the industrial enterprise. The

government perhaps can act in synergy with the environmental technologies industry and help

foster wealth creation, not only domestically, but also abroad, because the technologies can be

exported.

The NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) held a forum focusing

on environmental issues and needs. The CENR had reached a certain point in building a draft

strategy where it was decided to invite selected groups of people ~ big companies, small

companies, technology experts, academics, and environmentalists ~ to spend several days

talking to each other. This is another way of getting industrial practitioners involved in

conceptualizing government programs.

Finally, we have the manufacturing infrastructure committee, which has working groups

active in five areas that define the elements of next-generation manufacturing systems:

manufacturing systems, engineering tools for design and manufacturing, manufacturing

processes and equipment, manufacturing education and training, and manufacturing

technology deployment. To obtain industry input up front, the committee is getting the private

sector involved with the five working groups as they develop White Papers to establish

technology opportunities and link them with industrial need.

To summarize, the government mixes with industry in different ways. There is no one way to

do this. The selection of the approach is driven partly by the nature of the industry sector

involved. We've never done this before, and there are both soft and hard experiments going

on that we must examine carefully and learn from.

In closing, I want to discuss the idea of a virtual agency. The TRP is a great example of a

virtual agency. That program was invented by five agencies because the Congress mandated

some action in this area. There were nine different mandated programs, which eventually

were folded into three: manufacturing technology development, deployment, and

manufacturing engineering education. The individuals developing the TRP got together at

least one full day a week, sometimes two, to put it together quickly.

155
The initial response was that each agency should take a piece of the $500 million and pursue

projects in their respective areas of expertise. That might have happened, were it not for the

leadership of the head of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), who

recommended an integrated program. His idea was, here is our chance to really do some

defense conversion, and to have the program defined by the marketplace through meritreviewed competitive proposals.

That was an intense experience in which no Federal official actually worked for or was paid

by the TRP. We all went back to our agencies to get our salaries. There was no permanent

TRP staff; we used our regular agency staffs. The idea of a virtual entity is to bring groups

together to attack a problem or an opportunity and, when it's done, you go back to where you

came from.

Now, there were driving forces. The President wanted this project launched; this

Administration thought it was important. That leadership motivated everyone to do the TRP

work ~ not the promise of a piece of the $500 million for your agency. And trust developed

over time, because the experience was so intense.

It was extraordinary to have a virtual agency with a $500 million budget, the goodwill of

ARPA (whose money it was, in essence), and an interagency group that reached a consensus

about how it would be invested. But it worked out that way. The announcement was written,

the solicitation written, the proposals received, and the proposals reviewed. There were 300

reviewers, all of whom carried out their task at the end of August, peak vacation time around

here. My perspective was that, at every step along the way, everyone said a virtual agency

couldn't function, but it happened, and now there is precedent for having a budget for a group

of agencies in a virtual sense.

156
Office of Science and Technology Policy Viewpoint

Katherine Gillman

Special Assistant for Defense Conversion

Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) coordinates technology and science

policies both across the Federal Government and with industry, universities, and research

institutions outside the government. We're working hard to put all these parts together into a

whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. The President has given OSTP's National

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) the charge to coordinate all research and

development (R&D) and other science and technology activities throughout the Federal

Government.

Unlike its predecessor (the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and

Technology), the NSTC has the President as chairman. Jack Gibbons, the President's science

advisor, is the operational head. The NSTC has real authority; we give strategic guidance to

the agencies on their science and technology investments and work with the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to set budget priorities in R&D. Giving budget guidance

makes our job practical and real. We don't get down to the line items in the budget; that's the

work of OMB. But we do work with OMB to say to agencies, "These are priorities you

should attend to as you plan your detailed budgets."

There are nine committees of the NSTC, and they will be advised formally by a group of

distinguished citizens from industry, universities, and so on, the President's Council of

Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). That council will be announced soon. That is

a very high-level, formal advisory council to the President.

That is only the beginning of our interaction with industry and others outside the government.

Every one of the nine NSTC committees interacts with industry on at least an informal basis.

We don't yet have formal advisory groups for all of these committees, but we interact all the

time; industry is very ready to give us advice on where our priorities ought to be.

I am most familiar with Committee on Civilian Industrial Technology. That's the committee

most closely related to manufacturing, although some other committees have manufacturing

activities. For example, the transportation committee has an aeronautics subcommittee

concerned with aircraft manufacturing.

157
We approach manufacturing in two ways. One is through sector-specific projects. Certain

manufacturing technologies are not broadly applicable but are very specific to a particular

cluster of industries. For example, the technologies needed for wafer fabrication in

semiconductors are different from those needed for welding on a ship. With the help of

formal and informal input from industries, we have chosen or are developing three highpriority initiatives: the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, the national electronics

manufacturing initiative, and a new initiative in technologies for building and construction.

None of these activities is meant to go on forever; they have milestones, schedules, and

deliverables, and they are intended to end after they accomplish their goals. Then I'm sure

we'll have other priorities to pursue.

In the electronics manufacturing initiative, members of our interagency team have told the

manufacturers of systems, telecommunications equipment, computers, workstations, and so on:

"We are interested in working with you, if you're interested in working with us on the

manufacturing process technologies and component technologies you will need to make

products that will have access to the National Information Infrastructure." Here we are building an electronic superhighway. Do we want the vehicles that run on that highway to be

built someplace else or in the United States? We believe there is a national interest in making

them in the United States, and industry agrees.

We are trying to develop a set of priorities for manufacturing process technologies in

electronics, and that means working with the equipment and material suppliers for electronics

systems makers. We're working with the industry to identify the priorities for a governmentindustry partnership. These are the projects that single firms are unlikely to pursue alone,

because the potential benefits, while substantial, would be spread widely rather than captured

by the individual firm making the investment.

There are projects like this in the automobile industry, too, and certainly in building and

construction, where there is hardly any R&D because single firms are unlikely to pursue it. This is a very dispersed industry. For a single project, a temporary team is formed combining

various professions: architects, engineers, builders, suppliers, and so forth. When the project is

over, the team splits up. It is very difficult to get R&D going on new technologies in such a

fluid, disaggregated industry. This is exactly the type of situation where government

leadership and partnership can make a difference.

The other way the NSTC addresses manufacturing is through projects focusing on more

generic technologies. The subcommittee that Joe Bordogna chairs is looking at developing

standards and interfaces for electronic communication within and among manufacturing

companies. In addition, we want to develop "intelligent" controllers, sensors, and actuators.

And we also are focusing on rapid prototyping (both virtual and real) and many aspects of

agile manufacturing, as well as the important areas of manufacturing extension services and

158
manufacturing engineering education and training. These technology areas have very broad

applicability to many kinds of industries. Infrastructure-related technologies are also the types

of things that lend themselves to government-industry partnerships.

There are all kinds of other projects going on as well. This government really is committed to

listening to industry and making things happen. The Semiconductor Industry Association

(SIA) road map is a model, and there are at least two new initiatives in this Administration

that are direct results of listening to the SIA talk about their priorities. One is the new

metrology center for microelectronics, recently established at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology. Some $10 million has been requested for the center, and the

budget is expected to grow to $25 million.

The second initiative to come out of the SIA interaction is the Department of Energy (DOE)

modeling and simulation center for semiconductors. That's a $100 million program over 5

years, with half to come from the government and half from the industry. The Semiconductor

Research Corporation is working on a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

with DOE, which has committed to its half of the $50 million government share over 5 years.

That will be a very productive use of the exceptional capabilities of the national laboratories

for modeling and simulation.

Another very intense interagency effort that has been responsive to industry needs is the FlatPanel Display Consortium, which has been working under the sponsorship of the Advanced

Research and Projects Agency. Under this initiative the government will offer R&D

partnerships to companies committed to commercial production of flat-panel displays, thus

assuring that the R&D finds practical application. If this initiative helps build a U.S. industry,

then the Department of Defense will be assured of a reliable, affordable supply of flat-panel

displays to meet its needs.

I think you'll find an openness in this Administration. One of the semiconductor industry

associations met here in March, and Vice President Albert Gore Jr. came to tell them that this

is a new era, that we're listening to industry, and we want to work together with industry. The

San Jose Mercury News, which is almost the trade publication of the SIA, reported that this

attitude really is new, saying the industry never used to be able to get in the door and now

the government is welcoming it with open arms.

Yet it is also true that the government research agenda is not being dictated by industry.

There are things the government should do that are very important to industry and to the

future but may not be on industry's road map now. It is the responsibility of government to

look further ahead, to look for paradigm changes, for breakthroughs, for revolutionary

changes in technology that are not supported adequately by industry. These things may not be

on an industry road map, which may focus on the nearer term.

159
Still, there are many rich possibilities for cooperation on the road maps that industries are developing. I don't think we have to worry about running out of opportunities for cooperation

and for aligning industry needs with opportunities for the government.

160
National Science and Engineering Perspective

Tom Mahoney

Director, Manufacturing Sciences Board

National Research Council

I have a few concerns about what has been said at this conference. My first point is that

government-industry collaboration is politically correct, and most of the programs that have

been described are of this nature. But just because there is collaboration doesn't mean success

is guaranteed. Erich Bloch emphasized that we need metrics, goals, and objectives — a basis

for judging whether something works or doesn't. I think it needs to be politically acceptable

for as many of these programs as is relevant to fail, and we need to be prepared to try

something different if they do fail. It's not clear to me that those metrics are in place, or that

there is any sense of learning from experience as we go along. We're in a start-up mode, and

this is the time to think about metrics.

Secondly, the point has been made about setting program priorities, which is where industry

collaboration comes in. My concern relates to the need to get government assistance to as many companies as possible, and that implies a need to focus on generic kinds of

technologies. So the traditional role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) — working with the community to develop standards, testing methods, and metrology — needs to continue, because that role affects just about everyone.

Another generic area is process equipment. We heard that the food and textile industries use

foreign process equipment. So, as we put money into research and development (R&D) and

develop technologies that would be incorporated into process equipment, but there are no U.S.

companies that make such equipment, what will we do with the technology? Will we invite

foreign process equipment makers into the operation? Will we establish new process

equipment companies?

To further emphasize that point, we heard that the National Center for Manufacturing

Sciences (NCMS) was created in part out of concern for the U.S. machine tool industry, but

the NCMS then drifted away from machine tools. And in fact, the U.S. machine tool industry

probably has gotten weaker over the past decade. At some point, we need to face up to that

problem, as we did with semiconductors, where SEMATECH was formed partly in response

to the plight of the semiconductor process equipment industry.

My third point relates to skills and people. Several speakers have commented on K-12

education and discussed the need for (and some experiments in) changing engineering

161
education. But for the most part, "people issues" have not been raised at this conference.

There are many, many problems in education and training and in developing the requisite

manufacturing skills, both at the shop-floor and the engineering levels. We still have a

problem in that manufacturing is not a particularly attractive field to engineers. It doesn't

attract the best and brightest.

Many of the needs are very basic. I know a man in Chicago who owns a small machine shop

with about 50 employees. Within that 50-person work force there are eight ethnic groups and

eight different languages; the largest group is 18 workers who speak Vietnamese. My friend

and his partner were trying to implement some of the principles of lean production and

empowered workers, but having eight different languages on the shop floor made that process

very difficult. In the end, they used a State of Illinois program to help bring English-language

training to the work force. My friend has made some progress, but he still has a long way to

go. That's the level of the problems requiring attention in the typical manufacturing work

force.

Fourth, we haven't heard much at this conference about lean manufacturing, the term for the

Toyota production system used by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) team in

the book The Machine that Changed the World) We have heard a lot about agility and agile

manufacturing, which tends to be more of an information system-driven paradigm. As you

know, lean production involves continuous improvement and an empowered work force ~ the

building of a learning organization that includes not only the single-customer enterprise, but

also customer-supplier relationships. In some cases, these relationships are based on major

corporations dumping major money into technology. I don't believe that technology is a

panacea; you can't use technology to leapfrog ahead of what you might achieve through lean

production principles. But if you have applied lean production principles, then technology will

be much more effective.

The point is, I haven't resolved in my own mind whether the government should play a role

in spreading the tenets of lean production over other kinds of technology deployment. My

general sense is that the government probably can help in this area, because there are costfree ways to implement statistical process control, mistake proofing, and other things the MIT

team writes about. Small companies can learn these things fairly easily; no investment is

required and the results are evident quickly.

This leads to my fifth point about building an infrastructure for industrial assistance and

deployment. This can't be a passing fad. Once we start building industrial assistance centers, or manufacturing technology centers, we have to keep them going. These centers are unlikely

1 Womack, J.P. 1990. The Machine that Changed the World: Based on the MIT 5-milliondollar 5-year study on the future of the Automobile. New York: Rawson Associates. 323 p.

162
to become self-sufficient based on the revenue they can generate from customer companies.

So there needs to be a commitment from both government and industry that the resources will

stay in place, assuming the effectiveness of these programs is established and documented.

The Manufacturing Studies Board recently carried out a project for NIST that reviewed the

Manufacturing Technology Centers (MTCs). The review committee talked to small and

medium-sized manufacturers to get some sense of whether the MTCs and similar programs

were providing the needed services. In general, the answer was yes. The committee did make

some recommendations concerning the need to allow MTCs and other such programs some

flexibility, so they could respond to the changing needs of the local industrial community.

These programs are not amenable to a cookie-cutter approach, and we need to keep that in

mind.

I also want to raise a question. To what extent is there a mismatch between the technology

and R&D capabilities and interests in government and academic labs, and the real technology

and R&D needs of industry? The reason I ask is, the government labs are very high

technology, and academics like to do cutting-edge research. But industry often needs mundane

types of technologies and improvements. The issue of legacy systems has been mentioned.

There is a lot of technology out there, and there is no clear strategy for making the transition

to the next best thing.

How do you capture a factory's mundane, basic data in a digital form so as to take advantage

of the information systems that agile manufacturing requires? Who will do the research to

help us understand basic shop-floor processes so that we know what types of technology to

apply? If we don't understand the process, then we don't know, for example, where to install sensors to improve process control. I fear that too little of that type of basic research is going

on.

My last point echoes earlier comments about small companies. There is a general euphoria

about the government getting involved in manufacturing R&D, but we are relying on a "field

of dreams" approach: That is, if government builds the program, then companies will come.

This approach may not work for the hundreds of thousands of companies beneath the thin

veneer of industry leaders that are applying lean production principles and advanced

manufacturing technologies. The companies underneath don't know about the government

R&D and technology deployment programs or what improvements are needed on the shop

floor. Their interaction with government comes in the form of taxes, regulation, and poorly

provided services. What needs to be done to pull those companies into the process? I don't

have the answer.

163
13)i
Panel Discussion

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna: I think we all agree on our future direction, and we've heard a

lot about how we're trying to get there. This panel is charged with making recommendations

for improving the way industry, government, and universities jointly identify specific

technologies that should receive future emphasis. Again, we're talking about specific

technologies.

Tom Mahoney did a good job of laying out a lot of issues and concerns we have to deal with.

He mentioned areas such as metrics and performance evaluation; how do we establish these

criteria? And what should we do about process equipment industries, a large part of which

seems to have moved overseas; the skills and training of our people; and the match or mismatch between the government labs and industry research and development (R&D)

capabilities? And, if you want to get beyond technology, there are questions of export control,

tax policy, and education and training. So there are a lot of issues floating out there as we

think about how to move forward.

I'd like us to think about identifying cross-industry needs, deciding which technologies to

focus on, establishing national priorities, and matching government programs to industry

needs. I think we have a consensus that we need to identify the R&D gaps and recommend

new strategies. I'd like to open up the floor for discussion of what's working, what we could

do more of, what we could do better, what we could do differently, and what we should not

do again.

YuBao Chen, University of Michigan, Dearborn: I was pleased to hear the last speaker

address the problem of education. We have world-class universities in the United States but

we do not yet have world-class maniifacturing education programs in universities. I hope we

make an effort to match educational programs to industry needs and government programs.

we're doing something in this area at the University of Michigan, Dearborn. For the last 2

years, we have been trying to create new programs. We have a lot of engineering programs in

manufacturing. Just a few weeks ago, this proposal was passed unanimously by the faculty

governing body. But the response from the university administration was, "The program is

great, but we have zero budget for it."

I want to call upon industry and the government to take a more aggressive, positive position

in improving manufacturing education, especially in higher education.

Kitty Gillman: I would like to make one observation about that, which is that the

Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) does have money for manufacturmg/engmeering

education and training that has gone to some very creative projects. I agree that we need

165
much more emphasis on that. There are some really creative projects, some involving

teaching graduate students computer modeling and simulation. Another award went to Project

Focus Hope in Detroit, which teaches people to be technicians and puts a lot of emphasis on

recruiting minorities and women. So education is not neglected entirely in government

programs. It's really very important.

Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Secretary of Education Richard Riley are extremely

interested in setting up school-to-work transition programs, which would include

manufacturing education. The effort hasn't paid off yet, but they are very interested in doing

that kind of thing.

Joe Bordogna: I am going to make a comment that will cause you great discomfort, I'm

afraid. And that is, in developing this new program for which you have a passion, the strategy

has to address what existing programs will be shut down or changed. So if manufacturing

education is very important to the faculty, and it's going to make Dearborn great, and it's a

service to the public ~ not just government or industry ~ then you are going to have to say,

"This is what we have to spend our money on." And I think it would be great if we start to

develop new programs for which we're going to ask the government for additional money. I think the government would respond very well. Kitty Gillman mentioned one way this can be

done: Do something exciting and new that addresses national priorities.

Dan Koenig: I think you have to start earlier than the doctoral program in manufacturing.

You have to start back in the K- 12 system. We definitely need to do something about math

and science education in the United States to make ourselves more viable.

Dave Alman, Oregon State University: I'm president and chief designer for a small original

equipment manufacturer. What you sell is what you manufacture is what you design. I fail to

find the letter "D" for design in the word "manufacture." People keep talking about "The Big

M" but I haven't heard much emphasis on it; instead, I hear a lot about the shop floor. On the

other hand, we have to move more of the decisions up front, into the design process. Yet we

really don't understand the design process very well, and we don't know how to manage it very well. A lot of what we do in this country is borrowed from Europe and Japan. We don't

do much research in this area.

I'd like someone to address that issue. Also, there is a sociological aspect to designing. We

haven't heard much about that at this conference, either, and I don't see much research aimed

in that direction.

Daniel Koenig: Because my job involves both manufacturing and engineering, I think we

have to conclude that manufacturing is "The Big M" and includes the process of creating the

design as well as well as creating the process for making the product. It's a team process of

developing a product, which doesn't just come out of the air. It has to be designed, and that

166
design has to be compatible with the manufacturing capabilities of a particular company. And

there has to be interaction back and forth between design and manufacturing in order to "boot

strap" that company to world-class prominence, so to speak. It has to be a concurrent process.

Erich Bloch: I have great problems with the assertion that we don't understand the design

process. I don't think that's true. Maybe research on the design process hasn't been

documented as much you would have liked, but it's been going on for 500 years now, and it will go on forever. That's not the point. But I hope we don't continue to divide up things as we did in the past ~ here's research, here's development, here's design, here's manufacturing,

and here are the walls in between. If we do that, then I'm afraid we won't win this race. I hope we can look at this whole process, from beginning to end, as a system. After all, some

of us are supposed to be engineers and we should know something about systems.

Joe Bordogna: Let me tell you what we're doing, and you can either criticize it or help us do

it. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is supposed to leverage change in engineering

education. We've heard all of this and we bought into it. We have a new division called

Design, Manufacturing, and Industrial Innovation. Let me explain that name.

We all agree there has to be concurrence. But as you have heard from everyone here, I think

that concurrence has to begin at the point of discovery and continue through the entire system

process. That's the "industrial innovation" part of the name. The "design" and "manufacturing"

make people understand that they're all connected. Industrial innovation is probably the most

important element, because that means the idea comes and you make an enterprise out of it.

Earlier, we explained the new programs that support those elements. The transformation to

total quality organizations, management of technological innovation ~ these are all part of

making this whole thing work. The one thing we're not doing is saying that design is more

important than manufacturing. It's the integration of the two that's critical. So, our whole

effort to change education, all the grants ~ we use the TRP to help with that ~ is exactly

what you're rightfully saying needs to be done.

Shirley Willett, Stylometrics, Inc.: I want to throw out some ideas, responses to what I've

heard here. The first thing that impressed me was when Mary Good mentioned bringing the

public into this effort. That means a great deal to me. Also, Dan Koenig talked about bringing

small business into the process. Some answers may come from what Joe Bordogna mentioned

about virtual organizations, and what Cynthia Arnold-McKenna mentioned about the National

Information Infrastructure and the electronic superhighway.

Bringing the public into the process means a great deal to me. I'm in the apparel industry,

working on making the consumer the designer. That means she'll be sitting at one end of the

electronic superhighway, and we'll be designing clothes based on her input. That's bringing

167
the public in. I would like to see more activities of this nature ~ more industries bringing the

consumer in, asking what products they want and how they want them made.

With respect to small business, I'm setting up a directory and an electronic engineering design

complex to do the designing and marketing for a group of small apparel contractors. This will

become a virtual organization in terms of its structure. I think this idea could be useful for

small businesses in many ways.

One last point about the problems involved in dealing with many languages on the factory

floor. An answer I've found, through one of my grants from NSF, is multimedia systems for

the workers on the factory floor. Pictures can take the place of words and overcome language

differences. This kind of thing can come through the electronic superhighway. We need more

of this on the factory floor, where the workers themselves can be involved in the electronic

superhighway.

Bob Reeg, National Society of Professional Engineers: I want to follow up on the comment

about public input. I haven't seen many members of the Congress or their staff here, so I'll include them in the public. Earlier, a remark was made that members of Congress didn't know

what the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was until it got a big budget

increase. That's really discouraging, that the only way you get attention is when you get more

money than someone else does. But it shows that NIST needs to improve its public relations

campaign aimed at the Congress. Associations and industry groups can help, but I hope the

agencies are doing that themselves.

Now, about road maps. I'm not very familiar with semiconductors and electronics, so I was

interested in Kitty Gillman's remarks about things going on that are connected directly to the

semiconductor industry's road map and flat panel displays. You cited specific things that

government is doing in response to what industry has asked. I hope someone in the agency is

telling people about this. I think demonstrating responsiveness to specific requests from

industry would be a major improvement, as opposed to saying, "We have this great TRP

program, here's how to sign up, and here's the 1-800 number."

It seems to me that industries need to come up with the road maps, and then government and

universities need to find out how they can assist with that road map. We heard from the

textiles, food, and other industries, but I wonder how many industries are not developing road

maps on their own initiative, and whether the government has a role in facilitating these

projects.

Kitty Gillman: I'd like to respond in a more general way. NIST and the Advanced

Technology Program have not elicited road maps, per se, but they have had meetings with

representatives from industry to ask, "What do you think? What technology areas should we

focus on?" That's not exactly asking for a specific road map, but it is asking industry what

168
your technology needs and priorities are. I think NIST may have done more than anyone else

to go out and elicit that kind of response from industry.

Concerning getting word out to the public, if members of industry feel the government has

been responsive and helpful to them, and if they like these technology partnerships, then it would be helpful to all of us for industry to let the Congress know that.

Erich Bloch: I have two points. I've always been in favor of the government pursuing a

moderate form of industrial policy. But the government should not require industry sectors to

have road maps. I hope that doesn't have to happen. If industry sectors are not smart enough,

forthcoming enough, and interested enough in their own future, then nobody else can do it for

them.

My second point is that public involvement and agencies displaying their wares are absolutely

important. But the agencies cannot accomplish that by themselves. Individuals in agencies,

companies, associations, and so forth have to be more forthcoming in relating their

experiences with government programs back to the Congress or the general public. It has to

be a two-way street, and I'm afraid that is not happening.

Herm Reininga: Just a couple of comments on industry's perspective. If a problem is easy

for industry to solve, then we don't need anybody's help. Also, if a new technology will give

a company a competitive advantage, then they won't want to share it with all our competitors.

What I think industry needs is help with a number of problems that are too hard for us to

solve, that we continually put in the "too hard" box.

Flat-panel displays are an example, because there really isn't a market for a lot of displays of

one kind. The market is for small volumes of one-of-a-kind displays.

John Colburn, Center for Advanced Food Technology, Rutgers University: We operate an

advanced manufacturing demonstration plant supported by the Defense Logistics Agency, the

State of New Jersey, the Industrial Coalition, and the university. I wanted to address a

comment Tom Mahoney made earlier with respect to production and processing equipment

for the plant floor.

The equipment in our plant, which is approved by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

and the Food and Drug Administration, comes from Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United

States. The robot, chosen because it meets USDA requirements, is U.S. made. The sealing

equipment is Japanese but will be replaced next month with U.S.-made equipment. Most of

our filling equipment has come from New Jersey and small U.S. manufacturers.

So there is a lot of creativity in small U.S. companies able to meet needs in production and

processing. The small to mid-sized process industry still has the creativity to make a

169
contribution. But we need to address the integration of equipment into the rest of the process

and production. Integration can take up to 6 months, and we haven't had the benefit in the

United States of the consortia that exist elsewhere, Italy particularly. We need systems

integration to move this new technology from the small to mid-sized process equipment

producers into industry.

Tom Mahoney: I didn't mean to overstate the dire condition of the process equipment

industry; I have not looked at the statistics lately. But I would guess that, across the board,

the U.S. market share in process equipment for most production industries is not very large.

Clearly, there are innovative companies, and probably the majority of them are small, in all

those industries. There is a lot of opportunity.

Bill McDonough: I represent a small manufacturing company. Someone mentioned that 90

percent of everything manufactured in the United States is produced by small companies with

500 or fewer employees. Recently, I read some U.S. government-published documents about

flexible manufacturing systems and flexible computer-integrated manufacturing systems

(QMS) in Japan and Europe. Each document is about a half-inch thick. I found it heartening

that there are 1 17 manufacturing extension centers in Japan that have been in place for a long

time. Again, 90 percent of everything manufactured in Japan is produced by small companies,

which they define as having fewer than 100 employees. At least half of these companies have

flexible CIMS.

To me, that means there is some kind of model out there, and the U.S. Government and all

the people sitting here naturally would know something about it. Earlier we heard Dan

Koenig and Tom Mahoney speak on behalf of small U.S. businesses. I agree with their

comments, but neither one mentioned that there is hope, because another country has done

something in this area. Of course, Japan has additional programs, such as tax incentives, to

help small manufacturers. The author commented that the United States probably could

achieve this in 5 to 10 years.

My point is, I don't want to feel that, in the past, the Department of Energy and Department

of Defense have preferred to work with the big companies, because it's nice to go with a big

winner. This time, it looks like small manufacturing companies will receive a good share of

what we're all trying to do. I'm hopeful, but no one mentioned that there is a model out there.

Daniel Koenig: I sympathize with your position 100 percent, having been there myself. Yes,

there is hope. There is a lot of activity under way, and there are ways of getting help. I mentioned that in New York City, we have the Industrial Technology Assistance Corporation

(ITAC), which is private and not for profit but receives most of its funding from the State of

New York and, we hope, the Federal Government. The ITAC helps small manufacturing

concerns upgrade their capabilities and teaches and shows them ~ just as in the Japanese

model ~ how to manufacture, how to design, how to go to market more effectively.

170
I've also found that "he who helps himself is going to be the most prosperous man on the

street." There are many ways to form interesting alliances with local universities, and I think

small businesses particularly will get a warm welcome from manufacturing engineering

departments, mechanical engineering departments, and industrial engineering departments.

Those types of folks, who study this area professionally, are very willing and able to help

small companies become more productive — and for reasonable fees, which are used mainly

to pay graduate assistants.

In the United States, we shy away from "big brother" telling you what to do. We do not have

a beehive society, we have a very diverse society, and we all want to do our own thing. We

take pride in personal initiative and independence. You can go the independent road and get

help; it doesn't have to be from the government.

Kitty Gillman: I'd like to point out that NIST has seven manufacturing technology centers

that have been in business for several years, and the TRP has provided cost-shared funds for

another 28 centers. Not all of them are very experienced yet, but we have 35 centers now of a

network we hope will grow to 100 within the next few years. So there are government

technology extension centers that can help.

Maryanne Roe, Texas State Technical College, Waco: I would like to thank you for this

erilightening conference. We had a lot of discussion about universities and the K-12 system,

and I must put in a plug for the role of advanced technical education, not only in

manufacturing but also in the maintenance and repair of equipment. That's a very costintensive operation when it's done right, but there will be a great need to immerse people in

these applications as we enter the next century. So I hope as the National Science and

Technology Council looks at the types of technologies in various industry sectors, it also

looks at the preparation of people who use and apply the technology that will support the

whole effort.

Those technicians support R&D; they are a significant part of smaller manufacturing

companies. Many small companies hire very good technicians; we see that a well-prepared

and well-educated technician really is the most viable part of technology transfer. Their

knowledge base may not be as intensive as the technology is, but they at least know where to access resources to improve their understanding. So the prepared technician will be a

significant player for the future.

The aerospace industry, for example, will need technicians for repair and maintenance of air

conditioning systems, information processing systems, the whole gamut of technology. And

the job will get even more sophisticated as these technologies become more integrated.

Curriculum development, preparation of teachers — this whole area really needs to be

examined.

171
Erich Bloch: That was a very important comment. In the spectrum of education, from

kindergarten through Ph.D. programs, we always skip over a couple of areas. First, we always

skip over vocational training. You were referring to that in a specific sense, but I want to

focus on the broad sense. We haven't done the necessary job in that area, from either a

government or an industry viewpoint, to make sure that the human resources required in these

areas are being educated and trained in the right way.

The other thing we always skip over is continuing education. Things always stop at the end of

high school, or undergraduate programs, or the Ph.D programs. You think you know

everything by that time, and 30 years later, you still know that much and think it's good

enough. Well, it's not good enough, and it certainly won't be good enough in the fiiture.

Maryanne Roe: One more comment. There is not a good understanding of what technology

is, and what it's used for, outside of those who deal with it directly. Therefore, there is no

solid grounding for children or adults moving into technical education. We're moving into a

time when we all will need knowledge and understanding of the use and application of some

form of technology. It's not a matter of either/or, it's a matter of when you gain the

understanding.

I think for many people, there is a perception that not going to a university means it's not

OK, and that's not a good image for that work force. So there is a need to help the general

public understand the value of technology and the different types of opportunities in

technology, as well as the preparation for it. We need to enhance the image of technology and

the technician as viable parts of the whole enterprise.

Audience Comment: Tomorrow is "bring your daughter to work" day. I hope the industry

people here are letting their employees bring their children in to see what the technologies

are. In my facility, 195 young women are coming in to look at manufacturing technology.

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna: I think it's "bring your children to work" day; we don't want to

be sexist here.

Joe Bordogna: We do have an Advanced Technology Education Program at NSF. This is a

serious issue, and I agree with everything that you and Erich Bloch were saying. I'm

convinced we don't know how to conduct these programs yet; we have a lot to learn. You'll see more technical framing in the next round of TRP awards. There is also a task force being

set up at NSF on continuing education.

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna: A number of technical organizations also are very much

involved in public education and outreach. I work very closely with the American Chemical

Society, and I'm sure there are many others that you could get involved with and really make

a difference.

172
Russell Teasley, University of South Carolina: I liked Bob Hermann's talk. He spoke about

the importance of globalization in manufacturing, world-class production, the global economy,

global markets, and the need to address those markets. In this day and age, technology

development is increasingly a product of international collaboration through joint ventures and

strategic alliances.

This brings up a thorny issue for our government labs, agencies, and policies. It is a bit of a

dilemma that our technologies are developed through our public laboratories, financed by

American taxpayer dollars, yet we don't control what happens to these technologies after they

leave our laboratories. Over the past several years, I have been to numerous conferences on

technology transfer, particularly as it relates to government laboratories, and I have yet to get

a very clear understanding of how our government defines a domestic versus a foreign

company and deals with the issue of developing taxpayer-funded technologies, when these

technologies are sought by companies we consider to be foreign owned?

It's very important that we address this issue when we set policy. I know there is no easy

solution. But foreign companies represent specific technological expertise and very large and

worldwide marketplaces. They also represent sizeable amounts of potential capital investment,

which can be tunneled into U.S. technology development. The Intelligent Manufacturing

Systems project is an example of a Japanese initiative addressing technological development

on a global perspective. I think we could learn a lot from that perspective.

Kitty Gillman: There are probably eight different laws addressing that very question of

foreign participation in taxpayer-supported technology development, and we hope to work

with the Congress on this issue. The guiding principle is to make sure programs benefit the

U.S. economy and citizens. As you point out, it's a complex series of events that determines

whether something benefits the U.S. economy.

For example, in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), some of the best

technologies are foreign; if you don't allow foreign companies into the chain of suppliers for

the manufacturing technology, the fuel cells, and so forth, then you're just depriving yourself

of the world's best technology. Similarly, both a multinational company and a U.S.-based

company have to be free to use the technologies resulting from these partnerships in their

operations in other countries as well as their own.

We're looking into this issue and trying to develop a sophisticated definition of a benefit to

the U.S. economy and get that definition into the laws and regulations for

government/industry technology partnerships.

Panel Comment: There is a full set of existing legislation that can be interpreted in various

ways with respect to this issue, as Kitty Gillman pointed out. This was a very contentious

issue among the lawyers in the days just prior to signing the papers for the PNGV. As a

173
matter of fact, it was the most contentious issue. The final conclusion was an acceptable one,

at least for the time being. It was resolved, I think, in favor of the U.S. auto industry and its

world marketing capabilities.

Certainly the premise was that, if it benefits the U.S. economy, then it's good. But we have

not heard the last of this issue. It always will be a contentious one, but I think a definition of

benefit is evolving.

Erich Bloch: We'll never solve this problem in a generic sense. I think we'll make some

accommodations and reconciliations, almost on a case-by-case basis. Also, if each country

could point to tangible assets and say, "We're giving that up, and we're getting that in return,"

then this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I'll give you an example. I chaired the one-day workshop where this issue was discussed with

regard to access to the national labs. I was listening to all the pros and cons coming from

industry. By the way, industry couldn't decide what they wanted, either. If you eliminate one

country ~ I won't mention which one ~ then the issue wouldn't arise. If we could pick a

tangible tradeoff on a more visible level with every country, then we could spare ourselves a

lot of discussions.

David Buchanan, College of Textiles, North Carolina State University: My question is

similar to the last one, but I want to address the issue of processing machinery being made

overseas, at least in some industries. Fifty years ago, the American textile machinery industry

dominated the world. It started to lose ground about 1950 and lost it steadily. The

conventional wisdom is that the industry didn't want to do the R&D necessary to keep up

with its competitors. Today, about 90 percent of these companies are dead; not even an act of

Congress could revive them. So for all intents and purposes, there is no American textile

machinery industry, except for the remaining 10 percent.

My second point is that this is a global business. Textile machinery is exhibited on a fouryear cycle in three places ~ the United States, Europe, and Japan. All the same people are there every time, including the American machinery manufacturers who survived. Everyone in

the business sells globally. If indeed every technological development in that processing

machinery is available globally, then does it really matter whether there is a domestic version

of that industry?

Panel Comment: I could talk about this all day. This issue also relates to semiconductors.

The argument for SEMATECH was that Japanese equipment providers were not letting the

latest, greatest technology go to American semiconductor producers and, therefore, the whole

U.S. industry was at risk if we did not have indigenous process equipment capabilities.

174
Whether that's true or not is open to debate. In other industries, such as machine tools, we

don't have much market share anymore. For the most part, that's probably not a problem. As

you say, in global industries, the same process equipment is available worldwide and will

continue to be. Can you develop a competitive advantage if you have early access to new

technology? Maybe. How early? I don't know. I don't have the answers, but I certainly

recognize that these issues are part of the debate.

Panel Comment: I'd like to add one thing. I think it makes a difference what industry you're

talking about. In the semiconductor industry, which has a new generation of technology every

2 or 3 years, having a domestic industry may make a much greater difference than it does in

the textile industry. We did a study on the textile industry for the Office of Technology

Assessment, and none of the textile manufacturers we talked to questioned that they had equal

access to textile machinery from Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, and Japan, as anybody else

did. But there is no such unanimity among semiconductor manufacturers.

Balwant Karlekar, director, Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies, Rochester

Institute of Technology: I have two observations. One mission of my center is to assist small

and medium-sized manufacturing companies. We conducted a survey recently to determine

the needs of these companies. It turns out that they are all over the map in terms of

implementation of various technologies. Some are operating on almost a year 2000 level,

whereas others are operating on a 1940s level. Also, we discovered that a technology is

considered new and advanced if a company doesn't have it. For some companies that may

mean a simple computer-aided design system, and for others it may mean a whole new

machining center.

We also found that these companies do not need new technologies as much as they do

straightforward business processes. They are interested in issues related to people, culture, and

marketing. Many don't even know who their customers are and how they can change their

product profile.

We also discovered the limitations imposed by transportation. In other words, if you can drive

to a company in a hour, spend a day there, and return home in the evening, then that's a limit

on your effectiveness. On the other hand, if some modern technologies can be mass produced

so that, in effect, we can have a video conference involving the potential customer and the

experts at the center, and this approach can be used at other centers as well, then the distance

problem can be eliminated.

Video conferences can help continue the hand holding often needed after an assignment is

completed. It is not enough for a group of experts to go into a company, solve the problem,

and say, "OK, here is a report, go implement it." We found there is a need to have "service

after sales" for up to a year.

175
Another point concerns manufacturing education. I feel this country operates on an incentive

system. If salaries in manufacturing increase, then far more students will gravitate toward

manufacturing. When electrical engineers were in great demand, many students flocked to that

field. When chemical engineers were in demand, students flocked to that. Today,

manufacturing engineering graduates are not in demand, no matter what we hear from leaders

in industry or government. Unless and until the leading industries offer substantially higher

salaries to manufacturing graduates, students will not be interested in that program or field.

Finally, we have to do something about the K-12 program, because it is graduates of K-12

who form the backbone of the work force in manufacturing.

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna: We have to close off the discussion now. I want to thank the

audience for its participation and input, not only at this meeting, but also, hopefully, through

continuing input into this process of trying to advance a manufacturing agenda developed by

the Federal Government, the private sector, and universities. Thank you all, and thanks to our

panel members.

176
Appendices

177

Appendix A

List of Participating Organizations

179

Participating Organizations

Government Organizations (12)

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Office of Management and Budget

Department of Commerce (NIST)*

Department of Defense*

Department of Energy*

Department of Agriculture*

National Science Foundation*

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

U.S. Navy*

U.S. Army

U.S. Air Force

Defense Logistics Agency

Other Organizations (28)

Aerospace Industries Association

American Defense Preparedness Association

American Society of Mechanical Technology

Automotive Industry Action Group

Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing-International

Critical Technologies Institute

Electronic Industries Association

Electronics Manufacturing Productivity Facility

Great Lakes Composites Consortium*

Iacocca Institute

Industrial Technology Institute

Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sciences

Manufacturing Studies Board

Modernization Forum

National Association of Manufacturers

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

National Center of Excellence for Metalworking Technology

National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Initiative for Product Data Exchange

National Security Industrial Association

Oak Ridge Y12 Plant*

Sandia National Laboratories*

Semiconductor Industries Association*

Society of Manufacturing Engineers

South Carolina Research Association*

Work and Technology Institute

* = Co-Sponsors (12)

181

Appendix B

List of Steering Committee Members

183

Steering Committee

Chairperson

Arati Prabhakar

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Members

Kitty Gllman

Office of Science and Technology Policy

John Pfeiffer

Office of Management and Budget

Michael McGrath

Department of Defense

Warren Chernock

Department of Energy

Dennis Child

Department of Agriculture

Joseph Bordogna

National Science Foundation

Len Harris

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Steven Linder

U.S. Navy

Col. Davidson

U.S. Army

William Kessler

U.S. Air Force

Donald O'Brian

Defense Logistics Agency

William Lewandowski

Aerospace Industries Association

Leo Reddy

National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing

Charles Carter

Association for Manufacturing Technology

David Harper

Automotive Industry Action Group

Steven Drezner

Critical Technologies Institute

Richard Engwall

Electronic Industries Association

Gary Burkhart

Electronics Manufacturing Productivity

Roger Fountain

Great Lakes Composites Consortuim

Roger Nagel

Iacocca Institute

George Kuper

Industrieal Technology Institute

Thomas Mahoney

Manufacturing Studies Board

Jack Russell

Modernization Forum

William Morin

National Association of Manufacturers

John DeCaire

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Howard Kuhn

National Center of Excell. for Metalworking Tech.

William Roland

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

William Conroy

National Initiative for Product Data Exchange

Al Narath

Sandia National Laboratories

James Glaze

Semiconductor Industries Association

Frank McCarty

Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Robert Henderson

SCRA

Dale Hartman

Consortium for Adv. Manufacturing-International

185

Brian Turner

Work and Technology Institute

Appendix C

List of Organizing Committee Members

187

Organizing Committee

Chairperson

John Meyer

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Members

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna

Ofc. of Science and Technol. Policy/General Electric

John Pfeiffer

Office of Management and Budget

Daniel Cundiff

Department of Defense

Diane Bird

Department of Energy

Dennis Child

Department of Agriculture

F. Stan Settles

National Science Foundation

Len Harris

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

William Lewandowski

Aerospace Industries Association

Leo Reddy

National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing

Janis Tabor

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Bill Fleming

Automotive Industry Action Group

Dale Hartman

Consortium for Adv. Manufacturing-International

Tim Webb

Critical Technologies Institute

Richard Engwall

Electronic Industries Association

Ivan Snell

Great Lakes Composites Consortium

Roger Nagel

Iacocca Institute

Jack White

Industrial Technology Institute

William Zdeblick

Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sciences

Thomas Mahoney

Manufacturing Studies Board

Jack Russell

Modernization Forum

William Morin

National Association of Manufacturers

John DeCaire

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Robert Swanson

National Center of Excell. for Metalworking Tech.

William Roland

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

William Conroy

National Initiative for Product Data Exchange

George Taylor

Oak Ridge Y12 Plant

Arlan Andrews

Sandia National Laboratories

James Glaze

Semiconductor Industries Association

Fred Michel

Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Rick Rentz

SCRA

Brian Turner

Work and Technology Institute

Cheryl Albus

National Institute of Standards and Technology

189

Appendix D

Comments by Conference Attendees

191

Comments by Conference Attendees

Dean Thomas Murrin

Duquesne University

I would like to provide a small company perspective. Small companies need special

consideration by funding agencies for the following reasons:

1 . We are the engine for renewal. We are the future big companies. We are flexible and

agile. We are also lean and mean, and street smart.

2. No other country has the infrastructure to spawn high tech companies. Not in Japan,

not in Europe. We could and we should take advantage of that.

3 . Small funding is equivalent to big funding because we can use this as validation to

leverage venture investments from the private sector.

4. In some sense, we are approaching productivity and competitiveness as technical

people. We can also approach the issues as businessmen. Big companies have financial resources. Management often lack the resolve in making investment decisions. In

addition to funding as a direct subsidy, their decisions can also be swayed some other

ways such as changes in Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) and tax

incentives.

5. Finally, we can learn from the track record of venture funds on Sand Hill Road.

Blockbuster successes are very rare and overall nets are extremely low. Here you have

administrative costs associated with consortia and too many cooks to spoil the soup.

My urge is for each of you with funding authorities to pay special attention to fund small

businesses.

Charles Osiewicki

PBMA (DoA)

Comments follow:

1 . During the TEAM presentation, it was pointed out that academia representation at the

University level was not the most appropriate way to get manufacturing to the shop floor

workers. This was the vocational/junior college/trade school mission and that "they" are not represented in TEAM teams.

193
I would like to generalize this - "they" are not at this conference, either. They should be - perhaps NIST needs to target them for conferences realizing their limited budgets, and

perhaps as a follow-up/summary of your major conferences to disseminate the key points,

without the repetition found in multi-speaker addresses to the same basic issues.

2. It becomes increasingly clear that the Manufacturing Technology Centers (MTCs)

and/or Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) need to address the connectivity

issue. We keep hearing that things are not on the Internet, a BBS or whatever that need to

be disseminated. Let the MTCs, MEPs, and clones get this communication technology to

the troops.

Dennis E. Wisnosky

Wizdom Systems

My concerns and issues follow below:

1. Small Business - Wizdom began in 1986. We have offices in Chicago, Detroit,

Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and Warsaw. We are a small business. The speakers

representing "small business" certainly did not represent Wizdom. They talked as though

all of the problems of small business would be solved by the various forms of Agriculture

Extension Centers being established to focus on manufacturing. The centers will provide

employment to a new generation of bureaucrats, they will do little to help manufacturing

competitiveness. Small business needs customers to help develop technology, and to buy

products and services. This is the best kind of help that the Federal Government can

provide. Yet, it is nearly impossible for small companies to work on Government

technology programs, and it is getting worse. Except for mandatory 8A percentages,

ManTech, ATP, TRP and virtually every other program is vectored towards large

companies, Federal Labs, and Universities. Small companies have almost no chance to

participate. When is small business involvement going to move beyond the viewgraph

stage and into reality?

2. Porcine SBIR - The SBIR program is not exempt from the problem of the big get

bigger with Government help syndrome. Eric Bloc mentioned athe two-tiered proposal

process. That is, one team writes the proposal, another does the work. In SBIRs, it is

even worse. There are literally SBIR "factories." That is, companies or parts of

companies which do almost nothing but SBIRs. When a company gets too big to qualify

for an SBIR, it divides like an Amoeba into a qualifying product. Wizdom recently lost

an SBIR for the reason that the result would be a commercial product. Pardon me! Why

is the gem of Amercian ingenuity being allowed to become another political pork barrel?

194
3. Three weddings and a funeral - This is how I would characterize the relative

ManTech positions of DoC, DoE, NSF, and DoD. This is most unfortunate. Through the

years, the DoD program has been a stellar success. They have had the need for the best

technology, customers in a minotsany, who had no choice but to listen, and very smart

internal people. The list of technologies, products, and spin-off companies created is

impressive. The IMIP Program was the golden spike that virtually insured that ManTech

program results would be coupled to implementation. A couple of years ago IMIP was

killed. Today, ManTech is being porked to death, and instead of a sustained integrated

program coupled to the true overall needs of the nation, technology du jour is being

pursued by the new kids on the block who want quick fixes only. Reading some winning

proposals, one might conclude that a winning proposal is the most outlandish proposal, or

the one with the highest percentage of acronyms. What is the difference between Agile

and Virtual and why shouldn't they both be lean and mean, anyway? How can a single

idea bring back, in the next 5 years, half of the machine tool industry that the U.S. has

lost in the last 20 years? This was the essence of a winning proposal that I saw. How

many more studies do we need? Why is more than half of the TRP money being spent

within 1 00 miles of Washington? These are questions that I believe should be answered

by the combined leadership of the agencies leading the new national manufacturing

agenda.

195

Appendix E

Conference Final Participants List

197

Final Participants List

I

I Manufacturing Technology Needs and Issues: Establishing

(National Priorities and Strategies

April 26-28, 1994

The National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland

Jeffrey Abboud

SACMMJSACA

M600 Wilson Blvd.

Ste. 1008

Arlington, VA 22209

John Adam

! Spectrum

John Adams

1 Honda Engineering NA

. 24,000 Honda Pkwy.

Marysville, OH 43040

I Timothy Adams

Chrysler Corp.

Narendra Ahuja

Univ. of Illinois 405 N. Matthews Ave.

Urbana, IL 61801

James S. Albus

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. B124

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Cheryl Albus

NIST

Bldg. 304, Rm. 142

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Louis Alfeld

Decision Dynamics, Inc. 8601 Georgia Ave.

MS 806

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Mary Elizabeth Algeo

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm.A152

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Gene Allen

MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.

10738 Wynkoop Dr. Great Falls, VA 22066

Brule Allison

RTT

3309 Willow Cresent

Ste. 13

Fairfax, VA 22030

Bill Alzheimer

Sandia National Labs.

P.O. Box 5800

Albuquerque, NM 87185-0953

Richard L. Anderson

ORNL - 1 & C Division

P.O. Box 2008

MS 6007

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6007

Ronald Andreas

Sandia National Labs.

MS 0509

Albuquerque, NM 871 1

Allan Andrew

Sandia National Labs.

P.O. Box 5800

MS 0955

Albuquerque, NM 87185

199

Frank Archibald

Penn State University

P.O. Box 30

State College, PA 16804

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna

Office of Science & Technology

Policy

Old Exec. Office Bldg.

Rm. 423

Washington, DC 20500

Om Arora

Naval Surface Warfare Center

3A Leggett Circle

Code 612

Annapolis, MD 21402

Anderson Ashburn

American Machinist

45 Highland Ave.

Tarrytown, NY 10591

John Bachingsky

Watervliet Arsenal

SMCWV-ATP

Bldg. 20

Watervliet, NY 12189

Bill Bailey

ARPA

3701 N. Fairfax

SISTO

Arlington, VA 22203-1714

Donald J. Bailey

Ohio Aerospace Institute

22800 Cedar Point Rd.

Brook Park, OH 44142
Albert Baker David Beck Auqbue Billones

Univ. of Cincinnati Oak Hidge oenters tor Manu. A /"II //^ 10/% TAAA 0 li nn A ATaU Arrv Aavancea 1 ecn. & nesearcn uorp.

QOA A Phnrlnc Uoll oo*ia nnoues nan i ecnnoiogy 1C91H niriA Dr 1 0^ 1 u uiiiu ur. cpc rtnnt Hill on uunonsvine, mu

Cincinnati, oh 45221-0030 Michael D. Beery

Program Manager Office burt bircntieia

nicnaro banou ACAO/CADV/ ArAo/rAHV \ mf\ il rtrt r> rtll liAl IA AA A APAAAAAA Mcuonnen uougias Aerospace

ueico unassis ATTM. AMPAQ TC A II IN. AMOniiTO Q i CM Airinfinn oioi Aviauon

1420 Wisconsin bivo. DM/i C-l Kl blag, oi in Mo U04-4400

Pr.\J. n Ray DOX 1

I CHO OAR PiAatinnv Arconal M 1 (\7RC\R-Rr\C\0 rlCalliliiy Mlbcllal, INJ U/OUO-OUw Del l\clcy, OA 00 IO*r UdylUf 1, KJri *tOHU 1 Dfir'il/ofh DAni<5min reraisain oenjainin uidny Dira

jonn Daras 1^aa\»/I AA*n a R^caa* Cwefomc Ino i\nuwieoge Daseu oysiems, inc. u.o. uypi. 01 energy

insDtuie Tor oystems nesearcn

1/AQ I IniwArfi+w Hr P i4uo university ur., t Wasningion, uu ciiooo

224/ av Williams biog. ooiiege otation, i a / /o4u

univ. ot Maryland Moiiy bireiy

uoiiege rark, mu 20/42 uieter bergman u.o. uept. ot tnergy

institute tor intercon. & racK. tiec.

*4 AAA InAArxAnAAnaa A wa O\ A/ iuuu maepenaence Ave., ow

towara barKmeyer /oou im, Lincoln Ave.

lie mo I M OA Dm ouni 7 lm-^u, nm. onu1 /

MIOT Nib 1 Lincomwooo, ii_ ouo4o-i /oo wasnmgton, uu 2U000

Old/i OOA Dm Ai07 biag. 220, rim. A12/

uaitnersourg, mu ^uoyy-uuui jonn berKowitcn uorne birwe

rMationai i extne oenter A 1 i+Anrt Ati\/A Inrli ic»tn/ Aa4iaa Auromouve inausuy Aciion

uave bartme 3ob2 Mormngside ho. OCOAA 1 aUa«. 26200 Lahser

uaK nioge uenters tor Manu. Wilmington, ut lyoio 0*« OAA

ote. 200

1 ecnnoiogy OOUtntieid, Ml 4o0o4

p c\ Rav oaaq r .U. DOX d\)\Ja Leo bernier

RIaVi Q797 KjIQ OAQ1 Diog. y/o/, Mo ouy 1 Dapaiap 0 Aaaa* I aa bernier & assoc., inc. jonn biair

n^L- DiWnn TKI Q7C0A QAQ1 uaK nioge, in o/ooo-ooyi ACQ DftAlnn Of 4oo boston oi MIOT Nib 1 TAnefialH MA A1 00*3 lopsiieia, ma uiyoo RIHn OAC Dm R1H0 biag. cho, nm. diuz

onanes Danscn oaitnersourg, mu 2Uoyy-uuui

iNonneasi-Miawesi uong. uoaimon uavid bettwy

i 1 W UAl |AA a* DAMfAAAfllAtlllAA u.o. Mouse or nepresentatives MIOT Nib I Hooert Biessmgton

oou roro house unice biog. H ACArt t*np>t*4 Oav!#\m Aha

l OoOy bood opnng Ave.

\A/iAAAnAm A CI O|/^\ Wisconsin ArL-010

wasnmgton, uo 20010 oreat rails, va 22066 0000 w. biuemound ho.

Milwaukee, wi 0021

Anorew bayoa bnce BiDie

1 Q Armw DAPAirrth 1 aK u.o. Army nesearcn Lao. OOTA D 1 ln!w t\t Tann uoiAn-univ. ot lenn. CinaI^i DIaaI^ tnen biocn

couu

oqaa prowoci ou/Hor Mill Rri miii no. u 1 01 nesearcn rarK Aai mAil An ^AmnAfifi\/AnAeo uouncn on vornpeuiivcncss

kJQ A MODI CD DA Mo AMoHL-tr-HU mc 07 Mo 2/ OAA A 7Ui Ot MIA/ 900 1 /tn ot., NW

AUeipill, MU cUI00 Ti illohnmo TM Q70QQ 1 uiianoma, 1 in 0/000 ote. luou

\A/oehinntAn nP OAAAft wasnmgton, uu cuuuo

i nomas bearor Barbara Bicksler

1 AaI/Kaaa^ Gaaa'apc* Locruieea oancers, inc. institute tor uetense Analyses James biomenoerg

P C\ Dav dcq r.U. DOX OOO 1801 N. Beauregard ot. uummins tngine uompany

MS NHQ1-321 Alexandria, VA 22311 Box 3005

Nashua, NH 03061-0868 MS 41401

Columbus, IN 47202

200
Clair Blong Brad Botwin

Federal Emergency Management U.S. Dept. of Energy

Agency Rm. 3878

MS DXA/OIRA

Howard Bloom Washinaton V UWl III 1 tw 1 1 | DC*^ \S 20230 m> VI" V w NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. A127 Charles Bowers

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 U.S. Air Force

John Bodyk Joseph Braun

Pratt & Whitney Argonne National Lab.

400 Main St. 9700 S. Cass Ave.

MS 118-39 Bldg. 208

East Hartford, CT 06108 Argonne, IL 60439

Cynthia Bogner Fred Breaux

Defense Mapping Agency Naval War College

4209 Selkirk Dr.

Mark Bohannon Fairfax, VA 22032-1431

U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Robert Lee Brown

Michael If II VI IUWI Bolton Wlivl 1 The Gillette ComDanv

Lehigh Univ. Prudential Tower Bldg.

Alumni Bldg. 27 49th Floor

Bethlehem, PA 18015 Boston, MA 02199

Richard Bolton Pete Brown

IBM NIST

208 Harbor Dr. Bldg. 304, Rm. 142

MS 2E20 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Stamford, CT 06904

John Brown

Joseph Bordogna OPC-IDA

National Science Foundation P.O. Box 10

Mf\0\A lift m i 4201 Wilson Blvd. Boise, ID 83707

Rm. 505

Arlington, VA 22230 Max Bryant

Systems Management & Dev.

D. Jeffrey Bostock Company

Martin Marietta Energy 7880 Backlick Rd.

P.O. Box 2009 Ste.5

MS 8091 Spirngfield, VA 22150

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

David R. Buchanan

ft t * 1 1 * i^V a III

North Carolina State Univ.

College of Textiles

Box 8301

Raleigh, NC 27695

Rod Buchanan

Allen-Bradley Company

2706 Montopolis Dr.

Austin, TX 78737

Neil Burkhard

Software Productivity

2214 Rock Hill Rd.

Herndon, VA 22070

Mitchell Burman

MIT

1010 Mass Ave

Apt. 54

Cambridge, MA 02138

Edward Burns

Business Modernization

One N. Capitol St.

Ste. 925

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dan Butrymowicz

NIST

Bldg. 223, Rm. B309

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Patricia Byrne

Joint Center for FCIM

5300 International Blvd.

Charleston, SC 29418

Michael Campbell

United Defense LP

P.O. Box 15512

York, PA 17405-1512

Donald "Bo" Campbell

General Motors

Kelly Carnes

TA/DOC

14th & Const., NW

MS 481 4C

Washinton, DC 20230

201
Simon Carr Robert Chapman Howard Chung

Electronic Industries Association DOC/TA Argonne National Lab.

2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 3804 N. Richmond St. 9700 S. Cass Ave.

Washington, DC 20006-1813 Arlington, VA 22207 Bldg. 208

Argonne, IL 60439-4842

Charles F. Carter Heping Chen

Association for Manufacturing Chinese Embassy Alan Claflin

Tech. 2300 Connecticut Ave., NW U.S. Dept. of Energy

7901 Westpark Dr. Washington, DC 20008 Washington, DC 20585

McLean, VA 22102

YuBao Chen Steve Clark

Joan Carvell Univ. of Michigan NIST

A 0 ft fm* mmm . a a a ^r* t », . NIST/CA Manu. Tech. Ctr. 4901 Evergreen Rd. Bldg. 220, Rm. A152

1343K0 Hawthorne Blvd.

A A j j A A A f» MS 114 MSEL Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Hawthorne, CA 90250 Dearborn, Ml 48128

Adolph Clausi

Tom Cassidy Roger Chiarodo Institute of Food Technology

A*\ ft^B A J HI GEC Marconi Electronic Systems U.S. Dept. of Commerce 164 Mason St. 150 Parish Dr. 14th & Constitution Ave., NW Greenwich, CT 06830-661

MS 18 A 87

mm* • Amm a ft PAk J Jh J pn Rm. HCHB, 1015

1 1 t All A».»m J ^ 4 Wayne, NJ 07474 Washington, DC 20230 John Coburn

CAFT-Rutgers Univ.

Dudley Caswell Dennis Child 120 New England Ave.

U.S. Dept. of Defense U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Piscataway, NJ 08854

1110 Arctic Quill Rd. 10300 Baltimore Ave.

Herndon, VA 22070 Rm. 328, Bldg. 005 Brian Conaghan

Beltsville, MD 20705 DuPont Company

Robert E. Center

j a w ft fl A a aaak 14T.W. Alexander Dr.

Washington Technology Ctr. Carta Chirigos P.O. Box 13944

300 Fluke, MS FJ-15 Sandia National Labs.

p*« | mmm * 1 » 1 A I A

Rsch Triangle Park, NC

Univ. of Washington P.O. Box 5800 27709-3999

ill A A/S J A mm Seattle, WA 98195 MS 0961

A II ft II I afS J AF

Albuquerque, NM 87185 William J. Conroy

Abhijit Chandra NIST

Univ. of Arizona Hyuenbo Cho Bldg. 245, Rm. B102

Bldg. 16, Rm. 301 Knowledge Based Systems, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Tucson, AZ 85721 1408 University Dr., E

At^ Am* * mm m — j College Station, TX 77804 William Cooley

Milton Chang 10604-A Kitty Pozer

Focused Research, Inc. Vinay Chowdhry Fairfax, VA 22030

1275 Reamwood Ave. DuPont Company

Sunnyvale, CA 94089-2256 Rte. 141, Exp. Sta. Martin Coyne

P.O. Box 80357

a «••» TASC

Somvang Chanthathone Wilmington, DE 19880-0357

- . — j ft A ft! fl ftB^ I 1 1101 Wilson Blvd.

Naval & Space Warfare Ste. 1500

2451 Crystal Park Dr.

l 1 i| S\i < • Neil Christopher Arlington, VA 22209

MS 1 005/1 0-222-2C NIST

Arlington, VA 22202 Bldg. 220, Rm.A127

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

202
!

ndipn udy ni^iidiu ii. ucwey

Uliluc 01 OcClcldiy 01 uelCUoc Ponn *^tatp 1 lnivpreitv r ci hi oidic univcioiiy Armv Frinpwoori Rp^parrh

0M0M ^O^O Hofonco Ucicfloc Pontannn rCllldyun 4816 HU 1 V Mpllwnnd IVIvllVWVV Rd1 IV- ATTN- SCBRD-EN

MS ODDRAF/DTAO Rm IDW Mnnpr UUuUI Marlboro IVIGU lUwl W| MDIVIU 20772 C~\J 1 fw Blda E3549

\A/achinntnn VVdolllliyiUil, no 9n3in-'wvi cUg I U 0U0U nvvlUuvll Ahprdppn Provinn 1 IVVIIIV Ground X*A 1 UUI l\J

f MDiivlL/

aica AIpy DpAnnpli? ucai lycuo 21010-5423

joe vyuiiiiiiiy Offipp Vlllvc nfUl Udpdl lananI Alidllo Affaire NRH I invy

National TPYtilp P.pntpr iNdUUiidi I cauic v_>ci net l9101 iui Constitution louiuuui i Avp we, NWiit« David Dickson

ORAOA PnnpnrH Pikp Wachinntnn * vdoi hi lyiui i, DC. uv 90,418 tut i o GRC \Ji 1 IV-/ Roy DUA CM9011 2940 Presidential Dr

Wilminntnn HP 1QA0Q MloliC ucricic StP OIC vvv ?90

Rav udy Statp oidic Skilk orMiio Com wuip. Fairborn 1 ull UUI 1 If OHVI 1 45324 "Jwt- i

Irthn fii ittinn oui ii i vuim ly 101 1 V 1 Summer OUI 1 II 1 Ivl St<Jl.

Odlcllllc 1 cOi 1. OcTVIuco Rnetnn DOoLOil, MAIVI A Pptpr r civi niHiehpim uiuioiiciiii

^1 Mnnrna Qt 3 1 MOillOc 31. 1u.o. 1 S Dpot ucui. nfui Fnprnv i_i ici yy

OIC. StP 1700 1 / MM nhriQtnnhpr vl ll lotupi ICl DpSni7fl UCuulLa Washinaton w w aoi hi iv ivi i| DCl/v/ 20585 *—w

RnrJo/illp nuuftviuc, Mnniu 90850-9409 £uouvr£.HU3 Millikpn iviiiiic\cii Aot Hnmnanu vuiiifjdiiy

Q20 rjCM Millikpn iviiiiirxcii Rri nu. Dpnni^ L/ v 1 11 IIO Dillon L/IIIVI 1 CiPnp V^lvl IV Uui Dan^pr lOvl MSIVIW M-149 l¥l 1 "TV Emcore 1—1 1 1 Wl V Coro Wl

Tpya^ 1 CAuO Inetrumpnfc II IOU Ull ICI IIO, Inp II Iv. Snartanhuro WWCll ICtl IUUI m SC 29304-1926 i WW L^vUt 1 dfaU 35 Elizabpth Avp

P 0 Roy 405 Snmprept vul 1 ICI OCl, N.I l«u 08873 UUvl v MSivio 3464 u*tv*t niiicuv Alfrprin O\j. DpannpliQ L/cdi tyciio

1LCWIoVIIIC, Pu/kvillp TYIA 7R067 OUO/ Tho Prntncv/nthocic ("Vim nit? r lUluoyi ill Icolo L»uip. ouui Si ihi ninHa uuiud

ch941\ Frppman ricciiidii oi. St Chn/clpr v/iiiyoici Hnrn uui p. John Uwl II 1 Darrite UCllwlO Sfp UlC< 11 30900 oujuu Sfpnhpa<;nn oicui ici ioui i Hwv i i»vy

U S DeDt of State Rrnnklinp Ul wWrxlll IC| MAIVIrA 02146 ULIfU MSIVIO 463-00-00 tUO yU UU

21st & CSt NW Madison IVIQVJIOvl 1 Hpinhte 1 IvIMIILOj MlIVII Washinntnn f f CIOI III IU IV) If DH\J\J .Inhn uui ii i Hppairp ucodii c

Matinnal ixduuiidi f^tr fnr Maniifartnrinn • iui ividi luidviui ii ly Inhn P Dicmi iIcpq uui ii i r . uioiiiur\co

Abhiiit f»VI Hill Dasauta L/QOUULQ SHpoppq L.AAUI Fyyooi ncocdiuii RpQParph ex Fnninpprinn l.i lyii icci ii ly

0AI VftLvL HF Flprtrnnir I— 1 vvll \)\ I Iv Parkaninn 1 GvrVuUHIU 309R sjmco Rnarriwalk oudiuvvdir\ Ho

Univ of Marvland Ann Arbor Ml 48108-3266 Roiitp 1 lUUlv 22CmC Fa<?t l—CIO

Colleae Park. MD 20742 MSIVIO LE370/ U

rvdliiiyii uciiiiioOU AnnanHalp M 1 Oftftm nillldilUdlc, INJ UOOU l Thomas David US Dpnt of Fnprnv

AlliftdSinnal niiivVJwivii icii| Inr ii iv* 1QQ01 issvi fiprmantnwn vjci ii idinuwi i RHnu. Tprranpp i ci idi iuc uui nnhprh/ ici ly

2000 CVVV EL— • 95th VVU 1 St MSiviw DP-14 ur it PNI

D/281 VmV | l«lw MS E2E7 1 l Li Gprmantown Vlwl 1 1 lul IIV/VVI l| MDIV! Ly 20874 tUUft u3160 i uu (iPfirnp vjcui yc Waehinntnn vvdoi hi lyiui i Wav way

Kansas Citv MO 64131 SlfiMA OIvJ IVIM U/UUU) 3/303 K6-4Q l\U~9

Dalp L/dic Rpnnv/ uci uiy RiphlanH WA QQ352

Sup wuc Davie udvio v/OiK/UilcUl 1 cOIIIIOIUyicb

Loral tyiui Federal i c\Jv( \X\ Svetemc uyoivliio 14Rn Spain A\/p l^pnnpth Ionian rxciiiicui uuidi i 1801 1 VV 1 Route 1 IvUlv 17C 1 f \J .lohnctnwn uui ii loiuwi i, PAr r\ 1^Q04 i osmh 1UdWICIlUC au/rpnpp 1LIVCI ii/prmnrp 1 1 IUI C

1LdU. ah

MSITI V 0129 V 1 £>w Pr.\j. O Rpy uua 808 ouo

Oweao NY 1 3827 oiidiiu Shanti Dpu ucv MSIVIO 1L-333 OOO

1LvvM opkhppH ICCU Fort 1 UI Worth Cln I V V UI 11 1 uU. 1L.IVCI iv/prmnrp 1 1 IUI C, CAVyA Q4R^n JJHUUU

P.O. Box 748

MS 6492

Fort Worth, TX 76101

203
1Pptpr ClV/l Donohup L./WI Ivl lUv Snrpn HwivpHi Ronald 1 IWI KAIw Fnninton w>UWII IIWI 1 Grurnrnan W* 1 W1 1 1 1 1 IUI 1 AerosDace * » V 1 VOL/UV/v Elect U1 V Vt • We<;t w V vOl Virninia TllwllllCI Univ WIIIV« British W* 1 1 ||l Wl 1 Embassy W>l 1 1 WUv/vf

MSmi \j C\s 15-005 i w www 333 www Enninpprino t—i ly ii i v vi ii iu Scipncp uvivi iww Bldn uiuu3100 W IWW Mass 1 * lUwv • Ave r*Tw*| NWMM

Bethoaae NY 11714-3582 Moraantown IVI Wl VJ Oil 1 IvVV 1 1 1 WVV V V www 26506ww MSIWUW 362 WWW

Washinaton W 1 WlWl III IU iV< 1 1 DCu \s

EdW>W Dorchak uvl VI IWi\ John wwi ii i Dvpr w y wi BDM Federal Inc. The Mitre Corp. Patrick Eicker

1501 BDM Way 202 Burlington Rd. Sandia National Labs.

FX 3B210

1

MS D212 PO1 • \S • Box imJ\J f\ 5800 WWWW

McLean VA 22102 Bedford UwviVIU| MAII 1/1 01730 W 1 f WW Albuaueraue f »l WWWWW 1 W WW | NM1 llll 87185 Wf IWW

Kerr Dow Helen \4 1 \S 1 1 Dver W W \S 1 Edward ^b^v ¥ • Ml Ellinaton III 1 S.4 K\f 1 1 H J Heinz Cornoanv Univ vl II T • ofwl CT-Precision W7 III WWl wl W1 I Manuf IV Ivll IUI< GAWill Tech 1 WWl 1* Univ W/l II T o 600 WWW Grant wi I Ql 1 I StUl« Rt 44 151 IWI 6th VUI Stwi*

Pittsburah iuwwwi y ' i| PAi # \ 15219-2857 i w*«- i v www » U-Box 119 O'Keefe \^ 1 * V I \^ Bldq., fc^ 1 \M \A • | Rm. • VIII* 219 h 1 %0 Storrs \J lv 1 1 V| CTw 1 06269-5119 wwwww w 1 1 w Atlanta f \ Wl Wi IIU| GA\ 30332 WWWWw

Kenneth IWI 10 Ivil 1 Dreitlein W* 1 v 1 11 v II 1 United "Wl IIIWW Technoloav I WWl II 1 WIWWJ Research 1 IVWVUI VI 1 James VUI 1 Iww Earlv ImUI II Donald VWI IWtlWJ Elson <W>IWWI Center wvl I Ivl NIST Black UlUvlt &w\ Decker Vvvl\vl

41 1 Silver Lane Bldq. mmf I ^4 \tM a 223, mmi 1 Rm. 1 Hill B309\r \f 701V< 1 E.mam » JoDoa V^ V^ i/ll#VI Rd. I 1^1* * MS-129-14 Gaithersbura wJUlU Ivl WWWI U| MDIf! v 20899-0001 wwwWW WW V 1 MSIVIW7 TW1 II 070 w# w East Hartford CT 06108 Towson 1 Wit WWl 1 1 MD-21286 VIW W 1 WWW

1Robert Iwvvl I Easterlina LUwlvl III iM Denyse DuBrucq Sandia National Labs. Richard Engwall

E3TV LLC PO1 *W/« Box VUA 5800 WWWW Westinahouse 1 1 WWill IW1 IWWWW Electronics WjI VVll Wl 1 1 WW

PO1 • \S • Box WW/\ 1035 1 www MSlilv 0829 Vwww P1 • 0W/ • Box VvA 746 # ~W

Lorton VA 22199 Albuaueraue f llVUWjUvl w]UV| NM1 1 1 5 87185 wl 1 WW MS1*1 W G-15 W* 1 w

Baltimore fc* Wil III VI W MDI » I tmf 21203 tmm mm* WW

William V V III IWll 1 1 Dufresne mJ W 1 1 WWl IV Michael Ivl Ivl luwl Eaton Widlwl 1 NorthroD IVI III II WW Corn VWI w» United W/l IILvvl Defense W V i v 1 iww LPwl Clifford VHMUIU Erickson Wil IVIWv1 1 8900 E. Washington St. P.O. Box 15512 Honeywell, Inc. MS N610/XA York Wl I \j PAI § \ 17405-1512 |( r WW^ 1 W 1 <mm 3660 W^ W V V Technoloav I WWl II 1 W'WWW Dr. mm' 1 • Pico l^f^m Rivera B II V Wl Wlj CA1 90660 w w www MSIIIW' MN65-2300 llll IWW WWW w Joseph Ebig Minneanolis 11(11 fl IvUpVMW) llll MN1 55418 WW i 1 W

William Dura Thomson Saginaw

U.S. • • Armv f il III | Deoot fc*? Vla* W « Svstem J W IV III 628 WwW N Hamilton 1 IWI 1 1 IIIWI 1 Mansour IfIUI IWWW1 Eslami WwWIWI III Command Saginaw, Ml 48602 Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

Leterkenny Army Depot Dept. of EECS

MS AMSDS-EN-M Pius 1 iww Eobelu LUWVIU M/C iiw \y 154 i w» Chambersbura. v IMI 1 I W1 WWW1 W(If* PA 17201 If »» W 1 National IWUWI IUI Science vwlwl Iww Foundation 1 WWl IWWUWI 1 Chicaao \tf 3 IIVUUV| IL1 mm 60680-4348 WVWWW W * W

Scott VWVU Duvall l/UTUII RitcspII 1 Iwwwwll tL>yywlO Fnnprc Richard 1 II vl IUI w EsDOSito wwwWwlIW

Pratt & Whitney JCFCIM W V* I Villi AIL ff 11 mm Svstems. \*r J W%WIII W| Inc.II w• 400 Main St. Commack Rd.

MS 118-39 MSA2

East Hartford, CT 06108 Deer Park, NY 11729

Lorna B. Estep

Naval Supply Systems Command

204
Donald Esterling VJIICI fl 1 1 ICJUo Paul Follansbee

MicrocomDatibles IV 1 1 V< WWW III ±*\mA X 1 W1 V- W | Inc 1 1 1 w • GE CorD R&D U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Q01 Prelude Dr River 1 lIVvl RdI IV* 14th & Constitution Ave., NW

ONVvl Cjiwpr Snrinn ^r'"'H| MDIVIL/ £.V<7V P0Q01\ MSIVIO KWC-258 1 \ ¥ f v C-sJKJ MS H4226

Schenectadv Wl <Vl IVVlUUJi NY1 *i 1 12309 1 bVVV Washington, DC

Patricia Evans

NIST Erin k*l III Finn 9 II II 1 S. Jeane Ford

mmr Blda. 1 \0\«i * 245, b» 1 \v 1 Rm.Mill B102 1 U.S. * * DeDt. mmw \f pr of1 Commerce ^m* I f t 9 9 I ^» NIST

Gaithersbura, MD 20899-0001 14th & Constitution Ave., NW Bldg. 220, Rm.A127

Rm1 II 1 1 « 1015 IVI w Gaithersbura, MD 20899-0001

A D fTon\A Falco Washinaton f * Uvi in iu iwi } DC*** \y 20230 wV*-» ww Gencoro-Aeroiet Vlvl IvVI U nvl vlvl TedW** Ford 1 Wl \^ 1100 1 1 WW West If vwl Hollwale 1 IwMj tvilv Christine vl II IvUI IV Fisher 1 Ivl IVI DWI

PO Box 296 Office ^0 111 \^ ofI the VI 1 \f AsstEL * Sec. \r V** • ofw 9 Defense 9mr V 1 * 1100 Kinnear Rd.

Azusa CA 91702 WSIG Columbus, OH 43212

Rm. 28322

Monica 1*1 Wl IIW^A Faurote f W«V*I VIV Washinaton. DC 20301 Donald Foster

JCFCIM/NAWR ADI Lawrence Berkeley Lab.

6000 WWWW E9Kmt 21st L 1 vl Street Wil WI Lucv LUvT Fitch 1 11VI 1 11 Cvclotron \tr j Wl W V Wl 1 Rd1 IV • MS 70 Huahes WM1 1 WW Aircraft W 9,9 9 VI 9yk9 b Comrjanv ^m* • lt/>Al 9 J Bldg. 90/2148

Indianaoolis II IV- 1 GU IGLVVIIO} INII ~ 46219 TVfc. 1 V 11 1IVV00 Wilson ffllOVII Blvd UIVUi Berkelev CA 94720

19th 1 W/U 1 Floor 1 IWWI Terry Feelev Arlinaton * 111 IUVVI I* VAw K A 22209 h 1—» W wDonald IWI V Fowler \f 9} ¥ 9 W I HGG Laser Fare, Inc. F & F Associates, Inc.

11 1nd. 9 9 1 \*« o Drive mmw 1 1 f \* South \* *^ V I Gottlieb vw biii i vw Fleia iv iyi P.O. • • Box «vWr« 9335 W^W^W^»

Smithfield IIIIU HI V1 Wf Rl111 02917 WwW 1 I NIST Arlinaton / ! Ill Iwlvl ly VAIM 22219 Kb&b&b 1 W

Blda 245 Rm B102

Shaw C. Feng Gaithersbura. %IVII W 1 W 1 ^0^0 9wl 9 » MDIII W* 20899-0001 ^ j W \^ v# \^ I James m0 9w*9 9 ^0^0 Fowler 9 m0 V W 9 *r 9 NIST NIST

Blda. 9MW9 "29 220.W • RmIII* A127lm= f Thomas 1 IWI 1 lUv Florino 1 IWI 1 1 IW Blda WIVM• 220 U*V| Rm1 II 1 li A127 f \ i tmm 1 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Production 9 ^0 \0 wVfcl \f II Technoloav. * VI III *^ 1 WW w Inc. VII \f • Gaithersbura. Wl » I \f 9 %0mm Ml I t MDw 9 mm 20899-0001 9mm ^0 W*mr \m ^* \m 1 2231I Crystal 1 W ^0%&09m Dr.1 * David Ferrell Ste. 815 Simon Frechette

USAF ^m* * • Aeronautical • - \^ 1 1 »w*mw W Wl1 Svs. V • Ctr \0 fcl Arlinaton » *i 1 1 1 i\j iv i } VA* r i 22202 iii NIST

1895 Fifth St. Bldg. 220, Rm. A127

MS ASC/SME Ravmond IW W 9 9 9 W1 1 \^ Flumerfelt I 1 WIII Wl WI *j Gaithersbura ^tfi 9m%9 U 1 W1 WWW1 W I MD1 » 20899-0001 W^** W^ W W W W • WPAFB, OH 45433-7200 Texas 1 WAWW A&M # twill Univ 1 II V 301 WW 1 Wisenbaker WW IWVl IVWlWl Ena l_l IVJ a Doua W WUVJ Freitaa 1 IVI IUU

Max Ferrell Colleae vviivyjv Station wtuiivi i * TXw \ 77843 f f w i w DuPont \mw W 1 Wl 1 \ Lanxide hi 9m\ ' IAIVJ W ComDOsites WlI I WWlIVV

AlliedSianal Aerosoace 23151 w BVmf Forest 1 VIvvL Drw 1 • 2000 » 99W 90 E. Bannister WWI II UWkVI RdIVll Patrick 1 will IVi\ Folev 1 VI w ¥ Ste Xmf IV • 95WW

MS D/124, BW31 DuPont Company AnnaDolis l\1 II lUUvllW) MDIVIW 21040 w 1 w w Kansas City, MO 64141-6159 Rte. 141. Exd. Sta.

P.O. * • Box WVf» 80357 www^^ » Judson VVVWVl IIIFrench VI IVI 1 Arnold «i i wi w Ferreri VI 1 Vl l Wilminaton 1 f III 1 III IUIVI If DEw l_ 19880-0357 1 wWV^Wwf NIST l«IV7 1 Grumman Corporation Blda. 9mw 9 \A \Jk * ,%mmmm» 220.V 4 Rm.II 1 M B358 9mw \* 111 Stewart Ave. Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

MS D05-GHQ

Bethpage, NY 11714-3533

205
Richard French

American Welding Society

550 NW LeJeune Rd.

Miami, FL 33126

Sheldon Friedman

AFL-CIO Economic Research

Dept.

81516th St., NW

Rm. 504

Washington, DC 20006

Scott Fritschel

DuPont Company

Rte. 141

P.O. Box 80357

Wilmington, DE 19880-0357

Joyce Fudak

Frederick Community College

5340-K Spectrum Dr. Ste.K

Frederick, MD 21701

Cita Furlani

NIST

Bldg. 101,Rm.A1000

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Edward Gaffney

U.S. Dept. of State

Alfred Galli

U.S. EPA

401 M St., SW

MS 631BWT/8301

Washington, DC 20460

Janet Gardner

ADB, Inc. 238 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02139

Claude (Cary) Garvatt

Technology Administration

Bldg. HCHB, Rm. 4841

Washington, DC 20230

Pam Gaudiose

U.S. Army Depot System

Command

Code AMSDS-SP-P

Chambersburg, PA 17201

Ed Generazio

NASA

21000 BrookparkRd.

MS 49-8

Cleveland, OH 44135

Eric L. Gentsch

Logistics Management Inst. 6400 Goldsboro Rd.

Bethesda, MD 20817

Thomas Gher

U.S. Army

2800 Powder Mill Rd.

MS AMSRL-EP-RC

Adelphi, MD 20783

John Gibbons

Office of Science & Technology

Policy

Old Exec. Office Bldg.

Rm. 424

Washington, DC 20500

James Gibson

U.S. Army Materiel Command

5001 Eisenhower Ave.

ATTN: AMCAQ-C

Alexandria, VA 22333

Jack Gido

Penn State University

117 Technology Ctr.

University Park, PA 16802

R.G. Gilliland

ORNL/MMES

P.O. Box 2009

Bldg. 9204-1

Oakndge, TN 37831-8051

Katherine Gillman

Office of Science & Technology

Policy

Old Exec. Office Bldg.

Rm. 423

Washington, DC 20500

Anthony Girifalco

DE Valley Industrial Resources

12265 Townsend Rd.

Ste.5

Philadelphia, PA 19154

Sandra Glatt

U.S. Dept. of Energy

Mary Lowe Good

U.S. Dept. of Commerce

14th & Constitution Ave., NW

Rm. 4824

Washington, DC 20230

Shirley Goodman

JCFCIM

Kenneth R. Goodwin

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. B124

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Charles Goss

NANTEC, Inc. 227 W. Market St. P.O. Box 5046

York, PA 17405

Karl Grafe

EWI

1100 KinmearRd.

Columbus, OH 43212

David Graham

Institute for Defense Analyses

1801 N. Beauregard St.

Alexandria, VA 22311

206
Robert Graham Tobias Halliday Peter Hart

Boeing Washington Headquarters Services NIST

P.O. Box 3999 400 Army-Navy Drive Bldg. 220, Rm. A127

MS 9F-62 Ste. 200 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Seattle, WA 98124-2499 Arlington, VA 22202-2884

Dale B. Hartman

Basil Grant Robert N. Hambright CAM-I

AIM Southwest Research Inst 1250 E. Copeland Rd.

11600 Virgate Lane P.O. Drawer 28510 Ste. 500

Reston, VA 22091 San Antonio, TX 78228-0510 Arlington, TX 7601

Claude Gravatt Robert Hansen Barry Hass

NIST7TA FANVC Robotics Raytheon

14th & Constitution Ave., NW 2000 S. Adams Rd. 50 Apple Hill Dr. HCHB, Rm. 4841 Auburn Hills, Ml 48326 MS T3MJ26

Washington, DC 20230 Tewksbury, MA 01876

Howard Harary

Peter Green NIST Wayne Hawkins

U.S. Dept. of Energy Bldg. 220, Rm. A107 Center for Innovative Tech.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 2214 Rockhill Rd.

William Gregory Ste. 600

Signal Magazine Charles Harman Herndon, VA- 22070

PRC, Inc. William Grimmell 4301 N. Fairfax Dr. George Hazelrigg

Martin Marietta Energy Ste. 700 National Science Foundation

P.O. Box 2008 Arlington, VA 22203

MS 6010/MS-6355 G. Stanley Hearron

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6355 Raymono Harrigan U.S. Dept. of Energy

Sandia National Labs. P.O. Box 5400

Carol Guido P.O. Box 5800-0949 Albuquerque, NM 87185

National Science Foundation MS 0949

Albuquerque, NM 87110 Arthur (Art) Heim

Christine Haapala Penn State University

Software Productivity Joe Harris 1 19 Technology Ctr. 2214 Rock Hill Rd. Sandia National Labs. University Park, PA 16802

Herndon, VA 22070 P.O. Box 5800

MS 0629 James (Jim) Henderson

Delbert Hahn Albuquerque, NM 87185 Okla. Ctr. for Integr. Design &

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Manuf.

Fred Hart 203 Engineering

David Hall U.S. Dept. of Energy Oklahoma State Univ.

UT Center for Industrial Service 1000 Independence Ave., SW Stillwater, OK 74708

605 Airways Blvd. MS 5E052/EE521

Ste. 109 Washington, DC 20585 Ed Henderson

Jackson, TN 38301 Lockheed Missiles & Space

1111 Lockheed Way

MS D/89-30, Bldg. 588

Sunnyvale, CA 94089

207
Robert Henderson

SC Research Authority

P.O. Box 12025

Columbia, SC 29211

Mark Henderson

CIM Systems Research Center

Arizona State Univ.

Box875106

Tempe,AZ 85287-5106

Martin Herman

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. B124

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Robert Hermann

United Technologies

United Technologies Bldg.

1 Financial Plaza

Hartford, CT 06101

Merrill Hessel

NIST

Bldg. 245, Rm. B102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

David Hicks

NCMS

3025 Boardwalk

Ann Arbor, Ml 48108

Nathan Higginbotham

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

P.O. Box 516

MS 064-1420

St Louis, MO 63166-0516

Ward Hill Hercules Aerospace Co.

P.O. Box 210

Rocket Center, WV 26726

M! HP!

U.S. Army Research Lab.

2800 Powder Mill Rd.

MS AMSRL-EP-RC

Adelphi, MD 20783

Peter Hilton

430 Annursnal Hill Concord, MA 01742

Robert Hodge

Cincinnati Milacron

1316 Elmwood Dr.

Colonial Heights, VA 23834

Wayne Hodges

Georgia Institute of Tech.

430 10th St., NW

Ste. N112

Atlanta, GA 30318

James Holds

EMPF

3740 Pinebrook Circle

Ste. 608

Bradenton, FL 34209

William C. Holton

Semiconductor Research Corp.

79 Alexander Dr.

P.O. Box 12053

Rsch Triangle Park, NC 27709

Paul Hommert

Sandia National Labs.

MS 0827

Albuquerque, MN 87185

Sungho Hong

KIMM (Korea Inst.)

8301 Greensboro Dr. MS 470

McLean, VA 22102

John Hoops

Bay State Skills Corp.

101 Summer St. Boston, MA 02110

Joan Kelly Horn

U.S. Dept. of Defense

Rm. 3E813

The Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Barbara Horner

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. B322

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Joseph Houldin

DE Valley Industrial Resources

12265 Townsend Rd.

Ste. 5

Philadelphia, PA 19154

Tom Houlihan

OSTP

Joann Housel

NSWC-Louisville

5403 Southside Dr. Code 90E

Louisville, KY 40214-5000

Randy Howard

Babcock & Wilcox Co.

2220 Langhorne Rd.

MC 123

Lynchburg, VA 24501

Aubre Howell

Vought Aircraft Company

9314 W.Jefferson

P.O. Box 655907

Dallas, TX 75265-5907

Eugene Howell

Textron Defense Sys.

201 Lowell St. Rm. 4130

Wilmington, MA 01887

Allan Hrncir

Texas Instruments, Inc. 6000 Lemmon Ave.

MS 540

Dallas, TX 75209

J.P. Hsu

10291 Arizona Circle

Bethesda, MD 20817

208
Charles Huang Richard (Rick) Jarman Fred Jones

Thomson Saginaw Eastman Kodak Company Oak Ridge Centers for Manu.

628 N. Hamilton 12150 H.St., NW Technology

Saginaw, Ml 48602 Ste. 800

Washington, DC 20005 John (Jack) F. Jones

Charles L. Hudson Sandia National Labs.

National Ctr. for Manufacturing Eric Jeffers P.O. Box 5800

Sciences Montgomery College MS 0630

3025 Boardwalk 51 Mannakee St. Albuquerque, NM 87185-0630

Ann Arbor, Ml 48108 202 Gudelsky Inst.

Rockville, MD 20850 Roy Jones * Chris Humphrey Los Alamos National Lab.

NIST Robert Jerard Mail Stop 899

Bldg. 245, Rm. B102 Univ. of New Hamsphire Los Almos, NM 87545

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Mechanical Engineering

Durham, NH 03824 Sanjay Joshi

Paul G. Huray Penn State University

Univ. of S. Carolina Keith Jessen 207 Hammond Bldg.

106 Osborne Rockwell International University Park, PA 16802 • * Columbia, SC 29208 855 35th St., NE

MS 137-108 Maris Juberts

Larry Hux Cedar Rapids, IA 52498 NIST

Joint Center for FCIM Bldg. 220, Rm. B124

5300 International Blvd. Mary Johnson Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Ste. 103 Rensselaer Polytechnic

N. Charleston, SC 29418 CAT Kevin Jurrens

MS C11 8015 NIST

T.R. Jacks Troy, NY 12180 Bldg. 220, Rm.A127

EMPF/lndiana Univ. Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

714 N. Senate Ave. Peter K. Johnson

Ste. 100 Metal Powder Indust. Fed. Martin R. Karig

Indianapolis, IN 46202 105 College Rd. E. Institute for Systems Research

Princeton, NJ 08540 College Park, MD 20742-0615

Richard Jackson

NIST Anita K. Jones Balwant Karlekar

Bldg. 220, Rm. B322 U.S. Dept. of Commerce Rochester Institute Tech.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 The Pentagon 1 1 1 Lomb Memorial

Rm. 3E1014 MS 5608

Ken Jacobson Washington, DC 20301-3010 Rochester, NY 14623

New Technology Week

Fred Jones Anette Karlsson

Carol James Martin Marietta Energy Embassy of Sweden

Carol James Communication P.O. Box 2009 600 New Hampshire Ave.

1747 Penn. Ave., NW Bldg. 9202, MS 8097 Washington, DC 20037

Ste. 875 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Washington, DC 20006 Terri Kaufman

PA DeDt of Commerce

352 Forum Bldg.

Harrisburg, PA 17120

209
Lloyd Kaufman Kevin Kirchner Richard Kraus

DAIWA Institute of Research U.S. Army Computing Devices International

1667 K. St, NW 2800 Powder Mill Rd. 3101 E. 80th St. Washington, DC 20036 iff* Aiioni r~n no MS AMSRL-EP-RC

IIP U/-\A"7COO MS HO07522

Adelphi, MD 20783 DIaahaIaaIaa A4K1 rr /I ap

Bloomington, MN 55425

Richard Kavalauskas

U.S. Air rorce Stephen Klein cyntnia Kreioer

2601 E. St. DynCorp-Meridian NIS

1

Mo ASC/AM ilOAA l/inn Of 43UU King st. DM. OOA Dm DOAC biag. nm. boUb

wnght-ratterson Arb, oh 45433 Ols\ Al\f\

ste. 400 baithersourg, md 20899-0001

Alexandria, VA 22302

Michael Kelly Sean Krieger

Georgia Institute of Tech. Amy Knutilla Naval Undersea Warfare Center

813 First Dr., NW NIST 610 Dowell St. ill n/N MARC Bldg. 220, Rm. A127 1 jo /"\ /aa a r\. nu*. AAT MS C/2012; bldg. 82T

Atinnin f^A OAOQO ACCA Atlanta, oa oOoJ<:-oooo ^nithnrokiirn MPt OAQAO AAA1 baitnersourg, mu 208yy-ouu i Keyport, wa yoo45

C O 1/ /-in /J nil b.b. Kendall Daniel Koenig Lawrence Kuberski

Steinway and Sons McDonnell Douglas Aerospace

CtAIAlllAlf Dln/SA steinway riace r.U. bOX DID

Ernest Kerzicnik Long Island City, NY 11105

| |0 A"7« J A i A MS 276 1240

Cab Aircratt engines St. Louis, MO 63166

firtrt Mai imaaa \ A /m% < une Neumann way

MMmMM l/A AV\AaI James Koeppei

Mb X-408 ft, 1 A . . _ 1 Aim I A / —. _ _ _ /*\ _ —- t _ _ Naval Air Warfare Center Norman Kuchur

Cincinnati, oh 4o2io code MH4 be corporate nesearcn

Applied Technology Section P.O. box 8

Joseph Key Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5100 A JO i/\ A /r\riA7 MS KWD227

Army Research Laboratory

OmUmmmm4m«J.. IV IV/ 4 AAAJ

Schenectady, NY 12301

AMSRL-EP-R Henry Kondracki

rort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5601 E3TV LLC Oa1!aU I /. ,||,a*m! Satish Kulkarni

r\ Orwj 4 AOC

r.O. bOX 1035 Lawrence Livermore National Lao.

Di im UAnn l/im Dum-noan wm Lorton, va <£iiyy D P\ Dnv Q AO

r.U. bOX oUo

CTDI t Inl L-333

Vi icoAnn D r\ 1 AC Yuseong r.u. iuo jonn Koran Livermore, ca y4550

Taejon EDS Corp.

KOREA 4 AAAA r~ r"\ f\ r> — 1 3600 EDS Dr. Charles Kung

1 j f> * AO Ann MS A2S-A53 Montgomery College

ooo-uneoi i\im Hernaon, va £L\ji i <:0^uo UDservation ur. CTDI t inl /^ArmAA^AIIlA 1 1 P\ OA07C bermantown, mu 2U8/d

r.U. bOX 10b Ench Krai

Tf\ rtiAn oAC CAC laejon, 305-606 II O A.***.. or-o/^A J U.S. Army CECOM George Kuper

l\Unb/\ L_ 0% mm IIaNM mi ilU rort Monmouth Iaai iaIviaI 1 AAnAA aaw

industrial lecnnoiogy

MS AMSEL-LC-ED P.O. box 1485

rrea Kingery

r~ _ _x llAAA*«..iL ft 9 | AT7AO

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703 Ann ArUnr 111 <4QHAC Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Martin Manetta Energy

P.O. Box 1027 Bruce Kramer

MS 137-123 National Science Foundation

Moorestown, NJ 08057-0927

210
Tom Kusuda Tina Lee Werner Loeii

U.S. Dept. of Commerce MICT Nib 1 u.o. rMavy-rivi04uu

japan i ecnnoiogy program

DIW/i OOA Dm A 1 07 blag, 220, Hm. A12/ coo i jcTicfson udvis nwyRm. 4817, HCHB Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Mo PMo4UUooA

Washington, DC 20230 Arlington, va ^iiii:4^-5i do

Kongrae Lee

Dale LaCount STEPI (Korea) Kenneth Loewentnai

Babcock & Wilcox Co. 255 P.O. Box Cheong bastman Kodak company

1562 Beeson St. Seoul 901 timgrove Hd.

Allionoo AU AACM Alliance, um 44oui r\UntA MC OC1A1 MO 00 1 U 1

DAokii-»f>t<-ir MV 1/ICCO C1A1 nocnester, ny 14d5o-5ioi

jean c. Latrance bi-Amme Lentinet

Technology Administration Penn state university jonn w. Long

20/ Hammond bldg. MAV/CI IDCU/ADACMT ADnCTA NAVoUnrWAHCtN 1 UnUolA

John Lamancusa University Park, PA 1 6802 O*Ja AAA code 90A

i ne renn otate university L0UISVIII6, i\\ 4Utl4-0UUU

157D Hammond Bldg.

\ Jh i |jh 1 A A 1 *\ T_-l ^A M

Douglas Lemon

university Park, PA 1 6802

fl a >a aI ^a Pa 1 ^a mXLa* • * a a* 1 n

Pacific Northwest Lao.

1 Jill I #ai>^a|ama bin Loveless

ooon A C+ Dm 01Q oo^U U ot., nul. reoerai 1 ecnnoiogy nepon

rrnz Larsen D A Pnv QQQ OA

p.u. box yyy, moa/-ou 1 onn a ct k\\m ltUU O Ot., NW

iacaim Hicniano, wa yyo5<i Dm 11 Aft run. 1 1 UU

Washington, uc 20005

Larry Lauoerdaie John Lepore

DdDCOCK & WIICOX CO. I ecnnoiogy service corp

OAMAfi N At 1 lit 1 Hooert Lowry

i pen 1/ c+ MM/ loOU K. OL, NW 962 Wayne Ave. NSWC UU

Oift OCA

ote. 950

AiA AAA

Ste. 800 4 700A HaUU»aM D-J 17320 Dahlgren Rd.

wasningion, uu ^uuuo OiU#nr CnrirtM llJlOj OATH A

oiivGr opring, mu ^uaiu MO A7A Mo b/0

nnklnrnn \/A OA A AO C1AA Danigren, va 22448-51 00

donn Lause lAlllllA m 1 f\i A Brt AnAIa f/s 1/ wniiam Lewanoowski

VJlcdl LaKcS OUmpoSllcS \sO. Aerospace mousines uperanon

IL 4 a rl/ 1 1 iaa MarK Luce

ohuu Laiwview rrwy. itou eye oi., nw MIQT NIO 1

oie. ouu wasningion, uo ^uuuo DIHn OOA Dm A 107 biag. nm. ai^/

tfonoeha \A/I coi /I9 rxenosna, wi ooi4£ Pniiknrr>ki ir/i MH OAQOQ AAA1 oaitnersDurg, mu 208yy-uuui

Hong Liang

oteven Leciair Union Carbide Company George Lucey

wngnt-ratterson Arb "7CA C* AAajJ Oi 750 S. 32nd St. Army Research Laboratory

OAT7 D Ot col 1 P St.

1 k /_ _L -a . ...I I If A AAA^-4 Washougal, WA 98671

AAAA . .^1 a ft J ! M naJ 2800 Powder Mill Rd.

Qta 1 Q

oie. io MS AMSRL-cP-nC

lA/rirtKl DnHnronn A CD AU wngnt Patterson Arb, uh Steve Under Adelphi, MD 20783

AMD UNH

QAA Al A, lifkAu oou n. uumcyI J A |A A 1 aJ 1 | | AAA | >A Ronald Lumia

uave Leouetter Code 361

.hot NIST

LocKneea Aeronautical oystems Anmgton, va

nu. OOA Dm Dio>i

bldg. 220, Rm. B124

od ouuui l»uuu ur.

Aoithrtri~ki irn 1 1 H OAQOQ AAA1 baithersDurg, mu <dU8yy-uuui

Hon* AO. 11 7nnn A1 CA uept. ho- 1 1

, z.one u i50 P|aa I AaLIaaV bien Locklear

Marietta, GA 30063 U.S. Air Force Ted Lundy

Center for Manufacturing Research

Box 5077

Cookerville, TN 38505

2ll
David Lundy Michael Marean Howard McCue

International Trade Comm. Institute for Defense Analyses Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

500 E. St., SW 1801 N. Beauregard St. 7000 East Ave.

Rm. 51 1G Alexandria, VA 2231

1

MS L-644

Washington, DC 20436

Daniel Marschall

Livermore, CA 94550

Tery Lynch AFL-CIO HRDI

ft ft * i ft ft r*\ — M Mike McDermott

NIST 815 16th St. SME

Rm. 405

A ft ft J A 1 » 1 1 _ i i _ ft\ ' _ I 18948 Whetstone Circle

Kevins Lyons

1 ft f 1 • i f~\ -ft. tf\ AAA/**

Washington, DC 20006

1 1 i_ ft * r"\ ft ft Tft Gaithersburg, MD 20879

NIST

niJ— ftft. ft. P*.—. A d ft "7 Blag. 220, Rm. A127 Larry E. Martin

4 ft i ii i

'. ft ft _ — - - i _ William McDonough

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

i i , t > ft * _ _ _ U.S. Bureau of Mines

P.O. Box 748

ft J ft ~T 1 1_ Oi l It ft f 810 7th St., NW

Kong Ma Dept. 088-6, MZ 1420 MS 9702

Rolls Royce, Inc. Fort Worth, TX 76101 Washington, DC 20241

2849 Paces Ferry Rd.

Ste. 450 Pierre Martin

i ft i r— Ian McEwan

Atlanta, GA 30339-3769

ft ft t A /**v ft ft M/A COM y*N I ft ft t General Motors

100 Chelmsford St. NAO Validation Center

Donald Mackintosh Walker Bldg. GM Proving Grounds

Production Technology, Inc.

1 II ft ft A ft <4 ftf*ft Aft /*\ 4 Lowell, MA 01853-3294

1 f*l£ _J ft ftl Jftftftft Milford, Ml 48380

2231 Crystal Dr. Ai . ft 4 f" Ste. 815 Cecil Marty

1**1 1 ft ft _ /»> il Michael McGrath

A ., 1

*

. « _ 111 AAAAA

Arlington, VA 22202 NIST U.S. Dept. of Defense

Bldg. 101, Rm. A411 Attn: ARPA/SISTO

Susan Macy

^\ • 1 1

1 ft ft f* AAAA/> ft A A J Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 3701 N. Fairfax Dr.

Univ. of Houston

A 1' i I f A ftftftftft At TMTJ ft Arlington, VA 22203-1714

1100 Louisiana

f-\ i ft ft ni Ronald Matthews

Ste. 500 Cornell Univ.

i Harry McHenry

Houston, TX 77002

ft f"V J ^N* 1 6 Ridgeway CircleAll C\ ~T~ NIST

Painted Post, NY 14870

ftft r~ r% _i 325 Broadway

Danny Mahan Boulder, CO 80303

Army Missile Command f _ il 1 ft ft _ i _ • 1 Kenneth J. Matysik

AMSMI-RD-SE-MT Unisys

i & ft i Jack Mclnnis

na« J.i. _ _. A ._ — _ I a 1 a r"A Art Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898ft AAft n*l i 1/ J n i 3333 Pilot Knob Rd. Production Technology, Inc.

ft ft /"\ I |ft| I A A

MS U2H23

fti^<^ J f\ i 1 2231 Crystal Dr.

1/ 111 1 KL'

K.W. Mahin

fTM 1 II | PPJ AJ

Eagan, MN 55121 Ste. 815

Sandia National Labs.

A 1* t II ftftftftft Arlington, VA 22202

Livermore

t _ i ft ft _ • _l_ John Maulowich

Technology Transfer Business

< hi si i Matthew McLean

Thomas Mahoney Resources, Trade & Tech.

National Academy of Sciences Gregory Mayworm

Aftftft t ft 1 ! 1 1 . . . _ _ _ _ _ ^ i. 3309 Willow Crescent

Mektronix Technology, Inc. OX — Af ft Ste. 13

James Mahood

AS Jh < A A A*| | A 507 N. Milwaukee Ave.

^m * r til r> a Fairfax, VA 22030

breat Lakes composites Co.

1 !Ua»(i«.SIU tl A AA >4 O

Libertyville, IL 60048

8400 Lakeview Pkwy.

Ste. 800 Richard McCormack

Kenosha, Wl 53142 New Technology Week

212
onaries McLean I* /m fin nilill/Mr Kevin Miner UUIInhnII Mitphinor 1 IVIIIOI III ici MICT Nlo 1 oucieiy 01 MdnuidQ/iuiiny SflnHia National 1 ah<;

blOy. ".U, nm. f\\ci Engineers 1 . V-/. UUA uUUU

(aaitnersDurg, mu <dUo/

1im \A/ilr>/->ri Dli/rl

1 1 ui wiison biva. M<5 IVIO 0799 U/ a:

Cta 1 1 Art oie. i iuu AlUULjUCI Alhi mi larni 1a MM ft7R4^ WjUC, I'll VI \JiyJH\J

I nomas h. Mcuuwan Arlin/itnn \/A 999HQ Arlington, va dzzud

EFMA rtMA Rartnn Dai IUI 1 Mnpn^tpr IVIUCI lolvl cnn Ct o\A/ 500 0. ot., oW jane Miner K^/*nAnnall n^iinlac AflfAcno^o IVIOUUriricll UUUyiab AcIUbpaLc

Olo coo ote. boo uaK nioge ueniers tor Manu. P Pi Rnv Rlfi r.KJ. DUA 0 1

VA/oehirintnn nP 9fM79 wasningion, uo cwmic i ecnnoiogy MP 1091^10

^t 1 nnk MD R0,1Rfi Ol. LUUIb, IVIVJ UO 1 UO

Parnl UdfUl MlAnnII Moaroc I IVlGdlt/b MlArthur II IUI P Millpr \J. IVIIIICI

1 1 Q nor*t nf Hnrnmor^fl U.D. UcjJl. UI OvMHlIlcil/C Martin Marietta Fnornv/ IVIdl llll IVldllclid Cllciyy iiuwaiu iviunv^aic

upuR 7flRft Raar Poor f^raab Prl Deal LrlccK nu. IMIO 1 W/achinntnn HP 90900 RIHn Q1 09-9 MQ ftOOQ Dlug. 53 I Merc., MO ouoy RIHn Diuy. ccyj, 99n Rmnni. r\\ci A197

n»sU UaK RiHna TM 07A01 AOOQ nioge, mm 0/00 1 -ouoy Paithorchi irn MD 90ftQQ-0001 oaiu icibuuiy, iviu cxiow uuu i Uonc P MaHin

Pffino nf Qnianr*a C, Tophnnlrviv/ uiiioy ui ooici ice & I ct/iii luiuyy limmia Millar Jllllllllc IVIIIIcl C^ronCifM vjicyuiy Mnnra iviuuic

Policy UNCC Office of Research and

600 New Hampshire Ave., NW Hgwy. 49 Development

Fmhaccv ciiiuaooy nfui owyucii QusaHon MFmu coFQ Pror»icinn FnrtinQQrinn ricvioiuii ciiyiiicciiiiy IVIO *T 1 CO

Wachinntnn vvaoi in iy lui i, HPuu 90007 cxjxjoi Pharlntto V/IICUlUUc, MPhO CQCCO 9A990 Wa<;hinntnn iiddi 111 iy iui i, DPL/vy c\j\j\j\j 90^0^

\a\i Maccnor Jay Mcbbilci Ralnh Millar naipil Mlllcl Qtanhan K^nran OlcUllcll IVIUIall

Rockwell International Vought Aircraft Company NASA HQ

3370 E. Miraloma Ave. P.O. Box 655907 300 E St., SW

mqivio oolrfoo uo i -uruo MQ 1CM/C7 PnHo uuuy RHnn

AMIcti Anaheim Icllll, PAVyA Q9A0Q acOUO rtallac UallaS, TYI A

7^9ftCi RQH7 /OcOU'OsU/ Wachinntnn nP 90fv4.fi vvdsningiun, uu tuo*tu

.Inhn uui 11 1 Moi/or mcyci Rnn Micl^all nun iviibKcii Rnrvort F Mnrric nUUttll C IVIUIIIb WIO 1 Martin Marietta Energy ocneidi uicCinc

RIHn oiuy. 004 ouh, Pmnni. 149 \HC Pr.U.n Rnv DUX 9H0Q d\)\Jo i iMcumdn vvdy

Gaithprshnrn \JalU ICIoUUiy, MP) IVIU CAJQW PnfiQQ-OOOl uuu 1 Dluy. 9 MU, IVIO Oc.C.0 IVIU U 3J

Oak \ja\ Rirfnp niuyy, TNmn 07R01 0/00

Pinrinnati VylllUIMI Idll, OHUn 4^9m HiJc. 1

FroHorirk 1 Miohal

rFartnn/ auiuiy uro PPQ nanh\/ K4i^i itaIIi uenoy iviisureiii junn a. Morrison

AAOQ OnU3 Foltnn 1 ana roiiun Lane U.S. International Trade Com. AlliedSignal, Inc. AlpyanHria rvicAai iui la, VAVn llJW 9900ft enn c 0+ c\A/ UUU C Ol., ovv cUUU 9000 F Q^th Qt C. sDUi Ol.

nm. Rm (\10n o lou MQMO 9A50 cAOU

Don MiilarH Wasningion, uo cU4oo Kansas City, MO 64131-3025

Rpnccplapr 1 ici loociaci Pnlvtophnir r uiy iCvi 11 uu 110V 8th vll 1 St%J I Man/ Mitohall IVIdiy mllC/llcll Frank rldllrv Mncc MUbb

MS Cll 9015 NI9T 1U.O. 1 Q Rpnt Ucpi. nfui oiaic QtatP

Trov NY 191ftfl RIHn Diuy. 990 ccx), Rmnm. twci A 197

Gaithpr<;hiirn viaiu ici ouui MD POfiQQ-nnm y , ivil/ luuwj uuu i Thnma^ itiuiiiao Mnrrin iviuii ii i Ronald Miller Duquesne Univ.

Agility Forum 600 Forbes Ave.

200 W. Packer Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15282

Bethlehem, PA 18015

213
Albert Nash

U.S. Army ARDEC

SMCAR-AEF

MS B61S

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

James Nell

NIST

Bldg. 245, Rm. B102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Joyce Nettleton

IFT

221 N. LaSalle St.

Ste. 300

Chicago, IL 60601

Fred Nichols

NACFAM

1331 Penn.Ave., NW

Ste. 1410 -North

Washington, DC 20004

Hank Noel

NIST

Bldg. 245, Rm. B102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Mary Lou Norris

NIST

Don O'Brien

Defense Logistics Agency

AQPO

Cameron Station

Alexandria, VA 23304-6100

Michael O'Connell

Knowledge Based Systems, Inc. 1408 University Dr., E

College Station, TX 77840

James O'Connor

Kennametal, Inc. P.O. Box 231

Rte. 981 S.

Latrobe, PA 15650

John O'Conor

U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Rm. 5327

Washington, DC 20230

Frank F. Oettinger

NIST

Bldg. 225, Rm. B344

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Joseph Off

Textile/Clothing Tech.

21 1 Gregson Dr. Cary, NC 27511

Ed Oklesson

LSA, Inc. 1215 Jefferson Davis Hgwy.

Ste. 1300

Arlington, VA 22102

Charlie Olszewski

Great Lakes MTL

4600 Prospect Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44103-4314

Gregory Ondich

U.S. EPA

401 M St., SW

MS 641AWT/8301

Washington, DC 20460

George Orzel

U.S. Air Force

2977 P. St., Ste. 6

WL/MTI, Bldg. 653

WPAFB, OH 45433-7739

Charles Osiecki

PBMA (DoA)

Rm. B172

MS ARDEC

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

William R. Ott

NIST

Bldg. 221, Rm. B160

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Shardul Pandya

Engineering Management, ODU

43rd Modular

Old Dominion Univ.

Norfolk, VA 23529

Richard Parisse

General Research Corp.

5383 Hollister Ave.

Santa Barbara, CA 931 11

Myong Park

Univ. of MA

Mechanical Engineering

Amherst, MA 01007

Julie Parker

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. A152

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Ronald Parsons

NIST

Bldg. 224, Rm. B115

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Sunil Patel

Motorola, Inc. 8201 E. McDowell Rd.

MS H 1724

Scottsdale, AZ 85252

Urendra Patel

U.S. Army

Bldg. 321

MS SMCA-AES-M

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806

Alexander J. Patrick

Textron Defense Systems

2385 Revere Beach Pike

MS SE255

Everett, MA 02149

Robert Patterson

Texas Instruments, Inc.

P.O. Box 655474

Dallas, TX 75265-5474

214
Ray Patterson Brett Piekarski MICKy rOUS

uuu Joint uentGr tor roiM u.o. Army nesearcn L3D. IMIO I 5300 Intern Blvd. 2800 rowder Mill Hd. Diog. c.d\), nm. Aiot

M Phorlaetrin CP OQ/1 1 Q

n. unanesion, ou ty4io MCMO AMOnL-cr-nu AMCRI CP DP

AUcipill, Arlolnhi MnMU tU/00 OCHM

\ / a!/ A D01 t\\r> veKo ravnn ivllulldci ruwcii

1 Iniii at rJaaiIaaa univ. ot Maryiano waiter rinar Mo\A/r»r>rt NcWpU! KIqva/c ChinhiiilHinn 1 IMcWo Ol lipUUIIUII iy

Mecnamcai engineering uept. Martin Marietta energy 41 ui wasningion Ave.

College Park, Mu 20742 525 rrencn Hd. Rnilrlinn CAA /Lc1A\ Building ouu (Kiuj

MHMU ie.fi I0U IMcWpUll INcWb, VA tOOU/

CI Inn Daiuli 1/ Atif f*L^i tuen rawiiKowsKi UUCa, INT loOUt

u.o. Air rorce AldLI rldUIldl\al

Leo rionsKy

oieven rerry MAVIRCA INAVInOA RIHn 1 01 Rm A1

oiuy. « u < , nm. a i i 1Aoh

i eamsters union /UU HODDinS Ave. oaiinersDurg, mu cuoyy-uuui

OC 1 ^Miici*3n^ Awa KIYA/ to Louisiana Ave., in w Rlrln 1 A-9 Diog. lu-t

IA/Aehinntrm nP OAA1 wasningion, uo tuu i PhiloHnlnhia rniiddcipflid, PA1Q111 rt\ loi i i MiohaQl Pratt KIICT INIO 1

lAfAl #A A D/Wfl 1 wayne rerry Micnaei riott RIHn OOA Dm A 107 DlOg. nm. Alt/

ueorge Mason univ. 1 1 C Armv u.o. Army odiLiicisuurg, mu tuoyy uuu

Dm 7 OOC Hm. /, duo 2800 Powder Mill Hd.

Pairfov \/A OOAQA-/1 /M /I rainax, va ttuou-4444 MC AMCDI CD DP MO AMoHL-tr-HU uerry rresson

AWnlrthi tiHr\ OA7QQ Adeipni, MU 2U/00 KAPP MUU

ieo renowsKi OCAA \A/ DoUnnac Ptr oouu w. caicones uir.

uci/ Marconi electronic oysiems uonaio nymaie A netin TY 7Q7RQ K'iQR Austin, ia /o/oy-ooyo

IOU rdllbll UI. oanaia ixauonai Laos.

MO 10 A 00 D r\ Dnv CQAA r.U. BOX 5oUU ratncK rnce

wayne, inj u/4/4 MoMC AOC1 uaoi 1 8 O Ail* La»"aa u.o. Air rorce

A IKi mi iAmi in Kill J Q*7^ QC AIDUqUGrqUG, IMM o/loD 0077 D Ot Ctn C cMi i r. ot., oie. o

udiiiei reierson VA/I /MTI RIHn CCQ WL/M 1 1, Biog. 000

Mdvdl UllUcibcd Wdlldic Ocnicl S

aI/ Da1/ r~r\ ai/*^ jacK roKrzywa VA/PAPR PiW ZC^oq 77QQ WrAru, Un 40400-/ /0j

0 1 u uowen Ol.

A 1 ft A At)l / A 1 AA 1 lAfltf A a4i AA Automotive industry Action

MOMC ACQ RIHn OA uoo Diog. OU 2o2uo Lanser

It A A DpaMA uan rrono

Kovnnrt IA/A QftQAG. 7C1A rveypun, wa yoo40-/oiu Cto OAA oie. tuu 1 AMI

ooumiieia, mi 4ouo4 D P Dav 1 CC*3 r.U. bOX lOOo

Mir>haol Pot? MoMC MfiQQ Moyy

Kjav/al iidval Coo Oca oyolclllo Ci/ctomc fjimmonH V/UIIIIIIdilU uosepn roiiio 1 Ae Alomne MKA ft7Ei4R los Aiamos, inm o/04o

too i ociiyioUii udvis nignway OAAA* 1 A Kl A^i AAA i 1 A^A oanaia National Laos.

MCMO OCA CPA niv U0T MC AI C7 Mo 015/ uougias runert

Aiimyiuii, Arlinntnn VAVA OOOAO-Rlfifl 0 1 OU A IKi mt iami ia KIM Q71 QE AiDuquerque, inm o/ioo IIC IntAmnfirtnAl TroWo P^mm u.o. iniernauonai i raoe uomm.

CAA C O* OVA/ 500 t ot., oW

Koith Pirlennc rxcilll riuftcilS

5*\ At /a Darraaa uave rorreca Dm CAA Hm. 5UU

Qai ithu/oct RocQarrh Inet noDen u. tjyra insuiuie wasningion, uu tu4oo

6220 Culebra Rd 1 A^n Pm irth A\/q l UOU rUUIlll Ave.

r.V/. UldWcl t00 I

nuntington, wv 25/ui AAA Dl 1 o1

jean rustis

San Antonio TX 78228-0510 PrAHnptiAn TophnnlA/n/ Iaa riuuuuiiuM 1 cui ii luiuyy , iiiu. 2231 Crystal Dr.

Ste. 815

Arlington, VA 22202

215
Ionic Di ilmon jams ruirnan nicnara neois ixdlcll nionici

IMIO 1 INdvdl OUITdCC WarTaic oeiUCI Inctitnto iiiouiuic fnr iui Hofonco ucici Analwcoc loc ai idiyoco

Rldn uiuy. c£.\jf 990 Rmrun. t\\c.i A197 on?A Ii_cyycu pnnptt PirHo onuie 1801 IUv 1 NM* Bpaurpnard Uwdul cum U StOL. fiarthprohnm VJdlll ICIOUUIU, MDnlU CU033 9nftQQ-0nm uuu 1 Pndp R19 FRD

Annonnlic Mn 01/09 Annapolis, mu tz\<*\jd. AlPYandria VA 99^1

1

AlCAdl IUI Id, VA cJLO I I Thnmac uiunido Onollv/ vjucny

1 1 Q Air Fnma U.o. nil ruTue Mori/ DaqH MdlK nccQ Marnarot KA RiHnolv/ ividiydici ivi. niuyciy

OIVI I auuronno Accnpiatpc Inn l_dWI CI IUC AooUUidlCo, II lu. lowoc / lim\ Pii tinn JdlllCo \UIIIIJ VJUIIIII RIHn oiuy. 51A-1.01 o 1 0" i *u i R100 9nrinnfipld Park \j i uu opiinyiiciu rdi^

Panoral Mntnrc Pontor vjcncidi rviuiuio nau oeiiiei OIVI *5M Ppntor oelliel OlC. StP ^OQ UUv.' oujuu 30500 Mound (viuuiiu RHnu, i oiSt Paul rdul, MMIVIIM R5144 l«+*t navtnn udyiun, OHvjn 454^1 Hutu i Roy DUA Qdtt XSKIOO, RANR riAIND Cl<£ 919

Warrpn Wall CI 1, Ml(VII 4ft0Qn-Qn nOUoU oUUUt^ nuuei Rnhorti nccy Roon Harold Rifp ridiuiu nnc

Hduuiidi National Qnniotv/ of PrnfoQQinnal ouuiciy ui n uicooiui idi FMPF i_ivir i Richard niviidiu Onintpro wunuciu 1490 Kinn St 714 N Spnatp Avp

NIST 11IO 1 nlCAal Alpxandria IUI Id, VAVn 99311 4-2794 H £./ OH Indianannli^ aHVJldt lupyHOj IN111

uiuy. Rldn cjlxj, 990 Rmnil i. R194 Di£H

ftaithprchi VJdlU ICIoUUiy, im MDIVIU 90ftQQ-0001 cUOoo UUU I lomoe Roillv Jdiiico nciliy V/irnil v ii Rinphart

y

ii niiiciidii

Fntornrico np\/plnnmpnt Manomp IVIdyUIIIC r\\J\ Adminctratinn 1 III loll dllUI 1 Riohard muiidiu Ki\. Pji Vjcuioci iiQPnhprrv iuci i y 940 Hr M 1 Kinn Rlvri 400 tvU 7th / III StOL. , SWOt?

AmtOY Partnorchin AIIIICA rdlululolllfJ Mou/ark INfcJWdlK,, MINJ

1 071 U/ I 09MC Rmnin. 7^1 ft / o i

o

PlAA0 Roy DUA 4R70 HO/v WaQhinntnn* vvdoi in ly iui i, DPuw tuj3u 905Q0

Wilminnton whi i ii lyiui i] DFui— 1QR07-4R70 i juu / / u Hprm ncnii Rpininna ncii in iyd

RnnlnA/oll Intornatinnal nuoiWVcll II IICI 1 IdllUlKXl r^arv vjdi Rnhprtcnn y nuuciioun

Phsrioc Rannm irt ol Id! (CO ndllUUUIl Pnlline v/Ulllllo rVVIUIHOb A\/innioe dIRJ anH Pnmm V/UIIIIII. UIV. P-onnnrruAorniDt VJcl luui p^ACl UJCl

RpnA<sPlflPr nci toocidci ruiy Pnlvtprhnir icui u uu Oyj\i ^^0 Pnllin*; v/uiiiiio Rri nu. 1i 1i 00uu Wp<;t 1 1 col Hnllwalp iiuuyvdic

110 8th St Cpdar Raniri<5 LA *i9498 194-2/7451

MSIVIO Cll WIE 9111 Will ntuoa, Azuoa PAon 91702 o i / \jc

Trftw MY 191 fin I lUy, IN T l£ IOU vicior neis

u.o. uepi. or energy Qtnnhon RnKincnn oicpiicii nUUIIIoUll

Aiiiiiuiiy Anthony Rataio^ar ndldjU4d( 1 nnn lnHar\anHanna Av/d Q\A/ I Uw IIIUcpcllUclK/C nVc., OVV Rnnk IcIanH Arconal nuuri loldllU AloClldl

MAQA iiflon 1Lewis pu/ic neocdiun Rpcoamh Pontor vciiici Wnchinntnn nP 9n^fi^ Rnrk nUur\ kland loldllU, FlrL R19QQ-5000 Olt33 3UW

MSrvio 7-^ / o

Clpvplanri wicvcidi iu, OHor i 441 *+*+ i jj35 Rnhprt P Rpitfpr Halo L/dic Rnhincnn nuuiiioun

Sandifl vfai evjid Natinnfll iiuuui lui ILuUO- ah^ Battelle

Steven R Rav P1 •\J 0• Box UUA 5800 JUvv 505 Kinn Avp

NIST IVIO 0QR1 U30 1 PnlumhiiQ OUIUI 1 lUUo, OHwl 1

Bldg. 220, Rm. A127 Albuquerque, NM 87185

ftaithprchi VJdIU IcIoUUiy, irn MnIVIU CUOS9 90RQQ-0001 vUU I uoiuii ly nuuyii

IWdylldlU nllUdUco Matinnal ixdiiuiidi Fnnnnmin cuui iuiiiiu PnnnHI ouui iuii

IIu.o.S mArmvuiy Old OIU FYPditivp LACvUUVv Offirp OlllwV Bldn UlUVj.

Rm 993

Pharloe Ri^o V^lldllcb nlCc Wachinntnn V vdoi hi lyiuu, DPuu cujuu 90R00

Chrysler Corp.

30900 Stephenson Hwy. David Rochford

CIMS- 463-00-00 U S DeDt of Commerce

Madison Heights, Ml 48071 14th and Penn. Ave., NW

MS DOC/HCHB

Washington, DC 20230

216
Steven Rockholm

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems

86 South Cobb Dr. MS 96-03/0251

Marietta, GA 30063

Mary Ann Roe

Texas State Technical College

3801 Campus Dr.

Bldg. 18.3

Waco, TX 76705

Dennis Rogosch

U.S. Dept. of Commerce

4835 Herbert Hoover Bldg.

Rm.4418

Washington, DC 20230

Rick Rolando

3M

Bldg. 570-1 W-03

St Paul, MN 55144-1000

Robert Rolfe

IDA

1801 N. Beauregard St. Rm 300/CSED

Alexandria, VA 22311

Dale Rome

Carderock Div.-Naval Surface

Code 2033

Bethesda, MD 20084-5000

Robert Ross

Extrude Hone

8075 Penn. Ave.

Irwin, PA 15642

Jeff Ruckman

Center for Optics Manufacturing

240 East River Rd.

Rochester, NY 14623

Rosalie Ruegg

NIST

BWg.101.Rm.A405

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Thomas Russell

NIST

Bldg. 220, Rm. B258

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Ronald E. Ruys

Management Systems Applications

1007 BanktowDr.

Charleston, SC 29406

Alvin Sabroff

Eaton Corp.

32500 Chardon Rd.

Willoughby Hills, OH 44094-9137

Michal Safar

ITT Research Institute

10W. 35th St. MTIAC

Chicago, IL 60616-3799

Robert Sales

Defense Contracts

222 N. Sepulvada Blvd.

10th Floor, OT

El Sequndo, CA 90245

Charles Salkewicz

NYNEX

1095 Ave. of Americas

Rm.220

New York, NY 10036

Ed Saloman

NIST

Bldg. 245, Rm. B102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Joseph Saloom

Technology Service Corp.

116 W. Sixth St.

Ste. 200

Bloomington, IN 47404

Paul Sampson

General Research Corp.

2940 Presidential Dr.

Ste. 390

Fairborn, OH 45324

Howard Samuel

Council on Competitiveness

900 17th St., NW

Ste. 1050

Washington, DC 20006

Myrrl Santy

TRW

One Space Park

Bldg. 01/Rm. 2040

Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Emil Sarady

Concurrent Technologies

1450 Scalp Ave.

Johnstown, PA 15909

Cynthia Sarafidis

U.S. Army

2800 Powder Mill Rd.

MS AMSRL-EP-RC

Adelphi, MD 20783

James Saultz

Martin Marietta Energy

Bldg. 145-1, Rte. 38

Moorestown, NJ 08057

Michael Saylor

MC Saylor

2203 Cedar Mill Ct.

Vienna, VA 22182

Wendy Schacht

U.S. Library of Congress

Congressional Research Service

MS LM-413

Washington, DC 20540-7940

Robert Schafrik

National Research Council

2101 Const. Ave., NW

Harris Bldg., Rm. 262

Washington, DC 20418

Roger Schappell

CTA, Inc. 5670 Greenwood Plaza

Ste. 200

217
ciiyitjvvouu, kjKj ou i i i UclUCll J. OUIIUII Funpnp LUuvl IU Shaw Ol Id**

Indiana Business Modern. National Automotive Center

Willie Q/*hat-7 Willie O0I u3.1L VJilc IN. OdpilUI 11u.o.Q /Armv \i 1 1 1 y TAACOM 1 r\iX\j\j\M\

4451 Albermarle St NW Ste 925 Warren V ¥ Vtl 1 V 1 1 • Ml1*11 Wa«;hinntnn DP, 9001 fi InHinnnnnlic IM 4R904

Yin-Lin Shen

Jay Scheuer Lyle Schwartz George Washington Univ.

I n^ Alamn^ National I ah NIST Academic MvUUvl 1 1 1 V Center vv1 1 iv 1 7703 1 r v

V

MS E526 Bldn Ljiuy* 223 ceo^ Rmrun. B309 uwww Washinaton f f UJI II 1 ly IWt 1 1 DCU\J 20052 t- VWvw

Los Alamos NM 87544 Gaithersbura VJUIU Iwl OwUIU| MDIVIL/ 20899-0001 CVvvv WVI

Jeff vvll Shick IIVI\ Fred riou Srhiprlnn ovsi nci iui i Gerald Seidpl National 1 iQUvl IOI Tpchnolonv 1 Vvl II IWlwUJf Tran^fpr IIUllOlvl

National Center Toolina & Prec NASA HQ 31v iv0 Washinaton 1 1 uwi 111 iy %vi 1 Ave * • « v • 2600 kWV Dorr h/VI 1 300 WV E1— StWi<| SWw t Wheelina, Vvll III 1 V4 I WVV ¥ T Toledo 1 VivUVj OHVI 1 43607 i vvv # Rm1 11 1 1 • RR111 1 Washinaton v * uwi 111 iy i>vi 1 j DC\y 20546 bvvTMv Donald Shrader

Craig Schlenoff TechniRep, Inc. NIST 1Robert IVWI l> Seliaer VWIIU VI 4130 Linden Ave.

Blda 220 Rm A152 Huohes 1 iuui iww r^iiviuii Aircraft Comnanv vuiiiuai i» Ste 320

Gaithprshum MD 20899-0001 301 vv 1 11 Malihu IVlullvU Canvnn VQI Ij vi I Blda L/I\JVJ> 254 £»v • ) M/S IVI/W RL69 1 Iwvv

Davton CAY ivi If OHw 1 I 45432 1 V " vtHein7 1 Ivli 14 Srhmitt wv1 1 Ii 1 : 1

Malibu IVIG&UvU, CAvn 90265-4799 vvwvv " / vv Jack WUVlX Shuman Wl IUI 1 IUI 1 Sandia National 1 ahQ Al 1 Rronn

P1 *\J 0* Box LA/A v/vVV 5800 Ronald Selvidge

Albuaupraup NM 87185-58 0 SDM Consultants .Inn Uvl 1 Shunp \Jl lUvv

11 6039 WW Laconia UUWWI HU Circle VliWIw BFGoodrich W* I WVWI IVI 1 Mnrt IVIvl I Schnahpl wvl II ICu/vl Woodbrdiae VA 22191 9921 wvL 1 Brecksville Ul vvlWf lllv Rd1 IV

t

U S Deot of Commerce Brecksville 1 VV1 VV » 1 1 1 V | OH1 1 44141 I T 1 « 1 Bldn 304 oiai Stan1 oeiueo SpttlPQ

Rm 142 National IWUWI IUI Science Wvlwl Ivv Foundation 1 Vvl IWUUWI 1 Henrv 1 IVI 11 J Simon 1 1 1 IVI 1 Gaithersbura vv*i 11 ivi wwwi y | MDif 1 u 20874 wvv # i U S Dent of Commerce

TedV^<l Shab ¥^ 1 IWNV 14th & Constitution Ave., NW

JV* Clifford wllllwlV Schoen vvl IvvU NIST l*Jlw 1 Rm1 IUI* 48411

National Ctr for Advanced Blda wWU • 245 U~W| Rm1 llll* B102 w* 1 vw Washinaton V UVI III ' V IVI 1 1 DC 20230 V*»V w Technoloav 0 Wvl II IVIVM ¥ Gaithersbura V>UIUIVIWWUIU| MDIVI \J 20899-0001 WWW vw 1 1250 Eve St NW Richard 1 Uvl IUI V Dw < Sisson Wlvwvl If JrWl • Ste wlvt 1100 1 1 WW Donald Shamop Worcester WfVlvvvlvl 1Polvtech WlrlvWl Ii Inst II Iwli Washinaton • » Uvl IIS IU LWI 1 } DC\J V 20005 WWW V/UWVI Suoerconductor vvl 1 vvVivl Tech 1 vvl l*| Inc II IV* 99V/ ^/ Northside I V, VI % 1 IVIVV Rd. 1 IVi 460 "fvv Ward ffulU DrUl 1 Washburn V I Uvl IWUI 1 1 Blda UIWU •

f MSHIV BN307 wl ¥ VV I Todd 1 VW Schuett VWI IWvll Ste wlw« 1F Worcester v vi vvvivi 1 MAiiu i 01609 vi vvv

Creative Terhnnlonv Cnrn Santa \jcu 1 let Rarhara odi ucu a, CA 93111-2310 i i i co i u 3930 wvvv Ventura VvMLUlU DrL/l • Barrv ljui 1 y Smernoff wiiiviiivii

Arlinoton ni in iwiwi i Heiahts i i vim < ibvf ILi u» 60004 ww^ Dick Shaw NCMS

Sandia National Labs. 11929 Bennett Rd.

P.O. Box 5800 Herndon, VA 22071

MS 0967

Albuquerque, NM 87185-0967

218
William H. Smith Cheena Srinivasan John Strenkowski

Georgia Institute of Tech. National Science Foundation North Carolina State Univ.

700 13th St.,NW 2403 Broughton Hall

Ste. 800 John Stahl P.O. 7910

Washington, DC 20005 Storage Technology Corp. Raleigh, NC 27695-7910

2270 S. 88th St.

Bradford Smith MS 4276 Steve Strong

NIST Louisville, CO 800284276 Naval Air Warfare Center

Bldg. 220, Rm. A127 6000 E. 21st

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 William Stahler MS 49

U.S. Navy Indianapolis, IN

Ken Smith

The Mitre Corp. Chuck Stark Paul Stryjek

7525 Colshire Dr. NIST GE Corp., R&D

MS Z231 Bldg. 245, Rm. B102 River Rd.

McLean, VA 22102 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Bldg. KW-Rm. C284

Schenectady, NY 12301-0008

Larry Snavley William O. Stewart

Rensselaer Polytechnic U.S. Bureau of Mines Lionel Sully

110 8th St. 810 7th St.,NW Edison Industrial Systems Ctr. MS 4119C11 A/D Rsch., MS 6200 1700 N. Westwood Ave.

Troy, NY 12180-3590 Washington, DC 20241 Ste. 2286 *

Toledo, OH 43607-1207

Jim Snyder Dennis Stittsworth

Martin Manetta Energy AlliedSignal, Inc. JoAnne Surette

Box 2009 2000 E. 95th St. NIST

MS 8201 MS E1H6 Room B340/Mail B358

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Kansas City, MO 64131-3025 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Abe Soni Ronald Stoltz Kerry Sutten

Univ. of Cincinnati Sandia National Labs.

A 1 t

1

1 I 9 I _ _ 1*1* Northeast-Midwest Cong. Coalition

500 L. Rhodes Hall 7011 East Ave. House of Representatives

ML 72 MS 9405 530 Ford House Office Bldg.

Cincinnati, OH 45221-0072 Livermore, CA 94551-0969 Washington, DC 20515

George Sorkin Paul Stone Robert Swanson

Institute for Defense Analyses Dow Chemical Co. Concurrent Technologies

1801 N. Beauregard St. 1776 Eye St., NW 1450 Scalp Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22311 Ste. 575 Johnstown, PA 15904

Washington, DC 20006

Allen Soyster Robert Swarz

Penn State University Greg Stottlemyer The Mitre Corp.

207 Hammond Bldg. Office of Secretary of Defense 202 Burlington Rd.

University Park, PA 16802 7100 Defense MS H114

MS BMDO/TRL RM1E149 PEN Bedford, MA 01730

Robin Spradin Washington, DC 20201-7100

Oak Ridge Operations Office

219
Kevin Sweeney George Taylor Andy Tkach

Ohio State Univ. ERC/NEM nil I—/TM* r*\ /"\ l~ /All /"XT1 MMES-DOE/NIST Liasion Concurrent Technologies

1917 Neil Ave. 1 450 Scalp Ave.

339 Baker Systems Russell Teasley IaUmaIau DA H IT a" f*\ jonnstown, pa 154904

Columbus, OH 43210 Univ. of South Carolina

College of Business onmicni lomonan

Brent Sweredoski Dept. of Management JcTRO

production lecnnoiogy, inc. ooiumoia, be Ajdvo 1001 Clh A\ta itZi otn Ave.

2231 Crystal Dr. 44th rl.

ote. 81 0

\kl U /Dill\ Tnrm

w.n. (bill) lerry Mew York, ny iuu<iiHU/y

Arlington, VA 22202 Industry Canada

235 Queen St. Art Townsend

Jack Swindle MPT Branch Ingersoll-Rand Company

Texas Instruments, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H5

pAJ 0-»-»£a».«.aJ a • a 501 Sanford Ave.

P.O. BOX 660246, MS 3124 (_ Tif v nfM Mocksvme, nk/ ttivtio

Dallas, TX 75266 Delbert Tesar

Univ. of Texas Sharon Trauernicht

Joe Syslo Austin, TX 78730 Management Systems Applications

National Center for Advanced 1001 Bankton ur. Tech. Aleta Tesar-Meyer

AnArlAA^An O OAy(A^ Charleston, be 29406

1250 Eye St., NW i* ». i i' iit_

Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

Ste. 1100 7000 East Ave. Julie Tsao

"'

Washington, DC 20005 P.O. Box 808, L-377 Defense Logistics Agency

Livermore, CA Cameron Station

jams laoor A AtJAT AOPOI

A Oft iC AoMc James S. Thomason Alexandria, VA 22304

4 OOO 1 £>* ItAf 1828 L St, NW Institute for Defense Analyses

ote. 906

4 AAi ft 1 I*"** . . 1 Ai

1801 N. Beauregard St. Angelo Tsefrekas

wasnington, uc *:UUob n_ coo err o dt\ Rm. 523, or & HD Air rorce-tN-iD

AUi/a«>J#!a \ / A AAA*! H Alexandria, VA 2231

1

5 bghn ot. Chung Tae Jin

LJAmAMAm A CD klA f\< TOA Hanscom ArB, MA 01 730

cl Rl Daniel Thompson

161 Kajong-oong Yusong-Ku Lawrence Livermore National Lab. John Turner

Indust. Tech. Serv. oection 7000 East Ave. Rockwell International

Taaia #» OAC t?AA

i eajon, 3Uo-dUd Rm. 2264, L-644 33/0 Miraioma Ave.

KOREA 1 I.

—

/*** A *f\ACCft Livermore, CA 94550 MS 031-AF26

AmmUaIm* o a aaoaa Anaheim, CA 92803

Louie Tallerico William Thompson

Sanoia National Laos. Martin Marietta Energy Sys. Inc. Brian J. Turner

i Cnpf Aha /On cast Ave. D f\ Daw OAAA P.O. BOX 2009 waek & i ecnnoiogy inst.

ft JO A1AA MS 9409 MS 80014 7P 1/ Oi & It if 175 K. St., NW

I it mrmava iO A A/^CCA

uvermore, oa 94550 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 -3854 6th rloor

Washington, DO 20006

Aian lanca

1 AMA A A> If | BA James lira

NIST AlliedSignal Aerospace David Uliman

nij. ftir n— D4AO

Blag. 245, Rm. B102 2000 E. 95th St. Oregon State Univ.

Gafthersburg, MD 20899-0001 Kansas City, MO 64141 Rogers Hall

Rm.204

Corvallis, OR 97331-6001

220
George A. Uriano David Wallace Steve Webber

NIST NCMS Coleman Research Corp.

Bldg. 101.Rm.A402 201 Mass. Ave., NE 6551 Loisdale Ct.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 Ste. C6 Ste. 800

Washington, DC 20002 Springfield, VA 22193

James Van Fleet

U.S. Dept. of Energy Andy Wan Kurt Webster

Washington, DC 20585 U.S. IMS Secretariat Boeing Commercial Airplane

Dept. of Commerce, Rm. 4226 P.O. Box 3707

Alok Verma Washington, DC 20230 MS 5K-14

Old Dominion University Seattle, WA 98124

Engineering Technology Dept. Shaio-Wen Wang

MS KDH-214 Naval Air Warfare Center Clifford Weeks

Norfolk, VA 23529 Aircraft Division Tl Group, Inc. Code 6063 2001 Jefferson Davis Hwy.

Paul Vicen Warminster, PA 18974-5000 MS 607A

TRW Arlington, VA 22202

4021 Executive Drive Ben Wang

Beaver Creek, OH 45430 FAMU/FSU College of Engineering Merrill Wegner

2525 Pottsdamer St. Northeast-Midwest Cong. Coalition

Theodore Vojnovich P.O. Box 2175 House of Representatives

U.S. Dept. of Energy Tallahassee, FL 32316-2175 530 Ford House Office Bldg.

1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20515

MS3F077/LM-10 William Ward

Washington, DC 20585 Newport News Shipbuilding Ernest Weill

4101 Washington Ave. Naval & Space Warfare

James Voytko Dept. 067 2451 Crystal Park Dr. Sandia National Labs. Newport News, VA 23607 MS 1005/10-222-3

10 Red Ceranite Ct. Arlington, VA 22202

Gaithersburg, MD Paul Warndorf

General Research Corp. Erwin Weinberg

Ralph Wachter 2940 Presidential Dr. ASME

ONR Ste. 390 345 E. 47th St. 800 N. Quincy St. Fairborn, OH 45324 7A

Code 311 New York, NY

Arlington, VA 22217 Diana Waterman

American Foundrymen's Society Francis Weiskopf

Phillips Wadsworth 900 2nd St., NE The Johns Hopkins Univ.

EWI Ste. 100 John Hopkins Rd.

1100 Kinmear Rd. Washington, DC 20002 MS 6-377

Columbus, OH 43212

Henry Watson

Laurel, MD 20723

Carolyn Walker Penn State University Frank Werber

U.S. Dept. of Commerce P.O. Box 30 USDA/ARS/NPS

14th & Constitution Ave., NW State College, PA 16804 BARC, Bldg. 5

Rm. HCHB, 7058 Beltsville, MD 20705

Washington, DC 20230

221
Jack West Michael Winings

U.S. Air Force Jamieson Science & Engineer

7315 Wisconsin Ave.

Bruce Wheeler Ste. 505W

Anniston Army Depot

i f t a i~v ^\ a a, ^ J Bethesda, MD 20814

Attn: SDSAN-DR-CP

Anniston, AL 36201-5008 Dennis Wisnosky

Wizdom Systems, Inc. Mike White

tt AAA 1 _ • _ a 1300 Iroquois Ave.

Pratt & Whitney

| 1 III II a * mm jl a

Naperville, IL 60563

400 Main St.

ft if* 4 4 A AA MS 118-39ft ILL — -.1 1 1 1_ Michael Wozny

East Hartford, CT 06108

ft I 1 AW

NIST

MEL

i tin •> John White Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

a*\ * 1 i 'i i t mr 1 Georgia Institute of Tech.

College of Engineers Wes Wysor

A aJ — A. — f\ A AAAAA AAAA

Atlanta, GA 30332-0360 Oak Ridge National Lab.

P.O. Box 2009

Jack White Bldg. 9201-3, MS 8066

Industrial Technology Oak Ridge, TN 37831

O ^\ n^., j jap

P.O. Box 1485

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Marwan Yadak

U.S. Air Force

Anton Wijenayake SA-ALC/TIELQ

Northrop Corp.

nu AAA

Bldg. 320

One Northrop Ave.

| M A A>A flMA A BAA Aft. * J A. J A A Kelly AFB.TX 78241-6432

ft AAA l*"A"T J IAA MS 5074/09

Hawthorne, CA 90250 Heeseung Yang

\/ a! J. A aL

Kaitech

bnirley Wiilett ACtT lAf /"Ml. .a A • *A 355 W. Olive Ave.

Stylometrics, Inc. Oia aj r* Ste. 215

19 Bnggs St.

l"» 1 _ ^_ A a J AA A Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Quincy, MA 02170

Roy York

i a f *n* Roger Williams SPX Corp.

Software Productivity 5340 Holiday Terrace

2214 Rock Hill Rd. Kalamazoo, Ml 49009

UmmJam I / A AjAAA"TA Herndon, VA 22070

Carl A. Zanoni

Don Willyard Zygo Corp.

AlliedSignal Aerospace 21 Laurel Brook Rd.

AAAA r" APiL Ai

2000 E. 95th St.

I*% »*\ M A A. P.O. Box 448

Kansas City, MO 46081 Middlefield, CT 06455-0448

Margaret Windus 111*11* "T_l l_ ! 1 William Zdeblick

NIST IAM.S.

HCHB/4823 1111 Edison Dr. Washington, DC Cincinnati, OH 45216

Kevin Zehner

TRACOR Applied Sciences

1601 Research Blvd.

Rockviile, MD 20850

Gene Zeiszler

Association for Manufacturing

Tech.

7901 Westpark Dr. McLean, VA 22102

Anne Marie Zerega

U.S. Dept. of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW

MS 3F077/LM-10

Washington, DC 20585

222
Appendix F

Banquet Speaker

Jacob Rabinow, Consultant

223

Jacob Rabinow

National Institute of Standards and Technology

It is interesting to note that "Just in Time" now applies to after-dinner speakers.

I decided to talk about several things. One thing I could talk about, of course, is the sad state of

American technology. I think it stinks. I even could tell you some of the reasons. I could talk

particularly about the two-platoon system of writing proposals, about the first platoon getting the

contract and then the second platoon doing the work. I could tell you all sorts of things I've

learned, in and out of government. But after dinner is no time to be serious, so I decided to talk

about inventions.

I have theories about how one invents. I believe invention is an art form. I think inventing a

gadget or a system is no different from writing poetry, composing music, or doing anything else

that is original. If that means I put myself into very high company, then so be it. Not all music or poetry is good, however, and that goes for many inventions. I think inventing is a random process.

I think it is important to understand the process. So I decided to give you some examples of how

inventions are made. I won't focus particularly on important inventions, because trivial inventions

are as much fun and as difficult to make.

I've been asked whether I'm always conscious of what I'm doing. No, of course not, but

sometimes I am.

Here's my first story. I'm driving home with my patent attorney.from some midwestern business

meeting. He says, "Well, Jake, you have nothing to do." (By the way, this is a preamble my

friends always use when they want me to do something.) "While you have nothing to do, will you

please design a gadget that turns on a light when my telephone rings." I ask why, and he explains

that he has an answering service (this is before there were answering machines) and he usually

forgets to check in with them. Or, he checks and there is no message, wasting their time and his.

I say: "That's easy. You take a microphone, an amplifier, and a latching relay. When the mike

hears the signal, the amplifier amplifies, and the relay locks and the light ligjits."

He says: "You stink as an engineer. Anybody could have done that. I want something simple and

cheap."

I say: "That's hard. Let me think."

Now, this is 1959. So I remember when I came to America in 1921 when I was 1 1 years old. (I'm

84.) I was helping my uncle sell toys during Christmas, in his store on 125th street near

Broadway. One of the toys fascinated me. It was a little cardboard dog house. When you very

carefully pushed the dog into the house and then clapped your hands, the dog jumped out. No

electronics, of course. The way it worked was this. There was a wire contact at the back of the

225
box, with a little piece of metal touching it. When the box vibrated from the sound of clapping,

the contact broke for an instant and released an electromagnet.

Now back to 1959. 1 say, "Max, I know how to make you a simple device." I go home, take a

cigar box, put a loose contact under the cover, a very loose contact ~ and I take two resistors and

a neon light. A neon light has a very nice property: If you set it halfway between its starting

voltage and its extinguishing voltage, it will stay out. But once you light it, and you go back to

the same voltage, it stays lit. So I adjust the resistor that shunts this contact. So, with two

resistors, a neon light, a lousy contact, and a cigar box, I make this gadget.

I go to Max's office, give him the gadget, and tell him to put it on the desk. He calls the operator

and asks her to ring the phone. She does, the light lights, and Max says, "That's clever." I go

home feeling very proud, because this thing is really a trivial device.

But as soon as I get home, he calls me and says, "You still stink." I ask what's the matter, and he

says: "I can't sneeze, I can't close the door. If I touch the desk, the light lights. The thing lights all

the time."

So, we put a time delay on the device and improved it, and it worked. He goes to the patent

office and found the toy was patented in 1918, and the picture was exactly as I drew it.

The point is, look at what the brain does. It remembers something 38 years later, remembers the

picture exactly. As a matter of fact, are any of you familiar with that dog toy? I once talked to the

head of a large company who remembered the dog's name — Rex. He remembered that he actually

owned the toy 56 years earlier. I'd like to see a computer pull that stunt.

So maybe someone thinks, "It's obvious what you did, you looked at the patents on soundoperating devices and found the reference." I respond, "Well, there is a problem in that, when I was 11, 1 wouldn't have classified it as a sound-operating device, I would have written dog toy.

Secondly, I spoke only Russian when I was 1 1 years old, so I would have had to translate my

whole Russian memory into English. That's not likely."

I think the dog toy is a clever invention, even though it's useless. Since then, I actually have built

one, because when I talk to kids it's fun to clap your hands and have the dog jump out.

I'll tell a few more stories of how the brain invents. I also can be logical, like any other fool. If

you tell me you want a back scratcher with a random motion, I can take a computer, make

random numbers, get a robot that costs $10,000 to $20,000, and scratch your back with a random

motion. The thing is, solving a problem without logic is more fun.

The reason I left the government, by the way, was not to make money. I was chief of one of the

ordnance divisions at the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards

and Technology [NIST]), and in 1952 they decided, contrary to the present attitude, that we were

doing too much applied work and not enough basic science. The ordnance laboratory was to be

broken away and turned into the Harry Diamond Laboratory. I didn't want to leave the Bureau,

226
and I didn't want to work under military control ~ not because I didn't want to build weapons, but

because I didn't want to work for a boss who came in for three years and then left.

I spent my engineering life at the Bureau of Standards doing a lot of "illegal" work; that is, every

now and then, I'd do something that was not supposed to be done. And I had smart-enough bosses

who looked the other way. By the way, a good manager is one who knows when not to watch

you.

There is a Rabinow law that says, "Everything you do illegally, you do efficiently." (I'm glad so many of you are hardened crooks.) The first reason is, you don't waste time writing a proposal.

Second, you don't tell what stuff you will need. When you're in jail, you don't put in a requisition

for three files and a hacksaw, you just do what you can with what you have. Also, you say that

you're doing it only during lunch hour, which is a lie (you do it from morning 'til night if you

have to), but you do it all unofficially — which means no records are kept.

There is one other beautiful thing about illegal work: When a project doesn't work, you bury it quickly and quietly. If you do an approved professional job, then you keep the project alive as long as possible, because you hope someone else will inherit it and can be blamed for it later. So,

if an illegal project works, you may become a hero, and if it doesn't, nobody knows. That's how I developed some clutches, reading machines, and many other things. I was very lucky. That doesn't

mean you can permit much illegal work, but you certainly can permit a little.

Well, I left the Bureau and opened my own consulting firm, with one mechanic and myself.

People always came and saw my inventions, but they never wanted my inventions. They wanted

me to work on their problems, not my problems. But my inventions were good advertising.

I get a phone call. I'll give you the exact words.

"Mr. Rabinow?"

"Yes."

"This is Bob Berks."

"Mr. Berks, who are you?"

"I'm the world's greatest portrait sculptor."

"What can I do for you?"

"They tell me you are a genius."

"If you are the world's greatest portrait sculptor, then I'm a genius."

Bob Berks is the guy who did President Kennedy's head at the Kennedy Center. He is a good

portrait sculptor ~ not the world's best, and not a genius. Unfortunately, I worked with geniuses

during the war, and the arrogance gets kicked out of you when you realize how smart other

people are, people who do things easily that you have to work so very hard on.

So I say: "What can I do for you, Mr. Berks?"

"Can you cut metal?"

"What kind of metal?"

227
"Seventeen-foot statues."

"Oops, that's not easy. What metal?"

"Stainless steel."

"You'd better come to Washington, and we'll talk."

He came to Washington, and since then we've been very good friends. He had the commission to

make statues of some famous blacks. One of them was Mary McClaude Bethune, who was a great

educator. The statue, by the way, stands on Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. I didn't cut it, by the way.

The problem was this. He wanted to shape the original statue with his hands, out of clay or some

other plastic, about three or four feet high. Then he wanted it to be followed electronically with a

profile follower, and he wanted a machine to cut the thing out of stainless steel, 17 feet high.

I began to think about how to make the machine. I knew how to follow a statue with an electronic

follower, and I even knew how to make machine that would cut metal, with a grinder or cutter at

the end of an arm. The problem gets to be interesting when you have an arm sticking out 30 feet,

and another arm at a right angle to that. And there is a motor with the cutter at the end. The

machine gives the instructions - so much out, so much in, so much this way - but the arm will

sag, due to its weight. You can calculate the sag and have a computer correct it, but that isn't very

elegant. The problem I had is: "How do you make an arm that sticks out from here to there, do

cutting at the end, and not have it sag?"

There are two easy ways. One I figured out, one a high school kid did later. The interesting thing

is that all of you sitting here can solve this problem. It doesn't take any fancy engineering, and

you don't have to be a mechanical engineer. I'll give you five minutes. All of you know the

answer; the trouble is, as with all inventions, you have to take something that normally has

nothing to with machinery, arms, or cutting statues.

The answer is, you do the whole thing under water, so the arm is neutrally buoyant. Then it doesn't sag or vibrate, and you can keep the temperature under control and actually suck away the

chips as you cut. I've got a patent on this process. I thought it was a cute idea. My brother is an

engineer too, older than I am, and he said, "That's either the worst or the best invention you ever made."

So Bob Berks went to the Ford Foundation and said, "We can make profiles of all the great

statues in the world, record them digitally on tape, and use one of RabinoWs machines. Then, if

anybody breaks a great statue, we could duplicate it in whatever size it has to be done." The Ford

Foundation asked him how much money he wanted, and we said about $250,000. They offered

him half that. I've always been afraid that one day he would come to me with a check for

$250,000 and say, "Start cutting under water." He never did.

That story shows the kinds of things you have to think through. A high school kid who heard me

tell that story said: "There's another way of doing it ~ you put the whole thing in orbit. There's no

228
gravity in orbit, so the arm won't sag there, either." It's not very practical to cut statues in orbit,

but that's a good way to get rid of gravity. But the machine will vibrate.

Here's a story about an invention that was successful. My wife gave me a watch in 1945. It was a

mechanical watch (those were the days before quartz crystal watches). By the way, we at MST

now can record time down to something like a second per million years. We at MST can measure

time better than anybody else in the world can, and we'd like to do it even better.

Anyway, mechanical watches don't keep perfect time. So what you do, is, you unscrew the back,

and there is a regulator inside, a little lever that says "fast" one way and "slow" the other. You

move it faster if the watch is slow, then you screw the back on, and the timekeeping gets better.

And after two or three settings, it's correct.

Then I began to think about how to make this adjustment automatic, so that I would not have to

open the watch. This was one of my good commercial inventions. Everybody here can invent this.

All you have to know is that, inside of watches is a lever you move to speed up or slow down the

watch. What did I do? Please think. I'll wait. Remember, I pulled the stem and moved the hands

forward, because the watch had been slow. What else did I do when I did that? Yes, that is

correct, when I moved the hands forward, I also changed the rate slightly. I did a couple of other

things.

What you just sorted out is what I did, except my attorney and I made some real money out of it, as you'll see later. What I did is simply make a mechanism so that, if your watch is slow and you

move the hands forward, you also speed up the watch slightly. It doesn't make any difference how

much.

Then another immediate problem arose. What happens when you go to Chicago and have to move

the watch back a whole hour? And what happens if you forget to wind it? I arranged things so

that, if you change the time by more than 15 minutes, there is no correction in speed. Small time

corrections resulted in an adjustment in speed, but big corrections did not. I also had to decide

whether to make the speed change proportional to the setting, or digital, so that corrections would

be independent of the motion of the hands. It turns out that digital is the correct choice, but the

industry never believed me and they made it proportional.

Back to the story. I get publicity. I make the device on the back of a clock and get a good patent.

The first call I get is from the president of Hamilton Watch Co., and he says: "I'd like to see your

watch with the magnetic clutch in it."

I said, "It has no magnetic clutch, that's a separate invention. You're mixing up two different

things." He invites me to his factory in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I go to Lancaster and show him

the back of my clock and the parts of the clock that make this adjustment. It's a trivial thing to

do.

He says, "That's very, very clever, but we can't use it." "Why can't you use it?"

229
"We advertise a perfect watch, so how could we advertise anything better?"

"Is your watch perfect?"

"No, it's like any other good 17-jewel watch."

I say: "Can't you forget what you say each year and announce that the watch that was so good

last year is even better this year? Like Cadillac does every year? They announce the best car you

can make, but the next year they forget that and say it's a much better car. This has been going on

for 50 or 60 years."

He says, "No, we can't do that."

But he did take me through the plant, and I learned something very interesting: that you cannot

make a watch correct, even if you make every part perfect. The reason is that when a watch

moves the balance wheel (the pendulum) one way, there is a reaction against the case. In other

words, if I push this lectern, the lectern pushes me back. So when the pendulum goes one way,

the case goes the other way. The actual case of the watch moves in opposition to the balance

wheel.

I ask, "What do you do about that?"

He says: "Because we don't know which case will be fitted to which movement, we make all the

movements fast at the factory, because we can't set them correctly — there is no way of knowing

what the case will be like. Every case has a different effect on the movement. We also don't know

if the man wears it all day (if it's a man's watch), whether he has a hard wrist and a tight band or a loose band ~ because those variations couple different masses to the watch. We also don't know

whether he sleeps alone or not. That also makes a difference, because it affects the temperature."

Anyway, I learned a great deal about watches but I didn't sell my invention. For seven years, I showed it to every manufacturer in the United States and some in Europe, and they all said,

"That's very clever, and it works, but who needs it? Watches are good enough, so why bother. It means change."

Then I invented a particle clutch, which is in the NIST lobby with an exhibit of clutches,

including one from Renault and one from Subaru. For that I got a gold medal and a raise in salary

of $200 a year, which made my salary slightly higher than my boss's, which was all right. He was

very liberal.

The clutch was interesting to manufacturers, so Chrysler Corp. called and asked me to come tell

them more about the clutch, which they were testing. We had dinner that night with some

Chrysler engineers, and I told them about the watch regulators, and they said: "We hate

automobile clocks. They are junk. They're cheap. You may pay $48 in a Cadillac for the same

watch that's in a Chevy for $15. And the watch is only worth $2 or $3."

230
I said, "You have the nerve to charge $43 bucks for that piece ofjunk?" He said: "People who

buy Cadillacs don't ask what the clock costs. It's part of the Group B accessories. Anyway, we

don't like the clock." So what happened later is that he told his chief engineer about my clock

regulator.

Months later, I was riding home with the president of Westclox. We were both consultants to the

Pentagon. During the taxi ride, he asks, "Have you sold the clock yet?"

,rNo."

"What do you want for this gadget?"

"Ten thousand dollars a year minimum and two cents a clock."

"Two cents a clock? You've got a deal."

We shake hands, and he gets off at his hotel. I go to my office in the taxi, and no sooner do I get

back to my office than I get telephone calls from all the other clock manufacturers, who say

they'll pay me more money than he offered if I sell the clock to them.

I say: "I've been trying to sell it to you for seven years. I know all of you by your first names.

You buy it from him now."

So he sub-licensed the clock patents to the others after he bought my patent rights, and he made

more money than he paid me. I got a penny apiece, and my attorney got a penny apiece, so we

each made about $30,000 a year for 20 years. The clock was used on all American cars and I was

very proud of it.

I tell you this story to illustrate the difficulty of selling a thing that works. And by the way, the

advantage of my regulator was not only that it regulated the clock but also that it reduced the

manufacturing costs, because it eliminated the need for a manual control. They used to have a

screw through the glass, and you had to turn it with a small screwdriver.

Now I will tell you about another invention, which didn't sell but may interest those of you who

represent automobile companies. I was driving home from some meeting in a car with another

Bureau of Standards engineer. I'm pushing the foot switch to dim the lights when cars approach

me, and I say: "Sandy, there ought to be an automatic dimmer for the headlights," and he starts to

laugh. I ask, "What's so funny?"

"I thought of that," he says. "I went to the patent office and there are hundreds of patents on

automatic dimmers."

I begin to wonder why these inventions aren't being used. The obvious approach is to take a photo

cell and put a lens in front of it, so that when a lot of light hits it, the photo cell operates a relay

and dims your lights. Then I realized that this is no good, because you don't want to dim on

ambient light, you want to dim on specific bright spots. So I say: "If you put a scan system in

front of the cell, so it scans like a television scanner, then you can tell when it sees a light."

231
Does anyone want to guess when the first patent on television was issued in the United States? It was 1875. A guy named Carey, an telegraph operator in Boston, noticed that his resistors changed

resistance when sunlight hit them. He realized that he had something that responded to light, and

he figured out how to send an image with a lot of wires. Line-by-line scanning as we know it was

invented by a Pole named Nipkow in 1884.

Modern TV goes way back before radio. I read the German patent by Nipkow, who used a

revolving disk. So I use the Nipkow disk in my headlight dimmer. It's a small disk with holes in

it. It scanned the image, and when there was a bright light you got a big spike of current from the

photo cell, and the device dimmed the lights. I received a good patent on this and made working

models.

General Motors Corp. (GM) was very interested. I went to their lamp division in Anderson,

Indiana, and we put my dimmer on the Oldsmobile that belonged to the chief engineer, and he

drove the car with me, my mechanic, my patent attorney, and the inventor of their dimmer. We

drove around all night. It's an experience to drive around with the chief engineer of a GM factory.

He went 120 miles an hour without batting an eye, because he wanted to overtake cars to see how

the dimmer worked on the tail lights.

I ask, "Don't you get tickets?"

He says, "We own this city. All the cops know me, so I don't get tickets."

By the way, I'm still alive, so he knew what he was doing. Anyway, my dimmer worked much

better than his did. We got to his home at 3 o'clock in the morning. And I say, "Well?"

He says: "It's beautiful, but I won't buy it." I ask why.

"Because it costs an extra buck for the scanning system. It has the same photo cell, the same lens,

and the same power supply as ours does." (In those days, you used a photo multiplier with a

1,000-volt power supply.) "Ours cost $22 to make, and yours would cost $23. We sell ours for

$85 in the Caddy, and yours would be sold for $90. 1 want something cheaper and simpler."

I say: "If I had that, you'd be in Washington instead of my being in Anderson. I can't make it cheaper and simpler."

Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. also liked my dimmer, but I never sold it.

I'm telling this story to illustrate also how driving the dimmer around Washington was very

useful. The first difficulty was this. You're driving up a hill, and there is a pole with a street light

a little over the hill. The light looks like it's on the road and it has the same intensity and color as a headlight. The dimmer, of course, dims. So how do I prevent this? That's another problem all

you engineers can solve. How can the gadget distinguish street lights from headlights?

That's a very interesting problem, and again, you cannot solve it with logic. But you can try to

keep groping in your head: What is the difference between a street light and a headlight of the

232
same intensity, size, and color? The difference is that the street light is AC-operated, while the

headlights are DC-operated. That means the street light has a flicker rate of 120 cycles. I can

easily design a circuit that detects a 120-cycle flicker and tells the dimmer "don't dim." And I got

a patent on that.

Another problem arose with my dimmer, a more interesting problem. You're driving with the

headlight dimmer on your car, the road curves, and there's a bright reflecting sign. I'm driving

straight into a perfect mirror and I see a car approaching — but it's me. The dimmer thinks there's

another car. Of course, the gadget will dim. I wanted to prevent that from happening.

There is a scene in one of the early James Bond movies where the villain puts a mirror on the

street, and the hero is driving into it; he tries to avoid himself but finally crashes — into the

mirror, of course. Reflecting signs are like this. But I solved that problem, too. It took days of

thinking. Now, you could modify your lights and put special signals into them, but you want to

leave the lights and the circuits alone. Yet somehow the gadget has to know that it's seeing its own lights.

Before I tell you how that was done, a brief story. When I told the chief scientist of the Ordnance

Division of the Bureau of Standards that I had invented a headlight dimmer, he started to laugh,

just like my partner engineer had laughed. I say, "What's so funny?"

He says: "I lived in Germany under Hitler, and somebody in Berlin invented a headlight dimmer.

They put it in some cars, and the following thing would happen. Two people would be

approaching each other, and one would lower his lights. The other guy, being polite, then would

lower his. And the first man didn't have much light, so he'd brighten his headlights again. Then

the other guy would get mad and raise his lights, and they had more accidents than they had

before. So we were forbidden to have headlight dimmers."

I say, "Well, that could be taken care of; there are tricks."

Anyway, the history of headlight dimmers wasn't very good when I became involved.

The way the headlight dimmer knows it's seeing its own light is interesting. Actually, it doesn't

know, so it dims. But the instant it dims, the other lights go down at the same time. Then the

dimmer assumes that it's me and the lights come right up again. It happens so fast that it's just a

flick.

So you ask: "Couldn't it be that the other guy really does dim his lights at the same instant you

do?" Of course, but it never happens in practice. I drove my car with the dimmer for years. The

two drivers would have to dim and brighten in the same fraction of a millisecond. That is very

unlikely.

So I got another patent on that feature. By the time I finished I had six or seven patents on

headlight dimmers, and if anyone wants to buy unused headlight dimmer patents, I'll sell them for

$2 cash. The reason I told you this is that the thinking that goes into nice inventions is not

233
something you could program a computer to do. You have to grope around in your mind; you

may find something useful, or you may not.

I've been asked many times whether you can teach this art form to other people. The answer is

yes. That doesn't mean everyone can become an inventor, any more than you could teach

everybody to be a composer. But if you take 1,000 people, some can be inventors, particularly

kids. It's a lot easier to get young children to answer questions than it is adults. Adults are afraid

to look stupid. If you want to be an inventor, you've got to look stupid once in a while. It's part of

the business.

In fact, inventions are inherently funny, for two reasons. First of all, they can be stupid and

idiotic. Second, if they are right they can be a surprise, like a good joke, a punch line. I guess if

something is correct and unexpected, then it's inherently funny. When one of these ideas hits me,

I have to smile ~ because it's cute, not because it's practical or going to win a medal or something. It's like hearing the punch line of a good joke.

And you can teach this. First, you have to tell people not to be afraid, to try things mentally and

not be embarrassed. I was lecturing at the University of California at Berkeley for a month in

1972. The first day, I say to the graduate students, "I'm going to talk about inventions."

Immediately, the students say: "Who needs inventions? Who needs practical things? Who needs

materialism?" This was a time when they were all against materialism. It's very easy to be against

materialism when you're rich like Berkeley students.

So I say: "I can explain on many different levels why practical things matter, but I'll tell you a

simple way of looking at it. I lived in Siberia for five years, and the toilets were outside. The

temperature in the winter reaches 40 or 50 degrees below zero. How would you like to use an

outside toilet at that temperature?"

A student asks, "Fahrenheit or Centigrade?"

I say: "If you knew your physics, then you'd know that -40 degrees Centigrade also happens to be

-40 degrees Fahrenheit. They cross at your behind. It doesn't feel cold, it hurts. Do you still want

to talk about materialism?"

The student thinks for a minute and says: "I think I get your point. I can see that sometimes

materialism has a bearing."

But it was interesting that they were very much afraid to try things. By the end of the eight

lectures, however, they had learned that there's nothing shameful about being wrong, and they got

into the spirit. They figured, "If this jerk can do it, then I can do it." And people can.

I gave the Berkeley students a famous problem: How do you measure the height of a big building

with a barometer? In the case of the World Trade Center in New York, which is 1,000 feet high,

you go up to the roof, look at the barometer, and record the reading. Then you go down to the

234
basement and look at the pressure again. Then you can look up a table and find out how high the

building is.

But I asked them for 12 other ways to determine the building's height. That gets more interesting.

There are many ways to do this; I'll give you two. You go to the roof, drop the barometer, and

use a stop watch to see how long it takes before it hits the ground. That tells you the height of the

building.

One of the kids came up with a more elegant way. You take the barometer, find out who the

building architect is, and go there and say: "I have a deal for you." You can see they learned how

to be inventive « they weren't afraid to try something out of the ordinary.

The thing that's interesting is, if people invent and talk about inventions (and many of my friends

do), they always come to me with a "million-dollar" invention. Nobody ever comes to me with a

$10,000 invention. You have to tell them that a million-dollar invention is hard to make.

When my older daughter, who is now a lawyer in Connecticut, was six years old, she heard my

wife complain that the maid never emptied the bag in the vacuum cleaner. (In those days, vacuum

cleaners didn't have bells and whistles or tell you: "empty me.") So my daughter says, "Daddy,

can't you rig something up so that when the vacuum cleaner bag gets too heavy, a bell will ring?"

I say yes. Max, my patent attorney and a partner in many of my deals, offers to look it up. He

goes to the patent office and finds a patent: The vacuum cleaner bag rests on a spring, and when

the spring goes down far enough it touches a contact and rings a bell. So Max comes to our house

and reads it to my daughter, and she starts to cry. Her idea had been stolen from her. I say: "Jean,

you ought to be proud, you're playing big-league ball. Adults patent new things, and you thought

of it, too." You see that she lived in an atmosphere where people discussed such things.

My younger daughter got a patent when she was 14 years old. I had made a little camera for

myself; it weighed two ounces and had a mechanical shutter. The trouble with a mechanical

shutter is that, as you press it, the sudden change in pressure makes the camera jump a little, so

the pictures blur.

I say to my two daughters: "I would like to have a release that doesn't shake the camera when I take a picture."

My older daughter says: "Get a rubber tube, at the end of which you have a bulb, like the

professionals do." I say I don't want a two-ounce camera with a big rubber tube.

And my younger daughter says: "Can you have photo cell on a camera?" I say sure. She says:

"Why don't you just wave your finger past the photo cell? Don't touch the camera, trigger it."

My patent attorney got her a patent on it. Eastman Kodak Co. said, "That's very clever, but we

don't need it." But when my daughter applied for early admission to Pembroke College (she also

235
had very good marks) they asked what other credentials she had. She told them about her patent,

and they accepted her. She is now a computer programmer for Lotus Development Corp.

So if you live in an atmosphere where people encourage and enjoy inventions, you can learn to

invent. It's like any art form. If people like opera, people sing opera. If they like music, they play

music. If you like inventions in your firm or family or among your friends, then you will invent.

Because there is always some problem that irritates people, and when it does, they invent

something to solve it.

I want to add something, because this audience is full of people who are at the top of the

technical pyramid ~ that is, you are supposed to know how to make and produce things. You're

near the top and I'm at the bottom. I start with the invention and hope it reaches you reasonably

fast, so you can manufacture it. And, if you make it, maybe I'll make it. And this is one of the reasons I talk about inventions. I think inventions are necessary for technology, because

technology depends on screwball ideas ~ good ideas and bad ideas.

I would like to talk about one other thing. I was talking to Sherman Fairchild, one of the richest

men in the country. I don't know whether he is still alive. Among other things, he owned a bay in

Long Island and he had to close it to shipping once a year so they would know he owned it. Apparently there are rules saying that if you don't close the bay, then it's public property. So he

closed it once a year with chains. He also owned the largest single block of IBM Corp. stock in

those days. He owned Fairchild Semiconductor, Fairchild Camera, and other businesses.

We were sitting in his home in Manhattan talking about inventions and patents, and he says: "You

know, inventors do more than just get patents and glory. They are very useful in a factory. They

solve many day-to-day problems."

Which, of course, we do. The job of an engineer like myself is not to invent things I can talk

about at lectures but to solve day-to-day problems, such as how do you make something simpler,

cheaper, or better, or fix something that doesn't work. Usually we are asked to "fix it but not

change it," to make it work right but not do anything that will make it different or more

expensive. That's always an interesting problem.

So Sherman Fairchild says: "You know, Jack, I think inventions are not worth much, because I have a few patents of my own. But I think inventors are very valuable people."

Thank you very much.

Question: You mentioned you wrote a book. Is it about inventions?

Answer: I have given many talks in my life. Let me tell you about the first time I was

interviewed on TV. The year was 1948. 1 had just invented the magnetic particle clutch. In those

days, the newscaster would give the evening report and I'd be sitting next to him. Then he would

introduce me, and we would talk about the clutch.

236
My wife was watching a TV set with a five-inch screen at some friend's house. And the

newscaster finishes giving the news, and he says: "I now have to introduce a great genius sitting

next to me." Not realizing that the camera has shifted to me, I say to myself: "He is full of bull."

My wife reads my lips and is having hysterics. The newscaster keeps talking about what a great

guy I am and I don't know you're supposed to watch for the camera and not make derogatory

remarks. I learned after a while to keep my mouth shut and not make funny noises.

Anyway, I've been on TV many times, and after you finish a talk like this, people come over and

say: "Why don't you write a book about your stories?" Usually when I talk about my inventions,

it takes a long time ~ an hour, an hour and a half. I have trouble talking for just half an hour. It really is hard to condense. (There's a story about Abraham Lincoln that he wrote a very long letter

to a friend. The friend asked how Lincoln had the time to write such a long letter. Lincoln said, "I didn't have time to write a short one.")

Anyway, after people suggest a few times that I write about my inventions, I say, OK, I'll write

the book. So, I made an outline of my inventions by groups. My ordnance work, my photography

work, my post office work. (I automated the post office. If your letters don't come on time, don't

blame me.) Then I dictated the book by talking to a microphone. And some professional secretary

typed it and laughed at the right parts.

The book is published by San Francisco Press. My wife suggested the title So I Made a Better

Mousetrap, and I wanted to add a subtitle, But the Rats Wouldn't Buy It. But the publisher didn't

like that. They suggested Inventingfor Fun and Profit. Fun it was, profitable it has been

occasionally.

If you go to any good store and say you want Inventingfor Fun and Profit, you'll do me a big

favor, and I'll get two bucks out of it. It's gone through two printings. It's not the kind of book

that sells a lot, but it did sell. And it sounds just the way I talk. That's not accidental, because I had one chapter corrected to put it into good English, and it didn't sound like me. So I said:

"Nothing doing. I want it to sound like me." And it does. You'll read some of the jokes I told

today, all over again.

Before you go, I've got to give you the bottle problem. And you're allowed to call me anytime,

collect if you like (don't do that from Australia, but from anyplace else), with the answer. The

problem, which is easy to solve, is this:

Two men find a glass bottle on a desert island. It is full of water, absolutely full to the very top.

They have no utensils, and each one wants to drink half the water in the bottle. It is possible for

one person to drink half the water, and the other person can watch him to be sure it's half and

then drink what's left. They can divide the bottle exactly in half. The bottle has no symmetry, it's glass, and it's transparent, of course, so they can see what they're doing. It can be done without

any other utensils.

237
I once gave this problem to a man I was interviewing for a job, and I told him that if he solved,

he could call me. He left at 5 o'clock that night after he had dinner at our house. He called me at

3 o'clock in the morning. I say, "Where are you, Larry?"

He says: "I was driving on New Jersey Turnpike going home and I solved the problem. So I got

off the Pike and called you at 3 o'clock in the morning to tell you that I can do the problem."

I must tell you that we hired him, and he became a chief engineer in due time.

It is a problem where no semantics are involved, there are no trick words. The bottle is full of

water to the very top, and anybody here can drink exactly half, and I'll drink the other half. And it can be done with any level of accuracy. If the Bureau wants to do it, we can do it probably to

within one percent or half a percent.

Don't ask your friends to help, that wouldn't be fair. It's in my book; I have the answer hidden

somewhere. That's a good way to sell the book. It just occurred to me.

Question: Do your ideas ever come to you through a dream?

Answer: No. I dream technical things sometimes, and I think of the mechanics. And I have had

ideas when I just woke up and I was tliinking of the problem the night before. Suddenly I think I have an approach. And I do it sometimes when I shave. But I never invented anything when I was

asleep.

I was driving to work one day when it suddenly dawned on me that I know how to make a pickproof lock. I invented pick-proof locks because I used to pick locks for my girlfriends. I suppose

they ought to hear this.

I used to go out when I was young in Brooklyn College, and I would come home with a

girlfriend, and she didn't have any keys to the door. It took me many years to figure out that it wasn't accidental. She wanted to wake up her family so I'd go home. But by the time we got

home, we were more friendly than when we had left, and she and I decided we'd like to get into

the house without waking up the family. So I carried gadgets in my pocket so I could open a door

without damaging the lock. It's quite easy with most old locks.

I became very interested over the years in how to make pick-proof locks. I solved the problem

after some 40 years of tWnking, and I have patents on a lot of pick-proof locks, but there is little

use for such locks today. Burglars today are very crude; they don't pick locks, they tear the door

down. It's not the elegant business it used to be.

The Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation do pick the locks of so- called enemies, and everyone else, I am told, picks the locks in our embassies. Knowing

something of secret service business, I know that if they just exchanged information, they would

save a lot of money both ways. They always know each other's secrets anyway, so it seems to me

238
they should just give their prints to each other. But they play the game and they pick locks, and

so I designed some pick-proof locks.

Anyway, it can happen suddenly that things connect in your brain. This piece connects with that

piece, and it fits. An idea for an invention could happen for no particular reason, like thinking of

a name. You're doing something completely different, and suddenly a problem you've been

working on comes back with a solution. It's always startling, because it's so sudden. It isn't that

you slowly approach it, you just suddenly know you can cut statues under water.

The expression used to be called "flash of genius." Forget the genius bunk, it's a flash.

Question: inaudible.

Answer: To do that, you have to decide which functions you're going to combine. And the

answer is, you cannot do this; you do not know any functions at all. The thing that comes to you

when you work on the toy dog is that you thought of something you saw when you were 1 1. It

isn't anything you would produce logically, like you had a list you could draw from.

The amount of information in your head is absolutely fantastic, enormous - billions and billions

of things you've seen, heard, combined, and read about. And out of that, one of those things fits,

maybe more than one, and there is no logical way to do it. It's like music. There are 88 notes on

the piano, but the 88 notes can be combined in different ways, and the possible number of

different sequences is infinite. So you cannot say that I could write Beethoven's Fifth using a

logical approach. Imagine what you could do in a symphony ~ not only with the 88 notes of a

piano but also whatever else other instruments can do. The composer thinks of the various

combinations.

Question: Which of your inventions do you like the most?

Answer: That's a very difficult question. First of all, you don't invent a single thing. You invent a

portfolio. For a clutch there are 12 patents, and there are 44 for a reading machine, which I also

invented. There are couple of dozen on post office equipment. So, I can't say any one invention is

my favorite. It's like you're asking me which of my two daughters I love the most. I don't know.

There are some things you like. The headlight dimmer was undoubtedly a good invention because

it was elegant and simple and it did the job. The subsequent inventions were good, too. The

magnetic clutch, which got me the most publicity and a medal, was an obvious invention.

Anybody could have done it, so I don't feel proud, except I got more publicity and more glory

than it deserved. I don't know which I like best.

I think my reading machine was one of the good ones, because I was the first to say that a letter

"A" is not a letter "A" because it does something specific but because, of all the letters in the

alphabet, it is closer to an "A" than any other character. I don't know if I'm making sense to you.

But the machine looks for the character ~ and the characters are very poor "As", smudgy, dirty,

missing pieces. The machine compares the character with a whole alphabet and says, "It's a lousy

239
'A', but it's more an 'A' than anything else." And my machine did that, right at the beginning, and

that changed the whole art of reading machines. And this concept is used in voice recognition. So,

I feel very proud of it.

But which one do I like most? I don't know.

I think when I made a telephoto lens for my Leica camera and coupled it to the range finder, that

got me more mileage in the Bureau of Standards than anything else I've ever done, because

anybody that cuts threads by hand and makes a handmade lens obviously can walk on water. The

shop was my oyster from then on. And it helped a lot. This is the kind of thing you like,

something simple. The rest of the people can say, "So what? So you made a lens for yourself. Big

deal." But for me it was a big deal.

I really can't answer your question easily. I know some things are junk and some things are good,

and the ones I mention in public are good.

240
Appendix G

Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

Tutorial

1

241

oO GO

us

O

LUO

111

QC

LU

LLOO <O CO

LU CO H —Q O LU

LL< Zy

a ^

O)

TM

(A

A

CO 5 CO

ci> < o

o

D)

GO

in 2 £

co <? a> S 9 ?

CO co

CO

—

CD COX

£

h LL

O

CO

O)

c

CD

O

0C

oo

.2 LU

cn

co .2 o sz

CC

O

o|

^~ CO

Js §5

"h 3 o c £

"D

— -C 5 _ o O CO .CD C C h- § .2 T3

"5 co (5 < z

243

>-

UJ< 8 8 a c £ to o £ - £ 2 o i e > o

'a 2 c « wOO S 8

T3

=

o

£ <o TM & 2 H

Q.<2

(0

(5

<D

IAC

<D SZ 3C>co ©o£o 3 O O U) £ c > 0) i • c o o <5 s x: c 0) o $2

<D

o

£ (0

<D

O (0 >O . O) c

(0 Q.

*- <D © -a

„>

c

c

•-

o

o 1 § 5 o oo O 3 ® %

05 .£

245
ooo

CD

05

CD

o

i=z

OEoco

CO

CD

•4—

03£H

1 COo

CO

Z5oo

CO

COE

CD

Z3

CT

"cz 3 c

CDE

CLo

CD>

CD

TD

CO

CO

CD CO —

13 -5Z

CD

CO

CD

CO

o

O

C

8" -2

CDO $ .2 > QCD Q- O 03

op:

to JS

13

O

T3 CD

CO

13

TD

SZ

CO

CD

03

CL

CL

CO

CDj—

03

JZ

CO

-+—

COoo

T3c

CO

CO

CD

-+—

3O

CDX

CD

TD

03

CD

JD

"OC

03

CL

CD

TDi CO

CD

CLEoo

03

CDc

CD

D)

"OC

03

"O

CD

CO

Z5oo

LL

CO

CD>

CD

co

CO

CDc

"co

13

JQ

£ "2

CO

"CO oo

CD

CO

CO

CDOOcoo

_CD

CD

CO

CD

m >

mm

-+—

-4—

CD

CL£oO

CO -—

o

CDO

Q_

TD

CO

COE

CO

a—oo

COo

"co>o1CL

-+—

CD

CO

cz

CO

CO£

COo

CL

T3c

CO

CO

CO0ooo

JQ

COO

CD£

CDOc

CO£o

CD

246
CO

O)

247
<

(DO

CC

GLoo

0)

CO

o

III Q

HIO<Q< o%

CL£oocoo

CLEoo

CD

COo

Q.O

CLG

c8

GCcom

CO

<&

O)

CCoH

(0o

<Do

CL

<Dc

LLG

crcoc

MB

75o

h-o

mmm^ oao

CO

co

CDOc

ZJ8 I < o o5 § OO

0)

0)o

CDoa

75co<O

COI IO

<N

E2oo

a.3i Q)

COo

0)

CD

_CC

CL

248
249
CO

CM

CDOi o

CD

COOH

fcj

Q.oo

Q_H< Q

HIQ

DC<<

(0QZD

LL

CLH<

LLO

CM

CO

LLI DC

hLU> O

to

CD

CO

250
CL

251
CO<

HI<

>-ooo

LU

ICL

I—<

CO

awO

+-» o

JOo

6)1Eo

CO COo

.nS

0)

CO

CO

Q

D) CO

.E

o

JOooo

anas co

03

<D

o

= °

S2 0)

o3co

CL ^ O O£ Q.

CD CO

U)O ^ o 9 O CD 3 O JO 3 < 2 CL CO

COcoo> -I o CO c V

LU

X

CDm

CO 2 CO

(/) "g O CO

43

o

0) CO

CD 2>

CO

c

z:

o 8

"8

O Qc

"55

CO

CDoo

mc

CO

cl co oo o

.2 cl c o moo

CD

tr

CDmco

oOoE

C <D

CD

CDCc

UJ CO

2> 5? 3 — w Sco .2 F a

'rza

gCO

O CL co CO O EE

COO <o oI o

CDE

o

o

o

a

LU <d

COc

mmmm o

•+-» COo

oc

CO CO

Si

E

£ 0 - E o t o

CD

—.

CL CO _ o

CO

<D

CO

CO

& Q. X O

<0

una cE3

CO

a>E

>»©

Q.

<*

«\

CO

CD 4—

"co o

CLEoa

CO

IBM oE

CO O

252
c

Q- oO

C

E tio

rogra Q-<

E

Q. Coi

253
254

(S)

CD

Q.

<

CL

5 co

CD

256
CO(M(D(M^COt-CON t-t-CMt-IOCOCMI^ta

LU

LU

o ~

111 o

DC 2

C/) c5

< 2

UJ 3

9 ^

3

<

DC

o

o

DC

CD

c

E

o

o

CO

CO

ctf

CD

I

I

CO

CO

CO

£

CO

o

co o

.2 5 >>

£ % 2> -o

CD C <D O

x: o c o O O HI LL

CD

c

o

co

CO

CD

J2 .E cd

CO • MOT 0

CO

CO

o

CO

CO

CD 4^

CO O

LO CO CD CM -r- r-;.- i— OJ

CO

C

>> g

CD "-+-; +-L

o £ 2 o

S £ o -5

.2 o ® c

CD O LU LU

c

o

"•+—

CO

CD

£

13

CD

CD

CO

•+— O

CO

CO

CO

CO CO

CO

o

CO

CD

g

CD

CO

o

CL

CO

c

CO

_£ 2 O co h257
o<

Q.O

DC<

CLQ

LU

0)Z

LUX

LU

CO

CO

CD£

COo

Q_

CD

CD

CO

CLi Ooo

CD

CO

CDC

"D0H—

0

CD

CO

+ooo

-f^ CO

_Q

"O

CD

T5C

-4— 0

+—

CO

CO

CLO

CO

CD

o

CD H* oH—

j=

CD 0 CC

CO 0 CD

COX1 I c

CD

•+-' 0C

COo

"coo0 O C LU

CO -SZ £r o o

CD

*~

C CD

•J=

O

Z5C

CO

b ^

CD

OI I c

"•+—

00

CO

CO 0

CO

o

CL

CD0

CD

•+— 0* o> « CO ^

03 __ < 3R <0 0 Q c

as><I

CO

-f—

bi

CD

CD

CDO

CL

CO0

Q_

CO

CL M

o

CO

CO

CD

_

CO

O

£ 2

co""^

COp

CO

g

O TD

oo

COoc

CO

CO0

"+—

0

"oo CO

CO CDc

"cO •+—

c 0 o 0

"co

F

CO0 CD H

o

CLC

CO

ns CL o 0 H—

>

CO CO

"o

c

o 0

CO

H—

CO

X

co 0 0 "O0

-4—f* CO

>, CL

ZS

CO

Oi

CD

"D0

"OC0

CO

CO0mmmmm oc0

CD

CO0

-+—

o£o

CO0

O)

COc

COc0££ CO 0 CL > o O SZ

CD CO

CD

O ^ 5

258
LU<o<

LUXo

LL

oH

1 w

CO

COEoH

c

CD

Q_

_o>0

"D

(f)

CD 4=5

LO CD 0 0 > 0 o c C C/) g 0 = "CD o O C

00 JZ

COoo

CD

i—

COo

CO0

szco

CO

CO0oo

CO

COo0-f—

CO

CO

-Q

COoH

o

=j 5 ° 1

CO

CO 0X

T3C

CO

b i±2 o

CM0 O

CD co 9- o CO

•4= Q. £ o

CO •*-< o §

-J co oI co"•+—

CO£

~

o

cr ^ 0 £I

259
CO

Z

260
i
6z <Qo

LL

C/) oOH

o

CD>

CDo

CO

c5

CD

LO>oo

LO

5>

O OT3

52 CD

CD ^

55

05

CD ^

CO

co

£

CD

O

CO ° ° c 2 §>JI c £ CD — Q.4=

Q_

CDo

CO

CO 0 CD

CO CO

cti co

CO CD CD o -52 .co O Q Q

262
COozo

DC <

DC

DCO

LL

0)

-Q

CO0

CLOj—

CD

.£ o> o

"=

>;

O

o

€5

CLO

CD>

CD

"OO

mE

COoo

CD

CD

CD

cc <5 0 Q_

>^ 03

03

CD>o

_CD

£o

oo

CD

nm

"DCo

4<<<<<<0 ss

CO

CO

CD3

03

CO» COoo

CDE

E

o

_0 "D O° O)

D)

C

c •+= 3 CD O CL

a$

o

C CO

03 03 E £ — o 3 CD O Q 61

.£c

CD •+-' ^ 3 S 0

03Eo

-4— 0

0500OO<

263
/ 264
Appendix H

Best Manufacturing Practices (BMP)

Tutorial

265

DC

LU <

DCoo

DC

Q_

CL

CO

xo

DC<

LU

CO

LU t- > < < >

DC

LU

DC

O( LU O

LU

ir

£

LU

Q

LLO

CM

00

00

LUOS o -z. ^

XL Zi

g LL DC o < —

267
00

3: 3:

00

LU

cc

CO

CO

o

cc

m

00

00

00

CO

00

cc

a.

LU

00

cc

CO

ing ines

<D o>

T3 T3

O 3

(/)

268
269

2mm

CO

CO

II

::CO:i oo

CD

zco

o

=3

ao

CD

a

eo

LU

CD

CDs>-

LU CC IS

<

2

z2

oco cc

I—zLU P

a

coco — CO cc LU

CO

CO<

— CO =32

QCC O CD CC

CL

CD

00

zco ujujH

O-cc

UJ ——

lii

LU

Hco

".CO'

;

. <C

CD

UJ Z

to a.

LU _

Z

£2

toUJQ —

CO

Q_

CO

CL

COo

to

CDO

to, to t— o >.

10 0. j

CC LU

of 52

cct—

ctt-Cu

=3 oS =3 co a

CSCOZ

z i uj

CCh- =

coLU

cc<Cu

CO

5! 40

o

co

<

<INI

a

o

CO

I—

°i

<iLL.CCCu

Sec

2~ =LU o"cc

CL

eg£0>

~cc: ato

" w

3Cu

co

cc

o

=3

aocc

a.

csz

cc=3_z

S3Lt a.

CD£co £eo

S_LU

cc-J

gec

as

cca1—O—

00

coto

CD

-3

a.

coco

1 1

cu

a. =; to 7=,

ecu

ii

o

CDEcs

"S«5 LU "rCC 2"ZcO

zz00

H

u3co

cc"

>

zLU!

CO

<l—

cc CO CD LU

CD LUZ< =. cc^

CU *~ LULU tO

CCCu O UJ LU CC Z I— =3 CO

CCS to o

to

CD! CO •

CO,

co

:SS:LU 0 a.2=

fed "J S2

Luce

ceo

CC H>

lT=3 oS

CD

CO

COI—z

Z LU CDS

£2e Q=3a

z>-

csu

CO—

LU O

Q.

CO

*5 to CO-=

cc

oCO

Sco

CO "J

<o

CCCC DH

CDZ

LuO z°

o

CD

60 Lo 3

uj —I

§1

:C3£S'

o

O.: O

z **>- eg

SSL •sir «C -cc Iff

to ca

cc|2 05

CSLU

to 00 £g co

CCo

CC CD =

Sco;

to ^|

LU uj

to

_ to

55 «o

CD LU

LU O

to s r:

1— ccJ3

CC UJ uj

Cu<Cuj E co

CC CD tLU

us

CO

CO

_ to

corX

CC uj

ii25 lu

ocB

<=>z

CCyj

:CU :

'

!=qB

>5:S

: 0: i»>

271
272
273

00

CO

CO

CCo

I

00

GO

GO

0C CL =i

cc o

CD

GO 3

uj si

CD o

GO

CD

cc

UJ

DC

a. cc GO

cc

GO

UJ

CO

GO

UJ cc

cc

GO

UJ

cc

CO

CD

CO

31 CC

CO O

275


278
279
i

i

1

s3

R

P

i

k.

«8

to ft;

^

eg!

Pi

SI 5

5 ^ «

s

S3

!

9i

280
PC

B

C » »<

nam ILLS

cc

uu

uuX

LU

ccoocc

CL

Q_

O

cc r».

CM CO CM

f¥=

S _i

CCo

U4

O

= UJ

cc

—

lu

o 5 CM > 2 CO

LZ

—1 £2

o <

281



285
CQ PC

CO

u3

GO

LU

CC

GOm

CQO

DC

GO

GO

GO

LUOo<

GO

LOm

CD

CD

GO

CC

O

LU

GOO

GO

LU

GO

CC

CC

GO

Q.

LU

CC

OX

GO

CC

CD

GO

LU

CC

GO

CCO

O

286
00

U8

DCLU

LLo<

ccHm<ooo

fM>

LU

(ft <

JS<a

a.2

03

(ft 5

(ft a

LUoz<

(ft oa3o

trO

(ft s

LU

I-

(ft >

(ft

c3" -J

fA CO LU Z £ lO^ D uj ^ I D O

LU

.. 5 > a ^ .. Ill £iii> 2 _i cc Ot3 Q h- (ft

55ON

I-

-i

o

O<Zoo

llo

LUo

cc3

LUo<

cca

o<

cc

to

CD<|5

gj

LU

(ft <

CD<a

a.a

(ft Sa

(ft LUI Uloz<

(ft o

_Ja3oaO

(ft s

(ft >

(ft 5>- 2 2&

LOzl

xos O w 5? x a 5

..

S > Q < ..LU £ LU > 2 _J <r Oplft

o cc goay

12

(ft CL

LUa (ft

LU < < z

-J < < I— Z (ft

(ft LU

u. .LU OWZ LL CC

lu 5 o

uj (ft

Q

££«

o " > E w i <

LU < ^ isi

<d

cc < O H a lu S o

o>O CO a a. LU 3

iS

g<x x

(ft DC

So . 2 m

zLu<

ui < >

|(3 cc

sispi 1 d t a Sow

LU LU > llO oPa

Q<lu y 2 a O O 3

ZljU- * O LU

lu

ax

i- z K"

CC

—

o

oft 2

ccOb.

po<

LU z Q P=o<

lis

iP

^LUZjLU

St1 *? . LU O

zaou

£2z-g C CC £ Q > y lu 5

IQOO

gzzee 5 < lu a.

LU

£

o

ox

a o.

N

(ft >Z<a2OO

LUa

>•

t-O

LL zozvv

LU2a5o

LU

_J<O

LUa

(ft

IFCC UJ O • • o M «- LL LLoll 55

Lu

y

x >

LL LL

oS

o

COI

LUz

Q.

!S

CO <

LOGI ORD

_i

<c CO

cc CO

LUz PA

0G0

GE

NAME

-j

MP USE CO

00

CO

>-

CO_l

«t

cc

CD

o

I— cc z Cfl O. CO

LU CO cc >

C4<

=>

oUJ

a.CO

oCO

cc

LU

co

cc

h

a

d. LL

in 5 "occ

LL

x

s

cc

C < LU

LU I-

(ft LU b uj t LU

lla

cc >-"J

trh

Ul

= 3 C o >.

•_ ul t a:

ui

d z • u

(ft 2 LU X< t

DC

X

OLU • o

2llOLLz

Lul X >

LL LL

CO

cc

CO

<c

cc

I-S

<:

ccCDO

cc

a.

a -i. <£ 3 a o

CO

«I —I

=3 CO < CC > Q. LU. .O a u.

CC LU ~— a. z co

si

CD CC

toCL

CD

uj ^ o E tr lu to 5 «* S 00

aoo

cc

CO LL. >- co > o cc «i = cc CO I—

CL. ^

CQO CO S3LU LU CC z 4 LU

COs

cc

S LU CO a lu s

a _» _j co z o S z 5 i UJ LU o UJ o SB _J

CO EEO CO

—3 O U.

CO

O

~

_ 3D CO S?zO |z5^ o oo ^ J~ U. LU CD p- trwog LU CO CC i a.<Q.a.

oo<

cc

a.

im

CO

UJ

tS

o >- t— ^ z rr LU LU lu <t o LU ~(- (- ^ Q u u sCO oQ

U. si<£ cc

287
o

COo

DC

LJJ h-

_J

LLO

C\J Oo<

DC

hCO

GO<

03 O

c\i >

LU

CO<

CO<Q

CD

CO

CL

C0

LUI LU<

C/) O

CL

ZDo

DCO

CO

LU

hC0

>-

CO

DC<<

CC

CO

LJJ ^ X CD

CD 0)

ID LJJ >O

-Jo

CL 00

fr CD

LU<Q <

dl > . . LU

LU >I CC

O

b z>

O

h (/)

h-z

DC

Q_

00

Li. Xo

DC<

LU

CO

\—X

LU

LL

>-

DC

LU

Z)o

h-X

bX

LU LU Z • • o

CO CO

LL LU X

CL . < —

DC

X • o

CM iLL LLX

LU

LUX

LJJ >

T~ (D

LL LL

288
s

CO

E2

289
BMP4NET SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (SIGs)

(AS OF 31 JUL 93)

SOFTWARE BMP

SURVEYS

EPA

ISSUES CALS

SIMULATION

EMI/EMC

DEFENSE

CONVERSION/

DUAL USE TECH ADHESIVES

ONLAN MAC ENVIRONMENTAL

REMEDIATION

CENTERS OF

EXCELLENCE

COMPOSITES

ISO 9000

SHIPBUILDING

1

TRIMS WEIGHTS.

QUESTIONS,

INFORMATION

BENCHMARKING

PRODUCABIUTY

ASSESSMENTS

CONCURRENT

ENGINEERING

BMP

WORKSHOP

X

INTERNATIONAL

FUNCTION

POINT

1 BMP*NET "I

INFORMATION FORMING CALS

IMPLEMENTATION

EXPERIENCE

SDI TECHNOLOGIES

TOOLING

MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS

FORGING

NASA LESSONS

LEARNED

SOLDERING

PCB

DESIGN

INDUSTRIAL

BASE

CASTING

POLLUTION

CONTROL

WELDING

CAD/CAM

T,

SMALL BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE

ONLAN PC

OPTICS

Figure 7. The BMP^NET serves a diversity of technical expertise

290

LLJ

O

LU

DC

CO

CO Q_ m|_J OQ

EE cc — o

©g

Qu LU <

< CC

W < <

CO Q_ =—I ICO

EE cc ©1

I— <

CC UJ <z < CC "J

h— —J CC

CO c£

Pglti

3 < cc

Sg'vcc o O

a- f- J

1 a: v„t >

292
CO

PC

OS

CDI

293
CO

CO

o

cc

1X1 CO

CO

o

00

LU

cc

CO

CO

o

I—

UJ

00 o

o a

cc cc CD <

I— o

oo CO

CC Z

<

T=

2CO

ca cie/o

ouj Lu sr 2 iZ <o 2

::*q£::??.:0: —

o

OO

LU

.:>

LUDCO

csz

Q_J

LU

f<C*

S

z

CC §>$

i aooCIo

CO

=E CO

step li

r

0l

CO PERSONAL

BMP

NET

AREA DIRECTORY

F2-TRANSFEF

CC>2 CC<

iimIssiii

E

LUU

2to 1

i J

CC CC

LU 0

" ui LU

2-

o g>| O o| fC z g

iS loo 2:S2

- E O CC CO CO

• • « I

m

o

z.

I

I

FUMS mm

I

LUCO

SCO: <

Hi

I

#E

iOij*; o cc Si

I

DOWNLOAD PMWS

I

cc§

*.zLU

—I<

CO

u.a

o

CO

cc

LU CO CO

I— CO LU S Lu 3

• • •

J2 LU

CC LU z*4

is* 0 0 =i

u. < o Lu

z

o

5a.CO

o

LU

CC o:

Cw

I

i

BMP

ETWORK LOGIN z

294

LU Z

CO o

= 2?

lu <r o Z

E o LU 5:

ccCDO

CC

Cu

350

J z 2 v • C

CO -T- c

to § Si O CO r O 0» 3

&3i|E

cc 3 3

S

z

SI

«a00

X:

• TM= cc

e cu

1 j~

: sJ LU

5 CC • S
295
00

05

00

00

00

00

00

LUOo

cc

Q00

00

LU

CD

CO

CC CO o<

cczo

CD

LU

CD

22

cc

LU

LU

CC

CC

Q.

3Z

CDO

CC

00

CC

O

CO

CD

CO

CD

00

296
CO

CO

CO

CO

CD

O)

CO

CO

00

cc

00

00 LJJ

00 oS

CO

CO

CM

CO

LU

m * CO

a.S

CO i <•

CO

LO

=J

v

LL. 0 O n

Vo

cc

LU

00

oo

00

cc ^

00

C/D =>

00

CDo

cc

00

O

o

H

CTI

00

cc

m 00

CL

CD LU

00

o < o

LL. <O 1 •

297
BEST MANUFACTURING PRACTICES

INFORMATION REQUEST FORM

Mail or fax completed form to:

Best Manufacturing Practices

2101 Crystal Plaza Arcade, Suite 271

Arlington, VA 22202

Fax: (703)271-9059

Name:

Title:

Company:

Division:

Address:

Phone: Fax:

Please send me the following information:

Best Manufacturing Practices Survey Reports - See reverse to indicate

those reports you desire.

Program Managers Workstation (PMWS) Software: Mac IBM

Video Tapes: BMP PMWS Producibility Measurement

O Producibility Measurement for DoD Contracts, or "How can I make

what the government wants without losing my shirt?"

Producibility Measurement Guidelines (NAVSO P-3679)

Recommended Guidelines for Solderability (Jul 90)

O Best Practices, "How to Avoid Surprises in the World's Most Complicated

Technical Process" (NAVSO P-6071)

Transition from Development to Production (DoD 4245.7-M)

Please contact me about a Best Manufacturing Practices Survey

Please place me on the Best Manufacturing Practices mailing list

298
BMP SURVEY REPORTS AVAILABLE

ALPHA INDUSTRIES (Nov 93) • METHUEN, MA

AT&T (Sep 91)

FEDERAL SYSTEMS

GREENSBORO, NC

BOEING (May 90)

AEROSPACE & ELECTRONICS

CONAX FLORIDA CORP. (May 92)

ST. PETERSBURG, FL

COMPUTING DEVICES INTL. (Oct 92)

BLOOMINOTON, MN

DOE - OAK RIDGE (Mar 93)

OAK RIDGE, TN

GTE (Oct 88)

GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORP.

NEEDHAM HEIGHTS, MA

HEWLETT-PACKARD (June 92)

PALO ALTO FABRICATION CENTER

PALO ALTO, CA

HAMILTON STANDARD (Oct 93)

FARMINGTON, CT

LITTON (Oct 88)

DATA SYSTEMS DIVISION

VAN NUYS, CA

LITTON (Feb 91)

GUIDANCE & CONTROL SYSTEMS DIV.

WOODLAND HILLS, CA

LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. (June 89)

AMECOM DIVISION

COLLEGE PARK, MD

LOCKHEED (Aug 89)

AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY

MARIETTA, GA

LOCKHEED (Aug 89)

MISSILE SYSTEMS DIVISION

SUNNYVALE, CA

MAGNATEK DEFENSE SYSTEMS (Mar 92)

ANAHEIM, CA

MARRIOTT CRYSTAL GATEWAY (Aug 93)

ARLINGTON, VA

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS AEROSPACE WEST

(Apr 93)

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA

NASA (Jan 93)

MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

HUNTSVILLE, AL

NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT (Mar 93)

JACKSONVILLE, FL

NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT (Mar 92)

NAVAL ATR STATION PENSACOLA

PENSACOLA, FL

NAVAL AVIONICS CENTER (Jun 91)

INDIANAPOLIS, IN

NORDEN SYSTEMS (May 91)

NORWALK, CT

PHILA. NAVAL SHIPYARD (June 93)

PHILADELPHIA, PA

RAYTHEON (Sept 91)

MISSILE SYSTEMS DIVISION

ANDOVER, MA

R.J. REYNOLDS (July 93)

WINSTON-SALEM, NC

TANDEM COMPUTERS (Jan 92)

CUPERTINO, CA

TEXTRON LYNCOMING (Nov 90)

STRATFORD, CT

TRICOR SYSTEMS, INC. (Nov 89)

ELGIN, IL

TRW (Mar 90)

MILITARY ELECTRONICS & AVIONICS

DIVISION

SAN D1EOO, CA

UNITED ELECTRIC CONTROLS (Jun 9i)

WATERTOWN, MA

WATERVLEET ARSENAL (July 91)

WATERVLIET, NY

SURVEYS NOT ON THIS LIST ARE

AVAILABLE THROUGH THE PROGRAM

MANAGER'S WORK STATION (PMWS) OR

DTIC.

299
I

I

I

I

!
Appendix I

Cooperative Research and Development

Agreements (CRADAs)

Tutorial

301

Nisr

NIST Technology

Development Programs

of Interest to Industry

• Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements

(CRADAs)

• Manufacturing Extension Program

• Small Business Innovation

Research Program (SBIR)

• Advanced Technology Program

(ATP)

303
nist

Types of Working

Relationships

CRADAs

• Guest Researcher Agreements

• Industry Fellows Program

• Facility Use Agreements

• Purchase Order (Contract R&D)

304
fsier

CRADA

Authorized by StevensonWydler Technology Innovation

Act (Section 3710a)

Agreement under which NIST

and partner(s) perform research

together

305
mist

CRADAs

Are Used for Joint Research Projects

of Mutual Interest when:

• Intellectual Property Issues

• Confidentiality of Research

Results

• Protection of Collaborator's

Proprietary Information

are Important

306
nist

CRADA

NIST may contribute:

• personnel

• equipment

• materials

• lab space

• intellectual property

307
nist

CRADA

Industrial Partner(s) may

contribute:

• personnel

• equipment

• materials

• lab space

• intellectual property

• funds*

*No automatic matching requirement - laboratories determine what terms are

acceptable

308
nist

CRADA AGREEMENTS

CONSIST OF:

Standard CRADA Form

Appendix A

• Who's involved

• Objective

• Who does what

• Who contributes what

Appendix B

Modifications and Exceptions to the

Standard CRADA Agreement

Specific to a Given Collaboration

309
j

I

nist

CRADA Process

• NIST researcher and partner's

researcher develop work statement

• NIST researcher:

^prepares Appendix A

*gets lab approval

* sends to CRADA Officer

• CRADA Officer:

^reviews standard CRADA with

partner's representative,

^prepares Appendix B

(if necessary)

* sends CRADA out for signature

310
nist

CRADAs

Are driven by the Laboratories

Are usually initiated by individual

NIST and industry researchers who

have identified a mutually beneficial

project

Depend on the allocation of resources

by the Lab Directors and Section

Chiefs.

311
VOi

Contacts

Specific Research Initiatives!

Lab Management and Technical Personnel (refer to Guide to

NIST)

General Information on CRADAs:

Technology Partnership Program

NIST Building 221, Room B-256

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

ph 301-975-3084 fax 301-869-2751

*Bruce Mattson, Chief

* Terry Lynch

Chemical Science and Technology, Manufacturing

Engineering, Computer Systems, Building and Fire Research

*Mike Blaney

Materials Science and Engineering

*Bill Lyndon

Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Physics

312
Appendix J

Flexible Computer Integrated

Manufacturing (FCIM)

Tutorial

313

315
ooQO

LUQOm>

a:

LU>o

c

LU><

-JQO

a:

LLo

LL

LLO

LUO

O

m

LL «o G = § 2 - C

0)

o °coQ

o<

LUOQO<Z

LU

LU

o

</> O3

CDEn

a.

LUO

LU

a.

CO

01

LU

a.o

LL

CLX

CO

01

LU

ot<

CL

uwo

D)o

a:

(Acca

316
HIGO

oi

LL <£ DoQ

111

LU>o

317
zg

CO>a i318
319
! omoQ

UJO

UJ

ELy <o

LU
COo

— in 1 % H

LU?0

3=3= o

m

CL5

,<

X

£

a:

iu

p E3

U- < Z

LU

o

h-o

LUI

©Si Q

— z O < O - -CO

LLl LUO < * . O

Li. (/) O L1J

CO 0-

o

o co

COzo

CL<

LU

m

O

>-o

111 IH

LUODQ

LU

a: <<

St

LU

aoa

a:o

a a: o < < CL > =

CO CO O LU

CO

CO<

LU q,

Q_ LU

a:

Z <

COoO

LU

LU t_T

OQ5

So

CQ <

IN OL

fcLU

°Z

O

CODaa

co

o

Q_<

CL

o

1S2l

L*

111 >o

LU

O

a: z Q £ ZD< h- h <

[Z llDZ G<< S

321
322
</>

o\

6)

*-> C

UJc

o

a

>

ww

03u

o

(J) —h-LU

CO—HLU

luzo—zujiua:—zo

CO — h-LU

S<Z<OUJSLUZH

— Z>LUZHO0£>-

323
o

Q.o

(5c

MMcooooocmmm o

(/)

LUOz

UJ<

CO

HIo>

a:

LU

C/)

Q

ooX

T3< S co o o ^ d • - Q O £ o • O S O ^ . . • • • « Q. < O LU < Q Q Q C

0)

a) o

is

L_ CD

•acc

a>

>-

O < LL t£ CO < < 3 a

goE 0

05 3

CO

O

LU

LU

a:x

LUZo

Qloo

CO Q,

0)

S .—. n3 CQ

73 2 ?S

ECU iy < iQ O O

LUZo

Qloo

c0 O >w

CO

Oc

hn rdi 0

Co

T3

a)

0)

</) o

ccn

o

o

o OQ O vl ^ 2

«_ • • < a:

LUoZzo

Q.

!EOO

>S CD 8 Si 9o 5 = © o *^ (0 <a c :?

<d ra -*

_j > a: « 5 ao

?o

CD

OQ CQ

83

324
325
326
327
CO

III

111 LU

/ \ \J LJ

o

Q.

328
Ill > 0)

CL > ^^^^

<D (0

CLTM

*~ Q.

0)o

to

T3

a 2 =

to

c

o

w .= CO 0 m ° O CD l. 0 CL CL 1 x a

CL LU as

o

"55 o0

0)

(0

CD

m,C

IEa

as>OE0o5o

0)

°i3

ffl

as3

13

(2 :

asoom

£

O

gEC

aso©

<S Q.

"O0

or—

m03 b i a.2 £ i

V)Q

(0o

Q.a

(0E a)

0) (0oo

(D CL N Ht-> = £

(0 <D C P

.2

g>o

c

£

V)

COOo

CLX

CD

73C

a)EooQ

329
330
Ill

LU > m

COCO

LU> Q Q < roEH

•u

CO

CD

_J0o >cr-i

C3

i—

*-» c

MME

T3<

CM

CO

L

00

cooD

T3O

>*

03 Q

CM 0s

LO 0 s

00ox

\ss

c </) >»

(0 Q 3

0)O O)

CO

LU c Q

O)C (0 E Q 3 t-

</) CM

LU

CD LO CO

O

CN

QO-C0

COoz

LL

CMmmOQm3Oo

UL

HI

a:<

in

onO

LL

LL

111

331
coco

wco

O

o <

zgo

<CLO

^CO?

<coo: , LU LU dZLU

qco?

oOllj

go. o

LU

— TO

isO L.

(/)

£

(0ooom

in

QO-CO

v

fr

s ^ S 5. 5 S5

Q)

O

W z o &

j=

*->

c

Q .c 5 o ro

0)

it: < £

w co

0)0

of

si

SS

S

S

—3

CD

O

W z o &

5"

O CO

(7) 0)

CDC

CO3m

CD I

CD &

CD

CQ

c/> CD

CO

£°

.C CO Q CM

(0

til CD <0 Oo ^<o -°

T5 CO

CO

LL

UJ

CO

CO

LUOO

C£

0.

C/)

CO

111 z

COm

m

00 CO CM

332
gO

LJJ G

LU

O

0^ LU _ a: H Qa:

LUO

LU 5 z < UJ

is CD

LU (0 5 O > z

HI

Q.

LU

(0 2o ^ °

«j

c JOo o

QO

CL

OO

°E

as |—

4-» OH

<D|Z

O oo CD CM

CLUIttOLLlZH

yj

hLL<aoa

LU

cc

miZ LUH

(/)

111 ><

</)

h-<

CL

€C3O

LLH

C/) 3ozo3ao

a:

Q.

o<

CO<

CLHZ

LU

(0

LLJ <

~> "I "3
(0

111 oo

CLq

CO

(0>0

15

03 0 (1) O "O C 3

CO £

c

O G)

_

c

C ^ 03 Q1-1

cr

ocoomQ 0OO <<Q<2 co IO

HI <Q

UJ

o

(0o>

(1)

a:

"(J5 oQOi O O

D)

O

C rr.

a> .£ O o

.E

=

O)

£

c a>

LU <tcooa<o

>-

00<<><<< c®Em

CD

U) <

</> 3

CLc

iSm< -

Q.

G

CD UJ

03 o

J*c

334
o

CO

>

Q

LU

I-

<

Q

2

LU

or

335
o

LL >

(0

itmm

imm cc

MMo< o

aso

(0 i mm

QmOCo

OS

Mi

to

(0

<DOOcoI mm

to

o-O

as

CD>O

Q.E

CO

o

0)

as

cO 2 o>coa

to

a>i cc

E ^

CD 2 ' 

15 a) c c o "-5

as 0 J-

±f

— CO

as

=

a

=

a

.5 ^

£5

o

CO

CO

CDaa3

CO <

QL US

q. n:

Q- LU < I Q 2<

COo

LL

LU

ZULU LU o -

at

CO

CO

LUOO

DL

336
.Elu

o (C i

5--UJ < T3UJ —1 co <wO

CD 

m lj 5 =

111

— .O > coZ

(0 qLU

CO fc-O ~ -C uu

IE OCQ

(0oo

COo

"O

CDtCo

CO

0)

0)

Q.£oooE

T3C

CO

a>

COc

CD

"OO <d

<D C/) O <o c> —o

CO I o

o^ CD

CD

E

w

E

o

o

h ILO

h

CD

O)

COC

CO> CO

EEE CD

CO.-

cd±; ^

Q.

CO COo <

C/) o

HI

C/) <

CQ<

a:H

C/5 O

CO

± z tz < 2 1 LU O Q 2 LU < HI O

LL

337
338

Q.

340
341
Ill QO I
343

g

CO < ID O H z O) 55 D tu 5 < > Q s -5 < o • • O o

oax

LU<o
(f)

CL

(f)

CD

>

CO

O

Q_X

LU

>^

_o

O

CD .E o

5 °

0

t t

346

Ifi

'§1

o

O

UJ

Q

m

T3 w

CO <0 — o

— CO

CO (/) Si i.

o o

a

o

x: _ CO a?

a

o

c ^ co cT o

o

LL

o

a

o

£.

CO

m

a.o

JCco

«0 I

C

<D

jo

<0

a

'•J5 v. O O) O

•2. £ -J .5 :s

jw o a> s; "Q *£:

<0 ^

348
o

UL . LJJ

>-

o OzO UJ

=j DC O LU

LL

O

111

DC

oo

_

CO DC

LJJ Q_ Z)<

CO oo

CO CM Q < <

COQ

LU

LU

Q2<Oo

UJ 2

CO LU O h- S

~" >

CO&

LL

UJQ

>-

DC<

COa D <

0,

349

zj

cro

CO

tro

Ql

CL

ZJ

CO

4-» OOOco

CD

co<OQ

LLi

Ql0OC CO O CO O CDO

to 2

•CD

COO

CL

i_

ZJ

Dl >

CO

O

CC

CD 0 O

QlQ c >,

52

O

So £ o

J2H

co p>

CD

+-> c

CD O 2 o 0 3 1—1 co0 E cn ^ 0

co

COc§ co O < H O

co0• >MM* c

ZD

CD

V_

Z3

-Q

COEoo

CD 0

u_D

t—

O

CO

Z3c

CT5

COE

CO

c

ZJEEoOc

•4— o

CLE 0

CO CD

JO 0

-C

=

t

O oO

ZJ

cr0

tz"

CO

CL

"co oco0 r- s|

co ^ o 2

*-

E

•i-i O O

CO ^ ^ o C 0 g 0

is

If

Cl

O 0 -c

CL

=

ECO o o O

CO

CO

•+—

•cz

c

pan

o

o

4—

CL uisiti

o

"v_ O

tE CO cr

03 0 o

CLQ <c0E

1°

L-1 00

co

•4—

CO -—o

Z3 O

o -5 co

co 9> o 5.

;;z cr

"3 30 LL c o

JZ CL o CO 0 0

h-cr

ego

ZJ o

CO0M—• Mic

CO

61

co0D

O"0

DC

t- CO

00 00

MSO CL O D£ >

CLCO ^ O CD O

LO LO "i 00 00 CO

351
352
353

2

W

i O

<

o

o

<

a

Ph

O

w

>

w

O

355
j

356
357

7*

mo

p*i

TS

15o60m

•» wmr*

•"Ocaw* oo

tfi

4>

0)

(0 ^ ooo

0)

km

0>

,C0c

CD

V)

if)

CDC

V)

CDm

CDci MME tn 0 c

"DO

E

T5O+-» a?

'5

c

"5

O

CD

•*» 73

"b

C

yo as

-*-» 2 u. 1

CD

T3

mm) 0

CD

<DMV

CP

an0

k.>>

</}

earn CO

a.

"1 >>

+*»

a> 0 E

bat 0 O 0

Ota

V*0 W Q 1 MIDI

SMMK

359
o

4»/ o9 0 ^ X) Q :z > ro

CD

E

a

£

O

o

o °

C/3

4WB

4«J coO

wSmt

"eg

o

a> :~ ,E

<0 jCQ E

*f < O c E s> c o o "35 . •»« ^ 0) o Q '

40 TO

<0 < £O C o E O -r (0 o O cO »- C/)

h- «| DO o u £ Q < CO

CO

0)

COa

CO

40

CO

CO

IMfl a *? O c

CO

to "O 3 o a

CO3C

CO

r co ro

{/) co « a iii

c> . c o •— +-»

a: - C m

a> +2 c c

5= a> Eo

<0

55

"coc

.2

CO

Urn aO

50OOO

CO

GO

00

jQ

so a. So E -D

<2

a

O t/f

Q.

o 5 «

360
O)co

(03C

(0

0) O

c\i

o

Uj

a uj

Uj

LU

O

PS

Pho

Q

LU8eI

Eh

S>

O

si3I

•J LL. cm

o

OH

Q

uH

1-3

<: 1o

a>c

CO

a. 9H

ft

at

P<

S

PL| <0 £ 0)

y&o

Phm

HHO z

a:

in

LUzz

111

LU

a: O I u

HN w

H< • *H

I-Z

LU

LUo<

LU

-Jo

>- O

LU

LLoQOm

CL

0)

t:

CL

COCw

361

Appendix K

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP)

Tutorial

363

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Presented at

Manufacturing Technology Needs and Issues

Workshop

Thursday April 28, 1994

Ron Hira

Regional Manager

NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NET

Smaller Manufacturers are Important

• There are 370,000 manufacturing firms with

under 500 employees

• Smaller firms make up 98% of all manufacturing establishments

• Smaller firms contribute more than half the

value-added in manufacturing in the U.S.

• Smaller firms account for 75% of new jobs in

manufacturing

• Smaller firms employ 65% of all manufacturing employees (over 8 million jobs)

• Smaller firms supply many of the components

used by larger firms

365
NET

Objective

• Help small and medium sized

manufacturers become more

competitive.

NET

Barriers Faced by Smaller Manufacturers

• Lack of awareness of changing technology, production

techniques, and business management practices

• Difficulty in finding high-quality, unbiased information,

advice, and assistance

• Isolation of smaller manufacturers, which have too few

opportunities for interaction with other companies in

similar situations

• Regulatory environment which creates a disproportionate burden

• Difficulty of obtaining operating capital and investment

funds for modernization

From Learning to Change: Opportunities to Improve the Performance of

Smaller Manufacturers. National Academy Press. 1993

366
367
NET

Meeting the Objective

• Assist small and medium sized

manufacturers

- Implement appropriate advanced technology and

techniques - core - Adopt best manufacturing and management

practices - core - Adopt modern workforce training and organization

approaches - essential related services

• Provide a nationwide system for manufacturing modernization, building on existing

organizations, resources, and experience.

NET

Key Elements

• Manufacturing Extension Centers

- Manufacturing Technology Centers (MTCs) - Manufacturing Outreach Centers (MOCs)

• State Technology Extension Program (STEP)

• LINKS

368
Present Manufacturing Extension

Centers

•16 MTC sized centers (9 new ones)

• 19 MOC sized centers

NET

What Extension Centers Do

• Core - need substantial in-house expertise - Assessment of company needs - Help companies undertake fundamental reshaping - Provide technical expertise - field engineers and

consultants - Integrate service delivery - Projects - Demonstration and selection of S/W, H/W, training,

etc. - Links to technology developers (labs, univs)

369
370
371
372
NET

What Extension Centers Do

• Essential Related Services - need strong

linkages to others; MEP money used only for

links, catalyzing and kick-off - Workforce training and workplace organization - Human resources issues - Business system development - Marketing - Financing

NET

Extension Center Funding and Structure

• MTCs - Grow to -30 over 4 years

- Serves region with 6,000 - 8,000 manufacturers - Total budget $6 million, half Federal (declining to

1/3) - Substantial technical and management resources

• MOCs - Grow to ~70 over 4 years

- Serves region with 600-800 manufacturers - Total budget $1 million, half Federal (declining to

1/3)

• Strong local ties, links to state infrastructure

• User fees vary by center and service

delivered

373
NET State Technology Extension Program

(STEP) is an Agent of Change for State

Industrial Extension Services

• Funding and providing technical support for

planning.

• Providing continuing support for state-based

implementations in sparse states.

• Helps build links among states and between

states and federal technology sources

NET

LINKS- the National Infrastructure

• information infrastructure - communications,

access to information

• evaluation

• field agent training

• tool development

• linkages with other national organizations

374
NET

Linkages

• There are Federal, state, local, private

resources and programs in place which relate

to the mission

• Establish linkages with existing resources

and programs

• Don't duplicate existing resources

• Don't clash with existing programs

NET

Illustrations of Linkages

• National Laboratories as technology resources

• Department of Labor for workforce training

• Environmental Protection Agency

• National Coalition of Advanced Technology Centers

• National Technology Transfer Center

• Small Business Administration for financing and

business planning

• National Tooling and Machining Association

• Electric Power Research Institute

• Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP)

375
NET

What the MEP Program Does

• Help potential proposers develop their plans

• Select winners in a fully competitive process

• Help winners develop

• Shape a national system, viewed from the

federal level

• Provide vision for MEP entities in the field

• Provide services, such as evaluation,

information infrastructure

• Evaluate, force change, terminate

• Serve as a source of expertise, a national

resource.

NET

Vision for MEP

• By 1 997 there will be manufacturing extension services

within the reach of essentially all of the 370,000 smaller

manufacturers

• Nantionwide electronic network services will provide filtered access to technology sources and essential related services

- first through field agents, then directly to companies

• Smaller manufacturers will be active in electronic commerce

• The Federal program for service delivery will be coherent and

focused, with appropriate linkages

• There will be a uniform system for effectively measuring

performance of extension service providers

• The national manufacturing extension system will evolve,

grow, and change its mix of services as we learn, as the

capabilities of the extension system develop, and as companies progress

376
CLI

(/)

DC

LLJ Z

Jcr<

CLzoz

LU

h-X

111 oz

DCD

h-O<

LL

C0zoo

LU

CC

J—z

111

LUO<

377
NET

Points of Contact

Quality, Evaluation and Training - Ruth Haines 301-975-6454, ruth@micf.nist.gov

Outreach/Linkages

- Gale Morse 301-975-4520, gale@micf.nist.gov

LINKS

- Ron Parsons 301-975-5302, rparsons@micf.nist.gov

378
Appendix L

Manufacturing Science and Technology

(MS&T) Program

Tutorial

379

£ iu is)

fl

£

o 3 Q T OQ J

CO

COo

c

CO Q

co

smm<iNiIiiiIII11p

83 ii

KMJO I
382
co

"55

mm* >

CO

&IEg

eg1

D) TO O O J O

oE 3oow 5 § o

QL-—

E woo c <i> c

Is

g

TO 10 d>

Cl—

O 0 .£2

*• 1 SI © © « Q 1

-1i

is

asI1i111a1

(U1I

paI

383
p

>:> III

CO I1

S3s!

"5

COsE

cd

03

CDO

PSCO

COom

C3

CDOo

C3

"O CD

=3 *-

-° 09

CO ~a-

"i- CD

CD

P

E 5 3 "

00o

CDoX

CO

S i

CO

CDo

o

CD

-n- CO

CD CD

CD CDOX

CD CD

CO

CD

CDE I I i

384
0"

T5

CD

"U

05

CD I

CD

<D <

CD

CD33

05

"DO

CO

QJ

05 O

CO

CO

CDOoo3

f?

"U CL

CD ZZ*

05

C

D).2> 0 CO

**-» CD = Q

t (J)

05 -n £ O c E

.SP co- co ~

CD

O

13

O

c CD o

•is-Q CO O 05 c

«-

c©

+3

E 3

"5

£

E

S

£ '55

cm

'(/>

CD

•c

CD3

O"0

Co

co

CO3ooE3E

MMc

J2m

tfo

CLd3

CO

JOooc

'55

CD

"D

0)

.Q

MM

<^

05aaoo

aO

D)

IMM C3«*-» O

J*c

COE

a> <c

05

CD

Q)CMM

CD

CDCc

UJ

1"

U) • MM

05

05

CL

*%C• o

MM

+-» o3

"DO

O

CL3OO

CDE

c

a) § « E

a>

o

xo (/> o

LL

O

05MMo

CDCc£oOo—

- ,. CO

CO

CDOO

05 Q CO

CD

O

c

a MM

CO

CDcQOa

"O

£ 3

CO

g co .S£

05 "U s ^ T Q

G)Ca

053C

05

oMM

05u

D)

CD — T3 C <D

05

£

E > o o o ^

IS

CDO

OE

m

o JS

ij 05 o "a a u fl)

CD D)

£

g.o C CD £ a)

c ° c o V I 2 £ CD ooo

T3

05

CD

CD

CO

05 n

CD CO

Q. CD

05 CO

Q. CO ^ CD

X CD CL

CD>Ooo

05C

c

.2

.—§

05£

05

CD

O CD c c

385

r

Q

<

(7)

COO

CD

If)

cn

a>

CO

M— CO

o

(/) j) O t/) .9 Q. C O

J- >* o o

QQ.O (13

a to ,^

to o

-co *c £i

wGT^^CO

1

=3!

05]

o -a •= 8:! O <Q. <;

>..--;. -a^BV (0 '« v'.ifi

g ^1

mem .i

>v^.v-%-.v.--LJ ::-7*J rnt

,"C0

Si

(0

; o

0

Ql

*VX

111

:.-«Jri;t<

387
m

m

o

0)

o co

>> o

O g

1 1 8

C CD CD

•c o E 3 -3 i u o

^ CD^

3 _a>

s.i °~

E S o

c

.2

V-

1i 3

05 £

c ©

.5> 775

CO CO

CD •= "o E

CO o

co

CD C

i«

"

Q. 3 a.

o

03

c

CD CO 03

C 3 t

-a -p

CD

TjOt

m CD TO CL

Cl ~ _

15 a>

S cc 2

CD CD **r

a £ °

CD^

$2 1o-g

CO >

CD >

C CO — c

CO 3

2 40

c

CO

CD

< o CO

P E T3

U- CD C

• "O CO

CO

CD

3 | E "f CD

CD r9

^

CO X CD

CO CD 0

03 h= CO

O

"O f ^ -4—

C - y 03

CO CL Q. ^ O

CD v_ O CD

CO

E

CD

•*—» co>*

CO

_CD

SI

03

"O

co o

o .-9

"O

c

05

o

CD

c

o

Q.

03

CO

o

O CD

CO £ £

c o

o

*2

c

03

E

c

o

CD "co

E

_3

o

>

o

CD

CL

CO

c

o

4—

03

• oam

Q.

03

05

VMM a

CD

CO

'~o

X

_CD

Cl

E

o

o

£2O

it: _1

03

T3

CDO

c

03

>

05

% CO

CO •—

03 . T CD

CD "F

—3 05

2 o

CL CL^

O O

8 8

"D CD

c o

03 O

C CL

% CD

05 £

°>CD

03

9 m o > CD

CD ^

CO Q £ CD

2 °

£= a

2^2 == ^ ^ • .E co

>

o

E

CO •

•

>

03

C

c

05 ~~

<*> n'

c </)

5 <

13 DC

co •

CD

c

CO CD

*C0 2

CD > o o

CD CL

03 O

£ t5 O CD

C0 o

CL CO

"D -O

CD CQ

-o CO

5

§"

E -d

CD CD

CO "§

O 3

CD

CO

i cB3

03 03

Cl E

cd -a

co 0

CD H~

TZ3 C

> CD

> x:

co ^

co i

o £

co ^5

CD V O CD

b: CX5 _ CO

03 CD

c *- go cc

"c^ cS

~o

CD

£

3 |

E £

CD CO

0 52

C CD

05

^rT CD

CO UL CD

.E 7=? CO

5Z 05 _ 3 O CD

* O O ll CO

a co

2 CD c

C- v_

03 05 g>

£•*='.£=

-Q < "O

CO

E

CD

"co

CO

1—

o

CO

c

CD

CO

TD

CDO

X

Q) O

o

>

05

TJu

o

03

O CD

o

o

CD

>

CD

a CL 03

2-g

CO

CD

03

UL

V O <

= o

CO

03

388
CO

E

Uio

o6

0)

m

tfW\

_o—.-* oo

CL

COmoo

ten ed3O ©£ow oo O LL

Eg

©Eo

0)

C3;

S3

CO

S

±2 <d

«|

go

re 45

E:

o

O

C

1oo

co

£

CO 0

c5 >

>> co

D)OOco

COo> 35 § F .2

15

as .5?

CD JZ

LL 2

o3coc

CD£

CLCo ^

CO

c

'"I

a

co

c

SS

o

c > C CD

UJ T5

CL

CO

c5c ^ o 3 CO O €0 @ o oEo

LL.

Co

.E

O

O

cCO

CO

*"5 a1

389 83
oMM0c

cd

(5c

WHS o

C/)ooo

tt

£ ^

12

0)

0) oD V)

CO

CD

Ooo

CO

LL

to a

73

0)O 2 &

Q.

J©o

TJ@O3

73O

DCI

D)C

'5c

LLO

CD Hc

CO

CD

(/)

CO

CDOc

CO

0)

CD£oo

CD

0)c>o

o

a.

caEoo>0£ocoo

.5 LU Eoo

c/> {5 o .2 —C O)

(1) 0 QC

CO k. = 0 E i2

'43

O

CO CQ 0 O H I— 1 I

o3

C/)

390
T5

mm Q

i2

CD

O)

"O

£0

(/)

rvc© 5) 2 w o o

CL

O

CD

CM

co3

DIIJ! 06

C£QQOo

0)

c

c

XL

03E

is

05

C

LLI .O)

CO <

0) < — go

CD

£ CO

uZ

w

C

c

o 5 O Q X . . LLI

E

c

a

oz—ri 3O

CDX

0*C

^3

ISO '55

J2

o < C > ^ O O Q O "c/>

-a

u £> o <5 2 o o —

LLI > aQ o • • ~ 3 O o.03

c3OoC

c

03 lOc

(X re § re 3 ^:

COco

<2

o 2 a

CO1I81iii118

as13iI

391 0
s

X

co

08

CO

KgP

CO

03

C3)

CL.

o

CO 1 = COO

CO

CO CO O T- —

CO < H01

1— COE

CO to

CO

ra

CO

o3 cn 0 EE) e 3 0 *co >— CO co

led

Q3OO

nuf

u TO

a.

co «B g» « rati

•S3 .E 2 a co u

5. to ca C CJ = 0 0 =

r *> »— Co

Q- 535

o3 EH

cn « 1—

"co "o

CO JO 001— CO

a,

V)i11II1i

392

s2
o 8 -S'Ejip co -C tZ rVT^ CT5 <D 00 CD "7= o

^

D w C r O CD £"0 $ -rj

^ ^ _ q3 T3

r ^ C^Q- m O CD n

^

C «*^T3 ^

; CL 3 c <D?°=v. Jc^-^ r^< © Q> = ojCO —

3 w (H£ r7 CO m CL-p ^ O

~" CD < C <£

O^^SCL CO

^

g >~ .9 CO CD CD C O i5

£5 5 cd

"^^^^

..CO 5 p»2 o c o.

^,x)0 2c 2 "a -Q 15

ol d

c . o o 03 *c: a> o Q. co ~ co >x i^S I infill pis.il

2 ra 6 t3 -a 03 O £ LU — ts tS c W 2

<»^3S s-s&aa&g lis 3

o

o

CO

c

O^OH CD

^ c c\— o Q. 00 * ^

03

OSCL

j— rr? .—§ CD

v_ ,"2 O^QOCo) 0*i CD m r SczC^^CW vJ £- /-> r= CD • — r~ 2 &«=»- ST-! caS^lEffo

— CD 035 CD Q. O CD 03 oS v- fx CD "m 3? P m

0) O CD

393
C_3

=3

>» c

•— CO •*—' o O u= >-

H ^

tr 03 o ,000:

"S

CD

E

CD

i

E= - •* ~ " .— a, o E ca. 03 x

= s « —03 , L C/5 CO i—

g G3

• mm® a to

=3 i= = Cf> t= 5 22 °* 2 co 03 tr E <o e >»

03

cj = '2 03

ec 5 S 52

a I ^ " »£-

as

c > O C3 ~ CO

o >— 3 C3

•a as

g co E

CD

^5 ml

CO Q3 CM <Z>

o

C/5 ^£

aso

• c to CO

rom men

ces

solve

03 c= •a > 03 o

asu

O

a.

ler oxi =3

•a E

a

CJ o

CD

03

v> Z £ >» o s

03 •—

N U. T3

to

•S3 C=3

U.

C

"cj

CDU

c

E

CD

GO

e

o

*03 C

E

uu

3f

CD

E

"to

CD

P Q CD

<c a S

cd a• d• «53- CM CO

•<^3- -60- V>

» » «

CO

cn

1—

03

I

CT)

O

CD

09

03O

CO

cj

• MM

03

o do c JO o

CO *03

• mm

CJ

03

triy

ii

as CO

a. • EMM G "o 03

C3)

• "to o

CJ

•MM C

E

u CJ

C3> I'm CD c=n u

• MM O 03

I a

a © ft » Z

CO

k»

_ro u

o

Mm* «mmc

O • o cn *MJ • O CD

C3 • - o *C3 13

03 CO O

3 E a

03 C3 — O o to £

g-

• — Q3 — 2 « «—• ± O P w

o — = E "° — S ° /? c < O O 03

03

U

03

E

o

2? o

3 «

2 *S Q. u

03 CS) O OS

O S c U. 03 C3 -= = E

.52 ° c — -a o

is S > CO P3 C uu ca eo

to

OS

CO

CO

OJ

CJ

o

03

G3

03 E

CO CO

CO

co CD

II

G£ CO

OS

CO

3 °

w "

to S

03 =

M o.S2

<C o 03

cj 03 E

o i— CJ

o

394

i
395
396
397

COE

CO

3,o

ccc

03

CDCo

CO3C

CCoo

LLi a©

JC

COI cdi CD>o<

XLo

CO

co

CO • 5 £

CD < £1^ -(1) ,

i*' v- Q.

Q) G) Q.

IS 3 g <co

CO

1—

CD

D.

GL3

COc<

CO

CDECoE<

CD

D)C

CO

CO

o

O

x

ELU

CO

9> tS

o

_

COaoH

oC

'co

CD a

73

CD

COOOI oi c

CD

c

a

=

CD

r co o co ^

CO

co !±

0) 3

CO

CD

Im

COICDO

JO3E

co §

.= CD 3 ° B o

CO CL

co

o

o5

CD CO co Q S

CO

_ 4-«

C > eg

£ 5 =

co CO 3

CC

399
9

CD

E

CD

CDO

CO

E

a

, u

U- CD < a.

r— a

T3

CD

^—

• a*MBH 05 o

o

I CO

CO M

"=3 E

CD

a

ra

1—° <

oO OS

o ra

OS

T3

inci Fuquia CO

</>

sion

C/J

duct CO

raCO

F/Aa a

•mm OS o I a. CD

• ommm "ra 03

OL

ra un

ntat merci OracI E

CO

mode

CD E

E Co

1 1 CD

•

03

E

ra

ra

1

1

1

1

I

I

oo

OS x=

ca

rao

00 oo — o

3 E

ts £3

5>» as o "o

°

cj

ra

N

as

re E « 2 • > as i2 « ^00

oo

ra

cs DC CO

m

S

5

i

I

I

1

p

N

—

T3

O O

a as

I—a. — IIra S

o

* 00

oo

.— ra

roo S g

to »E E

o — t= a a • — ^ fc» SO~

OS > _. c== ra e 03 ~=

t3 OO = o —S e=as E >

Q3 ~

OO £

ra = 5 | S £5 e= o

oo

oo

ascm

e_3 as

as>as a

00

asoo

ooas

OS

o

f8.

00

I as

as as oo >

ra xa

•a ra 52 =

ro o

E w

2 3

s -a

ra liasu

as

OSu

ra

c=

as oo a. *a

° ra

raa

E

raa

co a

t S

E ra uj ca

raoo

ra 00

a

a

•a CO

>»

G3J en •«c

ss» "5

o c a ra as a

c a. OS .E

OS j>» 00

"as as

a_

"as oo em a

o mo •aa

E

catioi 00ra

as

1E3. a

x:

oo

ased >»

OS

•a

Easoo

nuiiu nerat nami ature

oo a as as <: u CS a u.

I

1

1

P

P

i

I

C_3 • • • •

400
f|:5 m

\JJ

n i

'-=*_-' .«

03MM

-]

8—- " — < E

CO

CO < i i [

?)

HH CO CO

CO

(15

r,="--: , usi

££1

CD

E

T=3

CD

iple Sys .E

CO

CD

CJ3

CD

.£2

"3

03

o

IS

o

CO

03

CD

O

03

03

CO

CDS

CD

03

CD

03 c

T 

Is

CD

Tech

urem o

©

o

CO

(r;h

Q ;o

IIU9Q A

CO

CD&

is

m

hil

mo

tt ..

'£

o

o

CO < mmm " i * E

Cost ar-Ter he

Be

E CD

CD CD

"co

Is

Foi "cS

pact S

ion nst

CD

oE

E Ins

O CD Q • • •

CO

CO

a: • ©<

65» E

03E

CD

401
402
CO0£0O

"co

.2

CO 1

S2?

LL

O

CM<

CLo

o | s

II

S2

CO

o<+-» c0O

"co c0Eco

4 >C

E< ©o

CO

LL

"D0+-» C0E3

COc

O<

LL

O

O

O

OO

O

O

N t- CD CO IO < _ - a. >-

of ga

S 

o eg h c .2

X.

£Z Q_ Jj 5oo E

t!o

(0co

0)0 C CO +3

"v 0 O

MM

o

CO

oEo

— 0)

111 o «j

or

r- co ? CO c

co ZO > LLo

£

o

fo°

c 0 > 0

co -5

o 0 0 =

14- M- .Q

'=

O

C "D

O

O

o

O

co

—

QLU < Z • • • o

D) 1 Occ<

CO0oc0Mio

CO0c 0 0 o oo

LL

+-» CO

m mmm < •

co « 0MM

"co 2 >

CO (0 0 g 3 CO

a: >

CO0c0

Of C)

c

c .2 ® ^ O £

5>1o

-S

g CO o

CO

£

'a

g

s

c®<

CO

O

o

MM

+-» CO

"oo0

COc0a

Q. 0

T3 CO o a.

LL < i

403
I

>:-x §

I

; v

;:C::

« : O

O

CO

l

:-o|

I CD

mm

to

E

:CD

03

ice

'CDV

to.

cd

CO o C3

:; co

:> 2>«

Sis* CO ^

o

CO C3

-Ol

v: CD : f— O CD »— — Q. >« • z co s a. SE;

•

:

- CD?

•V:i.'.:-0;: ;.c-

- CD

.... CD CD =: o *S5 B = " — ,o ro .E JH ;

' C3:

03

CO

J5^»W0

^Vcd/.-g*

2= o = w

|e|

o

CD : eg

lol

:;0;5 CD':;

V)

I

1

i

ati

l

i

I

1

:co CO

cd ; o

v£2

fx' Ml

c

;;:::|¥5:::,:::.f,::: m*mm

wmmm

•cd:

:CD<

« MS

E

o

oo

CO

CD

lis!

a

13

icDj

CO

: cd-

: -. C3>5 r*-i§

> CD

: cd

' O

I3|

COS

[roll

or

.CDTO

;CQ;:

•.' O:

>^:':">: ";\-V

" spec CO

CD

• / « :

•

o

i O:

|Cp!

:

: O

r

CI

CO

CD'.=

TO

I

1

I

i

I

i

1

1

I

i

1

1

1

404
405
co

-69-

CD

CD OJ

T

CM

h»

CD CO

CO OJ OJ o CO

CD CO CM

C\J

t

i—

CO CD

CM

ID T—

ID 1

CO1

ID CD ID

CO CO

CO

CD CO

ID CD

^- T- -

CO CD

o

CO ID

OJ

CO

o

CO CO

»-• CO

que

ion

Re CO

-•—

o

Q.O

CD

-4—

CD

o

TJ Q. CD 3

CD < i5

CO

CO 2 0o

CD Qco

-t—

cc \_o

CL

CL <

CO03

cr0

+-» 0

CD

"O

CD

406
CD

n

O

o

o

f

CO

o 3

CD co

G) |cLo

gL

Q_ <E

jCD

_QOI O

03

CO

0)

c5£

cB

LU

o

c5

CL

CT5

INI

CD

CD

(3D

'sf-

>-

LL

q

CO

ID

CsJ

LUQQ

COo

CNJ

CO

CNJ

CNJ <-? O

CO

LO

CDOO

LL.

L0

CM CM co 0)

CO ^

CO* - ^ ; n oj

CO <J

o

CM

CO

CNJ

407
o8

CO

E

CO a

JZoc

ea Q

"to 8£

CO

P

CO2

11!

c*S CCQQo

to

«—

oo

'oa

CD

COI T3

Q>

-b£ a—oj

CM

C CO o

CM

CM

E5^5

C3 ^ ?• ..

in < Z 2 C5

CO fCOozo5

CO• • LL<

CMSO

.. < a 9 55

DCo

LLHoQ

CQ

a

c

o

|2c

CO

LU

e3

DCQQ

aa

G)

Q.

CD3

X2

tO 5 coo

oc

a> O

*to E

CD

C Q. % coo

CO 1 o <

C3 z 5 *«3 :2 O HCO

^5-

COc

03

CO

4—

cooo

cd

co

03

i-3Ooc

CO a

03 <

CD>a

a.Eo

LU

O

coo

a>

E LLj a £cc

03

H

CO2

LU

cS

CCQa

o

co

CL '2

O 3

CO

_

c

a jc

0) O

*-£ CO *" ^o

a)

~ ^

CO

CO

Q . ,

t:

03

«—

CO

«:

co

CD 2

_Z

JE in

408
0

(/)

CO

CD Rele C

CD -o

c:

LL

cc

O

CO

CD

LL • MMEEoo

G)

Q_ <c

CO

CM

NO CO

10

d r- di

T- CD O LO CO CO N If) CO N

^1" CM

O

O LO

o

i- CO ^" LO

CM CO

CD

m mm

E > O > CO

MUM o < z O

LL < < <Q

CO

CO

CO

CO

LO

CO

COoQoQ

409
in

in CM

CM

CO

CM

CM

O CO

qCM

a>

CO

00

CO

o

LU

o

Q

ID

CQ

h2ZN

LLi 9**

CO

LU

m

lo

>-

Li.

CO

#-» o

CL

73 I o . *^ : SI

CD

CD

CO

<DC

CO

o

CDE

E

oO

E

o

Urn 73

O

3

"coo

CL

E

o

D) > — 4—

= c

CQ CQ

o o

O m

O -4

CO

CD

4—1 CO

O

CL

E

oO

CO

CD

U

3

4-» CO

4—

CO

o OO

-J o O -J

CD O

-Q

CO

LL

CO

73O

O

CO

o

1—

>% O

CD

2

o

CO

CD CO O .ii *- Q_ O *= *S O =: CD

m 2 o h LU

o

LU

CO

CD

CO

CDO3

i_

4-< CO

73

CD

CD

15

CD — 4— CO

g o

go

~3°IQ.

CD

4-» C

CD o

c

o CO

1 £

iH CD *TM 4-J GJ CO

CO

CQ

i2

o

o

ID>C

1—

CD

CDC _ CO

co c £ LU

4—> _

CO £

CD O

CO 3 LL DT3C

> Q. <

CD

4-^ c

CD

o

CO

to .5

o -o • Ml 1 M CO JD

CL £ Q.

£ LU CO

CD

CD k. 4—1 C

CD oH

g- (0

i§CO o

C0-r2 £

CL LU

IS

O

410
c3 C3

—

CD •g 2 £ a o c o 03 o C 3 CD *C5 C >'

CO cd

w

a

c -i~ Q JE

LU

a H

CO

az

cc ^

£^3 CO < <

IS CC

<sQ. O

CC cc < CL

oaooc

"uaaoc

JOo

CO

-CO

13Cc

UL

"5oo££oo

CO£oa

"a

CD

UL

CLa

Q,

CL

CC

CDCO aac

CD

CO

CD

too>

LU£awa

=:

UL. 6ft

a.

CD 1—1

CD Q,

CL

CC

411
ocoo

CDCo

COc

03

0)

COco

0) Q

§•

(fi

C

<0

\—w

D)o«3

£

liff i a. tr

CO

o

R

03

CO

y

c cro

C3

S

o -

=3 -4= CD

V"C0

E 83 ©

c:

o

p

O < £

-a

CD\ • MM

sz cr O Q

'c~ ** > CO

CD

*c co £ co

CO CD C o

CD

o

CO * CL

Ono

CL

CL

CO

jfDOo

CD 2 ^

*2

g|

Eli §

0)CC -jz

•S r- iS "5

= 5 co O CO

CD

c 2.

o> co

P-o

a>

£

£ ~° ^ c

.£ ct3

•o

O

CD

O

CO

Z5

Q

CD

CO r: c o

"Dc

03c• o—o

ZJo- co c E

CD

o

CO

CD CD > CO

CD

C

"O CD , *+—

.b= v2 -a

412
o

c

o

o

'C<g

CO

3

C

CO

0)

CD

o

o o. »i2

9= 2

O o

c 2

o CO

Q co

2

CO

§£2"S E =

2.2 jx>.g> "p

o»q. o CL,*

(0

c

0)

o

413
ocooCo

CO3C

CO0C

Q> Q

COS

•Si O

LL- CO C 5

7/5.2

E

La

CDO

QLE

a>

•4—

00 5 ^ w

cr

w

<1C C O CO • —

© 2. § £ g Q.

<d ?= ca p a> q

G) 0 d o o < CO c

CO

'52 C CDO

l- i-

«+—

o

CD co Q O

00

2c~ c

03

CD

Q

03

0) Q CO

"oo C

03

o

~~ 00

CD <D

00

CD

Z3

_o

03

CD • >

mmo

Q.

CL

Z3

00

03

CD• 00o

414
(0

"Eo<£Oooo

LL

J£

CO

03 < • LU • < •

CD

CD CD S

•4—

o E

Li.

£ •s o

CO

O c5 -—

H CD

CD

u.

idustry > O

CD

xecu CO

LU

np <

LU

CO

ID CO

.£

o

CO

O

£

CD H

CD

CO

Z)

£

03Q 3 h415
8 O

CD

"Ii

o3

GO

LU

CO

o

03

03E

E 03

si

</3 2

+± *:? 03

03

03 03 03 E— j=P .03

*~ ^ < h- £ 03

03 5 i

CO

CO

03

03

03

CO

03

03

03

03E

CO

CO

03

CO

CO

03

CO

03

53

pimII

416
Appendix M

Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP)

Tutorial

3

417

419
o

-ao

COg

ccooo

c

0) < E«>

.E

"o

DC

>>ooco

CD

Qo

oZ§E+-

<fi >c

CDOOOO

<L> >3b- 0)>O

DC3Oa—U>

XLO

<D

CD

0)

(0I o33

LL <O

420
o

-ao

OC

O.K

5:s§

UJ

QCo

-joi o

<D

CL

CO

CLQOQc

CDE>

"3

QC

>*ooco

CD H

oo

Q)

73

CDOC

co><O+•*

•u

CDOO

COc

'5S

0)

QC

CD

COc

CD

CD Dc

CD >»

"C 15

CO CO

Q. CL

CD CO DO

CD n

"55 eno

0L

&_

CD

O)co

—J

toC

CD

COC

CD

CD a

a>

"5o

"5

CD a

0)

fo

vCO

CL

CD

</>

CO %

CO

"a3

CD

CD

COc

CD Q

COco

CD ai

CDE

CDOc

CO>

•o<

mmO

Vm

CD£Eoa

COcmmO

CO

CLI

CDCI OMN

+-» CO

COcov. COo

COoa

CD

CO

CO

CD

"co

CO3

"Uca

CD +*

CO

U)

CD

CD

d><2 C c o £

co

Q)

*5> ooco

ICD

COc

CD

CD Q

CD

COcoD

T3

CD

MB3

CT

CD

DC

CO

CD

CO

CO

CDOO

COo3

TJO

= 0 z £

'(0><

"co

1MBo

a>EEooI

CO

CO

mmO

i—

CDEEoai

421
Oo

a.

y>

Hioo!

Ui

o

0)o

QlC£

CO>£

'5

tr

>>

U)oo£oo

I0)T3 c c 3 C o .2 c

CO •—

*= co co

<o -n f I o Q.

0) CD H Q > c

O) CD o £ O Q. C O

ol

422
o

£

©

>

mQ

>»

u>

2

o

g

0)

CD

-4—1 CO ^ o co o w

«-• co — CD

o

I

s

o •-

•+-> 0r=

CO

(DO

c £

o 80

"= CD

CO CO N C

CO M—

0 CD

E

Er

o o

o

CD

4-* (0

E

c

o

CO " J—

D)

CD

I

c

E

Q. CO

"5 0-

oo

CD DC

0

O

j=0

>

CD

C

>

o

0

Ui o0i O)

cMM

»-» +-> =>O

O)

cM< o

E

o

Q- CO

>,0

-°-=

015

T30

tr

CO

Cd LU

^ o

O CD < -g

g <

CL

E

>> o

Q- O

o

0

0 Q.

CO 0 O

' 0

C/) c0

CO

c

o-3 0

C0T3

0 C

£ 68

^-"cO

0 o

'I

o

o

CO

< c

CO

i's o Q. O CO o t 0 0 I +-

t— oo

0-B

CO 03

1 oo ii

O

CO

C

E

©Q

>*

U)

o ~ c •- is (D

<

CO

.QO

O)

8 W

2 co

0 CO

»— -—

Z3 C/) Q CO

CO

^JO.

c V

CO 73

3

a

0

>

0

CO CO

^73

73 C

C CO

CO

0 -^3

C 0

CL

E

o

o

0

>

Oi_

CL

fe .1

0 S

O co

5o o

c

CO

CO 'CO

O0

O

C CO 3 C

£ %

CL E

O 0

c

g

'co c0

LU>»CO

o

o

c

x:

o0

hc

0

o

Z3

O

CO0

"COO

o

73

c

CO

CO

CO0

CO

c

>0

CO Z

CO *

0

o

0

CO

0

CO

•f-

CO

c o

—T 0

Ss0 CO

LLi=

2 0

CO o

c c

18

O CO

E0

00

>^

CO

_c

o

CO0

3

O 00

00

CO CD c c

JZ CD

Z5 >

-t—' *J3 o~

CO Q)

§*CO o

423
U)

c

03

c

c

o

CO

o

3

111

o

c

O)

CD

C0 13

"8 ®

O)

r~ m—

•== O

<D 0

0 O

c ^

3 •—C

O i=

^ °

CO D

E E

o J£

DC co

I

£ o

c

o

"to c

o o

51111 COo

c I

"c: c

3 O

«

a

ISco 0 3 DC

c

o

CO

c

CO

CD s~hc

o"4—

CON

"cO CD

DC—

o

•o

a: •£

c

o

4—

COo

o

LU

c

CO

o

o

c

o

"co oO

'c

CO j—r, O C

E'CD

CD CD -C

•—C

ZS O)

o c

CO LU

^ CD CO co T3 C

P 0)

CD Q

0)

CD

CO

81

00 —

CO 00

c

CD

O

'c_ CD

O X3

CD

C

CO

CO

E

COD)Oi_

D_

CD

"CO

CO

CD T3C

CO

c/5

*

CD Q CD E

.£ | uj

7= c

>

c

T3

CD 4—

coO)0

c

c o

CD O

CD <D

g£

0 O «*— I 0 LL D ~ 3

.EE co

co -c O

*r* C * 0 o

^ DC 8

I

424
/oo

is

UJs

ili o

-Joo

UJ

o

COC

COc

CD£0>C

"cd

DCO

"(/)

0)>coo

CD£

CD

CD Q

CMmmo<co

<^

'</) „ c s co!a c E

CO

ro

c

g

CD 1 w Is > s» C o

CD §

CC 1

c!

o£

55 

j- i

CD 5 > " Coo

CD

(f) co

•86oaa

J2. uTs

os

m

Of

m >= E a o P 5

ffl <3>

iZ

oa« s

iff > £ p

_c5 <A a E

.E <° j? ai c O

uring E

tion

Pr

S30M 1 S d "a C UJ a5 c

a>Ea

o>ac O)

(0

c 5 5 'c o

<0 r~ Tr </>

a7

CO > a E <5 6o oo £s c a o

JZ

o

o

C To« n v>

'i

ion <

s? a 3 01 o

a.

(0 !e

"5 2 c a a cC

ed a. § o >. w ca o

°>

£v>

dv

o < c

JC

o

itl 8 c 1- a

15

c

a

H

Q. '£

a

mi—a

il-Mi

cis

"5

i_ ^8 a .2 ** EE

<3

o b) o a

425
4

426
oo§§oO

-Jo

Co< ^

CD

C/>

_

E

CD

co

o

o> CL > Jr — O

co

*-

o

iZ

O)rmW^0O(O(O

1- CNJ CO *fr

CO

Q.

52occ

CO

Q.

>»ooco

<D

I-

"co oo

CD

CO

(0

Q.a

(0

V.

<DcC

(0

CLc

BOMo

+-* CO

d)

(0 JL Q 75 o

coc

0) Q

(0oo££oo

o coo

O) CM CO O)

0)

CL

m mm

CO

s_CDC

tr

CO

0.

co ±;£

CO

1.oOc

CO

+-> CO

"coCO <

CO

CDoc

CO

mm <

U)ooco

CD

h-

"co co

'5)

CD

DC >OOco

CD H

D>C3C

CO

CDOc

CO>

TJ<

CD

COc

CD

CD Q

CO£

CO 3 O

CO CLco

'coc

CDX

LU

CDCo

CO

M—3C

CO

o

COc

CD

4-* X

LU

CDOC

CO

CO

"coCO <

CD

CO

CO3Q

CD

COc

CD

H—

CD O

CO <tf £

CO

\-

Uio

£

CO Q.c

CO OcoCM

+-> COo3

TJ

LU

COc

CD

CDC

'5) c

£oo

CO

CO

_co o

CD

CO c

CD

Q.X

LU LU

U) U) c c o

CO3c

CO

o

CO

M—3c

CO

CNJ E

CO

3—o

CLoVat coo>

CO

Q)

DC

CD

_>

'+*> CO>Oc£

CO

CO

0)c

"<03

CD

CO£

en

CD

T—

CO

t—

o

(0

T3c3

LL

CNJ

O)

LLO

CM

</>

(0

CO T3

J3Oc

427
428
oo

Or

Hi

ccoooIo

UJ

O)cCc

C3co

c

t

omm*

cit >03

oli

(/)

CO

tary

meni

Milil

Depart

VSVN

cEo

0)o>

03

VdHV

NSF

— CD p

>.

maril

DOT

DOE

DOC ;/

429
Omo

cc§

Uioo

-JoIo

CD

G3

a.

cc

co

CD

in

06cano§ 

CD

i2

as

COo

a.o

o

52 ca nD

</> v.0>O

CD>oI

(0><co

Q.o i^ o lf> 00 CD

G>O£ooco

h3

0)

Q.EoO

CO

a>

T—

LL,

C03

CD>

LUOo

00coan

CO3

CO>

LLJOc

CD

O)

CO

CDc

TJ

CD

i_

CD

cuCOoaoa

CM

T—

CNocoo

0)

CD

COI cc3

LL

Q.

CCH

o>o>

LLCoo

T—

TJ

CD

TJ3Oc

co

TJ

CDa

CD

CO

U)

CO

COo

CLo

DC

CD

CO

00

c

a)

'oo

LL

CD

COE3OaooMM

CO a

c/> c

.2

*3O

0)

CD

0)o

>*

CO

1—

CDc

ccU) < O

</> CO

CO

X.oo

CO

co~

c

<D

O

To °

55

Sc

CD „ CD

CO

Q

•—§ §o

co

Z

N

CD>5

CD

TJC

CO

CD

COc

CD

H—

CD a

CD3

TJ

CDc0

CO

CD

x.@L

CD

QCH

CO

CD

co

CO >

TJ

v-coo

CD

U)c

CO

CD>

CO

CD

CO

CO

CDc

"co3

CC CQ

CD

=

D) CO

CO

Em III!

430
O

Ujo

Oraz

UJ

UjSg

ccO

-JoIo

CO

a.

as

UJ

COocc

CDE

a.o

a>>

<D G

CL

DC

to

<DE

a.

O"

CD3O

(0

0)

cc

JQ) O

'JE >

CD

CO

zsa<oo ^O M£

CL IE

A3aQ<oOc

03

i_

i-O

I—

H-o

+-* S MM oooo

ICO

03

CD

U)

t mm XI

CDo

en

<:03

M—oO

CL

E

o

(0 • ommc

JZo0

u.

Q

a.

(/) v= o

0)

c/> D

c• oMM

+-* 03

V-

(1) aOo

X2

03 ro

CLCo

</> i_

0)

CL

0)

U)c

c7)

JD

03

03 OocO0a>o

(/> CD

u. CL

Co

03

CDc

CD

cc

<D

D>

"D

'v.

i_o

o ^

CD

4—

"(/) o

CLEoa

*oooc

03><

(ft a>DO

0)0

"5o

Ui

CDC

03

COoD

C• oMM

03

03o3

iC/> Coo

(1) a)

TJMM

DQ

C/> o

"55oaEoo

(DOc

03

"(75 CD

DCCo

*c75 oX-X-Oo

D)C

CD

4-* CO

CD u> I 5

JZo

CD

<*» "55oEoo

CDUc 

03E

CL

</) CD

CD .r! — u. X CO o £r

f- 03 O *— • MM > MM

03>

Ik. CD

(/) CD

v_ CL

no

431
o

UiO

a.ss

Ui

ct

CDO

—JoI

CLE

COX

LUccE

Q.Oo>oD

CL

or

co

LO

T-

(0

03C

03

03 o

03E3

03

O

(/) D

CO A

CO

£ CD

CD CD< c

CDE

x

CD H

CD

—uo

ccI

<D

iCO O

COE3

CO

=

H

CDoE

CD

DC

CO

'(75 oco

IS </>

coCD

r ° €

CDoo<

a>c 0 cco

(0

CD

MM

CC3

(0

03 o

CD

MB H—

JD

CO

CD

>^

CO WW

Q,

CO 9 mmm

*D

CD

*-« C3O£

CO

CD

(/) E

CD

+-» (0

>»

if)

CD

+-* 3

CL£o > O o o = S i5

CO

=

v.

CO

T

cd in

co

a3

CD

'o>

CDC

j-co O

CD

CDcoI

CO

CDO

CD

(7)x.03

Q_Eoo

UicO

CO

CO>

CD

COOaE

J—

CD

CL3

</)I

Uic

CDo

CCc

CD

4-'

'cc

CD

DC

CD

Ui

COE

CO

CD

O)

COEoc

.2

E

CD

CO

CO <co

CO

«+~3c

CO

432
433
434
435
436
437
oo

ISSio

-jo!

a.

h-c

COc

"55

CD

75£

CO

CDE

(/>

1m. O%tmm O

"EO

CL

£L oc

CCo

IMMC

U)

CO

T5O>O

CLF 0>

CO <o

LLCQ

O)oocoo

\—onEoE

(0

CD

COco

COco«n

4-* CO

Q.

etmm O

05 » S>E > CL

CO

O

§§>

"R CD

LUO

CO

0)

CDc

"co CD 3 —

ToE

co

CDcO

CO

CO

CD

-Jo

CO

U)

CO

COo

Q.OcEco

If)

CO

(0

CDc

'co3

COE

co

+-» CO

T3

CDE

.E 4- 3 o o

CO (/)

CD

CD

coco

'coc

CDX

UJE>o

Q.

CD D

T3

CDOc3O££<

CD

.QO

CO

T3

i_

CO <

GC

CD

CO

—

c

CM t- 2 To c3 °

£3 T3

i_ CD O LL

CL jLO O z

CDO

CD

(0

CO

CD

COS en£

CO

DC

0. cq F CO

co

CD

hCD

COo

LL

CO

CLO

CO

J*

CD

CO 5 5

CO • MMa

CO O

o

CDOc

c UJ c O«•* CO

CDO

COo

CLa<

CD

CO

CO£

TJ3O£O

m uj I £

CQ

CO

CD

CD

'co£Oo

438
439
440
f-.

ca

111

O

o

Uj ^

CC

CO

0)3

U"

CD

cc

O)

(A

o

3

CT

O

CC

75

(/> o

a

o

>

O

u

Q)

«D 0)

c

<DO

CL

-

f

' •

" '

1

o

A

O

LO

CM

CA3

cr

QC

(Aoa

o

I 1—I

1—I r- NOlOifONi-O

o

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h

Lf>

CM

CM

LO

I o

c

toa

ra Q.

•»»O)c

T3C

3

UL

V*»

COo3

CT

CD cr

OoiooNioin^nMr-o

P9)33|3S lUB0J3cJ

441
442
oo

2:

>.ooo

0)£

(0W<

eg

v.

CL

.E

T3

£Z

03

"55 oI CO

CDOc

cd

U) <

75

a> T3

CD

LL

0)

CLO£<C

.2

CO

CDOOO

COc

.2

03

JL. o

75o

CD3

.2"

"ED

T3C

COc

'E

CD

CD

COo

'E

CO >

"Dc

CO

75> coN

li

CO CO 0 CD H to ^

CO

CO

& CD

® "55 .E

cd > m

S5

=

•= (0 «4- = 3 O

CO "O

c

CD 4-T CO

e>

v

a

-j

OE l l l

CO£

CD

CO

COo

CDE£oo—

CO

CDc °

CO

C

£ 0 CO 1 i1 C (0

=

O _L CO

CO +3

£ 3 CO co Q OC

17% CO CD c 5 £

.= > ^

to 2c

o

O

TM ^ o >»

CO CO E < r o O CD

Q.

O

ac 3 CO

(/) "D

CO >

1- Ml 3O CO S o 5 CD £ < i i i

co

CO

CD

>-

<+-» c

CDE

CO

CO0

0)

CO <

75c

443
oS

CDOo

3:o

X

0)

C3

JO

CL

cMM* ooco

"53>coo

CD

COcQ

G)

C/>i Q

<Dm3m

LL0

"UC3

LL

CL

B£HI

T3

0)

13

GC

O)

(5

</)oO

ITS a

sz

COoc

c5

CLO

CD

CO

(/)

*-> COoO

v-O

OC

DC

CD

«3 (/)

CO M— o

03OO

o

(1) co DI c

JS

a.

cn

o

<DCLEoo

COo

O)

1—>

LL

cooa£oo>

LL

"<= T3 ^

CD

O

£ ? .1

TJ

CD

COco

CO

CD

'5> ooco

CDo1 o

Q.

=

co

TJ

CD

C/> 3ao

LL

m

T-I o

in

c

CDCo

a.£oo

CD£o

co

CD

CL£oo

CD

in>

LLCoo

Q.B MMc

CO

-t-> 0) n3

(/)

TJC

CO >

LL

v.CD

TJC

"co£

CD

OC

CO

444
/oo

a.

COo

-Jo5 CoNwmm oco

_o

CD

o©

ago - a<

O)o

</) c

a>

a> Q < to

Q.

a. < -3-

<3- CM °- CO

CD • aMB .C

</> i-

<DC

t:

CO

CL

<D

<W D

CO3a

o

in

CMo

-C

tO

I—CDc

v_CO CL

5kOOoC

J=O

<D h15uO

CD

tO Di CC Q

LOoo

JC

CO

V.CDC

to D_Co

*«3CO

u.

<d

to

CO *o

CDE£ou

o

ino

CO

IE

a. 1

CO CL

5k

Q>Ooc

JCo

<dc

1- 5k o

to3c

CO

<DOc

(0><

inOo

CDoc

to

*: .t= <

5k

cnOocu

toco

CD oc

o

CO

toc

CD

*-> X

UJ

<DOc

CO

•-> CO

'55to <

toi CO3D

COc

0) a

o

CO

o

o

'>O

<DOo

05

CO

o

COc0o

co

CO

CM

CME

CL

4wf COo3

T3

UJ

G)C

'JZCD

0)c

'5)

UJe3+-< o

UJ to O) "5 c c

'C CO 3 ^Q

COc

CD a

r?

CM

ino

o

in

in

o

CO CO co

'J£j to

v-D)

0)

0)CO

i_a

*-» QC

UJco

(0 «—3C

to <•

Q.

IE

CO—oc

v.

CO CL

"to S Mi

CD

CO

T3

CDoc

CO><o

o

CO tinE

COv.ov- CL

U)c

!e

CO I-c

(DE

CDU)

toc

COc

COa

CO "OI to

CD

+-< CC

(/) ~u

CDE

445
Oo

a.

2:

Ui

QC

>.Ooo1o

mmmo

COo

<u

UJ

(1) E

0)

CD>c

"5

CC

>*ooco0

Z3

T3C

<l>

<d>cooo

GL

cc

o

O)

&-(0

-Joo

<DN

'55c

£:oa! oaO

asO

i_

Q.Eo

CD

DCCommm

'55

mmm 3

cro<i i

CD

"cO

<D • MMN2a<u oo

</> c

Q.o co

"43 CD

03

TM

°-s O 03

MW jh. o «

CD

O

m

g

iff > CDN

CO

CD

U)

03

J£Z* y

03ODv.

(/> E

CD Hi coo

LL

*CD

"ao

CD>o

J—

Q.

CLH 3

a.

cc

Q

CC

CDc

CD Q

CD>mmm O

CDa

o>

CD

Q.

CD

+-* CO

i_oa

}_oo

T3C

CO

CD

COc

CD

CD Q

446
o%o

s>

P?ooo5

03Ei a.

DC

CO

CDOo

a.

cco

0)o

Qlo

coE

Q. oo

"O• aamm >o

CO

COo

Q.O

Xm

oo3

CO3

0) D

CO

CO

0)

C/) CDc

"So3

CD

+-« o

CD

£C

COo3

CO

COo

'co* I Ca oanO

0)

CD

CO

To

v-3» CO

COM>

CD3o

CD

Cm£

CO

0)

CD

«*-» COO

LLO+*

CDO

CO

CO

CO

COo

CD

CD

CD 2

COc

uamm o

+*

CO • mam OO

(7)

"cc coMM +»

aw—

•u

"D<

CO

CD

szo

COommaa<

Tooo

_J

CD +»

CO

CD u

CD

LL

75£o

LL

CO

CO

v.CO

0)

CO

CO

CO

CDOo3

CO

co

CD3

CO

CO

CD

CO

CD

CC

O)c

'5>

CO

mm. 3Ooc

LU

CO Co

5=

LU

I-<

a.

DC<o

447
OoZ

UjS

COCo

-Jo1o

cO

CO£o

€L

OC

c

75co

COEv.Oc

75

k.oc

CD O

LLl

(/) D

-J<DQi oo

00I

1^

CO

in

CO

COo

co

*CU

3=<

to

4-* co£

CDoc

ISocc<oI 8 3 1

too

COo

T3

CDC

COo

-J

COco

CO

(0

CD

o .2 Q O P CO Q OO

Ql

o

CMi CO

21

COo

CD

G)c<

COo

o

CO o

COco

COom

h-z

CDo

">

CD

</>

CDEo

co

=cco

"E

jco

CD H

75co

"(S

mm^m

Oir> co

CO

CO* o

00

CO

CD

448
449
I 450
o%o

cca

2>

COo

-Jo1 E

cc

3b.

CDo

a.

jr

aw

i»

CDCt

co

CDooc

jcu

CDo

MM a

<D

CO

Z>I CO3Q

CD

COC

CD

CD Q

"JECO

k.

CDc*•*

CLCo

"+-" CO

;uCO

CD

v.

CC

CO

"osEEoo

co

"JE(0

3L_ 0)ct>

CDOocuH

CD

.£3O

CO

H—3c

CO

CDO

CO><

CD

COC

0) Q

E

CO

v.O

CDOc

CO +»

CO

'coCO <

CO

CDo£

CO

ccco

CD

tr

coE

CO

v.mo

Qlco

"coc

CD

UJ

COco

CO

*f-3C

CO

ov. CLCo

'coc

CD

UJ

CDac

CO < .2 •£

COooc

JCo

CD

m1

co <

CD

CO

CD

COc

CD

CD a

CO

JL. COo

E

c

CO Oc1 oMM

COo3

T3

LU

COc• MM

CD

CDCo

CO3c

CO

Eoo

to

(0

TO a

CD

<0 C

CD

CO Q. C X

UJ UJ

j_ CO CO

co „E .E Q 3 O

CO

M—3C

CO

CC

COo

Ql

jcio

co

CD

to

CD>

CC>occ

CO

CO

CDE

"to3

CO

<cE

if)

cocc

"cc

"Oc

CO

cE (DCTM

CD CC

Ql

E

o

its > Dl

CD CD CO D Q c• MM

5^"* MM CO CO r* O O O o o 25 c c ^

JC -C

c

o

o <c

CD <D 5

hH

s

451
452
o

lu

-aO

UjS

Ui

QCo

-Joo

0)cO0£oo

DCH

CD>

Li.

co

CD

Q.Eoo

"Q

Q>

CO3Oo

co

g) <

CO3OOc

cdE *~ CL

00

O

CL <ooc3occ<I

CD>

CD Q

O)OOc

JZo

CD

coo

00I o

cv*

CO

CDc

CD Oco

"co c

CD +»X

LU

COco3c

cuc

CDE

>»o

Ql

CD O

COooco

CD HI co

CN

</5

Co

CD

CLEoo

"5

CDC

CD o

CDEE3

(/)

"D

CDOC3Occ<

CD

CQ

.2

DCm

CO

LUC

CDE

>»oa

COc3

LL

O a)

>-

C LL

CDE

ClO

CD>

CD QI

CO3

453
Oo

CL.

ixs

cco

-JoI

mmm 3

"O

0)oco

"5

Q.Eoo

0)

(0OO

LL

CD 2

o>

t— co

CD Q

(00c

'</) 3

DQ0O0EEoo

73

<D

</) * nee

a.

4-» cE3Occ< o

T—

03i CO

"vZCL < i CD

0)

CLOo < & a> C -J

133w

o

0) C3 O Q. am

+»>o<o

(003o

CL

DC

h-I co

ccEocE

CO

a>o

CL

O

CM

CO aw0c

"(03

CO0o0EEoou0• wmm S3

CLC• omm

•*-> CO +»

MBoo 5 i

CO

0)oao

a>o

a0o0

cc

i.o0cmm 13

CO0a

130CC

CO

a>

c/) o> c r 0Eooc3 0£0a0 c

g CL 3 I C<

"U0cc

CO

o

13c

LLi>

CQI

454
o%o

ft

a.s

UioooIs

co

CD

Q.Eoo

T3O

(0OO

LL

cO

coCOO

JO

Q)

XI

EP < I 2> i oo

LLC

cd>

CD

05C

<DEo

CD>Q

>»

o>ooc

JOo

CD

co

'c/5 o

UJ

MM

9Lh« 3O

CO3C

CCc

CDEo

CL Q

>*

O)Oo 2> C <d c <+— O c

HO

"D

COcommm +•* COo

111

O)

"zr3o3C

CO

CO

CO

cooo

Ql

DCm

COoz

0)

4-" t Mi

0)cO

COco

"D

CD

CO

-i

JO

CO

</) o

Q.O

CDOO

CO

CO <o2

CO>

LUO

CO

LU!

CO

ECD

CO ^

CC "D

s|

COLL

SZ ft* u £

|MMM

(DC/)

CO

CO »-» CD 0

CC

CD

c > CO

v.

CO ^>occ O g} o 5

C/)

= (f\

CD ° C CD

g

CCE

CO

CO (0

CD CO C

ZZ

_XJ

CO CD 3 CO

CO CD 3

__

0)o

TJ

C 2 C c 2 Z H P

1.2

|oj

C/5 'IT .£3 _ o I c

CD CO

m-S — +-» ifc £ o >

*=

o

o -g

-o

E

C Q. O o -

<!> 0>C0 > "Oc

DC

'CO < Q co

455
oo

UJs

COo

-Jo

2>

3:oK

£Eo

CL D

>*OOco

IMMc

T5a

<DOO<

CD m

on

TO « O

cd co o &

a.

c

O CDc c o

<B« £ c

Q.UJ Q g

O) 3 ooco

CD H

a

CO 4—3c

CC

CO><

CD

CDco

CO

CM

>>

0)

cc

*mmm EXo

Q.a<

co

<*•* c

CD

CD

v.

a mm3

cr

CD

COooo

<D

(0

CO

<o

c

fee

CD

0)

CO0

CD

.2-g,

•—

co

x

c

o

Si co 6 

H

..CO

CO CD '^3 5 El co c.E

age 2 § § Q.OO I

CO03

O"0

cc

Q.

CCco 0

CO

CO

4-* COoaO

inI 0>o

CO

CO ac

CO X

o

CMO

LOi ino

CO•

c/> CLo

COc

CDE

CD D 1 5 3

CO

i-0

CO

O.• > O > o>

in

CMa< O0

CC

CO

CO•

o>

CMa< i

456
oooOOo

05

Q) <OO

LLo£o>QOco

to

CD

(0

9> </>o

U)

03

>»

o

-Z.o

mCD

COc

CD Q

JZ

CD

co

0)Eo

CD>

CD Q

CD

v-03o

{/}

"q.

CO

DCO

u>ooc

JZo

CD H >>

4- b:

CD >

.2

03£o

03O

CO z

CD

mChh o

to

-a

CD

to

CD

O

Q CD O Q

TZ (X) £ a

CD ^

Q.4= o to

CD j~

CDCo

03

15c

03

CO

CD

CD a

x:

en

.£

'5)

03

J*o

03

a.

CO

>»

</)o

c

ctax

o

jQ)

+-> COooO

-J

in

O

+3 co

CD

COO

COc

CD

0)

X?

CD

r- 03

T3

0)OOOc

COo

to

CD

0)

To

CD£co>c

o

in

coi

CO

COo

mmmm

z:

CDO

'>

i_

CD

COC• oam

+-» 03E

i—o«+— c

"co o

"co

CD

h-

«jc• oMM

«•"*» 03

457
oo

oc

HiK

Uj

OCo

-JoI

cc

CD Ocooo

C/)

Q.

DC <

4-*

O I B

Jgj

CO

55

<DOC

CO>u<II CD>MMCO>occ

cco

'coHc

COoc

cd

m mmo

0)

co

CO0

0)0

oco

"55

CO

CD I I c

CO

coNM

75IMO0EEoo

c

CDE

CD

O)

COc

CO

"Dc

COo

COoa

Q. <

"co o

"EooH 03 >0ao o3x.

+-» COE

CO0H

CO3+-' o00+-> c I I 0oc

CO>

Rele CO

ket

CO CO i mam o

i-0 0 EE da o c

o

o 0

ipa

pu

De

t CO0 O

CO

MM

+-> > c CO • an 'to 0«+— "co CO 0 0 > D CC

CD

CL I I - -

458
OOaz

r—

f°Uj

UjO

-Jo

IS

c

CD

a>

"5

cr

0)

QCc

aso

v.

as

Ql

E

iZ

Q)

.9

'5)

CDO

3b. oEE

"E

<D

Q.Eoo

TJ

CD

</) 3oo

LL

LLi j- 2 O

CL

0Lo<c

TJ

CDCtmm H—Q

«- i

03

CD

CO

CL

G) mo

</>

CL

"o

CO

CL

~

Ow 73c C l

CDCOc

i_o

LL

U) 3 3Oc co

C/) co£

COo<!

0)

CDOn

CO

CD

(/> c

CD

CD Q

COco

"•^CO zI

a)3O

C/)

CDQC

CD

"iCD

CLXa

</)

O "T

"CO

O

CD oQ

DC

LL

LL

—

—T £LOI +-> o

<D

CL

UJ

"O

COo3b. CD

CDolb. 3O

(/)

>>

Uiooc

.co

CD H

G)Colb. CO

c

'n

To• MMo3.. CDEEoO

CDoc

CD

Wa»

CDEo+*

(/> 3q>

.q£O

CO

Q.

mwmm or

CO

Q.

CD

S30

2. § I !

459
Kmo

luog

COs

UjooI

Uj

cE

0)

cr

DC

c5

a)oo

CLo

(/> o

cEc0>oO

i-0

"O0

LL - Q.

0)

i.

<DCc

CL03 E

<o0

IH—or

CO

CLCo

<r

CO0+-> COCoE0 c

"•5 c3

15

cu "D

<D

LL1 CozO

LD

>»—

</) CD

CL) -J

OO

COO

in

CO

D)0

CO

03o0EEoO

o

jD

COo 0

CO0

_co CO

C7)

(0

73C3

LL

CO

CO O 0

CLo

CO3•4-* o00c

CO0

CO

CO0c0E

mmmm a3

cr

yyC• an1 c

O

DC

460
I-oo

ctKSo

-JoI

CD

v.

CO

JC

(/)

COoo

o

CD

CLo

Q_

Q.3

(/)O+»

0)

*DC

CO

CD

CO

CO3

Q_

+-> C

CDE

umma3

or

LUOn

CO

CO>

CO

CO o

CD

CO

CO

CDov.3O

</)I ro

it

CD

Q_

DC

sa 2 C CL

CD CD

Q. LU O w C

CD

"DC

CD

Q.

<D

T3C

CD

CD

LL

CD>

CD a

TJC

COo

CO CO

CD T3

CO

C

CD 32 cc O CD Z CO

"DCc

o

CD3

CO >

CD

CO

CO

LLn

COco

CO

CO

CD

oc

o

illcMM "D

CD

CO>r

CD

Q.O

jO

CO

ammm

CD

COc

CDE

Q.M3

O"

LU

D)C

CO * HHX

LU

O

CDo

a.

cc

ii- c

CD

—

COc

COo

CD

CD

CO

CD

COo

1.

Q.I i

Jcz I o

en

s

m

£

o

(/)

0)

JCO

1.w

'$ JQO 111 0 1

v' '35c --' oo

CO • O

461
o

UJo

2:s

iCOg

UJ

oc

iscso

-Jo

Sio

CO

CD

T5i

KMOZ jc 3 O

LL

Q

QQ

CO

0) O

*-« o

CO

•»* o

J— Q)

cr <o — CO

CD

—

o

o

-o 9- c °

ZD Q. Oo

<d .£

QQ x3 O .$> O CD ^

T3

co(0Oo

CL

tbmm CD

CD

<§a

UJ

CD

CO3

"D

CD3OO

a)

o

oD2D3 U

co <o 3

(D

*Dcoax

UJc

a)>

UJ

+*c3Oo

(0w

73C3

LL

CD

</) CD

JC

CD JC < CO

"c0 ^ o g §"0

CL

(fi <

cr -a <o c3

LL

C, }—

a>

CD

CO

CD CO

CO

CD

COW

CDC

"<03

CO

c3oo

>»

CO

LL

O

Co

"«3

=

o

CO 0) E CD

0) (7)

0)

•oc3

LL

O) • Cc3Oo

a>3

CC

CDE

CO

COI

CD

COv.

(/) co

i2a

CD CO O Q.

"co CD 3 XI s 6

CO 0

CO Is

CD3

r** C

£

©

CO "o

df CL

CO

~

CO

S

Cuo E O E o o

462
o

Hio

CO

Uj

2:

Ujo

-Jop

Uj 0

C/>

(0oocc3

ULEo

CL

CO

C/) +»

(0oO3

Li. £

CO

i—o

O

lO >

G)OOco

COoo

CD

CO

CO c/> 3 Q. Q 'E

CD 2 W CD c c

CD h— T_

CD CO Q CL

OO

COO

If) Co

"4-> 2

D)

CD

+-< C

CO

JL CO

CO ci O £Z m CO

CD i- O CO O CL

O

LO

c

c

c

lio lio lio

Mil Mil n/i:i Mil

00

CMco

CO3c

CO

T3

CDOc

CO> CO

TJ CL <2

CD 2

CD i=

M—' t

CD CO Q CL

T3

CD

CO3Oo

CD

+-* o

TJ

CDCc

TO

CL

>»

+-* C

CD

i—3o

CO

U>

T3C3

it

e

CD

O > +3 O V?

jQ CD < Q.

<D

£

x:

o

hO

COco

+-< CO

MMaouaa<

CD t3

LLCo

TJ

CD

CO

CO

CO

TJ

CD

TJ

TJ<

CD

CO>

CO

TJ

CD>

'55a

CD

CC

(0

CO

COo

a,oO

*co3Oco

CO

TJc

CD

Q.

CD a

CO

TJC3

CO

TJC3

LL

"co

=

s <

TJ<I

CD

CO

CD>

Ui3O

9-

JCHo

CD

I-

(0

i_CO

CD >

i.CO

CD >

•acoo

CO

s_COo

>-

tn • MM LL*

463
oog

UJo

-Jo1

IS

(JO o

CLO

ol

U)

ci

1m

CDo

Q.

>»o5 i

encO

co

0)

3=E3

(fi

c

(0

o

=5 3= oo

LL

>>

COoocoHoc

T3

CD

4—

CO

CO>

UJ

CD

O) CO o - * 2 C —

CO >

CDo

w

CO

C/> o

£LO

Q

CD 0-

CO <d

CO

o

±

o

CO 0) O h_ o o

CD

+-< o 3O I I

CO

+-» co

CNI CN 73 wt- CD

CO

E

o

»-

o

o QCD m

CD . c > — CO

CD

CO

CO

CO

CD

COO

Q.

COcoaO

CD

O)

CO

a.

COE£3

CD

CO

CC 8 CL CO

in

CO

cc

COo

CO

COoao

CD>

uu

m

— +-3O

CDX

Q. HI CO O 1 ' O

!_ CL

COo

'Ea

cu

t- CM c c o o

X

CD

TJc

J-

—

o .2 £ 5 .§

4-* ° 6 c c

CD

O

E *=

CD

O

CD 2 "CD CO CO I I I I CO <fr c c o o

ao

CD CD

CO CO

oo

CD CD

CO CO I I I

CD

CO

cc CL

COOO

TJ

CD

COO

Q_O

u• cwarn I c

a>u

CO ^

CO 2 O to CO o o - o

ID

"co COoao

i—

CL

00oo

CO

CDOL3O

CO

CD

CC

U)c

c -C

CD

o

E g- g CO o "S

T33

CO

5=O

cooO

co

CNco

CO I

-Jc c o o

oo

CD CD

CO CO

o

o

CD CD

CO CO I I I I yA

464
oo§

CDO

-4OS

0)co2o

"5) coo

0)

cE3v.

+-»

C/> C

CDC

T331 

cocoo

COc

CO

co +jc

<D£oom<

CD>MM

(0

a-<D

Q.OOoo

<D

CLX

HI

cMMI o

CO

T3C

CC

Q. It= CDO

CO3+-» O

Q)0 3

CL

4-1 cEc

CD>O

CO3X

LL

Q

COo

CD

CO Qm

if) Xmo

CO DO

Si

S= LU W CO

co "fs o co Q. CO O JQ 2 CO ' MM | o

•io g S LU

«+= CD

CD SZ

£5

465

oo

oc

a.

Uiss

Qroo

-Joo

Ui

13

CD

9km

CD

C/) o

C00

CD

CDc

"•53m• MMo

(fi coo

o

CD

</)QOEoO

0)

Q.Ov. Q.

153o

"53 c

CO

*-* cE0

CD

i_

CD <

467

Appendix N

Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS)

Tutorial

469

471
472
473
ZZ

(50 d• i-H

o3 o3 O 3

o3 o3

03O5 c3

73i

o3o

d

T3

a)a 2 03

CD ^ 2 to

o

03 3 ^

03

*->

a

C o3

03O

Oh

?-h

03

03

O

in

<D

o on

03 Z3

03 2P

03N

03

a ^

^P . ^

o3 ^

474
Z

•rH

+-> o

ooaoo

^rH°^

rHo

GO

<D

ft ^

£rC

GO

O ^ o 6 S o 1>

CO 5

c3

rO

VhO

H-H

bD 8 ^

r-H

rH "2 s s 2 -§

CD

.5

M +-> GO

•a ^>

a

o cd • rH w - a g

go

s

go • rHo• rH

4^

O +-> u

<D Qh

go^

Vh

a

o

<+H

oo 3

bO 2 • SrH s o

bQ

4) rn

r-H 00

H-H «rH

•rH rH

475
P,H

ZP

O

o z g H

fapz <o

O

.-<t3 00 H"H s ^ Q *H o g ° o —, X)

543

CD

OO

oo« 9

Oh

doaDa

c3

<U

Oh

~

O

00 3

ED

W

Hu

O

*h

O

43

a

cd

cd 55 oo

476
g H

fa

z

«5

O

Oh

c

cd O

(ZD

o

o

• CO D

00 cd

0)

(50

o g

S

°

CZ3

o3 o

CD

o

477
CO

03

0>

OSa

C3

ooOaoU

<4-l o

S3

.a §

OO

4—

•i-H

O ^

0)

5-H

M

o

00o

•i-H

00ao

T3

00o

OhO

43

43

<4Ho

OhI

00ao

•i-H 1 a e o

oo

•i-H O cd O o O oo

478
CO p

GO

o

codo

Oh

co

CD

CO

CO

o *d

ti

u

•a co

(50

»-i _« °^Oa o

©•£

.5 5

CO «i-H

CO

s

c3

d

•i-Hi co

CO

73

COa

COaooo

CO

43O£

S

d

o

O 73

Q

d ^o 5 o «a d s 5 > g a

COO * adof i CO

COS

COO

OhO < > odo

00

o

COdoo

O «i-H

73 ^ ooo

do

In

479
CO

0> p

C8

0>

C/3

•rH ooo

00

00

00o

<uoH

aoU

<4-H oo

Oh

a<

00 0oUo

(N

a

O Oh o 0 & P

o

(N in 2 <N CM

00a• i-H

O

(N

o

x

0. Hh

480
481
CD

O)O

Q_

CO

I-o

COco

T3Coo

CD

M—0Q

co

'+-> CDC

CD

4—1 "OC

CD

+-< c

CDE

CDOc

CD CO E 2 E a- O H

o o I E

CD CO

CD

-Q

CD

O

cp^

'o

Q.

CDOc

CD

"TD

'l3

CO

CD

CO > .55 £ .E

CO

CDE

CD

CDOU

CD

CO "O

"ac

CD

•TZ CO

CD

CO

CO

CD

Q.Eooc

CD

COC

'"OOcco

4—

o

CD

4—1 o

i_

Q.

CO

CO

CD

i_

"D<

CO CO

4-J c _0

CD Q. E 'u

CD

c

v_ '5 Cl

cr "D

CD CD >

T5C

tor 0E

da

E

c

o

CD

o

E

CD

i_ 0 1

CDOc

CD

i_04—

CD

DCo

CO£

\-

COc

_CD

CD

v_CO jo

'CO> £ o tJ EEoo

COoEoc

CD

o

CD

CDC

o

CD 4—DC

CD

CO

CD

'co O

c

c

•- JZ ^

CD

CDOc

_0

"0o

CD

CO AC CO £ CD .E > »-

=3

~

D

CD ^ O <E

iS

c

oo

gc

co

CO :^ — JZ

CD ±i

CD

CO -M

CD CO > "CO -P C O O

CD

O

5" rQ CD | I o

CD

4-» CD

4-> CO Q_

CD

j_

COo

CO . CD

CD +3 I 2

COco

Q.

CO

CD

o

ID

i_

4—

COc

CDE

Y

CD CO C _0

CD /-n

CD COc ® =5 - _2 Q .E

CD

CDEoo

COc

CD

CD

CO

_

CDCoc

CD

4-> c

M

CD

v_

CD

4-1 CO

CD 4-< i_ CD O ' i_

CD CD

CO 4—

. CD

"CD j—O c 0 O CO

'co

CD ~CD DC c

i_

o

CD 'co

4-< 0 c DC I I I

482
>D+-» w>

MM

MM

_Q

*C0

CD

CD

LL

(/)o

LL

if) CoMM

+-> CDc

CDE£oo

CD

o

CD

+-< CD

CD

JZE

CD

i_

CDO

CD

CD>

_0

CDO

C/)I 3

H—

CD

CDE

CD

i_

M—E

CD

v_CDo

CL

CD

JZ

go

!d

CD

+-> CO

CD0Oc

CD

j—

CDCo

Q_D

"O0

CDm

CD

CD

JZ

CO

CDC

CD

DC CD O DC

CO 9= £ «5

CD

CcE

CDC

_Z3OcI

T3

CD

JZ

CO

15

CD

4—1 CO

CD0

_Q00OU

CD 0 C P c c

CD ro

CD "C3

CO

Idco

'+-» CDC

i_0

_0

"CDE

co

CD

CD

COo0

"odD

JZ

"O0+-> u' J_ M

CO0

1_0oc

CO0E0

CD

v_0>o0

"D

">O

t_

Cl roo 0 'F ^

JZ 1 o0

CO

=3oo

CD

JZ

CO

CDC

'CDc

'CD

_0>

+-1 CO

ZJ "OC0

JZ

_0O>o0o

Z3

"CJO0

JZ0

CO

CD>c

CD

i_0>Oo I I I

CD

k_

CDO

Cl

C/30

COD

CD

4-»

(/)c0Do

CD .2

C/) 0oc0

i_0

M—0

DC

CO0

h-co

CDO

CD

COco

*CD 0

DC

CO

c/) oo

CD>

CD>

CO0

CD co <

CD

q

E

o

Q.

LO

CO

CO

CD

Z3C

CD

-?C

CD

JZ04-' _CDOcE

CD

CDO

CD0

JZc0oo I I co

V-

CDc0

CO

COco

f—

CDc

CD

JZo

CD0

ZJo

CD

i_

CDO

Q_0

ZJ

+-> ZJ LL0

CD

CZ ' i_

CD

Cl0V— CL8

o>

CL

COc

CDO

'i_0E<

CO

—

-§ I c

CO

CNi CO

CN0c

ZJ

CO

CD

O CD > 92 i

483
E

CO

0)n

CO

CO

c

=2E

CD

+-» cap a

L=

CD

G

a=3

if

Ay j' CD

CO

a? to

if" o

JObc

CO

o

sh> 1 t-7. -J

CDCo

CDC

i_

CD

H—1 c

CDDO

CO

"D

i_

CD

T3C

CD

+-> CO

co

.2 ?

CDco

CD

4—DC

CDE

CO

Z)

CD

'CD .2

i_ 4—

o »-

+-» a)

CD

O

CDc

LU

"D

CD

"OC

CD

CO

CD

CD

CO

CDc

CD

CO

CD

_C

'oc

CDD

E °

'si -a > c

75 2

<D CD

o. jz

CD

CD

CD

CDO

CD

4—

1_

CD

-t—

C

CD

CODCo

'(-' CD

•4—1 c

CDE

CD

CD

CO

CJ

CD

_ .—

CDO

CO

—

—

COc

_o

"+-» CDO

'cDEEoo

"O

CD>O

i_

Q.Eo

CO

CD

32

Z5O

_c

CO

JZo

co >

ZJ

CO>

CD

CD

_>o>

CDC

"CD C

CD

CDCo

CD

4—

ZJC

CD

Cq"•+—

CDN

75

'o

CDEEou

CD

JZc0E

CD

CD

CO

CD

CO

Z5oo

CD

a

o

CO CD

CD -~ S g CO - c

CD CD CD

CO0

ZJCO

"O CO c

CD CD

</>.§ O o

CDc

CO

o

-Q

1=

O

_EE _E

CDc0

_>o>c 0co>

">o

CD 0

CD

fn

i_

Z5ooc0o+-»

CO

l_00G

'CD C0

CD 0 C

a.

tur eo o Q.

CD

4— CD

Z5

C

C ZJ CD O E >0

CO JD.CD D Q.

4— CD o O E >

CO JZ

CD

"CD JZ co

u.D

'co

O

CO0 4—

4—

O

o

c

Q.

o

the

ipati 0 o

CO

*CD CD

DCd • 0Oc

CD>

ID

CD

CO0

"uc0D

COcoo

CD

.£

=

ZJ

c

S

o

£ CD

CD q_ E o . 0

co >0 3 "D

CO0

CO

CO0c0

1_

CD

.-. CD 0

JZo

CDc 0 u

CO

CD ^ 2 C O CD £ E

484
co

4—

CD

cOMMcco

COooa oamE

<D "D

(0O< O

LD

(0 CD E

CD

to>

COCu

CO3C

(0

CO 3 COoo

loooo

CN

CJ

oi CD

c ^ O CN ^ 2

.. to > <

COI 00

CO

CD

CNO

CN

CD

"c

CDC

SIo

OC

CDO

a an

(0

CDO

i_0EEooc

CDE

t_

CO

CD

o

Q ^

CO• CD 3 D

CD

CN

CN

t!

a ^Eoo

DC

co

toco

(J

"Dc

CO

o

CO

CNO

CN

O

U CO

t— §m CN

O)

o

.E CN

to

v co O

LDOi CN

CO >o

CDoo

CN

c

O CO

CN >c C CD co -Q >

"O co| c .. ^ co Q CD

o

LOoI CN

00

CNO

CN0

CD

_QC

CO >oOoc

CD>c

co n©

CD

CD

to -Q

toc

CO

o

= 3 °-

CO _U Q CD

meo

(0 4-3C

COc

CDO—

"55

+-» c

o

LO

CD

+-> D

CO

LDooo

CM

o

CO

00

CO

CD

CNo

CN

£ CO

c2 CN

CD fc

CN

O

Co

toE

.t_ — CO

(0 to o > o c/>

oo

c

to

CO > LL

CNX<

CO

I—o

_qoQ

485

487
488
o

CO

as

D)O

Q.

Q.

CO

CDCooSo

ot

COCw< mO©

LUi 5EoOocoo

LU

c

w

E

a.

£

LU TJ

_

£

E

c « E

CD <—

O ^ ^ o — CO C o co 5 = 5 0

12

Q

O CO

_

CO

o

—c

o

S

.9. ' ^: o

©o

.O©

03a

E

c5 Q

o ' o < CDE < E

DC

O

Io

I'

©oo©O©©o

cdo

CO©c©L." "'Lj zI <<<o

COO

489
LU

DC

f—

o

ZD

f-

(f)

<

DC

O T3

CO CD

r- i_ CO CO .— —- CD O i— CO • 3 Z3 CD 5

CO c.E

o

Q_"

o

o

CD 3 T3 C CD

CO CO

CO CD

CD 5 _ x: o —

*- CO >

H— H

O 3 m

C T3

CD CO C3

CO O =—

v. o

-Q *-• CD tr CO T3

X CO •— 2>.2 >

£Z *- -J5 o c: o

O CD CO CD

CD CD -— CO

CD W O c c O

— c O o

CO co CO

^

i- CO 3 J

o E. CO O —(D C-CO . *— £ ^ coco £ S?

COE

J— CO O ZD CO

CD sz "o

*- ca CO

O i—

O _^

CO -° CD

CD CO •— c co C CD 3^

CO •— —

.E o >,

."Eco^ ^

>

^ CO >*

o =5 -a

i- T3 ZJ

o o c >

•^3 ca .— >» CO o ~ is II

£ .E < ®

co

j—

i_

o

CL

Q.

ZJ CO

T3

C

CO

COCDC

"cD

'zS O

CO c

CDE CD Q_ CO O CO — CD

CD o

S 2 Q Q.

>> C

CDa.o

i_

Q.

"co 13O

CD

a}

C

CD£

Q.

CD>

CD a

CD£

CD

-$Z

7o

o

.5

0)

6

c

o

o

_CDCD CO

T3

C

COc

o

COZJ

CO>

LU

CDCO

ca O

O CO CD CD

coE

CD •a

cao

<

T3

C

COc

CD£

c

CD>

O

O

O

COc

£

CD

CO

CO a

c

o

cd ca co c

ca £

I— <+—

490
IDC

03

COo

CO

o

MS

JO

COo

Ql

03>

CD

IS

CO

ZJ uc

03o

L2

03

mm> >

O)cMMo

D)

03

CO

Ql

CD

CD

CO

T3O

CO

03>

0)

03OEEoO

O 03 £ O coE

O CD

CO

<D CO = =5

CO

03

03 i Q

co ,T

CO

<D CO

c Q. ^

CD "O

=3O

81

o ^ CO

03 tS CO — (DO. = !| 0 z ^ 1 I I

CD

03

CDOEo

CO

oI <

03> ^ m 03

mm

£

E

c

CDO

03 03 O Q.

03 "5 O

03a

CO

CD

+-» O£o

m

COO

[Ql

COc©

03

MM) oo

CO

CO

03

t=

CDa

c

E

0) CO E > <Oo 9

03 > w — i_ - CO

I- 2i

491
492
493
CO CO

CO

o

o

CO

CD

Q

o o

o

CO

o

CO

.2 co .9

* g O

>> £ c

o — 15 J2

TJ CO

m m *= £ 5

CO CO CO H 3

_co

CD

-i—

CO

CD

75.

<

CD

c5

O

C0

o

o

CD

CD CD _

CO

0>

C

m— J2

.5 o

o

=3

C

o

o«^E

CD

CO

75 S 1

c o £

o ^ ^

Ll><Q(DO-S^y^O<a3oO -*5

^

"43 iS o

494
495
IS ®

rrt O C

CD C- —

©i* £

«

o>~ .2 E

= CO cC CD

111"!

u_ V Red

c co

c©

©

c

"id

c

.0

CO

c

c

2 —

o -c^g

>*«0 CO

E

(

*3 D

GO

o >» 00 tj

CO © c O

•a °>«2 m ?f 8 i

fits

CO CO < ^

^ 3 "tj 0 IdI'oS

© 5 8 £ h5n5 o5<jdc

c §P §1

CO ~ 1 ©

BP

o c

© .2

c

CO

00

c

"5 £ gt>co

CD © g\*-o

h- O ^ n c

0 00.^(8

© O) D © .2

Q-t: © f 3

.2 O © o ©

> D-Ci— jjj

DCO . . •

00

C

c

CD

E

c

©

>

o

O

o

©

©

jit: c

c

o

I? £ ICO

c

E

©

CO

CO

Q

c

o

"•ao

CO

O

+-> o

c

o

©

N

"c©

CO

i—

o

496
C

CO

0)3

"D

*-

C

co

—

»amm W\ CO CO

181

S-g

CO

•D

o

C CO « c C CD O CD

OI <

LLO

CO

LUO<

CD

o.E -«2o

if) CO 2 3 9 I < E

CD T3 £ CDO

**T

C

O CO

il

CO

_

co

c

Ec CO

COc

ion oc

CDc

CD

c©

0) s

CD

CO03

(0

<o

E

CO

E

S

©

n

o

o

cd cn >-

CO

CD

>» CO

=E

E

CO CD E to

•z > c c

CDE 2 E °

CD 5> 3 O C O CO

COS CO

si

cd

r

-C CO H a

CD

c

LL

E

CD

£

£

C

E

COo

£ CO

CD

CO©E©

T3

COo

CO

CD

TJMi>o

CD .2

CD

—

O

CD

COom

CDCIM3 o

CO

c

-»3 —O o *t So

CD CD — c c o

II^ is© ?= > E o

E-o o £ o CO

<D

E

a> a. » o

(0 § 2 d> — -a

gos P

CD CO = 1

CD SZ

sz

o

«- CD O CO

Q. CD

CL 3 3 tO

<7> .«2

CD

©, ammm o

CO

©L

CO

CD IM

HIc3O

©koao

CD

COE

s

8?O

E~

CO co

CO

co

CD £

O

E a- o c c o

COo

CD&

CO

CD>

COo

COc©

CO

mmmm c

BanO1o

CO «- TJ 3 C O CO

jQ -

CO CO 2 CD

gco

©3

© ^

CD

£ CO

co

c

c

£2O CD

CO

CO3CE©

CO « o "C

CO

o

«- Q. 3 ©= © ©T

JQ CO

CO

—

CO 2 © (SLv o -o C CD

CD LJL

CO

O

LL. > O £

CO

©

©

11

CO .t=

CD

£

T3 CD > £ S CO

497
ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 386 -6 27 / 37906 498
Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—Reports NIST research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Institute is

active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology

underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports, and

other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public

Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published

bimonthly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP).

Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC

20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and

performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of

a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the

subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of

other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce

in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized

requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of

the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program in support of the efforts of private-sector

standardizing organizations.

Order the following NIST publications—FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series

collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the

official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of

Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by

NIST for outside sponsors (both government and nongovernment). In general, initial distribution is handled

by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300