Several months ago, a member of the Manufacturing Leadership Council from the automotive sector approached the MLC team with a proposition: What if they could host an IoT-themed workshop at their headquarters to discuss manufacturing digitization – and enlist the MLC to invite non-competitors to attend? The result was a two-day workshop at the company’s headquarters, attended by several other discrete manufacturers as well as one major process manufacturing company. Here were the key discussion takeaways from the meeting:
No matter the company or the end product, there is commonality among challenges for M4.0 adoption. At the end of the workshop, the discrete manufacturers in attendance voiced that they were surprised they had so much in common with the process manufacturing company. The discrete manufacturers felt there could be even more to learn from process manufacturers.
Everyone is talking about a Chief Digital Officer – whether they’ve hired one or not. In adding a CDO to their executive team, the desire is for that person to be an enabler for M4.0, not a cop to police what should and shouldn’t be done. Two of the companies at the meeting have CDOs, while the other companies in attendance do not at this time (but some are exploring). One challenge/question that came up: How do you write a job description for a CDO?
Most companies have taken a project-based approach to starting their M4.0 journey and are now pushing to move past projects to an overall holistic shift for their company. However, the speed for moving to that holistic approach is strongly dependent on leadership. It was also mentioned that while much of the fear around automation and potential headcount loss has been focused on the factory floor, it’s really off-the-floor functions that could and will be impacted just as significantly (finance, HR, etc.).
It’s all about the data, not the tools to get it. While companies may or may not wish to have universal systems for all their facilities/operations, the end goal is tracking and analyzing the best possible data and making it transparent and accessible across the organization. However, the tools that companies use to get that data do not necessarily have to be the same, since different solutions work better for different businesses.
Communicating value to leadership is critical – and an enormous struggle. The companies that are doing best have leadership with a pull mentality for M4.0 adoption. Those that need to be pushed are seeing much slower moves toward change. Many struggle to have executive leadership see beyond just short-term gains and to instead look at the benefits of digitization for the long term, especially when there is no clear path for getting there.
As one attendee said: “This is the industry’s Kodak moment.” At some point, you have to decide to stop making film. The ones that keep true to their current path without moving toward digital change are bound to lose in the long run.
Industry 4.0 and digital manufacturing are now making it possible to apply agile development concepts to product development, opening up new opportunities, including revenue streams, for manufacturers. By Vicki Holt
Agile development, invented by the software industry to put organized and collaborative development processes and parameters around rapid coding, has been refined over more than 30 years. It is best known for its collaborative, iterative nature and software sprints leading to quicker rounds of QA testing, more potential code variations, and faster time to market.
At first glance, agile may not seem like a concept that is applicable to physical product development. After all, designing and manufacturing a three-dimensional product is very different from software coding, right? Maybe not.
When we look closer, the various stages of software development are actually quite similar to product development. Each requires an initial vision or strategy, a working design, robust testing, and iterative refinements before an end product is reached.
When we consider the impact of Industry 4.0 and digital manufacturing on physical product development, the steps seem to be even more aligned.
Think about it this way: Industry 4.0 and digital manufacturing enable an entirely new structure where physical product development is digitally organized, iterative, and highly collaborative. Industry 4.0 is designed to reveal greater efficiencies and speed within physical manufacturing, but is also intrinsically tied to a highly responsive, customer-driven approach to product development.
It allows for faster time to market, while leaving the door open for continuous improvement. In addition, digital manufacturing and supply-chain initiatives have greatly compressed production time for companies working with design and manufacturing partners implementing Industry 4.0 strategies. In a word, Industry 4.0 is a new structure that is highly agile. When we view it from this perspective, we can clearly outline steps that apply to both agile software development as well as agile physical product development. They are not so different after all.
Concept & and Scope: Projects are envisioned and prioritized; goals and timelines are set. Delivery: Team creates a high-level diagram or flow of the team structure, design, delivery, and distribution model.
1. Iteration/Construction: A working model is developed based on plan, allowing for iterative internal feedback. Quick scrum-style iterations of product design or coding may be used to work quickly through changes, refine, and improve.
2. Testing: Digital QA or usability testing is performed, design for manufacturability is performed, design iterations are completed until specs are satisfied.
3. Release & Production: Final iteration is released into production; end user feedback commences. Feedback can be used to make ongoing, continuous iterations for future releases. Tools such as SaaS platforms and digital manufacturing enable fast turn-around time of future iterations, allowing the supplier to stay ahead of the competition.
Adopting an agile approach to physical product development relies on a concerted transition to digital processes along the entire supply chain.
Identifying new Revenue Streams
Adopting an agile approach to physical product development relies on a concerted transition to digital processes along your entire supply chain from design to delivery. This is not an overnight change, by any means, but it allows organizations to start taking advantage of the Industry 4.0 landscape.
Reducing the limitations of traditional design and manufacturing processes can certainly give an organization a competitive advantage with its new or existing offerings but, beyond this, it can create entirely new revenue streams based on Industry 4.0 tech such as big data, automation, IoT, and connectivity.
We already know that an Industry 4.0 organization can iterate based on end-user feedback—using agile methods—but how does this translate into creating new revenue streams?
Use this as an example: an HVAC manufacturer builds sensors into its system hardware allowing it to understand customer HVAC usage, temperature settings, and machine maintenance requirements. By gathering data from the machine (automation, connectivity and IoT), the manufacturer can determine if the machine is running at peak performance based on customer usage. The manufacturer can also proactively alert the customer when the machine needs to be serviced, potentially saving the customer thousands of dollars in lost productivity or repairs. Because of Industry 4.0 technology, the manufacturer can offer the proactive maintenance alert service as an add-on offering, creating an entirely new revenue stream not possible before Industry 4.0.
The best way to move forward with agile is to connect with other like-minded organizations, particularly ones in different stages of transition.
Using aggregated continuous feedback from all the HVAC systems sold, the manufacturer can also iterate future designs of the system, to customize or optimize the product based on usage. Without implementing the tenants of Industry 4.0, this level of agility and efficiency cannot be achieved. But organizations must have a vision and plan in place in order to follow this path.
The Need to Embrace Change
Adopting an agile approach to physical product development also requires teams to accept and embrace change. This is especially true if an organization is moving from traditional manufacturing processes to digital manufacturing. In many cases, retraining staff to adopt digital tools and new process flows may be required. Or, supplementing staff with new roles, such as agile strategists, data scientists, analytics, or 3D designers may be necessary. Things to consider along this journey include:
- Creating a culture of change and collaboration. Embracing a team mindset and broadening teams to be inclusive of design, testing, manufacturing, and marketing. To be truly agile, put aside titles and work collectively across departments and roles.
- Adopting 3D design tools. Moving away from older 2D design software into 3D tools allows designers to take drawings straight through to manufacturing to leverage rapid prototyping and processes like additive manufacturing.
- Partnering with the right suppliers. Finding partners with an end-to-end digital supply chain allows organizations to maintain speed through the design-to-production process.
- Allowing for feedback. Gathering input from internal teams, we well as end users, to feed back into the design and test process is critical. Teams need to learn how to quickly iterate based on feedback/data to remain agile and competitive and improve the customer experience
The path to Industry 4.0 will be different for every organization. But stepping stones to reach this new model exist. If we think of Industry 4.0 as the new landscape we must exist within in order to compete, then agile is the new way of thinking and acting that will help us achieve the promise of Industry 4.0.
Ultimately, an agile mindset requires the fundamental belief that the journey is a critical part of the process. Testing and iterations are not actions that slow down the process. They add value when they’re based on ideal customer goals. The implication for product developers is to start quickly, but plan to iterate and refine many times during the process based on incoming data and feedback. In the past that wasn’t practical for physical products, but now it is with digital manufacturing.
For companies just starting out on this journey, the best way to move forward is to connect with other like-minded organizations—ones in all different stages of transition. Learn from the success and missteps of others before you try to go it alone. Iterate and refine as you go, knowing that each step will both challenge and reward you. Before you know it, a new agile mindset will exist helping your organization reach new heights. M
Manufacturers consistently tell us that, as they advance on their Manufacturing 4.0 journeys, they face a major challenge finding and developing leaders who are equipped to excel in a digital future. The challenge is multi-faceted. On one hand, they say, the current generation of manufacturing leaders is beginning to retire. But, in seeking to refresh their leadership ranks, manufacturers still struggle to attract high-quality, high-potential candidates, many of whom still hold outdated ideas about working in the manufacturing industry.
At the same time, the experience and capabilities that will be required of the next-generation of leaders is changing in the M4.0 era. Clearly, next-generation leaders will need a greater understanding of the potential and practical applications of technologies such as artificial intelligence and augmented reality systems. But they will also be required to think creatively about the new business models that will be enabled as such technologies bring greater agility to manufacturing.
And, manufacturers tell us, next-generation leaders will need to be able take a much more collaborative approach to managing teams and driving positive results.
Fortunately, we do see examples of manufacturers who are taking creative approaches to mold cadres of next-generation leaders with just such capabilities. IBM Corp., for example, two years ago kicked off what it calls a Competency and Talent Acceleration Program for Advanced Manufacturing. The program first identified young engineers in manufacturing sites across four geographies with the potential to become leaders for the M4.0 era. IBM designed training and mentoring programs that put these candidates on a steep learning curve and, ultimately, created a group of next-generation leaders that has been deployed in the company’s systems supply chain.
For this successful project and others, IBM was recognized earlier this year as the Manufacturing Leadership Awards’ Manufacturer of the Year (Large Enterprise).
This example and others like it, in fact, also inspired us at the Manufacturing Leadership Council to make improvements to the Manufacturing Leadership Awards, adding a category specifically for outstanding manufacturing leaders under 30. In creating this new category, we want to encourage and recognize not just young individuals who embody the characteristics required of M4.0-era leaders but also the organizations that are nurturing the development of these next-generation leaders.
The nomination period for the 2019 Manufacturing Leadership Awards has just opened. Manufacturing Leadership Awards Judges evaluating nominees for the Next-Generation Leadership Award will be looking for young leaders who have “pioneered and executed disruptive strategies, inspired and managed high-performing teams, and raised awareness of the positive impacts of manufacturing on society,” according to the category description.
We encourage all those who know of such outstanding young leaders to submit a nomination before the December 21 deadline.
The 2019 Manufacturing Leadership Awards will, of course, continue to recognize outstanding manufacturing projects and individual achievements across a wide range of categories, including Operational Excellence, Engineering and Production Technology Leadership, Supply Chain Leadership, and Industrial Internet of Things Leadership. And, in 2019, the ML Awards will explicitly recognize manufacturers that are leading the way in using artificial intelligence technologies and techniques to transform operations.
The ML Awards program will also continue to feature additional categories for individual achievements, including the Visionary Leadership Award for established outstanding manufacturing leaders as well as the Lifetime Achievement Award.
Also new for 2019, manufacturers submitting ML Awards nominations will be able to create, and submit their nominations online. We believe this new capability will make it easier for organizations and individuals to share, refine, and submit their final nominations.
More information about the ML Awards categories for 2019, the judging criteria, the submission process, and more is available at http://mlawards.manufacturingleadershipcouncil.com/
Receiving a Manufacturing Leadership Award is a great way to demonstrate to customers, suppliers, partners, and employees that yours is a world-class organization and a Manufacturing 4.0 leader. We encourage all manufacturers to participate in the 2019 ML Awards by submitting nominations.
On May 21, Jeff Moad wrote an article entitled, Should Manufacturers Video Plant Floor Performance? In it, Jeff described the technology coming out of my company, Drishti, which uses video-based systems to observe human activities for automatic validation and measurement. Think of it as an automatic time study performed on every cycle.
As Jeff rightfully pointed out, within most plants, the vast majority of value creation and the vast majority of variability are both traceable to human sources. And, as he further pointed out, it’s in everyone’s interest—management and labor alike—to simultaneously improve productivity, quality and safety.
We believe that Drishti is among the first of what will surely be many companies using video to help manufacturers observe and quantify processes that have been heretofore unmeasurable and, thus, invisible to analytics.
I also believe that video-based tools have the potential for the sweeping improvements that Jeff speculates. In any factory, there are countless issues that arise due to combinations of product design, process design and operator factors. Often these problems are clear to the human eye, if only there were enough humans to observe the system at all times. (Of course, there never are.)
Video-based computer vision will be used by manufacturers to direct a factory’s scarcest resource—human attention—to its most pressing issues as well as to generate descriptive statistics from the videostream that lets people trace the issue back to the root cause and, ultimately, solve the problem.
I also fully agree with Jeff on one other key point: introducing a video camera is not just a technical challenge, but a cultural one.
In particular, Jeff raised three very salient points about the ramifications of the camera as an input device. His points are well-conceived and I eagerly accepted his offer to respond in this forum.
The first point he raised:
“Plant workers and their front-line supervisors may well object to having their every move on the job recorded and analyzed.”
This would be the case, if not for one condition: Those working under the cameras benefit from the process improvement driven by a video system, too.
This is a critical point. Operators read the news. They see the headlines about the inexorable march of robots and AI into the factory. They worry about the long-term viability of their jobs. It’s understandable that they might be suspicious of video.
What convinces an operator otherwise is the understanding that a video system takes the technologies typically used for displacing people (computer vision, machine learning) and applies them to enhance humans, not to surveil them. It’s actually providing in-station operator assistance as the next generation of poka yoke: a judo move on robotics that lets human operators leverage technology that originated with robots as their “second brain and third eye.”
It is also the natural extension of what Toyota Production System developers Taiichi Ohno and Eiji Toyoda recognized: One has to empower the line operator with the tools and the authority to act on their insights in order to identify and solve issues.
Consequently, whenever Drishti begins an engagement, we insist that line operators are a part of the initial design team. They help us understand the challenges on the line, and we help them understand the purpose of the cameras. A well-designed video-based system, used appropriately, can help humans break the ceilings in productivity and quality that managers assumed were immutable and thus change the ROI calculation of an investment in machines—in the human’s favor.
Once operators understand this, we often see them engaging with the system as much, or even more, than the engineers behind the scenes.
Jeff’s second point:
“Manufacturers that turn to technology such as Drishti’s will need to reassure operators that the purpose is not to identify and get rid of poor performers‚ or those who may just be having a bad day—but to improve process performance overall”
I couldn’t agree more. The true purpose of Drishti’s system is make these human-powered systems competitive by marrying man and machine in three powerful ways.
- To help each operator break through perceived quality and productivity limits;
- To help the business identify the star performers in their midst who currently work diligently but with little measurable evidence of their work ethic or potential for advancement; and
- To identify specific opportunities for individual improvement that, with a little spot training, can turn a poor performer into a superstar.
Manufacturing is currently facing a labor shortage. The last thing any supervisor wants to do is fire an under-performer. The better course of action—for everyone—is to surface the path to improvement. And to retain these operators who understand the processes well.
Finally, his third point:
“At a time when many manufacturers are working hard to increase engagement with shop floor workers to drive cycle time improvement and reduce waste, the last thing they should want to do is to send the message that workers are not trusted.”
I’ll propose an alternate interpretation: The operators typically know the process far better than even the engineers who designed it. A truly collaborative system, video-based or otherwise, is designed to surface the wisdom these operators possess and, for the first time, give them the tools to prove the value of their ideas.
We call these the “brilliant outliers,” and they are perfectly capable of identifying faster, better, and safer ways of doing their jobs.
With video-based systems, operators will now possess statistical evidence to have their experience recognized and their ideas heard. We believe this should deepen the trust between the company and its workers.
In closing, we believe that video will enable the two key organizational features of a true lean plant as defined by Womack, Jones, and Roos in their iconic book, The Machine that Changed the World: Transferring responsibility to the workers actually creates value, and enables a mechanism for identifying defects and tracing them back to their root cause.
Video is the means; lean is the ends.
Prasad Akella led the industry/university team that built the world’s first collaborative robots at GM (“cobots”, projected to be $12B market by 2025). He’s the founder and CEO of Drishti, a company deploying AI to collaborate with and enhance humans on the factory floor.