Progress toward the “factory of the future”

Abstract Despite the considerable attention being placed on the potential payoff's from programmable manufacturing technologies, remarkably little systematic research has been conducted on organizational plans, decisions, and associated actions. The 1982‐83 factory automation surveys project of the Boston University Manufacturing Roundtable reported on here was designed to develop a broad managerial view of computer‐aided manufacturing processes in the US. Our purpose was to create a body of information, drawn from the recent experience of leading‐edge practitioners, that would begin to describe the range of behaviors accompanying the adoption and implementation of automation technologies, such as advanced numerical control, CAD/CAM and robots, which may be combined to form the “factory of the future”. In short, we wanted to identify the kinds of progress being made by these manufacturers and the barriers that they, and those who are contemplating such process innovations, will face in the future. In each of our three surveys we had a specific target population in mind. The “user” survey was aimed at discrete‐part manufacturing organizations that were leaders in adopting factory automation technologies. This survey was designed to address “best practice” at the level of a single strategic business unit and deals with specific automation projects. Our “supplier” survey was aimed at the major producers of each of the various factory automation technologies. Here we sought the observations and opinions of senior marketing executives in those firms with the most success (and therefore experience) in supplying computer‐based manufacturing technologies. Finally, our “expert” survey was designed to test some of our preliminary findings from the users and suppliers, including insights gathered from in‐depth follow‐up telephone interviews with respondents to those two surveys. We intentionally tried to identify a broad sample of individuals whose views would be based on extensive factory automation experience in different capacities. Respondents to our three surveys consisted of 57 users, 38 suppliers and 64 experts. Findings from the three surveys form certain patterns that transcend the isolated facts commonly presented in the literature. The dominant impressions that emerged from the data were: Leading‐edge users of computer‐aided manufacturing processes believe in learning by doing . Most have proceeded in an incremental fashion to develop an internal base of experience with factory automation technologies. They tend to have supportive management and a sense of where they are heading. Their current measurement capabilities, however, restrict the basis for making adoption decisions as well as the subsequent evaluation of impacts from recent technological innovations. These users usually rely heavily on outside suppliers for critical technical assistance and consider reliability factors to be more important than price in selecting a vendor. They generally feel they cannot afford to postpone decisions until improved technologies become available. Current leadingedge users will strongly affect the future direction of these technologies. Suppliers claim that most manufacturers are not sophisticated customers . They would like potential users to be more aware of their needs for improved manufacturing processes and to be more interested in the long‐term strategic benefits of computer‐aided manufacturing technologies already on the market. A classic dilemma seems to have arisen: decisions to adopt expensive factory automation technologies are often made by managers who lack the background to assess technological options, while staff familiar with the new technologies are less able to appreciate associated strategic dimensions. A likely outcome is a decision that is either short‐sighted or misguided. Suppliers with limited direct experience in new applications of their technologies and little indepth knowledge of the business situations of their customers cannot be expected to help users avoid such errors. The most difficult problems in achieving computer integrated manufacturing are managerial rather than technical. Manufacturers contemplating factory automation face different issues depending on whether they adopt a retrofit strategy using existing production systems or whether they attempt to make a fresh start as new facilities are brought on stream. In either case, they often have inadequate internal technical resources, strong barriers to communication across traditional functional lines, and a reward structure that does not encourage risk‐taking in the interest of long‐term strategic gains. Manufacturing organizations that do not deal directly with these kinds of managerial problems are not likely to succeed in factory automation, even if appropriate technological options exist. These functions suggest that manufacturing managers ought to reflect on their organization's current strengths and weaknesses as they formulate a strategy for factory automation. In particular, they should begin with a healthy concern for the adequacy of their current base of knowledge, mix of human resources and formal measurement systems. They should also refine their expectations for integrated factory automation applications, to be sure that general goals such as “enhanced flexibility” have explicit operational meanings. Finally, they should improve their organization's ability to identify types of indirect costs, as well as benefits, that are implicit in such goals. These prescriptions apply to manufacturers just beginning to adopt programmable manufacturing technologies, as well as to those who are well along this path. Further in‐depth research is needed if the progress being made by leading‐edge users is to serve as a basis for more widespread attempts to move toward the “factory of the future”.