Three dimensions of maturity required to achieve future state,technology-enabled manufacturing supply chains

The technology maturity dimension

In the case of technology, and manufacturing technology in particular, it is only meaningful to state that a technology is ‘at’ a particular state of readiness if that level is being applied to a specific technology application project, or there have been sufficient developments across a spectrum of applications such that it can be taken as the underlying maturity level for future projects. The fact that somebody somewhere has achieved a high level of maturity for similar technology under different circumstances of application is interesting in providing confidence about what might be possible but does not provide direct confidence in terms of maturity that can be replicated. It is similarly tempting to apply readiness terminology to situations where no new technology is being developed. Manufacturing R&D facilities are often quite rightly employed to explore the resolution of production problems in mature manufacturing operations. This is perhaps one of the most effective ways of achieving economic and societal impact from them in the short- to medium-term timescale. There is, however, little value in applying readiness terminology in these situations on the basis that

Application of readiness can, therefore, be problematic and is only really appropriate to apply readiness terminology to situations of new technology insertion within committed, time-bound programmes with a clear end application. Having said this, there remains a need for a maturity-based assessment which can be used within the general context of the journey to generic capability in a particular field and within an individual research network. This need is based on the many benefits to be had in articulating the gap between current state and aspirational target for capability within a field of technology. Such a measure needs to be able to articulate generic capability and the ability to demonstrate highly competent execution of work in this area, as opposed to excellence in the performance of a single implementation project. The concept of underlying maturity is important on the basis of key problems with this view:

The supply chain dimension

The supply chain, in the context of the following discussion, is ‘the network of organisations that are involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of products and services in the hands of the ultimate consumer’. ¹⁷ Here, we are focused on manufacturing and manufacturing technologies, and in this sense, we can be clear that supply chain activities involve the transformation of natural resources, raw materials and components into a finished product that is delivered to the end customer. ¹⁸

Understanding whether preconditions are in place to address the long valley of death requires a mechanism which can articulate the underlying maturity of supply chain, manufacturing technology and product maturity. Step change manufacturing technologies, or even adoption of global state of the art manufacturing technology to address the market failure of historic investment in technology, require a capable, committed and sustainable supply chain which is scaled to reflect the total anticipated production requirement. This is perhaps the single most important success factor for large-scale manufacturing technology insertion projects. Manufacturing technology insertion projects which are sponsored by a receiving organisation who plan to implement the new technology within their own domestic facilities require competent technical execution. Supply chain management (SCM) ‘requires traditionally separate materials functions to report to an executive responsible for coordinating the entire materials process, and also requires joint relationships with suppliers across multiple tiers’. ¹⁹ SCM is a concept, ‘whose primary objective is to integrate and manage the sourcing, flow, and control of materials using a total systems perspective across multiple functions and multiple tiers of suppliers’. Manufacturing technology projects, especially those which aim to insert technology which is missing from current supply chains, need to be considered in the context of SCM. Projects have a high chance of success however, assuming viable technology and a suitable level of organisational buy-in. Those who wish to push technology which addresses a market failure have a much more difficult job and results in some alignment to Mankin’s ¹⁰ degree of difficulty. If it is assumed that some level of technology push activity needs to be prompted as a market intervention, then there is a need to understand the maturity of the target supply chain to receive any developed technology, as without such an understanding of maturity.

Recent developments in the digital manufacturing (Industry 4.0) landscape relating to cyber-physical systems, the Internet of Things and other related concepts will undoubtedly transform manufacturing supply chains in the years and decades to come. The exact nature of this change is yet to be understood and is inherently difficult to predict as it looks likely to emerge from the use of new business models which are enabled by technology rather than from the technology itself. This is clearly a vital consideration in the development of any mechanism or framework relating to manufacturing technology and supply chain development at the current point in time. The most predicable manifestation of this developing picture is that frameworks, structures and delivery mechanisms will need to be flexible and ready to quickly respond to emerging needs. This is an important driver of the need for reliable foundational capabilities which can operate as a platform for much more rapid readiness programmes in response to specific and rapidly emerging customer need.

The product dimension

New product introductions, especially the introduction of highly innovative products, often provide the best opportunity to catalyse the introduction of new manufacturing technology. It might well be argued that there is no particular need to include a product maturity dimension in a maturity framework, on the basis that readiness is directly aligned to key product technologies. The salient point, however, is that the purpose of a maturity framework is not for use as a comprehensive numerical assessment tool but as an approach for determining whether the pre-requisites are in place to justify strategic efforts in addressing a manufacturing supply chain market failure. The maturity of the target product application(s) is clearly a key factor in making this determination, and unlike the first two proposed dimensions, it is not necessarily the case that the highest possible score is most conducive to successful uptake of technology.

Case study 1 – Advanced Forming Research Centre – foundational capability planning

The University of Strathclyde’s Advanced Forming Research Centre (AFRC) has been operational for 7 years during which time industrial, academic and government partners have worked together to establish a world leading research facility for the shaping of materials. The centre works closely with major industrial companies, and since 2011, it has been a part of the UK High Value Manufacturing (HVM) Catapult. The ‘interdisciplinary focus and combination of education with applied research have created a new model for performing science’. ²⁰ The centre operates a membership model, whereby major industrial companies pay a significant annual subscription in return for collectively directing the Core Research Programme (CRP) which is entirely collaborative in nature. The collaborative nature of this approach ²¹ means that the CRP is typically aimed at developing underlying capability at a consortium level, with a view to exploitation and more rapid deployment through additional work. While the subsequent application work (typically company and application specific) can be advanced usefully via readiness approaches for the end-customer application, ¹⁴ this has not been effective at the underlying capability level. The reason for this difficulty is inherent in the fact that capability is being developed for potential use by multiple end users on multiple applications. ¹⁶ In this case, readiness becomes a rather contentious issue with the obvious question ready for what exactly? Essentially, the time-bound nature of readiness ¹⁵ becomes a major source of ambiguity. Different options are available, including the potential to simply assign the readiness based on the first customer application or to position some kind of representative or typical readiness position. These options are in fact rather meaningless and can be seen to be misleading in providing a level of specific positioning without a particular target and associated specific requirements. Far more preferable and informative in this context is the concept of a more generalised description of foundational technology maturity. Such a maturity description provides the potential to be somewhat distinct from any specific end application and, therefore, could be defined on the basis of the viability of exploitation by a broad customer base. ¹⁴

Figure 3(a) provides a basic technology-based maturity measurement. It uses a 5-point scale, to chart the path between having no capability in a particular area of technology and what is termed to be an advanced technology. The use of a 5-point scale has been selected in the interests of distinctness from MCRL and influenced to some extent by Mankins ¹⁰ R&D ³ and TNV concepts. Assessment against the scale is based on the use of elements (shown in the columns of Figure 3(a)) which provide a level of granularity to the maturity definition and which could be redefined based on specific situations. The elements have been selected based on experience within the AFRC and its partner organisations relating the typical technology-related barriers to full implementation of new manufacturing methods. The elements relating to people/skills, equipment and process control are deemed to be core aspects of foundational technical capability. The sustainability element relates to the long-term robustness of the provided capability and the ability to support application on an ongoing basis. This is deemed foundational to technology in research networks and is of key importance based on their national strategic nature and their reliance on public funding mechanisms. The demonstration element is needed to provide a pragmatic assessment of whether the technology has been tested and achieved real and positive results.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Technology maturity – dimension 1: (a) dimension 1: underlying manufacturing technology capability and (b) dimension 1: use of dimension 1- assessing the gap between a target level and the actual position of each factor.

The applicability of this approach to a research provider rather than to an end user of technology becomes apparent by considering the nature of the 5-point scale. Here, there is no inherent need to progress to the ultimate level 5 position for all technologies provided within the centre, especially in situations where the underlying need is simply to service other more core technologies available internally or through other organisations. In the case of the AFRC, certain metrology technologies could be easily seen as fitting into this category – that is, where there is a need to establish credible technology offering to support the customer base directly, but where there is not necessarily a need to become world or even nationally leading. In other cases of core strategic technology, where there is a direct and unique alignment to the mission of the centre, the target end point would absolutely be level 5. Figure 3(b) outlines the basic mode of use of the approach in assessing the gap between a target level on the scale and the actual achieved position for each of the elements of dimension 1. In the case shown, a specific action plan would be drawn up against the people, demonstration and process control elements of capability so that the level 3 position could be achieved. This initial use of the technology dimension against a single area of technology in addressing specific gaps in maturity and approach is, therefore, an obvious mode of use. It is very consistent with typical usage of readiness approaches. However, the focus on underlining generic applicability to potentially service a range of customers or end applications is differentiating.

Figure 4 illustrates the more strategic use of the technology dimension in technology planning. Figure 4(a) shows a typical roadmap framework derived from the approach of Phaal et al. ²² In this case, the technology layer is divided into ‘underpinning’ and ‘differentiating’ layers. In these cases, it is clear to see that the expectation is that differentiating technologies are expected to be driven to an advanced sate of maturity in the research centre before readiness approaches are applied within a product programme. Underpinning technologies, potentially less core to making the product offering stand out in the market, are driven only to level 3, where a credible offering is in place at the research centre. The exact breakdown of target setting is a matter of risk management and will depend on the nature of the end application market, local decision-making and the attitudes of immediate customers of the technology. The point is that a clear and consistent of underlying technology maturity can be seen to provide insight into the timings of research capability and infrastructure ahead of readiness programmes in support of next-generation products. Having understood the timing and priority of individual technology developments, the maturity measure can be further used in technology planning, as shown in Figure 4(b). Here, it can be seen that at a detailed technology planning level of specific actions or the lack of them can be used to develop technologies towards target end points – even though the target point may vary based on the nature of the technology within the strategic context and based on opportunity.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Technology maturity – use of dimension 1 in technology roadmapping: (a) application within a typical roadmapping framework and (b) application within a technology planning.

Case study 2 – UK automotive metals supply chain

Despite some recent resurgence in UK Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) performance especially in the automotive sector, the adverse long-term trend in overall market share for the metals supply chain looks likely to continue, irrespective of acceleration of technology development. For example, even though in the period from 1994 to 2009, for the UK fabricated metal products and basic metal processes, activities fell by 10% and 38%, respectively, an overall growth of >50% occurred in terms of real value added in aircraft, automotive, rail and motorcycle. ²³ While the industry ²⁴ and government previously identified a £3 billion opportunity to increase UK tier 1 supply chain value, realising this opportunity has been proved to be a major challenge. Perceptions among OEMs and major tier 1 suppliers of competitive and technological capability among UK suppliers are believed to be a primary reason for this. The low levels of year-on-year investment in research, development and innovation compared with other industrial nations support this view. There is an urgent need to take action in this area on the basis of some important and time-bound drivers:

Despite the many difficulties that surround innovation in the UK metals industry, The Automotive Council have identified that realistic opportunity exists to increase local sourcing (tier 2s, tier 3s) to the UK tier 1 community by at least £2 billion annually that is additional to the £3 billion tier 1 opportunity already identified. ²⁷

All of this illustrates that consideration of the maturity of the supply chain in its capacity to receive new manufacturing technologies and respond to the demands and opportunities presented by new product developments is essential both in exploiting the benefits of new processing technology and in addressing national industry needs.^27,28 It typifies the long valley of death at a total supply chain level through a current market failure. In this situation, the critical success factor has little to do with the readiness of technology to meet a particular product need or even the underlying maturity of that technology in supporting a broad potential customer base, and it is about the fundamental existence (or viability) of a supply chain which can address the needs of the market. ²⁹ Digitalisation of manufacturing and the creation of new and more globalised supply chain service models may well be seen to mitigate national security of supply issues in situations of this type but do not in themselves obviate the need for physical supply, at least at a global level. Essentially, resolution of market failure of this type requires intervention on a number of fronts, none of which have much chance of success without the basic conditions being in place to establish a physical supply chain. ²⁷

Figure 5 outlines a basic framework of supply chain maturity. As with the technology dimension (Figure 4), its most obvious mode of use is in plotting the current state of maturity versus each of the elements of maturity to understand and quantify the gap to achievement of a viable supply chain position. As with the technology dimension, the elements have been developed based on practical experience of the barriers to implementation of manufacturing technology which relate to supply chain. The elements relating to raw material, equipment and consumables are deemed to be core physical elements of the supply chain which need to be understood. The Quality Standards element in this case relates to the standards that need to be developed and achieved in order to embed technology in a potentially regulated environment. Sustainability is addressed both from the perspective of robustness of the developing supply chain and in terms of the use of scare resources. For many process technologies which impact product integrity, this aspect of supply chain definition is a vital and often overlooked step. Perhaps, the most important success factor in any supply chain implementation is whether or not leaders in target supply chain organisations are keen to change their business model through insertion of the technology under question. This is an obvious consideration but, based on a level of experience, is often overlooked.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Supply chain maturity – dimension 2.

Supply chains, especially in established sectors such as the UK metals supply chain for the automotive industry, are, however, potentially complex with substantial elements of legacy and reliance on global as well as national markets. This makes action planning difficult. While it is potentially viable to determine gaps in supply chain maturity and use the maturity framework to define the case for corporate or government level intervention at a theoretical level, making a real change requires decision-making and a level of focused effort. A pragmatic approach can, however, be readily offered through the maturity framework concept. Essentially, it is feasible to assess whether supply chain challenges are addressable – in which case there is a case to be made in addressing a grand challenge or non-addressable in which there is a need to accept a genuine long-term market failure. Figure 6 illustrates this approach and concept through two different scenarios, one of which is difficult to address based on issues of systematic under investment and lack of access to natural resources, and one of which subject to a lack of standards and appetite to invest based on limited engagement. Only the specifics of the different situations provide the real view about which scenario can be deemed to be addressable, but it is clear that in each of the two situations, there are different issues which need to be addressed. The second situation outlined in Figure 6(b) requires procedural and engagement action which could conceivably be addressed as part of a major call to action on either a corporate end user or a government basis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Use of dimension 2 in distinguishing between addressable and non-addressable supply chain gaps: (a) failing supply chain – major systemic and infrastructural gaps and (b) failing supply chain – regulatory and supplier engagement gaps.

Case study 3 – superplastic forming

Superplasticity is a phenomenon of certain metallic alloys, whose fine grain structure allows very large plastic elongations to be achieved under controlled conditions of temperature and strain rate. ³⁰ Superplastic forming (SPF) exploits this phenomenon to allow large-scale deformation of sheet metal components in a single operation, typically through the use of gas pressure. SPF is an important technique for some high-cost aerospace applications and specialist automotive components but is energy intensive and typically requires expensive equipment and tooling. For these reasons, it is often considered a niche technology. Most significantly in the current context, many of the product applications of SPF are somewhat mature and arguably reaching the end of their product lifecycle. This means that all of the early stage barriers to end-product application of the technology have been addressed for these established markets. Many future applications are, however, subject to competition from other techniques which allow the design and manufacture of stiff, lightweight, geometrically complex structures such as composites and additive manufacture. ³¹ Without the consideration of how SPF positions itself on future generations of product in the light of competition, it will have a limited long-term future.

This illustrates the importance of end-product maturity in any consideration of a successful route to market for a manufacturing technology. ³² Manufacturing technologies as a fundamental mechanism for achieving product and component characteristics^33,34 are inherently always a step away from the end use and must, therefore, be considered to be subservient to the underlying maturity of the end application. Typical approaches to technology and manufacturing readiness assume an ongoing upward trajectory, with additional development and application driving increased readiness. ¹⁴ The approach is not well suited to situations where the end application changes or ceases to exist. On this basis, as the need for a dimension of maturity relating product maturity is considered, it becomes clear that need is different than in the cases of two dimensions already considered. For both technology and supply chain maturity, there is an underlying assumption that increased levels of assessed maturity are inherently a good thing. In the case of product maturity, this is not necessarily the case, as the benefit of targeting a technological solution to a product at the end of its lifecycle seems to be inherently less than applying the same benefit during the early to mid-stage of product maturity. This said, targeting manufacturing technology towards purely emerging product needs could be seen as a rather risky strategy unless it was part of some form of portfolio planning.

Figure 7 shows a maturity structure on the same basis as dimensions 1 and 2 but applied to product maturity. Again, the elements have been developed based on practical experience of the barriers to implementation of manufacturing technology which relate to product in this case. Here, the elements relating to market intelligence, product concept and financial viability are deemed to be the basic elements of a business case for development. The Intellectual Property and Legislative issues easy to overlook, especially when the detailed combination of process as applied to product, are considered. Perhaps, the most important success factor in the case of product is the extent and nature of customer pull. The customer pull elements are perhaps the central driver behind inclusion of the product dimensions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Product maturity – dimension 3.

Returning specifically to SPF, the problem can be readily identified. The technology is well understood including its costs of implementation and use. The product application of the technology meets level 5 expectations. This knowledge is sufficient to firmly position the processing technology in its established niche. However, the existence of the niche technologies, especially in regards to composite materials, is threatened by competition with technologies, which also affects the conditions which drive onward innovation. Without a level of forward innovation, the technology development need to drive future market growth cannot be achieved. There is a need in this situation to drive alternative product applications as the mechanism to move the technology forward. Alternative uses of the technology, e.g. cost effective prototype or low-volume production, force an alternative set of considerations to provide this possibility. However, those alternative uses represent technology push rather than market pull. The technology challenge here would relate to establishing flexible tooling concepts which are cost-effective at low volume. The use of the product maturity dimension on helping to articulate this combined challenge is illustrated in Figure 8.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 8.

SPF product maturity challenges.

So, in this case, the proposition is about taking an already mature and arguably sunset technology and repositioning it as a flexible and adaptable process. Clearly, in this situation, there are threats for other competing technology, most notably digitisation of manufacturing generally as well as specific manufacturing techniques including composite material and additive manufacture. In this case, it becomes essential to consider the availability of suitable end-product applications as a critical success factor in any specific aspect of technology development and crate the case for developing the technology further (assuming this is genuinely believed to be a valid approach with a future). In this case, the product dimension of the maturity framework makes this issue of target product maturity very clear and also signposts the potential importance of a revised version of the process as a prototyping method. The approach also assists those involved in the strategic development of this very sophisticated and capable technique to recognise the need to address the technology gaps that currently make widespread application early stage product development problematic. In particular, it helps clarify the route to achieving the basic building blocks required for new applications, which may require development of some of the underpinning aspects of flexible processing on established products in order to help make the case for the future uses. Finally, it identifies the challenge of aligning this technology potential to the next generation of products to support their development.