Smart sociotechnical CIM systems: Beyond island solutions and turnkey philosophies

The International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, Vol. 3 (2) 117-133 (1993) 63 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 1045-2699/93/020117-17

Smart Sociotechnical CIM Systems: Beyond Island Solutions and Turnkey Philosophies Richard Badham Simon Wilson Science & Technology Studies Department University of Wollongong Locked Bag 8844 South Coast Mail Centre, NSW 2521 Australia

ABSTRACT

The guiding agenda of international programs promoting intelligent manufacturing systems (IMS) has been the creation of advanced machines with artificial intelligence capable of coping with the complex and changing conditions that threaten to disrupt the increasingly “automatic” factory. This article argues that this needs to be broadened to incorporate the development of integrated sociotechnical production systems that effectively comhine human and technical resources in creating “smart” systems capable of adapting technologies to firm specific conditions, utilizing data bases, customizing software rules and procedures, and ensuring the ongoing development of the sociotechnical system. This requires greater attention to the human resources and organizational requirements of interdisciplinary system design and implementation. In making this argument, the article draws upon recent Australian case study experiences in the implementation and customization of integrated CADICAM systems and European research into human-centered CIM design. 81993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION

There is now an increasing recognition of the fact that a key feature of the system development enterprise is the incorporation of human factors considerations in the design and development of appropriate software to drive contemporary CIM systems. It is significant that, in July of 1991 the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Vienna, reporting on its 5-year international study of computer integrated manufacturing (Haywood, 1990), emphasized two themes: firstly, that while the costs of microelectronics-based hardware are continually decreasing in relative terms, software costs are rapidly increasing. Professor Ettlie, Director of the Manufacturing Management Division at the University of Michigan, refers to this as “the single most important problem that arises in planning and implementing these systems-software development and maintenance. There are dozens of human resource and managerial implications of this situation.” (Ettlie, 1989, p. 144) and, secondly, human and organizational factors are crucial at every stage of the design, development, implementation, and running of CIM technologies. This was an especially significant conclusion given that the project began with a strong technological orientation 5 years ago (Haywood, 1990).

117

118 BADHAM and WILSON

In combination these two themes point to the crucial challenge facing contemporary “world class manufacturers”: the utilization and enhancement of human and organizational resources for the effective development of software assisted or driven production systems. It is the growing realization of this phenomenon that has led to a revitalization of the concern with user-oriented system design and implementation. This ranges widely from the improvement of computer system and capital goods producer/user networks and interrelations (Lundvall, 1985, 1988) to the involvement of production personnel in the definition of system requirements and development of appropriate data bases and software capabilities (Norman and Draper, 1986), and the participation of operators in the design and development of compatible, effective and “transparent” humadmachine interfaces (ASTEC, 1990).

It is thus no longer possible to rely on outdated “big bang” theories of technology that see human factors issues as one of “adapting” to the “requirements” of high-tech automated systems. Nor is it possible to avoid the issue of the appropriate development of new systems on the grounds that the “automatic factory” imagery is an exaggerated “computopia” promoted by high-tech vendors and United States Department of Defense. New technological systems are of central significance in improving productivity but it is a significance based on the development of “smart” production systems adapted to firm specific conditions, and effectively utilizing data bases, customizing software rules and procedures, and embodying the effective combination of human personnel and technical systems in the operation and ongoing development of the system.

One of the major findings of the Australian studies drawn upon in this article’, was that the absence of attention to these issues in the introduction of an integrative system such as CAD/CAM did not lead to the expected productivity benefits and the integrative potential of the system was not being exploited. In general, an absence of implementation and development skills in house led to a dependence on vendor training and support and many f m s were unable to sufficiently customize or develop CAD/CAM systems for their specific requirements. The article will focus on two key features of the Australian experience: first, the restrictions imposed upon firms where they used CAD/CAM systems as an “electronic drawing board” without addressing the technical and organizational issues necessary to use the system to facilitate CIM; and, second, the organizational and skill requirements necessary to transcend the “turnkey systems” mentality and develop and customize CAD/CAM in a manner that enables effective integration and productivity benefits to be achieved. The article will conclude with a discussion of the manner in which new forms of interdisciplinary system design need to be developed to successfully address these problems through the creation of “smart” sociotechnical CIM systems.

1 The data upon which the article is based comes from two studies of the skill and work organization implications for engineers and drafting personnel of CAD/CAM in Australia. These studies were conducted in ten Australian companies using CAD/CAM and a 60-firm telephone interview with Australian firm using CAD/CAM.* The case study companies were selected on the basis of their reputation as leading mechanical and electrical CAD/CAM users. In order to obtain an insight into the diverse forms of CAD/CAM development the cave study companies were deliberately chosen to cover small, medium, and large firm in the mechanical engineering, automobile, electronics, and aerospace industries. All companies were utilizing sophisticated 3D CAD system with NC programming capabilities, aq well as operating a range of NC and CNC machinery.

SOCIOTECHNICAL CIM SYSTEMS 119

2. THE ELECTRONIC DRAWING BOARD AND BEYOND

In its most basic form, CAD systems are used as drafting tools to produce engineering drawings directly on an electronic visual display terminal. When utilized as a more sophisticated design too, CAD is used to manipulate, amend, and refine design concepts and ideas. In the form of CAD/CAM, the capabilities of CAD are extended to provide the geometric and parts data to drive other sections of a computer integrated manufacturing environment, such as programming NC machine tools and creating bills of materials (BOM) for material resources and requirements planning. Figure 1 indicates components of the integrated manufacturing environment.

2.1. Perspectives on CAD/CAM Productivity

The majority of f m s using CAD and CAD/CAM systems, when asked about their motives for introducing the system, emphasized the importance of basic system capabilities (in particular the drafting gains) and stated that direct drawing office productivity gains

CAD Geometric

Engineering analysis Design review and evaluation

Automated drafting

Computerized Business Systems

Order entry Accounh’ng

Payroll Customer billing

w- r f Cost estimating

Computerized work Stds

control

Process control Process monitoring Shop floor control

Computer-aided Inspection

Figure I Computerized elements of a CIM system. Source: Groover, Automution, Production Systems and Computer Integrated Munufatwe (Prentice Hall, New Jersey), p. 272.


(leading to savings in drawing labor and cutbacks in the time required for design and development) are the most important motives for the purchase of the system (Badham, 1989). Coupled to this interest, is a strategy of system implementation that identifies the key organizational issue as one of training up draftspeople and design personnel to operate the system.

This “electronic drawing board” strategy is both myth and reality. On the one hand it has tended to be a predominant strategy among CAD users. In the majority of the Australian case study companies, the CAD/CAM system promoters emphasized the importance of providing short-term drawing office payback calculations in persuading the “bean counters” of the necessity for the systems. On the other hand it has proved to be surprisingly ineffective on a number of grounds. At the most basic level, expected productivity gains have often not been achieved. As revealed in most of the case study f m s investigated, and in an international literature review, drawing office productivity gains are not only often far below expectations but the system has frequently proven to be so cost ineffective that it has been labeled a “computer aided disaster” (Badham. 1991).

At a deeper level, two more problems emerge. First, it has been observed that very few f m s actually keep systematic data on such issues as development times, costs, and quality and have little sophisticated understanding of either the range of possible benefits of CAD or the actual benefits, achieved (Adler, 1989). This observation was confirmed in the case study companies, with the additional observation that any attempt at measuring the costs, benefits, and impact of CAD/CAM in smaller companies proves to be extremely difficult. Where, for example, increased integration and communication were perceived as important benefits by a number of the case study companies, there was only anecdotal evidence to support this as key functions in these areas were often performed by single or a very few ‘‘boundary spanning” individuals rather than more formal mechanisms.

Second, as pointed out by two of the case study companies that had purchased CAD primarily to support production planning and manufacturing operations, key benefits of CAD can only be achieved when the drafting process is not considered in isolation but, rather, as part of an overall development and manufacturing operation where, for example “improvements” achieved at the design stage may be measured by “pay offs” elsewhere. However, the complex problems of integrated different production measures for different departments was still at an early stage of development in all the case study companies. One example of initiatives underway was the attempt by an axle and gear manufacturer to use warranty claims as a measure not only of manufacturing quality performance but of effective design for manufacture benefits to be further attained by expanding existing CAD facilities.

It is clear that the need to develop and implement integrated performance measures is of crucial significance as improvements in design capabilities have an increasing potential influence throughout the organization. This is exemplified, for instance, in functions ranging from CAD systems capable of utilizing computer aided engineering (CAE) packages to analyze the engineering performance of designs, to employing computer aided design and manufacture (CAD/CAM) facilities to use design data to assist in driving manufacturing equipment, and computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) capabilities that combine CAD/CAM with resource planning (e.g., MRPII) systems by sharing part data for both the design and planning processes. The potential benefits in these areas for many firms can far exceed any possible gains (or even losses) in the drafting process. According to General Motors executives, 70 percent of the cost of manufacturing truck transmissions is determined at the design stage. In a separate study at Rolls-Royce, it was revealed that


design determines 80 percent of the firms production costs of 2000 components. As observed by Dean and Susman, ‘‘While design expenditures per se may amount to only a small part of a product’s total cost, design determines a huge proportion of production, testing and servicing costs” (1989, p. 28).

2.2. Procedural Change and System Development

By treating CAD as an “electronic drawing board” and mining operators to use the system as an electronic tool capable of speeding traditional drafting/design operations, organizations have frequently failed to investigate the elementary procedural changes necessary to effectively utilize the system. Examples from the case study companies in Australia include: redrawing the same or similar components from scratch rather than electronically retrieving them, inputting data “longhand“ instead of using the appropriate CAD commands, and the manual calculation of physical properties that can be readily computed from CAD data. These examples are often the tip of the iceberg of ineffective practices that represent not just the failure to utilize the generic capabilities of the system, but the lack of understanding and inability to customize and develop the system to enhance its capabilities. As Gottschalch (1986) has observed, “As a CAD system comprises a series of program components, the users must convert their conventional work steps into the rigid instruction language of the computer and apply new specific methods. If efficient use of the CAD system is to be ensured, it is imperative that training courses do not simply teach the computer language and operation of the machine, but also impart knowledge of the new working method, the new way of thinking in design.” Where firms need “more than a simple drawing board“, it is the case that “special applications software is often where the big paybacks are from. This commonly happens when engineers are using the system directly and need more than a simple electronic drafting board“ (Engelke, 1987, p. 256). The effective development of these capabilities also requires a restructuring of both operator skills and training and methods of system design, customization, and development that use and develop operators’ tacit skills and knowledge.

Despite evidence of some successes, in general the Australian company survey revealed an absence of such developments. Accompanying a reliance on vendor training and a lack of system development and maintenance skills, many firms complained of a shortfall in system productivity. In most of the firms there was little, or no, commitment to generic or theoretical forms of training, or integrating operator training with enhancing the capability of further system customization and development. Even with the restricted use of narrow in-house training a number of companies had experienced a substantial loss of drafting personnel through “poaching” after they had been trained on a particular CAD/CAM system.

This situation with CAD is still typical of Australian manufacturing which continues to be plagued by a poor skills base. However, there was some evidence that where alternative strategies had been adopted, involving the establishment of meaningful career paths based on increases in skills and experience, labor turnover had been reduced and system customization and development capabilities had been greatly enhanced. This was specifically the case, for example, in a diemaking company that had an explicit career path from trades to technician involving progression from simple complex NC machining to full-time CAD/CAM programming.

In many companies, however, there are a variety of factors hindering the ability to transcend the “electronic drawing board” strategy. In the Australian case study companies


using CAD/CAM, the integrative potential of the system to assist in introducing production criteria earlier on in the design process had been restricted by two major developments. First, reflecting the general situation of Australian manufacturing, the companies performed relatively little in-house design. In some cases this was carried out overseas, and in other cases by the companies to which the case study companies were subcontracted. As a result, the input of manufacturing ideas and experience earlier on in the design process hadnotbeen greatlyenhanced. Atpresent theliiiteduseofIGES andothercommunication standards, partially attributable to technical problems, has restricted improved communications between f m s or plants overseas and in Australia. However, in three of the companies studied there was an indication that improved communication is occurring, and that the entry into design to enhance design for production may become a more significant issue in the future. This was not a universal response, however, as it appeared that areverse situation was taking place in one company, witb a tendency towards the simplification and downgrading of production sophistication in this branch of a multinational aerospace company.

A second common feature of the case study companies was the relatively low level of customization and development of the system to facilitate increa..ed desigdmanufacturing communication. In part this was related by interviewees to the lack of systems analysis and computer based engineering skills but also to the relatively low level of in-house design sophistication.

2.3. Organizational and Cultural Change

With regard to the organizational and cultural change needed for effective CAD use, Adler in his study of a number of best practice United States aerospace companies, showed that the attainment of the full benefits of the system requires initially the creation of the skills to select, develop, operate, and maintain the system. However, those will not be effective unless they are embedded within appropriate work procedures that utilize and organize these skills effectively. Appropriate procedures depend, in turn, on their congruence with broader organizational structures. Organizational structures cannot be modified, however, unless their transformation becomes part of a general organizational strategy, and behind corporate strategies lies the changes in cultural values and assumptions that bind organizations together and orient them to their environment (Adler, 1989).

The effective development of CAD and CAD/CAM systems requires such a broad ranging change. At the most basic level computer aided drafting and design technologies have direct implications for (and require changes in) the work roles of design and detail draftspeople, and the addition of computer aided engineering analysis capabilities has similar consequences for the relationship between product design engineers anddraftspeople. In the electronic instrument case study company, this had led to new forms of teamwork between engineers and design draftspeople working on the CAD system, despite the absence of any planned change in work organization. The automobile company, however, with admitted problems in design integration, explicitly contrasted the continuation within the company of traditional specialized engineering and design and detail drafting roles to the effective integration of engineering and drafting activities in companies such as Porsche and Fiat.

With more developed CAD/CAM and CIM systems more profound organizational culture and structure issues are raised due, for example, to the long standing antagonism and “throw it over the wall” attitude between design and manufacturing departments and


traditional status differentials and conflicts between personnel in these areas. For example, in three of the companies design for manufacture was specifically ineffective, with manufacturing engineering in an electrical instruments manufacturer being excluded from active participation in the selection of appropriate CAD/CAM systems or strategic CIM planning, and an automobile manufacturer that had its diemaking subcontractor complaining that any request for design changes took 10 days to go through the process of communication with purchasing and sourcing, detail design personnel, and finally the design stylist. This lengthy process, it was observed, could occur 30 times in one project, with the subcontractor recently making 22 trips from Melbourne to Sydney (over 1000 km) for discussions of changes to one die.

In order to deal with these issues and introduce CAD systems as part of an effective integrated manufacturing strategy, major organizational and strategic issues are raised. In the case of the automobile manufacturer. this involved a radical reassessment of the relationship between subcontractors and the possibility of delegating design work to case study companies. In this process the whole question of system management and supervi- sory skills, human resource policies, etc. is of key significance in “getting the best” out of the system. Where this was absent, as in the case of a machine building company, most of the best trained employees had left the company and a number of the CAD workstations lay idle. In one of the diemaking companies, the establishment of career paths from NC programming to CAD/CAM system manager had led to a very low rate of employee turnover, frequent experimentation with new production methods by all levels of technical and trade employees, and the continuous modification and updating of the system. Where this company was restricted, however, was in the lack of similarly effective links with design personnel in its parent company, a failing that was currently under review when the study was carried out.

3. TURNKEY SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGICAL CONFIGURATIONS

Despite the relatively low level of achievement in exploiting CAD potential there is a gradually growing recognition in Australia that hoped for increases in productivity through CAD/CAM cannot simply be bought, but need to be created within the plant or firm. In this process major organizational and technical hurdles need to be overcome. The once commonly held views of “computopia” and the CAD/CAM technical fix are being eroded and closer attention and greater emphasis is now paid to customizing and developing CADI CAM systems to meet firm specific needs and the organizational requirements of technical change. It is increasingly recognized that the purchase of a CAD/CAM system does not necessarily result in the purchase of all the system capabilities, nor does it mean that the full potential of the system will be realized. It is necessary to customize CAD/CAM systems to operate within the firms specific environment and further develop them to exploit and enhance the system’s capabilities (Genner and Lozzi, 1984).

This general point is now increasingly widely accepted internationally among production technology researchers and users. The purchase of a particular system involves the acquisition by the firm of a “technological resource”, it does not become a “working technology” until four other actions are initiated. First, operators need to be found and skills learned to operate and maintain the system. Second, the technology has to be located and integrated both technically and operationally with the rest of the firm’s technological or production system. Third, the full exploitation of the standard technical capabilities of the system require the establishment of data bases and effective dataentry, and the customization

124 BADHAM end WILSON

of user-interfaces. Fourth, the development of the system requires updating of data bases, the writing of new programs, interfacing and integrating in new ways, improvement of user interfaces, discovery of new uses for the system or more effective ways in which it can be used, etc. Only the potentialities of the system that are exploited and developed contribute to productivity and “impact” on the organization.

The complex and dynamic character of working technologies makes it desirable to view them more as developing technological “Configurations” subject to continuing processes of “incremental innovation”. As revealed by Rosenberg (1982), Zucscovitch (1986), and other innovation theorists (e.g., Dutton and Thomas, 1985), and reemphasized by the OECD (OECD 1988, most productivity improvements are not from the initial purchase of technological systems but the gradual process of “learning by doing” and “learning by using” that result in a cumulative series of incremental improvements. The process of diffusion and implementation of technology is, consequently, also in an important sense an innovation process, a point emphasized by the emergence of the concept of “innofusion” to describe these processes (Fleck, 1988). This process does not emerge automatically, however, and nor is it necessarily focused on “one” direction of system development. As observed in a number of studies of computer based production technologies (McLoughlin and Clark, 1988; Clark and Staunton, 1989), it is more appropriate to view large systemic technologies as complex partly integrated technological configurations with multiple features that are selectively developed or neglected depending on the organizational and skill characteristics of the user firm. This perspective on production systems was examined in depth in arecent issue of the International Journal ofHutnun Factors inA4anufacturing.l

3.1. CAD/CAM Customitation and Development

In the particular case of CAD/CAM, the achievement of benefits through effective system customization and development requires a sustained encouragement and channel- ing of inuafirm innovation activities. As observed in one West German study of CAD/ CAM:

1. “Many CAD/CAM systems are still at the development stage. The installation thereof can only be regarded as a pilot project being used not least to further develop and perfect the software.

2. Since their productive use is dependent on them meeting specific operating requirements, CAD systems essentially cannot be introduced in the form of “turnkey” systems in the strict sense. Substantial effort (amounting to as much as 1-2 man years, depending on experience) is needed to complete the software through adjustment-development measures. Adjustment should be understood as adapta- tion of a basic software to the respective specific operating requirements of an establishment company.

3. The introduction of CAD systems requires not only systems engineering development, but also a redesigning of the organizational context in which the system function is to function” (Schaffitael and Kersten, 1985, p. 48).

This process of development occurs not just during start-up or debugging, but is a continual process through the life of the CAD system. Asalsoobserved, an important factor 2 Special Issue: “System, Networks and Configuration..: Inside the Implementation Process”, Intemutional Journal of Humun Factors in Manufacturing, Guest Editor R. Badliam with contributions from P. Clark, I. Fleck, I. McLoughlin, and I. Webster. Volume 3, Number 1 , January 1993.


is “the flexibility of the system for future developments. Because of the pace of change, suppliers might decide to add on to their systems or modify them, and the user must be able to adapt their own existing systems to the new changes. The user organizations might also decide to add on their own internal developments and must therefore be able to adapt their software to the existing system (Zairi et al., 1987, p. 353). Moreover, if the trend towards quality and customization in production continues, and improvements in hardware and software technologies make system changes easier and more “transparent”, there will be strong pressure for increased system development to attain production flexibility. With pressures for reduced lead times and the attainment of integration efficiencies, the customization of systems to integrate all components of the production process (e.g, postprocessing software to link new CAD systems to old machine tools) will also increase.

This process of ongoing development and customization may take a number of different forms. If we take Kaplinsky’s (1984) classification of production activities into intraactivity, intrasphere, and intersphere types, specific developments and customization may occur within activities in the design sphere (intraactivity), in the integration of activities within the design sphere (intrasphere), and in the integration of design with other spheres of production planning and manufacture (intersphere). Some examples are included in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Typical Forms of CAD/CAM System Development and Customization

Intraactivity site-specific developments and customization Creation of macros-series of commands that can he executed from a single instruction of

Creation of pull down menus and other alterations to improve user friendliness. Creation of a data hase of parts based on group technology (GT) or families of parts to facilitate

Creating parametric programs that can dramatically enhance design speeds where components

The creation of new or different application software, e.g., automatic generation of Bill of

Customization to reflect company standards and practices. Intrasphere (design) site-specific developments and customization

Developing pre- and postsoftware to link CAD generated data to third party finite elements analysis (FEA) packages for computer aided engineering work. Developing or enhancing communication standards hetween different CAD systems, such as ICES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) to enahle communication both within and between firms.

speeding up operations, particularly for routine and repetitive tasks.

design standardization and avoid design duplication.

have similar features.

Materials.

Customizing connections with Inputloutput devices and printer driver software, plotters, etc. Intersphere site-specific developments and customization

The development of postprocessor software to link CAD generated data with specific NC machine tools that allow manufacturers to download design data to drive manufacturing equipment. Reprogramming or altering CAD data hase structure so as to enahle integration with MRPII (Manufacturing Resource Planning) or Bill of Materials generation, .i.e, identification and use of design data in production planning for purchasing, scheduling, and planning processes. The creation and ongoing development of knowledge-based systems (US)-systems that incorporate information, “knowledge” about the plant, and criteria for efficient manufacture, and other sortsofconstraintsondesign. KBScan also incorporate theideaofrulesofmanufacturahility.


3.2. Firm-Specific CAD/CAM System Development

One of the key conclusions to emerge from the case studies was the selective development of CAD/CAM systems in areas perceived by the fm to be their major priorities. It was found that this development can occur in a number of different areas, for example: the establishment of a data base of standard components and previous designs, and the creation of “families of parts”or “group technology” with other possibleattributedda% the creation of macrocommands representing commonly used sets of individual instructions to speed up system opration; the establishment of menus to improve the ease of operation and speed of system use; the development of parametric programs creating designs on the basis of operator input of basic parameters in response to system requests; the creation of application specific software to perform the production planning and engineering tasks required by particular fms; and the development of communications software and standardized operating practices to enable communication between components of the CAD systems and other CAD and CAM systems and peripheries inside and outside the fm, etc.

This malleability of CAD/CAM systems has important consequences for both working conditions and the profitable use of the technology. The importance of incremental innovation within the case study f m s revealed both that important system choices were made or neglected in the course of this developmental process that had major implications for skills, work organization, and the distribution of functions between levels and sections of the fm. Moreover, the ability of f m ’ s to solve problems of system development after its introduction had a direct impact on both the profitable use of the system and the attitude of both management and employees towards the system. The initial system selection was not, as aconsequence, the only major system choice (and in many cases not even the major choice).

In one diemaking company, for example, the modifications made to CAD/CAM software within the firm made impossible not only for NC operators to modify programs for use on specific machines but also to save their modifications and enter them into the standard program library. In order to allow a considerable degree of discretion to be retained on the shop floor, this company was also involved in modifying its purchased production planning software. In another company, building machine tools, the CAD/ CAM system was purchased in order to assist in component standardization in the production of a range of relatively standard models, and the more powerful work stations were all located in design. As this market collapsed, and standardization proved more difficult, a powerful work station was moved into manufacturing to assist in NC programming and many of the CAD terminals were no longer used by draftspeople and designers.

Detailedchanges of this kind in the CAD/CAM configuration, reflecting and impacting upon organizational practices, were observed in a number of companies. The effect of different software packages, for example, was most clearly observed in the case of the use of 3D wireframe and complex geometric modeling packages, and the development and use of FEA packages. In the former case, draftspeople often had difficulty in using 3D wireframe models, and this had implications for the skill, training. and often working conditions of those able to master the use of this technique. Its complexity also acted to make it more difficult for engineers or tradespeople to use the system effectively. Of major significance, however, was the extent to which the system data bases were developed and the software customized. Where, for example, f m s or sections within firms failed to develop families of parts and standard designs with attributed data, many of the potential consequences of the system for the routinization of drafting work proved impossible. On

SOClOTECHNlCAl CIM SYSTEMS 127

the other hand, where firms were successful in customizing and improving design and drafting software procedures. this had enabled the system to be used by a wider range of engineers and draftspeople, and to be used for more creative work. System development, in this sense, provided a significant technicaUeconomic loading of organizational options.

In addition, substantial differences were observable in the case study companies between the influence of mechanical and electrical applications of CAD/CAM both within and between firms. In one electronics f m , product design engineers were the primary users of the system, and explicit “design rules” were built in to the system to facilitate design/production integration. As aresult, there was very little requirement for draftspeople. In one diemaking company, however, the use of CAD/CAM for mechanical purposes required extensive production experience from the CAD/CAM programmers, and complex products were manufactured with little direct input from qualified engineers. In a third company making sophisticated medical instruments, the electrical draftspeople were all design draftspeople working in close collaboration with electrical engineers on the screen. Themechanical draftspeople in the same firm were, however, primarily detailers with little opportunity for progression into design drafting, and little direct communication with product design engineers.

3.3. CAD/CAM and Design Profiles

It also became apparent in the Australian CAD/CAM user firms that the variations in CAD/ CAM development and use were directly affected by a firm’s design priorities in the sense of the relative weight or priority given to concept design, engineering analysis, or detailed design. The resulting design profile of the firm reflects different emphases on the importance of design overall, and the different components of design. The result of these different design profiles is agreater attention by firms to particular areas of their production process, with consequent implications for the level of technological development, and skills, status, and power of different sections within the fm. The different emphasis on design for production, for example, was directly reflected in the use and development of CAD/CAM. In one diemaking company, the complexity of machining was reflected in the effective use and development of graphics based NC programming. In another company, the cost and complexity of production planning had resulted in the extensive use and development of CAD for production documentation.

While both firms recognized the significance of developing their use of CAD in other production areas, this lagged behind their main use of the system, reflecting their design priorities. In contrast, a third company, while possessing graphics based NC programming capabilities, had not developed this to any great extent, concentrating instead on the development of the detail drafting capabilities of the system. While this reflected the relatively low level of priority of this area within the firm, it was also the result of less appropriate CAD/CAM software, a factor that was, in turn, the result of the initial purchase of the machine for reasons other than design for production.

These developmental priorities had a direct effect on the jobs of production planning technicians, NC programmers, draftspeople, and engineers, as well as the distribution of tasks between these occupations. As described above, the development of different intrasphere and intersphere CAD capabilities has implications for different levels and sections of the work force. Where, for example, attention to product quality results in computer aided engineering capabilities being extensively developed and applied, this poses major questions for the product design engineeringkrafting interface. As


engineering analysis results in the creation of a product design data base that can also be used for drafting purposes, there are consequent pressures to increase either job integration or organizational integration. However, the resolution of this issue takes varying forms within countries with differing organizational and training traditions in this area (Lowstedt, 1988; Ebel and Ulrich, 1987).

Australian manufacturing, for example, is generally characterized by its small size, low level of research and development, and a weak performance in other areas of design and innovation. Although such generalizations cannot be simply applied to specific firms, the case study companies were frequently characterized by a low level of in-house design, and consequent lack of development of CAD in this area. This was most clearly apparent in the failure to adopt, develop, and use finite element analysis (FEA) computer aided engineering packages, even in f m s carrying out quite complex manufacturing operations or concept design work. As aresult, although there was a general awareness of the possibility of engineers using FEA, and subsequently taking over some drafting work, this was perceived as a future rather than present issue. Apart from electronics work in one company, some tool design in another, and the presence in a third of one draftsperson (who had engineering qualifications), engineers rarely used the system. This fact was also frequently related to both an indusuial relations structure that ensured the effective opposition by thedrafting union (ADSTE) to engineers use of the system, and an education and training culture that encouraged a reluctance among engineers to take on what they considered to be “routine drafting” work.

3.4. CAD/CAM System Developers and Customizers

In all of the case study firms, the successful development and customization of CAD/ CAM techniques in the selected areas required a combination of firm and industry specific knowledge with more generic computer knowledge in the customization and development process. An important system development question with major implications for innovation, skills, and work organization within the firm is: who should perform these processes of development and customization? In essence, the CAD/CAM users had four specific mechanisms available:

i. Influencing CAD/CAM system builders through participation in user groups to develop certain features of the CAD/CAM system in the next release of the system (e.g., Anvil user group active in Australia).

ii. Individual negotiations with the CAD/CAM system builder to develop specific required features (e.g., the axle and gear manufacturing case study company requested improvements from IBM in PC-Workstation CADAM communication before purchasing more hardware).

iii. W i d party system development companies, bureaus, contractors or local vendors (e.g., the use of the CADDSMAN bureaus in South Australia and New South Wales).

iv. In-house development and customization (e.g., the development of in-house rough

Each of these four means to enhance CAD/CAM system capabilities to satisfy firm specific needs have different advantages and liitations for CAD/CAM users in Australia. The fvst two mechanisms involving (i) indirect or (ii) direct negotiations have the advantage of enabling fundamental alterations of the technological system. General Motors (G.M.), for example, has negotiated with Boeing (producers of the CADAM

cut production scheduling by one diemaking case study firm).


system) and McDonald-Douglas (producers of the Unigraphics system) for a major integration of the two packages. CADAM will be used upstream for design while the Unigraphics system will deal with the downstream NC programming. This integration requires the establishment of hardware and software standards between the McDonald Douglasand Boeing systemsandsubstantial alterationsin theirpresentpackages. G.M.and Boeing elsewhere have imposed Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) and Techni- cal Office Protocol (TOP) standards on their equipment suppliers to more readily enable the integration of equipment. Unfortunately, most Australian f m s and user groups lack both the political and economic power to shape the trajectory of CAD/CAM to their own specific firm or industry needs. This argument is freely acknowledged by some of the CAD/ CAM user groups interviewed in Australia as part of the two CAD/CAM studies. Powerful users and user communities overseas are more influential in shaping the development of new software modules and hardware, and these developments may be inappropriate for Australian firms. There are exceptions. Ford Australia for example, receives CAD/CAM software updates from Ford in Deerborn, USA every 6 months. While no system development is performed, Ford Australia has input into the development of the software.

Unlike these large transnationals, most Australian firms are not so readily able to shape their CAD/CAM tools. This imposes clear limitations on the capacity of Australian users to influence generic or fundamental development of CAD/CAM systems. However, there are many forms of development and customization that are still required for the productive use of CAD/CAM, to shape the tools for industry and site-specific conditions. The options available for this kind of development and customization are either buying support or software from a third party (perhaps the local vendor or software house) or performing the development in-house. Within the case study firms a variety of strategies were developed to achieve CAD/CAM system development and customization using a combination of in- house skills and external organizations. It was remarked in nearly all the case study companies that a reliance on one strategy or the other did not work. Third party organizations did not have the site or industry-specific knowledge, while few companies had sufficient knowledge about specific computer systems or funds to develop their system internally. A typical example that illustrates the first problem was in one tirm where the CAD/CAM system manager, a graduate engineer, commented that the previous system development by a computer scientist from Fujitsu, failed toreflect the specific needs of the company and had not been very successful. In recognition of these problems a number of third party system integrators emphasize the need to involve the end-user-“We tell vendors that real success stories result when the integrator involves users at an early stage, so they know what is intended and can provide important involvement (Livingston, 1990, p. 13). This is particularly the case for parametric programming and knowledge-based systems, which are slowly entering the market. The group technology databaqe, macros, postprocessing software, incorporating features of new release software, and so forth, are all day-to-day activities that must be performed in-house. Furthermore, the needs of routine maintenance and trouble-shooting are such that the end-user involvement is crucial, notjust during start-up or the systems implementation but continually to achieve the productivity levels alleged by CAD/CAM vendors.3

3 Alternatively, the trend to more flexible open architecture CAD/CAM systemq is encouraging third parties to develop front end and specific application Software using a generic CAD/CAM package. One example is CADDSTAR baqed on AutoCAD. There is already evidence of the development of these programs or modules for specific industries or applications, particularly in tlie area of engineering analysis packages. Such developments encourage a strategy of “buying: aq oppaved to “making”, however whatever strategy is adopted (make or buy), there is a need for further “contextualization” of the system to tlie firm’s specific environment. This requires in-house system development skill and knowledge.


This argument was confmed by Adler in a study of CAD/CAM in the USA, where “the development of manufacturing and design engineering systems has traditionally been the province of more experienced manufacturing workers and design engineers. Automated design tools are very limi ted... With the development of computer tools, new skills are needed in CAD and CAM system development departments” (Adler. 1988). Even firms buying rather than developing their own software, were finding that system maintenance and system customization requirements had driven them to establish a staff of highly skilled system developers. This staff tended to remain, if not increase, after the initial period of getting the system up and running and debugged, as a result of the pursuit of a continually expanding range of new automation opportunities. In the case of Australian CAD/CAM users, however, these system development skills were seen to be in short supply and a strong separation was observed between the operators of CAD/CAM, whose background is still primarily drafting (in CAD use) and frades (in NC programming), and engineers who, while potentially capable of system management and development functions, rarely gain experience through access to and use of the system. This finding was confirmed from telephone interviews of 60 leading CAD/CAM user firms.

A separation such as that described above has a number of important implications. First, the tendency to separate system management and development (engineers) from system operation (draftspeople and trades) can severely disrupt the learning process and be wasteful of human resources. As a U.K. CAD expert observed of one firm, “They had inadequately trained shopfloor people. They relied on (professional) engineers to deal with day-to-day ‘ firefighting’ problems on their shopfloor computerized equipment. This diverted the engineers from work on product and process development “(Senker, 1989, p. 50). Second, there was some evidence of trades and draftspeople becoming system managers and developers, a development that had occurred in over 30 percent of the Australian case study firms. In order to clarify their role and encourage further development, however, new pay systems, training systems and career structures are required and these were, at best, only at a very rudimentary stage in the case study firms.

Finally, the successful development and customization of CAD/CAM also requires close l inks between users and suppliers (local vendors), local software houses, external “system integrators”, CIM centers such as, in Australia, the Centre for Industrial Technol- ogy, as well as building up internal CAD/CAM development and management skills. While most of the case study firms maintained links with these external organizations, in some cases the links were poor and ineffective. This was a particular problem for half of the companies, with one company in particular complaining of the lack of attention to specific company needs in the system development traditionally subcontracted to Fujitsu. In addition, five of the case study firms commented specifically on their lack of the internal system development skills necessary to develop truly integrated and productive CAD/ CAM. In one axle and gear manufacturer, for example, it was recognized that CAD/CAM coordination was a central task in ensuring the standardization and cooperation necessary to improve design/manufacturing communication. However, the pay level of the respon- sible position was still too low to make it a desirable career step for in-house engineers, there was a general lack of the necessary computer system skills, and excessive faith was being placed in a computer graduate hired direct from university.

4. CONCLUSION: TOWARD INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OF SMART SOCIOTECHNICAL CIM SYSTEMS

What these observations reveal is that the effective use of potentially integrative technologies such as CAD/CAM as a tool for improving computer integrated manufacturing


requires both going beyond its use as an “electronic drawing boardand developing system capabilities that cannot be brought about by a reliance on machine-specific vendor training and external system expertise. This process of enhancing system capabilities requires, in turn, an initial training and organizational change to support system implementation, customization and development, and the improvement of “producer/user” interaction in the innovation process. As was seen in the case studies, strategies that rely on the purchase of “turnkey systems” off the shelf, with minimum changes of skills and organization, are likely to result in CAD/CAM systems that are severely underutilized. Part of the solution to these problems involves improving relations between equipment vendors and software houses, on the one hand, and user fms on the other. It also involves, however, the improvement of user firm system development and customization capabilities in general, and the utilization and development of the contribution of “end users” or system operators to these capabilities. The effective use and development of integrative systems technologies such as CAD/CAM requires an increase in both generic computer skills and knowledge of firm-specific requirements, as well as a rise in both formal skills and qualifications and the utilization of tacit skills and experience based knowledge (Adler, 1989; Ehn, 1988; Goranzon, 1991).

An important supportive point that emerged from the Australian caSe study companies was the recognition that these developments are not needed or likely to be introduced “across the board‘’ in the implementation of integrative technologies such as CAD/CAM but in relation to firm-specific design profiles. For this reason the traditional technocratic belief in one vision of the automated factory of the future needs to be replaced by a view of alternative paths and forms of integration and the importance of “focused factories” concentrating their activities on the effective customization and development of areas crucial to achieving their strategic objectives.

The issue that this opens up in general approaches to CIM design and implementation is the importance of defining “intelligent” systems not as the creation of machines with artificial intelligence capable of coping with the complex and changing conditions that threaten to disrupt the increasingly “automatic” factory (Brodner. 1990). but rather, as smr t sociotechnical systems that provide computer a d organizational support for intelligent decision making and incremental innovation by highly skilled CIM operators. This approach, variously labeled in Europe as support for “skill based”, “human centered”, or “anthropucentric” CIM systems, is guided by a general perspective on manufacturing activities that emphasizes its inherently unpredictable and complex character. The importance of tacit as well as formal skills of operators in dealing with the unforeseen problems that inevitably arise, and the development in consultation with users of “work oriented” tools and systems that build upon and support, rather than undermine, these skills is also recognized. As a design perspective this approach stresses, first, the need to locate decision making as close to sources of potential disturbance as possible and emphasizes “learning by doing”. Second, the design of “tool” like CIM systems to support such decision making through their transparent and supportive character is highlighted. In contrast to traditional sociotechnical approaches, technology is not taken as a given but is itself subject to design or redesign in the process of developing smart systems (Rosenbrock, 1990).

The goals of “human factors” experts or personnel managers in this process is not, therefore, simply one of satisfying vested interests in order to ensure the undisrupted implementation of new technology nor is it merely one of increasing the use of “user friendly” interfaces or adapting organizations to the requirements of new technology. The aim is to create the conditions necessary for the design and development of smart manufacturing systems based on the integrated supporf and continuous development of both the technical and organizational components of production systems. In Europe this has


led to the design of generic technologies in the area of NC programming, CAD software, and production scheduling and control systems, and the implementation of production islands in particular firms. These developments need to be extended, however, to include the development of sociotechnical structures that support continuous innovation and development of both technology and organization. This principle applies not only to manufacturing and design departments but, as observed in the discussions of CAD/CAM, to the shaping of effective sociotechnical systems integrating the design and manufacturing spheres. The key challenge for human factors researchers and practitioners is overcoming the departmental politics and technocratic imagery that frequently obstructs organizational development along the lines advocated in this article. In this context an emphasis on broader interdisciplinary ‘‘smart manufacturing” approaches, in contrast to more technocentric visions of “intelligent manufacturing” constitutes an important new orientation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article was prepared using information gained with the assistance of the Australian Department of Industrial Relations, the Australian Bureau of Labor Market Research, and the West German von Humboldt Foundation. For offprints and publication requests please contact Dr. Badham at the Department of Science & Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2500, Australia.

REFERENCES

Adler, P., 1989, CADICAM: managerial challenges and research issues, IEEE Transactions on

ASTEC, 1990, Your Word is My Command (AGPS, Canberra). Atherton, P., 1987, An open CIM system architecture for user interface customization, Autofact, 7

Badham, R., 1991, Computers, Design and Manufacture (AGPS, Canherra). Badham, R., 1989, Computer aided design, work organization and the integrated factory, IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, Special Issue on CAD, August. Brodner, P., 1990, The Shape of Future Technology (Springer-Verlag. London). Clark, P., and Staunton, N.. 1989. Innovation in Technology andOrganization, (Routledge, London

and New York). Corbett, J. M., 1989, Automate or innervate, The role of knowledge in advanced manufacturing

systems, AI and Society, 3, 198-209. Dean, J., and Susman, G., 1989, Organizing for manufacturahle design, Harvard Blrsiness Review,

JanuaryRehruary, 1. Dutton, J., and Thomas, A., 1985. Relating technological change to learning hy doing. In Research

on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, Volume 1, Jai Press, Greenwich. Ebel, K., and Uhick, E., 1987, Some workplace effects of CAD and CAM, International Labour

Review, 126 (3), 35 1-37 1. Engelke, William, 1987, How to Integrate CADICAM Systems: Management and Technology

(Marcel Dekker, New York). Ettlie, I., 1989. Review of A. Majchrzak. The human side of factory automation, Administrative

Science Quarterly, March. Fleck, J., 1988. Innofusion of diffusation: the nature of technological development in robotics.

Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No. 4. Genner, D. and Lozzi. A., 194, User programming of CAD systems in quantz, Computer Aided

Design in Manufacturing: The Role of CAD in Australiu’s Factory with a Future, Paul et. al. (Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Sydney.

Goranzon, B., 1991, The Practical Intellect (Springer-Verlag. London).

Engineering Management, August.

11 ;ln32.


Gottschalch, H., 1986, The key function of CAD training for scope and contents of work In IFAC Skill Based Automated Manufncturing, by Broedner, P., Ed. (IFAC Conference, Karlsruhe).

Haywood, B. (ed.), 1990, CIM: Revolution in Progress, IIASA Conference, Vienna, 1 4 July. Kaplinsky, R., 1984, Automation: The Technology and Society (Longman, London). Livingston, D., 1990, The OEM link, Systems Integration 100, April. Lowstedt, J., 1988. Prejudices and wishful thinking about computer-aided design,New Technology,

Work and Employment, 30( lo), 12-3 1. Lundvall, B., 1988, Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the

national system of innovation. In Technical Change and Economic Theory, by Dosi, G., et al. (Pinter. London).

Lundvall, B. A.. 1985, Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction (Aalborg University Press, Aalhorg).

McLoughlin, I., and Clark, J., 1988, Technological Change at Work (OUP, Milton Keynes). Norman, D., and Draper, S.. (eds.), 1985, User Centred System Design-New Perspectives on

OECD, 1988, Science and Technology Policy Outlook. Rosenherg, N., 1982, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge University

Rosenhrock, H. (ed.), 1990, Designing Human Centred Technology (Springer, London). Schaffitael, W.. and Kersten, U., 1984, Introducing CAD systems, problems and the role of user-

developer communication in their solution, Behuviour and Informution Technology, 4 ( l ) , 47- 61.

Senker, P., 1989, Technical change, work organization and training: some issues relating to the role of market forces New Technology, Work und Employment, 4.( l), Spring

Sorge, A.. and Streeck, W., 1988, Industrialrelations and technicalchange: Thecase for anextended perspective. In New Technology and Industrial Relutions, hy R. Hyman and W. Streeck (eds.) (Blackwell, Oxford).

Townsend, I., undated. Innovation in Cod Mining Machinery (Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex).

Von Hippel, E., 1988 Sources oflnnovation (Oxford University Press, Oxford. Zairi, M., Kiely, I., and Ghosh, S., 1987, User supplier interaction for successful, implementation

of CADCAM systems, ComputerAided Production Engineering-Proceedings from the second International Conferences, Edinhurgh, April.

Zuscovitch, E., 1986, The economic dynamics of technologies development, Research Policy, 15.

HwnadComputer Inte raction, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.

Press, Camhridge.

175-186.

Smart sociotechnical CIM systems: Beyond island solutions and turnkey philosophies

Documents

Transcript of Smart sociotechnical CIM systems: Beyond island solutions and turnkey philosophies