However, there is a fundamental flaw in this approach, says Jason Ray, cofounder and CEO of , a two-year-old company dedicated to helping job shops automate the quote-to-order process. Mr. Ray explains that the traditional quoting process makes it easy for neither the customer nor the job shop to ask the right questions and get answers with all the right information. A price per part is one of many factors both sides need to consider.

What’s needed, he says, is a better method for both parties to reach an agreement on the value of time. When the customer and the shop agree on this point, the buying decision is far more likely to please and benefit both parties.

This, he says, is the insight underlying the online digital tools his company has developed to transform and automate the quote-to-order process. “The goal is to enable job shops to optimize the procurement experience for the customers, and of course, to maximize the profitability of the job shops’ operations,” he says.

The value of time seemed to be an important concept, so I asked Mr. Ray to elaborate. He offered this simple analogy: When you ship a package, you understand that overnight, two-day or standard four-day delivery will have different prices. The sooner you want the package delivered, the more it will cost. If the package needs to arrive, let’s say on or before a loved-one’s birthday, the costlier but faster delivery option is welcome. This is the value of time.

A job shop’s quote must also convey the value of its production time to customers. “This means giving the customer clear, unambiguous options for expedited service. For example, parts that can be delivered in 12 days will cost 10 percent more if delivered two days sooner, 20 percent more three days sooner and 40 percent four days sooner,” he explained. He added that the quote must include an expiration date. “The customer who wants parts in 10 days can’t wait two days to accept the quote and then expect parts in only eight days.”

So, preparing a quote has to be a very quick, but reasonably accurate process, Mr. Ray says. For this reason, his company has developed an “intelligent pricing engine” designed to interpret a CAD model and apply cost variables in a template customized by the shop to reflect its capabilities and constraints. This engine, he says, combines algorithms based on part geometry as well as knowledge of the shop’s most experienced estimator(s). Additional formulas provide the figures for expedited options that consider the impact of lead times on overall shop scheduling and capacity.

Equally important, he says, is a streamlined, automated method for “packaging” the quote online to generate it in an attractive, customized format. This way, a detailed quote can be emailed in very little time. Mr. Ray reports that current shop users are often getting customer orders placed in fewer than two hours using the integrated online ordering system.

His main point though was not to pitch Paperless Parts, but to emphasize that communicating the value of time, in this context, is critical. “It’s not all about machining cycle times or lowest unit cost. It’s about taking the friction out of the interaction between the job shop and its customer. Digital tools and access to complete data take the back-and-forth exchanges out of the ordering process, so then the chips can fly.”

A common dilemma associated with lead measures is that they are difficult to develop because they often requiring a great deal of thought and discussion. Sometimes there is even confusion as to what a lead measure really is because it might actually be a lag measure in disguise. For example, it would be incorrect to think that the number of machines run on a given day could predict the number of jobs completed. Because we will not know the number of machines that ran until the end of that day, this is more of a lag measure of machine performance. It may not adequately predict the number of jobs actually completed during the day.

Here are some lead measure examples for specific performance objectives you may wish to consider for your organization:

Despite the need to remove support structures after the build is complete, there are surprisingly few resources published about their machinability. Most studies have focused on the material microstructure and mechanical properties of AM parts instead of determining the best way to machine away support structures encountered in AM.

Many people think that the same strategies used to machine stainless steel, titanium and nickel-based alloys readily translate to structures made with AM, but that may not be the case. Some studies have been conducted of the machinability of solid AM parts made from and , but there are subtle differences that are important to keep in mind when dealing with support structures.

If you are being asked to machine support structures, keep in mind that the material you are machining away may not be what you think it is. This depends on how the material was heat-treated (or not), as the AM part may have a different microstructure, and therefore, a different response when it is machined. Furthermore, in most cases, the support structures are not fully dense, meaning they are intentionally porous to save build time and material usage. Finally, the support structures themselves can trap loose powder depending on the geometry that is used.

All of this adds up to a lot of uncertainty when machining support structures away from an AM part. To gain some insight into this, I worked two of my machining colleagues at Penn State, Professor Edward De Meter and Professor Guha Manogharan, and a team of graduate students to conduct experiments to study the machinability of support structures in Inconel 718 support structures.

The results we obtained surprised us, and I wanted to share some of the highlights with you now that our .

For this study, we designed and fabricated a standard block-type support structure in Inconel 718, varying the height to enable us to study differences in cutting forces and milling behavior. The machining specimens and test setup are shown in Figure 1. The average wall thickness of the supports is 0.11 mm, and the spacing between walls is 0.8 mm—typical dimensions for this type of support-structure geometry.

So, what happens when you try and machine away these thin-walled support structures? Well, we found that they do not uproot or cleanly shear when milled, nor do they break away from the base material as they are intended to do. Instead, the supports maintain their structure, and the thin-walls tend to collapse (see Figure 2a).

In the tall supports, trapped powder was revealed inside the support structures as milling depth increased. Despite using high-pressure air to blow out as much of the loose powder as we could before machining, at cutting depths below 2 mm, powder was still trapped inside (see Figure 2b).

As the thin walls are machined, they form localized chips. The chips formed from the support structures were nearly uniform in width (the depth of cut), but their lengths varied based on the position of the toolpath relative to the thin-walled region being cut. Examples of chips can be seen in Figure 2c alongside chips from cutting the fully dense material in Figure 2d.

So, supports can be machined, but cutting-force analysis revealed that the specific cutting energy to mill the supports is only 12 percent of what is needed to mill the fully dense material based on swept volume (43-percent difference if material volume is considered). We were surprised that this value was so low, and the machining community will need to reevaluate recommended speeds and feeds for milling different alloys used in support structures.

Do you wonder what happens to the tool itself? Next month, we will take a closer look at the nature of the forces the tool sees and what that does to tool life.

Want to learn more?

The  takes place September 11-12, co-located with the International Manufacturing Technology Show (IMTS) at McCormick Place in Chicago, Illinois.

The education gap can be defined as the gap between what an employee needs to know to make a company competitive and what is actually being taught in schools, tech programs and academic institutions. Let me explain within the framework of machining: Most institutions have not updated their curriculums to reflect the changing nature of the industry, meaning graduates are not being properly equipped with the skills they need to compete for jobs today and in the future.

There is something to be said when it comes to teaching people the foundations, but those foundations must reflect the industry of tomorrow, not the machine shop of 50 years ago. Schools keep emphasizing outdated skills, like the use of shapers. Guess what? It is a complete waste of time. I cannot remember the last time I saw a shaper, much less used one. The sad part is that learning to use a shaper is just one of the many outdated skills that are still being taught today due to outdated curriculum demands. Precious time is being wasted on these skills when the actual skills students need to know, like geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) and automation, are being neglected. 

Those of us in the industry know how GD&T in drawings is becoming a standard in manufacturing, yet a limited number of educational institutions have even added it as part of their machinist programs. This is the education gap, and not understanding something like GD&T is becoming a very real and significant issue. If this issue gets out of control, parts will not meet the exacting specifications because the machinist and the company doing the manufacturing do not understand the drawings.

GD&T is just one piece of the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is automation. We know this, yet institutions still refuse to add it to their standard curriculums. Now, I can already hear someone challenging me by saying, “Hold up. There are a ton of schools with computer numerical controls (CNCs), so they already teach automation.” I have heard this spiel before. What these schools have is outdated technology from the 1980s, and they just call it automation. While they are technically right, relying on technicalities does not help the students. So, while this technology is “automation,” it is irrelevant. Using this logic, you could argue that factories from the early 1900s with belts running from the ceiling to drive the equipment is automation. Automation is being redefined constantly as new technology is introduced. Today, automation involves multi-pallet, multi-axis machines and robotics, and the machinist who cannot run this equipment will be unemployable.

Yes, this technology is expensive, but students are investing in an education that will make them employable. That is what school is all about. Institutions have a responsibility, and they cannot promise a comprehensive education if they do not have the tools to make it a reality. Machinists are no longer tradesmen. Today’s machinists are technologists. They have to adapt to new technologies and learn new skills. Adding robots to a machine shop is difficult, but with the proper education and know-how, there is no need to fear this technology. It is like any new thing: When you do not understand it, you fear it.

The education gap is preventing progress and hindering the success of so many machine shops. Up-and-comers need to understand the new technologies and processes. If they do not understand them, they will not adopt them, and they will not be employable. Instead, they fear automation and contribute to the potential failure of a machine shop. We need to start in institutions and equip future machinists with the skills they need rather than irrelevant skills and “automated processes” from the 1980s.

1. Be sure the training is clearly defined with a specific outcome. Training that cannot be tied to a desired outcome is unlikely to have much impact. You need to define the intended outcome as simply as possible. For on-the-job skills training, a desired outcome could be to enable the trainee to load parts into a CNC lathe, start the machine cycle, unload parts and check critical part dimensions. For training on an administrative process, the outcome could be to accurately enter customer orders into the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. For soft-skills training, the outcome might be to use the Five-Why technique to help solve recurring problems in the employee’s department. It is essential that the desired outcome be defined before training begins.
2. Identify the best participants for the training. Some believe in training everyone on everything. This shotgun approach may make us feel good as it provides equal opportunity for everyone to learn new skills. Unfortunately, with limited resources, it may not be practical to train everyone on everything. Prioritizing the training needed and identifying those who will benefit most will yield the best outcome. There is always the option of training more employees at a later time, but initial training efforts need to be directed to those who will learn and apply what they have learned in the shortest time.
3. Be comfortable with the trainer(s). In addition to a trainer knowing the subject matter, there is a great benefit to a trainer being familiar with the company and those who will be trained. This is usually easier to accomplish if an internal training resource is used. However, an experienced external resource can be effective if he or she takes the time to learn something about the company and its employees. Understanding any unique aspects of the company, or employee strengths and limitations, can help a trainer tailor a program for success. If an employee is selected to conduct on-the-job skills training, this person must have both knowledge about the subject and the ability to communicate this information effectively. The most experienced and highest-skilled employees do not automatically make good trainers. Many companies benefit from “train the trainer” training for employees identified as potential training resources.
4. Conduct training in “small bites,” if possible. Short, frequent-training sessions often prove more effective than full-day, or even multi-day training sessions. Many manufacturing employees are not used to sitting in classrooms or being shown different tasks for long periods of time. Other employees who have achieved a higher level of education may be better suited to longer periods of training (hence the benefit of a trainer knowing something about those being trained) because they are more familiar with a classroom setting. In cases in which an external training resource must be used in full-day increments, multiple groups can be trained in portions of the day. An advantage of this short, frequent-training approach is that participants have the opportunity to apply some of what they learn between sessions.
5. Ensure that trainees can put their newly acquired skills to use quickly. Too often, employees attend training classes but then do not have the opportunity to apply the skills they have learned. I can remember being a young manufacturing engineer and going to school to learn CNC programming for a machine that was not scheduled for delivery for three months. By the time the machine arrived, I had little recollection of the programming techniques I had “learned.” On-the-job skills should be practiced as soon as possible, perhaps even the same day. Administrative skills should also be put to use quickly to ensure retention. Even opportunities for applying soft skills, like problem solving or lean techniques, should be planned shortly after the training is completed. Without refreshing or applying the skills we learn, they are substantially diminished after 60 days.

Training is critical to a company increasing the skills of its workforce. Although time and effort must be expended, the above thoughts should help you get the results you need from your training initiatives.

On the surface, delegation seems simple enough: Take some of the things managers are doing and assign them others. However, more than simple task assignment is needed if we expect a positive outcome. Expectations must be created, communicated and then frequently reviewed and evaluated (the “managing” part of management). Good management is all about expectations. A manager must be confident that the person being assigned a task is prepared to complete it. This expecation supports the need for training and education.

The training part is likely the easiest to tackle. Managers have been training or overseeing employee training for centuries. It is very task-oriented and measurable by an employee’s performance. (A task is either done right and in a timely manner, or it is not.) On the other hand, education is more concept-oriented, with the objective being to teach people to recognize and address situations that might arise. Education focuses on getting people to think—something that more companies should expect of their employees.

Recognizing this, many companies are focusing more on the education component of employee-skill enhancement. Programs such as problem solving, leadership, time management, team building, lean tools and techniques, Six Sigma and the now-popular lean/Six Sigma program, which combines the benefits of both, are all geared to getting employees to think.

Of course, the real benefit of any education program comes from applying learned concepts to real-world applications. Any program needs to be followed by an activity that does just that. For example, a problem-solving program should be followed by a specific problem-solving task assigned to a team. This problem-solving task should culminate with corrective action and/or countermeasures that reduce the likelihood of the problem recurring. A lean manufacturing program should be followed by a series of Kaizen events assigned to teams. A Kaizen concept focuses on making something better, quickly. The Kaizen event can be a workplace-organization effort using the 5S (sort, set in order, shine, standardize, sustain) methodology, a machine setup reduction initiative using single-minute-exchange-of-die (SMED) principles, the creation of a visual standard work instruction and more. A Six Sigma program should be followed with a quality-improvement project that follows the guidelines of the define, measure, analyze, improve, control (DMAIC) approach to minimizing process variability. By definition, a reduction of process variability yields greater stability and confidence that things will be made right the first time, every time. Although these follow-up efforts do require time, if properly defined, they will actually make something better within the company. Not only do employees get a chance to apply their thinking skills, but also they identify and implement improvements that generally outweigh the upfront investment of time. It is a process in which everyone wins.

Enlightened managers are aware that they cannot do it all. They recognize the need to increase the pool of thinkers in their organization in order to get more done. Improving employee skills through focused training will help, but educating key employees on ideas and concepts is just as important. Applying their new-found skills will enable these key employees to do some of the things that a manager just cannot get around to doing. Ultimately, this is the most practical means of continually improving operations and generating or maintaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace.  

Fifty-one-year-old Mike Gorman was a gentleman whose enthusiastic disposition will be missed by many. He was the father of twin girls, Catherine and Rachel, whom I mentored for four years at a high school robotics competition called FIRST Robotics (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology). The girls are now in their second year of university.

Before the funeral, there was a slideshow of pictures and videos of Mike’s life. I was completely unprepared for the emotions that ran through me when the pictures and videos of Mike and his family in my shop came up.

He and his wife Jacqueline were avid supporters of their daughters, and the family spent many weekends at the shop learning, designing and building robots. I saw them so often, it was no surprise to me that the robot competition was a big part of their family life and that it would be included in the slideshow. What I was oblivious to was Qsine’s real role, which I suddenly felt.

I make Qsine available to several robotics teams. I also teach kids and let them build things in my shop. My motivation is to create a channel to find future employees, customers, suppliers and more. I also want to help divert people who might mistakenly get stuck in a technical or trade career, a problem that I found negatively affected our industry when it was booming. What I underestimated is how entwined Qsine and I get into people’s lives by just doing this.

Now that I see the human part of what we are doing, I feel like an idiot because it used to be lost on me. Qsine is a gathering place for people interested in mechanical gadgets and wizardry. We like to invent and build things because it is fun and interesting.

It must have been 20 years ago or so when I first came across the quote from Mahatma Gandhi to the left, and I thought I understood what it meant. As the years have passed, my interpretation of it has changed, and I think it is more practical and less philosophical than I used to see it.

The “doing” portion of Gandhi’s statement is what brings us together. It is also where our relationships form, evolve and spread. If it wasn’t for mentoring robotics, I would have never known the Gormans. I am sure they would have built robots without Qsine; it just would have been a different experience for them and me.

Another interesting conversation at the funeral was with a customer and friend, Russ. It was not the conversation but rather the person who is interesting. I had forgotten it was through Mike that I met Russ and he became a customer—not because we did something cheaper than a competitor or that he even really needed us to do it. Russ was curious to see Mike’s daughters’ robotics activities. Through personal interest, he took a liking to me and Qsine. Again, Qsine is simply a gathering place for a common interest. Doing it turned into doing more of it.

Last week made me look at my shop and appreciate it from a new perspective. While the economic downturn has made it excruciatingly clear that this is primarily a place where I earn a living, seeing the images of Mike and his family in the shop made it clear to me that this is also where I live my life. The part that shocked me is how the shop embedded me into their lives without asking for permission to be there.

How many times have we heard the phrase “Don’t let emotions get into your business?” The images at the funeral opened a door that let all the emotions I have been forcing out to rush back in. I understand that financially, letting them back in is a mistake, but what do I do about the mistake this creates on personal side when I decide to ignore them?

Even if it does not make financial sense, the slideshow made it evident that saving Qsine, the gathering place, is still an important objective. My previous rationalizations to remove my emotions are a gross oversimplification of the overall situation.

“Follow your instincts” is another phrase that has weight. This advice teaches us to listen to our emotions. While I understand both arguments, I see value in all relationships formed with employees, customers, suppliers, students, friendships and even rivals. I account for the relationships in my decision-making process on what to take on and what to walk away from.

The human elements and my experiences with them are very important in my decision making. I have always known that, but I used to feel like I understood the relationships in and connected to my business. Last week taught me how little was within my comprehension, and it has me curious about how I can be “doing it” differently from here forward.

All these years later, I remain convinced that process is the foundation of business and that we must continuously strive to make our own processes as effective as possible. We do this not only through periodic review of process capability and effectiveness, but with an unwavering commitment to establishing appropriate metrics to see just how effective our processes are. After all, if we do not know how well our processes are working, how do we know if they need to be changed?

If legacy processes go unchallenged, they become self-sustaining even if they no longer serve a purpose.

When reviewing any process, we should first understand the purpose of the process. To ensure widespread understanding, this purpose has to be described in simple terms, such as “to ensure employee safety,” “to machine a part to specification,” or “to ensure timely payment is made to our suppliers.” If we are unable to describe the purpose of a process in terms such as these, we likely have a process that will cause confusion and will not work as intended. (You can always confirm whether people understand the purpose of a process simply by asking them.) Some processes often have a legacy associated with them. They may have been developed at a certain time, with a specific purpose and good intentions. However, if these legacy processes go unchallenged, they become self-sustaining even if they no longer serve a purpose. I have seen situations in which reports are generated and never read, data is collected and never reviewed, and paper copies of electronic files are printed and stored in drawers “just in case.” Legacy processes such as these are certainly candidates for elimination, whereas processes that still have a relevant purpose should be maintained, with an eye toward possible improvement.

Once we are clear on a process’s purpose, we must determine whether it is being followed. Even processes with a relevant purpose may veer off course from time to time. For example, most companies can find instances of different computer numerical control (CNC) programs for the same part with the same revision code, paper copies of part drawings being used by machine operators that do not match the drawings that are on the CAD system, preventive maintenance schedules developed and never followed, machine operators and inspectors both using inspection tools that have either an expired or missing calibration sticker, and even corrective actions documented (as required by a quality management system) and never implemented. It is hard to know if a process needs to be fixed if it is not being followed as intended. Valid processes that have veered off course may require additional employee training or better communication of expectations.

Finally, we may find that relevant processes are being followed but not achieving desired results. Here is where performance metrics are so critical as they provide a means of objectively evaluating the effectiveness of a process. A metric such as takt time, the rate at which a process must be completed in order to meet customer demand, is ideal for determining whether a process can “keep up.” If it cannot, a review of tools, fixtures, required resources, available inventory, yield rates, equipment downtime and more is warranted. A metric such as quote conversion rate can serve as a lead indicator of incoming business, as well as provide insight to the type of business you are getting and the return on time invested in the quoting process (with a low conversion rate indicating that much of the time spent quoting provides little or no direct benefit to the business). Performance on this metric may result in reworking the quoting process, changing how customers are targeted or even changing the existing pricing model.

Where good processes promote good performance, bad processes lead to the opposite. Keeping the processes in place that work well makes sense but fixing processes that do not achieve desired results is one of the best things any business can do.

The analogy to the last mile is not exact, but it serves to make the point that this connection to individual pieces of shop equipment shares significant characteristics with the culmination of a telecommunication system. It’s essential; it can be complicated; it is sometimes misunderstood; it is often overlooked or underestimated by proponents of grand factory-of-the-future concepts. Yet without it, the Industrial Internet of Things is hobbled.

Paradoxically, this connection is at once the starting point and the ending point of the factory- wide/company-wide network. At the start, this connection taps into the most vital aspects of the manufacturing process, at least in metalworking. What is the machine and all of its mechanical components, its control unit, the cutting tool, and every accessory or auxiliary device doing at every moment a part is being produced? Recording, gathering and transmitting the pertinent information from this source is the purpose of connecting the machine to the network. Ultimately, the benefit is that this information results in changes to improve the performance of the machine, its control, the cutting tool and so on. Ideally at the end, these changes are communicated and executed by the same network that retrieved the information in the first place. It’s a loop—a loop that enables a virtuous cycle potentially extending as far across the supply chain as can be implemented.

Quite a few shops have already made this connection to many of their machines or manufacturing assets. In most cases, the resulting network is primarily used for data collection and machine monitoring within the shop. This fact proves that the difficulties and complexities of these connections are surmountable, at least to a substantial and justifiable degree.  Shops with active machine monitoring systems are closing the loop by initiating setup reduction efforts, improving programming methods, focusing training efforts more effectively and so on. This is a great start and perhaps the best first step to digitally integrated manufacturing.

But it is only a start. Many upstream uses of machine data are yet to be explored and exploited by these network users. Integrating with other management systems such as scheduling software and resource planning applications is one example. Predictive maintenance is also on the horizon. And network security is a constant cause for vigilance.

Also be aware that many developers of large-scale systems for connecting manufacturing operations on a corporate level seem to be missing the utilities and capabilities for the needed shopfloor connections. For them, apparently, the “last 10 feet” is a gap they are either overlooking or are unaware of. Whenever I receive news of startups claiming to have Industry 4.0 solutions, I check for provisions to integrate shopfloor equipment. These provisions are usually missing or undisclosed. This missing link can’t be ignored for long. Getting to the telephone pole nearest the house, so to speak, is not good enough.

I am hopeful. The inspiration for this commentary came from hearing the expression the “last mile” in recent discussions of digital manufacturing. Whether connecting machines is seen as a starting point, an ending point or a link in the loop, it now seems to be getting the attention it deserves.

As helpful as that is, the Shawano, Wisconsin, contract shop also benefits from standardization, as the story explains. For example, J&R Machine doesn’t pursue all types of jobs. Rather, it focuses on complex, turned parts less than 10 inches in diameter and shorter than 20-inches long. It also has standardized the type (and specific models) of equipment it will purchase for that work moving forward (only live-tool turning centers and horizontal machining centers).

Standardization of the type of work it pursues helps J&R Machine’s sales and marketing team target the most appropriate new business opportunities—especially in emerging energy markets—because it knows exactly what types of parts are in the shop’s wheelhouse. In fact, Parker Tumanic, vice president, says identifying opportunities in emerging markets is another important part of the company’s business plan.

Profit margins for legacy-type parts are typically low because these jobs are generally awarded based on price alone. Conversely, J&R Machine searches for customers that buy on value, not price, which is typical when new products for new applications are still in the design stage.

To that end, Mr. Tumanic explains, once key players in a new market have been identified and approached, it’s important to work to build a relationship with their product-development engineers. Although initially he and his team might be communicating with a potential new customer’s purchasing agent, they more than likely will be introduced to the company’s engineering group, because the parts being designed might never have been made before, and there are often questions as to how best to manufacture them.

That’s where J&R Machine’s design for manufacturability (DFM) experience comes into play, which can result in a win-win-win for the shop, its customer and its customer’s product-development engineers. In one example, a part initially required significant, time-consuming CMM measurement routines. The shop suggested it could make a simple fit/function gage to minimize CMM inspection, and the engineers appreciated and accepted that idea. They then demonstrated to the company’s purchasing department how much money that change saved in the overall production process. Helpful suggestions like these help establish and then build relationships with a new customer’s engineers.

Mr. Tumanic says there’s no need to pick up numerous customers in an emerging market right away. Initially winning just one or two might be enough, given the higher profit margins compared to a shop’s existing work. The key is to continuously monitor the profit margins of current jobs while keeping an eye on emerging markets that might offer more profitable opportunities and help boost the shop’s bottom line.