That wall between Design and Manufacturing that still exists

 

In the early 2000s, I embarked on a journey to France for my master’s in Automated Manufacturing. As a mechanical engineer, I always felt something was missing for me and taking in-depth courses in manufacturing was what I needed.

Needless to say, my passion for manufacturing persists, 20+ years later, but I feel like we —as an engineering community — are still failing to demolish that wall between design and manufacturing, and at times even adding a totally different dimension with finance and other departments.

I still remember, or at least what my memory might have built, from that Boothroyd DFMA book I studied, where it depicted a long brick wall between design and manufacturing/assembly, and highlighted the need to dismantle that wall. It is a concept that I loved as it made sense, felt logical and I still recall thinking how everyone should implement it.

Obviously, I was naïve.

You see companies preach methods, efficiencies and procedures, and then they make the opposite decision. You see major engineering companies building design centers and headquarters, thousands of miles away from their manufacturing operations. Logically, you do not need as many design centers as manufacturing ones, so it makes sense in certain conditions. It can be diversification, it can be to be closer to certain ports, it can be at times geopolitical, but — unfortunately — it can also be because the CEO wants to live there, or because of other mundane reasons.

The impracticality of having a headquarters so far away from engineering/manufacturing has prevailed more in the last decades. You can see this very clearly in what happened at Boeing. While many CEOs decided to work from distant cities, the current CEO’s decision to work from Seattle, close to the factory floors, and to be in contact with the day-to-day operations is viewed positively. There is still a long way to get back those plane deliveries, but the different moves executed seem to be in the right direction to restore Boeing to what it was or to what it can be.

You see, most of the measures that were enacted were painful, but they were honestly informed by the factory floor versus reading from a spreadsheet.

So what is the lesson, and what motivates me to write this?

Here it goes. I am a bit tired by the perception of South Carolina being a build-to-print state. We have a premium educational landscape that is so well woven and connected between universities and technical colleges. We have decentralized industrial hubs that exist in all parts of our state, whether the Upstate, the Lowcountry or the Midlands. We have an economic team that is doing amazing work to attract companies to bring their manufacturing abilities to our state with great support programs. We offer a lot already and have a lot more. The growth of different domains from aerospace to automotive and defense is making an impact.

The growth of manufacturing, and future factories that we have been spearheading, will need S.C. to move beyond manufacturing and start targeting design and innovation hubs to create those future manufacturing advancements and technologies. We equally need to consider a future where the growth is not based on the cycles of onshoring, reshoring and offshoring, where an internal catalyst of growth and innovation comes from within. When we unlock this cycle, and innovation comes from within, this creates a new economy that propels South Carolina on all fronts.

If you have ever spoken with me, you know that my passion is rural manufacturing and creating a network between mom-and-pop shops all the way to the BMWs and the Boeings. I believe that manufacturing is the best approach to create wealth, stability and steady income. We need that innovation cycle to help that flourish, and we need to have a more holistic approach to attracting companies down the road.

If I had been part of the Scout Motors decision-making team, my headquarters would have been in Rock Hill. I would have reduced the distance between design and manufacturing by half. I would have kept the same distance to an international airport. I would have committed to support the S.C. innovation cycle.

More importantly, I would have required all my designers to spend a day on the factory floor (something not possible with the current distance). I would have asked them to understand the impact of their decisions on the quality of what is being produced, and I would have shown the world that Boothroyd was right about breaking that wall between design and manufacturing.

Ramy Harik, a Fulbright Alumnus, is the director of the Clemson Composites Center and a professor of Automotive Engineering at Clemson University. Harik holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering (B.S./M.S.), Automated Manufacturing (M.S.), and Industrial/Mechanical Engineering (Ph.D.). His teaching focuses on manufacturing, smart manufacturing and composites manufacturing.

The post That wall between Design and Manufacturing that still exists appeared first on SCBiz.