Report of an industry-government-academia meeting held on December 21, 2009 on the Ohio State University Campus
Summary by: Glenn Daehn and Giorgio Rizzoni, The Ohio State University and Eric Burkland, Ohio Manufacturers Association
Executive Summary
A meeting was held at the 4H building on the Ohio State University campus on December 21, 2009 to discuss how to improve the technology climate for automobile manufacturers in the Ohio region. The meeting was well attended with approximately 100 select professionals representing manufacturing companies, State economic development entities and academics. The group met in open sessions at the beginning and end of the meeting and broke into four working groups for the heart of the meeting. The breakouts dealt with 1) identifying resources to form a regional technical innovation network, 2) policies and operational procedures for such a network, 3) benchmarking policies from other auto manufacturing regions worldwide and 4) other innovative ideas. There was vigorous discussion in all sessions and the consensus findings are provided below.
The group roster of attendees is provided here (password protected document, password has been provided to attendees).
General Findings and Recommendations
- The Ohio region has a wealth of manufacturers, manufacturing-related R&D organizations and a rich infrastructure for manufacturing support. The players include government-supported initiatives such as the Edison Programs and Manufacturing Extension Programs, the University System of Ohio, as well as a rich interconnected infrastructure of manufacturing support companies. Together this represents one of the richest regions for manufacturing support in the world in terms of technology, infrastructure and talent.
- It was recognized that the region’s web of manufacturing companies resembles an ecosystem where companies are mutually dependent upon one another. It is difficult to isolate automotive or other manufacturing activities from this web. The region’s manufacturing enterprise will largely thrive or suffer as a whole.
- The very lean environment manufacturers have been working under for the past decades have eroded their ability to support new technical developments. New, more cost-effective, likely collaborative, modes of supporting new technology development must be found.
- Manufacturers, particularly small ones, require help in locating the best available technical resources and finding ways to effectively partner with companies. A best practice is the development of one or more single points of contact that can coordinate the delivery of a diverse mix of services to the company.
- There are other regions of the world that have models of supporting technology development for manufacturers that are worthy of study for potential implementation. As example, Canada cost-shares industry lead manufacturing technology development and the Basque region of Spain develops automotive R&D facilities that are shared in a cooperative way among several companies.
- The function of any manufacturing network needs transparency and accountability as core structural features.
- The University System of Ohio represents a very powerful and underutilized tool for technology development in the service of manufacturers. Enhancements in University culture and simplifications in outreach procedures may be required to make sure that projects are routinely accomplished with expected adherence to budgets, timelines and deliverable lists. Augmentation with professional project management may be required. The Chancellor of the Board of Regents pledged to assist the manufacturing community as strongly as possible.
- Three large cross-cutting themes emerged from this exercise: 1) We need to form an open and transparent network to make the best technology resources available and visible to companies in need of technology development, 2) The value of the network increases immensely as more and richer resources are added. It is imperative to have all available technical resources well represented. 3) Administrative barriers to collaboration must be as low as possible with very transparent procedures and clear accountability for this network to function effectively.
Detailed Summary And Primary Materials
Preface
Meeting plan, goals and agenda online (pdf)
List of participants (linked password protected file, available to participants)
Opening:
Comments by Eric Burkland and Mark Barbash opened the meeting by thanking the participants for attending and presenting some of the challenges ahead of manufacturers. Some of the key challenges include linking with appropriate technology development entities and finding resources to operate meaningful technology development programs.
Remarks, Meeting Operation and Goals by Glenn Daehn
Prof. Daehn presented some motivational slides that show the importance of the trade balance in manufactured goods. The wealth lost from the US due to trade imbalance in manufactured goods exceeds that due to net oil imports and expenditures on middle east conflicts combined.
He next set the operational ground rules for the meeting. A link to the slides presented are available: .pdf of the PowerPoint file
Working Group 1: Ohio Technical Asset Network (Industry Perspective)
This group was interested in identifying and linking potential manufacturing assets. Many of these are shown on the provisional map below.
Interactive Map showing Ohio technology resources, Universities and National Labs.
View Ohio Technical Resources in a larger map
The need and potential for such a network was summarized in comments from Larry Jutte on a possible approach developed by Compete Columbus that was developed in 2008. The group discussion identified potential barriers to this kind of collaboration. They include difficulties in maintaining a current and comprehensive database and academic software licenses often preclude universities for doing work for industry. There are new social networking tools that can be important here. Technology fairs were discussed as a means to bring groups together.
A group of people willing to continue working on this initiative was also developed.
Working Group 2: Ohio Technical Asset Network (State/Academic Perspective)
Notes taken by David Emerling; below are the responses by the industry people at the workshop answering the question:
“What should the priorities of the Auto Council Network be?”
- Provide a system, which companies could pay per use of simulation software instead of buying a seat for a year.
- Create a method for companies to invent or commercialize new products easily.
- Help find the correct person at each OEM that understands the trends of the future and guide companies to the needs for these trends.
- Help protect the intellectual property of smaller companies when selling to a big suppliers or an OEM.
- Catalog the unique expertise in the state of Ohio and help market these strengths.
- Eliminate the brain drain by keeping the college graduates in jobs in Ohio.
- Create ways to promote students to major in technical sciences and skill trades.
- Find ways to enhance the co-op and internship programs so kids majoring in the sciences can get work experience.
- Help link OEMs with suppliers with unique skills and products.
- Create a technology fair where OEM and inventors/ suppliers could find each other. This topic got a lot of endorsements from the industry folks as something that could help jump start relationships.
- Help define what the future consumer wants which will help companies create new products.
- Connect all university resources.
- Create a business incubator to help start new companies out of university research.
Areas of focus may be:
- Vehicle Power Management
- Propulsion
- Lightweight Materials
- Joining
- Electrification and batteries
Working Group 3: International Benchmarking
Two models of how competing regions of the world are trying to maintain technical competitiveness in manufacturing were discussed in some detail. The overview material is provided here. More detailed background information is available below:
Link to Automotive Intelligence Center .pdf, an initiative in the Basque region of Spain
Link to Green Arc .pdf
One item of consensus is that it would be worthwhile to conduct a formal study of the best practices in the governmental promotion of manufacturing technology. This could be a worthwhile topic for a National Research Council Study.
Particular issues or ideas that emerged as particularly compelling include:
- Benchmarking our technology development initiatives against others internationally.
- Identifying important technology areas in accord with future of mobility industry.
- Needs assessments.
- Close linkages with National Labs could be important.
- IP relationships are seen as potential detrimental issues. Streamlined business patterns can be sought.
- Leverage the strength of the high concentration of high quality universities (such as Big 10).
- Third Frontier may consider more customer-centered vs. bureaucracy-centered business model that is aimed at matching industry cash investment in with short lead times (more agility).
- Support for existing research infrastructure needs similar emphasis to acquisition of new infrastructure.
- Though we may be in a crisis, its important to maintain a vision that looks at least 10 years ahead to develop new products with viable markets.
- Local strengths such as forming and joining should be emphasized.
Working Group 4: Other Innovations
The discussion in this group focused on a vision for the future of Ohio manufacturing. Key elements in such a vision can include:
Be the pre-eminent place in the US for development and deployment of high value tools and processes for manufacturing to enable
Applied research using creative, innovative, concepts and product design, testing & validation for product realization
Right lot size high value products (acceptable quality implied)
Strategies
Draw on data from the other three groups
Create metrics to define excellence
Sort the data according to metrics
Identify gaps in excellence needed to fulfill the vision
Allocate resources to meet the needs
Summary slides can be found at the link.
Closing Discussion, Eric D. Fingerhut, Chancellor Ohio Board of Regents
Dr. Fingerhut noted that the University System of Ohio is now reinventing itself to bring together the automotive manufacturing and educational systems. This can be very powerful as the USO is the 6th largest system in the country and OSU represents the 9th largest research university in the US. His goal is to make the USO the best such system in the world in providing economic prosperity, the best in focused areas, and the best in working with business. A unified infrastructure and simplified collaboration, including one licensing agreement for the system are being developed. Details of this can be found at the USO strategic plan that is available at uso.edu. He pledged the support of the BOR behind key needs identified by this group.
