From the outset the ISC gave the ITC a strong challenge. It had to make contact with industry and universities throughout the regions to generate interest in a test case program for a future program which was not certain to follow. This occurred when it was impossible to give even outline advice on the work content and the modus operandi. Potential industrial participants also would be expected to inject significant industrial resources. Happily, the efforts of the ISC, the ITC, regional secretariats and potential partners resulted in the establishment of a comprehensive test case program.
This section reports on the range of activities and issues which characterise the test case program and concludes with an overall impression of the final assessment activity. All the relevant documentation on the test case program from the commencement of work in the six projects is contained in the Report of ITC.
The process of information exchange prior to R&D test case consortium formation is described in Part I, Section 2.4. Interested entities and consortia were provided with a set of explanatory notes giving the requirements to be followed in drawing up a test case.
Proposing consortia were requested to provide administrative data relating to the partners of the consortia and a comprehensive description of the proposed work, resources that would be deployed, the objectives, the benefits expected to be gained, and the organisation and management of the test case. Information was also sought on the metrics, methodology, or measurement system used to evaluate each partner's input to and output from the collaboration to demonstrate equity and balance.
In addition the proposing consortium was requested to submit a consortium cooperation agreement in conformity with the IPR Guidelines for test cases. The explanatory notes contained a timetable allowing 3 months for consortium/proposal formation, 2 months for evaluation and selection, and envisaged that test cases would start at the beginning of 1993 (with the actual start time of the projects being March 1993).
The selection of test cases proceeded in two steps. First a regional evaluation and selection was carried out. In a second step regional short lists for test cases were put forward to the International Technical Committee and the International IPR Committee, that were tasked to make recommendations on the selection of test cases to the International Steering Committee. The selection of test cases was ratified by the International Steering Committee on January 29, 1993.
The criteria for test case selection that were communicated to the proposing consortia are described in detail in the next section.
Of the 11 proposals that were submitted 5 test cases and 1 study were selected. A monitoring and assessment process was elaborated by the International Technical Committee.
The design of the intermediate assessment process was influenced by, first, the work load of the consortia and, second, time constraints during the ITC meetings. International test case coordinators provided reports, made a substantial presentation to the ITC, returned questionnaires, and joined in open discussions at International Technical Committee meetings. International test case assessments took place at ITC5 on June 20, 1993, and at ITC6 on December 1, 1993.
The ITC devoted a three-hour session to the total activity of assessing the performance of each test case by the ITC sub-groups. The chairman of each sub-group submitted the intermediate assessment report in a standard form. The six sub-group reports were reviewed by a committee consisting of the Heads of Delegation and the chairman of the assessment sub-groups. In addition, the ITC, in plenary session, held an open discussion session with the test case presenters. Overview reports based on the assessment of the total range of interchanges between the test case presenters and the ITC were also produced, and the ITC gave feedback to each test case consortia.
At ITC5 the report of Working Group 2, formed to study the problems encountered in consortium formation, was presented. The group conducted a survey of test case consortia, failed test case applicants, regional secretariats and committee members. The results of the surveys were as follows:
The titles of the six test cases are:
Clean Manufacturing in the Process Industries is intended to instigate studies to provide an information source for governments and to establish a framework for future international collaborative research in the area of clean manufacturing in process industries. The project starts by identifying critical aspects of process industries where fundamental improvements in process technology are most likely to be required in order to meet environmental requirements. Chemicals, petrochemicals and pulp and paper will receive particular attention. A forward view of 5 to 20 years is taken. Current state-of-the-art manufacturing/performance/cost approaches will be benchmarked. Future environmental requirements will be estimated. Any potential gaps between practice and the forecast will be determined, and potential technical and system-based solutions outlined. The project is led by ICI Engineering of the United Kingdom and involves Japan, the USA and EFTA as well as the EC. There are twelve consortium members; eight companies, three research institutes and industry associations and one university.
The partners in this project are shown in the table below.
Table of partners: Clean manufacturing in process industries
Partner Region
Abitibi-Price Canada*
ICI Engineering EC/UK*
Foster Wheeler Italiana SpA EC/Italy
John Brown Engineers & Constructors Ltd EC/UK
Marex Technology bv EC/Holland
Finnish Forest Industries Federation EFTA/Finland*
VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) EFTA/Finland
Finnish Pulp and Paper Research Institute EFTA/Finland
Toyo Engineering Corporation Japan*
Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan
Teijin Limited Japan
Du Pont USA*
* Consortium leader
Global Concurrent Engineering seeks to demonstrate improvements that can be made to global manufacturing capabilities through the implementation of currently known concurrent engineering techniques. The project will establish the extent to which concurrent engineering is practised, and identify any critical constraints in terms of technology, technology management and human resources. The best practices of concurrent engineering would then be synthesised and an architecture of concurrent engineering would be designed. The project is led by Northern Telecom Ltd. of Canada, and involves Europe and the USA. There are sixteen participants; eleven companies, and five universities.
The partners in this project are shown in the table below.
Table of partners: Concurrent engineering for global manufacturing
Partner Region
Northern Telecom Canada*
Carleton University Canada
Syntax Factory Automation SpA EC/Italy
De Montfort University Leicester EC/UK
Transfer Technology Group PLC EC/UK*
Noika EFTA/Finland
VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) EFTA/Finland
North Carolina State University USA*
California Polytechnic USA
Aeroglide Corporation USA
Aritech Corporation USA
Exide Electronics USA
J C Steele & Sons USA
Jacumin Engineering and Machine Co USA
Prodelin Corporation USA
Tipper Tie USA
* Consortium leader
Globeman 21 or Global Manufacturing in the Twenty-first Century seeks to determine the best practices for global manufacturing organisations. This will be done by examining current practices in a number of volume segments ranging from custom to mass production, finding the generic elements of these best practices and determining the tools and measures available to assist implementation. The project is led by British Aerospace Defence Ltd. and involves all other regions. There are twenty-nine partners; twenty-two companies and seven universities.
The partners in this project are shown in the table below.
Table of partners: Globeman 21
Partner Region
CSIRO Australia*
Spar Aerospace Canada
University of Toronto Canada*
British Aerospace EC/UK*
Alcatel EC/Belgium
BICC EC/UK
IPA FhG EC/Germany
Grai Group EC/France
IWF EC/Germany
Pirelli EC/Italy
Ahlstrom EFTA/Finland*
Helsinki University of Technology EFTA/Finland
Nokia EFTA/Finland
Partek EFTA/Finland
Sintef EFTA/Norway
VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) EFTA/Finland
Toyo Engineering Corporation Japan*
Electrotechnical Laboratory Japan
IBM Japan Ltd Japan
Kyoto University Japan
Mazda Motor Corporation Japan
Ricoh Company Ltd Japan
Takenaka Corporation Japan
Tokyo University Japan
Toyota Motor Corporation Japan
Yokogawa Electric Corporation Japan
Carnegie Mellon University USA
Newport News Shipbuilding USA*
University of Virginia USA*
* Consortium leader
Holonic Manufacturing Systems addresses research, pre-competitive development, systemisation and standardisation of architecture and technology for holonic systems for application in intelligent manufacturing systems. It seeks to establish the technological and organisational basis for the development and implementation of these systems. A "Holon" is defined as an intelligent, autonomous, cooperative agent comprised of an intelligent control system, an information and/or material processing subsystem, and one or more humans who may or may not be present at any given time. A factory may thus be considered a hierarchy of holons, or holarchy. This metaphor has interesting implications for the design of machine controllers and the organisation of manufacturing processes. The project is led by Allen-Bradley of the USA and involves all other regions. There are thirty-two partners; seventeen companies, twelve universities and three research laboratories.
The partners in this project are shown in the table below.
Table of partners: Holonic manufacturing systems
Partner Region
BHP Australia*
CSIRO Australia
RMIT Australia
ANCA Australia
Queens University Canada*
Alberta Research Council Canada
Basic Technologies Corporation Canada
University of Calgary Canada
IPA/FhG EC/Germany
IFW/University of Hannover EC/Germany
Keele University EC/UK
KU Leuven Research and Development EC/Belgium
Mandelli EC/Italy
Nestec York Ltd EC/UK
SOFTING GmbH EC/Germany*
Tecnologia Grupo INI SA EC/Spain
Tekniker Research Association EC/Spain
Aitec Automation Inc EFTA/Finland
VTT (Tech Research Center of Finland) EFTA/Finland
Hitachi Ltd Japan*
FANUC Ltd Japan
Hitachi Seiko Ltd Japan
Keio University Japan
Kobe University Japan
Toshiba Corporation Japan
Yaskawa Electric Co Ltd Japan
The Allen-Bradley Company USA*
Boston University USA
Carnegie Mellon University USA
United Technologies Research Center USA
University of California at Berkeley USA
University of Connecticut USA
University of Illinois USA
Consortium for Manufacturing Competitiveness USA
* Consortium leader
Rapid Product Development seeks to develop and deploy a set of technologies and business practices which will lead to rapid product prototyping for a wide range of applications. Current practices in terms of technology, measurement, and management practices are assessed. The issues of communication, management, and integration to CAD and other tools will be examined. The result will be a long-term research and development program in these areas. The project is led by United Technologies of the USA. Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA are involved. There are twenty-one partners; seven companies, eleven universities and three research laboratories.
The partners in this project are shown in the table below.
Table of partners: Rapid product development
Partner Region
HPM Industries Pty Ltd Australia
QMI Australia
Swinburne University of Technology Australia*
Pratt & Whitney Canada Canada*
Cercast Canada
Ecole de Technology Superieure Canada
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal Canada
McMaster University Canada
National Research Council Canada
University of Western Ontario Canada
Daimler-Benz EC/Germany*
Mercedes Benz-AG EC/Germany
RPK, University of Karlsruhe EC/Germany
IPA FhG EC/Germany
United Technologies Corporation USA*
Sandia National Laboratories USA
Carnegie Mellon University USA
Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA
Purdue University USA
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute USA
University of Texas USA
* Consortium leader
Gnosis (Knowledge Systematisation: Configuration Systems for Design and Manufacturing) seeks to develop an approach to a post-mass-production paradigm. This paradigm would recognise the imbalances caused by the present global manufacturing environment: the growing scarcity of natural resources, the problem of environmental destruction, and the issue of regional trade imbalances. It also recognises the need for flexibility in production and product configuration leading towards integrated networks of producers and suppliers. The project is led by Mitsubishi Electric Company of Japan and involves all five regions. There are thirty-one partners; twenty-two companies, eight universities and two research institutes are involved. (The University of Calgary has supplied two partners.)
The partners in this project are shown in the table below.
Table of partners: Systematisation of knowledge Partner Region Alberta Research Council Canada* DME, University of Calgary Canada KSI, University of Calgary Canada ADEPA EC/France* Telemecanique EC/France ARM EC/France IBM France EC/France ITMI EC/France Man Roland EC/Germany Brose EC/Germany BICC EC/UK FAST-LLP EC/France IPA FhG EC/Germany Cambridge University EC/UK ABB EFTA/Finland* Tehdasmallit Oy EFTA/Finland Synergy Center Finland EFTA/Finland FIMET EFTA/Finland VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) EFTA/Finland Tampere University EFTA/Finland EPFL EFTA/Switzerland ETHZ EFTA/Switzerland Mitsubishi Electric Corporation Japan* Nissan Motors Ltd Japan Fuji Xerox Ltd Japan Kajima Construction Ltd Japan Shimizu Construction Ltd Japan University of Tokyo Japan Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan Kyushu Institute of Technology Japan Deneb USA*
* Consortium leader
The test cases themselves were industrially relevant and showed that a research program in the highly competitive area of manufacturing would attract first-class companies and universities and could be operated. The IMS feasibility study was a catalyst to form business-university networks and to resolve potential conflicts. Surprisingly, language and cultural differences did not prove to be a barrier. Rather, these differences added value to the projects and improved their quality in terms of scope, technical content and organisation. On balance, parties contributed to the success of the test cases and should benefit equitably from their results.
Regional funding mechanisms varied greatly, and this delayed the formation of some of the consortia. Intellectual property rights issues in some cases also contributed to delays.
The regional approach was useful in starting projects. However, many projects moved to a more direct form of management. Regional groups did prove useful in resolving some disputes.
The original balance of benefits has been achieved. This is true in the face of changing consortium members in some cases. The consortia benefitted from their members' ties to other networks. This was much of the reason that the test cases were able to come together quickly. Different funding mechanisms have created problems for some of the projects.
The test cases are well designed. The people and other resources are of high quality and up to the task. The attention of senior company and university officials has been engaged. All institutions are strongly committed to their projects. Collaboration is primarily horizontal, engaging technology users, developers, and suppliers.
Overheads are considered high, in the region of 25 - 30% of project costs. This was a learning experience and may be lowered in the future through the use of modern telecommunications practices. The study covered the start-up and early periods of the projects where overhead costs are concentrated.
TC2 Clean Manufacturing in Process Industries