http://manufacturing.georgiainnovation.org/highlights Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:10:29 GMT Feature Projects for Manufacturing /highlights/details/83 Title: Interaction and Learning for Autonomous Assembly Robots Proposal being submitted by: Andrea L. Thomaz and Henrik Christensen School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology 85 5th Street NW, TSRB Atlanta, GA 30308 Date of submission of Proposal: September 9, 2008 Proposed duration of project: 24 months * Body of Proposal 1. Title: Interaction and Learning for Autonomous Assembly Robots 2. Proposal being submitted by: Andrea L. Thomaz and Henrik Christensen School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology 3. Abstract The purpose of this project is to investigate the potential for feasible human cooperation with autonomous assembly robots that can perform useful, real work for assembly tasks. Human interaction, robot learning capability, flexible perception and cognitive behavior are to be integrated in a system that can be demonstrated in the role of “Co-Worker” for assembly tasks. 4. Introduction A new next generation of assembly robot(s) is anticipated that significantly reduce the reliance on fixturing, mechanical structure and conventional sense-plan-act programming. This capability enables assembly automation with a set of little or no more infrastructure requirements than would a completely manual process. These new assembly robots would exploit the existence of a flexible robot perception system as an integral component of a three part strategy that includes highly flexible robots/dexterous end effectors and integration/harmony with people also performing related tasks in the assembly process. The cognitive component of the perception system would facilitate the “assignment” of the automation to a set of assembly tasks and/or assistance to others performing a task not yet appropriate for automation. This capability will also enable the rapid “teaching” and “reassignment” of the robot(s) to other tasks as required by production mix and business needs. One of the objectives of this project is to leverage the existing work in the Socially Intelligent Machines research lab at Georgia Tech that can be applied toward human-robot interaction and collaboration at semantic level. Dr. Thomazâ€&trade;s research on Socially Guided Machine Learning (previously with the MIT Leonardo robot, and now with the GT Simon robot), itâ€&trade;s behavioral architecture and related development are all regarded as an excellent starting point for this work. We anticipate that a new generation of highly capable assembly robot mechanical designs will evolve in the future. Given this capability, the feasibility of their use for autonomous assembly hinges on the availability of new solutions for behavior, learning and interaction. 5. Work plan / Tasks One of the objectives of this project is to leverage the considerable existing work in the Socially Intelligent Machines research lab at Georgia Tech that can be applied toward human-robot interaction and collaboration at a semantic level. The existing visual and behavioral architecture are regarded as an excellent starting point for this activity. This project seeks to adapt the current work and extend it into the direction of manufacturing relevant assembly tasks in a learning and interactive “Co-Worker” environment. A capability demonstration is envisioned for showcasing the “co-worker” concept and challenging researchers in taking the existing state of development to the next level. Some aspects of the capability demonstration will be reverse engineered from the existing physical performance capabilities of the robots at Georgia Tech that will be used for this research. We plan to use two platforms for this research. One is a mobile manipulator (segway RMP + Kuka lightweight arm + Schunk hand). The other is an upper-torso humanoid robot (two arms, two hands, socially expressive head). Speed, payload, force levels, grasp and perception performance would all be considered in engineering the assembly tasks and components within a 3σ capability range. The “parts”, “tools” and tasks all should be recognizable as useful in an automotive context, but could be adapted for use by each robot platform. The domain of door-assembly has been chosen has the initial domain for task analysis and development of basic competencies. An array of tasks will be used to build a non trivial set of assembly sequences anywhere within the work envelope of the robot system. The demonstration would include interaction and teaching multiple sequences of operations and having the system re-execute the tasks with variability in initial conditions, part/task locations, and interaction. The following is a set of ideas and potential requirements to be considered in the formulation of a formal project proposal: • Non-trivial assembly: 5-10 parts, presented different locations/orientations or by hand, combined by insertion, snap fit, twist-lock, slots, Velcro, other forms of fasteners and using 3 different tools to set the orientation of part features or set fasteners with a total of at least 50 different combinations of possible outcomes (not counting all of these occurring at various positions). Parts could be a combination of prismatic, planar, rigid or flexible/compressible. An important aspect of the co-worker robot is that some assembly tasks may not be able to be done completely autonomously, it may be the case that for some tasks there are actions the robot can do, and other actions that it relies on the human partner to do. • Behavior and learned task build: Teaching or learning a task should build a dynamic list of interpreted commands and behaviors that could represent the tasks. This list (or other structure) could possibly be edited by the teacher or used to reverse the task sequence and indicate future intention. Another possible use of this behavior structure is export for use by another robot that is working similar tasks. Itâ€&trade;s envisioned that there should be a smooth transition from task element to element and the system should reason through unexpected contacts and retry operations. • Interaction: The learning process will be situated within a social interaction with a human partner. Thus the system should be able to recognize and respond to human gestures, behavior, spoken commands and other cues related to the teaching/learning interaction. Teleoperation and/or physical lead-through are possibilities for teaching or “coaching” the system into performing the tasks. Interaction could be human to robot, hand to hand, robot to robot, and robot to supporting automation. A dynamic, icon based display or other creative audio-visual-haptic method (ranging from mild to wild) could be used to indicate the current state of learning and intention to proceed with future states or tasks. Various types of help could be requested to facilitate learning or executing the tasks. One goal would be to include task familiarization and optimization such that the system improves its performance with experience in a way that is understandable and trusted by the human partner. In the execution phase of a learned task, and important part of the interaction will be the negotiation of roles. For example, in cases where the robot does part of the task and then needs the humanâ€&trade;s assistance to finish the task. • Sensing and Perception: Should be flexible enough to accommodate point of assy. and tool use with relative positioning for parts and tools in the grasp, location of intersection points for insertion and tool tip guidance. Force and tactile data and responses should be integrated into the various behaviors. • Safety: The system should exhibit behavior and situational awareness of human intention for safe movement response and task execution. • Architecture: It is anticipated that the enhancements to the existing algorithms and behavior subsystems could extend beyond the demonstration work and into future work with next generation robot hardware. Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:10:29 GMT /highlights/details/83 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/87 The profitability gap between companies that compete on the basis of innovative products or processes and firms that compete with a low-price advantage has more than doubled over the past three years, a new survey of Georgia manufacturers has found. Chart shows the growing profitability gap between companies that compete on the basis of innovative products or processes and firms that compete with a low-price advantage. The 2008 Georgia Manufacturing Survey also found that Georgia companies are making significant progress in adopting sustainable techniques â€" another form of innovation â€" though they tend to focus on short-term cost reduction rather than long-term profitability and growth. Results of the survey, done periodically to assess the business and technological condition of Georgiaâ€&trade;s manufacturing community, were released this week by the Enterprise Innovation Institute and the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The results are based on responses from 738 companies with more than 10 employees. “Innovation remains as important as ever,” said Philip Shapira, a professor in Georgia Techâ€&trade;s School of Public Policy and one of the studyâ€&trade;s co-authors. “Those Georgia companies that innovate receive rewards for doing so. But a significant number of companies still have not adopted innovation as a leading strategy.” The survey showed that companies competing on the basis of innovation had a three-year average return on sales of 14.5 percent â€" nearly twice the 7.6 percent average for companies competing with low prices. In the 2005 Georgia Manufacturing Survey, companies relying on innovation saw an average return on sales of 6.3 percent, compared to about 3.6 percent for the low-cost competitors. The gap between the rewards for these two competitive strategies nearly doubled during the 2005 to 2008 period. Slightly less than 20 percent of Georgia manufacturers compete based on price, compared to fewer than 10 percent that use innovation as the competitive edge, the study found. Half of Georgia manufacturers report gaining a competitive edge from quality products or services. Other strategies include quick delivery, adding value and adapting to customer needs. Wage rates are also associated with competitive strategy. Innovative companies pay an average of nearly $42,000 annually per employee, compared to a range of $33,000 to $37,000 for other firms. The survey studied innovation in products, processes, organizational structures and marketing. About 70 percent of the manufacturers responding to the survey report that they had introduced a new or technologically improved product or process in 2008. About three-quarters of the Georgia manufacturers report adopting at least one practice aimed at making their operations more sustainable. These include sustainability considerations in the choice of suppliers, selection of raw materials and processing techniques; application of sustainable principles to product design, processing, facility design, packaging and marketing; employee training in sustainable practices; logistics and transportation services; the use, re-use and maintenance of the product, and product “end-of-life” issues. However, only one in five Georgia manufacturers has an environmental stewardship program, and just 18 percent have set targets for reducing energy use in their facilities. Sustainability is defined as steps taken to minimize the use of natural resources, toxic materials, waste emissions and production materials over the life cycle of the product produced. But it also includes functions to expand sales, such as green branding and eco-labeling â€" not just cost savings benefits. “The importance of sustainability is driven by the growth in energy costs, the rise in the cost of natural resources and of waste disposal, and demand from customers who consider sustainability issues when making purchasing decisions,” said Jan Youtie, a study co-author and manager of policy services in the Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute. “In the broadest sense, sustainability is about sustaining business, so if manufacturers want to succeed long-term, they need to pay attention to environmental and equity issues, not just economics.” Manufacturers have long focused on cutting costs through approaches like lean manufacturing, and many companies see sustainability primarily as a way to further those efforts. Such viewpoints may miss important opportunities, Shapira warned. “Companies continue to focus on near-term cost savings and easily-achievable energy reductions,” he said. “Too few are pursuing the long-term investments in innovation and product lifecycle costing that would help sustain them over the long term.” Adoption of sustainable techniques varies with the size of companies. “We usually see that large companies adopt new technologies earlier and at a higher rate than small companies, and energy has an inherent scale issue,” Youtie noted. “But there are also benefits for small companies, which can be more agile in adapting to change.” The 2008 survey is the sixth in the series, and in each edition, manufacturers are asked their top concerns. In 2005, those issues related to process improvement through adoption of lean manufacturing principles. For the 2008 study, those concerns shifted, with a third of manufacturers indicating problems with marketing and sales. Concerns about energy cost grew, with 23 percent of respondents indicating a problem in that area â€" up from just 10 percent in the 1999 study. Educational needs also generated attention, with manufacturers concerned about workers having basic skills such as reading and mathematics, as well as more sophisticated technical abilities. Despite the concerns, however, company training investments per employee average only about $150 per year. The study also found a correlation between the use of public knowledge sources â€" such as technical or management assistance from Georgia Tech, other universities or public agencies â€" and higher productivity growth. Companies using outside assistance reported as much as 15 percent more value added for each employee. And despite its prominence in national public-policy discussions, research and development tax credits were used by only five percent of respondents. This percentage is in contrast to the 45 percent of respondents who said that lack of funds was an important limitation to engaging in innovation. “Taxes donâ€&trade;t really have a big impact on a companyâ€&trade;s strategic decision making,” said Shapira. “If they are doing to do research and development, theyâ€&trade;re going to do it regardless. If there are tax breaks available, some companies may apply for them, but we donâ€&trade;t find that the availability of tax credits much affects strategy decisions.” Support for the study came from the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership at Georgia Tech, the Center for Paper Business and Industry Services, the Georgia Department of Labor, the QuickStart Program of the Technical College System of Georgia, and Habif, Arogeti and Wynne, LLP. Beyond Shapira and Youtie, authors included Luciano Kay, Ashley Rivera, Bryan Lynch and Andrea Fernandez Ribas. For more details about the Georgia Manufacturing Survey or to download the 2008 report, please visit (www.cherry.gatech.edu/survey). Research News & Publications Office Georgia Institute of Technology 75 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 USA Media Relations Contacts: John Toon (404-894-6986); E-mail (jtoon@gatech.edu) or Nancy Fullbright (404-894-2214); E-mail: (nancy.fullbright@innovate.gatech.edu). Writer: John Toon Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:36:55 GMT /highlights/details/87 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/50 The staff of the Center of Innovation for Manufacturing is currently assisting entrepreneurial clients of the Manufacturing Development Center in Gainesville, Georgia. Products under development are related to everything from medical assisting to recreational devices. The COI for Manufacturing staff are providing design, development, and prototyping services to these entrepreneurs. The COI for Manufacturing staff is providing these services in a partnership with the MDC, as a vehicle to assist these entrepreneurs in getting their products to market as quickly as possible. A few of the innovations developed for these MDC clients have been custom control systems, reliability engineering and safety designs. "At the COI for Manufacturing, the singular goal is to retain and grow manufacturing jobs throughout the state of Georgia through workforce development, technology transfer, and the support of entrepreneurs and smaller companies. In short, Georgia manufacturers find the advanced manufacturing guidance and training they need to make technology work for them," said Tim Bala, Coordinator at the COI for Manufacturing. Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:31:19 GMT /highlights/details/50 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/23 "If you build it, they will come." This quote from the 1989 movie Field of Dreams was referred to Kevin Costner turning his corn field into a baseball field - and the ghosts of the 1919 Chicago White Sox showing up to play. For Jay Menefee, President and CEO of the ammunition company Polywad, Inc, nothing is more true than this quote. After 11 years in Monroe County, Polywad is building a brand new facility in an industrial park in rural Crawford County. Once Polywad relocates, "they" - meaning the United States military - will come to purchase a new and advanced type of ammunition. The new ammunition, a 12-gauge shotgun shell called the "doorbreacher", must be manufactured according to strict military specifications; thus, a new facility meeting the military requirements is being built to produce this ammunition. "From the indoor firing range to new safety procedures and quality control issues, everything must meet Department of Defense standards," explained Menefee. The military standards may seem extremely high, but the shotgun shell is extremely sophisticated and highly advanced. Specially designed to blow up doors, this shotgun shell utilizes a variety of small components to control a tremendous amount of energy in a very safe manner. "The technology used to produce the shell is really an outgrowth of improvements we've worked on for years," said Menefee. "We've basically taken a regular shotgun shell and made it more useful." To help complete the successful development of this technology, Polywad has received a $7,500 research grant through the Center of Innovation for Manufacturing. which is located in Gainesville, Georgia. The COI research grant impacts the process by funding the development of two key elements: one, the automation process of this complex shotgun shell into a working system; and two, the establishment of an approved quality control system. "Working with Polywad to develop automated processes for the new plant is a great example of how the COI for Manufacturing and the entire COI program help companies innovate and grow new jobs in Georgia," said Judy Parks, director of the center. Another way the COI for Manufacturing is assisting in implementing these elements and helping Polywad adhere to the government's specifications, is connecting Polywad to quality expert, Dennis Kelly from the Center for International Standards & Quality at Georgia Tech. "My main jobs are assisting in optimizing the design of the ammunition and optimizing the methods of manufacturing," said Kelly. Kelly will also be establishing a quality control system utilizing ISO 9001. It is the most widely used quality management system standard in the world. In addition, the government has asked that Six Sigma tools be used in the process too so that they get more for their money. The Six Sigma tool kit helps optimize the project from start to finish. "Polywad has always maintained one of the best quality products on the ammunition market without formal quality management systems in place," said Kelly. "However, the government contract requires these formal systems to be implemented, and it just makes good business sense too." Kelly will also assist in integrating the automation of the ammunition. As far as the manufacturing of the ammunition, no one has ever needed this many small parts in this process, so off-the-shelf manufacturing machines are not available. "It's more complex and difficult than previous efforts," said Kelly. The prime benefits, however, of automation in this case are consistent quality and lower cost." From a timeframe perspective, Kelly and Menefee hope to have the systems in place and the ammunition being produced in about another year. "With the facility and new abilities that we are developing with the help of the COI for Manufacturing and Dennis, we will be able to increase our manufacturing in non-military areas too, such as sporting shotshells, and we are already getting serious inquiries from firms needing more production," said Menefee. "We hope to triple our number of employees within the year." ### Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:24:03 GMT /highlights/details/23 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/13 Last January, the Forsyth County Alliance Robotics team found themselves staring at a box of junk - sprockets, wires, motors, gears, processors and more. From this pile, they were to design and build a robot in six weeks that could play basketball. The task was part of the FIRST - For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology - worldwide annual robotics competition. For this rookie robotics team, the task went well beyond building a robot. The competition teaches real world engineering and technology concepts while encouraging teamwork, community outreach, partnerships with businesses and professional and cooperative behavior. "The winner of the competition is not the team that builds the best robot," said Rick Folea, engineering mentor for Forsyth Alliance. "It is the team that demonstrates gracious professionalism and makes the most impact in their community." Comprised of students from three area high schools in Forsyth County, the team not only built a working robot, but learned aspects of how to run a small business. Everything from writing a business plan, creating the product, obtaining capital, balancing a budget, marketing the product and time management were included in the competition process. "The challenges of the competition were similar to those of real world engineering," said Rick. "Our team had limited time, money and materials." Those challenges however, did not hinder the team. In fact, the team won several awards for their creation - Otto. At the regional competition the team won the Rookie All-Star Award and the Imagery Award; and, at the national competition in Atlanta this past April, the team once again won the Imagery Award, which no rookie team had ever accomplished before. "Our team put a lot of effort into creating a brand and image for their robot," said Rick. "We created a unique and memorable product with everything from our robot's logo to our team uniforms, booth and marketing materials." After the competition, Rick decided the team needed to see how robots perform in the real world. Robots are widely used in manufacturing processes, such as building a car. To see robots in a manufacturing setting, Rick arranged a tour of the Center for Innovation for Manufacturing located on the campus of Lanier Technical College in Gainesville. As part of their community outreach, Forsyth invited the rookie Lumpkin County robotics team to tour the COI for Manufacturing with them. "The COI for Manufacturing serves as the epicenter for the latest in manufacturing technology in Georgia," said Judy Parks, Director of the center. "The center's state-of-the-art facilities and technologies provide a wonderful opportunity to introduce students of all ages to advanced manufacturing concepts including robotics and much more." During the tour, sparks flew as robots demonstrated welding techniques in center's robotic welding lab. "It was good for the teams to see other robots in action," said Rick. "This tour gave the teams a chance to observe real world robots working. For example, our welding robots are the same as those used on the factory floor at Kubota and other companies," said Judy. The COI for Manufacturing looks forward to partnering with the Forsyth County Alliance team and other robotics teams in the near future. "We have the same goals - to educate students about advanced manufacturing and robotics," said Judy. Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:35:05 GMT /highlights/details/13 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/1 If the saying "You can't get there until you know where you are going" is true, ZF Industries will definitely reach their goal - with the help of a process improvement "map" known as Value Stream Analysis provided via the Center of Innovation for Manufacturing. Tracy Sykes, Lean Coordinator for ZF Industries, said "the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing," with respect to the formerly cumbersome internal process involved in the timely tracking and mailing of "charge backs" - a term used when a ZF vendor is charged back for time lost due to a problem caused by the vendor such as a wrong part being sent to ZF. "Judy Parks and Tim Bala with the COI for Manufacturing assured us our problem was solvable," said Sykes. "They introduced me to 'Value Stream Analysis,' a process mapping tool as a method for identifying roadblocks." By utilizing Value Stream Analysis and working closely with the center, Tracy and his team were able pinpoint the issues associated with the charge back processing system. "Basically, we had a lot of duplication of efforts; and, people in different areas of our company didn't have a clear understanding of how their role in charge backs impacted the entire process." Once the roadblocks were identified a new method of identifying, recording and delivering charge back data to the vendor was established. "We are now in the training phase," said Sykes. "Right now, we have implemented about 80% of the new process and are working hard at integrating the remaining 20%. Everyone has a much clearer understanding of the importance of the charge back function and what their function is in the process." For more information about Value Stream Analysis, Lean Manufacturing, other process improvement systems or the latest in robotic training, call the COI for Manufacturing at 770.531.6350. Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:36:10 GMT /highlights/details/1 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/24 Manufacturers in Georgia share a common, and very real, concern: maintaining the flow of a workforce skilled in high-tech manufacturing. With that in mind, the Center of Innovation for Manufacturing in Gainesville is assisting students in gaining a competitive edge by offering workforce development camps focused on advanced manufacturing. The COI for Manufacturing conducted interactive robotics and motor sports camps in December at their state-of-the art facilities on the campus of Lanier Technical College. The participating students from area high schools were chosen by graduation coaches to attend the camps. Workforce development is one of the main goals for center. The center provides customized training for current industry employees using their advanced robotics equipment - but the center's team is also looking to the future. For Georgia companies to stay competitive, a highly skilled workforce who can effectively utilize advanced equipment is crucial. "We conducted the camps to show high school students the variety of jobs available in the advanced manufacturing and motor sports fields and to demonstrate the types of skills and education needed for these jobs," explained Judy Parks, COI for Manufacturing director. "We want these students to be excited about high-tech manufacturing jobs and stay in school to get the skills and education needed to gain future employment in these fields." During the two-day interactive camps, fourteen high school students from Hall County and Gainesville City high schools participated in a variety of activities designed to let them experience real-world manufacturing and motor sports jobs/careers. In the robotics camp participants learned, through hands-on activities, how industrial robots operate. They even used a robotic welding cell to produce parts. For Eric Stephens, a senior at North Hall High school, the robotics camp was so different from his high school experience with robots. "We have some robots at school, but we must move them by joystick," he said. "During the camp, we were able to make the robots move by using computers - it was very exciting." With thoughts of a career in welding, the robotics camp helped him preview the opportunities available to him at Lanier Tech after graduation. Pat Zaudtke, Related Vocational Instruction Coordinator (RVI) for North Hall High School was extremely impressed by the robotics camp and cannot wait to take students back. "I was most impressed by how the instructors and Judy coordinated with our students and made them a part of the process," said Pat. Michael Ramirez, a ninth grader, and J.C. Frazier an eleventh grader from Johnson High School are using the robotics camp as a springboard for more learning. "The robotics camp was very informative and detailed," said Frazier. "It was a really good experience for me since I want to go into the technology field and possibly attend Lanier Tech." Michael Ramierz said, "If it has to do with technology I'm there. We were able to weld an airplane and make name plates with the robots. I was amazed at how fast the robots moved to accomplish the commands." Regina Sailors, RVI coordinator for Johnson High School was extremely proud her students took time from their winter break to participate in something that will impact their futures. "The students realized the skills they have learned in high school can be applied in the real world," said Regina. "She said they want to know when the next camps will be held." In the motor sports camp the students learned what it takes to run a high-tech racing program, which included spending one day in hands-on pit crew training. Students also learned about the engines that power racing vehicles. Seniors Saul Sanchez and Freddy Sanchez of North Hall High school, both with an interest in cars, described the motor sports camp as "pretty awesome." For Saul it is the "inside" or the engine that interests him most saying, "The camp was good for me because I grew up repairing cars, and I would like to take classes at Lanier Tech one day." Freddy likes to work on the outside and has an interest in the fabrication of cars. He said, "I would like to put cars together or put them back together." He also hopes to take classes at Lanier Tech after graduation. In addition to the hands-on activities during the camps, a Lunch and Learn series provided an opportunity for local manufacturers, including Caterpillar, ZF Industries and Indalex, to speak to the students about advanced manufacturing opportunities available in their companies and emphasize the importance of staying in school to prepare for these jobs. "Networking is not an easy task," said Jennifer Rudeseal, Graduation Coach for North Hall High School. "Our students were able to network, get business cards and gain valuable real-world experience." The COI for Manufacturing held the robotics and motor sports camps as a pilot and hopes to implement the camps in other schools throughout the state in the future. In April, the center will conduct additional camps focusing on middle school students. "The high school students who participated in the winter camps took advantage of learning how to gain the competitive edge in the workforce," said Judy. "We hope to encourage more students to gain the skills needed to make Georgia a magnet for manufacturing." Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:41:03 GMT /highlights/details/24 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/7 "Drinking from a fire hose" is the vivid description R.K. Whitehead, President of Whitehead Die Casting in Gainesville, gives regarding how a 20 percent growth rate and shortened lead times from customers affected his company. "Our product is solid, but our internal operating system was out of date, resulting in inefficiencies. We needed to be nimble enough to meet customer requirements and we had to change our production philosophy to make that happen." A family owned business since the 1950's, Whitehead manufactures custom aluminum and zinc die cast parts primarily for the lighting and construction industries. In the past, the company had 4 weeks lead time to produce work for customers. Over the last few years that time has gradually decreased. Currently, 70 percent of the company's clients need a 2 to 14 day product turnaround. Global competition - the ability of overseas companies to produce products quickly and cost effectively - is an issue in the manufacturing industry as a whole, explained R.K. "The world really is flat," he said, a reference to "The World is Flat", Thomas Friedman's book about world economics. "I say we have to use our brains. Basically, work smarter not harder." To that end, R.K. began working with the Center of Innovation for Manufacturing. The center, housed on the Lanier Technical College campus, provides direct services to manufacturers, including lean manufacturing training, to improve the efficiency, profitability and long-term viability of United States based companies. Judy Parks and Tim Bala worked with the company to design a plan to create a more efficient operation. "We started with value stream mapping, a beginning point for the lean manufacturing process. We reviewed where our company is now and where we want to be," said R.K. "The COI for Manufacturing staff helped us develop the framework for a more efficient work flow; once the areas of wasted effort and energy were identified, we started eliminating them, one by one." From creating more orderly, visual work areas to developing better systems for managing documents, the center's team worked hand in hand with Whitehead to affect change. R.K. notes the company has made a lot progress and looks forward to continuing to implement lean concepts in every area of the organization. "Our managers received training in the beginning, making them champions of the effort," said R.K. Now, he reports a sense of orderliness as well as renewed enthusiasm among employees. Not to mention the ability to meet those shortened lead times with a quality product. Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:30:46 GMT /highlights/details/7 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/100 <b>Januaryâ€&trade;s Georgia Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) ends long decline. New orders‚ production and employment are up!</b> There is some good news to report for Georgia manufacturers. After a steady decline that started last summer, it is great to have the bleeding stop, for the time being at least. There was an increase in new orders, production and employment in Georgiaâ€&trade;s manufacturing sector in January, 2009. This news must be taken with the understanding that the PMI index also indicates that we are still a far reach from being in an expansion mode. Regardless, any good news is great news for Georgiaâ€&trade;s manufacturers right now. Georgiaâ€&trade;s Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) , a reading of economic activity in the stateâ€&trade;s manufacturing sector, is a composite of five variables â€" new orders‚ production‚ employment‚ supply deliveries and finished inventory. The PMI‚ compiled from a monthly survey of manufacturers‚ is the earliest indicator of market conditions in the sector. A PMI reading above 50 indicates that manufacturing activity is expanding. A reading below 50 indicates the manufacturing industry is contracting. “The latest PMI signals a possible turnaround from its low point in December‚” said Don Sabbarese‚ professor of economics and director of the Econometric Center at the Coles College of Business. “But‚ at the same time‚ the reading paints a picture of a very weak manufacturing sector.” More survey participants reported higher levels of new orders and production in January than they did in the last five months. New orders were up by 10 points‚ to 32.7. Production also edged higher‚ expanding by 10.7 points to 28.8. More participants also reported higher employment â€"â€" which was up by 14.2 points â€"â€" but it remains very weak at 34.6. While these numbers are still considered weak, the shift to positive numbers in these key categories is a welcome sight and a good starting point for Georgiaâ€&trade;s manufacturing sector. To give you an idea of how it has been going lately, below are Georgiaâ€&trade;s PMI numbers for the past few months: * January ‘09 â€" 35.4 * December ‘08 â€" 26.8 * November ‘08 â€" 32.7 * October â€&trade;08 â€" 34 * September â€&trade;08 â€" 39.6 * August â€&trade;08 â€" 47.9 * July â€&trade;08 â€" 49.6 * June â€&trade;08 â€" 49.6 For more information about the latest report please visit the following link: <a href="http://news.kennesaw.edu/access/newsreleases2.asp?dt=980">http://news.kennesaw.edu/access/newsreleases2.asp?dt=980</a>. *Special thanks to the Kennesaw State University Econometric Center. <b>Trend to note:</b> In GA, as layoffs continue to mount, there has been an increase in enrollment in technical colleges, technical college degrees awarded and the amount of work ready certificates that have been awarded. There was growth from 2007 â€" 2008 and FY 2009 is ahead of 2008 at this time last year. Georgians are preparing themselves for the economic turnaround and our workforce is ready to take advantage of the upswing. Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:08:45 GMT /highlights/details/100 info@georgiainnovation.org /highlights/details/105 The February Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) reports more positive news for Georgia manufacturers. Due to an increase in production, new orders and inventory, Georgiaâ€&trade;s PMI score for February is up again, for the second month in a row. New orders are up for a third consecutive month moving up 8.4 points in February while production rose 10.4 points. This is especially good news compared to the national numbers which showed a decrease in new orders while having an improved overall PMI score of less than a point. US overall industrial production fell 1.4% in February. Georgiaâ€&trade;s February PMI score is 40.4, an increase of 5.0 points, compared to a National PMI score of 35.8. While Georgiaâ€&trade;s overall score continues to improve, there was a decline of 4.3 points in the employment sector of this report. This indicates that manufacturers are continuing to hold a tight rein on their workforce, doing more with less. Though a PMI score of 40.4 still shows the manufacturing sector in a state that is short of a true expansion mode, Georgia fares far better than the national average, making Georgia one of the most attractive places for the future of manufacturing in the US. Please visit the links below for more information on the PMI report from Kennesaw State Universityâ€&trade;s Econometric Center and for more information on the national picture. <a href="http://econometric-center.org/Main/default.aspx?resource=Home">http://econometric-center.org/Main/default.aspx?resource=Home</a> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=worldwide&sid=aKo5Ol3aQgO8">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=worldwide&sid=aKo5Ol3aQgO8</a>. Georgiaâ€&trade;s Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) , a reading of economic activity in the stateâ€&trade;s manufacturing sector, is a composite of five variables â€" new orders‚ production‚ employment‚ supply deliveries and finished inventory. The PMI‚ compiled from a monthly survey of manufacturers‚ is the earliest indicator of market conditions in the sector. A PMI reading above 50 indicates that manufacturing activity is expanding. A reading below 50 indicates the manufacturing industry is contracting. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:39:55 GMT /highlights/details/105 info@georgiainnovation.org