Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 25
Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory
25
OCR for page 26
26
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NIST MEASUREMENT AND STANDARDS LABORATORIES: FY 2003
PANEL MEMBERS
Marvin F. DeVries, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Chair
Richard A. Curless, UNOVA Manufacturing Technologies, Vice Chair
Hadi A. Akeel, FANUC Robotics NA, Inc. (retired)
Christopher P. Ausschnitt, IBM Microelectronics Division
Robert Bridges, Faro Technologies
Richard J. Furness, Ford Motor Company
Marion B. Grant, Jr., Cummins Technical Center
David E. Hardt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mark C. Malburg, Digital Metrology Solutions, Inc.
Eugene S. Meieran, Intel Corporation
Carmen M. Pancerella, Sandia National Laboratories
Jay Ramanathan, Concentus Technology Corporation
Wolfgang H. Sachse, Cornell University
Arthur C. Sanderson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Masayoshi Tomizuka, University of California, Berkeley
Peter M. Will, Information Sciences Institute/University of Southern California
David H. Youden, Eastman Kodak Company
Submitted for the panel by its Chair, Marvin F. DeVries, and its Vice Chair, Richard A. Curless, this
assessment of the fiscal year 2003 activities of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory is based on
site visits by individual panel members, a formal meeting of the panel on March 25-26, 2003, in
Gaithersburg, Maryland, and the documents provided by the laboratory.
Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Programs of the
Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory 2003, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Md., 2002.
OCR for page 27
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING LABORATORY
27
LABORATORY-LEVEL REVIEW
The mission of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) is to satisfy the measurements
and standards needs of U.S. manufacturers in mechanical and dimensional metrology and in advanced
manufacturing technology by conducting research and development, providing services, and participat-
ing in standards activities. The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory is organized in five divisions: the
Precision Engineering Division (PED), Manufacturing Metrology Division (MMD), Intelligent Systems
Division (ISD), Manufacturing Systems Integration Division (MSID), and Fabrication Technology
Division (FTD) (see Figure 3.1~. The first four divisions are reviewed in this report. This chapter
provides an assessment of the laboratory overall, and division-level reviews are presented in Chapter 10.
| Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory l
-_- d_~
Precision Engineering 1 1 1 D'v~s~on l l ~ Perception Systems
· Nanoscale Metrology · Mass and Force · Knowledge Systems
· Surface and Microform · Machine Tool Metrology · Control Systems
Metrology · Manufacturing Process · Machine Systems
· Engineering Metrology Metrology · Systems Integration
· Large-Scale Coordinate · Sensor Development and
Metrology ~ Application
Manufacturing Systems
Integration Division
· Design and Process
· Enterprise Systems
· Manufacturing Simulation
and Modeling
· Manufacturing Standards
Metrology
Fabrication Technology Division
FIGURE 3.1 Organizational structure of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory. Listed under each division
are its groups.
OCR for page 28
28
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NIST MEASUREMENT AND STANDARDS LABORATORIES: FY 2003
Major Observations
The panel presents the following major observations from its assessment of the Manufacturing
Engineering Laboratory:
· All divisions were found to be doing excellent technical work in general. For the programs
evaluated, the divisions in many cases were able to demonstrate that their activities were focused on the
programs determined essential and most important to their mission. In certain cases, projects need
reevaluation and redirection on the basis of work done elsewhere, and some shifts in priorities need to
take place.
· Many projects represent world-class initiatives. Exemplary projects include the microforce real-
ization and the XCALIBIR (X-ray Optics Calibration Interferometer) projects (in MMD); the Intelligent
Control of Mobility Systems project (in ISD); contributions to the STEP (Standard for the Exchange of
Product model data) initiative (in MSID); and the scanned probe oxidation lithographic technique,
application of the Monte Carlo technique to metrology for precision engineering, and the advanced
capabilities of the M48 coordinate measurement machine (CMM) (in PED). PED's efforts in establish-
ing reference standards for bullet and casing markings are also significant achievements relevant to an
important social need.
· A formal process and format should be established for planning and reporting project time lines
and displaying a clear roadmap of current and planned activities, with a focus on continual process
improvement.
· The panel's discussions with MEL management and technical staff suggest that the matrix
management process is beginning to work (e.g., it is facilitating 14 MEL cross-divisional projects) and
that the organization is becoming comfortable with it (e.g., project leaders are having more input into the
performance appraisals of the staff they oversee).
· Systematic collaboration among the divisions is showing progress. An overview of crosscutting
programs should be presented for the panel at the division reviews to show how these programs relate to
the division's activities and how effectively the divisions are performing within these programs. The
success of division collaboration can be expanded to embrace other NIST laboratories.
· MEL is working effectively to broaden its customer base and is establishing processes to identify
best initiatives to help customers. Management has initiated workshops and forums, made trips to key
customers, and provided communications among government, industry, academia, and associations.
Projects need to consider a life-cycle plan that addresses bringing a project to a conclusion and includes
a deployment plan to deliver the project results effectively to the target customers.
· Best practices and evaluations of the state of the art are needed that consider work accomplished
and are then used to determine what and how new projects are to be developed. Data gathered from
workshops, forums, published works, and standards committees can be used to prepare gap analyses that
can be used to help determine needs and priorities.
Technical Quality and Merit
The quality of research in the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory is high overall; in general, all
divisions are doing excellent technical work. In some areas, MEL work is state of the art relative to work
being performed worldwide. The laboratory appropriately emphasizes collaborative work. In general,
the staff remains competent and motivated to fulfill roles of technical leadership.
Following are examples of projects demonstrating a high level of technical quality and merit:
OCR for page 29
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING LABORATORY
29
· Within the Precision Engineering Division:
Significant advances in fundamental understanding in the areas of scanning electron micros-
copy (SEM) and optical microscopy continued in 2002. This work is central to the efforts of the division
and is of value to industry in both critical dimension and overlay metrology. Closely interacting with the
industry consortium International SEMATECH (ISMT), the division has provided critical guidance to
metrology efforts in the semiconductor industry. The model-based line width metrology is finding
acceptance among SEM manufacturers, and the overlay research and tool development are central to
overlay benchmarking and calibration.
The staff of the Surface and Microform Metrology Group are highly regarded in the technical
community; their work is world-leading despite the fact that in some cases NIST instrumentation is
lagging behind that currently available in industrially based laboratories. The group is very involved in
national and international standardization for surface metrology and has made significant contributions
to these standards for example, the ASME-B46.1 standard and the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) surface texture series of standards. The group's utilization of existing resources
has been effective in recent projects, including those on standardized bullets and casings, hardness
traceability, uncertainty reductions, and the calibration of Type-D roughness artifacts.
The Large-Scale Coordinate Metrology Group developed a laser-tracker calibration system for
the Naval Surface Weapons Center for application to missile launch from submarines. The group is
investigating ways to precisely measure propeller dimensions while simultaneously machining the
propeller. These sorts of collaborative projects keep NIST at the forefront of large-scale metrology.
The Engineering Metrology Group's M48 Moore Special Tool CMM is world-leading, with an
error of 1 micrometer or less anywhere in its volume. It is used for length traceability and for evaluation
of two-dimensional CMM traceability artifacts and other calibrations. The group' s gage block calibra-
tion capability is world-class, and ongoing research into the effects of deformation and surface finish are
maintaining this traceability program at this level.
.
~7 ~ 1 ~7
Within the Manufacturing Metrology Division:
The work on microforce measurements represents significant progress. Its impact is signifi-
cant, the technology challenges have been clearly identified, and a detailed technical plan has been
developed. This project is progressing toward establishing the reference standard for small force mea-
surement.
The advanced optics metrology program is well focused on areas of significant need and is of
high technical quality. The XCALIBIR project is focused on an area of significant metrology need in
semiconductor manufacturing. The laboratory capability and technical results are world-class.
~ . . ^. . .. . ..
, ~ , . .
~lgnl~lcant collaborative work is being successfully performed in the mass measurement arena
using the Silicon Sphere.
· Within the Intelligent Systems Division:
The competence development and infrastructure program develops fundamental competence
in areas of broad relevance to the division. It also provides a framework within which intelligent systems
technologies can be evaluated, specified, and integrated by the manufacturing industry.
The division's accomplishments on Department of Defense unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs)
include successful demonstrations of NIST real-time control (RTC) controlled robotic vehicles and the
publication of a reference model architecture for UGVs. The NIST team is among the world leaders in
UGV technology.
Work on the development of an interoperability testbed for intelligent open architecture manu-
facturing systems is of high quality.
OCR for page 30
30
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NIST MEASUREMENT AND STANDARDS LABORATORIES: FY 2003
· Within the Manufacturing Systems Integration Division:
The division is engaged in high-quality work at several levels of abstraction in system integra-
tion capabilities: standards and measurements, process representation, integration, modeling capabili-
ties, and the use of software to enhance manufacturing performance.
The interoperability project is well planned and represents a best-practice area demonstrating
creative application of the principles of logic.
Significant opportunities in the MEL for further progress and development of technical work in-
clude these:
· Achieving an improved process of planning and of continual process improvement, as well as
improved reporting technical merit through a more consistent program and project planning format that
describes a time line and schedule for a project, includes a budget and financial summary, and provides
a summary of critical issues and interdependent steps planned.
· Expanded collaboration with other national engineering laboratories. Examples might include the
University of Michigan and Sandia National Laboratories for reference testing; Ohio State University
and the University of Illinois for predictive process engineering; and ISO TC213, ASME B89, Applicon
Bravo, PTC (ProNC), and Lockheed Martin for STEP-NC (STEP numerical control) and STEP-
CMM. Partnership with the Oak Ridge Y12 Metrology Laboratory could be explored to provide CMM
calibration service during the move to the Advanced Measurement Laboratory and on an ongoing basis.
· Performing industrial deployment tracking that involves user penetration and an emphasis on
manufacturing engineering partnership, taking the STEP project as a good benchmark.
Program Relevance and Effectiveness
The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory has a unique role to play in U.S. manufacturing through
its expertise in measurements and standards. Generally the work of MEL is both relevant to the needs of
customers (industry, government, and/or other NIST laboratories) and performed and disseminated
effectively. Examples include the following:
· Within the Precision Engineering Division:
The Nanoscale Metrology program extends dimensional metrology to the submicron scale,
providing standards, measurement capability, and measurement uncertainty guidelines for the semicon-
ductor and nanotechnology industries.
Advances in fundamental scanning electron microscopy and optical microscopy are of value to
industry in both critical dimension and overlay metrology.
Through work on the Advanced Metrology Advisory Group (AMAG) 4 benchmarking wafer,
a joint ISMTINIST project, researchers have played a significant role in establishing a common artifact
for SEM, scatterometry, electrical probe comparisons, and line-edge roughness evaluations.
The surface and microform metrology work has produced significant contributions to national
and international standardization for surface metrology, including the ASME-B46.1 and ISO surface
texture series of standards. Utilization of existing resources has been effective in recent relevant projects,
such as standardized bullets and casings, hardness traceability, uncertainty reductions, and the calibra-
tion of Type-D roughness artifacts.
The engineering metrology work manages and reduces the uncertainty contribution of the
traceability of length, location, spacing measurements, and other traditional geometric and dimensional
OCR for page 31
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING LABORATORY
3
tolerancing (GD&T)-type dimensional controls (e.g., roundness, cylindricity, perpendicularity, and
angle). This resource is used by many customers.
The large-scale metrology work characterizes, evaluates, and improves instruments that mea-
sure coordinates at lengths greater than 1 m. Collaborative projects keep NIST at the forefront of large-
scale metrology and boost industrial productivity.
· Within the Manufacturing Metrology Division:
In its role as the nation's reference laboratory for the units of mass, force, vibration, and sound
pressure, MMD provides calibration services, develops advanced methods for mechanical metrology,
and develops national and international standards. This role is critical for the nation's manufacturing
industry for distributed international manufacturing and commerce. The division retains world-class
capabilities and has state-of-the-art facilities for a number of metrology services, including the
XCALIBIR and the Microforce projects.
The division acts as a catalyst for collaborative efforts in manufacturing and mechanical
metrology technology among government, industry, and academia.
· Within the Intelligent Systems Division:
The Critical Infrastructure Protection program is relevant to the homeland security efforts,
especially the need for protection of the nation's infrastructure.
The Intelligent Open Architecture Control of Manufacturing Systems program has relevance
to U.S. Army and homeland security needs; its fundamental aspects can and should be applied to
manufacturing as well.
· Within the Manufacturing Systems Integration Division:
The division manages both basic research and applied research and development tasks well in
service to customers in government, academia, and industry.
MSID is heavily engaged in work on interoperability issues, addressing how rapidly changing
components of the manufacturing enterprise work together. The rapid and accelerating pace of change
encourages manufacturing engineers to work with MSID, which fills a niche in the manufacturing
environment not filled by other university, national laboratory, or vendor programs.
The division's direct impact on the manufacturing customer base can be significant. As one
example, MSID's involvement in STEP, a highly visible and highly successful program that has saved
industry approximately a billion dollars, was essential to this program's success.
The prestigious Department of Commerce Gold Medal was awarded to a staff member for his
fundamental advances in the science and technology of the fabrication and dimensional and electrical
characterization of nanoelectronic devices, and the Bronze Medal was awarded to a division team for
outstanding support and technical contributions in the fabrication and assembly of the Charters of
Freedom encasements that protect the parchments of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,
and the Bill of Rights. These awards, along with others (e.g., the Jacob Rabinow Applied Research
Award to the team working in applications of robotics to unmanned ground vehicles; the Judson C.
French award to the team providing mass metrology calibration services and to a division member
responsible for achievement in the development of national traceability for the Rockwell C-Scale
Hardness Test; a Crittendon Award in recognition of a division member's superior technical instrument
manufacturing and customer service; and additional external awards), provide evidence of the recog-
nized effectiveness of the research done in MEL.
OCR for page 32
32
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NIST MEASUREMENT AND STANDARDS LABORATORIES: FY 2003
TABLE 3.1 Sources of Funding for the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (in millions of
dollars), FY 2000 to FY 2003
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2000 2001 2002 2003
Source of Funding (actual) (actual) (actual) (July 2003 estimate)
NIST-STRS, excluding Competence 27.3 29.1 30.7 32.5
Competence 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4
ATP 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.5
Measurement Services (SRM production) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
OA/NFG/CRADA 6.1 6.1 6.9 5.1
Other Reimbursable 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.0
Total 41.5 42.7 44.8 44.6
Full-time permanent staff (totally 232 211 204 202
NOTE: Funding for the NIST Measurement and Standards Laboratories comes from a variety of sources. The laboratories
receive appropriations from Congress, known as Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) funding. Compe-
tence funding also comes from NIST's congressional appropriations but is allocated by the NIST director's of lice in multiyear
grants for projects that advance NIST's capabilities in new and emerging areas of measurement science. Advanced Technol-
ogy Program (ATP) funding reflects support from NIST's ATP for work done at the NIST laboratories in collaboration with or
in support of ATP projects. Funding to support production of Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) is tied to the use of such
products and is classified as "Measurement Services." NIST laboratories also receive funding through grants or contracts from
other [government] agencies (OA), from nonfederal government (NFG) agencies, and from industry in the form of cooperative
research and development agreements (CRADAs). All other laboratory funding, including that for Calibration Services, is
grouped under "Other Reimbursable."
aThe number of full-time permanent staff is as of January of that fiscal year.
Laboratory Resources
Funding sources for the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory are shown in Table 3.1. In January
2003, staffing for the laboratory included 202 full-time permanent positions, of which 134 were for
technical professionals. There were also 25 nonpermanent or supplemental personnel, such as post-
doctoral research associates and temporary or part-time workers. The decline in staff continues to
represent a significant area of concern, requiring careful management of priorities. This problem will
continue to require thoughtful planning about which projects to begin and which to close.
MEL's funding remains flat relative to previous years. While this results in constraints, including
the inability to maintain personnel levels (as cost per individual rises annually), a flat budget is, relative
to budgets experienced by the industrial sector in the current economy, enviable. Nonetheless, the fact
that the full-time permanent staff of the laboratory has shrunk in the past several years continues to
present considerable challenges for MEL management as it seeks to address technical goals, objectives,
and priorities of the laboratory.
While recognizing the challenge of managing under such difficult resource constraints, the panel in
last year's report suggested that MEL could improve the use of its resources through more specific
resource planning, and that progress in MEL strategic planning should be made to match MEL's
resource planning. The panel suggested at that time the need for a resource plan that encompasses
OCR for page 33
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING LABORATORY
33
human resources, equipment, and facilities and that is integrated with the MEL strategic plan to ensure
that resources are available for and directed toward the laboratory' s highest-priority programs. MEL's
FY 2003 strategic plan has incorporated a number of these elements; the panel commends that effort. It
suggests further that graphical time line representation (showing planned milestones, project subgoals,
and interdependencies of project activities) for major programs and activities (e.g., the move to the
Advanced Measurement Laboratory) would provide detail that the panel requires in order to offer more
constructive feedback.
The panel previously suggested that MEL define a plan for predicting the mix of skills it will need
in order to achieve major objectives and that it chart how to maintain or obtain these skills. The panel
recognizes that no manager can perfectly predict retirements, separations, or available new hires, but
anticipating these events to the extent feasible and developing a strategy to ensure that the necessary
skill mix is available for the future will help increase the effectiveness of MEL's use of resources and of
its programs overall. MEL should perform an analysis to determine an effective balance between
administrative staff and technical staff and also between managers and bench-level staff.
The matrix management approach that MEL has taken to meeting its programmatic objectives is
appropriate, and staff seem to have adapted well to matrix management. MEL management has taken
steps to assure that staff are assessed by supervisors who are familiar with their project requirements and
accomplishments .
Existing equipment within MEL is generally acceptable. The laboratory has prepared a detailed
document providing information on equipping the AML, although a summarized presentation of its key
information would be helpful. The AML offers the capability to do world-class work in a number of
important areas; its construction and equipment moves are considered by MEL to be on schedule and
within budget. MEL should be sure to provide timely and effective avenues of replacement and backup
services for equipment that is taken out of service during the move.
Laboratory Responsiveness
The panel continues to observe a high level of cooperation and commitment from MEL staff. The
broadening of the MEL mission statement (removing the restriction to support discrete-parts manufac-
turers) continues to be well aligned with areas of growth and opportunity. Matrix management appears
to be a successful MEL strategy for managing increasingly collaborative activities.
MEL has made responsive progress in attending to its customer focus which should be extended to
interactions with industry and government personnel at higher organizational empowerment levels than
those of the technical, scientific, and engineering staff that form the great majority of MEL's external
interactions. MEL has also made progress in strategic and program planning, which would improve
further with the application of standard program planning tools that yield clear definitions and descrip-
tions of milestones and accomplishments. There are opportunities for MEL to refine strategic plans and
themes to achieve clarity of alignment with the NIST Strategic Focus Areas.
OCR for page 34
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering laboratory
