IoT to Transform Manufacturing

PRODUCT LIFECYCLE STORIESINSIGHT ON PRODUCTS, MANUFACTURING, AND SERVICE
INTERNET OF THINGS:
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
Robots Keep Tabs on Fans at Brazil World Cup
3D Printing Makes Headway in Aerospace
Speed Dating Offers New Ways to Collaborate
Surgical Robotics Expected to Quadruple
Spring 2014
The Next Manufacturing Boon

Spring 2014 – Table of Contents
Feature Article
Billions of devices will soon be connected in the manufacturing matrix of the Internet
of Things, allowing them to be monitored and controlled remotely. For manufacturers,
this can change almost everything in terms of how products are created, operated,
and serviced.
INTERNET OF THINGS:
08
Robots Keep Tabs on Fans at Brazil World Cup
Brazil, the site of this year’s 2014 FIFA World Cup, isn’t taking safety and security
threats lightly. Anyone planning on disrupting the event will face an unusual foe:
the PackBot.
3D Printing Makes Headway in Aerospace
With major players GE Aviation and Airbus investing in new additive manufacturing
techniques, the aerospace sector is poised to become one of the biggest players
in the 3D-printing arena.
12
Speed Dating Offers New Ways to Collaborate
A speed-dating approach to collaboration is taking off at universities where
scientists believe working with counterparts from different fields on the same or
nearby campuses will help them develop practical applications for their work.
16
Termites are Inspiration for Builder Bots
Inspired by the architectural genius of termites, Harvard University researchers
create a team of small autonomous robots that can collectively surmise how to
build a structure from blocks.
20
Why Consumers Still Aren’t Sold on 3D Printing
While 3D printing is taking off in large-scale manufacturing and President Obama
pushes to open more advanced manufacturing facilities in the United States, individ-
ual consumers are just not buying in. At least not yet.
22
What’s in Your Product? Six Reasons You Should Know.
There are many regulatory, humanitarian, and even hard-dollar advantages to
knowing what’s in your product, and manufacturers worldwide are recognizing the
benefits of supply-chain visibility.
26
Surgical Robotics Industry Expected to Quadruple
Contemporary robotic systems have come a long way, and some of the most
compelling advances can be seen in the surgical field. That industry is expected to
grow from $4.9 billion in 2014 to $19.9 billion in 2019.
18

Spring 2014 – Letter from the Editor
The Internet of Things (IoT) and smart, connect products are transforming the way manufacturers create, operate,
and service just about everything.
In the next decade it’s estimated that 80 to 100 percent of all manufacturers will be using IoT applications, leading
to a potential economic impact of $2.3 trillion for the global manufacturing industry.
Whether it’s industrial equipment that can be monitored in real-time or a medical device that allows a manufacturer
to analyze each patient need against every patient outcome, the IoT is already driving better service, improved next-
generation products, and a stronger competitive advantage.
This new era—where software, the cloud, and service are king—will mark a shift in value and differentiation for
manufactures, requiring a radically different way of thinking, a new infrastructure, and a fresh set of skills.
Our spring cover story takes a closer look at how the IoT is impacting manufacturing today, as well as what the
future might look like in a smart, connected world.
Robotics is also a huge theme in this edition. Newcomer Michelle Reis investigates how iRobot will help keep football
hooligans at bay at this year’s World Cup in Brazil, and former Wall Street Journal reporter Bill Bulkeley visits
Harvard University to find out why termites are inspiration for a new builder bot.
Plus, we explore how 3D printing with titanium is opening up new possibilities for the aerospace industry, and why
speed dating on college campus and in the workplace could spark collaboration and innovation among scien-
tists and engineers.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pardo
Editor in Chief
PRODUCT LIFECYCLE STORIES
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR: NANCY PARDO

It’s planting season and a farmer in the Midwest is
busy at work, but he’s not in the field—he’s working
from a digital operations center on his tablet com-
puter. Meanwhile, one of his tractors is running low
on diesel. No problem. The tank has already notified
the supplier it needs a refill.
In another location, a farm-equipment manufacturer
is monitoring a dashboard, tracking its entire fleet
of vehicles and evaluating the performance of the
equipment in real-time. Diagnostic data flows wire-
lessly to a technician who shows up onsite to replace
a part before it fails.
BY JON MARCUS
INTERNET OF THINGS:
This is the reality of the fast-emerging Internet of
Things, the network of smart, connected products
whose breakneck development has been the subject
of starry-eyed popular attention, but whose potential
application in manufacturing is far less understood
and even more vast.
Refrigerators may be able to reorder milk, and tooth-
brushes could tell you if your kid is really brushing.
But the big money is in linking industrial equipment,
aircraft, cars, medical equipment—and the list goes
on—to the IoT.

That could have as much as a $2.3 trillion global
economic impact by 2025, according to the McKinsey
Global Institute, including through efficiencies that
could trim operating costs by 5 percent. Eighty to 100
percent of manufacturers will be on the IoT by then,
McKinsey estimates, while Cisco Systems predicts
that 50 billion devices will be connected to the Inter-
net, up from the current nine billion.
“This changes just about everything in terms of the
way products are created, operated, and serviced,”
says Jim Heppelmann, president and CEO of PTC,
which in December acquired ThingWorx, a platform
designed to build and run the applications of the
connected world.
In the manufacturing matrix of the IoT, smart
products, imbued with software, sensors,
and processors, allow for condition
monitoring, while connection via wireless
or wired networks will allow manufacturers
to monitor and control those same
products remotely.
Based on this, operators will be able to figure out
more efficient ways to use those proucts, or predict
when they might fail and dispatch preventive main-
tenance. Suppliers could learn how their products
are being used, not used, or misused by virtually
“asking” them, and apply that knowledge to next-
generation versions.
This concept, in manufacturing, is not entirely new.
Logistics companies have long applied similar tech-
nology to control raw materials and inventories and
track shipments, for example. But as the price of
sensors plummets, they can now be used to under-
stand not only the location of an object, but its condi-
tion, environment, and operation, in robust detail.
“The general concept of instrumenting and collecting
information off machines has been around for a
while,” says Don DeLoach, CEO of Infobright, which
specializes in technology that allows the speedy
analysis of machine-generated data. “But it’s been
limited by the cost and accessibility and practicality
of this technology.”

Now that the price is falling, DeLoach says, “The
implications from a manufacturing standpoint are
everything from extending capital equipment life to
energy management and supply chain logistics. That in
and of itself is very cool. It’s going to change life as we
know it, and I see this manifesting itself everywhere.”
The cost of microeletromechanical systems sensors
has dropped 90 percent in just the last five years,
McKinsey reports, driving a 300 percent increase in the
number of devices connected over that same period.
Thanks to this, “We’re coming up on a big inflection
point in terms of the connectivity,” says Sherri
Daniels, president of ATEK Access Technologies,
one of whose subsidiaries is behind the sensor in
that farmer’s diesel tank.
ATEK doesn’t only monitor when a farmer needs a
refill. By collecting data about such things, it helps its
customers find new and more efficient ways to run
their businesses—like rescheduling and rerouting
diesel tanker trucks, for instance.
“We can tell them, ‘In January, this is how many
trucks you’re going to need on the road,’” Daniels
says. “It creates a kind of stickiness, as we call it,
between the manufacturer and the customer, and
you can continue to build on that. It’s also a revenue
stream, where you get a customer who is ingrained
with you and your system, and they see that value.”
That opens up all sorts of new possibilities for manu-
facturers in after-the-sale support.
There are potential pitfalls to the IoT. Collecting infor-
mation on a product’s use and environment may, in
some circumstances, have privacy implications, while
using the Internet to control machinery remotely can
tempt hackers to interfere with it. And products
made by different manufacturers also have to be
able to communicate.
“You’ve had smart sensors around forever, but
they’ve been very siloed,” says Eddie Amos, chief
technology officer at Meridium, which helps industri-
al customers predict and prevent equipment failures
by monitoring their plants. “If you have one particular
vendor, such as GE, they can tell you how their
equipment is doing. But most people use equipment
from hundreds of different manufacturers.”
That’s the rationale behind the new Industrial
Internet Consortium. Announced in March, it’s an
open membership group begun by AT&T, Cisco, GE,
IBM, and Intel to standardize sensor technology.
And all that data can’t take the place of the people
who interpret it, DeLoach says. That’s like determin-
ing the reliability of an airplane solely on a vibration
report transmitted by a sensor to the manufacturer.
“Now we can do that analysis across an entire fleet
of planes,” he says. “And the inclination might be to

say, ‘We don’t really need to hear from the pilot. We have all the
information we need.’ But I think you still want to hear from the pilot.”
Some of this fear can be mitigated by employing business applica-
tions that create actionable “dashboards” for different audiences.
Using these applications, a mechanic sees a very different set of
data than an operations executive, for instance.
The opportunities created by the IoT and smart, connected
products far outweigh the initial challenges. One of the most
exciting things, says PTC’s Heppelmann, is now manufacturers
can be involved with a product after it leaves the factory floor.
“That’s true closed-loop lifecycle management,” he concludes.

Sporting events, especially those that operate on a
global scale, have a long history of uniting and inspir-
ing individuals all across the globe. People are
passionate about sports, and spend billions of dollars
attending games and buying team merchandise.
Unfortunately, there’s a dark side to that revelry.
Emotions run at an all-time high at games, increasing
the possibility of violence, crime, and crowd-control
issues. The publicity and prominence of these events
on an international stage also makes them highly
ROBOTS KEEP TABS ON FANS
AT BRAZIL WORLD CUP
BY MICHELLE REIS
attractive targets for terrorists and others out to make
a name for themselves or their cause.
Brazil, the site of this year’s 2014 FIFA World Cup (one
of the world’s most widely viewed sporting events) and
the 2016 Summer Olympics, isn’t taking safety and
security threats lightly.
On top of employing about 170,000 security personnel
and spending close to 1.9 billion reais ($798 million)
to ensure a trouble free World Cup tournament,

Photo courtesy of iRobot
Brazilian government and law enforcement officials
will also be pitting any terrorists or hooligans plan-
ning on disrupting the event against an unusual foe:
a military-grade robot called PackBot.

Equipped with a game-style controller for easy and
remote operation, the PackBot is a unique, multi-mis-
sion robot that can travel up to 5.8 MPH, climb grades
of up to 60 degrees (meaning it can navigate stairs
and maneuver itself over tricky terrain), and can be
submersed in up to 3 feet of water.
A 4.9 GHz mesh radio kit allows the PackBot to use
multiple nodes to establish and relay communica-
tions in radio challenged environments, and the
robot also has state-of-the-art GPS, video image
display, system monitoring, electronic compass, and
temperature sensors.
The most important capability of the PackBot, howev-
er, is its versatility when it comes to security. “With
respect to large events,” Trainer explains, “they can
be used for a number of scenarios, including the
identification and disposal of potentially dangerous
objects, to obtain situational awareness in a potential-
ly dangerous environment, and to communicate with
someone in an area that may not be reachable.”
The PackBot has already provided support for a
variety of military, law enforcement, and disaster
response teams, saving countless lives along the way.
In addition to large-scale events, the robots have
been used to inspect buildings at the World Trade
Center site after 9/11, to survey damage and assist
in recovery operations at the Fukushima nuclear
power plant after the earthquake and tsunami, and
to assist with the post-marathon investigation in
Boston. There is also continued use of PackBots in a
variety of daily security and law enforcement
operations, including the inspection and disposal of
suspicious devices, SWAT, HazMat, reconnaissance,
and hostage negotiations.
The human factor in securing sporting events
The prevention of violence and crime at events like the
World Cup is extremely difficult for law officials due to
people’s unpredictable nature. Violence within the
stadiums, like the horrific fan-fight that occurred last
December during an Atletico Paranaense vs. Vasco da
Gama Brazilian football match, and the risk of violence
from protesters are a concern. Many Brazilians, like
the #NãoVaiTerCopa (#ThereWillBeNoCup) movement,
have been protesting the World Cup since last year,
and have said they will continue to do so for the entire-
ty of the event. A main source of discontent has been
the billions of dollars spent on World Cup infrastruc-
ture in a country where poverty is still very prevalent.
In a $7.2 million deal with iRobot—a Bedford, Massa-
chusetts-based company that makes domestic robots
for consumers as well as defense and security robots
for the United States military—the Extraordinary
Secretariat for the Security of Great Events (SESGE)
and the Brazilian Federal Police procured 30 Pack-
Bots to bring a high-tech approach to security. The
robots have already been tested in 2013 during the
Confederations Cup and Papal visit in July, and will be
deployed to all 12 host cities during the World Cup.
“These robots will be used by the federal police and
other local police forces throughout Brazil to provide
public safety support during major events and for
other law enforcement applications moving forward,”
says Tim Trainer, vice president of robotic products for
iRobot’s defense and security unit.

For police, the robot’s ability to provide real-time
video and perform surveillance of life-threatening
situations may be one of the most important offer-
ings due to the possibility of public protests during
the World Cup. With recent marches from radical
anarchists Black Bloc taking on a violent edge,
having added surveillance could assist in decreasing
brutal confrontations between law enforcements
and civilians.
”We will guarantee the security of fans, tourists,
teams, and the chiefs-of-state that will visit us,”
stated President Dilma Rousseff at a February press
event in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. “I am certain
we will host the cup of cups.”
“We see robots playing an increasing role for a variety of
missions, including security, law enforcement, defense, and
certain industrial applications.”
The future of robotic security
Autonomous robots, like PackBots in Brazil and the
new Knightscope K5 security bot, are live case-stud-
ies on how robotics can be applied to general law
enforcement and event security. These bots can not
only protect civilians, but also ensure that law enforc-
ers don’t have to put themselves at risk during
life-threatening situations.
“We see robots playing an increasing role for a variety
of missions, including security, law enforcement,
defense, and certain industrial applications,” Trainer
states. “Given their range in size and unique capabili-
ties, robots will open the door to new applications for
public safety use, for event security and beyond.”

Additive manufacturing is moving into the mainstream.
In the annual additive manufacturing market report,
Wohlers Associates estimates revenues from products
and services in the 3D printing industry at more than
$2.2 billion last year, and more than 28 percent of that
is tied to the production of parts for final products.
According to McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), using
3D printers to build parts can cut product cost by 40
to 55 percent through the reduction of tooling and
handling expenses and material waste. And across
sectors like aerospace and automotive, fuel-cost
savings and environmental benefits are dramatic.
GE, the world’s largest supplier of jet engines, calls
additive manufacturing the “next chapter in the
industrial revolution,” and projects that by 2020 GE
Aviation will manufacture 100,000 parts on 3D
printers. The company believes that printed parts
could help reduce the weight of a single aircraft engine
by up to 1,000 pounds, leading to significant increas-
es in fuel economy and reduced CO2 emissions.
Airbus, another early adopter of advanced manufac-
turing technologies, is already moving beyond proto-
types to components robust enough to be used in end-
production aircraft.

The industry giant is producing a variety of fully
tested and validated plastic and metal brackets
for its next-generation A350 XWB, and 3D printed
parts are also being used on its cornerstone A300/
A310 planes. In March, the first “printed” component
—a small plastic crew seat panel—flew on an Airbus
jetliner operated by Canada’s Air Transat.
Across many major industries, from aerospace to
automotive to medical devices, the advantages of
using 3D printing are myriad. The process results in
lighter parts, shorter lead times, fewer materials
used during production, and a significant reduction
in the overall environmental footprint.
EOS, a German company that offers additive-manu-
facturing machines and services, recently teamed up
with Airbus Group Innovations to research the
environmental impact of 3D printed parts. The study
looked at the lifecycle of nacelle hinges used in
jet-engine housings, comparing hinges cast in steel
in the traditional manner to hinges produced by
laser sintering titanium.
The findings were impressive. The optimized geom-
etry and weight savings of the laser sintered titani-
um enabled CO2 emissions over the whole lifecycle
of the hinges to be reduced by nearly 40 percent,
and, most significantly, using the additive method to
build the hinge could potentially reduce the weight
per plane by 10 kilograms. Raw material consump-
tion was also reduced significantly.
“We are on the cusp of a step-change in weight
reduction and efficiency—producing aircraft
parts which weigh 30 to 55 percent less, while
reducing raw material used,” says Airbus
spokesperson Peter Sander. “This
game-changing technology also decreases total
energy used in production by up to 90 percent
compared to traditional methods.”
There are some limitations with 3D printing. In
designs that include very narrow internal channels,
excess material can get trapped during production
and become difficult to remove, and it can be
difficult to remove the supports some parts need to
hold them in place during the build process. But the
benefits seem to outweigh the challenges.
Much of 3D printing’s potential in manufacturing
comes from what is arguably its best asset: virtually
unfettered design. Complex parts print as quickly
as simple parts and, because there’s no need to
build specialized tools or molds for casting, new
designs aren’t hampered by traditional manufacturing
constraints. Parts can be geometrically optimized
for a high strength-to-weight ratio and designed to
include functional components, and 3D printing can
also make working with tricky but beneficial materi-
als, like titanium, an option.
Titanium is low density, high strength, corrosion
resistant and biocompatible—ideal for use in aero-
space—but its cost and the degree of material waste
in traditional manufacturing has often made it an
impractical choice. Because 3D printers can build
metal parts in a virtually waste-free process, it
increases the number of manufacturing scenarios
in which titanium now makes sense.
GE recently committed to an ambitious additive-
manufacturing plan involving the printing of critical
fuel nozzles for a new aircraft engine using titanium,
aluminum, and nickel-chromium alloys. Tradi-
tionally, each nozzle is made from 18 parts
Photo courtesy of Airbus

welded together. With additive manufacturing, each
part is built up as a single piece of metal. The end
result will be 25 percent lighter and five times more
durable than its predecessor.
Nineteen additive fuel nozzles will be installed on
every CFM LEAP engine, and to date more than
4,500 of the engines (developed by GE Aviation and
the French aerospace company Snecma) have been
ordered. GE estimates that it will begin making the
fuel nozzles in 2016, with plans to print up to 35,000
nozzles a year.
With time, advances in technology are expected to
improve the output speed and resolution of 3D
printers, expanding the use of additive manufac-
turing. Technology being developed at the German
based Fraunhofer Institute, for example, already
shows the potential to quadruple printing speeds
for metal objects.
The production of parts for use in final products is 3D
printing’s fastest growing segment, with a 60 percent
annual expansion rate. MGI researchers predict that
by 2025 there will be a $470 billion market in 3D-print-
ed transportation parts.
And the potential benefits of 3D printing reach
beyond the initial manufacturing process and into
service and maintenance.
Late last year, the first British fighter jet to contain
3D-printed metal components was flown from an
airfield in Lancashire, England. BAE Systems, maker
of the Tornado jet, said its engineers are using 3D
technology to design and produce parts that could
potentially cut the Royal Air Force’s maintenance
and service bill by almost $2 million over the next
four years.
Additionally, Airbus is considering the possibility of
using 3D printing as a spare-part solution, which
could be ideal for producing cost-effective, out-of-
production aircraft parts on-demand.

3D Printing: What It Really Means
for Manufacturers – Michelle Reis
According to a report by McKinsey & Co., the advantages
of 3D printing over other manufacturing technologies
will lead to five major disruptions:
Accelerated product-development cycles:
3D printing will allow for a faster and more productive
R&D process, and a reduction in product-launch risk
and time to market. It will also require a robust supply
chain, capable of keeping up with accelerated produc-
tion while maintaining quality and consistency.
New manufacturing strategies and footprints:
As cost drops and capabilities increase, more parts
could be created using 3D print. This doesn’t mean
every part should be. Manufacturers must determine
which components will reap the most benefit from
the technology, and watch for universal standards
regarding printing materials to develop, which could
impact cost and footprint decisions.
Shifting sources of profit:
3D printing has the potential to reduce the complexity
and cost of some production types, forcing companies
to differentiate their products in other ways. The
ability to create replacement parts could also change
the structure of aftermarket services.
New capabilities:
In order to create effective products, companies must
increase their design knowledge regarding printing
and have engineers who can conquer the technical
challenge of tuning print materials so they get the
most out of them.
Disruptive competitors:
While there are only a handful of leaders currently in
the market, new businesses offering more customi-
zation or better designed products are popping up
daily. These companies threaten to shift the focus
from the ability to manufacture 3D products, to other
areas like design or ownership of customer networks.
More competition can also lead to ethics and regula-
tion questions.
According to Sander, the lead time for such a part can
be as little as one day if the component is based on an
existing design, while redesigned parts can be
produced in less than two weeks—something that
Sander calls “a dream come true.”
A 3D printed A350 XWB Bracket
A380 THAI Engine fitting

Paired off around stylish chairs and tables, munching
on hors d’oevres and sipping drinks, people who have
clearly just met laugh and smile tentatively.
Among the strangers, ferns sprouting from planters
crawl up one whitewashed wall; large-screen TVs
flicker from another, and palm trees sway outside the
floor-to-ceiling windows. Tiny light fixtures hanging
from the ceiling look like stars.
Romantic? Sure. That’s the idea. But not for the
purpose you might think.
This “synergy social” at the University of South Florida
isn’t meant to hook up singles seeking love, but
scientists and academics looking for collaborators.
“I can guarantee you, someone will be interested,” says
Yu Sun, a professor of computer science and engineer-
BY JON MARCUS
ing at USF who has attended several of these events
and emerged with partners—often specialists from the
neighboring medical center—for joint research projects.
“It’s beneficial to talk with people from other fields,
especially the people who are really close to a prob-
lem,” Sun says. “When we do research we need to go
out and see the problem we need to solve, not just sit
in our labs and imagine it.”
This speed-dating approach to collaboration is taking
off at universities where scientists want to develop
practical applications for their work, and where
collaboration with counterparts from different fields
on the same and nearby campuses is seen as a way to
get there.
It’s also being tried at academic conferences, and
advocates say it can be equally effective at private
SPEED DATING
TO COLLABORATE
OFFERS NEW WAYS

companies, especially those in engineering and
technology, some of which are starting to adopt
this approach.
“The idea isn’t new, it just hasn’t been applied this way
in science,” says Jeffrey Grossman, a professor of
engineering who began running what he calls
“speed-storming” sessions—a combination of “speed
dating” and “brainstorming”—when he was a postdoc
at Berkeley, and who has been asked by technology and
engineering companies to show them how it’s done.
“What’s happened in science, compared to 100 years
ago, is that the vertical well of depth that you have to
go into is much deeper because we know a lot more,”
says Grossman, now at MIT. “In a way, that creates a
challenge to this Renaissance idea that you can
bridge gaps between disciplines. But it’s no excuse to
not do it. It’s this incredibly important part of creativity
and idea-generation that scientists aren’t paying
enough attention to.”
Others point out that academics and engineers
sometimes prefer the solitude of their labs to
social situations.
“Scientists are just people. They have the same
concerns and fears about approaching a new person,”
Grossman says.
“I don’t know whether it’s nature versus nurture.
You’d have to ask a psychologist,” says Graham Jones,
chair of chemistry at Northeastern University, who
attended a speed-dating session at the nearby
Tufts-New England Medical Center that resulted in
collaborations. “But the current way science is being
funded and promoted really encourages people to stay
in their lab and to stay focused on their work and not
talk to strangers.”
Overcoming that was the point of the event at Tufts,
says Karen Freund, associate director for research
collaboration at Tufts’ Clinical and Translational
Science Institute.
“Part of why we did it this way was to get people out of
their labs and offices and encourage them to meet
people who, even though our campus is not huge,
they might not know otherwise,” Freund says.
“It’s almost a luxury to take time out to talk to one
another,” she says. “But there’s no substitute for
face-to-face conversation.”
Academics may be comparatively solitary, Freund
says, “but these are individuals who are inquisitive
and ultimately interested in these connections, which
is why the speed-dating method is successful.”
Surprisingly successful, according to an experiment
run at a conference at the Royal Society in London,
which included two 90-minute speed-dating sessions
among 24 biophysicists, mathematicians, biochem-
ists, and experts in bioinformatics who were then
paired up for five rounds of 15-minute icebreakers.
Twelve walked away with collaborative projects.
“The sum is greater than the parts,” says Jones, of
Northeastern University. “You really need to broaden
your horizons and collaborate with people across the
board. What might seem an insurmountable problem
to one person is actually quite solvable to another.”
At a speed-dating event at Berkeley, researchers were
paired off for three minutes each, measured with an
egg timer. In two hours, a test group of 10 people
from six departments produced 45 proposals.
“At first people feel silly, so there’s a little bit of
getting over the silliness factor of it,” Grossman says.
“Then, as soon as you do it, there’s an energy in the
room that’s hard to describe. Every single time I’ve
speed-stormed, there is a sense of excitement.”
“You’re not only intersecting people’s science, you’re
intersecting people. And there’s a real value to that.”
The private sector should take note. Engineering
teams in any organization can be siloed away with
little connection to one another. Cross-departmental
speed dating could be a way to brainstorm fresh ideas
and see the bigger picture.
“In every situation I’ve tried it in, there's been a bene-
fit,” Grossman says. “Why is this catching on? Part of it
is because when people do this they just like it, and
part of what they like is that they’re communicating in
a way that takes out of the picture all the usual social
norms that keep people from communicating with
each other. So it feels safe, different, and exciting, and
there is a lot of potential for idea-generation.”

BY NANCY LANGMEYER
Contemporary robotic systems have come a long way
since machines first started to appear in 400 B.C.
Today, some of the most compelling advances in
robotics can be seen in the surgical field.
Surgical robots have become standard for minimally
invasive surgery (MIS) in almost all surgical areas.
Today the surgical robot market is dominated by the
da Vinci Surgical System from California-based
Intuitive Surgical. The system has been used in more
than 1.5 million surgeries, and the company has a
market share of 68 percent according to a recent
report from WinterGreen Research.
The da Vinci has a vision system with a 3D image of
the operating field, a patient-side cart with electro-
mechanical arms that hold interchangeable surgical
instruments, and a surgeon console for controlling
the procedures.
Accuray, a radiation oncology company also based in
California, holds 15 percent of market share, and was
recently listed as one of the Top 10 Robotics Innovators
SURGICAL ROBOTICS
INDUSTRY EXPECTED
TO QUADRUPLE
by Fast Company for its slightly sinister sounding
CyberKnife System.
Although not a surgical device per se, the CyberKnife
System is the first and only robotic radiosurgery
system; it delivers noninvasive stereotactic radiosur-
gery and stereotactic body radiation therapy through-
out the body. Simply put, the system can deliver high
doses of radiation with extreme accuracy in treat-
ments that are individualized to each patient, reducing
the amount of radiation needed dramatically.
According to the WinterGreen report, the robotic surgery
industry is expected to grow four-fold in the next five
years from $4.9 billion in 2014 to $19.9 billion in 2019.
Susan Eustis, co-author of the report and president of
WinterGreen, says the growth is propelled by
next-generation systems that will, among other
things, decrease the number of ports needed in MIS.
With increased accuracy and the ability to repeat
processes, Eustis says that existing open surgery can
soon be replaced in a large part by robotic MIS.

“The magnification is excellent and with greater
visualization, there is less blood loss,” says David
Albala, chief of urology at Crouse Hospital and medi-
cal director for Associated Medical Professionals in
Syracuse, New York.
Albala also notes the much quicker recovery time
seen in patients who’ve had MIS procedures. Patients
generally experience less pain and more rapid healing
while surgeons experience less fatigue, and hand
tremors are reduced with greater control from the
robotic instruments.
“Ten years ago this technology was a fad, but it’s not
anymore,” Albala adds. “This technology is here to
stay. It used to be industry driven, but now the baton
has passed to the patients. They are coming in asking
for it.”
No one knows for sure what the future will bring in
this industry, but other companies around the world
are working on next-generation surgical robots that
are bound to shape the field.
“Systems from these companies are still years away,
but in the meantime, what we’ll see next is modifica-
tions that will provide better dexterity and better
visualization,” Albala concludes.
Medical researchers are also focusing in on long-dis-
tance surgery (telesurgery) and surgical snakes, built
to reach previously unreachable areas in the body.
The Flex System, developed by New England-based
Medrobotics Corporation, is already available in
Europe, but not yet approved for sale in the United
States. This robot-assisted flexible endoscopic plat-
form can access and visualize hard-to-reach anatom-
ical locations and deploy specially designed flexible
surgical instruments to perform procedures.
Although some industry leaders believe that there may
be a time when a robot can do surgery on its own,
Albala says no. “Everyone’s anatomy is vastly different,
so I don’t agree with those that say it’s a possibility.”
Photo courtesy of Accuray

builder bots
Termites, known more for their destructive chewing
than architectural talents, are, in fact, master
builders. Look inside any termite mound and you’ll
find an intricate network of tunnels, each designed
to optimize natural air conditioning and lighting.
How do these tiny bugs achieve such architectural
genius? Emergence: A combination of hardwired
genetic code and environmental cues that allow
simple creatures like termites to produce amaz-
ing structures.
Harvard University researchers have looked
closely at emergence and applied those basic
principles to robotics, creating a team of small
robots that can collectively surmise how to build a
structure from blocks.
The four-year TERMES Project demonstrates that
autonomous robots can cooperate in building
structures without a centralized computer system
telling them what to do. Instead, they are prepro-
grammed with simple commands based on the
structure to be built.
A compiler developed by the Harvard team takes any
blueprint and turns it into a representation that
corresponds to traffic laws for the robots to adhere
to, says TERMES Project lead Justin Werfel. “It tells
them where they are allowed to go and where they
can’t go.”
The robots don’t communicate with one another, but
use onboard sensors to place blocks where they are
needed. If a robot finds it can’t perform a task
because it’s been carried out by another bot, it will
find something else to do.
To begin the building process, one brick is laid down
as a foundation to give the robots a point of refer-
ence to build up the other blocks. They may build
the structure in different ways each time, and if one
robot fails, the others can complete the task. If
more robots are added, they work together to build
the same structure.
T E R M I T E S A R E I N S P I R A T I O N F O R
B I L L B U L K E L E Y

Robot designer Kirstin Petersen notes that, like
termites, the bots build structures much larger
than themselves.
“Each robot is about seven inches long and four
inches wide. Designing them was challenging
because they needed to climb and also traverse
level ground,” Petersen says. “Larger whegs that
provided the ability to climb higher resulted in a
bumpy construction process.”
Because the mobile robots had difficulty placing
objects precisely, the team designed special foam
bricks with tongues and grooves for alignment. The
bricks are held together with magnets that make the
structure stable enough for the robots to climb over.
While construction robots are nothing new, it’s
the autonomy of these termite bots that makes
them special.
“The real advance is the compiler that comes up
with rules that tell the robots how to build what we
want,” says Steve Burbeck, a North Carolina-based
consultant in artificial intelligence.
Burbeck, a former IBM scientist, says that having
many simple robots cooperate on projects is an
exciting area for artificial intelligence. He believes
they may represent an alternative to complex
systems prone to bugs and hacking.
Werfel believes that similar systems could be
adopted for classic robot tasks that are “dangerous,
difficult, or dirty,” like building a levee out of sand-
bags in a flood zone. Eventually, swarm robots
might build things underwater or in space.
Photo courtesy of Eliza Grinnell / Harvard SEAS

When 3D printers first hit the market, geeks across
the globe celebrated the new opportunity to print
all kinds of commodities in their homes. This
disruptive and highly personalized way of manu-
facturing meant never again having to buy an
overpriced store item that only ‘sort of’ met your
needs and specifications.
But that vision has yet to be realized. So why aren’t
consumers printing more of their own products?
While 3D printing is taking off in large-scale manu-
facturing and President Obama pushes to open
more advanced manufacturing facilities in the
United States, individual consumers are just not
buying in. At least not yet.
Some argue that the demand for consumer 3D
printers is low due to a lack of strong consumer
offerings, but the fact is, despite all the hype
around its benefits and innovative qualities, 3D
printing technology is truly targeted toward pas-
sionate, highly motivated makers and hobbyists,
not the average person.
“To date, the consumer 3D printing market has been
held back in part because there is no compelling
use—something that the consumer can only acquire
by producing it on a 3D printer at home,” says Peter
Basiliere, research vice president for imaging and
print services at Gartner.
A recent Gartner report predicts that we might see a
compelling consumer application within the next
two years, but for now the broadest use case of
at-home 3D printing has been in the creation of
figurines and other small nick-knacks, not items
that have an impact on everyday lives. This doesn’t
help convince average consumers the machines are
a good investment.
Until industry leaders figure out how to make people
want it, 3D printing won’t take off as a consumer
technology. And there are other reasons for the lack
of interest.
Printers aren’t priced for consumer adoption. It’s
true that 3D printers are less expensive than they
once were and prices are still dropping, but that
doesn’t mean they’re affordable for everyday
consumers. Most printers that create high-quality
products cost well over $2,000, and the printers that
are consumer-friendly in price (less than $1,000)
typically don’t replicate CAD designs correctly and
cannot print high-quality products. Not to mention
they usually have to be assembled DIY-style (which is
daunting for those of us who panic at the thought of
putting together simpler objects, like IKEA furniture).
Printing materials are expensive and structurally
weak. Current consumer printers use either ABS
(acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) or PLA (polylactic
acid) plastic filaments to 3D print. These plastics are
Photo courtesy of MakerBot

not sturdy and household items with moving parts
can’t be printed. In order to create useful models,
future printers will have to use metals or carbon
composites. Unfortunately, these materials only add
to the cost of owning a 3D printer, and currently run
from $40 to $122 per kilogram of material.
It takes hours for parts to print. The current build
speed on a consumer printer is too slow to truly be
practical. Depending on the size of the model and
quality of the printer, it can take from several hours
to several days to print a model. Imagine setting up
a print to be done overnight, only to wake up and
find that the print failed and you have to start all
over again.
3D printers aren’t exactly ‘user-friendly’. This is
partly due to a difficult set-up process, and the
skills needed to be able to utilize the technology.
Printer set-up, in the current iteration, requires the
use of high-voltage supplies and specialized parts
and equipment, and cheaper printers will usually
not connect to WiFi. Not only is set-up complicated,
but consumers lack the skills and experience
needed to use 3D-printer software tools to create
their own models. Designing your own file requires
working knowledge of CAD software, and download-
able files that consumers can use are not moderat-
ed and may not work on every type of printer.
There are safety concerns. Printers that utilize
powder-based materials are messy and potentially
explosive depending on what you’re making with
them. These printers work at high temperatures
and produce resins as part of the process. There are
also concerns about indoor air quality and emis-
sions from these 3D printers.
Intellectual property issues can arise. Right now
it’s fairly easy for people to share and download
digital designs for 3D printers online. A website called
Thingiverse has many items that people are design-
ing, copying, and printing. But many items people are
creating, like Star Wars figurines, are protected by
copyright. Remember the controversy surrounding
Napster, the peer-to-peer music file sharing service?
Soon, there could be similar lawsuits over copyright
infringement of 3D-printed products.
Some companies are using creative ways to get
around these issues to fill in the gap in the consumer
market. In Boston, for example, 3D printing company
Makerbot (well-known for its desktop 3D printers
and scanners) is drawing in consumers through an
in-store location on 144 Newbury Street.
The shop is not only meant to be a place for customers
to purchase printers and printing material, but it
also serves as an interactive space where you can
see demonstrations and join workshops to learn
how to use the devices. Customers can also scan,
print, and purchase objects created on-site, while
also accessing some fun takeaways like $5 novelty
gifts from a “gumball machine,” and a 3D photo
booth, which takes one minute to scan a subject’s
head and shoulders and then ships the end-result
to your doorstep.
Other companies attempting to capitalize on 3D
printing for ordinary consumers are offering this
type of printing as a service, while also selling 3D
printed creations. Sculpteo, i.materialise, and even
UPS operate quick 3D printing services and have
communities that connect makers, buyers, and
sellers of 3D printed objects. This marketplace is
getting even bigger now that e-commerce giant
Amazon launching its own online storefront for 3D
printed objects and downloadable design files.
Certain social trends, like the recent Maker move-
ment, could be a factor in bringing 3D printers into
the home, but it may always remain a niche market.
Leaders in the 3D printing industry will have to
figure out a way to overcome limiting factors in
order to bring the technology into mainstream use.

BY FRED SMITH
WHAT’S IN
YOUR PRODUCT?
6 REASONS
YOU SHOULD
KNOW

What’s in your product?
Manufacturers worldwide are recognizing the benefits
of being able to answer that simple question. Of
course, for most products, there is no simple answer.
At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) earlier this
year, Intel announced that all of its microprocessors
shipped in 2014 will be conflict mineral free. Intel will
continue procurement from Africa, but clear visibility
into its supply chain will allow it to avoid conflict
mines, and this will pay off big for Intel.
First, Intel’s brand is enhanced by putting distance
between its products and the human suffering creat-
ed by warlords in conflict zones. Intel is positioning
itself as a champion of sustainable development with
predictable benefits to its corporate reputation for
social responsibility.
Second, as companies with less-developed procure-
ment processes flee the region in order to reduce
their own brand risks, it is likely that local supplies
will increase, causing local prices of the minerals to
decrease, reducing Intel’s procurement costs.
But this is only one example of how supply chain
visibility can pay off.
Consider, for example, the costs of recalls due to
design flaws and counterfeit parts. Counterfeiting
goes far beyond currency and is estimated to be a
multi-trillion dollar problem worldwide, with obvious
health and safety implications.
Counterfeit handbags and shoes get their share of
media attention, but consider automobile parts. One
auto manufacturer is currently recalling a significant
portion of all the automobiles it has produced in the
past decade due to counterfeit parts.
Several other ways that supply chain visibility can
build value and head off problems:
1
Identify hazardous substances. Many mar-
kets come with restrictions on hazardous
substances. Revelations of such substances
can keep a finished product from reaching
your customers.
2
Reduce end-of-life costs. Recycling regula-
tions impose end-of-life costs on manufac-
tures based on the amount of certain materi-
als in a product. Companies can reduce
recycling escrow and negotiate more favor-
able terms by knowing how much of what
materials are in their products.
3
Reduce trade costs. International opportuni-
ties often come with reciprocal trade
requirements. Knowing who produced parts
of your product and where can both open
opportunities and reduce trade costs.
4
Take a proactive approach to regulation.
Intel is taking a proactive approach to reduc-
ing conflict and increasing fair-trade practic-
es in Africa. As the new conflict mineral law
comes into being, Intel has positioned itself
ahead of the game. Many more government
regulations are pending, and working toward
excellent supply chain visibility now will pay
off in the future.
5
Optimize design. If designers are aware of
both regulations and the content of parts, they
can more easily evaluate design alternatives
that can result in reduced material costs.
6
Control material costs. Companies can
aggregate material usage across product
lines to negotiate volume pricing. Production
visibility may even help hedge against
changing material costs.

© 2014, PTC Inc. All rights reserved. Information described herein is furnished for informational use only, is subject to change without notice, and should not be taken as a guarantee,
commitment, condition or offer by PTC. PTC, the PTC logo, Product & Service Advantage, Creo, Elements/Direct, Windchill, Mathcad, Arbortext, PTC Integrity, Servigistics, ThingWorx,
ProductCloud and all other PTC product names and logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of PTC and/or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. All other
product or company names are property of their respective owners.
J3770–PLS-Spring-2014-ePub–EN–0514
PTC Product Lifecycle Stories brings you the latest news
and trends in design innovation and manufacturing.
Subscribe to PTC Product Lifecycle Stories for daily
updates. http://blogs.ptc.com
PRODUCT LIFECYCLE STORIES
INSIGHT ON PRODUCTS, MANUFACTURING, AND SERVICE
Share this eMagazine

IoT to Transform Manufacturing

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à IoT to Transform Manufacturing

Similaire à IoT to Transform Manufacturing (20)

Plus de PTC

Plus de PTC (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

IoT to Transform Manufacturing