in making things. In fact, North American sales of industrial robotics hit all-time records in 2014. Just like 3D printing, robots were invented here. New York City native Joseph F. Engelberger created the first industrial robot, the Unimate, in the late 1950s. General Motors bought the technology and used it at its die-casting operations in New Jersey in the 1960s.
Since then, America has fallen terribly behind in industrial
robotics. The US supplied less than 16% of the industrial robots in the world in 2013, according to the International Federation of Robotics. About 60% of the world’s industrial robots came from Asia, primarily China, Japan and Korea. Another fourth come from Europe, primarily Germany, Italy and Switzerland.
In fact, America has just a handful of companies left that
produce industrial robotics, such as Adept Technology Inc., founded in 1983 and based in Pleasanton, CA. Collabora- tive robot builder Rethink Robotics in Boston is a new player, launched this decade. Most other US robotics companies build robots for defense systems and personal use, such as vacuums or toys.
Because China has invested so heavily in developing a manufacturing technology infrastracture, making high- tech products in that country is now fairly straightforward compared to the US, where it’s fairly difficult to do. That’s why, as it has been
America’s loss of competitive bench strength in these manufacturing technologies, and their resulting sup- ply chains and communities of technical knowledge, is a big part of why China now captures about 26% of the advanced technology exports in the world, according to the world bank, compared to 18 percent in the US. That includes high-value parts for the aerospace, computer, pharmaceutical, scientific and machinery industries.
A Question of Priorities How did other countries set the US so far back on its heels?
well reported, Apple went to China when Steve Jobs demanded a glass face for the iPhone that wouldn’t scratch. The technology required to cut and grind that glass face to perfection, along with the expertise needed to hone the process, was in Asia. In 2012, the New York Times wrote this of Apple’s
decision:
“For years, cellphone makers had avoided using glass because it required precision in cutting and grinding that was extremely difficult to achieve. Apple had already selected an American company, Corning Inc., to manufacture large panes of strengthened glass. But figuring out how to cut those panes into millions of iPhone screens required finding an empty cutting plant, hundreds of pieces of glass to use in experiments and an army of midlevel engineers. It would cost a fortune simply to prepare.
Then a bid for the work arrived from a Chinese factory. ...”
The US supplied less than 16% of the industrial robots in the world in 2013, according to the International Federation of Robotics.
Quite simply, actually. One, they make sure their young people, their future workforce, is highly literate in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. At the same time, their governments work as strong partners with manufactur- ers, providing consistent and high levels of financial backing for applied manufacturing research. And they are persistent in their efforts, without prolonged debates or whipsawing with the political winds. Germany’s Fraunhofer Society is an often cited example of other countries’ commitment to these activities, and for good reason. That network of research institutes has an an- nual budget of 2 billion euros (about $2.27 billion) and is one- third funded by the German government and local states, with the rest of the funding coming through contract re- search, some of which is also for the government.
Fraunhofer has positioned Germany as a leading global
provider of manufacturing technologies, which, in turn, have helped the country hold on to valuable manufacturing work, despite relatively high wages. While Germany is a much smaller country than the US—with just 25% of our popula- tion—it holds a 16% share of high-tech exports, a number that is on the rise.
Leaders in US manufacturing have recognized for some time that If America does not want to be further sidelined in the critical, valuable manufacturing sector—after having a taste of the consequences—the nation would need to recap- ture leadership in a few key technology areas. This is critical not just for America’s employers to remain competitive, but it is also a matter of national security, ac- cording to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Security, the council noted, doesn’t mean
June 2015 |
AdvancedManufacturing.org 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224