당신은 주제를 찾고 있습니까 “build to print vs build to spec – Custom catalog and spec“? 다음 카테고리의 웹사이트 https://ro.taphoamini.com 에서 귀하의 모든 질문에 답변해 드립니다: https://ro.taphoamini.com/wiki/. 바로 아래에서 답을 찾을 수 있습니다. 작성자 Micrographics 이(가) 작성한 기사에는 조회수 6,993회 및 좋아요 61개 개의 좋아요가 있습니다.
The key difference between build to print and design and spec is that you already have your design with build to print, and with design and spec, you do not. When you require design and spec services, you’re asking that a manufacturer assists with the creation of engineering drawings and plans.
Table of Contents
build to print vs build to spec 주제에 대한 동영상 보기
여기에서 이 주제에 대한 비디오를 시청하십시오. 주의 깊게 살펴보고 읽고 있는 내용에 대한 피드백을 제공하세요!
d여기에서 Custom catalog and spec – build to print vs build to spec 주제에 대한 세부정보를 참조하세요
Create a custom spec from a part that was created in Inventor and imported into AutoCAD Plant 3D.
——————- Micrographics ——————-
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za/training
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za/software
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za/hardware
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za/consulting
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za/blog
▶ https://www.mgfx.co.za/contact
—————————————————————-
build to print vs build to spec 주제에 대한 자세한 내용은 여기를 참조하세요.
Build to Print vs. Build to Specification | Elite Tech Engineering
On the other hand, build to print is when a supplier produces work instructions, assembly drawings, and calls out specific and detailed …
Source: www.elitetecheng.com
Date Published: 6/25/2021
View: 7112
Build to Print Fabrication vs. Design and Spec Fabrication | SMT
Design and Spec fabrication is more of a custom job than print-to-build. When a client has a general ea of what they need, the size, function, …
Source: www.smartmachine.com
Date Published: 10/18/2021
View: 8799
Ask a Professor: Build to Print vs build to spec – DAU
The terms “Build to Print” and “Build to Spec” are not FAR or DFARS terms; we d find “Build to Print” in appendices of the NMCARS. We cannot comment on the …
Source: www.dau.edu
Date Published: 7/25/2022
View: 3774
Build to Print | Built to Spec – Circuit Check
Circuit Check is a build-to-print partner that can quickly and cost-effectively take on all or part of your test system assembly requirements.
Source: www.circuitcheck.com
Date Published: 8/3/2022
View: 6075
Tips for Modeling “Build to Print” and “Build to Spec” in …
During a recent implementation workshop of PRICE Cost Analytics™ at a major aircraft manufacturer, we were building TruePlanning® templates …
Source: www.pricesystems.com
Date Published: 6/29/2021
View: 5907
From build-to-print via build-to-specification to build-to-roadmap
But they no longer do it alone: they form a community of suppliers in order to develop and manufacture the product together. By international …
Source: linkmagazine.nl
Date Published: 3/23/2022
View: 239
Build to Spec / Built to Print – coolsoo world – 이글루스
“Build to print” is when a company not only specifies the functional requirements of the part, but they produce assembly drawings, work …
Source: coolsoo.egloos.com
Date Published: 6/8/2022
View: 2995
Build-to-Print: A Critical Tool for ETO Manufacturers
Build-to-print is a process in which a manufacturer produces products, equipment, or components according to the customer’s exact specifications …
Source: industrytoday.com
Date Published: 2/19/2022
View: 3505
주제와 관련된 이미지 build to print vs build to spec
주제와 관련된 더 많은 사진을 참조하십시오 Custom catalog and spec. 댓글에서 더 많은 관련 이미지를 보거나 필요한 경우 더 많은 관련 기사를 볼 수 있습니다.
주제에 대한 기사 평가 build to print vs build to spec
- Author: Micrographics
- Views: 조회수 6,993회
- Likes: 좋아요 61개
- Date Published: 2019. 7. 17.
- Video Url link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrt8ZFW38og
Build to Print vs. Design and Spec: Fabrication Quick Guide — About Applied Engineering
When it comes to fabrication, you have options, and the option that will work for you depends on your current needs and long-term goals. Build to print and design and spec are two different types of contract manufacturing. To help you understand the differences, similarities, and benefits of these two processes, we have put together the following quick guide.
What is build to print?
Build to print is a type of contract manufacturing that refers to the process of building products to client work instructions. This is commonly used to manufacture components or pieces of equipment.
In the build-to-print process, a client will provide a product drawing that has been created by an engineer and contain exact specifications down to the millimeter. The design will also outline the necessary materials needed to create the product, and then the product is created. The manufacturer is then responsible for producing the product according to those drawings.
What is design and spec?
Design and spec refers to the process of building products from scratch, according to a client’s need, function, or size requirements. Design and spec can help clients develop solutions for the problems they have. After discussing the problem and coming up with a solution, the manufacturer will assist in designing and creating a product. In the design and spec process, manufacturers help clients see a project through from beginning to end.
What are the similarities/differences between built to print and design and spec?
The key difference between build to print and design and spec is that you already have your design with build to print, and with design and spec, you do not. When you require design and spec services, you’re asking that a manufacturer assists with the creation of engineering drawings and plans.
What are the benefits of each?
The main benefits of build to print are accuracy and efficiency. Once a client has their built to print designs, it will allow them to make repair pieces and build to specification quickly. For example, if they have an assembly line and a piece is broken, a replica piece can be quickly produced in order to prevent delays. The benefit to design and spec is when the specifics, measurements, and materials remain unknown, and a client needs assistance in determining what the most cost-effective options are.
Why is Applied Engineering the right choice for either process?
Whether you are looking for built to print services or design and spec, you want to choose an experienced engineering team you can trust. At Applied Engineering, we work with you to ensure you get exactly what you are looking for. We are a contract manufacturing services company with over 30 years’ experience in providing total manufacturing solutions for our clients, including built to print and design and spec.
As you can see, there are benefits to both processes. If you are looking to learn more about build to print and design and spec services, or need help determining which is best for you, reach out to Applied Engineering for more information.
Build to Print vs. Build to Specification
Build to Print vs. Build to Specification
Build to Print vs. Build to Specification: What are the Benefits of One Over the Other?
It’s becoming ever harder for many businesses to perform every activity and process within their facility walls, and 90% of all manufacturing companies are switching over to outsourcing to better use their resources. Outsourcing allows customers to operate more streamlined operations, while allowing them to focus on their core business strengths. The new, leaner transformed businesses that arise from this strategy are more cost-effective and viable, tending to be better equipped to compete in today’s market.
One business sector that has emerged to meet a growing part of this outsourcing strategy are suppliers who work on building components to print. There’s also build to specifications that are performed by outsourcing companies, and there is a marked difference between the two that is important to keep in mind when using them for outsourcing purposes.
The Benefits of Build to Specification Services
Build to specification is when a business will have a supplier manufacture a component that is a specific size and has specific parameters regarding its operation. The actual degree that the component is specified may vary, but the supplier has the liberty to utilize their design expertise and manufacturing skill to manufacture the part they will be supplying to their customer. Businesses that outsource to a supplier can benefit from this strategy because the responsibility and liability for part quality and good design is put squarely on the supplier’s shoulders. Overhead costs are often reduced for companies because experts don’t need to be hired in a subject matter that is not a core competency for their company.
The Advantages of Build to Print Services
On the other hand, build to print is when a supplier produces work instructions, assembly drawings, and calls out specific and detailed manufacturing practices used in building the parts along with the customer’s specification of the component’s functional requirements. This method requires a little more effort and development costs from the customer’s side, but it is advantageous to them because they maintain control of the intellectual property right while having the flexibility to select appropriate suppliers to produce the parts for them. This approach allows an easier vertical integration for the customer’s business because they only need to focus on their core, and this often alleviates the bottlenecks they encounter while trying to do all those processes themselves.
Quality and Services of Suppliers
Customers seek out those suppliers that build to print and specifications excellently, but they also require them to perform well in other areas. Businesses that supply these services usually do well in replacement of parts services where spare parts are fabricated or acquired by sourcing, as well. They often reverse engineer physical parts when the customer could not find the part from the original equipment manufacturer (or for other reasons). Part of their process involves rapid prototyping and creating high-quality production drawings and documentation along with state-of-the art software and talent to design 2D and 3D for solid modeling.
Suppliers do the best if they produce final designs that meet current industry standards and meet and exceed customer expectations. In order to stay competitive and viable in the market, it is best that they take this consideration in mind and always strive to be innovative and to continuously improve their processes.
Elite Tech Engineering (Singapore) is an engineering design company that provides built-to-print solutions.
Photo source: Flickr user
Build to Print Fabrication Vs. Design and Spec Fabrication
When a manufacturing client comes to a fabrication shop looking for equipment, generally speaking, they may or may not already have exact specifications for the item they need fabricated. If they only have a general idea of what they need, they’re probably hoping to utilize engineers provided by the fabrication shop to help come up with an appropriate solution.
Smart Machine Technologies has a staff of on-site engineers capable of handling build to print fabrication, design & spec fabrication, and completely custom designed fabrication. In this blog, we’ll discuss how these options differ, as well as how to select the option that’s most appropriate for the equipment you need.
What is Build-to-Print Fabrication?
Build-to-print is what we call the building of equipment, components, or other products to exact specifications provided by the client. Usually these specifications come in the form of designs that have been generated by an engineer. Build-to-print designs are typically specified down to the millimeter, type of materials needed for each component, and other specific details.
When to Use Build-to-Print Fabrication
If a piece of equipment already has a specific design that’s been successful in the past, there’s no sense in recreating the wheel. If a piece of equipment that’s part of a larger assembly line or operation has to be replaced, it may be vital to get an exact replica to avoid problems.
Benefits of Build-to-Print Fabrication
In a scenario where an assembly line is waiting on a single piece of equipment, getting back up and running as soon as possible is of the utmost importance. Having build-to-print designs ready to go will ensure you aren’t wasting time on design. If your fabricator doesn’t get everything perfect, improperly built machinery could put lives in danger or cause further production delays.
What is Design and Spec Fabrication?
Design and Spec fabrication is more of a custom job than print-to-build. When a client has a general idea of what they need, the size, function, and other details, they may come to a fabricator like SMT and ask us to design the piece of equipment from scratch. In extreme scenarios, clients have come to us with a specific problem or dilemma in mind, and we help them build an entirely custom solution.
When Is Design and Spec Fabrication the Best Solution?
Some equipment doesn’t have to be built to exact specifications. A conveyor belt may just need to be of an approximate length, height, and width, and be capable of handling a specific size load. The client may not be concerned where every single screw is placed, down to the exact millimeter. On-staff engineers ensure the final design meets the clients’ needs, budget, and desired functionality.
Benefits of Design and Spec Fabrication
More than likely, our fabrication shop has experienced a similar project and will be able to apply that past knowledge to designing your piece of equipment. Our engineers can advise on specific metals to use, ways to keep down the cost, or techniques to make the process more efficient. This experience and past knowledge will help your project move along as quickly and smoothly as possible.
How Build-to-Print Compares to Design & Spec Fabrication
Really it comes down to the needs of the client, budget, and eventual function of the equipment in determining which fabrication method is appropriate. However, one of the primary determining factors is whether or not you already have the building specifications on hand. If it’s a new piece of equipment or the plans for building that equipment aren’t available, you’re better off going with design and spec fabrication.
One major benefit to hiring a U.S. based fabricator, is that our engineers can easily travel to your location to help in determining the best course of action for your piece of equipment.
Hire a Fabricator Capable of Handling Both
Even if you have plans, it’s beneficial to go with a company capable of fabricating custom equipment, because you never know what custom components you may want to build in tandem with that item. We’ll partner with you to ensure you get what you need and will even travel to your location to help install the piece of equipment. Contact us if you’d like to learn more about print-to-build fabrication or our custom design and spec capabilities.
Learn More About Steel Tanks…..
Article Content
Looking for information on the pros and cons between a build to print and a build to spec for a follow on contract. We have a design package that was built from a performance spec. Concerns about the build to print is cots obsolescence being the government responsibility to pay to fix. A concern about a build to spec is that we loss configuration and wont match the previous build.
This response is based on the information provided. We suggest you discuss with your contracting team, program manager and/or legal department as appropriate.
The terms “Build to Print” and “Build to Spec” are not FAR or DFARS terms; we did find “Build to Print” in appendices of the NMCARS. We cannot comment on the pros and cons between the two approaches. We are not clear why a company building to a specification (presumably a specification we agreed with or gave to the contractor) has a greater chance of losing configuration management than when doing a “Build to Print”. More to the point, if Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) items become obsolete and need to be replaced in a follow-on contract the Government would generally be responsible to pay for updated COTS items.
Build to Print
Circuit Check is a proven supplier who is established as a key outsource partner to a wide range of manufacturers and OEM’s across many industries. Equipment manufacture and assembly can be a drain on both capital and staff resources. Selecting a build-to-print partner that can quickly and cost-effectively take on all or part of your test system assembly requirements is often an effective option.
Drawing on extensive technical and production experience Circuit Check delivers services of the highest standard, achieving cost reductions, improving quality and enabling you to meet shorter delivery schedules.
Circuit Check can deliver any one or all of the following services
Tips for Modeling “Build to Print” and “Build to Spec” in TruePlanning®
Tips for Modeling “Build to Print” and “Build to Spec” in TruePlanning® By Zach Jasnoff
During a recent implementation workshop of PRICE Cost Analytics™ at a major aircraft manufacturer, we were building TruePlanning® templates representing each product line for use in future estimating activities. One of the questions posed during the workshop was, “How can someone model ‘Build to Print’ (BTP) and ‘Build to Spec’ (BTS) in TruePlanning®?”.
Luckily, we have an answer; using the newly added “Contract Service Options” input and “Contractor” resource in TruePlanning® 2016 SR1, we developed a comprehensive methodology for modeling BTP and BTS.
Let’s look at BTP first. BTP is the manufacturing of components by a subcontractor to the exact specifications of the Prime. Typically, BTP represents specific designs that were successful in past programs. In this case, we want to assume that the Prime does all the Development Engineering but outsources all of the Manufacturing and most of the Tooling and Test.
How do we accomplish this in TruePlanning®?
Using the Hardware Cost Object, line 50 is “Contract Service Options”. Selecting “Contractors Involved” display a series of inputs pertaining to the outsourcing Engineering, Manufacturing and Tool / Test for both Development and Production. In the BTP scenario we want to make the following assumptions:
BTP Scenario – Contactor Service Options / Contractors Involved.
Activity Setting “Development Engineering” Outsourced Set to 0% – Prime does all Engineering “Development Manufacturing” Outsourced Set to 100%, Contractor does all Manufacturing “Development Tooling and Test” Outsourced Set to 90%, Contractor does majority of Tool/Test “Production Engineering” Outsourced Set to 0% – Prime does all Engineering “Production Manufacturing” Outsourced Set to 100%, Contractor does all Manufacturing “Production Tooling and Test” Outsourced Set to 90%, Contractor does majority of Tool/Test
Now let’s take a look at the BTS scenario. BTS is the manufacturing of components by a subcontractor to a certain size and operational parameters specified. This allows the subcontractor to use their expertise to develop the design and manufacturing process of the component. This strategy is typically used when the Prime does not have the core competency in the component manufacturer or wants to reduce overhead costs. However, typically the Prime may be involved in both the Development and Production Engineering activity. Again, using the “Contract Service Options” we can model BTS as follows:
BTS Scenario – Contractor Service Options / Contractors Involved.
Activity Setting “Development Engineering” Outsourced Set between 50% to 100% – Prime does some of (or none) of the Engineering “Development Manufacturing” Outsourced Set to 100%, Contractor does all Manufacturing “Development Tooling and Test” Outsourced Set to 90%, Contractor does majority of Tool/Test “Production Engineering” Outsourced Set between 50% to 100% – Prime does some of (or none) of the Engineering “Production Manufacturing” Outsourced Set to 100%, Contractor does all Manufacturing “Production Tooling and Test” Outsourced Set to 90%, Contractor does majority of Tool/Test
In addition to the above setting, you may also want to set up a custom Worksheet Set for Contractor Services to reflect G&A, Fee etc.
When looking at TruePlanning output results, you will now see the effect of the Contractor Service Option selections at the Activity / Resource level. For example, in setting 100% “Production Manufacturing outsourced”, you will see under the Production Manufacturing the Prime’s resources for Test Engineering / Fabricator/Assembler/Support Engineering/Material are “0” and the total effort is now reflected under the “Contractor” resource.
Need help in organizing your information or walking through a similar situation, email or call our Customer Service team ([email protected], T: +1- 800-437-7423) to discuss how we can support your cost estimation program and needs.
From build-to-print via build-to-specification to build-to-roadmap
Theme: Innovative business models for Dutch high-tech
Suppliers are looking for routes to more independence, to bigger margins. But the routes available vary considerably. Some head down the road towards their own module while remaining closer than ever to their customer. That way, the customer feels comfortable relinquishing its demand for a second source and the supplier gets the opportunity to make parts of the client-specific technology available to other customers. The third group of suppliers is not interested in having their own modules or technology and instead continue doing their thing the way they have always done. But they no longer do it alone: they form a community of suppliers in order to develop and manufacture the product together. By international standards, Dutch industry is small in scale. Cooperation is in its DNA, in order to survive. And it is precisely that quality which is being used to become more independent.
Suppliers on the road to maturity
Dutch industry has always led the way internationally in terms of outsourcing at a high level. So it is no coincidence that a new type of supplier is emerging here which operates so high up in the chain that you can hardly still call it a supplier. This new supplier is given complete responsibility for the development and production of a module and – up to a certain point – the opportunity to use that module to serve a global market. This type of collaboration calls for the highest degree of openness and trust between customer and supplier in both directions. But it also calls for scale and proactiveness on the part of the supplier. In practice, all of these requirements are tough to fulfil.
ASML’s need for more OEM-type suppliers
‘We need more OEM-type suppliers who can take responsibility for engineering, production, maintenance and services.’ So said CEO Peter Wennink during ASML’s All Employee Meeting at the end of January. It is a desire which has long been felt by the chip production machine manufacturer but is now being expressed openly. The same goes for parties such as Philips Healthcare and FEI Company; in order to cut costs and increase quality and innovative capability, these OEMs need suppliers that can do much more than simply faithfully carrying out what the customer has developed in detail.
Tipping point passed
Many Dutch suppliers are still performing that ‘old’ build-to-print role. Some of them, such as NTS and VDL ETG, have already got to a stage at which – based on functional specifications – they can engineer and upgrade a module (build-to-specification). But the next step, to an OEM-type company that develops/further develops complex modules entirely by itself in a proactive manner, based on its own knowledge of what the market wants, has been taken by only a few Dutch suppliers, says Paul Schuurmans of Praetimus consultants. ‘Of course, this step, to build-to-roadmap suppliership, is not an easy one. Companies like VDL ETG and NTS are the front-runners in that regard, but they haven’t got there yet. Because you need to pass a tipping point after which you are no longer developing in response to customer requests but for the market as a whole, without there being a concrete order. That calls for a change in culture which is far from easy to accomplish and therefore demands complete commitment on the part of management. Because suddenly you need to start hiring developers and marketeers, you have to set up a global sales and distribution apparatus and start doing after-sales support. It is not uncommon for a firm’s history, its legacy as a service-providing, customer-focused supplier, to get in the way.
In addition, financial clout and scale are essential. ‘Parties such as ASML are also looking for scale: if they are going to give you complete responsibility for developing a particular module as a business-to-roadmap supplier, they’ll want to be sure that you won’t go to the wall when you encounter the first dip. So you must never be dependent on a single OEM for more than 20 to 25 per cent of your turnover. And that in turn means that as a supplier, you are able to identify a market which is big enough for you to earn back the whole of your investment. A company like VDL ETG needs to find a lot more customers than just ASML for its wafer handler or the motion control technology incorporated in it. And of course that too is not so simple.’
OEMs are not consistent
But there are other barriers, points out Schuurmans in a white paper (see text box): OEMs are not always consistent. ‘They are keen to establish long-term strategic relationships with their suppliers, but that desire is not always consistent with the working methods of their own purchasing departments, which are often inclined to go for the lowest price. That means suppliers are not given the financial room to develop into build-to-roadmap suppliers.’ And is not just on the money side where things tend to go wrong; even before then, suppliers may not be given the necessary space to develop. When push comes to shove, OEMs may not accept a more or less standardised module – because they don’t want to ‘engineer around it’, they end up making all kinds of customer-specific demands. As John van Soerland of Phillips Healthcare previously admitted in Link: ‘When we hand responsibility to our suppliers and demand cost reduction proposals, we have to be prepared to adjust our products accordingly.’ Schuurmans: ‘On the one hand, OEMs like to see suppliers take the step to full independence and to grow. On the other, they don’t want the same suppliers to grow so big that they can start making demands, such as negotiating a particular price and retaining intellectual property (IP). OEMs can’t make the same demands of a big German supplier with a turnover of billions such as Zeiss or Trumpf as they can of a company like Frencken or NTS.’
A position like Zeiss
One company that wants to acquire a build-to-roadmap position is VDL ETG. CEO Simon Bambach is able to clearly indicate the size of the market for the wafer handlers his company is now able to develop, manufacture and maintain and service. ‘We see opportunities particularly among medium-sized firms in semiconductors, and then you’re talking about a global market worth several billion euros.’ VDL ETG has managed to secure a corresponding position for itself as a supplier for ASML – in the role of ‘OEM white box’, as the chip machine manufacturer puts it. Over two years ago, the two firms launched a wafer handler pilot project. Once the required knowledge and skills had been transferred from the OEM to the supplier, ETG was also given complete responsibility for functional development. To clarify: ‘white box’ refers to the fact that the complete package of drawings for the wafer handler, which is being developed and built specifically for ASML, becomes the property of that customer. ‘But of course we are free to take the background knowledge we acquire within the company by developing at a functional level and use it for third parties too. The boundary between the foreground knowledge of ASML and our background knowledge is still somewhat diffuse. The fact is that ASML has made a conscious decision to transfer knowledge and skills to us which we can use more widely, precisely to enable us to enrich them with experiences elsewhere. And of course also to reduce the development costs for the wafer handler by allowing us to use that experience for the benefit of other customers.’ However, the final objective has not yet been achieved, notes Bambach: ‘We are now the only supplier with that knowledge of wafer handlers, so it is understandable that ASML still wants to have detailed financial control. But that is a question of time – trust needs to continue to grow on both sides. Our objective is to grow towards a position like that enjoyed by Zeiss SMT. Towards the type of partnership you already see in aircraft manufacturing. There, an OEM like Boeing has the know-how regarding the overall architecture of the aircraft and sufficient knowledge about matters such as the landing gear, the cockpit and the engines in order to be able to specify its requirements towards specialists such as Rolls-Royce.’
Semi-productisation
Over a year ago, Festo revealed that it was an OEM white box supplier for a number of large technology firms in the Eindhoven region for various technical solutions. According to managing director Dennis van Beers and senior project consultant Max van den Berg, this has resulted in a much closer partnership which takes shape early on in projects. Van Beers: ‘In relation to the White Paper by Praetimus, we find that Festo increasingly implements the projects in the ‘semi-productisation’ phase. Our larger OEM customers are keen for us to do that. However, full-productisation is a further step, in effect a virtual integration of supplier and customer.’ Festo is not at that stage yet, explains Van den Berg. ‘That will require a stronger basis of trust.’ Van Beers explains: ‘Both parties need to share facts that would never normally be revealed.’ Van den Berg: ‘If you are working that closely with customers on projects, you also need to make solid agreements about the costs. That is not always easy, but once those arrangements are in place, you don’t have to keep on having the same discussions about the price.’ There is still a discussion to be had about the intellectual property. ‘Broadly speaking, the background knowledge we contribute and build up during the project is for us and the foreground knowledge which is in the system drawings belongs to the customer. But if
we want to use certain know-how for a customer in a different sector, they are always open to discussing that.’ Festo likes the role of OEM white box supplier and that is not just because of the margins, assures Van Beers: ‘We are always looking for the market leaders in their segment. We want to build up deep, long-term relationships with them. Because it’s also about the technology. We learn from our customers – and our customers learn from us – and we can use that knowledge and experience to benefit all our activities. This form of partnership is also a subject for discussion with other firms in the Eindhoven region.’ The fact that Festo Nederland, as part of the global Festo conglomerate, is entering into this type of relationship with customers is no coincidence. ‘We secure a relatively high and indeed growing percentage of our turnover from customer-specific developments that call for deep relationships and an acceptance of mutual dependence.’
Ongoing discussions
The NTS-Group is also in discussions about its role with several customers – with ASML about the OEM white box role for the reticle masking unit, a mechatronic diaphragm; and with another customer about the OEM black box role for a print module for which NTS holds the intellectual property rights. CEO Marc Hendrikse: ‘For an OEM, a printer is of far less interest than the substrate and the resin. Because it can earn its money with the ‘paper and ink’. So it makes sense to outsource all development and manufacturing activities to a party like us.’NTS is on the road to that status of OEM white box and OEM black box supplier, but it has not achieved those positions yet, says Hendrikse, one reason being that the discussion about the ownership of the intellectual property is still ongoing. ‘If we develop a mechatronic module, naturally we do not want to run the risk of being unable to earn back the investment because our technology gets copied and marketed by a third party. Another factor is that customers could become more dependent on us, which makes them cautious. Then there is the question of who will offer the guarantee. If a product becomes defective due to a manufacturing fault on our part, we will repair it. But if that means a factory has to halt production, who will pay for the consequential loss? Making sound agreements with the customer about matters like these takes time.’If NTS does secure the position of OEM white box/OEM black box supplier, one consequence will be that it will have to start doing product marketing. But it does already have some experience in that regard. ‘For example, the print module will contain customer-specific elements, but the basic construction is always the same. The generic know-how it incorporates, for example relating to the right moment to make resins coagulate or liquefy, is something we have to develop and maintain ourselves. It is therefore up to us to ensure that we remain up-to-date with the latest technology and market demands and translate those things into our own products and technology roadmap and product marketing activities.’
Step by step
There are also legal implications, and therefore risks, associated with the position of OEM white box or OEM black box, notes Taco Huizinga of The Law Factor. ‘If you are an OEM black box and you are responsible for and own the complete design of a module, you are also liable if something goes wrong throughout the entire life cycle. It is not enough to do some re-engineering; you have to pay for and assure the repairs and consequential loss. You are also liable for infringements of intellectual property rights held by third parties and for compliance with all kinds of statutory provisions – and for the consequences of any failure to deliver on time. After all, your customer can say: ‘It is your design, your development and production process, on which I have no influence, so you are completely responsible for it.’ On the other hand, it is your intellectual property and, if it is good, your customer will pay you for taking all that responsibility.’ As an OEM white box, the supplier shares those responsibilities. ‘In that situation, the production-related knowledge lies with the supplier, but the product-related knowledge remains with the customer. Who exactly bears the risk in this case will depend entirely on the exact agreements made. It may be that the product-related intellectual property is transferred from the customer to the supplier in a step-by-step fashion, so that the latter can use it to make products for other customers in other domains. This also means the responsibility and risks gradually shift to the supplier. As do the margins.’
Taking over
Paul Schuurmans of Praetimus doubts whether Dutch suppliers will be able to take that step to build-to-roadmap supplier any time soon. ‘You see big foreign firms like Festo, companies with their own roadmap which derive the major part of their turnover from standard components, investing more and more in developing and marketing ever more complex modules at their country sites. It would not surprise me if a company like that were to take over one of the larger Dutch system suppliers. They are of course capable of assuming that build-to-roadmap position.’
Success ‘temporary’
Fellow suppliers are choosing to become OMMs (OEM white box or OEM black box), but that is not the role which Edward Voncken, head of KMWE, is aiming for. ‘That role does not suit us. We are a typical process specialist-plus, a world leader in particular metal machining steps with associated assembly and engineering services. If we decided to market our own e-bike or blood analysis device, for example, we could become a competitor to our own customers. I see a number of suppliers growing towards that kind of role by ‘productising’, i.e. turning a module into a product which is more or less their own, encouraged by OEMs who want to shift greater responsibility for development, production and maintenance to the chain. But that means taking on a large number of new activities: marketing and business development, R&D and roadmap development, plus product sales, service and maintenance. And you will have to find a module for which the market is big enough to finance all those extra costs.’Suppose you managed to overcome all those obstacles, success might still prove very temporary, so Voncken believes. ‘Of course large OEMs are keen to place the responsibility for particular modules with an OEM white box supplier – until they realise they are losing the associated know-how and therefore control over the development of those modules; that they are becoming dependent on a supplier that can demand a larger share of the margin on account of its new position. At that point, the OEM may decide to hit the brakes and take back those modules. Module suppliers may acquire the role of OEM white box within strict limits, but OEMs will never permit that know-how to disappear into the black box, unless a module is far enough removed from their core technology.’
Read Further in Link magazine, South Netherland Special 2016.
coolsoo world : Build to Spec
Build to Spec vs. Build to Print First some definitions which you should already be aware of, but are worth refreshing. “Build to spec” is when a company literally instructs a vendor to build something that is a certain size and has specific operational parameters. The degree to which the component is specified may vary, but ultimately the vendor is free to use their own design expertise and manufacturing know-how to produce the parts they will supply to you. The benefit is that the vendor retains the responsibility and liability for design and part quality, which may reduce your overhead since you do not need to maintain in-house expertise in an area of subject matter that is not a core competency for your company. The definitive drawback is that the vendor owns the IPR on that part, which may be a key component to your product. More on the impact of this later. “Build to print” is when a company not only specifies the functional requirements of the part, but they produce assembly drawings, work instructions and call out specific manufacturing practices to be used in producing the parts. This method requires more work and development cost on the part of the company, but the advantage lies in maintaining control of the IPR and having the ability to select any appropriate vendor to produce parts for you. This approach is more costly since you would likely be responsible for design and quality liability issues. Nevertheless, if you possess the subject matter expertise it is always better from the perspective of IPR to design “in-house.” This approach also makes subsequent vertical integration of your business easier.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5854918
A “BUILT TO SPEC” supplier is in charge and responsible of its definition. He shall ensure and reply
that its definition, its industrialization and its manufacturing of all items are in accordance with Aircelle’s
Technical Specification.
A “BUILT TO PRINT” is supplier in charge to industrialize and produce a consequent assembly or subassembly
of several primary items and/or systems (as a main module of the nacelle), but the “Built To
Print” supplier is not in charge of the technical conception.
“Other supplier” is a supplier in charge to industrialize and produce a primary item or an equipped item
from the Aircelle definition. Such supplier is not in charge of the technical conception.
Build to order ( BTO ) and sometimes referred to as make to order ( MTO ), is a production approach where products are not built until a confirmed order for products is received. BTO is the oldest style of order fulfillment and is the most appropriate approach used for highly customized or low volume products.
Ref : http://ezinearticles.com/?Intellectual-Property-Issues-Within-the-Supply-Chain&id=5854918
Build-to-Print: A Critical Tool for ETO Manufacturers
Few solutions contain a build-to-print feature allowing manufacturers of custom-designed products to advance quickly and profitably.
By Andrew Schutte
Few ERP solutions are tailored for the engineer-to-order (ETO) manufacturing space. Even fewer contain a build-to-print feature which allows manufacturers of custom-designed products or parts to advance quickly and profitably. Build-to-print is a process in which a manufacturer produces products, equipment, or components according to the customer’s exact specifications. Typically, an engineer provides drawings, and the manufacturer is responsible for producing the part or piece of equipment to spec, using the correct materials. The design specifications often include performance and quality requirements. Build-to-print falls under the general category of contract manufacturing and is occasionally referred to as build-to-suit.
Companies engage a custom manufacturer for a build-to-print project when their engineers need components which are not their specialization or when they do not have the capacity or equipment to manufacture. Frequently, an OEM will have the capabilities onsite to execute most of a design, but will find it less expensive to outsource certain components that fail to align with their staffing and equipment resources. Enabling companies to keep operations streamlined and cost-effective can only happen in ETO manufacturing with build-to-print functionality; it allows companies to specialize in low volume, high mix contrast manufacturing.
Specialties requiring this solution include precision component manufacturing, sub-assembly manufacturing, and end-product manufacturing. It is critical that full quoting capabilities are included in built-to-print modules. Quotes must be generated via the process flow estimations for individual parts (entering estimated times, setting markup/margin, time/material jobs, or even just a user specified cost). The build-to-print capability is especially useful when a company is not purely a “contract manufacturer” nor an OEM.
Manufacturing engineers are not happy
While the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates a ten percent (10%) YoY (year over year) growth rate among industrial engineers the rapid attrition rate is equally high; that equates to 100% attrition in a decade. Nowhere is the dissatisfaction and attrition of industrial engineers as great as the engineer-to-order manufacturing space.
With all the permutations inherent in the ETO manufacturing process, it may seem counterintuitive that so many are bored and exhausted. The fact that no two customers or products being manufactured are identical would seem to alleviate the possibility of boredom. In fact, the variety of engineering tasks would seem fun and interesting. These one-of-a-kind engineering and production elements would suggest an interesting and challenging engineering career.
The exhaustion in the ETO manufacturing process is not from the engineering and design creativity needed, but rather the antiquated tools, disconnected technologies, and need to constantly create production work-arounds to offset and compensate for system inefficiencies. Industrial engineers named ill-suited ERP (enterprise resource planning) solutions as the main culprit, triggering as much as 30 – 40% of their work time fixing and overcoming limitations.
The cost of frustrated industrial engineers
These are highly paid industrial engineers who spend their time sending post-it notes to purchasing, operations, and production. They are frequently blamed when a production schedule is missed, yet frequently senior management fails to take responsibility and accountability for providing the wrong tools to get the job done efficiently.
Quality impacted when ERP fails industrial engineers
© 2021 COUNTERPART ERP
It is estimated that hiring and training a replacement industrial engineer will cost at least $40,000. Just keeping industrial engineers equipped with the proper ETO ERP solution will allow for happy and engaged workers. It is up to employers to identify disengaged workers and find ways of reinjecting purpose and interest into their jobs. Failure to do so puts manufacturers at the risk of high turnover rates. Boredom is a sign the engineering staff is already searching for a new job or employer who understands what is needed to maximize creativity and efficiency.
Not burdened with workarounds required due to poor integration between SOLIDWORKS and an antiquated ETO ERP solution, industrial engineers confer with clients about product specifications, vendors about purchases, management personnel about manufacturing capabilities, and staff about the status of projects.
Andrew Schutte
About the Author:
Andrew Schutte, General Manager at COUNTERPART ETO ERP, has been mechanically inclined from a young age. Growing up in his father’s machine shop he was provided a valuable hands-on education of machining, fabrication, and mechanical design throughout high school. He moved to designing automation assembly equipment and machine design supporting the automotive, office furniture, medical equipment, and consumer product industries. Follow on Twitter @CounterpartErp or call (616) 738-8922.
키워드에 대한 정보 build to print vs build to spec
다음은 Bing에서 build to print vs build to spec 주제에 대한 검색 결과입니다. 필요한 경우 더 읽을 수 있습니다.
이 기사는 인터넷의 다양한 출처에서 편집되었습니다. 이 기사가 유용했기를 바랍니다. 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오. 매우 감사합니다!
사람들이 주제에 대해 자주 검색하는 키워드 Custom catalog and spec
- autocad plant 3d
- inventor
- autodesk
- mgfx
- micrographics
- spec
- catalog
Custom #catalog #and #spec
YouTube에서 build to print vs build to spec 주제의 다른 동영상 보기
주제에 대한 기사를 시청해 주셔서 감사합니다 Custom catalog and spec | build to print vs build to spec, 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오, 매우 감사합니다.
