Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Review
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 December 2012
Received in revised form 25 March 2013
Accepted 4 April 2013
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Cloud manufacturing (CM)
Distributed systems
Resource sharing
Automation and control
a b s t r a c t
Cloud manufacturing, a service oriented, customer centric, demand driven manufacturing model is
explored in both its possible future and current states. A unique strategic vision for the eld is documented, and the current state of technology is presented from both industry and academic viewpoints.
Key commercial implementations are presented, along with the state of research in elds critical to
enablement of cloud manufacturing, including but not limited to automation, industrial control systems,
service composition, exibility, business models, and proposed implementation models and architectures. Comparison of the strategic vision and current state leads to suggestions for future work, including
research in the areas of high speed, long distance industrial control systems, exibility enablement,
business models, cloud computing applications in manufacturing, and prominent implementation architectures.
2013 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strategic vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Providerconsumer interaction model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.
Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.
Application providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3.
Physical resource providers (PRPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Key characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1.
Customer centricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2.
Temporary, recongurable, dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3.
Turn no job away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.4.
Demand driven, demand intelligent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.5.
Shared burden, shared benet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Cloud manufacturing topics map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Current implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1.
Commercially viable implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2.
Key research implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Low-hanging fruit: cloud-computing in manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.
Automation, industrial control systems, machine-to-machine cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.
Service composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.
Manufacturing resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.
Flexibility and agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.
Business models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.
Implementation architectures, models and frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
This is an expanded version of paper number MSEC2013-1106, published in the ASME 2013 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 385 2192.
E-mail address: dirk.schaefer@me.gatech.edu (D. Schaefer).
0278-6125/$ see front matter 2013 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
4.
1. Introduction
The force of globalization has served to instantaneously connect
peoples from all across the globe, bringing with it game-changing
opportunities to share knowledge and expertise to benet in a
collective manner (sometimes called share-to-gain). Friedman [1]
explains that the latest globalization phase, which he coins Globalization 3.0, began around the year 2000 and was enabled by
the expansion of the internet on a global basis during the dotcom boom. According to Friedman, Globalization 3.0 is dened
by individuals and small groups from across the globe collaborating in areas once dominated by less-connected western
economies.
Tapscott and Williams [2] explain that the advent of the internet
has led to the development of cooperative collaboration networks,
resulting in a power-shift from the once mighty hierarchical business model. These traditional business models, according to the
authors, can no longer sustain successful innovation: In an age
where mass collaboration can reshape an industry overnight, the
old hierarchical ways of organizing work and innovation do not
afford the level of agility, creativity, and connectivity that companies require to remain competitive in todays environment. Simply
put, industry is going to have to rethink the traditional models of
business operation, as the amount of internal expertise they hold
is dwarfed by that held by the global mass of peoples connected
through globalization.
Many engineering paradigms have evolved as result of Globalization 3.0, some of which are mentioned by Tapscott and Williams
(mass collaboration and self-organization, for example). Of the
many paradigm shifts still in their infancy, cloud manufacturing
(CM) will be the focus of this paper [6,8]. CM, as will be dened
shortly, benets from the share-to-gain philosophy as a wide number of manufacturing resources and expertise are shared to provide
consumers with enhanced experiences. CM follows naturally from
the introduction and success of cloud computing, for which the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) offers the
following denition [3]:
Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of
congurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned
and released with minimal management effort or service
provider interaction.
Building on NISTs denition of cloud computing, many authors
have proposed denitions of CM, including Li et al. [41], Zhang
et al. [42], Zhang et al. [5], Xu [6], Wu et al. [7], and Schaefer
et al. [8]. The term, cloud manufacturing, was rst used by Li et al.
[41] in 2010. Xu discerns between two forms of cloud manufacturing: the introduction of cloud-computing technologies into the
manufacturing environment and cloud manufacturing. The latter
is a replication of the cloud-computing environment using physical manufacturing resources in lieu of computing resources this
idea will be the focus of this paper. Using the work of the NIST [3]
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
In the CM environment, manufacturing supply chain relationships will be customer-centric, dened by enhanced efciency,
reduced cost, increased exibility, and improved capabilities for
the user. These benets will be derived from the creation of exible manufacturing sequences enabled by the pooling of resources
from many different PRPs. Solutions will be customer, or even task,
specic, as the cloud based application layer can be used to generate numerous options for the users based upon their specications
(the user would be allowed to specify key aspects of the desired job,
such as cost, lead time, and quality, and different choices that t
within those ranges would be provided for consideration). The key
goal of a CM environment is linking users, with needs, to resource
providers who can fulll those needs while meeting cost, schedule,
and quality objectives of the user. See Fig. 2 for a comparison of supply chains in traditional and CM environments. In addition, it is also
crucial to understand collaborative relationships between cloud
service providers and consumers and identify key information and
resource owners within CM supply chain networks. Wu et al. [53]
introduce a new framework to visualize such implicit collaboration structures and propose some essential metrics to measure the
power and importance of individual suppliers and providers based
on social network analysis.
2.2.2. Temporary, recongurable, dynamic
Another distinguishing characteristic of CM is the dynamic, exible nature of resource provisioning. CM production lines are meant
to be temporary in nature, allowing for the production of small lots
but not excluding the opportunity for longer production runs as
well. The ability to quickly recongure and repurpose manufacturing resources allows for high efciency, minimized down time, and
instant response to demand.
System exibility will rely upon the ability to rapidly recongure and repurpose manufacturing equipment across multiple
dispersed manufacturing sites with minimized down time. To
accomplish such a task, a high level of automation will be required
to ensure that the division of tasks can be properly owed down
to multiple, distributed shop oors with minimal effort. The integration of automation, which in many industries is already present
today, does not necessarily imply the absence of human beings.
Depending upon the application, the entire manufacturing process
may be automated, and in other instances humans will still interact
as a measure of quality assurance and error prevention.
In order to ow manufacturing requirements from the cloud to
automated resources, industrial control systems (ICSs) will also be
required. These control systems will act as the central nervous system, monitoring and controlling resources at the shop oor level
to ensure multi-resource cooperation. The ICS will coordinate and
distribute tasks among manufacturing locations, ensuring compatibility of efforts and nal products.
2.2.3. Turn no job away
Due to the wide range of PRPs connected, jobs that were once
not economically viable will be enabled through the exibility of
the CM environment. Cloud based applications can develop multiple cost and schedule scenarios for consideration by the consumer,
utilizing access to a wide range of resources to enable saving
opportunities not realizable in traditional isolated manufacturing
settings. Where transportation is a cost driver, for example, the
cloud based application layer can initiate searches for alternative
manufacturing protocols that would result in lower cost. The CM
environment can optimize the manufacturing environment to the
point where no job would be turned away. In addition, the CM
environment matches tasks with PRPs based upon their equipment
availability and overall capacity, allowing for efcient processing
of small jobs without disruption of larger jobs. This increased efciency should increase the ability and willingness of PRPs to take
on small jobs that were once too disruptive and costly to tackle.
2.2.4. Demand driven, demand intelligent
Like any manufacturing entity today, the extent to which the CM
environment is exercised will be driven by user demand. Unlike traditional manufacturing enterprises, however, the CM environment
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
will be demand intelligent in that the inherent system exibility will be utilized to ensure even load sharing across equivalent
or interchangeable manufacturing resources. For example, if manufacturing resource A is more heavily utilized than others in the
network, yet the desired process can be performed by combining manufacturing resources B and C, the CM environment will
automatically realize and capitalize upon this alternative to avoid
excessive loading of manufacturing resource A. An example of
such a scenario would be the requirement for a 6-axis CNC machine,
when a combination of vertical and horizontal mills could be used
to process the same job.
2.2.5. Shared burden, shared benet
Traditional business organizations and relationships rely upon
a tiered structure of control, which acts together to create value.
Business organizations often vary widely across industries, and can
even be different across corporations within the same industry. The
organization of a business often denes a company as much as does
the product or service it offers. For example, Amazon is not just a
discount product marketplace; it is an online discount product marketplace. Mari Sako explains that business models dene business
operation: a business model articulates the customer value proposition; it identies a market segment; it denes the structure of
the value chain; it species the revenue generation mechanisms; it
describes the positioning within the value network or ecosystem;
and it also elaborates on competitive strategy by which the rm
gains and holds advantage over rivals [40]. A business model is the
argument as to why the company will succeed it explains critical
things such as who the customers are, why they care about your
product or service, how you are going to add value to the product,
and how you will make money.
The organizing business models that will someday dene CM,
while not unprecedented altogether, will require a shift from traditional business models of today to ones based on the share-to-gain
philosophy. Value chains, which describe how value is added to
a product, will be highly exible in CM. Value will be added by
resource providers sharing expertise and collaborating to provide
users with the products they desire while utilizing less resources
through efcient processes. CM will require the formation of new
business models altogether (by all vested parties), and will require
propositions as to what value the customer will receive, what market there is for such a business and so on. The appropriate business
model for CM may be difcult to determine when it comes to value
chain structure and revenue models. In traditional business models,
the value chain and revenue models are rmly dened each value
adder is separated from the others, and they are compensated based
upon the value they can add to the product. In a CM environment,
collaboration between suppliers will be required to successfully
complete a project. How will value added be determined when 3
different manufacturers combine resources to complete a buildto-print order? Will the overall value of the nal parts be divided
evenly between suppliers, or will it be shared based upon time and
resources spent? These are the questions that will determine how
value chains are structured and how wealth sharing will occur.
CM will likely cause a shift in the revenue models currently used
by design rms and manufacturers alike. The introduction of the
cloud will cause a shift in how value is added to the product, as the
cloud will take over some of the activities that contribute to the
revenue models of both the users and resource providers. For one,
the cloud will introduce a change in how users calculate the cost of
doing business. Secondly, the cloud will remove some opportunity
for service providers to add value to products, requiring them to
adjust their business models accordingly.
CM will also require the reversal of traditional beliefs held
regarding intellectual property. Traditionally, data rights are easily
understood design authorities own the rights to product designs,
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
3.1. History
Surprisingly, signicant literature on manufacturing-as-aservice was created in the late 1990s. It is expected that much of
this literature was developed as part of the dot-com boom, which
ended in the year 2000. It is likely that internet capabilities (speed,
data transfer capability, etc.) were not able to accommodate the
visions presented by these papers at the time of their creation,
and as such CM has been awaiting arrival of todays internet for
implementation.
In an article from 1990, Goldhar and Jelinek [35] discuss future
implications of computer integrated manufacturing (CIM). These
authors discuss transformation of the factory from a mechanical
focused operation to one driven by information technology, and
also discuss the ability for mass customization as a result of CIM.
Much of the future envisioned by Goldhar and Jelinek matches the
strategic vision for CM, including the ability to fulll any demanded
job regardless of size, and the ability to make the factory oor
intelligent. While Goldhar and Jelinek envision the smart factory,
they fail to realize the potential of networking multiple factories
together into a virtual smart enterprise. This is undoubtedly due
the year in which the document was written, as the internet was
not yet prominent in the year 1990 and inter-factory cooperation
may have not been a reality at that time. Regardless, this work represents a signicant precursor to the vision of CM presented in this
paper.
A 1998 source published by Rajagopalan et al. discusses the
implications of the internet for design and rapid manufacturing
technologies [36]. These authors discuss an internet infrastructure
that connects designers and manufacturing services. Like so many
of the more recent papers which will be reviewed in this report,
these authors describe the existence of design clients, manufacturing services, and process brokers which act as intermediaries.
The stated purpose for such an infrastructure is to allow for the
separation of design and manufacturing both in a geographic
and organizational manner. In the described work, the design
client uses software that augments traditional CAD programs and
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Table 1
RSC exibility types.
Flexibility type
Implication
Task exibility
Flow exibility
Resource service exibility
Quality of service (QoS) exibility
Correlation exibility
constructs the RSC, optimizes it, and begins the execution phase.
During RSC execution, the Monitoring module monitors those variables which affect the RSC lifecycle, and transmits information
regarding abnormal changes to the Coordination module. The Coordination module then invokes corresponding adjustments to the
RSC to ensure continued operations.
LaSelle [22] presents that mass customization is the new marketplace challenge, one which would be well served by a supply
chain that can produce unique products of varying complexity
on demand. LaSelle states that CM meets this goal by allowing
manufacturing to keep pace with the ever-changing customer
information. In short, CM allows the consumer direct access to the
manufacturing industry through the internet, and as such industry can react to changing demand in real time. One challenge to
increased system exibility is the ability of automated machinery to adapt to new tasks while maintaining acceptable quality of
service levels. LaSelle presents that robotic machinery programs
often need repetitive adjustment before an acceptable result is
obtained, a luxury which cannot be afforded in a world of mass
customization. One solution proposed is the collection of task specic knowledge that, as a collective whole, enables autonomous
process control without the need for machinery to practice
tasks.
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
11
Table 2
Hypotheses offered by [17] regarding value creation and appropriation, and their relationships to the attitudes and behaviors of collaborating parties.
Hypothesis
designation
Hypothesis statement
Hypothesis supported
by research?
H1
H2a
H2b
H3a
H3b
H4
H5a
H5b
H5c
H6
H7
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Wagner et al. conclude their research with three (3) main conclusions:
Satisfaction is most higly driven by value appropriation.
Collaborators compare their awards with those of others.
The open and frequent exchange of information can ease tensions
between competitors.
3.9. Implementation architectures, models and frameworks
Architectures, models, and frameworks for implementation
of CM have been presented by numerous authors. These proposed structures vary in their complexity, maturity, and level of
demonstrated potential, yet many have similar characteristics.
Development of feasible implementation structures should be a
key area of interest for academia and industry alike as they will
help demonstrate the possible capabilities of a CM environment
[33].
Xu [6] proposes a four (4) layer CM framework consisting of
a manufacturing resource layer, a virtual service layer, a global
service layer, and an application layer. See Fig. 7. According to
Xu, the Manufacturing Resource Layer contains the physical manufacturing resources and capabilities of the shop oor, which
are ultimately provided to the customer in Software-as-a-service
(Saas) and Infrastructure-as-a-service (Iaas) delivery models. The
Virtual Service Layer identies, virtualizes, and packages the
resources as CM services, which are then managed using the Global
Service Layer (GSL). The GSL, depending upon the task demanded,
can operate in both partial and complete services modes. In the partial service mode, the GSL does not handle all CM related activities
rather, the resource providers take some control of the process
ow and the GSL helps administratively manage the CM activities.
The complete service mode, however, coordinates and manages
the entire CM activity. Most importantly, the GSL is a cloud platform and provides services using the Platform-as-a-service (Paas)
model. Finally, Xu discusses the Application Layer, which provides
the user-resource exchange portal. Through the Application layer,
the user can construct manufacturing applications from the virtualized manufacturing resources.
Wu et al. [7] propose a Cloud Based Design and Manufacture
(CBDM) model composed of a cloud consumer, cloud provider,
cloud broker, and cloud carriers. The cloud consumers serve the
obvious role of utilizing the clouds services, while the providers
have the equally obvious role of providing services in the cloud.
The cloud broker is an intermediate party between the consumers
and providers, and manages the use, performance, and delivery
of services. Finally, the cloud carriers enable the exchange of services between providers and consumers through the provisioning
of transport networks. See Fig. 8.
As can be seen in Fig. 8, Wu et al. specify that there are
four cloud service types, including Hardware-as-a-service (Haas),
Software-as-a-service (Saas), Platform-as-a-service (Paas), and
Infrastructure-as-a-service (Iaas). The particulars of these service
types are shown below in Table 3.
Schaefer et al. [8] propose a Distributed Infrastructure with
Centralized Interfacing System (DICIS) as a CBDM structuring architecture. The DICIS is composed of three asset groups
(human, communication, and manufacturing process) bounded
by a centralized interface and a distributed infrastructure. See
Fig. 9.
As can be seen in Fig. 9, the three asset groups are combined
together in the distributed infrastructure, and the centralized interface enables the system to function as a whole. Human assets
include consumers, producers, and managers. The communication
assets proposed include a communication network (internet), network security, and 2 interfaces for communicating with the human
and manufacturing process asset groups. Finally, the manufacturing process asset group is composed of hardware and software
resources used in the CBDM environment.
Tao et al. [20] propose a four stage CM model where manufacturing resources are controlled through the internet via intelligent
monitoring systems. These resources are virtualized and encapsulated into Manufacturing Cloud Services (MCSs). These MCSs, in
contrast to the actual physical resources they represent, can be
accessed and invoked in the cloud. After creation of many different
MCSs based upon the manufacturing resources available, the MCSs
are categorized and organized into manufacturing clouds of similar services. For example, milling services may be represented by
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
12
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Table 3
Services types described by [7].
Service type
Description
Haas
Saas
Paas
Iaas
In similar fashion to other architectures presented, that proposed in [20] consists of manufacturing resources and abilities at
the lowest level. These resources are then virtualized and managed
in a cloud environment, and then made available to consumers
through an application layer. The seven functional layers of the
architecture are facilitated by the three layers of knowledge, cloud
security, and a network such as the internet. Tao et al. also state
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
13
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
14
the needs of modern manufacturing enterprises. One of the critical issues still not fully addressed is scalability. However, CM has
the potential to offer rapid scalability in some situations at certain
levels, such as manufacturing cells, general purpose machine tools,
and standardized machine components. For example, 3D printing
technology does not require tooling, allowing the cloud service
providers to rapidly scale up and down manufacturing capacity.
In addition, the 3D printers connected in the cloud also help rapid
tooling which makes rapid scalability possible for traditional manufacturing processes requiring tools.
Marketing and service: In the short term, the benets of CM
on marketing and service are reduced time-to-market, improved
service, and enhanced user experience. In the long term, the impact
area is customer co-creation.
In order for manufacturing enterprises to create value through
collaboration, there is an increasing need to establish a new form
of information, knowledge and resource sharing mechanism that
emphasizes the generation and realization of various product
stakeholders value. CM has the potential to create new marketing channels for information and resource sharing which will
transform the traditional product realization process into a value
co-creation process. Specically, the co-creation process enhanced
by CM can engage customers, designers, manufacturing engineers,
and production managers to communicate with each other through
social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, and online forums.
4.2. Future work
4.2.1. Automation and control
CM is still a poorly dened eld of study and would benet
from detailed research in many areas. Much work is required to
develop inter-factory industrial control systems which could facilitate a CM environment. Stouffer et al. provide evidence of room
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
for improvement within the eld of ICS [12]. These authors are discussing that DSC and PLC communications, which are typically used
in a manufacturing industry, are normally executed in intra-factory
environments. While these communications are usually more reliable and allow faster transmittal of data than do SCADA systems,
they are typically not well suited for long distance communication environments. Therefore, enabling geographically distributed
factories which can be controlled in an inter-factory style ICS will
require control systems which have the characteristics of high
speed, high reliability, and long distance range. Needed is a system
t for industrial process control with the range ability of a current
SCADA system.
Additionally, CM systems can only be as exible and robust
as their controlling logic and control systems permit. Therefore,
research in the area of articial intelligence and its possible applications to the CM eld will help ensure exibility in manufacturing.
The future trend should be to move away from automation towards
integrated intelligence which not only allows automation of tasks
but also allows for autonomy in tasking and task exibility [64]. The
ultimate goal should be to enable robust service compositions that
are autonomously recongured with minimal human intervention.
Moreover, exibility will also be enabled by open communication
standards as proposed by the MTConnect Institute. Ensuring shop
oor connectivity will allow for efcient and effective machineto-machine communication, providing coordination among value
chain members during the manufacturing process. The development of open communication standards is an area of potential
further research.
4.2.2. Business model
With limited examples of commercially viable implementations, it is still undetermined as to what applications are feasible
for CM. Business model development should focus on a few main
research questions:
Who will benet from this implementation of CM and how? Why
would those involved in this business model choose a CM operating environment over a traditional manufacturing environment?
How will equity be assured when value is delivered as a result of
shared-interest, multiple-party work? How will value be maximized and distributed in accordance with value added?
Should collaborators within the CM environment be bound by
formal operating agreements, or should they be subject to a free
market style environment? Does this vary based upon the situation, and why? Perhaps a hybrid environment would be best?
How should IP be handled in collaborative environments? What
about background and foreground rights?
4.2.3. Information and resource sharing
A huge amount of data and unstructured manufacturing-related
information needs to be shared across upstream design and downstream manufacturing in CM. A primary technical barrier is that
traditional manufacturing systems lack frameworks for seamless information and resource sharing mechanisms that facilitate
communication and collaboration in distributed and collaborative
settings. Specically, a key component of such seamless information and resource sharing mechanism is a framework for capturing
the implicit and complex collaboration structure, identifying key
service provides and consumers. One of the key research questions
in terms of information and resource sharing:
How can we investigate the communication and interaction
patterns between service providers and consumers in order
to capture the implicit collaboration structure and key service
providers and consumers in CM networks?
15
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008
G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16
16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxxxxx
[43] Laili Y, Tao F, Zhang L, Sarker BR. A study of optimal allocation of computing resources in cloud manufacturing systems. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2012;63(5):67190.
[44] Tao F, Cheng Y, Zhang L, Zhao D. Utility modelling, equilibrium, and coordination of resource service transaction in service-oriented manufacturing system.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2012;226(6):1099117.
[45] Guo H, Tao F, Zhang L, Su S, Si N. Correlation-aware web services composition
and QoS computation model in virtual enterprise. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2010;51(5):81727.
[46] Tao F, LaiLi Y, Xu L, Zhang L. FC-PACO-RM: a parallel method for service composition optimal-selection in cloud manufacturing system. IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Informatics 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2232936.
[47] Tao F, Guo H, Zhang L, Cheng Y. Modeling of combinable relationship-based
composition service network and the theoretical proof of its scale-free characteristics. Enterprise Information Systems 2012;6(4):373404.
[48] Tao F, Hu YF, Zhou ZD. Study on manufacturing grid & its resource service
optimal-selection system. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2008;37(9):102241.
[49] Tao F, Zhao D, Yefa H, Zhou Z. Correlation-aware resource service composition
and optimal-selection in manufacturing grid. European Journal of Operational
Research 2010;201(1):12943.
[50] Suh SH, Cho JH, Hong HD. On the architecture of intelligent STEPcompliant CNC. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
2002;15(2):16877.
[51] Xu XW, He Q. Striving for a total integration of CAD, CAPP, CAM and CNC.
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 2004;20(2):1019.
[52] Xu XW, Wang H, Mao J, Newman ST, Kramer TR, Proctor FM, et al. STEPcompliant NC research: the search for intelligent CAD/CAPP/CAM/CNC integration. International Journal of Production Research 2005;43(17):370343.
[53] Wu D, Schaefer D, Rosen DW. Cloud-based design and manufacturing systems:
a social network analysis. In: International conference on engineering design
(ICED13). 2013.
[54] Wu D, Greer MJ, Rosen DW, Schaefer D. Cloud manufacturing: drivers, current status, and future trends. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 international
manufacturing science and engineering conference (MSEC13), Paper Number:
MSEC2013-1106, Madison, Wisconsin, US. 2013.
[55] Cai M, Zhang W, Chen G, Zhang K, Li S. SWMRD: a semantic web-based
manufacturing resource discovery system for cross-enterprise collaboration.
International Journal of Production Research 2009;48(12):344560.
[56] Cai M, Zhang W, Zhang K. Manuhub: a semantic web system for ontologybased service management in distributed manufacturing environments. IEEE
Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans
2011;41(3).
[57] Zhang W, Zhang S, Cai M, Liu Y. A reputation-based peer-to-peer architecture
for semantic service discovery in distributed manufacturing environments.
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 2012.
[58] Tao F, Zhang L, Venkatesh VC, Luo Y, Cheng Y. Cloud manufacturing: a computing and service oriented manufacturing model. Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 2011;225(10):196976.
[59] Yin Y, Zhou Z, Chen Y, Long Y. Information service of the resource node in a manufacturing grid environment. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 2008.
[60] Shi S, Mo R, Yang H, Chang Z, Chen Z. An implementation of modeling resource
in a manufacturing grid for resource sharing. International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 2007;20:16977.
[61] Dong B, Qi G, Gu X, Wei X. Web service-oriented manufacturing resource
applications for networked product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics 2007:28295.
[62] Tao F, Zhao D, Hu Y, Zhou Z. Resource service composition and its optimalselection based on particle swarm optimization in manufacturing grid system.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2008;4(4):31527.
[63] Tao F, Hu YF, Zu De Zhou. Application and modeling of resource service
trust-QoS evaluation in manufacturing grid system. International Journal of
Production Research 2009;47(6):152150.
[64] Liu LL, Yu T, Shi ZB, Fang ML. Self-organization manufacturing grid and its
task scheduling algorithm. Computer Integrated Manufacturing System (China)
2003;9(6):44955.
[65] Tao F, Zhang L, Nee AYC. A review of the application of grid technology
in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 2011;49(13):
411955.
Please cite this article in press as: Wu D, et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. J Manuf Syst (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.008