Technology Insertion/Infusion CALCE Electronic Products and Systems - PDF document

Technology Insertion/Infusion CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion Design Refreshes Rarely will a design refresh just replace an obsolete part. Usually, if a design refresh is to be undertaken, the opportunity will be used to upgrade the system using: • Newer parts • High reliability parts • Increased functionality • Increased memory • Increased performance • Reduce system size and weight • Reduce power requirements • Improve maintainability and reliability • Reduce cost of acquisition and life cycle support CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion 1

What We Want to Know About Technology Insertion • When: When to insert a technology is a crucial parameter in determining the cost effects. Cost effects vary greatly with the programmatic variables of the system, i.e., budget availability. Roadmapping of technology availability is also necessary. • Why: A comparative quantification of technologies being considered can enable decision makers to maximize “value” (value = economic, performance, requirement satisfaction). • Who: People involved in technology insertion analysis include the decision maker (normally program manager), engineers, cost analysts and the customer • How Much: Once we have assigned a “value” to the technology insertion, we want to be able to assess how much it cost allowing the customer to determine if the extra value of inserting the cost is worth the extra cost. CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion Technology Availability • Roadmapping forecasts the beginning of availability (maturity) of technology • Obsolescence forecasting focuses on the backend of the technology wave • What is your risk threshold? Availability Beginning of End of availability availability Calendar Time CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion 2

Technology Forecasting Methods There are many technology forecasting methods (most focused on predicting introduction/maturity), but the challenge is relating the two extremes (beginning of availability and end of availability). • Expert Opinion • Technology Trend Analysis (Pearl-Reed & Gompertz) • Delphi Technique Units shipped/Market ($) Units shipped/Market ($) • Fisher-Pry Substitution • Nominal Group Technique • Scenarios • Morphological Analysis • Relevance Trees • Impact Wheel Growth Growth Maturity Maturity Decline Decline Phase-out Discontinuance Phase-out Discontinuance Introduction Introduction • Patent Analysis Time Time • Data Mining • On-Line Analytical Processing CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion Cost Considerations (Current Technology Comparison to Future Technology) • Cost historical data for current technology • Cost of keeping the old technology in the field (maintain) • Technical considerations for current technology and future technology – Engineering effort • Engineering difficulty • New design effort – Technology indices – Design integration – Time (technology year) • Maturity level • Improvements in methods and processes – Technology trend – Year to insert technology – Quantity CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion 3

Average Annual Rate of Technology Change Manufacturing Mx versus IOC- Fighter/Attack AC Fighter/Attack Aircraft Producibility (Mx) measures recurring cost 9.00 impact of materials, 8.50 Manufacturing Producibility (Mx) y = 0.0503x + 3.5424 R 2 = 0.8918 fabrication, assembly, and 8.00 inspection 7.50 7.00 Military Transport Aircraft Military Transport Aircraft M M x vs x vs I O I O C C Mx 6.50 Manufacturing Producibility (Mx) Manufacturing Producibility (Mx) 8. 00 8. 00 7. 50 7. 50 6.00 7. 00 7. 00 6. 50 6. 50 5.50 6. 00 6. 00 5. 50 5. 50 y = 0. 0349x + 3. 9291 y = 0. 0349x + 3. 9291 5. 00 5. 00 5.00 2 2 R R = 0. 8103 = 0. 8103 4. 50 4. 50 4. 00 4. 00 4.50 0 0 20 20 40 40 60 60 80 80 100 100 120 120 Year of Initial Operational Capability - 1900 Year of Initial Operational Capability - 1900 I O I O C C 4.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Components, subsystems Year of Initial Operational Capability (IOC) - 1900 IOC-1900 and systems follow the same patterns. Darryl Webb – Price Systems, LLC CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion Battery Performance Example Most component technologies historically have maintained consistent improvement rates in Performance (batteries: cycles) Li Ion Efficiency (batteries; watt-hours per kilogram) Total cycles Ni H2 Ni Cad Physical characteristics (batteries;: mass, density, and volume) Technological cycle time is consistent and driven by: Application Competition 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year of Initial Operational Capability Demand Subsidiary industries (infrastructure) Li Ion Ni Cad Efficiency (Wh/kg) Ni H2 Ni H2 Mass Li Ion Ni Cad 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year of Initial Operational Capability Year of Initial Operational Capability Darryl Webb – Price Systems, LLC CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion 4

Disruptive Technologies Disruptive technology innovations are accounted for here. Many of the data points on the previous two slides were viewed as a disruptive technologies. Performance Metric Disruptive Technology Trend for a history of all families of technologies Trend for a particular evolving family of technology Time CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion Cost Life Cycle of a Technology •Initial part of the curve; high cost due to low producibility, small production runs and 1.200 limited sources State-of-the-art 1.000 •Center portion of the curve; low cost due to mature Relative Cost per Unit 0.800 manufacturing processes, high yields and multiple sources 0.600 •Latter part of the curve; increase in cost due to 0.400 outdated processes, low procurement quantities and 0.200 limited sources (and State-of-the-practice Obsolete decreasing profitability to the 0.000 technology supplier) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Year •Depth of curve a function of market size and number of applications CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion 5

Technology Generations (Cost) • Three generations of battery technology Generations of Technology When should you make the • Initial high peaks of each jump from one technology generation caused by Commercial product to the next? subcontractor processes Military product maturity costs, prime Cost Li Ion contractor design Ni Cad NiH2 integration costs and low producibility • When obsolete for 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 several generations, cost Time is higher than current technologies of much greater performance Darryl Webb – Price Systems, LLC CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion Technology Generations (Performance) Performance Trend • “Performance” is a technology-specific metric constructed Li Ion from a combination of Performance the operational, functional, and reliability requirements Ni H2 placed on the system Ni Cad by the customer Time For the battery example: 1 Performanc = e f (Efficienc y, , Total Cycles) Mass Darryl Webb – Price Systems, LLC CALCE Electronic Products and Systems Center University of Maryland Obsolescence/Technology Insertion 6