ARTICLE IN PRESS

G Model
JMSY-212; No. of Pages 16

Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmansys

Review

Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art夽
Dazhong Wu, Matthew John Greer, David W. Rosen, Dirk Schaefer ∗
The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 813 Ferst Drive, NW, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cloud manufacturing, a service oriented, customer centric, demand driven manufacturing model is
Received 9 December 2012 explored in both its possible future and current states. A unique strategic vision for the field is docu-
Received in revised form 25 March 2013 mented, and the current state of technology is presented from both industry and academic viewpoints.
Accepted 4 April 2013
Key commercial implementations are presented, along with the state of research in fields critical to
Available online xxx
enablement of cloud manufacturing, including but not limited to automation, industrial control systems,
service composition, flexibility, business models, and proposed implementation models and architec-
Keywords:
tures. Comparison of the strategic vision and current state leads to suggestions for future work, including
Cloud manufacturing (CM)
Distributed systems
research in the areas of high speed, long distance industrial control systems, flexibility enablement,
Resource sharing business models, cloud computing applications in manufacturing, and prominent implementation archi-
Automation and control tectures.
© 2013 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Strategic vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1. Provider–consumer interaction model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1.1. Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1.2. Application providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1.3. Physical resource providers (PRPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2. Key characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2.1. Customer centricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2.2. Temporary, reconfigurable, dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2.3. Turn no job away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2.4. Demand driven, demand intelligent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2.5. Shared burden, shared benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.3. Cloud manufacturing topics map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Current state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2. Current implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.1. Commercially viable implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.2. Key research implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.3. Low-hanging fruit: cloud-computing in manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.4. Automation, industrial control systems, machine-to-machine cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.5. Service composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.6. Manufacturing resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.7. Flexibility and agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.8. Business models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.9. Implementation architectures, models and frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

夽 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

. . . . . . . . . . CM follows naturally from generate engineering requirements to be used in a manufactur- the introduction and success of cloud computing. . . was first used by Li et al. . . . Wu et al. . . . The term. . . . . . . . Many engineering paradigms have evolved as result of Global- ization 3. . . . . . on-demand network access to a shared pool of 2.doi. .jmsy. . . . . . . [7]. . . but do not possess the (CM) will be the focus of this paper [6. . . . . . . . . . . . users (consumers). . . . . . . and allow for optimal alization 3. . . . . . . . . . . . Application providers configurable computing resources (e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . production planning and et al. . the application layer is responsible for manufacturing environment and cloud manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as the amount of internal expertise they hold model represents the simple supply-demand market that will moti- is dwarfed by that held by the global mass of peoples connected vate the existence of CM. . . . . . . . . . . . 00 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the old hierarchical ways of organizing work and innovation do not CM will require interaction between three groups: the afford the level of agility. . . . Potential impact . . . . . . . as will be defined capabilities to do so. These engineering National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) offers the requirements. . resulting in a power-shift from the once mighty hierarchical busi. . . . . . . . to gain a competitive advantage by utilizing CM. . . . . . . . . . . . stor- The cloud based application layer is responsible for managing age. Users (mass collaboration and self-organization. . . . including Li et al. . . . . . . . . . . in Fig. industry is going to have to rethink the traditional models of of resource providers through the application layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . creativity. . . . . . . . . . . reconfigurable production lines which enhance effi- explains that the latest globalization phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .008 . Finally. . . . . . . . . 2. . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and then making recommendations Tapscott and Williams [2] explain that the advent of the internet for future research. or they possess the capabilities but stand shortly. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . and physical resource nies require to remain competitive in today’s environment.8]. . . . . . . . and services) that can be rapidly provisioned all aspects of the CM environment and interprets user require- and released with minimal management effort or service ments into data required for production of the desired objects. Furthermore. . . . . . . . . . . Zhang final desired plating condition – these would be created by the et al. . . cloud manufacturing. . . . . [42]. . . 00 4. . . . . Wu et al. . . . 00 4. . . .0 is defined by individuals and small groups from across the globe col. are provided to the cloud based application layer for interpretation. Xu [6]. . . [5]. networks. . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . reduce product lifecycle costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . Friedman [1] temporary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . and connectivity that compa. . .” Simply providers. . . . . . . . . . . . . et al. Future work . .2. . . . . . . . . . .” For example. . . . and industry implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . [8]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Introduction and Smith [4] as a foundation. . . . This tri-group business operation. which he coins Glob- ciency. . . . . . . . . . . . . documenting the current state of academic research economies. . . . . . . . . . . . for example). . . . . . . . Using the work of the NIST [3] application providers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . . . .2. . . . . sequencing can be carried out through automated applications [41] in 2010. . . . “Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . .2. . and managing resources in the event of a service interrup- cal manufacturing resources in lieu of computing resources – this tion. Potential impact and future work . . . Information and resource sharing . . . . [41]. . . . many authors of a CNC tool path program and process planning to achieve a have proposed definitions of CM. these individuals or groups many paradigm shifts still in their infancy. . . . . . . . . . bringing with it game-changing ing model that exploits on-demand access to a shared collection opportunities to share knowledge and expertise to benefit in a of diversified and distributed manufacturing resources to form collective manner (sometimes called share-to-gain). . . some of which are mentioned by Tapscott and Williams 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 00 4. . . . . cloud manufacturing have the need to manufacture something. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . Users can range ber of manufacturing resources and expertise are shared to provide anywhere from individuals to large OEMs – any group that can consumers with enhanced experiences. .04. . . can no longer sustain successful innovation: “In an age 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for which the ing setting can participate in CM partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . .org/10.. . . . . . . . application providers. . The latter locating the required resources. . . . . . These traditional business models. . . . . . . . . . . began around the year 2000 and was enabled by resource loading in response to variable-demand customer gen- the expansion of the internet on a global basis during the dot- erated tasking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1016/j. . . . . . . . the following definition of CM is offered: The force of globalization has served to instantaneously connect “Cloud Manufacturing (CM) is a customer-centric manufactur- peoples from all across the globe. . http://dx. . . . . . . . . . CM. . . . . . . . . provider interaction. . . . . 00 1. . . con- venient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . Automation and control . . . . . . . . . . Globalization 3. has led to the development of cooperative collaboration networks. . . . which describe the desired object and its final con- following definition [3]: ditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 4. . . . . . ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Schaefer cloud based applications. . . / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 4. . . . . . . . benefits from the share-to-gain philosophy as a wide num. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . servers. . that determine the numerous production paths that could lead to turing: the introduction of cloud-computing technologies into the the desired object. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategic vision ness model. . . . . . according to the authors. . . . . .2013. . . . . . . . . The provider–consumer model is shown through globalization. This paper will focus on developing a strategic vision for the CM laborating in areas once dominated by less-connected western environment. The needs of users will be matched with the capabilities put. . . . . .g.2. pending them to the engineering is a replication of the cloud-computing environment using physi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 4. . . . . . .2. . . . . . . Distributed system simulation . Of the Users are the consumers in CM. . . . Business model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a user desired product may require the development Building on NIST’s definition of cloud computing. . . . According to Friedman. . who offer their services as an intermediary Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zhang et al. J Manuf Syst (2013).” [54] com boom. . . of Pages 16 2 D. 00 4. . . job. . . . . . . . The application layer will be managed and controlled by idea will be the focus of this paper. . 00 References . . 1. . . . . . . Xu discerns between two forms of cloud manufac. . .1. . . Provider–consumer interaction model where mass collaboration can reshape an industry overnight. . . . . . . . applications. . . .2.

prove to be difficult and costly to dissolve. et al. Physical resource providers (PRPs) 21st century industry is dominated by hierarchical supply Physical resource providers (PRPs) own and operate man. Key characteristics profit.2.3. and testing resources.2. PRPs join the CM and drawings. suppliers to assist with the product development process.008 . they can often requirements. for example). 1. Strategic vision for CM. http://dx.doi.jmsy. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3 Fig.org/10. tually enforced with a first-tier supplier. when tradi- the output is a finalized product in conformance with user tional supplier relationships prove to be undesirable. PRPs have the know-how and experience to facturer (OEM) who develops product level requirements from the utilize these machines effectively and efficiently. the consumer experience (reduce costs. chains in which requirement originating parties flow down prod- ufacturing equipment.1. of Pages 16 D. inspection technologies.2013. pack. between users and resource providers for a portion of the product 2. These requirements are then contrac- network based upon their expertise alone. who can then engage sub-tier technologies. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. the opportunity to enhance the cloud as a service. While often these relationships taneous access to manufacturing capabilities provided through can be fruitful for all parties involved. No. Customer centricity 2. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212.1. A classic aging technologies. improve quality. Wu et al.) are ufacturing data created by the cloud based applications. Furthermore. The input to the PRP group is the man. These PRPs are perspective of technology function and integration (specifications not limited by geographic location.04. finishing technologies.1016/j. including but not limited to machining uct level requirements to suppliers. Ideally as a whole. who can then contract out the PRP network would represent every type of manufacturing sections of the work to sub-tier suppliers based upon the nature of capability available in the marketplace. etc. 2. offering users instan. J Manuf Syst (2013). rather. and severely limited by their rigid nature. In addition to owning example of this relationship is that of an original equipment manu- physical resources. the work and core competencies.

to multiple. and ciency should increase the ability and willingness of PRPs to take instant response to demand. Depending upon the application. monitoring and controlling resources at the shop floor level within those ranges would be provided for consideration). 2 for a comparison of sup- ply chains in traditional and CM environments.04. Wu et al. environment can optimize the manufacturing environment to the ible nature of resource provisioning. it is also 2. increased flexibility. settings. In order to flow manufacturing requirements from the cloud to ate numerous options for the users based upon their specifications automated resources. http://dx. This increased effi- ing resources allows for high efficiency. specific. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. Solutions will be customer. et al. Unlike tra- to ensure that the division of tasks can be properly flowed down ditional manufacturing enterprises. ple cost and schedule scenarios for consideration by the consumer. tion structures and propose some essential metrics to measure the utilizing access to a wide range of resources to enable saving power and importance of individual suppliers and providers based opportunities not realizable in traditional isolated manufacturing on social network analysis. the cloud based application layer can initiate searches for alternative 2. Temporary. In the CM environment. the extent to which the CM accomplish such a task. a high level of automation will be required environment is exercised will be driven by user demand. and different choices that fit tem. as the cloud based application layer can be used to gener. The inte- ships will be customer-centric. and quality. industrial control systems (ICSs) will also be (the user would be allowed to specify key aspects of the desired job. The key to ensure multi-resource cooperation. 2. The ICS will coordinate and goal of a CM environment is linking users. the user.2. the CM to be temporary in nature.org/10. schedule. System flexibility will rely upon the ability to rapidly recon- figure and repurpose manufacturing equipment across multiple 2. and quality objectives of the user. however. does not necessarily imply the absence of human beings. gration of automation.doi. ibility of efforts and final products. jobs that were once service providers and consumers and identify key information and not economically viable will be enabled through the flexibility of resource owners within CM supply chain networks.2013.4. of Pages 16 4 D.jmsy. In addition. Cloud based applications can develop multi- introduce a new framework to visualize such implicit collabora.1016/j. allowing for efficient processing well. [53] the CM environment.2. as a measure of quality assurance and error prevention. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Fig. required. CM production lines are meant point where no job would be turned away. In addition. and improved capabilities for today. To Like any manufacturing entity today. the CM environment Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. Where transportation is a cost driver. distributed shop floors with minimal effort. manufacturing supply chain relation. These benefits will be derived from the creation of flexi. with needs. J Manuf Syst (2013). for example. reconfigurable. on small jobs that were once too disruptive and costly to tackle. The ability to quickly reconfigure and repurpose manufactur. Wu et al. and in other instances humans will still interact from many different PRPs. which in many industries is already present reduced cost. to resource distribute tasks among manufacturing locations. minimized down time. defined by enhanced efficiency. the entire manufacturing process ble manufacturing sequences enabled by the pooling of resources may be automated. No. of small jobs without disruption of larger jobs.008 . or even task. Comparison of CM and traditional supply chains. dynamic manufacturing protocols that would result in lower cost. These control systems will act as the central nervous sys- such as cost. See Fig. demand intelligent dispersed manufacturing sites with minimized down time. flex. Turn no job away crucial to understand collaborative relationships between cloud Due to the wide range of PRPs connected. ensuring compat- providers who can fulfill those needs while meeting cost.2. allowing for the production of small lots environment matches tasks with PRPs based upon their equipment but not excluding the opportunity for longer production runs as availability and overall capacity. Demand driven. lead time.3.2. The CM Another distinguishing characteristic of CM is the dynamic.

provide a foundation for the advancement of doing business. one can see that CM (shown in and it also elaborates on competitive strategy by which the firm a yellow cell) is composed mainly of cloud users (shown in a red gains and holds advantage over rivals” [40]. Wu et al. The number of research areas within this field is only limited by the organization of a business often defines a company as much as does imagination. it the core outwards or from the outward fringes toward the center. Amazon is not just a of key interest. CM will require the formation of new and information security were not researched nor documented. 3. and manufacturers of those designs own the manufacturing data ity will be utilized to ensure even load sharing across equivalent that is used to produce them. which acts together to create value. and will require and configuration management were omitted due to the wide range propositions as to what value the customer will receive. Specifically. The result is shown in Fig.org/10. what mar- of accepted industry specifications regarding these subjects and ket there is for such a business and so on. including but not limited to distributed adjust their business models accordingly. 3 are addressed in this resource providers sharing expertise and collaborating to provide report. because without their expertise it would be of little use. it is an online discount product mar- of research that would be critical to those using CM resources. sition. For example. the even be different across corporations within the same industry. and those that help match users and operation: “a business model articulates the customer value propo- providers. Cloud manufacturing topics map a tiered structure of control. http://dx.). it identifies a market segment. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. data compatibility. and appli- argument as to why the company will succeed – it explains critical cation providers (shown in a blue cell). Mari Sako explains that business models define business those providing the resources. and business models. process planning. 3 are indirectly addressed. these issues will be left for other researchers to complete a project. different manufacturers combine resources to complete a build- In addition to those topics listed in Fig. The introduction of the 3. Cloud robustness and infor- adder is separated from the others. how you are going to add value to the product. Numerous fields of study were used to compile the following for service providers to add value to products. many resources spent? These are the questions that will determine how research topics as shown in Fig. For example. Secondly. this report docu- to-print order? Will the overall value of the final parts be divided ments the numerous architectures and frameworks envisioned for evenly between suppliers. In traditional business models. For example. In a CM environment. the current state revenue models of both the users and resource providers. CM will likely cause a shift in the revenue models currently used by design firms and manufacturers alike. enabling issues are while not unprecedented altogether. informa- The organizing business models that will someday define CM. QA and configuration management as applied to CM environ- chain structure and revenue models. it specifies the revenue generation mechanisms. like. configuration management. through efficient processes. Current state cloud will cause a shift in how value is added to the product. yet the desired process can be performed by combin. Consider now that cloud based appli- or interchangeable manufacturing resources. or will it be shared based upon time and implementation of CM. shared benefit Traditional business organizations and relationships rely upon 2. A business model is the cell). Shared burden. of Pages 16 D. a brainstorming tool was used to record areas discount product marketplace. the cloud will introduce a change in how users calculate the cost of in their combination. and business management. 3 shows a converging mind map. however they are far out of the core competencies of the authors. ketplace. Business organizations often vary widely across industries. which can be read from the value chain. 2. will require a shift from tradi- broken down further where appropriate. data rights are easily field of study.3. These three groups converge things such as who the customers are.jmsy. the cloud will remove some opportunity CM. physical resource providers (shown in a green cell). J Manuf Syst (2013). the map.1016/j. Value chains. ments will likely not differ significantly from their implementation the value chain and revenue models are firmly defined – each value in today’s distributed environments. why they care about your to enable CM. Starting in the center of the map. the CM environment will erty because they paid for access to the cloud-based applications. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. 3. etc. The physical resource layer might also try and argue it is their when a combination of vertical and horizontal mills could be used data. The appropriate business their already wide application to distributed suppliers in industry model for CM may be difficult to determine when it comes to value today. as the cloud will take over some of the activities that contribute to the As CM is in the juvenile stages of development. automatically realize and capitalize upon this alternative to avoid Those firms managing the cloud-based applications will certainly excessive loading of manufacturing resource “A”. which describe how value is added to ownership and promoting effective collaboration. manufacturing.5.008 . will be defined by an IP sharing model that aids in cooperation and collaboration. we can further see that physical resource providers will be and how you will make money. cations will be used to generate much of the value once produced ufacturing resource “A” is more heavily utilized than others in the by manufacturers (tool path programming. however. it defines the structure of Fig. CM to process the same job. network. No. it documents those aspects most important understood – design authorities own the rights to product designs.2. QA business models altogether (by all vested parties). will be highly flexible in CM. requiring them to current status information. to the enablement of CM. Following the physical resource provider branch of product or service. most are. of the field must be collected from many different specialties which. rather. The CM will also require the reversal of traditional beliefs held work that follows in no way defines the full extent of any particular regarding intellectual property.doi. Users may claim that data produced by the cloud is their prop- ing manufacturing resources “B” and “C”. enabled in the CM field by automation. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5 will be “demand intelligent” in that the inherent system flexibil. For one. and they are compensated based mation security are two very important enabling aspects for CM. describes the positioning within the value network or ecosystem. Value will be added by Not all of the topics shown in Fig. Traditionally. the devel- tional business models of today to ones based on the share-to-gain opment of enabling business models will be concerned with data philosophy. if man. tion security. Through documentation of this work. In order to discover and document possible areas the product or service it offers. and can As CM is as of yet a relatively undefined field of study. upon the value they can add to the product. An example of argue that it is their property for distribution to whomever they such a scenario would be the requirement for a 6-axis CNC machine. collaboration between suppliers will be required to successfully For this reason.2013. a product. et al. cloud robustness. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. value chains are structured and how wealth sharing will occur. From there. the current state of qual- users with the products they desire while utilizing less resources ity assurance (QA).04. How will value added be determined when 3 explore. virtual enterprises.

environment.2. According to The Economist [31]. et al. and advertising through social Much of the future envisioned by Goldhar and Jelinek matches the media represent a revolutionary method of value production in strategic vision for CM. discusses the facturing. which in some respect is similar to that of CM [48. It is likely that internet capabilities (speed. is very clearly applicable to the vision of CM presented in this service was created in the late 1990s. of Pages 16 6 D. Instead of dealing with unknown market con- job regardless of size. cloud-based activities offer flexibility and enable competiveness in they fail to realize the potential of networking multiple factories a cutthroat marketplace. 3. Wu et al. http://dx. including the ability to fulfill any demanded today’s marketplace. implications of the internet for design and rapid manufacturing technologies [36]. and scheduling. of manufacturing services available over the internet. and discusses and as such CM has been awaiting arrival of today’s internet for the creation of integrated products and processes through similar implementation. intelligent. manufac. manufacturing. data transfer capability.1.04. crowd funding. J Manuf Syst (2013). together into a virtual “smart” enterprise. 3. History allows connection with the process broker to communicate design requirements to the manufacturing services providers. Regardless. CM topics map. the concept of the manufacturing grid was pro- the year in which the document was written. In the described work. showing how networked manufacturing networks implications of computer integrated manufacturing (CIM). Tao et al. This is undoubtedly due In the 2000s. These authors discuss an internet infrastructure 3. Commercially viable implementations these authors describe the existence of design clients. etc. These companies uti- separation of design and manufacturing – both in a geographic lize the foundations of CM as enabling technologies for their and organizational manner. product design. 3. Like so many of the more recent papers which will be reviewed in this report. While Goldhar and Jelinek envision the “smart” factory.org/10.008 . significant literature on manufacturing-as-a. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. and strict vendor relationships. which standing the possible capabilities and advantages of a CM style ended in the year 2000. difficult to find financing.2013. It is expected that much of report and represents a significant advancement toward under- this literature was developed as part of the dot-com boom. [65] paper. this work rep.jmsy. CM systems. not yet prominent in the year 1990 and inter-factory cooperation The idea of the manufacturing grid is to apply grid computing to may have not been a reality at that time. and the ability to make the factory floor ditions. interfaces. and process brokers which act as intermediaries.63]. Current implementations that connects designers and manufacturing services. most notably in the consumer product industry with The stated purpose for such an infrastructure is to allow for the rapid prototyping manufacturing resources. No.) were not able to accommodate the A 1996 source by Erkes et al.2. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Fig. and The DLA Piper legal group [28] explains that internet enabled also discuss the ability for mass customization as a result of CIM. A limited number of commercial companies have implemented turing services.1016/j. as the internet was posed. Quirky offers Please cite this article in press as: Wu D.1.62. and connect designers with manufacturing resources client uses software that augments traditional CAD programs and over the internet. resents a significant precursor to the vision of CM presented in this enterprise information management. manufacturing resource integration and allocation. the design ventures. This work Surprisingly. focused operation to one driven by information technology. provided a review of the application of grid technology in manu- A 1998 source published by Rajagopalan et al. [34] discusses the implementation visions presented by these papers at the time of their creation. Goldhar and Jelinek [35] discuss future in this report.doi. These could lead to exploitation of various enterprises based upon their authors discuss transformation of the factory from a mechanical competencies. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. These authors have a similar vision to that presented In an article from 1990.

which of as a utility service which can be accessed on-demand without connects consumers with over 200. The first form is that which the internet and available for use by distributed designers. J Manuf Syst (2013). can be thought One of the most promising CM companies is MFG. Accord- ing to Meier et al. This architecture is piece of equipment. Automation and control technologies will enable inter. Key research implementations over data security. This company latest software yet avoid the cost and hassle of maintaining the prices products based upon the materials they require and the resource. http://dx. a product creation based enterprise resource planning (ERP) software.2. diate access to 3D printers to make any object which they cloud computing adoption has already begun to take place in desire. as 3. Shapeways offers users imme. a company which offers 3D printing ser.4. data storage. federated factories. facilitating the abil- manufacturing capabilities of configurable. Symonds [23] presents that the use of cloud- Chafkin of Inc. 4 below. machine-to-machine enable creation of integrated manufacturing networks spanning cooperation multiple enterprises which are facilitated by service oriented information technologies. significant numbers.com. meeting regulatory compliance requirements. allows users to utilize the ing resources they need to realize their products. which are communi.doi. Xu [6] presents that the implementation of cloud computing in Quirky is enabled by manufacturing resources virtualized over manufacturing can take two (2) forms. The need to oversize computing taneous production capacity.2013. In fact. cycle phase. Automation.000 manufacturers in 50 owning the enabling technologies. “[The Manu. numerous companies. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7 Fig. is perhaps the research project most relevant to CM today [39]. in addition to the cost activities from creating the Request for Quote to the shipping of of maintaining these technologies. The Economist [31] also technologies into the manufacturing industry.04. sion’s Seventh Framework Program for Research (FP7). funded under the European Commis. as this requires little investment as compared to CM. and instan. discusses Shapeways. of Pages 16 D. and the website even accommodated. Quirky development process. Review of multi-tenant architectures which allow use of the resource by the Ponoko website [38] shows that a number of 2D and 3D man. and represents a major control system technologies are crucial to the ability to efficiently advancement toward the realization of CM. Suppliers are selected Edstrom [25] presents that typical server usage lingers at based upon their manufacturing capabilities. provided in website which providers designers with access to the manufactur.com platform hosts all resources based upon peak usage rates. The is discussed in the strategic vision section – that is.and Cloud architecture] provides users with the ability to utilize the intra-factory cooperation in CM environments. virtualized production ity to automatically execute manufacturing tasking generated by networks. Magazine discusses Ponoko. Cloud-computing. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. in the Quirky business model. coordination and cooperation among machines reproduced in Fig. based on cloud-enabled. cloud- states [31].1016/j. Schultz [27] presents that despite its clear benefits. The MFG. The implementation of cloud-computing technologies in the vices over the internet. enables manufacture of electronic components by offering access to Katzel [24] presents that the manufacturing sector in defined hundreds of electronic components which the designer can specify by computing needs which vary significantly with the product life- and create designs with. expertise. According to Katzel.008 . Wu et al. data storage in the cloud has been slow to gain popularity because of concerns 3. et al. route jobs through the required processing steps to completion.3. makes a usage based pay on- the final product [37]. a Software-as-a-service (Saas) format. as stated by Katzel. roughly 8–15% of total capacity. Automation and gic vision of CM as presented in this report. supported the cloud. users with access to a complete product creation enterprise.jmsy. industrial control systems. cated to appropriate suppliers for quoting. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art.org/10. demand system truly beneficial and cost effective. According to MFG. The sec- the wealth sharing model and provides them with a portion of ond form deals simply with the incorporation of cloud computing the profits that their products yield. buyers request services by computing can aid manufacturing and engineering by providing providing technical product specifications. yet allow company specific attributes to be ufacturing services are offered to designers. No. In contrast to the vetting process used manufacturing industry can be termed the “low hanging fruit”. tories and among multiple cooperative factories. Symonds presents that Saas is facilitated by the use of amount of machine time needed to make the part [32]. software services. As parts and assemblies are rarely manufactured by one by a set of software-as-a-service applications”. the mimicking Quirky business model incorporates the originating designers into of the cloud computing environment in manufacturing. Low-hanging fruit: cloud-computing in manufacturing summarized in Fig. and processing equipment will be required both within single fac- The ManuCloud project architecture is very similar to the strate. 5.com. and computational power. Simplified version of artwork shown in [31]. According to the authors. and cloud performance. While not a pure cloud-based manufacturing environment. [29]. 4. the ManuCloud project is meant to 3. The ManuCloud Project.2.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. communication specifications that also promote connectivity and facturing enterprises which are distributed over a large area. Hao et al. This task becomes increasingly difficult in Much work has recently been done to establish open standards multiple-factory production environments. Similarly. Developments in open architecture standards and tualized manufacturing resources made available to consumers communication protocols will serve to facilitate automation through the cloud. which promotes modularity and interoper. open (non-proprietary) architectures. and the ability to monitor multiple signal types such 3. which are vir- munications. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art.04. CM environments will need to effectively and efficiently combine ability with existing assets.50–52]. and are common in the academic realm. and package both tangible and intangi- be offered from a wide variety of sources. J Manuf Syst (2013). The TIA system is based upon an open ufacturing operations [45–49]. tion language between the shop floor and the plant scheduling Programmable Automation Controllers (PACs) as described in level in [11.doi. ble resources.5. and Programmable Logic Controllers technologies. In order to optimize product value. and are networks [18]. from [29]. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212.2013. and serial. Stouffer et al. The use of STEP-NC is discussed as a communica- often employed as part of a DCS system. The MTConnect Insti.1016/j. system architecture. Finally. http://dx. the World Wide Web) for the development of distributed manufac- device interoperability. turing management frameworks.008 . No. digital. The formation of CM services is enabled by the through promotion of “plug and play” technologies which can ability to identify. ing to [14]. and tasks performed by the which offers a wide range of control technologies in both SCADA manufacturer – value is added successively through planned man- and DCS environments [15].jmsy. the OPC Foundation [14] offers seven open (PLCs). PLCs are computer col developed for communication with CNC machines over public based logic devices that control equipment and processes. Language (XML).org/10. CyberOPC is a dedicated proto- common in process intensive industries. includ. virtualize. 5. processes. These standards allow for machine-to-machine ing Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA). Wu et al. Accord. and is interoperability. typically utilized in the gas and utilities industries. Additionally. promoting technology connectivity and machine-to-machine com. ManuCloud architecture. [12] discuss typical ICSs utilized in both process communication standards based upon the Extensible Markup based and discrete-based manufacturing environments. manufacturing services. of Pages 16 8 D. [13] discuss the enabling [14] are a relatively new form of ICS which focus on emerging nature of Web Services (machine-to-machine communication over issues that limit ICS effectiveness. Distributed communications and promote interoperability between existing Control Systems (DCSs). / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Fig. such as network connectivity. One of the most advanced control systems demonstrated in The intrinsic value of a product is created by the combina- industry is the Siemens Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) system. Xu presents numerous methodologies for identifying tute [19] has developed open (non-proprietary) and royalty free distributed resources. Xu [6] discusses the creation of CM services. including such technologies as RFID. et al. DCSs are used Research regarding machine-to-machine communication is also to control industrial process variables around a set target. Service composition as analog. tion of numerous materials. and enterprise data integration. PACs feature modular designs. SCADA is a type of control system used to control manu.

008 . sentence. the ability to quickly adapt a manufacturing resource to produce a In research that stems from the ManuCloud project. Furthermore. [60] present a manufacturing resource methods. Action. manufacturing grid system in order to share distributed manufac- ing with three serial algorithms and seven commonly used parallel turing resources. According to these changes in the manufacturing environment or to accommodate authors. The constructed ontology enables according to Xu. resource registration. A reputation based trust model for decision mak- aware composite service [49] in virtual enterprises. it is possible for cloud among others. [30] describe the importance of Manufacturing Service Flexibility in CM will be facilitated almost exclusively by the Descriptions (MSDs) and Manufacturing Service Description Lan. Tao et al.2. [61] a correlation-aware composite service description model is pro. However. MSDs describe available services and their limits. A case study is conducted which validates the search agents. would be accomplished through description lan. resource expressing layer.04. and investigate their distribution in CoRCS-Net. and Global Positioning System (GPS). No. expression and encapsulation using XML in a The performance of the proposed algorithm is validated by compar. of RSC flexibility are required for maximum system adaptability: els. The ability to seek out alternate processes when the main process plan is interrupted. That is. discuss how the life- amount of resources needed in order to satisfy the demand that cycle of RSCs can be affected by numerous factors. CM systems must possess flexi- production facility. These authors is either predictable or unexpected [26]. These authors fur- factors affecting lifecycle. These authors explain that MCSs can be CM will create an even more dynamic environment with the com- categorized and combined into related manufacturing clouds. turing environment [13]. CM environments should the user community can then assemble into virtualized value allow for variation in the marketplace and changes in the manufac- chains. which changing market conditions. Many authors have presented definitions of agility and integration of existing resources to form composite services which flexibility in manufacturing. The manufacturing environment is dynamic and ever-changing. Panchal and Schaefer [16] define agility as the abil- numerous variables. [46] formulate service composition optimal selection it. in order cept of combinable strength and variation of combinable strength to aggregate and share manufacturing resources. general purpose machine tools. QoS. deploy. and Query to identify a machine system called ManuHub that facilitates efficient. Specifically. cost. Wu et al. [56] present a prototype semantic web (STRL). In order to enhance the quality to-peer architecture support effective and efficient manufacturing of services composition.1016/j. bility and agility which will help ensure schedule. [13] state that advanced can be used to address complex manufacturing tasks. consisting of a manufacturing resource layer. monitors for environment. [45] present an example about “online purchasing the semantic matchmaking of manufacturing service capabilities. In order to facilitate rapid scalability. accurate and auto- and task it with some requested service instructions. would be converted into virtual machines using agent based tech. [57] present an ontology-based service oriented peer- position in the context of CM. resource service.jmsy. knowledge discovery by incorporating graph search and seman- guages.7. Yin et al. pool of design and manufacturing resources. 3. which uses an URL. cated tools and equipment are required. et al. match and search framework and key technologies associated with Tao et al. [55] propose a Semantic Web-based approach to nologies for distributed control and communication. The Function module Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. posed using OWL-S. both expected and unexpected. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. One example of a CM service is STEP Resource Locator tic reasoning. some specific products available in the manufacturing cloud that edge resources would be virtualized in a similar manner to that can satisfy their requirements. and correlation. [5].org/10. Tao et al. such as manufacturing cells. [58] define a resource service aware web services composition in virtual enterprises.doi. [20] present that the CM environment is in-part enabled by the cre. flow. the RSC has a four stage lifecycle (design. One implication of CM is the ability to dynamically adapt the Zhang et al. They introduce the con. which is resources. and task. Manufacturing resources demands change should be the goal of any CM flexibility function- ality. and the resource semantic model. and hardware resources formal representation of manufacturing resources is crucial [43. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. they investigate the issue of correlation. http://dx. MCSs are cloud services that are formed when manufacturing resources are vir. Cai et al. According to manufacturing systems are geared toward agility – that is. The RSC lifecycle is initiated and maintained ity to successfully and quickly adapt to changes in the operating through a tri-modular system which executes the RSC. categories are summarized in Table 1. J Manuf Syst (2013). are adaptive to changing market conditions and variable customer ment. Shi et al. matic retrieval of the required manufacturing services derived from Guo et al. from bination of multiple factories into production networks. The manufacturing cloud argue that based upon the possible RSC interruptions. number and entity information. Flexibility and agility ation of Manufacturing Cloud Services (MCSs).2013. and quality Zhang et al. and propose a word. [5] define Resource Service Composition (RSC) as the compliance. Dong et al.44]. These flexibility standardized machine components. present an approach which utilizes service-oriented architecture. The method of resource virtualization depends upon service consumers to find some dedicated tools and equipment for the form of resource being virtualized. and post-processing) which can be affected by requirements. and adjusts the RSC based upon system ther state that agility in the manufacturing realm often deals with changes. Hao et al. Cai et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9 wireless sensor networks. ability to adjust the manufacturing process plan to accommodate guages (MSDLs) in the virtual marketplace. et al. they these authors. [47] focus on combinable relationship-based hierarchy model. service discovery. The resource services are classified into four categories including (SCOS) with multiple objectives and constraints. ing is used to quantify the reputation of peers. execution. computational and knowl.6. automobiles parts (OPAP)” to illustrate the concept of service com. tualized and encapsulated. Rauschecker different component or assembly. to address web- proposed model by comparing the quality of service of correlation. Zhang et al. multi-disciplinary collaboration. In the situations where dedi. a composite service network (CoRCS-Net). Packaging discover distributed manufacturing resources for cross-enterprise resources and making them available as cloud based services. based resource discovery. In order which consumers can select particular MCSs to form their required to survive in such environments. the parallel intelligent algorithm called Full Connection based Parallel associated matching algorithms are proposed. given that the cloud is a huge shared service composed of three functional modules. and a resource interface layer. or when the market 3. used in cloud computing technologies. [59] discuss Adaptive Chaos Optimization with Reflex Migration (FC-PACO-RM). the manufacturing cloud These authors promote the management of RSC through the service can only offer a limited capability to quickly provide such adoption of a Flexibility Management Architecture. of Pages 16 D. Tao et al. as stated in Section 3. five (5) forms service can offer rapid scalability in some situations at certain lev.

and begins the execution phase. under contractually enforced terms. Wagner et al. on demand. Equity theory is composed of 4 propositions as shown in Fig.org/10. http://dx. as the equity theory. Inequitable relationships will result in stressed relationships.jmsy. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Table 1 RSC flexibility types. tures and collaborations is to share information and expertise in ketplace challenge. These authors offer a number of from the venture and must receive additional value on top of the hypotheses regarding the link between value creation and appro- value received in traditional manufacturing relationships. for CM to be implemented on a wide spread be made as to the use of foreground rights. of Pages 16 10 D. in which individuals can act together but are not bound by formal agreements. a luxury which cannot be afforded in a world of mass Similar background and foreground rights will exist in the CM customization. the CM environment may create the need for these plat- ing houses to collaborate to develop an improved plating process. and as such indus. Using data from 186 manufacturing compa- the mere survival of CM value chains will be reliant upon effi. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212.2013. Through- manufacturing industry through the internet. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. 6. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. constructs the RSC. enables autonomous plating houses. all of which will help develop effective business models. same time. a CM network may include numerous cific knowledge that. Equity theory [9] deals with why individuals participate in groups and how they react when outcomes are disproportionately dis- tributed. rights.008 . LaSelle states that CM meets this goal by allowing Parker states that intellectual property considerations occur manufacturing to keep pace with the ever-changing customer throughout a four (4) stage life cycle (pre-contractual. the Monitoring module monitors those vari. which would be the equivalent of foreground rights resulting from 3. priation. and termination) of collaborative relationships. while collab- dination module then invokes corresponding adjustments to the orative relationships involve 2 or more parties working together RSC to ensure continued operations. the CM environment will utilize relationships During RSC execution. information. as a collective whole. application providers. and how these concepts affect the attitudes and behaviors In a broad sense. CM allows the consumer direct access to the duration. which is flexible Correlation flexibility RSC can adapt to changes in correlations among resources Created from [5]. The purpose of both joint ven- LaSelle [22] presents that mass customization is the new mar. one which would be well served by a supply order for all parties involved to do something they otherwise could chain that can produce unique products of varying complexity not. Foreground rights are those generated through the often need repetitive adjustment before an acceptable result is action of both parties throughout the length of the venture [21]. J Manuf Syst (2013). Background rights. Two of the most relevant social psychology theories for future CM environments are equity theory and game theory. In many ways. LaSelle presents that robotic machinery programs to the venture. optimizes it. At the tasks. and PRPs) must benefit in collaborative environments. Through proper negotiations between CM parties. Equity theory is important to the development of CM business models because it enforces the need for just and fair reward shar- ing among CM collaborators. Game theory can be non-cooperative. are those that each ery to adapt to new tasks while maintaining acceptable quality of company holds prior to the relationship and intends to contribute service levels. according to Parker. which may impede the ability and will- ingness of collaborators to work together.8. In short. the most important issues try can react to changing demand in real time. Wagner et al. For example. Business models a joint venture. basis it must have a feasible and value-generating business model. numerous theories surrounding cooperation and collective deci- sion making. Adapted from [9].1016/j. Wu et al. One challenge to center around the use and control of background and foreground increased system flexibility is the ability of automated machin. 6. separate from the parties coordinating the venture. CM business models will need to support of participating parties. both background IP interests can be protected and agreements can At the end of the day.04. and transmits information explains that joint ventures involve the formation of a legal entity regarding abnormal changes to the Coordination module. The work of these authors builds upon collaboration and cooperation to an unprecedented extent. et al. The 4 propositions of equity theory. Social psychology has offered hypotheses. Parker [21] ables which affect the RSC lifecycle.doi. where for- mal cooperation agreements are utilized. One solution proposed is the collection of task spe. Game theory will help recognition of the motivations in cooperative environments and Fig. Game theory [10] deals with how rational individuals make decisions in mutually interdependent roles. formation. nies. obtained. No. out the entire collaborative relationship. that resemble those of joint ventures or collaborations. Flexibility type Implication Task flexibility RSCs can be constructed to adapt to many different tasks Flow flexibility Many RSC paths can be used to reach the required final condition Resource service flexibility Single resource services can complete many different tasks Quality of service (QoS) flexibility RSC can maintain a certain QoS. showed support for all but one of their eleven cient and effective group action. will help create environments which foster teamwork. The Coor. each with existing plating process specifications process control without the need for machinery to “practice” that they will want to protect as IP (background rights). [17] offer research regarding value management All parties (users. Table 2 summarizes their findings. or it can be cooperative. environment.

which provides the user-resource exchange portal.008 . Finally. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. performance. Wu et al. of transport networks. and delivery a manufacturing resource layer. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. of Pages 16 D. and frameworks for implementation the user can construct manufacturing applications from the virtu- of CM have been presented by numerous authors. and the centralized inter- face enables the system to function as a whole. See Fig. Wu et al. the three asset groups are combined together in the distributed infrastructure. See Fig. [33]. – rather. As can be seen in Fig. et al. while the providers help demonstrate the possible capabilities of a CM environment have the equally obvious role of providing services in the cloud. http://dx. Finally. (CBDM) model composed of a cloud consumer. the GSL does not handle all CM related activities • Satisfaction is most higly driven by value appropriation. 9. the manufactur- ing process asset group is composed of hardware and software resources used in the CBDM environment. including Hardware-as-a-service (Haas). 7. Human assets include consumers. The DICIS is composed of three asset groups (human. which As can be seen in Fig. See Fig. Development of feasible implementation structures should be a cloud broker. lar services. yet many have similar characteristics. The cloud consumers serve the key area of interest for academia and industry alike as they will obvious role of utilizing the cloud’s services. For example. virtualizes. a global of services. which are then managed using the Global types are shown below in Table 3. from [6]. In the par- tial service mode. the cloud carriers enable the exchange of ser- service layer. the entire CM activity. The GSL. • The open and frequent exchange of information can ease tensions The complete service mode. Service Layer (GSL). communication.doi. Through the Application layer. and manages the use. a virtual service layer. 8. however. depending upon the task demanded. The Software-as-a-service (Saas). [7] propose a Cloud Based Design and Manufacture demonstrated potential. and 2 interfaces for communicating with the human and manufacturing process asset groups. models and frameworks model. CM layered framework. and their relationships to the attitudes and behaviors of collaborating parties. No. milling services may be represented by Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. the Manufacturing Resource Layer contains the physical man. These resources are virtualized and encapsu- lated into Manufacturing Cloud Services (MCSs). ufacturing resources and capabilities of the shop floor. conclude their research with three (3) main con. The cloud broker is an intermediate party between the consumers Xu [6] proposes a four (4) layer CM framework consisting of and providers. models.2013. flow and the GSL helps administratively manage the CM activities. Finally. and level of Wu et al. and managers. specify that there are are ultimately provided to the customer in Software-as-a-service four cloud service types. producers. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 11 Table 2 Hypotheses offered by [17] regarding value creation and appropriation. These pro.04. The particulars of these service resources as CM services.jmsy. cloud provider. Implementation architectures. Schaefer et al. Xu discusses the Application Layer. and cloud carriers. coordinates and manages between competitors.org/10. 7. These MCSs. can be accessed and invoked in the cloud. in contrast to the actual physical resources they represent. the MCSs are categorized and organized into manufacturing clouds of simi- Fig. 8. maturity.9. The communication assets proposed include a communication network (internet). Architectures. value creation has a negative direct impact on the focal partner’s level of project satisfaction Yes H6 Information exchange positively moderates the direct link between value creation and project satisfaction Yes H7 Project satisfaction has a positive impact on future collaboration intentions Yes Wagner et al. and Virtual Service Layer identifies. [20] propose a four stage CM model where manufac- turing resources are controlled through the internet via intelligent monitoring systems. and packages the Infrastructure-as-a-service (Iaas). and manufacturing process) bounded by a centralized interface and a distributed infrastructure. J Manuf Syst (2013). Tao et al.1016/j. Most importantly. After creation of many different MCSs based upon the manufacturing resources available. Hypothesis Hypothesis statement Hypothesis supported designation by research? H1 Relational satisfaction has a positive impact on relational trust Yes H2a Relational satisfaction has a positive impact on the company’s future collaboration intent No H2b Relational trust has a positive impact on the company’s future collaboration intent Yes H3a Relational trust has a positive impact on value creation Yes H3b Relational trust has a positive impact on value appropriation Yes H4 Relational satisfaction has a negative impact on value appropriation Yes H5a Value creation has a positive impact on value appropriation Yes H5b Value appropriation has a positive impact on the focal partner’s level of project satisfaction Yes H5c Given H5a and H5b . alized manufacturing resources. posed structures vary in their complexity. 9. the GSL is a cloud plat- form and provides services using the Platform-as-a-service (Paas) 3. and an application layer. Platform-as-a-service (Paas). clusions: can operate in both partial and complete services modes. (Saas) and Infrastructure-as-a-service (Iaas) delivery models. the resource providers take some control of the process • Collaborators compare their awards with those of others. [8] propose a Distributed Infrastructure with Centralized Interfacing System (DICIS) as a CBDM structur- ing architecture. net- work security. According to vices between providers and consumers through the provisioning Xu.

See Fig. and a network such as the internet.2013. 10. Tao et al. which is shown in Fig.doi. and then made available to consumers consumers. J Manuf Syst (2013). ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. security.04. No. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx Fig. The seven functional layers of the shown in Fig.1016/j. 10. propose a ten layer architecture for CM architecture are facilitated by the three layers of knowledge. These resources are then virtualized and managed As can be seen in Fig.008 . CBDM model. multiple MCSs which are then organized into one manufacturing In similar fashion to other architectures presented. also state Fig. et al. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. from [8]. DICIS. In addition to the CM model through an application layer. http://dx. Service type Description Haas Providers can rent hardware to consumers through the CBDM environment. from [7]. 9. cloud implementation. Users can then search the manufacturing clouds for services posed in [20] consists of manufacturing resources and abilities at and combine MCSs to fit their needs. providers. Paas Consumers can access tools necessary for product development process within the CBDM environment. Table 3 Services types described by [7]. Saas Consumers can utilize software using thin client interfaces without purchasing licenses. the lowest level. and operators. 11. Iaas Consumers can access computing resources for exploitation without purchasing or maintaining them. that pro- cloud. of Pages 16 12 D. 8. 10. the CM environment is enabled by in a cloud environment.org/10. Tao et al. Wu et al.jmsy. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D.

/ Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 13 Fig. No. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. Fig.008 . Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. of Pages 16 D.04. J Manuf Syst (2013). from [20].2013. Ten layer architecture. Cloud manufacturing abstract.jmsy. 10.1016/j. 11. http://dx.doi.org/10. Wu et al. et al. from [20]. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212.

both web and agent-based social media such as Facebook. community. of Pages 16 14 D. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212.2013. service. et al. Blogs. 3D printing technology does not require tooling.008 . http://dx. CM has the potential to offer rapid scalability in some situations at certain levels. we envision a possible impact of CM on tooling which makes rapid scalability possible for traditional man- three key sectors including engineering design. No. One of the criti- environments. from detailed research in many areas. Automation and control reduced cost. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. allowing the cloud service 4.jmsy. improved engineering design are ubiquitous access to design information. manufacturing. Twitter. In the area is customer co-creation. rapid prototyping. the most important research works in of information. and CORBA. rather than functions. the co-creation process enhanced design. and 4. CM is still a poorly defined field of study and would benefit ufacturing. In agent-based co-creation process. thin client keting channels for information and resource sharing which will and thick server. as ufacturing processes requiring tools. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D.04. In the long term. the benefits of CM on man- ufacturing are improved resource sharing. the impact area is collaborative design which is to sup- In order for manufacturing enterprises to create value through port engineering design in geographically dispersed environments. The potential impact of cm across sectors [54]. its current state does not yet fully support itate a CM environment. well as marketing and service. Wu et al. cal issues still not fully addressed is scalability. Potential impact and future work and standardized machine components. Marketing and service: In the short term. CM has the potential to create new mar- sified into three categories: thin server and thick client. 4. Specifically. HTML. knowledge and resource sharing mechanism that collaborative design are web-based design and agent-based design. such as manufacturing cells. mass collaboration. For example. designers. In addition. the agent technology allows developers to focus on objects by CM can engage customers. and online forums. there is an increasing need to establish a new form In the past two decades. provide evidence of room Fig. the 3D printers connected in the cloud also help rapid As illustrated in Fig. However. Stouffer et al. emphasizes the generation and realization of various product The architectures for web-based collaborative design can be clas- stakeholders’ value. and enhanced user experience. ActiveX. 12. providing applications that are modular.1. collaboration. and inter-connected design knowledge pool capabilities which CM may have the potential to possess. manufacturing engineers. long term. and peer-to-peer which are enabled technolo- transform the traditional product realization process into a value gies such as the Web. private. the benefits of CM on on marketing and service are reduced time-to-market. the impact improved efficiency.2. the impact area is distributed man.2. and production managers to communicate with each other through decentralized and changeable. general purpose machine tools. 12. In the long term. Future work Manufacturing: In the short term. Much work is required to Although much progress has been made with regard to dis. However. or hybrid the needs of modern manufacturing enterprises.doi. and affordable computing resources. develop inter-factory industrial control systems which could facil- tributed manufacturing. 4.1.1016/j. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx that CM platforms can be public. the benefits of CM Engineering design: In the short term. J Manuf Syst (2013). Potential impact providers to rapidly scale up and down manufacturing capacity.org/10. approaches are lack of socio-technical network.

2. the implicit and complex collaboration structure. Grance. CM systems can only be as flexible and robust as their controlling logic and control systems permit. et al. Ensuring shop percentage of manufacturing cost of a product is determined at floor connectivity will allow for efficient and effective machine. http://dx. • Should collaborators within the CM environment be bound by formal operating agreements. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 15 for improvement within the field of ICS [12]. providing coordination among value cost at the early stage of product development processes is crucial chain members during the manufacturing process. Business model added manufacturing activities for CM. Berscheid E. • How can we investigate the communication and interaction [10] Romp G.07. and non-value 4.002.S. and long distance range.numerex. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. Product costing is defined as a process of estimating the cost of Moreover.15:840–7. infrastructure. p. U. The research question is With limited examples of commercially viable implementa. and liveness. Cost estimation integrated intelligence which not only allows automation of tasks With decision makers in manufacturing enterprises hesitating but also allows for autonomy in tasking and task flexibility [64]. 2009.. development. Towards a cloud-based design and manufacturing paradigm: looking backward. http://dx. after all. to capture the implicit collaboration structure and key service [12] Stouffer K. Web Link: http://www. T. In addition. So far little work has sought to speed. 2011. research question in this area is: Additionally. are autonomously reconfigured with minimal human intervention. identifying key 1–14. many ing environment over a traditional manufacturing environment? research studies on CM have been conducted. Department of Commerce. 1978. From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing. and why? Perhaps a hybrid environment would be best? [1] Friedman TL. 2012. 2008. other essential factories which can be controlled in an inter-factory style ICS will manufacturing performance metrics include cycle time. [3] Mell. the product design stage. Hence.2013.pdf stream manufacturing in CM.1016/j.. AC 2012–3017: Distributed collaborative design and manu-facture in terms of information and resource sharing: in the cloud-motivation. Shaefer D. This review aims to • How will equity be assured when value is delivered as a result of highlight the motivations and drivers of CM. Therefore. 7–33.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.org/10. Procedia Engineering 2011. flexibility will also be enabled by open communication final product at design stage. In: IEEE international conference on industrial engineering & engineering management. value added. Tao F. http://www. Web A huge amount of data and unstructured manufacturing-related Link: http://csrc. it is critical to conduct quantitative able and allow faster transmittal of data than do SCADA systems. It’s a flat world. Guo H. Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. Therefore. OUP Catalogue. Thames JL. The develop. accurate estimating product to-machine communication. Specifically. Walster GW. J Manuf Syst (2013). Scarfone K. Rosen DW.2. Business model development should focus on a few main • How can we examine the potential cost savings from CM during research questions: early stages of product development? • Who will benefit from this implementation of CM and how? Why As cloud manufacturing (CM) has been recognized as a promis- would those involved in this business model choose a CM operat. service provides and consumers. Therefore. about background and foreground rights? In: Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Robotics communication and collaboration in distributed and collaborative and Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 2011. 2010.jmsy. boundedness.rcim. Williams AD. Web Link: information needs to be shared across upstream design and down. • How can we capture material flows and evaluate performances research in the area of artificial intelligence and its possible appli. Distributed system simulation cussing that DSC and PLC communications. less information and resource sharing mechanisms that facilitate [6] Xu X. ing paradigm for the next generation manufacturing systems. National 4.pdf [4] Smith J. propose a strategic shared-interest. While these communications are usually more reli. The to move manufacturing business to the Cloud. the main SCADA system. high reliability. [9] Hatfield E.. of CM. The NIST definition of cloud computing. Equity: theory and research. Zhang C. and simulation allows us to model behavioral properties such as tion environments. or should they be subject to a free References market style environment? Does this vary based upon the situa- tion. Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security. little research ment of open communication standards is an area of potential work has been conducted to estimate product cost in the context further research. and point out some of the key mized and distributed in accordance with value added? future directions. These authors are dis.4. 4. Therefore. tion and resource sharing mechanism is a framework for capturing [7] Wu D. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. vision. looking forward. machine require control systems which have the characteristics of high utilization. Discrete-event modeling they are typically not well suited for long distance communica. IDETC/CIE. and configuration of systems. multiple-party work? How will value be maxi.org/10.nist. Game theory: introduction and applications. However. and education. structure and behavior analyses for CM. Information and resource sharing Institute of Standards and Technology.doi.2. patterns between service providers and consumers in order [11] Li P.3. a key component of such seamless informa. Falco J. enabling geographically distributed reachability.04.doi. are normally executed in intra-factory the design.nytimes. and throughput etc. Flexible management of resource service traditional manufacturing systems lack frameworks for seam. composition in cloud manufacturing. In order to environments. present current status of CM. of Pages 16 D. p. the following: tions. P. Needed is a system evaluate the potential desirable performance such as time saving fit for industrial process control with the range ability of a current and improved machine utilization enabled by CM.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03DOMINANCE.html • How should IP be handled in collaborative environments? What [2] Tapscott D. Harnessing the power of cloud computing for M2M. It turns out that the predominant standards as proposed by the MTConnect Institute. settings. The future trend should be to move away from automation towards 4. Wikinomics: the art and science of peer production.2. Luo YL.2.com/files/wp/m2mCloudComputing. 2005. providers and consumers in CM networks? NIST Special Publication 2008. which are typically used Manufacturing system performance is often a central issue in in a manufacturing industry. 2278–82.2011. validate the performance of CM. for production mangers to make decisions. 2001. it is still undetermined as to what applications are feasible for CM. Boston.008 . Si N. it is critical to justify ultimate goal should be to enable robust service compositions that the perceived cost savings by estimating the cost quantitatively.800:82. Hu T. 2010.5. Wu et al. of production processes for CM systems? cations to the CM field will help ensure flexibility in manufacturing. MA: Allyn and Bacon. A primary technical barrier is that [5] Zhang L. USA: Penguin Group Inc. A unified communication framework for intelligent inte- grated CNC on the shop floor.1016/j. One of the key research questions [8] Schaefer D. it is very worthwhile to develop cost models to provide insights into cost drivers. No.

Cloud ERP meets manufacturing. [24] Katzel J. http://dx. de Oliveira JFG. Magazine. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 2012. et al.12].12]. Wu et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems xxx (2013) xxx–xxx [13] Hao Q. Zhang L. 2011. and Mathematics News 2010. Lindemann E.83:33–4. Striving for a total integration of CAD. [28] Cloud manufacturing: using the cloud to make more than hot air. Cheng Y. Advanced Engineering Infor- [37] About MFG. Study on manufacturing grid & its resource service computing and service-oriented manufacturing model. Zhang X. Shi ZB.1109/TII. 2012.04. [35] Goldhar JD.opcfoundation. laborative relationships. Computers in Industry 1990. Hu YF. Zhang L.automation. Chen Y. Assembly automation: manufacturing in the cloud. ponoko.12]. Towards a cooperative distributed manufacturing [43] Laili Y. Cloud-based design and manufacturing systems: sharing services. Web Link: http://www. Zhang S.225(10):1969–76. manufacturing science and engineering conference (MSEC13).2012. Cloud Storage a STEEP CLIMB. [65] Tao F. Cai M.com/make-and-sell/how-it-works [accessed: 07. assembly mag. Cloud. [46] Tao F. and future trends. Cloud manufacturing: Strategic vision and state-of-the-art. Mao J. cur- April 2011. ManuCloud: the next-generation manufactur. Si N. Fang ML.doi. equilibrium. of Pages 16 16 D. [55] Cai M. http://www. [23] Symonds M. Computerworld 2011. Jiang XD.mfg. [54] Wu D. Cheng Y. Su S. Enterprise Information Systems 2012:1–21. Zhang L.6(4):373–404. Newman ST.jmsy. SWMRD: a semantic web-based [30] Rauschecker U. Proceedings of the optimal-selection system.20:169–77.com/about-mfgcom matics 2007:282–95. Chen G.assemblymag. Venkatesh VC.49(13): manufacturing paradigm. 2011. Cloud manufacturing: a new in manufacturing. ing resources in cloud manufacturing systems. Yang H.63(5):671–90. Zhao D.asp?MID=AboutOPC [44] Tao F. [62] Tao F. Cheng Y. ManuCloud. Resource service composition and its optimal- [38] Ponoko.com/salesmaterial. Sum Jr RN. Cloud computing in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 2011. Journal of Applied Engineering Science puting and service oriented manufacturing model. In: Proceedings of IEEE transactions on [61] Dong B. Mo R. Man. Manufacturing as a Service Business: CIM in the 21st [60] Shi S. Cheng Y. in a manufacturing grid for resource sharing. [accessed 07.51(5):817–27.225(10):1969–76. Zhang L.doi. Intellectual property issues in joint ventures and collaborations. http://www.com [accessed 07.php?id=185 [accessed 07. http://www.pdf teristics.39(2):34–45. The International Journal of Advanced Manufactur- Institution of Mechanical Engineers.16(1):1–7. Manuhub: a semantic web system for ontology- 11 conference proceedings. A review of the application of grid technology [42] Zhang L.12]. Pinilla JM. 2011. tion of resource service transaction in service-oriented manufacturing system.org/10. In: International Journal of Production Research 2009. gration.final. Web Link: http://www.12. 21 April 2012. ufacturing grid environment.12. Schaefer D. Zhou Z.226(6):1099–117. Yip A. [45] Guo H. International Journal of Production Research 2005. Zhang L. Rosen DW. Zhou Z.com. Guo H. Zhou Z. Kenny KB.58:16–21. rent status. 2012. Towards achieving agility in web-based virtual neering Manufacture 2012. Jagadeesan A. Correlation-aware resource service composition [21] Parker N. Chen Z. 2011. Ren L. [64] Liu LL. as/brochure/en/brochure totally integrated automation overview en. [26] Ding B. selection based on particle swarm optimization in manufacturing grid system. http://dx.siemens. Integrated design and Integrated Manufacturing 2007. Information Technology Journal 2012. Technology strategy and management: business models for strategy Production Research 2009. Zhang W. Cho JH. Rosen DW.2013. A cloud-based collaborative manufacturing resource [53] Wu D. 2011. Meier M. International Journal of Computer [36] Rajagopalan S. Computer Integrated Manufacturing System (China) new service-oriented networked manufacturing model. Shen W. Venkatesh VC. Computers in Industry 2005.51:40–3. International Journal of Internet Man. In: International conference on engineering design [27] Schultz B. Liu Y.4(4):315–27. Production Machining compliant NC research: the search for intelligent CAD/CAPP/CAM/CNC inte- 2010. [63] Tao F.43(17):3703–43. Tao F.dlapiper. Zu De Zhou. ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model JMSY-212. Application and modeling of resource service manucloud-project. Cloud manufacturing: a task scheduling algorithm.15(2):168–77. Part B: Journal of Engi- [16] Panchal JH. Inc. [39] Project Overview: ManuCloud Fact Sheet.45(6). et al. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 international [29] Meier M. rapid manufacturing over the Internet.12. MFG. J Manuf Syst (2013). Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2010. [49] Tao F. Creating and appropriating value in col.com/magazine/20091001/the-future-of-manufacturing. Mezgár I. Sobolewski MW. Enterprise Information Systems 2012.63(8):840–8. STEP- [25] Edstrom D. Muckenhirn R.008 . Wang SL. Cao JW. Hong HD.pdf Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Luo Y. Control Engineering 2011. Tao F. Zhang K.2232936. Self-organization manufacturing grid and its [41] Li BH. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 2004. Lewis JW. International information management corporation limited: eChallenges e-20 [56] Cai M. a social network analysis. based service management in distributed manufacturing environments. Wang H. Web Link: [57] Zhang W.economist.com.com/ Transactions on System. [32] Chafkin. Jour. No. Schaefer D. Gu X. Sarachan BD.47(6):1521–50. Schaefer D. and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans node/21552902 [accessed 07. Cloud manufacturing: a [48] Tao F. based manufacturing-as-a-service environment for customized products. Luo Y. (ICED13). Li S. International Journal of [40] Sako M. p. applications for networked product development.. Paper Number: ing as a service environment. Advanced manufacturing systems and enterprises: Cloud and ubiqui.14:225–45. Journal of Engineering 2012. Zhou ZD. Journal of Business Research 2010.10(3):127–34. 2012. Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture ing Technology 2008. Power of the cloud. CAM and CNC. 2013. Tu XY. Tao F. Utility modelling. trust-QoS evaluation in manufacturing grid system. Modeling of combinable relationship-based [19] MTConnect. Wei X. 1998. [22] LaSelle R. [50] Suh SH. Sarker BR. Proctor FM. IEEE Transactions over public IP networks using CyberOPC. Seidelmann J. Com.eu/index. BNP Media [51] Xu XW. The Future of Manufacturing. Eggert A. Computer Integrated 2003. Zhang L. Xu L. 2009. Web Link: http://www. Research 2010. Web service-oriented manufacturing resource automation science and engineering. DLA Piper. Manufacturing Systems 2010.60(1):191–200. Wang L. and QoS computation model in virtual enterprise. LaiLi Y.12. and coordina- [15] Siemens. [33] Putnik G. Remote monitoring for high-speed CNC processes position optimal-selection in cloud manufacturing system.1016/j. Web Link: http://www. Tao F.55:22–4. Jelinok M. Information service of the resource node in a man- Implementing shared manufacturing services on the World-Wide Web.41(3).10:28–31. An implementation of modeling resource Century.com/articles/ compliant CNC. The International Journal of [14] OPC Foundation. The Economist. Zhao D.11:1258–64. Correlation-aware web services composition ufacturing and Services 2007.12. Gupta SK. Manufacture 2011. CAPP. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing munications of the ACM 1996. European Journal of Operational nal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2007.12]. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 87223-assembly-automation-manufacturing-in-the-cloud 2002. Greer MJ. Long Y.org/Default. The International Journal of [17] Wagner SM. [59] Yin Y.org/media/7312/getting composition service network and the theoretical proof of its scale-free charac- started with mtconnect . Please cite this article in press as: Wu D. Tian Q. enterprises: a decision-centric approach. Communications of the ACM 2012. [47] Tao F. 26–8. [58] Tao F.201(1):129–43. and innovation. European Research Consortium for Informatics MSEC2013-1106. et al. 2012. Cloud manufacturing: a com- tous manufacturing and an architecture.org/10. The International Journal of Advanced on Industrial Informatics 2012. Zhang W. Zhao D.html for semantic service discovery in distributed manufacturing environments. He Q. Yefa H. Hu Y. FC-PACO-RM: a parallel method for service com- [18] Torrisi NM. Zhang L. Losleben P. and optimal-selection in manufacturing grid. Hu YF. et al. 4119–55. 2012. M. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2008.inc.2(11):729–41. manufacturing resource discovery system for cross-enterprise collaboration. Web Link: http://mtconnect. Wisconsin.56(1):71–84. Manufacturing Technology 2012.9(6):449–55. BNP media. Li BH. Zhang K. [accessed 07. [52] Xu XW. Corney J. Madison. 2013. Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2012.12. aspx/01 about/01 history.37(9):1022–41. Chang Z.48(12):3445–60. IEEE [31] All together now. Qi G. Technology 2008. Zhang L. Luo Y. Sun LJ. Zhang L. A study of optimal allocation of comput- management framework. Yu T. US.12]. Kramer TR.20(2):101–9. Nee AYC. On the architecture of intelligent STEP- azine. A reputation-based peer-to-peer architecture http://www.1(1):51–74. The world’s easiest making system. [20] Tao F. Cloud manufacturing: drivers. http://www. [34] Erkes JW. quality magazine. 2011.