Extreme Manufacturing Requirements

For a successful Extreme Manufacturing event - in other words - for build success on a rapid time frame - there are several stringent preparation requirements.

The intended outcome of Extreme Manufacturing is a smooth, enjoyable build event that results in optimized learning and fun. We have observed that the single most important element towards fulfillment of the participants is a completed product. We have observed this in light of that no matter how much fun people had in the process - if they do not see a finished product at the end of the workshop - their morale is likely to go down. In extreme cases - they are downright pissed off due to improper expectation management. We expect to finish and promise a finished build - otherwise we don't start by calling the event an Extreme Manufacturing event.

We have seen great fulfillment from OSE's workshops. We have changed many participants' mindsets from believing that they can not build things - to a mindset that they can build anything. Seeing a product come together from scratch - under one's own hands - to a fished form - can be very fulfilling and empowering - both practically and psychologically.

The quality of the results will depend on the amount of pre-build preparation that both the producers of the event - and the participants - are willing to study prior to the actual build. Naturally, preparing the material takes a lot of time - and so can studying the materials.

Requirements:

1. An instructor who understands the design rationale for every single part of the build, who has the experience of building the item at the very least one time, and who is good at teaching.
2. A design that has been optimized for simplicity, low skill requirement, and minimum unique parts count. Minimum part count is not as critical as minimum unique part count.
3. Carefully orchestrated, efficient workflow.
4. Easily- verifiable and self-verifying workflow. Rapid iteration is applied to a build by fitting parts of complex assembly into place as quickly as possible, and in as small a unit as possible.
5. Self-executing quality control. Markings on parts, Poka-Yoke, geometrical features, and clear alignment/fit procedures. Plugs that can be plugged in only one way. Design that allows defects to be easily visible. Test steps throughout the procedure - so that attention is given not only to the build, but also to quality control. Parts produced with CNC typically quality as self-verifying quality control.
6. Complete and perfect written documentation. There are many types of learning styles. There are apparently people who work best from written instructions, for whom even having a visual model that they can see in real life not being as important as the availability of material in written form.
7. Effective short videos showing the build in rapid, condensed form, which can be viewed quickly - and looped during the build for repetition. Ideally - these are 5 to 15 second segments showing all the steps - and should include voice-over. We point out the importance of voice-over.
8. CAD models and ability to view them in 3D. For this, we use FreeCAD models. FreeCAD has exploded part diagrams built in. Online, embeddable 3D in a web browser - and part explosions with annotations - can be used. We are developing WebGL models and techniques for generating interactive, exploded part diagrams.
9. Real life model of the product being build for participants to look at.

After the build instructor, the single most important item from the list above - for builds involving complex geometries - is a clearly visible model that build participants can look at. The reason for this is that a real model is like the name implies - a reality check. Written instructions and CAD can suffer from errors: from the potential issue of not matching reality. If there is an error in the CAD or instructions - such errors can easily propagate to hours wasted. This is not true for a real model - a real functioning model is guaranteed as the final verification of a product. For a one-on-one build, it is possible for the instructor to make up for the absence of a real life model: if the instructor is fully available for quality control. With larger numbers of participants, direct quality control by the instructor is impossible. A real life model can allow more quality control to happen by the participants.