Digital Production

  • Luca Caneparo
Chapter

Abstract

Contributions towards the end of the war were made by the prototypes of several innovative technologies, for example information technology with the first digital computers. The United States placed themselves at the forefront of technology transfer with structural development policies and strategies. Within 20 years they laid the foundations for the development of digital design and manufacturing in a broad range of industrial sectors, which would later be applied in the construction sector too. The peculiar needs of the aerospace industry for precision and flexible production made it a particularly receptive sector for innovative processes. In 1949, the US Air Force financed a proof-of-feasibility study of a three-axis milling machine operated by a computer. This technology took the name Numerical Control (NC). With NC, for the first time it became possible to describe individual elements of the design and manufacturing process in the formal language of science and technology, that is mathematics. The programming languages of NC have the declared aim of being intelligible to technicians and to computers which, by digitalising the design in bits and bytes, could therefore autonomously interpret it and translate it from the intangible domain into the physical object: the artefact produced “automatically” by the new machine tools. The designers themselves became masters of the production process, describing design in the new languages of information technology aimed at direct manufacturing without the intermediary of descriptive geometry any longer. This new class of technicians no longer just supervises, but also manages the procedures for the manufacturing process through programming languages. Numerically controlled machines automatically interpret and execute the instructions of NC language, to make the parts that, assembled together, result in a complete product. NC technology, initially adopted by large industries which were structured around the division and separation of skills and jobs, was adopted by small and medium-sized enterprises as soon as investment costs began to drop. SMEs directed the technology to the demands of their own “horizontal” organisations, with a high level of skills shared between a numerically small workforce.

Keywords

Machine Tool Numerical Control Descriptive Geometry Industrial District Incremental Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Afuah A (2009) Strategic innovation: new game strategies for competitive advantage. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Laham A, Amburgey TL (2011) Staying local or reaching globally? Analyzing structural characteristics of project-based networks in German biotech. In: Cattani G et al (eds) Project-based organizing and strategic management, vol 28, Advances in strategic management. Emerald, BingleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida P, Kogiit B (1999) Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Manag Sci 45(7):905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arditi D, Tangkar M (1997) Innovation in construction equipment and its flow into the construction industry. J Constr Eng Manag 123(12):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthur B (1990) Positive feedbacks in the economy. Sci Am 262:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagnasco A (1977) Tre Italie: la problematica territoriale dello sviluppo italiano. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  7. Barley S, Freeman J, Hybels R (1992) Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology. In: Eccles R, Norhia N (eds) Networks and organizations. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Belofsky H (1991) Engineering drawing: a universal language in two dialects. Technol Cult 32(1):23–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benvenuto E (1981) La scienza delle costruzioni e il suo sviluppo storico. Sansoni, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  10. Bralla JG (2007) Handbook of manufacturing processes: how products, components and materials are made. Industrial Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown JE, Hendry C (2006) Organizational networking in UK biotechnology clusters. Br J Manag 17(1):55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callicott N (2001) Computer aided manufacture in architecture: changing the craft of design. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Carabelli A, Hirsch G, Rabellotti R (2008) Italian SMEs and industrial districts on the move. Where are they going? In: Haar J, Meyer-Stamer J (eds) Small firms, global markets: competitive challenges in the new economy. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  14. Caroli MG (ed) (2007) Il processo di internazionalizzazione delle piccole imprese. FrancoAngeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooke P (2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. ICC 10(4):945–974Google Scholar
  16. Crippa MA (1984) Carlo Scarpa: Il pensiero, il disegno, i progetti. Jaca Book, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  17. Den Hertog P, Brouwer E (2001) Innovation in the Dutch construction cluster. In: OECD (ed) Innovative clusters: drivers of national innovation systems. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Dupire A et al (1985) L’architettura e la complessità del costruire. Clup, Milano. French edition: Dupire A et al (1981) Deux Essais sur la Construction. Mardaga, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  19. Eccles R (1981) The quasifirm in the construction industry. J Econ Behav Organ 2:335–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Egan J (1998) Rethinking construction: report of the construction task force on the scope for improving quality and efficiency of UK construction. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Egorova E, Torchiano M, Morisio M (2009) Evaluating the perceived effect of software engineering practices in the Italian industry. In: Qing W et al (eds) Trustworthy software development processes, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. Esteve M, Ysa T, Longo F (2012) The creation of innovation through public-private collaboration. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) 65(9):835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flamm K (1988) Creating the computer: government, industry and high technology. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Fontana D (2011) Il futuro che ci aspetta. Flessibilità, innovazione, partnership. In: Osservatorio Nazionale Distretti Italiani, Secondo rapporto dell’Osservatorio Nazionale Distretti Italiani. Federazione dei Distretti Italiani, MestreGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabetti R (1968) L’insegnamento dell’architettura nel sistema didattico franco-italiano 1782. Quaderni di studio, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  26. Giedion S (1948) Mechanization takes command, a contribution to anonymous history. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldstine HH (1972) The computer: from Pascal to von Neumann. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Groover MP (1996) Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials, processes, and systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs/LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Henderson R (1996) Technological change and the management of architectural competence. In: Cohen MD, Sproull LS (eds) Organizational learning. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks/LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hounshell DA (1987) From the American system to mass production, 1800–1932: the development of manufacturing technology in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  31. Isaksen A (2004) Knowledge-based clusters and urban location: the clustering of software consultancy in Oslo. Urb Stud 41(5–6):1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson R (2006) Aviazione della seconda guerra mondiale. Evoluzione, armi, caratteristiche. L’airone, RomaGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones M, Saad M (2003) Managing innovation in construction. Thomas Telford, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kennedy A (2008) Pharmaceutical project management. Informa Healthcare, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Kenney M (ed) (2000) Understanding silicon valley: the anatomy of an entrepreneurial region. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Kloosterman R (2008) Walls and bridges: knowledge spillover between superdutch architectural firms. J Econ Geogr 8(4):545–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kochan D (1986) CAM: developments in computer integrated manufacturing. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  38. Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Lampel J (2011) Institutional dynamics of project-based creative organizations: Irving Thalberg and the Hollywood studio system. In: Cattani G et al (eds) Project-based organizing and strategic management, vol 28, Advances in strategic management. Emerald, BingleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levitt RE et al (2012) Encouraging knowledge-sharing in engineering firms—part I: incentives, disincentives, and the impacts of firm context. Eng Proj Organ J 2(4): 231–239Google Scholar
  41. Levitt RE et al (2013) Encouraging knowledge sharing in engineering firms—part II: game theory analysis and firm strategies. Eng Proj Organ J 3(1): 22–31Google Scholar
  42. Lootsma B (2000) Superdutch: new architecture in the Netherlands. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Lucertini M, Gasca Millán A, Nicolò F (2004) Technological concepts and mathematical models in the evolution of modern engineering systems: controlling, managing, organizing. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  44. Luke R, Begun J, Pointer D (1989) Quasi-firms: strategic interorganizational forms in the health care industry. Acad Manag Rev 14:1–14Google Scholar
  45. Marabelli A (2011) Ma non eravamo i più bravi? Marmomacchine Magazine 218:8Google Scholar
  46. Micelli S (2011) Futuro artigiano: L’innovazione nelle mani degli italiani. Marsilio, VeneziaGoogle Scholar
  47. Naticchia B, Cacciaguerra G (2011) Metodi e strumenti di gestione della costruzione. In: Trento A (ed) Verso un sapere tecnico condiviso nella ricerca sulla progettazione e costruzione dell’edilizia, Atti della Giornata di Studio. Associazione Scientifica Ar.Tec., RomaGoogle Scholar
  48. Noble DF (1979) Social choice in machine design. In: Zimbalist A (ed) Case studies on the labor process. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Noble DF (2011) Forces of production: a social history of industrial automation. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  50. Olexa R (2001) The father of the second industrial revolution. Manuf Eng 127(2)Google Scholar
  51. Orsenigo L, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M (2001) Technological change and network dynamics: lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Res Policy 30(3):485–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ortiz EL (2010) On the impact of philosophical conceptions on mathematical research. The case of Condillac and Babbage. Metatheoria 1(1):65–76MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Osservatorio Nazionale Distretti Italiani (2011) Secondo rapporto dell’Osservatorio Nazionale Distretti Italiani. Federazione dei Distretti Italiani, MestreGoogle Scholar
  54. Overby A (2011) CNC machining handbook: building, programming, and implementation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Pease W (1952) An automatic machine tool. Sci Am 187(3):101–115MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pérez-Gómez A (1985) Architecture and the crisis of modern science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  57. Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L (2006) Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strateg Manag J 27:369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Picon A (1992) Gestes ouvriers, opérations et processus techniques. La vision du travail des encyclopédistes. Recherches sur Diderot et sur l’Encyclopédie 13:131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Romozzi F (2010) I vantaggi nello sviluppo delle Aree Leader. RomaGoogle Scholar
  60. Ross TD (1978) Origins of the APT language for automatically programmed tools. In: Wexelblat RL (ed) History of programming languages I. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Sabel CF (2004) Mondo in bottiglia o finestra sul mondo? Domande aperte sui distretti industriali nello spirito di Sebastiano Brusco. Stato e mercato 70–72(1):143–158Google Scholar
  62. Sinopoli N, Tatano V (2002) Sulle tracce dell’innovazione. Tra tecniche e architettura. FrancoAngeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  63. Tatum CB (1989) Organizing to increase innovation in the construction firm. J Constr Eng Manag 115(4):602–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor JE, Levitt RE (2005) Inter-organizational knowledge flow and innovation diffusion in project-based industries. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’ 05), WaikoloaGoogle Scholar
  65. Taylor JE, Levitt RE (2007) Innovation alignment and project network dynamics: an integrative model for change. Proj Manag J 38(3):22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Valmalette JM (1957) Le dessin technique normalise. Vuibert, ParisGoogle Scholar
  67. Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1990) The machine that changed the world. Rawson Associates, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Zeitlin J (1995) Flexibility and mass production at war. Aircraft manufacture in Britain, the United States, and Germany, 1939–1945. Technol Cult 36(1):46–79MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zeller C (2002) Project teams as means of restructuring research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Reg Stud 36(3):275–290MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zucker L et al (1996) Collaboration structure and information dilemmas in biotechnology: organizational boundaries as trust production. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations. Sage publication, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Caneparo
    • 1
  1. 1.DAD - Dipartimento di Architettura e DesignPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations