AMD: How has the cutting tool industry changed over the last five years?

Burley: I've been in the industry for only 20 years, so I'm still a little bit new at this, but, over the past 5 years of course, coming out of the 2001 recession I think everyone was in recovery mode. It was "how can we sell more of our products, and get more of our products on the machines?"  As far as the technical aspect of how it has changed, I think more and more companies are trying to address the needs of nickel-based alloys. That's where the drive is, that's the future; everybody is kind of going in that direction. As a boring-tool manufacturer, we're under constant demands to give more and more process and repeatability with these high-nickel alloys.

Vanderpol: Jack's right; it's been a tough time for cutting tool people since 2001; we've finally bounced back and now we're coming back. Jumping into the issue, I think one of the issues for us on the cutting tool side vs. the machine tool side is, the machine tools continually get better, we're trying to improve our cutting tools, and as the cutting tools get better the machine tool people are trying to improve their machines, and so there have been a lot of improvement in inserts. So what we're trying to do on the boring tool side again is to create a stable platform for the inserts that can run at higher speeds and feeds.

AMD: What is the single most important issue facing the tool industry today?

Dewey: I wish I could narrow it down to one single issue that I thought was key, but the harder hours, the losing jobs overseas, and the competition in general are all key. We've really got to get a grip on what we're doing. Everybody has to become conscious of how they're handling their plan, their part of this equation. we've got to take a better look at technology, try to increase our technology knowledge and use it. A lot of times, I think as cutting tool manufacturers, we don't spend as much on R&D as we should. I think we really need to look to the future - try to compete before we get behind. We can't wait to be reactive; we've got to be proactive. We need to be on the cutting edge.

Jacobs: In this group we all deal with the same challenges today. Much of what we're dealing with right now emphasizes the jobs as they leave the country. As we all try to be more proactive in developing new tools, niche products, things that will help our customers find a faster productivity gain in their facility. Niche products seem to be the big focus; trying to handle a specific application to a very focused, finished results, so we know that we can really optimize it there, whether it be one style of tool or another style of tool. Reaction time is going to be the interesting part of it as the customer gets involved and they accept it, they're starting to get more flexible with new ideas. The future is niche focused solutions to specific productivity gains.

Parker: The best educated are the ones who can actually use the new techniques and developments that are available. We owe a lot of that to custom education. With that, we can really explode in development with the carbide.

Watson: I think that one of the challenges that faces the cutting tool industry today is the venerability of raw materials. This is something that could have an impact on the industry, and I think it is something that we need to watch and deal with while going forward.

Gau: The thing we find out when we go to our customers is actually the lack of available talent, all together, so we've got to fix that as an industry: machine tools, machinists, universities, cutting tool manufacturers. There's numbers out there in the press that you can read about; the imbalance of mechanical engineering graduates out of the U.S. vs. the rest of the world is astronomical. So this is one of the things we face as a cutting tool vendor in the industry right now, helping our customers substitute for talent.

AMD: Do you think it's just here in the United States, or do you think this is a world-wide problem in Europe and Asia and South America?

Swift: If you go into their classrooms, I'm going to bet that they're more than 2/3 minorities. they're going to be Indians, Asians; cultures where they're taught to work very hard and go after these positions - these are still prize positions in their countries. We're not there; we're not in those classes, and our children aren't in those classes.

Gau: I can say this is not the same everywhere, compared to the United States. You go to Europe and Germany in particular, and it's a fairly natural route for people to go into manufacturing. They take kids out of high school and train them on the job part time with the school system; that doesn't exist here in North America, at all. You go to Asia Pacific it's priority; you go to China, to Japan - it's a whole industry around it. it's a cultural thing. I think we need to track these kids to come work in the industry, and we don't do a good job of this. I think this is going to be the long term biggest impact in this industry. I'm talking manufacturing, not just cutting tools.

Swift: The problem here is the people who are teaching our children don't uphold the same values and views that we do. Our children are being taught that manufacturing jobs are not prestigious jobs We aren't going to get anywhere until we change the education part of it; it starts with what they're taught.

Watson: I think that in Europe we tend to see somewhat of a shift, a lot of manufacturing jobs leaving France and Germany and going into the Eastern European countries such as Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. So that shift is happening as well, with regard to manufacturing facilities opening up in new parts, new territories, and new geography. And I think that's going to continue, so we have to deal with it. With regards to education, if we go back ten years, I think we'd probably be saying the same thing about education. I remember a lot of people saying ten years ago that we had the same problem with manufacturing. But at least today the economy is better, there's more investment in the United States, there's more machine tools being purchased in the United States. it's coming back, it's pretty strong, so I feel pretty good about it. It needs to be improved, but I think there's at least progress in that respect.

Parker: (Apprenticeships) are a really good base education for engineers - three or four years of training in each area.

Jacobs: The apprenticeship programs in the shop level and at the customer level have gone away completely. We're seeing them start to come back - in a limited manner - but they are coming back. Large companies such as Boeing, for example, are again opening up their training labs again and their apprenticeship programs where they've been dusty for several years. Many people are getting to the point where they're realizing we have to do something, we have to train our people. Education is a great place to start, but it has to evolve into a place where they can get real-life experience as well.

Troller: Some areas in Utah  seem to be more focused on trade schools, some of the larger companies in the area are coming together with those trade schools, and actually bringing people in and teaching them on the machines they'll be running, doing the types of work that they're going to be doing, so we do see that in some areas, but it's spotty.

AMD: Looking at the challenge of new materials, is the cutting tool industry prepared to effectively cut new materials such as 5553 Titanium, composites, CGI?

Gau: If I were to talk about us, yes, obviously. If I were to talk about the industry, including us, I would say maybe. You can cut those materials; there's no magic to it. Titanium 5553 is still titanium and you can cut it. It is not an impossible task. Can you effectively cut those materials would be my preferred question. And my answer to this is, not yet. Looking at the economy equation from our airframe manufacturer customers - Boeing, Airbus, and all the others who want to get into these new materials, be it 5553 Titanium, be it composite materials - they're banking on a lot of process efficiency to make money in serving those airplanes. You also mentioned CGI, for the automobile industry, which is carbon graphite for the diesel industry. There also, you're going to be looking at an economy of scales, and speeds, and feeds, and working with the machine tool builders and working with our customers. The first answer is yes, we can cut those materials. The answer to the second question: can we effectively cut those materials for everyone to make money in the long run; we'd have to work together there. The way we do this is we tend to want to be a joint partner for development of these new technologies with our customers. We work together with the customer on the application.

Watson: Fran?ois said some critical things. These materials have been around for years, it's just that it's never been so prevalent. Now we start to see these alloys being used in oil and gas, we see these alloys being used in airframes, landing gear, corrosion-resistant opportunities, heat exchangers, many different areas. The alloys are now becoming more prevalent, more cost-effective solutions for people to use in these areas. it's just a matter of re-calibrating everybody: we've got to get off of that machinability being at 100% for steel now. We have to re-calibrate ourselves when it's difficult to machine materials. I think it's the way you approach cutting the metal, it's the substrate, the geometry, the coatings, all those combinations have to be formulated for these new materials. And I think a lot of progress is being made there.

Sebring:  I think the expectation needs to be understood. What are the customers looking for? Materials like 5553 have really become popular, I think people were used to machining (6Al4B) and it's not the same material, so the expectations may be a little too high and people didn't know what to expect when they started machining those kinds of materials. We see all the time, shops where they're used to machining aluminum, now they bid on an Inconel 718 job. They call up and say what the heck's going on here, I can't make any progress. I'm not used to running these high speed feeds. So I think the expectation needs to be understood and clear from the beginning before we set the bar too high and come up short, until we develop, and document, and do proper testing.

AMD: As materials get harder to cut, do you view grinding as a threat to the cutting tool industry? Why or why not?

Lehmen:  We do not see grinding as a threat because grinding is a very expensive operation; grinding always requires a different set up, different machines. We have to go through grinding operations like tapping or honing. But, making ID or OD operations, I think the cutting tool will remain as a tool itself, and grinding will not be a threat to it.

Troller: We probably see it more as an opportunity than as a threat. For cutting tool companies that have R&Ds and are willing to invest in those R&Ds, it's probably a big opportunity.

AMD: As machine tools become capable of supporting grinding, milling and turning, do you anticipate migration from one type of tooling to another? In what direction and at what rate?

Hyatt: Well obviously as the machine tool becomes more flexible, more agile and can support grinding, as well as turning or milling you'll find yourselves not only competing with each other, but also competing with manufacturers of grinding tools. Historically, once the customer bought a machine they were locked in to a limited range of processes. If they bought a lathe, you didn't have to compete against a grinding wheel manufacturer for the life of that capital asset. That's going to change. The customer is going to have the ability to move back and forth between grinding, milling and turning. My speculation is that it will create opportunities both for you and for the grinding wheel manufactures.

Vanderpol:  A lathe now has live tooling, so a lot of the milling operations can be done on a lathe application. So are you suggesting that you are going to be able to put grinding operations on lathes or mills?

Hyatt:  Yes.

Burley:  As a spindle interface manufacturer, we are involved with many companies, and we have through our spindle interfaces been doing some research with different grinding companies. The problem that you have is the wheel needs one type of interface and the dresser needs a different type. So we approach the builder to say okay how do you need to do a tool change on your dresser as well as on the wheel, and how do you put those two together in a magazine, with the interface into the spindle? They all have to change and they all have to work together, so we work with the builders to try to find that ideal, stable environment for grinding and in process dressing at the same time. I think we're encouraged by that opportunity, I think it's going to help us, as a company, grow more because it is an opportunity that we were never involved with before; grinding on machines.

Gau:  We experienced a couple years ago a grind mill combination of a tool. We bumped into the same kind of issue, the fixturing of the tool into the workpiece and how you manage the ability of programming the machine and effectively using the kind of tool we are talking about. So, we've learned quite a bit about that. I think Bob was mentioning, for us as a cutting tool company, it will create more opportunities than it will challenges.

AMD: Is there anything new on the horizon to replace carbide cutting tools?

Troller:  we've thought for years the high-speed steel would disappear, but there's obviously a niche, and I think carbide will remain to have that place. Of course, there will new materials that will come along; we of course don't know how they're going to play. I think coatings are still the area that we still have a lot of room to play with, thecoatings and geometries that we can still get a lot of productivity out of existing carbide tools.

Parker:  I agree with Robert, I think the coating developments have a long way to go. we've recently been atomically changing the coatings with fantastic results.  

Sebring: Customers are now learning to use carbide efficiently and effectively. We believe it will be around for quite a long time still. Niagara Cutter was founded on high-speed and high-speed cobalt and we have quite an extensive history. In some applications, high-speed cobalt is still one of the best tools and the best choice for the application. Some of the things we see now are a lot of pre-coating treatments to the cutting edge, as well as post-coating treatments to the surface of the coating. They've proven to add a significant value to the cutting tool, as well as improvement in performance and reliability, and more predictability during the break-in period. So, I believe carbide is definitely going to be a premier tool in the future.

AMD: What are your views on coated tools; will they continue to grow in popularity?

Sebring: Absolutely. We continue to promote coatings. There are a number of different coatings out there in the market today; it's not just titanium nitride anymore. it's aluminum titanium nitride, aluminum chromium nitride, all different flavors, just a number of different things that can be done with the coatings. We believe coatings are absolutely important in being able to machine these titanium-based materials and these cobalt-based materials, nickel-based alloys, things like that.

Vanderpol: When you look at sales of the high-speed tools and the carbide tools, commenting on the numbers that come into the US CTI (Cutting Tool Institute), and the percentage of cutting tools that are high-speed vs. carbide, high-speed percentage is going down. The sales may be staying somewhat constant, but out of the percent of cutting tools that are being sold, high-speed is decreasing and carbide is increasing, taking up that slack. So, over time, there will definitely be a place for high-speed in certain applications, but carbide tools - whether it's a solid, round or insert - are definitely going to continue from what we see in our forecasting, compared to high speed.

Watson: I think with the nickel-based alloys, the titaniums, the high-temperature materials, you'll see innovations in the coatings and the substrates to deal with these high temperatures and the propagation of thermal cracking. I think that's going to come next for the high-temperature materials.

AMD: How far are we from that?

Watson: I would say we're pretty close. it's a combination of things; finding the right combination of substrates. A lot of people focus on the coatings. As a metals company, we concentrate on altering the combination of substrate materials to deal with it.

AMD: Do you think that is something that will become common?

Watson: I don't know how common it will become. I think that as the cutting tool manufacturers work toward it, people will come up with solutions.

Gau: I second Dave on the comment that substrate coatings will play a large role, but don't forget geometry as well, which is one of the areas that will have a large impact on performance, and we have some of these tools already. I want to go back on the coating thing; I think this is an area that has some benefit for the future - not just in carbide, but some other substrates as well. There've been some trials done on other substrates with coatings: nanolayers and understanding the importance of each of the layers. it's a lot of research that still needs to be done there. And I think that we can see there's a future in working on the nanolayers. Also, think about diamond coating and some of the emergences in these new materials coming out to play - specifically in the composite CFRP type cutting conditions. That's an area of high interest.

Jacobs: One of the things we're finding on our side is small little coating houses all over the country. What I find fascinating is that the little custom grades are coming up with unique coatings by mixing and matching and trying new things, and stumbling across some wonderful improvements every once in a while. Now, can they duplicate them, of course, is what we always question as tool manufacturers, but I think they might just mean a lot to the R&D of our future. As they try new things and do it, we may just be able to grab hold of that technology with them and run with it. So it's expanded our R&D capabilities dramatically with this boutique coating development all over the country.

AMD: As cutting tool manufacturers, why is it important to build and maintain a relationship with machine tool manufacturers?

Burley: We like to maintain a very good presence with all of our partners, because we're equipping our customers with their products. So, we like to work with our machine tool builders on new processes and new developments - never against them. it's always in our best interest to treat each opportunity with customers together with our machine tool builder. we've partnered with various builders through the spindle interface that we offer, and we're trying to look at new avenues that we can make their equipment better as well as provide customers better solutions getting the cutting tool to the point of cut. it's a whole process; it's how you put the machine on the floor, how you build the processor on the machine, how you put the tools in the spindle, how you put the cutting tool into the tool holder, and then put that onto the cut. We think that developing a good relationship with the machine tool builder is just going to make a better process for the customer in the end.

Gau: To add to this, I want to put the customer into the picture. To get a relationship with the cutting tool vendor, relationship with the machine tool builder, relationship with certain key users within the customer base, you've got to address what they really want to do in the future. Working with some of our customers, we're finding some interesting trends that can be applied to new toolings. But new toolings drive new machines, new machines drive new toolings, so you get into the chicken and the egg situation here, and you've got to start somewhere. I think we have to look at it in a three-way partnership.

Hyatt: Sometimes the more creative breakthroughs require joint work between the machine tool builders and the cutting tool manufacturers. Machine tools as we know them may not enable the cutting tool developments, or existing cutting tools may not enable new features or capabilities of machine tools. Only by working together can we jointly bring the solution to the customer, rather than each of us bringing perhaps half the solution, and hoping the other half will show up somewhere.

Troller: Another good point. In retrofitting, trying to do it behind the scenes is much more difficult than trying to do it up front. 

Gau: Absolutely.

Watson: I think when we come up with innovations, with regards to approaches to machining new materials, plunge cutting and other techniques are better to approach the materials with, yet there's a lot of push-back from the manufacturers because they don't want to reprogram the machines. They want to make it easier to do plunge cutting, make it easier to incorporate that into the approaches the cutting tools take.

AMD: How receptive are end users to allowing cutting tool trials on the manufacturing floor? What types of problems are most often encountered?

Dewey: We have shops that sometimes call us and want us to come in to try to help them, and we're more than willing to do it, but if it's a matter of production, they're so bogged down that we can't get enough production out, then they can't take the time to break the setup, to get down and see if our tools are going to do any better. They want to see, but they also have goals that they have to achieve. And you've got to respect that. they're asking for our help, we're offering our help and that's great, but it's kind of a double-edged sword. If they've got the time to try the tool, then production might be at a low point. But, if the production's at a high point, they may not have the time to really try.

Jacobs: The larger the customer, the more they need, and they recognize that they need improvement. And also on that note, the slower it is to get any opportunities on that floor because they are dealing with privacy issues. But what we're finding is, when people call they usually try to find time to get it going, but a project on a large scale application - say it's a large production run or a large part family that tends to be consistently running - those can take a year to get into place. But once they get into place and you find that one opportunity to get the machine time, yet alone possibly a scrap part to do the cut on, because nobody wants to gamble with a $50,000 casting - great. it's just finding that time, so scheduling becomes the challenge - getting everything in line, doing testing somewhere else if you can. Many companies that we deal with today have already addressed this with an R&D lab on site, which gets you 50% there, because it's not the same machine, it's a different animal than it will be when you get to the production run, but they can at least identify what they're dealing with. People are not receptive, and probably even less receptive now to letting us on their floor because they are busy, they're very, very busy, and because they're busy, they want us there - it is a double edged sword. At events such as WESTEC, improvements in tools are so evident, they're everywhere. And every company's got a new batch of goodies out to show and tell. And as customers come through and they look at those, they're going to find time to plug them in. they're going to look at the opportunities and they're going to try it. it's just a matter of "when".

Burley: Customers have lost a lot of manufacturing engineering base. They are willing to test as long as you can provide the platform to do it for them. So, you can come in and maybe even reprogram their machine, if necessary, with the skilled sales engineers. They want you to be their manufacturing engineering department, to do all the testing and get it onto the floor. That's what we're commonly facing as a cutting tool company, that we have to do basically all the leg work. We have to bring it in, set it up, work with the operator, maybe even help them reprogram the machine to put it on there. Losing all that manufacturing engineering is really pulling back the amount of testing that companies are willing to do now.

Swift: We seem to get two opportunities in this. One is that they're absolutely desperate. they're on the phone, calling everybody, and whoever can get there first and help them to any degree at all is going to be successful in winning some of that business. The second opportunity that we have is that we see a lot of machines that are running, and they're doing fine, they're busy and they're backed up. If they trust you and you've tested with them before, you've proven that you can show them results, even when they're busy, you'll get that opportunity. It would be hard to find a facility, if we had a free run on this group of people, that couldn't improve their output by at least 10%. And the problem is you just can't keep your hands on every element of that manufacturing process to make the improvements they need. Maybe they don't rough material enough so that you can finish it at 600 in/min. So, it's hard to get control of the full process. But if they trust you, even when they are busy, if you can cut their time enough, it's worth it for them to run that test. it's that element of trust - you can't go in and fail. They don't have time for that; you've got to produce when you go in. And you've got to pick them carefully. Smaller customers are more forgiving, I've found, but the larger customers you really need to make sure you're careful how you approach, especially new customers. And if you win, I think that the doors are open.

AMD: Who has the final decision on the manufacturing floor to purchase tools? If so, what criteria are most often used in that process?

Gau: Most of the time, it will be the manufacturing engineer on the floor that makes the decision of what kind of tool they want to go to. it's going to be based usually on the performance of the cutting tool, on tool life and the cut, depending on the type of machine and what operation and what material that they're dealing with. But, I think that we can see a shift toward the sharing of decision-making with cost in mind as well. And more and more, you've got the large companies that are looking at the integration of buys, and then those kinds of criteria come into play more and more in the balance of who makes the final decisions. That's becoming a lot more complex than it used to be. The emergence in my sector, we see some trends in aerospace, for example, where people are thinking in terms of cost per part. Like Trace said, with a $50,000 casting, you make two or three of those per month, it's not the same kind of behavior that they'd have for a brake caliber that you make 60,000 per day at 10 cents apiece. The convergence is common.

Watson: I think it varies when you identify who the decision maker is in a customer, that's always an issue. And it's usually a function of the size of the organization, how well centralized or decentralized, if it's a small customer where the owner is out there running the machines himself. There are different levels of decisions. it's become more complex with the larger companies and integration and different channels, but it comes back to solving customer problems and being a reliable and consistent supplier; that is the best you can do.

AMD: Do you still see cost as a major factor in purchasing that tool, or are manufacturers more willing to look at the productivity issues rather than the cost factors?

Watson: I think different segments in the industry have different cost drivers. If you look at the automotive industry, maybe they're more concerned about cost, versus people who are looking for solutions, such as the aerospace companies, who are looking for value and a valued proposition where they can actually reduce cycle time and improve their manufacturing efficiencies. I think it depends on the application.

Jacobs: Based on what you were saying, the purchasing and the cost side of it is always a secondary process as well. We have the engineer on the floor who's looking at the process and doing the justifications from a productivity perspective. The first set of tools go in, get into production and then change. Then, it goes to purchasing. Then, it goes to cost accounting. It changes and shifts and it can become a whole new battle at that point, whether or not the tools actually repeat and stay in there ever again. We're all out there for the long term relationship with that sale rather than the one-time deal. Both sides of the cost will always be a factor, it's just a matter of when it rears its ugly head.

AMD: Do you see a consolidation of cutting tool manufacturers within the next 5 years?

Lehmann: I think big cutting tool companies are very well positioned within the market, and I do not see anything like that happening in the near future.

Swift: I'm a small manufacturer and I'd like to stay independent, so I'm hoping that we don't get bought up or forced out.  I think as a small manufacturer, we fill a niche that the large guys can't. We're very responsive; we can build tools and ship in the same day. they're bogged down; they're handling such a high volume of standards in their other business. They can't focus on everything - you just can't get everything to everybody. We're located locally in Seattle, and someone can call us and give us that tool, we'll throw it on the grinder and deliver it in four hours. And the guy's $500,000 cell is up and running again. He can call anyone in this room and it's a day or two to get it there, even if you make it as fast as we do. So, I think the cutting tool manufacturers that develop a presence in their region are going to survive. You just can't get rid of them. they're too responsive.

Hyatt: I think the last five years with the downturn in our economy, in the cutting tool industry, we've seen a lot of mergers and acquisitions. I don't see that kind of activity in the next five years unless we see another huge downturn. I think there'll be less consolidation than we've seen in the last 5 years.

AMD: What manufacturing sectors will have a big impact on the cutting tool industry?

Troller: I think there are certain related industries that have similar materials as aerospace, like medical, so there are a lot of other industries that we can use the technologies that we're developing for aerospace now and use for other industries. I certainly think there's a lot to expand.

Parker: I think that mentioning aerospace and medical is a good testament to new materials. I think that automotive is staying; it's actually influenced by the Asian manufacturers.

Sebring: We see a lot of die mold applications coming back; a lot of shops that went to the wayside that now have a lot of resurgence of activity, and more customers. A lot of customers were able to weather the storm, so a lot of work is coming back to our die mold manufacturers now.

Gau: We see also the rail industry booming in certain parts of the world. There is a need for mass transportation, so we see a lot of booming there. Again, a lot of very difficult operations to perform, but a huge amount of specific cutting tools and machines need to be delivered to that market. Energy, definitely, is an area that we watch very carefully. We must not discount that segment. it's still there. it's still pulling significant global demand. Now the question is: Who is your customer? Where is your channel? How do you serve them? That's becoming more critical now in the decision making, rather than which industry you want to focus on.

Swift: We're seeing a big insurgence of wind mills, and I really think this all has to do with the energy topic; it's going to push the fuel sales. We're actually seeing some solar farms, where there are solar panels, and like it or not, I'm sure there's going to be a real insurgence of nuclear reactors. we've really seen a lot of wind mills and a lot of business coming off of wind mills, and I think the nuclear guys are ramping up a little bit. Carbon fuels are kind of getting a bad name.

Watson: Right now the aerospace industry is taking up all the demand for some of the more difficult-to-machine materials, like these titaniums and high-temperature alloys, but there are other applications for titanium that are going to be prevalent, in the future; like in oil, gas, and some of the other industries that we see are going to become really strong. So, as soon as there's enough capacity for titanium, we'll see this material go into other industry segments.

AMD: Will manufacturers see new activity in terms of new tools over and above what they currently see? If so, will it be on the specialty or commodity side of the market?

Sebring: We see new tools every day. We request new geometries, substrates and coatings, some of these new materials like Ti 5553, high-temp alloys. The high-performance market will drive new development, the request for improved efficiency, reduced cycle time, application-specific cutting tools. They become very, very important for some of these customers that are looking to minimize cycle time, and that's where true value is added: by taking a solution to a customer, to the spindle, the particular-grade carbide with a particular geometry set, coating, post-coating treatment; going in there with the customer, running the tool with them, and developing a process. Not just handing the tool over and saying "good luck, let us know how it works." it's taking that tool in there and developing it with the customer and supporting them.

Burley: I think we as cutting tool manufacturers have to coordinate ourselves with the machine tool builders and the customers to bring the system together. This means that a customer has a process that they have to make, and they rely on different vendors to make that happen. This person is saying here is the machine to do it, and this is the cutting tool from another source saying how to do it, and then somebody to put it together on the mill; they're relying on the process to be put together as team work. I think you're going to see more of that team building in the future.

AMD: Within the cutting tool industry, what changes can we be expecting to see in the next 3 to 5 years?

Vanderpol: I think the technology side. I think you're going to see a greater change on the technology side, developing new cutting tools and things like that. There are obviously markets in Asia that will be expanding greater than maybe in Europe, and so that's where the focus will be. We're all trying to get a bigger piece of the shrinking pie. And there's only so much manufacturing out there. Our customers are creating parts with near-net shape, there are less chips being made, and so we're in a sense putting ourselves out of business because we're building better and better cutting tools. it's going to be a real challenge, but the changes will be on the technology side.

Dewey: I think manufacturers need to be able to respond to our end users. There are not as many technical people coming into the business, and I think manufacturers are going to have to pick up some of that slack. We're going to have to be there for the customer and help them through these times.

Parker: The production of fuselage is going to be important in the future, we'll go to dry machining and it is going to be cost-saving there. High-pressure coolant will come in a lot.

Gau: In the next 3 to 5 years, there's going to be improvements to the performance of the cutting tool, with all the work we do competing against each other in this group here; it'll be very good for the customer. We tend to see reduction in product lab cycles; a cycle used to be a few years, and now it's reduced and we see more and more products. As the technology emerges - geometry, coatings, substrates, all of this - it's still got a lot of room to play there.We also see something coming from the lack of available talent in the customer base, that all of us as an industry need to help our customer. We mentioned earlier the access of the customer to testing, optimizing the process, they want us to reprogram the machines and help them along the way. Being able to address the machining equation will be something we have to come to grips with. We must propose this complete solution to our customer base in an effective way.

AMD: From your individual perspectives, is there anyone who would like to make a final comment? Something you would really like our readership to know?

Parker: I'd like the readership to not focus on the cost of the insert, but the value of the component.

Jacobs: The manufacturing cost is 3% of the total cost. For example, if you have a 20% cost reduction on the tool itself, it's an end-result 3% savings, as compared to a 20% increase in productivity, being realistically a 15% gain in productivity. The customers need to open up their doors and be responsive to the fact that we are basically creating engineering resources that bring deliverables to their door that can make them more money. This is what we do. If we don't make them more money, they won't buy from us, and we all understand this very, very well. And they need to understand that we get that, too.

Watson: I think with the new materials that are hitting the marketplace - the new alloys and titanium, not just 5553, 1023 - I think the customers, as they start to work with these materials, have to realize that they can't do things the same way that they used to. They have to understand that they have to try something new. Cutting tool manufacturers are here to help them try something new and solve those problems. 

AMD: I thank Mori Seiki for sponsoring this, and I thank you for being here. I truly meant what I said at the beginning, this is really the best of the best. What you guys do, in this room, in the manufacturing environment, affects the entire industry. I very much appreciate you coming here today.