“Aerospace and Defence are prime example where machining knowledge and the ability to use advanced technology have risen greatly”, says Terrence Miranda Managing Director- Phillips Machine Tools
-By Neha Basudkar Ghate
1: What are the current manufacturing challenges related to completing components in a single setup, and how does this impact machine and shop floor requirements?
A: Today’s manufacturing requirements increasingly focus on completing components in a single setup, while also minimizing the number of joined or interlinked parts. Having fewer joints, weldments, or assembled sections in a product helps maintain greater rigidity and improves the accuracy of the finished product. From a simplicity standpoint, this drive towards integrating more functionality into single components certainly simplifies the end result.
However, from a machining perspective, this goal makes manufacturing significantly more challenging. It means manufacturers must produce much more complex parts in a single setup, requiring machines capable of multitasking and handling multiple operations concurrently. This is particularly evident in fields like tool and die making and aerospace, where precision and part integration are vital.
These challenges impact the manufacturer in several ways. First, the cost and complexity of equipment goes up also multitasking machines capable of combining milling, turning, and other operations in one go tend to be more expensive. Second, programming such parts becomes more difficult; creating CAM programs that can run diverse operations seamlessly in one setup demands a higher skill level and greater attention to detail.
While the focus on multitasking and single-setup completion delivers superior components, adopting this technology means manufacturers must invest in upgrading their shop floors. It requires purchasing more advanced, complex machines and developing a more automated work environment to effectively handle the intricacies of modern manufacturing demands.
2: What are the key challenges faced by the mould and die industry in India, and how does it compare with countries like China and Eastern Europe?
A: If you look at the mould and die industry, it really lacks standardization. There are still certain moulds that are very complex and high volume, but tool rooms in India often struggle to achieve that kind of throughput. They might be able to handle a few projects, but cannot manage many at once. That is precisely where countries like China and those in Eastern Europe stand out as they have the volume and the specialized knowledge needed to deliver at scale.
3: In which areas has India’s machining knowledge and technological adoption advanced, and what role do government policies and standards play?
A: India has seen real improvement in several areas. Aerospace is one prime example where machining knowledge and the ability to use advanced technology have risen greatly. Defence is another area, particularly in drone manufacturing, India leads the drone industry both in additive and subtractive manufacturing approaches. In medical implants as well, there are many homegrown manufacturers working to critical international standards.
The Indian Medical Device Association is currently setting standards for implants, patterned closely on US FDA guidelines. In fact, most Indian manufacturers follow the US FDA standards, even if their products are mostly for domestic consumption. Indian manufacturers have the knowledge and technology, but often lack scale. This is sometimes due to less governmental support compared to countries like China, where policies, access to funding, and the ability to set up large manufacturing plants are far more favorable. In India, access to funding exists, but the cost remains high, which discourages manufacturers from expanding. However, the government is aware of these challenges and is working towards improving them. There is hope that recent world developments will influence policy-making in India, encouraging more robust promotion of the manufacturing sector going forward.
4: How is the government contributing to education and skilling in manufacturing, and what role do private partners and centers of excellence play?
A: I think the government, on both the education and skilling fronts, is definitely doing a lot. If you look at the ITIs, the polytechnics, and even colleges above that level, there have been significant transformations. In the past, many institutes had equipment that was barely used; trainers were often not confident or comfortable in running that equipment, and students did not get hands-on experience. Much of the equipment was simply a showpiece and was not put to actual use.
Today, the situation has changed with tie-ups to private companies for instance, Tata Technologies is working closely with ITIs to provide genuine training to students. We ourselves have partnered in these programs, though we are just one among several partners, and not necessarily the largest. Their programs are quite effective.
Beyond this, we are collaborating with the Uttarakhand government where we have helped establish four government-funded centers of excellence specifically for training purposes. These centers focus on disciplines like milling, turning, CAM, CAD, robotics, and 3D printing. The response has been excellent; each course runs for three months, training about 25 to 50 students per batch. This works like a finishing school for students who have completed their ITI courses before moving into the industry. The training is comprehensive, including resume preparation, and is completely funded by the government and not by us. The students tend to be young and eager to learn, frequently from village backgrounds.
Our success has come mainly in Uttarakhand and Odisha so far, and we are currently in talks with the Maharashtra government for similar initiatives. The program there, which is still under discussion, targets both milling and turning as well as additive technologies.
5: How does your educational division approach industry training, and what efforts are made to keep training product-agnostic and effective?
A: Our education division, Philips Education, takes an entirely product-agnostic approach. We buy equipment even from our competitors if that is what a customer or partner requires; our sole concern is the quality and effectiveness of the training, not the brand of CNC machine in use. We’re focused on making sure that the purchased equipment is fully utilized by trainees, and we provide on-site trainers as part of the deliverable to the government. Our goal is to ensure the level of education is maintained consistently.
To that end, we use our own learning management course, developed in-house and delivered by our team. Everything is mapped and tracked online; it’s not just physical training books any more. This digital system allows the government to monitor progress since they have access to our platform, and we continue tracking students after they graduate and enter the workforce. We try to keep them within our ecosystem so if a student joins a company, works for a year or two, then switches jobs, we know how their career progresses and can share this information back to the government. Since this work is taxpayer-funded, it’s essential that results are visible and measurable. It’s a win-win situation it benefits the students, builds our brand, helps the government show its impact at the ground level, and even has political benefits for leaders promoting real skilling and change.
6: What is your approach to building up the Performance Series and localizing manufacturing, and how has R&D in Maharashtra developed?
A: Regarding the Performance Series, our goal is focused on making in India, but we are proceeding in a stepwise manner. We are not building an entirely indigenous machine from day one; for now, there is still important content that is imported, and we plan to gradually increase the local content over time. Maharashtra is our base and Pune has always been the heart of our operations. Our R&D center is in Chakan, and the entire setup resides there.
We intend to grow further in Maharashtra; besides our hubs in Navi Mumbai and Chakan, we have small centers in Nasik and Kolhapur, with plans to develop one in Aurangabad as well. The R&D center in Chakan is quite nascent; all the work has happened essentially over the last two to three years, and it is clear that we have received no government funding or grants. Everything to date has been self-financed, and we have not applied for any external support. Part of the reason is uncertainty around the process, and part of it is the conviction to wait until the operation scales enough to truly need such funding. We are still at the start, and once we reach a certain level, we will surely explore government schemes and decide on the appropriate course of action.
COMMENTS