paid to industry needs, manufacturability, and commercial potential. With respect to the organizational aspects of the research efforts, some programs give the appearance of being a collection of projects, lacking a coherent focus that binds them together. Program focus and program alignment under specific managers could be made stronger. In assessing the level of progress in various efforts, the panel found that in a number of cases the program metrics could be more quantitative; some of the stated metrics appear merely to be project milestones.
The interactions of NIST with industry are strong, but they could be further expanded, with more visits to companies and a greater awareness of industry practices. Such interactions would be especially helpful in avoiding research efforts that lag behind the industry state of the art. The coordination among teams across NIST laboratories is broad, although at the same time it often is ad hoc and informal. Greater benefits could be realized with more structured coordination. Finally, for its technical and scientific capabilities and accomplishments in the areas reviewed, NIST deserves more national visibility than it receives—perhaps as a result of service being a core element of its mission, and perhaps also as a result of institutional modesty.
The following sections present the key recommendations of the panel for the three advanced manufacturing areas of NIST: (1) Nanomanufacturing; (2) Smart Manufacturing; and (3) Next-Generation Materials Measurements, Modeling, and Simulation. These and related recommendations are presented and discussed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
1. NIST should continue to define its vision for its Nanomanufacturing program, making clear choices about what nanomanufacturing should be on the basis of the NIST mission. To have more impact, NIST should focus on the following definitions or aspects of nanomanufacturing:
• Making nanoscale objects to obtain special properties, and
• Using nanotechnology to manufacture other things.
2. In addition to the focus in the Nanomanufacturing program on the current CMOS technologies, NIST should work with industry to develop the metrics for benchmarking the new, potential CMOS replacement technologies.
3. In the large CMOS device market, which is dominated by companies with vast resources, NIST should make careful judgments about where it positions itself with respect to device metrology supporting continuation of semiconductor technology advances.
4. To play an important role with respect to the issue of bankability of new technologies, NIST should consider providing methodologies, databases, reference materials, and modeling so as to provide those in the manufacturing community (especially new entrants) with a way to evaluate their approaches independently and objectively.
5. Since the structural determination of biologics may constitute a useful measurement tool for assessing the impact of modified variants on Biomanufacturing, future work