Flexible Electronics for
Security, Manufacturing, and
Growth in the United States

Summary of a Symposium

Sujai J. Shivakumar, Rapporteur

Committee on Best Practice in National Innovation Programs
for Flexible Electronics

Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy

Policy and Global Affairs

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Sujai J. Shivakumar, Rapporteur Committee on Best Practice in National Innovation Programs for Flexible Electronics Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Policy and Global Affairs

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street NW Washington DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by: Contract/Grant No. SB1341-12-CQ-0036/13-020, TO #2 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Contract/Grant No. DE-DT0000236, TO #28 (base award DE-AM01-04PI45013), between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-28501-8 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-28501-1 Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/ . Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee on Best Practice in National Innovation Programs for Flexible Electronics* Donald Siegel, Co-Chair A. Michael Andrews, II, Co-Chair Dean and Professor Vice President for Research and School of Business Engineering University at Albany, SUNY Chief Technology Officer L-3 Communications Corporation Byron C. Clayton (retired) Vice President Nortech Mary L. Good (NAE) Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College Nick Colaneri of Engineering and Information Director, Flexible Display Center Technology Arizona State University Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Economic Development Stephen R. Forrest University of Arkansas Vice President for Research at Little Rock Professor, Departments of Electrical Engineering & James Turner Computer Science, Physics, and Senior Counsel Materials Science & Engineering Association of Public and Land- University of Michigan grant Universities *As of August 2013. v

OCR for page R1
PROJECT STAFF Charles W. Wessner Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Director Study Director Alan H. Anderson David S. Dawson Consultant Senior Program Assistant (through June 2013) McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Officer David E. Dierksheide Program Officer vi

OCR for page R1
For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy is to advise federal, state, and local governments and inform the public about economic and related public policies to promote the creation, diffusion, and application of new scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the U.S. economy and foster economic prosperity for all Americans. The STEP Board and its committees marshal research and the expertise of scholars, industrial managers, investors, and former public officials in a wide range of policy areas that affect the speed and direction of scientific and technological change and their contributions to the growth of the U.S. and global economies. Results are communicated through reports, conferences, workshops, briefings, and electronic media subject to the procedures of the National Academies to ensure their authoritativeness, independence, and objectivity. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below: Paul L. Joskow, Chair Ralph E. Gomory (NAS/NAE) President Research Professor Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Stern School of Business New York University Ernst R. Berndt Louis E. Seley Professor John L. Hennessy (NAS/NAE) in Applied Economics President Massachusetts Institute Stanford University of Technology William H. Janeway Jeff Bingaman Managing Director Former U.S. Senator, New Mexico and Senior Advisor U.S. Senate Warburg Pincus, LLC Ellen Dulberger Richard K. Lester Managing Partner Japan Steel Industry Professor Ellen Dulberger Enterprises, LLC Head, Nuclear Science and Engineering Alan M. Garber (IOM) Founding Director, Industrial Provost Performance Center Harvard University Massachusetts Institute of Technology *As of August 2013. continued vii

OCR for page R1
David T. Morgenthaler Laura D'Andrea Tyson Founder S.K. and Angela Chan Professor Morgenthaler Ventures of Global Management Haas School of Business Luis M. Proenza University of California-Berkeley President University of Akron Harold R. Varian Chief Economist William J. Raduchel Google Inc. Independent Investor and Director Alan Wm. Wolff Kathryn L. Shaw Senior Counsel Ernest C. Arbuckle Professor McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP of Economics Graduate School of Business Stanford University STEP Staff Stephen A. Merrill Charles W. Wessner Executive Director Program Director Paul T. Beaton David S. Dawson Program Officer Senior Program Assistant (through June 2013) McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Officer David E. Dierksheide Program Officer Aqila A. Coulthurst Program Coordinator Sujai J. Shivakumar Senior Program Officer viii

OCR for page R1
Contents PREFACE xiii I. OVERVIEW 1 II. PROCEEDINGS 21 Welcome 23 Charles Wessner, The National Academies Introduction 27 Michael Andrews, L-3 Communications Panel I: The Flexible Electronics Opportunity and Industry Challenges: Perspectives from Industry 29 Moderator: Sridhar Kota, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), The White House Challenges and Opportunities for the Flexible Electronics Industry 34 Ross Bringans, Palo Alto Research Center, Inc. Impact of a Flexible Form Factor for Displays and Lighting 38 Julie Brown, Universal Display Corporation Plastic Display Research at Hewlett-Packard 42 Carl Taussig, Hewlett-Packard Company ix

OCR for page R1
x CONTENTS Panel II: The U.S. Interest: Security, Manufacturing, and Growth 49 Moderator: Jon Epstein, Office of Senator Jeff Bingaman Army Applications for Flexible Displays 49 John Pellegrino, U.S. Army Research Laboratory The Role of DARPA in Printable Electronics 52 Devanand Shenoy, Microsystems Technology Office, DARPA NIST and the Technology Innovation Program: An Early Investor in Flexible Electronics 55 Michael A. Schen, Technology Innovation Program (TIP), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) One State’s Initiative: Advancing Flexible Electronics in Ohio 58 Byron Clayton, NorTech Panel III: What Is the Rest of the World Doing? 64 Moderator: Pradeep Fulay, National Science Foundation The Global View of Printed Electronics and What It Could Mean to the United States 67 Andrew W. Hannah, Plextronics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Organic and Flexible Electronics in Germany —A Snapshot 71 Christian May, Fraunhofer Institute for Photonic Microsystems, Dresden Taiwan’s Flexible Electronics Program 76 Janglin (John) Chen, Display Technology Center, Taiwan Flexible and Printed Electronics—A Korean Initiative 79 Changhee Lee, Seoul National University Panel IV: What Is Needed? Opportunities for Collaborative Activity 86 Moderator: Nick Colaneri, Arizona State University Roadmapping for Flexible Electronics 86 Dan Gamota, International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (iNEMI)

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xi Consortia in Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Economic Growth in the United States 92 Malcolm J. Thompson, RPO, Inc. Cooperating on the Manufacturing Challenge 97 Thomas Edman, Applied Materials Panel V: Roundtable—Key Issues and Next Steps Forward 102 Moderator: Donald Siegel, University at Albany, SUNY Ananth Dodabalapur, University of Texas at Austin Stephen Forrest, University of Michigan Robert Trew, National Science Foundation James Turner, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities III. APPENDIXES 107 A Agenda 109 B Participants List 112 C Bibliography 117

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Flexible electronics refers to technologies that enable flexibility in the manufacturing process as well as flexibility as a characteristic of the final product. Features such as unconventional forms and ease of manufacturability provide important advantages for flexible electronics over conventional electronics built on rigid substrates. Today, examples of flexible electronics technologies are found in flexible flat-panel displays, medical image sensors, photovoltaic sheets, and electronic paper. According to some industry estimates, the global market for flexible electronics products is expected to grow from a few billion dollars today to $60 billion by the end of the decade, but most experts believe that the United States is not currently poised to capitalize on this opportunity. A recent study commissioned by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research concluded that “the relatively low prevalence of actual manufacturing and advanced systems research and development in the United States has led to an incomplete hybrid flexible electronics R&D scenario for this country.” Furthermore, the report observed that “manufacturing is moving to regions of the world that provide greater investment and commitment to product development. It then becomes questionable as to whether this approach is a healthy one and can be sustained in the long term.”1 Responding to a congressional request, the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) is examining and comparing selected innovation programs, both foreign and domestic, and their potential to advance the production of flexible electronics technology. The analysis includes a review of the role of research consortia around the world to advance flexible electronics technology. It seeks to understand their structure, focus, funding, and likely impact, and to determine what appropriate steps the United States might consider to develop a robust flexible electronics industry. 1 Ananth Dodabalapur et al., “European Research and Development in Hybrid Flexible Electronics,” Baltimore: World Technology Evaluation Center, July 2010. xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv PREFACE Statement of Task An ad hoc committee will examine and compare selected innovation programs, both foreign and domestic, and their potential to advance the production of flexible electronics technology in the United States. The analysis, carried out under the direction of the committee, will include a review of the goals, concept, structure, operation, funding levels, and evaluation of foreign programs similar to major U.S. programs, e.g., innovation awards, science and technology parks, and consortia. To assess these programs, the committee will convene a series of meetings to gather data from responsible officials and program managers and encourage a systematic dissemination of information and analysis as a means of better understanding the transition of flexible electronics research into products and to identify specific recommendations to improve and to develop U.S. programs. Specifically, the committee will examine the role of research consortia around the world to advance flexible electronics technology, comparing their structure, focus, funding, and likely impact, and determining what appropriate steps the United States might consider to the develop the industry. This review will include the potential of the industry, the possible contributions of a consortium, and other measures contributing to the development of the industry in the United States. The committee will undertake workshops to carry out this analysis, prepare a workshop summary capturing the tacit knowledge expressed, commission additional analyses, and develop findings and recommendations for inclusion in the committee’s final consensus report. THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROJECT Since 1991, the National Research Council (NRC), under the auspices of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, has undertaken a program of activities to improve policy makers’ understandings of the interconnections of science, technology, and economic policy and their importance for the American economy and its international competitive position. The Board’s activities have corresponded with increased policy recognition of the importance of knowledge and technology to economic growth. New economic growth theory emphasizes the role of technology creation, which is believed to be characterized by significant growth externalities. In addition, many economists have recognized the limitations of traditional trade theory, particularly with respect to the reality of imperfect international competition. Public-private partnerships are increasingly recognized for their contributions to the commercialization of state and national investments in research and development (R&D). Such partnerships help address the challenges associated with the transition of research into products ready for the marketplace.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE xv One important element of NRC analysis has concerned the growth and impact of foreign technology programs. U.S. competitors have launched substantial programs to support new technologies, small firm development, innovative production at large companies, and consortia among large and small firms to strengthen national and regional positions in sectors they consider to be strategic for the development of their economies. Some governments overseas have chosen to provide public support to research and the commercialization of that research to overcome the market imperfections apparent in their national innovation systems. They believe that the rising costs and risks associated with new potentially high-payoff technologies, and the growing global dispersal of technical expertise, underscore the need for national R&D programs to support new and existing high-technology firms within their borders.2 THIS REPORT To launch this study, the STEP Board convened a workshop of business leaders, academic experts, and senior government officials in September 2010 to review challenges, plans, and opportunities for growing a robust flexible electronics industry in the United States. This report includes an introduction that highlights key issues raised at this workshop and a summary of the conference presentations. This workshop summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteur as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants of this meeting. We are indebted to Alan Anderson for summarizing the proceedings of the meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will 2 For a comparative review of national policies and programs to advance innovation based competitiveness, see National Research Council, Rising to the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for the Global Economy. C. Wessner and A. Wolff, eds, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.

OCR for page R1
xvi PREFACE assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ana Arias, University of California, Berkeley; Miko Cakmak, University of Akron; Pradeep Fulay, West Virginia University; and John West, Kent State University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the rapporteur and the institution. Donald Siegel Sujai Shivakumar A. Michael Andrews