Introduction

This is one in a series of workshops that are sponsored by Department of Defense (DoD) communities interested in materials and manufacturing processes. The DoD in particular sponsored this workshop, owing to changes in the landscape for research and development (R&D) around the world. The workshop was held March 25–26, 2015, at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C.

The agenda covered the changes in the global R&D landscape, technology awareness mechanisms—both DoD’s mechanisms and other models—and collaboration models and issues in R&D.

Emerging economies, social and political transitions, and new ways of doing business are changing the world dramatically. To be the leader in this competitive climate, a defense manufacturing enterprise will require up-to-date capabilities, which include improvements in materials processing, among other things. Also, national and international efforts to mitigate environmentally harmful effects of industrial processes and to improve decision making for handling and disposing of industrial contaminants adds additional requirements for any future efforts. The objective of retaining high-value materials-related manufacturing as a key national competitive capability implies a number of factors. The value of specific manufacturing capabilities could be defined not only in terms of criticality to defense systems but also in relation to technology and knowledge content, importance as a supplier to other industries, and importance to U.S. exports.

This workshop addressed topics such as the following:

• Changes in global materials R&D over time and across the world;
• Manufacturing capabilities today in the United States and in other countries;
• The role of materials in global and U.S. product competitiveness; and
• The role of sustainable manufacturing, including materials recycling and recovery, in foreign countries.

Several of the workshop participants indicated the importance of having a plan toward a goal and updating it periodically. For example, Cathy Foley, science director and deputy director of manufacturing of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) of Australia, noted that her organization is small and resources are limited, so it has to be highly focused on what it can accomplish. Ty Pollak, who managed materials and a nanotechnology program for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research in London, discussed the need for organizations to be aware of both their goals and what they have already accomplished. Bob Pfahl, of Pfahl Consulting, LLC, was at Motorola when the company started working on a roadmap activity for the electronics industry, something that he said has proven particularly useful for the consumer electronics industry.

A recurring theme during the workshop was that the number and sophistication of interactions between different international partners is increasing dramatically. In the past cooperation took place among a few large organizations, universities, and companies—for instance, transatlantic cooperation and long-standing partnerships between organizations in the United States and Great Britain. But today partnerships occur all over the world among actors of all sizes. Universities around the world have improved, offering more options for partnerships. This has also allowed large corporations to take advantage of talent in new locations and to shift not only their manufacturing but also their R&D to wherever it best suits them.

Ruth David, of Analytic Services (ANSER), spoke about a recent study she co-chaired, which was sponsored by DoD. One of the study’s observations was that there was increased mobility of faculty across national borders. “Virtually all of our top universities . . . have very much global international perspective at the university level,” she said.

Mary Lee Gambone, of Rolls-Royce North America, provided examples of how her company is taking advantage of university partnerships around the globe. Sometimes it uses them in North America because DoD restricts the flow of information, but the company can take advantage of them in other countries and is increasing its partnerships with universities in Europe.

The opportunities for U.S. military R&D organizations are greater than ever before, but the complexity of this new situation has changed the nature of these interactions. A foreign government or organization may no longer view the United

States as the most attractive option for partnership and may seek out partnerships with governments that are easier to work with or are located nearby.

Gambone and Pfahl both noted that the rise of new actors has in some cases placed the United States in an inferior position. Some countries have more funding available and more generous fund-matching arrangements. This makes them more attractive to partners that now have the option of turning down the United States in search of more lucrative deals elsewhere.

Another point raised by many workshop participants was that whereas in the past the defense sector led in many fields, such as electronics, today it often lags behind and certainly represents a far smaller market. Pfahl noted that consumer electronics is now such a massive market that defense interests have a difficult time obtaining attention or priority in the industry in which they previously dominated.

Companies and universities now have less incentive to seek out defense funding when much greater funding and opportunities are available in consumer fields. The traditional approach of keeping military R&D relatively secret now creates disadvantages, because it is yet another obstacle making defense partnerships less attractive than commercial ones. Furthermore, because there are similar sophisticated developments under way around the globe, the United States no longer offers the kind of exclusivity that was attractive in previous eras. A company or university interested in certain technology may have only been able to gain access to it via U.S. military research projects in the past but now can find opportunities in other countries, with far fewer strings attached.

The corollary to this development is that it makes more sense now than before for the U.S. military to seek out these technologies and opportunities with new partners. This will require changes in approach and attitude and a willingness to lower national security restrictions, according to several participants.

Despite these changes (i.e., industry–university partnerships being less attractive in the United States than in the past), as Andre Sharon of the Fraunhofer USA Center for Manufacturing noted, the United States still has an incredible entrepreneurial culture that moves quickly with private capital and is unmatched in the rest of the world. “One thing that Fraunhofer did learn in coming to the United States was entrepreneurial culture,” Sharon said. “That is one area that they will admit that Germany, and Europe in general, is way behind.”

Thus, although the U.S. military R&D enterprise has to deal with a more complex global situation in which traditional policies and approaches may prove to be a hindrance, the United States still offers some advantages that make it attractive for foreign partnerships.