Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
D Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes Strategy Goals The following is a list of potential improvements to the DoD institutes strategy goals that were captured during the workshop breakout III exercise. No attempt has been made to prioritize the suggestions for each of the five DoD goals. Disclaimer: The specific potential improvements under âKeep Doing,â âStart Doing,â and âStop Doingâ were identified by individual workshop participants or small groups of a few individuals, and should not be construed as consensus statements of any particular complete stakeholder group (e.g., DoD, institutes, academia, etc.), the workshop participants as a whole, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. DOD STRATEGY GOAL 1: DRIVE IMPACTFUL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING R&D Start Doing 1. Fund relevant DoD R&D projects driven by roadmaps 2. Include Government PM/PEO product owner requirements in roadmaps 3. Create Distribution D Roadmaps for all institute technologies that articulate the DoD benefit 4. Increased focus on sustainment in roadmapping 5. Include use of the institutes in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process 6. Make sure institute programs are important to DoD 7. Ensure technologies address U.S. cost competitiveness 8. Flexible contracting policies or having multiple agreement types 9. Consistency in contracts 10. Further increase speed of execution as a priority 11. Improved business modelsâshorter time spans (ACQ instruments for products) 12. Acquisition programs (PEOs/PMs) fund more projectsâBetter pull to meet DoD needs 13. R&D projects need transition targets/partners 14. Commit substantial funding to ensure U.S. manufacturing competitiveness 15. Expand TRL/MRL levels to below 4 and above 7 for greater technology transition impact 16. Provide follow-on funding for successful projects to allow commercialization 17. Connect TRL/MRL research (SBIRs, STTRs) to institutes 18. Drive multi-institute projects with multi-tech integration support for DoD service mission requirements 19. Synchronize institutes engagements (and not compete with VCâs + PE community) 20. Incentivize greater supply chain involvement in institutes 21. Enable more pre-competitive teaming engagements 22. Focus on creation of knowledge that enables private-sector decision making 23. Incentivize digital tools over empirical approaches 24. Provide prototyping/pilot plant expertise and equipment access to member organizations 25. Drive/support standards development 26. Support technology database development 27. Establish industrial commons of expertise and equipment across institutes Stop Doing 1. Vague requirements and impact objectives 2. Issuing BAAs for institute-appropriate R&D that cause institutes to compete against their own members PREPUBLICATION COPY â SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION D-1
3. Conflicting with DoD labsâneed to partner instead 4. Expecting commercial-ready implementations from TRL/MRL 4-7 R&D 5. Expecting short-term impact from long-term solutions 6. Following traditional contracting policies 7. Funding early R&D that do not apply 8. Funding projects that donât move the needle 9. Inefficient use of funds for institute infrastructure costs 10. Avoid low ROI areas DOD STRATEGY GOAL 2: ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS PLANS Start Doing 1. Define what is meant by âsustainabilityâ for the institutes 2. Focus on DoD as a customer 3. Fund on-going core operations of value to DoD (e.g., admin, roadmapping, networking, EWD) to maintain basic functionality 4. Deploy âCoreâ funds that can be used to address DoD customer needs and problems 5. Encourage DoD entities to run technology relevant projects thru institutes 6. Budget on-going unencumbered roadmap-driven project funds in follow-on institute agreements (require cost share as appropriate) 7. Establish a streamlined MIPR process to support award of agency-funded projects 8. Provide better visibility on prospects of future funding 9. Facilitate connection to DoD programs and funding opportunities 10. Engage DoD Systems Commands and become valuable to them 11. Develop mechanism to integrate with DoD Acquisitions community 12. Use institute facilities for pilot line capability when appropriate 13. Recognize danger that treating all institutes the same will lead to policies/strategies that are detrimental to individual institutes 14. Create more subject matter experts at the institutes 15. Improve post-initial agreements transition contracting 16. Evaluate, renew or re-compete institute agreements every 5 to 7 years 17. Establish tri-service review process for institutes beyond 5 years and re-compete at 10 years or less 18. Renew institute agreements NLT a year from end dates 19. Reduce reporting burden to free up project $ 20. Share lessons-learned among institutes for sustainability 21. Relax government IP rules in some circumstances 22. Leverage developed technology to create institute IP for sustainment 23. Improve IP protection for pilot plant opportunities 24. Emphasize EWD in business plan 25. Fast track critical business instruments 26. Provide funding that encourages investment in manufacturing facilities 27. Consider Title III investments to build out U.S. manufacturing capability 28. Minimize the cost and time to win funding and the time from award to ARO 29. Establish performance metrics to help demonstrate value 30. Develop mechanisms for proprietary R&D 31. Develop strategy for acquiring non-DoD resources Stop Doing 1. Stop calling it sustainabilityâcall it a business plan! 2. Requiring high amounts of unfunded work that detract from institute sustainability 3. Stop thinking that 5-7 years is long enough for self-sustainment, especially for the TRL/MRL 4-7 âvalley of deathâ technology development mission 4. Stop thinking that DoD-focused institutes will ever be sustainable without DoD participation and funding PREPUBLICATION COPY â SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION D-2
5. High cost share as a major criteriaâsome is OK, but should not deter participation by SMEs and academia 6. Assuming future success depends on all institutes surviving 7. Metrics that can push institutes in wrong direction and impede innovation and sustainability 8. Donât use excessive metrics that donât drive desired results or behavior 9. Allowing institute executives to serve in a part-time capacity 10. Cost share as a requirementâshould be a goal 11. Thinking about short termâthe Manufacturing USA institutes are for the long haul 12. Requiring excessive paperwork for contract programs DOD STRATEGY GOAL 3: MAINTAIN AN OPTIMAL PROGRAM DESIGN TO MAXIMIZE VALUE DELIVERY Start Doing 1. Develop institute-specific strategic goals based on DoD value propositions 2. Define what âSuccessâ looks like for government stakeholders 3. Continue long-term funding commitment to ensure continued DoD strategic input and influence 4. Optimize program design by committing core funding 5. Create more flexibility in how institute funding is spent to meet DoDâs needsâbe more agile 6. DoD senior leadership should take ownership of broad technical directions for project funding and not specific solutions 7. Refine/be flexible about DoD impact, etc. 8. Continue DoD institutes network while allowing institutes to remain flexible 9. Create an OSD OTA interface for fast-track institute projects with competitive awards within an institute and IP sharing only with the instituteâs project team 10. Create multiple contracting vehicles that allow R&D, prototyping, limited production; and cost share or fee-bearing cost-plus projects 11. Recognize this is a national priority, not just a defense priority 12. Support post-TRL/MRL 4-7 warfighter impact activities 13. Create success metrics that are meaningful to DoD and indicative of institute health and performance 14. Define Key Process Indicators (KPIs) for each institute 15. Form a task force to standardize the engagement policies/processes for foreign institute members, countries, companies, academia, other organizations, students, and visitors 16. Identify or create a body to get clear and immediate answers to foreign involvement questions 17. Enable institutes to work as trusted agents for the government (Policy/Statutory change) 18. Establish a DoD Stakeholders Advisory Council that includes government, industry, academia 19. Continue focus of demonstration capabilities that highlight institutesâ ability to transition TRL advances into higher MRL solutions with DoD relevance 20. Create funding model for capital equipment 21. Evaluate how to effectively leverage MEPs 22. Map/identify supply chain for DoD customers 23. Share best business practices across the institutes 24. Harmonize institute processes (cost share reports, IP principles, contracting) 25. Examine alternate business modelsâbenchmark Catapult governance model 26. Screen new institute execs for relevant business and /or startup experience 27. Balance focus on short-term and long-term value 28. Start thinking about a model to sunset and create new focus areas 29. Develop technology refresh effort so that institutes always maintain leading edge capabilities and expertise in their areas 30. Perform comprehensive performance reviews with broad DoD community Stop Doing 1. Thinking of the institutes as âcontractsâ instead of âpartner organizationsâ 2. Scaring away potential commercial players with DFARs PREPUBLICATION COPY â SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION D-3
3. Overreacting 4. Having cost share requirement 5. Difficult Tâs and Câs DOD STRATEGY GOAL 4: MAXIMIZE STAKEHOLDER UNDERSTANDING OF THE INSTITUTES Start Doing 1. Develop compelling narrative for institutes 2. Set realistic expectations on what really matters 3. More PEO engagement 4. Provide funding to engage DoD personnel in the institutes (e.g., visits, sabbaticals, residencies) 5. Educate government contracting personnel on the mission and intent of the publicâprivate partnerships agreements (e.g., innovation and agility) 6. Form JAMWG-like groups for other institute technology areas to better connect the stakeholders 7. Hold DoD S&T gatherings at institutes or tour institutes near a meeting location 8. Develop a network-wide communications office with funding to support network-level communications 9. Consistent regular communications with DoD stakeholders 10. Consistent communication with the institutes 11. Broad campaign on the importance of Manufacturing USAâ âU.S. Manufacturing Mattersâ 12. Major marketing campaignâNational call to action 13. Publicize DoD success storiesâconnect to OMB, etc. 14. Communicate successful institute project completions and project handoffs to entire Technology Transition and Commercialization Community of Practice (TTAC CoP), especially Military Services 15. Foster better alignment and collaboration with S&T community 16. Drive greater industry-wide awareness and adoption 17. Host CEO Summit of all large companies involved in DoD institutes 18. Increase engagement at corporate and industry association level 19. Increase engagement with SMEs 20. Understand the scope of investment required and refine the local and national expectations between the publicâprivate partnership stakeholders 21. Increase engagement with states and local communities to support developing regional ecosystems 22. New venues for communication 23. Conduct Manufacturing USA TED Talks 24. Support institute participation in relevant professional societies conferences 25. Clarify the roles of OSD ManTech, government institute PMs and institute executive directors 26. DoD Grand Challenge to engage multiple institutes and a mechanism to do that 27. Engage federal agency groups with expertise that might benefit and benefit from the institutes 28. Share lessons-learned among institutes and stakeholders 29. Make sure the institutes disseminate the information to their membership in a way that is easy for the member to use 30. Sponsor technology demonstrations 31. DoD Institutes Annual Summit with DoD stakeholder organizations Stop Doing 1. Treating the institutes all the same 2. Creating long lists of metrics that change every year and require significant time to address because they are not built into the institutesâ business processes 3. Inefficient administrative processes PREPUBLICATION COPY â SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION D-4
DOD STRATEGY GOAL 5: EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT A CAPABLE WORKFORCE Start Doing 1. Dedicate a pool of resources to Education and Workforce Development (EWD) 2. Create a standard cross-institute framework for EWD collaboration and implementation 3. More activities to support DoD needs in EWD in a 2-way engagement 4. Mapping military competence and align within institutes and other programs 5. Focus on EWD best practices and innovation 6. Align across institutes and create a map to identify best EWD programs to scale 7. Showcase EWD success 8. Engage with DARPA on advanced educationâlargest funder of graduate studies for science and engineering 9. Establish relationship with Department of Labor, especially Office of Apprenticeships 10. Continue to expand use of credentialing for multi-level EWD 11. Partnering with national educational associations 12. Partner with national student organizations to raise awareness of institutes and related careers 13. Cross-industry collaboration to build core workforce skills common to multiple industries 14. Elevate national conversation on advanced manufacturing careers 15. Increase co-ops and interns at institutes 16. Create programs to incentivize universities and community colleges to collaborate with institutes on EWD 17. Encourage institutes to tap into or create EWD ecosystems in regions that have strong supply chains and universities 18. Address copyright issues 19. Develop strategy for hands-on training on leading edge systems at the institutes Stop Doing 1. Treating EWD more like start-up action than a well-funded on-going activity 2. Stop funding MEP Centers directly for embeds and instead fund Manufacturing USA institutes to choose embeds based on expertise and MEP relationships 3. Stop relying on education resource silos 4. Rethink institutes in a 3% unemployment environment vs. 7% when started 5. Need to reassess value proposition for K-12 program engagements versus focus on EWD for adults 6. Eliminate redundancy in curriculum development activities PREPUBLICATION COPY â SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION D-5