National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes (2019)

Chapter: Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals

« Previous: Appendix C: Summary of Potential Improvements to the DoD Institutes' Offerings
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×

D

Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes’ Strategy Goals

The following is a list of potential improvements to the Department of Defense (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 “Keep Doing,” “Start Doing,” and “Stop Doing” 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 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D)

(No priority order)

Start Doing

  1. Fund relevant DoD R&D projects driven by roadmaps
  2. Include Government Product Manager (PM)/Program Executive Office (PEO) product owner requirements in roadmaps
  3. Create Distribution D Roadmaps for all institute technologies that articulate the DoD benefit
  4. Increase focus on sustainment in roadmapping
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Include use of the institutes in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process
  2. Make sure institute programs are important to DoD
  3. Ensure technologies address U.S. cost competitiveness
  4. Flexible contracting policies or having multiple agreement types
  5. Consistency in contracts
  6. Further increase speed of execution as a priority
  7. Improved business models—shorter time spans (acquisition instruments for products)
  8. Acquisition programs (PEOs/PMs) fund more projects—better pull to meet DoD needs
  9. R&D projects need transition targets/partners
  10. Commit substantial funding to ensure U.S. manufacturing competitiveness
  11. Expand technology readiness level (TRL)/ manufacturing readiness level (MRL) levels to below 4 and above 7 for greater technology transition impact
  12. Provide follow-on funding for successful projects to allow commercialization
  13. Connect TRL/MRL research (Small Business Innovation Research, Small Business Technology Transfer) to institutes
  14. Drive multi-institute projects with multi-tech integration support for DoD service mission requirements
  15. Synchronize institutes’ engagements (and not compete with the venture capital and private equity communities)
  16. Incentivize greater supply chain involvement in institutes
  17. Enable more precompetitive teaming engagements
  18. Focus on creation of knowledge that enables private-sector decision making
  19. Incentivize digital tools over empirical approaches
  20. Provide prototyping/pilot plant expertise and equipment access to member organizations
  21. Drive/support standards development
  22. Support technology database development
  23. Establish industrial commons of expertise and equipment across institutes

Stop Doing

  1. Vague requirements and impact objectives
  2. Issuing Broad Agency Announcements for institute-appropriate R&D that cause institutes to compete against their own members
  3. Conflicting with DoD laboratories—need 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
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Funding early R&D that does not apply
  2. Funding projects that do not move the needle
  3. Inefficient use of funds for institute infrastructure costs
  4. Avoid low return on investment areas

DOD STRATEGY GOAL 2: ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS PLANS

(No priority order)

Start Doing

  1. Define what is meant by “sustainability” for the institutes
  2. Focus on DoD as a customer
  3. Fund ongoing core operations of value to DoD (e.g., admin, roadmapping, networking, education and workforce development [EWD]) to maintain basic functionality
  4. Deploy “core” funds that can be used to address DoD customer needs and problems
  5. Encourage DoD entities to run technology relevant projects through institutes
  6. Budget ongoing unencumbered roadmap-driven project funds in follow-on institute agreements (require cost share as appropriate)
  7. Establish a streamlined Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request 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 no later than 1 year from end dates
  19. Reduce reporting burden to free up project dollars
  20. Share lessons learned among institutes for sustainability
  21. Relax government intellectual property (IP) rules in some circumstances
  22. Leverage developed technology to create institute IP for sustainment
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Improve IP protection for pilot plant opportunities
  2. Emphasize EWD in business plan
  3. Fast track critical business instruments
  4. Provide funding that encourages investment in manufacturing facilities
  5. Consider Title III investments to build out U.S. manufacturing capability
  6. Minimize the cost and time to receive funding and the time to award from Army Research Office
  7. Establish performance metrics to help demonstrate value
  8. Develop mechanisms for proprietary R&D
  9. Develop strategy for acquiring non-DoD resources

Stop Doing

  1. Stop calling it sustainability—call 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 “valley of death” technology development mission
  4. Stop thinking that DoD-focused institutes will ever be sustainable without DoD participation and funding
  5. High cost share as a major criteria—some is okay but should not deter participation by small and medium-size enterprises (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. Do not use excessive metrics that do not drive desired results or behavior
  9. Allowing institute executives to serve in a part-time capacity
  10. Cost share as a requirement—should be a goal
  11. Thinking about short term—the DoD 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

(No priority order)

Start Doing

  1. Develop institute-specific strategic goals based on DoD value propositions
  2. Define what “success” looks like for government stakeholders
  3. Continue long-term funding commitment to ensure continued DoD strategic input and influence
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Optimize program design by committing core funding
  2. Create more flexibility in how institute funding is spent to meet DoD’s needs—be more agile
  3. DoD senior leadership should take ownership of broad technical directions for project funding and not specific solutions
  4. Refine/be flexible about DoD impact, etc.
  5. Continue DoD institutes network while allowing institutes to remain flexible.
  6. Create an Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Other Transaction Authority interface for fast-track institute projects with competitive awards within an institute and IP sharing only with the institute’s project team.
  7. Create multiple contracting vehicles that allow R&D, prototyping, limited production; and cost share or fee-bearing cost-plus projects.
  8. Recognize this as a national priority, not just a defense priority.
  9. Support post-TRL/MRL 4-7 warfighter impact activities
  10. Create success metrics that are meaningful to DoD and indicative of institute health and performance
  11. Define key process indicators for each institute
  12. Form a task force to standardize the engagement policies/processes for foreign institute members, countries, companies, academia, other organizations, students, and visitors
  13. Identify or create a body to get clear and immediate answers to foreign involvement questions
  14. Enable institutes to work as trusted agents for the government (policy/statutory change)
  15. Establish a DoD Stakeholders Advisory Council that includes government, industry, and academia
  16. Continue focus of demonstration capabilities that highlight institutes’ ability to transition TRL advances into higher MRL solutions with DoD relevance
  17. Create funding model for capital equipment
  18. Evaluate how to effectively leverage Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEPs)
  19. Map/identify supply chain for DoD customers
  20. Share best business practices across the institutes
  21. Harmonize institute processes (cost-share reports, IP principles, contracting)
  22. Examine alternate business models—benchmark Catapult governance model
  23. Screen new institute executives for relevant business and/or start-up experience
  24. Balance focus on short-term and long-term value
  25. Start thinking about a model to sunset and create new focus areas
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Develop technology refresh effort so that institutes always maintain leading-edge capabilities and expertise in their areas
  2. Perform comprehensive performance reviews with broad DoD community

Stop Doing

  1. Thinking of the institutes as “contracts” instead of “partner organizations”
  2. Scaring away potential commercial players with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
  3. Overreacting
  4. Having cost-share requirement
  5. Difficult terms and conditions

DOD STRATEGY GOAL 4: MAXIMIZE STAKEHOLDER UNDERSTANDING OF THE INSTITUTES

(No priority order)

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 public–private partnerships agreements (e.g., innovation and agility)
  6. Form Joint Additive Manufacturing Steering Group–like groups for other institute technology areas to better connect the stakeholders
  7. Hold DoD science and technology (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 USA—“U.S. Manufacturing Matters”
  12. Major marketing campaign—national call to action
  13. Publicize DoD success stories—connect to the Office of Management and Budget, etc.
  14. Communicate successful institute project completions and project handoffs to entire Technology Transition and Commercialization Community of Practice, especially military services
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Foster better alignment and collaboration with S&T community
  2. Drive greater industry-wide awareness and adoption
  3. Host CEO Summit of all large companies involved in DoD institutes
  4. Increase engagement at corporate and industry association levels
  5. Increase engagement with SMEs
  6. Understand the scope of investment required and refine the local and national expectations between the public–private partnership stakeholders
  7. Increase engagement with states and local communities to support developing regional ecosystems
  8. New venues for communication
  9. Conduct Manufacturing USA TED Talks
  10. Support institute participation in relevant professional societies’ conferences
  11. Clarify the roles of OSD ManTech, government institute PMs, and institute executive directors
  12. DoD Grand Challenge to engage multiple institutes and a mechanism to do that
  13. Engage federal agency groups with expertise that might benefit and benefit from the institutes
  14. Share lessons learned among institutes and stakeholders
  15. Make sure the institutes disseminate the information to their membership in a way that is easy for the members to use
  16. Sponsor technology demonstrations
  17. 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 institutes’ business processes
  3. Inefficient administrative processes

DOD STRATEGY GOAL 5: EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT A CAPABLE WORKFORCE

(No priority order)

Start Doing

  1. Dedicate a pool of resources to EWD
  2. Create a standard cross-institute framework for EWD collaboration and implementation
  3. More activities to support DoD needs in EWD in a two-way engagement
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
  1. Map military competence and align within institutes and other programs
  2. Focus on EWD best practices and innovation
  3. Align across institutes and create a map to identify best EWD programs to scale
  4. Showcase EWD success
  5. Engage with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on advanced education—largest funder of graduate studies for science and engineering
  6. Establish relationship with Department of Labor, especially Office of Apprenticeships
  7. Continue to expand use of credentialing for multilevel EWD
  8. Partner with national educational associations
  9. Partner with national student organizations to raise awareness of institutes and related careers
  10. Cross-industry collaboration to build core workforce skills common to multiple industries
  11. Elevate national conversation on advanced manufacturing careers
  12. Increase co-ops and internships at institutes
  13. Create programs to incentivize universities and community colleges to collaborate with institutes on EWD
  14. Encourage institutes to tap into or create EWD ecosystems in regions that have strong supply chains and universities
  15. Address copyright issues
  16. 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 ongoing activity
  2. Stop funding MEP centers directly for embeds and instead fund DoD 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 percent unemployment environment versus 7 percent 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
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Summary of Potential Improvements Related to the DoD Institutes' Strategy Goals." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25417.
×
Page 118
Next: Appendix E: Committee Member Biographical Information »
Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

To effectively mature and transition DoD manufacturing science and technology advances into production, DoD must have access to a robust and responsive U.S. industrial base which is often driven by advanced manufacturing technologies. The Manufacturing USA institutes are considered crucial and game-changing catalysts that are bringing together innovative ecosystems in various technology and market sectors critical to DoD and the nation.

Since 2012, DoD has invested $600 million directly in its Manufacturing USA institutes with the understanding that the initial federal investment included (1) core funding and (2) one-time, start-up funding to establish the institutes within a period of 5 to 7 years. As the institutes now begin to reach year five, DoD is evaluating the effectiveness of the institutes in fulfilling their goals and the best on-going roles for the federal government, including on-going funding options, to ensure optimal benefit to U.S. competitiveness. This report reviews the role of DoD’s investment to date in establishing its eight institutes as public–private partnerships and its engagement with each institute after it has matured beyond the start-up period.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!