National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26149.
×
Page R12

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.

Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further Editorial Correction DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report Committee on DOD Engagement with Its Manufacturing USA MIIs Phase 2 Study National Materials and Manufacturing Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This study was supported by Contract W911NF-18-D-0002 with the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26149 This publication is available in limited quantities from National Materials and Manufacturing Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 nmmb@nas.edu http://www.nationalacademies.edu/nmmb Additional copies of this publication are available 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 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/26149. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE ON DOD ENGAGEMENT WITH ITS MANUFACTURING USA MIIS PHASE 2 STUDY THOMAS M. DONNELLAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Co-Chair WILLIAM B. BONVILLIAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Co-Chair MEGAN BREWSTER, Impinj, Inc. GAIL L. (DOLAN) HAHN, Boeing THERESA KOTANCHECK, Evolved Analytics, LLC MICK MAHER, Maher & Associates, LLC MICHAEL MCGRATH, Independent Consultant A. GALIP ULSOY, NAE,1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor BEN WANG, Georgia Institute of Technology Staff ERIK SVEDBERG, Senior Program Officer, National Materials and Manufacturing Board (NMMB), Study Director JAMES LANCASTER, Director, NMMB and the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA) NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer, NMMB JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Project Assistant AMISHA JINANDRA, Research Associate 1 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

NATIONAL MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING BOARD THERESA KOTANCHEK, Evolved Analytics, LLC, Chair KEVIN ANDERSON, NAE,2 Brunswick Corporation CRAIG ARNOLD, Princeton University TERESA CLEMENT, Raytheon Technologies THOMAS M. DONNELLAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University STEPHEN FORREST, NAS3/NAE, University of Michigan JULIA GREER, California Institute of Technology JOHN KLIER, University of Massachusetts, Amherst DAVID C. LARBALESTIER, NAE, Florida State University MICK MAHER, Maher & Associates, LLC ROBERT MILLER, NAE, IBM Almaden Research Center GREGORY TASSEY, University of Washington STEVEN J. ZINKLE, NAE, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Staff JAMES LANCASTER, Director ERIK SVEDBERG, Senior Program Officer NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Project Assistant AMISHA JINANDRA, Research Associate 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. 3 Member, National Academy of Sciences. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface Since 2012, sixteen Manufacturing USA Institutes have been established by the federal government. Nine of these Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs) have been sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD) under the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Manufacturing Technology (OSD ManTech) organization. The DoD MIIs are public–private partnerships (PPPs) that are focused on specific technology areas identified as critical for the future of DoD and for which manufacturing technology maturation is an important need for technology implementation. All of the MIIs were initially established under fixed-term, 5- to 7-year agreements. To date, three of the institutes have transitioned to second-phase PPP agreements, and three more are approaching the transition point. The study reported here is a follow-on activity to a 2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report entitled Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes, which identified topics for additional work that the DoD sponsor asked the National Academies to explore. Specifically, the current study committee was tasked to provide strategic guidance on: protocols for conducting long term engagement assessments of the MIIs, including evaluation criteria, best practices for MII education and workforce development (EWD) programs, and the development of strategies for better connecting MIIs to the broader DoD community. The sponsor of the work, DoD OSD ManTech, asked for an interim report focusing on protocols for long term assessment to be provided in a time frame that would allow the National Academies’ perspectives to be used in the execution of the first DoD 5-year MII evaluations planned for 2021. This interim report is focused on the protocols for long term assessment of MIIs topic. The final report from this study will document findings and recommendations relevant to EWD best practices and DoD engagement strategies. We thank the committee members for their exceptional efforts in preparing this report. In executing its charge, the committee met 16 times from November 19, 2020, to February 26, 2021. The committee also heard from a broad spectrum of stakeholders from DoD, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, industry (small-, medium-, and large-sized), academia, the MMIs, and other agencies. In particular, the committee thanks the following individuals for their contributions to this study and participation in the committee’s meetings: Ben Armstrong, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Suzanne Berger, MIT; Dana Beyeler, Defense Engagement, Ellwood Group, Inc.; Michael Brit- Crane, OSD ManTech; Dave Chesebrough, National Defense Industrial Association; Josh Cramer, America Makes (an MII); Emily DeRocco, OSD ManTech; Julie Diop, AIM Photonics (an MII); Eric Forsythe, OSD ManTech, NextFlex (an MII); Joanne Friedman, Connekted Minds; David Heckman, DoD Manufacturing Technology Program Office; Mark Gordon, OSD ManTech; Greg Hudas, ARM (an MII); Mark Johnson, Clemson University; Shalin Jyotishi, New America Foundation; Bruce Kramer, National Science Foundation; Jeannine Kunz, Tooling U-SME; Brad Larschan, Avadin, LLC; Becky Lewis, AFFOA (an MII); Christina Maranto, Joint Defense Manufacturing Council, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; Lisa Masciantini, ARM (an MII); Craig McAtee, National Coalition of Advanced Technology Centers; Emily McGrath, NextFlex; Jacqui Mieksztyn, LIFT (an MII); Brian Piedfort, Advanced Technology International; Jim Segelstrom, McNally Industries; Jeff Shubrooks, Raytheon Missiles and Defense; Phillip Singerman, Montgomery County Maryland Economic Development Corporation; Nick Usechak, AIM Photonics (an MII); Marty Ryan, National Advanced Mobility Consortia; Alissa Roath, Consortium Management Group (CMG); and James Frankovic, CMG. We and the committee thank the director of the National Materials and Manufacturing Board, James Lancaster, the study director, Erik Svedberg, and their entire staff for their help and guidance in performing this fast-track project. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

William B. Bonvillian and Thomas M. Donnellan, Co-Chairs Committee on DOD Engagement with Its Manufacturing USA MIIs Phase 2 Study PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Joanne Friedman, ConnektedMinds, Amy M. Heintz, Battelle, Steve McKnight, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Mary Pat Moyer, INCELL Corporation, LLC, Alexander Slocum, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and David A. Weitz, Harvard University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Anita K. Jones, NAE, University of Virginia, and Robert H. Latiff, R. Latiff Associates. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

 

Contents SUMMARY S-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Study Objective Study Approach 2 BACKGROUND 2-1 DoD Manufacturing Institutes Evaluation Criteria and Metrics for the DoD MIIs 3 DISCUSSION 3-1 Evaluation Process for DoD MIIs Best Practices from Evaluation Processes in the Federal Sector Guidance to DoD MII Evaluation Process Strategic Evaluation Criteria for Dod MIIs Question 1: Is There a Continuing Need for the MII? Question 2: Is an MII the Best Alternative? Question 3: Has the MII Performed Well? Question 4: Is the Governance and Management Effective? Strategic Quantitative Metrics Modified Evaluation Protocol 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 Findings Recommendations APPENDIXES A Statement of Task A-1 B List of Briefers B-1 C Supplemental Material on Education and Workforce Development C-1 D Committee Biographical Information D-1 E Acronyms E-1 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xi

 

Next: Summary »
DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

To better support the need for timely, effective manufacturing technology development and transition, the Department of Defense (DoD) has established nine Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs) through its Defense-wide Manufacturing Science and Technology program element within the DoD Manufacturing Technology program. The Institutes are considered by DoD to be important facilitators that bring together innovative ecosystems in key technology and market sectors in the United States. The DoD MIIs are industry-led, with dual, public-private benefit, providing large commercial market potential while also meeting key U.S. defense industrial needs. The mission of the nine DoD-established Institutes addresses both defense and commercial manufacturing needs within specific, defense-relevant technology areas.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was asked to perform a follow-on study to its 2019 report Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes, which examined DoD's strategic relationship with the DoD Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. The Committee on DOD Engagement with Its Manufacturing USA MIIs Phase 2 Study was formed to provide strategic guidance in the following topics that were identified in the 2019 report for further exploration: protocols for conducting long term engagement assessments of the MIIs including evaluation metrics, best practices for MII education and workforce development programs, and development of strategies for better connecting MIIs to the broader DoD community. This interim report focuses on the protocol assessment topic in a timeframe that would allow its perspectives to be used in the execution of the first DoD 5-year MII evaluations planned for 2021.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!