Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 Breakout Sessions: Feedback and Future Directions for the DoD Manufacturing USA Institutes
Pages 34-56

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 34...
... BREAKOUT SESSION 1: VALUE AND COST OF PARTICIPATION IN THE DOD MANUFACTURING USA INSTITUTES For the first breakout session, participants were divided into groups by sector: Department of Defense (DoD) institutes, industry, academia, and other government agencies or stakeholders.
From page 35...
... participating institute members  3 Contracted DoD Customer R&D Projects defined by DoD and executed Project Projects with Cost Share by selected institute members  4 Contracted Customer R&D Projects Projects defined by DoD and executed Project with No Cost Share by selected institute members  5 Technology Standards Roadmaps and Member and customer workshops Core Coordination to create and maintain technology standards development roadmaps  6 Technology Consulting Services Technology consulting provided Core or by the institute to members and Project nonmembers  7 Rapid Prototyping/Pre-production Contracted rapid prototyping/pre- Project Services production services executed by the institute  8 Use of Institute Equipment Contracted use of institute equipment Project by members and nonmembers  9 Updates on SOA Technology Technology SOA updates via member Core meetings, webinars, and online website 10 Technical Papers and Publications Project technical reports, professional Core or journal publications, trade magazine Project articles 11 Data Coordination and Dissemination Coordinate creation and collection Core of R&D findings using a data management and repository system accessible online by members 12 Networking and Collaboration Includes member meetings, Core Opportunities Amongst Industry, conferences, workshops and member Academia, and Government Members visits, and coordination/collaboration and Other DoD Institutes meetings with other DoD institutes 13 Creation of Regional Institutes/Hubs Create and oversee regional institutes/ Core and Technology Ecosystems institute hubs to develop technology ecosystems in multiple regions 14 Use of NIST MEP Program to Reach Partner with MEP Program network Core SMEs of centers to transition institute technology to SMEs continued
From page 36...
... 18 Technology Education Online Courses Develop and manage online Core technology education courses and Project 19 Technology Overview Courses for Develop and execute contracted Project Government and Industry Executives technology overview courses for and Leaders government and industry executives and leaders 20 Job Postings Online technology job postings and Core references NOTE: IP, intellectual property; MEP, Manufacturing Extension Partnership; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; R&D, research and development; SME, small and medium-size enterprise; SOA, state of the art.
From page 37...
... Feedback by Sector Breakout groups' rankings of the 20 offerings in terms of cost and value are presented in Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. From the perspective of increasing the acceleration of technology adoption, the breakout group representing DoD institutes rated offerings 5, 7, 8, and 9 to be important.
From page 38...
... 38 S t r at e g i c L o n g - T e r m Pa r t i c i pat i o n b y D o D FIGURE 5.1 FIGURE 5.1  Total value versus relative cost improvement (scaled) for Department of Defense Institutes.
From page 39...
... Breakout Sessions 39 FIGURE 5.2  Total value versus relative cost improvement for the Department of Defense.
From page 40...
... 40 S t r at e g i c L o n g - T e r m Pa r t i c i pat i o n b y D o D FIGURE 5.3  Total value versus relative cost improvement for industry.
From page 41...
... Breakout Sessions 41 FIGURE 5.4  Total value versus relative cost improvement for academia.
From page 42...
... 42 S t r at e g i c L o n g - T e r m Pa r t i c i pat i o n b y D o D FIGURE 5.5  Total value versus relative cost improvement for "other" breakout group, which included FIGURE 5.5 participants from federal agencies other than the Department of Defense as well as other stakeholders.
From page 43...
... Shared best practices could help improve workforce issues at the institutes and evolve into standard practices across the industrial ecosystem, the group noted. According to the academia breakout group, offerings 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, and 16 were the highest value and highest relative cost improvement (see Tables 5.2 and 5.3)
From page 44...
...  3 Contracted DoD Customer R&D Projects 1 1 2 with Cost Share  4 Contracted Customer R&D Projects with 1 1 No Cost Share  5 Technology Standards Roadmaps and 1 1 2 Coordination  6 Technology Consulting Services 1 1  7 Rapid Prototyping/Pre-Production Services 1 1 1 3  8 Use of Institute Equipment 1 1 1 1 4  9 Updates on State-of-the-Art Technology 1 1 1 3 and Services 10 Technical Papers and Publications 1 1 2 11 Data Coordination and Dissemination 1 1 1 1 4 12 Networking and Collaboration Opportunities 1 1 1 1 1 5 Amongst Industry, Academia, Government, and other DoD Institutes 13 Creation of Regional Institutes/Hubs and 1 1 1 1 4 Technology Ecosystems 14 Use of NIST MEP Programs to Reach 0 SMEs 15 Education and Workforce Development 1 1 1 1 1 5 Roadmaps 16 Institute Internships and Apprenticeships 1 1 1 3 17 Technology Hands-on Training and On-Site 1 1 1 3 Courses (K-12, Veterans, DoD, Industry) 18 Technology Education Online Courses 1 1 19 Technology Overview Course for 1 1 1 1 4 Government and Industry Executives and Leaders 20 Job Postings 0 NOTE: DoD, Department of Defense; IP, intellectual property; MEP, Manufacturing Extension Partnership; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; R&D, research and development; SME, small and medium-size enterprise.
From page 45...
... Breakout Sessions 45 Lowest Quadrant Count (Low Total Value-Low Relative Cost Improvement) Institutes DoD Industry Academia Others Total Count 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5
From page 46...
...  3 Contracted DoD Customer R&D Projects 0 with Cost Share  4 Contracted Customer R&D Projects with 0 No Cost Share  5 Technology Standards Roadmaps and 1 1 1 1 1 5 Coordination  6 Technology Consulting Services 0  7 Rapid Prototyping/Pre-Production Services 1 1 2  8 Use of Institute Equipment 1 1 1 1 4  9 Updates on State-of-the-Art Technology 1 1 and Services 10 Technical Papers and Publications 0 11 Data Coordination and Dissemination 1 1 1 1 4 12 Networking and Collaboration Opportunities 1 1 1 1 1 5 Amongst Industry, Academia, Government, and other DoD Institutes 13 Creation of Regional Institutes/Hubs and 1 1 1 1 1 5 Technology Ecosystems 14 Use of NIST MEP Programs to Reach 0 SMEs 15 Education and Workforce Development 1 1 2 Roadmaps 16 Institute Internships and Apprenticeships 1 1 1 3 17 Technology Hands-on Training and On-Site 1 1 2 Courses (K-12, Veterans, DoD, Industry) 18 Technology Education Online Courses 1 1 19 Technology Overview Course for 0 Government and Industry Executives and Leaders 20 Job Postings 0 NOTE: DoD, Department of Defense; IP, intellectual property; MEP, Manufacturing Extension Partnership; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; R&D, research and development; SME, small and medium-size enterprise.
From page 47...
... Breakout Sessions 47 Lowest Total Value (≤0.25) Institutes DoD Industry Academia Others Total Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
From page 48...
... Several groups recom mended starting to initiate a cross-institute Grand Challenge; publicize institute resources; and create consistent shared practices, EWD programs, and IP policies. Several groups recommended stopping posting jobs, duplicating other efforts, and allowing IP leaks or knowledge transfer abroad.
From page 49...
... , funding instability, loss of a domestic industrial base, increased foreign manufacturing investment, continued use of Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) instead of nimble institute processes, and loss of DoD backing.
From page 50...
... The group suggested that the institutes should improve how they provide access to and pub licize their capabilities, be more workforce-centered, have a well-defined foreign engagement strategy, improve service strategies and collaboration, and bring criti cal capabilities to certain facilities to increase innovation. The group suggested stopping the dissemination of institute or manufactur ing information beyond the United States, including through the publication of papers; stopping MEP program engagement in favor of leveraging MEP expertise for transitions; stopping online education from reaching foreign countries; stop ping duplicative efforts, such as in consulting services or EWD; and discontinuing job postings.
From page 51...
... , and produce publications. In terms of activities to improve or start, the group noted opportunities related to broader supply chain involvement, shorter contracting time, an IP policy that encourages commercialization, working with the National Science Foundation on publications, and improved data coordination and dissemination, perhaps through a centralized database and regional hub-and-spokes centers (two initiatives that NextFlex has recently developed that could serve as models for other institutes)
From page 52...
... Weaknesses identified include a lack of consistency for funding, contracting, and other administrative functions. Key opportunities include increasing access to shared resources; improving inter-institute communication, data coordination, and data dissemination; expanding and coordinating training; and strengthening the apprenticeship opportunities into major workforce improvement programs, similar to the Fraunhofer model.
From page 53...
... Participants suggested that the institutes should continue supporting TRLs and manufacturing readiness levels, create roadmaps that include sustainment, engage with current partners, and focus on DoD as the priority customer. They recommended that institutes stop following traditional, slow contracting processes; funding nonapplicable or nonrelevant R&D; and competing with other laboratories or private equity.
From page 54...
... and BAAs. They suggested that institutes increase their focus on EWD costs and cost sharing, roadmapping, and meeting DoD, logistics, and supply chain needs; define success and sustainability; take a much longer-term view of success; determine criteria for launching new institutes or sunsetting ones that are no lon ger relevant; and identify core funding, project funding, and priority technologies.
From page 55...
... They emphasized the need to stop treating all the institutes as if they are the same, as they have very different commercialization and key technology profiles, and to stop chasing money instead of relevance. To move forward, participants suggested that the institutes should align with DoD roadmaps and priorities, share overall lessons learned, start a Grand Challenge, and improve information dissemination and action.
From page 56...
... The institutes, in turn, should also identify scal able, flexible, and transferable educational content or projects (such as Operation Next,3 co-ops, entrepreneurships, and internships) , showcase EWD successes, and compile EWD best practices, all to elevate the national manufacturing conversation and meet workforce needs of industry and government, participants suggested.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.