Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes Proceedings of a Workshop (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Discussion
6 Discussion
Pages 57-70
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 57... ...
IMPROVING THE INSTITUTES Several participants underscored the urgency and importance of strengthening the DoD Manufacturing USA institutes and advancing the initiative's goals. If the United States does not succeed in these efforts, one participant noted, another country will and the United States will be left behind.
|
From page 58... ...
John Christensen, DoD ManTech, encouraged the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to create a public comment mechanism to solicit broader input beyond those present at the workshop. Mark LaViolette, Deloitte Consulting, suggested that including more compa nies in the institutes in general would advance innovation and help create a tip ping point for the United States to achieve broader overall adoption of advanced manufacturing.
|
From page 59... ...
, stressed that continued institute success depends on continued DoD investment, whether directly from DoD or from other identified sources. Leo Grassilli, Office of the Secretary of Defense, noted that DoD's Office of the Secretary of Defense is not likely able to provide the level of funding that all stakeholders would want it to and urged taking a broader approach to seeking funding, such as by looking to PEOs as well as other government offices.
|
From page 60... ...
One aspect of these challenges is BAAs, which offer a separate channel for companies to serve DoD and other agencies that in some ways com petes with the model of the Manufacturing USA institutes. Participants expressed a range of opinions about the relationship between BAAs and the institutes and the relative advantages of each.
|
From page 61... ...
Because the institutes' stated mission is to support warfighting, the defense impact should be at the forefront of institute work; it is not fair to expect DoD to continue to provide support unless its goals are met, he continued, even if the institutes' work benefits the wider manufacturing ecosystem. Clayton added that the institutes could improve their value to DoD by better understanding DoD's supply chain challenges, its needs and priorities, the key project contacts, and all the funding platforms.
|
From page 62... ...
As the work shop drew to a close, participants were invited to share their ideas, in person or in writing, for future National Academies' studies that would further inform decisions around the DoD Manufacturing USA institutes, their relationship with national defense and DoD, and the U.S. manufacturing sector more broadly.
|
From page 63... ...
Impacts of the Institutes Several participants suggested studies aimed at evaluating the impacts of the DoD Manufacturing USA institutes. Some emphasized that the most compelling evidence would be quantitative analyses of institute impacts, while others noted the importance and power of qualitative success stories.
|
From page 64... ...
• Kravitz recommended that a consensus study should attempt to quantify the institutes' achievement and economic impact, for example of disruptive products developed through new manufacturing processes, equipment, or materials that were themselves developed by the institutes and are now integral to the commercial and military sector -- so-called needle movers. • Thompson suggested a National Academies' report that would assess the ROI of each institute, as measured by their impact on DoD programs, the commercial economy, and EWD, to justify continued funding.
|
From page 65... ...
• Chen suggested that the National Academies study university research structures that could move TRLs beyond current levels. Both industry and government have reduced their R&D, and universities can provide expertise and talent if DoD engages with them appropriately.
|
From page 66... ...
• Chen recommended examining models that encourage sharing institute f cilities, equipment, and EWD platforms to improve efficiency and in a crease national capabilities, with a bonus of improved sustainability. Past models include nanotechnology and supercomputing facilities, and such an activity could verify that those are being appropriately utilized.
|
From page 67... ...
• Brewster suggested a study of the pathway for DoD procurement of institute-developed technologies, whose audience would be DoD and other military appropriators. • Clayton recommended a National Academies' study to create a DoD- specific supply chain map that identifies and prioritizes opportunities, needs, and challenges, and also includes relevant funding mechanisms and key contracts.
|
From page 68... ...
For example, there may be other reasons, beyond costs, that make offshore supply chains more appealing than domestic supply chains. • Pradeep Lall, Auburn University, suggested a study to determine how to influence the cost equations that allow competition with low cost designa tions.
|
From page 69... ...
Discussion 69 • Scott Miller, NextFlex, proposed a study of the options, benefits, costs, and potential economic and national security outcomes of an overall federal restructuring of advanced manufacturing R&D investments. The current approach lacks an efficient, effective, competitive national strategy, and a National Academies' study should present an objective assessment of dif ferent funding mechanisms, he said.
|
Key Terms
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.