The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

3 Discussion
Pages 12-26

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 12... ... Federal program evaluation processes are often based on a set of core principles that are consistent across agencies. A good example is NSF's evaluation policy, which was updated in 2020.3 NSF notes that assessments can have different purposes, such as monitoring progress, guiding improvement efforts, or determining the effectiveness or efficiency of a program. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... NSF's guide mentions activities starting 4 months in advance, and NASA's is earlier at 6 months in advance of the site visit. The earliest activity in the NASA process is a planning session between the review team leads and program leadership, which sets the expectations for the data and information that will be required in the review process. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... Interestingly, in NASA's process, there is a requirement that the review lead provide a "Snapshot Report" 24 to 48 hours after the site visit. This report is a one-page summary of the program review, which provides a summary of the review team's findings and a discussion of key issues and risks. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... Collaborative planning activities and the development of a TOR-like agreement among the JDMC team lead, OSD ManTech, and MII leadership will enable the development of a transparent evaluation process that is balanced between DoD's needs for a strategic assessment and the time and cost resource requirements placed on the MII. In terms of information and data provided prior to the site visit, these materials would include OSD ManTech's perspectives on specific attributes of the MII being evaluated and the MII-prepared responses to the relevant metrics-driven questions developed by OSD ManTech. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... The EWD needs of DoD will evolve as technologies mature and are transitioned to DoD systems. As noted in the section "Evaluation Process for DoD MIIs" above, in anticipation of the MII evaluation, the JDMC team lead will need to work with OSD ManTech and MII leadership to develop a department assessment of the appropriate characteristics that then can be evaluated and the relevant metrics and discussion topics that also can be applied to the specific MII. Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... 4. Does DoD see a need for an ecosystem to drive advanced manufacturing technology implementation activities (e.g., roadmapping, community convening, standards and regulations development, etc.) Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... Advanced Manufacturing Ecosystem The defense manufacturing supply chain is critical to both the U.S. economy and national security.11,12 Support is needed for emerging technologies such as directed-energy weapons, hypersonics 9 DoD Instruction 5000.84, "Analysis of Alternatives", August 4, 2020. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... Since DOD MIIs vary in the nature, maturity, and intended use of their focused technology, each MII and its stakeholders need to identify the shared challenges and shared opportunities that their ecosystem wishes to develop, grow, and maintain. TABLE 3.1 Four Primary Advanced Manufacturing Ecosystems and the Focus Areas of Shared Objectives Advanced Manufacturing Ecosystems Focus Areas of Shared Objectives Supply Chain Ecosystem Source raw materials, calibrate supply to demand, facilitate storage and distribution of finished product to customer. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 4. Assess evidence of MII impact on the robustness and resilience of DoD supply chains (e.g., multiple sources for technology, technology companies linked to system providers or government supply chain, sufficiently trained workers, foundation provided in emerging technology by institutes) Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... The MIIs are responsible for finding innovative approaches to address technology development challenges. During an MII evaluation process, a key question that can be addressed is, What is limiting the rate of maturation of the technology or a resilient ecosystem for this advanced manufacturing field? Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... The data collected from the annual reviews, along with the trends in the data, will be very useful to the JDMC evaluation committee performing the 5-year assessment. In addition, the JDMC review can address the MIIs progress toward achieving DoD's strategic goals for the MIIs, as well as DoD's overall mission needs for manufacturing technology. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... STRATEGIC QUANTITATIVE METRICS All of the topics in the Strategic Evaluation Criteria for DoD MIIs section above represent qualitative metrics which are directly relevant to the three key strategic objectives for the MIIs (advancing research and technology, establishing and growing a manufacturing ecosystem, and securing human 23 Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... For the long-term strategic evaluation, the committee suggests that the institutes define the advanced manufacturing ecosystem which the MII and its stakeholders envision to serve the needs of its community. The institutes should identify the ecosystem programs and partnerships, which are required to establish robust and resilient DOD supply chains and track and report trendlines in 1) Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... The MII should be asked to develop trendlines of this data for the MII's period of operations, applied against workforce education goals set out in the MII's skill roadmaps, to indicate progress in meeting strategic, overall skills training demands in the MII's manufacturing technology sector. The additional metric suggested for the securing human capital (EWD) Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... The figure also delineates the role of the JDMC review process that this report addresses with the grey section, and the role performed by OSD R&E leadership that this report does not address. Read the entire page →

From page 12...

... Federal program evaluation processes are often based on a set of core principles that are consistent across agencies. A good example is NSF's evaluation policy, which was updated in 2020.3 NSF notes that assessments can have different purposes, such as monitoring progress, guiding improvement efforts, or determining the effectiveness or efficiency of a program.

3 Discussion Pages 12-26

3 Discussion
Pages 12-26