The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will convene an ad hoc committee of experts to envision the Manufacturing USA Program in 2030 and 2035, emphasizing the impact of technology development, transition, and scale-up and workforce development efforts. In doing so, this study shall examine:
1. Technology transfer. Evaluate the mechanisms by which the institutes promote technology transition and scale-up of new manufacturing technologies and processes to drive adoption by domestic industries. Survey best practices at specific Manufacturing USA institutes and the contributions of the individual successes at those institutes to the effectiveness of the Manufacturing USA network as a whole in encouraging industrial adoption of institute-developed technologies. Identify gaps and opportunities where the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO) can encourage, augment and expand technology transfer and scale-up approaches more systematically. Include in this analysis the appropriate role of contract research, drawing on the analysis of similar R&D-focused advanced manufacturing programs described below. Note that this work is also called out in Division B of the Chips and Science Act.
2. Institute capabilities. Evaluate the effectiveness of Manufacturing USA institutes in establishing, maintaining, and engaging membership to include stakeholders who are critical missing stakeholders for advancing targeted technologies and sectors, as well as the technical relevance and impact of activities and investments within the institutes. Analyze the approaches taken by the institutes, including best practices at individual institutes and the extent to which these practices have been adopted by other institutes, to assess the characteristics and benefits of different approaches. Recommend network-wide enhancement priority areas.
3. Workforce. Incorporating existing resources and analysis conducted by recent Office of Advanced Manufacturing contracting initiatives, identify best practices for Education and Workforce Development (EWD) and examine the extent to which these practices have been adopted across the network of institutes, and by other educational institutions and industries, along with any barriers that limit adoption. Identify areas for improvement and ways AMNPO, the sponsoring agencies, and the institutes can maximize institute successes or leverage opportunities for greater network-wide benefit.
4. Regional manufacturing ecosystems and domestic advanced manufacturing growth. Examine the extent to which the Manufacturing USA institutes engage in regional economic development and support domestic advanced manufacturing growth. Identify any foundational barriers, untapped resources or missing stakeholders, and recommend ways for institutes and federal agency sponsors to address these findings.
5. Division B-CHIPS and Science Act. Develop recommendations for implementing the requirements of Division B of the CHIPS and Science Act
a. Promote domestic production of institute-developed technologies.
b. Evaluate current institute workforce development efforts in industry credentialing and recommend the best ways to implement the relevant Division B provision.
6. International and domestic program comparison and benchmarking. Identify analogous international and domestic government programs that may be used as comparative case studies for Manufacturing USA. Recommend where the most successful program elements or practices from these international and domestic R&D-focused advanced manufacturing programs with similar missions can be incorporated into the design of the institutes and network. Identify necessary scaling based on U.S. investments in the institutes and in institute growth with respect to these comparisons.
7. International collaboration opportunities. Leveraging work from the international comparison above, recommend where collaboration with international programs could be beneficial in advancing the Manufacturing USA program’s domestic purposes.
8. Institute network. Recommend mechanisms to support cross-institute and cross-agency efforts to develop new technologies, including research and development for such technologies, and support workforce development for advanced manufacturing. Recommend a framework for interagency collaborations, including mechanisms such as the transfer of funds between agencies, the ability of agencies to communicate with all institutes, and parameters for such interactions. Identify best practices for collaboration across institutes, along with recommendation for a platform for sharing best practices among institutes on an on-going basis.
9. Federal sponsorship. Review whether the original institute funding model, as described in the design document and implemented in the initial institutes established after 2014, is still optimal for meeting the program’s goals. Recommend if any changes should be made in the size, structure, duration for federal sponsorship of institutes, and co-investment requirements. Recommend how to determine appropriate funding levels for an institute renewed for follow-on federal sponsorship.
10. Provide recommendations on the above-listed categories and the following topics:
a. Identify of the principles and mechanisms that should inform sponsoring agencies’ decisions about increasing, maintaining, decreasing, or ceasing support for sponsored institutes, including appropriate funding levels, and how institute performance and program goals inform those decisions. Also recommend how institutes no longer receiving federal base funds might be designated and appropriately participate within the Manufacturing USA network.
b. Evaluate the rationality of funding levels with respect to expected technological scope and impact for the network of institutes relative to the program’s statutory purposes and strategic goals when compared with programs with similar missions established by international competitor nations.
c. Identify what changes and resources would be needed to accomplish each study recommendation, including identifying any statutory impediments.
d. Recommend approaches that could accelerate the impact of technology transition and scale up efforts of the institutes.
e. Identify enhancements to AMNPO network operations and activities in support of the Manufacturing USA Network. Recommend methods by which AMNPO can improve the effectiveness of Manufacturing USA. Recommend how the value proposition of the AMNPO can be clearly communicated to the institutes and agency partners and articulated to all stakeholders.
f. Recommend actions that strengthen the impact of cross-network collaboration and assess whether access to collaborative funding increases the return on investment for the U.S. Government, with benefits to both organizations participating in institute activities and to the public. Identify actions that the AMNPO and the sponsoring agencies can take to enhance connections between the Manufacturing USA institutes and other Federal programs.
The above listed bullets will be addressed with varying degrees of coverage in the final study. While this could evolve based on ongoing findings, data, and evidence available within the timeframe of the study, this coverage could range from light (potentially bullets 5 and 7), moderate (potentially bullets 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8), and in-depth (potentially bullets 2, 9, and 10).