A. Flexible electronics describes circuits that can bend and stretch, enabling significant versatility in applications and the prospect of low-cost manufacturing processes. They represent an important technological advance, in terms of their performance characteristics and potential range of applications, ranging from medical care, packaging, lighting and signage, consumer electronics, and alternative energy (especially solar energy).1 What these technologies have in common is a dependence on efficient manufacturing that currently requires improved technology, processes, tooling, and materials, as well as ongoing research.2
_______________
1 See Chapter 2 for a review of the advantages and potential applications of flexible electronics.
2 See Stephen Forrest, “The Path to Ubiquitous and Low-Cost Organic Electronic Appliances on Plastic,” Nature 428 (April 2004): 911–918.
processes across the electronics industry.3 Flexible electronics are expected to become a General Purpose Technology.
B. Flexible electronics markets are expected to grow rapidly and represent an important competitive opportunity for U.S. firms.4
C. The applications of flexible electronics technology in the military sphere are expected to significantly enhance the mobility, care, and capabilities of combat troops and equipment.7 Many of these applications also have significant potential in large-scale commercial markets (e.g., health care, power generation, environmental protection, and transportation). Conversely, commercial products increasingly lead military applications (e.g. smartphones) and can be adopted and/or adapted for military use, a trend which is likely to be observable in flexible electronics as the industry matures.
_______________
3 See also the summary of presentations by Ross Bringans of PARC, Julie Brown of Universal Display Corporation, and Carl Taussig of Hewlettt-Packard Company in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth in the United States, Summary of a Symposium, rapporteur S. Shivakumar (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013).
4 See Chapter 2 for a review of the market growth of flexible electronics.
5 Brown, “Impact of a Flexible Form Factor for Displays and Lighting,” in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth.
6 TMR, Flexible Electronics Market—Global Industry Size, Share, Trends, Analysis and Forecasts 2012–2018 (2013).
7 See the summaries of presentations by representatives from DARPA and the Army Research Laboratory in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth. See also Chapter 4 of this volume for a summary description of military applications.
D. The U.S. flexible electronics industry has the potential to build on existing U.S. strengths and public and private investments in research and development.
E. Seeking to capture the global market opportunity in flexible electronics, major U.S. competitors in Europe and East Asia have launched targeted, large-scale programs, with significant government funding to develop these new technologies, refine them, and ultimately manufacture them within their national borders. National and regional investment undertaken by our foreign competitors are significantly larger than comparable
_______________
8 For a review of U.S. competitive strengths and the changing global competitive challenge, see National Research Council, Rising to the Challenge, U.S. Innovation Policies for a Global Economy, eds. A. Wolff and C. Wessner (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012).
9 For a review of federal and state initiatives, including the role of NIST, NSF, DARPA, and the Army, see National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth in the United States, Summary of a Symposium, 2013.
10 See Chapter 7 of this report for a review of the sources of federal support.
11 See Chapter 7 for a summary description of leading corporate research efforts and the role of the FlexTech Alliance. FlexTech members include startup companies, large companies (such as DuPont and Lockheed Martin), supplier companies (such as E Ink), universities (including Arizona State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Kent State), federal research laboratories, and regional nonprofit development organizations.
U.S. investment and more weighted toward later-stage applied research and development.
i. Technological competency: Large Asian industrial groups enjoy not only ample financial resources but also deep industrial and technological competencies in relevant fields, such as microelectronics, optoelectronics, materials science, and printing.
ii. Government support: The efforts of these firms are also backed by government programs, which emphasize applied research in industry and government research institutes that collaborate closely and effectively with industry.13
i. Infrastructure for applied research: Europe enjoys not only a strong fundamental research base but also a formidable infrastructure for applied research in relevant technology areas, which includes inter alia Germany’s Fraunhofer institutes, a new group of research centers in the United Kingdom, and world-class institutes such as IMEC in Belgium, the Holst Centre in the Netherlands, and Finland’s VTT.
ii. Government support: The European developmental effort is broad in both a geographic and technological sense. It is supported by successive layers of government at the national, regional, and local levels, and is engaging companies with a long tradition of collaboration to achieve technological objectives.
_______________
12 See Chapters 4 and 6 for a review of review of Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese initiatives in flexible electronics.
13 See, for example, Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute. For a detailed description of ITRI, see Appendix A3, “Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute: A Cradle of Future Industries,” in National Research Council, 21st Century Manufacturing, The Role of the MEP Program (Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2013).
14 See Chapters 4 and 5 for a review of European initiatives in flexible electronics.
15 See Chapter 7 for a review of leading U.S. efforts in flexible electronics. For a comparison of known government funding efforts in flexible electronics, see Table 3-1.
national governments for the period 2001 to 2013 versus the U.S. government commitment of $327 million over the same period.
F. A robust U.S.-based flexible electronics industry is in the national interest.16 A vibrant domestic flexible electronics industry could contribute to more on-shore manufacturing and employment.17
G. Significant U.S. expansion in the market for flexible electronics technologies is not likely to occur in the absence of mechanisms to address investment risks, the sharing of intellectual property, and the diverse technology requirements associated with developing and manufacturing flexible electronics technologies.20 Linking industry, university, and
_______________
16 Jonathan Epstein, “U.S. Interest, Security, Manufacturing and Growth,” in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth.
17 See Chapter 1 of this report for a summary of the manufacturing challenge. See also Sridhar Kota, “The Flexible Electronics Opportunity and Industry Challenges: Perspectives from Industry,” in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth.
18 See Richard M. Locke and Rachel L. Wellhausen, eds., Production in the Innovation Economy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014) and Suzanne Berger, Making in America (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013). These MIT reports argue that the United States needs to actively move research ideas to market if it is to benefit from public and private investments in research and development. They note, moreover, that retaining manufacturing capabilities is important given the high level of innovation and learning involved in manufacturing, which feeds back into research and development. These MIT reports cite an influential 2012 report by the National Research Council that finds that given the high priority and significant resources provided in leading nations on translational research, applications, and manufacturing of high-technology products, U.S. investments in research and development no longer automatically translate into production in the United States and the concomitant benefits in high-value employment and economic growth. See National Research Council, Rising to the Challenge. For a review of the experience of the display industry, which though developed in the United States, migrated to East Asia, see Chapter 7 of this report.
19 For a review of the FlexMatters initiative, see Chapter 7 of this volume. See also presentations in Panel VIII on the FlexMatters initiative summarized in National Research Council, Building the Ohio Innovation Economy, Summary of a Symposium, rapporteur C. Wessner (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013).
20 Research consortia are one mechanism to address these needs. See the discussion in Chapter 1 on the role and effectiveness of industry consortia. For a review of the potential of industry consortia in flexible electronics, see the summary of a presentation by Malcolm J. Thompson, “A Consortium
government is a proven means to galvanize industry and promote cooperation in applied research and development.
H. Collaboration among industry, universities, and government offers the best prospect for achieving the critical levels of investment and the acceleration of new technology development that is required to develop a vibrant flexible electronics industry. Consortia can reduce individual company risk, spread costs, facilitate development of industry roadmaps and standards, provide a focal point for collaboration with public research organizations, enhance technology diffusion, and provide an early-stage basis for the development of industry supply chains. Best practices in innovation programs for flexible electronics include the following:23
_______________
in Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing and Growth in the United States,” in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth.
21 Collaborative agreements can assume a variety of forms, ranging from informal networks and alliances to joint delivery of projects. For a summary of the academic literature on the effectiveness of industry consortia, see Table 1-1 in this volume. See also the summary of a presentation by Thompson, “Consortium in Flexible Electronics,” in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth.
22 For a detailed review of Asian and European programs, see Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this report.
23 These best practices are based on a review of U.S. and foreign programs analyzed by the committee and summarized in this report.
While cognizant of resource limitations, our recommendations build upon and reinforce efforts that are already under way at the federal and regional levels to foster a strong domestic capability in flexible electronics manufacturing, which could help secure the jobs and the growth that can be generated by this promising industry. Major advances in recent years in materials performance and circuit designs have created additional opportunities for a viable U.S. flexible electronics manufacturing industry. Consistent with the challenges and opportunities outlined in the findings above, these recommendations seek not only to stimulate innovation, but also to keep the technology and commercialization process in the United States, which is essential for the United States to secure a leading position in flexible electronics. While interconnected, the recommendations below address different facets of this challenge.
A. The United States should increase the funding of basic research related to flexible electronics and augment support for university-based consortia to develop prototypes, manufacturing processes, and products in close collaboration with contributing industrial partners.24
B. Consortia, bringing together industry, universities, and various levels of government, should be used as a means of fostering precompetitive applied research in flexible electronics.25 The federal government can utilize its research funding process to encourage and incentivize the private sector to collaborate with respect to the precompetitive R&D necessary to bring emerging flexible electronics technologies to market.
_______________
24 See Charles M. Vest, The American Research University from World War II to World Wide Web, University of California Press, June 1, 2007, 32. Dr. Vest noted that “in this age of increasingly cooperative innovation, and fast paced change, there are many opportunities to serve through ‘relevant’ research and development that will complement, not distort, our core academic mission to bring new intellectual challenges to our faculty and students.”
25 See Finding H on the merits of industry consortia and Finding I, which identifies industry-led consortia as a leading best practice in national innovation programs for flexible electronics.
standards, training, and the formation of partnerships with universities and public laboratories.
C. The United States should establish and support a network of user facilities dedicated to flexible electronics.
_______________
26 See remarks by Dr. Ananth Dodabalapur and Dr. Pradeep Fulay in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth. “The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) is an integrated partnership of fourteen user facilities, supported by NSF, providing unparalleled opportunities for nanoscience and nanotechnology research. The network provides extensive support in nanoscale fabrication, synthesis, characterization, modeling, design, computation, and hands-on training in an open hands-on environment available to all qualified users.” Accessed at <http://www.nnin.org/>.
27 The United States lacks a well-established integrated network of centers of applied research comparable to Germany’s Fraunhofers. In Germany, the network of Fraunhofer institutes possesses extensive competencies and infrastructure relevant to flexible electronics that are being deployed to facilitate the commercialization of flexible electronics products. For a description of the role of a Fraunhofer Institute in advancing flexible electronics, see the summary of the presentation by Dr. Christian May, “Organic and Flexible Electronics in Germany—A Snapshot,” in National Research Council, Flexible Electronics for Security, Manufacturing, and Growth. For a detailed description of the Fraunhofer system, see Appendix A2, “Fraunhofer Gesellschaft: The German Model of Applied Research,” in National Research Council, 21st Century Manufacturing, The Role of the MEP Program (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013).
D. Where possible, federal efforts to support the growth of competitive flexible electronics industries should leverage state and regional developmental efforts with the objective of establishing co-located local supply chains and capturing the associated cluster synergies.
E. Agency mission needs should help drive demand for flexible electronics technologies, while lowering costs, improving capabilities, and contributing to the development of a skilled workforce.30
_______________
28 As the NNMI is envisioned, each institute will “integrate capabilities and facilities required to address cross-cutting manufacturing challenges that have the potential to retain or expand industrial production in the U.S. on an economically rational basis.” Testimony of Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, before the House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, May 31, 2012, 6.
29 Interview with Dr. Miko Cakmak, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio, June 4, 2013. Dr. Cakmak led the committee on a tour of the University of Akron National Polymer Innovation Center. The Department of Commerce Economic Development Agency has been providing support to “Proof of Concept Centers” to promote commercialization of green technologies. These centers feature prototyping design and development facilities and equipment. See National Research Council, Best Practices in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives, 95–98.
30 See Finding C on military and civilian needs in flexible electronics.
31 Stuart W. Leslie, “The Biggest Angel of All: The Military and the Making of Silicon Valley,” in Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region, ed. Martin Kenney (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000); Vernon W. Ruttan, “Will Government Programs Spur the Next Breakthrough?” Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 2006; Jakob Edler and Luke Georghiou, “Public Procurement and Innovation—Resurrecting the Demand Side,” Research Policy, 2007.
_______________
32 See the summary description in Chapter 7 of this report of the Flexible Display Center. The FDC is a research and innovation center focusing on the commercialization of flexible displays formed through a collaboration between the U.S. Army and Arizona State University.