A

Statement of Task and Work Plan

STATEMENT OF TASK

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall appoint an ad hoc committee to plan and organize a fast-track consensus study that addresses selected issues associated with DoD’s engagement with its Manufacturing USA Innovation Institutes (MIIs). In particular, the committee will provide general strategic advice in three topical areas, as follows:

• Protocols for conducting long-term engagement assessments of the MIIs, including evaluation criteria;
• Best practices in education and workforce development (EWD) for the MIIs, including scale-up methodologies for collaborative efforts by the MIIs in EWD; and
• Steps for improving MII linkages with other parts of the DoD and with the broader federally funded research enterprise;

The output of this fast-track project will be a short interim consensus report addressing the first bullet of the SOT and a final consensus report addressing the remaining two bullets of the SOT that draws from the information gathered by the committee and other public information sources, as needed, and provides findings, options, and, if the information gathered justifies them, recommendations for DoD to consider in developing its long-term role with existing and potential future MIIs sponsored by DoD in the three areas identified.

WORK PLAN

The National Academies will appoint a committee of approximately 10 members. In addition to the statement of task, the committee will consider the following:

1. In developing protocols for conducting long-term engagement assessments of the MIIs, including evaluation criteria, the committee will consider:
   1. Benchmark Methods and Evaluation Criteria
      1. Document current best practice methods and evaluation criteria for assessing top performing multi-year (non-MII) public-private partnership institutes of similar missions.
      2. Evaluate the impact of the performance metrics currently being used by the DOD as evaluation criteria for all of its MIIs. Issues include driving the intended MII performance activities and results, and relevance for each MII’s technology area.
      3. Document the findings of the metrics studies and recommend potential refinements to the performance metrics and their use.
   2. Describe a Method and Evaluation Criteria Prototype
      1. Utilizing the findings of the benchmarking analysis, develop a proposed method and the associated evaluation criteria for assessing MIIs which can be tested/prototyped, by either DOD or the committee, at the first three institutes established by the DOD.
2. In developing advice for education and workforce development (EWD) for the MIIs, including scale-up methodologies for collaborative efforts by the MIIs in EWD, the committee will:
   1. Identify the best EWD practices being used by the DOD MIIs and other interested Manufacturing USA Institutes that could be adopted, both at individual MIIs and in collaboration among MIIs in a post pandemic world.
   2. Discuss with the broader DOD community, including acquisition and sustainment, and identify unmet EWD needs. The scope of this discussion is limited to the relevant DOD MIIs technology areas.
   3. Assess the need and opportunities for cross-institute EWD interaction and cooperation to disseminate and implement bundled and integrated

2. 3. manufacturing technologies curriculum needed by industry and the DOD. The scope of this assessment is limited to the relevant DOD MIIs technology areas.
   4. Identify the scale-up elements and mechanisms for the DOD MIIs to collaborate in developing an “online education commons” of shared advanced manufacturing courses, modules and materials.
   5. Study the need to develop standards for transportable certificates in each MII’s advanced manufacturing field.
3. In developing advice for improving MII linkages with other parts of the DOD and with the broader federally funded research enterprise, the committee will:
   1. Assess ways for the DOD MIIs to be better linked to DOD acquisition, sustainment, O&M, and related manufacturing R&D processes and projects, including mechanisms to efficiently communicate information about both how to engage with each MII and about their R&D activities, resources, and success stories.
   2. Assess current mechanisms within the DOD and the federally supported research enterprise to partner with the DOD MIIs (particularly for 6.2-6.4 level research) and develop recommendations for improving those mechanisms, including specific engagement recommendations for each MII technology area.
   3. Assess and recommend how to bring additional civilian agency R&D stakeholder agencies (e.g., NSF centers, and Department of Energy laboratories) into joint Institute-agency technology planning and road mapping processes.