1

Introduction

What is now called the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was founded by Congress in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards. The founding charge was to establish a measurement infrastructure to enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness. NIST is now part of the Department of Commerce with a stated mission “to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.”¹ The Communications Technology Laboratory (CTL) was established in 2014 as a research and development organization to unite NIST’s ongoing wireless communications efforts. CTL builds on NIST’s long history of radio science and measurement.

Since 1959, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have been contracted to provide assessments of NIST’s laboratory programs. The National Academies’ assessments are conducted by panels of experts from industry, academia, and other scientific and engineering communities of practice, and each addresses a statement of task provided by NIST.² In 2022, at the request of the director of NIST, the National Academies formed the 2022 Panel on Review of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Communications Technology Laboratory with the following statement of task.

STATEMENT OF TASK

___________________

¹ National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2022, “About NIST,” https://www.nist.gov/about-nist, accessed September 16, 2022.

² A list with links to past assessments can be found at https://www.nist.gov/director/national-academies-national-research-council.

The CTL director asked the panel to review work in six research focus areas: (1) Core Network Technologies, (2) Fundamental Electromagnetic Technologies and Standards, (3) Next-Generation Wireless Systems, (4) Public Safety Communications Research, (5) Smart Infrastructure and Manufacturing, and (6) Spectrum Sharing and Sensing.

CONDUCT OF THE REVIEW

This assessment is the third National Academies review of CTL, with the previous reviews taking place in 2015 and 2019.³ In contrast to the two previous reviews that involved visits to the main CTL site in Boulder, Colorado, the information gathering for the 2022 report was done solely remotely due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This changed the nature of the panel’s information-gathering process in key ways. For example, during the 2019 review, the panelists spent 2.5 days on site at CTL in Boulder, Colorado, providing, in addition to the formal sessions, many opportunities to interact with CTL personnel informally during breaks, lunches, and a dinner arranged specifically to provide additional interaction opportunities. In addition, the onsite review meeting enabled the panelists to tour the Boulder facilities and see demonstrations of some of the laboratory capabilities. This facilitated the evaluation of the facilities, equipment, and capabilities. The lack of these opportunities during this review limited the information that this panel could collect to conduct its work.

The information gathering done by this panel formally began with a review meeting consisting of 2.5 days of online sessions with CTL. The first 2 days largely consisted of CTL presentations with limited time for questions after each presentation. On the third day, there was a question and answer session with time allocated to each focus area. After the initial meeting, the panel provided lists of additional questions to CTL in each of the focus areas. CTL provided written responses to the questions, and there were 1.5-hour online follow-up meetings in five of the six research focus areas to discuss the responses and any other questions the panelists had.⁴

___________________

³ Ibid.

⁴ The panelists in one of the research focus areas felt that a follow-up meeting was not necessary.

The panel used the information that CTL provided before and during the online sessions to conduct the assessment using a largely qualitative approach. Time constraints limited the amount of information gathering possible, so the panel focused on the research that the leadership of CTL chose to present. The panel members assessed the factors detailed in the statement of task, to the extent they could, using their professional judgment, their collective knowledge, and experience. Also, this report assesses only the work that CTL is currently doing and any opportunities and challenges related to that work. Questions of what work CTL or any other NIST laboratory should be doing fall under the purview of a separate independent NIST-sponsored body, the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. As such, opining on whether CTL is doing the right kinds of research is outside the purview of the panel.

A REMOTE-ONLY REVIEW

Overall, the online format impeded this review and had the following impacts:

• It limited the interactions between the panelists and CTL personnel at the meetings. During the meetings, most of the information was conveyed by area group leaders. Although the leaders were best positioned to summarize the content, especially given the limited time, the panel missed out on interacting with those doing the work.
• In addition, the large group setting of the meetings with various levels of personnel may have further limited the panel’s ability to gather information from the researchers working most directly in the research.
• The online format also severely impacted the panel’s ability to assess the facilities and equipment, and personnel. The panel members did their best to extract facility information where they could, with varying success.
• It also impacted how well the panelists could process the information being received. The information-gathering process required very long days in front of the computer, working across several time zones.
• It also limited the panelists’ interactions with each other and the networking that is often the best part of this kind of volunteering.

On the positive side, the online format enabled the recording of the presentations along with the sidebar conversations and questions in the chat. This allowed for an enduring record of the meetings and was helpful in drafting the report.

Recommendation 1-1: If at all possible, the leadership of NIST’s laboratories should ensure that all future assessments have an in-person component to allow the panels to see the facilities and equipment and to interact directly—both formally and informally—with the researchers.

THIS REPORT

This report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 1, Introduction
• Chapter 2, Overview of the Communications Technology Laboratory
• Chapter 3, Core Network Technologies
• Chapter 4, Fundamental Electromagnetic Technologies and Standards
• Chapter 5, Next-Generation Wireless
• Chapter 6, Public Safety Communications Research

• Chapter 7, Smart Infrastructure and Manufacturing
• Chapter 8, Spectrum Sensing and Sharing
• Chapter 9, Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel
• Chapter 10, Assessment of Communications Technology Laboratory Responses to the Key Recommendations of the 2019 Assessment
• Chapter 11, Key Recommendations

This report includes panel recommendations that specify “who should do what” to address any areas that the panel believes warrant action. The panel underpins the recommendations with salient examples of programs and projects that are intended collectively to portray an overall impression of the laboratory, while preserving useful suggestions specific to projects and programs. Key recommendations are those that the panel considers especially worthy of attention.

Each chapter was led by designated chapter teams. While the panel attempted to apply a uniform organization to each chapter, not every chapter team felt that this was possible. Different teams felt that they received different levels of information and wrote their chapters accordingly.