3

Technology Transfer and Scale-Up

Technology transfer and scale-up are central to the mission of the Manufacturing USA institutes and to the nation’s capacity to transform innovation into economic growth, industrial competitiveness, and national security. Established to bridge the innovation “valley of death” (nominally, the transition from TRL 4 to 7) between research and production, the institutes enable the movement of new technologies, materials, and processes from the laboratory into domestic manufacturing. Earlier National Academies’ discussions of the Manufacturing USA program similarly emphasized the importance of manufacturing innovation institutes as mechanisms for connecting research, development, and industrial production capabilities within the U.S. innovation system.¹ Through collaborative partnerships, shared facilities, and coordinated road-mapping, the institutes reduce risk, validate manufacturability, and accelerate technology adoption across industries of every scale.

A defining strength of the Manufacturing USA institutes is their convening power, their ability to unite industry, academia, and government around shared manufacturing challenges that no single organization can singularly address. Acting as neutral platforms, the institutes align diverse interests, resources, and expertise to create communities of practice that would not otherwise exist. This convening role is the foundation of every institute’s impact: it enables stakeholders to identify common priorities, establish standards, and collectively address barriers to technology transition and scale-up. Many institutes employ a tri-leadership model, pairing senior representatives from industry, academia, and government to ensure that technical decisions, workforce needs, and policy considerations are jointly addressed.

___________________

¹NASEM, 2017, Securing Advanced Manufacturing in the United States: The Role of Manufacturing USA: Proceedings of a Workshop, National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/24875.

Through this convening process, some institutes develop and continuously refine technology roadmaps that are living documents that capture critical gaps, specify target readiness levels, and define milestones for investment and implementation. These roadmaps help align research and development efforts with workforce, supply chain, and market needs. Road-mapping sessions bring together participants across the supply chain to agree on success metrics, resource contributions, and expected economic outcomes. When used effectively, these efforts translate collaboration into measurable action, providing a structured pathway from early innovation to large-scale industrial deployment.

These dynamics lay the groundwork for the expanded institute role envisioned in Chapter 7, in which technology transfer, scale-up capacity, and advisory services become central pillars of a more ambitious national manufacturing strategy. Strengthening technology transfer begins with a clear understanding of what the term means within the Manufacturing USA context and how the institutes operationalize it through shared definitions, coordinated road-mapping, and convening diverse partners around common goals. Furthermore, lessons from international manufacturing systems summarized in Chapter 2 underscore that institute convening power is most effective when embedded within a coherent national industrial strategy; this context highlights the importance of strengthening U.S. coordination mechanisms as the foundation for technology transfer.

DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Technology transfer encompasses the movement of knowledge, innovations, and manufacturing capabilities from one organization to another to achieve practical use and economic benefits. Within the Manufacturing USA network, it refers specifically to the effective transition of institute-developed technologies and know-how into commercial, public, or defense applications through collaboration among industry, academia, and government partners. The definition of technology transfer is critical to the development, adaptation, and adoption of each institute’s technology transfer roadmap, which identifies current capability gaps, defines readiness milestones, and guides collaborative projects that accelerate industrial adoption.

Understanding how institutes define and operationalize technology transfer is essential to ensuring alignment, accountability, and measurable progress. Institutes that define technology transfer narrowly as a hand-off of intellectual property may overlook the broader processes of validation, demonstration, and adoption that are central to their mission. Conversely, broad definitions that lack metrics can obscure accountability and reduce comparability across institutes. Because institutes operate across diverse technological domains, they employ several readiness-level frameworks to measure progress toward application. The committee uses the term XRL as a generalized shorthand—where “X” represents the most relevant readiness construct for a given context (e.g., TRL, MRL, ARL—Technology Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, or Adoption Readiness Level, respectively). This generalized framework emphasizes that technology transfer depends not only on technical progress but also on production

capability, market readiness, and user adoption. Understanding how these levels align, and where they differ, allows institutes to communicate progress more clearly, identify gaps, and tailor project milestones to their specific missions.²

As Chapter 6 emphasizes, workforce readiness is a determining factor in adoption readiness; therefore, it is essential that XRL assessments be constructed to incorporate skills, training, and credentialing requirements that directly affect technology deployment. Technology transfer encompasses a broad range of activities, and its meaning and measures of success vary widely across institutes, sponsoring agencies, and member organizations. Each institute defines technology transfer differently according to its technology domain, end-use markets, and operational norms. This variability makes it difficult to develop and apply a consistent technology transfer roadmap that can be regularly reviewed, compared, and updated to assess progress in enhancing U.S. industrial competitiveness and economic growth across institutes.

It is critical that roadmaps include pathways leading to implementation and large-scale adoption, particularly by small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs), and specify milestones, resource needs, and partners required to transition technologies from demonstration to production. Review and regular updating of these roadmaps is important to ensure alignment with institute missions and to track progress in advancing U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and economic growth. Box 3-1 describes how technology road-mapping can be a core tool for institutes. As detailed in Chapter 2, leading international institutes employ unified, system-wide definitions of technology transfer to ensure comparability and accountability, reinforcing the need for common U.S. frameworks across the Manufacturing USA network.

Recommendation 3-1: Within a year, each Manufacturing USA institute should define “technology transfer” in its roadmap with measurable milestones. These should be updated annually and, where possible, aligned with existing Manufacturing USA performance metrics and reporting frameworks used by the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office and sponsoring agencies.

___________________

²Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), established by NASA, assess the maturity of technologies from basic research (TRL 1) to operational deployment (TRL 9) (C.G. Manning, 2023, “Technology Readiness Levels,” NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-navigation-program/technology-readiness-levels/). Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs), introduced by the Department of Defense, complement TRLs by evaluating manufacturability and production readiness (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010, Best Practices: DOD Can Achieve Beter Outcomes by Standardizing the Way Manufacturing Risks are Managed, GAO-10-439. Adoption Readiness Levels (ARLs), developed by the Department of Energy, focus on the likelihood that a technology will be successfully adopted, incorporating market and organizational factors beyond technical maturity (U.S. Department of Energy, 2024, “Adoption Readiness Levels,” https://www.energy.gov/arl/adoption-readiness-levels). The term “XRL” is used throughout this report as a generalized construct encompassing TRL, MRL, and ARL, depending on the technology domain. It reflects the committee’s view that successful technology transfer depends on aligned progress across technical, manufacturing, and adoption-readiness dimensions.

INDUSTRY AND OTHER STAKEHOLDER NEEDS

The diversity of stakeholders within the Manufacturing USA ecosystem defines both the opportunity and the complexity of technology transfer. Each participant engages with the institutes for different reasons, and the flow of technology among these actors is multidirectional, moving into, through, and out of the institutes depending on partner needs and the maturity of the technology. Understanding these relationships is essential to designing mechanisms that move technologies from concept to deployment while ensuring tangible industrial and societal benefits. As emphasized in Chapter 2, other nations’ institutes structure stakeholder engagement through permanent, well-resourced organizations that integrate industry, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and government; the fragmented U.S. approach to institute engagement reflects this contrast and reinforces the need for stronger, more consistent mechanisms for participation. As is highlighted in Chapter 1, the limited ability of SMMs and entrepreneurial firms to adopt advanced technologies remains a core barrier to national productivity growth. This chapter’s framework for technology transfer directly addresses that adoption bottleneck.

Large multinational corporations (LMCs) use the institutes primarily to validate and de-risk technologies that can later be absorbed into their production systems. These companies often continue internal development once feasibility has been demonstrated, making some results less visible to the wider community. One result of this approach for LMCs is that they tend to transition technologies to their internal R&D at a lower XRL.³ Another common mode of technology transition occurs when the LMC plays the role of technology integrator. In such instances, new technologies are directly

___________________

³From discussions on May 13, 2025, during open session.

transferred into the company’s product line, which leads to rapid technology transfer and dissemination into the marketplace.⁴

SMMs generally lack the in-house R&D capacity, capital investment, or specialized staff required to evaluate and implement advanced manufacturing technologies. Similar challenges facing smaller manufacturers in adopting advanced technologies have been documented in previous National Academies’ analyses of technology diffusion and manufacturing extension programs.⁵ Institutes therefore provide shared access to facilities, demonstrations, and training that lower both technical and financial barriers, enabling these firms to modernize operations and remain globally competitive. Engagement of SMMs through institutes also supports regional economic development by retaining manufacturing activity and jobs within local supply chains. In general, technology is transferred to SMMs from the institutes. Chapter 2 notes that high-performing foreign institutes couple technology development with intensive business-development support and SMM outreach; this international experience highlights the importance of ensuring that stakeholder needs, in particular those of SMMs, are fully reflected in institute technology transfer pathways.

Entrepreneurial start-ups and small technology developers depend on the institutes for both technical validation and exposure to potential partners, customers, and investors. Institute membership often provides credibility and visibility that facilitate follow-on financing and partnerships. Assistance in intellectual-property management, standards participation, and pilot-scale testing helps these companies bridge the gap between prototype and production. In general, new technologies are transferred from entrepreneurial start-ups through the institutes to disseminate these new technologies.

National laboratories and universities view the institutes as essential conduits for translating discoveries from research into manufacturable processes. Collaborative projects and shared test-beds enable these institutions to validate technologies under realistic production conditions while simultaneously training students and researchers in advanced manufacturing practices.

Federal agencies engage with the institutes to meet strategic objectives in defense readiness, energy security, and economic competitiveness. Agency partnerships ensure that institute outputs align with national priorities, strengthen critical supply chains, and provide measurable returns on federal investments.

State and regional economic development agencies benefit from access to advanced technology assets, support for workforce development, and de-risking technology adoption by local firms to achieve state and regional manufacturing and economic competitiveness.

Because the needs of these groups differ, maintaining flexible technology transfer mechanisms and adaptive governance structures in the Manufacturing USA network is essential. Balancing collaboration with large firms while ensuring broad participation by smaller manufacturers and emerging innovators and regional developers is fundamental

___________________

⁴From discussions on July 18, 2025, during open session.

⁵NASEM, 2013, 21st Century Manufacturing: The Role of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/18448.

to achieving sustainable national benefit and global manufacturing leadership. For scale-up and deployment-focused activities, co-investment requirements could be project based and structured to reflect where value accrues. Industry and government end users are the primary beneficiaries of successful scale-up and hence financial mechanisms that are attractive to those end users are important. Universities play a critical role in technical execution and workforce development, but financial cost-sharing requirements should not inadvertently discourage participation in projects whose benefits accrue primarily outside academia. Similarly, SMMs are critical parties to which technology needs to be transferred, and cost-sharing requirements may be detrimental to successful technology transfer, especially to those SMMs that are highly budget constrained.

Technology Maturation

Technology maturation takes different forms across the Manufacturing USA network, reflecting the breadth of technology domains, industrial sectors, and stakeholder needs. It bridges the gap between early-stage discovery and industrial application by transforming promising research results into manufacturable, scalable, and cost-effective solutions. National Academy of Engineering analyses have likewise emphasized that sustaining U.S. technological leadership requires the ability to translate research advances into domestic manufacturing capabilities and production systems.⁶ Building on the broad needs of their stakeholders, institutes undertake pre-competitive projects that validate performance, refine manufacturing processes, and establish confidence in new materials, tools, and systems. These efforts reduce technical and financial risk, accelerating the transition of innovation from laboratory proof of concept to production environments.

Technology maturation typically involves three interdependent activities:

• Technical validation—testing and verification of materials, processes, and systems under realistic operating conditions.
• Pilot-scale demonstration—replicating production steps at partial scale to evaluate manufacturability, cost, and quality.
• Business-case development—assessing supply chain readiness, regulatory compliance, and economic viability to support industrial investment.

The institutes illustrate a variety of approaches to technology maturation. To demonstrate these approaches, several institutes are discussed in the ensuing text.

Advancing Materials and Manufacturing Processes

LIFT advances new materials and forming technologies from laboratory-scale prototypes to full production readiness. Its high-bay pilot facility in Detroit enables members to evaluate alloy performance, forming behavior, and process repeatability using industrial-grade equipment. By providing access to shared data and facilities,

___________________

⁶NASEM, 2015, Making Value for America: Embracing the Future of Manufacturing, Technology, and Work, National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/19483.

LIFT reduces risk for manufacturers exploring the substitution of lightweight alloys in vehicles, aircraft, and defense systems.

America Makes, the additive-manufacturing institute, focuses on validating additive processes and materials for demanding applications such as aerospace and energy. Collaborative projects among its members have demonstrated new powder-bed fusion techniques, qualified materials and geometries for flight hardware, and established shared data standards for part certification. Through these efforts, America Makes has helped move additive-manufacturing technologies from TRLs 4–5 to TRLs 7–8, shortening the qualification cycle and expanding industrial confidence in additive production.

BioMADE, the biomanufacturing institute, accelerates the scale-up of bioindustrial processes that convert renewable feedstocks into materials, chemicals, and other products. The institute helps its members mature bioprocessing technologies from laboratory-scale proof of concept to pilot-scale demonstration using standardized “design–build–test–learn” cycles. BioMADE’s projects include validating new fermentation and purification methods and developing open-access standards for bioprocess readiness. These efforts shorten the time to scale and train a workforce skilled in bioindustrial production, enabling broader adoption of sustainable manufacturing technologies across multiple sectors.

As these examples demonstrate, advances in materials, process innovation, and biomanufacturing often lay the technical foundation upon which automation and digital systems can later be deployed. The progression from validation to pilot-scale demonstration mirrors the capabilities embedded in international models discussed in Chapter 2, where in-house scientific staff and dedicated pilot facilities allow technologies to advance at higher TRLs before technology transition to industrial partners. Furthermore, as stated in Chapter 6, effective scale-up must also incorporate workforce upskilling requirements, since a technology can mature technically yet still fail in implementation if firms lack personnel prepared to operate, maintain, or integrate it.

Automation and Human–Technology Integration

The Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute (ARM Institute) accelerates the maturation of robotics and automation technologies that enhance efficiency and safety in manufacturing environments. Its projects validate collaborative robots (“cobots”), autonomous systems, and human–machine interfaces under real production conditions. By combining technology development with training and credentialing programs, ARM Institute ensures that automation advances are accompanied by a skilled workforce capable of deploying and maintaining these systems on the factory floor.

These advances in robotics and workforce integration complement the growing emphasis on smart, connected manufacturing systems that rely on digital infrastructure and secure data environments.

Digital and Cyber-Physical Manufacturing Systems

The Collaborative Ecosystems for Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CESMII) advances digital manufacturing and energy-efficient production technologies that integrate sensors, controls, and data analytics to improve factory performance.

Through its network of regional innovation centers, CESMII supports projects that mature smart manufacturing solutions, validate open-data architectures, and develop interoperable systems that link equipment across production environments. These initiatives reduce energy consumption, improve productivity, and make digital transformation accessible to firms of all sizes.

The Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CyManII) advances secure digital-manufacturing systems from research concepts into operational practice. CyManII partners with manufacturers to develop and test cybersecurity architectures that protect digital-production networks and industrial-control systems. Its work includes creating reference frameworks, verifying interoperability among vendors, and training manufacturing personnel to manage cyber risks. These initiatives provide the foundation for broad adoption of secure, connected-manufacturing technologies essential to smart-factory operations and national security.

Together, these examples demonstrate how technology maturation across the institutes spans materials, biological, automation, and digital domains, and how shared access to facilities, data, and expertise helps industry partners validate technologies efficiently and confidently.

Institutes face uncertainty about how far to advance technologies before transition to external partners. Differences in missions and stakeholder expectations lead to inconsistent decisions on when to hand off technologies for commercialization. Establishing ambitious targets for transitioning technologies beyond demonstration into scaled industrial adoption targeting TRLs 7–9 is a critical benefit of roadmaps. It is critical that institutes be evaluated on their ability to advance technologies to implementation in production environments and to demonstrate measurable adoption across their sectors. It is important that the institutes document successful transition to higher XRLs for all projects.

Recommendation 3-2: Within a year, each Manufacturing USA institute should specify and clearly and consistently document its initial and target readiness levels (Technology Readiness Level [TRL], Manufacturing Readiness Level, or Adoption Readiness Level, generally expressed as XRL) and demonstrate and document transitions to TRLs 7–9 using consistent reporting metrics coordinated through the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office. These should be updated annually.

Pilot and Scale-Up Facilities

Building on the technologies matured through the efforts described in the previous section, pilot and scale-up facilities serve as the critical bridge between laboratory validation and industrial implementation. These facilities provide production-relevant environments where members can test, refine, and validate technologies before committing to full-scale investment. Early evaluation of manufacturability, quality, and cost reduces risk, accelerates learning, and increases the likelihood of successful commercialization. As discussed in Chapter 2, international institutes maintain substantial

in-house engineering and scientific teams to support continuous technology transition, underscoring the importance of comparable staffing models across the Manufacturing USA network.

Facilities may be operated directly by an institute or through partnerships with universities, national laboratories, or industry collaborators. Some are physical pilot plants or high-bay laboratories equipped with production-scale systems, while others take the form of digital test-beds that simulate manufacturing environments for data analysis, process control, and workforce training. These physical and virtual facilities together create a distributed ecosystem for technology demonstration and scale-up. This dual technical-and-workforce function reflects the integrated education role described in Chapter 6, in which hands-on learning environments are essential to enabling adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies, particularly among SMMs.

Several institutes demonstrate how these facilities function in practice:

• LIFT operates a high-bay pilot plant in Detroit that allows industry and academic members to scale new metal-forming and -joining technologies using industrial-grade machinery.
• NextFlex, the flexible hybrid electronics institute, operates a Technology Hub in San Jose, California, that serves as a pilot-scale fabrication and prototyping facility for flexible hybrid electronic (FHE) devices. The hub integrates design, printing, assembly, and encapsulation capabilities, allowing members to validate processes, materials, and equipment for manufacturing lightweight, conformable electronics. The facility also provides workforce development programs where engineers and technicians receive hands-on training with FHE manufacturing tools. By bridging research and production, NextFlex’s Technology Hub accelerates commercialization and strengthens domestic supply chains for emerging electronics technologies (see Box 3-2).

• MxD maintains a “future factory floor” where companies can test digital-manufacturing solutions and cybersecurity architectures before deploying them in their own operations.
• BioMADE is planning to support pilot-scale biomanufacturing through collaborations with university and industry partners to demonstrate fermentation and purification processes for bio-based products.
• CESMII provides both virtual and physical smart manufacturing test-beds that allow companies to integrate sensors, controls, and analytics into existing production systems.

The success of pilot and scale-up facilities depends not only on the availability of infrastructure but also on the presence of skilled staff and sustainable funding for operations and equipment. Engineers, technicians, and process specialists ensure that facilities function safely and efficiently, while also helping project teams adapt laboratory innovations to industrial equipment and practices. Trainers and instructional personnel support hands-on workforce development for institute members and regional partners, while project managers coordinate multiple users, maintain safety and intellectual-property compliance, and optimize scheduling. Sustaining these facilities over time requires funding for equipment maintenance, renewal, and periodic upgrades to keep pace with evolving technologies. Institutes also need personnel skilled in cost recovery, membership management, and facility planning to ensure that pilot environments remain technically relevant, accessible, and financially viable. Without dedicated staff and continued investment in maintenance and modernization, pilot facilities cannot fulfill their role as the final proving ground for emerging manufacturing technologies and are subject to obsolescence.

Shared access to these facilities is particularly valuable for SMMs, which often lack capital investment, equipment, or technical staff to evaluate new technologies independently. Institutes help lower these barriers by providing affordable access, technical assistance, and workforce training that enable SMMs to experiment safely with advanced processes. This role is amplified by the regional dynamics described in Chapter 5, where institutes’ ability to anchor shared facilities within local ecosystems is foundational to scaling innovative technologies into commercial production. Furthermore, Chapter 2 highlights that leading international institutes routinely offer such production-relevant facilities—including cleanrooms, demonstration factories, and configurable pilot lines—underscoring a capability gap in the current U.S. institute network that must be addressed to accelerate scale-up. Engagement through pilot and scale-up facilities also creates regional hubs of innovation, linking industry, academia, and government to strengthen supply chains and expand local economies.

Pilot and scale-up facilities are essential for validating and demonstrating manufacturing readiness, yet they are unevenly distributed across technology domains and regions. Many institutes face challenges in maintaining and upgrading equipment, funding skilled technical staff, and ensuring that these facilities remain accessible to SMMs. Without sustained investment in staffing and modernization, pilot facilities risk obsolescence and diminished value to the manufacturing ecosystem. Institutes could

leverage existing shared facilities and establish new ones where critical gaps exist, using government and partner funding to support both facility creation and long-term sustainability. Pilot and scale-up sites could include provisions for equipment maintenance, renewal, and modernization, and could be staffed by personnel with the technical and management expertise needed to support multiple users safely and efficiently. These facilities must be affordable and readily accessible to SMMs for learning, demonstration, and training in advanced manufacturing technologies. A coordinated national network of such facilities, supported by skilled staff, sustainable funding models, and a clear commitment to long-term investment, will help de-risk technology adoption and accelerate industrial implementation.

Recommendation 3-3: Manufacturing USA institutes, in conjunction with sponsoring-agency support, should begin immediate planning and initial implementation of pilot-scale and scale-up facilities, with defined milestones and early operational capability established by 2030 and full-scale operations, broadly accessible to small and medium–sized manufacturers, achieved by 2035. Implementation will require sustained federal funding and coordinated co-investment from industry and regional partners. Manufacturing USA institutes and such facilities should be supported through long-term, renewable federal sponsorship that reflects their role as enduring national manufacturing infrastructure rather than short-term projects, with periodic performance-based review rather than assumptions of self-sufficiency within a single award cycle.

The effectiveness of these facilities ultimately depends on the people who operate them, engineers, project managers, and trainers, whose expertise forms the foundation of every institute’s technology transfer capability. The next section explores how institutes organize and staff these technology transfer functions to ensure long-term impact.

Technology Transfer Teams and Staffing Models

Building on the infrastructure and technical expertise provided by pilot and scale-up facilities, effective technology transfer depends on the human capacity and organizational structures that guide innovations from demonstration to adoption. Institutes require teams with technical, business, and program-management skills to coordinate projects, engage partners, and manage the complex process of moving technologies into industrial use. National Academies’ studies of Manufacturing USA institutes have similarly emphasized that sustained institutional expertise and staffing are essential for supporting technology maturation and successful transition from research environments into industrial production systems.⁷ These technology transfer teams serve as the bridge between laboratory

___________________

⁷NASEM, 2021, DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Final Report, National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/26329.

success and manufacturing deployment, ensuring that innovations are ready for production and that adopters are equipped to implement them successfully.

A technology transfer team typically performs several core functions: assessing technology and factory readiness; coordinating among research, engineering, and operations; supporting intellectual-property and licensing processes; and providing training to end users. These teams often include institute staff, partner engineers, business-development specialists, and representatives from regional ecosystems such as Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) centers, state economic development agencies, and community and technical colleges.

International models illustrate how formalized transfer teams contribute to sustained innovation. Germany’s Fraunhofer institutes and Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) embed cross-functional teams directly within projects, ensuring continuity from research through commercialization. These organizations demonstrate the importance of maintaining teams with both technical depth and strong industry experience to navigate the handoff between R&D and production efficiently and consistently.

Within the Manufacturing USA network, staffing structures and levels of in-house expertise vary depending on each institute’s mission, maturity, and technology domain. Five archetypes illustrate common models observed across the institutes:

• Proposal Development or Program Management Office—functions primarily as a convener and project coordinator, managing funding and stakeholder engagement without maintaining in-house facilities.
• Training Center or Services—focuses on knowledge transfer, workforce development, and dissemination of best practices.
• Testing Center or Services—provides laboratory-scale or certification-testing capabilities for members to validate technology performance.
• Process Development Center—offers engineering, modeling, and process-optimization expertise to mature technologies and improve manufacturability.
• Pilot or Scale-Up Facility—combines technical staff, equipment, and production environments for high-TRL demonstration and validation.

Institutes that maintain experienced, cross-functional teams tend to achieve faster and more reliable technology transitions. Skilled staff can identify manufacturability challenges early, anticipate barriers to adoption, and ensure that project outcomes align with industry needs. As noted in Chapter 2, foreign institutes maintain sizable in-house research and business-development staffs that provide continuity and technical depth; establishing comparable staffing models is essential if Manufacturing USA institutes are to achieve similar scale-up impact. Retaining this expertise requires stable funding and long-term staffing strategies, as turnover and reliance on short-term project funding can erode institutional knowledge.

Many institutes lack dedicated expert staff for technology transfer and commercialization, limiting their ability to support adoption at scale. Inadequate funding for long-term staffing and professional development can reduce the consistency and quality

of technology transfer outcomes. Concerning teams for technology transfer, institutes could identify or establish dedicated technology transfer teams with sufficient technical, business, and program-management expertise to guide projects through adoption and implementation. Funding could include support for recruiting, training, and retaining expert staff capable of bridging technical, economic, and operational aspects of technology transfer. These teams could be available to support SMMs and entrepreneurial firms. Institutes could also develop long-term staffing strategies to ensure that institutional knowledge and expertise are sustained as technologies, members, and priorities evolve. Some of these staffing functions could be provided or coordinated through centrally located personnel within the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO) or through other federal agencies working in partnership with AMNPO, to ensure that smaller institutes and those with limited resources can access specialized expertise and best practices.

Recommendation 3-4: Within 2 years, Manufacturing USA institutes and the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office should establish dedicated, well-staffed technology transfer teams and long-term staffing plans, leveraging existing federal technology transfer expertise and programs where appropriate.

As discussed further in Chapter 4, cross-institute collaboration and interagency alignment will be essential to ensure that these teams can draw on shared expertise and avoid duplicated efforts across the network.

Convening Partners and Building Communities

A defining strength of the Manufacturing USA institutes is their role as neutral conveners that bring together industry, academia, and government to address complex manufacturing challenges that no single organization can singularly address. Through this convening function, the institutes create communities of practice that foster collaboration, trust, and shared purpose—conditions essential for effective technology transfer.

Institutes convene members and partners through technical councils, road-mapping workshops, annual meetings, and thematic working groups. These activities enable stakeholders to align with research priorities, coordinate investments, and accelerate the transition of innovations to industrial application. This coordinating function is particularly important given Chapter 2’s finding that competitor nations anchor their manufacturing institutes within overarching industrial strategies, supported by strong central bodies that align technology, finance, and workforce systems. The convening role also supports workforce and standards development, ensuring that new technologies are accompanied by trained personnel, common terminology, and interoperable practices.

NextFlex, for example, has built a national community for flexible hybrid electronics that integrates small and medium-sized enterprises, universities, and defense partners through coordinated projects and shared facilities. The ARM Institute and

MxD use similar models, organizing networks of manufacturers, solution providers, and educators to test and deploy automation, digital manufacturing, and cybersecurity solutions across sectors.

Although the institutes have established many successful partnerships, stakeholders, particularly SMMs, have noted that ease of engagement remains a barrier to broader participation. For some companies, it can be difficult to determine which institute aligns with their needs, how to join, or what return on investment to expect. Smaller firms often lack experience collaborating with academic or consortium-based organizations and may require guidance to navigate membership processes or project opportunities. This difficulty in SMM engagement reflects challenges identified in Chapter 2, where international programs such as SME Support Japan and ITRI in Taiwan employ structured outreach and advisory services that systematically integrate SMMs into their technology-diffusion pipelines. Simplifying engagement, clarifying value propositions, and developing common terminology across institutes could significantly expand industry participation and accelerate technology adoption. Institutes that make engagement intuitive and transparent strengthen their communities and increase the overall impact of the Manufacturing USA network.

Convening also extends beyond member engagement to include coordination across the broader innovation ecosystem. Institutes act as connection points among regional and national manufacturing programs, including MEP centers, workforce boards, and industry and professional associations. This networked approach ensures that lessons learned in one region or sector can be shared widely and adapted to local needs, thereby amplifying the collective impact of public and private investment in manufacturing innovation. Chapter 4 expands on this point by demonstrating that fragmented engagement across agencies and institutes limits the scalability of technology transfer, reinforcing the need for coordinated, cross-institute mechanisms to support implementation and adoption.

Institutes that actively convene partners and foster accessible, transparent engagement are more effective in accelerating technology transfer and broadening participation across the U.S. manufacturing ecosystem. However, inconsistent engagement models and unclear membership processes can limit the ability of smaller firms and new entrants to benefit fully from institute resources and collaborations. Concerning building community, institutes could strengthen their convening capacity by simplifying engagement processes, standardizing communication of membership benefits, and aligning outreach across the network. Institutes could collaborate with AMNPO and other federal and regional partners such as MEP centers and economic-development agencies to improve accessibility for SMMs and entrepreneurial companies, and to share successful engagement practices across institutes. Enhanced coordination and transparency will ensure that all stakeholders can participate fully in the Manufacturing USA ecosystem and contribute to national manufacturing competitiveness. Institutes, working with AMNPO and regional partners, could simplify engagement processes and standardize outreach practices, as stated in Recommendation 4-6.

Effective convening and engagement also depend on clear measures of success. Establishing consistent metrics to evaluate collaboration, technology transfer outcomes, and community impact is therefore essential.

MEASURING SUCCESS: METRICS AND EVALUATION

Determining metrics for technology transfer is essential to evaluate institute effectiveness and ensure accountability. Metrics must balance near-term, leading indicators—such as the number of pilot projects launched, companies engaged, or technologies advancing through readiness levels—with long-term, lagging indicators, such as technology commercialization, job creation, export growth, and productivity gains. Leading indicators provide early signals of progress and help guide management decisions, while lagging indicators measure realized outcomes and long-term impact. A comprehensive evaluation framework could incorporate both to capture the full innovation life cycle—from discovery to sustained market adoption.

Many institutes currently rely on limited measures such as publications or patents, which fail to capture the broader impact of technology diffusion. Quantitative metrics could therefore be supplemented with qualitative assessments, including stakeholder satisfaction, cross-institute collaboration, and regional economic benefits.

To develop a more comprehensive and consistent approach, metrics could encompass four interrelated categories:

• Technology metrics, such as advancement of technologies through specific readiness levels (TRLs, MRLs, ARLs, or XRLs), validation studies completed, standards developed, or intellectual property licenses executed.
• Economic metrics, including private investment leveraged, new product introductions, time-to-commercialization, and contributions to regional or national supply chain resilience.
• Workforce metrics, measuring the number of individuals trained, credentialed, or placed in advanced-manufacturing roles, as well as diversity and inclusion indicators.
• Ecosystem and collaboration metrics, such as the number and type of partnerships formed, engagement of SMMs, and evidence of technology diffusion beyond direct institute members.

Developing consistent, network-wide metrics is particularly important to benchmark performance and justify public investment. Earlier National Academies’ analyses examining Department of Defense (DoD) engagement with manufacturing innovation institutes have also emphasized the importance of clear evaluation frameworks and consistent performance metrics for assessing institute performance and technology transition outcomes.⁸ The Government Accountability Office^9,10 (GAO 2019, 2018) and previous National Academies’ studies have emphasized the need for such standardization,

___________________

⁸NASEM, 2021, DoD Engagement with Its Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Phase 2 Study Interim Report, National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/26149.

⁹GAO, 2019, Space Command and Control: Comprehensive Planning and Oversight Could Help DOD Acquire Critical Capabilities and Address Challenges, GAO-20-146, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-146.

¹⁰GAO, 2018, National Institute of Standards and Technology: Additional Review and Coordination Could Help Meet Measurement Service Needs and Strengthen Standards Activities, GAO-18-445, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-445.

but progress has been slow due to confidentiality constraints, data-collection challenges, and sectoral differences.

Improving network-wide data sharing will be essential to overcome these barriers. Institutes currently collect data independently, using varying definitions and formats, which limit comparability and the ability to aggregate results at the national level. A common digital platform or secure data-exchange framework, coordinated by AMNPO in collaboration with sponsoring agencies, will enable consistent reporting, protect sensitive information, and facilitate real-time analysis of progress across the network. Enhanced data interoperability would also allow lessons learned in one institute to inform others, accelerating learning and reducing duplication of effort.

Institutes and sponsoring agencies also face the challenge of aligning what they measure with what truly matters. While technology transfer outcomes—such as licenses executed, products commercialized, or workforce trained—are relatively straightforward to count, the deeper effects on competitiveness, resilience, and innovation culture are harder to quantify. The need for consistent, outcome-oriented metrics also reflects the international comparison in Chapter 2, where long-term, permanent institute programs employ standardized key performance indicators that reinforce accountability and enable sustained national manufacturing strategies. Balancing output metrics (activities and immediate results) with outcome-oriented indicators (enduring economic and societal impact) will be essential to capture the full value of Manufacturing USA investments.

The absence of clearly articulated standardized, outcome-oriented metrics across institutes impedes the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of technology transfer and to demonstrate the full return on public investment. Without comparable data and a common data-sharing framework, institutes and agencies face challenges in benchmarking performance, identifying leading indicators of success, and communicating impact to policymakers and the public. AMNPO, in collaboration with sponsoring agencies and other supporting organizations, could develop and coordinate a standardized framework of technology transfer metrics applicable across the Manufacturing USA network. These metrics could capture both quantitative outputs (e.g., technologies advanced, patents, licenses, adoption rates) and qualitative outcomes (e.g., partnerships formed, workforce impact, regional economic growth). The framework could include clear definitions, guidance on data-collection methods, mechanisms for benchmarking performance, and procedures for secure, network-wide data sharing. It could also balance leading and lagging indicators to measure both early progress and long-term impact. AMNPO could facilitate regular review and updating of the metrics framework to ensure continued relevance and alignment with evolving national manufacturing priorities.

Recommendation 3-5: Within 2 years, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, with sponsoring agencies, should implement a standardized network-wide technology transfer metrics framework. If necessary, Congress should consider clarifying statutory reporting authorities to enable consistent performance metrics across all Manufacturing USA institutes.

ROLES FOR THE ADVANCED MANUFACTURING NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE

AMNPO plays a central role in coordinating, aligning, and amplifying the work of the Manufacturing USA institutes. As technology transfer mechanisms mature across the network, AMNPO’s leadership and coordination are critical for ensuring that lessons learned, best practices, and performance data are shared efficiently and systematically. A strong, visible AMNPO presence also helps connect the institutes’ collective efforts to broader national goals for innovation, workforce development, and industrial competitiveness.

Building on the findings of this chapter, AMNPO’s leadership responsibilities encompass four interrelated functions:

1. Establishing frameworks and common definitions. AMNPO could provide clear, network-wide guidance on key concepts—such as technology transfer, scale-up, readiness levels, and commercialization—to promote a shared understanding across institutes and sponsoring agencies. Common definitions will reduce duplication, improve communication with policymakers and stakeholders, and ensure that performance assessments are comparable and transparent. Chapter 2 shows that coordinated national governance structures are central to international institute success, highlighting the strategic importance of AMNPO in providing cross-institute alignment and integrating technology transfer functions within a broader industrial strategy.
2. Coordinating shared resources and best practices. AMNPO could serve as a central hub for identifying, collecting, and disseminating effective models for technology transfer. This includes establishing a Technology Transfer Best Practices Office, modeled after the existing Education and Workforce Development best practices framework. The office would gather and distribute proven approaches to project management, industry engagement, intellectual-property management, and technology demonstration. As noted in Chapter 2, international benchmarks illustrate that systematic sharing of best practices, including pilot facilities, staffing models, and business-development processes, substantially increases network impact and reduces duplication. AMNPO could also facilitate peer-learning workshops, maintain a repository of case studies, and promote collaboration among institutes facing similar technical or organizational challenges. The effectiveness of pilot and scale-up facilities depends critically on the ability to recruit and retain highly skilled technical and operational staff. Short-term funding horizons create disincentives for experienced personnel to join or remain at institutes, particularly when hiring occurs several years into a fixed-term award. For pilot-scale operations that require continuity, institutional knowledge, and operational reliability, long-term staffing models supported by stable federal funding are essential. As stated in Chapter 2, entities such as the Interuniversitair Micro-Electronica Centrum VZW have demonstrated the benefits of such longer-term commitments.

3. Facilitating access to federal expertise and partner programs. AMNPO could coordinate with other federal agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE), DoD, National Institute of Standards and Technology/Department of Commerce (NIST/DOC), and National Science Foundation (NSF) to streamline institute access to technical expertise, funding opportunities, and standards-development resources. Where appropriate, AMNPO can also help broker partnerships with programs within NSF (e.g., Innovation Corps [I-Corps™] program, Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers program, and Engineering Research Centers program) for commercialization training or NIST’s MEP centers for regional technology deployment. These collaborations can accelerate technology maturation and diffusion across sectors.
4. Developing and maintaining network-wide data and metrics systems. Consistent with the recommendations of the prior section (“Measuring Success: Metrics and Evaluation”), AMNPO could lead the creation and ongoing refinement of a standardized metrics framework and secure data-sharing infrastructure for the Manufacturing USA network. This system could enable institutes to collect and report comparable information on technology transfer outcomes, including both leading and lagging indicators, while safeguarding proprietary or confidential data. The ability to benchmark performance across institutes will strengthen accountability and help demonstrate the return on public investment in advanced manufacturing.

Beyond these functional responsibilities, AMNPO also has an opportunity to champion long-term capacity building across the network. By promoting consistent definitions, data systems, and collaborative mechanisms, AMNPO can help sustain institutional knowledge even as individual institutes evolve. This continuity is critical to ensuring that the Manufacturing USA network remains adaptable, resilient, and aligned with national manufacturing priorities.

Although AMNPO has made significant progress in coordinating the Manufacturing USA network, opportunities remain to expand its leadership role in aligning institute practices, facilitating data sharing, and disseminating best practices. The absence of a formalized structure for coordinating technology transfer efforts limits the potential for collective impact across the network. These coordination responsibilities are closely tied to Chapter 5’s discussion of regional innovation ecosystems, as AMNPO’s national frameworks must enable institutes to translate technology transfer strategies into regionally grounded implementation models. Concerning technology transfer best practices, AMNPO, in collaboration with sponsoring agencies and institute leadership, could establish a formal mechanism such as a Technology Transfer Best Practices Office to coordinate, document, and disseminate effective models for technology transfer and scale-up. This office could collect and share lessons learned, promote the use of standardized definitions and metrics, and facilitate access to federal and private-sector expertise. AMNPO could also continue to strengthen cross-agency collaboration with DOE, DoD, NIST/DOC, NSF, and other partners to ensure that institutes benefit from the full range of federal resources available to support technology maturation, transfer, and commercialization.

Recommendation 3-6: Within a year, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office should establish a Technology Transfer Best Practices Office and formal cross-agency coordination mechanisms, building on lessons identified in previous National Academies and GAO studies of Manufacturing USA institutes.

The committee’s review of technology transfer and scale-up within the Manufacturing USA network underscores that effective coordination among institutes, agencies, and partners is essential for sustained national impact. AMNPO in conjunction with the proposed interagency directorate, as discussed in Chapter 4, provides the foundation for this coordination, but the continued success of the network depends on its ability to connect institutes not only through shared data and best practices but also through collaborative projects and cross-institute partnerships. Chapter 4 examines how networking across institutes and related programs can amplify these efforts, strengthen innovation ecosystems, and extend the reach of advanced manufacturing capabilities nationwide.