4

Cross-Institute and Cross-Agency Networking

The wide-ranging technical waterfront covered by the current Manufacturing USA institutes offers a number of opportunities for enhanced interagency engagement and institute networking to spur innovation. Although the committee found examples of interagency engagement with institutes and cross-institute networking, greater innovation and impact of technical solutions are important as engagement and networking are expanded.

INTERAGENCY ENGAGEMENT

Manufacturing strategy at the national level has been previously set by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) under the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.¹ Recent examples of this strategy have set high-level goals and objectives for agencies to work toward achieving, but do not generally direct funding for specific technologies or the means by which technologies are to be developed. For example, the most recent strategy does not address the role of the Manufacturing USA network in support of the strategy. Instead, individual agencies determine which technologies will best support their own missions within the strategy and how to go about development. In general, NSTC processes do not support detailed program coordination between agencies to develop an overall national strategy for the development, manufacture, and deployment of specific technologies. More robust national-level planning with detailed agency coordination on technology development would serve the nation better by concentrating resources and ensuring that all required stakeholders understand their role in meeting strategy goals.

___________________

¹National Science and Technology Council, 2022, National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/National-Strategy-for-Advanced-Manufacturing-10072022.pdf.

The institutes have generally been conceptualized, budgeted, competed, and managed by individual federal agencies. The agencies define the technical focus areas for institutes that will meet the needs of their specific missions. In this manner, the institutes are well aligned with the needs of the sponsoring agency, and there is excellent incentive for the sponsoring agency to set requirements, connect with applications, and facilitate technology transition. Industry, academia, and nonprofits have responded to agency requirements by proposing institute approaches and membership that meet their constituent’s needs. As noted in Chapter 2, the committee did not encounter international models where government did not set strategic direction for funding priorities. The committee concludes that an agency-centric funding model provides the best set of incentives for success in meeting mission priorities while incorporating industry interests, guidance, and solutions. However, interagency collaboration is currently difficult because formal policies, processes, and incentives for interagency collaboration that could provide synergistic benefits with broader, national impact are not built into the Manufacturing USA network.

In this agency-centric funding model, institutes were generally well-funded through their first agreement period, as the scope of an institute was originally envisioned. Institutes undergo periodic review for effectiveness and relevancy by the sponsoring agency. If an institute is continued upon successful review, consistent with an intent to promote institute self-sufficiency, funding is in nearly all cases reduced to a much smaller amount that can cover basic operating expenses as well as some technical projects. The institutes therefore must seek other funding streams to sustain themselves. These streams are typically awarded through single projects that have a specific agency application target. These projects may be awarded by another agency within the sponsoring department other than the original supporting agency. Although these projects no doubt have good payoff for the funding agency, they tend to drive the institutes’ efforts to nearer-term, more-focused applications.

The Manufacturing USA Strategic Plan published in December 2025 notes that in FY2023, “State, industry, and noncore federal funds contributed about $380 million to these activities, representing a 2.4:1 investment match to the core federal funds.”² Therefore, the federal investment was approximately $158 million. Further, the Manufacturing USA 2023 Annual Report states that in 2022, “the institutes attracted $307 million from state, federal, and private funds in addition to $109 million in base federal funding. This 2.8 to 1 investment match exceeds the program design of a 1-to-1 match, demonstrating how federal investment effectively catalyzes investment in industrial innovation.”³ It is a tribute to the effectiveness of the program that the investment match exceeds the program design match. However, $100–$160 million spending annually between three agencies’ discretionary funds for the Manufacturing USA program is

___________________

²Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, 2025, Manufacturing USA Program Strategic Plan, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce, p. 5, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ams/NIST.AMS.600-18.pdf

³Z. Brunner, 2024, Manufacturing USA 2023 Annual Report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, p. 4, https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.600-14.

significantly lower than the $1 billion-plus budgets for analogous programs of several international counterparts.

Conclusion 4-1: Based on the available evidence, the lack of dedicated, long-term institute funding runs the risk of reducing an institute’s ability to have broader industrial impact in addressing pervasive and/or higher-payoff technologies.

The committee found that the most widely cited example of interagency engagement by both agencies and institute directors was in the area of education and workforce development, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Workforce education has broad interest across the agencies, is a core mission of the institutes, is noncompetitive (i.e., limited intellectual property [IP] barriers), and the approaches developed can be more easily transitioned across technologies. Importantly, workforce education is a unique focus area in that agencies such as the Department of Defense (DoD) have allocated separate funding specifically for education projects. The spread of NextFlex’s FlexFactor® program, for example, is a success story that was dependent on highly effective interagency collaboration and cross-institute networking.^4,5

However, examples of interagency engagement on technology were sparse. Agencies and institute directors noted several barriers during the committee’s May 20, 2025, Manufacturing USA Interagency Engagement and Cross-Network Collaboration Workshop and in responses to the committee’s Institute Director Questionnaire:

• Diverse mission focuses of the sponsoring agencies can lead to divergent technical priorities.
• Inconsistent agreement terms and conditions, IP agreements, infrastructure, and funding mechanisms in different institutes impede seamless collaboration.
• Funding and/or personnel are insufficient for collaborative projects.
• Opportunity for technical overlap is limited.
• Levels of maturity of the institutes and of the maturity of the technologies they are pursuing differ.

During the interagency workshop, the committee identified a best practice within DoD that better positions institutes to operate across a broad range of stakeholders by tailoring agreement terms and conditions prior to solicitation. DoD initiated a process that identified the range of potential stakeholders (e.g., industry, agencies, transition partners, and nonprofits) likely to be engaged in a particular technology during solicitation development. Stakeholders provided input on the anticipated range of applications, funding sources, and technology transition paths, for example. This information allowed the DoD program manager to work with an agreements officer to tailor the terms and conditions to provide maximum flexibility in accommodating potentially unique

___________________

⁴Manufacturing USA, “Building Manufacturing Workforce Programs that Can Have a National Impact,^”https://www.manufacturingusa.com/studies/building-manufacturing-workforce-programs-can-have-national-impact

⁵This reference was added after release of the report to provide additional information on the program.

stakeholder characteristics and requirements prior to release of the solicitation. This tailored approach led to proposals that minimized some of the administrative friction cited previously by agencies and institute directors.

Translating technology advances for implementation at small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) is a high priority for the institutes but is fraught with difficulties, perhaps chief among them being bandwidth of the institutes themselves to reach a large number of manufacturers. In this regard, the Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute’s (ARM Institute’s) collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and Pennsylvania State University’s Digital Foundry at New Kensington, Pennsylvania, stands out as an example of a best practice.⁶ See Box 4-1. Several MEPs across the nation are ARM Institute members, including Catalyst Connection (Pennsylvania), TechSolve (Ohio), MassMEP (Massachusetts), MANTEC (Pennsylvania), FuzeHub (New York), and others. This type of approach leverages the resources available to support a notionally regional center to extend its reach nationally.

The ARM Institute is collocated and collaborates closely with Catalyst Connection, the MEP supporting southwestern Pennsylvania. The ARM Institute has held several interactive workshops in partnership with Catalyst Connection for SMMs, aiming to

___________________

⁶Institute Director Questionnaire Responses; Digital Foundry at New Kensington, https://digitalfoundrynk.com, accessed August 15; committee meeting with Sherri McCleary, Digital Foundry of New Kensington, August 12, 2025.

provide two of these workshops each year. Past workshop topics have included robotics for sanding and finishing, robotic welding, and robotics for visual inspection. These workshops convene expert speakers for presentations centered on the workshop topic, an exhibit hall of robotics suppliers, and robotics demonstrations. Each workshop has convened around 80 attendees. The ARM Institute and Catalyst Connection now host these as hybrid events, furthering the reach and impact of this series.

The committee found that while individual projects do provide tangible advances in manufacturing technology, the results are typically targeted to a very specific product application that can limit transferability of the technology more broadly.⁷ On the other hand, internationally sponsored manufacturing institutes are able to address larger, more ambitious projects that can have broader and deeper impact. For example, as discussed in Chapter 2, these can be in the range of $30 million and bring multiple institutes, industry, and academic partners together to solve a large technical challenge facing manufacturers.

COLLABORATION WITH FEDERAL LABORATORIES

Federal laboratories provide a rich resource for collaborative efforts with the institutes but are presently underutilized for a variety of reasons. Their deep technical expertise, access to world-class facilities, and long-term R&D can provide critical support to institute projects.

Note that there are several key differences between DoD, Department of Commerce (DOC), and Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories in their ability to easily engage with the institutes. In general, DoD and DOC laboratories, which are government owned and operated, do not have a mandate for full cost recovery from collaborative efforts with the institutes; DOE’s national laboratories do, as a requirement of their contracts with DOE. Thus, DoD and DOC laboratories may be able to provide any required in-kind cost sharing more readily. Additionally, each DOE national laboratory has contractual terms and conditions under which it operates that can create administrative friction when interfacing with the terms and conditions imposed by collaborative efforts with the institutes. While DoD and DOC laboratories must comply with federal and agency laws and regulations, there are no additional contractual terms and conditions that could create barriers to collaboration.

During the interagency workshop, some national laboratory leaders cited their contract’s management and operating terms and conditions with DOE as being, at times, inconsistent with membership and IP agreements with institutes, making collaboration with the institutes difficult or even intractable. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has worked with DOE to modify the terms and conditions for its management and operations contract to facilitate collaboration with the institutes. The committee views this proactive approach to modifying contractual arrangements to facilitate collaboration a best practice.

___________________

⁷Committee meeting with Dr. Philip Freeman, Senior Technical Fellow, Boeing Research and Technology, July 1, 2025; Institute Director Questionnaire Responses.

Several leaders from national laboratories noted during the interagency workshop that the cost-sharing requirement for the institutes makes it difficult for them to participate in collaborative projects, making their capabilities inaccessible. For example, the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) and INL maintain unique testbed laboratories, called ARIES (Advanced Research for Integrated Energy Systems) and Integrated Energy Systems, respectively, that are able to test megawatt-class, integrated electrical power and heat systems. The Electrified Processes for Industrial eXCellence institute is developing suites of technologies for manufacturing plants that could be effectively demonstrated with integrated testing in these facilities, but the cost of using the facilities is prohibitive as neither the institute nor the laboratory is able to cover these costs. The committee took note of a couple of best practices that address this challenge. In the first, the Collaborative Ecosystems for Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CESMII) worked with DOE to provide funds directed to the national laboratories for the purpose of collaboration on CESMII projects. In another best practice, NLR is able to leverage funding provided by the state of Colorado to collaborate with institute projects. Several of the federal and national laboratory participants in the interagency workshop noted that they are not able to meet, or justify, the cost-sharing match requirement for education and workforce development projects and suggested that these types of projects could be exempt from requiring cost sharing.

CROSS-INSTITUTE NETWORKING

Although there may not be, nor should there be, universal opportunities for collaboration between all institutes, it was evident that collaboration between institutes is not commonplace. The committee concludes that increasing the level of collaboration on joint projects would achieve the maximum impact on U.S. manufacturing by offering more integrated solutions, particularly to SMMs. A good example of a cross-institute collaboration (cited in a response to the committee’s institute director questionnaire) is on a project called BIO INSPECT (BIOlogical, Integrated, Novel, Silicon Photonics for Efficient Characterization and Testing), where AIM Photonics is working with BioFabUSA to automate processes that turn human stem cells into pancreatic islets that can be used to treat diabetes. In this project, AIM Photonics uses its expertise in optoelectronics to apply photonic integrated circuits–based sensors to in-process monitoring, while BioFabUSA employs its competency in biofabrication for cell production. The major benefit will be to make the islet production a more predictable and better-controlled process. Agencies and institute directors alike cited technology roadmap and standards development as high-impact outputs of the Manufacturing USA network. The committee noted a best practice in the co-development by Manufacturing x Digital (MxD) and America Makes of a joint technology roadmap for additive manufacturing that includes a secure data framework and use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the qualification of additively manufactured parts. It took the competencies engaged in both institutes to generate integrated roadmaps.

Both agency representatives and institute directors cited the same barriers listed previously for interagency engagement as barriers to cross-institute collaboration: differing mission focuses, administrative barriers, insufficient funding and/or staff, limited technical overlap, and differing maturity levels of the institutes. Some agency and institute representatives indicated that, because of limited funding and adjacency of technologies for some institutes, there could be a sense of competition between institutes. This sense of competition was most notable among those institutes that were concentrated on digitally native technologies. Furthermore, the committee did not find evidence of substantial incentives for institutes to collaborate and only observed limited encouragement for collaboration across agencies.

The MEP Enterprise Information System (MEIS) is used by the MEP National Network to track and report on the performance of its centers and the services they provide to U.S. manufacturers. MEIS enables the collection, tracking, and reporting of data related to MEP center activities, including services delivered, clients served, center staff, expenses, revenues, and more.⁸ It also facilitates the reporting of client impact data, such as new and retained sales, jobs, and cost savings. It is a relational database that links company profiles to discrete activities, allowing for detailed tracking and analysis. It also includes features for updating staff, locations, contacts, and roles, as well as for managing survey results and validating outlier data, and can interface with other systems including Customer Relationship Management systems such as Sales-Force. For the Manufacturing USA network, a system similar to MEIS could help to support data-driven decision making, program evaluation, impact, and accountability, as well as help support collaboration across institutes.

Dealing with Ineffective Interagency Strategic Planning and Coordination

There is currently no formal process for agency decision authorities to participate in interagency budget planning, coordination, and alignment for the purpose of meeting national manufacturing strategic priorities. A newly established Interagency Council could develop this process for the Manufacturing USA network. This body could consist of the Associate Director for Innovation and Industry Services (NIST), the Assistant Secretary of Energy (Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation), and the Director, Technology Innovation for the Industrial Base (DoD). Such a body would develop and, on an ongoing basis, update and implement a strategy that would (1) align national priorities in manufacturing with manufacturing institute programs and investments across the agencies, as consistent with the recommendations in this report; (2) identify critical technology areas where agency funding is required to meet industry needs; and (3) coordinate agency investments to maximize cross-agency and cross-institute technology efforts

___________________

⁸National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2016, Reporting Guidelines: Center Operations, Job Accelerator, Make It in America, M-TAC, and B2B Network, January 1, Department of Commerce, https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2018/08/24/nist_mep_6.4_car_reporting-guidelines-080117.pdf; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2019, Privacy Impact Assessment for the 480-01 MEP Enterprise Information System (MEIS), Department of Commerce, https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/opog/NIST_480-01_PIA_SAOP_Approved_FY21.pdf.

leveraging the institutes’ reach and resources. The Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO) would support this body in analysis, coordination, execution, and strategy development.

The key to successful interagency engagement is maintaining positive relationships among all the institutes and taking an entrepreneurial approach to building these relationships that will enable a seamless transfer of assistance to industry, a strong ethic of shared benefit and being able to strive for aggregate reach for achieving a higher level of mission at a cost saving to taxpayers. The Interagency Council would be able to measure success as purposeful collaboration of complementary technologies which would allow their members to get a full range of support to grow multiple aspects of their R&D needs and gain the ability to increase effectiveness nationally.

Recommendation 4-1: Within the next 2 years, Manufacturing USA institute-sponsoring agencies (currently Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Defense) should create an Interagency Council as a formal, overarching directive body to set an integrated strategy for the Manufacturing USA institutes.⁹

Dealing with Differences Within and Across Agencies

Differences between the terms and conditions of various agency agreements, institute IP agreements (consistent with industry-sector practices), challenges with exchanging funds between agencies, and differences in data-sharing policies create barriers to both interagency engagement as well as inter-institute networking.

Recommendation 4-2: The Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, working with the Interagency Council and sponsoring agencies, should establish harmonized procurement, funds-transfer, intellectual-property, and data-management policies that enable seamless collaboration across agencies and institutes. This effort should be undertaken in consultation with the U.S. Manufacturing Innovation Council, as appropriate, and aim for harmonized policies and processes by 2030.

Dealing with Competing Institute and Agency Missions

As each institute is sponsored by a single federal agency, which provides the majority of the institute’s federal funding, agencies place first priority on their mission areas when funding and setting technical priorities for the institutes they sponsor. This model generally works well by driving institute connection with specific agency needs and technology transition to stakeholders. However, it can also create either real or perceived barriers to interagency collaboration and cross-institute networking with little incentive to overcome barriers. Additionally, limits to federal funding and adjacency of

___________________

⁹This sentence was changed after release of the report to clarify that the recommendation applies to all institute-sponsoring agencies.

some technology areas covered by the institutes can create a real or perceived competitive environment within the Manufacturing USA network. The lack of cross-institute collaboration to develop integrated packages of advanced manufacturing technologies limits the ability of institutes to provide meaningful support to SMMs, a core Manufacturing USA constituency that has been slow in adopting advanced manufacturing.

Recommendation 4-3: By 2030, Congress should appropriate funding on par with comparable international programs to the Manufacturing USA institutes to create an interagency initiative that would competitively award dedicated funds to incentivize cross-institute collaboration by addressing grand challenges in manufacturing. A project source selection team should comprise representatives from the Manufacturing USA institute-sponsoring agencies (currently Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Defense) to ensure broad applicability across mission spaces and alignment with national manufacturing priorities.¹⁰

An initiative specifically focused on interagency and inter-institute collaboration would better promote innovation at the cross section of technologies. Additional funding beyond current levels would be needed to enable a focus on integration of technologies across institutes that would provide broad and impactful capabilities and make them more accessible to SMMs. The network could consider using MEPs as a source of requirements and coordinate this development with MEP to better ensure access by SMMs to these packages. This could enhance institute effectiveness, sustainability, and impact by providing additional stakeholders and resources to the network. The Digital Foundries model in southwestern Pennsylvania also provides an approach for dissemination of these integrated packages to SMMs that institutes could move to adopt.

Recommendation 4-4: The Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office should work with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to create a process by 2030 that ensures that these integrated packages of advanced manufacturing technologies developed by institutes are disseminated to MEPs nationwide for implementation by small and medium-sized manufacturers.

Digitally Native Manufacturing Technologies

There are tremendous technological needs, integration points, and standards that are pervasive across digitally native manufacturing technologies. To address these, an integrated strategy is needed across the Manufacturing USA network to chart a path forward. Such a focus would help clarify roles and responsibilities across the digitally

___________________

¹⁰This recommendation was changed after the release of the report to clarify the budgetary reference and to clarify that the recommendation applies to all institute-sponsoring agencies.

focused institutes, whose technologies are also largely horizontal (i.e., ARM Institute, CESMII, Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute, and MxD), to promote multidisciplinary innovation across the Manufacturing USA network, broaden considerations of cybersecurity across all the institutes, and address data management policies and standards across the network and industry. When considering cross-institute collaboration, it is recommended that institutes focused on horizontal technologies (e.g., crosscutting) take the leading role.

Recommendation 4-5: Within the next 2 years, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, in coordination with the Interagency Council, should lead an interagency effort to develop a robust strategy specifically focused on digital manufacturing across the Manufacturing USA network.

Reaching Small Manufacturers

Institutes are hampered in reaching a greater number of SMMs, given limitations in the number of technical personnel and funding resources available within the institutes. Leveraging federal programs, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and state programs has proven to be effective in expanding institute impact.

Recommendation 4-6: Within the next 2 years, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, in coordination with the Interagency Council, should create a multiprong strategy that enhances use of the Manufacturing USA network’s capabilities across federal and state government agencies and small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs), including coordination with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership network, and provides resources as to how agencies and SMMs can work with institutes to enhance interagency engagement.

The strategy could include collaboration with MEP to develop and provide organic resources to make SMMs more aware of the Manufacturing USA network institutes and how best to work with them. In turn, AMNPO and other sponsoring agencies for institutes could develop at institutes a better understanding of needs for SMMs in their industrial sector. Development of internal technical expertise to offer an organic technical capability to assist SMMs could be encouraged within the institutes to aid technology translation to SMMs. At the same time, institutes could simplify their engagement processes and standardize outreach practices to ensure clear, consistent, and easily navigable entry points for stakeholders.

Collaboration Between Institutes and National Laboratories

Collaboration between the institutes and DOE’s national laboratory system can be challenging due to the laboratories’ requirement for cost reimbursement and lack of dedicated project funding available to the national laboratories to work with the institutes.

Some institutes have successfully worked with DOE-allocated funding specifically to be used for collaboration with the laboratories. Established DOE programs, such as its High-Performance Computing for Advanced Manufacturing, provide competition-based resources that could provide a model to enhance collaboration between its laboratories and the institutes. Additionally, the terms and conditions in national laboratory management and operations contracts can present barriers to collaboration, given incompatible institute project agreement terms and conditions.

Recommendation 4-7: Within the next 2 years, the Department of Energy (DOE) should work with national laboratories to explore modifying management and operations contractual agreements to be compatible with institute agreement terms and conditions. Additionally, DOE should make funding available to national laboratories for the specific purpose of collaborating with institutes on DOE priority projects.