6

Workforce Education and Development

It has long been understood that without a trained and skilled workforce fluent in advanced manufacturing, those technologies simply cannot be adopted.

The American manufacturing workforce was cut by about one-third in the decade of the 2000s, and, as noted in Chapter 1, employment in the sector remains far below the year 2000 level.¹ At the same time, manufacturing wages were stagnating. Manufacturing production workers have long held a wage premium over other workers, but that wage premium has declined significantly since 2003.² These declines have led the public to conclude that manufacturing was not a secure base for career employment, discouraging entry into manufacturing work. This has contributed to an aging manufacturing workforce; estimates are that there is a current shortfall in manufacturing employment of some 500,000, with a need for close to 2 million workers by 2033.³ Sixty percent of manufacturers in a late 2024 survey expressed talent acquisition and retention as their top challenges.⁴ These concerns about manufacturing careers and the potential manufacturing workforce shortages emphasize the need for new workforce education strategies where Manufacturing USA institutes could play an important role.

___________________

¹Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), All Employees Manufacturing, 1940–2024 (table), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1TLxD.

²J. Elvery and J. Dunn, 2021, Manufacturing Wage Premiums Have Diverged Between Production and Non-Production Workers, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Regional Policy Report, November 8, https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/regional-policy-report/2021/rpr-20211109-manufacturing-wage-premiums-have-diverged-between-production-and-nonproduction-workers.

³J. Coykendall, V. Reyes, K. Hardin, and J. Morehouse, 2024, Taking Charge: Manufacturers Support Growth with Active Workforce Strategies, April 5, Figure 2, Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, https://themanufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Digital_Skills_Report_April_2024.pdf.

⁴National Academy of Manufacturing, 2024, 2024 Fourth Quarter Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey, https://nam.org/2024-fourth-quarter-manufacturers-outlook-survey.

Improved workforce education is vital to advanced manufacturing because it can enable a pipeline of workers with the skills to operate, maintain, and innovate with complex emerging manufacturing technologies in such areas as robotics, data analysis, digital production, and new materials. The great majority of manufacturing firm leaders believe that smart factory solutions will be key to their future competitiveness⁵ and offers an opportunity to restore productivity growth and corresponding competitiveness innovation to U.S. production. The traditional means to grow productivity adopted by the U.S. manufacturing industry is through investment in and implementation of new capital plants and equipment. However, the other way to raise productivity is through investment in workforce. Unless the United States invests in both, it is not likely to get the productivity offered by either. In other words, the potential gains of new advanced manufacturing technology and processes will not be realized without significant workforce capability improvements to implement those technologies and processes.

WORKFORCE EDUCATION CHALLENGE IN THE UNITED STATES

Despite the importance of workforce education for the implementation of advanced manufacturing, the U.S. workforce education system as a whole, particularly the technical workforce, is not well positioned to respond.

There is a history of deep, underlying problems in U.S. workforce education. For the technical manufacturing workforce, there is a major “work–learn” barrier because schools and jobs are disconnected, community colleges lack resources, most vocational education ended in the 1970s and 1980s, apprenticeships are largely missing, labor markets lack an efficient information system, the Departments of Labor and Education lack programs to upskill incumbent workers, there is only a limited curriculum in advanced manufacturing skills, small manufacturers in particular lack the skilled talent for advanced manufacturing, online workforce education is limited, and technical manufacturing workers lack solid career paths that would encourage entry. For engineering professionals in manufacturing, the United States has long separated engineers doing design from factory floors, there is limited manufacturing content in engineering curricula, and there is limited online professional-level courseware in advanced manufacturing.⁶ There are, then, major challenges in advanced manufacturing workforce education at both technical and professional levels, although the primary focus of this chapter and most institutes is on the technical workforce where the problems are greater.

___________________

⁵T. Gaus and M. Schlotterbeck, 2025, “2025 Smart Manufacturing and Operations Survey: Navigating Challenges to Implementation,” Deloitte, May 1, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/manufacturing-industrial-products/2025-smart-manufacturing-survey.html.

⁶For a program aimed at manufacturing engineering education, see 10 U.S.C. 2196, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title10-section2196&num=0&edition=2000. See also NASEM, 2023, Infusing Advanced Manufacturing into Undergraduate Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26773.

Workforce Education as a Core but Underfunded Manufacturing Institute Mission

The importance of addressing workforce education has long been understood as a manufacturing challenge. Workforce education was one of the four priorities from the outset of Manufacturing USA (along with creating new production technologies, serving as proving grounds for such technologies, and supporting deployment of these technologies).⁷ It was recommended as a core policy in the 2012 and 2014 reports to the President made by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, an industry–university–labor commission that recommended the advanced manufacturing institute program to the President.⁸ Workforce was one of the four core priorities in the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act, which authorized the Manufacturing USA program.⁹ And it has been emphasized repeatedly as a core goal in Manufacturing USA Strategic Plans, including the 2024 plan.¹⁰ Workforce education, therefore, has long been recognized as a critical element in the Manufacturing USA institute program. Given the nature of the manufacturing workforce challenges listed previously, there is a need for transformational workforce programs to implement advanced manufacturing. Although a core manufacturing institute mission, workforce education programs at institutes have suffered from limited resources.

Typically, Manufacturing USA institutes, which are trying to mount quality programs in high-cost areas such as advanced technology development or providing technology demonstration facilities, will be able to muster only a few million dollars (often ≤5 percent of annual institute budgets) for their annual workforce education efforts. This inevitably has led to small numbers of relatively modest education programs at institutes. Institutes will often concentrate their limited funding on two or three particular programs, but because of insufficient funding, they cannot mount comprehensive programs addressing the range of workforce issues.

The resource issues are further exacerbated by the funding situation that most institutes have now faced after the end of their initial 5-year terms. Institutes have been funded with federal cost sharing that ranges between $50 million and $70 million for their initial 5-year terms. While the initial approach for institutes was to assume that they could be self-sustaining after 5 years, that approach broke down because their only likely

___________________

⁷M. Molnar, S. Linder, and M. Shuart, 2016, “Building a New Partnership—the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,” presentation to the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing, April 29.

⁸Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, 2012, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing,” July 21–23, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, pp. x–xi, 28–36, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/pdfs/pcast_july2012.pdf; Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Steering Committee, 2014, Report to the President on Accelerating US Advanced Manufacturing, October, pp. 30–32, https://www.manufacturingusa.com/sites/manufacturingusa.com/files/amp20_report_final.pdf.

⁹U.S. Congress, House, 2014, Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation (RAMI) Act of 2014, H.R. 2996, 113th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2996.

¹⁰National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024, Strategic Plan for the Manufacturing USA Institutes, August, AMS 600-15, Department of Commerce, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ams/NIST.AMS.600-15.pdf.

source of continuing nonfederal support would be large firms. However, those firms had limited ability to fund institute programs that did not directly benefit them, for example, workforce education outside their firms. After detailed program evaluations, two of the federal agencies sponsoring institutes (Department of Commerce [DOC] and Department of Defense [DoD]) elected to renew the terms of their institutes, although DoD has provided much lower core funding for its institutes for their second terms. DOE has only recently developed a renewal process for some institutes, also with limited funding, and now faces major funding reductions. This limited funding after initial terms has further curtailed institute workforce education support. Member firms are less willing to share workforce development costs unless they directly benefit—a flaw in the funding model that can only be corrected by sustaining the federal program share. While project cost sharing by industry can work on technology development, it is much less workable for workforce projects because of this employer issue. While workforce education funding during an institute’s first 5 years rarely exceeded 5 percent of its total funding, funding pressure after terms were renewed was even tighter. This pressures workforce education directors at institutes to spend their time chasing grants as opposed to implementing programs, a further problem. Workforce outcomes are also inherently longer term and harder to quantify than technology development deliverables. This means that when competing priorities create pressure on an institute’s overall budget, workforce development resources are structurally vulnerable. Workforce development is therefore a required institute function where every institute faces the same resource constraint, regardless of technology focus, sponsoring agency, or technology maturity stage.

Gradual Adoption of Shared Programs Across Institutes

There are growing efforts at institutes, however, to offset limited resources through cross-institute collaborations. Some have developed a model where one institute pioneers a program and funds its initial build-out, and then other institutes pick it up without having to fund its initial development and can increase its impact. For example, some institutes share a program to develop interest among high school-level students in advanced manufacturing. Another example is efforts to develop a common portal for sharing online programs in manufacturing skills. Although this shared program approach is not yet systematic, it has promise.

In addition, there are periodic meetings hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO) for institute workforce education that lead to sharing best practices and project ideas, which is helping to foster a community of thinking on workforce issues. AMNPO has also begun cross-institute collaborations on an overall advanced manufacturing credentialing system and on methods to better track outcomes from institute workforce programs.

Integration with regional educational institutions, including community colleges and state workforce programs, offers another opportunity to share limited resources. In addition, some institutes have been able to obtain workforce funding from other education programs at their sponsoring agencies. This has particularly been the case for DoD-sponsored institutes.

Overall, program sharing across institutes and regionally offers opportunities for offsetting limited resources.

BEST PRACTICES IN WORKFORCE EDUCATION ADOPTED AT MANUFACTURING INSTITUTES

Despite the resource challenges they face, and the deep problems in U.S. workforce education discussed previously, Manufacturing USA institutes have developed a range of approaches. Many aim to fill gaps in a manufacturing context in the overall workforce education system. Preferably, each institute could offer a mix of programs across a broad framework of workforce needs. That framework would include efforts in the following categories:

1. Develop advanced manufacturing curricula,
2. Develop online education,
3. Create advanced manufacturing credentials,
4. Support workforce education delivery,
5. Collaborate across institutes, and
6. Broaden the manufacturing talent base.

However, as noted previously, workforce education has not been resourced to allow each institute to tackle more than a few workforce projects. Nonetheless, a number of best practices have been developed that create potential models for more broad-based approaches.¹¹ Several individual programs are having impacts, including through collaborations with other institutes. Some of the best practices within this framework are summarized next.

Develop Advanced Manufacturing Curricula

The best-practice programs in this category attempt to counter a number of the underlying structural problems in the overall U.S. workforce education system identified in the previous section, particularly the limited curricula available for advanced manufacturing skills, but also the limited programs available for incumbent workers, and the limited vocational education still available.

Create Educational Curricula: Manufacturing USA institutes are well positioned to address a significant gap in manufacturing workforce education by developing curricula tailored to the new advanced manufacturing technologies they support. By leveraging the competencies and skill roadmaps (noted next) that they identify within their industries, these institutes can collaborate with industry experts and educational institutions to create training materials and courses that align with current needs and

___________________

¹¹This section is drawn from W.B. Bonvillian, 2022, The Playbook, for Workforce Education at Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, DoD ManTech, January 10.

insights. For example, LIFT with Manufacturing x Digital (MxD) and America Makes have undertaken curricula development.

Develop Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities and Competencies: To create educational curricula and related materials, Manufacturing USA institutes must define a comprehensive set of knowledge, skills, and abilities (a process known as “KSA”)—clear descriptions of what is required to build an advanced manufacturing technology skill set. Additionally, they need to establish the corresponding competencies, which are the specific skills an individual must possess to perform a job effectively. Projects at LIFT’s Ignite, BioFab, and the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), for example, have undertaken this.

Form Skill Roadmaps: To support and implement educational programs in their respective technology fields, Manufacturing USA institutes must create data-driven skill roadmaps that align with regional and national skill demands. It is important that these institutes ensure that their technology and workforce roadmaps are synchronized so the development of workforce skills keeps pace with technological advancements. The American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics) and MxD are examples of institutes that have developed skill roadmaps. Overall, in developing curricula, it is important that these efforts have major input from industry which should be involved in active advisory groups helping to guide content.

Develop Online Education

The best-practice programs in this category take on issues noted in the second part of this chapter, particularly the need for more online education for advanced manufacturing, given the need to scale up these offerings. Because of online education’s wide availability and the ability to use it at the individual’s pace, it also helps counter the lack of programs for incumbent workers as well as the limited course material available in advanced manufacturing.

Use Online Venue as a Tool to Scale Workforce Education: The technologies supported by Manufacturing USA institutes are emerging and rapidly expanding, but the existing workforce education system has been slow to scale up to meet this need. Educational institutions together with manufacturers can leverage online education to reach and train larger numbers of potential workers. Although manufacturing education must be for a significant part hands-on to convey particular skills, online elements can complement and reinforce this content. And with new computer simulations and augmented reality (AR) and/or virtual reality (VR) tools, more of the hands-on content can move online over time.¹² As part of their educational initiatives, manufacturing innovation institutes can develop online learning materials that are both scalable and can be tailored to specific audiences. For example, AIM Photonics has online courses in photonics design at the professional level, ARM Institute has a searchable roboticscareers.org site with links to

___________________

¹²See, for example, A.M. Al-Ansi, M. Jaboob, A. Garad, and A. Al-Ansi, 2023, Analyzing Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) Recent Development in Education, Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8(1): 100532, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100532.

numerous robotic online training materials, and America Makes has developed additive manufacturing courses available through Tooling U-SME.

Create Advanced Manufacturing Credentials

Programs in this area directly address the workforce education problem, identified in the “Workforce Education Challenge in the United States” section of this chapter, of the broken information system that disrupts labor market efficiency including in manufacturing. They also help make up for the limited availability of vocational education.

Support Credentialing: The United States lacks an effective workforce information system, weakening the overall labor market. Employers often do not have reliable information on the skills that candidates possess, workers are unsure of which skills they need to develop, and educational institutions lack clear direction on what to teach. Industry-recognized credentials can help address this disconnect by offering proof of qualifications for employers, giving workers transferable skills, and guiding educators on relevant curriculum content. Technology companies such as Microsoft and Cisco successfully developed credentialing systems for their information technology platforms, which played a key role in their widespread adoption. Manufacturing USA institutes can take a similar path by assessing existing industry-recognized credentials in their fields and collaborating with industry and education partners to address any gaps or develop new credentials. Where solid, industry-recognized credentials exist, institutes can work with them. For example, ARM Institute certifies or endorses education institutions for robotics programs, and America Makes supports credentials in additive manufacturing.

Support Workforce Education Delivery

Programs in this category reach a series of workforce education problems noted in the “Workforce Education Challenge in the United States” section of this chapter. These include limited vocational education, limited programs for incumbent workers. limited curricula and programs in advanced manufacturing, the need for an improved career pathway in manufacturing, and the need for groups of companies rather than single firms to collaborate in offering workforce solutions. The apprenticeship and internship programs specifically noted in the next discussion help tackle this missing link in the gap between education and workforce as the specific need for apprenticeships efforts. Programs include:

Support Regional Collaborations for Implementation: Partnerships with state and local governments, regional industries, Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, and educational institutions will be essential for expanding the reach of institute workforce development programs. Taking a regional approach helps ensure that these efforts align with local needs and priorities, while successful regional pilots can serve as models for national implementation. In engaging firms, it is generally more productive to engage with groups of firms, which tends to be a more enduring and resilient approach than with single firms. Examples include ARM Institute, NextFlex, America Makes, and NIIMBL, which runs a major annual conference with industry including projects on workforce education.

Support Apprenticeships and Internships: In today’s economy, the transition from education to employment is often difficult and uneven, causing many students to miss out on fulfilling career opportunities. To bridge this work–learn gap, there is an increasing need for internships and apprenticeships, as discussed further in Recommendation 6-5. Manufacturing innovation institutes can play a vital role in initiating and supporting these programs, while also ensuring that their advanced technologies are integrated into the experience. Numerous institutes have internships and apprenticeships, including BioFab and the Apprenticeship Carolina program.

Use Demonstration Labs for Education: Developing a skilled workforce in advanced manufacturing still depends heavily on hands-on learning. As part of their regional initiatives, many Manufacturing USA institutes have created labs equipped with cutting-edge technologies and process expertise. These labs can function both as practical workforce training centers as well as hubs for technology demonstration and prototyping to support local industry. Examples include programs at LIFT and AIM Photonics. Hands-on facilities with the advanced equipment for topics being taught can provide significant support for workforce efforts.

Train the Trainers: Instructors at community colleges, high schools, and within industry will need to gain proficiency in emerging manufacturing technologies in order to teach these topics. Manufacturing USA institutes can play a key role by providing “train-the-trainer” programs in their manufacturing technologies. Online education could be an effective method for delivering this training at scale. America Makes provides an example of this. Train-the-trainer programs are a key attribute of solid programs.

Create “Technologists” from Skilled Technicians: Technical career paths in manufacturing tend to be stove-piped and limited. As noted in the first part of this chapter, technicians tend to be trained in a particular skill—welding or computer numerical control (CNC) machining, for example—and spend their careers in these categories. They are trained for their machines and stay there—there is no career advancement path. Yet advanced manufacturing calls for individual machines to be incorporated much more into a system, taking advantage of digital production technologies, data analytics, and potentially artificial intelligence (AI) to drive new efficiencies and productivity. However, the job of operating this system has not yet really been created. A new category some call the “technologist” is needed, training talented technicians from the shop floor in these new systems skills including advanced manufacturing skills. This in turn could lead to a new, more solid career path in manufacturing with continuing opportunities for advancement. Importantly, the task of manufacturing workforce education programs is not only to reach new entrant workers but to significantly upskill the existing workforce to work with the new manufacturing technologies. The technologist approach is an important potential mechanism to reach this critical group of workers. Although no Manufacturing USA institutes as yet have developed programs to do this, a technologist curriculum has been created and a pilot project with DoD funding is being run to test it, which could be adopted by institutes.¹³ The program

___________________

¹³J. Liu and W.B. Bonvillian, 2024, “The Technologist,” Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, https://issues.org/technologist-advanced-manufacturing-workforce-liu-bonvillian.

includes development of key competencies supported by defined coursework and hands-on experiences (apprenticeships, internships).

Educate Entrepreneurs: The United States has traditionally depended on start-ups to drive technological innovation, but the number of new manufacturing start-ups has dropped significantly. Entrepreneur education programs can play a role in fostering start-ups within an institute’s technology area—especially when those technologies are some distance from broad adoption in workplaces. Institutes can support this effort by tapping into existing entrepreneurship programs or by creating new ones tailored to their focus areas: Advanced Functional Fabrics of America provides an example of this kind of program.

Collaborate Across Institutes

Programs developed in this area help offset the resource problems that institute workforce programs face, as identified early in this chapter, as well as multiplying the effects that institutes can have on advanced manufacturing workforce needs.

Share Workforce Education Programs Across Institutes: Given the limited resources available to Manufacturing USA institutes for workforce education, institutes can expand their reach by sharing workforce initiatives across institutes. An institute can develop a workforce program, build and test it, and other institutes can ally or replicate it without the initial development costs. NextFlex and LIFT provide examples of these practices. As noted previously, NIST’s program office is also leading a consortia of institutes in developing programs to be shared by all institutes around workforce credentialing and metrics for tracking student performance.

Broaden the Manufacturing Talent Base

The first part of this chapter noted the issues in attracting talent to the manufacturing workforce, and programs in this category try to help address this. They also try to address problems of the work–learn barrier, limited vocational education, and problems with the labor market information system. Particularly important is not only new entrant workers but also reaching incumbent workers with advanced manufacturing skills so they can support the introduction of new manufacturing technologies.

Build Awareness of Advanced Manufacturing: In the 2000s, American manufacturing lost 5.8 million jobs—a blow to the middle class that also shaped public perception. As a result, many students and, importantly, their parents began to view manufacturing as an unpromising career path. Today, however, with a rapidly aging workforce, some 2 million manufacturing jobs are projected to become available in the next decade. To meet this demand, Manufacturing USA institutes must help attract new talent equipped with advanced skills. As part of their skill demand analysis and road-mapping efforts, it is critical that they evaluate both current and future workforce needs and develop targeted strategies to raise awareness about opportunities in advanced manufacturing, at both the high school and college undergraduate levels. NextFlex has built a program at the high school level, supported by additional institutes that now operate in a number of states; NIIMBL’s BioLogic introductory program for biomanufacturing works at the high school and college levels.

Reach Additional Workers and Communities: With an aging workforce and rising number of retirements, job openings in manufacturing are expected to increase significantly. Current estimates noted previously suggest a shortage of 500,000 workers, which could grow to 2 million by 2033. To address this gap, manufacturers must broaden their outreach to untapped talent pools and underserved communities. Collaborating with industry partners, community colleges, and high school programs will be essential to expanding and strengthening the manufacturing workforce. LIFT’s Ignite program and NextFlex provide examples of outreach activities that are an important part of workforce development initiatives.

Reach Separating Service Members and Veterans: Manufacturers are facing a shortage of skilled workers, and Manufacturing USA institutes have a valuable opportunity to help close this gap by training veterans and transitioning service members into advanced manufacturing. Many of these individuals already possess strong technical skills from their military experience, making them well-suited for careers in the sector. DoD-sponsored institutes, with their ties to the military and expertise in relevant manufacturing technologies, are well-positioned to engage this talent pool. Scalable solutions—such as online training programs—can help extend the reach of these efforts. LIFT’s Operation Next first developed this approach.

Engage with Defense Depots, Arsenals, and Shipyards: DoD employs more than 80,000 civilian personnel across its major depots, arsenals, and shipyards to maintain and service aircraft, combat vehicles, ships, and other critical equipment. These depots compete with the private sector for highly skilled workers, even as retirements among their workforce continue to rise and more employees become eligible to retire. Partnering with these depots and facilities presents an opportunity to secure additional funding for workforce program development and to train military-employed personnel in advanced manufacturing technologies. For example, ARM Institute works in this area.

To summarize this section, despite resource constraints, a significant number of institutes have worked in recent years to develop successful workforce programs for advanced manufacturing that help fill gaps in the workforce system. The best practices launched by individual institutes enumerated previously create a potential model for a more broad-based effort by institutes. This could aim at implementing program elements across the framework identified previously: developing advanced manufacturing curricula, developing online education, creating advanced manufacturing credentials, supporting workforce education delivery, collaborating across institutes, and broadening the manufacturing talent base.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Adopt Best Practices Using a New Competitive Funding Mechanism

After a decade of program development, many institutes have developed successful programs that deserve emulation across other institutes. These include programs to

• develop advanced manufacturing curricula (including developing knowledge–skills–awareness sets and competencies and skill road-mapping),
• develop online education,

• create advanced manufacturing credentials,
• support workforce education delivery (including supporting regional collaborations and internships and apprenticeships; using demonstration labs; creating technologists from technicians, and educating entrepreneurs),
• collaborate across institutes, and
• broaden the manufacturing talent base (including broadening manufacturing awareness, reaching additional workers and communities, upskilling incumbent workers, reaching veterans and separating service members, and engaging with depots, arsenals, and shipyards).

Replicating best practices from other institutes can avoid initial program development costs and help institutes adopt the broader range of programs that they need to address additional aspects of workforce education needs beyond the programs they currently offer. A new funding mechanism to help scale up these options could accelerate their implementation. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, NIST obtained a block of funding, and institutes competed for it to implement relevant programs; such a mechanism could be applied to this effort. But institutes need to move from providing one to three workforce education programs to a much more comprehensive offering.

There is a second and related issue that needs addressing as part of this effort: regional collaborations. U.S. manufacturing is inherently local and regional; different manufacturing sectors have built strengths in different regions, and workforce education programs need to be geared to these different regional strengths and needs. Manufacturing USA institutes themselves have combined goals: developing new manufacturing technologies and processes to be available nationally and implementing them regionally. Since a skilled workforce is a prerequisite for adoption of advanced manufacturing, collaborations on workforce education, including with regional manufacturing firms, community colleges, secondary schools, area universities, and state and local governments, are needed. Workforce education program delivery is inherently a regional activity, to be developed, tested, and implemented in manufacturing regions. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 5, including the need for an economic assessment process involving regional workforce cooperation that can bring productivity advances. Concerning collaborations with industry, these have been more resilient and productive over time when conducted with groups of employers as opposed to single employers who are more prone to economic shifts than employer groups. There is a need to expand the availability of successful workforce education delivery programs to function across institutes to increase the scale and impact of institute programs.

One noteworthy example is provided by the PRIME (Partnership Response In Manufacturing Education) program of SME (formerly the Society of Manufacturing Engineers) which has reached some 12,000 students in 118 schools in 25 states. It is a high school–level program that also works with community colleges, universities, and manufacturing firms in providing a 4-year curriculum for high schools in key manufacturing areas. It provides wrap-around services for these programs, including training for teachers who can obtain certifications in manufacturing processes, extracurricular activities and summer camps in manufacturing for participating students,

skills certifications, and student scholarships for further education in manufacturing at community colleges and universities. It is designed as a sustainable program and SME offers ongoing support and equipment to enable schools to adopt and continue it. There is a significant opportunity for Manufacturing USA institutes to engage in these regional education programs, providing expertise and content in advanced manufacturing technologies.

Education is not the only issue; attracting and retaining manufacturing talent is a major challenge for the United States, and this must be implemented in regions. Some institutes are already working on this issue, as noted in Chapter 3. Institutes can play a major role in attracting and retaining talent through building awareness of career and technical education programs that incorporate advanced manufacturing elements. Overall, improving talent entry is a key front-end element in moving to a workforce skilled in advanced manufacturing.

Skilled talent is a particular problem for small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) considering adopting advanced manufacturing, raising a third issue that needs addressing. As discussed earlier in the report, SMMs tend to have the lowest manufacturing productivity rates compared to larger firms and face great difficulty in adopting advanced manufacturing technologies. Institutes need to adopt technology transfer programs that focus on reaching these smaller “Main Street” firms in addition to their long-standing technology development focus. The Digital Foundry advisory programs in Pennsylvania, with whom ARM Institute and CESMII work, provide, as noted in Chapter 3, a model for this kind of outreach to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) for educating and helping small firms implement advanced manufacturing.¹⁴ However, the new technologies will not be adopted unless the workforces in these firms are ready for them. Digital Foundry therefore has workforce education programs for SMMs that always accompany its technology transfer programs. Small firms must have upskilling programs for their incumbent workers in order to adopt new manufacturing technologies and processes. As institutes implement the broadened workforce offerings, an effort to reach SMMs with workforce education advisory, support, and training programs is needed.

Recommendation 6-1: By 2030, Manufacturing USA institutes should adopt a broad range of programs to address workforce education needs in advanced manufacturing, based on best-practice programs developed by various institutes, including to develop advanced manufacturing curricula, develop online education, create advanced manufacturing credentials, support workforce education delivery, collaborate across institutes, and broaden the manufacturing talent base. These broadened programs should be executed in collaboration with regional stakeholders, such as area companies and education institutions, and should include efforts to reach small manufacturers with workforce education advisory services and training programs.

___________________

¹⁴Digital Foundry, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, https://digitalfoundrynk.com; committee meeting with Sherri McCleary, Digital Foundry, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, August 12, 2025.

In undertaking this, institutes could consider programs specifically identified in Chapter 6 (see “Best Practices in Workforce Education Adopted at Manufacturing Institutes”). Instead of offering one to three specific programs, institutes could move by 2030 to offer larger groups of programs addressing the topics listed previously. This could include, for example, apprenticeships, technologist education, engaging veterans, and curriculum or online development.

Program expansion will require additional resources, and the following policy options for a funding mechanism could be considered. NIST and other sponsoring agencies could provide additional funding where groups of Manufacturing USA institutes can apply and compete to implement best-practice programs across institutes. Sponsoring agencies could prioritize those best practices with the potential to scale up and be replicated by other institutes and include regional workforce education implementation. Sponsoring agencies could collaborate with institutes in developing and implementing an overall roadmap for this broad-based workforce education program that could be available across the institutes. Within 5 years, implementation of these broadened offerings could be well underway with completion within 10 years.

Concerning the second aspect of this recommendation, sponsoring agencies and Manufacturing USA institutes could examine best practices currently in place at institutes and other entities for delivering and implementing regional workforce education programs in advanced manufacturing and support their implementation across institutes. Partnerships of existing regional programs with community colleges, manufacturers (both small and large), and state and local governments or development of new efforts is important.

One best-practice approach that institutes could consider is the SME PRIME program. This is a 4-year high school education program with nationwide adoption. Institutes could develop collaborations and contribute advanced manufacturing content and supplemental programs. To bolster their regional commitments, institutes could also consider collaboratively aligning their institute workforce outreach efforts to focus on regional needs. It is important that they maintain sector-relevant outreach and engagement programs, including with industry, as well as partnerships with regional and national education and workforce organizations. Train-the-trainer efforts are also important throughout.

Concerning the third aspect of this recommendation, institutes could develop workforce education programs to accompany advisory, support, and training services to small “Main Street” manufacturing firms in their regions to enable them to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies. It is also important that manufacturing firms be deeply involved in the curriculum development efforts to reflect practical needs.

This joint technical advisory services and workforce education effort can be based on the Digital Foundries model noted in Chapter 4.

Unified Curriculum, Outcomes Measurement, and a Common Industry-Recognized Credentialing System

Manufacturing USA institutes generally develop curricula in their particular technology areas. However, manufacturers, particularly SMMs, need curricula that cut

across specific technologies and provide more generalized advanced manufacturing courses. There are private-sector education providers offering courses on aspects of advanced manufacturing. However, community colleges have been slower to adopt advanced manufacturing curricula because there must be sufficient demand from students in the area first. Institutes have identified this as a common issue, understanding that much of advanced manufacturing education content is common across institute technologies, hence they have been discussing a common NIST-led effort to address this. A core advanced manufacturing curriculum that could be shared across institutes, where particular institutes might add specialized areas, would be a major service to all institute workforce programs. This would help spur workforce education in advanced manufacturing in general. Its ability to scale and reach larger numbers of learners and be implemented by education institutions and firms would be enhanced if the curriculum could be turned into online course offerings.

In addition, education institutions in general have had great difficulty in tracking students and developing data on the outcomes of the programs they offer. Nonetheless, Manufacturing USA institutes could undertake a major effort to track participants in their workforce education programs and develop outcomes data, which in turn can be used to foster program improvements and reforms. A set of common metrics is needed in undertaking these evaluations. No single institute could undertake such an effort, but a common effort across institutes could place this difficult task within range. Once developed, it would need to be systematically applied and updated as necessary.

Concerning industry-recognized credentials, although some institutes work in technology areas where there are already industry-recognized certifications, most of the advanced manufacturing technology areas are too new for this to have developed. A number of institutes have made progress working with their industry members to develop skill certification and credentialing systems for their particular technology areas acceptable to and potentially recognizable across industry. NIST has undertaken a project with the institutes to develop a common credentialing system across the Manufacturing USA institutes representing a range of advanced manufacturing skills. Workforce education programs at institutes need to move the curricula they develop into industry-recognized credentials for their programs to be effective and to scale. In advanced manufacturing technology areas where credentials are already in place, these could be linked to and incorporated in an overall, cross-institute credentialing system.

In addition to new advanced manufacturing credentials, particularly where acceptable credentials already exist in a technology area, institutes could certify education programs at particular institutions as meeting advanced manufacturing education requirements and standards (following the ARM Institute Endorsement approach).

Recommendation 6-2: Within approximately 2 years, agencies sponsoring the Manufacturing USA institutes working with the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office should develop a unified advanced manufacturing curriculum available online that combines and unifies curricula and materials developed by institutes along with successful education and workforce development programs. Supporting this, they should develop an outcomes

measurement and a credentialing system coordinated with industry and aligned with Manufacturing USA workforce metrics and programs.

This common curriculum could be a core element, and institutes could develop content spokes in their particular technology areas to supplement it. A common core—with foundational manufacturing concepts, safety, quality, digital literacy—could be developed initially. Then technology-specific modules requiring a more focused development cycle with deeper industry engagement could be led by particular institutes. Elements of this curriculum that could be drawn upon have already been developed in programs such as the technologist program noted previously.¹⁵ This curriculum could be available across institutes for implementation with regional education and industry partners, and broadly available to other institutions interested in implementing it. The curriculum could also be developed as an online offering available across institutes (see Recommendation 6-6). This could be a continuing process with ongoing updates as needed. Industry should play a key advisory role in developing this curriculum, and it should be coordinated with potential delivery partners that could implement it. Such a curriculum could be completed and scaled across the institutes within approximately 2 years. Along with this curriculum development, institutes could jointly develop with support from NIST and sponsoring agencies, a common, shared outcomes measurement and tracking system on educational and career outcomes for those who have completed workforce education programs at the institutes. This would include a corresponding common system across institutes for measuring program outcomes. This information could be regularly updated and applied to make program improvements. This could be accomplished in a 2-year time period.

Consistent with a program already initiated by NIST and the institutes, the Manufacturing USA institutes could also network to develop a common credentialing system for advanced manufacturing skills in cooperation with industry. Working with industry groups and their members, this institute credentialing effort could be translated into industry-recognized credentials across advanced manufacturing skills. In addition, institutes, working collaboratively, could play a role in certifying advanced manufacturing programs at educational institutions as meeting advanced manufacturing requirements and standards. This could be accomplished within a 5-year timeline.

Manufacturing USA’s AMNPO, working with the institutes, could establish a clear definition of a career path for the manufacturing workforce that they are developing. This would include developing and refining a curriculum using a layered, competency-based framework.⁷¹ Working with industry, and educational organizations, AMNPO could define the lower layers of the framework that contain foundational skills, so that these are common to all institutes. The upper-layer definition would be assisted by industry and education constituencies at institutes. The development of the competencies would be supported by defined “knowledge–skills–abilities” components, by coursework, and by hands-on experiences (through apprenticeships and internships). Such a curriculum could be made available to potential constituencies through a

___________________

¹⁵See materials on the Technologist Advanced Manufacturing Program (TechAMP), https://leapgroup.mit.edu/techamp/.

centralized entity (see proposal for a Manufacturing Academy, Recommendation 6-6). This approach eliminates the need for each institute to separately create the common competencies. As institutes develop their workforce development plans, they could use the common competency in the proposed Manufacturing Academy. Going hand in hand with this would be standardized competency-based assessment criteria. Train-the-trainer curricula and related programs could also be part of this effort.

Advanced Manufacturing Technologist Programs

Manufacturing technicians tend to be trained in a particular skill—welding or CNC machining, for example—and spend their careers in these categories tied to their machine set. While higher skill levels in these fields yield higher benefits, there is no real step-by-step career path for these manufacturing workers. However, advanced manufacturing calls for their individual production machines to be incorporated much more into a system, using a host of new technologies around digital production, data analytics, and potentially AI, to drive new productivity. This would allow the factory floor to function as much more of a system. Yet the job of running and operating this system has not yet really been created. A new category, known as the advanced manufacturing “technologist,” is required to train talented technicians in these new systems skills, including specific advanced manufacturing skills. A pilot project with DoD Industrial Base and Sustainment funding has developed a specific advanced manufacturing technologist curriculum which is now being tested in community colleges. While there have been other training programs labeled technologist or engineering technologist training, this recommendation is specifically referring to the definition and curriculum previously mentioned, meaning filling the gap between engineers and technicians and oriented toward the new skill sets required for integrating advanced manufacturing systems into the production process.

An additional challenge with defining this “technologist” pathway is in differentiating these new technologists from graduates of engineering technology programs. There might be some confusion for employers in understanding which candidates’ skills meet their needs. Many SMMs will hire graduates of engineering technology programs and recognize them as engineers, while large companies will not. Large companies will differentiate graduates of engineering versus engineering technology programs. A further differentiation is now required for this new technologist program for advanced manufacturing. Establishing clear standards for the technologist program, following the suggested definition, as well as appropriate marketing, could help manufacturers to understand the differences. “Train-the-trainer” programs for both existing and new teachers will be important. Approaches for educating and qualifying teachers and instructors were adopted in the SME PRIME program noted previously in this chapter, and it serves as a potential model. ASM International’s Materials Camp®-Teachers, also provides a possible model for educating middle and secondary school teachers in the elements of a technologist program.¹⁶ In addition, curriculum standards and marketing efforts will be needed in making this program scale. In sum, if the United States is to lead

___________________

¹⁶ASM Materials Education Foundation, n.d., “Materials Camp®-Teachers, Program Overview, https://www.asmfoundation.org/teachers/materials-camps/year-one.

in advanced manufacturing, it likely will need the advanced manufacturing skill sets—in effect, a new career path in manufacturing for upgrading technicians—embodied in the technologist curriculum and program.

Recommendation 6-3: By 2030, Manufacturing USA institutes should implement new technologist curricula, such as the Department of Defense’s Industrial Base and Sustainment–funded pilot projects. They should work toward implementing it in cooperation with regional partners in industry and community colleges and, if deemed appropriate, incorporate it into the recommended Manufacturing Academy.¹⁷

Likewise, institutionalizing a train-the-trainers program to accompany implementation of this technologist pathway can help in attracting and retaining the qualified teachers that the program will require. The proposed Manufacturing Academy standards could house the train-the-trainer materials. It appears to be a quite constructive approach for upskilling incumbent workers in advanced manufacturing skills.

The program could also be adapted to other education settings. Concerning the future manufacturing workforce, Manufacturing USA could leverage this concept of advanced manufacturing technologist to help attract people into the profession. Developing this as an industry standard and marketing it as a career pathway with its multiple possibilities for growth would provide considerable appeal to potential students. Institutes could assist with developing a program to educate middle and secondary school teachers on manufacturing and how to incorporate these emerging technologist concepts into their own curricula. It could also be readily adapted for career technical education programs at community colleges and technical schools. A standardized curriculum on manufacturing basics could be taught by master teachers to groups of middle and secondary school teachers, presenting technologist careers and opportunities, and how to incorporate this material into their curricula. The technologist curriculum itself, including institute inputs, could be incorporated into the Manufacturing Academy effort in Recommendation 6-6, as well as adapted by collaborative institute–community college–manufacturer efforts, as recommended.

Catalyze Cross-Agency Partnerships

Advanced manufacturing is a relatively new and evolving field. Manufacturing USA institutes and their sponsoring agencies through their workforce education programs are helping fill a gap in the workforce education system largely not met by existing programs at agencies working in this area, including the Departments of Labor and Education. These agencies generally lack programs in advanced manufacturing education and to upskill incumbent manufacturing workers. Nonetheless, there are programs at those agencies that can help boost and scale institute efforts. In addition,

___________________

¹⁷This recommendation was changed after release of the report to accurately reflect how programs are implemented.

efforts at institutes in developing curricula and other programs in manufacturing can complement efforts sponsored by those agencies. For example, the Labor Department’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) system has established relationships with employers, training providers, and community organizations in every region where institutes operate. Yet the institute network and the WIOA system have historically operated in parallel with limited coordination. Collaboration could be an untapped opportunity for institutes.

In addition, the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program already works to enable community colleges to develop advanced manufacturing curricula in various fields and has worked to coordinate with manufacturing institute efforts. In turn, workforce education work at Manufacturing USA institutes could contribute programs at these agencies. An overall effort to better coordinate workforce education across these agencies and to create complementary workforce education projects and programs with Manufacturing USA institutes is lacking. Such programs and potential funding could enhance institute efforts and provide better advanced manufacturing workforce outcomes.

Recommendation 6-4: The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Domestic Policy Council should convene a cross-agency workforce education project and implement within the next 2 years a strategy to coordinate efforts across agencies to enhance Manufacturing USA institute and other agency manufacturing education programs. This would include relevant programs at the Manufacturing USA institute-sponsoring agencies (currently Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Defense), as well as at the Departments of Labor and Education, and the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education Program.¹⁸

A common strategy across these organizations for manufacturing workforce education by 2027 is clearly needed. If additional legislation or appropriations are needed to ensure deeper coordination at the program level, such a recommendation could be made and changes sought by the White House agencies and executive branch departments. This may prove necessary since dedicated funding for such cross-agency efforts may be needed to prompt the agencies to collaborate.

Embrace Apprenticeship Programs

The United States has long suffered from a gap between work and learning—there is generally no clear path between school and work that helps lead students into productive careers. Apprenticeship programs in Europe, including in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, as well as in other countries, combine work and learning as part of the secondary school experience, which leads directly to solid employment opportunities.

___________________

¹⁸This sentence was changed after release of the report to clarify that the recommendation applies to all institute the sponsoring agencies.

While apprenticeships have long been prevalent in the construction trades, they are missing in most other fields in the United States, including for manufacturing. They typically involve combined education and paid on-the-job training programs, and offer a certification that can directly lead to employment. There is a significant movement in American community colleges to help groups of employers in their regions by administering these programs and combining work at those firms with skills courses at the community college.

Apprenticeship programs can act as a mechanism to attract and retain manufacturing talent and offer a high return on investment for students, industry, and society. They allow students to earn while they learn, receive career mentorship, and inevitably earn credentials. Approximately 93 percent of employees who finished a registered apprenticeship obtained employment.¹⁹ Employers benefit from apprenticeships because they reduce labor and recruitment costs while increasing retention rates, productivity, and safety. In addition to students and employers, apprenticeships benefit society by supporting economic mobility and providing financial savings to federal and state governments. The average starting salary for workers who complete an apprenticeship is $77,000 annually.

Apprenticeships are much more extensive than short-term internships. Most Manufacturing USA institutes offer various internship programs, which can be quite valuable in offering work exposure; however, some institutes have also supported more in-depth manufacturing apprenticeship programs, including in their specialty areas. To tackle the fundamental work–learn divide in U.S. education, many consider apprenticeships a key answer. Manufacturing USA institutes, which can bring together groups of regional employers with community colleges, are well positioned to help enable manufacturing apprenticeships, also providing curricula and support certifications in advanced manufacturing skills.

Recommendation 6-5: Given the need for apprenticeships in manufacturing, and especially to enable the scale-up of advanced manufacturing, within the next 2 years, Manufacturing USA institutes should become active promoters and enablers of manufacturing apprenticeships as part of their regional engagements.

Institutes and their sponsoring agencies could work with apprenticeship intermediaries including with the Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship and its ApprenticeshipUSA program, with regional community colleges supporting apprenticeships, and with Tooling U–SME pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship support education programs. Institutes, for example, could help convene company and community college collaborators in their regions, contribute curricula and assist in train-the-trainer programs for advanced manufacturing technologies, and encourage member companies to participate in apprenticeship collaborations.

___________________

¹⁹ApprenticeshipUSA, 2022, “Factsheet,” U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/dol_apprenticeshipusa_v13_web-ready.pdf.

Online Advanced Manufacturing USA Academy

The current workforce education system is limited in the numbers it can reach and, as noted previously, it has been slow to adopt education for incumbent workers or for advanced manufacturing technologies and processes. Online education offers a significant opportunity for scaling workforce education efforts in advanced manufacturing. While blended learning approaches that incorporate hands-on instruction with online content are necessary and important, moving some education content online, including with simulations and VR and/or AR materials, offers a major opportunity to help scale up workforce education in manufacturing. It cannot replace hands-on education but can supplement it. Online content can assist, for example, with foundational knowledge, theory, safety, quality concepts, and digital manufacturing skills—areas where online delivery is genuinely effective. Such online material can be adopted by community colleges and company training programs. DoD ManTech and several institutes have already experimented with this academy concept.

Available online material could be utilized along with material developed by institutes. Currently, a number of Manufacturing USA institutes have a shared learning portal for posting online course material that they have developed. In addition, MxD has developed an online portal for its own materials as well as from numerous other sources, as has ARM Institute, which has some 17,000 links to robotics training materials that are searchable by learners (roboticscareers.org). These, too, could be linked to and incorporated into a Manufacturing Academy portal. This capability could be significantly expanded and incorporate the overall advanced manufacturing education program recommended in the section on best practices. Material developed for the technologist program noted in Recommendation 6-3 could also be included. Since blended learning is needed in manufacturing, the site could also include curricula that could be adopted by community colleges and company training programs that incorporate online materials. The site could use “Manufacturing USA” branding for improving recognition of advanced manufacturing skills and competencies.

In addition, SME (formerly the Society of Manufacturing Engineers) offers online education programs through its Tooling U, which are supplemented by in-person programs. These provide extensive manufacturing curricula in a wide range of manufacturing skills.²⁰ Several institutes already collaborate with SME and Tooling U, but given a larger online education focus by institutes, there is an opportunity for an Advanced Manufacturing Academy to link closely through sharing, disseminating, and producing advanced manufacturing content with and through Tooling U.

In addition, such an Academy could push technology reforms that can enhance the education experience. Application of new education technologies is important for scaling advanced manufacturing workforce education. Online education has reached significant scale through massive open online courses and is now being supplemented with online gaming, technology simulations, and modeling. In addition, extended reality (XR) technology, which is a combination of VR, AR, and mixed reality, can potentially

___________________

²⁰Tooling U–SME, https://learn.toolingu.com; committee meeting with Chap Schron, vice president, Tooling U–SME, August 12, 2025.

create immersive interactive educational experiences, allowing new kinds of content engagement that may offer deeper understanding and better knowledge retention.²¹ Course materials combining these technologies with online content could be available on a 3- to 5-year time horizon. On a 10-year horizon, further integration with AI tutoring could offer virtual training environments. Advanced manufacturing workforce education is critical enough to society that it should take advantage of these developing technology opportunities. These reforms could be spurred by Manufacturing USA institutes, working through the proposed Academy, with collaborations between universities, community colleges, and industry, but will require resources to develop them.

Recommendation 6-6: A collaboration across Manufacturing USA institutes enabled by the proposed Interagency Council and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office should build out a robust online Manufacturing Academy portal of advanced manufacturing online courses and programs. By 2030, the online portal should include simulations, virtual reality, and augmented reality material developed by Manufacturing USA institutes. The online portal should include materials and links from other verified sources, as well as new material.

The online Manufacturing Academy could include “train-the-trainer” programs. Consistent with Recommendation 6-2, an institute collaboration could develop online course materials in advanced manufacturing technologies that cross over institute topic areas for a full advanced manufacturing education course menu that could be offered through this Academy. NIST and sponsoring agencies could provide resources for the development of this Advanced Manufacturing Academy, potentially with groups of institutes competing (see discussion of Recommendation 6-1). The Academy and the institutes could also consider collaboration with the Tooling U–SME online education program, given an enlarged online education focus by institutes. There is a potential opportunity for an Academy to share, disseminate, and produce advanced manufacturing content with Tooling U, ensuring larger-scale distribution and reach.

Institutes working through the Advanced Manufacturing Academy could spur adoption of new education technologies to better enable introduction of advanced manufacturing technologies. These technologies include online content, online gaming, technology simulations and modeling, and XR, which could be made available by 2030 and integrated with AI tutoring, which could be made available within 10 years. Courses and materials applying these technologies could be offered through the online Academy. NIST and the other sponsoring agencies could support collaborations across institutes, potentially through competitions between groups of institutes (see discussion in Recommendation 6-1), to bring these evolving technologies into their workforce education programs.

___________________

²¹See, for example, A. Jiyani, 2024, “Revolutionizing Education: How Extended Reality Is Shaping the Future of Learning,” eLearning Industry, June 6, https://elearningindustry.com/revolutionizing-education-how-extended-reality-is-shaping-the-future-of-learning; M. Georgieva, J. Nelson, R. LaFosse, and D. Contis, 2024, “XR in Higher Education: Adoption, Considerations and Recommendations,” Educause Review, January 10, https://er.educause.edu/articles/2024/1/xr-in-higher-education-adoption-considerations-and-recommendations.