iii

REPORT	TO	THE	PRESIDENT	 

ACCELERATING	U.S.	ADVANCED	

MANUFACTURING	

Executive	Office	of	the	President	

President’s	Council	of	Advisors	on	

Science	and	Technology	

October	2014	

 REPORT	TO	THE	PRESIDENT	

ACCELERATING	U.S.	ADVANCED	

MANUFACTURING	

Executive	Office	of	the	President	

President’s	Council	of	Advisors	on	

Science	and	Technology	

October	2014	
About the President’s Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of

the Nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science

and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet

departments and other Federal agencies. PCAST is consulted about, and often makes policy

recommendations concerning, the full range of issues where understandings from the domains

of science, technology, and innovation bear potentially on the policy choices before the

President.  

For more information about PCAST, see www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast
i

The President’s Council of Advisors on		

Science and Technology

Co‐Chairs

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for  

Science and Technology

Director, Office of Science and Technology

Policy

Eric Lander

President

Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Vice Chairs  

William Press

Raymer Professor in Computer Science and

Integrative Biology

University of Texas at Austin

Maxine Savitz

Vice President

National Academy of Engineering

Members

Rosina Bierbaum

Dean, School of Natural Resources and

Environment

University of Michigan

Christine Cassel

President and CEO

National Quality Forum

Christopher Chyba

Professor, Astrophysical Sciences and

International Affairs

Director, Program on Science and Global

Security

Princeton University

S. James Gates, Jr.

John S. Toll Professor of Physics

Director, Center for String and Particle  

Theory

University of Maryland, College Park

Mark Gorenberg  

Managing Member

Zetta Venture Partners

Susan L. Graham  

Pehong Chen Distinguished Professor

Emerita in Electrical Engineering and  

Computer Science

University of California, Berkeley  
ii

Shirley Ann Jackson  

(through September 2014)

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Michael McQuade

Senior Vice President for Science and

Technology

United Technologies Corporation   

Chad Mirkin

George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry

Director, International Institute for

Nanotechnology

Northwestern University

Mario Molina

Distinguished Professor, Chemistry and  

Biochemistry

University of California, San Diego

Professor, Center for Atmospheric Sciences

at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Craig Mundie

Senior Advisor to the CEO

Microsoft Corporation

Ed Penhoet

Director, Alta Partners

Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public

Health

University of California, Berkeley

Barbara Schaal

Mary‐Dell Chilton Distinguished Professor of

Biology

Washington University, St. Louis

Eric Schmidt

Executive Chairman

Google, Inc.

Daniel Schrag

Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology

Professor, Environmental Science and

Engineering

Director, Harvard University Center for

Environment

Harvard University

Staff

Marjory S. Blumenthal

Executive Director

Knatokie Ford

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow

Ashley Predith

Assistant Executive Director
iii

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology

Accelerating U.S. Advanced Manufacturing

AMP2.0 Steering Committee Report
iv

 
v

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 

President Barack Obama 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20502 

Dear Mr. President, 

This letter transmits a report entitled Accelerating U.S. Advanced Manufacturing, prepared by the Steering Committee of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0). The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has reviewed and adopted the report, which follows up the first AMP report, Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing (July 2012), and the 2011 PCAST report,

Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing.

The members of AMP2.0 worked with industry, academia, labor, government, and the public to address the challenge of expanding advanced manufacturing across the United States. Led by co-chairs Rafael Reif, president of 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Andrew Liveris, CEO of the Dow Chemical Company, AMP2.0 

built its activities and recommendations on the three pillars established in the 2012 report: (1) enabling innovation, (2) securing the talent pipeline, and (3) improving the business climate. 

In the past year, teams of experts assembled by AMP2.0 identified manufacturing technology areas where the 

United States could establish a strategic advantage. A coalition of community colleges and companies developed 

a best-in-class apprenticeship model and launched a trial program with colleges in northern California and southern Texas. The Printed Electronics Pilot Project uncovered the types of technical and market information that 

small- and medium-sized manufacturers need to develop successful scale-up business plans. Five AMP2.0 regional meetings throughout the year and Manufacturing Day on October 3rd drove further momentum across the 

country. 

The project identified a number of further steps the Federal government can take to further U.S. advanced manufacturing capabilities. With the Manufacturing Innovation Institutes as a cornerstone of the Nation’s investment, 

implementing a Federal strategic plan in advanced manufacturing across all Federal activities from the Institutes 

to individual agency program areas is one important step. Two others are (1) ensuring that advanced manufacturing research addresses questions along the pipeline of technology maturity and (2) leveraging Federal organizations to improve information flow to manufacturers. 

To ensure a cohesive Federal effort, PCAST recommends that the Executive Office of the President develop and 

release, within sixty days, a plan for the implementation of the AMP2.0 report’s recommendations. 

Advanced manufacturing is a domain of great potential, the achievement of which will require drawing on resources from the public, academic, and industrial sectors all across the country. The Federal government can and 

should continue to catalyze the needed effort. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important 

topic. 

Best regards,

John P. Holdren 

Co-chair, PCAST 

Eric S. Lander 

Co-chair, PCAST 
vi

AMP2.0 Working Group

Rafael Reif

President

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Andrew Liveris

President, Chairman and CEO

The Dow Chemical Company

Shirley Ann Jackson

Member, PCAST

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

PCAST Staff

Marjory S. Blumenthal

Executive Director, PCAST

Ashley Predith

Assistant Executive Director, PCAST

National Economic Council Staff

Jason Miller

Special Assistant to the President for

Manufacturing

J. J. Raynor

Senior Policy Advisor

Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO) Staff

Michael F. Molnar

Director, AMNPO

Gloria J. Wiens

Assistant Director for Research Partnerships,

AMNPO
vii

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0

Steering Committee

Co‐Chairs

Rafael Reif

President

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Andrew Liveris

President, Chairman and CEO  

The Dow Chemical Company

Members

Wes Bush  

Chairman, CEO and President, Northrop

Grumman

David Cote

Chairman and CEO, Honeywell  

Nicholas Dirks

Chancellor, University of California,  

Berkeley

Kenneth Ender

President, Harper College

Leo Gerard  

International President,  

United Steelworkers

Shirley Ann Jackson

President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Eric Kelly

President and CEO, Overland Storage, INC

Klaus Kleinfeld

Chairman and CEO, Alcoa, INC

Ajit Manocha  

Senior Advisor, GLOBALFOUNDRIES   

Douglas Oberhelman

Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar, INC

Annette Parker

President, South Central College

G.P. "Bud" Peterson

President, Georgia Institute of Technology

Luis Proenza

President Emeritus, The University of Akron

Mark Schlissel

President, University of Michigan

Eric Spiegel

President and CEO, Siemens Corporation

Mike Splinter

Executive Chairman of the Board, Applied

Materials, INC

Christie Wong Barrett

CEO, Mac Arthur Corporation
viii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 1

ENABLING INNOVATION............................................................................................. 2

SECURING THE TALENT PIPELINE ............................................................................... 7

IMPROVING THE BUSINESS CLIMATE ....................................................................... 10

IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................... 12

I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0..................................................................... 13

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 13

Process...................................................................................................................... 14

AMP 2.0 Steering Committee Actions & Recommendations................................... 15

Summary of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0’s  

Recommendations............................................................................................ 17

II. Recommendations........................................................................................................ 20

Pillar 1: Enabling Innovation..................................................................................... 20

Establishing a National Manufacturing Technology Strategy .......................... 21

Establishing & Supporting the National Network for Manufacturing  

Innovation Institutes ............................................................................... 29

Pillar 2: Securing the Talent Pipeline........................................................................ 30

Shifting the Public’s Misconceptions of Manufacturing .................................. 31

Connecting More Americans with Skills for Successful Careers in  

Manufacturing .......................................................................................... 32

Pillar 3: Improving the Business Climate .................................................................. 38

Expanding and Exchanging Intermediary Solutions for Manufacturing .......... 39

Increasing Capital Access For Established and Start‐up Firms......................... 41

III. Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 44

Appendix A: AMP Recommendations and Implementation Status.................................. 45

Appendix B: AMP2.0 Membership and Participation....................................................... 52

Appendix C: U.S. Regional Meetings on Advanced Manufacturing during the

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 ................................................................ 56

Appendix 1: Transformative Manufacturing Technologies.............................................. 58
ix

Appendix 2: Demand‐Driven Workforce Development and Training .............................. 71

Appendix 3: National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) Analysis ............. 74

Appendix 4: Scale‐Up Policy.............................................................................................. 77

Appendix 5: Manufacturing and Engagement.................................................................. 88

Appendix 6: Abbreviation Glossary................................................................................... 92

Annexes 1‐10: Manufacturing Technology Areas............................................available online

Annexes 11‐24: Workforce .................................................................................available online

Annexes 25‐31: NNMI Analysis...........................................................................available online

Annex 32: Scale‐Up Policy ..................................................................................available online
1

Executive Summary

The United States has been the leading producer of manufactured goodsfor more than 100 years,

and the manufacturing sector is once again adding jobs and opening new factories at its fastest

rate in two decades. The United States has long thrived as a result of its ability to manufacture

goods and sell them to global markets. Manufacturing drives knowledge production and

innovation in the United States by supporting two‐thirds of private sector research and

development and by employing the vast majority of U.S. scientists, engineers, and technicians to

invent and produce new products. Yet, in the 2000’s, manufacturing faced major employment

declines as factories were shuttered. U.S. strengths in manufacturing innovation and

technologies that have sustained American leadership in manufacturing are under threat from

new and growing competition abroad.  

In its July 2012 inaugural report, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive

Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing, the first Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP)

called for a full court press to increase U.S. competitiveness for advanced manufacturing by

sustaining U.S. investments in science, technology, and innovation; establishing a National

Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes—a set of public‐private partnerships to build

shared high‐tech facilities and advance U.S. leadership in emerging technologies; upgrading

community‐college workforce training programs and deploying the talent of returning veterans

to meet critical manufacturing skills needs; and improving the business climate for manufacturing

investment through tax, regulatory, energy, and other policies.

Building upon its initial findings and growing interest in a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector,

the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership was re‐chartered (AMP2.0) and has worked with the

federal government to implement the highest priority recommendations from its original report.

These AMP2.0 efforts from September 2013 to September 2014 included scaling of promising

manufacturing workforce innovations and partnerships, and identifying new, concrete strategies

for securing the nation’s competitive advantage in transformative emerging technologies.

As a result, this report reflects not only the significant actions taken by the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership and its members to launch public‐private initiatives that build on its

initial recommendations, but also offers a series of further recommendations on enabling

innovation in critical emerging manufacturing technologies through additional investments in
2

innovation, securing the talent pipeline and improving the business climate for innovative

manufacturing firms.  

Recognizing that the U.S. manufacturing sector draws its strength from a multitude of tightly

linked capabilities contributed by the private sector, academia, and labor, in its work and

membership the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has reflected the broad partnership

required from across communities, educators, businesses, organized labor and government at all

levelsto accelerate U.S. advantage in advanced manufacturing.  And through itsregional working

sessions and forums, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Steering Committee has

engaged the broader manufacturing community to highlight examples of innovative strategies

that build U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.

As manufacturing grows and strengthens in the United States, a broad public‐private coalition

has emerged in support of American manufacturing. We have capitalized on this growing

coalition and the consensus among policymakers, industry experts and academia that U.S.

manufacturing matters to apply coordinated action to begin implementing the above

recommendations. Already we are seeing impact from these actions  ‐ from the creation of a

broad national manufacturing strategy to the launch of regional apprenticeship pilot programs.

From these strong beginnings, we call for a sustained and coordinated effort to maintain

momentum and engagement across the United States.

ENABLING INNOVATION

The United States’ leadership in manufacturing comes from its leadership in advanced

technologies and the innovation that fuels their discovery and adoption. When the United States

competes in manufacturing and wins, the United States competes on the basis of this

sophistication and the ability of its manufacturing industry to produce products with incredible

new capabilities and functions. Sustaining U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing is thus,

ultimately, an exercise in staying at the forefront of new technologies and continually breaking

boundaries in both what and how it can be manufactured.  

Advanced manufacturing is broadly defined and represents a continuum of interests in the

manufacturing sector.   Indeed, from basic metals to aerospace and electronics, manufacturing

increasingly depends on advanced manufacturing components, technologies, processes, skills

and strategies.   To compete in the future requires a continuoustransformation of manufacturing

to meet the challenges posed by globalization and change.
3

The following recommendations build on the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership’s previous

report and reflect further guidance on how the United States can sustain its lead in innovation

while securing critical leadership in transformative, emerging technologies:  

Establishing a National Strategy for Securing U.S. Advantage in Manufacturing Technologies:

Aligning on the most important technologies for U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing, and a

shared vision for how to advance them, creates a platform for public‐private collaboration

nationally on the shared research agendas and investments required to secure and sustain a U.S.

lead in these technologies. A national technology strategy outlining specific efforts and

investments across the federal government and the private sector, and created and regularly

updated with input from leading technologists across industry and federal labs, can optimize the

nation’s investment in manufacturing technology development. Critically, this national

manufacturing technology strategy will provide for coordinated investments across the lifecycle

of technology development, manage the investment portfolio and drive sustainable models of

collaboration between the federal government and the private sector.  

Over the past year, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 has piloted a process for

developing a national manufacturing technology strategy focused on three emerging

technologies of national importance – advanced sensing, controls, and platforms for

manufacturing (ASCPM); visualization, informatics & digital manufacturing (VIDM); and advanced

materials manufacturing (AMM) – that can serve as a model for a broader effort to develop a full

national manufacturing technology strategy.

 Recommendation #1: Establish a national strategy for securing U.S. advantage in

emerging manufacturing technologies with a specific national vision and set of

coordinated initiatives across the public and private sectors and all stages of technology

development. This should include prioritized manufacturing technology areas of national

interest, leveraging the technology prioritization and analysis process developed by the

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, and should facilitate management of the portfolio

of advanced manufacturing technology investments.  

  

Coordinating Public and Private Investment in the Development of Top Emerging Manufacturing

Technologies: From the experience of piloting a process for developing a national strategy to

secure domestic advantage in just a subset of the important manufacturing technologies being

developed today, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recognizes the value of regular and

sustained communication and research coordination across the public and private sectors, as

well as how valuable the access to top industry technologists can be for the federal government

as it develops its own efforts to advance U.S. strengths in pre‐competitive manufacturing
4

technology. Building off of the increased interagency coordination on manufacturing generally

made possible by the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, which the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership recommended in our prior report, we recommend that a continuous

mechanism for research coordination across the public and private sectors, with expert input

from industry and academia, be established. An Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium

can provide detailed, coordinated input on nascent opportunities and prioritiesin manufacturing

that can shape national U.S. technology priorities and investments at all stages of technology

development. This group, modeled after or using existing mechanisms such as the external

advisory groupsto the Executive Office of the President’s National Science & Technology Council,

could interface regularly with a standing interagency manufacturing R&D coordinating body

comprising the key research and development agencies to provide feedback and partnership in

the federal government’sresearch and development prioritiesin advanced manufacturing. In this

way, strategies for advanced manufacturing technologies could be linked to an R&D strategy.

 Recommendation #2: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium to

provide coordinated private‐sector input on national advanced manufacturing

technology research and development priorities.

In addition, in its pilot efforts to prioritize and develop recommendations for specific

manufacturing technology areas, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership identified a cross‐

cutting need for two new public‐private research and technology efforts to spur the further

development and adoption of these emerging technologies: the need for additional research and

development infrastructure in the form of manufacturing centers of excellence  (MCEs) to create

a pipeline of earlier‐stage technologies that can feed into the National Network for

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes; and the importance of manufacturing technology testbeds

(MTTs)  that can de‐risk the adoption of these emerging technologies, particularly for smaller

manufacturers. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership also noted the importance of security

at the interface between cyber systems and physical manufacturing equipment.   

In addition to fully building out the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), the

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommends the creation of manufacturing centers of

excellence (MCEs) that can advance earlier‐stage technologies.    Manufacturing centers of

excellence are research laboratories, funded and operated jointly by industry and universities, to

invest in basic research that responds to a particular manufacturing challenge, such as critical

materials reprocessing or bonding of composite structures. These manufacturing centers of

excellence can leverage existing, successful U.S. research center models co‐funded by federal

agencies and industry, such as National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers. New,

and potentially existing, centers within this program and other agencies’ center programs could
5

be focused on advanced manufacturing R&D as manufacturing centers of excellence, supporting

existing or potential Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. These manufacturing centers of

excellence could be co‐located within U.S. regionsshared with related Manufacturing Innovation

Institutes, when feasible and advantageousto accelerated manufacturing technology maturation

within the institutes.  Manufacturing technology testbeds, which provide access to equipment

and facilities designed for the testing and demonstration of new technologies, will enable

evaluation, development, demonstration, and customization services to small, medium, and

large enterprises, and vendorsfor technologiesthat are at laterstages of development. They help

de‐risk the implementation of available technologies and help develop a talent and knowledge

base for the technology or sector. Manufacturing technology testbeds are particularly needed to

drive adoption of advanced technologies such as sensing, process control and IT platforms that

can increase the efficiency of energy and materials use in advanced manufacturing.  They can

also be useful for projects that demonstrate a new production concept, increased energy or

resource efficiency, or to validate a production technology against an industry standard.  

Manufacturing technology testbeds can also be leveraged as shared facilities with appropriate

technical (computing and tool) and talent infrastructure, enabling small‐  and medium‐sized

enterprises (SMEs) to adopt new technologies and increase rapid value creation which is not

possible without the availability of these shared facilities.

 Recommendation #3: Establish a new public‐private manufacturing research and

development infrastructure to support the innovation pipeline, which complements

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes at earlier and later technology maturation stages,

through the creation of manufacturing centers of excellence (MCEs) and manufacturing

technology testbeds (MTTs) to provide a framework that supports manufacturing

innovation at different stages of maturity and allows small and medium‐sized enterprises

to benefit from these investments.

Development of standards reduces the risks for enterprises developing solutions and for those

implementing them, accelerating adoption of new manufactured products and manufacturing

methods. The federal government should work with private industry to establish standards and

interoperability for manufacturing new products and processes. This effort includes standards

related to digital data, with an aim of data interoperability among systems that can speed

technology adoption. Examples of such data transferability standards include communications

protocols, metadata description languages, and data formats.  Additionally, this effort addresses

addresses the advantage of standardization for components that are physically substitutable –

including information exchange standards related to materials and manufacturing processes – in

focused sector areas that facilitate industry adoption of innovations by established or new

manufacturers. This effort further includes cybersecurity process certification in manufacturing,
6

not unlike ISO certification of other manufacturing processes, that can mitigate security risks at

the interface of the cyber systems and physical equipment in the manufacturing ecosystem.

 Recommendation #4: Develop processes and standards enabling interoperability of

manufacturing technologies; exchange of materials and manufacturing process

information; and certification of cybersecurity processes for developers of systems.

Establishing and Supporting the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI): In its

initial report, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership called for the creation of a National

Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) to spur public‐private collaborative research to

address large, cross‐cutting technology challenges for later stage technologies. The Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership supports the Administration’s actions thus far to launch four

manufacturing institutes(Table A1 of Appendix A) addressing critical manufacturing technologies

such as advanced composites, digital manufacturing, and lightweight metals, with four more

manufacturing institutes on the way. In support of these nascent efforts to develop the National

Network for Manufacturing Innovation and in anticipation of bipartisan legislation to formally

establish the program, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommends the development

of a shared National Network for Manufacturing Innovation Governance Structure to help ensure

a return on investment for Manufacturing Innovation Institute stakeholders. This governance

structure should be established through clear, written guidelines covering both network

governance and institute topic selection, and these guidelines should reflect multiple future

scenarios for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: a scenario in which it is fully

authorized and a scenario in which it continues to be developed solely through executive action

that uses existing funds of federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and Department

of Energy. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership proposes a governance structure that

maintains autonomy for individual institute operations while creating a public‐private network

governing council that oversees the broader performance of the network and helps to ensure

maximum efficiency, collaboration and sustainability of the individual institutes.  

   

 Recommendation #5: Create – through the National Economic Council, the Office of

Science and Technology Policy, and the implementing agencies and departments – a

shared National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) governance structure

that can ensure a return on investment for the NNMI’s many stakeholders by including

input from various agencies as well as private sector experts, organized labor and

academia.
7

SECURING THE TALENT PIPELINE

Simply said, global businesses invest where the talent exists. The 2014 Manufacturing Institute

survey, “Out of Inventory,” reports that 75 percent of manufacturers surveyed are impacted

negatively by skills shortages.   Technological developments in the manufacturing sector have

outpaced workforce skills, and demographic shifts have combined to create a gap in the

workforce the manufacturing sector needs. The Manufacturing Institute notes that the hardest

jobs to fill are those that have the biggest impact on performance, that manufacturers depend

on outdated approaches for finding the right people and developing their employees’ skills, that

the changing nature of manufacturing work is making it harder for talent to keep up, and that

the widening skills gap is expected to take the biggest toll on skilled production jobs.  

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recognizes that in order to accelerate manufacturing

innovation and growth in the United States, we must focus on developing a talented and

committed workforce, and that the way in which that will happen is through public‐private

partnerships. Manufacturers, organized labor and academia also realize that identifying and

responding to technological innovation can be expensive and time‐consuming for any single firm,

and thus it will be necessary that these opportunities are best addressed through partnerships

of committed and motivated groups of firms and educational institutions.    The challenge

manufacturing firms face in filling the talent pipeline is compounded by the misperceptions the

general public has about careers in manufacturing, and AMP2.0 addressed this critical aspect to

help secure the sector’s future workforce.

Shifting the Misconceptions the Public Holds of Manufacturing: For decades, workers flocked to

manufacturing careers because those jobs were viewed as stable, solid careers that provided a

path to the middle class for workers at every educational level. That belief has been shaken by

the job losses of the past decades. The first step in securing the talent pipeline for manufacturing

isto shift how manufacturing careers are perceived, and this will require a focused and sustained

national and local effort. AMP 2.0 is partnering with private industry and media to create and

launch a series of advertisements and events, including National Manufacturing Day, to convey

the current excitement about and opportunities in manufacturing careers.  

The AMP2.0 SC recommends that the federal government launch a national campaign to change

the image of manufacturing, and also undertake activities to support National Manufacturing

Day.  The AMP2.0 recommendsthat effortsto change the image of manufacturing include efforts

modeled on exemplary programs that strive to interest students in advanced manufacturing and

product realization starting at early ages and through graduate education.  
8

 Recommendation #6: Launch a national campaign to change the image of manufacturing,

and support National Manufacturing Day’s efforts to showcase real careers in today’s

manufacturing.

Connecting More Americans with Skills for Successful Careers in Manufacturing: Building on its

recommendationsin itsfirst report, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has also taken new

action to secure the talent pipeline and connect more Americans with the skills needed for

successful careers in manufacturing. These efforts have been focused in four areas: developing a

national system of skills certifications and accreditation, tapping the talent pool of returning

veterans, investing in community colleges by building successful apprenticeships to deliver

demand‐driven training, and documenting best practices in the development of career pathways

in advanced manufacturing education.

Credentials and accreditations are the outcomes of many years of skilled trades training and

hands‐on learning through apprenticeships. These professional credentials are a gateway to

higher wages, increased career mobility and provide an employee the ability to follow the job

market.  The relevance of credentials and accreditations can vary regionally, or by employer, and

is of course highly dependent on the specific job opening. The Advanced Manufacturing

Partnership, as it recommended in its first report, encourages the partial funding and

implementation of a system of nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications

that employers can preferentially utilize in hiring and promotion.  

To help advance the development of a national system of skills certification and accreditation,

the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has developed a template for a “pathways” model for

advanced manufacturing training and education with multiple on‐ and off‐ramps and multiple

stackable completion options including industry‐recognized certificates, formal diplomas, and

college degrees. It is also important to include on‐line training as a key component of these on‐ 

and off‐ramps, recognizing that new and mature students require flexibility and convenience as

they pursue skill and career development. These certifications and online training platforms can

leverage prior investments in the Department of Labor Trade Adjustment Assistance‐Community

College and Career Training (TAACCCT).

 Recommendation #7: Incent private investment in the implementation of a system of

nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications that employers utilize in

hiring and promotion, by providing additional fundsthat build on investments being made

through the Department of Labor and Department of Education Trade Adjustment

Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT).
9

Asthe Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recognized in itsfirst report, the Community College

level of education is the ‘sweet spot’ for impact on the skills gap in manufacturing. Increased

investment in this sector was recommended by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership two

years ago, following the best practices of leading innovators. Because apprenticeships are so

integral to a tradesman earning a professional credential or accreditation, and because hands‐on

learning is of utmost importance for many careers in advanced manufacturing, the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership organized and piloted an apprenticeship program with three major

employers and two colleges, and documented the approach in a playbook such that the model

can be further replicated. This pilot program illustrated the importance of collaboration between

community colleges and employers to deliver customized training that meets the unique needs

of employers and provides flexibility to future employees. AMP also formed a statewide

consortium of 12 colleges, 2 Manufacturing Centers of Excellence and more than 25

manufacturersin Minnesota to launch the Learn, Work, Earn model to align trainings and fill jobs.  

Finally, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership identified examples of exemplary Career

Education Pathways from other industries in order to build a pathway model for Advanced

Manufacturing, also recognizing the need for flexible workforce training solutions so that both

new and mature employees can develop their skills in an individualized way. AMP2.0 provided

recommendations on how to duplicate, scale‐up and improve on the best programs.  Across all

of these exemplary career pathways, common elements emerged, including the use of nationally

recognized, portable, and stackable skills certifications as a tool for signaling skills mastery to

employers, and the increasing use of online training platforms to increase access to and the scale

of training programs.  

 Recommendation #8: Make the development of online training and accreditation

programs eligible to receive federal support, for example through federal jobs training

programs.

In addition, returning veterans possess many of the key skills needed to fill the skills gap in the

manufacturing talent pipeline. With more than 400,000 veterans leaving the armed forces for

other opportunities in the next two years, AMP2.0 recognizes that tapping this dedicated, driven

talent pool can help alleviate the skills shortage manufacturers face today, and in most cases

without the need for significant additional training. There are two barriers to a smooth transition

from the military to manufacturing: little understanding of today’s manufacturing careers, and

difficulty equating military skills with private sector job qualifications.  In order to help connect

veterans with employers, AMP2.0 completed an inventory of veteran resources, wrote practical

guides for veterans, employers and academic institutions to help transition veterans to careers
10

in manufacturing, and provided recommendations for skills translators and Veterans’ Skills

Badging programs.

To ensure the sustainability and accessibility of the workforce development best practice tools

created by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, the Manufacturing Institute has

volunteered its resources and platform to curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that

have been created by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, helping to further scale and

replicate these important talent development opportunities.

 Recommendation #9: Curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that have been

created by AMP2.0 to further scale and replicate these important talent development

opportunities, via the Manufacturing Institute.

Finally, although AMP’s actions and recommendations on workforce training focused chiefly on

strengthening the role of community colleges within the pipeline, AMP2.0 also recognizes unique

needs and opportunities for four‐year colleges, universities, and graduate programs in educating

leaders who develop and implement advanced manufacturing technology. Most U.S.

undergraduate engineering programs are reviewed by the Accreditation Board of Engineering

and Technology (ABET). ABET should consider potential changes in the engineering curriculum

requirementsthat include advanced manufacturing skills. Further, U.S. graduate programs(M.S.,

Ph.D., and M.B.A.) should consider specific skillsets and areas of high interest and demand in

manufacturing, including opportunitiesfor the public and private funding of graduate fellowships

as noted in Appendix 1.

IMPROVING THE BUSINESS CLIMATE  

As countries compete for the advanced manufacturing industries that provide the foundation for

future innovation, it is critical that the United States offer an environment where young

companies are able to demonstrate the viability of new technologies at scale and where mature,

main street manufacturers are able to access the capital and capabilities they need to expand

into new business opportunities. Unlike services and software, manufacturing requires unique

capital that often cannot be rapidly brought on line or redeployed for other uses. Long time lines,

higher technology risk, and large capital requirements combine to create a risk profile

unacceptable to many investors. In addition, many connections between manufacturers and the

capabilities, know‐how, and capital for expansion need to be rebuilt after the last decade of lost

growth in the manufacturing sector.  
11

Expanding and Enhancing Intermediary Solutionsfor Manufacturing Expertise: Small and medium

manufacturers can adopt and leverage manufacturing technologies more readily when improved

access to information is provided via “intermediary services” – established organizations that

understand and facilitate access to a wide range of information needed for technology

commercialization and scale up, including technical expertise, supply chain partners, financing

options, and government programs. AMP2.0 provided three key design characteristics for

successful intermediaries including 1) regional scope, 2) technology or industry specific focus,

and 3) service provision to a network of firms rather than a single firm.    The Manufacturing

Extension Program is one example of an intermediary that could be enhanced or configured to

meet these key design criteria.  In addition, accurate market and technical insight is critical for

small and medium manufacturers to develop an entry strategy, and mobilize resources to adopt

new technologies for processes, materials, and new products. Shared facilities with effective

technical and talent, including the manufacturing technology testbeds, will also enable digital

design and manufacturing to be realized by networks of small and medium‐sized enterprises.  

AMP2.0 conducted a pilot project to outline an approach for small and medium‐sized

manufacturers to access market and technical insights required to scale‐up new technology.

Tools developed from the pilot could be utilized by an intermediary to support small and

medium‐sized manufacturers in developing a business plan for scale‐up.

 Recommendation #10: Leverage and coordinate existing federal, state, industry group

and private intermediary organizations to improve information flow about technologies,

markets and supply chains to small and medium‐sized manufacturers.

Increasing capital access for established and start‐up firms: Advanced manufacturing small and

medium‐sized manufacturers (SMMs) often are not compelling investments for capital markets

due to technology risk, market adoption risk, long lead timesto significantrevenue and significant

capitalrequirements. Reducing capitalrequirementsis one way that government has encouraged

manufacturersthrough grants, loan guarantees and tax deferrals.  Frequently overlooked are the

other means that investments can be made more attractive to capital markets through demand

creation, reducing technical risk, and reducing development time. For example, by offering low‐

cost loans to private‐sector investors in “first‐of‐a kind” production facilities, a public‐private

Scale‐Up Fund could incentivize additional investment in novel production facilities. Similar

incentives at the regional and national levels can also help create a vibrant, domestic equipment

supply base for specific nascent technologies such as in additive manufacturing.   In addition,

existing federal programs and authorities can use the preannouncement of their future demand

to reduce the market risk of new technologies, and thereby increase their attractiveness for

investment.
12

 Recommendation #11: Reduce the risk associated with scale‐up of advanced

manufacturing by improving access to capital through the creation of a public‐private

scale‐up investment fund; the improvement in information flow between strategic

partners, government and manufacturers; and the use of tax incentives to foster

manufacturing investments.

In addition to its efforts this year to further develop and implement its recommendations on

critical emerging technology areas, securing the talent‐pipeline, and creating a supportive

environment for innovative manufacturing businesses, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

reiterates the recommendations on tax and regulatory policy advanced in its original report. The

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership supports the Administration’s efforts regarding

retrospective review to streamline regulations to create a more competitive environment for

manufacturing. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership also emphasizes the importance of

passing fundamental business tax reform while deepening those incentives designed to

encourage the long‐term establishment of capital‐intensive and space‐intensive manufacturing

operations as part of coordinated national strategies to become manufacturing leaders in a

specific sector.  

IMPLEMENTATION

Ongoing efforts over the last five years have required substantial coordination across federal

agencies and collaboration with the private sector.  To ensure successful implementation of the

above recommendations addressed to the federal government, sustained leadership from the

Executive Office of the President (EOP) is a necessity.   The Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP) and the National Economic Council (NEC) have naturally played central roles in

moving multi‐agency initiatives forward, including the implementation of key recommendation

from previous PCAST reports on advanced manufacturing.  In addition to EOP leadership and

deep engagement, clear accountability across multi‐agency initiatives is critical to accelerate

needed outcomes.  

 Recommendation #12: The National Economic Council (NEC) and the Office of the Science

and Technology Policy (OSTP), within 60 days, should submit to the President a set of

recommendations that specify: (1) the ongoing EOP role in coordinating the federal

government’s advanced manufacturing activities; and (2) clear roles and responsibilities

for federal agencies and other federal bodies in implementing the above

recommendations.
13

I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0

Introduction

The United States has long thrived as a result of its ability to manufacture goods and sell them to

global markets. Manufacturing supports the country’s economic growth, leading the Nation’s

exports and employing millions of Americans. In addition, manufacturing drives knowledge

production and innovation in the United States by supporting two‐thirds of private sector

research and development and by employing the vast majority of U.S. scientists, engineers, and

technicians to invent and produce new products1.

The United States has been the leading producer of manufactured goodsfor more than 100 years.

Yet, in the 2000’s, manufacturing faced major employment declines as factories were shuttered.

U.S. strengths in manufacturing innovation and technologies that have sustained American

leadership in manufacturing are under threat from new and growing competition abroad.  

U.S. strengths in manufacturing innovation and invention that have sustained American

leadership in manufacturing remain under threat from new and growing competition abroad.

The United States has been losing significant elements of research and development linked to

manufacturing, as well as the ability to compete in the manufacture of many products that were

invented and innovated here. And other countries have been stepping up their investments in

manufacturing and in research, eroding the United States’ lead.

Beginning in 2011, the United States began a series of national‐level discussions and actions

between the public and private sectors to ensure this country is prepared to lead the next

generation of manufacturing. Those activities, which came to be called the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership, promise a new era of manufacturing in this country.

This report describes the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0)’s actions and

recommendations for accelerating progress along three integrated pillars that together can

strengthen the U.S. ecosystem for advanced manufacturing leadership: Enabling Innovation,

Securing the Talent Pipeline, and Improving the Business Climate. These recommendations focus

on both federal actions and public‐private partnerships that can accelerate U.S.‐based

                                                             1 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Ensuring America’s Leadership in Advanced

Manufacturing, June 2011
14

manufacturing across a wide range of industry sectors. The United States is poised to lead this

manufacturing innovation by leveraging regional strengths throughout the country. However, to

do so, the United States must implement a sustained and coordinated national effort to grow our

lead in innovation, to develop the skills needed in today’s advanced manufacturing plants, and

to increase the competitiveness of our environment for manufacturing that recognizes the stiff

competition from other nations with more centralized plans and practices.   

Process

In June 2011, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the

President’s Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) issued the report to the

President: Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. The report outlined a

strategy and specific recommendations for revitalizing the Nation’s leadership in advanced

manufacturing.   

Based on that report, in 2011 President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing

Partnership (AMP), a national effort bringing together industry, universities, the Federal

government, and other stakeholders to identify emerging technologies with the potential to

create high quality domestic manufacturing jobs and enhance U.S. global competitiveness.

Operating within the framework of PCAST, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering

Committee (SC) identified three pillars to ensure an ecosystem for advanced manufacturing

leadership:  

(1) Enabling Innovation,  

(2) Securing the Talent Pipeline, and  

(3) Improving the Business Climate.   

As described in the Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in

Advanced Manufacturing (July 2012), the partnership’s 2012 recommendations fit intimately

together and have an additive effect acrossthese three pillars.  In itsfirstset of recommendation,

recommendation, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership sought to detail a model for

evaluating, prioritizing, and recommending federal investments in advanced manufacturing

technologies.  It recommended public‐private partnerships, including the National Network for

Manufacturing Innovation, focused on advancing high‐impact technologies and models for

collaboration that encompass technology development, innovation infrastructure, and

workforce development.  It also recommended to the administration actions to increase private‐

private‐sector investment in advancing manufacturing in the United States.  Appendix A lists the
15

the implementation status of the recommendations made by PCAST to the Federal government

through the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership report of July 2012.

In September 2013, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0) convened the second

phase of the partnership.   AMP2.0 was charged by PCAST to develop specific, targeted, and

actionable recommendations, building on the recommendationsin the 2012 report, which would

improve and sustain U.S. manufacturing innovation. Through a vibrant collaboration among

industry, academia, labor organizations, and government agencies, AMP2.0 made significant

progress toward this goal, recommending paths for sustained government engagement on

advanced manufacturing with private organizations at local, state, regional, and national levels.

AMP2.0 members further led private sector activities set out in the 2012 Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership recommendations for the industrial, nonprofit, and academic

manufacturing communities.

In its efforts, the AMP2.0 SC called on the expertise of 43 college and university faculty and

administrators, 51 industry leaders and employees, four labor group representatives, and six

independent experts for the working teams, in addition to the contributions from countless

participants at regional meetings, roundtables and via other forum.  

AMP 2.0 Steering Committee Actions & Recommendations

The AMP Steering Committee put forth a set of recommendations in 2012 around three pillars:

Enabling Innovation, Securing the Talent Pipeline, and Improving the Business Climate. The

AMP2.0 Steering Committee’s actions and further recommendations are offered to accelerate

manufacturing innovation and growth, ensuring global competitiveness of the U.S.

manufacturing sector, and fueling the innovation economy.

The significant body of work accomplished by AMP2.0 includes the development of national

strategies piloted on three of the technologies identified by the Advanced Manufacturing

Partnership in its first report as technology areas of high national priority. Through piloting  a

process for creating national technology strategies, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

identified a need for sustained public‐private coordination channels for manufacturing

technology investments and identified new forms of research and development infrastructure

that can help advance a cross‐cutting set of technologies. Because new advanced manufacturing

technologies will require a skilled workforce, AMP2.0 has also implemented several concrete

actions to accelerate jobs‐driven workforce training primarily through partnerships between

local academic institutions and local employers. A focus on these best practices and participation

of all stakeholders (government, industry, and academia) has led to new innovations in the

delivery of workforce training. Finally, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 has focused
16

on those elements of improving the business climate that matter most for small and medium‐

sized manufacturers and to new emerging technology companies as they seek new business

opportunities created by further deploying new innovations and technologies.  

In addition to identifying steps the federal government can take to secure an enduring U.S. lead

in advance manufacturing, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 also took action where

it could to launch public‐private initiatives building towards the same goal, and in many places it

has identified additional opportunities for public‐private action or private sector leadership to

strengthen U.S. manufacturing. These are described more fully in Appendices 1‐5 and related

Annexes. For those areas where the federal government is critical to advancing U.S.

competitiveness in manufacturing, a summary of the recommendations follows.  

	 	
17

Summary of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0’s Recommendations

Pillar I: Enabling Innovation

Recommendation #1 Establish a national strategy for securing U.S. advantage in

emerging manufacturing technologies with a specific national

vision and set of coordinated initiatives across the public and

private sectors and all stages of technology development. This

should include prioritized manufacturing technology areas of

national interest, leveraging the technology prioritization and

analysis process developed by the Advanced Manufacturing

Partnership, and should facilitate management of the portfolio of

advanced manufacturing technology investments.

Recommendation #2 Create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium to

provide coordinated private‐sector input on national advanced

manufacturing technology research and development priorities.

Recommendation #3 Establish a new public‐private manufacturing research and

development infrastructure to support the innovation pipeline,

which complements Manufacturing Innovation Institutes at earlier

and later technology maturation stages, through the creation of

manufacturing centers of excellence (MCEs) and manufacturing

technology testbeds (MTTs) to provide a framework that supports

manufacturing innovation at different stages of maturity and allows

small and medium‐sized enterprises to benefit from these

investments.

Recommendation #4 Develop processes and standards enabling interoperability of

manufacturing technologies; exchange of materials and

manufacturing process information; and certification of

cybersecurity processes for developers of systems.

Recommendation #5 Create – through the National Economic Council, the Office of

Science and Technology Policy, and the implementing agencies and

departments – a shared National Network for Manufacturing

Innovation (NNMI) governance structure that can ensure a return

on investment for the NNMI’s many stakeholders by including input

from various agencies as well as private sector experts, organized

labor and academia.
18

Pillar II: Securing the Talent Pipeline

Recommendation #6 Launch a national campaign to change the image of manufacturing

and support National Manufacturing Day’s efforts to showcase real

careers in today’s manufacturing sector.

Recommendation #7 Incent private investment in the implementation of a system of

nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications

that employers utilize in hiring and promotion, by providing

additional funds that build on investments being made through the

Department of Labor and Department of Education Trade

Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training

(TAACCCT).

Recommendation #8 Make the development of online training and accreditation

programs eligible to receive federal support through federal jobs

training programs.

Recommendation #9 Curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that have been

created by AMP2.0 to further scale and replicate these important

talent development opportunities, via the Manufacturing Institute.

Pillar III: Improving the Business Climate

Recommendation #10 Leverage and coordinate existing federal, state, industry group

and private intermediary organizations to improve information

flow about technologies, markets and supply chains to small and

medium‐sized manufacturers.

Recommendation #11 Reduce the risk associated with scale‐up of advanced

manufacturing by improving access to capital through the creation

of a public‐private scale‐up investment fund; the improvement in

information flow between strategic partners, government and

manufacturers; and the use of tax incentives to foster

manufacturing investments.

Each of these three pillars – enabling innovation, securing the talent pipeline, and improving the

business climate – are mutually reinforcing and individually important for securing sustained U.S.

leadership in advanced manufacturing and innovation. Below, the Advanced Manufacturing
19

Partnership 2.0 discusses in detail its findings, activities, and latest set of recommendations

within each pillar for strengthening U.S. advanced manufacturing.   

Implementation of these recommendations directed toward the federal government requires

coordination among and action plans by federal agencies and bodies. This is addressed in the

final recommendation of this report:

Implementation

Recommendation #12 The National Economic Council (NEC) and the Office of the Science

and Technology Policy (OSTP), within 60 days, should submit to

the President a set of recommendations that specify: (1) the

ongoing EOP role in coordinating the federal government’s

advanced manufacturing activities; and (2) clear roles and

responsibilities for federal agencies and other federal bodies in

implementing the above recommendations.

   
20

II. Recommendations

Pillar 1: Enabling Innovation

Leadership in innovation and manufacturing technologies can cement the basisforsustained U.S.

competitiveness in manufacturing. However, maintaining that leadership position requires a

clear focus and coordinated effort to invest in technologies of national priority. Technology

breakthroughs that can take innovations out of a lab and into production, require shared

infrastructure to support cross‐cutting discoveries. Not least among this shared infrastructure is

the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.  

Focusing resources on priority opportunities to develop technologies that can sustain U.S.

leadership in advanced manufacturing is the first important step in accelerating innovation in

manufacturing technology. AMP2.0 developed and implemented a process by which several

potential high‐impact technologies were prioritized. Three technologies were elevated for

further analysis by industry, organized labor and academic experts based on their potential for

cross‐cutting impact on U.S. advanced manufacturing industries, broad private sector pull,

importance to national security, and their ability to build long‐term U.S. competitiveness in

advanced manufacturing:  Advanced Sensing, Control, and Platformsfor Manufacturing (ASCPM);

Visualization, Informatics and Digital Manufacturing Technologies (VIDM); and Advanced

Materials Manufacturing (AMM).   

Because the discoveries and investments needed to build a U.S. advantage in these technologies

are often beyond the resources of one firm and benefit from insights from multiple disciplines

and industries, shared infrastructure is a key enabler to support and promote the efficient

development of new technologies. At earlier stages of development, co‐investments in basic

research for manufacturing applications can build a pipeline of discoveries leading to real

technological advancement and, for those technologiesthat are ready to deploy, technology test

beds can help de‐risk the adoption of these technologies, especially for small and medium‐sized

manufacturers, helping ensure that cutting‐edge technologies make their way onto U.S. factory

floors. Industry‐developed standards play a similar role in helping speed the adoption of new

technologies.

The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, recommended in the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership’s first report, provides critical shared infrastructure to take

technologiesfrom research to late‐stage technologiesthat are close to deployment. The creation
21

of four pilot manufacturing institutes and the pledge to launch four more this year represent a

significant step towards creating the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and

addressing the gap in shared manufacturing research infrastructure. Already, the pilot

manufacturing institutes are illustrating the advantages of public‐private partnerships and shared

infrastructure to streamline and de‐risk the process by which new manufacturing technologies

are made real. It is critical, however, to ensure the long‐term return on investment of these

manufacturing institutes, and this is best done through the creation and implementation of

standard principles for the protection of intellectual property and a strong governance body.  

Establishing a National Manufacturing Technology Strategy

The research and innovation ecosystem of a nation is highly dependent on the presence of a

manufacturing base that provides constant feedback in terms of technology problems and

challenges to be solved.  

Since technology is rapidly and continually advancing, one of the key goals of the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership was to develop and establish a permanent mechanism to identify the

next generation of advanced manufacturing technologies that will have the greatest impact on

the growth and competitiveness of the United States, and to provide technical insight into the

opportunities and obstacles each critical technology will face as it progresses towards

commercialization.

Unlike the United States today, many leading industrialized countries follow a systematic

prioritization and planning process that is explicitly aligned to their national interests and

strategies. For the United Statesto benefit from a similar exercise in defining a national vision for

advanced manufacturing technologies and a shared set of research and development priorities

to advance them, any national prioritization effort in the United States must build on the

strengths of our decentralized research and development efforts and industrial base. An

approach to developing national technology strategies in the United States should capitalize on

the flexibility of the U.S. academic‐industrial partnership afforded by technical and community

colleges, universities, and national and military research laboratories. These public‐private

partnerships, with input from the workforce itself, can accelerate the efficient and cost‐effective

commercialization of new technologies by de‐risking the investment during development.   

The three interrelated mechanisms proposed below – an advisory mechanism, coordination of

advanced manufacturing R&D, and a strategy process – will be critical parts of the national

strategy and could help ensure a highly effective public‐private partnership for advanced

manufacturing upon conclusion of the AMP2.0 effort.    
22

In order to support a relevant, sustainable and transparent national strategy for advanced

manufacturing, AMP2.0 used three key manufacturing technology areas as examples of the

power and potential of scoping and prioritizing technology strategies. As detailed in Appendix 1,

these areas were prioritized among the 11 MTAs listed in the AMP 2012 report, using four

criteria:  

1. Industry/market pull

2. Cross‐cutting impact across multiple industry sectors

3. Importance to national security and competitiveness

4. Leverages current US strengths/competencies  

This process analyzes the current technology readiness, timeline to advance the technology, and

the gaps or obstacles that must be addressed.  This analysis can, and should, inform the national

manufacturing strategy and portfolio prioritization within and among federal agencies, and be

kept relevant with periodic reassessments.

Using this prioritization and technology assessment process, AMP2.0 created strategies for three

transformative manufacturing technologies: Advanced Sensing, Control, and Platforms for

Manufacturing (ASCPM); Visualization, Informatics and Digital Manufacturing Technologies

(VIDM); and Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM).

Appendix 1 includes a high‐level summary of this effort, and Annexes 1‐10 provide nine letter

reports detailing the technology gaps and recommendations for the three Manufacturing

Technology Areas (MTAs) that AMP2.0 prioritized for this assessment. The findings from the

analyses for each of these MTAs are noted in Table 1. These three MTAs are described briefly as:

• Advanced Sensing, Control, and Platformsfor Manufacturing (ASCPM): A new generation of

network‐based information technologies has created access to new uses of data and

information as new products and manufacturing methods are developed. These technologies

make a seamless interaction between cyber and physical assets possible. The research in this

space is focused on embedded sensing, measurement and control systems with scalable IT

platforms.  

• Visualization, Informatics and Digital Manufacturing Technologies (VIDM): This technology

is important as researchers and manufacturers move from digital design, to planning, to

purchasing and delivery of raw materials, and finally to the manufacture of customized

products. One aspect of the technology deals with supply chain efficiency, and the other

aspect deals with the speed with which products are designed, manufactured and brought to

market. The research in this space is focused on embedded sensing, measurement and
23

control systems into materials and technologies. When this link is strong, it increases

productivity, product and process agility, environmental sustainability, improved energy and

raw material usage, better safety performance and improved economics.

• Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM): Novel new materials are being designed at a

quickened pace over the last decade due to better modeling technology and high‐throughput

research.  Materials innovation is a key to U.S. competitiveness, given the historic national

security implications of unstable supplies of important materials, and their improved

environmental profile over traditional materials. AMM isfocused on the design and synthesis

of new materials, as well as innovative approaches to processing of traditional materials.

Because the materials are so different, AMP2.0 has prepared three additional letters, each

analyzing one specific aspect of advanced materials manufacturing: (1) advanced structural

composites; and (2) biomanufacturing [of biological therapeutics]; and (3) critical materials

reprocessing. See Appendix 1 for drivers motivating analysis of manufacturing in these three

areas.

Table 1. AMP2.0 technology strategy recommendations for three prioritized Manufacturing

Technology Areas.  

Technology

areas:

Advanced Sensing,

Control, and Platforms

for Manufacturing

Visualization,

Informatics and Digital

Manufacturing

Advanced Materials

Manufacturing

R&D

Infrastructure to

Support the

Innovation

Pipeline

 Establish

Manufacturing

Technology Testbeds

(MTTs) to

demonstrate the use

of and business case

for new

technologies,

including “smart

manufacturing”

capabilities.

 Create a

Manufacturing

Center of

Excellence (MCE),

focused on basic

research at earlier

technology

development

levels, on the

Digital Thread,

including tools for

digital design and

energy efficient

digital

manufacturing.

 Launch Materials

Manufacturing

Centers of

Excellence

(MCEs) to

support R&D in

topics that

support MIIs and

other

manufacturing

technology areas

in the national

strategy.
24

The National

Network for

Manufacturing

Innovation

 Establish an institute

focused on ASCPM

for energy use

optimization in

energy‐intensive and

digital information‐

intensive

manufacturing.

 Launch a Big Data

MII focused on

secure analysis of

and decision‐

making via large,

integrated data

sets for

manufacturing

processes (in

addition to the

current Digital

Manufacturing and

Design Innovation

Institute).

 Leverage supply

chain

management of

defense assets

to spur

innovation and

RD&D in critical

materials

reprocessing.

Public‐Private

Technology

Standards

 Develop new

industry standards,

including data

interoperability

standards for key

systems and vendor

support.

 Craft and deploy

policy standards for

manufacturing

cyber‐physical

security and digital

data exchange and

ontology.

 Design data

standards for

material

characterization

to enable rapid

uptake of new

materials and

manufacturing

methods  

Additional

Strategies

 Incentivize creation

and

commercialization

of additive

manufacturing

systems providers,

service bureaus or

system integrators.

 Establish

Manufacturing

Innovation

Fellowships for

Ph.D.’s in key

AMM areas,

such as

biotherapeutic

manufacturing.

AMP2.0’s process demonstrated that the following considerations critically impact technology

strategy development and deployment. First, the technology vision must include technologies at
25

different stages of maturity. Second, equal consideration must be given to the technology push

from academia and government research, and to the market‐pull perspectives of industry and

other agencies. Third, the engagement of interagency experts and research leaders would

provide valuable information to inform the national strategy. Fourth, many government

mechanisms such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and M‐TAC pilots being initiated

by NIST exist to drive manufacturing technology development and should be considered and

leveraged when appropriate to implement strategies.  

The three pilot technology strategies developed by AMP2.0 proved the usefulness of a public‐

private partnership to inform the prioritization and analysis of key technologies. For the pilot

technology strategies, expert teams focused on individual technologies while enlisting broad

engagement of experts from companies and universities alongside input from federal research

and development agencies. Along the way, this engagement process spurred additional

integration and alignment across the individual technology development efforts of companies,

universities, and federal agencies The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0’s technology

strategy development process also made clear the importance of coordination across the federal

research and development agencies, given their roles in advancing different stages or aspects of

any individual technology.   

 Recommendation #1: Establish a national strategy for securing U.S. advantage in

emerging manufacturing technologies with a specific national vision and set of

coordinated initiatives across the public and private sectors and all stages of technology

development. This should include prioritized manufacturing technology areas of national

interest, leveraging the technology prioritization and analysis process developed by the

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, and should facilitate management of the portfolio

of advanced manufacturing technology investments.

The pilot national strategies in these three technology areas that emerged, and are detailed in

the appendix and annexes to this report, identified opportunities for private partners and many

existing federal programs to coordinate public and private investments in addressing significant

research questions that need to be solved for an individual technology to advance.  

Going forward, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommendsthe creation of a standing

processto develop national technology strategiesin advance manufacturing and of a mechanism

to continually engage the private sector for its insights on the state of technology and to enable

the coordination of public and private investments in technology development. In addition to

leveraging the improved interagency coordination on manufacturing initiatives spurred by the

Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, the creation of national technology strategies
26

and R&D coordination in manufacturing could be modeled off of the interagency process

currently used by the Executive Office of the President’s National Science and Technology

Committee which currently crafts national research and development strategies in a range of

technology areas. In addition, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 recommends that

the federal government create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium, leveraging

leading technologists from across industry and universities, to provide a continuous channel for

the federal government to access private sector insights in crafting the national technology

strategies and to ensure ongoing coordination of public and private investments.  

 Recommendation #2: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium to

provide coordinated private‐sector input on national advanced manufacturing

technology research and development priorities.

In addition to research areas that could benefit from coordinated public and private investment,

in each technology area, the expert teams identified a similar need for shared, public‐private

research and development infrastructure to help advance more industry‐focused basic research

at the front‐end of the technology development pipeline, to harness efforts across industry,

universities, and agencies to address key technology challenges at later stages of development,

and, once technologies were available, to de‐risk their adoption on U.S. factory floors, especially

for small and medium sized manufacturers.  

 Recommendation #3: Establish a new public‐private manufacturing research and

development infrastructure to support the innovation pipeline, which complements

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes at earlier and later technology maturation stages,

through the creation of manufacturing centers of excellence (MCEs) and manufacturing

technology testbeds (MTTs) to provide a framework that supports manufacturing

innovation at different stages of maturity and allows small and medium‐sized enterprises

to benefit from these investments.

To spur more industry‐focused basic research in advanced manufacturing at the front‐end of the

innovation pipeline, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 recommends the creation of

Manufacturing Centers of Excellence, basic research laboratories jointly funded and operated by

industry and universities addressing targeted industry technology needs. In many cases, these

basic research centers can ensure that there are sufficient early‐stage manufacturing

technologies that can ultimately feed in to the later‐stage development and deployment driven

by the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.  
27

For example, in visualization, informatics, and digital manufacturing, the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 expert teams identified a need for a manufacturing center of

excellence focused on improving the capabilities of technologies, primarily software, which

connects the “digital thread” or secure flow of digitized information between design, simulation,

and production stages.    The expert team investigating advanced materials manufacturing

identified a need for manufacturing centers of excellence in materials processing science and

manufacturing engineering needed for industrial applications, such as composites joining or

critical materials reprocessing. In both instances, these manufacturing centers of excellence

would be investing in basic research “upstream” from existing or new manufacturing innovation

institutes that are envisioned to comprise the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.

Historically, the National Science Foundation has funded Engineering Research Centers in

advanced manufacturing fields that have united $3‐4 million in federal funds for engineering

research at leading universities with significant co‐investments from a broad range of industry

partners.  The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership believes that this model provides a useful

template for the design, operations, and creation of Manufacturing Centers of Excellence. New,

and potentially existing, centers within this program and within other agencies’ center programs

could be focused on advanced manufacturing R&D as manufacturing centers of excellence,

supporting existing or potential Manufacturing Innovation Institutes. Here, we note that

manufacturing centers of excellence provide R&D at early technology readiness

level/manufacturing readiness levels, and can thus include manufacturing technology areas not

yet sufficiently mature for or prioritized as Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs). Likewise,

manufacturing centers of excellence initiated to support existing MIIs provide a stream of early‐

stage technology innovation as input for MIIs that are, by design, focused at higher

technology/manufacturing readiness levels. Manufacturing centers of excellence should be co‐

located within U.S. regions shared with related Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, when

feasible and advantageous to accelerated manufacturing technology maturation within the

institutes.  Here, the definition of “region” can vary broadly among manufacturing technology

areas, and can include corridors spanning multiple geographically contiguous states, as well as

virtual regions of related manufacturing capabilities, industries, and workforce.

At the opposite end of the technology development pipeline, many new technologies that are

already available for deployment face slow adoption, as individual manufacturers struggle to

quantify the value of those new technologies compared with the risk of being an early adopter.

To help de‐risk the adoption of available technologies – for example, many technologies in the

advanced sensing, control, and platforms area – manufacturing technology testbeds (MTTs) can

provide shared equipment and infrastructure for manufacturers to demonstrate, evaluate, and
28

explore customizing new technologies. Especially for small‐ and medium‐sized manufacturers

(SMMs) who can rarely afford to build their own testing infrastructure – and for whom a

technology failure could be more catastrophic –these manufacturing technology testbeds can

significantly de‐risk the implementation of available technologies and also contribute to the

development of a talent and knowledge base in the use of that technology.  And in many cases,

manufacturing technology testbeds can lead to further insights about the use of a technology in

production or help validate a production technology against an industry standard. While the

range of federal investment in a manufacturing technology testbed varies across manufacturing

technology areas, in general, a manufacturing technology testbed can be created with $5 to $10

million of federal or state funds matched by an equivalent amount or more of private sector

investment.

AMP2.0 emphasizes that the envisioned role of the manufacturing centers of excellence and

manufacturing technology testbeds is primarily to support the early‐stage and late‐stage

readiness levels of manufacturing technologies developed within Manufacturing Innovation

Institutes. Coordination and leveraging across this innovation pipeline that comprises research,

development, demonstration, and deployment is expected. At the same time, the manufacturing

centers of excellence also provide the United States a coordinated meansto remain at the cutting

edge of manufacturing technology innovation, including in emergent areas that may later be

identified and prioritized as Manufacturing Innovation Institutes; while the manufacturing

technology testbeds address a critical need for small and medium‐sized manufacturers to test

and adapt matured technologies including but not limited to Manufacturing Innovation Institute

output.

Finally, across all three pilot technology strategies, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

2.0’s expert teams identified a need for new industry‐driven standards to help spur the adoption

of new technologies, products and manufacturing methods. Standards allow a more dynamic and

competitive marketplace, without hampering the opportunity to differentiate. Development of

standards reduces the risks for enterprises developing solutions and for those implementing

them, accelerating adoption of new manufactured products and manufacturing methods. The

federal governmentshould work with private industry to establish standards and interoperability

for manufacturing new products and processes. This includes data standards for the

interoperability of manufacturing hardware and software to speed the adoption of new digital

manufacturing techniques, the use of advanced sensing, controls, and platform technologies, and

new cybersecurity standards in manufacturing that can mitigate security risks at the interface of

the cyber systems and physical equipment in the manufacturing ecosystem, important again for

the development of digital manufacturing and the use of advanced sensors.
29

 Recommendation #4: Develop processes and standards enabling interoperability of

manufacturing technologies; exchange of materials and manufacturing process

information; and certification of cybersecurity processes for developers of systems.

Establishing & Supporting the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

Institutes

In its first report, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recognized the need for a National

Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), composed of institutes that would represent a

long‐term partnership between industry and universities, enabled by local, state and federal

government dedicated to addressing critical development and deployment challenges for later‐

stage technologies. The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation’s shared infrastructure

was envisioned to be a cost‐sharing model across multiple members, seeded with federal funds

but ultimately self‐sustaining, with a focus on technology innovation and a strong brand identity

and reputation.    Because these institutes would be hubs for the nation’s leading experts in

individual technologies, they would be able to translate technology breakthroughs into products

and businesses for the market, and form effective teams of industrial and academic experts from

multiple disciplines to solve difficult problems from pre‐competitive research to proprietary

technology or product development.

The benefits of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation do not end with the

commercialization of new technology. The Institutes also allow for dual appointments of faculty

and students in both research universities and application‐oriented institutions to develop

leaders familiar with research applications, new technologies and production systems.  They also

provide an opportunity to engage and assist small and medium‐sized entrepreneurs by providing

highly trained personnel to work in multiple regional innovation centers, as well as assist

community colleges and universities in developing and offering coursesin various manufacturing

technologies so that we have a workforce ready to design, build and operate the new plants or

new technology when it arrives at the “factory floor”.

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership supports the Administration’s actions thus far to

launch four manufacturing institutes addressing critical manufacturing technologies (Table A1 of

Appendix A), with four more manufacturing institutes on the way. In support of these pilot efforts

to develop the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and in anticipation of bipartisan

legislation to formally establish the program, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

recommends the development of a shared National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

Governance Structure to ensure a return on investment for manufacturing institute stakeholders.  
30

 Recommendation #5: Create – through the National Economic Council, the Office of

Science and Technology Policy, and the implementing agencies and departments – a

shared National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) governance structure

that can ensure a return on investment for the NNMI’s many stakeholders by including

input from various agencies as well as private sector experts, organized labor and

academia.

This governance structure should be established through clear, written guidelines covering both

Network governance and Institute topic selection, and these guidelines should reflect multiple

future scenarios for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: a scenario in which it is

fully authorized and a scenario in which it continues to be developed through executive action.

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership proposes a governance structure that maintains

autonomy for individual institute operations while creating a public‐private network governing

council that oversees the broader performance of the network and the sustainability of the

individual institutes. For a more detailed set of principles guiding the development of the

governance structure and a proposed structure that ensures all of the National Network for

Manufacturing Innovation’sstakeholders are adequately represented, please see Appendix 3 and

related annexes.

In addition, to support the establishment of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,

the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership engaged with leading IP experts to collect best

practices on IP management to inform the practices used by the new manufacturing institutes as

they are established. More detail on these best practices can be found in Appendix 3 and related

annexes.

Pillar 2: Securing the Talent Pipeline

This pillar is focused on the challenges of attracting and training top U.S. talent in the varied

careers within manufacturing. The Demand‐Driven Workforce working team was charged to

implement scalable solutions that will shift the public’s perceptions of manufacturing to reflect a

vibrant, creative and innovative career choice, and connect our future talent pipeline with

demand‐driven training that makes the best use of the expertise in community colleges and

universities, meetsthe workforce needs of employers, and offers highly‐skilled,satisfying careers

to manufacturing employees.  

Opportunities to accelerate U.S. manufacturing will require public‐private partnerships to

identify and implement the bestsolutions quickly and efficiently, meeting the real‐time demands
31

of manufacturers.    Manufacturers and academia realize that identifying and responding to

technological innovation can be expensive and time‐consuming, but these opportunities are best

addressed through partnerships of committed and motivated groups.    With 75 percent of

manufacturers being impacted negatively by a skills shortage according to one survey, the status

quo will not suffice.  The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership therefore offers several best‐in‐

class models that will connect talented employees with high‐paying careers, and create a robust

talent pipeline that will attract manufacturers back to U.S. shores.

Shifting the Public’s Misconceptions of Manufacturing

For decades, workers flocked to manufacturing careers because those jobs were viewed as

stable, solid careers that provided a path to the middle class for workers at every educational

level.    That perception has been shaken by the job losses of past decades, and rebuilding it

requires two things.  First and foremost, it requires continued, real, and sustainable growth in

these jobs.  But it also requires convincing the public that this job growth in manufacturing is real

and durable. A comprehensive, multiplatform campaign to drive home this message that the

American manufacturing sector is growing again is a key component in bringing about this

attitude shift. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership reached consensus that the new image

of manufacturing should be conveyed as “interesting, innovative, impactful, and most of all

increasing”, and has developed the steps required to launch a sustained, public‐private media

campaign, including capitalizing on National Manufacturing Day.

In order to lay the foundation of a secure, sustainable manufacturing talent pipeline, the

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership recommends that manufacturing image and engagement

campaigns target students at all educational levels, and primarily focus on grades K‐12, school

counselors, parents, and the general public in the manufacturing image campaign. Efforts should

also include leveraging National Manufacturing Day as a way to engage with schools and

communities. Please refer to Appendix 5 for additional information.

We recommend a layered approach to the manufacturing image campaign focused on the

current and potential growth of American manufacturing to counter public perceptions of sector

in decline.    One‐time national campaigns, while important, will not be effective without

simultaneous regional and local deployment over a variety of platforms, including social media

and specific activities for each age group. AMP2.0 recommends the Executive Office of the

President, in concert with Department of Commerce, support a campaign that would be

implemented by the stakeholders across the manufacturing community and launched using

National Manufacturing Day.  
32

National Manufacturing Day is an excellent opportunity for regional and local engagement to

change public perceptions about manufacturing (traditionally held in autumn, with the next

event occurring on October 3, 2014). Co‐produced by Fabricators & Manufacturers’ Association

and the National Association of Manufacturers, the NIST MEP and other organizations, the

National Manufacturing Day occurs throughout the United States and aims to address public

perception of manufacturing by inviting the public in to manufacturing facilities, and makes

ample use of social media to coordinate and advertise events.    We recommend leveraging

National Manufacturing Day as one component of this sustained image campaign, specifically as

a way to engage manufacturers with local schools and communities.

AMP2.0 SC encourages its members (Appendix B) and the DOC Manufacturing Council to join

forcesin promoting the National Manufacturing Day, encouraging production companies all over

the country to open their doors to students and the public. Further, the White House’s Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) can facilitate involvement of U.S. federal manufacturing

facilities, such as the DOE Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities (MDFs). This expanded effort

and participation from small‐  and medium‐sized manufacturers (SMMs), large and global

manufacturers with U.S.‐based facilities, and “maker spaces” in and near universities will speed

the improved understanding of manufacturing’s image and opportunity in the United States.

 Recommendation #6: Launch a national campaign to change the image of manufacturing

and support National Manufacturing Day’s efforts to showcase real careers in today’s

manufacturing sector.

Connecting More Americans with Skills for Successful Careers in Manufacturing

Today, in the United States, there are currently 312,000 job openings in manufacturing (Bureau

of Labor statistics), nearly half the number of jobs created in manufacturing since the end of the

recession. In a 2014 study by Accenture, conducted in collaboration with The Manufacturing

Institute, more than 50 percent of companies plan to increase U.S.‐based production by at least

five percent in the next five years and nearly a quarter are planning to grow U.S.‐based

manufacturing roles by almost 10 percent in the next five years. Importantly, nearly 80 percent

of their manufacturing roles fell into the categories of skilled (Associate degree or equivalent 12‐

24 months of training and/or experience) or highly skilled (Bachelor’s degree or equivalent of 36+

months or more of training and/or experience).  

The work underway by AMP2.0 is critically important: it demonstrates the importance of public‐

private partnerships, not just increased spending, to create unique, new models that deliver

demand‐driven skillstraining at a time when the stakes have never been higher.  AMP2.0 studied
33

studied the programs and partnerships that have proven results, and critically evaluated them

for scalability and the ability to replicate them with other partners, and then widened the reach

of our recommendations to tap specific subsets of the talent pool, including veterans.  These

models range from a broader and deeper use of accreditations and certifications, to relevant

apprenticeships across a wider range of career tracks, and included using career pathway models

to introduce flexibility into the training or retraining process.  They all have one important goal:

to connect motivated Americans with rewarding, highly skilled careers in manufacturing.

Credentialing Systems

The use of credentials and accreditation is not new in the workforce development system.  Since

the early 1900s, tradesmen have used a system of apprenticeships and trade school programs to

develop a highly valued skill and earn certificates or accreditations after years of training and

study. Professional credentials that are meaningful nationally are of tremendous value for a

mobile employee, however are not always recognized or sought by employers looking to fill

related positions. The use of credentials in the United States can also be sporadic and employer‐

dependent since not all skilled trade professions have a credential program.  

Over more than a decade, dedicated efforts by organizations like the National Association of

Manufacturers’ Manufacturing Institute have put forth new credential programs to help address

the skills gap in manufacturing. Credentialing programs, however, are limited by the extent to

which employers adopt them and preferentially hire candidates with them. The goal of AMP2.0

was to find a way to increase the use of nationally portable, stackable credentialing systems

through certifications and work‐based learning elements, consistent with the original AMP

recommendations.  AMP2.0 worked closely with the Manufacturing Institute to determine best

practices and to establish guidelines for credentialing and certification programs.

The best practice models and success stories that were examined by AMP2.0 indicated that

credentials generally lead to higher wages, a better‐trained workforce, greater labor market

mobility, reduced selection costs, and higher quality employees. These initial findings indicate

that credentialing systems can be an important part of the workforce of the future.  By building

awareness, demonstrating evidence of success, providing a national roadmap for action, and

investing in certifications, we can increase the use of nationally portable and stackable

credentials and better meet the needs of employers and a growing non‐traditional workforce.

After creating a list of Best Practice Models (see Appendix 2), AMP2.0 identified the following

common elements of credentialing systems that made them successful, including easy entry and

exit points throughout a person’s career, modularized certificate training that can be scheduled
34

to meet the needs of working adults, alignment with for‐credit programs leading to degrees,

eligibility for education grants like Pell and WIA, and a strong link to employment or internships.

We also determined that intermediaries could organize, advocate for, and provide services to

employers.  In addition, intermediaries could play a role in organizing, advocating for, governing

and advising workforce institutions, and engaging in research and development.    Important

intermediaries are state or regional manufacturing and employer associations, organized labor,

workforce investment boards, community colleges, manufacturing extension partnerships, and

regional economic development authorities.   

AMP2.0 identified four issues with credentialing systems that if resolved could help achieve the

objective of increasing nationally portable and stackable certifications: lack of awareness of

certifications available and how to utilize them in both companies and educational institutions;

a lack of demonstrated evidence of success of credentialing systems; a missing national roadmap

for action that identified guidelines and process steps in implementing credentialing systems;

and inadequate funding for implementing credentialing systems that created roadblocks for

statewide systems trying to implement credentialing systems. Examining these issues in greater

detail allowed us to produce a number of recommendations and project deliverables that could

help resolve potential problems with certification systems.   

 Recommendation #7: Incent private investment in the implementation of a system of

nationally recognized, portable, and stackable skill certifications that employers utilize in

hiring and promotion, by providing additional fundsthat build on investments being made

through the Department of Labor and Department of Education Trade Adjustment

Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT).

Apprenticeships

AMP2.0 recognized the tremendous potential that demand‐driven workforce solutions could

offer manufacturers, and implemented several modelsthat will generate long‐term employment

opportunities. AMP2.0 identified another key mechanism for demand‐driven workforce training

and education that are pragmatic, scalable and sustainable: apprenticeships.  

An important part of the credentialing and accreditation program for many skilled trades,

apprenticeships are used to reinforce classroom lessons through hands‐on learning for which

trainees are paid increasing wages astheir skills grow.  At a time when college tuition has soared,

soared, this can be an attractive career path for a motivated problem‐solver. There are currently

around 398,000 registered apprentices in the United States in programs run by labor unions and

individual companies, according to the Labor Department. While that number sounds significant,
35

it is actually significantly lower than in the early 2000s, when there were about 490,000

apprentices in the U.S. Compare this number to the German apprenticeship system, which trains

around 1.5 million people per year.

To advance this concept, AMP2.0 has developed a best‐in‐class apprenticeship model with a

coalition of companies and in partnership with labor market intermediaries and local colleges,

and has captured the learning and best practices from these and past apprenticeship programs

in a “How To” Instruction Manual, or “Playbook”, targeted specifically for employers (Appendix

2 and associated annexes). The pilot with three major manufacturers and two colleges in

northern California and southern Texas will prove the apprenticeship model to be a reliable, valid

and repeatable process that others can implement. This model of apprenticeships entails

completion of Associate Degree and Department of Labor Certification, and will be completed in

September 2014.  A statewide consortium of colleges, centers, and more than 25 manufacturers

has also been formed in Minnesota to launch the Learn, Work, Earn model to align trainings and

fill jobs. Best practices will be shared for replication. The Learn, Work, Earn model includes

employer‐driven competency‐based apprenticeships, curricula alignment with national

credentialing systems and bridging modules for veterans and other underrepresented

populations. This consortium ties together all of the most important AMP2.0 concepts and

recommendation in one public‐private partnership that can serve as a model nation‐wide. This

work builds on, and should be coordinated with, the successful union apprenticeship programs.

Career Pathways

Skills credentials, accreditations and the use of apprenticeships to attain them are critical to

developing the workforce for which manufacturers will compete.  It is, however, important to

recognize that flexibility and individuality are extremely important as new employees enter the

workforce, and as mature employees retrain for the manufacturing jobs of today and tomorrow.

There is no denying that manufacturing careers have changed over the last 30 years.  Many of

these require specialized and unique skills, and in some cases with secondary educations of

varying kinds. Community colleges stand in the gap between manufacturers who are challenged

to fill openings with limited talent pools, and the local talent that may need training or retraining

to fill these positions. AMP recognized the need to invest in improvements in community

colleges, as well as promote engagement between community colleges and industry, universities,

national labs, and K‐12 programs as the most efficient and effective way in which to manage

demand‐driven skills training in local manufacturing ecosystems.   

The analysis conducted by AMP2.0 has led to the conclusion that increasing career pathways and

“dual credit” opportunities across education (K‐12 schools, community colleges, and universities)
36

will increase the number of qualified technical employees in advanced manufacturing.  Career

Pathways is a workforce development strategy used to transition workers from an education

program to the workforce, and the goal is to increase education and job training options along

certain career paths.  Career pathways are a collection of programs and services intended to

marry core academic competency with technical skills that are in demand. These career pathway

initiatives usually consist of a partnership among community colleges, primary and secondary

schools, workforce and economic development agencies, employers, labor groups and social

service providers.

Efforts were therefore focused on providing job market clarity to stakeholders for the

manufacturing sector and identifying various educational pathways that are linked to these in‐

demand careers. AMP2.0 also identified best practicesin advanced manufacturing education and

training from K‐12 through Master’s degrees.  

Best‐in‐class curriculum for K‐6 focuses on students getting satisfaction from making useful

tangible objects from materials, developing and demonstrating an appreciation for the power of

team‐work and exhibiting discipline balanced by ingenuity. Students at this level must be trained

to take calculated risks, and should be assessed not by the failure, but by successful recovery

from failure, which encourages trying new ideas. At the seventh to twelfth grade level and

beyond, the focus of programs was on the key attributes necessary to develop the workforce

required by advanced manufacturing in sustainable,scalable models, which can include elements

such as career pathways, credentialing, experiential learning, skill based certifications, blending

of online and traditional program delivery, and others. Best practices from University‐level

programs include those with strong industry connection, such as co‐op programs focused on

manufacturing and professional Masters’ programs. Efforts are required to assist community

colleges and universities in developing and offering curricula and courses in advanced

manufacturing technologies so that there is a workforce, including engineers and technologists,

trained to design, build and operate the new advanced manufacturing with new technologies..

 Recommendation #8: Make the development of online training and accreditation

programs eligible to receive federal support through federal jobs training programs.

In addition to identifying the best‐in‐class attributes of successful programs, AMP2.0 focused on

leveraging existing efforts that are conducive to scaling. Further, AMP2.0 put these Career

Pathways concepts into practice with an on‐going initiative by GLOBALFOUNDRIES.  

AMP2.0 has also identified efforts already underway in upstate New York to develop a scalable

platform to facilitate the sharing of best practices, better connect businesses to education,
37

people to careers and educational pathways, and in general, facilitate better connections

between programs, and the needs of teachers and students. This effort is in its fourth year of

development.  

The pilot included a web‐based, user friendly, scalable pathways portal that is generic and

intended to be made available to regions across the country.  The New York model can be used

as an example for other regions developing such web based career pathways tools to ultimately

provide a national platform (or to be used as a guide for a national platform) for building a career

pathways model for advanced manufacturing education.  Refer to Appendix 2 and associated

annexes for more information.

Continued curation of the documents developed by AMP2.0 to address workforce training is

required. These documents, described in Appendix 2 and available in associated annexes, should

be updated periodically so that the best practices and relevant implementation details remain

current. Manufacturing Institute, a trade society, can serve this role that benefits the wider

manufacturing workforce education and training community.

 Recommendation #9: Curate the documents, toolkits and playbooks that have been

created by AMP2.0 to further scale and replicate these important talent development

opportunities, via the Manufacturing Institute.

Veterans

Manufacturers know that veterans have many of the work‐life and jobs skills in high demand.

They are committed, motivated, and highly skilled. They are disciplined leaders that are a

tremendous asset to any private sector firm. Of importance to manufacturing in particular, many

veterans have undertaken extensive, hands‐on training with cutting edge equipment and

technology over many years, resulting in high‐demand skills that could be easily transferred to

manufacturing positions. Careers as technicians, operators of complex equipment or craftsmen

are ideal fits for our returning veterans.  With more than 400,000 veterans leaving the service in

the next two years, they represent a very important piece of the skills gap solution.  

Transitioning from a military career to one in the private sector, however, can be a frustrating

effort for our veterans in two important ways:  little awareness of the career opportunities in

advanced manufacturing, and difficulty equating military skills with private sector job

qualifications.  Employers also have difficulty understanding a military resume’ and equating it

with the skills they need in a new hire.
38

In order to alleviate this frustration and miscommunication between our veterans and

employers, AMP2.0 developed practical competency based “bridging modules” for transitioning

U.S. Veterans focused on private sector manufacturing skills certifications. AMP2.0 created two

tools to aid veterans, employers and colleges in moving this skilled, dedicated piece of the U.S.

talent pool into private sector careers.  First, AMP2.0 built an inventory of veteran resources,

including key tools and applicable linksthat catalog and summarize the resourcesfor Veteran use

(Appendix 2 and associated annex).  AMP2.0 also wrote a practical guide for Veterans, Employers

and Academic Institutions on Transitioning Veterans to non‐military advanced manufacturing

roles (Appendix 2 and associated annex).   In addition to these two important tools, the AMP2.0

provided recommendations for skills translators and veterans’ skill badging that enables

transitioning military personnel to translate military training and experience to civilian careers.  

Refer to Appendix 2 and associated Annexes 11‐24 for detailed information on these workforce

training‐related recommendations and actions.

Pillar 3: Improving the Business Climate

AMP recognized that there were policy choices that could be made to affect real change in the

manufacturing sector. While many of the initial recommendations were focused on

macroeconomic policy, AMP identified early on that there were also specific and targeted policy

interventions that could be made to foster the scale‐up process in small‐  and mid‐sized

manufacturers, both start‐ups and established enterprises.   

“Scale‐up” can be defined as the translation of an innovation into a market.  There are significant

technical and market risks faced by new manufacturing technologies during scale‐up. The path

to successful commercialization requires that technologies function well at large scale and that

markets develop to accept products produced at scale. It is a time when supply chains must be

developed, demand created and capital deployed.    To compete globally and be a leader in

innovation, the United States must significantly improve its ability to translate innovation into

practical production.  

There are three requirements to achieving commercial scale with promising advanced

manufacturing technologies:    (1) networked supply chains, (2) rapid diffusion of technology

through the networked supply chains, and (3) access to capital.    Barriers to achieving scale

include the impeded flow of technical or market insights, supply network relationships, and

funding.  Small‐ and medium‐size manufacturers (SMMs) in the United States are particularly

susceptible to information, relationship, and finance barriers. U.S.‐based manufacturers of all
39

sizes experience barriers to scaling‐up new manufacturing innovations, due to financial risk and

the capital‐intensive nature of production at market scales. Further complicating the scale‐up

process, support for manufacturing is largely regional and varies substantially across regions

within the United States.   

In addition to its efforts this year to further develop and implement its recommendations on

critical emerging technology areas, securing the talent‐pipeline, and creating a supportive

environment for innovative manufacturing businesses, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

reiterates the recommendations on tax and regulatory policy advanced in its original report. The

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership applauds the Administration’s efforts through regulatory

look‐backs to reduce regulatory burdens for manufacturers and its proposals on business tax

reform to create a more competitive environment for manufacturing. The Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership emphasizes the importance of passing fundamental business tax

reform while deepening those incentives designed to encourage the long‐term establishment of

capital‐intensive and space‐intensive manufacturing operations as part of coordinated national

strategies to become manufacturing leaders in a specific sector.  

Please refer to Appendix 4 and associated Annex 26 for detailed information on the

recommendations and actions in this section.

Expanding and Exchanging Intermediary Solutions for Manufacturing

Small and medium‐sized manufacturers can adopt and leverage manufacturing technologies

more readily when improved access to information is provided via “intermediary services” –

established organizations that understand and facilitate access to a wide range of information

needed for technology commercialization and scale up, including technical expertise, supply

chain partners, financing options, and government programs.   Several types of private sector,

public sector, and non‐profit organizations currently provide some of these services (see annex).  

Successful intermediariesshare common characteristics(see list in Appendix 4), and will focus on

a regional economic ecosystem; will scope specific technologies or industries; and will provide

information, technical assistance, and other services to a network of firms rather than a single

firm.    The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program is one example of a

public sector intermediary that meets some of the Design Characteristics itemized below and

could be further enhanced or configured to meet the key design criteria. However, many other

successful models of providers exist including NorTech (OH), the Rochester Regional Photonics

Cluster (NY), The Great Lakes Wind Network, SF Made (CA), Maker’s Row (NY/NJ), and Life

Science Alley (MN).   

Small and medium‐sized manufacturers make scale‐up investment choices and attain financing

based on their understanding of a given business opportunity, as do their larger peers.  However,
40

However, small firms lack the internal capacity to ascertain the potential demand generated by

new technologies and understand how to enter those highly dynamic markets profitably. For

these reasons, affordable and accurate market and technical insight is critical for small and

medium sized manufacturers to develop an entry strategy, and mobilize resources to adopt new

technologies for processes, materials, and new products.   

AMP2.0 identified bottlenecks in information flow and key information types needed by small

and medium manufacturers to develop a business plan for scale‐up, and launched a pilot project

running from May to August 2014 to illustrate an approach to provide technical and market

insight, termed the Printed Electronics Pilot Project. This pilot examined a specific manufactured

product (Printed Electronics), U.S. geographic region (Midwest), and established small and

medium manufacturer (Mac Arthur Corporation). Results of the pilot indicate that the following

aspects would be critical to a successful process to deliver technical and market insight to small

and medium sized manufacturers:

 A regional, supply network hub for technology and industry expertise.

 Knowledge assets including Technology Readiness Level / Manufacturing Readiness Level

(TRL/MRL) hurdles, supply network maps, capital and capability requirements for entry,

and lessons learned.

 Attract supply network participants, especially SMMs and strategic industry partners, via

workshops.

 Market entry support to small and medium sized manufacturers, including use of

enhanced intermediary solutions such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

centers or the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation Institutes.

The Great Lakes Wind Network (GLWN.org) and The New York Battery & Energy Storage

Technology Consortium (ny‐best.org) are examples of intermediaries creating market insight at

scale and utilizing such information to create the supply network.   These models provide market

and technical insight leading to efficient and rapid supply network creation. Additionally, as

discussed further in Appendix 1, for certain manufacturing technologies such as digital

manufacturing, large scale technology incorporation can only emerge if trusted exchange of

information and digital data occurs among diverse supply chain entities.  For this purpose, trusted

agent accreditation/certification by intermediary organizations will be highly beneficial.

 Recommendation #10: Leverage and coordinate existing federal, state, industry group

and private intermediary organizations to improve information flow about technologies,

markets and supply chains to small and medium‐sized manufacturers.
41

Increasing Capital Access For Established and Start‐up Firms

Emerging advanced manufacturing technology companies often are not compelling investments

for capital markets due to technology risk, market adoption risk, long lead times to significant

revenue and significant capital requirements.   Reducing capital requirements is one way that

government has encouraged the scale‐up of early‐stage high‐technology manufacturers through

grants, loan guarantees and tax deferrals.  However, two modes of capital access assistance have

historically provided little benefit to small and medium sized manufacturers at production scale‐

up stages: venture capital funding and federal tax deferrals. Although they are now returning to

more traditional levels, AMP2.0 found that, in general, reporting rules enacted in the United

States have adversely impacted the initial public offering (IPO) market that is part of a venture

capital investment strategy, impeding the ability of small companies to explore traditional equity

markets for capital. Federal tax deferrals also provide manufacturing start‐ups no benefit,

because they are rarely initially profitable and, therefore, are not subject to an immediate tax

liability. There are, however, many local and regional incentives that exist to support

manufacturing in general.  

Frequently overlooked are the other means through which investments to scale‐up production

can be made more attractive to capital markets such as through demand creation (reducing

market adoption risk), providing access to technical expertise (reducing technical risk), and

through reducing development time (shortening investment maturities).   

AMP2.0 held multi‐city workshops to identify mechanisms beyond grants, loan guarantees and

tax deferrals that make investment in manufacturing more attractive to capital markets. These

workshops engaged leaders from a broad array of bank, venture, and other capital access

mechanisms to share ideas and best practices in manufacturing investment.  

The following strategic approaches can improve capital access for both established small and

medium sized manufacturers and manufacturing start‐ups looking to bring capital‐intensive

technologies to commercial scale production:

 Launch a Public‐Private Scale‐Up Investment Fund for First At‐Scale Production Facilities. By

offering low‐cost loans to private‐sector investors in “first‐of‐a‐kind” production facilities a

public‐private Scale‐Up Fund could incentivize additional investment in first of a kind

production facilities, ensuring that technologies invented in the United States can be made

in the United States. The fund would award loans to investment funds or investor consortia

in an equivalent amount to half the cost of the project being financed, and support

investments of at least $40 million, to address investments at the scale where access to

finance becomes truly challenging. This mechanism can be used, for example, to incentivize

a U.S. equipment supply base for nascent manufacturing technologies such as additive
42

manufacturing. Given the need to maintain a diverse portfolio of investments and the scale

of manufacturing projects (easily $40 million to more than $150 million), the public‐private

investment fund would need to be able to provide $5 to 10 billion in capital over time, split

across private funding and public loan guarantees (where generally $1 of public funds can

create the equivalent of $10 of guarantees).  

 Facilitate Connections among Corporate Strategic Partners, the Federal Government, and

Small and Medium Sized Manufacturers – Strategic partners can play a critical role in

deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies and in small and medium sized

manufacturers’ success.  The government should invest in, and be a customer of, a private‐

sector web‐based platform that creates a portal for strategic partners to learn more about

small and medium‐sized manufacturers, their technologies and their capabilities. In addition,

this portal could be used to advertise federal program funding that can support the scale‐up

of manufacturing technologies. An intermediary accreditation/certification mechanism will

also accelerate adoption of digital design and manufacturing.

 Use Tax Incentives to Foster Investment in Manufacturing and Partnerships in the

Manufacturing Ecosystem. While tax credits rarely directly benefit small to mid‐sized

manufacturers, tax credits that encourage investments in manufacturing start‐ups and small

to mid‐sized manufacturers can attract additional capital from strategic partners. One such

tax incentive would be created by continuing/modifying the New Markets Tax Credit Program

(NMTC) and expanding its scope to build the manufacturing ecosystem through support of

new and expansion projects in the form of a Manufacturing Renaissance Tax Credit. In

addition, Congressshould extend the Research and Development Tax Credit to allow for early

stage domestic testing of commercial viability including investments in depreciable property

(RD&D – Deployment).

 Leverage Government Procurement and Demand for Small and Medium‐Sized Manufacturers’

Technologies. Existing federal programs and authorities can make scale‐up investments for

nationally strategic manufacturing technologies, in line with a national technology strategy

as proposed by AMP2.0 elsewhere in this report. The preannouncement of intended scale up

investments from federal programs can help reduce the market risk associated with bringing

new technologies to commercial scale by ensuring a base load of demand. The Department

of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), in particular, have experience with

manufacturing scale‐up investments from the DOD’s recent efforts on energy efficiency and

the DOE’s investments in solar energy that could be leveraged.  

 Recommendation #11: Reduce the risk associated with scale‐up of advanced

manufacturing by improving access to capital through the creation of a public‐private
43

scale‐up investment fund; the improvement in information flow between strategic

partners, government and manufacturers; and the use of tax incentives to foster

manufacturing investments.

   
44

III. Conclusions

ACCELERATING ADVANCED MANUFACTURING		

REQUIRES SUSTAINED ACTION

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Steering Committee has implemented action plans

for a prioritized subset of the recommendations made by AMP around three critical pillars:

 Enabling Innovation

 Securing the Talent Pipeline

 Improving the Business Climate

The prioritized technology strategies, action plans, pilots, playbooks, and subsequent

recommendations aim to accelerate innovation in the U.S. manufacturing in a way that ensures

our global competitiveness and grows a robust domestic manufacturing base. In 12 months, we

have focused our efforts on positioning U.S. manufacturing to lead the world in the new

disruptive advanced manufacturing technologies and to capitalize on the inherent strengths of

the United States’ innovation economy.  

Over the course of this year, AMP2.0 also identified several opportunities outside the original

scope of AMP2.0. The AMP2.0 SC notes that there remain regulatory, tax and other policy issues

that may surmount technological advantages. Manufacturers note that regulatory uncertainty

impacts their ability to both adopt new manufacturing technology innovations and to continue

U.S.‐based operations. Second, AMP2.0 encourages the further development of tax policies that

are designed to encourage long‐term establishment of capital‐intensive and space‐intensive

manufacturing operations as part of coordinated national strategies to become manufacturing

leaders in a specific sector.  

Accelerating manufacturing innovation requires sustained momentum of the actions begun by

AMP2.0. The United States can and will lead the world in advanced manufacturing if we commit

to doing so.
45

Appendix A: AMP Recommendations and

Implementation Status

Below we provide the original list of AMP recommendations to the President, conveyed in the

PCAST AMP report in 2012. AMP2.0 was not tasked to review the whole‐government progress

against these recommendations, but provides this table as a brief reference to the context of

AMP2.0. The AMP Steering Committee recommendations to the Administration were well‐

received, identifying opportunities not only for government – for both the executive and

legislative branches – but also for private sector industry and academia.  The Administration has

made substantial progress against the key recommendations, across all three ‘pillars’ with

significant new initiatives under ‘Enabling Innovation.’  The White House and Commerce have

been driving implementation across Federal agencies with immediate focus on executive actions

and agency budgets.   This includes a major new initiative announced by President Obama to

launch the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, as Congress takes action on

bipartisan, bicameral legislation. We then provide a summary of actions to date on these

recommendations, with a view of additional recommended actions for implementation.

AMP Recommendation (2012) Status Update (2014)

1. Establish a National Advanced

Manufacturing Strategy to Identify and

Prioritize Investment in Cross‐Cutting

Technologies

The PCAST reports served as the private

sector voice on the national strategic plan,

and the Administration published the

NSTC report “A National Strategic Plan for

Advanced Manufacturing in February

2012.  Additionally the administration

formed the Advanced Manufacturing

National Program Office (AMNPO) as an

interagency team to coordinate and

collaborate on crosscutting initiatives –

including the NNMI. Further coordination

responsibilities would require legislative

action.
46

2. Increase R&D Funding in Top Cross‐

Cutting Technologies

The Administration proposed $2.2 billion

in advanced manufacturing R&D in FY13

Budget, a nearly 20% increase over the

prior year

In Process / Planned Activities:

Build process to incorporate regular input

from industry, labor and academia

3. Establish a National  Network of

Manufacturing  Innovation  Institutes

Launched a pilot institute on additive

manufacturing in Youngstown, Ohio; led

by a consortium of now over 100

companies, universities, and other

organizations.  

Engaged with stakeholders through five

regional workshops on NNMI, and

published the NNMI design framework in

January 2013.  Additional public input

gathered on Intellectual Property and

Institute performance measures.

Launched three additional pilot

manufacturing innovation institutes – in

Raleigh, NC, in Detroit, MI, and in Chicago,

IL – with four more manufacturing

innovation institutes on their way through

a competitive selection process.

In Process / Planned Activities:

Working with Congress to develop and

pass legislation to launch the NNMI

NNMI preparedness plan and team

established.
47

4. Empower Enhanced Industry/University

Collaboration in Advanced Manufacturing

Research

IRS treatment of industry‐funded R&D and

technology development in non‐profit

university facilities limits industry‐

university collaborations; this treatment

has not changed.

5. Foster aMore Robust Environmentfor

Commercialization ofAdvanced

Manufacturing Technologies

Created $1 billion Small Business

Investment Company “early stage”

innovation fund to support advanced

manufacturing and other emerging

technologies

Signed an Executive Order requiring all

Federal research agencies to bolster

efforts that support commercialization of

technology (October 2011)

Passed most significant patent reform in

50 years with bipartisan America Invests

Act, which includes a fast track option for

processing within 12 months

In Process / Planned Activities:

Developing partnership with the

Association of University Technology

Managers to enhance and measure

startup and licensing activity
48

6. Establish aNationalAdvanced

Manufacturing Portal

Revamped and re‐launched the

manufacturing.gov web‐site

Launched BusinessUSA, a new online

platform to facilitate access to services

and information businesses need across

the federal government

Created the MEP‐run National Innovation

Marketplace, a portal that connects U.S.

manufacturers to over $2 billion in

technology buying opportunities

In Process / Planned Activities:

Launching of manufacturing.data.gov,

including a searchable database of

research activities, as part of a larger

‘Open Manufacturing Data Initiative’

Based on the results of the pilot‐tested

National Innovation Marketplace (NIM),

MEP launched a competition for a set of

regional business‐to‐business network

pilot projects to build on the lessons

learned from the NIM.

7. CorrectPublicMisconceptionsAbout

Manufacturing

This has been partially implemented

through 2013‐2014 public events, such as

the July 2014 Maker Faire in Washington,

D.C. and more regionally‐distributed

events on National Manufacturing Day. No

advertising campaign has been funded or

launched as of this report finalization.

8. Tap the Talent Pool of Returning  Veterans: Established the Military Credentialing and

Licensing Task Force at the Dept. of

Defense to enable service members in the

Army, Navy, Marines, and the Air Force to

get industry‐recognized credentials for

their skills, starting with the 126,000
49

active service members who receive

elements of manufacturing training

Created the Veterans Retraining

Assistance Program to offer up to 12

months of training to unemployed

veterans

Sought and secured commitments from

private manufacturing  employers to hire

returning veterans

9. InvestinCommunityCollegeLevel

Education

NSF’s Advanced Technology Education

(ATE) program continues to address

manufacturing skills; Department of Labor

TAACCCT program also partially addresses

these issues.

10. Develop Partnershipsto Provide Skills

Certifications and Accreditation

Supported 5‐year goal of 500,000 workers

receiving industry‐recognized credentials

through a partnership between Skills for

America’s Future and NAM, supported by

the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Launched a Department of Labor

manufacturing credentialing database

11. Enhance Advanced Manufacturing

University Programs  

12. Launch National  Manufacturing

Fellowships  & Internships

Renewed emphasis on manufacturing in

NSF Advanced Technological Education

(ATE) program

Increased funding requested for NSF

Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF),

including about $250 million in fields

related to manufacturing

Proposed NIST scholarship and fellowship

program in advanced manufacturing in the

FY13 Budget
50

13. EnactTaxReform Not enacted to date.

14. StreamlineRegulatory Policy Launched regulatory ‘lookback’ across

more than two dozen agencies and 19

independent agencies to remove

outdated, inefficient, or redundant

regulations – 580 reform proposals have

been submitted and we have already

acted on 100

15. ImproveTradePolicy Established goal of doubling exports over

five years to support 2 million export‐

related jobs, with over 1.2 million export‐

supported jobs created so far

Signed into law Free Trade Agreements

with Colombia, Panama, and Korea (Fall

2011)

Created new trade enforcement unit, the

International Trade Enforcement Center

(ITEC), to challenge illegal trade actions of

other countries

Doubled rate of trade cases against China

compared to previous administration.  

Significant cases including (i) rare earth

WTO case against China and  (ii) WTO case

on Chinese subsidies for auto and auto

parts manufacturing
51

16. Update EnergyPolicy DOE has an ongoing significant effort to

bring efficiency and conservation to the

manufacturing sector through its Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy office;

DOE has announced an MII in Clean

Energy Manufacturing for power

electronics and has another active

solicitation for fiber reinforced polymer

composites.

Table A1. Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs) announced by August 2014.

Manufacturing Innovation Institute

Name

Primary Federal  

Funding, Solicitation, &

Management Entity

Announced

Date

Total Federal

Investment  

(over 5 years, in

USD)

America Makes  

National Additive Manufacturing

Innovation Institute

DOD‐Air Force Aug 2012 $50M

Power America

Next‐Generation Power Electronics

National Manufacturing Innovation

Institute

DOE‐Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy

Jan 2014 $70M  

Digital Manufacturing and Design

Innovation Institute

DOD‐Army Feb 2014 $70M

American Lightweight Materials

Manufacturing Innovation Institute  

Lightweight and Modern Metals

Manufacturing Innovation Institute

DOD‐Navy Feb 2014 $70M

Clean Energy Manufacturing

Innovation Institute for Composites

Materials and Structures

DOE‐Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy

TBD [review of

proposals in

process]

$70M
52

Appendix B: AMP2.0 Membership and

Participation

Operating under the framework of PCAST, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 is led

by a Steering Committee co‐chaired by Andrew Liveris, President, Chairman and Chief Executive

Officer of the Dow Chemical Company, and Professor Rafael Reif, President of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Working closely with White House’s National Economic

Council and PCAST, the AMP2.0 Steering Committee brought together a broad cross‐section of

U.S. manufacturers and colleges and universities.  

The AMP2.0 Steering Committee is comprised of the following members:

• Wes Bush, Chairman, CEO and President, Northrop Grumman

• David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell  

• Nicholas Dirks, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley

• Kenneth Ender, President, Harper College

• Leo Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers

• Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

• Eric Kelly, President and CEO, Overland Storage, INC

• Klaus Kleinfeld, Chairman and CEO, Alcoa, INC

• Andrew Liveris, President, Chairman and CEO, The Dow Chemical Company  

• Ajit Manocha, Senior Advisor, GLOBALFOUNDRIES

• Douglas Oberhelman, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar, INC

• Annette Parker, President, South Central College

• G.P. "Bud" Peterson, President, Georgia Institute of Technology  

• Luis Proenza, President Emeritus, The University of Akron

• Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Mark Schlissel, President, University of Michigan  

• Eric Spiegel, President and CEO, Siemens Corporation

• Mike Splinter, Executive Chairman of the Board, Applied Materials, INC

• Christie Wong Barrett, CEO, Mac Arthur Corporation
53

In addition to the contributions of the Steering Committee members, there were numerous

other individuals whose time and commitment to AMP2.0 should not go unrecognized. The

following individuals were either AMP2.0 working team members from academia, industry, and

labor or federal agency and administrative support.

Table A2. AMP2.0 Participants

Deborah Altenburg, Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute

Pooja Anand, Siemens

Corporation

Brian Anthony, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology

Michael Barriere, Alcoa Greg Bashore, Alcoa Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman

Gisele Bennett, Georgia Institute

of Technology

Stacey Bernards, Honeywell Wieslaw Binienda

The University of Akron

William Bonvillian,

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

David Bridges, Georgia Institute

of Technology

Tina Brown, Overland Storage INC

Mike Brown, Siemens

Corporation

Travis Bullard,

GLOBALFOUNDRIES

Rolf Butters, Advanced Manufacturing

National Program Office

Jennifer Clark, Georgia Institute

of Technology

Mary Sue Coleman, University of

Michigan

Maria Coons, Harper College

Hope Cotner, Center for

Occupational Research &

Development

Marsha Danielson, South Central

College

Brian Davis, The University of Akron

Oliver de Weck, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Kimberly Denley, Siemens

Corporation

Mitchell Dibbs, The Dow Chemical

Company

Nicholas Dirks, University of

California, Berkeley

Jonathan Dordick, Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute

David Dornfeld, University of California,

Berkeley

Craig Dory, Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute

Joseph Dragone, Ballston Spa

Central School District

Barb Embacher, South Central College

Kenneth Ender, Harper College Michael Engelhardt, Independent Joseph Ensor, Northrop Grumman

Mark Esherick, Siemens

Corporation

Sergio Felicelli, The University of

Akron

Karen Fite, Georgia Institute of

Technology

Randy Gast, Overland Storage Frank Gayle, Advanced

Manufacturing National Program

Office

Christopher Gopal, Independent

Charles Grindstaff, Siemens

Corporation

Dave Gross, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Craig Habeger, Caterpillar INC

Rod Heiple, Alcoa INC Carrie Houtman, The Dow

Chemical Company

Jack Hu, University of Michigan

Scott Hudson, Alcoa INC Shank Iyer, Honeywell Michael Jackson, Department of

Commerce
54

Matt Jensen, Alcoa INC Camille Johnston, Siemens

Corporation

Mark Jones, The Dow Chemical

Company

AJ Jorgenson, Manufacturing

Institute

Tom Kammer, South Central

College

John Kania, Applied Materials, INC

Ray Kilmer, Alcoa INC   Robert Knotts, Georgia

Institute of Technology  

Brian Knutson, South Central College

Kristina Ko, University of

Michigan  

Kevin Kolevar, The Dow

Chemical Company  

Tom Kurfess, Georgia Institute of

Technology

Doug Laven, South Central

College  

Lance Lavergne, Alcoa INC   Douglas Lawton, Northrop Grumman

Lori Lecker, Alcoa INC Philip Lippel, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Brian Lombardozzi, United

Steelworkers

Helmuth Ludwig, Siemens

Corporation

Ajay Mahajan, The University

of Akron

Erin Makarius, The University of

Akron

Marissa McCluney, Siemens

Corporation

Michael McGrath, Analytical

Services, INC

Jennifer McNelly, Manufacturing

Institute

Shreyes Melkote, Georgia

Institute of Technology

Krishna Mikklineni, Honeywell Jason Miller, National Economic

Council

Lauren Minisci, Siemens

Corporation

Mike Molnar, NIST and

Advanced Manufacturing

National Program Office

Padraig Moloney, Lockheed Martin

Company

Liz Moress, University of

California, Berkeley

Gopal Nadkarni, The

University of Akron

Michael Nobel, Caterpillar INC

Michelle O’Neill, Alcoa INC Esra Ozner, Alcoa INC Mike Panigel, Siemens Corporation

Nag Patibandla, Applied

Materials, INC

Scott Paul, United

Steelworkers

Brian Paul, Advanced Manufacturing

National Program Office

Ashley Predith, PCAST Doug Ramsey, Alcoa INC Jessica Raynor, National Economic

Council

Liz Reynolds, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Bill Ritsch, Georgia Institute of

Technology

Ignacio Ros, Siemens Corporation

Don Rosenfield,

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Mike Russo,

GLOBALFOUNDRIES

Tariq Samad, Honeywell

Shivakumar Sastry, The

University of Akron

Mike Sayen, Siemens

Corporation

Natalie Schilling, Alcoa INC
55

Richard Schmaley, Northrop

Grumman

Martin Schmidt,

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Ravi Shanker, The Dow Chemical

Company

Albert Shih, University of

Michigan

Rajiv Singh, Honeywell Lisa Skaggs, The Dow Chemical

Company

Erin Sparks, Department of

Commerce

Mahesh Srinivasan, The

University of Akron

Marianne Stanke, Motorola

Solutions

Rebecca Taylor, National

Center for Manufacturing

Sciences

Rainer Theisen, Siemens

Corporation

Paul Towne, Honeywell

Christopher Traci, United

Steelworkers

Marion Usselman, Georgia

Institute of Technology

Krystyn Van Vliet, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Gina Vassallo, Caterpillar Ben Vickery, Advanced

Manufacturing National

Program Office

Christopher Voight, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Ben Wang, Georgia Institute

of Technology

Wayne Watkins, The

University of Akron

John Wen, Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute

Michael Wessel, United

Steelworkers

Gloria Wiens, Advanced

Manufacturing National

Program Office

Paul Witt, The Dow Chemical

Company

Jeff Zawisza, The Dow

Chemical Company

Chuck Zhang, Georgia

Institute of Technology

   
56

Appendix C: U.S. Regional Meetings on Advanced

Manufacturing during the Advanced

Manufacturing Partnership 2.0

Each regional meeting listed below was hosted by institutions that were participating members

of the AMP2.0 Steering Committee and/or Working Teams. The agenda for each meeting was

specific to that region, focused chiefly on regional planning for manufacturing innovation with

the state and its neighboring states. See URLs listed below for complete agendas and speakers.  

Each meeting was advertised widely by AMP2.0 and the AMNPO. The audience for each meeting

typically exceeded 200 attendees from regional industry, academic institutions, local and state

governments, and federal agencies.

Each regional meeting’s organizational efforts and costs were volunteered by the hosting

institution(s). No formal summary of the meeting was requested or required by AMP2.0, and

generally these events served the purposes of obtaining:

 Regional discussion and feedback to AMP2.0 process and recommendations;  

 Showcasing of regional manufacturing strengths; and  

 Spurring regional planning among local industry, academia, and government.

   
57

Table A3. AMP2.0 regional meetings

DATE LOCATION HOSTING

INSTITUTION(S)

MEETING AGENDA URL

February 3, 2014 Atlanta, GA Georgia Institute of

Technology

http://www.advancedman

ufacturingatech.edu

April 2, 2014 Akron, OH University of Akron,

United Steelworkers

https://www.uakron.edu/a

mp/

April 24, 2014 Troy, NY Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute and Global

Foundries

http://amp.rpi.edu

May 16, 2014 Cambridge, MA Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

and the

Commonwealth of

Massachusetts

http://ilp.mit.edu/confere

nce.jsp?confid=111

June 9, 2014 Detroit, MI University of Michigan

and Northrup

Grumman (Lead‐in

event to “Big M”

manufacturing

meeting, June 9‐12)

http://www.sme.org/amp/
58

Appendix 1: Transformative Manufacturing

Technologies

Background

AMP2.0’s Transformative Manufacturing Technology Working Team was charged to analyze and

recommend actions for a subset of 11 manufacturing technology areas that were identified by

the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership in its first report. The term “manufacturing technology

area” or MTA is broad, and is intended to convey a set of related technical capabilities needed to

synthesize and assemble products at industrial scales. Indeed, it is the sustained innovation of

those technologies that is at the heart of U.S. manufacturing resurgence, and thus the detailed

findings and recommendations in Appendix 1 are considered a key output of AMP2.0’s report.

This appendix summarizes the process by which AMP2.0 prioritized a wide range of important

MTAs, and then for three MTAs identified technology and implementation gaps that were

addressed via specific suggestions; recommendations appear in the main AMP2.0 report. Those

self‐contained letter reports are provided in Annexes 1‐10. The goal of this effort was to

collectively identify actions that achieved impact in short (3 year) and long (>20 year) time scales

across a variety of public and private technology investments.

Process & Deliverables

This team met via biweekly teleconferences, and in person at AMP2.0 regional meetings in GA,

OH, and MA.  Three MTAs were selected for detailed analysis of gaps and recommended actions,

through a process outlined in Appendix 1, and a subteam was formed to develop each MTA

strategy. These three prioritized MTAs included: Advanced Sensing, Controls and Platforms for

Manufacturing (ASCPM); Visualization, Information, and Digital Manufacturing (VIDM); and

Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM).  

Incidentally, this triplet of MTAs provided a range of technology maturity and of current federal

investment. ASCPM describes the infrastructure of hardware and software for smart and safe

manufacturing. VIDM describes the virtual design, testing, and integration of manufactured

components, and was related to what the recently awarded pilot institute on Digital

Manufacturing and Design Innovation would address. Finally, AMM describes a broad set of

challenges in U.S.‐based design, synthesis, and processing of both mature and novel materials

that we further subdivided into timely case studies: structural composites, biotherapeutic
59

manufacturing, and critical materials reprocessing In fact, a new NNMI pilot institute solicitation

in advanced structural composites was announced after AMP2.0’s analysis of that topic was

already underway.

Expert input was solicited from non‐AMP participants for each MTA, and facilitated through

teleconference discussion of draft “letter reports” for each MTA that AMP2.0 then finalized.

Deliverables include letter reports in Annexes 1‐10, each describing strategies to achieve U.S.

strength in these MTAs over short and long time scales. Those annexes are highly detailed with

analysis of the current landscape, vision, technical and implementation challenges, and analysis

of investment and partnership opportunities in each MTA.  

Rather than restate those MTA‐specific findings here, we provide three broad findings gleaned

from our intensive analysis of multiple and disparate MTAs. These findings and associated

recommendations in the main AMP2.0 report address challenges in U.S. manufacturing

innovation that cut across specific technologies (e.g., digital and materials manufacturing) and

across specific sectors (e.g., aerospace and biotech).

Prioritization Process: Selection of Manufacturing Technology Areas (MTAs)

The United States currently lacks a national technology strategy that identifies a targeted list of

high priority MTAs to guide public and private investment across the TRL/MRL spectrum. AMP

provided a list of 11 MTAs, at varying levels ofspecificity and maturity. Each agency has a defined

mission into which such manufacturing technology areas must fit, and thus coordination and

identification of MTAs of high national interest is not readily addressed by this process. Thus,

AMP2.0 sought to create and model a process by which the nation could identify which MTAs

should be prioritized for coordination and funding, given finite public and private resources. We

do not believe this should be a process to pick winners, in terms of any specific product or

company or even means to meet manufacturing technology gaps. Rather, this is a process by

which we chose among many important and interesting MTAs because our time and resources

to create detailed strategies was also finite.

MTA Prioritization Criteria: AMP2.0 identified four criteria by which we assessed priority of a

given MTA:

1. Industry or market pull: Does there exist a current “pull” or demand for this MTA by

industry? If industry is not yet adopting this MTA, is there a strong perceived pull by the

market or consumers?

2. Cross‐cutting: Does this MTA cut across many sectors (automotive, aerospace, biotech,

infrastructure), and across multiple sizes of manufacturers in the supply chain network?
60

3. National or economic security: Doesfailure to have U.S. competence or dominance in this

MTA pose a threat to national security or to economic security? Does lack of U.S.

competence severely disadvantage the U.S. competitiveness position of the supply

network?

4. Leveraging U.S. strengths: Does this MTA leverage an already available workforce and

education system, unique infrastructure, or policies?  

Voting, Weighting, and Selection: Each of the above prioritization criteria was rated on a scale of

1 (low) to 4 (high), and assigned equal weight. A draft poll was taken to assess feasibility and

weighting of criteria. Each AMP2.0 partner in WT‐1 voted (i.e., one vote per institution), and

results were compiled to rank the 11 MTAs from AMP; the scores in the final tally conducted by

online voting were unweighted by either the criterion or the voting partner (e.g., large and small

companies received an equal vote). The top four MTAs, listed here according to the original AMP

names, were thus identified as Advanced Materials Manufacturing; Advanced Sensing,

Measurement & Process Control; Visualization, Information, and Digital Manufacturing; and

Industrial Robotics.  

Scoping of MTAs for final prioritization: We subdivided the WT into four subteams, each

researching and writing a “Framework Document” on one of the above MTAs over the course of

one month. Outside experts were contacted, and these documents were all designed to address

the current landscape, key participants, vision for the future, technical gaps, and draft

recommendations. The WT met to review these framework documents, and decided that the top

3 MTAs should each be developed in further detail over the next four months; the fourth MTA of

industrial robotics was deemed important but already well scoped in terms of the Robotics

Initiative and other efforts, and was not developed further by AMP2.0. We then went on to

conduct detailed analysis of AMM, ASCPM, and VIDM as detailed in Annexes 1‐9.  

Suggestions across all Manufacturing Technology Areas for Sustainable Progress

in U.S. Manufacturing Innovation

A. Formalize Sustainable Strategy Development and Governance: We suggest for

consideration several follow‐on steps to help ensure the continuing effectiveness of the

government’s work on advanced manufacturing, and to maintain industry engagement.

Below we propose continued, national‐scale development of advanced manufacturing

technology strategies; coordination of agency research & development (R&D) in advanced
61

manufacturing; and an advisory process that maintains channels expert input.    AMP2.0

suggests a process that employs three mechanisms.

1. Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategies: AMP2.0 developed a process to

identify among many important MTAs those of high priority and impact, and then to

create strategies that would address technological and implementation gaps for each

prioritized MTA. The process and deliverables outlined below have validated the

concept of such collaborative strategies formed among industry, academia, and labor

representatives, including input from many experts beyond the AMP2.0 member

organizations.    These and additional strategies could contribute to informed

technology development in industry and in government supported R&D and applied

programs.  Based on the AMP2.0 experience, it will be important that agency experts

who can represent the involved agencies’ mission and support mechanisms be full

participants in the development of the strategies, and that experts from industry and

academia can provide detailed input on technological and implementation challenges.  

Not all strategies need to be undertaken at the same time; one or two initial pilot

strategies could be undertaken to develop best practices for the process at the

national level. Prioritization and investment in cross‐cutting technology strategies,

which should be ongoing, can play a dynamic role in enabling advanced manufacturing

along the supply network and in motivating public‐private partnerships acrosssectors

(e.g., automotive, aerospace, biotech).  

AMP2.0’s process demonstrated that the following considerations critically impact

technology strategy development and deployment. First, the technology vision must

embed both short‐term (3 to 7 years) and long‐term (7 to 20 years) technology and

manufacturing readiness levels. Second, equal consideration must be given to the

technology‐push perspectives of academia and certain government agencies, and to

the market‐pull perspectives of industry and other government agencies. Third, open

Requests for Proposals (such as NIST’s AMTech) can identify qualified teams to

research and scope gaps and challenges without proposing how best to solve them;

and existing or proposed federal investments such as the NNMI should immediately

benefit from such analysis to augment planning. Fourth, all relevant government

agenciesshould be provided early input in strategy formulation to facilitate alignment

of national goals with agency mission requirements. Fifth, existing government

mechanisms should be known, documented, and realigned as possible to implement

strategies with respect to authorization and appropriation legislation. Sixth,
62

accountability to a larger advisory committee and interagency process promotes

coherent progress and deliverables.

2. Establishment of an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium:    Based on

AMP2.0 progress and outcomes, we believe it is important to ensure continuing

industry, organized labor and university expert advice and input to the federal

government agencies working on advanced manufacturing.  To facilitate interagency

linkages and convey the desired experience and time commitment of its members,

we suggest that an Advanced Manufacturing Advisory Consortium (AMAC) be created.

Its major task would be in developing, advising, and updating on MTAs, as well as

associated workforce education and policy issues as requested. The AMAC should

comprise members working in industry and universities with expertise and experience

in the range of critical advanced manufacturing fields. AMAC should serve as a

sustained channel for detailed, coordinated input on nascent opportunities and

priorities in manufacturing that can shape U.S. spending priorities from the low to

high TRL/MRLs.   AMAC should be tasked with manufacturing technology analyses,

similar to the process demonstrated by AMP2.0 for three Manufacturing Technology

Areas, and with providing recommendations for action against the periodically

updated national strategy. This consortium should meet at least annually and

interface regularly with the government leadership described in Recommendation 1

to provide feedback or partnership in strategy implementation.  

The AMAC implementation options include establishing this consortium as a Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) body to the NSTC’s Advanced Manufacturing standing

subcommittee, with OSTP as the coordinating office of that NSTC AM subcommittee.

AMAC should also regularly engage federal agency representatives, and be supported

by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and AMNPO in this task. AMAC should

be charged to:

a. Develop roadmaps for identifying and supporting key MTAs as part of a

national competitiveness strategy

b. Develop a portfolio view of federal manufacturing investments across

technologies, sectors, TRL/MRL levels and time horizons for MTAs

c. Develop metrics to monitor portfolio progress along key performance

indicators

d. Monitor performance and recommend investment adjustments  

e. Promote best practices and sustainable collaboration models for driving

adoption of advance manufacturing technologies
63

f. Provide feedback on public‐private partnership models within the roadmap,

e.g., an NNMI institute

g. Enable a framework for pipeline investments in R&D (TRL 1‐4)

AMAC would approach U.S. manufacturing technology strategy development and

deployment through periodic review, and with a focus on outcomes prioritized

through a national perspective. Figure A1 illustrates an annual calendar of activities

that AMAC could model.  

Figure A1. Annual cycle of national strategy development and implementation for

Advanced Manufacturing Technologies.

3. Coordination of Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development: AMP2.0 is

pleased that the government has adopted AMP’s recommendation of Manufacturing

Innovation Institutes as part of a National Network of Manufacturing Innovation
64

Institutes (NNMI). However, for these institutes to be fully effective at technology

readiness levels (TRL) 4‐7, they will require input over time from ongoing R&D

advances in relevant fields (TRL 1‐3); and output to receptive industry at higher TRLs

and manufacturing readiness levels. Broadly, the Advanced Manufacturing

Partnership recommends establishing mechanisms to coordinate and link technology

and research investments upstream from the National Network for Manufacturing

Innovation to individual institutes to ensure a steady pipeline of discoveries that can

be advanced to later stages of development.

In addition, to support the NNMI at both later and earlier stages of technology

development, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership identified a cross‐cutting

need for two new public‐private research and technology efforts to spur the further

development and adoption of these emerging technologies: the need for additional

research and development infrastructure in the form of manufacturing centers of

excellence  (MCE) and manufacturing technology testbeds (MTT) to create a pipeline

of earlier‐stage technologies that can feed into the National Network for

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes; the importance of an effort to develop missing

technology standards that can de‐risk the adoption of these emerging technologies,

particularly forsmaller manufacturers; and the importance ofsecurity at the interface

between cyber systems and physical manufacturing equipment.  

These three interrelated mechanisms are expected to help ensure a highly effective public‐

private partnership for advanced manufacturing upon conclusion of the AMP2.0 effort.    

B. Enhance capability access and reduce risk to accelerate advanced technology adoption:

Several persistent features emerged across MTA recommendations to overcome both

technological and implementation hurdles, and were reinforced by findings of Working Team

4 (Appendix 4). We thus suggest for consideration:

1. New Research and Development Infrastructure to Support a Pipeline of Advanced

Manufacturing Technology: For example, the creation of Manufacturing Centers of

Excellence to invest in basic research “upstream” in the innovation pipeline can

advance critical discoveries important to technology areas, such as the creation of a

Manufacturing Center of Excellence to address joining technologies for advanced

materials, specifically advanced composites. Further, Manufacturing Technology

Testbeds (MTTs) for industry to understand, customize, and test potential

technologies will support SMMs. Additionally, the intermediary solutions (enhanced
65

MEPs), tax credits, and capital access options analyzed by Working Team 4 (Appendix

4) accelerate industry adoption of available technologies.

2. Standards and Interoperability of Hardware and Software Systems: Standards allow

a more dynamic and competitive marketplace, without hampering the opportunity to

differentiate. Development of standards reduces the risks for enterprises developing

solutions and for those implementing them, accelerating adoption of new

manufactured products and manufacturing methods. Industry expressed wide

support of data standards for products, processes, and materials, including

partnership to establish databases that were narrowly developed around specific

manufactured components(e.g., an automobile side panel). This perceived advantage

of standardized practices was reflected in the specific recommendations of the three

MTAs we analyzed, including a subset of related findings in Table A4.

3. Security, Data Privacy and Trust across the Supply‐Chain: Increasingly,

manufacturing will proceed with automated communication among computers. To

enable digital manufacturing, policies that incentivize technologies, and practices

(infrastructure) that offer protection from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

disclosures of threat information shared with the government and/or across the

supply chain, will play a key role. A focused program to mitigate security risks at the

interface of the cyber systems and physical equipment in the manufacturing

ecosystem that is similar to the counterfeit protection program will improve trust

across the supply chain.

Suggestions for Specific Manufacturing Technology Areas for Sustainable

Progress in U.S. Manufacturing Innovation

Annexes 1‐10 includes ten detailed reports describing technology and implementation gaps and

AMP2.0 recommendations for the three Manufacturing Technology Areas that AMP2.0

prioritized for detailed analysis and strategy. These include justified recommendations of

targeted federal investments including but not limited to new institutes, as well as public‐private

partnerships in pre‐competitive R&D and in training graduate‐level experts. To the extent

possible, recommendations including federal leadership or partnership include suggested

agencies to implement that change. Top‐level recommendations are noted in the table below.

   
66

Table A4. AMP2.0 technology strategy suggestions for three prioritized Manufacturing

Technology Areas.  

Technology

areas:

Advanced Sensing,

Control, and Platforms

for Manufacturing

Visualization,

Informatics and Digital

Manufacturing

Advanced Materials

Manufacturing

R&D

Infrastructure to

Support the

Innovation

Pipeline

 Establish

Manufacturing

Technology Testbeds

(MTTs) to

demonstrate the use

of and business case

for new

technologies,

including “smart

manufacturing”

capabilities.

 Create a

Manufacturing

Center of

Excellence, focused

on basic research at

earlier technology

development

levels, on the

Digital Thread.

 Launch Materials

Manufacturing

Centers of

Excellence to

support R&D in

topics that

support NNMI

Institutes and

other MTAs in

the national

strategy.

The National

Network for

Manufacturing

Innovation

 Establish an Institute

focused on ASCPM

for energy use

optimization in

energy‐intensive and

digital information‐

intensive

manufacturing.

 Launch a Big Data

Institute focused

on secure analysis

of and decision‐

making via large,

integrated data

sets for

manufacturing

processes (in

addition to the

current Digital

Manufacturing and

Design Innovation

Institute).

 Leverage supply

chain

management of

defense assets

to spur

innovation and

RD&D in critical

materials

reprocessing.
67

Public‐Private

Technology

Standards

 Develop new

industry standards,

including data

interoperability

standards for key

systems and vendor

support.

 Craft and deploy

policy standards for

manufacturing

cyber‐physical

security.

 Design data

standards for

material

characterization

to enable rapid

uptake of new

materials and

manufacturing

methods  

Additional

Strategies

 Establish

Manufacturing

Innovation

Fellowships for

Ph.D.s in key

AMM areas,

such as

biotherapeutic

manufacturing.

Annexes 1‐10 include detailed analysis of the current landscape, vision, technical and

implementation gaps, and detailed analysis of options to close those gaps to accelerate U.S.

innovation and adoption of that MTA. These options were intended to achieve rapid impact over

short time horizons (within 3 years) as well as sustained impact (over 10‐20 years). A brief

summary of these analysesfor the three MTAsis provided below, noting input from a wide range

of stakeholders beyond AMP2.0 members.

Advanced Sensing, Controls, and Platforms for Manufacturing (ASCPM): A new generation of

networked based information technologies, data analytics and predictive modeling is providing

unprecedented capabilities as well as access to previously unimagined potential uses of data and

information not only in the advancement of new physical technologies, materials and products

but also the advancement of new, radically better ways of doing manufacturing. Key drivers of

ASCPM as a high priority MTA is that this group of related technologies is the chief technical

element needed for seamless interoperation of cyber and physical assets. Our vision is that such

integration via ASCPM will increase productivity, product and process agility, environmental

sustainability, energy and raw material usage, and safety performance as well as economic

performance—and thereby comprehensively improve the competitiveness of U.S. factories of
68

varied sizes and complexity.  In particular, broader application of ASCPM technologies has great

potential in energy‐intensive manufacturing, and integral to use of big data analytics to drive

manufacturing decisions.

We interpret ASCPM to encompass machine‐to‐plant‐to‐enterprise‐to‐supply‐chain aspects of

sensing, instrumentation, monitoring, control, and optimization as well as hardware and

software platforms for industrial automation. Although significant success has been achieved in

manufacturing implementations with ASCPM, for a variety of reasons, the U.S. manufacturing

industry has not come close to realizing the full potential of these technologies.  These reasons

include technical shortcomings of the state of the art as well as nontechnical barriers.  

Implementation risksinclude risk and initial cost; rapid rates of change in hardware and software;

and limited workforce availability due to the complex and interdisciplinary nature of these

technologies. Technical gapsinclude open standards and interoperability of devices,systems, and

services; lack of real‐time measurement, monitoring, and optimization solutions for machine

energy consumption and waste streams; lack of low‐power, resilient wireless sensors and sensor

networks; and need for modeling and simulation at manufacturing‐relevant scales. See Annex 1.

Technical gaps were further delineated as (i) sensing and measurement gaps; (ii) control and

optimization gaps; (iii) platform and framework gaps. See Annex 2.

We suggest Manufacturing Technology Testbeds as a new means for especially SMEs and SMMs

to share, access, and optimize ASCPM technologies specific to narrow industry sectors; this

approach will de‐risk technology adoption and provide technical knowhow and access to an

ASCPM skilled workforce that may be lacking within SMMs. We further suggest consideration of

a Manufacturing Innovation Institute that promotes ASCMP development, specifically toward

improved energy consumption monitoring and integrated smart or digital manufacturing.

Visualization, Informatics, & Digital Manufacturing (VIDM): VIDM is a set of integrated, cross‐

cutting enterprise‐level smart‐manufacturing approaches, leveraging the current advances in

information technology systems and tools that will improve U.S. manufacturing competitiveness

through end‐to‐end supply‐chain efficiency, unprecedented flexibility, and optimized energy

management to achieve error‐free manufacturing of customized products and components from

digital designs, when needed and where needed. The key drivers of VIDM are:  increased R&D

and manufacturing integration with end to end speed and productivity, supply chain efficiency,

process yields, energy efficiency, improved sustainability; and improved process safety,

flexibility, agility, configurability, and increased job satisfaction and pride. Major participants

defining the VIDM landscape are in the Aerospace, Automotive and the process industry with

strong support from the IT industry.  Our vision is that VIDM – which includes but is broader than

than the challenges expected to be addressed by the Digital Manufacturing and Design Institute
69

(an MII) – will rapidly change the way manufacturers use and exchange information to plan,

support, source, deliver, and make commercial products in the U.S. See Annex 3.

We identified and analyzed technical gaps within three distinct areas of VIDM: (i) Digital Thread;

(ii) Integrated Information Systems; and (iii) Manufacturing Big Data and Analytics.  (Annexes 4‐

6). Our findings of lowest implementation barrier and highest anticipated impact included an

accredited digital manufacturing education program, including associate, undergraduate and

graduate degrees; institutionalized use of digital thread tools and techniques via supplier

contracts; regional MTTs and service bureaus that would help build the equipment supply base

for additive manufacturing – an associated MTA that supports many early‐TRL/MRL aspects of

digital manufacturing; and creation of manufacturing data ontology (for standards) as well as

consideration of a Manufacturing Big Data MII to support the use of voluminous, complex, and

veracity‐tested data across the supply chain. The analysis within these annexes may be of use to

shape the focus of the DMDI, as well as supporting public‐private investments such as MCEs and

MTTs.

Advanced Materials Manufacturing (AMM): AMM is defined as advanced methodsto design and

produce a material of predictable and important functional properties within commercial

products (regardless of whether that material is considered an “advanced material” such as a

novel quantum dot, a “biomaterial” such as a therapeutic protein, or a “mature material” such

as steel). The capacity to manufacture materials domestically, from the raw state to the fully

processed or shaped material, is important for strategic interests and for the pace of innovation,

including recent examples such as polymer production critical to space exploration and

specialized metal production key to energy conversion devices. Key drivers for U.S. strength in

materials manufacturing derive from the cross‐cutting impact of materials innovation across

multiple industries and sectors; historical national security and competitiveness implications of

material supply uncertainties; and the potential to reduce energy consumption and

environmental impact through improved materials manufacturing processes.   

Historic U.S. strengths in materials synthesis and processing vary by geographic region, linked

typically to abundance of the required natural resources, or to the historic co‐location of the

material end‐user (e.g., automobiles, paper goods, airplanes).  Materials design, synthesis, and

processing have all advanced rapidly over the past decade, owing to both new computational

predictive capabilities and new high‐throughput fabrication and characterization methods. For

several reasons, high‐volume processing of commodity materials has shifted to other nations.

Qualification methodologies, including reliability testing of such materials, is not a U.S.

educational focus; the lack of such shared data slows industry adoption of new materials and

methods for safety‐critical products in all sectors. Finally, current U.S. strengths in reprocessing

of materials at the end‐of‐life stage of manufactured product lifecycle exist but are segmented
70

by material or industry sector, and focused innovation in this area lags that of other nations. Our

vision isthat the U.S. will train a workforce that can invent, adapt, maintain, and recycle materials

critical to U.S. infrastructure, defense, medical care, and quality‐of‐life. This vision will also

accelerate the transition from lower to higher TRL/MRL maturity, to enable faster and broader

industry adoption. See Annex 7.

We identified technical gaps across all types of AMM, grouped broadly as those in (i)

standardization and qualification of material properties; and (ii) labor‐ and resource‐intensive

materialssynthesis and processing. We discussed opportunitiesfor MCEs, an AMAC, and focused

standards database development via existing MIIs and potential new MIIs to address these

broader opportunities.   

As many AMM challenges are specific to the type of material that is manufactured (metals,

ceramics, polymers, biologicals, composites), we conducted three “deep dives” into specific

AMM technology areas that were considered high national priority as well as diverse in technical

scope: (1) Advanced Structural Composite Manufacturing; (2) Biomanufacturing of biological

therapeutics; and (3) Critical Materials Reprocessing. The drivers, landscape, vision, technical

gaps and analysis for each are provided in Annexes 8‐10. Common points informed the

aforementioned recommendations for MCEs and MTTs (Recommendation 3). Briefly, structural

composites manufacturing is crosscutting and has potential to be broadly geographically

distributed, but has several technical challenges that vary among industry sectors (e.g., auto vs.

aerospace vs. sporting goods), so standards and MCEs focused on joining and recycling are

discussed. Biomanufacturing isitself a broad topic that is delineated in Annex 9, and for biological

therapeutics (antibodies, vaccines, etc.) includes technical challenges in rapid scale‐up/scale‐

down and a depleted graduate workforce; MCEs on pre‐competitive scale‐up technology and

public‐private partnerships in graduate fellowships were proposed with broad industry interest

and support. Finally, critical materials reprocessing addresses a national security and innovation

concern, related to the unstable supply or price of materialsthat enable key technologiesranging

from those in strategic defense assets to consumer electronics. Recovery, repurposing, and/or

recycling of these materials can be technically and logistically challenging, but provides key

advantages to supply/demand interactions for U.S. SMMs and reduce reliance on other nations

within complex supply chains; MCEs and MTTs that complement existing federal investment in

critical materials are proposed in Annex 10.
71

Appendix 2: Demand‐Driven Workforce

Development and Training

Background and Scope

The goal of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Workforce Development Working Team

was to build on the outcomes of the Education and Workforce Workstream in AMP and

determine best‐in‐class demand‐driven workforce solutions to develop technical skills and

implement models that generate long term employment opportunities. The outcomes are

pragmatic, scalable and sustainable. This appendix highlights some recommendations to

accelerate the deployment and adoption of the most effective ways in which to develop and

support the workforce of the future. Four subteams were formed to develop recommendations

building upon the original AMP report findings.

Process and Deliverables

The goals of the Working Team were achieved through the efforts of four subteams called “work

creeks.” The team adopted a holistic approach to build scalable and sustainable solutions to

address the talent pipeline challenge beginning with childhood education and ending with long‐

term employment models. Outcomes are in the form of Guide, Playbook and Recommendations

based on current best practices. The deliverables listed below are provided as Annexes 11‐24.

Work Creek 1: Advanced Manufacturing Education ‐ Increase career pathways and “dual credit”

opportunities across education (K‐12 schools, community colleges, and Universities) to increase

the number of qualified technical employees in advanced manufacturing.  

Deliverables:

 Identified Exemplary Programs that engage Advanced Manufacturing and Product

Realization (Design, Manufacturing, Operations, System Support) starting from the 7‐

12th grade level to Certificates, Diplomas, and Associate Degrees at Community

Colleges, and Bachelors’ and Master’s Degrees at Universities.

 Identified examples of exemplary Career Education Pathways from other industries

(e.g. automobile) in order to build our own pathways model for Advanced

Manufacturing.  

 Recommendations on how to duplicate scale‐up and improve on the best practice

programs.
72

 Developed a template for “pathways” model for Advanced Manufacturing training

and education with multiple on and off ramps and multiple completion options

(certificate, diplomas, degrees) that are stackable.  

Work Creek 2: Portable and Stackable Credentialing System  ‐  Increase employer‐driven,

nationally portable, stackable credentialing systems through certifications and work‐based

learning elements.

   Deliverables:

 Build awareness of credentialing through Employers, Educators and Certification of

Train‐the‐Trainer Toolkits.

 Demonstrate evidence of success of credentialing via employer case studies and best

practices at educational institutions.

 National roadmap for action with guidelines for implementation on state level,

including way to address the challenges in implementing credentialing systems.

Work Creek 3: Regional Apprenticeship Models  ‐ Establish regional work/project‐based study

apprenticeship models with a coalition of companies and in partnership with labor market

intermediaries and capture the learning and best practices from these and past Apprenticeship

programs in a “How To” Instruction Manual targeted specifically for Employers the Playbook will

prove the building of the apprenticeship model to be a reliable, valid and repeatable processthat

others can implement.

Deliverables:

 Developed an employer playbook, as a practical “How‐To” manual designed primarily for

employers seeking to implement an apprenticeship model as a way to build the

employer’s advanced manufacturing workforce pipeline. This model of apprenticeships

entails completion of a community college curriculum and Department of Labor

Certification, and is anticipated for publication in September 2014.

 Leveraged over 15 operating sites across all three companiesto develop the playbook and

initiated proof‐of‐concept apprenticeship program pilots across all three companies.

Work Creek 4: Bridging Modules for Veterans ‐   Develop practical competency based “bridging

“bridging modules” for transitioning Veterans focused on private sector manufacturing skills

certifications.
73

Deliverables:

 Completed inventory of Veteran resources – key tools and applicable links that catalog

and summarize the resources for Veteran use.

 Developed a practical guide for Veterans, Employers and Academic Institutions on

transitioning Veterans to non‐military advanced manufacturing careers.  

 Gathered information on skills translators & Veterans skill badging that enables

‒ Translating military experience to civilian jobs

‒ Transferring competencies and skills in an electronic format   

‒ Alignment with current work being done on badging systems by federal agencies

and other entities  

The four Work Creeks worked to achieve their independent deliverables, and came together to

leverage synergies where possible, and collectively achieve Workforce Working Team goals.

	 	
74

Appendix 3: National Network for Manufacturing

Innovation (NNMI) Analysis

Background

In order to develop the stepsto operationalize the activities outlined by AMP, the NNMI Working

Group has engaged stakeholders on all levels in informal settings and in more formal dialog.  

These proposed actions include and consider these suggestions, as well as reinforce many of the

activities currently being undertaken by the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

(AMNPO).  

Scope of Work

We have conducted one‐on‐one discussions, group discussions, have engaged stakeholders at

AMP2.0 Regional Meetings, have reached out to existing Institutes as well as other AMP2.0

Working Groups and have invited external participation in our deliberations.    We have also

considered the input of experts who have generously offered their insights as well asthe previous

work product from within and outside of the Administration.   

Key Findings

In order to help ensure existing and near term Institutes have what they need to be successful,

we have focused on fundamental concepts and recommendations that will position the NNMI to

realize its full potential in supporting/growing U.S. manufacturing, innovation and the supply

chain, ultimately growing regional economies and creating jobs.  We have captured our findings

in six Letter Reports that address the following areas, which we believe are keys to the NNMI’s

success (Annex 25):

1. Internal and External Communications

2. The NNMI Narrative

3. Network Governance & Operations – Key Considerations

4. Network Governance & Operations – Organization & Structure

5. Intellectual Property  

6. Technology Area Identification
75

Recommendations  

Annexes 25‐31 include detailed support for the findings on the following six topics:

1. Internal & External Communications: The focus is to provide guidance on how to better

ensure individual Institute effectiveness and operations as well as overall Network

effectiveness by increasing the stakeholder’s ability to leverage the network model.  

Recommendations include mechanisms to help to provide consistent messaging on the

value of the NNMI, a communications plan and assistance with both internal and external

communication processes.  

2. Narrative: The Narrative is intended to provide context for the NNMI and to provide an

organized flow of main talking points to help communicate the value proposition.  The

Narrative is a general messaging guideline to better ensure consistent messaging and

clarity with regard to the value of the NNMI to stakeholders and ultimately build

participation and support.

3. Governance & Network Operations – Key Considerations: In developing the governance

and operational structure of the Network, there were several important considerations

that warranted attention.  Prime considerations included:

 The Benefits of the Network – the value of the Network to the Institutes and external

stakeholders

 Diversity – ensuring that all perspectives are represented so as to ensure the needs of

all stakeholders are met as intended

 Balancing Network Consistency with Institute Autonomy – Insuring the Institutes can

function while allowing for reasonable, productive consistency

 What the Network is...and Isn’t – helping to clarify the roles of the Network and set

expectations

 Workforce Development – ensuring that the NNMI is leveraged to better ensure

education is demand driven

 Metrics – providing general guidance on how to develop proper metrics

 Leveraging the Manufacturing Extension Partnership – helping to ensure that the MEP

becomes a major “tool in the NNMI toolbox”

 Network Expansion – Provide general guidance and suggestions on how to promote

greater collaboration
76

4. Governance & Network Operations – Organization & Structure: A key to ensuring that

the NNMI (Network) remains connected to those it is intended to serve and meets its

intended purpose is to institutionalize a structure that includes representatives from all

stakeholders in its governance and in various advisory groups.  The proposed structure

provides guidance on how to strike a balance between industry, government and

academia and ensure all perspectives “have a seat at the table”.

5. Intellectual Property Management:    In addition to providing a summary of key best

practices, the Letter Report on this topic provides general guidance on how to best

manage IP so as to promote collaboration and best facilitate innovation within the NNMI

setting.    Findings address issues related to areas such as Background IP, Data Rights,

Publications, Government Rights and Revenue Models.

6. Technology Area Identification: Rather than debate various technology areas that may

make sense to pursue at thistime, the approach outlined in the Letter Report on thistopic

is to provide guidance on how to choose technology areas to pursue via the NNMI at any

time in the future.  Included in the said report are a series of questions intended to help

identify where investments should be made via Institute technology focus areas.   Key

considerations in developing these questions include ensuring that:

 The process is outcome driven

 The investment will engage a diverse landscape of stakeholders

 There is reasonable evidence that the proposal has the potential to generate

economic value (the technology has a path to commercialization and will attract

investment), advances national security and helps to sustain competitiveness

 The required supply chain either exists or can be developed  (includes considerations

on how to grow the required supply chain)  

 That the necessary workforce exists or can be developed.

Conclusions

  

The above proposals on communication, governance, IP management, and MII topic selection

are provided to promote the success and longevity of the NNMI.  Written guidelines that afford

clear communication of these policies, for both the current and potential funding scenarios, will

be important components of that success.
77

Appendix 4: Scale‐Up Policy

Background

As part of this effort, AMP 2.0 initiated a work stream on “Scale‐Up Policy” with the charge to

make recommendations about improvements to the business climate that will foster

development of small‐ and mid‐sized manufacturers, both start‐ups and established enterprises.  

We have identified activities that will foster the flow of information, capital and expertise to

these critical members of the manufacturing ecosystem, increasing their likelihood of success as

they implement new manufacturing technologies.

Scope of Work

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee Scale‐Up Policy Group (Work

Stream 4) was created in October 2013.    The committee draws from the AMP 2.0 member

organizations from labor, academia and industry.    The team has met through biweekly

conference call and in several face‐to‐face meetings concurrent with the AMP 2.0 regional

meetings in Atlanta, Akron, Albany, Boston, Detroit, and Washington DC. The team identified

separate supply chain issues and capital access, investigating each individually while

communicating findings acrossthe entire team.  The expertise of the participants was buttressed

by literature research and supplemented by sessions with experts and listening sessions at the

regional meetings.  The input and perspectives of many financial experts, U.S. manufacturers,

and economic development organizations through regional breakout discussions, national

roundtables and one‐on‐one meetings were invaluable in developing the recommendations.  

Major stakeholder and expert forums are documented in the Supplemental Information.

Key Findings

Scale‐up can be defined as the translation of an innovation into a market.  There are significant

technical and market risks faced by new manufacturing technologies during scale‐up. The path

to successful commercialization requires that technologies function well at large scale and that

markets develop to accept products produced at scale. It is a time when supply chains must be

developed, demand created and capital deployed.    To compete globally and be a leader in

innovation, the United States needs to significantly improve its ability translate innovation into

practical production. To achieve commercial scale with promising advanced manufacturing

technologies requires three things:    1) networked supply chains, 2) the rapid diffusion of

technology through the networked supply chains, 3) accessto capital.   Barriersto achieving scale

scale are impeded flows of technical / market insights, supply network relationships, and

funding.  
78

 Flow of Technical and Market Insight: Most small and medium sized manufacturers (SMM)

lack information about emergent business opportunities enabled by advanced technology

and approaches to enter those markets profitably. SMM efforts are often fragmented and

siloed.  

There is a need to provide market insight to SMMs including business opportunities,

technology readiness and entry strategy. Market Insight can increase the number of SMMs

considering technologies, accelerate and de‐risk adoption.   

 Flow of Relationships (supply network deals/development): When pursuing opportunities,

new and established small and medium sized manufacturers have difficulty finding,

developing and managing relationships with supply chain partners and capital sources

needed for scale‐up.  There is a need to identify ways to better share, develop and transfer

knowledge across the supply network regionally and nationally and reduce hurdles for new

supplier/vendor agreements.   

 Flow of Capital: Manufacturing frequently does not offer the short‐term returns necessary

to attract capital.  Returns are limited by the capital required to build a manufacturing facility,

the time required to garner significant revenues and the risk of deployment of unproven

technology.  Investment can be made more attractive by reducing capital at risk, speeding up

time to revenue and by providing expertise to reduce chance of failure.  The team focused on

incentives to increase private‐sector investment, recognizing that this is a way that

manufacturing can most help itself.  Demand creation, sharing of expertise and investment

from established players all reduce risk associated with manufacturing investments.     

The United States can overcome these barriers and catalyze the flow of technology‐driven

manufacturing innovation with solutions that broker the transfer of knowledge nationwide,

increase technical and market insight available to SMMs, and open up capital access by reducing

financial risk and creating greater awareness of solutions to SMMs.    Currently, support for

manufacturing is largely regional and varies substantially across regions.   

Proposals

  

Detailed in thisletterissupporting information for policy recommendationsthat we deem central

to Advanced Manufacturing Scale Up strategy and policy. Analysis was organized in the following

areas:  

 Relationships: Broker exchange of information nationwide through Enhanced and

Expanded Intermediary Solutions
79

 Technical & Market Insight: Deliver Market and Technical Insight to the capable SMM

supply network at earlier TRL/MRL stage  

 Capital Access: Open up capital access by reducing financial risk, creating and providing

greater awareness of solutions to both Established SMMs and Start‐Up Firms

Specific to Relationships:  Brokering the exchange of information nationwide through Enhanced

and Expanded Intermediary Solutions

Information asymmetries are resolved by effective intermediaries. Intermediary entities direct

and connect small and medium sized manufacturers to the diverse resources for technology

commercialization and scale up including: 1) subject matter experts, 2) relevant technology, 3)

knowledge assets, and 4) capital sources.   

Successful supply chain development and technology diffusion programs and institutions that

run them currently vary geographically, and by industry or technology.  In addition, the small and

medium sized manufacturer’s space represents a dynamic group of firms rather than a fixed set.

As such, the intent of these analyses is to focus on the required characteristics of enhanced

intermediary solutions rather than to prescribe a formal model.    Intermediaries may have

different functions in different places or in different industries and must successfully meet the

needs of the firms and industries they serve.    There are existing intermediaries, such as the

Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the National

Network for Manufacturing Institutes (NNMI).    There are also industry groups, such as the

American Chemical Society’s Entrepreneurial Resources Center.  The goal moving forward is to

enhance and improve the intermediary services provided by current institutions (MEP Centers

and NNMI as examples) and new entrants, in order to more productively address the challenges

faced by SMMs in adoption of new technologies.   MEP and NNMI have fulfilled some of the

services effectively, however a market for providers should lead to new and improved

productivity of existing intermediary services.  Note that NNMI tends function at the Technology

Readiness Levels of 4‐7 whereas there is a significant need for scale‐up support in Technology

Readiness Levels 7‐9.

We found that several types of organizations currently provide firms with some of the key

characteristics we itemize below (see Design Characteristics of Intermediaries).    These

organizations include private sector, public sector, and non‐profit intermediaries.   Illustrative

examples are included in the Appendix A.  What is consistent among the successful examples is

that: 1) they are regional in scope (“regional” meaning a coherent economic ecosystem not an

administrative designation), 2) their focus is technology or industry specific, and 3) they provide
80

information, technical assistance, and other services to a network of firms rather than a single

firm.  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is one example of a public sector intermediary

that meets some of the Design Characteristics itemized below.  However, many other examples

exist including NorTech (OH), the Rochester Regional Photonics Cluster (NY), The Great Lakes

Wind Network, SF Made (CA), Maker’s Row (NY/NJ), and Life Science Alley (MN).   

Outlined in the list are key design characteristics critical forsuccess. These characteristics provide

a recipe that can be baked into different institutional formsto meet needs and utilize assetsfrom

the differentiated landscape of U.S. manufacturing, academia, and local/state/federal economic

development agencies.  

Design Characteristics and Requirements (for affordable, accessible, and state‐of‐the‐art

intermediary services)  

a. Effective identification & understanding of challenges and opportunities including

those related to workforce, technology, capital, business environment, and other

components of the manufacturing ecosystem.  

b. Technology maturation resources accessible to manufacturersin terms of cost and

utility (for example: “microlabs” providing a hands‐on capability, testing,

prototyping, pilot processes, technical assistance)

c. Market insight and related information on the potential demand for emerging

technologies in order to reduce risk and enhance scale‐up opportunity.   

d. Certification of suppliers and technologies (testing, licensing, certification, &

supply‐chain matching)

e. Asset mapping of regional resources including research and development and

workforce development resources

f. Connections to industry specific supply chains in other regions and as well as in

global networks (expanding supply‐chains across scales)

g. Real‐time and up‐to‐date knowledge sharing about firms in the local/regional

supply chain to aid in succession‐planning, matching, and technology diffusion

h. Understanding of viable financing sources and relationships to facilitate referrals  

i. Ability to efficiently allocate intellectual property rights to optimize technology

development and commercialization  

j. Effective monitoring and advocacy as appropriate for optimal governmental

regulation and industry standards that support adoption of new technologies and

corresponding scale‐up.  
81

k. Effective reduction and consolidation of steps in the manufacturing processes

driven by advances in knowledge and technologies including improved

manufacturing processes, materials, and sensors among others.

l. Effective marketing and distribution of relevant enhanced training services for all

persons in the manufacturing design and implementation process.

We suggest an open request for proposals for new and existing intermediaries to deliver the

services outlined in the Design Characteristics/Requirements section above with

complementary increased visibility of such intermediaries. This reinforces the

implementation of Recommendation 3 in PCAST’s 2012 AMP report which stated: “Establish

a National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes: Manufacturing Innovation

Institutes (MIIs) should be formed as public private partnerships to foster regional

ecosystems in advanced manufacturing technologies. These MIIs are one vehicle to integrate

many recommendations” (p. 12).    We propose that providers of our recommended

“enhanced intermediary solutions” serve asthe vehiclesfacilitating the adoption of advanced

technologies by small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises. The increased visibility

should include direct and targeted communications and an enhanced web site presence on

manufacturing.gov. Where appropriate, existing intermediaries, including MEPs and NNMIs,

could be reconstituted consistent with the above design characteristics. Appropriately

redesigned next generation MEPs have a particular opportunity to assist SMMs with scale‐

up.  In some regions they could serve as the regional coordinator or as a one‐stop shop for

enhanced intermediary services. The NNMIs may be in a position to hand off projects

(particularly in the TRL 8‐10 range) to providers of the enhanced intermediary solutions, such

as the next generation MEPs.

Specific to Technical & Market Insight: Delivering Market and Technical Insight to the capable

SMM supply network at earlier TRL/MRL stage  

Small and medium sized manufacturers represent 89% of firms in the U.S. manufacturing supply

network and 46% of manufacturing employment2.  SMM make investment choices based on an

understanding of business opportunity as do their larger peers.  However, small firms often lack

the internal capacity to analyze potential opportunities due to insufficient information about the

potential demand generated by new technologies and understand how to enter those highly

dynamic markets profitably. Thus, technology adoption by the existing supply network is limited

and delayed.    Further, financing for small firm scale‐up is dependent on a compelling case

                                                             2 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), www.census.gov
82

requiring information about market demand and a clear path to commercialization.  For these

reasons, affordable and accurate market and technical insight is critical for SMMs to develop an

entry strategy, and mobilize resources to adopt new technologies for processes, materials, and

new products.   The existing NIST MEP program has the ability to provide SMMs with market

insight through fee for service projects but is capacity constrained and service models are one‐

to‐one projects covering the full spectrum of potential technologies (e.g., MEP‐led Technology‐

Driven Market Intelligence (TDMI) program).    Furthermore, the recently launched MIIs could

provide a mechanism to deploy market and technical insight across a capable SMM network, and

at an earlier TRL/MRL stage to encourage SMM investment in capability development in parallel

and in collaboration with technology development.

SMM entrants, collectively, must either possess or develop the necessary capabilitiesto compete

in the future supply network in order to successfully scale up a technology.  Key elements of the

suggestions are described below and based on a pilot that examined a specific Technology

(Printed Electronics), Region (Midwest), and Established SMM (Mac Arthur Corporation).  The

pilot was sponsored by Mac Arthur Corporation, University of Michigan, the IRLEE TCA Program,

and the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences between May and August 2014.

Findings from the Printed Electronics Pilot are expected to be broadly applicable to all Advanced

Manufacturing Technologies to accelerate scale‐up and include the following elements.

 Create a “Go‐To” Supply Network Hub: Where there is sufficient public/private demand,

support the creation of a regional hub where technology and industry network expertise

resides and collaboration can be promoted. Provide visibility of the hub to current and

potential network participants and position as the “Go‐To” resource for supply network

companies and SMMs entering or participating in the market.   

 Create and Maintain Platform Knowledge Assets: Utilize industry and technology experts,

and robust methodologies to generate and maintain platforms of knowledge that can be

utilized across the network of SMMs to rapidly scale‐up the supply network.    Key

knowledge assets should include: Technical & Manufacturing readiness/hurdles, Supply

network and national resources map, SMM market entry opportunities by industry,

capital and capability requirements for entry, and a framework for individual SMMs to

rapidly and cost‐effectively prioritize attractive and best‐fit areas of focus.    Lessons

learned should be aggregated and utilized from supply network development of previous

advanced manufacturing technologies in the U.S. to de‐risk small and medium sized

manufacturer’s entry.

 Attract Supply Network Participants, especially SMMs:   Publicize market and technical

insights via forums and workshops where relevant industry clusters and/or technology
83

are being accelerated (e.g., NNMI, industry clusters, regional clusters). Workshops are

intended to draw the interest of strategic industry OEM partners, SMM supply network

participants, technology providers, and capital sources. Workshops should also target

associations of existing SMMs that have capability and capacity to benefit from the

advanced manufacturing technology.

 Provide Market Entry Support:  Connect interested and viable small and medium sized

manufacturers to service partners that can help them develop and execute their plans.  

Leverage the platform of knowledge and insights for efficiency and affordability. The

enhanced intermediary solutions described in detail above could serve as a mechanism

to provide this support as could appropriately scoped and resourced MEP centers.

Platform tools and frameworks developed during the pilot will be redacted and shared with

project sponsors and AMP2.0 for use in implementing this recommendation across advanced

manufacturing technology areas and with potential service providers. Anticipated timing for

the release of platform tools and frameworks is November 2014.

The Great Lakes Wind Network (GLWN.org) and The New York Battery & Energy Storage

Technology Consortium (ny‐best.org) are examples of creating market insight at scale and

utilizing such information to create the supply network.   These models provide market and

technical insight leading to efficient and rapid supply network creation.

Specific to Capital Access: Increasing capital access by reducing financial risk, creating and

providing visibility of solutions for established and start‐up firms

Manufacturers have particular financing needs as has been documented elsewhere, such as in

NIST MEP Report, Connecting Small Manufacturers with the Capital Needed to Grow, Compete

and Succeed.  There is money available in capital markets but manufacturing opportunities are

frequently not compelling investments.  As a result, SMMs looking for growth capital often have

trouble finding it.   Established and new SMMs face many of the same challenges.   Advanced

manufacturing SMMs often are not compelling investments due to technology risk, market

adoption risk, long lead times to significant revenue and significant capital requirements.  Capital

will flow to SMMs when risks are reduced and returns are competitive.    Reducing capital

requirements is one way that government has encouraged manufacturers through grants, loan

guarantees and tax deferrals.  Frequently overlooked are the other means that investments can

be made more attractive to capital marketsthrough demand creation (reducing market adoption

risk), providing access to technical expertise (reducing technical risk), and through reducing

development time.   
84

Established SMMs and new entrants can benefit from many of the same programs.  The following

additional points speak to federal and regional sources of capital:

 Better Streamlining, Advertising and Coordination between Federal Funding Sources

Geared Towards Manufacturing – Over 30 federal programs have been identified as

providing financing to manufacturers. We highlight eight that we think are most

applicable to the scale‐up challenge, largely from DOD, DOE and the SBA. The

challenge with most of these programs is that they provide relatively small amounts

of capital relative to the needs of commercialscale up.  Appendix B documents known

programs at this time and data sources.  Grants and loan guarantees are one tool that

the government has used that has proven successful in fostering advanced

manufacturing.  In particular, DOE and USDA grants and loan guarantees have been

applied to many projectsin biofuels, energy storage and renewable energy.  Since the

start of the Obama administration, USDA Biorefinery Assistance Program has provided

approximately $684 million in assistance.  The Department of Energy’s(DOE) Title XVII

Loan Guarantee Program and the Stimulus add‐on known as the 1705 program

combined for a total of 28 loan applications were finalized worth approximately $15

billion.  These are examples of programs that have provided significant capital.  While

not specific to manufacturing, these programs are both large and clearly were

successful in accelerating advanced manufacturing in this sector.   Future programs

should be considered part of the manufacturing effort, advertised and coordinated

with other manufacturing specific efforts.   

 Increase Visibility of Current National Banks and Other Investors that are Engaging

with Manufacturers and Recruit Others. While there is overall agreement that

traditional banks have pulled back from lending to SMMs, some national and regional

banks have been actively engaged with manufacturers. Their strategies and success

should be highlighted to encourage other banks and investors to invest more in the

manufacturing sector. PNC is one example of a bank that is actively engaging with

manufacturers. Information about such lenders could be tracked by an intermediary

entity, a centrally visible data clearinghouse, or contained in or partnered with the

National MEP network.

   

 Extend the Research and Development Tax Credit –Extend the Research and

Development Tax Credit  ‐  The existing R&D tax credit should be reauthorized and

potentially modified to allow for early stage domestic  testing of commercial viability

to be covered including investments in depreciable property (RD&D – Deployment).   
85

The credit would be made refundable to ensure that firms that do not yet have a

source of revenue or are currently operating in a loss situation would benefit

immediately, when the demand for funds is most critical.

 Public‐Private Investment Fund –Provide government loansto private‐sector investors

in “first‐of‐a kind” production facilities at either the pilot or commercialscale. Existing

programs at both Treasury and the SBA provide models for this type of fund, which

would support projects spread across a multiplicity of funds and a diverse set of fund

managers. The fund would award loans to investment funds or investor consortia in

an equivalent amount to half the cost of the project being financed. The scale of the

fund would be significant in order to support investments of at least $40 million. A

credit subsidy of $500 million would support $5 billion in debentures and a total of

$10 billion in total investment.  

 Facilitate Connections among Corporate Strategic Partners and SMMs – Strategic

partners can play a critical role deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies.  

Partnering with a SMM enables the strategic to access new technologies while

reducing its exposure.  The SMM can gain supply chain access, market access, equity

investment and/or technical expertise as a result of the partnership.  Creating better

visibility into SMM investment opportunities and technologies for interested

corporate strategic partners can help lower search costs while providing potentially

important scale‐up partners to start ups. Interactions of SMMs with potential

strategic partners are fundamentally asymmetric in nature and fraught with peril.   

While a single strategic investment can make a small company successful, any single

investment is unlikely to be viewed as critical to the strategic investor.  Match‐making

opportunities abound, but are inefficient and are not easily found by SMMs.  Forums

are organized by both the private and public sectors, by for‐profit conference

companies, trade associations, industry groups, federal agencies and regional

intermediaries.    SMMs are frequently inadequately prepared with appropriate

business plans and investment prospectuses.  The government should invest in, and

be a customer of, a private‐sector web‐based platform that creates a portal for

strategic partners to learn more about start‐ups and their technologies.    Local,

regional and national expertise in development of actionable business plans should

also be buttressed.

 Use Tax Incentives to Foster Investment in Manufacturing and Partnerships in the

Manufacturing Ecosystem – The New Markets Tax Credit Program (NMTC) was
86

established in 2000 to increase investments in low‐income communities.  They are

suitable and have been used by both start‐ups and established companies.  The first

awards were granted in 2003 and, over the last decade, 836 awards allocating a

totaling over $40 billion.    Envisioned as a catalyst for effective public‐private

partnerships, NMTCs are largely delivering on that promise.  This program has both

good and bad features asrelated to manufacturing.  The investment must be in a low‐

low‐income census tract, of which there are many.    This does mean that existing

businesses may find themselves are ineligible if they do not sit in an appropriate tract.  

The program is complex and intermediaries are required.    The program is

oversubscribed, with requests exceeding supply by approximately 7X. The program

brings approximately $8 of private funding for every $1 of federal support.    The

support isin the form of a tax credit to qualified equity investors.  Assuch, established

established companies with a federal tax liability are incentivized to make

investments which offset that liability.  They are investors, incentivized to make the

investment entity successful.  To date, 23% of the projects funded, the largest single

share, are manufacturing projects.   Representing over $1 billion of investment, these

these projects created over 5082 FTE jobs and 1611 construction jobs.  The AMP effort

effort has identified that this program is not well known even among professionals in

intermediary agencies.   Comfort with the program among participants is now well

established; the incubation period is clearly over and supply is woefully inadequate.  

We suggest that the NMTC program continue and that additional allocations should

be considered based on the success of the program in attracting capital.  The program

program also serves as a model for a wider manufacturing tax credit program that

could soften the census tract citing requirements.    Expansion of New Market Tax

Credits or similar vehicles targeting manufacturing should be considered as a means  

for building the manufacturing ecosystem through support of new and expansion

projects; potential for Manufacturing Renaissance Tax Credit.  

 Government Procurement and Demand for SMM Technologies– Leverage existing

federal programs, like ManTech in DOD, and Buy America authority (for example, in

DOT) to make scale‐up investments for strategic technologies and provide access to

long‐term demand through, for example, multi‐year purchase orders that could be

capitalized by manufacturers looking to scale. DOD, in particular, has experience that

could be leveraged from its recent efforts on energy efficiency. Strategic technologies

should include an expanded definition of those technologies deemed important to

national security to include energy and water‐related technologies.  
87

There are differences between start‐ups and established SMMs attempting to move into

advanced manufacturing.   One major difference is the ability of start‐ups to attract venture

capital funding.    Many high‐risk manufacturing initiatives have been funded by U.S. venture

capital investors.  In most cases, venture capital is characterized by the desire for an exit event,

in the form of an IPO or acquisition.  The AMP team research found that reporting rules enacted

in the U.S. have adversely impacted the IPO market, impeding the ability of small companies to

explore traditional equity markets for capital.  Recent data indicate that U.S. IPOs have returned

to more traditional levels, raising some question as to the impact of regulations.   

Start‐ups also differ from established SMMs in that they are rarely profitable.    Federal tax

deferrals provide no benefit.    Local and regional incentives can reduce cost of operation and

should be encouraged for all manufacturing.  See Annex 26 for supplemental information and

references.
88

Appendix 5: Manufacturing and Engagement

Background  

American manufacturing is at a crossroads.    The manufacturing share of the U.S. GDP has

declined from 33% in the 1950s to 12.5% in 2012.   During the decade leading to the “Great

Recession” of 2008‐2009, the manufacturing sector lost approximately 6 million jobs, from an

employment high of 17.5 million in 1998 to 11.5 million at the end of 2009.3,4  While more than

500,000 of those jobs have been regained since the deepest point of the recession, that dramatic

job loss has fed perceptions that American manufacturing is declining and that manufacturing

jobs are moving offshore.    Recent polling demonstrates this sense by voters, with 50% of

respondents believing that the U.S. is continuing to move more jobs out of the U.S. for overseas

versus only 13% that believe jobs are coming back.5 This uncertainty as to the long‐term viability

of American manufacturing and manufacturing careers has created a problem in attracting the

next generation of workers to careers in this manufacturing sector.

On the other hand, more than 60% of voters agree that manufacturing is the single most

important part of the American economy and we need a manufacturing base here if this country

and our children are to thrive in the future.5  Manufacturers in the United States are the most

productive in the world, farsurpassing the worker productivity of any other major manufacturing

economy.    Manufacturers in the U.S. perform two‐thirds of all private sector research and

development in the nation, driving more innovation than any other sector.  This innovation and

growth potential, as well as the jobs that are being created in American manufacturing, make

properly developing a workforce to fill those positions a key priority.  If done properly, it can

create a virtuous circle by which employers are incentivized to bring even more jobs onshore and

drive even more investment in America.

                                                             3 M. Barker, “Manufacturing employment hard hit during the 2007–09 recession”, Monthly Labor Review, April

2011.   4 National Association of Manufacturers, “Facts about Manufacturing in the United States”.  

http://www.nam.org/Statistics‐And‐Data/Facts‐About‐Manufacturing/Landing.aspx 5 The Mellman Group and North Star Opinion Research, “Findings From a National Survey and Focus Groups of

Likely 2014 Voters”, poll and focus groups conducted for the Alliance for American Manufacturing (January 2014).
89

This growth is critical to sustaining the economic recovery and creating and retaining good jobs

at every educational level for American workers.  As such, corporations, academic institutions,

labor organizations, and government must all work in unison to both create a new image of

manufacturing that is “interesting, innovative, impactful, and most of all increasing.”  Further,

this work must ensure that the jobs created are durable and stable paths to the middle class,

which if done correctly will enable generations of young people to once again see manufacturing

careers as viable, well‐compensated, and stable career paths.

Scope

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (AMP2.0) was chartered in the Fall of 2013, and a

“Manufacturing Image and Engagement” team was assembled and charged to:

 Consider the elements of an awareness campaign to improve image of manufacturing,

 Develop an outreach program for support,

 Host and participate in AMP2.0 Regional Meetings, and

 Evaluate the effectiveness of conducting a National Manufacturing Summit.

In this appendix, we summarize our work and provide suggestions on ways in which the image of

manufacturing can be improved.

Process & Deliverables

Over the last eight months, the Manufacturing Image Team carried out the following workshop

and engagement activities to define our message and approaches to the manufacturing image

campaign:

 We conducted a manufacturing image round table in Washington DC. Invited participants

included representatives of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), American

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the Manufacturing Institute.

 We held an all‐day workshop on manufacturing image. Participants included the Image

team members, SME, the Ad Council, Manufacturing Institute, NIST Manufacturing

Extension Partnership, and members of the Advanced Manufacturing National

Manufacturing Program Office.

 Participated in the AMP regional meetings held at the University of Akron, RPI, and MIT.

 Hosted a national meeting in Detroit in collaboration with the Big M conferences. The

national meeting was organized by SME, the University of Michigan and Northrop

Grumman Corporation. The Big M was organized by SME and included six collocated

conferences and technology exhibits, as well as a keynote address by U.S. Secretary of
90

Commerce Penny Pritzker. The AMP national meeting also included a keynote by Jason

Miller of the National Economic Council.  

Through these focused workshops and AMP 2.0 regional and national meetings, we have

solidified our recommendations around two actions of highest priority for the government to

consider:

1. Develop a national manufacturing image campaign focusing on the current and potential

future growth of American manufacturing to combat perceptions of the sector as

declining.

2. Support National Manufacturing Day as a way to engage manufacturers with schools and

communities about the benefits and impact of manufacturing in communities.

Findings

We suggest targeting students at all educational levels, primarily K‐12, school counselors,

parents, and the general public in the manufacturing image campaign.

1. Develop a national manufacturing image campaign focusing on the current and potential

future growth of American manufacturing to combat perceptions of the sector as declining.

We propose a layered approach to the manufacturing image campaign.    One‐shot national

campaigns, while important, will not be effective without simultaneous regional and local

deployment over a variety of platforms, including social media and specific activitiesfor each age

group.

Steps that need to be addressed and followed in developing the national campaign include:

 Selection of a media agency to create and execute the image campaign.

 Alignment with industry and professional organizations to extend the reach of the

message and follow up

 Coordination with academic institutions, STEM initiatives, and workforce training

initiatives

 Coordination with other federal programs and departments on messaging

 Enhancing the visibility of National Manufacturing Day as a platform for manufacturersto

showcase their own images that reinforces the message at the local level.

2. Leverage National Manufacturing Day as a way to engage manufacturers with schools and

communities about the benefits and impact of manufacturing in communities.
91

An excellent approach in regional and local engagement already exists with the National

Manufacturing Day. Co‐produced by FMA, NAM and the NIST MEP, the National Manufacturing

Day “addresses common misperceptions about manufacturing by giving manufacturers an

opportunity to open their doors and show, in a coordinated effort, what manufacturing is — and

what it isn’t. By working together during and after MFG DAY, manufacturers will begin to address

the skilled labor shortage they face, connect with future generations, take charge of the public

image of manufacturing, and ensure the ongoing prosperity of the whole industry.”6

We propose that AMP and the DOC Manufacturing Council join forces in promoting the National

Manufacturing Day so that companies all over the country will open their doors to students and

the public so that we can work together to create a new image for manufacturing.

Conclusions

The specter of 6 million lost manufacturing jobs, communities left bereft, and workers laid off

will not be erased overnight.  Rebuilding American manufacturing is a multifaceted process, but

it is also one of the most critical projects to which every level of American society can and must

dedicate itself.

One critical step in this process is ensuring that as employers create new manufacturing jobs

there are suitable candidates to fill them.  Doing so requires that potential applicants receive the

training they need to fill these jobs, a task given to another team of the Advanced Manufacturing

Partnership.  But it also requires ensuring that the potential next generation of the American

manufacturing workforce is incentivized to seek out careers in manufacturing.    For decades,

workers flocked to manufacturing careers because those jobs were viewed as stable, solid

careers that provided a path to the middle class for workers at every educational level.  That

perception has been shaken by the job losses of past decades, and rebuilding it requires two

things.  First and foremost, it requires continued, real, and sustainable growth in these jobs.  But

it also requires convincing people that this job growth in manufacturing has occurred and will

continue.

A comprehensive, multiplatform campaign to drive home this message that the American

manufacturing sector is growing again is a key component in bringing about this attitude shift.  

We urge its adoption.

                                                             6 http://www.mfgday.com/
92

Appendix 6: Abbreviation Glossary

ABET    Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

AMNPO        Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

AMP        Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

AMP2.0 Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 (successor to AMP 2011‐2012 effort)

AMP2.0 SC Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Steering Committee

DARPA    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DOC    Department of Commerce

DOD         Department of Defense

DOE        Department of Energy

GDP        Gross Domestic Product

IIE             Institute of Industrial Engineers

IP             Intellectual Property

ITC           Investment Tax Credit

ITIF           Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

M‐TAC   Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Center

MAPI       Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation

MCE    Manufacturing Center of Excellence

MEP         Manufacturing Extension Partnership

MTT    Manufacturing Technology Testbed

NAM       National Association of Manufacturers  
93

NDEMC   National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Consortium  

NEC    National Economic Council

NIH          National Institutes of Health

NIST         National Institute of Standards and Technology

NNMI    National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

NSF          National Science Foundation

PCAST     President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

R&D         Research and Development

RD&D    Research, Development & Deployment

SBIR         Small Business Innovation Research

SME         Society of Manufacturing Engineers

SME’s Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises

SMMs       Small and Medium‐Sized Manufacturers

STEM       Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

TAACCCT Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training

TRL/MRL   Technology Readiness Level / Manufacturing Readiness Level

U.S.          United States

WTO    World Trade Organization   

President’s	Council	of	Advisors	on	Science	and	

Technology	(PCAST)		

www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast