Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing

Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

August 2016

Prepared for—

Economic Analysis Office

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

100 Bureau Drive

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Prepared by—

Alan C. O’Connor

Travis J. Beaulieu

Ginger D. Rothrock

RTI International

3040 E. Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

NIST GCR 16-008
Acknowledgements

Many contributed to the preparation of this report, and we wish to acknowledge in particular the 

private companies, industry associations, research institutes, universities, and government 

agencies whose experts contributed data and insights underlying the analysis herein.

We would also like to acknowledge the advice and subject matter expertise contributed by NIST 

economic and scientific staff. Specifically, we are especially grateful for the contributions of

 Gary Anderson of NIST’s Economic Analysis Office,

 Timothy Burns of NIST’s Applied and Computational Mathematics Division,

 Stephen Campbell of NIST’s Economic Analysis Office,

 Heather Evan of NIST’s Program Coordination Office,

 Simon Frechette of NIST’s Systems Integration Division,

 Albert Jones of NIST’s Systems Integration Division,

 James Liddle of NIST’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology,

 Eric Lin of NIST’s Materials Science and Engineering Division,

 Richard Ricker of NIST’s Materials Measurement Science Division,

 Christopher Soles of NIST’s Materials Science and Engineering Division,

 Albert Wavering of NIST’s Intelligent Systems Division, and

 Paul Zielinski of NIST’s Technology Partnerships Office.

Disclaimer

This publication was produced as part of contract GS10F0097L with the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views 

or policies of the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Government.

About RTI

RTI International is one of the world’s leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the 

human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 4,150 provides 

research and technical services to governments and businesses in more than 75 countries in the 

areas of health and pharmaceuticals, education and training, surveys and statistics, advanced 

technology, international development, economic and social policy, energy and the environment,

and laboratory testing and chemical analysis. For more information, visit www.rti.org.

RTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
NIST GCR 16-008

Economic Analysis of

Technology Infrastructure Needs for 

Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll 

Manufacturing

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economic Analysis Office

Office of the Director

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

By

Alan C. O’Connor

Travis J. Beaulieu

Ginger D. Rothrock

RTI International

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

August 2016

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
iii

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary ES-1

1 Introduction1-1

1.1 Definition of Technology Infrastructure.......................1-2

1.1.1 Infratechnologies...........................................1-3

1.1.2 Technology Platforms .....................................1-5

1.2 Analysis Scope ........................................................1-5

1.3 Barriers to the Development and Adoption of 

Technology Infrastructure.........................................1-6

1.4 Needed Technology Infrastructure to Support R2R 

Manufacturing .........................................................1-7

1.5 Report Organization .................................................1-8

2 Analysis Methods and Data Collection2-1

2.1 Interview-Based Data Collection ................................2-2

2.1.1 Industry Selection..........................................2-2

2.1.2 Interviewee Selection.....................................2-2

2.1.3 Interview Topics ............................................2-4

2.2 Economic Analysis Methodology.................................2-5

2.3 Conservatism of Analysis Approach ............................2-7

3 Industry Trends and Technology Needs3-1

3.1 R2R Manufacturing Methods......................................3-1

3.2 R2R Manufacturing Industry Sectors and Products .......3-4

3.2.1 Optical Films .................................................3-6

3.2.2 Flexible Electronics ........................................3-6

3.2.3 Biomedical....................................................3-7
iv

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

3.2.4 Energy .........................................................3-9

3.2.5 Environmental.............................................3-10

3.2.6 Other Application Areas ................................3-10

3.3 Public–Private Initiatives Addressing Technology 

Needs in R2R Manufacturing ...................................3-11

3.4 Technology Infrastructure Gaps in R2R 

Manufacturing .......................................................3-13

4 Economic Impact of Meeting Technology 

Infrastructure Needs4-1

4.1 Summary IMpact .....................................................4-1

4.2 Capital Expenditures ................................................4-3

4.3 Labor Expenditures ..................................................4-4

4.4 Materials Expenditures .............................................4-5

4.5 Impact on Common Performance Indicators................4-6

4.5.1 R&D Cycle Times ...........................................4-6

4.5.2 Time Requirements for Quality Assurance 

and Control...................................................4-7

4.5.3 Scrap Rate....................................................4-7

4.5.4 Sales Revenue...............................................4-7

5 Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology 

Infrastructure Needs5-1

5.1 Standards and Measurement Technology for Input 

Materials ................................................................5-2

5.1.1 Standards and Measurement Methods for 

Fluids and Metal Inks .....................................5-3

5.1.2 Standards and Measurement Methods for 

Substrates ....................................................5-4

5.2 New Materials and Substrates ...................................5-5

5.3 Patterned Tools .......................................................5-6

5.4 Metrology for Tooling and Real-Time Feedback ............5-8

5.5 Technology for Alignment and Registration on a 

Moving Web ..........................................................5-10

5.6 Process Modeling and Controls ................................5-11

5.7 Consistent International Terminology .......................5-13

6 Concluding Remarks6-1

ReferencesR-1
v

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Figures

Number Page

3-1 Technology Infrastructure Needs for R2R Additive 

Manufacturing.................................................................3-1

4-1 Economic Impact by Technology Infrastructure Need 

Area ..............................................................................4-3

5-1 Interviewees’ Rating of Importance of Technology 

Infrastructure Needs........................................................5-2
vi

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Tables

Number Page

1-1 Definitions of Key Concepts ..............................................1-4

1-2 Barriers to Developing and Adopting New Technology 

That Bring about Market Failure ........................................1-7

1-3 Technology Infrastructure Needs for R2R Manufacturing ......1-8

2-1 NAICS Codes for Industry Participants ...............................2-3

2-2 NAICS Codes Included in Economic Impact Model ...............2-6

2-3 Estimated Size of U.S Market for Products Produced 

Using R2R ......................................................................2-7

3-1 R2R Manufacturing Methods .............................................3-3

3-2 Current and Future Industries and Product Categories 

for R2R Manufacturing .....................................................3-4

3-3 Industry Associations Active in R2R Manufacturing ............3-11

3-4 NextFlex Membership ....................................................3-13

3-5 Infrastructure Needs and Potential Impacts: R2R 

Manufacturing...............................................................3-14

4-1 Economic Impact of Meeting Technology Infrastructure 

Needs in R2R Manufacturing .............................................4-2

4-2 Impact on Common Performance Indicators .......................4-6
ES

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Executive Summary

Within the past decade there has been a resurgence of interest 

in roll-to-roll (R2R) manufacturing methods. The potential to 

use this familiar, continuous production method to print 

multilayered products with sophisticated attributes and small 

feature sizes is driving innovation. Advanced R2R production 

methods are currently used for several different types of 

products, including optical films like light diffusers, but the 

potential to apply it to produce entirely new products is driving 

innovation. Emerging product segments like flexible electronics 

are pushing technological boundaries.

Further development and widespread adoption of this 

manufacturing technology will require resolving key technical 

challenges in standards, metrology, and technology platforms. 

This report, commissioned by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), explores perspectives from 

industry and academia on the needs for new technology 

infrastructure supporting R2R manufacturing and the potential 

economic impact of meeting these needs. 

We estimate that the economic benefit of an improved 

technology infrastructure supporting R2R manufacturing would 

be at least $353 million per year. This estimate is conservative 

because it reflects the small size of the market today and does 

not take into consideration the impacts associated with market 

transformation, earlier introduction of novel products and 

services, benefits to consumers, or other types of benefits. The 

estimate is simply the potential impact using known 

information. 

Many companies face barriers in adopting or developing R2R 

technologies because of R2R’s hard and soft costs and the 

associated learning curve. Missing from the marketplace are 

many standards, technology platforms, and other fundamental 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

ES-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8 This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

pieces of technology, making technology adoption more costly 

and difficult than it needs to be (Figure ES-1). Because firms 

cannot profit from developing these public-good technologies, 

they do not develop them, which in turn discourages innovation 

and undermines American competitiveness. Public-sector 

support of relevant technology infrastructure will help lessen, if 

not outright, remove many barriers.

The research supporting this report was informed by in-depth 

interviews with individuals representing manufacturers, 

university-based research centers, and manufacturing 

engineering consultancies. It was apparent from these

interviews that addressing these critical needs has the potential 

to help the industry be more competitive in the marketplace, be 

more cost competitive, improve quality, and hasten the 

introduction of new products with novel functionality.

ES.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

This study is a collaborative effort among multiple units within 

NIST to determine technology infrastructure needs to support 

advanced manufacturing. It presents findings of an economic 

analysis of the technology infrastructure, which includes 

standards, measurement, and general-purpose technology, and 

the role of this infrastructure in the efficient development and 

adoption of advanced R2R manufacturing in the United States.

The objectives of this strategic planning study were to

 identify current and emerging trends;

 identify technology infrastructure needs to support the 

development and adoption of R2R manufacturing

technology;

 document the challenges and barriers that inhibit the 

development of technology infrastructure;

 estimate the economic benefit of meeting these 

technology infrastructure needs; and

 assess potential roles for NIST in meeting technology 

infrastructure needs.

Ultimately, the purpose of the study is to provide NIST with 

information on industries’ technology infrastructure needs to 

help inform NIST’s strategic planning.
Executive Summary

ES-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Figure ES-1. Technology Infrastructure Needs for R2R Additive Manufacturing

ES.2 ANALYSIS APPROACH

We conducted in-depth interviews with industry executives, 

university faculty members, and independent researchers and 

consultants representing a cross section of the R2R research 

and manufacturing community. Many more informal 

conversations were held with individuals at conferences and 

industry events. 

We specifically focused on sectors in which there is significant 

relevant industry activity and research:

 optical films, 

 flexible electronics, 

 biomedical applications, 

 energy technologies, and 

 environmental technologies. 

These stakeholder engagement and interview activities were 

complemented with an extensive review of the relevant 

literature, issue briefs, and industry reports. The combined 

results of these activities built our knowledge base of R2R 

technology, key industries and application areas, and the 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

ES-4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8 This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

barriers and pitfalls in R2R manufacturing that are preventing it 

from being fully optimized. 

Quantitative information about interviewees’ expectations of

increased productivity, R&D efficiency, decreased production 

cost, and improved product quality was combined publicly 

available data on the manufacturing sector in economic models 

of the R2R manufacturing sector. Because these models used 

existing industry data, and did not project or speculate about 

future market size, our impact estimates are conservative.

ES.3 ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

Stakeholders’ perspectives on technology infrastructure needs 

fell into the following areas (Table ES-1):

 standards and measurement technology for input 

materials

 new materials and substrates

 patterned tools

 metrology for tooling and real-time feedback

 technology for alignment and registration on a moving 

web

 process modeling and controls

 consistent international terminology

Using a Likert scale, interviewees rated the importance of 

addressing the needs from “very important” to “not at all 

important” (Figure ES-2). Metrology for tooling and feedback 

was identified to be the most important technology 

infrastructure need, followed by the development of new 

materials and substrates and measurement and standards for 

those materials.
Executive Summary

ES-5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Table ES-1. Technology Infrastructure Needs for R2R Manufacturing

Infrastructure Need Technologies Potential Impacts

Standards and 

measurement 

technology for input 

materials

Reference materials and quality 

standards

Standard protocols and best practices to 

improve repeatability and materials 

quality validation

Improve reliability and increase 

reproducibility

Improve robustness of results and 

increase yields

Simplify design by reducing or removing 

defect-tolerant design criteria

Lower R&D costs, shorter and fewer R&D 

cycles

Metrology for tooling 

and real-time feedback

Advanced analytical tools and sensors 

for probing a moving surface and 

metrology that extends beyond optical 

resolution

Large-area metrology

Metrology for obtaining measurement on 

a moving, reflective, and/or optically 

transparent web

In-line flexible-substrate metrology for 

mechanical reliability, thermal effects, 

positional accuracy and reliability across 

a wide surface, processing on a fastmoving web

Point defect detection to eliminate 

additional processing for defective parts, 

lowering scrap rates and costs

Catastrophic defect detection to 

eliminate portions of costly batch-level 

destructive testing at end of production 

run

Quickly identify unit operation and 

quality issues during production runs

Increase production speed

Technology for 

alignment and 

registration on a 

moving substrate

Technology to enable high throughput 

alignment

New products and decreased costs of 

existing products

Process modeling and 

controls

Process control (move to closed loop, 

develop and integrate sensors)

Automated design flows

Process simulation tools

Integration of smart manufacturing 

processes to support predictive 

understanding of frequency and source 

of errors, reducing both production 

scale-up time and machine downtime

As scale increases, design for 

manufacturing becomes more important 

as do integrated sensors to support 

metrology

Terminology Consistent international standards for 

nomenclature

Reduce uncertainty, lower transactions 

costs

Tooling for seam-free 

fabrication, including 

cylindrical masters that 

are seamless and have 

nanoscale fidelity

Removing the barriers that impede 

product size or length, thereby 

expanding product portfolios

Removing the need to create molds from 

masters, which would greatly lower 

turnaround times, decrease wastage, 

and greatly decrease cost of goods

Removing the barriers that impede 

product size or length, thereby 

expanding product portfolios

Removing the need to create molds from 

masters, which would greatly lower 

turnaround times, decrease wastage, 

and greatly decrease cost of goods

New materials and 

substrates

New materials formulations, especially 

for high-conductivity applications

Enable mass-produced flexible 

electronics, opening new markets. 

Reduced substrate defects would greatly 

lower costs and support product 

innovation
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

ES-6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8 This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Figure ES-2. Interviewees’ Rating of Importance of Technology Infrastructure Needs

Note: Respondents rated each need on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Shares of 

responses of 5 or 4 are indicated above the dotted line; shares of responses of 3, 2, or 1 are indicated below the 

dotted line. 

ES.3.1 Standards and Measurement Technology for Input 

Materials

Interviewees regarded standards and measurement methods 

for input materials as one of the most important needs to 

address. Challenges in reliability and reproducibility are the 

primary reasons why companies incur excessive costs in 

validating the quality of their input materials and substrates.

Despite the presence of industry associations, a robust 

standards infrastructure has not emerged because the proper 

combination of objectivity, funding, timelines, and knowledge 

has not been present to focus and sustain the effort. 

The challenges related to standards and measurement 

technology for materials are emblematic of many fundamental 

barriers that bring about the failure of markets to provide 

essential technology. Standards and measurement technologies 

are not only challenging to develop but they also require buy-in 

from entire communities in order for them to have the desired 
Executive Summary

ES-7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

effect. Although there is an incentive for firms to participate in 

standards development, standards must be developed by 

neutral, independent, and objective third parties or 

associations. Thus, stakeholders saw a clear role for NIST in the 

provision of standards and measurement technology for input 

materials and substrates.

ES.3.2 New Materials and Substrates

Several manufacturers noted that a primary barrier to flexible 

electronics is the lack of materials that can hold up to the 

thermal and mechanical stresses of the production process. 

Another barrier is that many metal-based inks oxidize very 

quickly, so separating the raw materials from humidity and 

environmental impurities is essential to maintaining the 

structural integrity of a product. New materials formulations, 

especially for metal inks, that can withstand processing 

conditions and support desired product characteristics are a 

critical gap. Likewise, substrate materials that are alternatives 

to PET, which suffers from variabilities, were mentioned as a 

critical need.

Development of precompetitive formulations and concepts for 

metal inks and substrates was a priority area. NIST is 

positioned to advance the science of printing, especially via 

building the knowledge base of how to make ink formulations 

and substrates compatible. The private sector is not generating 

and publishing this fundamental knowledge because they are 

unlikely to be able to capture any profits from their efforts, 

which in turn inhibits the technology’s advancement. 

ES.3.3 Patterned Tools

The technical and patent literature is replete with methods and 

concepts for making rolls for low-resolution applications; 

however, this body of work does not address the unique 

requirements of the formation of a continuous, high-fidelity 

patterned film demanded by industry. Feedback across the range of manufacturers and R&D 

professionals pointed to the desire for cylindrical tooling with 

the following qualities, few of which are available today: submicron fidelity, seamless, long life (preferring metal tools 

over polymer), reduced cycle times, and tooling-specific 

metrology.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

ES-8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8 This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Our interviewees revealed that improvement in tooling would 

be significant for companies operating in thin-film 

manufacturing, as well as those with advanced electrical 

circuitry requirements. Like with standards and measurement 

technologies, the fundamental knowledge for the production of 

seam-free masters requires sustained, long-term focus and 

investment coupled with the scientific and technical knowledge 

that is beyond the near-term investment horizon of the young 

firms that constitute the industry. 

ES.3.4 Metrology for Tooling and Real-Time Feedback

Manufacturers emphasized the need for metrology to detect 

defects before or during manufacturing for quality control, 

monitor the deposition of functional materials, and ensure 

correct alignment and registration, which is discussed further 

below. Real-time metrology tools would also help advance the 

R2R process and applications by analyzing data across 

numerous production runs. Metrology methodologies from 

traditional semiconductor industries are being applied, but 

adequate solutions do not yet exist. 

The economic benefits of realizing such a metrology portfolio 

are expansive and include the following:

 midstream defect detection to eliminate additional 

processes for defective parts

 point defect determination to lower scrap rate

 characterization of the substrate’s quality before using it

 real-time feedback of tooling and other additive printing 

processes to quickly identify unit operation issues during 

manufacture

 smaller data sets to increase process speed

 catastrophic defect detection for active devices to 

eliminate costly quality assurance/quality control testing 

of the end product

 elimination of destructive, batch-level quality control 

processes, such as cross-sectioning

As with metrology for input materials, metrology for tooling and 

real-time feedback were viewed by respondents as a classic 

role for NIST and areas in which market failure persists. 
Executive Summary

ES-9

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

ES.3.5 Technology for Alignment and Registration on a Moving 

Web

It is difficult to achieve precise overlay and long-range 

placement accuracy in R2R because of the tendency of the 

flexible substrate to deform during processing; therefore, many 

potential high-value applications that require the precise and 

accurate placement of multiple levels of materials await 

improvements in metrology and control technologies. Single-

level structures, used in applications such as optical films and 

controlled-energy surfaces, do not require such precision and 

were thus the first products developed using R2R. 

Alignment and registration greatly affect the quality and yield of 

a product. The extent to which NIST could bring together 

sensing technologies and measurement systems to 

demonstrate manufacturing strategies for alignment and 

registration on a moving web would be valuable for flexible 

electronics manufacturers. Addressing this need requires a 

unique combination of multidisciplinary expertise and 

specialized facilities to solve a problem for an industry that 

does not have the requisite breadth of expertise and lab 

facilities in-house.

ES.3.6 Process Modeling and Controls

In close combination with metrology, real-time diagnostics 

complements the development of process modeling and control 

methods. R2R process models enable an improved, predictive 

understanding of frequency and source of errors in the 

manufacturing process. If reliable, modeling offers high return 

at low labor and materials costs. Although this modeling will not 

replace metrology and quality processes, it can improve the 

quality of the manufacturing process and reduce downtime and 

failure rates to reduce overall costs. Modeling also is the first 

step in scaling from a bench-scale or pilot system to a large 

production factory. 

ES.3.7 Consistent International Terminology

R2R methods address a very diverse set of markets and 

products and include a multitude of unit operations. Defining 

these operations in terms that are well understood and 

characterized by industry, with industry-wide consensus, is 

crucial to support further development in the field. Currently, inconsistent process definitions, classifications, and taxonomies 

are applied across R2R platforms. These inconsistencies make it 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

ES-10

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8 This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

challenging to analyze the industry as a whole, as well as 

provide roadmaps and consensus.

Although some interviewees noted that consistent 

nomenclature and other like standards can be helpful for the 

industry, they are not a barrier. Several respondents during 

interviews characterized consistent terminology need as “nice 

to have” but not critically important. The extent to which NIST 

can support efforts that drive toward consistent terminology 

would be advantageous to manufacturers, but they would 

prefer that NIST allocate a marginal dollar to critical issues in 

standards and measurement technology.

ES.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS

We estimate that the economic benefit of an improved 

technology infrastructure supporting R2R manufacturing would 

be at least $353 million per year (Table ES-2). This benefit, 

which is based on interview data and current costs of 

manufacturing for those industry sectors in which R2R is most 

used today, equates to approximately 15% of the total cost of 

goods sold (COGS) for R2R manufacturers in 2015.1

Table ES-2. Economic Impact of Meeting Technology Infrastructure Needs in R2R 

Manufacturing

Cost Category

Estimated 2015 

Expenditure Impact of Improved 

Technology 

Infrastructurea

Potential Cost 

$ Million % of Total Savings (Benefit)

Capital 153 6% −8% $12 million

Labor 574 24% −25% $144 million

Energy 44 2% −7% $3 million

Materials 1,621 68% −12% $194 million

Total 2,391 100% $353 million

a Represents the mean estimated percentage change in the costs of production of meeting all technology 

infrastructure needs described by interviewees (see Section 4), holding production quantity constant. As 

described elsewhere in this report, meeting technology infrastructure needs is expected to de-risk advanced R2R 

manufacturing methods and thereby crowd in capital investment and expand R2R manufacturing activity, all else 

held equal. 

 1 Total COGS for R2R manufacturing companies is estimated to be 

51% of $4.7 billion in U.S. sales, or about $2.4 billion. Reducing the 

COGS by $353 million results in 14% savings.
Executive Summary

ES-11

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Meeting critical technology infrastructure needs would de-risk 

the application of R2R manufacturing technologies and 

encourage, or “crowd in,” further investment by the private 

sector. Other key impacts noted by interviewees include 

improved quality, reduced timelines for product development, 

lower scrap rates, and increased system utilization and 

production yields (Table ES-3).

A potential overall production cost savings of 15% is significant, 

and it is clear that solving critical technology infrastructure 

barriers facing R2R manufacturers holds the prospect of greatly 

enhancing firms’ viability and competitiveness. Ultimately, R2R 

manufacturers’ competitiveness is closely related to their 

tooling and production process; increasing the accuracy, 

reliability, quality, and utilization of production lines would free 

resources for R&D, product development, and other activities. 

Indicator Potential Impact

Product development and R&D cycle time −17%

Quality control and inspection time −25%

System utilization +22%

Scrap rate −23%

Sales revenue +25%

Table ES-3. Impact on 

Common Performance 

Indicators
1

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

1 Introduction

There has been a resurgence of interest in roll-to-roll (R2R) 

manufacturing methods because of the potential to print, 

essentially, large volumes of a product at high resolution 

inexpensively. R2R production methods are currently used 

primarily for optical films, such as light diffusers, but the 

potential to apply it to produce new products is driving 

innovation with this familiar production method. 

Emerging product segments like flexible electronics are pushing 

technological boundaries as companies attempt to produce 

multilayered products with sophisticated attributes and small 

feature sizes using a process that keeps bendable substrates 

moving at a high rate of speed. Further development and 

widespread adoption of this manufacturing technology will 

require resolving key technical challenges in standards, 

metrology, and manufacturing technology platforms. 

This report, commissioned by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), explores stakeholder 

perspectives on needs for technology infrastructure supporting 

R2R manufacturing and the potential economic impact of 

meeting these needs. The research supporting this report was 

informed by in-depth interviews with individuals representing 

manufacturers, university-based research centers, and 

manufacturing engineering consultancies. 

R2R manufacturing has its roots in low-resolution/high-

throughput newspaper and textile products, with methods that 

include offset, gravure, and ink jet printing. U.S.-based 

companies Kodak and Polaroid pioneered the use of R2R 

processes for advanced, multilayer coated film products, 

creating a new, more sophisticated manufacturing sector that 

leveraged the economies of scale. In parallel, advancements in 

the microelectronics sector enabled the generation of 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

1-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

increasingly high-fidelity, complex two-dimensional (2D) and 

3D patterns. 

Manufacturing methods that merge the precision and uniformity 

of the microelectronics industries with the scale and cost 

structure of the films industries represent the R2R additive 

manufacturing of the present and future. 

Early adopters focused on large patterned, single-level 

products—primarily optical film products, including microlenses, 

diffusers, and holograms. More recently, applications in printed 

electronics have emerged, requiring lower tolerances and 

offering lower costs than products produced with traditional 

batch semiconductor processes. The printed electronics industry 

has expanded into a broad range of market applications, 

including flexible electronics, diagnostics, displays, 

photovoltaics (PV), sensors, and energy storage. This means 

new sectors are contributing to innovation and development 

with R2R, including wearables, medical devices, 

pharmaceuticals, environmental technologies, and solar energy 

technologies. 

This report explores how an improved technology infrastructure 

can accelerate the introduction and adoption of manufacturing 

technologies that would deliver new products and create more 

market opportunities for American companies. 

1.1 DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Technology infrastructure is the broad base of public and quasipublic technologies2 and technical knowledge that support the 

research and development (R&D) and production efforts of 

firms, universities, and laboratories, as well as the development 

and adoption of improved and entirely new products, 

processes, and services (e.g., higher quality, more efficient, 

more productive).

Technology infrastructure supports and accelerates 

enhancements in advanced manufacturing capabilities. For R2R 

manufacturing, enhanced technology infrastructure has the 

potential to decrease cost and increase quality through 

infratechnologies, such as standards or reference information, 

 2 Technologies with varying degrees of public good content.
Section 1 

— Introduction 1-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

and technology platforms, which are precompetitive technology 

concepts that can be adapted to meet specific applications (see 

Table 1-1).

3 It is often the case that the public sector supports 

the majority of technology infrastructure research because of 

its public-good content (Tassey, 2008).

Infratechnologies are a varied set of “technical tools” that 

include measurement and test methods, artifacts such as 

standard reference materials that allow these methods to be 

used efficiently, scientific and engineering databases, process 

models, and the technical basis for physical and functional 

interfaces between components of systems technologies such 

as robotics and automation technologies. Historically, NIST has 

focused resources on this aspect of technology infrastructure. 

As written in Tassey (2008), “[c]ollectively they constitute a 

diverse technical infrastructure, various types of which are 

applied at each stage of economic activity.” New 

infratechnologies often replace less efficient forms of 

infratechnology that support current standards (Tassey, 2008).

1.1.1 Infratechnologies

Infratechnologies provide the technical basis for standards that 

are set using consensus standard-setting processes that are 

usually led by industry organizations and/or government. Their 

benefits include full disclosure of information, reduced 

uncertainty regarding product attributes, and an overall 

improved level of trust that helps reduce market transaction 

costs.

The provision of infratechnologies requires a combination of 

industry and government investment because infratechnologies 

have substantial public good content (Antonelli and Link, 2015). 

Some industries depend on hundreds of distinct 

infratechnologies and associated standards. Furthermore, a 

 3 Proprietary technologies are commercialized products, processes, 

and services that may be derivatives of technology platforms and 

have been influenced by infratechnologies. Generally, firm 

investments in proprietary technology fall under the category of 

R&D spending. Proprietary technologies that are relatively 

ubiquitous may have quasi–public good characteristics even though 

they are almost exclusively funded and developed by private-sector 

firms. These technologies are in-scope to the extent that the 

technology infrastructure on which we focus enables their 

development and adoption.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

1-4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

particular infratechnology may have spillover benefits for many 

industries.

Infratechnologies influence the development of technology 

platforms and proprietary technologies. They also support 

efficient R&D, production, and market transactions such as 

complying with customer requirements and regulations.

Table 1-1. Definitions of Key Concepts

Term Definition Examples

Technology 

infrastructure

The broad base of quasi-public 

technologies and technical 

knowledge that support the R&D 

and production efforts of firms, 

universities, and laboratories, as 

well as the development and 

adoption of improved products, 

processes, and services.

• Infratechnologies

• Technology platforms

Infratechnologies A varied set of “technical tools” 

that include measurement and test 

methods, artifacts such as 

standard reference materials that 

allow these methods to be used 

efficiently, scientific and 

engineering databases, process 

models, and the technical basis for 

physical and functional interfaces 

between components of systems 

technologies such as factory 

automation and communications.

• Standard reference materials

• Process models

• Techniques for process and quality 

control

• Calibration services

• Traceability of measurements and 

test methods

• Benchmarks and testbeds for 

characterizing a new technology’s 

expected performance under realistic 

conditions

• Objective characterization of 

performance attributes of component 

technologies

• Reference datasets of materials 

properties

Technology 

platforms

Precompetitive proofs of concept 

that demonstrate the potential 

commercial viability of a new or 

improved product, process, or 

service. A characteristic of a 

technology platform is that it will 

often be foundational to multiple 

products and processes, generally 

from multiple firms.

• Novel metal ink formulations and 

substrates

• Technology for producing seamless 

patterned tooling

• Technology for alignment and 

registration on a moving web

Note: A fourth classification—proprietary technologies—are commercialized products, processes, and services that 

are funded and developed almost exclusively by private-sector firms. These technologies are in-scope only to the 

extent that the technology infrastructure on which we focus enables their development and adoption.
Section 1 

— Introduction 1-5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

1.1.2 Technology Platforms

Technology platforms are precompetitive proofs of concept that 

demonstrate the potential commercial viability of a new or 

improved product, process, or service. These fundamental 

technical concepts originate from basic science research and 

can even be enabled by measurement infratechnologies (Link 

and Scott, 2010).

A characteristic of a technology platform is that it will often be 

foundational to multiple products and processes, the scope of 

which is typically broader than the business model of any one 

firm. Therefore, no firm is able to fully appropriate the benefits 

of investing in the development of a technology platform, so 

achieving the socially optimal level of investment will generally 

require additional public investment.

1.2 ANALYSIS SCOPE

This report identifies gaps in technology infrastructure inhibiting 

the development and adoption of advanced R2R production 

techniques in the U.S. manufacturing sector, and it quantifies 

the prospective economic benefits associated with addressing 

those gaps. The report also outlines specific potential 

opportunities for NIST to accelerate the development and 

adoption of critical technology infrastructure.

The research supporting this report was informed by primary 

data collection that consisted of interviews with experts in the 

R2R manufacturing community. It also was informed through a 

secondary collection of industry information.

Interviewed experts represented various stakeholder groups

from across the R2R value chain.

4 We interviewed 45 experts

from industry associations, universities, and research centers; 

developers of R2R manufacturing technologies; system 

integrators and consultants; and end users within the 

manufacturing sector. Because firms’ tooling is a primary 

source of competitive advantage, many R2R end users develop 

their own manufacturing technologies. We specifically focused 

on end users in optical films, flexible electronics, biomedical 

 4 The value chain concept is a broader concept than the supply chain. 

Value chains include any stakeholders that add value to the end 

product or process, whether through providing goods, services, 

knowledge, or coordination, for example. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

1-6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

applications, energy technologies, and environmental 

technologies. 

1.3 BARRIERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND

ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE

A motivating factor for this study is that private investments in 

innovation and diffusion of new technologies typically generate 

social value in excess of their private returns. As a result, some 

socially productive technology investments are not undertaken 

because private firms do not perceive the research as 

profitable.5

The rate and extent of development of R2R production 

technologies and the rate and extent of their adoption in 

advanced manufacturing applications will depend on the parallel 

development and diffusion of technology infrastructure that is 

generally underprovided by the market. This resulting market 

failure—the failure of the market to allocate a socially optimal 

level of infrastructure investment—provides an opportunity to 

improve the efficiency of economic outcomes through public 

investments in technology infrastructure.

Table 1-2 lists eight barriers to investment identified in the 

literature.6 These barriers that bring about market failure are 

present for R2R production systems and can be expected to 

result in a reduction of overall economic welfare unless they are 

addressed through public support or other means. Each barrier 

describes general R&D market failures, and some barriers are 

specific to technology infrastructure. Throughout this report we 

identify barriers that bring about market failure and discuss 

potential roles for NIST that may mitigate or eliminate these 

barriers.7

 5 The private rate of return is less than what is required (the private 

hurdle rate), even though the social rate of return exceeds that 

required by society (the social hurdle rate). 6 The taxonomy of barriers presented here draws insight from Link and 

Scott (2010) and Jaffe (2005).

7 Tassey (2010) provides an excellent discussion of the roles of 

infratechnologies and technology platforms in innovation.
Section 1 — Introduction

1-7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Table 1-2. Barriers to Developing and Adopting New Technology That Bring about Market 

Failure

Barrier

General R&D 

Market Failures

Market Failures 

with Regard to 

Technology 

Infrastructure

Inability to appropriate all social benefits, such as 

positive network externalities ● ●

Scope of commercial applications is broader than the 

market strategy of any one firm ● ●

Risk that R&D outcomes will be technically insufficient 

(technical risk) ●

Risk that R&D outcomes, although technically 

sufficient, will not be received well by the market, 

thereby providing an unacceptable return on 

investment (commercial or market risk)

●

Long and uncertain lag between R&D investments and 

returns ●

Asymmetric information between developers and 

adopters of new technology ● ●

Difficulties in bringing together component 

technologies from different industry segments ● ●

Industry structure, such as network externalities, 

presenting market-entry barriers to new technology ●

1.4 NEEDED TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE 

TO SUPPORT R2R MANUFACTURING

The needed technology infrastructures reviewed in this report 

are (Table 1-3):

 standards and measurement methods for input 

materials, 

 new materials and substrates, 

 patterned tools, 

 metrology for tooling and real-time feedback, 

 alignment and registration on a moving substrate, 

 process modeling and controls, and 

 consistent terminology. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

1-8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Table 1-3. Technology Infrastructure Needs for R2R Manufacturing 

Infrastructure Need Technologies

Standards and measurement 

technology for input materials

Reference materials and quality standards

Standard protocols and best practices to improve repeatability and 

materials quality validation

Metrology for tooling and real-time 

feedback

Advanced analytical tools and sensors for probing a moving surface and 

metrology that extends beyond optical resolution

Large-area metrology

Metrology for obtaining measurement on a moving, reflective, and/or 

optically transparent web

In-line flexible-substrate metrology for mechanical reliability, thermal 

effects, positional accuracy and reliability across a wide surface, 

processing on a fast-moving web

Technology for alignment and 

registration on a moving substrate

Technology to enable high throughput alignment

Process modeling and controls Process control (move to closed loop, develop and integrate sensors)

Automated design flows

Process simulation tools

Terminology Consistent international standards for nomenclature

Tooling for seam-free fabrication, 

including cylindrical masters that 

are seamless and have nanoscale 

fidelity

Removing the barriers that impede product size or length, thereby 

expanding product portfolios

Removing the need to create molds from masters, which would greatly 

lower turnaround times, decrease wastage, and greatly decrease cost of 

goods

New materials and substrates New materials formulations, especially for high-conductivity applications

1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is organized as follows:

 Section 2 describes our data collection and analysis 

methods.

 Section 3 describes industry trends and technology 

infrastructure needs described by study participants.

 Section 4 presents quantitative impact estimates of the 

economic benefits of meeting industry needs.

 Section 5 explores technology infrastructure needs, the 

associated technical hurdles, barriers that result in 

market failure, and how meeting these needs would 

have an impact.

 Section 6 provides concluding remarks. 
2

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

2 Analysis Methods 

and Data Collection

RTI conducted 45 interviews with industry executives, 

university faculty members, and independent researchers and 

consultantsrepresenting a cross section of the R2R research 

and manufacturing community. Many more informal 

conversations were held with individuals at conferences and 

industry events. These stakeholder engagement and interview 

activities were complemented with an extensive review of the 

relevant literature, issue briefs, and industry reports. The 

combined results of these activities built our knowledge base of 

R2R technology, key industries and application areas, and the 

barriers and pitfalls in R2R manufacturing that are preventing it

from being fully optimized. Interviews were particularly important for this study because

there was little preexisting structured data about technology 

infrastructure needs in R2R manufacturing and the associated 

economic impact of meeting those needs. Several technology 

assessments, roadmaps, and opinion pieces allude to the need 

for and importance of technology infrastructure for R2R 

manufacturing, but no economic analysis exists that addresses 

what is admittedly a nuanced yet critically important issue in 

manufacturing technology development. 

Our interviews investigated technology infrastructure needs, 

current research trends, barriers to technology adoption, 

benefits that could be achieved from an improved technical 

infrastructure, and potential roles for NIST. Quantitative 

information was collected on the potential benefits in terms of 

increased productivity, R&D efficiency, decreased production 

cost, and improved product quality. These quantitative impacts 

were used to calculate national economic impacts associated 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

2-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

with an improved technical infrastructure to support R2R

manufacturing.

This section presents our analytical approach to collecting and 

analyzing industry data and interview responses. These data 

were analyzed quantitatively using economic models that 

estimate the economic impact that enhanced technology 

infrastructure would have on the U.S. manufacturing sector.

2.1 INTERVIEW-BASED DATA COLLECTION 

Interviews were selected as the principal mode of primary data 

collection (rather than a closed-form survey) because of the 

complexity of the subject matter and the need to be flexible 

with respect to the respondents’ areas of expertise. This 

approach to data collection provided a richness of information 

that could not be obtained using close-ended survey methods.

Our interview guide is included as Appendix A. 

2.1.1 Industry Selection

We selected relevant sectors based on the manufacturing 

sectors where R2R technology is used or is expected to be used 

more broadly as the result of improved capabilities and 

enhanced infratechnology. Various industry reports, the 

membership of industry associations, and the composition of 

working groups, combined with the assessment of consulting 

industry experts, helped us determine the following sectors of 

primary interest: 

 optical films

 electronics

 biomedical devices and drug delivery systems

 energy

 environmental technologies

These sectors are explored in detail in Section 3.

2.1.2 Interviewee Selection

RTI conducted 45 interviews that contributed to the analysis 

results presented in this report.8 This total excludes informal 

 8 More than 106 interviews were attempted, but most were unable to 

be completed because of the nuanced topic of technology 

infrastructure, because the targeted interviewee determined that he 

or she did not have enough information to provide responses with 
Section 2 —Analysis Methods and Data Collection

2-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

conversations that were not facilitated by an interview guide

and that occurred at conferences, industry events, or 

consultations with NIST or other technical experts working in 

government. Table 2-1 summarizes the industries (by detailed 

NAICS) represented by the actual respondents. Respondents 

represented a broad set of industries across all four types of 

advanced manufacturing.

Titles for interviewees included the following:

 Chief Technology Officer or Chief Operating Officer

 Chief Scientist

 President or Vice President

 Founder or Co-Founder

 Director of Manufacturing

 Senior Engineer

 Professor or Department Head

 Principal or Senior Consultant

The majority of interview participants were from goodsproducing firms that either use R2R currently or have explored 

the potential for R2R’s implementation. The remaining

Table 2-1. NAICS Codes for Industry Participants 

NAICS Title

33591 Battery manufacturing

325414 Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing

325992 Photographic film, paper, plate, and chemical manufacturing

326113 Unlaminated plastics film and sheet (except packaging) manufacturing

333314 Optical instrument and lens manufacturing

334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

334418 Printed circuit assembly (electronic assembly) manufacturing

334419 Other electronic component manufacturing

335931 Current-carrying wiring device manufacturing

541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except 

Biotechnology)

 

confidence, or because he or she was concerned about discussing 

R2R technology development with a third party.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

2-4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

participants included researchers from universities and national 

laboratories and technology consultants with manufacturing and 

scale-up experience. 

2.1.3 Interview Topics

Interview guides were developed and shared with respondents 

before the interviews. Interview questions included their 

expectations of impacts that new R2R technology 

infrastructure, access to knowledge, and other capabilities 

would have on their firm’s capital, labor, energy, and materials 

expenses, as well as ancillary measures such as time required 

for quality assurance and control, scrap rate, and yield. We

asked respondents to provide their quantitative answers in 

terms of percentage changes from today’s baseline R2R 

processes to the counterfactual assumption that new 

technology capabilities would be available in 5 years. We also 

collected rich qualitative feedback and anecdotes on the specific 

tools and infrastructure technologies that NIST could help 

develop, as well as future products of interest and market 

opportunities, from both firms using R2R and organizations 

exploring its applied research. 

Respondents’ backgrounds: Respondents were asked to 

describe their background as it relates to R2R manufacturing 

and what share of their company’s or industry’s activities/

sales/research was associated with R2R manufacturing. 

Respondents were also asked if they were familiar with NIST’s 

activities and/or if they participated in research organizations 

(standards, calibration and measurement, scientific or data 

exchange/analysis relevant to smart manufacturing).

Current and planned use of R2R manufacturing: 

Respondents were asked to provide a brief description of their 

company’s current use of R2R manufacturing technologies and 

what additional areas of R2R manufacturing their company has 

considered, investigated, or researched for potential future 

adoption. For example, has the company conducted feasibility 

studies or developed preliminary cost/benefit models?

Barriers to adoption: Respondents were asked why they 

decided not to move forward (or are not moving as fast as they 

would like) with certain investments in R2R manufacturing.

A better state of the world: Respondents were asked what 

capabilities/technologies are needed to promote greater 
Section 2 

—Analysis Methods and Data Collection 2-5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

adoption of R2R manufacturing and how these enhanced 

capabilities/technologies would affect their manufacturing 

activities. Then respondents were asked to rank the importance 

of these capabilities along with the level of additional 

development needed.

Economic valuation: Given the enhanced capabilities/

technologies cited, respondents were asked about the impact of 

these technologies on their manufacturing processes, products, 

and services. They were asked to quantify these impacts in 

terms of percentage reduction in costs and improvements in 

productivity.

Importance: Respondents were asked to rate the importance 

of different R2R manufacturing capabilities and technologies.

Technology infrastructure needs: Respondents were asked 

about which areas needed the most research in terms of 

technology infrastructure and to identify specific research 

activities that should be pursued to further enhance R2R 

manufacturing capabilities and functionality.

NIST’s potential role: Throughout the interviews, 

respondents were asked to consider the role NIST might play in 

supporting the development of an enhanced technology 

infrastructure. At the end of the interviews, respondents were 

asked to summarize their thoughts on NIST’s role and what 

activities NIST should prioritize.

2.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Respondents provided percentage changes to capital, labor, 

energy, and materials (KLEM) costs for the proportion of their 

production that was relevant for R2R. They also provided data 

for other production variables, such as production yield and 

scrap rate. We limited the industries included in the 

quantitative analysis to only those sectors for which there is 

appreciable R2R manufacturing activity at present (Table 2-2).
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

2-6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Table 2-2. NAICS Codes Included in Economic Impact Model

NAICS Applications

33591 Battery manufacturing Energy, Sensors, and Other

325992 Photographic film, paper, plate, and chemical 

manufacturing

Optoelectronics

326113 Unlaminated plastics film and sheet (except 

packaging) manufacturing

Optoelectronics

333314 Optical instrument and lens manufacturing Optoelectronics

334418 Printed circuit assembly (electronic assembly) 

manufacturing

Electronics

334419 Other electronic component manufacturing Optoelectronics

325414 Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing Energy, Sensors, and Other

Relevant sales data were collected during interviews or were 

pulled from annual reports, public filings, and the Hoover’s 

database of company profiles. For larger firms with multiple 

lines of business where it was clear that the impact estimates 

only applied to a certain division, division-level sales were 

estimated using information from annual reports. Potential cost 

reductions were estimated to be a percentage of current sales. 

To estimate costs-to-sales ratios for in-scope industries, we 

used the 2013 Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM). Capital 

costs include capital expenditures on machinery and equipment 

(CEXMCH, RPMCH), computer and peripheral equipment 

(CEXMCHC, PCHCMPQ), and other machinery and equipment 

(CEXMCHO, RPMCH). Labor costs include production workers’

annual wages (PAYANPW) grossed up to include nonwage 

benefits such as health insurance (BENHEA), retirement 

(BENPEC, BENPEB), and other fringe benefits (BENOTH).

Energy costs include purchased fuels (CSTFU) and purchased 

electricity (CSTELEC). Material costs include materials, parts, 

containers, packaging, etc. (CSTMPRT).9

 9 We considered using industry data from the national accounts 

provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); however, the BLS 

data do not accurately identify “shop floor” activities for capital and 

labor because they have broader definitions of capital and labor. 

Although BLS did have appropriate definitions for energy and 

materials, the BLS data are only available at the 4-digit NAICS 

level. The R2R economic models are based on 5- and 6-digit NAICS 

codes because R2R remains a niche production technology. Thus, 

the ASM data that had the same level of industry detail were more 

appropriate. 
Section 2 —Analysis Methods and Data Collection

2-7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Firm-level KLEM cost estimates then equal the estimate of firm 

or division sales times the relevant industry’s cost-to-sales ratio 

based on the BLS (energy and materials) or ASM (labor and 

capital) data. 

The proportion of in-scope industries for which R2R is 

applicable was estimated using market data compiled by BCC 

Research and published in the report Global Markets for Roll-toRoll Technologies for Flexible Devices. According to BCC 

Research, the U.S. market for R2R technologies was estimated 

to be $4.7 billion in 2015. As Table 2-3 shows, 94%, or $4.4 

billion, was associated with electronics manufacturing. Flexible 

printed circuits was the primary product line that the electronics 

category encompassed in 2015. Optoelectronics, which includes 

advanced displays and solid-state lighting, accounted for 5% of 

the R2R market, or $217 million, in 2015. The balance is 

primarily related to energy, including PV, flexible batteries, and 

supercapacitors.

In short, the combination of firm-level impact data, sales 

revenue and detailed cost data for selected industries, and 

estimates on the proportion of sales for those industries 

associated with R2R manufacturing permitted the estimation of 

national impacts.

2.3 CONSERVATISM OF ANALYSIS APPROACH

The quantitative economic impact estimates calculated in this 

study are considered to be conservative in that they do not 

capture all the benefits that would result from an improved 

technology infrastructure. As discussed below, our analysis 

focused on reductions in manufacturers’ production cost

Table 2-3. Estimated Size of U.S. Market for Products Produced Using R2R

Industry/Application

2015 Sales Revenue 

($ million) % of Total

Electronics 4,406 93.6%

Optoelectronics 217 4.6%

Energy 80 1.7%

Sensors 5 0.1%

Total 4,707 100.0%

Source: BCC Research.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

2-8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

that would result from meeting the identified technology 

infrastructure needs. However, this does not capture all of the 

potential economic benefits associated with an enhanced 

technology infrastructure.

For example, tooling for seam-free fabrication (such as 

seamless cylindrical masters with nanoscale fidelity) could, by 

overcoming existing limitations to product size, enable the 

application of R2R technology in new product markets. These 

new products would have increased economic value stemming 

from enhanced attributes, such as greater functionality, lower 

maintenance costs, and increased life expectancy. However, 

valuing new (yet to be defined) products or product attributes 

is difficult, has great uncertainty, and is beyond the scope of 

this study.

An improved technology infrastructure will also lead to reduced 

R&D costs. However, interviewees were not able to quantify 

R&D savings, saying that the benefits would be a mixture of 

improved/accelerated R&D and enhanced product quality. 

Hence, these categories of benefits are discussed qualitatively 

but are not included in the quantitative economic impact 

estimates.

In general, focusing on manufacturing cost savings implies that 

the analysis captures primarily gains in producer surplus and 

does not capture gains in consumer surplus associated with 

improved product quality. In addition, the analysis does not 

capture increases in social welfare from increased output 

(sales), which result from lower cost and higher demand. The 

analysis also does not capture increased exports that would 

result from the enhanced competitive position of U.S. 

manufacturers.

For these reasons, the economic impacts presented are 

considered to be conservative, lower-bound estimates. These 

estimates should also be interpreted as benefits per year. 

Benefits were quantified for a single year using recent industry 

data at NIST’s request; enhanced technology infrastructure 

would last significantly longer than just 1 year.
3-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

3 Industry Trends and 

Technology Needs

This section provides a high-level overview of R2R 

manufacturing methods, industry sectors and products for 

which it is relevant, and the technology infrastructure needs 

emphasized by the manufacturing and research communities as 

being of critical importance. 

3.1 R2R MANUFACTURING METHODS

The R2R manufacturing platform can be broadly defined as a 

collection of processes whereby a flexible substrate (web) 

moves between two or more rolls, and materials are added (or 

less commonly, subtracted) from the web surface. In this 

manner, high volumes of solution-printed products can be 

manufactured. See Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. Technology Infrastructure Needs for R2R Additive Manufacturing
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

As described in the introduction, R2R manufacturing has its 

roots in low-resolution/high-throughput newspaper and textile 

products, with methods that include offset, gravure, and ink jet 

printing. U.S.-based companies Kodak and Polaroid pioneered 

the use of R2R processes for advanced, multilayer coated film 

products, creating a new, more sophisticated manufacturing 

sector that leveraged the economies of scale that are the 

inherent advantage of R2R processing.

In parallel, advancements in the microelectronics sector have 

enabled the generation of increasingly high-fidelity, complex 2D 

and 3D patterns. Process innovations have pushed this 

inherently high-resolution/low-throughput industry to larger 

areas and at a more rapid production rate, through molding, 

imprinting, embossing, and other replication techniques.

Manufacturing methods that merge the precision and uniformity 

of the microelectronics (semiconductor) industries with the 

scale and cost structure of the films industries represent the 

R2R additive manufacturing of the present and future. R2R 

manufacturing methods range in scale and throughput, from 

those that produce disposable printed radio-frequency 

identification (RFID) tags in large volumes to those that 

produce large-area, high-value devices in small volumes, such 

as PV films, and across markets, from medical devices to

alternative energy. Opportunities and challenges exist across 

these seemingly diverse platforms.

New, emerging industries are taking advantage of the ability to 

generate high-fidelity patterned structures in a continuous, R2R 

additive process. The early adopters focused on large 

patterned, single-level products—primarily optical film 

products, including microlenses, diffusers, and holograms. More 

recently, applications in printed electronics have emerged, 

requiring lower tolerances and offering lower costs than 

products produced with traditional batch semiconductor 

processes. The printed electronics industry has expanded into a 

broad range of market applications, including flexible 

electronics, diagnostics, displays, PV, sensors, and energy 

storage.

Thus, the attractiveness of the R2R manufacturing process is 

the possibility of highly automated mass production of novel 

products at potentially very low per-unit cost. A variety of 

technologies allow high-speed printing, but resolution and the 
Section 3 — Industry Trends and Technology Needs

3-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

subsequent product categories vary widely depending on the 

method. Table 3-1 lists general R2R methods, an approximation 

of their minimum feature size, and a brief description.

R2R processes can be married to thin film coating processes, 

which entail depositing smooth and flat or conformal layers. 

Polymers and inks can be deposited and metered through rod, 

blade, and air-knife techniques. Metals can be added via 

vacuum deposition, electroplating, or electroless plating 

technique. Thin film processes cannot generate patterned 

surfaces inherently; they must be married with additive 

patterning techniques listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. R2R Manufacturing Methods

Methods

Minimum 

Feature Size Description

Offset printing 10–50 μm An image is inked onto a plate and transferred (offset) 

onto a polymer/rubber film and then to the printed 

surface (newspaper printing).

Rotogravure 5–25 μm An intaglio printing process in which a metal image 

carrier (patterned roll or tool) has an image cut or 

etched below the surface. As the roll rotates, ink fills 

the cells and is subsequently drawn out of the cells onto 

the substrate by capillary action (and often assisted by 

an electric field).

Flexogravure (or 

flexography)

20–50 μm Similar to gravure, but with a patterned polymer roller. 

This technique forms the basis for most R2R imprint 

lithography techniques.

Inkjet printing 1–20 μm Traditional inkjets work by pushing ink out of a nozzle 

to form droplets, either by heating the ink or applying 

physical pressure to force it out. To reduce droplet size, 

advancements have been made in inks as well as 

techniques such as electrohydrodynamic inkjet (e-jet) 

and piezoelectic printing.

Hot embossing 0.5–10 μm Hot embossing is essentially the stamping of a pattern 

into a polymer softened by raising the temperature of 

the polymer just above its glass transition temperature.

Nanoimprint 

lithography (NIL)

0.01–1 μm The extension of embossing processes to nanoscale 

features, where a photolithographically defined 

“master” is brought into contact with a fluid that is 

hardened through a phase change or photochemical 

reaction to yield a surface with nanopatterned relief. In 

R2R NIL, the “master” is a precisely patterned 

cylindrical tool.

Direct-write (or tipbased) manufacturing0.005–1 μm The use of massively parallel arrays of ion or electron 

beam columns or scanning probe lithography tips to 

directly generate a high-fidelity pattern.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

3.2 R2R MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY SECTORS 

AND PRODUCTS

Because of their potential for low cost and high throughput, 

continuous additive processes like R2R are attractive methods 

for many product categories (Dumond and Low, 2011). 

Historically, R2R manufacturing was used to produce high 

volumes of disposable goods and other paper and plastic 

products. In recent years, however, R2R processes have been 

adapted to manufacture a range of products for various 

technology and mechanical applications. In some market 

segments it is not uncommon for firms using R2R to compete 

with firms who do not use it. R2R is therefore not just a

production method but also a central element of a business 

strategy. 

Table 3-2. Current and Future Industries and Product Categories for R2R Manufacturing

Industry Sectors Example Product Categories Materials Classes

Optical films Microlenses

Grating

Transparent conductors

IR reflectors

Light guides

Holograms

Polymers

Ultrathin metal

Electronics Flexible electronics, including printed circuit 

boards, displays, wearables, and disposables

Sensors

Storage and memory devices

Thermoelectric devices

RFID technologies

Polymers

Metal inks

Dielectrics

Semiconductors

Biomedical devices and 

drug delivery systems

Microneedles

Particles for drug delivery

Diagnostics

Antibacterial films

Polymers

Ceramics

Energy Thin film solar cells

Battery electrodes

Metal inks and thin films

Semiconductors

Environmental Water purification

Super hydrophobic coatings

Anti-icing coatings

Antifouling coatings

Polymers
Section 3 

— Industry Trends and Technology Needs 3-5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Table3-2 presents the industries and products offered by 

interviewees for this study with current or future applications 

and products for R2R methods. In many cases, the products 

produced in R2R processes are considered “intermediate 

products” that are later incorporated into a final product (e.g., 

an R2R-patterned touchscreen film that is incorporated with 

electronics and packaging to create an electronics device).

R2R processes are being developed for several sectors, 

including the electronics, optics, biomedical, energy, and 

environmental industries. Firms are seeking new innovative 

R2R processes for printing structures with increasing 

complexities (multilayered, multimaterial) and at high 

resolution (nanoscale) (Morse, 2011). Flexible electronics, for 

one, is a broad product category encompassing printed circuit 

boards, touchscreen displays, and PV cells, to name a few. The 

biomedical industry is also interested in R2R, as is the health 

industry in the form of monitors and smart packaging labels for 

food and pharmaceuticals. 

Although there is consensus on the product categories and 

industrial sectors where R2R may establish a foothold, there is 

less consensus on what the size of the market may be within 

the next 5 to 10 years and what applications are likely to 

account for the greatest proportion of sales most significant for 

the industry.10 MarketsandMarkets estimates $13 billion by 

2020 for flexible devices. IDTechEx estimates $69 billion for 

printed, flexible, and organic electronics by 2026. Although the 

estimates and included product segments vary across these 

estimates, they all suggest growth in the application of R2R 

manufacturing methods. Using BCC data, we estimate the U.S. 

R2R industry to be $4.7 billion at present. 

This analysis focuses on the following sectors:

 optical films  electronics

 10 Several firms have developed market forecasts for specific 

applications, including BCC Research (R2R for flexible devices), 

IDTechEx (printed, flexible, and organic electronics), and 

MarketsandMarkets (flexible displays, batteries, sensors, memory, 

and PVs). BCC Research analyzed the market for applications 

specifically produced using R2R processes. Although the other 

market reports pertain to flexible devices in some way, the 

applications vary and are not necessarily specific to R2R. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

 biomedical devices and drug delivery systems

 energy

 environmental technologies

3.2.1 Optical Films

Optical films have long been manufactured via R2R processes, 

ranging from simple light diffusers to products that incorporate

complex holograms. It is now trending toward nanoscale 

features smaller than the wavelength of light.

Patterns include prisms, microlens, and other shapes at the 

micron to submicron scale to diffuse, redirect, or reflect light. 

Because both the lighting and electronics industries are 

constantly evolving, optical films will continue to advance to 

support new product development, including 3D and heads-up 

displays, and “smart” building technologies.

Some of the general applications where optical films are 

employed as an intermediate product include

 displays and screens;

 PV, or solar cells;

 light-emitting diode (LED) and organic light-emitting 

diode (OLED) lights; and

 windows.

3.2.2 Flexible Electronics

Although the majority of optical films are made from polymers, 

the technology has begun to crosscut with electronics through 

the use of advanced materials. Flexible electronics are a broad 

product category that encompass things such as printed circuit 

boards, touchscreen displays, and PV cells.

For example, metal inks, nanowires, or other conductive 

materials are being deposited onto thin films to produce

functional touchscreens and displays for consumer electronics. 

When pairing these conductive optical films with printed 

circuitry, a new platform—flexible electronics—emerges. 

Inherently, R2R processes require flexible substrates such as 

plastic; polymer; or, more recently, flexible glass. Printing 

electronics on a moving web implies that the materials and 

structures be somewhat flexible; thus, the term “flexible 

electronics” is often used when referring to materials produced 

using R2R processes.
Section 3 

— Industry Trends and Technology Needs 3-7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Flexible electronics is driving the development of new 

applications, materials, and manufacturing processes. Circuit 

boards, wearables, disposables, sensors, semiconductors, and 

storage and memory devices are all components that are in 

laboratory development, early stage development, or pilot 

manufacturing.

Advanced manufacturing in the R2R process field will be largely 

focused on flexible electronics, a market that is expected to 

grow significantly over the medium and long terms. According 

to a survey conducted by FlexTech Alliance, 56% of electronics 

retailers, medical and health care providers, and sporting goods 

manufacturers intend to purchase implantable sensors, 

wearable electronics, and other technologies in demand within 

the next 3 years (FlexTech Alliance, 2014).

Though in the early stages of development, organic electronics 

may become a player in the longer-term outlook for flexible 

electronics (more than 3 years) (Lupo et al., 2013). Some 

electronics that feature organic (nonmetallic) molecules have 

already reached the market, most notably OLED televisions. 

Other electronics—organic or otherwise—that are under 

development or furthering development for the electronics and 

energy industries, broadly, include  PV, or solar cells;  LED-based lighting and smart textiles (wearables);  RFID cards and tags;  flexible batteries; and  memories and sensors.

Additionally, flexible electronics will not only drive new product 

lines into the market, but also the packaging and delivery 

systems that control the distribution and retail of goods. 

Because of this, industries that are neither producers nor 

consumers of flexible electronics may use the technology to 

support their own products and services.

3.2.3 Biomedical

The biomedical industry is currently developing R2R processes

to mass produce particles for drug delivery, microneedles, 

antibacterial films, and other products specific to industry 

needs. In the particle-based therapeutic field, R2R technology 

has merged with microelectronics precision to produce particles 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

of different shapes and sizes. The manufacturing platform 

enables novel size and shape characteristics that play a large 

part in determining the effectiveness of drug delivery, and 

improvements and continual iterations to the manufacturing 

process will likely extend well into the long term.

Microneedles are another form of drug delivery by permeating 

the skin to allow a drug to dissolve in the body. Patches are one 

of the mechanisms whereby microneedles can be administered 

and have been manufactured through R2R methods to a limited 

extent. Patches have been used for a number of years to 

deliver therapeutic compounds into the body, and recently they 

have been explored for vaccines (Kim, Park, and Prausnitz,

2013). In a collaborative effort by researchers at Georgia Tech, 

Emory University, and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, a new patch containing 50 microneedles has been 

tested for delivering the flu vaccine (Med Gadget, 2014). 

Although the patch was only tested for skin permeability and 

did not deliver the flu vaccine, delivery by means of 

microneedles will likely be explored in the short term to 

promote vaccinations and other therapeutics, avoiding needlephobia, inconvenience, or other factors preventing higher rates 

of vaccination (Giudice and Campbell, 2006). The longer-term 

potential for microneedles in the biomedical field could be the 

permeation of smaller, more sensitive surface areas, such as 

the eye or individual cells (Jiang et al., 2009).

A growing concern for hospitals and health care facilities is 

maintaining a sterile environment and eliminating costly 

hospital-acquired infections (Page et al., 2009). Antimicrobial 

films produced by R2R processes that contain metals (e.g., 

copper, silver) or patterned surfaces act to kill or limit the 

growth of microorganisms (Michels et al., 2005). Aside from the 

biomedical industry, these films have utility for consumer 

applications on a multitude of industrial and household surfaces 

to prevent the spread of microorganisms and infections.

Lastly, there is an increasing interest in leveraging flexible 

electronics in wearable electronic devices, such as smart 

watches, for human performance monitoring (Thompson, 

2014). Current state-of-the-art technology is able to measure, 

record, and report biometrics such as heart rate, blood 

pressure, and skin temperature. For example, members of the 

Nano-Bio Manufacturing Consortium, with support from the Air 
Section 3 

— Industry Trends and Technology Needs 3-9

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Force Research Laboratory, are investing in research for real-

time biomarker analysis in flexible, wearable electronic devices. 

This real-time analysis would theoretically be able to read and 

report biomarkers for cognitive effectiveness, fatigue, stress, 

and the wearer’s exposure to chemical and/or biological agents.

3.2.4 Energy

The Department of Energy (DOE) has identified many beneficial 

applications of the R2R process within the energy arena, which 

include the creation of membranes for hydrogen gas 

separation, airflow panel membranes, proton exchange 

membrane fuel cells, polymeric and ceramic/metallic 

membranes for CO

2 separation, and battery/super 

capacitor/superconducting cable/sensor technologies (Johnson, 

2015). In addition, more efficient solar cells, coupled with less 

costly manufacturing inputs, will lower the fixed costs 

associated with installing solar energy-capturing infrastructure 

while increasing energy output.

To retain competitiveness in the global market, existing PV 

firms have focused on increasing module efficiency, reducing 

operating costs, and increasing capacity utilization at factories. 

Even though reports of record-setting efficiencies in the 

different PV technologies are a regular occurrence, their 

cost/efficiency ratios have yet to reach the levels required to 

compete with grid electricity. Components and modules made 

via R2R processes offer a compelling opportunity to add critical 

efficiencies within a practical manufacturing process and a 

reasonable cost structure to increase the competitive potential 

of solar product lines. Aftermarket products, including 

patterned optical film that acts to reduce reflectance losses on 

the top surface of the solar cell and antidust coatings, have 

gained global interest and attention.

Additionally, many products described in the above optical films 

category have a significant role as energy-efficient 

technologies. Window films that reflect infrared light 

significantly reduce cooling costs, while light-redirecting films 

increase natural lighting and reduce luminaire needs. Diffusers 

and reflector films with high efficiencies lower the cost of 

lighting by extracting more light from each fixture.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-10

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

3.2.5 Environmental

Surface protection is also important to maintain longevity and 

efficiency in applications that experience punishing 

environmental conditions. In maritime applications, R2R 

processes are being investigated to manufacture 

superhydrophobic coatings designed to repel water or slow the

growth of organisms on a ship’s hull using antifouling. Similar 

materials and manufacturing processes are used to produce 

anti-icing coatings for removing or preventing frozen moisture 

(Cao et al., 2009).

Much like particles for drug delivery, R2R processes can 

manufacture particles that are suspended in a solution or 

membrane until they are put to use. Water purification is an 

example of this sort of nonmedical application, whereby 

particles made of a combination of materials purify water 

through various filtration methods (Crittenden et al., 2012).

3.2.6 Other Application Areas

Myriad other applications are possible, often in the area of 

hybridizing flexible electronics with other products, such as 

clothing or packaging.

Integrating digital sensors and interactivity into packaging 

products is largely in the early-stage R&D phase, primarily 

supported by research grants and industry–university 

collaboration. In the nearer term for smart packaging, there is 

interest in monitoring the quality and safety of food and 

pharmaceuticals. One interviewee at a university noted that it is 

only a matter of time before smart labels are mandatory for 

health and food products. Detecting freshness, spoilage, 

pathogens, or tainted or counterfeit compounds is a likely 

application of this technology. However, until smart sensors can 

be cost-effectively produced, it is unlikely that other markets, 

such as those for consumer products, will adopt them.

R2R has the potential to yield components that can be 

integrated into different products, enabling new functionalities, 

product features, and characteristics.
Section 3 — Industry Trends and Technology Needs

3-11

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

3.3 PUBLIC–PRIVATE INITIATIVES

ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY NEEDS IN R2R 

MANUFACTURING

R2R manufacturing technologies are complex, fast-moving 

systems that require precision to successfully manufacture

products. Industry groups and government initiatives have 

formed to address common challenges, and their efforts 

complement those for which there is a strong case for NIST 

applying its technical and standards coordination expertise, as

reviewed in-depth in later sections of this report. 

Among those industry groups with a significant proportion of 

members using or developing advanced R2R systems are 

FlexTech Alliance, Nano Bio Manufacturing Consortium, and 

Organic Electronics Association (Table 3-3). These associations 

facilitate working groups on issues related to technology 

infrastructure, including standards development and 

precompetitive research. Often NIST staff members are 

integrated into activities, although NIST is not formally a 

sponsor.

Government support for R2R as a method for manufacturing 

products in the public interest has emerged. Since President 

Obama’s 2009 call to grow and progress a national advanced 

manufacturing initiative, the White House and Congress have 

encouraged and orchestrated the formation of multiple 

“innovation hubs” around the United States whose mission is to

Table 3-3. Industry Associations Active in R2R Manufacturing

Association Example Activity

FlexTech Alliance The largest member-based industry organization in the R2R space, 

FlexTech has awarded numerous research projects to industry and 

academic partners, covering such topics as flexible tablet devices, flexible 

ceramics, R2R printing of large-area energy-harvesting devices, and 

digital fabrication of large-area hybrid sensing systems.

Nano Bio Manufacturing 

Consortium (NBMC)

Established by the FlexTech Alliance and other partners for the Air Force 

Research Laboratory, the NBMC focuses specifically on biological and 

nanoparticle materials in R2R manufacturing.

Organic Electronics 

Association (OE-A)

OE-A focuses on organic and printed electronics and has established 

working groups centered on specific thrust areas in the flexible electronics 

industry. Among the areas of focus is a group for standardization, quality 

control, and measurement. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-12

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

pursue the missing middle of the U.S. advanced manufacturing 

sector—the link between government agencies and their 

university counterparts, and the private sector. As a result of 

the call to form such organizations, agencies such as the 

Department of Defense (DoD), DOE, NIST, and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have launched 

initiatives that focus on major processes that can rapidly 

accelerate the U.S. advanced manufacturing industry.

Under the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, 

NextFlex—the Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute—convenes government agencies, academic 

departments, and industry to address common challenges 

associated with manufacturing flexible hybrid systems (e.g.,

device scale-up and process optimization, reproducibility, 

substrate selection and formation, adaptation of validated tools 

and models). NextFlex coordinates working groups and 

provides funding and support mechanisms for the development 

of technologies to improve R2R manufacturing of flexible 

electronics. 

Application areas for government agencies include

 wearable technologies for use as soldier information 

devices, sensors, and performance monitors (DoD);

 sensors for data collection during space missions 

(NASA); and

 creating efficient, low-cost, and durable materials and 

technologies for solar PV cells, carbon fibers, light 

emitting diodes (LEDs), and electric vehicle batteries 

(DOE). 

NextFlex is the largest public–private partnership for R2R in the 

United States and is operated under a cooperative agreement 

awarded by DoD to the FlexTech Alliance. The $75 million 

award from DoD was matched with $96 million in cost sharing 

from a mix of public and private sources (see Table 3-4). 
Section 3 — Industry Trends and Technology Needs

3-13

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Table 3-4. NextFlex Membership

Membership 

Category Members

Corporate The Boeing Company; Brewer Science, Inc.; Eastman Chemical Company; 

General Electric Company; United Technologies Research Center; Acellent 

Technologies Inc.; American Semiconductor, Inc.; Custom Electronics, Inc.; 

E Ink Corporation; Jabil; Molex, LLC; On Semiconductor; Raytheon; SI2 

Technologies, Inc.; SRI International; STI Electronics; Uniqarta, Inc.; Harris 

Corporation; i3 Electronics, Inc.; Integra Lifesciences; Optomec; PARC, a 

Xerox Company

Academic/nonprofit Auburn University; Binghamton University; Georgia Tech Research 

Corporation; University of Massachusetts Lowell; University of Texas at 

Austin; Purdue University; University of Arizona; University of Connecticut; 

University of Washington; Washington State University; Western Michigan 

University; University of Arkansas; California Polytechnic State University; 

Clemson University; Rochester Institute of Technology; UC San Diego; 

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Federal government U.S. DoD; Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology Program; U.S.

Department of the Army; U.S. Department of the Air Force; U.S. 

Department of the Navy; Defense Threat Reduction Agency; DoD

Laboratories; Defense MicroElectronics Activity; Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency; U.S.DOE; NASA; NIST; U.S. Forest Service; 

National Science Foundation; U.S. Department of Education; Food and Drug 

Administration; National Institutes of Health

Local government City of San Jose, California 

Source: NextFlex.

Other publicly funded efforts in advancing R2R technologies 

exist. For example, there is the Center for Hierarchical 

Manufacturing, which is led by the University of Massachusetts 

Amherst, and the Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing at 

Northeastern University. Both are funded by the National 

Science Foundation.

3.4 TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN 

R2R MANUFACTURING

This section discusses interviewees’ assessments of key gaps in 

the technology infrastructure supporting R2R manufacturing. It 

also considers the urgency and priority for increased 

investment to mitigate them (see Table 3-5 and Figure 3-1). 

The key gaps are

 standards and measurement methods for input 

materials,
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

3-14

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Table 3-5. Infrastructure Needs and Potential Impacts: R2R Manufacturing

Infrastructure Need Potential Impacts

Standards and measurement technology for input materials

Reference materials and quality standards

Standard protocols and best practices to 

improve repeatability and materials quality 

validation

Improve reliability and increase reproducibility

Improve robustness of results and increase yields

Simplify design by reducing or removing defect-tolerant 

design criteria

Lower R&D costs, shorter and fewer R&D cycles

Metrology for tooling and real-time feedback 

Advanced analytical tools and sensors for 

probing a moving surface and metrology that 

extends beyond optical resolution

Large-area metrology

Metrology for obtaining measurement on a 

moving, reflective, and/or optically transparent 

web

In-line flexible-substrate metrology for 

mechanical reliability, thermal effects, 

positional accuracy and reliability across a wide 

surface, processing on a fast-moving web

Point defect detection to eliminate additional processing for 

defective parts, lowering scrap rates and costs

Catastrophic defect detection to eliminate portions of costly 

batch-level destructive testing at end of production run

Quickly identify unit operation and quality issues during 

production runs

Increase production speed

Technology for alignment and registration on a moving substrate 

Technology to enable high throughput 

alignment

New products and decreased costs of existing products

Process modeling and controls

Process control (move to closed loop, develop 

and integrate sensors)

Automated design flows

Process simulation tools

Integration of smart manufacturing processes to support 

predictive understanding of frequency and source of errors, 

reducing both production scale-up time and machine 

downtime

As scale increases, design for manufacturing becomes more 

important as do integrated sensors to support metrology

Terminology

Consistent international standards for 

nomenclature

Reduce uncertainty, lower transactions costs

Patterned tools

Tooling for seam-free fabrication, including 

cylindrical masters that are seamless and have 

nanoscale fidelity

Removing the barriers that impede product size or length, 

thereby expanding product portfolios

Removing the need to create molds from masters, which 

would greatly lower turnaround times, decrease wastage, 

and greatly decrease cost of goods

New materials and substrates

New materials formulations, especially for highconductivity applicationsNew formulations for metal inks will enable mass-produced 

flexible electronics. Reduced substrate defects would 

greatly lower costs and support product innovation
Section 3 

— Industry Trends and Technology Needs 3-15

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

 new materials and substrates,  patterned tools,  metrology for tooling and real

-time feedback, 

 alignment and registration on a moving substrate,  process modeling and controls, and  consistent terminology. 

Several respondents mentioned that their own R&D activities 

target select gaps—albeit to varying degrees of success—with 

one interviewee going so far as to state that the ability to 

address challenges can be viewed as a competitive advantage. 

Firms that can develop seamless patterned tools, for example, 

that reproduce features at high fidelity have a stronger market 

position and potentially broader product portfolio than those 

that cannot. He went on to note that his firm’s process-related 

R&D in the face of technology infrastructure gaps consumes 

resources that would otherwise be directed toward product 

development. Thus, R&D efficiency would be greatly improved if 

problems common to all manufacturers were addressed. 

Our interviews revealed that firms are spending money 

duplicating one another’s efforts to address strikingly similar 

challenges: validating the quality of input materials, building 

reference databases, sorting out alignment and registration on 

moving substrates, and developing real-time metrology and 

process modeling software and tools. This is particularly 

inefficient given that many manufacturers using R2R processes 

are small- to medium-sized companies or start-ups aspiring to 

introduce disruptive products to the market.

In describing technology infrastructure gaps, small firms in 

particular noted how many related to the significant hurdles of 

scaling-up pilot R2R processes. Increasing the width of the 

web, line speed, and tooling capacity greatly increases the rate 

of error during production. Measuring a scaled-up R2R system 

is also more difficult because of the additional material, greater 

surface area, and increased speed. Thus, tools and techniques 

for scaling up production processes would be helpful to achieve 

increased yields without sacrificing quality.
4

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

4

Economic Impact of 

Meeting Technology 

Infrastructure 

Needs 

We estimate that the economic benefit of an improved 

technology infrastructure supporting R2R manufacturing would 

be at least$353 million per year. This benefit, which is based 

on interview data and current costs of manufacturing for those 

industry sectors in which R2R is most used today, equates to 

approximately 15% of the total cost of goods sold (COGS) for 

R2R manufacturers in 2015.11

Note that this$353 million estimate is conservative because it 

is based on the size of the market today and does not take into 

consideration the impacts associated with market 

transformation, earlier introduction of novel products and 

services, benefits to consumers, or other types of benefits. The

estimate is simply the potential impact using known 

information. It was apparent from our interviews that 

addressing these critical needs has the potential to help the 

industry be more competitive in the marketplace, be more cost 

competitive, improve quality, and hasten the introduction of 

new products with novel functionality.

4.1 SUMMARY IMPACT Meeting critical technology infrastructure needs would de

-risk 

the application of R2R manufacturing technologies and 

encourage, or “crowd in,” further investment by the private 

 11 Total COGS for R2R manufacturing companies is estimated to be 

51% of $4.7 billion in U.S. sales, or about $2.4 billion. Reducing the 

COGS by $353 million results in 14% savings.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

4-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

sector. Other key impacts noted by interviewees include 

improved quality, reduced timelines for product development, 

lower scrap rates, and increased system utilization and 

production yields.

The composition of our $353 million impact estimate is 

presented in Table 4-1. Holding production quantities constant, 

study participants believe that if needs were met today, the 

economic benefit would be equivalent to a 25% reduction in 

production-related labor expenditure, 12% in materials costs, 

8% in capital expenditure, and 7% in energy expenditure. 

A potential overall production cost savings of 15% is significant, 

and it is clear that solving critical technology infrastructure 

barriers facing R2R manufacturers holds the prospect of greatly 

enhancing firms’ viability and competitiveness. Ultimately, R2R 

manufacturers’ competitiveness is closely related to their 

tooling and production process; increasing the accuracy, 

reliability, quality, and utilization of production lines would free 

resources for R&D, product development, and other activities. 

When providing their impact estimates, study participants also 

shared their perspectives on such topics as changes in 

production yields, scrap rates, and system utilization. This 

section reviews those impacts that relate to the combined 

economic impact of meeting technology infrastructure needs. 

Analysis of the potential impacts meeting specific needs are 

presented in Section 5.

Table 4-1. Economic Impact of Meeting Technology Infrastructure Needs in R2R 

Manufacturing

Cost Category

Estimated 2015 

Expenditure Impact of Improved 

Technology 

Infrastructurea

Potential Cost 

$ Million % of Total Savings (Benefit)

Capital 153 6% −8% $12 million

Labor 574 24% −25% $144 million

Energy 44 2% −7% $3 million

Materials 1,621 68% −12% $194 million

Total 2,391 100% $353 million

a Represents the mean estimated percentage change in the costs of production of meeting all technology 

infrastructure needs described by interviewees (see Section 4), holding production quantity constant. As 

described elsewhere in this report, meeting technology infrastructure needs is expected to de-risk advanced R2R 

manufacturing methods and thereby crowd in capital investment and expand R2R manufacturing activity, all else 

held equal. 
Section 4 — Economic Impact of Meeting Technology Infrastructure Needs

4-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Figure 4-1 presents impact results by technology infrastructure 

need. An exploration of participants’ perspectives on needs is in 

Section 5, but comparing their assessments with our economic 

impact data suggests that meeting needs in metrology, 

standards and measurement protocols for input materials, and 

new materials and substrates would have the greatest impacts. 

4.2 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

On average, we estimate an 8% reduction in capital 

expenditures for a potential benefit of $12 million, all else held 

equal. Underlying this result, however, are three narratives 

provided by study participants that explain the impact and that 

have the effect of dampening the potential cost savings:

 no change in capital expenditures

 an increase in capital expenditures to incorporate new 

capabilities as a result of an improved technology 

infrastructure

 a reduction in capital expenditures

Figure 4-1. Economic Impact by Technology Infrastructure Need Area
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

4-4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

One-third of private companies and research groups saw no net 

change in their capital expenditures for production activities, 

exclusive of any investment that would bring new production 

capacity online. Respondents in this group believed that any 

capital savings would essentially be offset by the cost of new 

sensors or other technologies. They emphasized that the 

majority of their savings would be in terms of reductions in 

labor and materials costs. 

A second third expected that the new capabilities enabled by an 

improved technology infrastructure would increase their capital 

expenditures. This group of respondents, which are 

predominantly companies operating in the flexible electronics 

and optical films market segments, predicted, on average, a

10.5% increase in capital expenditures (range of 5% to 15%).

Improved standards, metrology, and technology platforms 

would reduce technical and business risks and thereby increase 

the willingness of corporate boards and investors to invest. 

The final third predicted significant reductions in capital 

expenditures on the order of 20 to 30%. These respondents 

predicted that an improved technology infrastructure would, in 

particular, avoid expenditures on instrumentation and 

equipment for the development of masters, as well as lower the 

overall cost of tooling development.

Section 5 explores the relationship between specific technology 

infrastructure needs and the optimization of capital 

expenditures in depth.

4.3 LABOR EXPENDITURES

Despite its promise of highly automated production, at present 

R2R manufacturing often requires a significant amount of 

manual intervention at multiple stages of production. 

Respondents uniformly predict significant reductions in 

production labor costs: $144 million. This is equivalent to 25% 

of the current cost of manufacturing labor. 

Manufacturers report what they view as an excessive amount of 

inspection of incoming materials. For example, the quality of 

polyethylene terephthalate (PET)—a commonly used substrate

material—must be closely inspected to ensure that surface 

roughness and energy are within acceptable parameters. 

Likewise, there is significant batch-to-batch variability for inks 
Section 4 

— Economic Impact of Meeting Technology Infrastructure Needs 4-5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

and little by way of robust standards to facilitate market 

transactions. Most manufacturers conduct comprehensive 

testing and characterization of inks to ensure they will produce 

the desired product attributes. 

Tooling is closely monitored during production runs. It must 

also be frequently inspected to ensure that alignment and 

registration are acceptable. For many production lines, 

patterned drums (tools) must be regularly replaced, which 

equates to teardown time and increased risk of damaging the 

products and tooling via handling. Improved or replacements to 

patterned drum technologies could reduce these costs. 

Furthermore, improved metrology and process control could 

reduce the amount of labor expended on quality control and 

final product inspection. Some manufacturers reported hand 

picking and sorting of final product in addition to extensive 

testing of a substantial proportion of product. 

4.4 MATERIALS EXPENDITURES

Interviewees described a significant amount of waste resulting 

from inadequate process control and the inability to measure, 

identify, and address defects during production runs. Improving 

defect management would have a significant beneficial impact 

on scrap rates and costs of goods sold. Failed production runs 

due to defects are scrapped. Defect management related 

inadequate process control is one of the main inhibitors to R2R 

production of some products, such as transistors. 

Addressing technology infrastructure needs would provide a 

12% reduction in materials expenditures (holding production 

quantities constant), which amounts to $194 million given 

current industry data. 

The potential for standards and metrology to unlock value in 

materials expenditures is the single most important benefit 

described by interviewees. Raw materials markets are generally 

viewed as being competitive, with little room for any 

appreciable reduction in unit prices. But there are periodic 

shortages of some materials, which can cause costly 

downstream disruption and delay, and some raw materials are 

simply very expensive, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars 

per gram. Reducing scrap rates through better process control 

and metrology is therefore a priority, but the necessary 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

4-6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

science, engineering, and technology development is expensive 

and beyond most manufacturers’ capabilities, manufacturing 

R&D budgets, or both.

4.5 IMPACT ON COMMON PERFORMANCE 

INDICATORS

Table 4-2 presents an assessment of how an improved 

technology infrastructure would affect common performance 

indicators used by manufacturers:

 17% reduction in product development time

 25% reduction in quality control and inspection time

 22% increase in overall system utilization

 23% reduction in scrap rate

 25% increase in sales volume over current projection in 

the near term

4.5.1 R&D Cycle Times

Meeting technology needs would have a significant impact on 

R&D-related spending and product development cycle times, 

perhaps reducing such cycle times by about 17%. A significant 

amount of resources is consumed by overcoming inadequacies 

with the existing technology infrastructure, especially for startups and small- to medium-sized manufacturers.

Most firms would redirect cost savings resulting from improved 

metrology, improved mastering and seam-free tooling, or 

better materials formulations toward product development. 

There is potential to improve existing products as well as 

launch entirely new ones that would be possible only because 

the process control, materials, and manufacturing capabilities 

are available. 

Indicator Potential Impact

Product development and R&D cycle time −17%

Quality control and inspection time −25%

System utilization +22%

Scrap rate −23%

Sales revenue +25%

Table 4-2. Impact on 

Common Performance 

Indicators
Section 4 

— Economic Impact of Meeting Technology Infrastructure Needs 4-7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

At present, replicating the same quality at production scale as 

in the laboratory environment is a key roadblock inhibiting 

further development of the industry. An improved technology 

infrastructure would greatly facilitate scaling product concepts 

from the laboratory to a production setting.

4.5.2 Time Requirements for Quality Assurance and Control

The impact on time requirements for quality assurance 

(preproduction activities) and control (postproduction activities) 

is estimated to be a 25% reduction, all else held equal. As 

described earlier in this section, there is significantly more 

materials inspection and quality control that is required and 

that would be unnecessary with more robust standards and 

measurement technologies. 

4.5.3 Scrap Rate

The reduction in materials expenditures per unit of output 

described in Section 4.4 results from lower scrap rates. Study 

participants think they would be able to reduce this rate by 

about 23%, on average, by adopting and incorporating the new 

capabilities enabled by improved metrology. Scrap rates today 

are higher than they should be because of inadequate defect 

management, process control, or materials characterization 

because that metrology is not available. 

4.5.4 Sales Revenue

Increases in quality, reliability, and yield paired with new 

production capabilities would lead to lower prices and expanded 

markets, with market expansion dominating so that the 

combined effect is to increase sales revenue. The increase in 

sales revenue was estimated to be about 25%. 

All respondents saw opportunities to expand the market for 

existing products or product lines and branch into entirely new 

ones. As one interviewee noted, “[m]any product types suitable 

for R2R manufacturing can already be produced using other 

methods. ... [The goal] is to somehow go from established 

processing procedures that have been developed for silicone or 

glass to flexible substrates where you have less subtractive 

processes and more additive, producing large volumes 

inexpensively.” Respondents highlighted opportunities in 

lighting, environmental and energy applications; RFIDs; and 

flexible electronics as within reach given an improved 

technology infrastructure. Finally, the impact estimate for R2R 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

4-8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

is smaller than RTI’s estimates for companion studies in 

advanced robotics and automation, smart manufacturing, and 

additive manufacturing. This is because the overall market 

today is comparatively small, the use of R2R manufacturing 

technology is still emerging, and uncertainties remain in several 

potential applications about the financial viability of R2R 

production systems. Those uncertainties themselves related 

back to the technology infrastructure needs. There is a direct 

link between the development of a robust technology 

infrastructure supporting R2R manufacturing and the economic 

viability of this approach to manufacturing (and the resultant 

products). 
5

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

5

Stakeholder 

Perspectives on 

Technology 

Infrastructure 

Needs

This section explores stakeholder perspectives on the 

technology infrastructure needs whose impacts were explored 

quantitatively in the preceding section. For each of the following 

needs, we explore expected impact, the underlying market 

failures that have prevented progress, and potential roles for 

NIST:  standards and measurement technology for input 

materials

 new materials and substrates  patterned tools  metrology for tooling and real

-time feedback

 technology for alignment and registration on a moving 

web

 process modeling and controls  consistent international terminology

Using a Likert scale, interviewees rated the importance of 

addressing the needs from “very important” to “not at all 

important” (Figure 5-1). Metrology for tooling and feedback was 

identified to be the most important technology infrastructure 

need, followed by the development of new materials and 

substrates and measurement and standards for those 

materials.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

5-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Figure 5-1. Interviewees’ Rating of Importance of Technology Infrastructure Needs

Note: Respondents rated each need on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Shares of 

responses of 5 or 4 are indicated above the dotted line; shares of responses of 3, 2, or 1 are indicated below the 

dotted line.

5.1 STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENT 

TECHNOLOGY FOR INPUT MATERIALS

Input materials for R2R processing fall into two general 

categories: fluids, in the form of polymer solutions and metal 

inks, and substrates, primarily plastic film.

Fluid deposition is the primary means for adding materials to a 

surface in an R2R process; these materials are often 

subsequently patterned to yield functional surface relief (e.g., 

light guiding, hydrophobicity). For fluids applied in R2R 

processes, the desired properties, depending on application, 

can include viscosity, surface tension, refractive index, color, 

electrical conductivity, toughness, surface energy, and many 

more. 

The R2R substrate, also referred to as a “web,” generally acts 

as a carrier for the deposited fluid but can also provide 

functionality by adding optical, mechanical, or thermal benefits. 
Section 5 

— Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology Infrastructure Needs 5-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

The substrate choices are generally more limited to drawn 

polymer films, and polyesters such as PET are the most 

commonly used.

Interviewees regarded standards and measurement methods 

for input materials as one of the most important needs to 

address. Challenges in reliability and reproducibility are the 

primary reasons why companies incur excessive costs in 

validating the quality of their input materials and substrates.

Despite the presence of industry associations, a robust 

standards infrastructure has not emerged because the proper 

combination of objectivity, funding, timelines, and knowledge 

has not been present to focus and sustain the effort.

5.1.1 Standards and Measurement Methods for Fluids and 

Metal Inks

R2R is limited by the performance and quality of existing 

materials, particularly metal inks but also other fluid inputs. Ink 

quality is reported to be highly variable vendor to vendor, as 

well as batch to batch from the same vendor. Without well-

established materials standards, the supply chain for 

conductive inks is somewhat unreliable.

Reliability and reproducibility were the primary concerns 

described by industry, stemming from the lack of robust 

standards and measurement methods that allow producers to 

control their product quality and specifications and that allow 

end users to have confidence in their vendors. One university 

professor stated in an interview that “the biggest challenge is to 

control the consistency in materials in inks to reduce batch to 

batch variation.” 

Equally important to standards for the industry are standard 

measurement protocols for quality control and assurance. 

Standard test methods and reference data would significantly 

increase confidence. Without quality materials “everything else 

will suffer down the line.” Just as materials standards offer 

confidence at the front end of a production run, standard test 

methods and reference data would improve quality control.

They would also allow for more complete process optimization 

studies because the variability in raw materials is constrained. 

Fluids that contain metallic particles can suffer from dispersion 

issues, and some require expensive, high-temperature sintering 

post-processes to provide the conductivity needed for active 

circuitry.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

5-4

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

5.1.2 Standards and Measurement Methods for Substrates

Thermal and mechanical stability, surface energy, 

transparency, and chemical resistance are important factors to 

consider in substrate selection. For biomedical applications, 

substrates must be highly pure, with minimal leachables and 

extractables. In all cases, commercial availability and cost must 

be balanced with the product requirements.

Per an interviewee, “[o]ne of the most critical issues facing 

printed electronics is the interaction of ink and flexible 

substrates.” Performance challenges arise when ink technology 

does not adequately flow, adhere to, or wet the substrate 

surface. Batch-to-batch variability, as noted in the previous 

section, is a challenge when considering compatibility and 

performance with respect to the substrate material. Materials 

and substrates are interconnected in an R2R process, so quality 

raw materials are still wasted if deposited on a defective 

substrate and vice versa.

Issues surrounding substrate quality and selection were themes 

in a majority of the discussions with manufacturers. 

Stakeholders noted that surface roughness and defects remain 

a large concern, with catastrophic impacts on yield.

In one specific product example, a company was printing 5 μm 

conductive lines across a 1 meter web. Lines that intersected 

with a particle or scratch defects in the substrate films were 

frequently broken, leading to extremely low yields. 

Guaranteeing reduced defects adds substantially to substrate 

cost, but surface finish requirements for printed electronics are 

particularly strict by necessity. Large-area metrology enabling 

companies to detect and measure defects on the substrate 

before printing to it will be critical to address such issues—by 

supporting companies in their efforts to establish and ensure 

compliance with quality standards in their supply chains. 

Large manufacturing companies interviewed used a 6-month to 

3-year qualification process for substrate vendors, with 

stringent certificate of analysis requirements. The quality 

metrics, however, are highly dependent on the resolution of the 

printed objects and have been difficult to standardize.

Standards for the environment of use is another need that 

many interview respondents stressed as being important to 

producing durable advanced flexible devices. Necessary to this 
Section 5 

— Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology Infrastructure Needs 5-5

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

need is proper handling of materials and substrates, precision 

coating methods, and guidelines for application-specific tools 

and processes.

The challenges related to standards and measurement 

technology for materials are emblematic of many fundamental 

barriers that bring about the failure of markets to provide 

essential technology. Standards and measurement technologies 

are not only challenging to develop but they also require buy-in 

from entire communities in order for them to have the desired 

effect. Although there is an incentive for firms to participate in 

standards development, standards must be developed by 

neutral, independent, and objective third parties or 

associations. Thus, all study participants saw a clear and 

obvious role for NIST in the provision of standards and 

measurement technology for input materials and substrates.

5.2 NEW MATERIALS AND SUBSTRATES

Several manufacturers noted that a primary barrier to flexible 

electronics is the lack of materials that can hold up to the 

thermal and mechanical stresses of the production process. 

Another barrier is that many metal-based inks oxidize very 

quickly, so separating the raw materials from humidity and 

environmental impurities is essential to maintaining the 

structural integrity of a product. New materials formulations, 

especially for metal inks, that can withstand processing 

conditions and support desired product characteristics are a 

critical gap. Likewise, substrate materials that are alternatives 

to PET, which suffers from variabilities, were mentioned as a 

critical need. 

The need to develop new input materials and substrates was 

ranked by interviewees as the second most significant gap. The 

material science for identifying new formulations for different 

applications is very challenging and beyond the capabilities of 

most firms. Development of precompetitive formulations and 

concepts for metal inks and substrates was a priority and an 

area in which interviewees felt that NIST could make a 

significant contribution to the development of the industry. 

NIST is positioned to advance the science of printing, especially 

via building the knowledge base of how to make ink 

formulations and substrates compatible. The private sector is 

not generating and publishing this fundamental knowledge 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

5-6

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

because they are unlikely to be able to capture any profits from 

their efforts, which in turn inhibits the technology’s 

advancement.

5.3 PATTERNED TOOLS

Cylindrical rolls are widely used in a range of R2R industrial 

manufacturing processes, from the production of paper and 

plastic, to graphic arts printing, to hot stamp foil and hologram 

formation. The technical and patent literature is replete with 

methods and concepts for making rolls for low-resolution 

applications; however, this body of work does not address the 

unique requirements of the formation of a continuous, highfidelity patterned film demanded by industry. 

In particular, feedback across the range of manufacturers and 

R&D professionals pointed to the desire for cylindrical tooling 

with the following qualities, few of which are available today:

 submicron fidelity

 seamless

 long life (preferring metal tools over polymer)

 reduced cycle times

 tooling-specific metrology

High-fidelity structures are typically produced in a small area, 

on a flat substrate, using costly photolithography or beam 

patterning techniques. These small area “masters” can be 

replicated and the individual elements pieced together to create 

a cylindrical roll using welding or mechanical/chemical bonding.

These processes result in “production seams” in the patterning 

roll whereby several substrates containing a pattern to be 

replicated are joined. Such seams cause defects in the microand nanopatterned products that range in size from hundreds 

of nanometers to hundreds of microns. Tooling capable of 

seam-free products would vastly expand available products.

In addition to continuous, seam-free tooling, one optical film 

patterning company suggested that smaller microstructures 

alone could result in a vastly broader product offering, with the 

“potential for 50% improvement to [their] product portfolio.” In 

fact, nanoscale fidelity was consistency deemed to be the most 

important need related to patterned tools, more so than 

eliminating the seam in the roll.
Section 5 

— Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology Infrastructure Needs 5-7

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Developing a high-fidelity, small area master structure is 

expensive, on the order of $10,000 to $100,000, with cycle 

times ranging from 1 to 2 months. Two companies reported 

that the tooling expense is a significant contributor to the cost 

of the final product, even with large-volume R2R processes. 

Very few vendors are capable of generating high-fidelity 

structures in the relatively low volumes needed by the industry 

(particularly when compared with the competing production of 

active circuits on the same toolset). Academic institutes and 

some private companies offer small-scale patterning, but 

producing masters on the order of meters needed for typical 

R2R production lines is a significant gap. One company reported 

that “manufacturing the master became the bottleneck in terms 

of cost and time.” Another company noted that it lost business 

because its suppliers were unable to provide step patterned 

images. 

Tooling was a topic mentioned in every conversation, yet—

because R2R technology is often intellectual property—

companies were reluctant to disclose the specific methods used 

to generate their tooling. Electroforming approaches, direct 

write processes, subtractive processes such as diamond 

turning, and disposable polymer tools have been named; most 

companies are fabricating tools in house with proprietary 

processes, yet all admitted a need for improvement in 

availability, cost, and fidelity. Improvements in processes for 

tool changeovers are also needed. An interviewee added that 

metal molds would be the “Holy Grail” for their optical films 

company.

Our interviewees revealed that improvement in these areas 

would be significant for companies operating in thin-film 

manufacturing, as well as those with advanced electrical 

circuitry requirements. Like with standards and measurement 

technologies, the fundamental knowledge for the production of 

seam-free masters requires sustained, long-term focus and 

investment coupled with the scientific and technical knowledge 

that is beyond the near-term investment horizon of the young 

firms that constitute the industry. NIST has the laboratories 

and technical expertise to integrate materials science disciplines 

and different component technologies to develop and 

demonstrate how new patterned tools or seam-free tools could 

be developed. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

5-8

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

5.4 METROLOGY FOR TOOLING AND REAL-TIME 

FEEDBACK

Metrology, in general, was determined to be the most 

important area of need across all industries and research 

organizations. Manufacturers emphasized the need for 

metrology to detect defects before or during manufacturing for 

quality control, monitor the deposition of functional materials, 

and ensure correct alignment and registration, which is 

discussed further below. Real-time metrology tools would also 

help advance the R2R process and applications by analyzing 

data across numerous production runs. 

Metrology methodologies from traditional semiconductor 

industries are being applied, but adequate solutions do not yet 

exist. The desired in-line metrology systems would have one or 

more of the following characteristics:

 rapid and nondestructive

 high resolution (with requests ranging from 10 nm to 5 

μm)

 measure film thickness

 measure height, width, and 3D shape of a structure

 particle/defect measurements

 simple and inexpensive

 low data requirements, rapid data assessment and 

response parameters

Advanced analytical tools for probing a moving surface and 

metrology that extends beyond optical resolution pose a 

significant challenge to R2R manufacturing processes. 

Advancements in high-volume, cost-effective production 

depend on developing next-generation instrumentation for 

accurate and rapid characterization of film-based products. 

Metrology needs exist for (1) the raw substrate material; 

(2) the patterned tooling; (3) the patterned substrate, after 

patterning and additional processes; and (4) the final product.

Specific challenges of obtaining measurements on a flexible 

substrate, such as plastic or flexible glass, compared with a 

rigid substrate include mechanical reliability; thermal effects 

such as expansion and contraction; positional accuracy and 

reliability across a wide, flexible surface; and processing on a 

fast-moving web as opposed to plate to plate or wafer to wafer. 
Section 5 

— Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology Infrastructure Needs 5-9

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Additional challenges being addressed include taking 

measurements on high-resolution patterns with reflective and 

often optically transparent material. 

One specification with R2R processes involves maintaining 

uniform coating thickness with high precision over large areas. 

A typical coating layer has a uniformity of approximately 100 to 

1,000 nm, requiring equipment controls to be pushed to their 

current design limits. R2R equipment naturally involves the 

mating of macro components, such as rollers, coaters, drive 

mechanisms, and nip points, to surfaces and materials that will 

have nano and micro features. Very slight nonuniformities in 

these macro components can have detrimental effects on the 

high-precision advanced products produced. For applications 

such as circuits and displays, an ultra-barrier, or protective 

coating, is required to separate materials from environmental 

elements. The ultra-barrier must be very smooth before it is

coating. According to a company producing thin films, however, 

it can take 2 weeks or more to measure the properties in that 

coating film at the nanoscale before layering. 

Although in-line metrology is required for efficient, quality 

product development, the suite of suitable techniques has yet 

to be defined. As such, a multitude of monitoring and 

inspection technologies is presently being developed. Optical 

methods currently used in metrology can be accurate, fast, and 

integrated in-line for process control, but many have reached 

their detection and resolution limits for probing structures and 

have challenges with transparent and reflective surfaces. Super 

resolution imaging, reflective optics, laser light microscopy, 

scatterometry, interference, contact profilometers, and parallel 

arrays of probe microscopy techniques are being investigated 

by the manufacturers and researchers that we interviewed, 

although none felt that a complete solution set has been 

identified.

Metrology is an area that many industry representatives 

classified as “underinvested.” Although these groups each 

pointed out that technology has been developed and can be 

leveraged from semiconductor fabrication, migration to a new 

R2R process and associated product has been a more difficult 

transition than anticipated because of the inherent difficulties in 

measuring microstructures at high speeds across a relatively 

wide, transparent surface area. One interviewee noted that it is 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

5-10

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

simply not practical to measure microstructures during a 

production run and that the focus should be “finding ways to 

control morphology and protocols.” 

Despite challenges, the economic benefits of realizing such a 

metrology portfolio are expansive and include the following:

 midstream defect detection to eliminate additional 

processes for defective parts

 point defect determination to lower scrap rate

 characterization of the substrate’s quality before using it

 real-time feedback of tooling and other additive printing 

processes to quickly identify unit operation issues during 

manufacture

 smaller data sets to increase process speed

 catastrophic defect detection for active devices to 

eliminate costly quality assurance/quality control testing 

of the end product

 elimination of destructive, batch-level quality control 

processes, such as cross-sectioning

As with metrology for input materials, metrology for tooling and 

real-time feedback were viewed by respondents as a classic 

role for NIST and areas in which market failure persists. 

5.5 TECHNOLOGY FOR ALIGNMENT AND 

REGISTRATION ON A MOVING WEB

The production of more complex devices, such as PV, displays, 

sensors, and other components with active circuitry, requires 

an even greater level of metrology and control. It is difficult to 

achieve precise overlay and long-range placement accuracy in 

R2R because of the tendency of the flexible substrate to deform 

during processing; therefore, many potential high-value 

applications that require the precise and accurate placement of 

multiple levels of materials await improvements in metrology 

and control technologies. 

Single-level structures, used in applications such as optical 

films and controlled-energy surfaces, do not require such 

precision and were thus the first products developed. HP’s SAIL 

process, self-aligned imprint lithography, used a multilevel 

template that effectively produces pre-aligned structures, 

avoiding the level-to-level registration problem. This wellknown process has been used to generate large-area, low-cost 
Section 5 

— Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology Infrastructure Needs 5-11

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

electronics such as display backplanes with minimum feature 

sizes of 1 μm at web speeds of up to 5 m/min. Current 

alternative solutions work by attaching plastic films to glass 

plates to generate a temporary rigid substrate. This technique 

can leverage equipment and processes designed for liquid-

crystal display manufacture at large volumes, but it is 

exceedingly expensive. 

Alignment and registration greatly affect the quality and yield of 

a product. The inability to properly align the web led to one 

advanced display company to drop a particular product they 

were trying to manufacture. Alignment is not a problem with 

the product that the company uses now, however. 

Interestingly, the discussion surrounding this technology need 

received the most criticism related to using R2R manufacturing 

in place of other, well-established processes. One well-

respected interviewee with a semiconductor background noted 

that “precision and speed are never going to go together until 

huge revolutions are made.” Another interviewee indicated 

uncertainty in using R2R for flexible electronics as a 

consequence.

The extent to which NIST could bring together sensing 

technologies and measurement systems to demonstrate 

manufacturing strategies for alignment and registration on a 

moving web would be valuable for flexible electronics 

manufacturers. Addressing this need requires a unique 

combination of multidisciplinary expertise and specialized 

facilities to solve a problem for an industry that does not have 

the requisite breadth of expertise and lab facilities in house.

5.6PROCESS MODELING AND CONTROLS

In close combination with metrology, real-time diagnostics 

complements the development of process modeling and control 

methods. Many interviewees had never considered process 

modeling to test and predict production runs. Those that had 

generally fell into two groups: the first group included

interviewees who see great value in simulating the processes, 

materials properties, and thermal and physical stresses and the 

second group included the skeptics who believe that process 

modeling is more of a “science project,” as one interviewee 

called it. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

5-12

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

The average rating of importance for this technology need was 

3.5, which corresponds to a moderate level of importance. 

Companies involved in printed and flexible electronics were less 

interested in process modeling. University researchers, 

however, were the keenest on this potential technology.

R2R process models enable an improved, predictive 

understanding of frequency and source of errors in the

manufacturing process. If reliable, modeling offers high return 

at low labor and materials costs. These features make it 

attractive for screening a number of error sources and 

frequency, allowing process engineers to prioritize and 

troubleshoot unit operations during development. Error sources 

include tooling and the associated patterned product, including 

bending, thermal stress, and shrinkage, as well as the 

substrate, including surface roughness, distortion, and 

planarity. Although this modeling will not replace metrology and 

quality processes, it can improve the quality of the 

manufacturing process and reduce downtime and failure rates 

to reduce overall costs.

Modeling also is the first step in scaling from a bench-scale or 

pilot system to a large production factory. Challenges in largescale substrate handling, alignments, slack in the web, tooling 

changeovers, and fluid deposition can all be considered 

simultaneously. As scale increases, manufacturers report that 

“design for manufacture” principles are more stringent; 

therefore, there is increased incorporation of defect-tolerant 

designs. One interviewee with a semiconductor background 

exclaimed that R2R is currently “disposable manufacturing” and 

that digital design to manufacturing is “as important for flexible 

electronics as they are for wafers.”

The use of process controls, including robotics and sensors for 

“smart manufacturing,” becomes necessary as components 

become too large and tolerances too small for the human 

interface. Several large manufacturers reported that products 

that are straightforward to manufacture at pilot scale are often 

difficult to transition to wider web, faster processes; improved 

modeling tools may help reduce the cycle time.
Section 5 — Stakeholder Perspectives on Technology Infrastructure Needs

5-13

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

5.7 CONSISTENT INTERNATIONAL 

TERMINOLOGY

R2R methods address a very diverse set of markets and 

products and include a multitude of unit operations. Defining 

these operations in terms that are well understood and 

characterized by industry, with industry-wide consensus, is 

crucial to support further development in the field.

Currently, inconsistent process definitions, classifications, and 

taxonomies are applied across R2R platforms. These 

inconsistencies make it challenging to analyze the industry as a 

whole, as well as provide roadmaps and consensus.

As a noninclusive, exemplary list, the following terms all 

represent the additive production of a pattern on a substrate: 

NIL, embossing, particle replication in nonwetting templates, 

soft lithography, J-FIL, SAIL, transfer printing, microcontact 

printing, imprint lithography, micromolding in capillaries, 

microtransfer molding, and replica molding.

Standard terminology was rated the least important technology 

with an average rating of 2.46. Although some interviewees 

noted that consistent nomenclature and other like standards 

can be helpful for the industry, they are not a barrier. Several 

respondents during interviews characterized consistent 

terminology need as “nice to have” but not critically important. 

The extent to which NIST can support efforts that drive toward 

consistent terminology would be advantageous to 

manufacturers, but they would prefer that NIST allocate a 

marginal dollar to critical issues in standards and measurement 

technology.
6

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

6 Concluding Remarks

This study conservatively estimates that the economic benefit 

of an improved technology infrastructure supporting R2R 

manufacturing would be at least $353 million per year,12 or 

about 15% of COGS for R2R manufacturers in 2015, all else 

held equal.

An improved infrastructure would unlock significant economic 

value by lowering scrap rates, improving yields, and improving 

R&D and manufacturing efficiency. Increased quality and 

reliability combined with improved processes would expand 

existing product lines and allow the industry to move into new 

markets where automated, high-speed R2R production methods 

would be attractive. Although the market is relatively small 

today, there is great promise for wearable technologies, flexible 

electronics, and environmental technologies, among others. 

As in other studies prepared for NIST, this work explored and 

documented barriers and challenges that have resulted in the 

failure of the marketplace to provide essential public-good 

technology. NIST can accelerate the realization of the economic 

benefits of R2R manufacturing technology. As described in 

Section 5, industry experts highlight a number of opportunities

for NIST to support and guide technology infrastructure 

development, particularly in the following areas:  standards and measurement technology for input 

materials 

 new materials and substrates  patterned tools

 12 The estimate is conservative because it is based on the size of the 

market today and does not take into consideration the impacts 

associated with market transformation, earlier introduction of novel 

products and services, benefits to consumers, or other types of 

benefits. 
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

6-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

 metrology for tooling and real-time feedback 

 technology for alignment and registration on a moving 

web

 process modeling and controls 

Manufacturing industries’ needs in these areas align closely 

with NIST’s unique mission in the U.S. innovation landscape.

We interviewed a large number of experts, both formally and 

informally, in conducting this analysis. When commenting on 

the potential impact addressing critical needs in technology 

infrastructure would have, many offered their perspectives on 

broader issues by way of describing either why a technology 

need may exist or what the opportunity would be if a need 

were to be addressed. They emphasized the importance of an 

industry roadmapping exercise for R2R similar to what was 

done for the semiconductor industry via SEMATECH. 

Another perceived challenge is the availability of physical 

research and manufacturing infrastructure to support U.S. 

entities. When commenting on technology infrastructure issues, 

many experts highlighted the strength of Asian firms in the 

emerging hybrid flexible electronics marketplace. Beyond 

having large multinational corporations active in markets for 

which R2R is considered an attractive production method, there 

is substantial physical research and manufacturing 

infrastructure in Asia that does not exist in the United States. 

There is a need for foundries in the United States with the 

capability to produce multilayered products. Presently, it is 

estimated that two foundries in the United States provide 

production-related services. However, these are not understood 

to have the capability to produce multilayered products like 

flexible electronics. Such capabilities may be present or emerge 

first in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which currently have 

advanced assembly and lamination operations.

Furthermore, the United States has few process engineers with 

expertise in R2R. Small- to medium-sized enterprises, in 

particular, often do not have the process engineering expertise 

needed to scale up their operations and cannot afford to bring 

this expertise in house on a full-time basis. Programs that can 

make experienced process engineers available on a contract 

basis would be useful.
Section 6 

— Concluding Remarks 6-3

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

Experts also echoed findings from other studies about 

developing a sophisticated advanced manufacturing workforce. 

The operational skill set and knowledge of people working in 

high value-added production are critical and a potential source 

of competitive advantage. As such, trade and community 

college curricula need to provide foundational training in 

measurement, quality assessment, and operations 

management.
R

-1

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-008

References

Antonelli, C., & Link, A. N. (Eds.) 2015. Routledge Handbook of 

the Economics of Knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge: 

Taylor & Francis Group.

BCC Research. 2015. Global Markets for Roll-to-Roll 

Technologies for Flexible Devices.

Cao, L., A.K. Jones, V.K. Sikka, J. Wu, and D. Gao. 2009. “Anti-

icing Superhydrophobic Coatings.” Langmuir

25(21):12444–12448.

Crittenden, J.C., R.R. Trussell, D.W. Hand, K.J. Howe, and 

G. Tchobanoglous. 2012. MWH’s Water Treatment: 

Principles and Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dumond, J.J., and H.Y. Low. 2011. “Recent Developments and 

Design Challenges in Continuous Roller Micro-and 

Nanoimprinting.” Journal of Vacuum Science & 

Technology B 30(1).

Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute. 

February 2015. “Proposer’s Day Workshop 

Presentation.” http://www.manufacturing.gov/docs/

FHE_Institute_Proposers_Day.pdf

FlexTech Alliance. February 2014. “The Flexible Electronics 

Revolution is Underway.” http://flextech.org/au-news-

detail.aspx?item=30393.

Giudice, E.L., and J.D. Campbell. 2006. “Needle-free Vaccine 

Delivery.” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 58(1):68–

89.

Jaffe, A.B. 2005. “A Tale of Two Market Failures: Technology 

and Environmental Policy.” Ecological Economics 

54:164–174.

Jiang, J., J.S. Moore, H.F. Edelhauser, and M.R. Prausnitz. 

2009. “Intrascleral Drug Delivery to the Eye Using 

Hollow Microneedles.” Pharmaceutical Research

26(2):395–403.
Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Advanced Manufacturing: Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing

R-2

This publication is available free of charge from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.16-00

8

Johnson, M. 2015. “High Value Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing 

Workshop.” http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/

12/f27/AMO%20Director%20(Dr%20Johnson)%20Welco

ming%20Remarks%20on%20HV%20R2R.pdf

Kim, Y.C., J.H. Park, and M.R. Prausnitz. 2013. “Microneedles 

for Drug and Vaccine Delivery.” Advanced Drug Delivery 

Reviews 64(14):1547–1568.

Link, A.N., and J.T. Scott. 2010. Public Goods, Public Gains: 

Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D. New York: 

Oxford University Press.

Lupo, D., W. Clemens, S. Breitung, and K. Hecker. 2013. 

Applications of Organic and Printed Electronics: A 

Technology-enabled Revolution. New York, NY: Springer.

Med Gadget. February 2014. “Microneedle Patches Allow for 

Self Administering Flu Vaccine.”

http://www.medgadget.com/

2014/02/microneedle-patches-allow-for-selfadministering-of-flu-vaccine.html

Michels, H.T., S.A. Wilks, J.O. Noyce, and C.W. Keevil. 2005. 

“Copper Alloys for Human Infectious Disease Control.” 

Presented at Materials Science and Technology 

Conference, September 25–28, Pittsburgh, PA.

Morse, J. 2011. Nanofabrication Technologies for Roll-to-Roll 

Processing. Report from the NIST-NNN Workshop. 

http://www.internano.org/r2rworkshop/wp-content/

blogs.dir/4/2012/10/Workshop-Report_NanofabricationTechnologies-for-R2R_Final.pdf

Page, K., M. Wilson, and I.P. Parkin. 2009. “Antimicrobial 

Surfaces and their Potential in Reducing the Role of the 

Inanimate Environment in the Incidence of Hospitalacquired Infections.” Journal of Materials Chemistry

19(23):3819–3831.

Tassey, G. 2008. “Modeling and Measuring the Roles of 

Technology Infrastructure.” Economics of Innovation and 

New Technology 17:615–629.

Tassey, G. 2010. “Rationales and Mechanisms for Revitalizing 

U.S. Manufacturing R&D Strategies.” The Journal of 

Technology Transfer 35(3):283–333.

Thompson, M. 2014. “Development in Flexible Electronics.” 

Presentation at Nano Bio Manufacturing Consortium. 

http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/cpmt/presentations/cpmt1408g.

pdf