NIST Economic Analysis Briefs 5 

The Economic Impact of Technology Infrastructure for 

Advanced Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing 

Gary Anderson (gary.anderson@nist.gov) 

Technology Partnerships Office, Innovation & Industry Services 

October 2016 

Key Findings 

•	 Conservative estimates indicate that meeting technology infrastructure needs would lower advanced 

roll-to-roll production costs by 15% saving domestic manufacturers over $353 million annually. 

•	 Barriers to innovation increase the cost of roll-to-roll manufacturing R&D, weaken private investment 

incentives, and magnify the role of public institutions. 

•	 Overcoming critical technical barriers may require investments in public-private manufacturing
 

consortia.
 

Introduction 

Advanced roll-to-roll (R2R) production methods offer the opportunity to merge the 

precision and uniformity of the microelectronics industry with the scale and cost 

structure of high throughput industries such as optical films, printing and textiles. A 

recent study1 commissioned by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) finds “new, emerging industries are taking advantage of the ability to generate 

high-fidelity patterned structures in a continuous, R2R additive process.” However, 

“further development and widespread adoption of this manufacturing technology will 

require resolving key technical challenges in standards, metrology, and manufacturing 

technology platforms.” This technology infrastructure2 is the broad base of public and 

quasi-public technologies and technical knowledge that support the research, 

development, production and diffusion activities of national laboratories, universities 

and firms alike. The study finds that developing the technology infrastructure to meet 

these needs “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.” 

The unique contribution of this analysis is the focus on technology infrastructure, “a 

nuanced yet critically important issue in manufacturing technology development.” The 

results are based on in-depth interviews with 45 experts as well as an extensive analysis 

of prior research. Primary data collection drew from the entire R2R value chain: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards 1 

and Technology and Director 
 

 

 

 

 

developers of R2R manufacturing technologies; system integrators and consultants; end 

users within the manufacturing sector; industry associations; universities; and research 

centers. The study collected data from end users in optical films, flexible electronics, 

biomedical applications, energy technologies, and environmental technologies. Based 

on this analysis, the study identified critical gaps in technology infrastructure in eight 

areas (See Table 1). Further, the study estimates that meeting these technology 

infrastructure needs would save 15% of production costs in the R2R manufacturing 

sector. Conservatively, this will save manufacturers $353 million annually. 

The needs include standards and measurement for inks and substrates, metrology and 

tooling for real-time feedback, technology for alignment and registration on a moving 

substrate, process modeling and controls, standard terminology, nanoscale seam-free 

tooling, and new materials and substrates. The analysis indicates meeting industry needs 

for real-time metrology would save manufacturers $89.5 million annually. New materials 

for inks and substrates as well as standards for these inputs would save manufactures 

over $100 million. The results show that process modeling, terminology and packaging 

would yield lower annual benefits. 

Table 1: Technology Infrastructure Gaps and Potential Benefits 

Infrastructure Need Technologies 

Standards and measurement technology 

for input materials 

Metrology for tooling and real-time 

feedback 

Technology for alignment and 

registration on a moving substrate 

Process modeling and controls 

Terminology 

Tooling for seam-free fabrication, 

including cylindrical masters that are 

seamless and have nanoscale fidelity 

New materials and substrates 

Reference materials and quality standards 

Standard protocols and best practices to improve repeatability and materials quality 

validation 

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 to enable high throughput alignment 

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

Automated design flows 

Process simulation tools 

Consistent international standards for nomenclature 

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 formulations, especially for high-conductivity applications 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure1: Total Annual Impact, Apportioned by Technology Need (Millions of 2013 US$) 

Key Findings 

First, the results indicated that meeting industry needs for R2R technology 

infrastructure would lower R2R manufacturing production costs by 15%. This rate of 

cost reduction is 3 to 5 times higher than other recently completed NIST advanced 

manufacturing studies.3 Overall, the $353 million in total annual cost savings is 

impressive, for several reasons. First, due to the conservative approach taken in this 

study, the total impact measure depends critically on the current market size, which is 

small. Further, many speculative and difficult to quantify impacts such as research costs 

savings, accelerated market entry, increased product quality and reliability benefits, 

market expansion, long-term competitiveness, and other societal benefits are excluded 

from the estimate. While respondents reported that providing the identified technical 

infrastructure would “de-risk the application of R2R manufacturing technologies and 

encourage, or ‘crowd in,’ further investment by the private sector,” such benefits were 

not quantified. Because meeting the identified technical needs will likely increase 

advance R2R adoption and promote these long term benefits, the benefits quantified 

here are likely underestimates of the full impact of meeting these technical 

infrastructure needs. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The study identifies distinct barriers to innovation, caused by market failures,4 beyond 

the public good nature of technology infrastructure, that create further inefficiencies 

and magnify the role of public institutions in meeting these scientific and technical 

needs. The gaps alongside critical uncertainties increase the cost of advanced R2R 

research, development and deployment. Just as an R2R end user cannot easily verify the 

quality of the inks and substrates, they cannot verify the quality of proprietary data and 

testing developed by ink and substrate suppliers. The data collected in this study 

showed “firms are spending money duplicating one another’s efforts to address 

strikingly similar challenges: validating input materials quality, building reference 

databases, sorting out alignment and registration on moving substrates, and developing 

real-time metrology and process modeling software and tools.” In this environment, 

publicly available and trusted third-party data can lower research and adoption costs 

and increase the incentive to invest in new technology. Absent critical materials 

property data for inks and substrates, process control metrology and other critical 

standards, advanced R2R research, development and deployment is excessively costly 

and the incentives for private investment in R2R research will continue to be low. 

Finally, in addition to critical measurement and standards needs, this study identifies a 

number of critical technology platforms such as new inks, substrates, process models, and 

other technology platforms. At times, these technical barriers are substantial. The study 

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

are made.” The study finds that ensuring technology platforms are developed that meet 

industry needs may require investments in public-private manufacturing consortia. 

References 

[1] Anderson G (2013) The Impact of Federally Performed R&D: Twenty Years of Economic Analysis at 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2013 Technology Transfer Society 

Conference. 

[2] Anderson G (2016) The Economic Impact of Technology Infrastructure for Advanced 

Manufacturing: An Overview. (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) NIST Economic Analysis Briefs 1. 

[3] Link A Scott J (2011) The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis. 

(NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) Planning Report 11-1. 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director/planning/report11-1.pdf. 

[4] O’Connor AC, Beaulieu TJ, Rothrock GD (2016). Economic Analysis of Technology Infrastructure 

Needs for Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing. (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) NIST GCR 16-008. 

[5] Tassey G (2007) The Technology Imperative. (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham). 

[6] Tassey G (2015) The Economic Nature of Knowledge Embodied in Standards for TechnologyBased Industries. Routledge Handbook of the Economics of Knowledge, eds Antonelli C, Link A 

(Routledge, New York), pp. 189-207. 

1 See O’Connor et al [4]. 

4 
 

 

 

2 Technology infrastructure includes infratechnologies and technology platforms. Infratechnologies are 

technical tools, such as measurement and test methods, reference materials, scientific and engineering 

databases, process models, and the technical basis for physical and functional interfaces between 

individual components of both cyber and physical systems technologies. Technology platforms are 

precompetitive proofs of concept that demonstrate the potential commercial viability of multiple new or 

improved products, processes, or services. Technology infrastructure shares many common feature with 

tangible infrastructure. Namely, it is difficult and even undesirable to exclude potential users 

implementing the technology and usage of the technology infrastructure by a particular organization does 

not does not preclude others from benefiting to much the same extent. See Anderson [1], Link and Scott 

[3] and Tassey [5] for a richer discussion of the public good nature of technology infrastructure.
 3 See Anderson [2] for an overview.
 4

A market failure is a situation where free markets do not allocate resources efficiently. In particular, the
 

study finds evidence that network externalities, high technical risk, uncertainty and asymmetric
 

information, and economies of scope all impact research in technology infrastructure for R2R. The result
 

is that markets invest too few resources in R&D.
 

5