2011 U.S. INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR

 A NN UA L R EPORT ON 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT

COVER TITLE HERE

2011 U.S. INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR

 A NN UA L R EPORT ON 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON

CA P T UR ING DOMEST IC 

COMPET IT IV E A DVA NTAGE IN 

A DVANCED M ANUFACTUR ING

Executive Office of the President

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

JULY 2012

2011 U.S. INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR

 A NN UA L R EPORT ON 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT

R EPORT TO THE PR ESIDENT ON 

CA P T UR ING DOMEST IC 

COMPET IT IV E A DVA NTAGE IN 

A DVANCED M ANUFACTUR ING

Executive Office of the President

President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

JULY 2012
About the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology

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

nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other 

Federal agencies. PCAST is consulted about and often makes policy recommendations concerning the 

full range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation 

bear potentially on the policy choices before the President. 

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

The President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology

Co-Chairs

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for 

Science and Technology

Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy

Eric Lander

President

Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Vice Chairs 

William Press

Raymer Professor in Computer Science and 

Integrative Biology

University of Texas at Austin

Maxine Savitz

Vice President

National Academy of Engineering

Members

Rosina Bierbaum

Professor of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Policy

School of Natural Resources and Environment 

and School of Public Health

University of Michigan

Christine Cassel

President and CEO

American Board of Internal Medicine

Christopher Chyba

Professor, Astrophysical Sciences and 

International Affairs

Director, Program on Science and Global 

Security

Princeton University

S. James Gates, Jr.

John S. Toll Professor of Physics

Director, Center for String and Particle Theory

University of Maryland, College Park

Mark Gorenberg 

Managing Director

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

Shirley Ann Jackson

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Richard C. Levin

President

Yale University
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ ii ★

Chad Mirkin

Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials 

Science and Engineering, Chemical and 

Biological Engineering and Medicine

Director, International Institute for 

Nanotechnology

Northwestern University

Mario Molina

Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry

University of California, San Diego

Professor, Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Director, Mario Molina Center for Energy and 

Environment, Mexico City

Ernest J. Moniz

Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and 

Engineering Systems

Director, MIT’s Energy Initiative

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig Mundie

Chief Research and Strategy Officer

Microsoft Corporation

Ed Penhoet

Director, Alta Partners

Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public Health

University of California, Berkeley

Barbara Schaal

Mary-Dell Chilton Distinguished Professor of Biology

Washington University, St. Louis

Vice President, National Academy of Sciences

Eric Schmidt

Executive Chairman

Google, Inc.

Daniel Schrag

Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology

Professor, Environmental Science and Engineering

Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment

Harvard University

David E. Shaw

Chief Scientist, D.E. Shaw Research

Senior Research Fellow, Center for Computational 

Biology and Bioinformatics

Columbia University

Ahmed Zewail

Linus Pauling Professor of Chemistry and Physics

Director, Physical Biology Center

California Institute of Technology

Staff 

Deborah Stine

Executive Director

Amber Hartman Scholz

Assistant Executive Director

Danielle Evers

AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow 
★ iii ★

The President’s Council of Advisors

on Science and Technology 

Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage 

in Advanced Manufacturing 

AMP Steering Committee Report
★ iv ★
★ v ★

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President,

We are pleased to present you with the report entitled, Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in 

Advanced Manufacturing, prepared by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) Steering Committee. 

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) hereby adopts this report, which 

builds on our report to you last year on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing.

The AMP Steering Committee, chaired by Susan Hockfield and Andrew Liveris, and whose membership you 

announced when releasing PCAST’s 2011 report, sought wide-ranging input in order to identify opportunities 

for investments in advanced manufacturing that have the potential to transform U.S. industry. More than 1200 

stakeholders representing industry, academia, and government at all levels participated in four regional meetings around the country. A diverse set of experts in advanced manufacturing technology, education, and policy 

issues were also consulted to build upon the ideas presented by the stakeholders.

The Nation’s historic leadership in advanced manufacturing is at risk. The threat to our advanced manufacturing sector places our economy as a whole at risk, jeopardizes our international trade, and, above all, undermines the innovation that our Nation needs to thrive in the future. However, with a sustained focus, alignment 

of interests, and coordinated action by industry, academia, and government, the Nation can retain its leading 

position in advanced manufacturing.

PCAST has considered and adopts the recommendations of the AMP Steering Committee. These recommendations fall in three key areas: (1) enabling innovation, (2) securing the talent pipeline, and (3) improving the 

business climate. They include a call to establish a national network of manufacturing innovation institutes (in 

line with what you announced on March 9th); an emphasis on investment in community college training of the 

advanced manufacturing workforce; an approach to evaluate platform manufacturing technologies for collaborative investment; a plan to reinvigorate the image of manufacturing in America; and proposals for trade, tax, 

regulatory, and energy policies that would level the global playing field for domestic manufacturers.

Moving forward vigorously with your Advanced Manufacturing Partnership will help to create the “economy 

built to last” that you articulated so eloquently in your State of the Union Address earlier this year. Thank you 

for the opportunity to provide our input on an issue of such critical importance to the Nation’s future.

Sincerely,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

March 25, 2010

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. President,

We are pleased to send you this “Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative,” prepared by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology (PCAST). This report reflects a PCAST decision to advise you on this topic and fulfills PCAST’s 

responsibilities under the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-153) 

and Executive Order 13349 to provide periodic updates to Congress.

To provide a solid scientific basis for our recommendations, the Council assembled a PCAST Working Group 

of three PCAST members and 12 non-governmental members with broad expertise in nanotechnology. The 

Working Group addressed the requirements of Public Law 108-153, with additional efforts aimed in four 

areas: NNI program management; the outputs of nanotechnology; environment, health, and safety research; 

and the vision for NNI for the next ten years. The Working Group’s deliberations were informed by 

discussions with 37 government officials, industry leaders, and technical experts from a wide range of fields 

involving nanotechnology. 

The report finds that the NNI—which has provided $12 billion in investments by 25 Federal agencies over the 

past decade—has had a “catalytic and substantial impact” on the growth of the U.S. nanotechnology industry 

and should be continued. Further, the report finds that in large part as a result of the NNI the United States is 

today, by a wide range of measures, the global leader in this exciting and economically promising field of 

research and technological development. 

But the report also finds that U.S. leadership in nanotechnology is threatened by several aggressively investing 

competitors such as China, South Korea, and the European Union. In response to this threat, the report 

recommends a number of changes in Federal programs and policies, with the goal of assuring continued U.S. 

dominance in the decade ahead.

The full PCAST discussed and approved this report, pending modest revisions that have now been completed, 

at its most recent public meeting on March 12, 2010. We appreciate your interest in this important field of 

work and sincerely hope that you find this report useful.

John P. Holdren

Co-Chair

Harold Varmus

Co-Chair

Eric Lander

Co-Chair

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

DENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

March 25, 2010

ma

02

d you this “Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the 

ogy Initiative,” prepared by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

 This report reflects a PCAST decision to advise you on this topic and fulfills PCAST’s 

the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-153) 

3349 to provide periodic updates to Congress.

entific basis for our recommendations, the Council assembled a PCAST Working Group 

bers and 12 non-governmental members with broad expertise in nanotechnology. The 

ssed the requirements of Public Law 108-153, with additional efforts aimed in four 

anagement; the outputs of nanotechnology; environment, health, and safety research; 

I for the next ten years. The Working Group’s deliberations were informed by 

overnment officials, industry leaders, and technical experts from a wide range of fields 

ogy. 

he NNI—which has provided $12 billion in investments by 25 Federal agencies over the 

a “catalytic and substantial impact” on the growth of the U.S. nanotechnology industry 

ed. Further, the report finds that in large part as a result of the NNI the United States is 

e of measures, the global leader in this exciting and economically promising field of 

gical development. 

ds that U.S. leadership in nanotechnology is threatened by several aggressively investing 

hina, South Korea, and the European Union. In response to this threat, the report 

r of changes in Federal programs and policies, with the goal of assuring continued U.S. 

de ahead.

ssed and approved this report, pending modest revisions that have now been completed, 

ic meeting on March 12, 2010. We appreciate your interest in this important field of 

pe that you find this report useful.

Harold Varmus

Co-Chair

Eric Lander

Co-Chair

John P. Holdren

Co-Chair

Eric Lander

Co-Chair
Advanced Manufacturing 

Partnership Working Group

Susan Hockfield

President

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Andrew Liveris

President, Chairman and CEO

The Dow Chemical Company

Chad Mirkin

Member, PCAST

Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials 

Science and Engineering, Chemical and 

Biological Engineering, and Medicine

Director, International Institute for 

Nanotechnology

Northwestern University

PCAST Staff 

Deborah Stine

Executive Director

Danielle Evers

AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow 

Office of Science and Technology Policy Staff 

David M. Hart

Assistant Director for Innovation Policy

Charles E. Thorpe

Assistant Director for Robotics and Advanced 

Manufacturing

National Economic Council Staff 

Jason Miller

Special Assistant to the President for 

Manufacturing
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 

Steering Committee

Co-Chairs

Susan Hockfield

President, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Andrew Liveris

President, Chairman, and CEO, 

The Dow Chemical Company 

Members

Robert Birgeneau

Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley 

Wesley G. Bush

President, Chairman, and CEO, Northrop 

Grumman

Louis Chenevert

Chairman and CEO,

United Technologies Corporation

Jared Cohon

President, Carnegie Mellon University

Mary Sue Coleman

President, University of Michigan 

David Cote

Chairman and CEO, Honeywell 

Richard Harshman

Chairman, President, and CEO, Allegheny 

Technologies 

John Hennessy

President, Stanford University 

Curt Hartman

Interim CEO, Vice President and CFO, Stryker 

Bob McDonald

President, and CEO, Procter & Gamble

Alan Mulally

President and CEO, Ford Motor Company

Paul Otellini

President and CEO, Intel Corporation

Douglas Oberhelman

Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.

G.P. “Bud” Peterson

President, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Wendell Weeks

Chairman and CEO, Corning Inc.

William Weldon

Chairman, Johnson & Johnson 

★ ix ★

Capturing Domestic Competitive 

Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing

Executive Report of the AMP Steering Committee

Advanced manufacturing is not limited to emerging technologies; rather, it is composed of efficient, 

productive, highly integrated, tightly controlled processes across a spectrum of globally competitive 

U.S. manufacturers and suppliers. For advanced manufacturing to accelerate and thrive in the United 

States, it will require the active participation of communities, educators, workers, and businesses, as well 

as Federal, State, and local governments. 

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) Steering Committee proposes that the Nation establish 

a national advanced manufacturing strategy. This strategy will serve as a national framework that, when 

implemented by states and local communities, will bring about a sustainable resurgence in advanced 

manufacturing in the United States.

The AMP Steering Committee developed a set of 16 recommendations around three pillars:

• Enabling innovation

• Securing the talent pipeline

• Improving the business climate

These recommendations are aimed at reinventing manufacturing in a way that ensures U.S. competitiveness, feeds into the Nation’s innovation economy, and invigorates the domestic manufacturing base. 

The objective is to position the Nation to lead the world in new disruptive advanced manufacturing 

technologies that are changing the face of manufacturing. 

The AMP Steering Committee believes that a number of important steps taken now will be critical to 

strengthen the Nation’s innovation system for advanced manufacturing. While some of the largest U.S. 

firms have the depth and resources to be ready for this challenge, a significant number of small and 

medium-sized U.S. firms operate largely outside the present innovation system. The United States will 

only lead in advanced manufacturing if all companies are able to participate in the transformations 

made possible through innovations in manufacturing. 

The AMP Steering Committee proposes 16 recommendations that will set the stage for advanced 

manufacturing to thrive in the United States: 

Enabling Innovation

1. Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Strategy: The AMP Steering Committee 

proposes establishing and maintaining a national advanced manufacturing strategy by putting 

in place a systematic process to identify and prioritize critical cross-cutting technologies.
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ x ★

2. Increase R&D Funding in Top Cross-Cutting Technologies: In addition to identifying a “starter 

list” of cross-cutting technologies that are vital to advanced manufacturing, the AMP Steering 

Committee proposes a process for evaluating technologies for research and development 

(R&D) funding.

3. Establish a National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs): The AMP 

Steering Committee proposes the formation of MIIs as public-private partnerships to foster 

regional ecosystems in advanced manufacturing technologies. MIIs are one vehicle to integrate 

many of the Committee’s recommendations.

4. Empower Enhanced Industry/University Collaboration in Advanced Manufacturing 

Research: The AMP Steering Committee recommends a change in the treatment of tax-free 

bond-funded facilities at universities that will enable greater and stronger interactions between 

universities and industry.

5. Foster a More Robust Environment for Commercialization of Advanced Manufacturing 

Technologies: The AMP Steering Committee recommends that action is taken to connect 

manufacturers to university innovation ecosystems and create a continuum of capital access 

from start up to scale up.

6. Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Portal: The AMP Steering Committee recommends that a searchable database of manufacturing resources is created as a key mechanism 

to support access by small and medium-sized enterprises to enabling infrastructure.

Securing the Talent Pipeline

7. Correct Public Misconceptions About Manufacturing: Building excitement and interest 

in careers in manufacturing is a critical national need, and an advertising campaign is recommended by the AMP Steering Committee as one important step in this direction.

8. Tap the Talent Pool of Returning Veterans: Returning veterans possess many of the key skills 

needed to fill the skills gap in the manufacturing talent pipeline. The AMP Steering Committee 

makes specific recommendations on how to connect these veterans with manufacturing 

employment opportunities.

9. Invest in Community College Level Education: The community college level of education 

is the “sweet spot” for reducing the skills gap in manufacturing. Increased investment in this 

sector is recommended, following the best practices of leading innovators.

10. Develop Partnerships to Provide Skills Certifications and Accreditation: Portability and 

modularity of the credentialing process in advanced manufacturing is critical to allow coordinated action of organizations that feed the talent pipeline. The AMP Steering Committee 

supports the establishment of stackable credentials. 

11. Enhance Advanced Manufacturing University Programs: The AMP Steering Committee 

recommends that universities bring new focus to advanced manufacturing through the development of educational modules and courses.
Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing

★ xi ★

12. Launch National Manufacturing Fellowships & Internships: The AMP Steering Committee 

supports the creation of national fellowships and internships in advanced manufacturing in 

order to bring needed resources but more importantly national recognition to manufacturing 

career opportunities.

Improving the Business Climate 

13. Enact Tax Reform: The AMP Steering Committee recommends a set of specific tax reforms that 

can “level the playing field” for domestic manufacturers.

14. Streamline Regulatory Policy: The AMP Steering Committee recommends a framework for 

smarter regulations relating to advanced manufacturing.

15. Improve Trade Policy: Trade policies can have an adverse impact on advanced manufacturing 

firms in the United States. The AMP Steering Committee recommends specific actions that can 

be taken to improve trade policy.

16. Update Energy Policy: The manufacturing sector is a large consumer of energy, and consequently, domestic energy policies can have a profound impact on global competitiveness. The 

AMP Steering Committee makes specific policy recommendations regarding energy issues of 

importance in manufacturing.

With sustained focus, alignment of interests, and coordinated action to implement the above recommendations, the United States can and will lead the world in advanced manufacturing. Already today, there 

are examples of new manufacturing technologies emerging from research laboratories that will have 

a transformative effect on the way manufacturing is done in America. Together, government, industry, 

and academia must commit to re-invent the national manufacturing base to ensure our Nation’s future. 

★ xiii ★

Table of Contents

I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Advanced Manufacturing Matters 7

Role of Advanced Manufacturing in the Global Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Importance of Manufacturing to National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Interplay between Innovation and Advanced Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

U.S. Global Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Pillar I: Enabling Innovation 14

Recommendation #1: Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Strategy . . . . . 14

Recommendation #2: Increase R&D Funding in Top Cross-Cutting Technologies . . . . 18

Recommendation #3: Establish a National Network of Manufacturing Innovation 

Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Recommendation #4: Empower Enhanced Industry/University Collaboration in 

Advanced Manufacturing Research 24

Recommendation #5: Foster a More Robust Environment for Commercialization 

of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Recommendation #6: Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Portal . . . . . . 26

Pillar II: Securing the Talent Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Recommendation #7: Correct Public Misconceptions about Manufacturing . . . . . . 32

Recommendation #8: Tap the Talent Pool of Returning Veterans . . . . . . . . . . 32

Recommendation #9: Invest in Community College Level Education . . . . . . . . . 33

Recommendation #10: Develop Partnerships to Provide Skills Certifications 

and Accreditation 34

Recommendations #11 and #12: Enhance Advanced Manufacturing University 

Programs, and Launch Manufacturing Fellowships and Internships . . . . . . . . . 35
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ xiv ★

Pillar III: Improving the Business Climate 37

Recommendation #13: Enact Tax Reform 37

Recommendation #14: Streamline Regulatory Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Recommendation #15: Improve Trade Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Recommendation #16: Update Energy Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix A: Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix B: Experts Consulted 47

Annex 1: Technology Development Workstream Report . . . . . . . . . . . (available online)

Annex 2: Shared Facilities and Infrastructure Workstream Report . . . . . . . (available online)

Annex 3: Education and Workforce Workstream Report . . . . . . . . . . . (available online)

Annex 4: Policy Workstream Report (available online)

Annex 5: Outreach Workstream Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (available online)

Annex 6: AMP Regional Meeting Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (available online)
★ 1 ★

I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

Genesis 

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

markets. Manufacturing has supported our economic growth, contributing to the Nation’s exports, and 

employing millions of Americans. Manufacturing has driven knowledge production and innovation in 

the United States by supporting two-thirds of private sector research and development (R&D) and by 

employing scientists, engineers, and technicians to invent and produce new products.1

Advanced manufacturing encompasses all aspects of manufacturing, including the ability to quickly 

respond to customer needs through innovations in production processes and innovations in the supply chain. As manufacturing advances, it is increasingly becoming knowledge-intensive, relying on 

information technologies, modeling, and simulation. Manufacturers are also increasingly focusing on 

environmentally-sustainable practices that lead to improved performance and reduced waste. 

The benefits to focusing on advanced manufacturing are many. As Figure 1 shows, manufacturing creates more value across the economy per dollar spent than any other sector. Manufacturing produces 

new goods that fundamentally change or create new services and sectors. 

1. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Report to the President on Ensuring America’s 

Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing,” June 2011, 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-june2011.pdf.

"Advanced manufacturing is a family of activities that (a) depend on the use 

and coordination of information, automation, computation, software, sensing, 

and networking, and/or (b) make use of cutting edge materials and emerging 

capabilities enabled by the physical and biological sciences, for example nanotechnology, 

chemistry, and biology. It involves both new ways to manufacture existing products, 

and the manufacture of new products emerging from new advanced technologies.”

—President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Report to the President on Ensuring 

American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing, 

p. ii
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 2 ★

Figure 1. Economic Activity Generated by $1 of Sector Output, 2010

$1.35

$1.20

$0.97 $0.95 $0.88

$0.66 $0.63 $0.58 $0.55 $0.55

Manufacturing

Agriculture

Construction

Transportation

Information

Ed. Services

Finance

Wholesale Trade

Prof./Bus.

Retail Trade

$1.6

$1.4

$1.2

$1.0

$0.8

$0.6

$0.4

$0.2

$0.0

$1 of Sector GDP

Source: AMP Steering Committee based on data from Bureau of Economic Analysis, Input-Output Tables available at 

www.bea.gov/iTable/index_industry.cfm.

However, the nation’s historic leadership in manufacturing is at an inflection point. Although the United 

States has been the leading producer of manufactured goods for more than 100 years, manufacturing 

has been declining as a share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and employment (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Employment Trends, 1962–2010

1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

Millions of Jobs Percent

Share of

Total Employment

Manufacturing 

Employment

Source: AMP Steering Committee based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, 

1962–2010 provided in Table B-1 at www.bls.gov/ces/tables.htm#ee.

The loss of U.S. leadership in manufacturing is not limited to low-wage jobs in low-tech industries, nor 

is it limited to our status relative to low-wage nations. The hard truth is that the United States is lagging 

behind in innovation in the manufacturing sector relative to high-wage nations such as Germany and 

Japan, and the United States has relinquished leadership in some medium- and high-tech industries 

that employ a large proportion of highly-skilled workers. In addition, the United States has been losing 

significant elements of the research and development (R&D) activity linked to manufacturing to other 

nations, as well as its ability to compete in the manufacturing of many products that were invented and 
I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

★ 3 ★

innovated here—from laptop computers to flat panel displays to lithium ion batteries. Recognizing this, 

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

Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) issued a report to the President on Ensuring

American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing.2 The report provided a strategy and specific recommendations for revitalizing the Nation’s leadership in advanced manufacturing. 

To ensure that the United States attracts manufacturing activity and remains a leader in knowledge 

production, the report recommended the following two strategies: 

1. “Create a fertile environment for innovation so that the United States provides the overall best 

environment for business, through tax and business policy, robust support for basic research, 

and training and education of a high-skilled workforce; and 

2. Invest to overcome market failures, to ensure that new technologies and design methodologies 

are developed here, and that technology-based enterprises have the infrastructure to flourish 

here.”3

Based on the PCAST report, on June 24, 2011, President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing 

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

and other stakeholders to identify emerging technologies with the potential to create high-quality 

domestic manufacturing jobs and enhance U.S. global competitiveness. 

Operating within the framework of PCAST, the AMP Steering Committee had three targeted outcomes, 

which fit intimately together and will have an additive effect when implemented:

1. Develop a permanent model for evaluating, prioritizing, and recommending Federal investments in advanced manufacturing technologies,

2. Recommend a set of partnership projects, focused on advancing high-impact technologies 

and creating models for collaboration that encompass technology development, innovation 

infrastructure, and workforce development, 

3. Provide recommendations to the Administration on the actions required to support investment 

in advancing manufacturing in the United States.

Process 

After its launch, the AMP Steering Committee initiated five workstreams with the objectives listed in 

Table 1.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 4 ★

Table 1. Workstream Objectives

Workstream Objectives

Technology Development

•	 Determine a permanent mechanism to be used for 

identifying and developing key manufacturing technologies

•	 Determine a set of top technology areas that would ensure 

U.S. manufacturing competitiveness

Shared Infrastructure & Facilities

•	 Assess opportunities to de-risk, scale-up, and lower the cost 

of accelerating technology from research to production 

through unique capabilities and facilities that serve all U.S. 

based manufacturers, in particular, small and medium-sized 

enterprises

Education & Workforce Development

•	 Identify tangible actions to support a robust supply of 

talented individuals to provide human capital to companies 

interested in investing in advanced manufacturing activities 

in the United States

Policy

•	 Make recommendations to the Administration on economic 

and innovation policies that can directly impact the overall 

climate and the ability to improve research collaboration 

and the pathway to commercialization in support of U.S.based manufacturing and jobs

Outreach •	 Conduct stakeholder outreach and reviews 

•	 Conduct and consolidate findings of regional meetings 

The AMP Steering Committee engaged in extensive consultations with stakeholders across the country to identify opportunities for investments in advanced manufacturing that have the potential to 

transform U.S. industry. Most notably, four regional meetings were conducted—in Atlanta, Georgia; 

Cambridge, Massachusetts; Berkeley, California; and Ann Arbor, Michigan—providing a forum for 1,200 

attendees, representing industry, academia, and government, to openly share their observations, views, 

and recommendations. (See Annex 6 [which is available online] for summaries of these meetings.) In 

addition, extensive surveys were conducted through various manufacturing and academic trade and 

professional associations.

These consultations contributed significantly to the recommendations of the AMP Steering Committee 

to PCAST. The Steering Committee firmly believes that these recommendations will provide the foundation for future breakthroughs by building a national roadmap for advanced manufacturing technologies, 

speeding ideas from the drawing board to the manufacturing floor, scaling-up first-of-a-kind technologies, training our future workforce, and developing the infrastructure and shared facilities to allow small, 

mid-sized, and large manufacturers to innovate and compete.

Source: AMP Steering Committee
I. Advanced Manufacturing Partnership

★ 5 ★

Each workstream prepared a report, providing the basis for this AMP Steering Committee report and 

its recommendations. These reports can be found in the following annexes, which are available on-line: 

• Annex 1: Technology Development Workstream 

• Annex 2: Shared Facilities and Infrastructure Workstream

• Annex 3: Education and Workforce Workstream

• Annex 4: Policy Workstream

• Annex 5: Outreach Workstream

★ 7 ★

II. Advanced Manufacturing Matters

Role of Advanced Manufacturing in the Global Economy

During the 20th century, U.S. manufacturing increased production at a relatively steady rate. Overall 

investment in capacity steadily expanded. Manufacturing employment held at roughly 17 to 18 million from the late 1960s through the late 1990s. Over the last decade, however, this equation changed. 

Production has been nearly flat for over a decade. The United States lost one-third of its manufacturing 

workforce, and investment in new production capacity stalled.4 Productivity gains alone cannot be 

blamed for the loss in manufacturing employment over this period; it is rather the overall loss in the 

competitiveness of the sector. There are many contributing factors. These losses have led to large trade 

deficits in manufactured goods, including in advanced technology products, and a loss in global share 

of manufacturing production. There are growing concerns that the loss in capacity over the last decade 

has also impacted our domestic innovation and manufacturing capabilities, impeding new investment 

in domestic manufacturing. 

Advanced manufacturing serves a critical role in today’s economy. Manufacturing contributes disproportionately to U.S. innovation. Proximity to the manufacturing process creates innovation spillovers 

across firms and industries, leading to the ideas and capabilities that support the next generation of 

products and processes. In this way, a vibrant manufacturing sector is inextricably linked to our capacity 

as a nation to innovate.

Despite recent declines in manufacturing employment, manufacturing industries still employ nearly 12 

million workers. These industries are responsible for a significant portion of domestic R&D investment—a 

key driver of innovation. Small and medium-sized enterprises in the manufacturing sector are a critical 

component of the U.S. economy, representing 84 percent of manufacturing establishments in 20095

and employing 51 percent of the U.S. manufacturing workforce in 2010.6

The impact of a healthy manufacturing sector has a ripple effect on the economy. On average, each 

manufacturing job supports 2.5 jobs in other sectors, and, at the upper end, each high-tech manufacturing job supports sixteen others.7 Each dollar in final sales of manufactured goods supports $1.35 

in output from other sectors of the economy.8 Compared to all other sectors, manufacturing has the 

largest multiplier.9 Manufacturing not only spurs tremendous economic activity, it encourages innovation and research wherever it occurs. In 2009, manufacturing domestic business R&D spending in the 

4. Stephen J. Ezell and Robert D. Atkinson, The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy, Information Technology 

and Innovation Foundation, 2011, www2.itif.org/2011-national-manufacturing-strategy.pdf.

5. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2009, www.census.gov/econ/susb/.

6. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, 2010, 

bls.gov/ces/cessizeclass.htm#TB_inline?height=200&width=325&inlineId=ces_program_links.

7. Ross DeVol et al., “Manufacturing 2.0: A More Prosperous California,” Milken Institute, June 2009, 

www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/CAManufacturing_ES.pdf. 

8. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry-by-Industry Total Requirements after Redefinitions (Producer Price 

Indexes), 2010, www.bea.gov/iTable/index_industry.cfm.

9. The Manufacturing Institute, The Facts about Modern Manufacturing, 8th Edition, 2009, 

www.nist.gov/mep/upload/FINAL_NAM_REPORT_PAGES.pdf. Data are presented in Figure 1.
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 8 ★

United States reached $195 billion, accounting for 70 percent of all domestic business R&D performed 

in the United States.10 

The importance of manufacturing to employment is not measured by simply counting the numbers of 

production workers. The production stage affects employment throughout long product value chains, 

from the innovation and input stages for product design and production including resources, components, suppliers, to the output stages including distribution, sales and the maintenance and repair life 

cycle service for the product. Total employment for manufacturing, and therefore its economic impact, 

is much bigger than simply those engaged at the production moment itself. 

Manufacturing also has a significant effect on the global trade balance. Over the prior decade, manufactured goods represented 65 percent of U.S. trade.11 A decline in the U.S. manufacturing base over the last 

two decades has led, in part, to chronic trade deficits. The United States has, in fact, run a trade deficit in 

advanced technology products every year since 2002.12 There is simply no way to reduce these chronic 

trade deficits without a vibrant manufacturing sector; it is not possible for this deficit to be balanced 

through the service sector alone.

To reinvigorate the U.S. economy and pursue long-term economic prosperity, America must reject the 

notion that the Nation should let go of its manufacturing sector in favor of services. No other sector 

creates more high paying jobs that sustain a vast swath of American households. Instead, the United 

States needs to recognize that manufacturing and services are interdependent and the success of one 

sector affects the other. Those in the industry know it is not effective to separate the manufacturing and 

service sectors; manufacturing and innovation go hand-in-hand. Economic growth will not be sustainable if the two are decoupled. If the Nation attempts to rely on innovation alone, innovation—and the 

value it creates—will follow manufacturing overseas.

Importance of Manufacturing to National Security 

Maintaining technological superiority in advanced manufacturing is a national security issue and is 

critically important for sustaining U.S. global competitiveness. A strong manufacturing sector not only 

ensures a ready supply of defense and commercial goods and services, but also ensures the integrity 

of these goods, especially electronics and other mission critical items. However, U.S. national security 

is not limited to the products and technologies that are required for national defense; it also entails 

the products and technologies required for our nation’s energy security, food security, heath security, 

cybersecurity and economic security.

Moving forward, the United States must maintain access to low-cost, secure sources of energy. The 

Nation has already made great strides in photovoltaics, advanced energy storage devices, and alternate 

feedstocks, but it needs to accelerate the development of advanced manufacturing technologies to 

deliver cost competitive economics. The United States, and the world, is witnessing the global impor10. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NSF/NCSES). InfoBrief NSF 

12-309, March 2012, www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf12309/nsf12309.pdf. 

11. National Science and Technology Council. A National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing, 2012. 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/iam_advancedmanufacturing_strategicplan_2012.pdf.

12. U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, Advanced Technology Products, 2011, 

www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0007.html.
II. Advanced Manufacturing Matters

★ 9 ★

tance of food security; advanced manufacturing will enable the world to feed its growing population in 

a sustainable, efficient manner through high-tech seeds and plant genomics. An aging global population is increasingly relying on cutting edge pharmaceuticals and medical technology, a sector in which 

advanced manufacturing plays a pivotal role. Finally, every sector of the economy is increasingly dependent on information technology systems; hence, not only is information technology vitally important 

to national security, but to leadership in the global economy. Breakthrough information technologies 

require advances in manufacturing to deliver the next generation of systems and tools, and advanced 

manufacturing is depending on these future systems for next generation processes.13

Interplay Between Innovation and Advanced Manufacturing 

Other countries have witnessed the unparalleled economic prosperity created by a manufacturing 

economy, and appreciate the inherent value of manufacturing. They are actively competing for manufacturing technologies and manufacturing production. The major economic competitors of the United 

States recognize the benefits from a vibrant manufacturing sector, and they have developed approaches 

for attracting manufacturing investment. In doing so, other countries are capturing the R&D that follows 

the manufacturing. As economist Gregory Tassey of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

writes: “The issue of co‐location of R&D and manufacturing is especially important because it means the 

value-added from both R&D and manufacturing will accrue to the innovating economy, at least when 

the technology is in its formative stages.”14 Many argue that R&D and manufacturing can be separated 

with the United States focusing on R&D and design. However, studies have shown that offshoring of 

manufacturing leads to later loss of R&D competencies. “Losing this [manufacturing] exposure makes 

it harder to come up with innovative ideas.”15 Related to this argument, building manufacturing plants 

in the United States has additional benefits of providing quicker access to supplies of intermediate 

goods and services; access to a larger pool of workers; proximity to consumers; and increased flow of 

knowledge spillovers across firms through the supply chain and worker mobility.16

The problems the world faces are complex. They cannot be solved by services alone. They require the 

innovation, creativity, and ingenuity of manufacturing companies, together with that of academia and 

national research laboratories. As the world’s population rises and new economies emerge, society 

requires novel solutions to meet its pressing needs for energy, water, food, health, security, and public 

infrastructure. Solutions to these challenges are complex and require novel approaches. No longer can 

the problems be solved by singular disciplines. They require interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration between the private and public sectors. They require partnering among the world’s best universities, 

entrepreneurs, national labs, and small, medium, and large enterprises to address the world’s most 

pressing challenges, uncover scientific fundamentals, discover new molecules and materials, and scale 

new processes and operations. 

13. Department of Commerce, “The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States,” January 2012, 

www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/competes_010511_0.pdf. 

14. Gregory Tassey, The Technology Imperative (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2007). 

15. Erica R. H. Fuchs, “The Impact of Manufacturing Offshore on Technology Development Paths in the Automotive 

and Optoelectronics Industries,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 2006, 

esd.mit.edu/people/dissertations/fuchs.pdf. 

16. Michael Greenstone, Richard Hornbeck, and Enrico Moretti, “Identifying Agglomeration Spillovers: Evidence 

from Winners and Losers of Large Plant Openings,” April 2010, emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/mdp2.pdf. 
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 10 ★

U.S. Global Competitiveness

By failing to update and realign its policies, the United States is slowly ceding its position as the longstanding leader in advanced manufacturing. Nations around the world are offering a more positive 

climate for new industrial plants and to encourage business investment locally. Public policies should 

encourage investment. World-class educational systems and workforce training practices serve as 

magnets for manufacturers. In recent years, the R&D system support by the U.S. Government has had 

very limited focus on technology advances needed for advanced manufacturing. This benign neglect 

has taken its toll and is in sharp contrast to Germany, Korea, Japan, and China.

Hence, the AMP Steering Committee asserts that the United States must establish a national economic 

framework that sets a strategy and takes supporting action to restore America’s economic health and 

long-term strength in advanced manufacturing. 

To achieve this goal, the Steering Committee recommends that the United States pursue an advanced 

manufacturing agenda to improve global competitiveness in the next five years. Ensuring long-term, 

sustainable growth requires the United States to prepare the workforce, to attract and retain skilled 

workers from outside its borders, and to provide incentives that encourage long-term business investments in key global growth areas. 

The Steering Committee recommends the establishment of a national strategy and common agenda 

for advanced manufacturing to thrive in America.
★ 11 ★

III. Recommendations

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee has developed a set of recommendations 

built around three pillars: enabling innovation, securing the talent pipeline, and improving the business 

climate. The Committee’s recommendations aim to re-invent manufacturing in a way that ensures U.S. 

competitiveness, feeds into the innovation economy, and grows a robust domestic manufacturing base. 

We focus on positioning the Nation to lead the world in new disruptive advanced technologies that 

are changing the face of manufacturing. We believe that several key steps should be taken, but among 

the most critical is to strengthen our innovation system for advanced manufacturing. While some of 

the Nation’s largest firms have the depth to be ready for the manufacturing challenges of the future, 

there are over 300,000 small and mid-sized firms that are largely outside the U.S. innovation system.17

The United States will only lead in advanced manufacturing if it harnesses the strength of its innovation 

system through the manufacturing sector to create technological advantage.

The United States can and will lead the world in advanced manufacturing. Already today, we see 

examples of new manufacturing technologies emerging from research laboratories that will have a 

disruptive effect on the way things are made. Examples include novel nano-manufacturing technologies that reduce the cost of capital dramatically, bio-manufacturing and separation methods that lower 

the energy consumption of conventional processes, innovative additive processes and materials that 

reduce waste, and intelligent manufacturing tools and methods that reduce hazards, optimize supply 

chains, and maximize yields. Each of these innovation examples directly affects factors such as the cost 

of capital, quality of materials, and availability of energy. 

Critical to the deployment of new advanced manufacturing technologies will be a skilled workforce 

trained and ready to lead this revolution in manufacturing. Exciting examples of novel partnerships 

between industry, educational institutions, and the public sector have come to the attention of the 

Steering Committee that address skills gaps in manufacturing. These partnerships are at the regional 

level and engage community colleges. A focus on these best practices and participation of all players 

(government, industry, and academia) will lead to further innovations in education and new excitement 

for the careers that will be created by a vibrant advanced manufacturing sector in the United States. 

We see significant opportunities to exercise policy “levers” that improve the business climate for domestic manufacturing. In addition to important tax and trade policies that level the playing field, we see 

opportunities to engage regulatory agencies early in the development of manufacturing processes to 

develop a more streamlined regulatory framework and to update energy policy as well.

Finally, the Steering Committee’s recommendations include concepts that can accommodate both 

the regional and the national aspects of any manufacturing strategy. We envision a set of regional 

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs) that bridge the gap between research and commercial 

application of advanced manufacturing technologies. These public-private partnerships will form a 

national infrastructure network that eases access to new technologies while also supporting educational 

efforts in these new technologies. Unlocking advanced manufacturing innovation at a regional level is 

critical to transforming U.S. global competitiveness in manufacturing by enabling unique partnerships 

17. BLS, Current Employment Statistics, op. cit.
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 12 ★

that leverage regional competencies. This regional focus also strengthens the collective “industrial 

commons” of the nation.18

Table 2. Summary of Recommendations

Pillar I: Enabling Innovation 

1

Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Strategy

Through a systematic process to identify and prioritize cross-cutting technologies, a national 

advanced manufacturing strategy should be developed and maintained.

2

Increase R&D Funding in Top Cross-Cutting Technologies

In addition to identifying a “starter list” of cross-cutting technologies that is vital to advanced 

manufacturing, the AMP Steering Committee has laid out a process for evaluating technologies 

for R&D funding.

3

Establish a National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes 

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs) should be formed as public-private partnerships to 

foster regional ecosystems in advanced manufacturing technologies. These MIIs are one vehicle 

to integrate many recommendations.

4

Empower Enhanced Industry/University Collaboration in Advanced Manufacturing Research

The treatment of tax-free bond-funded facilities at universities should be changed in order to 

enable greater and stronger interactions between universities and industry.

5

Foster a More Robust Environment for Commercialization of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies

The AMP Steering Committee recommends actions to connect manufacturers to university innovation ecosystems and create a continuum of capital access from start up to scale up.

6

Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Portal

A searchable database of manufacturing resources should be created to serve as a key mechanism 

to support access by small and medium-sized enterprises to enabling infrastructure.

18. Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih, “Restoring American Competitiveness,” Harvard Business Review 87 

(July–August 2009), hbr.org/hbr-main/resources/pdfs/comm/fmglobal/restoring-american-competitiveness.pdf. 
III. Recommendations

★ 13 ★

Pillar II: Securing Talent Pipeline

7

Correct Public Misconceptions About Manufacturing

Building excitement and interest in careers in manufacturing is a critical national need, and an 

advertising campaign should be undertaken as one important step in this direction.

8

Tap the Talent Pool of Returning Veterans

Returning veterans possess many of the key skills needed to fill the skills gap in the manufacturing talent pipeline. The AMP Steering Committee makes specific recommendations on how to 

connect these veterans with manufacturing employment opportunities.

9

Invest in Community College Level Education

The community college level of education is the “sweet spot” for impact on the skills gap in manufacturing. Investment in this sector should be increased, following the best practices of some of 

the leading innovators in this space.

10

Develop Partnerships to Provide Skills Certifications and Accreditation

Portability and modularity of the credentialing process in advanced manufacturing would allow 

coordinated action of organizations that feed the talent pipeline.

11

Enhance Advanced Manufacturing University Programs 

Universities should bring new focus to advanced manufacturing through the development of 

educational modules and courses.

12

Launch National Manufacturing Fellowships & Internships

The creation of national fellowships and internships in advanced manufacturing is recommended 

to bring needed resources but more importantly national recognition to manufacturing career 

opportunities.

Pillar III: Improving the Business Climate 

13

Enact Tax Reform

A set of specific tax reforms should be enacted that “level the playing field” for domestic 

manufacturers.

14 Streamline Regulatory Policy

A framework for smarter regulations should be created for advanced manufacturing.

15 Improve Trade Policy

Specific trade policy proposals are advanced to improve the business climate.

16 Update Energy Policy

Energy issues of importance in manufacturing must be addressed.

These three pillars are closely interrelated. No one set of recommendations stands on its own. Real 

progress will require coordinated action with respect to all three pillars. In the following sections, the 

AMP Steering Committee discusses each of the three pillars and the recommendations that comprise 

each pillar. 

Source: AMP Steering Committee
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 14 ★

Pillar I: Enabling Innovation19

Recommendation #1: Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Strategy

The research and innovation ecosystem of the Nation is highly dependent on the presence of a manufacturing base that provides constant feedback in terms of problems and challenges to be solved. 

Product innovation is most effective and efficient when coupled with intimate knowledge and control 

over the manufacturing process. Hence, the design of the product inherently involves the design of the 

manufacturing process by which the product will be made. The two are inseparable; severing them, as 

is being done increasingly often, has a very adverse effect on each because they are so interdependent.

Technology is always advancing. What was only recently on the cutting edge can quickly become a 

commodity. Thus, a major goal of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership should be to develop and 

establish a permanent mechanism to identify the next generation of advanced manufacturing technologies that will have the greatest impact on the growth and competitiveness of the United States.

Historically, the United States has had a vibrant manufacturing base and active programs in both basic 

and applied research. The distinguishing feature of U.S. research activity has been the sheer scale, 

breadth, and vitality of U.S. investments. 

Unlike the United States, other leading industrialized countries are using a more systematic planning 

process that is explicitly aligned to their national interests and strategies. There are benefits to implementing key elements of a structured planning process. We recognize, however, that U.S. strengths lie 

in flexibility and ingenuity, along with assets such as research universities and private and national labs. 

In cases where the risk to develop a novel, breakthrough technology is too great to be borne by one 

entity alone, public-private partnerships can accelerate the transformation of ideas to marketable goods 

while de-risking the investment during development. By leveraging underlying strengths that enable 

U.S. manufacturing enterprises to be responsive to changes in the global market, and combining them 

with an appropriate amount of structure, innovation in key, cross-cutting manufacturing technologies 

will be accelerated.

The Federal Government, industry, and academia must collaborate on the creation of a sustainable 

process that fosters the efficient identification and commercialization of technologies that will fuel the 

future success of manufacturing in the United States. 

To do so, we recommend that a technology lifecycle process be followed. The mechanism should have 

four distinct phases: 

19. Further details related to the recommendations within this Pillar can be found in Annexes 1, 2, and 4.
III. Recommendations

★ 15 ★

• Phase I: Create a National Advanced Manufacturing Strategic Plan & Objectives: 

− The AMP Steering Committee acknowledges and supports the recommendations recently 

published in the National Science and Technology Council’s report “A National Strategic Plan 

for Advanced Manufacturing.”20 

− Moving forward, we recommend that the Advanced Manufacturing National Program 

Office,21 coordinate the creation of a national advanced manufacturing strategy in close 

collaboration with industry and academia. During this phase, future scenarios and forecasts would be created based on the analysis of strategic national (defense, energy, health, 

security, economic) and global (market) needs, as well as forecasted macroeconomic trends. 

This analysis should be conducted every five years and include industrial, academic, and 

government leaders and should be an inclusive process inviting opinions, using collective 

intelligence and building up consensus among participants. Criteria for prioritizing goals 

should be aligned against U.S. national security needs (defense, energy, food, health, and 

economic), global market demand, U.S. readiness for commercial competitiveness, and 

global technology readiness. 

− Table 3 lays out a framework and a directional view of the nature of the analysis required. 

The relative importance (high to low) and readiness assessment (high to low) will define 

resulting implications and define the type of technology required to drive U.S. competitiveness. It will also guide what role the U.S. Government, industry and universities should play 

to advance the technology.

Phase I Output→Prioritized list of strategic needs and required technologies

• Phase II: Create Technology Roadmaps: 

With the national priorities in hand, working teams of industrial, academic, and agency experts should 

be commissioned to develop roadmaps to enable strategic planning for developing new technologies 

and transferring them into existing supply chains. The roadmaps should include guidance on key value 

and performance metrics. For mature industries this exercise should be driven by consortia composed 

of industrial, government, and academic leaders. For nascent technologies, the Federal government 

should establish working teams composed of key subject matter experts.

Phase II Output→Technology roadmaps for each of the prioritized technologies

20. National Science and Technology Council, “A National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing,” 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/iam_advancedmanufacturing_strategicplan_2012.pdf. 

21. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “National Program Office for the Advanced 

Manufacturing Partnership Established at NIST,” Press Release, December 19, 2011, 

www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/npo-121911.cfm. 
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 16 ★

• Phase III: Create and Manage Programs:

− Based on the technology roadmaps created in Phase II, the AMP Steering Committee 

recommends that multi-year programs with stable funding be established to develop 

research capacities and create an institutional hub for coordinating technology transfer to 

existing firms and the re-training of incumbent workers. Wherever possible, it is critical that 

a co-funded model be used wherein both industry and government contribute. For mature 

industries, consortia should create and manage the programs. For nascent industries and 

technologies where the government plays a larger role in driving research and infrastructure, and is therefore the primary stakeholder, programs should be managed by dedicated 

program managers from Federal agencies. Wherever possible, established programs should 

use the proposed Manufacturing Innovation Institutes to conduct research, and develop 

and maintain the talent pipeline for industry. It is critical that the more than 300,000 small 

and medium-sized enterprises and members of the extended value chain are also involved 

and gain the required access to research infrastructure. Due to programs being funded by 

a variety of stakeholders, policies must clearly define intellectual property access rights for 

industry participants. 

− We recommend a competitive selection process be used for disbursing project funding 

based on clearly established metrics for proposal evaluation and awards. Specifically, the 

NIST gate-oriented approach is recommended and should include such key metrics as 

novelty of approach, impact on tradability/differentiation, business case, and return on 

investment from commercialization of the technology. 

Phase III Output→Technology programs established and executed

• Phase IV: Review Progress and Correct Course: 

− Key stakeholders, agency representatives, and experts from academia and industry should 

conduct periodic reviews of programs to identify key successes and course correction needs. 

Standing program review teams should provide real-time technical assistance and ongoing 

and iterative advice as the program ramps up. While program funding must be stable, we 

recommend that allocations within the portfolio be subjected to review and adjustment 

based on rigorous, metric-based analysis—such as measure of commercialization rates, 

number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) served, reductions in the amount and 

types of energy used, or education and retraining successes. The implications of changing 

macroeconomic conditions should also be considered.

Phase IV Output→Periodic review of program portfolio by key stakeholders

Table 3 provides a framework for setting priorities for advanced manufacturing investments.
III. Recommendations

★ 17 ★

Table 3. Framework for Priorities for Federal Investments in 

Advanced Manufacturing Technologies

US

National 

Needs

Global 

Market 

Demand

US 

Manufacturing 

Competitiveness

Global 

Technology 

Readiness

Implication

Technology 

Required to Drive 

US Manufacturing 

Competitiveness

Role of 

US Government

Role of 

Industry

Role of 

University

High High High High

Mature field. 

US strong global 

exporter.

Applied research & 

development to 

maintain leadership.

Strategic demand 

requires capability.

Leads research & 

production 

investment.

Conduct 

applied research.

High High High Low

US positioned for 

strong global 

leadership. Technology 

not available.

Basic to 

applied research.

Strategic demand 

requires capability.

Defines road maps, 

develops technologies 

and establishes 

manufacturing 

capabilities & facilities.

Conduct 

basic research.

High High Low High US lags. 

Net importer.

Big investment 

required to dose gap.

Strategic demand 

drives establishing US 

manufacturing base.

Establish globally 

competitive 

manufacturing 

capabilities & facilities.

Breakthrough 

technology.

High High Low Low

New field. High export 

potential. No global 

leader. New technology & 

infrastructure required.

Basic 

research.

Strategic demand 

drives research & 

infrastructure build.

Partner with universities 

& national labs to 

conduct basic & applied 

R&D & establish 

required infrastructure.

Conduct 

basic research.

High Low High High

US specific need. 

Technology mature. 

Government road map 

drives infrastructure 

investment.

Infrastructure 

investment.

Strategic demand 

requires capability 

& drives future

 infrastructure

investment.

Establish 

infrastructure to meet 

national demand.

Breakthrough 

technology.

High Low High Low

US specific demand. 

Government road map 

drives research and

 infrastructure 

investment.

Basic to 

applied research.

Strategic demand 

sets requirements.

Establish 

infrastructure to meet 

national demand.

Conduct 

basic research.

High Low Low High

US needs; 

others produce. 

Low global demand. 

US vulnerable.

Big investment 

required to close gap.

Strategic demand 

drives infrastructure 

build & incentives.

Only establish 

capability if 

government funds.

Breakthrough 

technology.

High Low Low Low

US needs; 

no one produces; 

invention required.

Basic research. Strategic demand 

drives research.

Establish 

infrastructure to 

demonstrate 

technology & meet 

national demand.

Breakthrough 

technology.

Low High High High

US leads; strong 

exporter. Industry 

drives research based 

on global demand.

Applied 

research.

Incentivize 

exports.

Industry leads 

research & invests 

in production.

Breakthrough 

technology.

Low High High Low

US leads; 

strong exporter. 

Industry consortium 

leads future road 

mapping.

Basic to 

applied research.

Incentivize 

exports.

Industry defines 

road maps, develops 

technologies and 

establishes 

infrastructure.

Conduct industry

 funded basic 

& applied research.

Low High Low High US not global leader. 

Commoditized market.

Big investment 

required to close gap.

Unless US vulnerable, 

no action required.

Only invest if 

breakthrough enables 

global competitiveness.

Breakthrough 

technology.

Low High Low Low

New field. High export 

potential. No global 

leader. New technology & 

infrastructure required.

Basic 

research.

Incentivize 

exporters.

Drives research & 

infrastructure 

investment. Partners 

with universities to 

conduct basic research.

Conduct industry 

funded basic research.

Low Low XXX XXX No demand. Don't do it.

Source: AMP Steering Committee
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 18 ★

Recommendation #2: Increase R&D Funding in Top Cross-Cutting Technologies 

Eleven cross-cutting technology areas were selected as the initial list on which the Advanced 

Manufacturing National Program Office should focus its attention. While time did not permit the development of detailed technology roadmaps for each of these technologies, they consistently emerged 

as the top candidates for further consideration through consultations with key stakeholder groups, 

including the AMP Steering Committee itself, AMP Steering Committee Regional Meeting participants, 

and members of MAPI, the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) and the Association of 

Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). (See Annex 1.)

These technologies address key national needs such as defense, energy independence and efficiency, 

food security, homeland security, and health care. They are pivotal in enabling U.S. manufacturing 

competitiveness, both in terms of differentiation and tradability of goods. Universities, national labs, 

intermediate technology institutes, independent research institutions, and community colleges will 

need to work together with industry to support research, development, and deployment of these 

manufacturing technologies, and to develop the talent pipeline for industry.

• Advancing Sensing, Measurement, and Process Control

• Advanced Materials Design, Synthesis, and Processing 

• Visualization, Informatics, and Digital Manufacturing Technologies

• Sustainable Manufacturing 

• Nanomanufacturing 

• Flexible Electronics Manufacturing

• Biomanufacturing and Bioinformatics

• Additive Manufacturing

• Advanced Manufacturing and Testing Equipment

• Industrial Robotics

• Advanced Forming and Joining Technologies

Specific interests are as follows:

• Advanced Sensing, Measurement, and Process Control (including Cyber-Physical Systems):

This set of technologies has applicability across almost all industry domains. These technologies 

are critical for enhancing tradability by way of end-to-end supply chain efficiency (e.g., low cost 

and pervasive sensors in plants and logistics systems, automatic control and coordination of 

systems-of-systems). In addition, megatrends of energy and resource efficiency, better safety, 

and higher quality also depend highly on advances in sensing and automatic process control. 

Finally, emerging technologies such as nanomanufacturing and biomanufacturing need specialized sensors and control models.

• Advanced Materials Design, Synthesis, and Processing: These technologies include the 

design and synthesis of small molecules, nanomaterials, formulated solutions, coatings, com­
III. Recommendations

★ 19 ★

posites, and integrated components (e.g., photovoltaic devices). They entail integration of 

computational modeling, state-of-the-art synthesis tools (e.g., high throughput), and advanced 

research analytics (e.g., materials genome). Almost all the megatrends for the future—energy 

efficiency or alternate energy devices, new materials to counter resource shortages, next-generation consumer devices, and new paradigms in chemical safety and security—depend heavily 

on advanced materials. Advanced materials will fuel emerging multi-billion dollar industries.

• Visualization, Informatics, and Digital Manufacturing Technologies: This area entails 

research focused on embedded sensing, measurement and control systems for highly corrosive, 

high temperature processes impacting everything from chemical synthesis to lightweight 

materials to aircraft engines. It also includes control systems enabling manufacturing of high 

performance, highly-controlled structures and devices. Finally, it entails modeling, simulation 

and visualization technologies that can optimize a product and its manufacturing in virtual 

space before actual physical production is started (therefore bypassing time-consuming and 

expensive physical testing and experimentation). The data generated can also potentially support conclusions regarding product warranties and product reliability. 

Examples of these technologies include integrated enterprise level smart manufacturing methodologies, e.g., moving directly from computational /digital design to chemical and materials 

planning, purchasing, and delivery to manufacturing of customized products and components. 

One aspect deals largely with manufacturing competitiveness through end-to-end supply chain 

efficiency—reduced manufacturing cycle time, lower worker injury and illness rates, higher 

process yields, higher energy efficiency, etc.—brought about by more networked information, 

and the control and management of information across various entities in the value chain 

spanning multiple enterprises. The other aspect deals with the speed with which products are 

designed, manufactured, and brought to market, which will be a key differentiator. 

• Sustainable Manufacturing: This approach aims to maximize every atom of matter and joule 

of energy. As a key national need, sustainable manufacturing involves technologies and systems 

that enable optimal raw material, energy, and resource utilization, including areas as diverse 

as high performance catalysis, novel separations, and new reactor and waste management 

systems. A major area of focus will be energy efficient manufacturing— where high energyconsuming manufacturing processes need to be substituted by lower energy-consuming 

alternatives. Areas such as re-manufacturing (i.e., using recycled components) also need to 

be researched. In addition to savings in energy consumption and higher profitability, many 

accompanying benefits can aid the competitiveness of industry. 

• Nanomanufacturing: Nanomaterials are forecasted to play a game-changing role in applications ranging from high-efficiency solar cells and batteries, environmental control through 

nanotech-based filters, and nano-biosystem-based medical applications to next-generation 

electronics and computing devices. Similarly, microstructures on devices will play a key role 

in delivering new features or enhancing current functionality. The possibilities are limitless, 

but processes and quality control systems must be developed to reach the full potential of 

nanomanufacturing. The challenge will be to scale up and reduce costs. 
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 20 ★

• Flexible Electronics Manufacturing: Technologies for flexible electronics manufacturing will be 

major differentiators in the next generation of consumer and computing devices. Some of these 

devices are expected to be among the fastest growing product categories over the next decade. 

• Biomanufacturing and Bioinformatics: Technologies to improve healthcare will require newer, 

more effective, and cheaper molecules. Food security is a key concern of the future, where 

biomanufacturing, proteomics, and genomics will play a critical role. In addition, this technology has the inherent potential to enable energy efficiency in manufacturing. For instance, it 

offers room-temperature synthesis routes that can possibly replace current high-temperature 

processes. Innovations in the bio–nano interface such as bio-inspired manufacturing using 

self-assembly have the potential to simplify and scale up many complex and expensive nanomanufacturing technologies and make them economically viable. 

• Additive Manufacturing: A growing application of manufacturing is the production of highly 

customized and personalized products. Additive manufacturing (e.g., three-dimensional printing) is a key technology that holds this promise. In addition, the technology has several characteristics that enable unique capabilities and features. For example, multiple materials can be 

processed, enabling smart components to be fabricated with embedded sensors and circuitry. 

Internal features can be produced that significantly enhance performance and therefore differentiate products (e.g., internal cooling channels that are optimized for thermal performance 

that are not possible with current manufacturing techniques). Also, materials can be processed 

efficiently with little waste, enhancing the sustainability of organizations that adopt additive 

manufacturing technologies.

• Advanced Manufacturing and Testing Equipment: Advanced manufacturing takes place 

worldwide. In those cases where it occurs outside of the United States, it is still possible for U.S. 

firms to maintain a significant advantage through the production and supply of high-value 

manufacturing equipment, such as bioreactors, CNC machine tools, or other high-technology 

production tools. Being the supplier of choice of advanced capital equipment will continue to 

yield advantages in terms of innovation and advanced engineering, as well as economic benefits.

• Industrial Robotics: Automation and use of industrial robots in labor-intensive manufacturing operations, such as assembly, product inspection, and testing can enable high endurance, 

speed, and precision. Equally important is their use in processing high temperature, corrosive 

and toxic substances, and materials. This technology has great potential to enhance safety 

and productivity of the U.S. workforce and enable the United States to compete with low-cost 

economies, both for domestic and export markets. Future needs in this area are being driven 

by the intersection of bio-nanotechnologies and their associated manufacturing needs.

• Advanced Forming and Joining Technologies: Most current mechanical manufacturing 

processes continue to depend largely on traditional technologies, mainly for metals, such as 

casting, forging, machining, and welding. These technologies will continue to be mainstays of 

future production processes. However, there are new and expanding needs for joining a wider 

variety of materials with greater energy and resource efficiency. In addition, improved performance requires continued innovation and the search for transformative technologies that will 

help maintain U.S. competitiveness in industries ranging from transportation to infrastructure.
III. Recommendations

★ 21 ★

Recommendation #3: Establish a National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes 

The United States has a long history and solid reputation for being a global leader in research and 

discovery. This achievement has been enabled by our preeminent research universities and national 

laboratories. Many of our research discoveries, however, have not been quickly translated into U.S.manufactured products. Many technologies fail to move to commercialization because the private 

sector, particularly SMEs, often does not have adequate technical resources and is not able to make 

sufficient investments in early technologies. In fact, the stage between research and production is a 

perilous period in business development and is often called “the valley of death.” 

In part, the valley of death is attributable to the significant differences in the way activities in research 

and in manufacturing are conducted. Basic research and new discoveries tend to be curiosity driven, 

with the end goal often being validation of an idea. Conversely, manufacturing activities are competitive, focused, and systematic, driving system engineering to design, develop, and scale replicable high 

yield, high quality, low cost products and processes. Figure 3 depicts the gap in investment between 

technology readiness level (TRL) 4, the technology development phase, and TRL 6, the technology 

demonstration phase.

Figure 3. Manufacturing Innovation: Investment Gap

Gap in Manufacturing Innovation

Research 

to Prove

Feasibility

Basic 

Technology

Research

Technology

Development

Technology 

Demonstration

System/

Subsystem

Development

System Test,

Launch &

Operations

Technology Readiness Level

Government & Private Sector

Universities GAP

Investment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extensive benchmarking (see Annex 2) identified several desirable attributes of a shared national infrastructure for supporting the translational activities for bridging fundamental research to manufacturing: 

• Long-term partnership between industry and universities, enabled by Federal, State, and local 

governments;

• Sustained focus on technology innovation with a strong brand identity and reputation; 

Source: AMP Steering Committee
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 22 ★

• Ability to identify critical emerging technologies with transformational impact and capacity in 

translating these technologies into products and businesses for the market;

• Ability to form effective teams of industrial and academic experts from multiple disciplines to 

solve difficult problems from pre-competitive research to proprietary technology or product 

development; 

• Dual appointments of faculty and students in both research universities and applicationoriented institutions to develop leaders familiar with research applications, new technologies, 

and production systems; 

• Ability to engage and assist SMEs that need new technologies by providing highly trained 

personnel to work in multiple regional innovation centers; and

• Ability to assist community colleges to develop and offer courses in various manufacturing 

technologies.

To enable the United States to successfully translate discoveries into products or applications in manufacturing, we recommend the establishment of a national network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes 

(MIIs) to bridge the gap between basic research performed in universities and national laboratories, 

and our production enterprises, particularly SMEs. These Institutes would serve as anchors for technology development, education, and workforce training as illustrated in Figure 4. In effect, the MIIs would 

function as embedded nodes within a distributed network of research institutes concurrently anchoring 

both a national and a regional innovation system. 

MIIs should support priority areas in cross-cutting manufacturing technology, focusing initially on those 

recommended above, and subsequently on priority new technologies as they arise. Future areas of 

support would be expanded to include areas of emerging technologies that have the greatest potential 

for commercialization into new products, and adoption to create faster, cleaner, and better production 

processes. These areas are to be identified using the proposed model and roadmap process for prioritizing investment in advanced manufacturing technology. An open, competitive process with peer review 

should be used to establish the MIIs.

Each Manufacturing Innovation Institute should:

• Focus on an area of U.S. national economic strength or a promising emerging technology. 

• Be hosted by an industry consortium (two or more members) and a university or national lab. 

New or existing partnerships can apply for government matching funds to create an MII with 

the membership of two or more large companies, the participation of related SMEs, and at 

least one major research university, with active participation by other regional universities and 

community colleges.
III. Recommendations

★ 23 ★

Figure 4. Manufacturing Innovation Institute Model

Faculty, Students

& Graduates

Funding for High

Priority Research

& Development

Technologies,

Algorithms

Faculty, Students

& Graduates

National Network

of MIIs

High Tech

Start-up

Companies

Large

Manufacturing

Companies

Community

College Mfg.

Programs

Small and Medium Sized Manufacturers

Manufacturing

Innovation Institute

Applied Research

Technology Development

Prototype

Labs/Shops

Mfg. Software

Development

Education and Workforce

Development

Universities &

National Labs

Multiple Manufacturing

Support Centers

Technology Needs Assessment

Technology Workshops

Mfg. Technology Services

• Be governed by a Board of Directors composed of representatives from business, academic, 

and government organizations supporting the MII.

• Operate independently with contractual flexibility, with the provision that all MIIs will be members of the national network and will follow a similar governance model defined by a national 

governing board.

• Be staffed with full-time applied researchers, engineers, and innovation enablers who support 

the process of technology commercialization, industrial scientists and engineers in residence, 

part time faculty, post-doctoral researchers, and student interns. 

• Serve as hands-on “training centers” for university and community college manufacturing 

programs. 

Source: AMP Steering Committee
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 24 ★

• Conduct projects that include pre-competitive research and proprietary technology and 

product research, with a strong intellectual property (IP) protocol that favors manufacturers.

• Receive support via a mixed funding model from industry, academia, and government, with 

government (State or Federal) funding guaranteed for a minimum of 5 years with the potential 

of renewal for a total of 10 years. 

• Receive an industrial 1:1 match to government funding for each MII.

• Establish distributed manufacturing support centers throughout the region to assist SMEs that 

want to adopt new technologies.

• Provide assistance to community colleges wishing to develop and strengthen advanced manufacturing programs.

• Provide grants to other universities and businesses that are developing complementary and 

enabling technologies.

• Provide a shared infrastructure for technology development and serve as a “collaboratory” for 

research universities and businesses by providing existing and startup businesses with greater 

access to research, students, internships, workforce development, technology transfer, and 

commercialization. 

• Provide a variety of business services such as design, digital manufacturing, prototype and test 

services, and staff training. 

Recommendation #4: Empower Enhanced Industry/University Collaboration in Advanced 

Manufacturing Research

Achieving the full potential for the development of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes also requires 

a U.S. commitment to reinvigorate the environment for industry and university research collaboration. 

Robust research partnerships between industries and universities are a historical strength of the United 

States. The imperatives created by increased global competition in emerging technologies, the demands 

for new models of interdisciplinary research, and the shorter time horizons between fundamental 

discovery and applied research necessitate an examination of opportunities to enhance the climate for 

robust industry/university collaboration in research and commercialization. 

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee has identified a critical need to deepen 

industry and university collaboration and invest more resources at the nation’s leading universities. 

The evolving nature of global competition creates imperatives for more rapid project and agreement 

development, and at times, greater focus on exclusive rights and licensing arrangements. 

To remove policy barriers to more robust partnership development, we recommend the United States 

take action to end the restrictive tax policies that impede the speedy development of industry/university 

research collaborations and partnerships. Specifically, we recommend establishing a waiver mechanism 

or exception to Revenue Procedure 2007-47 to remove the cap on private-use activities in buildings 

constructed with tax-exempt bonds. 
III. Recommendations

★ 25 ★

Recommendation #5: Foster a More Robust Environment for Commercialization of Advanced 

Manufacturing Technologies

There is a critical need to more fully integrate manufacturers into the robust innovation ecosystems that 

have evolved in universities over the last several decades. 

These ecosystems commonly feature seed funds, mentoring, incubation, and entrepreneurship training programs. While we recommend fostering stronger integration between manufacturers and university innovation 

ecosystems, we also realize that fundamental barriers 

impede SMEs from engaging with university research 

and that access to capital for new technologies is limited. 

A starting point to address this challenge is to create stronger synergy and a true continuum between 

programs to aid start-ups and those that are capable of supporting the scale-up of emerging manufacturing technologies through innovative, targeted procurement initiatives.

Next steps could include:

• Building a manufacturing component into university innovation ecosystems

− Incorporate manufacturing impact measures into the annual performance reports issued 

by the Association of University Technology Managers that reflect domestic production and 

employment captured from both start-ups and licensing activity. Including these measures 

would place manufacturing front and center in university technology transfer strategy 

development and stimulate a vibrant exchange on best practices. The annual measures 

would encourage a greater focus on manufacturing in regional economic development 

partnerships and among universities and manufacturers in the development of sponsored 

research partnerships.

− Build stronger linkages between manufacturing support resources and university efforts to 

support start-ups by expanding the work of the nation’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP) centers to create direct supply chain development, prototyping, and early stage engineering services for advanced manufacturing spin outs. This action will place the MEP’s and 

manufacturing considerations at the heart of university spin out support activities. 

• Foster a continuum of enhanced capital access 

from start up to scale up 

− Create a special “Phase 0” section of the Small 

Business Administration’s Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) program. This 

program would provide support for the critical pre-early stage funding activities associated with testing the commercial potential 

of new technologies—including early prototype development and market development.

“Since January 2006, less than 10% of 

all U.S. venture capital dollars went to 

seed funds investing in financing rounds 

in the $1-4 million dollar range, and 

69% of those dollars went to three states.”

—Small Business Administration, 

Early Stage Innovation Small Business 

Investment Company (SBIC) Initiative, 

March 2012

"The Small Business Investment Company 

invested $2.5 billion in FY2011 in high 

growth small businesses. According to 

the program statistics, about one in five 

dollars between 2007 and 2010 directly 

supported manufacturers."

—Small Business Administration,

 Agency Financial Report, 

FY2011 and Program Statistics
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 26 ★

− Expand the resources available for early stage growth and accelerate startup interaction with 

major manufacturers. Mechanisms such as the NSF-created 501(c)3 Innovation Accelerator 

should be expanded nationwide to support startups emerging from Federal advanced 

manufacturing research programs. 

− Clear the pathway from startup to pilot scale production by generating greater interagency 

coordination of procurement programs such as Defense Production Act Title III funding. 

The Title III program is intended to provide the Department of Defense with “a powerful 

tool to ensure the timely creation and availability of domestic production capabilities for 

technologies that have the potential for wide-ranging impact on the operational capabilities and technological superiority of U.S. defense systems.” We recommend the creation 

of a formal collaboration between the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office 

and Department of Defense Title III program, as well as other relevant Federal procurement 

programs, to establish a focused effort that can help complete a continuum of capital support from pre-company formation through to early phase pilot and scale up production.

Recommendation #6: Establish a National Advanced Manufacturing Portal

SMEs in the manufacturing sector are a critical component of the U.S. economy, representing 84 percent 

of manufacturing establishments in 200922 and employing 51 percent of the U.S. manufacturing workforce in 2010.23 Their growth is inextricably linked to our continued prosperity, and they are an important 

source of innovation. A key driver of that growth is information—specifically, technical assistance and 

resources. Our work revealed that SMEs are hampered by the lack of access to this technical assistance 

and information. It is scattered across numerous databases and individual websites, requiring timeconsuming research to access. 

Firms as well as experts reported that conventional web searches for such information did not produce 

useful results. This problem is in part due to the vast variation and complexity of the research and innovation conducted in cooperative research centers. Simply put, finding practical answers to basic questions 

common to advanced manufacturing is onerous for small firms with limited time and R&D staff.

To address this issue, we propose the creation and launch of a National Advanced Manufacturing Portal: 

a single online destination where companies, organizations and individuals can search for federally 

funded cooperative research centers that best meet their needs. With this harmonized central repository of information from various sources, firms can develop short and long-term R&D plans. A National 

Advanced Manufacturing Portal would advance the goal of pushing innovation down the supply-chain 

by providing businesses with the ability to plan their process innovations as well as the design and 

development of new products. It would connect SMEs to the existing network of publicly-funded R&D 

resources that are intended—by legislative intent and design—as access points for them to gain technical assistance and information about advanced manufacturing processes. 

A National Advanced Manufacturing Portal would provide an updated, harmonized catalog of information about the portfolios of the cooperative research centers and the most frequent kinds of technical 

assistance and resources requested by SMEs. It would also allow state and local science and technology 

22. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2009, www.census.gov/econ/susb/.

23. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, 2010, 

bls.gov/ces/cessizeclass.htm#TB_inline?height=200&width=325&inlineId=ces_program_links. (STPI Calculations)
III. Recommendations

★ 27 ★

policymakers to ascertain existing federally funded resources so they could be leveraged. In addition, 

it would allow researchers to determine the relative coverage of science and technology resources in a 

given area or targeted technology. This knowledge could lead to more efficient science and technology 

policy investment and coordination.

The up-front resource requirements to launch a National Advanced Manufacturing Portal are relatively 

small, since cooperative research centers could provide and update the information on their own 

facilities through a web reporting interface using a standard format. This reporting would produce the 

content portion of the portal. The online information clearinghouse itself would need to be hosted and 

maintained long-term by the appropriate Federal agency.

We propose that the initial implementation of the portal should be limited to peer-reviewed facilities 

such as grant recipients of public funding to ensure the quality of facilities listed.

The portal would also provide answers to frequent questions such as the availability of training, fees 

for access, presence of scale-up facilities on site, and whether production runs could be conducted. It 

would include a search by keyword feature.

The portal would be launched using the mailing lists of existing programs. For example, the NIST 

Manufacturing Extension Partnerships have more than 7,000 client firms.24 We recommend that NIST 

serve as the administrative host agency to coordinate with portal initiatives in the Department of Energy, 

Department of Defense, and Federal Government agencies focused on aspects of the pre-production 

process. The database would be linked to websites such as Manufacturing.gov and non-profit and public 

web portal networking initiatives such as Autoharvest.com.

Pillar II: Securing the Talent Pipeline25

To renew and revitalize its manufacturing prowess and competitive edge, the United States must 

continue to generate a steady stream of skilled manufacturing professionals. However, in recent years, 

persistent public misperceptions about the manufacturing sector have taken hold, tarnishing its image 

as a desirable long-term career focus. The false conventional wisdom about the manufacturing sector is 

that the work is based on repetition of tasks and evocative of the past. The main misperceptions about 

employment in manufacturing can be summarized by the three “D’s” that characterize the work as dull, 

dirty, and dangerous. In addition, with the loss and export of millions of manufacturing jobs over the 

past few decades, a career in manufacturing is seen as offering little, if any, job security, and no longterm career development path.

The reality is that manufacturing can be exciting, engaging, essential and environmentally sustainable, 

offering a pathway to upward mobility and the realization of the “American Dream.”

A recent report from Booz & Company noted that a “contributing factor to this employee scarcity is traditional manufacturing’s lack of appeal to students.” The company surveyed more than 200 undergraduate 

students in engineering, science, and mathematics, and found that only 50 percent of the engineering 

students and 20 percent of the math and science students regarded manufacturing as an attractive 

24. NIST, “Re-examining the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Business Model,” October 2010: 7, 

www.nist.gov/mep/upload/MEP_Bus_Model_Full_Report_October2010_a.pdf. 

25. Further details related to the recommendations within this Pillar can be found in Annex 3.
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 28 ★

career. The report also observed that “[a]round the same time, Siemens reported having nearly 3,500 open 

manufacturing positions” in the United States requiring STEM skills, but “with low expectations of filling 

many of them.”26

As fewer students select careers in manufacturing, the demand for manufacturing-related programs across 

all sectors of the educational system is sharply reduced. These institutions, K-12 through universities, respond 

by de-emphasizing manufacturing-related curricula and courses in classical engineering and engineering 

technology programs such as two and four year mechanical and manufacturing engineering programs.

Perhaps the worst misperception of all among young people is that “America is not committed to remaining 

a manufacturing powerhouse in the world and that all manufacturing will eventually be done outside our 

borders.”27 This perception must be reversed. For the United States to remain competitive, talented employees with a high level of technical skill are needed to revitalize, sustain, and improve U.S. manufacturing. 

Employment opportunities for skilled operators and technicians are increasing at a rate exceeding the 

availability of qualified candidates, impeding industrial growth. These innovative professionals are essential 

to a corporation’s long-term competitiveness. In a recent survey conducted by the Manufacturing Institute 

and Deloitte, manufacturing was nationally viewed as core to our economic prosperity and preferred as 

an industry for creating local employment (Figure 5). Respondents ranked new manufacturing facilities 

first when asked what type of new industry facility they would support to create 1000 new jobs (Table 4).28

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents who believe the manufacturing industry is very 

important to U.S. economic prosperity, standard of living, or national security

26. Arvind Kaushal, Thomas Mayor, and Patricia Riedl, “Manufacturing’s Wake-Up Call,” Strategy & Business 64, Booz 

& Company and Tauber Institute for Global Operations, University of Michigan (August 3, 2011): 38, 

www.tauber.umich.edu/docs/Manuf-WakeUp_w_Cover.pdf. 

27. Joe Anderson, Council Chairman, and Mike Laszkiewicz, Workforce Development Subcommittee Chair to 

Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, “The Manufacturing Council,” July 2011, 

www.trade.gov/manufacturingcouncil/documents/MC_Workforce_08222011.pdf. 

28. Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, “Unwavering Commitment: The Public’s View of the Manufacturing 

Industry Today,” 2011 Annual Index, 

www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/2AB778520C734D888156A90B667C1E70.ashx. 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

86%

85%

77%

Economic prosperity

Standard of living

National security

Source: Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, “Unwavering Commitment: 

The Public’s View of the Manufacturing Industry Today,” 2011 Annual Index, 

themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/2AB778520C734D888156A90B667C1E70.ashx.
III. Recommendations

★ 29 ★

Table 4. Ranking by respondents of the type of new industry facility 

they would support to create 1,000 new jobs in their communities

Facility Rank

Manufacturing facility 1

Energy production facility 2

Healthcare facility 3

Technology development center 4

Communications hub 5

Retail center 6

Financial institution 7

Another survey of manufacturers by the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte on available skills to support manufacturing growth revealed that 82 percent of manufacturers reported moderate-to-serious 

gaps in the availability of skilled manufacturing candidates.29 Fifty six percent anticipated the shortage 

to grow worse in the next three to five years.30 Additionally, 74 percent of manufacturers reported that 

this skills gap has negatively impacted their company’s ability to expand operations. This skills gap has 

resulted in five percent of all manufacturing jobs going unfilled, even in the face of our current unemployment levels.31 To close this gap, the focus needs to be on securing and developing a strong pipeline 

of prepared manufacturing candidates as a key enabler to advancing manufacturing in the United States. 

The Nation needs to rely upon successful public-private partnerships if it is to effect lasting improvements in its approach to education and talent development. The AMP Steering Committee looks both 

to the Nation’s classrooms and its veterans to find the game-changing concepts that will secure the 

manufacturing talent pipeline going forward. 

Challenges facing the manufacturing industry cannot be successfully addressed by individual companies, academia, or Federal agencies alone. Instead, the opportunities must be examined through 

partnerships to identify and use the best solutions. Partnerships are a strong platform from which to 

address the quickly changing needs of manufacturers in the United States. Identifying and responding 

to technological innovation can be expensive and time-consuming, but these hurdles are best overcome 

through partnerships of similarly motivated groups. Developing a highly skilled professional manufacturing workforce is as critically important to the 21st Century manufacturing sector as any other single 

element. We studied examples of successful partnerships to identify and review best practices and 

29. Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, “Boiling Point? The Skills Gap in U.S. Manufacturing,” 6, 

www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/A07730B2A798437D98501E798C2E13AA.ashx.

30. Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, “Unwavering Commitment: The Public’s View of the Manufacturing 

Industry Today,” 2011 Annual Index, 

www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/2AB778520C734D888156A90B667C1E70.ashx.

31. Ibid.

Source: Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, “Unwavering Commitment: 

The Public’s View of the Manufacturing Industry Today,” 2011 Annual Index, 

themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/2AB778520C734D888156A90B667C1E70.ashx.
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 30 ★

attributes. While no two partnerships are alike, even 

in the same region with similar partners, successful 

workforce partnerships of academia, industry, and 

government share the following six characteristics. 

See Annex 3 for a full list of the resources and exemplary partnerships that formed the foundation for 

identification of these characteristics. 

• Have a Passion for Learning and a Vision 

for the Future: Successful manufacturing 

partnerships have at their roots a shared passion for life-long learning. They have a vision 

of success and commitment to being globally competitive. Benchmarking, research, 

and exploring are essential ingredients of 

the most advanced partnerships. There is a 

balance between incumbent worker training 

and new worker training for young people 

coming into the workforce from the K-12 and 

community and technical school systems.

• Embrace Change: The future of manufacturing will be radically different from its past. 

The status quo curricula, teaching methods, 

and silos must be replaced with a collaborative, innovative, life-long learning culture. A 

nation rich with human capital simply cannot tolerate the loss of its competitive edge 

and international standing in the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) disciplines. 

• Convene Organizations to Share Their 

Expertise: In order to facilitate and drive 

change, each region or community will need 

a respected organization capable of convening the necessary parties. The most effective convening organizations are neutral 

non-profits, knowledgeable about, but not 

responsive to, political or other influences. 

Professional organizations and academic 

institutions are well positioned to act as convening organizations. The Manufacturing 

Innovation Institutes could serve this critical 

Project SHINE (Shaping High-quality 

Integrated Nebraska Education)

Created in 2009, Project SHINE’s goal is to 

increase student interest and participation in 

high demand technical careers. Project SHINE 

integrates Nebraska’s manufacturing, energy, 

biofuels and food processing businesses with 

secondary and college STEM educators and 

their students. 

Project SHINE’s approach to engaging education and business professionals in teaching 

and learning is by exposing educators and 

students to “real-world” business environments, and build partnerships between 

education and business. Each group benefits 

through opportunities to participate: 

•	 Educators participate in externships with 

business partners through curriculum 

development workshops that focus on 

problem-based learning. 

•	 Students explore careers through the 

Nebraska Career Connections and summer camp activities that focus on how 

math and science are used for business 

applications.

•	 Industry partners benefit through the 

growth of potential pipeline of local 

skilled technicians for their business.

Since 2009, 72 STEM educators and almost 

5,000 Nebraska middle and high school 

students have participated in the National 

Science Foundation-funded Project SHINE. 

An additional 200 students participated in 

the SHINE STEM summer camps. Project 

SHINE’s impact will reach even further as 

nearly 200 Project Based Learning (PBL) 

resources developed through the project are 

disseminated through an online e-library.

Source: Project SHINE Webpage,

mechatronics-mec.org.
III. Recommendations

★ 31 ★

convening function and link education and training efforts to firm networks already engaged 

in the R&D services provided by these institutes. By using the MIIs as convening spaces for both 

technology development and workforce development programming, there is an institutional 

recognition of the synergy between building a regional labor market and sustaining innovation 

capacity.

• Collaborate with a Common Purpose: To be effective, manufacturing partnerships must be 

based on mutual respect and a spirit of cooperation, a candid recognition of strengths and weaknesses, and shared goals reached in the spirit of collaboration and consensus. The academic 

community offers the expertise to teach students, but learning must be developed and applied 

by collaborating with industry, which in turn, needs a steady stream of STEM talent, and must 

become vastly more engaged in K-20 education and community activities. Community colleges 

should deliver the curricula associated with the technical training of both new and incumbent 

workers. The implementation would involve industry and technology experts recommending 

industry-specific skills in order for these curricula to stay current. 

• Have Clear, Specific Roles: In order to align partners towards a common goal, the partners 

should negotiate and agree first upon the goal, then upon the resources and roles that each of 

the stakeholders will bring to the partnership. 

• Maintain Flexibility: Manufacturing technology is developing as rapidly as information technology. To adapt to this increasing pace of change, all parties must be ready and willing to adapt 

and act quickly. This adaptation will require flexibility and collaboration among all parties, and 

the coordinated use of existing training and educational facilities to prevent wasted time and 

redundancy.

Effective manufacturing partnerships build a sustainable culture of dynamic change so that acceleration 

in manufacturing technology is injected back into education and training. Change introduced through 

partnerships is most effective when it meets the fundamental needs of people and society and is presented consistently and clearly. Project-based learning provided in partnership with manufacturing 

ensures that the subject matter is relevant and applicable to developments outside the classroom. The 

U.S. Government’s role is most effective when it funds impactful academic programs; defunds ineffective programs; sets the boundaries to ensure fair opportunity to all; and fills the gaps that industry and 

academia are unable to fill.

As education provides a foundation for the future, there is a need to modify traditional teaching methods used to train the manufacturing workforce at all levels. Success in advanced manufacturing and 

entrepreneurship will require fundamental STEM skills as well as broad problem-solving skills, decisionmaking skills, and people skills that do not emerge from a conventional K-20 education. It is necessary 

to pursue initiatives that can expand the manufacturing workforce in the near-term, such as support 

for veterans programs and community colleges, which can expand the future pipeline.

The benefits of manufacturers participating in academia at all levels are many for the students who 

choose careers in manufacturing. Effective manufacturing partners engage K-12, community colleges, 

undergraduate and graduate students and professors through internships, apprenticeships, projects, 
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 32 ★

research, co-ops, endowments, scholarships, and hiring. These offer opportunities for academics and 

students alike to stay current in the field of manufacturing and contribute to research and discovery.

Academia should bring manufacturing directly into the classroom, providing real world projects and 

research opportunities that engage students and inherently provide professional development to 

teachers. Teachers across our K-20 system must be encouraged to embrace project-based learning of 

all varieties, take advantage of summer internships, and engage with manufacturing experts. In turn, 

industry simply must be an active, responsive partner in the classroom.

The AMP Steering Committee encourages the adoption of project-based learning of all kinds, and to 

varying extent based on the local needs, across the K-20 spectrum; a number of these projects should be 

selected for their relevance to manufacturing-relevant skills, such as supply-chain management, design 

for manufacturability, estimation of tolerances and requirements, economics, and team management. 

To stimulate these new initiatives, educational partnerships between industry, academia, and local and 

regional government must be established. 

Recommendation #7: Correct Public Misconceptions About Manufacturing

In order to lay the foundation for a secure, sustainable manufacturing talent pipeline, the AMP Steering 

Committee recommends the creation of an aggressive, integrated “Image of Manufacturing” public 

service announcement campaign that would raise awareness and correct misperceptions about 

manufacturing in the United States. 

Recommendation #8: Tap the Talent Pool of Returning Veterans

Veterans have many of the work-life and job skills that are in high demand and that are often missing in 

the general workforce. These include maturity, discipline, and the ability to work effectively in groups 

and leadership. In addition, many veterans have undertaken extensive technical training, resulting 

in skills that could be easily transferred to manufacturing positions, and have become technicians, 

operators of complex equipment, and craftsmen. Despite their skills, the veteran population that served 

in the military in the period since September 2001 (called Gulf War-era II veterans) is experiencing a 

higher rate of unemployment than its civilian counterpart. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found the 

unemployment rate for this cohort of veterans was 12.1 percent in 2011.32 Similarly, with the withdrawal 

of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and potential cuts to Defense Department funding, the number 

of veterans seeking employment is certain to rise in the coming years. There are two obstacles to overcome in bringing veterans to manufacturing careers: low awareness of the opportunities in the sector 

and difficulty equating military skills with private sector job qualifications. We recommend providing a 

training module on the career opportunities in advanced manufacturing to the Department of Defense’s 

Transition Assistance Program, which provides support and information to transitioning veterans about 

career options post-service. In addition, the Departments of Defense and Labor should accelerate their 

efforts to categorize military occupational codes and translate them to civilian skills, as well as providing 

the opportunity for active duty servicepersons to earn professional accreditations. 

32. Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Economic News Release: Employment Situation of Veteranc-2011, March 20, 

2012, www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.nr0.htm.
III. Recommendations

★ 33 ★

Recommendation #9: Invest in Community College Level Education

Manufacturing jobs have changed, requiring highly skilled workers. The largest gap between manufacturing employers’ needs and new employee skills exists in the occupations of technician and equipment 

operator. This gap has left many workers unqualified for available positions. Community colleges currently provide training for the missing skills, but a significant gap remains. 

Community colleges already enroll many of the people who should train for advanced manufacturing 

careers, and these institutions have partnerships, infrastructure, and teaching methods that are focused 

on regional needs. They grew after World War II to train returning GIs to join the workforce. This founding 

principle can help train and retrain today’s workforce to meet the needs of local manufacturers. Investing 

in community colleges and promoting engagement between community colleges and industry, universities, national labs, and K-12 programs are important steps. Modest changes to government-funded 

grant opportunities to encourage partnering with community colleges could create stronger regional 

partnerships with industry, universities and national laboratories. 

To advance these programs, the AMP Steering Committee recommends:

• Modification of the Department of Education’s Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

(GAANN) program to have a focused solicitation on manufacturing fellowships/scholarships at 

the university and community college level. This opportunity could be structured to encourage 

collaboration between industry, community colleges, and universities or have separate scholarship programs aimed at the different educational levels. 

• Creation of a national network of manufacturing educators by integrating educational programs 

among the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the Department 

of Labor in order to share best practices, curricula, and resources. This national network could 

build on the institutional infrastructure provided by the national network of Manufacturing 

Innovation Institutes. Industry and national manufacturing associations and societies should 

be included in the network.

• Proposal and implementation of changes to align ongoing solicitations for federally funded 

research programs to encourage partnerships with community colleges. The MIIs should serve as 

a resource for trained personnel who can assist community colleges in developing appropriate 

courses as well as providing hands-on projects and coordination of internships with regional 

manufacturing companies.

Recommendation #10: Develop Partnerships to Provide Skills Certifications and 

Accreditation

The AMP Steering Committee recommends a national focus on education and training that can produce 

workers capable of operating and troubleshooting modern factory equipment. The approximately 1,500 

community colleges located across the United States provide an opportunity to develop location-specific 

curricula to meet the needs of local manufacturers. We encourage the accreditation of programs, the 

development and standardization of community college curricula where appropriate, and the use of 

stackable professional credentials to meet the needs of manufacturing. 
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 34 ★

In order to support the development of a robust and high-skilled pipeline of manufacturing talent, 

national standards, credentials, and certifications are critical to provide manufacturing the consistent 

baseline ability to qualify candidates as to their educational, behavioral and leadership knowledge, 

manufacturing experience, and individual competencies. An efficient market for employees with necessary knowledge and skills depends on reliable and appropriate credentials and certifications. To succeed, 

any new credentials and certifications require a critical mass of national recognition, and acceptance and 

adoption by industry, education, and government. Such credentials and certifications work when they:

• Involve quality assessments, accurately gauging worker skills; 

• Include an accreditation regimen that ensures the quality of the program and alignment with 

the changing needs of industry; 

• Evolve and continuously update to accommodate the changing needs of workers and the 

manufacturing sector; and

• Result in nationally portable, industry-recognized credentials that support preferential consideration and job search mobility.

This recommendation can be implemented by leveraging existing efforts. In 2009, the Manufacturing 

Institute partnered with ACT, Manufacturing Skills Standards Council, National Institute for Metalworking 

Skills, American Welding Society, and Society of Manufacturing Engineers to build a comprehensive 

model for certifications, which can provide the core framework and partnerships. This partnership is 

called the Manufacturing Skills Certification System (MSCS), and it is in the process of adding more 

industry-recognized credentials at this time. 

Aligned with this partnership, we recommend support for a 

coalition of industry associations, professional societies, and 

educational organizations to establish a national framework of 

standards, accreditations, and certifications at each level of the 

advanced manufacturing competency model. (See Figure 6.) 

We further recommend that an accreditation-like review system 

be set up regionally for community college manufacturing programs, and that the requirements for professional credentials 

be used as a foundation for curricular development in high 

schools, community colleges, and universities. 

Any path forward must incorporate two key functions—accreditation and certification—and result 

in two key outcomes—common education and training standards—to satisfy current and emerging 

competencies, and yield portable certifications for individuals. 

National associations involved in manufacturing should initiate and coordinate a register of certifications 

that are available in all regions and can be “stacked” one after another to assemble complete programs 

of training in advanced manufacturing.

Right Skills Now is a partnership 

between government and industry 

that is building a fast-track, 

16-week training program that 

supports the workforce needs of 

manufacturers of all sizes.

-Manufacturing Institute, 

Right Skills Now
III. Recommendations

★ 35 ★

Figure 6. Department of Labor Advanced Manufacturing Competency Model

High Quality 

Middle Class Jobs

Occupation-Specic

Certications

Entry Level Industry

Certications

Ready for Work,

Ready for College

Personal Eectiveness Competencies

Interpersonal Skills Integrity Professionalism Initiative Dependability

& Reliability Lifelong Learning

Science Basic

Computer

Skills

Mathematics Reading Writing

CommunicationListening &

Speaking

Critical &

Analytic

Thinking

Information

Literacy

Academic Competencies

Workplace Competencies

Business

FundamentalsTeamwork Adaptability/

Flexibility

Marketing

& Customer

Focus

Planning &

Organizing

Problem

Solving & Decision Making

Working with Tools &

Technology

Checking,

Examining

& Recording

Sustainable

Practices

Industry-Sector Technical Competencies

Industry Wide Technical Competencies

Manufacturing

Process Design

& Development

Production

Maintenance,

Installation

& Repair

Supply Chain

Logistics

Quality Assurance/

Continuous

Improvement

Sustainable

& Green

Manufacturing

Health, Safety,

Security &

Environment

Management

Competencies

Occupation Specic

Competencies

Career Paths — Life Long Learning

Source: Advanced Manufacturing Competency Model, Adapted from Department of Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration www.careeronestop.org/competencymodel/pyramid.aspx?hg=Y.

Recommendations #11 and #12: Enhance Advanced Manufacturing University Programs, 

and Launch Manufacturing Fellowships and Internships

Major research universities in the U.S. have a key role in defining the fundamental elements of advanced 

manufacturing and developing the next generation of educators and industrial leaders. They can qualitatively advance the manufacturing profession and retool its image as a challenging and rewarding career.

Universities, however, are uncertain about where the discipline of manufacturing best fits in academia. 

It does not fit well into normal boundaries of degree programs, departments or even schools, and as a 

result often finds itself marginalized. 

The AMP Steering Committee therefore recommends augmenting existing engineering curricula with 

manufacturing coursework, and creating new graduate-level programs that provide students with a 

comprehensive overview of manufacturing as well as technological and operational perspectives in a 

professional engineering context. 

Public-private partnerships are critical to ensuring U.S. manufacturing excellence to implement this recommendation. As with community college programs, it is expected that the Manufacturing Innovation 

Institutes will play a significant role in providing course development and hands-on training, as well 

as assisting with internships in local manufacturing establishments. This recommendation requires 

implementation at multiple levels:
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 36 ★

• University level: Establish new masters-level professional degrees in manufacturing leadership 

at research universities. These degree programs should be comprehensive in their integration of 

technologies, such as robotics and advanced automation, with methods, such as supply chain 

management and human systems integration.

• Government level: Fund National Manufacturing Fellowships and Veterans Leadership in 

Manufacturing Fellowships, traineeships, and curriculum development. These initiatives could 

help to correct the misperceptions of manufacturing held by the future workforce.

• Industry level: Encourage industry participation by providing a professional career path for 

graduates of advanced manufacturing programs. By teaming with universities on both curricular 

and career development, industry can help to solidify the profession of manufacturing and make 

it a highly attractive field for study and practice. Internship programs can expose students to 

careers in manufacturing leadership. During the educational process, industry representatives 

should serve as mentors and role models to students entering and emerging from these new 

programs and provide relevant, hands-on manufacturing experiences for graduate students.

While it is impossible to separate the educational system into discrete pieces, we believe the most 

impactful recommendations are at the high school and community college levels, followed by undergraduate education. Industry has identified deficiencies in both content mastery and soft skills. These 

skills could be taught through the use of project-based learning, which has proven its unique capacity 

to prepare young people for a 21st century workplace. The deficiencies in content mastery and soft skills 

can be remedied through this approach when coupled with a marked improvement in teaching skills. 

Pillar III: Improving the Business Climate33

The United States is at risk of losing leadership in manufacturing, most importantly its ability to manufacture the high-technology products that are invented and innovated in this country. To attract investment 

and production, the United States must promote a competitive business environment, which includes 

a robust talent pipeline, 21st century infrastructure, and strong investment in R&D. While these are 

important to the overall health of the U.S. economy, they are particularly important for the advanced 

manufacturing sector, which faces intense global competition. Major economic competitors are making 

it increasingly attractive for companies to invest in locations outside the United States. 

The AMP Steering Committee does not believe that it is the role of government to formulate a national 

industrial policy of direct investment in or subsidies to specific firms. However, we recommend that the 

United States create a national framework to create a favorable business climate for manufacturing that 

spurs investments and fosters partnerships across government, academia and industry. 

For the United States to continue to be an attractive location for businesses, we recommend building 

a policy framework that spurs investments and fosters partnerships between government, academia, 

and industry. The foundation of that framework should be constructed through targeted policies in 

four areas:

33. Further details related to the recommendations within this Pillar can be found in Annex 4.
III. Recommendations

★ 37 ★

• Tax Policy

• Regulatory Policy

• Trade Policy

• Energy Policy

Recommendation #13: Enact Tax Reform

A key focus of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership is on the linkage between U.S.-based innovation, R&D, and manufacturing. To encourage investment in the United States, we recommend that the 

corporate tax system create a more attractive environment for businesses to compete globally. The 

United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate, including Federal and State taxes, among the 

34 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. This system is an impediment to U.S.-headquartered businesses and businesses interested in investing in the United States.

Comprehensive U.S. tax reform is particularly important for the advanced manufacturing sector. 

Manufacturing is a source of direct and indirect high-paying jobs. Our current tax system discourages 

domestic capital investment in manufacturing, thereby undercutting the stability of the innovation and 

jobs engine that has produced unparalleled economic prosperity in the last century. The tax system 

distorts investment by industry, with manufacturing, construction and other high-wage and asset 

intensive industries paying a globally non-competitive statutory tax rate. The result is a decrease in 

aggregate investment in manufacturing.

For these reasons, there is a need to reform the tax system to address the existing distortions and disincentives for manufacturing in the United States. A more favorable tax climate would serve a two-fold 

benefit: provide incentives for U.S.-based businesses to increase investment and encourage more foreign 

direct investment in the United States, leading to an increase in investment, innovation, and jobs. Tax 

reform should also yield a tax system that is internationally competitive with others around the world 

in attracting and retaining advanced manufacturing and its associated innovation engine.

While there is a need for broad tax reform to make all U.S. companies more internationally competitive, 

our recommendations are targeted to the promotion of advanced manufacturing in the United States. 

They add up to an integrated package of proposals that address the mobile nature of capital and intellectual property, and enhance the incentive for retaining and reinvigorating the historical strength of 

closely connected U.S. R&D and production capabilities. We recommend that additional tax incentives 

should flow to those entities that engage in all three critical advanced manufacturing roles: U.S.-based 

innovation, R&D, and manufacturing.

We propose lowering the corporate tax rate to bring it more in line with other advanced economies. A 

rate reduction, combined with a broadening of the tax base, would encourage additional investment 

in manufacturing by U.S. corporations, and would position the United States as a more attractive region 

for direct investment by foreign corporations. 
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 38 ★

We recommend the following actions:

• Recognize the importance of manufacturing through the tax code. Given global competition and 

the ripple effect of manufacturing to the economy, any tax reform should encourage investment in manufacturing. This can be done through a reduction of the tax rate for domestic 

manufacturing activity. 

• Strengthen R&D tax credits. Increase the R&D alternative simplified credit to 20% and make it 

permanent. 

• Create an internationally competitive corporate tax system. The U.S. tax system must be redesigned in a way that encourages companies to invest in the United States by addressing the 

current law on foreign earnings of U.S.-based companies. In addition to lowering the overall 

corporate rate, reform must consider the tax treatment of overseas earnings of U.S. based 

corporations, including the consideration of a competitive partial exemption system similar to 

the type adopted recently by the U.K. or a minimum tax regime like Japan. Ultimately, comprehensive tax reform must ensure that U.S. companies are competitive when operating abroad 

and in the United States. 

We recognize that efforts to address long term U.S. fiscal issues may well bring about significant proposals that include a mix of rate reductions. We urge that this debate be particularly mindful of the 

imperative to recognize how such actions may impact the climate for advanced manufacturing. We also 

caution against any new measures that could impede an improved climate for U.S.-based production 

or discourage investment in the United States. 

Recommendation #14: Streamline Regulatory Policy

Regulation is an oft criticized, but vital function carried out by government. Well-conceived, sciencebased, and effectively implemented regulations are important tools for protecting consumers, workers, 

and the environment. When done right, regulation provides important benefits for society and can 

encourage greater competence and confidence in industry. Done excessively or inappropriately, or 

without adequate attention to its consequences, regulation can hamper innovation and international 

competitiveness. We recommend the following:

• Early Engagement: Collaboration between regulators and the regulated community can drive 

significant improvements in the quality of final rules. Robust dialogue between agencies and 

businesses ideally should occur well before the comment period. Improved use of the Advanced 

Notice Rulemaking Process34 would allow manufacturers to contribute to cost-benefit analyses 

in a meaningful way that could make compliance more cost-effective. 

• Objective Cost Benefit Analyses: We recommend that cost benefit analyses and risk assessments rely on the best available science. 

34. Advanced rulemaking is intended to solicit comments and information from all segments of the public 

interested in a particular issue prior to an agency determining whether a rule (regulation) will be proposed.
III. Recommendations

★ 39 ★

Recommendation #15: Improve Trade Policy

A fair and open international trading system provides the greatest opportunities for U.S.-based innovative manufacturing and, ultimately, for sustaining current and creating new jobs. We recommend that 

the U.S. Government take the lead on a progressive trade policy, building on recent successes such as 

passing the U.S.-Colombia, U.S.-Korea and U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). FTAs level the 

playing field for U.S. exporters, eliminating tariff barriers to market access, reducing non-tariff barriers, 

and allowing access to dispute settlement systems. 

Trade policy is an important consideration for manufacturers choosing to site new facilities, and the 

United States must not let its competitors outpace it in the race to negotiate further agreements. The 

Nation must prioritize policies that help ensure access to foreign markets and promote global competitiveness; these policies must include a focus on non-tariff barriers and export control policies. The 

TransPacific Partnership (TPP) is an example of a high-standard, ground-breaking negotiation that will 

cover new emerging barriers for cutting-edge technologies, promote regulatory coherence, address 

competition with state-owned enterprises, and provide a template for economic integration across the 

Asia-Pacific region.

In balance with trade liberalization, the U.S. Government should ensure a strong focus on enforcing 

trade rights, particularly addressing market-distorting subsidies, unfair trade practices, and intellectual 

property violations to level the playing field for U.S.-based manufacturing.

As near-term goals, the United States should: 

• Pursue increased market access: The future key barriers are not tariffs; they are non-tariff barriers—regulatory and standards impediments that represent de facto market barriers. Examples 

of non-tariff barrier areas are innovation principles, regulatory reform and customs facilitation, 

forced technology transfer and weak intellectual property enforcement. We recommend that 

the U.S. Government strengthen the interagency process to create a consistent agenda on 

regulatory issues and to strengthen cooperative, capacity-building initiatives with other key 

trading partners. 

• Launch new negotiations: The U.S. Government has actively solicited input from industry 

on core economic trading partners for new negotiations. A number of regions, such as the 

Middle East and North Africa, can benefit from near-term capacity-building efforts that could 

lead eventually to full trade liberalization efforts. In the interim, we recommend that the U.S. 

Government prioritize a TransAtlantic Partnership (TAP) negotiation that would leverage the 

advanced economies of the United States and the European Union and allow both partners to 

address trade barriers as a model for future multilateral trade liberalization. 

• Reform export controls: We recommend that the U.S. Government accelerate the reform of 

outdated export control regimes. This process could start with rebuilding the U.S. Munitions 

List by harmonizing export control licensing and administrative procedures across all involved 

agencies and transitioning them to a single information technology platform.
★ 40 ★

REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T A N D CO N G RE S S O N T H E F O U RT H A S S E S S M EN T 

OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

Recommendation #16: Update Energy Policy

Energy is a basic building block for today’s advanced manufacturing applications. Advanced manufacturing uses innovative technologies to add value to inputs in order to produce modern materials and 

solutions, including electronic materials, pharmaceutical breakthroughs, and clean energy alternatives. However, energy policy in the United States must fully account for the impacts of energy costs to 

manufacturers and the potential to drive investment into new markets and applications as the United 

States seeks to transition to a sustainable energy future. Therefore, any effort to reinvigorate advanced 

manufacturing in the United States would not be complete without an examination of energy policy that 

seeks ample supplies to catalyze economic growth and prosperity. We recommend the following steps:

• Focus on energy efficiency and conservation: Energy efficiency is the most affordable and 

most available way to lower energy costs and reduce carbon emissions and is particularly 

important to the manufacturing sector. Every dollar saved through energy efficiency efforts can 

be redeployed to expand business and preserve manufacturing jobs. For example, according 

to the Brookings Institute, if all eligible buildings in the United States were retrofitted over the 

next decade, it would create roughly 215,000 direct jobs, 127,000 of which are in manufacturing.35 We recommend policies that provide incentives for power generators and distributors to 

undertake cost-effective and innovative energy efficiency measures and the promotion of tools 

and incentives to assist manufacturers of all sizes in implementing energy efficiency measures. 

• Increase and diversify domestic supplies: Economic growth will continue to rely on hydrocarbon energy, whether from oil, naphtha, natural gas, ethane, or coal, and will require additional 

domestic supplies to improve energy security and reduce price volatility. These inputs are critical 

for the manufacturing process as both fuel and feedstock, serving as the basic building blocks 

of materials used in 96 percent of all manufactured goods, including products enabling the 

further development of renewable sources of energy such as solar panels and wind turbine 

blades. Onshore, increased supply from unconventional sources, such as natural gas, oil and 

natural gas liquids from shale will be important resources for the United States over the next 

several decades. The availability of these resources for value-added products must be a policy 

imperative to ensure economic growth and job creation. Producers and regulators need to 

work together to ensure that potential reserves can be brought to market in an environmentally 

acceptable manner at an affordable cost. Natural gas at stable, competitive prices will continue 

to incentivize U.S. manufacturers to invest and create jobs in the United States. Today, industrial 

uses of natural gas as a feedstock are driving multi-billion dollar investments. In turn, multiplier 

effects from these investments will be felt across the economy, including by other U.S. manufacturers that are less dependent on hydrocarbon feedstocks. 

• Speed development of renewable sources of energy: There is a role for government, industry, 

and academia to work together to accelerate the development of effective and more sustainable 

alternative energy sources, including renewable sources. As global demand for clean sources 

35. Susan Helper, Timothy Krueger, and Howard Wial, “Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing 

Matters? A Policy Framework,” Brookings Institute, February 2012. www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/

papers/2012/2/22%20manufacturing%20helper%20krueger%20wial/0222_manufacturing_helper_krueger_wial.pdf.
★ 41 ★

III. Recommendations

of energy grows, the United States has the opportunity to play a key role in the manufacturing 

of advanced technologies such as energy storage equipment, photovoltaics, and wind power 

technologies. Since 2008, the United States has nearly doubled renewable energy generation. 

In 2011, U.S. solar installations grew 109 percent with the overall solar market surpassing $8.4 

billion.36 However, renewables remain a small fraction of U.S. energy use. Policies are needed 

that primarily focus on driving down costs, which will help drive increased demand. We recommend the continued extension of financial incentives for public/private research into promising technologies and storage devices. Further, any incentives that spur the early adoption of 

innovative technologies such as low and no-carbon sources originating from coal, solar, natural 

gas, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy must be targeted at technologies that demonstrate a 

path towards economically viability. 

• Transition to a low carbon economy: We believe that to create a sustainable energy future 

over the long term the United States needs to shift to a low carbon economy. The right mix 

of fundamental research, innovation, and aggressive implementation is needed to achieve 

both this transition and continued economic growth. The development and implementation 

of a broad portfolio of technologies is essential for this transition. The United States has the 

technical capacity to accelerate development of sustainable energy options, but large-scale 

commercialization of new capital-intensive manufacturing solutions will require increased 

public-private partnership. We recommend a targeted approach to promote aggressive basic 

R&D with accelerated demonstration and deployment of clean energy and next generation 

energy efficient technologies. Government policy can help most in specific situations, such as 

when the costs and market development risks of critical technologies exceed the commercial 

capabilities of individual companies, where the regulatory or liability risks are beyond the capacity of the private sector, and when investment timelines exceed the private sector’s capabilities. 

36. Solar Energy Industries Association, U.S. Solar Market Insight 2011, March 14, 2012. 

www.greentechmedia.com/research/ussmi/.

★ 43 ★

IV. Conclusion

The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee offers a comprehensive set of recommendations built around three critical pillars:

• Enabling innovation

• Securing the talent pipeline

• Improving the business climate

These recommendations are aimed at reinventing manufacturing in a way that ensures U.S. competitiveness, feeds into the Nation’s innovation economy, and invigorates the domestic manufacturing base. 

Rather than debate whether the manufacturing jobs lost in past decades can return, we should instead 

focus on leading the world in the new technologies that are changing the face of manufacturing. We 

stress the vital importance of strengthening the U.S. innovation system for advanced manufacturing. 

With sustained focus, alignment of interests, and coordinated action to implement the recommendations outlined in this report, the United States can and will lead the world in advanced manufacturing. 

Already, we see examples of new manufacturing technologies emerging from research laboratories that 

will have a transformative effect on the way America makes things. 

Industry, academia, and government, nationally and locally, must act now to ignite the ingenuity to 

make it in America. 

Together the Nation must commit to re-invent the manufacturing base to ensure its future. 

★ 45 ★

Appendix A: Acknowledgements

The members of PCAST and the AMP Steering Committee acknowledge the assistance of the following 

individuals during the course of this investigation:

• Alan Anderson, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

• Asha Balakrishnan, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

• Thomas Kalil, Office of Science and Technology Policy

• David Katz, National Economic Council

• Sridhar Kota, Office of Science and Technology Policy

• Thomas Kurfess, Office of Science and Technology Policy

• David Lindley, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

• Stephen Moilanen, National Economic Council

• Justin Scott, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

• Stephanie Shipp, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute

★ 47 ★

Appendix B: Experts Consulted

The members of PCAST and the AMP Steering Committee appreciate the contributions of the following 

individuals who were consulted during the course of this investigation. Many other experts contributed 

ideas through the AMP Steering Committee’s regional meetings.

• Pasquale Abruzzese, Honeywell

• Ryan Adesnik, Stanford University

• Joe Asiala, MITECH+ and Blue Water 

Angels

• Gretchen Baier, The Dow Chemical 

Company

• Naleesh Bam, Honeywell

• Russell Barton, U.S. National Science 

Foundation

• Abby Benson, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

• Suzanne Berger, Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology

• William Bonvillian, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology

• Elaine Brock, University of Michigan

• Bruce Brown, Procter and Gamble

• Larry Burns, University of Michigan

• Gardner Carrick, Manufacturing Institute

• Christopher Cerone, Zimmer Corporation

• Don Chaffin, University of Michigan 

• Fu-Kuo Chang, Stanford University

• Frank Chong, U.S. Department of 

Education

• Leo Christodoulou, U.S. Department of 

Energy

• Jennifer Clark, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• Peter Cleveland, Intel

• Scott Cooper, Procter and Gamble

• David Cote, Honeywell

• Richard Cowan, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• Stephen Cross, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• Lauren Culver, U.S. Department of Energy

• Lynn Daniels, U.S. Department of Energy

• David Danielson, U.S. Department of 

Energy

• Joe DeSarla, Honeywell

• Jim Davis, University of California, Los 

Angeles

• Michael Dombrowski, Johnson & 

Johnson 

• David Dornfeld, University of California, 

Berkeley

• Chris Downing, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• David Drabkin, Northrop Grumman

• Johnny Dwiggins, Employers in Support 

of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)

• Karen Elzey, Skills for America’s Future

• Kate Emmanuel, Ad Council

• Joseph Ensor, Northrop Grumman

• Jim Evans, Stryker

• Stephen Ezell, Information Technology 

and Innovation Foundation

• Gary Fedder, Carnegie Mellon University
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 48 ★

• John Fraser, Florida State University

• Erica Fuchs, Carnegie Mellon University

• Ken Gabriel, U.S. Department of Defense, 

Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency

• Patrick Gallagher, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology

• Ram Ganapathy, Honeywell

• John Garone, Honeywell

• Marc Giroux, Corning

• Jason Gorey, U.S. Department of Defense

• Nancey Green Leigh, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• Jeff Hamner, Procter and Gamble

• Andy Hannah, Plextronics

• David E. Hardt, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology

• Pat Healey, Procter and Gamble

• Susan Helper, Case Western Reserve 

University

• Gregory Henschel, U.S. Department of 

Education

• Gary Herrigel, University of Chicago

• Byron Hill, Honeywell

• David S. Hoiriis, Honeywell

• Carrie Houtman, The Dow Chemical 

Company

• Jack S. Hu, University of Michigan

• Karen Huber, Caterpillar Inc.

• Catherine Hunt, The Dow Chemical 

Company

• Pamela Hurt, Society of Manufacturing 

Engineers

• Jerry Jasinowski, independent 

consultant 

• Don Johnson, Omni Tech International 

• Henry Kelly, U.S. Department of Energy

• Thomas Kenny, Stanford University

• Dale King, U.S. Department of Education

• John Klein, Honeywell

• Robert Knotts, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• Kevin Kolevar, The Dow Chemical 

Company

• Theresa Kotanchek, The Dow Chemical 

Company

• Art Kracke, Allegheny Technologies 

Incorporated

• Bruce Kramer, U.S. National Science 

Foundation

• Sanjay Krishnan, Honeywell

• Brian Krzanich, Intel 

• Richard Lester, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology

• Cam Mackay, MAPI

• Mike Mayberry, Intel

• Duncan McBride, U.S. National Science 

Foundation

• Don McCabe, Corning 

• John McIver, Procter and Gamble

• Steve McKnight, U.S. National Science 

Foundation

• Tim McNulty, Carnegie Mellon University

• Michael McQuade, United Technologies 

Corporation

• Shreyes Melkote, Georgia Institute of 

Technology
Appendix B: Experts Consulted

★ 49 ★

• Krishna Mikklineni, Honeywell

• Michael Molnar, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Institute for 

Standards and Technology

• Siddhartha Niyogi, Honeywell

• Charles O’Hara, Procter and Gamble

• Neal Orringer, U.S. Department of 

Defense

• Burak Ozdoganlar, Carnegie Mellon 

University

• Panos Papdopolous, University of 

California, Berkeley

• Tom Peterson, U.S. National Science 

Foundation

• Gary Pisano, Harvard University

• Kameshwar Poolla, University of 

California, Berkeley

• Douglas R. Pratt, Genoa Associates

• G. Ranganath, Honeywell

• Timothy Regan, Corning

• Iris Rivero, Texas Tech University

• David Rosen, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• Ed Rozynski, Stryker 

• Gerhard Salinger, U.S. National Science 

Foundation

• Tariq Samad, Honeywell

• Al Sanders, Honeywell

• S. Shankar Sastry, University of California, 

Berkeley

• Martin Schmidt, Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology

• Al Schwabenbauer, independent 

consultant

• Sridhar Seetharaman, Carnegie Mellon 

University

• Douglas Seymour, Osram Sylvania

• Susan Shields, University of Michigan

• Albert Shih, University of Michigan 

• Stan Sidor, South Piedmont Community 

College

• Phillip Singerman, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology

• Costas Spanos, University of California, 

Berkeley

• Karen Stang, Northrop Grumman 

• William Swanson, Honeywell

• Dan Swinney, Manufacturing 

Renaissance Council

• Rebecca Taylor, National Center for 

Manufacturing Sciences

• Debbie Tekavec, Carnegie Mellon 

University

• David Touretzky, Carnegie Mellon 

University

• Tana Utley, Caterpillar, Inc.

• Shankar Venugopal, Honeywell

• Kelly Visconti, U.S. Department of Energy

• Ben Wang, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

• John Wassick, The Dow Chemical 

Company

• Albert J. Wavering, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology

• Josh Whitford, Columbia University

• H. S. Philip Wong, Stanford University
REP O RT TO T H E P RE S I D EN T O N CA P T U RI N G D O M E S T I C 

CO M P E T I T I V E A DVA N TAG E I N A DVA N C ED M A N U FAC T U R I N G

★ 50 ★

• Paul Wright, University of California, 

Berkeley

• Euisik Yoon, University of Michigan

• Sam Yoon, U.S. Department of Labor

• Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of 

Technology

President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology

www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast