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 NITED STATES 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR

 A NN UA L R EPORT ON 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT

NATIONA L NET WOR K 

FOR M A NU FACT UR ING 

INNOVAT ION: 

A PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Executive Office of the President

National Science and Technology Council

Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

JANUARY 2013

2011 U NITED STATES 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR

 A NN UA L R EPORT ON 

INTELLECT UA L PROPERT Y 

ENFORCEMENT

NATIONA L NET WOR K 

FOR M A NU FACT UR ING 

INNOVAT ION: 

A PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Executive Office of the President

National Science and Technology Council

Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

JANUARY 2013
About the National Science and Technology Council

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive 

Branch coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal 

research and development enterprise. A primary objective of the NSTC is establishing clear national goals 

for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares research and development strategies that are coordinated across Federal agencies to form investment packages aimed at accomplishing 

multiple national goals. The work of the NSTC is organized under five committees: Environment, Natural 

Resources and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Math (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees 

and working groups focused on different aspects of science and technology. More information is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc.

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

 The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and 

Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP's responsibilities include advising 

the President in policy formulation and budget development on questions in which science and 

technology are important elements; articulating the President's science and technology policy and 

programs; and fostering strong partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the 

scientific communities in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant to 

the President for Science and Technology and manages the NSTC. More information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp.

About the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

Hosted by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the 

AMNPO is an interagency team with participation from all Federal agencies involved in U.S. manufacturing. Principal participant agencies currently include the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, 

and Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. 

The AMNPO reports to the Executive Office of the President and operates under the National Science 

and Technology Council.

As recommended in PCAST’s advanced manufacturing report, the interagency office will enable more 

effective collaboration in identifying and addressing challenges and opportunities that span technology areas and cut across agency missions. In addition, the office will link Federal efforts to the growing 

number of private-sector partnerships between manufacturers, universities, State and local governments, and other organizations.

For more information please contact:

Michael F. Molnar

Director-Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

Chief Manufacturing Officer-National Institute of Standards and Technology

United States Department of Commerce

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4700

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2830

amnpo@nist.gov

www.manufacturing.gov
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 

January 10, 2013 

Dear Colleague: 

For more than a century, U.S. manufacturing has been a cornerstone of American prosperity. 

Today, more than ever, it is essential that the Nation continues its leadership in manufacturing—to 

sustain the foundations of the Nation’s economic prosperity and national security and to meet new 

challenges in the domains of energy, transportation, health care, and education. That is one reason 

President Obama has set scientific and technological innovation—and support for the basic research 

that fuels such innovation—as central priorities of his Administration. 

In furtherance of these goals, this report describes the Administration’s proposed National 

Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI)—an initiative to accelerate U.S. advanced 

manufacturing by catalyzing the development of new technologies, educational competencies, 

production processes, and products via shared contributions from the public and private sectors and 

academia. The NNMI will consist of linked Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation (IMIs), designed 

to serve as regional hubs of world-leading technologies and services. IMIs will provide shared 

facilities to local start-ups and small manufacturers to help them scale up new technologies, 

accelerate technology transfer to the marketplace, and facilitate the adoption of innovative 

developments across supply chains. And they will act as ‘teaching factories’ to build workforce skills 

at multiple levels and to strengthen business capabilities in large and small companies. 

To validate this concept, and in response to a Federal call for proposals, a public-private 

consortium launched a pilot IMI on Additive Manufacturing technologies in late 2012. Today that 

National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute is operating with the participation of more than 

85 companies, 13 research universities, 9 community colleges, and 18 non-profit and professional 

associations. This report reflects lessons learned from that pilot institute as well as inputs from 

regional workshops and a public Request for Information. 

The NNMI, which is anticipated to eventually encompass up to 15 IMIs addressing a variety 

of technical areas critical to U.S. global leadership, directly supports the findings of the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which has called for such a network in order to 

ensure a vibrant and viable American manufacturing sector for decades to come. 

I look forward to working with Federal agencies, Congress, and the private and academic 

sectors to ensure implementation of the NNMI. 

Sincerely, 

John P. Holdren 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

★ i ★

National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation: A Preliminary Design 

Executive Summary

Recognizing that a vibrant advanced manufacturing sector is vital to the American economy and 

national security, President Obama has proposed a $1 billion investment in a National Network for 

Manufacturing Innovation program. The NNMI program has the goal of advancing American domestic 

manufacturing. This program will seek to accomplish this by creating a robust national innovation 

ecosystem anchored by up to fifteen Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation. The Administration is 

committed to working with Congress to authorize and fully fund the President’s request for the NNMI 

program. This report and the proposed program design included herein aims to support Congressional 

authorization and provide a guide for future program implementation.

The NNMI will fill a gap in the innovation infrastructure, allowing new manufacturing processes and 

technologies to progress more smoothly from basic research to implementation in manufacturing. The 

NNMI program has a scale and focus that is unique, and it is built upon concepts of a strong publicprivate partnership. 

Because the challenges associated with manufacturing are multi-faceted, within the NNMI model, each 

IMI will have its own distinct manufacturing topic or technology focus, determined through a competitive proposal and review process managed by the AMNPO partners. This process will identify the highest 

value cross-cutting manufacturing challenges and opportunities, and proposals will bring together 

manufacturing stakeholders including government, industry, and academia. Stakeholders will consist 

of industry, academia (research universities and community colleges), relevant organizations (industry 

consortia, economic development organizations, labor organizations, national laboratories, etc.), and 

government bodies at all levels (Federal, State, and local). In their individual focus areas, institutes will 

act to anchor a region’s innovation infrastructure, and will conduct research and demonstration projects. 

The Federal investment in the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) serves to create an 

effective manufacturing research infrastructure for U.S. industry and academia to solve industry-relevant 

problems. The NNMI will consist of linked Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation (IMIs) with common 

goals, but unique concentrations. In an IMI, industry, academia, and government partners leverage existing 

resources, collaborate, and co-invest to nurture manufacturing innovation and accelerate commercialization.

As sustainable manufacturing innovation hubs, IMIs will create, showcase, and deploy new capabilities, new 

products, and new processes that can impact commercial production. They will build workforce skills at all 

levels and enhance manufacturing capabilities in companies large and small. Institutes will draw together 

the best talents and capabilities from all the partners to build the proving grounds where innovations flourish 

and to help advance American domestic manufacturing.
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ ii ★

IMIs will offer facilities comprising an “industrial commons” (the R&D, engineering, and manufacturing 

capabilities needed to turn inventions into competitive, manufacturable commercial products) to 

accelerate the formation and growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and will integrate 

education and workforce training functions into their operations. IMIs will engage with many types of 

corporations, with particular emphasis on engaging small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. 

They will provide shared-use facilities with the goal of scaling up laboratory demonstrations and maturing technologies for manufacture. American companies and international corporations with significant 

holdings in the United States are envisioned as participants in these Institutes.

Institutes will be a partnership between government, industry, and academia, supported with cost-share 

funding from Federal and non-Federal sources. It is expected that institutes will typically receive $70-120 

million in total Federal funds, depending upon the magnitude of the opportunity, maturity, and capital 

intensity of the technology, and scope of the focus area, over a 5-7 year timeframe. When combined 

with substantial non-Federal co-investment, for example 1:1, it is envisioned the total capitalization of an 

institute over this period will be $140 to $240 million. At greater ratios of non-Federal co-investment, an 

institute could achieve its goals with a lower level of Federal funding. Institutes will be expected to be 

sustainable within seven years of launch through income-generating activities including member fees, 

intellectual property licenses, contract research, and fee-for-service activities as examples. The proposed 

design is of a size and scale intended to provide long-term economic impact in the region and nationally. 

IMIs are to be led by independent, not-for-profit institutions that strongly leverage industry consortia, 

regional clusters, and other resources in science, technology, and economic development. Institutes 

are intended to link and leverage all available resources, including institutions funded through existing 

Federal programs, so that they have national and global impact. 

Institutes will be established through a competitive solicitation and evaluation process managed by the 

interagency Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO). Current participating agencies include the Departments of Commerce (DOC/NIST), Defense (DOD), Education (ED), and Energy 

(DOE); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the National Science Foundation 

(NSF). Competitive solicitations will be sought and proposals will be peer-reviewed. Expected evaluation 

criteria include Institute focus and its importance for the American economy; the Institute plan to have 

significant production-scale manufacturing impact in its area of specialization from a research, commercialization, and workforce training standpoint; the effectiveness of the governance and management 

structures; the proposed Institute resources; the level of co-investment; engagement with SMEs and 

other community stakeholders; and the strength of the plan towards sustainability. 

Leadership from the Institutes will formally collaborate through a Network Leadership Council made 

up of representatives from the Institutes, Federal agencies, and other entities as appropriate. The 

Leadership Council will oversee efforts to develop consistent and common approaches for matters such 

as intellectual property, contracts, research and performance metrics, and facilitating the sharing of best 

practices. Each Institute will also participate in the AMNPO-hosted Manufacturing Portal, a web-based 

resource to help manufacturers locate relevant research, research partners, and pertinent information 

within the Network. Each Institute’s research and commercialization outcomes will be available to other 

IMI’s as appropriate, through technology and knowledge transfer efforts.
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ iii ★

Beginning in April 2012, a broad public engagement strategy by the Advanced Manufacturing National 

Program Office was used to “crowd source” the NNMI program design initiated by a Federally sponsored 

Request for Information (RFI) and series of regional workshops. In parallel, a pilot institute on additive 

manufacturing, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII), was announced in 

August 2012 to move the IMI concept forward and to refine an architecture supporting the formation 

of the larger Institutes and Network. The RFI period has ended, and combined with the lessons learned 

from NAMII and rich discussions from the regional workshops, the proposed design for the NNMI is 

described in this report. 

★ v ★

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

1.0 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

2.0 The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 Characteristics of the Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1 Overall IMI Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 IMI Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.3 IMI Funding, Revenue, and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

3.4 IMI Partners and Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.5 Engagement of IMIs with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) . . . . . . . . 10

3.6 IMI Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.7 IMI Selection Process 11

3.8 Disbursement of Federal Funds 12

4.0 National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1 Inter-Institute Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.2 Common IMI Policies 13

4.3 Manufacturing Portal Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.0 Rationale for the Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.1 NNMI in the Context of 21st Century Global Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.2 Overview of Existing Relevant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.3 Differences between Existing Programs and the NNMI Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.0 National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute—the Pilot Institute . . . . . . . . 21

7.0 Crowd Sourcing the Design of the NNMI 22

7.1 NNMI Request for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7.2 NNMI Regional Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

8.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix A: NNMI Public Workshop and RFI Participants 27

Appendix B: Glossary of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

★ 1 ★

Preliminary Design National Network for 

Manufacturing Innovation 

1.0 Overview

Manufacturing plays a critical role in the American economy, underpins U.S. innovation, and is essential 

to national security. The health and performance of the U.S. manufacturing sector has become a topic of 

national interest and concern. In 2011, 11 of 19 major U.S. manufacturing industries produced less than 

they did in 2000 [1]. Over this same decade, more than 65,000 manufacturing establishments—nearly 

one in six—ceased operation [2], the United States share of global exports of advanced technology 

products fell from 21 percent to 15 percent [3], and the sector eliminated more than 5 million jobs.

The fundamental contributions of manufacturing to economic prosperity are evident from national and 

international perspectives. The U.S. manufacturing sector continues to be a mainstay of our economic 

productivity, generating $1.8 trillion in GDP in 2011 (12.2% of total U.S. GDP). Manufacturing firms lead 

the nation in exports: The $1.3 trillion of manufactured goods shipped abroad constituted 86% of all 

U.S. goods exported in 2011. Moreover, manufacturing has a larger multiplier effect than any other 

major economic activity—$1 spent in manufacturing generates $1.35 in additional economic activity [4].

Manufacturing’s underpinning role also is corroborated in international studies. For example, according 

to the World Economic Forum, over 70 percent of the income variations of 128 nations are explained by 

differences in manufacturing product export [5].

U.S. manufacturing has begun to rebound from the recession of 2008 – 2010. The sector has recovered 

more than 500,000 jobs since January 2010 and the number of job openings for skilled factory workers has increased significantly. Still, the sector faces formidable challenges from a growing number 

of increasingly capable international competitors. Even as foreign nations and companies position 

themselves for advantage in markets for high-value-added products, the nature of manufacturing itself 

is undergoing transformative changes. The United States response to these challenges and changes 

will have significant impact on the Nation’s future prosperity and its ability to meet future challenges in 

areas as diverse as defense, energy independence, transportation, and public health. 

Numerous factors—private and public—shape the competitiveness and innovation performance of U.S. 

manufacturing, as documented in a stream of recent reports [6-17]. Common weaknesses identified in 

many of these studies might be labeled as “missed opportunities” or failures to reap the full economic 

and commercial value from public investments in research. There are many examples where materials 

and product technologies were innovated in the United States, but most of the significant commercial 

market share they enabled was lost to other countries. They include rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, 

oxide ceramics, semiconductor memory devices, manufacturing equipment such as wafer steppers, flat 

panel displays, robotics, solar cells, and advanced lighting. 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 2 ★

As summed up by the National Science and Technology Council, “A gap exists between R&D activities 

and the deployment of technological innovations in domestic production of goods,” contributing significantly, for example, to the growing trade deficit in high-value-added, advanced technology products [8].

Other nations and their manufacturing industries are investing and mobilizing resources to strengthen 

their manufacturing performance. Germany, Korea, and Japan each have more R&D-intensive manufacturing efforts than the United States [7]. These and other nations have established government-industryacademia partnerships to spur industrial innovation [8]. 

Similar large-scale public-private partnerships in the United States could accelerate the development 

of innovation infrastructure and strengthen the Nation’s position in the global competition for new 

products, new markets, and new jobs. Although the United States has many elements of an innovation 

ecosystem, the assortment of joint centers, incubators, demonstration facilities, economic development 

partnerships, and other assets with innovation-related objectives tends to be fragmented and does not 

support an overarching U.S. manufacturing strategy. 

Historically and even today, the United States has excelled at basic science and invention. But the commercial and economic rewards that can sprout and grow from these important early-stage accomplishments are realized in the stages following initial discovery—especially at the points of manufacturing 

scale-up and commercialization. This is especially true for complex, cost-efficient, high-value-added 

products that require development and mastery of equally complex manufacturing processes before 

successful commercialization can be achieved.

To strengthen U.S. innovation and manufacturing capacity and reverse the trend in which more research, 

production and design facilities, and supporting functions are sited overseas requires a robust innovation policy, as outlined in the Administration’s A National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing [8]. 

A key component of this innovation policy is the creation of public-private partnerships to accelerate 

investment in and deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies, which the Steering Committee 

of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, composed of U.S. industry and university leaders, has 

recommended [7].

President Obama has proposed a $1 billion investment in a National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation to advance American domestic manufacturing by addressing this gap [18]. This Federal 

investment will be managed collectively by several Federal agencies coordinated through the Advanced 

Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO).*

The NNMI program is designed to bring together industry; universities (including community colleges); and local, State and Federal governments to spur manufacturing innovation and translate it into 

American jobs. Up to 15 Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation will be formed. 

Through long-term partnerships, the Institutes will be able to maintain a sustained focus on manufacturing technology innovation, workforce development, the transfer of promising new processes and 

* AMNPO member agencies include the Department of Commerce and its National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing 

Office, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. NIST hosts the AMNPO.
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 3 ★

technologies to the manufacturing sector, and the support of small- and medium-sized enterprises and 

aspiring start-ups for developing advanced manufacturing know-how and capabilities.

A key feature of the network and its individual IMIs is a strong focus on building clusters of advanced 

manufacturing capabilities that join expertise from industry, academia, and government. The NNMI will 

leverage existing resources with the aim of capturing the economic value of U.S. research and early-stage 

innovation. It will close the gap now separating American inventions, research discoveries, and ideas 

from the development and scale-up of domestic manufacturing capabilities necessary to make—and 

sell—products based on those U.S. innovations.

Emphasis will be on linking and integrating existing public and private resources into a robust national 

innovation ecosystem anchored by regional nodes of advanced manufacturing capabilities, where the 

processes to build next-generation products will be developed, demonstrated, and refined to the point 

where there is a clearer, lower-risk path to commercial-scale manufacturing. Institutes will facilitate and 

accelerate the applied and commercial development of basic research results—the outputs of work supported, for example, by the National Science Foundation or the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. 

At IMIs, these promising “seeds” of future technologies will undergo further development and refinement 

into manufacturing-relevant processes and approaches for next-generation, commercially feasible 

products and applications that are made in the United States. IMIs are furthermore intended to produce 

benefits across agency boundaries that broadly support the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. 

A benchmark for the NNMI institutes is the pilot institute on additive manufacturing, the National 

Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII). Launched in August 2012, NAMII is centered in 

Youngstown, Ohio. NAMII is composed of a broad coalition of more than 80 companies, nine research 

universities, six community colleges and 18 not-for-profit institutions. While it differs from the proposed 

NNMI and its Institutes (a single topic was selected a priori, and funding was based on existing programs 

from a number of agencies), NAMII demonstrates a number of IMI attributes. Significantly, industry and 

regional interests acted together to leverage the Federal investment of $30 million with a combined 

co-investment of $39 million.

The proposed NNMI has been designed using a broad public engagement strategy, and it builds on a 

review of best practices used to establish the pilot institute. Public engagement was pursued through 

a series of workshops held nationwide as well as through comments received by the AMNPO’s Request 

for Information, published on May 4, 2012. 

The focus of each Institute will be proposed by the applicants and selected through a competitive 

application process. As parts of a network, each IMI will: communicate best practices and coordinate 

efforts with other IMI’s; coordinate approaches on issues such as intellectual property treatment, contract 

research, and performance metrics; be led by independent, not-for-profit institutions that coordinate 

industry partners both locally and nationwide, including SMEs; focus upon workforce development 

with its industry and academic partners at the university and community college levels to impact the 

engineering and technical workforce; and join in the governance and activities of an NNMI-wide Network 

Leadership Council. The President’s proposal calls for a one-time $1 billion investment over a 5-7 year 

period, after which each IMI should be a sustainable center of excellence. 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 4 ★

2.0 The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation Vision 

Funded by a proposed one-time, $1 billion investment, the NNMI responds to a crucial competitiveness 

challenge with a vision of closing the gap between research and development (R&D) activities and the 

deployment of technological innovations in the domestic production of goods. 

The proposal implements recommendations made by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology (PCAST) and a wide range of other experts and organizations. It recognizes that investing in 

early stage research isn’t enough to ensure that a new technology progresses smoothly from invention 

to product development to manufacturing at scale in the United States.

The IMIs will bring together industry, universities and community colleges, Federal agencies, States, 

and localities to accelerate manufacturing innovation and scale up by investing in industrially-relevant, 

cross-cutting product and process technologies. These stakeholders will co-invest with the Federal 

Government in each IMI, forming a strong partnership between industrial and other stakeholders to 

catalyze a renaissance in advanced manufacturing activity. 

IMI activities may include, but are not limited to: applied research and demonstration projects that 

reduce the cost and risk of commercializing and manufacturing new technologies or that solve generic 

manufacturing problems; education and training at all levels; development of innovative methodologies 

and practices for enhancing the capabilities of and integrating supply chains; and engagement with 

small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs). 

The President’s proposed NNMI and the regional collaborations it catalyzes are designed to address 

barriers to rapid and efficient development and commercialization of new advanced manufacturingprocess innovations, thus strengthening existing or building new innovation ecosystems in advanced 

manufacturing. The network and its individual IMIs will help companies to collaborate and access the 

capabilities of research universities and other science and technology organizations to support efforts 

aimed at developing and scaling up manufacturing and assembly processes. At the same time, the IMIs 

will help to meet the challenge of building at all levels the pool of high-skilled talent that advanced 

manufacturing innovation and production requires. The number of proposed IMIs, envisioned to be up 

to 15 institutes, will be scaled in order to provide sufficient resources for achieving regional and national 

impacts in advanced-manufacturing performance. 

The NNMI has two fundamental components: the individual institutes and the coordinating network, 

as described below.

3.0 Characteristics of the Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation

The Federal investment in the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) serves to create 

an effective manufacturing research infrastructure for U.S. industry and academia to solve industryrelevant problems. The NNMI will consist of linked Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation (IMIs) with 

common goals, but unique concentrations. In an IMI, industry, academia, and government partners 

leverage existing resources, collaborate, and co-invest to nurture manufacturing innovation and accelerate commercialization. 

As sustainable manufacturing innovation hubs, IMIs will create, showcase, and deploy new capabilities, 

new products, and new processes that can impact commercial production. They will build workforce 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 5 ★

skills at all levels and enhance manufacturing capabilities in companies large and small. Institutes will 

draw together the best talents and capabilities from all the partners to build the proving grounds where 

innovations flourish and to help advance American domestic manufacturing.

Broad public input was received regarding the desirable characteristics of IMIs and the Network as a 

whole through the four public “Designing for Impact” workshops held in Troy, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; 

Irvine, California; and Boulder, Colorado. In addition, substantial input was received through the RFI 

responses collected by the AMNPO. Detailed information about the participants in the workshops and 

respondents to the RFI may be found in Appendix A. In total, comments from nearly 900 stakeholders 

have contributed to the design of the Institutes and Network. AMNPO has reviewed and distilled all of 

this input for incorporation into this document.

IMIs will be long-term partnerships between industry and academia (including universities and community colleges) enabled by Federal, State, and local governments. In order to advance American 

domestic manufacturing, they will have a sustained focus on manufacturing technology innovation 

with a strong brand identity and reputation. They will identify critical manufacturing processes and 

technologies with potential transformational impact, and through their member companies, they will 

have the capacity to translate these technologies into market-relevant private-sector manufacturing 

production. IMIs will facilitate the formation of effective teams of industrial and academic experts from 

multiple disciplines to solve difficult problems, from pre-competitive industrially relevant research to 

proprietary technology development for product manufacturing. Through dual appointment of faculty 

and students in both research universities and Institutes, they will develop leaders familiar with research 

applications, new technologies, and production systems. They will engage and assist SMEs in applying 

and adapting new process technologies by providing technical assistance, highly trained personnel, and 

access to shared equipment and infrastructure. IMIs will provide education and training opportunities 

to build and enhance the skills of the manufacturing workforce.

3.1 Overall IMI Focus

The focus of each Institute will be on integrating capabilities through collaborations at facilities designed 

and equipped to further efforts addressing cross-cutting manufacturing challenges, yielding solutions 

that have the potential to retain or expand industrial production in the United States.

3.1.1 Defining Focus Areas

Each Institute will have a unique and well-defined focus area, such as a manufacturing process, an 

enabling technology, manufacturing processes for new advanced materials, or an industry sector (see 

Section 3.1.2). There was broad consensus among the workshop participants and RFI respondents that 

the emergent focus areas should be defined by the proposing teams. The proposing teams will be driven 

by the needs of industry, the opportunities created by new technologies, and the programmatic needs 

of the AMNPO partners. Many respondents cautioned against the tendency to pre-select trendy topics 

that don’t serve this essential balance. This concept, strongly supported from public input, is to allow 

open solicitations with clear selection criteria rather than government-selected topics. Good ideas come 

from unexpected places. The government view is included as the agencies will make the selections. 

The focus area for each Institute will be defined by the proposing team, and the AMNPO partners will 

evaluate the efficacy of the proposal in meeting a national need as part of an overall portfolio. Proposing 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 6 ★

teams will need to demonstrate that their focus area is appropriate for an Institute, including the potential to deliver regional and national improvements in advanced-manufacturing capabilities, and to meet 

national needs. IMIs will provide a comprehensive and detailed plan to accomplish institute objectives 

and impacts. Each Institute should leverage existing regional or national innovation ecosystems or 

catalyze the formation and sustainability of new innovation clusters. Each Institute will have a specific 

physical location or locations and a clear lead organization, rather than existing as a “virtual” or distributed organization. At the same time, the Institute will collaborate with organizations in any location that 

have relevant, complementary expertise. It is expected that Institutes will take advantage of technology 

clusters, and will draw talent and resources from across the nation and around the world to their site. 

3.1.2 Illustrative Focus Areas

For the purpose of illustration only, the following are examples for each of the categories of Institute 

focus areas:

1. Manufacturing Process: Refining standards, materials, and equipment for additive manufacturing to enable low-cost, low-volume production using digital designs that can be transmitted 

from designers located anywhere. This focus area was selected for the pilot National Additive 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute, which uses existing resources and authorities. Alternate 

examples include advanced joining or polymer processing methods.

2. Advanced Materials: Developing lower-cost production methods for lightweight materials, 

such as low-cost carbon fiber composites, for applications that will improve fuel efficiency, 

performance, and corrosion resistance of the next generation of automobiles, aircraft, ships, and 

trains. Alternate examples include novel materials development for improved manufacturability 

at scale in solar power or next-generation integrated circuits.

3. Enabling Technology: Creating a smart-manufacturing infrastructure and approaches that 

integrate low-cost sensors into manufacturing processes, enabling operators to make real-time 

use of “big data” flows from fully instrumented plants in order to improve productivity, optimize 

supply chains, reduce costs, and reduce energy, water, and materials consumption.

4. Industry Sector: Improving medical device or biomaterials manufacturing processes to 

enhance safety, quality, and consistency of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, or other products by 

enabling rapid on-line sensing and analytical capabilities, and creating new tools for bioprocess 

optimization and control to enable cost-effective production methods. Other examples are 

development of next-generation automotive or aerospace manufacturing process technologies.

3.2 IMI Activities

According to the National Science Foundation [19], approximately 17.4 percent of total public and private 

R&D spending in the United States supported basic research, 22.3 percent supported applied research, 

and 60.3 percent supported development in 2008. Within these categories the Federal Government continues to be the nation’s (and the world’s) largest funder of basic, knowledge-driven R&D. Approximately 

21 percent of Federal R&D supports basic research, while 22 percent supports applied research [20]. While 

U.S. industry accounts for almost two-thirds of all U.S. R&D funding, about 90 percent of the industry 

investment supports applied research and technology demonstration efforts with low levels of techni-
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 7 ★

cal and commercial risks and short payback periods [7]. The NNMI proposal is aimed at strengthening 

support for R&D that lies between the ‘discover/invent’ beginnings of innovation and the ‘manufacturing innovation/scale up’ stages that precede commercialization. The Institutes, therefore, will focus on 

Technology Readiness Levels 4-7, defined in Table 1, which include component validation in a relevant 

environment, system model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment, system prototype 

demonstration in an operational environment, and actual system completion and qualification through 

test and demonstration. The NNMI will launch a government-industry-academia partnership that 

galvanizes the resources of all stakeholders to achieve the critical mass of efforts needed to effectively 

address these stages of manufacturing innovation. 

IMI activities will include, but are not limited to: 

1. Applied research, development, and demonstration projects that reduce the cost and risk of 

developing and implementing new technologies in advanced manufacturing. An Institute’s 

research activities will be driven by the need to mature the demonstration of component technologies in a laboratory environment toward the demonstration of a system in a representative 

production environment.

2. Education and training at all levels. An Institute will assess skills and certifications needed and 

provide educational opportunities to improve and expand the manufacturing workforce, including K-12 programs, internship opportunities, skills certification, community college engagement, university collaboration, graduate students, post-doctoral students, and retraining to 

meet the requirements set forth by an Institute’s mission in order to impact both the technical 

and degreed engineering workforce.

3. Development of innovative methodologies and practices for increasing the capabilities and 

capacity of supply chain expansion and integration. Deployment of these will be facilitated 

through the Institute and its strategic partnerships and efforts to impact the larger industrial 

complex.

4. Engagement with SMEs. Small and medium-sized enterprises are a vital part of the manufacturing sector; SMEs in highly effective supply chains for technology-intensive manufacturing 

sectors have the potential to accelerate efforts to enhance U.S. competitiveness in advanced 

manufacturing overall. These SMEs tend to be early adopters of transformational technology, 

and they are well-positioned to innovate and produce jobs. This makes their involvement in 

Institutes essential for maximizing industry and economic impacts. However, SMEs usually invest 

less in R&D than larger or more established firms. Strategies to encourage the participation of 

SMEs in Institutes include engaging outreach partners and intermediaries that work closely with 

SMEs, providing valued information and services tailored to address SME needs, providing a 

tiered membership fee structure, allowance of all in-kind contributions for new member SMEs, 

the use of contract-based activities, staged licensing of IP, and similar arrangements.

5. Shared facility infrastructure. Institutes will provide shared facilities to local industry, especially 

SMEs and startups, with the goal of scaling up laboratory demonstrations and making technologies ready for manufacture. Each IMI will integrate capabilities and facilities required to reduce 

the cost and risk of commercializing new technologies and to address relevant manufacturing 

challenges on a production-level scale. 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 8 ★

3.3 IMI Funding, Revenue, and Sustainability

Each Institute should be of sufficient size and scope to have major national and regional economic 

impacts and to address the multidimensional challenges associated with the Institute’s focus area. The 

amount of Federal funding should be appropriate to the Institute proposed. Federal funding to launch 

a typical Institute is expected to range from $70-$120 million over a 5-7 year timeframe. With greater 

than 1:1 non-Federal co-investment, an institute could achieve its goals with a lower level of Federal 

funding. In addition, each Institute should build into its operations model the ability to develop and 

leverage diverse revenue streams throughout its life. Federal funding is expected to be initially larger 

when an Institute is established and to diminish after the initial 2-3 years so that most of the Institute’s 

funds are provided by private and other funding sources as time progresses. 

Each Institute should have a plan to be self-sustaining, based on diverse funding sources beginning at 

Institute formation, and be fully independent of NNMI Federal funds 5-7 years after launch. Institutes 

will have the flexibility to pursue sustainable Institute revenue from a variety of sources including: 

member fees, fee-for-service activities, contract research or pre-production scale-up, non-NNMI grants 

and awards from Federal and other sources, intellectual property royalties, endowments, etc. The Board 

of Directors for each Institute will develop, within constraints specified by the Institute award, policies 

and procedures for its operation and for its revenue-generating mechanisms. Institute facilities and work 

products should be made available on appropriate and reasonable terms to a broad base of industrial 

Table 1. Technology Readiness Levels and Manufacturing Readiness Levels, after [21]

TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported MRL 1: Manufacturing feasibility assessed

TRL 2: Technology concept and/or application 

formulated MRL 2: Manufacturing concepts defined

TRL 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept MRL 3: Manufacturing concepts developed

TRL 4: Component and/or breadboard validation 

in a laboratory environment MRL 4: Capability to produce the technology in a laboratory environment

TRL 5: Component or breadboard validation in a 

relevant environment MRL 5: Capability to produce prototype components in a production relevant environment

TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype 

demonstration in a relevant environment MRL 6: Capability to produce prototype system or subsystem in a production relevant environment

TRL 7: System prototype demonstration in an 

operational environment MRL 7:

Capability to produce systems, subsystems 

or components in a production relevant 

environment

TRL 8: Actual system completed and qualified 

through test and demonstrated MRL 8: Pilot line capability demonstrated; Ready to begin Low Rate Initial Production

TRL 9: Actual system proven through successful 

mission operations MRL 9: Low rate production demonstrated; Capability in place to begin Full Rate Production

NNMI Target
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 9 ★

users. The evolution of Institute facilities and work activities over time should also be informed by a 

broad base of industrial partners and other stakeholders.

To encourage the transition to sustainability, a portion of the Federal funds used for Institute projects will 

be awarded competitively among the Institutes. Competitive Project Award decisions will be made in 

part based on technical quality, but additionally based on prior Institute performance and the strength 

of industrial participation. This is described further in Section 3.7.

During the period of NNMI Federal funding, each Institute should demonstrate significant co-investment 

support from non-Federal sources. The non-Federal co-investment must be tangible, meaningful, and in 

the aggregate, substantial enough to signal strong and committed industry, regional, and local partnership. The co-investment requirement is expected to be met with both cash and in-kind contributions. 

In-kind and cash contributions may arise from any source, but are only counted as co-investment if they 

come from non-Federal sources and directly support the function of the Institute. The funds may come 

from the Institute (for example, using revenue from the licensing of intellectual property); the members 

of the Institute; State, regional, and local sources (such as economic development agencies); private 

donations; or other non-Federal sources. The value of in-kind contributions should be determined in 

accordance with OMB Circular A-110, Subpart C, Section 23.

3.4 IMI Partners and Members 

The acceleration of innovation for advanced manufacturing in order to advance American domestic 

manufacturing requires bridging a number of gaps in the present U.S. innovation system. Each Institute 

will be based upon concepts of open innovation and partnerships.

Institutes should be led by an independent, U.S. not-for-profit institution with the capacity to lead an 

industry-wide technology, workforce development, and infrastructure agenda. Although other lead 

organizations (such as universities) are not prohibited, many workshop participants and RFI respondents 

expressed concern about the treatment of intellectual property, confidentiality, tax-exempt status, and 

timely responses if universities were allowed to lead Institutes. Partners in the Institute should include 

the full range of national, State, and local stakeholders. This includes manufacturing enterprises of all 

sizes including startups. In addition, a diverse set of institutions of higher education including both 

research universities and community colleges should be included. Other partners may include research 

organizations (including Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, subject to statutory or 

regulatory restrictions); national laboratories or government agencies (subject to funding restrictions); 

career and technical institutions; State, regional, and local public and private entities that support industrial clusters and associated economic development partnerships; unions; professional and industry 

associations; other not-for-profit organizations; and the general public. To help ensure a broad impact, 

Institutes should openly encourage the addition of new partners and participants wherever relevant 

through well-defined mechanisms.

To effectively leverage existing national capabilities and centers of excellence, Institutes are envisioned 

to be hubs that link the national and international resources that exist within the area of focus of the 

Institute. To this end, Institutes should seek to benefit and leverage the various centers and research 

institutions funded through existing Federal programs, such as the NSF Engineering Research Centers 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 10 ★

(ERC) and Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC) programs. These programs focus 

teams of faculty and students on research that provides opportunities to advance technology for their 

member firms through formalized partnerships with industry. The ERCs have education programs that 

create pathways to engineering for pre-college students. These programs also support pre-college 

teachers to learn engineering concepts at the centers and develop course materials to bring engineering to pre-college classrooms. 

Participation in an Institute by a non-domestic organization will be allowed only when in the economic 

interest of the United States. This would be demonstrated by that organization’s investments in the 

United States in research, development, and manufacturing; significant contributions to employment in 

the United States; and commitment that any technology arising from or assisted by the Institute be used 

to promote domestic manufacturing activities. Participation restrictions for non-domestic organizations 

may exist in some circumstances.

3.5 Engagement of IMIs with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

A major goal of the NNMI is to support the creation, growth, and expansion of domestic SMEs, and to that 

end, each Institute will demonstrate meaningful outreach to and engagement with SMEs. Each Institute 

is expected to engage existing intermediaries, centers, and networks that work with and address the 

needs of SMEs, to the benefit and success of the Institute’s advanced manufacturing agenda. Specific 

examples of organizations that, through integration with the Institute, would strengthen and expand 

involvement of SMEs include the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) network and 

State and regional technology-based economic development programs. Institutes will also be encouraged, to the extent appropriate, to seek out successful SBIR awardees to support their alignment with 

supply chains and explore opportunities for evolutionary demonstration of SBIR technologies within 

the Institute’s focus area.

Many SMEs experience common challenges that hamper their performance. They face problems with 

lagging productivity and business practices, missed opportunities in emerging technologies, unrealized 

growth potential, and leadership and succession issues. They report significant challenges in ongoing 

continuous improvement, identifying growth opportunities, and product innovation/development 

for manufacturability. As significant sources of innovation in highly sophisticated supply chains, they 

face increasing demands from their original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers for improved 

performance, quality, consistency, and continued innovation.

An IMI may help SMEs address challenges in a myriad of ways. IMIs can provide information about 

technology trends and access to cutting edge technologies that assist with process innovations and 

development. They can provide shared facilities and access to specialized equipment that can accelerate product design, prototyping, and testing. IMIs can provide technical advice and assistance to SMEs 

that do not have specialized expertise on staff. An IMI should also facilitate the creation of new, start-up 

companies to commercialize research and development results. 

SMEs interested in a broad range of services and an ongoing relationship might participate in a tiered 

membership structure that would minimize barriers to entry and encourage the membership of SMEs 

in the Institute.
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 11 ★

3.6 IMI Governance

Each Institute should have substantial autonomy from its partner organizations and institutions and 

should have an independent fiduciary Board of Directors predominantly composed of industry representatives. An Institute leader such as an Executive Director should be in charge of day-to-day operations. The three key stakeholders of NNMI (industry, academia, and government) will need to have their 

interests preserved in a joint governance model.

Each proposal will outline the methods by which decisions will be made, including those decisions 

related to operations, membership, intellectual property, capital investments, project selection, funding 

allocation, and progress toward sustainability. Draft Institute membership and governance agreements 

should be included within proposals.

3.7 IMI Selection Process 

The IMI selection process will be managed by the interagency AMNPO. Participating Federal agencies 

currently include DOC/NIST, DOD, DOE, ED, NASA, and NSF. The inter-agency AMNPO team will be 

responsible for managing an open, competitive selection process and for executing the award process.

Solicitations for Institute proposals may be staged, and the design and number of solicitations will 

depend on the availability and timing of funds. Proposals received in response to the solicitation(s) will 

be evaluated competitively by a review team. 

The review team will include members of the AMNPO, agency partners, and other experts. The meritbased selection process may include pre-proposals, site visits, and economic and business plan analyses. 

Support for proposals may be offered by the AMNPO through planning and/or road mapping grants and 

workshops. This broad, deliberative review process can best balance the most essential U.S. industrial

needs and promising opportunities and support the goals of enhancing American industrial competitiveness on regional, national and global bases.

Detailed selection criteria will be contained in the IMI solicitation(s). It is expected that criteria will include:

1. The focus on a critical national need or opportunity for U.S. manufacturing

2. Proposed activities targeting the transition of early stage manufacturing research and technology to commercial application or product 

3. The proposed Institute plan to achieve significant impact in manufacturing technology 

development and scale up to commercialization, anticipating widespread adoption and links 

to job creation and broad economic impacts

4. The proposed Institute resources (personnel, facilities, and participating entities) supporting 

the plan

5. The level of co-investment from non-Federal entities, and the strength of the plan for sustainability beyond the initial Federal funding

6. The adequacy of the financial plan

7. The level of engagement with SMEs
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 12 ★

8. The suitability and anticipated utilization of shared facilities

9. The level of involvement and expertise in education and workforce development

10. The adequacy of the governance and oversight model, including the degree of industry 

involvement and openness to relevant new participants

11. The ability of the Institute to advance American domestic manufacturing

It is likely that cooperative agreements will be the primary funding mechanism for NNMI Institute 

awards, although other types of grants and contracts may also be used. Continuing Federal support will 

be contingent on co-investment by businesses and other non-Federal entities, and on progress toward 

sustainable operations. 

3.8 Disbursement of Federal Funds

A schedule of disbursement of funds will be negotiated for each IMI depending on the nature of the 

Institute and proposed projects. It is anticipated that for most Institutes, the level of Federal funding 

will be larger at the start, and will become progressively lower as the Institute becomes self-sufficient, 

as shown in Figure 1. 

25

20

15

10

5

0

NNMI Investment per Institute

(% of total)

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Equipment

Startup

Competitive Project Grants

Base Project Grants

15.0

20.0 20.0

15.0

11.0 11.0

8.0

Figure 1 Notional Federal funding profile for an IMI
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 13 ★

Figure 1 shows the envisioned Federal investment in an exemplar, capital equipment-intensive Institute, 

and is not a funding profile that will be required of all Institutes. Federal funding is shown during the 

first year for Equipment, Startup, and an initial slate of Base Projects. As the Institute matures, it begins 

to absorb more of its own operational costs. During year four, Federal funding of projects begins to 

depend on the Competitive Project Grants. The pool of funds available for the competitive project grants 

is approximately 25% of the total funding provided to the Institutes. The competitive project grants 

will be relatively small in number, totaling 2 or 3 per Institute beginning in year 4, and relatively large 

in scale, each around $2–3 million. The competitive project grants will encourage increasing partner 

co-investment as the Institute matures. 

Continuation of Federal funding will be contingent on the completion of annual reports, and on the 

successful completion of a gate review process examining both quantitative and qualitative metrics of 

performances including: co-investment, membership, facility utilization, project portfolio, success stories, 

technology commercialization, or other benchmarks that assess Institute performance and impact. It is 

anticipated that a gate review will occur at least at year three after initial funding. 

Not shown in Figure 1 is the co-investment funding provided by non-Federal sources. The non-Federal 

support is anticipated to be large at the time of award and primarily comprised of in-kind items such as 

equipment and buildings. Over time, the funding will shift to project, member fees, user fees, licensing 

and other sources. 

4.0 National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes 

To ensure the IMI’s fully leverage their potential to advance American domestic manufacturing, the 

National Network for Manufacturing Innovation will support and expand the impacts of individual 

Institutes, develop cross-cutting metrics and methods for evaluating impact, and promulgate best 

practices and standards. Each Institute will participate in the broader National Network. The purpose 

and functions of the Network are outlined below.

4.1 Inter-Institute Collaboration

To the extent possible, the Institutes should work collaboratively, sharing resources, best practices, and 

research and development results. They should transparently share funding and membership models, 

annual reports, and projections. The Institutes are not directly competitive, as IMIs will have diverse 

goals, but rather they will share the broad mission of improving U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. To 

support these goals, the NNMI will organize a Network Leadership Council composed of representatives 

of the Institutes, Federal agencies, and other appropriate entities. The Network Leadership Council will 

actively look for opportunities to leverage existing resources between Institutes. 

4.2 Common IMI Policies

Efficient operation of the Network will be facilitated through common policies. Common policies facilitate interaction with SMEs, promote collaboration and movement within the Network, and allow IMIs 

to share services such human resource management. While recognizing the differing needs of various 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 14 ★

manufacturing sectors, clusters, and ecosystems, the Network will strive, as far as is practical, to maintain 

common policies with regard to intellectual property, contract research, operations, accountability, and 

marketing and branding. 

4.3 Manufacturing Portal Participation

While each Institute may have its own web presence, they will also participate in and link to the AMNPO 

hosted “Manufacturing Portal” (www.manufacturing.gov). As the network and funded Institutes emerge, 

this portal will serve to direct interested parties to the resources and capabilities embodied within the 

overall Network. Content will include information about the focus of each Institute, structure, governance, contacts, annual reports, news, success stories, intellectual property available for licensing, 

member information, and more. 

5.0 Rationale for the Investment

In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama laid out his “blueprint for an economy that’s built 

to last—an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, 

and a renewal of American values.”

“This blueprint,” he said, “begins with American manufacturing.” [22]

The President chose this starting point for good reason. Numerous recent reports have documented 

the critical role of U.S. manufacturing to innovation [11], jobs [23, 25], the economy [25], exports [25, 26], 

and national security [27]. The President has initiated a set of actions designed to make our manufacturing sector more competitive and to encourage more investment in the United States. These actions 

encompass sound tax policies, enforcement of trade laws, and investments in innovation, advanced 

technology, education, and infrastructure.

According to the non-partisan Council on Competitiveness, “U.S. manufacturing is more important 

than ever.” [28] While not dismissing serious challenges posed by low-wage international competitors 

and rivals that are fast advancing in technological capabilities, the Council maintains that significant 

opportunities to increase production and grow exports exist for U.S. manufacturers. “The digital, biotechnology, and nanotechnology revolutions,” it reports, “are unleashing vast opportunities for innovation 

and manufacturing.” [28]

Moving to put his blueprint into action, the President has launched the NNMI program to advance 

American domestic manufacturing by strengthening the innovation, competitiveness, and job-creating 

power of U.S. manufacturing. The Network will help to address an inconsistency in U.S. economic and 

innovation policies. The Federal Government investment in public R&D reached more than $133 billion 

in FY 2009 [24], and a tax credit exists for industry-funded R&D. Yet, these measures are not matched by 

corresponding, strategically designed and implemented efforts and incentives to encourage domestic 

manufacturing of products ultimately arising from U.S. discoveries and inventions [6]. Recognizing the 

severity of the problem, the administration has recently taken additional action to accelerate technology 

transfer and commercialization of Federal research [29].
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 15 ★

As documented by the National Science and Technology Council, “A gap exists between R&D activities 

and the deployment of technological innovations in domestic production of goods,” [8] contributing 

significantly, for example, to the growing trade deficit in advanced technology products. In 2011, the 

United States ran a $99 billion deficit in trade of advanced technology products, accounting for 17 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit [30]. The United States has lost 687,000 high-technology manufacturing 

jobs since 2000 [24], when the nation posted a $5 billion trade surplus in advanced technology products. 

Manufacturing plays a disproportionately large—and valuable—role with respect to the nation’s innovation capacity, generating $1.35 in economic activity for every $1 of sector output [4]. Compared to all 

other sectors, manufacturing has the largest multiplier [31]. This figure can be contrasted to the service 

sectors (including financial services) that generate between $0.55 and $0.66 in additional economic 

activity for every $1 of sector output. Manufacturing accounts for about 12 percent of the Nation’s 

gross domestic product, but accounts for 70 percent of domestic industry R&D spending and employs 

60 percent of industry’s scientists and engineers. Thus, manufacturing remains the essential core of the 

U.S. economy’s innovation infrastructure. 

Accelerating innovation and implementation of advanced manufacturing capabilities requires bridging a number of gaps in the present U.S. innovation system. Time horizons for investment payback in 

pre-commercial manufacturing innovation often exceed investor expectations, and technical and commercial risks are greater than they are for investments aimed at incremental improvements in existing 

products and services.

 The commonly-held belief that knowledge spillovers reduce returns from privately-funded innovation is 

a related obstacle to patient, sustained private-sector investment in developing promising technologies 

all the way through to manufacturing and commercial market introduction. Because of the perceived 

so-called “free rider” problem, no single company will typically take on the risk and devote the resources 

needed to build the full infrastructure of underpinning manufacturing capabilities and complementary 

resources that would benefit an entire industry and even groups of industries. This is an area where the 

Federal Government can play a role to lessen that risk and help to catalyze building of an advancedmanufacturing infrastructure.

Historically and even today, the United States has excelled at basic science and invention. But the commercial and economic rewards that can sprout and grow from these important early-stage accomplishments are realized in the stages following initial discovery—especially at the points of manufacturing 

scale-up and commercialization. However, many technologies rooted in U.S. research fail to mature to 

full scale-up and commercialization in domestic factories. 

5.1 NNMI in the Context of 21st Century Global Competition

Other nations also recognize the strong links between manufacturing, innovation, and prosperity. Many 

have established programs to strengthen the links. Currently, Germany, Korea, and Japan each have 

more R&D-intensive manufacturing sectors than the United States. 

As technologies and products become ever-more complex and their product-development cycles shrink, 

successfully mastering all the stages from laboratory to marketplace requires contributions from a large 

network of organizations—from suppliers of equipment, parts, and services; to schools, colleges, and 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 16 ★

training programs; to utilities and other infrastructure systems. As global competition to manufacture 

and sell high-value-added products intensifies, the capabilities and performance of these innovation 

ecosystems must improve.

Many U.S. competitors also recognize the importance of these location-based linkages, and governments 

of these nations are investing significantly to strengthen and expand their clusters of innovation and 

advanced manufacturing capabilities. 

In the fast-paced, highly competitive global economy, national competitiveness continues to have 

strong local underpinnings. Pisano and Shih define the competitiveness of a country as “the advantage 

workers and organizations located in one place—a local commons—enjoy in the production of specific 

goods or services over workers and organizations located elsewhere [32].

For the United States and other nations, national competitiveness is largely the composite result of the 

performance (innovation, manufacturing, and other dimensions of competitiveness) of many regions. 

As a result of many factors, the competiveness of a number of U.S. regions has waned over the last 

decade or more. One serious result with long-term economic consequences is the hollowing out of 

the so-called regional industrial commons—“the set of manufacturing and technical capabilities that 

support innovation across a broad range of industries” [33].

A concept closely related to industrial commons is infrastructure. The modern infrastructure needed 

to support advanced, high-tech industries has many dimensions—transportation, communication, 

intellectual, workforce skills, capital availability, and others. The United States has many infrastructural 

strengths that can be leveraged to maximize the competitive and innovation performances of U.S. industries, among them “a world-class university system, strong intellectual property protection, sophisticated 

managerial talent, ready access to capital, and a huge domestic market” [34].

Also included among these competitive assets is an array of private and public (Federal, State, local) 

programs with innovation-focused (or related) missions. Examples are consortia, university research 

parks, university-industry research centers, incubators, national laboratories, manufacturing extension services, skill certification programs for workers, and State and regional economic development 

programs. By themselves, some of these efforts have yielded commendable results.

In addition, efforts in the United States and other nations to spur innovation, build advanced manufacturing capabilities, and spawn new industries and jobs have been focused on geographic regions. 

Successful cluster-based approaches yield benefits that foster long-term competitiveness, including a 

skilled workforce, inter-firm linkages, and knowledge spillovers—all of which contribute significantly 

to innovation as integral components of regional industrial commons [6, 33].

While the United States has a variety of programs and activities that aim to strengthen regional innovation clusters or to catalyze the emergence and growth of new ones, the overall effort has been described 

as fragmented or uncoordinated [34, 35]. The lack of coordination and programmatic linkages means 

that the individual programs and activities (private, Federal, State, and local) may not be as effective as 

they could be in promoting the development, application, and commercialization of new product and 

process technologies, as well as new manufacturing capabilities.
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 17 ★

To maximize chances for success, the National Research Council’s report [6] advises that regional innovation clusters need to:

1. Leverage local strengths,

2. Encourage self-organization,

3. Pool resources,

4. Share risks,

5. Grow a trained workforce,

6. Connect with local universities and laboratories,

7. Provide long-term commitment,

8. Provide incentives, and

9. Monitor and measure industry needs

5.2 Overview of Existing Relevant Programs

While the Federal Government has a number of highly effective programs in its R&D portfolio for 

advanced manufacturing, there are no current Federal programs that cover NNMI attributes to the 

extent needed to significantly influence the nation’s competitiveness. A balanced portfolio of targeted 

programs (basic research through applied scale-up) is required for a complete national response to the 

challenges and opportunities in advanced manufacturing. As a means of contrast, selected programs 

are described below and compared to the NNMI Institute vision: 

5.2.1 Research Centers

Research centers typically focus on basic research, but occasionally also extend to fund applied research 

and technology proof-of-concept activities. Such centers are affiliated with one or more universities. 

Examples include: 

1. NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers that leverage a modest NSF investment 

with funding by industry members, other agencies, and other organizations to support a singleor multi-university center. The centers focus on early-stage precompetitive research. 

2. NSF Engineering Research Centers are hosted at universities and promote partnerships among 

researchers in different disciplines and between industry and universities. ERCs are targeted 

at advancing transformational engineering systems, conduct research from the fundamental 

stage to proof-of-concept test beds, create education programs from pre-college through 

postdoctoral studies, and are hosted by universities. The goal is to create a culture in engineering 

research and education that links discovery to technological innovation through transformational fundamental and engineered systems research.

3. NSF’s Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) support researchers to 

engage in fundamental interdisciplinary research to solve complex materials problems that 

are intellectually challenging and important to society. Discoveries resulting from this research 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 18 ★

are sometimes leveraged into start-up companies impacting industries across the breadth of 

materials science. Additionally, centers are encouraged to engage in external collaborations, 

which can include scientists from industry.

In addition, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs)—although not focused 

specifically on manufacturing R&D—conduct basic and applied research and support specialized R&D 

resources and capabilities.

5.2.2 Research and Innovation Hubs

Hubs emphasize large and diverse teams of researchers focused on a specific high priority goal. For 

example, the DOE Energy Innovation Hubs are multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, highly-collaborative 

teams of scientists and engineers working over a longer time frame to advance highly promising areas 

of energy science and technology from their early stages of research to the point where the risk level will 

be low enough for industry to begin to move them into development for manufacturing scale-up and 

the marketplace. DOE Hubs are led by top researchers with the knowledge, resources, and authority to 

nimbly guide efforts, seizing new opportunities or closing off unproductive lines of research.

5.2.3 Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities

MDFs help members of the manufacturing community to develop and demonstrate new manufacturing 

technologies. This can help manufacturers understand full-scale costs and implementation requirements, allowing them to create and justify their business case when seeking further private capital 

investment to bring processes and products to market. MDFs access to otherwise cost-prohibitive 

tools and resources, and are focused on demonstration of processes and production technologies at 

industrially relevant demonstration scale. DARPA and DOE are sponsors of MDFs.

5.2.4 DOD Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program 

The DOD ManTech Program develops advanced manufacturing technologies and processes for the 

affordable, timely production and sustainment of defense systems. In close partnership with industry, 

the program impacts all phases of system development, acquisition, and sustainment by developing, 

maturing, and transitioning key advanced manufacturing technologies. Investments are focused on 

those technologies that have the greatest defense benefit and are balanced to support transition 

of emerging technologies, improvements to existing production enterprises, and strengthening the 

U.S. industrial base. ManTech has a long history of delivering critical and “game changing” advanced 

manufacturing technologies and processes, such as numerically controlled machines, carbon fiber 

composites, microelectronics fabrication, advanced radars, laser-guided munitions, lean production 

methods, advanced optics, and advanced soldier body armor. Many defense manufacturing technologies have spun-off into commercial markets and resulted in large economic advances for the United 

States. For example, the widespread commercialization of numerically controlled machine tools has 

been attributed to initial ManTech sponsorship and development.

5.2.5 Centers of Excellence

Centers of Excellence are another model used in a number of Federal programs. These centers are 

typically led by a not-for-profit or university and concentrate basic or applied research into a specific 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 19 ★

area in order to achieve a critical mass of talent and resources. DOD’s Navy ManTech Program utilizes a 

Center of Excellence model to develop technologies and processes for the affordable production and 

sustainment of naval systems. Centers of Excellence have existed for Joining, Composites, Electronics, 

and Benchmarking Best Practices. DOE’s Fuel Cell Technology Program previously sponsored four 

Hydrogen Storage Centers of Excellence in order to accelerate optimal materials for chemical and metal 

hydride hydrogen storage. 

5.2.6 Deployment and Delivery Programs

Deployment and Delivery Programs provide hands-on technical assistance to companies interested 

in implementing lessons from classroom training or industry best practice into their business growth 

strategies and manufacturing operations. This includes employing new technologies to meet changing 

customer demands or support new product development, deploying innovative production methods, 

or other steps to enhance their capabilities and competitive position. For example, the DOC NIST Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership is a national network based on a Federal-State-local partnership 

providing direct services to nearly 10,000 SMEs annually through 400 centers, field offices, and partner 

organizations across the U.S. MEPs provide fee-based technical assistance to manufacturers to enable 

them to reduce costs, improve productivity, and pursue growth opportunities through innovation.

5.2.7 Federal Support for Advanced Manufacturing Workforce Development 

There are several Federal programs and activities in support of developing and nurturing a workforce 

skilled in advanced manufacturing. For example: 

1. DARPA’s Manufacturing Experimentation and Outreach (MENTOR) effort engages high school 

students in collaborative, distributed manufacturing and design. 

2. State directors of career and technical education, along with the Department of Education, are 

promoting the National Career Clusters Framework, which supports quality career and technical 

education programs through learning and comprehensive programs of study. Manufacturing 

is one of 16 Career Clusters, guiding development of programs of study in manufacturing that 

bridge secondary and postsecondary curricula.

3. The Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) supports the 

development of a skilled manufacturing workforce through the Registered Apprenticeship 

program, the Workforce Investment Act programs, and the manufacturing competency model. 

This employer-validated model outlines the skills necessary to pursue a successful career in the 

manufacturing industry. ETA’s competitively awarded grants also support efforts to accelerate 

education and training programs for high-skilled occupations in the advanced manufacturing 

field. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program, 

for example, catalyzes partnerships between community colleges, the public workforce system 

and employers to develop innovative educational training models in advanced manufacturing, 

among other critical industry sectors. By raising technical skill levels, American workers can 

obtain the industry-recognized credentials required to enter and advance along career pathways 

in the manufacturing sector. 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 20 ★

5.3 Differences between Existing Programs and the NNMI Vision

The notable distinctions between NNMI Institutes and existing Federal programs include:

1. Federal investment level: The I/UCRC and ERC funding levels are an order of magnitude lower 

per center than is planned for Institutes. Such centers have a structure typically aligned with 

university policies and requirements, and do not have the Institute’s industry focus. Workforce 

development is addressed in ERCs, but community colleges are not an integral part of an ERC. 

Leadership originates with research universities, while with Institutes, leadership is provided 

by industry, as well as government, academic, public and private laboratories, and any other 

affected parties that are stakeholders within that IMI. Research projects for both of the NSF center programs described above target the early stage fundamental research to proof-of-concept. 

2. Focus on prototyping and scale-up: The focuses of many of the existing Federal programs 

and the proposed Institutes are fundamentally different. With existing Federal programs, the 

investment is primarily in basic and applied early stage research without a specific focus on 

manufacturability and manufacturing processes and technologies. Existing industry investment 

is predominantly in late stage research and demonstration and incremental process development. The region between these two investment areas is recognized as an underfunded and 

critical area. One of the fundamental concepts central to the NNMI is that a government-industry-academia partnership will leverage the resources of everyone to address gaps in innovation 

in the manufacturing space, which includes both developing manufacturing technologies and 

designing/modifying products to enable their manufacture.

3. MEP centers were intended to pull applied research, technologies, and innovations from universities, Federal labs, and other sources to support client SME growth initiatives. Historically, 

MEP centers have focused on SME process improvements and quality issues. In recent years, 

the program has sought to build on that expertise and SME client relationships to accelerate 

the rate of adoption of new technologies by clients. MEP connects technology opportunities 

and SMEs to move new product opportunities into production and into the market faster and 

with greater returns on investment. This relatively nascent MEP initiative would complement 

NNMI directions.

4. Industry-driven: In the Institutes, industry will have a strong role in the identification of the 

technology area and research agenda through their co-investment. NAMII’s technology focus 

on additive manufacturing, in contrast, grew largely out of Federal agency needs (although 

the topic is widely supported by industry as a critical focus area). In addition, the industry-wide 

cross-cutting focus of NNMI Institutes will often span the research interests of many industry 

partners, academic partners, and multiple Federal agencies.

5. Significant industry co-investment: With NNMI, the Federal funding will be heavily leveraged 

by Institute partners’ direct co-investment at a sufficiently large scale to affect regional economies or entire industry sectors. This will increase the impact of Federal funding. It will force the 

Institute to have a pragmatic focus on industrially relevant technologies, and also will empower 

the partners as true stakeholders in the Institute’s success. 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 21 ★

6. Network attributes: The NNMI program includes a vision for the Institutes to interact through 

a National Network.

6.0 National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute—

the Pilot Institute

In March 2012, when President Obama unveiled his proposal to build the NNMI, he also initiated steps 

to jumpstart the NNMI with a Pilot Institute. The Pilot Institute would serve as a proof-of-concept for 

the NNMI Institutes. A collaborative interagency team was convened and determined that the topic of 

Additive Manufacturing would garner the most benefit for the defense, energy, space, and commercial 

sectors of the nation, and should be the focus of the Pilot Institute. Additive Manufacturing, also commonly known as 3D printing, is an emerging and evolving collection of manufacturing processes that 

build metal, plastic, or ceramic parts using layer-by-layer build-up techniques, precisely placing material 

as directed, based on a software representation of the three-dimensional part geometry.

The competition for the Pilot Institute was launched through a DOD Broad Agency Announcement 

(BAA) in May 2012. Proposals for the Pilot Institute were due on June 16, and the award to the National 

Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) was announced on August 16, 2012 [36]. NAMII is 

headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio, and it is comprised of a broad coalition of more than 80 companies, 

9 research universities, 6 community colleges, and 18 not-for-profit institutions.

While NAMII is the Pilot Institute, it differs from the proposed IMIs in several important ways. The focus 

area was pre-defined based on agency needs, funding was obtained from multiple agencies, and the 

partner agencies set the capitalization at a significantly lower level than is envisioned for an IMI. 

Proposal evaluations were conducted by an interagency advisory council of technical experts from the 

DOC, DOD, DOE, NASA, and NSF. Based on the evaluation process stated within the BAA, the advisory 

council selected the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining (NCDMM) to manage 

the Pilot Institute. This public-private partnership between NCDMM and the Government was awarded 

as a cooperative agreement using $30 million of Federal funding and an additional $39 million provided 

as cost share, mostly from industry and the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

This long-term, public-private partnership between State and local governments, industry, and academia 

(including research universities and community colleges) is enabled by the Federal Government and, 

as such, DOD and other partnering agencies used cooperative agreements (rather than grants or contracts) to fund the government portion. A governance board along with an executive committee and 

technical advisory board comprised of industry, academia, and government representatives oversee 

the Institute’s activities. Using a cooperative agreement also allows for substantial involvement by the 

Federal Government, and is consistent with the broad interest in additive manufacturing across the 

multiple agencies that collaborated to launch the pilot initiative.

In summary, NAMII was formed in parallel with the ongoing effort to architect the broader NNMI and 

hence is technically not part of a yet-to-be-formed network. However, it represents a critically important 

seeding of the concept and its construction and early activities are helping to inform the design and 

development of the full NNMI enterprise.
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 22 ★

7.0 Crowd Sourcing the Design of the NNMI

To develop a knowledge base regarding the President’s proposed NNMI, and to assist in the NNMI 

design, the AMNPO embarked on a nationwide strategy to solicit input from stakeholders from industry, 

academia, State and regional governments, economic development authorities, industry associations 

and consortia, private citizens, and other interested parties.

7.1 NNMI Request for Information

On May 4, 2012, the AMNPO, through NIST, published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal 

Register inviting interested parties to provide public comment on the new proposed public-private 

NNMI program [37]. Comments in response to the RFI were accepted through October 25, 2012. The 

RFI sought open input on the NNMI and specific input on 21 questions in four categories related to 

the structure and operations of the individual Institutes and the NNMI. The topics and questions were:

Technologies with Broad Impact 

1. What criteria should be used to select technology focus areas? 

2. What technology focus areas that meet these criteria would you be willing to co-invest in? 

3. What measures could demonstrate that Institute technology activities assist U.S. 

manufacturing? 

4. What measures could assess the performance and impact of Institutes? 

Institute Structure and Governance 

1. What business models would be effective for the Institutes to manage business decisions? 

2. What governance models would be effective for the Institutes to manage governance 

decisions? 

3. What membership and participation structure would be effective for the Institutes, such as 

financial and intellectual property obligations, access and licensing? 

4. How should a network of Institutes optimally operate? 

5. What measures could assess effectiveness of Network structure and governance? 

Strategies for Sustainable Institute Operations 

1. How should initial funding co-investments of the Federal Government and others be organized by types and proportions? 

2. What arrangements for co-investment proportions and types could help an Institute become 

self-sustaining? 

3. What measures could assess progress of an Institute towards being self-sustaining? 

4. What actions or conditions could improve how Institute operations support domestic manufacturing facilities while maintaining consistency with our international obligations? 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 23 ★

5. How should Institutes engage other manufacturing related programs and networks? 

6. How should Institutes interact with State and local economic development authorities? 

7. What measures could assess Institute contributions to long-term national security and 

competitiveness? 

Education and Workforce Development 

1. How could Institutes support advanced manufacturing workforce development at all educational levels? 

2. How could Institutes ensure that advanced manufacturing workforce development activities 

address industry needs? 

3. How could Institutes and the NNMI leverage and complement other education and workforce development programs? 

4. What measures could assess Institute performance and impact on education and workforce 

development? 

5. How might Institutes integrate research and development activities and education to best 

prepare the current and future workforce? 

In total, the AMNPO received seventy-eight (78) separate RFI responses from industry, academia, 

economic development, State and regional authorities, national laboratories, and private citizens, 

representing the viewpoints of nearly more than 100 separate entities [38]. 

7.2 NNMI Regional Workshops

In addition to the RFI as a crowd sourcing tool, the AMNPO held four regional workshops as part of its 

strategy for soliciting input. The four Designing for Impact regional workshops attracted approximately 

875 attendees from across the country. Participants included leaders and representatives from industry; academia; economic development organizations; State, local and Federal Government; and other 

organizations (see Figure 2). The four workshops were:

1. Designing for Impact I: April 25, 2012, at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York

2. Designing for Impact II: July 9, 2012 at Cuyahoga Community College outside Cleveland, 

Ohio

3. Designing for Impact III: September 27, 2012 at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of 

the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, California

4. Designing for Impact IV: October 18, 2012 at the Millennium Harvest House in Boulder, 

Colorado. 

Reports [39] from all four workshops summarizing the individual recommendations and comments of 

workshop attendees have been used to assist in the design of the NNMI. 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 24 ★

Through these outreach efforts, the Federal agency partners explored a wide-ranging set of issues central 

to the design of the NNMI, including technology focus areas, institutional design and governance issues, 

and management of the network as a whole to amplify the impact of individual Institutes.

Academia

32%

Industry

30%

Fed. & State

Gov’t

17%

Econ.

Rev.

12%

Other

9%

Figure 2 Designing for Impact I-IV Workshop Participation by Sector

8.0 References

[1] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “1998-2011 Summary Make Annual I-O Table Before Redefinitions," 

http://www.bea.gov/industry/io_annual.htm

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (Establishment Size Data 

Available from QCEW), http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewsize.htm

[3] U.S. Census Bureau, Trade in Goods with Advance Technology Products, 2010 and 2011.

[4] Bureau of Economic Analysis, Industry-by-Industry Total Requirements after Redefinitions (Producer 

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

[5] World Economic Forum, The Future of Manufacturing: Opportunities to Drive Economic Growth, April 

2012. 

[6] Rising to the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for Global Economy, National Research Council, 2012, 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13386#toc

[7] Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing, AMP Steering Committee 

Report, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology July 2012, 
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 25 ★

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_amp_steering_committee_

report_final_july_17_2012.pdf

[8] A National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing, February 2012, http://www.whitehouse.

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

[9] International Benchmarking of Countries’ Policies and Programs Supporting SME 

Manufacturers,The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, September 2011, 

http://itif.org/publications/international-benchmarking-countries%E2%80%99-policies-andprograms-supporting-sme-manufacturer

[10] Manufacturing Growth: Advanced Manufacturing and the Future of the American Economy, 

Breakthrough Institute-Third Way-Bernard L. Schwartz Initiative on American Economic Policy, 

October 2011, http://thebreakthrough.org/

[11] Report to the President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing, June 

2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-advancedmanufacturing-june2011.pdf

[12] The Federal Role in Supporting Urban Manufacturing, What Works Collaborative April 2011, 

http://www.areadevelopment.com/article_pdf/id61372_04_urban_manufacturing_mistry_byron.

pdf

[13] The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy, The Information Technology & Innovation 

Foundation, April 2011, http://www2.itif.org/2011-national-manufacturing-strategy.pdf

[14] Manufacturing Resurgence, A Must for US Prosperity, National Association of Manufacturers 

August 2010, http://www.nam.org/~/media/13A10411852D446F84977230D8DD5B8D.ashx

[15] Manufacturing Mandate, Association of Manufacturing Technology 2010, 

http://www.amtonline.org/images/userContent/ManufacturingMandate_Book_Ver04.pdf

[16] The New ‘Cluster Moment’: How Regional Innovation Clusters Can Foster the Next Economy, 

Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program 2010, 

http://www.wedc.wa.gov/Download%20files/2010.09-ClusterMoment-Brookings.pdf

[17] Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of Government in Energy Innovation, American Energy 

Innovation Council Sept. 2011, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/AEIC%20Report.pdf

[18] President Obama to Announce New Efforts to Support Manufacturing Innovation, 

Encourage Insourcing, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/09/

president-obama-announce-new-efforts-support-manufacturing-innovation-en

[19] National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010,

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/c04.pdf

[20] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/topics.pdf

[21] Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook, July 2009, 

http://www.skatelescope.org/public/2011-11-18_WBS-SOW_Development_Reference_Documents/

DoD_TRA_July_2009_Read_Version.pdf
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 26 ★

[22] Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address, January 24, 2012, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address

[23] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 6, 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06082011.pdf

[24] National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, 

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/

[25] Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/industry/index.htm

[26] U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, NEWS, September 11, 2012, 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2012/pdf/trad0712.pdf

[27] A National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing, February 2012, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/iam_advancedmanufacturing_

strategicplan_2012.pdf

[28] MAKE An American Manufacturing Movement, December 2011, 

http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/USMCI_Make.pdf

[29] “Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High 

Growth Businesses,” Presidential Memorandum October 28, 2011, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/28/

presidential-memorandum-accelerating-technology-transfer-and-commerciali

[30] U.S. Census Bureau, “Trade in Goods with Advance Technology Products,” 2011, 

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0007.html#2011

[31] The Manufacturing Institute, The Facts about Modern Manufacturing, 8th Edition, 2009, 

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

[32] Producing Prosperity, Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih, Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.

[33] “Choosing the United States,” Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin, Harvard Business Review, March 

2012.

[34] National Research Council, Growing Innovation Clusters for American Prosperity, The National 

Academies Press, 2011.

[35] “Clusters and Economic Policy: Aligning Public Policy with the New Economics of Competition,” 

Michael Porter, ISC White Paper, Harvard Business School, November 2007.

[36] National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, http://namii.org/

[37] Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 /Notices,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-04/pdf/2012-10809.pdf

[38] RFI Responses & Workshop Reports, http://manufacturing.gov/rfi_responses.html

[39] Publications and Resources, http://www.manufacturing.gov/pubs_resources.html
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 27 ★

Appendix A: NNMI Public Workshop and RFI Participants

Academia (282) 

Alfred University

Arizona State University

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

Case Western Reserve University

City University of New York

Columbia University

Iowa State University

Kansas State University

Kent State University

Lorain County Community College

Macomb Community College & Auto Communities 

Consortium

National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and 

Education

Pennsylvania State University - Electro-Optics Center

Purdue University

The University of Akron

University at Albany – CNSE

University at Buffalo

University of California Davis – College of Engineering

University of California, Berkeley - College of 

Engineering

University of Illinois

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

University of Rochester – Center for Emerging and 

Innovative Sciences

University of Southern California – Information 

Sciences Institute

University of Texas at Arlington Research Institute

Youngstown State University

Abbaschian, Reza, University of California, Riverside

Abt, Steve, Colorado State University
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 28 ★

Adams, George, Purdue University

Aidun, Daryush, Clarkson University

Anaya, Jose, El Camino College

Anderson, Dennis, North Dakota State University

Anderson, Sheri, North Dakota State University

Anthony, Brian W., Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology

Apanius, Matt, Lorain County Community College

Apelian, Diran, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Baecker, Charlie, Beall Center for Innovation and 

Entrepreneurship

Baeslack, William, Case Western Reserve University

Balaji, A.K., The University of Utah

Banerjee, Amarnath, Texas A&M University

Barako, Tristan, Brown University

Barnak, Gary, Saddleback College

Batchelor, Ann, CSU Ventures

Beaman, Joseph, University of Texas

Beaudoin, Steve, Purdue University

Benson, Abby, University of Colorado Office of 

Government Relations

Bergeson, Eric, Clemson University

Berman, Fran, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Beyer, Christiane, California State University, Long 

Beach

Birken, Ralf, Northeastern University

Black, Randy, University of California, Irvine

Bohlmann, Brad, University of Minnesota

Boretz, Mitch, University of California, Riverside

Bowman, Keith, Illinois Institute of Technology

Braggins, Alan, San Bernardino CCD

Brasche, Lisa, Iowa State CNDE

Bridger, Amy, Penn State Erie

Brookstein, David, Philadelphia University

Busnaina, Ahmed, Northeastern University

Cakmak, Miko, University of Akron

Camelio, Jaime, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University

Camp, Lisa, Case Western Reserve University

Cantello, Craig, Edison Tech Center

Canton, Giulia, University of California, Irvine

Carron, Alice, Navajo Technical College

Cetinkaya, Cetin, Clarkson University

Chen, Shaochen, Univ of California, San Diego

Chen, Julie, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

Chen, Yong, University of Southern California

Chiumento, Laurie, University of Rochester

Church, Roy, Lorain County Community College

Chyu, Ming King, University of Pittsburgh

Cormier, Denis, Rochester Institute of Technology

Corson, Paul, Lorain County Community College

Damoulakis, John, Information Sciences Institute

Davis, Jim, University of California, Los Angeles

Dean, David, Case Western Reserve University

DeSilva, Brett, Saddleback College

Diaz, Bob, College of Southern Nevada

Donnellan, Thomas, Applied Research Laboratory at 

the Pennsylvania State University

Dordick, Jonathan, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Dory, Craig, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Drake, Michael, University of California, Irvine

Dressen, Tiff, University of California, Berkeley

Ehmann, Kornel, Northwestern University

Eiler, Kathleen, University of California, Irvine

Eisenbraun, Eric, University at Albany-SUNY

Ellis, Jonathan, University of Rochester

Emerling, David, Ohio State University

Ervin, Sarah, University of California, Los Angeles

Fancher, Michael, College of Nanoscale Science and 

Engineering, Albany University
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 29 ★

Farland, William, Colorado State University

Fedder, Gary, Carnegie Mellon University

Feng, Philip, Case Western Reserve University

Figurelle, Wayne, The Pennsylvania State University

Fonash, Stephen, The Pennsylvania State University

Franklin, Debra, Wichita State University

Frederick, Dick, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Freeman, Harold, North Carolina State University

Gajewski, John, Cuyahoga Community College

Garza, Wanda, South Texas College

Gatewood, David, Irvine Valley College

Giles, Merle, NCSA

Gilroy, Lisa, Binghamton University

Gonzalez, Miguel, University of Texas - Pan American

Green, Tracy, Lorain County Community College 

Foundation

Guroff, Robert, Brown University

Gurvich, Vadim, National Institute for Pharmaceutical 

Technology and Education

Hallacher, Paul, The Pennsylvania State University

Han, Si-Ping, California Institute of Technology

Hardt, David, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hardwick, Martin, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartman, Nathan, Purdue University

Hedin, Kevin, Colorado State University

Helmlinger Ratcliff, Teresa, North Carolina State 

University

Hicks, Don, The University of Texas at Dallas

Hochbaum, Allon, University of California, Irvine

Hovsepian, Sarah, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology

Huang, George, Department of Mechanical and 

Materials Engineering, Wright State University

Huang, Wenzhen, University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth

Hull, Robert, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Jackson, Dion, USC Center for Economic Development

Johnson, Wayne, California Institute of Technology

Johnson, Curtis, Stony Brook University

Kalevitch, Maria, Robert Morris University

Karlicek, Robert, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Keeton, Leigh, Lorain County Community College 

Foundation

Kessler, William, Georgia Institute of Technology

Khalili, Pedram, University of California, Los Angeles

Khine, Michelle, University of California, Irvine

Khoshnevis, Berok, University of Southern California

Kido, Horacio, M&AE, University of California, Irvine

Kinsey, Brad, University of New Hampshire

Kintzel, Edward, Western Kentucky University

Kiwiet, Nicoline, Dutchess County Community College

Klimow, Kate, University of California, Irvine

Knotek, Michael, Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Institute, University of Colorado Boulder

Koenig, Roger, Michigan State University

Korkolis, Yannis, University of New Hampshire

Kramer, Daniel, The Ohio State University

Krishnamurthy, Ananth, University of Wisconsin 

– Madison

Kulinsky, Lawrence, University of California, Irvine

Law, Matt, University of California, Irvine

Leo, Donald, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University

Leu, Ming, Missouri University of Science and 

Technology

Leu, Paul, University of Pittsburgh

Levesque, Robert, San Bernardino Community College 

District

Levin, Jacob, University of California, Irvine

Levinson, Rachel, Arizona State University
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 30 ★

Lewandowski, John, Case Western Reserve University

Liang, Steven, Georgia Institute of Technology

Liehr, Michael, College of Nanoscale Science and 

Engineering

Lin, Gisela, Micro/Nano Fluidics Fundamentals Focus 

Center

Liu, Chenghsin, California State University, Los 

Angeles

Lorenzi, Kathleen Reneau, University of Colorado 

Boulder

Madou, Marc, University of California, Irvine

Maia, Joao, Case Western Reserve University

Maloney, Tom, Connecticut Center for Advanced 

Technology

Martukanitz, Richard, Applied Research Laboratory at 

the Pennsylvania State University

Masanet, Eric, Northwestern University

Matijasevic, Goran, University of California, Irvine

Maute, Kurt, University of Colorado Boulder

McCord, Alisa, OCSTEM/Orange County Department 

of Education

McCready, Mark, University of Notre Dame

McCullough, Roger, University of Nebraska at Omaha

McGinnis, Leon, Georgia Institute of Technology

McGrath, Michael, LASP, University of Colorado

McGuffin-Cawley, James, Case Western Reserve 

University

McKay, Leslie, Metro State University

McMeekin, Bill, North Seattle Community College

McNulty, Tim, Carnegie Mellon University

Midturi, Swami, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Mikesell, Sharell, The Ohio State University

Mingareev, Ilya, Townes Laser Institute, University of 

Central Florida

Minnich, Tom, Robert C. Byrd Institute

Mino, Michael, The Connecticut College of Technology

Mitchell, Stephen, University of Dayton Research 

Institute (UDRI)

Mitchell-Williams, Dyanne, TSU

Mittal, Manoj, University of Texas at Arlington 

Research Institute

Moore, Kevin, Colorado School of Mines

Moo-Young, Keith, California State University, Los 

Angeles

Morse, Jeffrey, National Nanomanufacturing Network

Moskowitz, Michelle, University of California, Berkeley

Muha, Susan, Cuyahoga Community College

Mumm, Daniel, University of California, Irvine

Murad, Sohail, University of Illinois

Murday, James, University of Southern California

Myers, James, Computational Center for 

Nanotechnology Innovations at the Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute

Nasr, Nabil, Rochester Institute of Technology

Neale, Virginia, Northwestern University

Netravali, Anil, Cornell University

Newman, George, Front Range Community College

Nowinski, Caralynn, University of Illinois

Omurtag, Yildirim, Robert Morris University

Ozdoganlar, Burak, Carnegie Mellon University

Pasaogullari, Ugur, University of Connecticut

Paul, Brian, Oregon State University

Popovic, Zoya, University of Colorado

Prawel, David, Colorado State University

Radford, Donald, Colorado State University

Ragan, Regina, University of California, Irvine

Rankin, Patricia, University of Colorado, Boulder 

Campus

Rathbun, Lynn, National Nanotechnology 

Infrastructure Network

Rennels, Kathay, Colorado State University – 

Community & Economic Development
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 31 ★

Reyna, Mario, South Texas College

Richardson, Martin, University of Central Florida

Rimnac, Clare, Case School of Engineering

Robertson, Susan, Solon City Schools

Rosen, David, Georgia Institute of Technology

Roth, John, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College

Rupert, Timothy, University of California, Irvine

Samuelsen, Scott, University of California, Irvine

Sanchez, L. Rafael, University of Colorado Denver

Sanfilippo, Matthew, Carnegie Mellon University

Schaaf, Jim, University of California, Davis

Schmidt, Martin, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology

Schneider, Dean, Texas Center for Applied Technology

Schorr, Herbert, University of Southern California

Schwam, David, Case Western Reserve University

Sczechowski, Jeffrey, University of Colorado at 

Boulder

Sellards, Cynthia, Robert C. Byrd Institute

Shariat, Parvin, California State University, Long Beach

Sharma, Swati, University of California, Irvine

Shenai, Krishna, University of Toledo

Shephard, Mark, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Shin, Yung, Purdue University

Simoneau, Robert, Keene State College

Sirinterlikci, Arif, Robert Morris University

Smith, Kevin Scott, The University of North Carolina at 

Charlotte

Sobczak, Bruce, Irvine Valley College, ATEP

Somu, Sivasubramanian, Northeastern University

Spivey, Rich, Ohio Manufacturing Institute

Springs, Stacy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Steele, Scott, University of Rochester

Streit, Dwight, University of California, Los Angeles

Sun, Lizhi, University of California, Irvine

Sunday, Doug, Lehigh University

Tackett, Ed, University of California, Irvine

Tang, William, University of California, Irvine

Taub, Alan, University of Michigan

Taylor, Patricia, Thomas Nelson Community College

Theyel, Gregory, California State University

Thompson, Daryl, Salt Lake Community College

Thomson, J. Michael, Cuyahoga Community College

Timmer, Douglas, University of Texas – Pan American

Tinderholm, Duane, CCEFP – University of Minnesota

Torrani, Robert, The Connecticut College of 

Technology

Tralli, David, California Institute of Technology

Tran, Julie, Smart Manufacturing Leadership Coalition, 

University of California, Los Angeles

Troxell, Wade, Colorado State University

Tsai, Stephen, Stanford University

Turner, Cameron, Colorado School of Mines

Valdevit, Lorenzo, University of California, Irvine

Vangsness, Jean, University of Massachusetts Lowell

von Maltzahn, Wolf, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

von Oehsen, Barr, Clemson University

Vosler, Lynn, Front Range Community College

Vukich, John, Pueblo Community College

Walczyk, Daniel, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Walker, Loren, University of Massachusetts

Wallace, Darrell, Youngstown State University

Wang, Su Su, University of Houston

Wang, Ben, Georgia Institute of Technology

Washington, Gregory, University of California, Irvine

Watkins, James, University of Massachusetts

Webster, Ben, University of Colorado Boulder

Weimer, Alan, University of Colorado
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 32 ★

Wen, John, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Werle, Kathleen, Irvine Valley College

Wicks, Frank, Edison Tech Center

Williams Jr, Jimmy, The University of North Carolina at 

Charlotte

Williamson, Keith, Virginia State University

Wilson, Janet, University of California, Irvine

Wilson, Sarah, Workforce Boulder County

Wright, Paul, Center for Information Technology 

Research in the Interest of Society, University of 

California, Berkeley

Wright, Michael, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Yagoobi, Jamal, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Yehiely, Fruma, Northwestern University

Yu, Xiong, Case Western Reserve University

Yu, Tzu-Yang, University of Massachusetts Lowell

Ziegert, John, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Ziehl, Paul, University of South Carolina

Zorman, Christian, Case Western Reserve University

Industry (264)

BAE Systems Land & Armaments

BioDevice Design

Boundary Systems

DuPont 

Eastman Kodak

General Dynamics - Ordnance and Tactical Systems

Liquidia Technologies

Lumetrics

M7-Technologies

Modria Inc.

Mongan Intech Corporation

Optimax

Procter & Gamble

QED Technologies

Robotics Innovation LLC

Rockwell Automation

RP+M

SCRA Applied Research & Development

Stefan Sydor Optics

Abraham, Margaret (Meg), The Aerospace Corporation

Ahbe, Brad, Canton Drop Forge

Albers, Tracy, GrafTech International Holdings Inc.

Albin, Mary, Westinghouse

Alexander, William, Qualtek Manufacturing, Inc.

Alexander, Chuck, Solid Concepts, Inc.

Alexopoulos, Nick, Broadcom Corporation

Alford, Charles, UES, Inc.

Alvarado, Igor, National Instruments Corporation

Alt, Michael, Eastman Kodak Company

Amis, Eric, United Technologies Research Center

Anderson, Brian, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

Antonsson, Erik, Northrop Grumman Aerospace 

Systems

Apanius, Matt, SMART Commercialization Center for 

Microsystems

Aronson, Jesse, Worksystems, Inc.

August, Zachary, Automated Dynamics

Ba, Saffiate, G2G Consulting

Bibik, Stacey, Stacy Machine & Tooling, Inc.

Biller, Stephan, General Electric Company

Bjurlin, David, LAB Corperation

Black, Sharon, Blacksmith Multimedia, Inc.

Bolcavage, Ann, Rolls-Royce Corporation

Boyce, Scott, The Dow Chemical Company
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 33 ★

Bransch, Harald, Yaskawa

Burdick, Bill, GE Global Research

Burney, Brian, Oliver Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Burns, Ralph, Business Growth Services, LLC

Buskens, Rick, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology 

Labs

Cameron, Chuck, RadTech International

Carnahan, Dan, Rockwell Automation

Casebolt, Eric, Cell Sign Technologies

Chalamala, Babu, MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.

Chong, Dianne, The Boeing Company

Christie, Cynthia, Christie Consulting, LLC

Collins, Sunniva, Swagelok Company

Compton, Owen, DuPont

Coniglio, Philip, Long Island for Technology

Cook, Harold, Tooling Innovations, Inc.

Cotchen, Donald, McGraw-Hill Construction

Craig, Steven, UniControl Inc.

Crouch, Drew, Ball Corporation

Daggon, James, Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Decker, Doug, Northrop Grumman Corporation

Deckert, Curt, Curt Deckert Associates Inc.

Dinsmore, Jason, Dinsmore & Associates, Inc.

Ditchendorf, Charles, CIMdata, Inc.

Dolan, Benjamin, RapidTech

Dotson, Dennis, Dotson Iron Company

Drumm, Gregory, Nation Grinding Inc./Nation Coating 

Systems

Ducoin, David, Lockheed Martin Electronic Systems

Duggan, Jim, Edison Tech Center

Dykstra, William, Temper

Easterbrooks, Don, Canton Drop Forge

Edwards, Doyle, Brewer Science

Elter, John F, Sustainable Systems LLC

El-Wardany, Tahany, United Technologies Research 

Center

Esman, Ronald, MITRE Corporation

Feiereisen, William, Intel 

Fish, Chris, McAllister & Quinn

Flite, William, Lockheed Martin

Frank, Melissa, FirstEnergy

Freeze, Brent, Sorlox Corporation

Fulton, Michael, Surface Optics Corporation

Galiazzo, Michael, Regional Manufacturing Institute

Gardner, Brian, Chomarat

Garone, Joe, Long Island for Technology

Gelsomini, Tony, Cray

Gies, Jason, Firehole Composites

Gonzalez, Ray, TGD

Goswami, Kisholoy, InnoSense LLC

Graham, Lawrence, PCCAirfoils

Green, Albert, Kent Displays, Inc.

Greenspon, Judy, NPI Services, Inc.

Grimes, Thomas, LNE Group LLC

Grischuk, Walt, Ora Technology

Guerra, Nick, Perfekta Aerospace

Gurumurthy, Prasanna, LuK USA 

Gustafson, Daniel, NextEngine

Guymon, Lance, Wolf Robotics

Hackmon, Ernest, Topgallant Energy

Hagerty, Brian, Reactor Institute

Hainsey, Robert, Electro Scientific Industries

Hanes, Hugh, Materion Brush Inc.

Harney, Paul, Perkins+Will

Harricharran, Kunwar, Battelle Production and Field 

Support

Hartney, Christopher, Jacobs Technology

Hatch, Mark, TechShop
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 34 ★

Hatkevich, Steve, American Trim, LLC

Havelock Jr., Samuel, Federated Precision, Inc.

Hayashi, Steven, GE Global Research

Hayashigawa, Don, NxGen Electronics

Henesey, Michael, IBM

Hildreth, Tom, Hildreth & Associates

Hines, Roberta, SGL/HITCO CARBON COMPOSITES

Hockenberger, Glenn, Lockheed Martin

Holcomb, Curtis, SCRA

Hornquist, Edwin, SCE

Horton, Sam, Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI)

Hovsepian, Sarah, ASRC Research & Technology 

Solutions

Howes, Christopher, Timken Company

James, Steve, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

Johnson, Andrew, Advanced Technology Consulting, 

Inc.

Kan, Pamela, Bishop-Wisecarver Corporation

Kania, John, Applied Materials, Inc.

Karpuk, Michael, TDA Research, Inc.

Kar-Roy, Arjun, TowerJazz

Kazeminy, Assad, Irvine Pharmaceutical Services

Kelemen, Marc, NanoSynopsis.com

Kelley, Danna, SCRA Applied R&D

Kennedy, Michele, Fox Run Systems & Solutions

Kerzicnik, Ernest, Enginuity, LLC

Khan, Asad, Kent Displays, Inc.

Kingscott, Kathleen, IBM Research

Knowles, Shawn, Ball Corporation

Kolarik, Robert, The Timken Company

Kolwey, Neil, SWEEP

Kovach, Joseph, Parker Hannifin Corporation

Kuhn, Howard, Exone Company, LLC

Kumar, Raj, Viasystems Group, Inc.

Kurtoglu, Tolga, Palo Alto Research Center

LaRiviere, Don, The Boeing Company

Lawrence, Carl, Swift Tram, Inc.

Lebow, Jeff, Southern California Edison

Lemon, Mike, ITI

Levine, Leanna, ALine, Inc.

Lewis, Karen, Forging Foundation

Licata, Sam, Cummins, Inc.

Logan, Trent, The Boeing Company

Lohr, David, Commonwealth Center for Advanced 

Manufacturing

Lombardo, Dale, GE Energy

MacDonald, Antonia, UES, Inc.

Malhotra, Girish, Epcot International

Markham, Richard, Polymer Ohio, Inc.

Marshall, Blake, SRA International

Matlik, John, Rolls-Royce Corporation

Maxwell, James, Dynetics

Mayewski, Dave, Rockwell Automation

McClellan, Ken, Ingersoll Machine Tools, Inc.

McCune, Robert, Robert C. McCune & Associates, LLC

McDonald, Kenny, Columbus 2020

McElroy, James, iNEMI

McGough, Mark, Ioxus

McGowan, Scott, Solid Concepts, Inc.

McNab, Michael, Lockheed Martin - Aeronautics

Menassa, Roland, General Motors

Mintz, Jori, LNE Group

Misra, Ashutosh, ITN Energy Systems, Inc.

Moncrieff, Laurie, Adaptive Manufacturing Solutions

Morgan, Marianne, BASF Corporation

Mueller, Larry, CTD Innovation, LLC

Munshi, Naseem, CTD

Natzic, Walt, Grace Technologies
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 35 ★

Nelson, Mike, NanoInk, Inc.

Nesi, John, Rockwell Automation

Newhouse, Bill, Canton Drop Forge

Nieves, Erik, Yaskawa Motoman Robotics

Norman, Donald, The Nielsen Norman Group

O'Connor, Gregory, Amalgam Industries, Inc.

O'Day, Paul, American Fiber Manufacturers Assn.

Oliva, Joanna, Samsung C&T

Orme, Steven, Tooling Innovations, Inc.

Pak, Sun, iComputer

Palmintera, Diane, Innovation Associates

Papu, Mareta, UAW-LETC

Patibandla, Nag, Applied Materials, Inc.

Patterson, Clark, RP+M

Pelc, Daryl, The Boeing Company

Pentlicki, Joseph, Oliver Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Peretti, Michael, GE Aviation

Philippi, Therese, Alion Science and Technology

Phillippy, Bob, Newport Corporation

Philpotts, Alvin, Emerging Technology Applications 

Center (ETAC)

Poliks, Mark, Endicott Interconnect Technologies, Inc.

Polizzi, Anthony, Rocket Science Tutors

Powell, Katie, Munro Companies, Inc.

Rahman, Derrick, SunVeil Solar Inc.

Ralston, Dennis, KLA-Tencor Corporation

Ramsey, Dougals, Alcoa Inc. 

Razum, Joe, GE

Rehkopf, Jackie, Plasan Carbon Composites

Rhoda, Doug, Wolf Robotics

Rini, John, LNE Group LLC

Rivard, Adam, Pratt & Whitney

Roberts, Anthony, Jacobs Technology

Robinson, Ron, IT Data Storage / 3DCAD Printer 

Corproation

Robinson, Jim, TechShop, Inc.

Rockstroh, Todd, GE Aviation

Rothrock, Ginger, RTI International

Rowlen, Kathy, InDevr

Rustic, Joseph, CTL Engineering

Salihagic, Selma, Ball Aerospace & Technologies

Sanne, Anil, Avittor International Corporation

Sariri, Kouros, FMI

Saunders, Glenn, Upstate New York LRIG, Inc.

Schilling, Patricia, Tugboat Software Inc.

Schorzman, Derek, Liquidia Technologies, Inc.

Schramko, Ken, Lam Research

Schroeder, William, Kitware, Inc.

Shattuck, Jay, Underground Systems, Inc.

Sheet, Lubab, Lam Research Corp

Shiveley, Tom, Innovative Industries

Shrader, Eric, Palo Alto Research Center

Silvashy, Ryan, Falcon Foundry

Singh, Prabhjot, GE Global Research

Smith, Robert, Analytical Mechanics Associates

Smith, Gary, D'Addario & Company, Rico International 

Division

Snell, Michael, Silfex Corporation

Speir, Ryan, Allineate

Srinivas, Girish, TDA Research, Inc.

Stangle-Castor, Nannette, Fuentek, LLC

Stark, Paul, Manaex

Stellon, Gene, Covidien

Stephen, Jennings, Raydiance

Stimson, Tom, The Timken Company

Strong, Amy, Fuentek, LLC

Sullivan, Rose Ann, TechVision21
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 36 ★

Sutton, Craig, Deere & Co

Tackett, Edward, RapidTech, Nat'l Center for Rapid 

Technologies

Thompson, Dave, AlloSource

Tredway, William, United Technologies Research 

Center

Tymkiw, Andy, Edwards Lifesciences

Ulintz, Peter, Anchor Manufacturing Group

VanDyne, Ed, VanDyne SuperTurbo, Inc.

Vargas, John, Futek Advanced Sensor Technology, Inc.

Venkataraman, Bala, Magni-Power Company

Veres, Janos, Palo Alto Research Center

Viens, Daniel, United Technologies Research Center

Voss, Bob, Panduit Corporation

Vu, Truc, Microsemi Corporation

Wahlig, Bill, Long Island for Technology

Walker, Rae, Axiom Medical Inc.

Welch, Ken, MSC Software

Wenner, Chauncey, United Launch Alliance

Weyer, Greg, LuK USA LLC

White, Christian, iComputer

Willnecker, Gerald, Powdermet Inc.

Winslow, Kyle, McAllister & Quinn

Wolf, Christopher, ITN Energy Systems, Inc.

Wong, Brian, Enevate Corporation

Wosczyna-birch, Karen, Center for Next Generation 

Manufacturing

Wu, Yutong, APIC

Yamakage, Masahiro, Toyota Motor Engineering & 

Manufacturing North America, Inc.

Yoss, Mark, Lockheed Martin

Zimmer, Stephen, USCAR

Zimmerman, Burr, Urban Venture Group, Ltd.

Economic Development Organizations (47)

Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance of the Forest 

Products Industry

Colorado Workforce Development Council

Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network

Mid-Columbia Economic Development District

NorTech

Bagley, Rebecca, NorTech

Baunach, Dorothy, Greater Cleveland Partnership

Berger, Scott, AIChE

Black, Sharon, Blacksmith Multimedia, Inc.

Boulier, Paul, Team Northeast Ohio

Brancato, Jeffrey, NorTech

Britton, Patrick, NOCHE – Northeast Ohio Council on 

Higher Education

Chase, Joan, Greater Cleveland Partnership

Coats, Jack, Center of Innovation for 

Nanobiotechnology (COIN)

Esoda, Eric Joseph, Northeastern Pennsylvania 

Industrial Resource Center, Inc.

Fowler, Linda, Regionerate LLC

Franchell, Michael, Community Based Business 

Incubator Centerm, Inc.

Gattozzi, Nick, Greater Cleveland Partnership

Giles, Merle, NCSA

Goodpasture, Tim, City of Wichita

Gundersen, Daniel C, Baltimore County Department 

of Economic Development

Hoag, Michael, WIRE-Net

Holsheimer, Alex, County of San Bernardino EDA

Houldin, Joseph, Delaware Valley Industrial Resource 

Center

Hutchison, Hutch, High Technology Rochester
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 37 ★

Johnson, Kyle, Next Generation Economy Center

Kedar, Shilpa, The Cleveland Foundation

Klonsinski, Mike, Wisconsin Economic Development 

Corporation

Knepell, Angie, Colorado Association of Commerce 

and Industry

Lawrence, Jeffrey, Center for Economic Growth

Lecz, Alan, Workforce Intelligence Network

Lee, George, Glimmerglass Ltd.

Lund, Ken, Colorado Office of Economic Development 

and International Trade

Martell, Terrence, Akron Global Business Accelerator

Martin, Nancy, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership

Milbergs, Egils, Washington Economic Development 

Commission

Nafziger, Wendi, Longmont Area Economic Council

Nance, Christopher, Greater Cleveland Partnership

Paytas, Jerry, Fourth Economy

Pfunder, Jack, Manufacturers Resource Center

Pritchard, Peter, Center for Economic Growth

Reinhardt, William, Edison Tech Center

Robey, Claudette, Next Generation Economy Center

Severson, Peggy, Denver Office of Economic 

Development

Shakour, Elias, Michigan Economic Development 

Corporation

Steinmetz, Joe, APS-Development

Stumo, Michael, Coalition for a Prosperous America

Federal/State Government (141)

Colorado Office of Economic Development and 

International Trade

Naval Surface Warfare Center – Corona Division

North Carolina Department of Commerce

Oak Ridge National Laboratory – Measurement 

Science & Systems Engineering Division

Aitcheson, Leslie, Army NVESD

Adams, Richard, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory

Alexander, Ronald, NASA Glenn Research Center

Anderson, John, CMTC 

Anselmi, Robert, Department of Veterans Affairs

Balder-Froid, Kristin, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 

Barkman, William, Y-12 National Security Complex

Bartolotta, Paul, NASA Glenn Research Center

Barton, Russell, National Science Foundation

Baumann, Eric, NASA Glenn Research Center

Blue, Craig, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Boeman, Ray, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Brennan, Ann, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Brinkley, David, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Brown, Sherrod, Senate

Bugnitz, Tom, CAMT

Cantwell, Elizabeth, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory

Carrillo, Larry, Sandia National Laboratories

Christensen, Dana, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory

Christensen, Michael, OSD ManTech

Christensen, John, Office of Secretary of Defense

Christodoulou, Leo, Advanced Manufacturing Office 

Department of Energy

Cooper, Kenneth, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Cox, Ashley, NYSERDA

Cupples, Chris, Office of Congressman Tim Ryan

Dalzell, Jack, NASA Glenn Research Center

Daniels, Edward, Argonne National Laboratory
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 38 ★

Daniels, Lynn, Department of Energy

Dempsey, Patrick, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory

Duggan, Maureen, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter

Duly, Diane, NASA Glenn Research Center

Eberle, Cliff, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Elledge, Raymond, CMTC

Evans, Jamey, Department of Energy

Evans, Heather, NIST

Fielding, Jennifer, Air Force Research Laboratory

Gallagher, Patrick, NIST

Gannon, Jesse, Senator Sherrod Brown's Office

Garver, Lori, NASA Headquarters

Giovannetti, Dean, NASA Ames Research Center

Gomez, Fabio, CMTC

Gove, Jeffrey, Ohio Board of Regents

Green, Virginia, CMTC

Greer, Frank, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Gupte, Prasad, NIST

Hanigan, William, Medina County Workforce 

Development

Hardin, John, Office of Science and Technology

Hardy, David, Department of Energy

Harris, Stewart, NASA Langley Research Center

Hart, Jack, Office of Advocacy/ Small Business 

Administration

Heinrichs, Patricia, Air Force

Henschel, Gregory, Department of Education

Herling, Darrell, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Hines, John, NASA Ames Research Center

Hogan, Kathleen, Department of Energy

Holesinger, Terry, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Horseman, Ken, Agency of Commerce & Community 

Development

Hoyt, Diana, NASA

Ivester, Robert, Department of Energy

Kadtke, James, National Nanotechnology 

Coordinating Office

Kaplar, Robert, Sandia National Laboratories

Kathe, Eric, U.S. Army

Kelley, Michael, NIST

Kilbane, Grace, Department of Labor Employment 

and Training Administration

Koppel, Jacques, CEMC

Korsmeyer, David, NASA Ames Research Center 

Kramer, Bruce, National Science Foundation

Kumar, Abhai, DPAC

Lee, Jonathan, CMTC

Liang, Ranty, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Liby, Alan, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Lugo, Ray, NASA Glenn Research Center

Maher, Angela, HUD – Strong Cities, Strong 

Communities

May, Deborah, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory

McIlwain, Michael, Idaho National Laboratory

Meador, Michael, NASA Glenn Research Center

Miller, Jason, White House National Economic Council

Miller, Dennis, Y-12 National Security Complex

Min, Sangkee, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Molnar, Mike, NIST

Narotski, Bill, Ohio EPA – OCAPP

Ott, Ron, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Peck, Mason, NASA

Peterson, Eric, Idaho National Laboratory

Prusha, Stephen, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Prymak, Bill, Department of Energy

Pugliano, Victor, US Army ARDEC

Pye, Miriam, New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 39 ★

Ratcliff, Adele, OSD (MIBP)

Reinfurt, Edward, Empire State Development 

Corporation

Reyes, Matthew, NASA Ames Research Center

Richards, Joni, NASA

Rinker, Mike, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Roberts, Jim, NYSTAR

Robinson, Kem, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory

Russell, John, Air Force Research Laboratory

Sastri, Bhima, Department of Energy

Schen, Michael, NIST

Schmid, Steven, NIST

Scotti, Stephen, NASA Langley Research Center

Shaw, Robert, NASA Glenn Research Center

Sherman, Aleta, CAMT

Shipers, Larry, Sandia National Laboratories

Shkel, Andrei, DARPA

Silcox, Brett, NASA Headquarters

Simmons, Jerry, Sandia National Laboratories 

Singerman, Phillip, NIST

Slobodian, Cheryl, CMTC

Smith, Marilyn, US House of Representatives

Sofos, Marina, Advanced Manufacturing Office, 

Department of Energy

Sorensen-Bain, Sumer, CAMT

Sosa-Mallory, Michelle, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory

Steitz, David, NASA

Streiffer, Stephen, Argonne National Laboratory

Supola, Neil, US Army NVESD

Tartz, Karla, State of Colorado

Tate, LaNetra, NASA

Teter, David, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Thompson, Gary, NIST MEP

Tibrea, Steven, Savannah River National Laboratory

Tolbert, Carol, NASA Glenn Research Center

Trease, Brian, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Turner, Clayton, NASA LARC

Ulsh, Michael, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Utz, Robin, US Department of Education

Vaia, Richard, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials 

and Manufacturing Directorate

Veris, Kim, NASA Glenn Research Center

Vickers, John, NASA

Visconti, Kelly, Advanced Manufacturing Office, 

Department of Energy

Wach, Steve, Savannah River National Laboratory

Ward, Brynne, DRC (OSD ManTech)

Watson, Jim, CMTC

Werkheiser, Mary, NASA Ames Research Center

Werkheiser, Niki, NASA

Wolfenbarger, Debora, NASA Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory 

Wunsch, Thomas, Sandia National Laboratories

Zucca, Gregory, Cuyahoga County Department of 

Development

Research & Non-Profits (85)

Center of Innovation for Nanobiotechnology (COIN)

Conexus Indiana

Optoelectronics Industry Development Association

SEMATECH

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials 

International (SEMI)

Smart Manufacturing Leadership Coalition

Society of Manufacturing Engineers
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 40 ★

The Maritime Alliance

The Ohio Aerospace Institute

The Security Network

The Solar Energy Consortium

Adams, James, Metal Powder Industries Federation

Aller, Mike, Space Coast Energy Consortium

Anderson, Steve, SPIE

Balachandra, Anita, SEMATECH/TechVision21

Berry, Daniel, MAGNET

Boccanfuso, Anthony, The National Academies

Brown, G. Ronald, Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance

Carnes, Kelly, TechVision21

Ciesinski, Michael, FlexTech Alliance

Colbert, Beth, Ohio MEP

Conrardy, Chris, EWI

Crocker, Judith, MAGNET

Crumrine, Susan, Southwest Research Institute

Cupoli, Edward, SEMATECH

Dale, James, Metal Powder Industries Federation

Davis, Jonathan, SEMI

Dumitriu, Monica, Ohio Aerospace Institute 

Evans, Paul, Southwest Research Institute

Flannigan, Clay, Southwest Research Institute

Fleegle, Gary, National Center for Defense 

Manufacturing and Machining

Fralix, Michael, [TC]2

Fry, Michele, Young Innovators' Society

Gibson, Kimberly, EWI

Gilmore, Randy, National Center for Manufacturing 

Sciences

Girard, Jamie, SEMI

Goodstein, Mark, Cleantech Los Angeles

Hardy, Roy, Forging Industry Association

Heaton, Tim, Colorado Advanced Manufacturing 

Alliance

Hock, Carolyn, InSoCal CONNECT

Holladay, Dan, SEMATECH – PVMC

Horton, Nancy, Energy Industries of Ohio

Hunt, Warren, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Hurt, Pam, Society of Manufacturing Engineers 

Kelbassa, Ingomar, Fraunhofer ILT

Krizman, Greg, MAGNET

Lanke, Eric, National Fluid Power Association

Looman, Kathleen, Society of Manufacturing 

Engineers

Majcher, Donald, Ohio Aerospace Institute

Maloney, Thomas, Connecticut Center for Advanced 

Technology

Martin, Michael, Edison Materials Technology Center 

(EMTEC)

McAulay, Jeff, Fraunhofer CSE

McDougle, Jack, Council on Competitiveness

McIntyre, Cynthia, Compete. Council on 

Competitiveness

McKinnis, Leonard, Center for Labor and Community 

Research

Meyer, Carl, The Solar Energy Consortium

Mudry, Rosemary, Energy Industries of Ohio

Nolan, Edward, MAGNET

O'Donnell, Michael, MAGNET

Otterman, Nadine, Young Innovators' Society

Pacelli, Mary Ann, MAGNET

Porter, Kweli, Rainforest Recycling Company

Rael, Denise, FlexTech Alliance

Rafferty, Bill, Southwest Research Institute

Rankin, Tyra, Texas Clean Energy Council

Resnick, Ralph, National Center for Manufacturing 

Sciences

Rochester Regional Photonics Cluster

Ruen Blanchard, Sarah, ASERTTI

Salay, David, Ohio Aerospace Institute
NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 41 ★

Sattler, Dwayne, Ohio Technology Consortium 

(OH-TECH)

Schmidt, Bob, MAGNET

Schober, John, MAGNET

Sloan, Susan,The National Academies - GUIRR

Smith, Larry, SEMATECH

Snow, Dave, Purdue Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership Center

Srivastava, Anil, TechSolve, Inc.

Taylor, Rebecca, National Center for Manufacturing 

Sciences

Thompson, Dennis, SCRA

Tieckelmann, Robert, SEMATECH

Vairamohan, Baskar, Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI)

Vaze, Suhas, EWI

Warndorf, Paul, AMT – The Association For 

Manufacturing Technology

Wellington, Jane, Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Weil, Richard, Cleantech Los Angeles

Whitefoot, Katie, National Academy of Engineering

Wong, Perry, Milken Institute

Other (27)

Chris Cassidy Consulting

JumpStart

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

The Motorsports Education Foundation

Berkowitz, Kevin

Buthe, Chris, Lean Enterprise Development

Denning, Mary Kaye, Capital of Know-How 

Gartenlaub, Marshall, Technical Employment Training

Gary, Steve, Avery Dennison

Grover, Kristie, BIOCOM Institute

Hanmin, Chen

Hooper, Nicholas, UK Science and Innovation Network

Huggan, Phillip

Jory, Rick

Kakiris, Barbara, Barbara Kakiris Consulting, LLC

Kerzicnik, Ernest, Enginuity, LLC

Loveman, Stanford, Out of the Blox

Marcal, Pedro, MPACT

Mouakkad, Sally, British Consulate-General Los 

Angeles

Overmoyer, Richard, Fourth Economy Consulting

Payne, David, Ohio Republican Party

Petersen, Kevin, Food Chain Safety

Reyes, Matthew, Exploration Solutions, Inc.

Rojhani, Ethan, PwC

Talnack, Marie, Talnack & Associates

Trerotola, Ron, Trerotola Associates

Tseng, Shirley

NAT I O NA L N E T WO R K F O R M A N U FAC T U R I N G I N N OVAT I O N : A P R ELI M I NA RY D E S I G N

★ 43 ★

Appendix B: Glossary of Abbreviations

AMNPO Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

AIR Accelerating Innovation Research

BAA Broad Agency Announcement

CRS Congressional Research Service

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

ED Department of Education

ERC Engineering Research Centers

ETA Employment and Training Administration

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GOALI Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry

IMI Institute for Manufacturing Innovation

I/UCRC Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

MDF Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities

MENTOR Manufacturing Experimentation and Outreach

MEP Manufacturing Extension Partnership

MRL Manufacturing Readiness Level

MRSEC Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers

NACK National Nanotechnology Applications and Career Knowledge

NAMII National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCDMM National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NNMI National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

NSF National Science Foundation

PFI Partnerships for Innovation

R&D Research and Development

RFI Request for Information

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

STTR Small Business Technology Transfer

TRL Technology Readiness Level
Executive Office of the President

National Science and Technology Council

Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office