Request for Information to Inform the Creation of Potential New Manufacturing 

Technology Acceleration Centers (M-TACs)

1. What	are	the	specific	types	of	technology	transition	and	commercialization	

tools	and	services	that	should	be	provided	by	M-TACs?	Emphasis	is	on	

alignment	of	these	tools	and	services	with	the	most	pressing	needs	of	small	

and	mid-sized	U.S.	manufacturers.	

Most	small	and	mid-sized	U.S.	manufacturers	don’t	have	the	resources	for	

research	and	development.		Therefore,	they	must	rely	on	expertise	housed	at	

universities	or	technical	schools.	We	have	witnessed	success	stories	of	

connecting	manufacturers	with	specific	needs	with	a	university	that	can	meet	

the	specific	need.	Having	established	a	consortium	of	universities	throughout	

the	state	as	partners	of	the	MEP	has	made	this	possible.	

The	creation	of	a	centralized	web	site	listing	all	the	technology	transition	and	

commercialization	tools	available	to	manufacturers	in	the	state	could	help	

manufacturers	match	their	technology	and	commercialization	needs	with	

capabilities	to	meet	their	needs.		The	MEP	could	thereby	serve	as	a	

clearinghouse	of	services	available	throughout	the	state	for	manufacturers	to	

tap	into.	This	network	could	be	broadened	to	the	national	level	if	the	services	

are	not	available	within	the	state.	Universities	also	have	expertise	in	

mechatronics	related	to	advanced	manufacturing	and	have	formed	a	

consortium	on	their	own	to	train	the	future	manufacturing	leaders.	Without	a	

workforce	trained	in	advanced	manufacturing,	manufacturers	will	continue	

to	struggle	with	the	implementation	of	new	technologies.	There	would	need	

to	be	a	network	of	workforce	training	providers	throughout	the	state.	Again,	

these	services	could	be	listed	on	the	central	web	site	for	manufacturers	to	

utilize.	There	could	be	a	one	stop	shop	for	manufacturers	to	go	to	for	services	

to	meet	their	specific	needs.	Community	and	Technical	colleges	could	also	

play	a	large	role	in	this	effort.	Generally	they	are	located	throughout	the	state	

and	could	meet	the	needs	of	manufacturers	on	a	geographic	basis.	Again,	all	

of	this	builds	on	already	existing	infrastructure. Through	the	Kentucky	

Association	of	Manufacturers	there	is	access	to	the	National	Association	of	

Manufacturers	endorsed	manufacturing	skills	certification	system	to	assure	

quality	training	in	technologies	for	advanced	manufacturing.

In	addition,	the	MEP	has	a	robust	Supplier	Scouting	process	in	place	as	well	

as	active	Technology	Scouting	and	TDMI	scouting	assistance	for	

manufacturers.	These	should	be	heavily	utilized	by	the	new	M-TACs.

a. How	would	M-TAC	services	complement	the	services	currently	offered	by	

MEP	Centers?		Our	MEP	Center	offers	Innovation	Engineering	to	

manufacturers,	a	service that	helps	them	make	informed	decisions	on	

which	innovations	to	move	forward	with	and	how.	The	university	and	

economic	development	partners	are	helping	to	connect	manufacturers	

with	needs	to	the	appropriate	service	providers.		The	universities	are	

helping	by providing	prototyping	services	and	other	research	and	
product	development	services.	Higher	education	partners,	particularly	

community	and	technical	colleges,	are	providing	workforce	training	

tailored	to	the	needs	of	the	manufacturer.	Through	networking	with	our	

economic	development	partners,	we	are	trying	to	develop	a	

clearinghouse	of	information	regarding	existing	services	for	

manufacturers.	The	M-TACs	could	help	accomplish	this	difficult	task.

2. What	role	should	future	M-TACs	play	with	respect	to	supply	chain	needs?	

How	should	OEMs	participate?	How	can	industry	associations,	professional	

societies,	and	other	appropriate	national	organizations	participate?

The	first	step	to	addressing	supply	chain	needs	is	to	develop	a	list	of	those	

needs.	In	that	OEM’s	are	at	the	top	of	the	food	chain,	placing	demands	on	the	

system	for	supplying	their	needs,	it	makes	sense	for	them	to	help	develop	

this	list	with	the	assistance	of	the	M-TACs.	Once	this	list	from	OEMs is	

established,	then	lists	of	supply	chain	needs	of	their	suppliers	downstream	

should	be	developed.	The	M-TACs	can	connect	these	needs	with	statewide	

providers	first,	and	if	not	successful,	use	national	resources	available	through	

the	MEP,	whether	other	MEP	Centers	or	such	services	as	Supplier	Scouting.	

Again,	the	M-TACs	should	take	advantage	of	the	MEP	Supplier	Scouting,	

Technology	Scouting,	and	TDMI.	

3. Is	there	a	particular	long-term	scalable	and	financially	sustainable	business	

model	that	should	be	implemented	by	future	M-TACs	that	will	enable	small	

and	mid-sized	U.S.	manufacturers	to	effectively	access	and	benefit	from	the	

technology	transition	and	commercialization	assistance	and	other	resources	

needed.

One	model	could	be	the	fees	paid	to	university partners	for	their	assistance	

in	meeting	technological	and	commercialization	challenges	with	a	finders	fee	

going	to	the	state	MEP.		U.S.	small	to	mid-sized	manufacturers	cannot	carry	

the	overhead	associated	with	a	research	and	development	team.	Therefore,

by	tapping	into	an	available	existing	resource	on	an	as	needed	basis,	they	

should	be	able	to	afford	the	temporary	help	they	require	on	specific	projects.	

With	a	statewide	network	of	university	partners,	a	wide	variety	of	technical	

assistance	is	available	at	an	affordable	price	yet	help	sustain	the	cost	to	

universities	and	the	MEP.		The	same	type	of	model	would	apply	for	

workforce	training	programs	throughout	the	state.	In	addition,	there	are	

state	financial	resources	to	help	defray	the	cost	to	manufacturers	for	this	

training,	making	it	cost	effective.

a. Because	of	the	programmatic	connection	to	the	NIST	MEP	Program,	MTACs	may	require	cost	share.	Are	the	cost	share	models	for	future	MTACs	that	promote	scale	up	to	reach	nationally	dispersed	clusters	of	small	

to	mid-sized	manufacturers?		If	so,	what	are	those	models,	and	why	might	

they	be	successful? Given	the	hard	economic	times,	I	am	not	aware	of	any	
cost	share	models.	It	would	take	a	visionary	commitment	from	the	state	

to	make	this	happen.

b. The	generation	of	intellectual	property	is	possible,	and	even	likely	as	a	

result	of	M-TAC	operations.	What	types	of	intellectual	property	

arrangements	and	management	constructs	would	promote	active	

engagement	of	industry	in	these	pilots,	especially	among	small	and	midsized U.S.	manufacturers	that	would	be	supportive	of	the	business	model?		

As	appropriate,	please	include	a	set	of	potential	options,	and	please	

explain	your	responses.

Having	worked	with	a	number	of	companies	in	developing	technologies,	

the	number	one	reservation	they	have	in	working	with	universities	and	

other	entities	is	claims	to	intellectual	property	that	are	onerous.	In	fact,	

intellectual	property	often	does	not	lead	to	riches.	It	is	better	to	enhance	

deal	flow	to	improve	the	chances	of	finding	one	product	that	does	reach	

the	market	and	perform.		Many	universities	choke	product	development	

trying	to	recoup	money	up	front.	It	is	better	to	develop	contracts	with	

clear	delineation	of	IP,	but	limit	any	claims	to	financial	rewards	up	front.	

Contracts	could	stipulate	that	a	certain	percentage	of	gross	or	net	profits	

from	the	development	of	a	product	that	involved	outside	help	over	a	

certain	dollar	limit	(eg.,	$1M)	go	to	the	outside	service	provider.	A	certain	

one-time	small	share	of	this	payment	might	go	to	the	MEP for	referral.		In	

this	system,	there	is	no	obligation	of	the	manufacturer	to	pay	universities		

(or	other	providers)	beyond	the	fee	for	service	contract	paid	to	help	

develop	the	product.	By	mutual	agreement	the	service	provider	and	

manufacturer	can	develop a	contract	up	front	regarding	the	equity	stake	

should	the	product	become	highly	successful.		

4. How	should	an	M-TAC’s	performance	and	impact	be	evaluated?	What	are	the	

appropriate	measures	for	future	M-TACs?	Please	explain	your	response	

including	the	value	of	the	performance	measure	to	business	growth.	

The	performance	metrics	used	to	evaluate	MEP’s	should	apply	as	well	to	MTACs.	The	bottom	line	is	to	enhance	manufacturing	growth,	profitability,	

quality	and	job	creation.	These	goals	are	consistent	with	the	NIST	MEPs	and	

should	be	evaluated	likewise.	There	might	be	an	additional	metric	of	partner	

involvement	and	their	impact	in	that	the	goal	is	to	broaden	the	impact	of	the	

NIST	MEP.	This	cannot	be	done	without	a	wider	engagement	of	partners.

5. Are	there	any	other	critical	issues	that	NIST	MEP	should	consider	in	its	

strategic	planning	for	future	M-TAC	investments	that	are	not	covered	by	the	

first	four	questions?		If	so,	please	address	those	issues	here	and	explain	your	

response. Not	at	this	time.

Submitted	by	AKA	MEP,	Kentucky

Blaine	Ferrell