VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY (VCAT)

MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16-17, 2012, MEETING 

BOULDER, CO

ATTENDANCE:

Visiting Committee

Members Attending

Cerf, Vinton

Chowdhry, Uma

Haymet, Tony

Holt, William

Kerr, Karen

Kheradpir, Shaygan 

Khosla, Pradeep

Padovani, Roberto

Solomon, Darlene

Taub, Alan

VCAT Exec. Dir.

Ehrlich, Gail

NIST Leadership Board/Designee

Boehm, Jason

Brockett, Del

Celotta, Bob*

Dimeo, Robert

Fiotes, Stella

Gallagher, Patrick 

Harary, Howard

Kayser, Rich

Kelley, Michael

Kimball, Kevin

Locascio, Laurie

Olthoff, James

Romine, Chuck

Singerman, Phillip

*Participated by Webinar 

NIST Staff 

Allocca, Clare*

Arrisueno, Gladys

Averill, Jason

Briggman, Kim

Cavanagh, Richard

Evans, Heather

Fraser, Gerald

Hardis, Johnathan*

Hight-Walker, Angie*

Jillavenkatesa, Ajit*

Migler, Kalman*

Miller, Cameron*

O’Brian, Tom

Orr, Dereck

Ost, Laura

Shaw, Stephanie

Wilson, Perry

Wineland, David

Others 

 Jain, Kanti –

 National Research Council

 Reed, Travis* --

 Lewis-Burke Associates LLC, 

 Government Relations

 Rogers, Kenneth –

 Former Commissioner of the 

 Nuclear Regulatory 

 Commission

 VanSchalkwyk, William –

 Massachusetts Institute of 

 Technology

 Webber, Naomi* –

 Lewis-Burke Associates LLC, 

 Government Relations
Call to Order – Dr. Vinton Cerf, VCAT Chair 

Dr. Cerf called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and pointed out the emergency exits. He announced that 

his membership term expires on March 31, 2013 which will result in a vacancy for the Chair, and called 

for nominations. The election for the interim chair will take place at the February 2013 meeting. 

Agenda Review and NIST Update – Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Standards and Technology and NIST Director 

Presentation Summary – After welcoming the members to the Boulder laboratories, Dr. Gallagher spoke 

about NIST’s fourth Nobel Laureate, Dr. Dave Wineland, recognized for his “ground-breaking 

experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems.” The 

award ceremony will be held on December, 10, 2012. Another prestigious award, the Samuel J. Heyman 

Service to America Medal, was presented to NIST physicist Jacob Taylor on September 13, 2012, for his 

work in quantum information and quantum communications. 

With respect to the budget, Dr. Gallagher noted that NIST is currently operating under a Continuing 

Resolution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 at the FY 2012 level and reviewed the House and Senate marks for 

the FY 2013 President’s budget request. The FY 2013 budget request includes $1 billion in mandatory 

funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) and $300 million for the 

Wireless Innovation Fund. Both of these increases require separate legislation. NIST submitted the FY 

2014 budget request to the Department of Commerce (DOC) and has started planning for the FY 2015 

budget.

Four program updates were provided. Dr. Gallagher described how the Smart Grid effort has matured 

and summarized NIST’s role in the new tax-exempt, not-for-profit fully private entity, Smart Grid 

Interoperability Panel 2.0, to begin on January 1, 2013. He also provided the status of the SHA-3 

Cryptographic Hash Algorithm competition in which five finalists were announced. In addition, he 

reviewed the purpose and funding of National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) which has 

secured space at the University of Maryland’s Shady Grove campus as a vehicle for the NIST 

cybersecurity program to work more closely with industry. The NCCoE is currently exploring a 

Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) as a possible governance structure. Lastly, 

Dr. Gallagher summarized the three parts of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace 

(NSTIC) effort and noted the five organizations that received over $9 million in the first set of pilot 

awards in support of the NSTIC. 

Turning to new issues, NIST is in the planning stages with DOC to create a Center for Advanced 

Communications Technology. This Center will provide unique infrastructure available to Government 

and industry partners for the testing research, and standards capabilities needed to address spectrum 

sharing and other advanced communication technology challenges. 

Dr. Gallagher remarked that the VCAT should become familiar with NIST’s entire manufacturing 

portfolio which includes the laboratory programs, the NNMI, the Advanced Manufacturing Technology 

Consortia (AMTech), the Baldrige program, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) which 

is moving from competitiveness toward innovation and growth. 

Two significant organization changes have occurred at NIST since June. Del Brockett, the former NIST 

Chief Information Officer, is now the Acting Associate Director for Management Resources. Katharine 

Gebbie, the Director of the Physical Measurement Laboratory, has announced her intention to retire and 

the recruitment process for her successor is underway. 
Another new issue is the Business of NIST, a campaign to address the transformation of NIST business 

practices involving fund transfers for acquisitions, grants, and interagency agreements; revision of the 

NIST working capital fund collection to provide a budget for indirect funded activities; and a new budget 

planning process for indirect accounts and new service level agreements for programs. NIST plans to 

begin making these changes in FY 2013 and is in the process of recruiting a senior executive level head of 

Acquisitions, Grants, and Agreements. This transformation will involve all of NIST, not just the 

servicing organizations. 

Lastly, Dr. Gallagher reviewed the meeting agenda. He agreed that the members of the VCAT 

Subcommittee on Safety could visit Building 2 instead of the tour of the Precision Measurement 

Laboratory at the end of the day.

 . 

For more details, see Dr. Gallagher’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:

• The not-for-profit spinoff of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel is unusual in the standards arena 

especially at this scale, and represents a major achievement by George Arnold.

• An attack on the new SHA-3 algorithm is remote.

• NCCoE – With regard to the NCCoE, an FFRDC can draw on multiple funding sources. 

Historically, neither NIST nor DOC have engaged in FFRDC so an analysis is underway to determine 

if this is the right vehicle to operationalize the NCCoE to work best with industry and to provide 

additional flexibilities in meeting the goals of the NCCOE. 

o The initial ad hoc space for the NCCoE is a shared facility with the University of Maryland, 

but the actual location will be open for competition. 

o Some members expressed concerns that industry cannot wait until 2015 for an off-campus 

concentration of capability and that there are some basic burning issues which need to be 

addressed now.

• Business of NIST – NIST recognizes the importance of reintegrating the mutual accountability 

between the programs and the servicing organizations. 

o Some type of ticketing capability for all of NIST transactions would be a big asset. 

o There have been a lot of internal and external reviews of NIST operational processes that 

have resulted in a list of problem areas, rather than actionable plans to move forward

involving the whole organization. Although the staff agrees that problems exist, they have 

different understandings of the level of the problems. 

o NIST may want to consider a social networking tool to help the staff solve these problems.

o Metrics are an important part of the initial approach. To be most beneficial, the metrics for 

the programmatic staff and the service organizations should point to each other, reflecting a 

shared strategy and approach. 

Review Activities of the VCAT Subcommittee on Safety – Dr. Tony Haymet, Chair, VCAT 

Subcommittee on Safety and Mr. Bill VanSchalkwyk, Technical Expert 

Presentation Summary – In his introductory remarks, Dr. Haymet noted that the VCAT Subcommittee 

on Safety, which met in Boulder on October 15, 2012, should be considered as a third review in a series 

of intensive investigations of NIST safety and its safety culture. The first review was conducted by the 

Blue Ribbon Commission on Management and Safety (BRC) I in response to a serious safety incident in 

the Boulder laboratories. In the fall of 2008, the BRC I met in Gaithersburg and then in Boulder four 

years and eight days ago following a serious safety incident in the Boulder laboratories. Dr. Haymet was 

a member of the BRC II which convened in the fall of 2010. 
As a member of the BRC I and BRC II, Mr. VanSchalkwyk summarized their findings. Mr. 

VanSchalkwyk is the Managing Director for Environmental Health and Safety Programs at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and also served as a technical expert to the VCAT Subcommittee 

on Safety. The purpose of the BRC I was to evaluate the safety programs at NIST. In November 2008,

the BRC I issued a stark report with key conclusions: safety was not a core value at NIST; safety was not 

integrated into operations; NIST had not benchmarked safety performance; NIST safety resources are 

inadequate; and the NIST staff was eager, willing, and ready to embrace a safety culture. Awareness of 

safety metrics and data was also low. NIST’s response to these recommendations was refreshing and 

strong. The NIST leadership recognized the need to create roles with responsibility for safety and to 

increase resources. Most important, participation in safety performance was beginning to be seen as 

everyone’s responsibility and NIST set out to create a Safety Management Program. In the BRC II’s 

review in the fall of 2010, they found the beginnings of a credible Safety Management Program with a 

two-pronged effort where there was lots of desire from the bottom up as well as the top down. 

Dr. Haymet reviewed the three high-level recommendations from the BRC II and remarked that the 

VCAT Subcommittee on Safety believes that the NIST management had responded well. First, Willie 

May was appointed as the Associate Director for Laboratory Programs. Secondly, the Subcommittee did 

not detect an enthusiasm gap in senior management. Lastly, there has been a solid effort to establish an 

audit mechanism but it is still a work-in-progress. Dr. Haymet congratulated everybody at NIST for a job 

well done over the past four years. 

Now that NIST has begun to collect data, the Subcommittee is concerned that the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA)-reportable incidents are too high and are not changing over time. 

Also, there are some peer institutions that have better safety statistics than NIST. 

Dr. Haymet summarized five possible recommendations from the Subcommittee and emphasized that 

these may change. These recommendations cover the need for senior trained NIST executives to 

frequently walk around and audit individual laboratory rooms; the need for NIST to set targets for 

reducing each OSHA recordable statistic; the need to distribute and discuss the Incident Reporting and 

Investigation Statistics (IRIS) with everyone at NIST; the need to know where hold-ups occur in nonclosed IRIS cases; and the need to address ergonomic factors. 

In closing, Dr. Haymet noted that the Subcommittee heard a few service-related safety problems from 

some of the NIST staff and acknowledged the staff for being so frank. 

For more details, see Dr. Haymet’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The VCAT Chair remarked that the Subcommittee meeting was very productive 

and that the NIST Director should be given a lot of credit for creating an atmosphere for his staff to be so 

candid. 

Visit by David Wineland 2012 Nobel Laureate in Physics

Dr. Tom O’Brian, Chief of the Time and Frequency Division and the Quantum Physics Division, Physical 

Measurement Laboratory, introduced Dr. David Wineland, winner of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics 

with Serge Haroche of the College de France. He won the Nobel Prize for "for groundbreaking 

experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems" which 

basically means quantum state engineering. Some of this groundbreaking work is relevant to atomic 

clocks and Dr. Wineland’s team has the two best atomic clocks in the world using different technologies: 

quantum computing, quantum simulation, and extremely précised quantum-based measurements. Dr. 

O’Brian noted how gratifying it is to be able to work with Dr. Wineland and NIST’s other laureates: Jan 
Hall, Eric Cornell, and Bill Phillips. Their work is not only at the absolute cutting edge of science and 

technology but has direct applications to NIST’s measurement science mission. 

After a long applause, Dr. Wineland described his Nobel-prize winning work and noted that the last few 

days have been an “overwhelming experience.” He acknowledged the support and great work of his 

colleagues that led to this Prize. Dr. Wineland remarked that his experience at NIST has been “really 

great” and described his initial work at NIST in 1975. In 1977, he started the Ion Storage Group to work 

in laser cooling and the original four core individuals are still together. Although it will be a long time 

until a useful quantum computer will be developed, some of the basic ideas developed for quantum 

information and quantum computing are now being used in atomic clocks. Physicists are most interested 

in using a smaller quantum computer to simulate other quantum systems of interest, which may come to 

fruition in the next decade. 

Discussion Summary – Relatively standard lasers were used to manipulate the atomic ions but there was 

a lot of innovation to develop the ion traps used to hold the atomic ions. The lithographic facilities at 

NIST were used to help fabricate these ion traps. 

NIST on a Chip: Revolution in Measurement Services – Dr. Thomas O’Brian, Chief, Time and 

Frequency Division and Quantum Physics Division, Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML), NIST

Presentation Summary – NIST on a Chip is a revolution in measurement services as well as 

measurement science which makes use of very small devices which bring the precision of quantum-based 

measurements in most cases out of the NIST laboratory and into the customer’s lab. The NIST on a Chip 

is an integrated program to develop and deploy NIST-traceable measurements and physical standards that 

are deployed in the customer’s lab, factory floor, device, or system; easily used and integrated due to their 

small size, weight, low power consumption, and ruggedness; provide a broad range of measurements and 

standards relevant to the particular customer needs or applications; and manufacturable with the potential 

for production costs low enough to enable broad deployment. For example, chip-scale devices could help 

with quality control on traditional assembly lines or in advanced biomanufacturing. Eventually, these 

devices could be built into applications, such as jet fighters for continual calibration of their complex 

avionics. With lower production costs, these devices could be used in more consumer-oriented products, 

such as automobiles. Looking forward, the NIST on a Chip capability could actually enable future 

products, such as nanosatellites. 

NIST traditional measurement services were compared to NIST on a Chip. Although NIST has been 

providing critical measurement needs as efficiently and effectively as possible for many years through 

traditional measurement services, there are some limitations, including customer downtime, expense, 

periodic recalibrations, and limited range of available calibrations and measurements. With NIST on a 

Chip, the customer has 24/7/365 access to a NIST-traceable standard; no need for periodic recalibration; 

and potential for much broader and more flexible range of measurements and standards. 

Turning to how realistic is NIST on a Chip, Dr. O’Brian remarked that this program is quite likely to 

succeed and provided examples of remote services to show how NIST is already making substantial 

progress in realizing each of the four key areas: 1) remote deployment; 2) small size, low power, and 

rugged; 3) broad range of measurements; and 4) manufacturability. These examples include the quantum 

voltage standard, NIST chip-scale atomic clocks and magnetometers, a sampling of NIST on a Chip 

measurement technologies that are in a proof-of-concept phase, and commercialization of the chip-scale 

atomic clock by Symmetricom and other companies. Symmetricom began selling the first commercial 

chip-scale atomic clock in January 2011, based on NIST’s demonstration of the technology in 2004. 

These commercial clocks are also being built into third party applications, such as a GPS receiver board. 

Substantially more work is needed for fundamental measurement science, integration of multiple 
measurement technologies, and manufacturability. With sufficient resources, planning, coordination, and 

external partnering, there is a high likelihood of a successful NIST on a Chip. The “Lab on a Chip” 

which includes chemical, biological, and biomedical type measurements using microtechnology will be a 

crucial part of the NIST on a Chip program.

NIST should carry out this program for many reasons. As the nation’s measurements and standards 

laboratory, NIST’s mission is to provide measurements and standards enabling innovation and 

productivity. NIST also has world-leading scientists in measurement science; unique capabilities in 

micro/nanofabrication for precision measurement technology through the NIST Center for Nanoscale 

Science and Technology and Boulder’s new fabrication facility and the Precision Imaging Facility; 

expanded roles in manufacturing; and success in convening broad external partnerships. In addition, 

NIST’s recent Three-Year Programmatic Plans call for NIST to improve the development and delivery of 

measurement services; drive innovation through measurement; develop and deliver measurement science 

tools that will support advanced manufacturing; and accelerate technology transfer and 

commercialization. Lastly, a National Research Council panel evaluated NIST’s manufacturing-related 

programs and its report highlights the importance of the rice-size atomic clocks to nanomanufacturing. 

Dr. O’Brian provided examples of current and developing NIST on a Chip measurement technologies, 

emphasizing that these examples are only a small sample of current NIST technologies. He also 

discussed efforts toward the potential integration of measurements so that a single package can provide 

many measurements simultaneously. 

In addition to providing new measurement services, the NIST on a Chip will drive new measurement 

science based on unique measurement and technologies resulting from microscale interactions. Initial 

applications are likely to be NIST Chips performing a single measurement or a few closely related 

measurements. Functionality will continue to grow over the longer term. Adoption will initially be for 

high-value applications where cost is not an important factor. Manufacturing improvements are expected 

to bring about broader adoption and deployment. 

NIST is not planning to eliminate its traditional measurement service model; however, over time, many of 

these services would be replaced by NIST on a Chip. This would free up NIST resources to be redirected 

to other programs to expand the frontiers of measurement science and provide better services to 

customers. 

A preliminary idea for the NIST on a Chip program is a vertically integrated three-tiered program with 

fundamental measurement science as the base; the development, integration, and manufacturability of 

new NIST on a Chip technologies as an intermediate step; and the deployment of NIST on a Chip 

technologies at the top level. This program would span all NIST laboratories, rely on NIST’s fabrication 

facilities in Boulder and Gaithersburg, and strengthen and expand existing external partnerships, 

including the possibility of a future Center of Excellence. Next steps include holding an internal NIST 

workshop in Boulder in November to help inventory NIST on a Chip technologies, brainstorm new 

approaches, and develop preliminary recommendations to NIST senior management on the NIST on a 

Chip program. A public workshop would also be held to better clarify needs and partnerships to develop 

a more complete set of recommendations for NIST senior management. 

Lastly, Dr. O’Brian asked the VCAT’s advice on a few business model issues, such as commercialization

of these products, external partnerships and technology transfer, and licensing. He also presented his 

opinions about the program, including the need to ensure that “bottoms up” ideas are carefully 

considered. The final two slides listed eight questions where the VCAT’s advice and guidance would be 

helpful. 
For more details, see Dr. O’Brian’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:

• The patents associated with the chip-scale atomic clock reside in the public domain. 

• NIST may want to think more broadly by examining the competitive landscape from other 

laboratories and entities involved with measurements on a chip to identify and map NIST’s unique 

niche within those application areas based on NIST’s mission and capabilities. 

• NIST may want to consider the opportunity to provide measurements that are “just enough” for other 

applications rather than the highest quality and most precise measurements.

• Can NIST prevent Fraud on a Chip?

• The current competition and landscape for chip-scale measurements in the chemical and biological 

arena are more involved with general analysis and detection rather than precision physical 

measurements. NIST plans to bring a combination of its unique measurement technology and ability 

to take big risks to the current landscape. 

• NIST’s business model could be a hybrid where only some chips are manufactured at NIST especially 

those of high value but only a small quantity are needed throughout the world. 

• An important measurement service issue is the traceability to NIST especially for business decisions 

involving commercialized products. 

• One VCAT member cautioned against focusing on the business case for monetizing rather than on the 

significant impact that the NIST on a Chip could have on innovation.

• NIST may want to engage in more field trips to industry to identify their needs. 

• In selecting areas for the NIST on a Chip, NIST may want to identify the chief use cases for 

improving the quality of life and health care. 

• The NIST on a Chip design could be used for quantum gravity measurements in the future, but not in 

the next ten years. 

• The VCAT Chair suggested that Dr. O’Brian give this presentation at the Technology, Entertainment, 

and Design (TED) Conference to highlight what can be done with this technology rather than how it 

works. 

NIST Chip-Scale Atomic Device Program – Dr. Thomas O’Brian, Chief, Time and Frequency 

Division and Quantum Physics Division, PML, NIST

Presentation Summary – The NIST Chip-Scale Atomic Device Program is a collaboration across NIST 

but most of this program’s work and vision falls under the Time and Frequency Division’s Atomic 

Devices and Instrumentation Group led by John Kitching. The NIST Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC) 

and the NIST Chip-Scale Atomic Magnetometer (CSAM) were developed under this program. Several 

artifacts were passed around. 

Dr. O’Brian explained the motivation for the CSAC, emphasizing that atomic-clock quality timing and 

synchronization underpin a broad range of technologies and infrastructure including GPS, 

telecommunications, and power distribution, and that many of these applications would benefit from a 

device in the field that could make accurate measurements with atomic-clock-timing. DARPA was 

stimulated by NIST’s pioneering demonstrations and follow-up workshops on ultraminature atomic 

clocks. In 2002, DARPA started the CSAC program by funding NIST to perform fundamental research 

and metrology and funding a few companies to perform manufacturable demonstrations. NIST focused 

on coherent population trapping as a new approach and used commercial off-the-shelf MEMS and 

microfabrication techniques to show that the device could be manufacturable, in principle, through waferlevel assembly. The atomic vapor cell technology used in this process was pioneered by NIST. In 2004, 

NIST demonstrated the world’s first chip-scale atomic clock with an initial performance of 10-11, the 
Stratum 1 telecom standard, and later improved to a 10-12 uncertainty. Several manufacturers built on the 

NIST’s demonstration technology. Symmetricom commercialized the first CSAC in January 2011. The 

current cost of these CSACs is about $1,000 and likely to decrease. 

A natural outcome of the CSAC was NIST‘s development and demonstration of the world’s first CSAM 

in 2005. Its performance has rapidly improved by a factor of five magnitude to rival the best in the world 

Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID). 

NIST is now engaged in a follow-on program with a broad range of chip-scale sensors. Some of the 

current research directions are zero-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) for “remote” chemical 

analysis and zero-field magnetic resonance imaging; biomagnetic field measurement arrays for 

diagnostics/imaging on the head, brain, and muscles, as well as brain/machine interface; and NMR 

gyroscopes and accelerometers. This work serves as a feasibility demonstration of NIST on a Chip, and 

Dr. Kitching is currently at a meeting at DARPA discussing some of these applications. 

Lastly, Dr. O’Brian remarked that this program does very effective technology transfer through its more 

than than130 scientific publications, 8 patents, dozens of conferences and workshops, and training of 

dozens of postdocs and graduate students. In addition, the individuals involved with this program have 

received multiple national and international scientific awards. There continues to be on-going interest 

and funding in this program from other Federal agencies. 

For more details, see Dr. O’Brian’s presentation. 

NIST Centers of Excellence – Dr. Jason Boehm, Director, Program Coordination Office, NIST 

Presentation Summary – Dr. Boehm provided an update on the NIST Centers of Excellence (CoE) 

proposed at $20 million in the President’s FY 2013 budget. As context for this initiative, NIST has 

demonstrated very effective partnerships with academia and industry with different operating models to 

help leverage its resources and expertise. These partnerships include JILA, the Joint Quantum Institute, 

the Hollings Marine Laboratory, the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the Institute for 

Bioscience and Biotechnology Research. 

The goal of this proposed program is to create multidisciplinary centers that complement and extend U.S. 

measurement capabilities in critical areas of emerging technologies. There is strong support for this 

initiative in the House and the Senate; however, the current Continuing Resolution will delay this 

program. In preparation for this program, NIST is working with the Institute for Defense Analyses 

Science and Technology Policy Institute to prepare a trend analysis to help identify emerging technology 

areas and soliciting the NIST laboratories for potential CoE ideas. Dr. Boehm shared a partial list of 

potential topic areas under discussion with the NIST laboratories. These include big data, quantitative 

biology, and complex systems. 

The CoE’s key objectives are to: 1) assist NIST in meeting is mission needs in new or expanding areas of 

strategic focus, and provide expanded opportunities for NIST to engage with industry and entrepreneurs; 

2) enhance technical innovation through earlier alignment of measurement science in new areas of 

research and technology; 3) foster and facilitate the expanded development of measurement science 

expertise for students and early-career scientists and engineers; and 4) expand NIST’s strategic foot print 

so that NIST is located in several communities across the United States. 

There are numerous potential roles for a Center. Some of these roles include the ability to leverage 

resources of pre-existing hubs of institutional/regional expertise in areas of science and technology that 

are aligned with the long-term strategic needs of NIST; utilize and leverage existing NIST facilities; 
provide environments or frameworks for multidisciplinary or multiorganizational collaborations; enable 

closer engagement with industry and entrepreneurs; enable greater knowledge transfer through colocation of researchers; improve diversity in topical areas and geography; and include under-represented 

groups working at NIST. 

Lastly, Dr. Boehm explained why flexibility is critical when constructing a center. A center must be 

tailored to best address the challenge. NIST is considering a number of different business models. A 

center may be a long-term collaboration with an academic institution similar to JILA; a more problem 

focused multi-stakeholder collaboration similar to the NCCoE; or a user facility model similar to the 

Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. NIST is leaning toward issuing a call for centers to 

compete in a number of areas. 

For more details, see Dr. Boehm’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:

• With regard to sustainable funding, NIST might make awards for five to seven years, and then build 

on other modes of support depending on the center’s performance. NIST intends to have a longstanding commitment with each of the centers. 

• NIST on a Chip is one of many center ideas submitted by the laboratory directors. Some of these 

ideas could be considered for internal funding. NIST may want to consider DARPA’s Metal Oxide 

Silicon Implementation System (MOSIS) as a model for pursing NIST on a Chip rather than a CoE. 

• Each of the potential topic areas is important; however, to help the selection process, the strategic 

benefit of each area should be clarified. It is important to know which areas can have the most 

leverage going forward. 

• The NIST laboratories have been identifying gaps as targets of opportunities for the centers as 

reflected on the list of potential topics, but the entire list was too long for one slide. 

• Technology transfer is also an important role of a center. 

• The organizational design of a center must be flexible and will depend on the strategic goal and the 

competitive process. Many different partnering options exist ranging from traditional models to new 

models not used by NIST.

• The purpose and focus of the CoE was elaborated. The focus of the COE is to amplify NIST’s 

laboratory intramural activities via partnerships, which is a very different and distinct focus than the 

extramural programs. The CoE was designed to strengthen the NIST laboratory mission and provide 

new tools to make its mission more effective. 

• Congress and the Administration understand that the CoE is clearly focused but is designed to have 

an entrepreneurial flexibility for structuring partnerships that add the most value in a needed area. 

• A VCAT member noted the importance of separating the prioritization of high-level strategic areas 

from the mechanism for augmentation. 

NIST’s Unique Role in Intramural Technology Transfer – Dr. Phillip Singerman, Associate Director 

for Innovation and Industry Services, NIST 

Presentation Summary –NIST has a unique role in federal technology transfer policy. These activities 

include the policy coordination and promulgation of technology transfer regulations; chair of the 

Interagency Work group for Technology Transfer; support to the Federal Laboratory Consortium as 

mandated by statute; and the traditional role of preparing two annual reports for the President, Congress, 

and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on utilization of technology transfer by DOC and 

across all agencies. These two reports cover traditional metrics such as disclosures, patents, patent 

applications, licenses, and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs).
NIST’s role was broadened under the Presidential Memorandum, “Accelerating Technology Transfer and 

Commercialization in Support of High-Growth Businesses” issued on October 28, 2011. This 

memorandum identified a number of goals and tasks for federal agencies. Each federal agency with 

intramural research was required to prepare five-year plans to improve the rate of technology transfer, 

including goals and metrics. NIST was explicitly called out to lead the development of metrics and to 

identify opportunities for improving technology transfer by convening and leading the Interagency 

Workgroup for Technology Transfer. In addition, the NIST Director convened a NIST senior 

management leadership policy committee to develop the agency’s five-year plan and define the full range 

of NIST’s technology transfer mechanisms. Dr. Singerman summarized the work of this Committee and 

noted that it recognized that technology transfer is not defined just by the traditional and narrow metrics 

of patenting and licensing, but includes various mechanisms that NIST researchers use to disseminate 

their work with significant impacts to society and the economy, such as Standard Reference Materials, 

Standard Reference Data, and accreditations. 

To illustrate the diversity of technology transfer in the NIST laboratories, Dr. Singerman reviewed several 

graphs covering the number of patents, CRADA metrics, Facility Users, Research Participants, and 

intellectual property metrics. With regard to the development of new technology transfer metrics for use 

across the government, agencies are beginning to report on the number of licenses granted to small 

businesses and the number of start-up companies created. 

In closing, Dr. Singerman remarked that NIST is now an exemplar of good technology transfer and that 

its analysis of the issues stands out among other federal agencies. Each of the agencies’ multi-year plans 

will be available on the NIST website. 

For more details, see Dr. Singerman’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:

• Are patents and CRADAs being used to promote or inhibit commercialization? Although the 

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act lays out the requirements on how the federal 

government is to use patents, the Work Group is looking at the best approaches for getting the

technology commercialized and widely disseminated. The goal is to broaden the toolbox to include 

more than patents. 

• Decisions regarding licensing a patent for free to U.S. companies but for a fee to foreign companies is 

expected to be a big policy issue going forward. The boundary between creating and protecting 

information needs to be addressed. 

• The use of the Federal Register to publish licensing information was summarized. 

• NIST may want to consider segregating its external metrics provided to stakeholders from its internal 

metrics which are used to drive behavior. Metrics that leverage commercialization by industry are 

important. 

• Building a network of innovation across the U.S. to trigger the passion and imagination of younger 

people would be a huge leverage. 

NIST’s Portfolio of Programs in Advanced Manufacturing – Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director 

Presentation Summary – In response to some confusion that NIST only focuses on manufacturing 

through its new proposed programs, the motivation for this talk is to reinforce and articulate the fact that 

NIST has a portfolio of programs in advanced manufacturing with different roles. The portfolio consists 

of five programs. These are the NIST Laboratory Programs, the Hollings MEP, the Baldrige Performance 

Excellence Program which was erroneously omitted from the slide because it is no longer supported by 
Federal funds, and the proposed AMTech and proposed NNMI. Although operating with outside funding, 

the Baldrige program has a clear role in manufacturing and large companies are still actively engaged, 

particularly through the Baldrige Executive Fellows Program. 

The NIST laboratories address manufacturing needs by providing measurement science and standards 

services, interoperability standards and tools, unique facilities that involve a much larger industrial 

participation than its U.S. counterparts, and technology and knowledge transfer. The NIST laboratories 

play a role in the development of new materials, new processes, and new methods as well as the market 

adoption side of manufacturing. The emerging areas with NIST laboratory investments are 

biomanufacturing, nanomanufacturing, advanced materials modeling and simulation, smart 

manufacturing and cyberphysical systems, and energy efficiency and sustainability.

The MEP was designed specifically as a partnership program with states and regions to provide services 

that support small and mid-size manufacturers. Dr. Gallagher remarked that MEP is remarkably 

successful in that context and is now undergoing a reinvention focused on next-generation MEP strategies 

in support of innovation. MEP could help leverage small and mid-size manufacturers engagement in 

AMTech and the NNMI. 

There may be an issue with AMTech’s scale of funding and the desired impact. One possibility to 

address this issue is for AMTech to get some leverage from the NIST laboratory programs in working 

with industry consortia to tackle shared problems. The VCAT may be asked for their advice on this 

pending issue. In contrast, the NNMI is concerned with creating an R&D infrastructure around a 

particular problem or issue and is not focused on NIST’s activities. The NNMI was assigned to NIST 

instead of a larger mission-focused agency because of its broader view of opportunities from a national 

perspective. 

For more details, see Dr. Gallagher’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:

• The confusion over NIST’s programs in manufacturing is coming from the Hill as well as public 

comments regarding the NNMI. For example, questions have been raised regarding duplication 

between the NNMI and the MEP.

• Modeling and Validation – NIST has an important role in developing and validating models as well 

as providing on-line resources to help others carry out simulations and tests, particularly in support of 

the Materials Genome Initiative. The Material Measurement Laboratory and the Information 

Technology Laboratory (ITL) are close partners in the Materials Genome Initiative effort and NIST 

intends to collaborate with the communities of interest outside of NIST in carrying out activities

ranging from web- based validation of models, web-based databases, and experimental design

modeling. 

o The definition of “traceability” is different from “validation.” NIST has already done 

extensive validation and verification of some existing models which have led to their greater 

utility for the community. 

o ITL has a major program that addresses the computational issues associated with metrology. 

o A VCAT member remarked that NIST has pioneered a lot of the molecular modeling that is 

now routine. 

o NIST is exploring ways to have its tools available on cloud-based systems. 

• Should consortia members of AMTech include large companies as well as the suppliers to foster a pre 

competitive collaboration? As an example, SEMATECH’s successful operations were summarized

whereby the companies could provide common input to the suppliers. 
• A major issue within the Administration and the manufacturing community is how to reenergize the 

U.S. supply chain.

• If AMTech does not receive an adequate budget, NIST will not use the laboratory resources to fund 

this new program. 

• With regard to the NNMI, the characteristics of the “network” are still being determined. An explicit 

topic in the public comments and workshops address the functionality of the network component of 

the Institutes. NIST does not want to overdesign the Institutes since they will be required to be selfsustaining after six years. 

Review of the Manufacturing-Related Programs at NIST, Summary of the Report by the National 

Research Council (NRC) Panel of the National Academies – Professor Kanti Jain, Chair, NRC 

Panel 

Presentation Summary – As part of his introductory remarks, Dr. Gallagher noted that Dr. Kanti is chair 

of the NRC panel that reviewed NIST manufacturing-related programs and a professor of electrical and 

computer engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In contrast to past NRC reviews 

which have been done by organization, NIST requested that the review of manufacturing-related 

programs be a crosscut assessment due to the timeliness and urgency of this topic. Although this was a 

very broad crosscut theme, Dr. Gallagher remarked that NIST was delighted with the outcome of the 

report. 

Dr. Kanti acknowledged that this review was very challenging due to the broad scope of manufacturing. 

The 14 NRC panel members represented broad expertise in various areas and a broad range of institutions 

in industry, academia, industry, and government. The scope of the review included manufacturing 

research at NIST broadly, with an emphasis on three specific advanced manufacturing areas: 1) 

nanomanufacturing; 2) smart manufacturing; and 3) next-generation materials measurements, modeling, 

and simulation. The panel was charged with assessing the technical merit and scientific caliber of NIST’s 

manufacturing programs, the efficacy of NIST’s engagement with outside stakeholders, and the 

coordination and cohesion across NIST of programs in the specific advanced manufacturing topics. 

Dr. Kanti described the key findings in each of the three topic areas followed by an overall summary. 

Overall, NIST is a national asset because of its world-class equipment and facilities, and highly qualified 

researchers who are among the best in the world. However, project selection needs improvement with 

greater attention to industry need, manufacturability, and commercial potential. Also, programs give the 

appearance of a collection of projects. Program metrics should be more quantitative and industry 

interactions should be expanded with more visits to companies and greater awareness of industry 

practices. Coordination across the NIST laboratories seems ad hoc and informal, and greater benefits 

would be realized with structured coordination. Lastly, NIST deserves more national visibility for its 

technical and scientific capabilities and accomplishments. 

In conclusion, Dr. Kanti noted the impact of NIST contributions on manufacturing. Because the vast 

scope of manufacturing encompasses a wide array of disciplines, systems, applications, and 

environments, NIST’s contributions impact the U.S. in a multitude of ways. As a result of its highly 

qualified researchers and advanced facilities that are a national asset, NIST is uniquely qualified to 

support U.S. manufacturing broadly. Perhaps in recognition of these capabilities, NIST was accorded the 

leading role for the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office. 

To view the key findings in each of the topic areas and other details from this talk, see Dr. Jain’s

presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:
• Industry statements that attest to the benefits of NIST work to their company are valuable and can 

serve as a powerful metric for the manufacturing programs. 

• NIST was surprised by the panel’s critique of the Smart Manufacturing activities with respect to its 

research lagging behind industry’s needs and its stakeholder engagement. NIST has been highly 

engaged with the Additive Manufacturing Consortium and is also playing a key role in leadership and 

technical contributions to a new ASTM standards committee in additive manufacturing. 

• Since consortia usually deal with the lowest common denominator in order to meet the noncompetitive needs of all of its member companies, it is also important to also engage directly with 

individual companies through visits to their sites. Both forms of engagement are needed. 

• To help balance the different needs across industry in selecting priorities and projects, NIST looks for 

broad enablers as the focal point and identifies those gaps. 

• Project selection criteria should involve the needs of small businesses, as well. 

• NIST will invite the appropriate NRC panel members to provide input to the VCAT’s future studies, 

as needed. 

Update on the Administration’s Advanced Manufacturing Initiatives – Dr. Phillip Singerman, 

Associate Director for Innovation and Industry Services, NIST 

Presentation Summary – In his opening remarks, Dr. Singerman noted that the President mentioned 

“manufacturing” and “advanced manufacturing” several times in his October 16, 2013, Town Hall 

Meeting. Dr. Singerman summarized the recommendations of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 

(AMP) Steering Committee Report, the accomplishments of the Advanced Manufacturing National 

Program Office (AMNPO), and the status of the NNMI public design efforts. 

The AMP Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from major corporations and research 

universities, prepared a detailed report entitled, Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced 

Manufacturing, which was released and adopted by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology in July 2012. The report grouped its 16 recommendations into three categories: 1) enabling 

innovation; 2) securing the talent pipelines; and 3) improving the business climate. Under enabling 

innovation, Dr. Singerman highlighted the recommendations for establishing a National Advanced 

Manufacturing Strategy to be coordinated by the AMNPO in close collaboration with industry and 

academia, establishing partnerships in top cross-cutting technologies, and establishing a network of 

Manufacturing Innovation Institutes to help fill existing technology and workforce development gaps 

through a network of shared facilities. With regard to securing the talent pipeline, Dr. Singerman 

remarked that the private sector should lead the effort to improve the image of manufacturing and noted 

that MEP has been involved with the community college efforts, among others. 

AMNPO, hosted by NIST on behalf of the federal government, is focused on interagency planning and 

coordination of advanced manufacturing activities. Its early accomplishments include building the 

interagency team with a very light NIST footprint along with industry and academic fellows; revising the 

manufacturing.gov portal; and participating in the review process for selecting the National Additive 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) in Youngstown, Ohio, led by the National Center for 

Defense Manufacturing and Machining with many regional partners. This Institute captures the 

Administration’s concept of using regional innovation clusters as a mechanism for enhancing U.S. 

competitiveness.

AMNPO has also been leading the public design of the NNMI, including issuing a Request for 

Information (RFI) open through October 25, 2013 and organizing and conducting workshops. 

Approximately 250 participants with strong industry representation have attended each of these 

workshops held in Troy, New York, Cleveland, Ohio, and Irvine, California. The next workshop will be 
held in Boulder, Colorado, on October 18. The RFI and the workshops are collecting information in four 

major categories: 1) technologies with broad impact; 2) Institute structure and governance; 3) strategies

for sustainable Institute operations; and 4) education and workforce development. The next step in the 

design process is to develop a White Paper after the RFI closes, which will be discussed in early January 

at a workshop in Huntsville, Alabama. 

For more details, see Dr. Singerman’s presentation. 

Discussion Summary – The group discussed the following topics:

• The purpose and operational structure of the NNMI was elaborated. The agendas will be driven by 

industry needs and executed through the various organizations in the regional hubs. The design of the 

NNMI is still in the development process and AMNPO is looking for a bottoms-up approach with 

guidance from the stakeholders, as reflected in the questions regarding technologies, structure and 

governance, sustainability, and education and workforce development. The aim is not to be overly 

prescriptive in the design since there will most likely be great diversity among these Institutes. 

• The overall objectives and goals of the Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation were distributed in 

advance of the workshops to help design a national program which meet these objectives and goals. 

• The most important goal of the Institutes is to create a concentration of research capacity that is 

driven by industry and can be done collectively. 

• Examples were provided on how companies benefit by participating in the workshops. The high level 

of industry participation reflects the recognition of the importance of manufacturing.

• NIST’s role in the NNMI is to keep the Institutes cohesive as a program in terms of making sure that 

the governance structure is driven by industry rather than the mission agency and that the structure is 

focused to create the appropriate leverage. 

• Some concerns were raised about sustaining these Institutes after their initial one-time funding, 

including the possibility of an Institute becoming focused on self-propagation as a means for 

additional funding. 

Tour of the NIST Boulder Laboratories

The VCAT members visited the following laboratories: 

• Quantum Voltage Laboratory – Develops superconducting electronic circuit and system 

technology for precision measurement applications and fundamental metrology. 

• Public Safety Communications Research Demonstration Network – As a joint effort by NIST and 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Public Safety 

Communications Research Program develops standards and conducts research to improve the 

quality and interoperability of emergency communications.

• NIST Precision Measurement Laboratory – Houses a new 9,000-square foot clean room which 

includes tools for fabricating micorelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and a Precision Imaging 

Facility. 

Wrap Up – Dr. Vinton Cerf, VCAT Chair 

Discussion Summary – Dr. Cerf announced his plans for sending the draft 2012 VCAT Annual Report to 

the other members by December 25 for their review and comments by the February 2013 meeting. The 

group discussed options for the length of the VCAT meetings as well as the timing and number of 

meetings per year in order to facilitate better attendance by the members. The fall and spring meetings are 

the best time to provide input into NIST’s internal budget process. 
With regard to safety, the group agreed that the next meeting of the VCAT Subcommittee on Safety

should be held in Gaithersburg in conjunction with the February 2013 VCAT meeting and that the agenda 

include a discussion with the Gaithersburg safety representatives and a tour of one of the “borderline”

safety buildings. The VCAT also requested that a report on safety metrics be presented at every VCAT 

meeting. 

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m. on Wednesday, October 17, 2012.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Gail Ehrlich, Executive Director, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology

Dr. Alan Taub, Chair, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology