FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation/NYSTAR

FuzeHub

Rensselaer	Polytechnic	Institute	(RPI)

and

Rensselaer	Polytechnic	Institute	Center	for	Automation	Technologies	and	Systems	(RPI	CAT)

response	to:

Request	for	Information

Pilots	to	Inform	Potential	New	manufacturing	

Technology	Acceleration	Centers	(M-TACs)

Authored by:

Mr.	Matt	Watson

Regional	Director

Empire	State Development	Division	of	Science,	

Technology	&	Innovation/NYSTAR

mwatson@esd.ny.gov

Ms.	Laura	Mann

Principal,	 Strategy	and	Operations

FuzeHub

laura@fuzehub.com

Mr.	Nick	Viggiani

Assistant	Vice	President	for	Research

Rensselaer	Polytechnic	Institute	(RPI)

viggin@rpi.edu

Mr.	Craig	Dory

Associate	Director	

Rensselaer	Center	for	Automation	Technologies	and	

Systems	(CATS)

doryc@rpi.edu

7/22/2013
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	2

Request	for	Information:	

Pilots	to	Inform	Potential	New	manufacturing	Technology	Acceleration	Centers	(M-TACs)

Question 1: What	 are	 the	 specific	 types	 of	 technology	 transition	 and	 commercialization	

tools	and	services	that	should	be	provided	by	M-TACs?		Emphasis	is	on	the	alignment	of	these	

tools	and	services	with	the	most	pressing	needs	of	small	and	mid-sized	U.S.	manufacturers.

Small/mid-sized	manufacturers	seeking help	with	technology	transition	and	commercialization	

often	 require	 more diverse,	 multi-disciplinary	 combinations	 of	 expertise	 and	 capability not	

generally	 found in	 any	 one	 organization or	 region.	 	 They often	 face	 a	 very	 time-intensive,	

circuitous	and	costly	path	sorting	through	a daunting	array	of	potential	resources	in their	quest	

to	answer questions	such	as	“where	could	I	source	a	new	technology?”	and	“what	would	I	do	

with	a	new	technology?”		The	major	types	of	challenges	for	S/MEs	in	technology	transition	and	

commercialization	include:

 The	strategic	 assessment	 of	 the	 opportunity	 costs versus the	 uncertain	 real	 value	 or	

payback	 period	 associated	 with investing	 time	 and	 money	 into	 the	 transition	 and	

commercialization	of	new	technology.

 The	 ability	 to	 undertake	 and	 carry	 the	 associated	 costs	 and	 risks	 associated	 with	

pursuing a	new	technology	commercialization	opportunity.

 The	 ability	 to	 identify,	 access	 and/or	 coalesce the	 right	 combination	 of	the	 additional	

required	resources,	capabilities	and	expertise	that	are	reliable	and	affordable.		Specific	

resource	and	expertise	 hurdles	 include	market	analysis	and	 planning,	engineering	and	

product	 development,	 manufacturing	 systems,	 facilities	 and	 equipment, integrated	

information	 systems, IP	 strategies	 and	 services,	 component/material	 sourcing,		

technology	sourcing,	research	and	industry	partnership	development,		and	funding.

To	address	these	specific	challenges	M-TAC	Centers	should	be	positioned	to	provide:

 Comprehensive	 expertise	 for	 needs	 analysis	 and	 fast	 access	 to	 the	 full	 landscape of	

relevant	existing resources;

 Pre-qualification	and	vetting	of	resources	for	SMEs

 Ability	 to	 facilitate	 in-person,	 person-to-person	 collaborations	 and	 consultations	

between multi-disciplinary	teams	and manufacturing	companies;

 Strategic	gap	analysis	to	identify	areas	of	need	not	well-addressed	by	the	existing MEPs	

and landscape	of	resources;

 Program,	expertise,	services	and	support	 to	address	specific	resource	gaps not	already	

effectively	and	affordably	addressed	by existing	MEP	and	other	resources;

 New	models	and	ideas	to	 scale	and	 deliver	 services	more cost-effectively	 to	a	greater	

number	of	SMEs;

 Market	and	supply	chain	services	and	intelligence;

 Access	to	Research	and	Industry	partnership	opportunities;
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	3

 Access	to	world-class	advanced	technologies	and	IP

 Affordable	 access	 to	 specialized	 equipment	 and	 facilities	 through	 shared-purchase	

models	or	other	means;

 New	mechanisms	and/or	pools	of	 funding	and/or	better	access	to	capital	for	new	SME	

technology	commercialization	projects	and	activities;

 Marketing	services	and	support	for	MEPs	and	SMEs

 Information	systems	support	for	MEPs	and	SME’s

 Access	to	capital	to	provide	project-level	and	early-stage	funding	for	SMEs

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

centers?

M-TAC	 Centers would	 complement	 the	 services	 currently	 offered	 by	 MEP	 Centers	 in	 the	

following	ways:

 Provide or	 facilitate shared	 services,	equipment	and	expertise	 that	 is	 very specialized,	

does	 not	 exist,	 is	 not	 widely	 accessible	 or	 cannot	 otherwise	 be	 affordably	 delivered	

through	the	current	MEP	structure	and	delivery	platform.

 Broaden	expertise	of	and	access	to	the	comprehensive	resource	and	service	landscape

 Source	of	market,	industry,	and	supply	chain	research	and	intelligence

 Resource	gap	analysis

 Develop	 or	 lead	 industry,	 state-wide	 or	 national	 level	 consortiums	 for	 complex,	

specialized		initiatives

 Provide support	 and	 efficiencies	 of	 scale	 to	 MEPs	 and	 SMEs	 including	 additional	

marketing	 and	 outreach,	 IT	 services,	 and	 potential	 consolidation	 of	 selected	

administrative	operational	activities	

 Establish	and	expand industry	and	research	partnerships and	opportunities

 Development	of	best	practices,	standardization	and	systemization of	MEP	processes and	

services

Question	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?

Future	M-TAC	Centers	should have	a	role	in addressing supply	chain	needs by	providing:

 Supply	 chain	 research	 and	 analysis	 capability	 and key	 supply	 chain	 and	 market	

intelligence

 Supplier	and	customer	development	opportunities	and	services

 Development	 or	 facilitation	 of	 education	 and	 certification services,	 programs	 and	

events	

 Consortia	partnership	development	to	address	supply	chain	initiatives

 OEM	needs	assessment	and	partnership	development
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	4

 Development	 of	 supply	 chain	 and	 stakeholder	 communities	 through	 marketing	 and	

social	media,	collaboration	and	communications	platforms,	activities	and	events	

OEMs	have	a	significant,	strategic	role	to	play	that includes:

 Financial	 support	 and	 active	 participation	 in	 supply	 chain	 research,	 education	 and	

development	initiatives,	consortiums	and	activities

 Increased	corporate	investment	in	and	purchase	from domestic	suppliers

 Development	 of	 mechanisms	 and	 business	 models	 to	 enhance	 domestic	 supplier	

development	and	opportunities	such	as	shared/leased	equipment	and	 facility	options,	

open	innovation	practices,		and supplier	procurement	practices.	

Industry	 associations,	 professional	 societies	 and	 other	 appropriate	 national	 organizations	 can	

participate	in	addressing	supply	chain	needs	in	many	ways.		It	will	be	critical	for	M-TAC	Centers	

to	leverage	the	knowledge	and	subject	matter	expertise	of	relevant	associations,	societies,	and	

organizations	and	their	respective	memberships.		These	organizations	can	participate	in	M-TAChosted	forums	and	can	share	with	SMEs	their	knowledge	of	markets,	supply	chains,	OEM	needs	

and	innovation	trends	to	name	a	few.

Question	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	they	need?

Successful	 and	 sustainable	 models	 would	 likely	 include public-private	 partnerships,	 would	

engage	a	wide	and	diverse	stakeholder	and	resource	group,	would	require	an	actively	managed

common	 web-enabled	 platform	 or	 system	 adopted	 by	 all	 network	stakeholders,	 and	 would	

employ	systemized	and	standardized	processes.

Utilizing	 a	 common	 collaboration	 platform	 and	 systemized	 processes, M-TAC	 centers	 could	

draw from	all	of	the	existing	critical	component	partners,	programs,	services,	infrastructure	and	

resources	 and	 drive	 affordable	 effective	 service	 delivery	 at	 the	 local	 level	 with	 cost-effective	

scale	capability.		This proposed	consortium	partnership	model	could successfully	operate and	

effectively	serve	thousands	of	SMEs	in	a	defined	multi-state	footprint (depending	on	the	state	

size	and	demographics);	and	conceivably	the	number	of	M-TAC	Centers	specified	by	NIST	could	

effectively	 serve	 a national	 footprint	 with	 a	 per-center	 funding	 and	 budget	 of	 approximately

$1.5m - $2m	 per	center	- per	year.		
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	5

M-TAC	 Centers	 could	sustain	operations and	meet	 any	 potential	 required	 cost-share through	

the	following	fund generators:		

 Strategic	 and	 Marketing	 Partnerships	 (national/local	 associations/organizations,	

industry OEMs,	academia)

 Other	grants,	state	gov’t	and	local	economic	development	organizations	and	sources

 Network	and	referral	fees from	participating	stakeholders	and	resource	providers

 Success	fees from	SMEs

 For-fee	 services	 not	 available	 or	 effectively/affordably	 provided	 to	 small/mid-sized	

companies

 Sponsorships	and	events	revenues

FuzeHub	(www.fuzehub.com)	 is	 an	 example	 of	 this	 model	 currently	 being	 developed	 in	 New	

York.	 	 It	 has	 evolved	 from	 a	 National	 Institute	 of	 Standards	 and	 Technology	 (NIST)	 funded	

initiative	 for developing a	 technology,	 new	 product	 development	 and	 commercialization	

solutions	matching	service	and	resource	database	to	its	current	form.		The	model,	platform	and	

service	delivery	process	have	been	in	development	as	a	pilot	project	for	over	2	years	and	is	well	

on	 the	 way	 to	 demonstrating	 sustainability	 and	 success	 in	 serving small/mid-sized	

manufacturing	companies.		

FuzeHub’s	 model also	 meets	 many	 of	 the	 critical	 specifications	 and	 activities	 highlighted	 by	

recent studies	conducted	by	 the	MIT	PIE	research	group.		The	MIT	PIE	research	group	studies	

suggest	 the	pathway	 to	new growth	 focuses	on	 rebuilding	 the	industrial	ecosystem	with	new	

capabilities	that	many	firms	of	all	kinds	can	draw	on	when	they	try	to	build	their	new	ideas	into	

commercial	products	and	scale.		Some	of	key	principles	and	functions	observed	of	those	doing	

this	successfully	include:

 Convening	– high	value	is	derived	from	face-to-face	presence

 Coordination	 – creating	 connections	 – as	 exemplified	 between	 firms,	 localities	 and	

educational	institutions	to	develop	coordinated	training	programs

 Risk-reduction	 and	 risk-pooling	 – for	 example,	 consortia	 investing	 in	 equipment	 or	

technology

 Creation	 of	 linkages	 between	 innovation	 and	 production	 – university	 and	 industry	

partnerships

To	 date,	over	333	NY	companies	 have	 received	 targeted	connection and	 services to	 selected,	

vetted resources,	programs	and	deep	expertise between	2012	- 2013.	 Although	it’s	still	early	in	

the	implementation	of	FuzeHub,	there	are	some	measureable	successes	that	have	occurred	as	

a	result	of	this	initiative.	
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	6

a. Because	of	 the	programmatic	connection	 to	 the	NIST	MEP	Program,	M-TACs	may	

require	cost-share.		Are	 there	cost	share	models	 for	 future	M-TACs	 that	promote	

scale-up	 to	 reach	 nationally	 dispersed	 clusters	 of	 small	 and	 mid-sized	

manufacturers?		If	so,	what	are	those	models	and	why	might	they	be	successful?

The	funding	sources	mentioned	in	the	previous	response	should	adequately	generate	funds	to	

address	a	cost-share/match	requirement.

b. The	generation	of	intellectual	property	is	possible,	and	even	likely	as	a	result	of	MTAC	 operations.	 	 What	 types	 of	 intellectual	 property	 arrangements	 and	

management	 constructs	 would	 promote	 active	 engagement	 of	 industry	 in	 these	

pilots,	 especially	 among	 small	 and	 mid-sized	 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.

 Optimally,	M-TAC	Centers	should	 take	a	“work-for-hire” approach	 to	IP	with policy	

that	 stipulates	 all	 IP	 created	 through	 an	 M-TAC	 Center	 or	 with	 M-TAC	 contract	

services	 should	 belong	 to	 the	 participating	 company	 or	 SME.	 	 This	 could	 be	

established	through	an	MOU	between	all	participating	consortium	partners.

 Additionally,	 M-TAC	 Centers	 could	 directly	 provide	 or	 facilitate	 access	 to	 IP	 helpdesks,	 contract	 negotiation/IP	 licensing	 services,	 and	 education	 and	 consultation	

services	designed	to	help	SMEs	work	with	OEMs	or	other	strategic	partners.

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

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

the	value	of	the	performance	measure	to	business	growth.

M-TAC	Centers/	performance	should	be	measured	against	metrics appropriate	to	the	stage	of	

Center	operations	and	expected	timeframe	for	development	of	outcomes.			Potential	types	of	

metrics	could	include:

 User	adoption	rates - #	of	companies,	#	of	Resources signing	on/in,	attending	events

 Awareness/Outreach	 	 - website/social	 media	 activity,	 press	 &	 PR	 activities,	 survey	

results,	#	of	companies	“new”	to	MEP

 Ecosystem - #	 of	 referrals	 and	 %	 of	 referral	 to	 contract/project	 work,	 #	 and	 types	 of	

inter-regional/cross-discipline	collaborations,	survey	 results,	activity/attendance	 trends	

at	events/platform

 Partnership	Development - #	of	institutional	partners,	#	of	Strategic/Marketing	Partners	

or	special	projects
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	7

 Company/Economic	Growth - #	and	 value	 of	 projects	and	 outcomes,	 value	 of	 projectrelated	 new	investments,	jobs	and	 revenue	growth,	#	 new	 supplier	 connection,	#	and	

diversity	of	new	products/customers/markets,	#	of	MWBE	related	connections/growth

 Leverage	of	Existing	Infrastructure – co-investment	or	outside	investment	leveraged,	#	

and	diversity	of	participating	existing	programs,	in-kind	services

 Workforce/Talent	- #	of	communities/universities,	#	of	interns,	new	training/curriculum,	

industry-workforce	interfaces/partnerships

 Strategic	Development	– market	intelligence	mechanisms	and	analytics

 NIST	MEP	Survey	metrics

Question 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.

 Standardization/integration	 requirements	 for common	 collaboration	 and	 IT	 platforms	

and	systems among/between	all	M-TACs

 Shared	data	requirements

 Additional	 funding	 for	 seed/new-product/new-market	 projects,	 proof-of-concept	 and	

co-investment	mechanisms and	models

 Additional	funding for	shared	equipment	purchases and “open	foundry”	facilities

 Require	case	studies	and	examples	demonstrating	past	performance

 Consider	allowance	for	confidentiality:	submission	of	proposals	or	sections	of	proposals	

deemed	and	held	confidential

 Broaden	 award funding criteria	 to	 include	 proposals	 submitted	 and	 led	 by	 non-MEP	

center	 organizations but	 require	 demonstrated	 partnership	 with	 a	 designated	 MEP	

center

Rational	for	broadening	funding	award	criteria for	M-TAC	Centers

There	is	great	precedent	and	notable	success	for	pursuing	“innovation”	outside	of	the	existing,	

long-standing	 constructs	 of	 an	 institutionalized	 organization	 exhibiting strong	 culture	 and	 a	

history	of key	“un-adaptive”	behaviors	and	performance.		Studies	have	shown	that	an	industry’s	

leaders	 are	 rarely	 at	 the	 forefront	 of	 commercializing	 new	 technologies	 that	 do	 not	 initially	

meet	the	functional	demands	of	mainstream/current customers	and	which	appeal	only	to	small	

or	emerging	markets.	 	Established	 organizations	 tend	 to	 invest	and	 focus	aggressively	 on	 the	

technologies,	 products	 and/or	 services	 to	 retain	 their	 current	 customers and	 fail	 to	 make	

certain	 other	 investments	 for	 customers	 of	 the	 future.	 	 Why	 is	 this case?	 	 There	 are	 many	

reasons.	 	 Undoubtedly,	 bureaucracy,	 arrogance,	 tired	 executive	 blood,	 and	 short-term	

investment	 horizons	 have	all	 played	a	 role.		But	even	more	 so	it	is	a	company’s	 revenue	and	

cost	structure	 that	 plays the	 most critical	 role. It	 is	 very	 difficult to	 build	 a	 cogent	 case for	
FuzeHub	c/o	Empire	State	Development	Division	of	Science,	Technology	and	Innovation | 625	Broadway	|	Albany,	NY	12245

Page |	8

diverting	resources	from	known	customer	needs	in	established	markets;	and	often	meeting	the	

needs	of	established	customers	takes	all	of	the	resources	a	company	has.		

One	 could	 argue	 that	this paradox applies	 to	the	 MEP	 system	 and	 MEP	 centers	 as	 well.	 	 By	

staying	 close	 to	 their	 customer	 base,	 the	 MEP	 centers	 within	 the	 MEP	 system	 have	 aligned	

resources	 and	 developed	 business	 models	 and	 service	 delivery	 around a	 customer	 base	 that	

has,	by	all	measures,	been	slow	to	adopt	innovation	for	new	products	and processes.		Much	of	

what	has	been	and	is	demanded	by	the	current	customers	of	existing	MEP	centers	has root	in	

addressing	efficiencies	more	so	than	growth	and	innovation.	Further,	most	MEP	centers	do	not	

have	 a	 revenue	 or	 cost	 structure	 that	 allows	 them	 to	 easily	 or	 rapidly	 shift	 to	 anticipate	 or	

address	 the	 urgent	 but	 still	 emerging	 need	 by	 SMEs	 who	 likewise	 face	 revenue	 and	 cost	

structure	hurdles	as	impediments	 to	 their	adoption	of	innovation	and	commercialization.		For	

the	same	reasons,	it	is	challenging	for	MEP	centers	to	focus	downstream	on	the	start-ups	and	

early-stage	customers	which	represent	perhaps	a	large	future	impact	and	revenue	opportunity	

but	which	also	comprise	a	smaller	paying	market	with	unattractive	margins	requiring	significant	

upfront	investment	from	MEPs	to	serve	them.

One	 of	 the	most	effective	 solutions	 for	an	 organization	 seeking	 to	 develop	 “innovation”	is	 to	

create	 organizations	 that	 are	 completely	 independent	 and	 protected	 from	 the	 established,	

embedded	 organizational	 structures,	 behaviors,	 processes,	 and	 incentives.	 	 The	 strategy	 of	

forming	 small	 teams	 into	 skunk-works	 projects	 to	 protect	 them	 from	 the	 demands	 and	

established	 patterns	 of	 its current organization	 is	 widely	 known.	 	 And	 while	 it	 may	 seem	

attractive	 to	 award	 the	 development	 and	 leadership	 of	 a	 M-TAC	 Center	 to	 an	 existing	 MEP	

center	(to	share	resources	and	optimize	fixed	costs)	– it	will	create	an	inherent	and	potentially	

debilitating conflict	of	focus,	interest,	incentives	and	structure	that	may	prove	disastrous	to	the	

effort.	 The	 authors	 respectfully	 propose	 that	 NIST	 consider	 awarding	 funding to	 a	 new	

organization	whose	sole	focus	and	purpose	will	be	to	sustainably	achieve	the	goals	of	an	M-TAC	

center	 as	 outlined	 by	 NIST.	 	 This proposed	 M-TAC	 Centers	 RFP	seems	 to	represent	 an	 ideal	

opportunity	for	NIST	to	apply	this	approach.