MEP Advisory Board Meeting 

Wednesday, June 13, 2018
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Welcome!

2

Taxi/Uber Pick-up Address: 

300 W. First Street

Rio Grande 

Emergency Exits

University of Texas at Arlington –

E.H. Hereford University Center

Meeting location: 

Rio Grande, Second Level

2
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

3

Wednesday, June 13, 2018: Meeting Agenda Details

9:00 – 9:05 a.m. Board Meeting Opening/Logistics

9:05 – 9:50 a.m. Welcome and Introductions

• Opening Remarks

• Welcome to the Campus of UTA

• Welcome from Texas’ MEP, TMAC

• Welcome from NIST Leadership

• Board and Audience Introductions 

9:50 – 10:05 a.m. Update: MEP National Network Strategic Plan 2017-2022

10:15 – 10:45 a.m. MEP Director’s Update

10:45 – 11:30 a.m. Interactive Working Session

• Spreading the Good Word – Best Practices for Powerful Advocacy 

11:30 – 12:00 p.m. Presentation

• Update from the Manufacturing U.S.A. Institutes

• Board Feedback & Discussion
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

1:30 – 1:35 p.m. Welcome Back/Afternoon Overview

1:35 – 2:20 p.m. Working Group Update:

• Supply Chain Development Working Group

• Board Feedback & Discussion

2:20 – 3:05 p.m. Working Group Update:

• Performance/Research Development Working Group

• Board Feedback & Discussion

3:20 – 4:00 p.m. Working Group Update:

• Executive Committee Working Group

• Board Feedback & Discussion

4:00 – 4:30 p.m. Wrap-up/Public Comments

4

Continued...
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Welcome and Introductions

• Bernadine Hawes, MEP Advisory Board Vice Chair

• Vistasp Karbhari, Ph.D., President, University of Texas 

Arlington

• Mark Sessumes, Director, TMAC

• Carroll Thomas, NIST MEP Director

• Guests

• Name

• Name of Organization

• How many years involved with MEP

5
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP National Network Strategic Plan

Future is Now: MEP National Network Framework

6
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP National NetworkTM 2017-2022 Strategic Goals 

EMPOWER 

MANUFACTURERS

CHAMPION 

MANUFACTURING

TRANSFORM THE 

NETWORK

LEVERAGE 

PARTNERSHIPS

Objective— to assist U.S. 

manufacturers in embracing 

productivity-enhancing 

innovative manufacturing 

technologies, navigate 

advanced technology solutions 

and recruit and retain a skilled 

and diverse workforce.

Objective— to actively promote 

the importance of a strong 

manufacturing base as key to a 

robust U.S. economy and for the 

protection of national security 

interests; create awareness of 

innovations in manufacturing; 

create workforce development 

partnerships to build a stronger 

and diverse workforce pipeline; 

and maximize market awareness 

of the MEP National Network.

Objective— to leverage 

national, regional, state and local 

partnerships to gain substantial 

increase in market penetration; 

identify mission-complementary 

advocates to help MEP become 

a recognized manufacturing 

resource brand; build an 

expanded service delivery model 

to support manufacturing 

technology advances.

Objective— to maximize 

National Network knowledge and 

experience to operate as an 

integrated national network; 

increase efficiency and 

effectiveness by employing a 

Learning Organization platform; 

and create a resilient and 

adaptive MEP National Network 

to support a resilient and 

adaptive U.S. manufacturing 

base.

7
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Network Priorities for the Next 18 Months

8

• Create an integrated National Network Service Delivery 

System

• Update National-level Partnerships and Performance 

Support Services 

• Define Areas of Focus for Manufacturing 

Technology Advances 

• Develop Supply Chain National 

Services and Information and 

Technology Access

• Build Infrastructure for National 

Network Learning Organization

Empower 

Manufacturers

Champion 

Manufacturing

Transform 

the Network

Leverage 

Partnerships
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Defined Areas of Focus for Manufacturing 

Technology Advances

• Cybersecurity - National Network implementation and current assessment/future 

trends 

• Digital manufacturing - National Network implementation and current assessment 

in industry and National Network/future trends 

• Automation and robotics - current assessment in industry and National 

Network/future trends 

• Additive manufacturing - current assessment in industry and National Network/ 

future trends 

• IoT - future trends for small and medium-sized manufacturers in advanced 

manufacturing 

• National and regional service portfolio coordination 

• National Network workforce development plan 

9
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Eighteen-Month Measures of Success- Baselines

• Piloted integrated national networked approach to delivery system engaging 50% of Centers in multicenter delivery projects. 

– FY 2017 baseline number of Centers in multi-center delivery projects- 17 Centers

• Increased small/rural engagements through 3rd party partnerships by 10% and increased longer-term 

impactful projects with these smaller firms by 5%.

– FY 2017 baseline number for small manufacturers engaged through 3rd party partnerships- 507

– FY 2017 baseline number for rural manufacturers engaged through 3rd party partnerships- 341

– FY 2017 baseline impacts for impactful (transformational) projects - 1,100 clients, 21,612 jobs, $2.7B Sales, 

$484M cost savings, $762M investments. 

• Attained Operational Excellence in 25% of Centers’ operations and in 50% of NIST MEP administrative 

support.

– Baseline number of Centers engaged – Centers monitored by NIST MEP

– NIST MEP Divisions- Examples- SOPs in place, travel and T&A policies and procedures

• Increased awareness of the MEP National Network brand by 10% over base brand recognition 

measurement a year after the Network launches the brand. 

– February 2018 MEP National Network had 10 instances of branded searches

– February 2018 MEP National Network webpage received 695 page views

– February 2018 MEP National Network webpage had 14 backlinks 

10
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Eighteen-Month Measures of Success- Progress

• Piloted integrated national networked approach to delivery system engaging 50% of Centers in multicenter delivery projects. 

– 1

st Quarter Progress for number of Centers in multi-center delivery projects- 17 Centers

• Increased small/rural engagements through 3rd party partnerships by 10% and increased longer-term 

impactful projects with these smaller firms by 5%.

– 1

st Quarter Progress for small manufacturers engaged through 3rd party partnerships- 244 

– 1

st Quarter Progress for number for rural manufacturers engaged through 3rd party partnerships- 152

– 1

st Quarter Progress for impacts for impactful (transformational) projects - 580 clients 13,529 jobs, $1.1B Sales, $125.6M 

cost savings, $290M new investments 

• Attained Operational Excellence in 25% of Centers’ operations and in 50% of NIST MEP administrative 

support.

– 1

st Quarter Progress for number of Centers engaged – Centers monitored by NIST MEP

– 1

st Quarter Progress for NIST MEP Divisions- Examples- SOPs in place, travel and T&A policies and procedures 

• Increased awareness of the MEP National Network brand by 10% over base brand recognition 

measurement a year after the Network launches the brand. 

– 1

st Quarter Progress - MEP National Network had 20 instances of branded searches (up 100% over baseline)

– 1

st Quarter Progress - MEP National Network webpage received 793 page views (up 14% over baseline)

– 1

st Quarter Progress - MEP National Network webpage had 24 backlinks (up 71% over baseline)

11
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Morning Break

12
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Director’s Update

Carroll Thomas

NIST MEP Director

13
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP Program Budget Outlook

(as of 6/13/18)

FY 2018 Appropriation Status

• Budget enacted on 3/23/18 at $140 million

• Automatic funding level from OMB of $93.6 million through 5/22/18

• Full access to Appropriation approved 6/1/2018

FY 2019 President’s Budget Request

• Program proposed for elimination with $0 funds for wind-down

• House Full Committee Mark on 5/17/18 at $140 million 

• Senate Sub Committee Mark TBD

14
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

NIST MEP FY 2018 Current Spend Plan

($ millions)

Available Funding:

Full Year Appropriation $140.0

Carryover from FY 2017 $ 8.5

Total Available Funding $148.5

Planned Expenditures:

Center Renewals $110.0 

Supplemental Funding $ 10.0 

Strategic Competitions $ 8.1

Contracts $ 5.7

NIST MEP Labor $ 8.3

NIST Overhead $ 6.4

Total Planned Expenditures $148.5

15
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Reports to Congress

• Competition

– Pursuant to House Report 115-231 accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), NIST shall provide the 

Committee on Appropriations with updates on the status of recompetition of the MEP Centers

– Provided by NIST on 5/23/18 for concurrence and transmittal to OMB

• Efficiency

– Enabled given FY 2018 Budget Apportionment, now in development

16
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

American Innovation & Competitiveness Act 

(AICA): Required report and update on GAO interactions

• AICA requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to produce a report 

in consultation with the MEP Advisory Board:

– Analyzing cost share effectiveness, engagement in services/characteristics including 

volume and type of services 

– Whether cost-share ratio change effects services provided by Centers 

– GAO to deliver report to Congress no later than January 6, 2019

• Current Status

– Entrance Conference with GAO took place April 5th

– Package of materials provided to GAO in response, including a matrix of MEP Center Characteristics for 

information gathering / interviews.

– Chosen Impact Washington and MASS MEP to visit

– Conference call with GAO focused on data took place May 15

17
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP Economic Impact Analysis

18

219,148 142,381 $22.01 

Billion

14.5:1

RETURN ON 

INVESTMENT

In April 2018, the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research published a study that 

found the MEP Program generated a substantial return on investment of nearly 14.5:1 for the 

$128.0 million invested by the federal government.

You can access the full study on the NIST MEP Website: https://tinyurl.com/MEP-Upjohn-2018
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

State Manufacturing Policy Academy

• Strengthening Your State’s Manufacturers will identify relevant manufacturing-related 

partnerships and policies to advance the economic development strategies for each 

participating state

• Policy Academy features state-based teams led by state economic development agency 

leaders and MEP Center Directors that will go through a year-long planning and 

implementation process

• NIST MEP will customize this process and expected outcomes by:

– Helping states build on existing policy efforts and provide ideas about improving performance of 

existing approaches

– Providing access to national subject matter experts

– Providing means to discuss and refine ideas from other states facing similar challenges or 

opportunities

• Organized by SSTI and CREC; partnering with IEDC; other partners to be added as needed

• First Policy Academy to include cohort of up to 4 states from among 15 not holding 2018 

gubernatorial elections (DE, IN, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NJ, NC, ND, PR, UT, VA, WA, WV) 

• Second cohort will be selected in 2019-2020 from the remaining states

19
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Alaska Competition

• MAKE Partnership host SWAMC has decided to voluntarily end their 

cooperative agreement in AK as of 12/31/18

• Alaska Information Forum held on 6/7/18 at the Denali Commission in 

Anchorage provided information about hosting an MEP Center 

– Targeted Forum marketing outreach took place via e-mail 

– 7 individuals attended the Forum in person, 2 attended by phone

– 3 parties requested and participated in 20-minute one-on-one sessions

• NOFO currently being finalized, with publication anticipated soon

• New Alaska MEP Center expected to begin operations on 1/1/19

20
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Advisory Board and NIST Staffing Updates

Advisory Board

• Current Board count = 14; 2019 next membership expires

• New Member in DOC Vetting Process 

– Patricia Moulton, President –Vermont Tech (Community College)

NIST MEP Staff

• Two New Federal Program Officers:

– Sekou Johnson - Southwest

– Julia Shriner - Midwest

• Several other positions in process, including new Regional Manager

Center Directors

• LA - Willie Smith, Sr. (Acting Director, MEPoL)

• KS - Tiffany Stovall (Permanent CEO, MAMTC)

• NE – Matt Allmand (Selected by host as Permanent Director, NE MEP)

• TX – Mark Sessumes (Selected by host as Permanent Director, TMAC)

21
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

NIST MEP Org Chart (FY18)

22
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP Region FPO Ext RM

Northwest Mellissa Ayala X5771 Tab Wilkins (301) 646-4069

Midwest Julia Shriner X5021 Phill Wadsworth (240) 426-4649

Southwest Sekou Johnson X6975 Gary Thompson (240) 483-2955

Southeast Gloria Solomon X5031 Jose Colucci (202) 281-5456

MidAtlantic

DE, MD, VA, WV -

Nadine DeJesus

PA – Julia Shriner

X8322

x5021

Mary Ann Pacelli (202) 660-2980

Northeast Hope Snowden X2952 Beth Colbert (202) 604-6541

23
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Roles

• Chair: Jim Watson

Convening authority, drafts agendas, leads discussions (Carroll Thomas)

• Vice Chair: Bill Donohue

Supports Chair as needed

• Secretary: Jennifer Hagan-Dier

Handles scheduling and takes minutes

• Outreach Liaison: Tom Bugnitz

Ensures consistent, branded, and proactive communications 

• Committee Champions: Lead committees and report to CLT

• Knowledge Sharing Committee: Buckley Brinkman (Mike Simpson)

• Communications Committee: Ethan Karp (Ben Vickery)

• Manufacturing and Technology Solutions Committee: Mike Coast (Dave Cranmer)

• Network Evolution Committee: Bonnie Del Conte (Mark Schmit)

• Other committees to be established by CLT as needed

Future is Now

Establishing an Integrated National Network

24

Why an Integrated Center Leadership Team & Implementation Committees Established

National Network?

What is an Integrated 

National Network?

Manufacturing is transforming, 

and we as a Network must shift to 

meet the manufacturing needs 

of our nation

An organization of MEP Centers, 

collaborating with NIST MEP and 

Partners, that collectively act on a 

national and regional basis to think 

more broadly about providing 

solutions to the unmet current and 

future needs of small and mediumsized manufacturers
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Future is Now Next Steps

25

Priorities

1. Define vision of the network, develop value proposition and benefits

2. Provide guidance and oversight to centers 

and committees

3. Outreach and communications to the network

Actions

• Foundation for Manufacturing Excellence (FORME) create 

a sponsorship package

• Champions to engage potential committee members

• Champions will provide any relevant feedback from member conversations

• Create boilerplate Terms and Conditions for multi-state engagements

• Champions send recommended Committee Members to Center Leadership Team
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Performance-based Panel Review

• Intent

– AICA requires a PERFORMANCE-based review to satisfy statutory 

requirement

– Provide analysis, diagnosis and feedback to Centers regarding their strengths 

and opportunities for improvement identifying deficiency areas, if any; 

performance is defined as market penetration, economic impact

– Includes an evaluation of a Center’s own Performance & Evaluation 

Management System effectiveness, use and self-assessment

– Promotes the sharing of information across the Network

– Identifies common Center performance gaps so the Centers can leverage 

internal and external resources to develop performance improvement practices

26
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP’s Data Reporting & Center Performance System

• Operating Plan: Annual plan (linked to the Center’s strategic plan) that outlines the 

anticipated activities and results for the coming year

• Quarterly Data Reporting: Center reports progress and client project data quarterly 

plus staff, financial information, and other elements

• Annual Review: Each year prior to annual renewal of federal funding, the performance 

of the Center is reviewed comprehensively by NIST MEP

• External Panel Review: In the 3rd and 8th year, the Center is reviewed by an 

external panel that assesses the Center performance and performance evaluation 

management system

• Third Party Client Survey: NIST sponsors a national survey conducted quarterly by an 

independent third party that collects data from Center clients on the business impacts of 

the services provided by their local Center. NIST MEP uses this performance data as a 

core component in reviewing Center performance. The results also provide the Centers 

with a tool to measure their effectiveness, benchmark their performance against other 

Centers, and communicate their results to stakeholders.

27
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Performance-based Panel Review Roles

• Panel Members – Who Reviews

– Three Center Directors (MEP Center Leadership)

• Role: Provide analysis, diagnosis and feedback to Centers regarding their strengths and 

opportunities for performance improvement identifying deficiency areas, if any; performance is 

defined as market penetration, economic impact

– Panel Chair (NIST MEP Staff)

• Role: Facilitate process and key discussions; ensuring Panel Members have a complete and 

clear picture of the Center’s overall performance. Develops Panel Summary Report on behalf 

of Panel

• Panel Review Resources and Support

– Regional Team (NIST MEP Regional Manager & Federal Program Officer)

• Role: Provide clarifying and/or factual background information about the Center to the Panel 

Members

– Panel Review Manager (NIST MEP Staff)

• Role: Manages Panel Review process; incorporating lessons learned for continuous 

improvement. Reviews and analyzes outcome of each Panel Review to identify potential best 

practices and common challenges across the National Network

28
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Performance-based Panel Review

Inputs & Process

• Panel Review Inputs

– Center Performance & Profile Report (CPPR)

– Center’s Strategic Plan

– Center’s Year 1 & 2 Annual Review Reports

– Center’s Response to Pre-Panel Questions

– Center’s Performance & Evaluation Management System Presentation

• Panel Review Output

– Panel Summary Report

• Panels feedback on Center Strengths and Opportunities for Performance Improvements including the 

adequacy of the Center’s Performance & Evaluation Management System

• Process

– Overall Process and key review documentation is automated and streamlined in the 

Review Module located within MEP’s Enterprise Information System (MEIS)

– The CPPR composed of Center data readily available in MEIS. Center is responsible for 

responding to key performance questions within the 7 categories

29
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Performance-based Peer Panel Review Update

• Round 1 Complete

– CO, CT, IN, MI, NC, NH, OK, OR, TN, TX, VA, and FL

• Round 2 reviews in process May – July 2018

– AK, IL, ID, MN, NJ, NY, WA, WI, WV

• The 7 legacy centers (RI, AZ, MD, KY, SD, NE, and FL) will be the 

first Centers to undergo the 5th Year legislatively required Secretarial 

evaluation

– To date, RI and MD have been completed; AZ is almost completed; and KY and 

SD are underway

30
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP Cybersecurity Industry Efforts

• MEP Centers offer assistance to small manufacturers implementing 800-171

– Training, Web-based resources, FAQs, 3rd Party Service Providers

– Guidance and Tools: basic to advanced

• MEP collaborated with NIST Labs to develop 800-171A, “Building Effective Assessment Plans”

• MEP closely monitors DFARS developments, works with DOD to define compliance, holds events for 

SMMs, has begun training MEP Centers to deploy assessment and implementation of 800-171 

compliance for DOD suppliers

• Signed MOU with the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) 

– National pilot collaboration with PTACs in multiple states to assist SMMs with DFARS compliance by end of 

December 2017

– CO, CT, GA, MI, RI, VT, WA initial pilot states, with other events in other states 

• Baldrige Quality Excellence Program creates Cyber Security Excellence Builder

– Voluntary self-assessment tool that enables organizations to better understand the effectiveness of their 

cybersecurity risk management efforts 

– Blends the systems perspective of the Baldrige Excellence Framework with the Cybersecurity Framework

– Incorporates the content outlined in the Cybersecurity Framework into the six elements of the Baldrige approach

31
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Knowledge & Learning Management

32

Initial Goals/Objectives

1. Create a system to connect those who know, with those who want 

to know (Ask the Expert System)

2. Establish a structure of content collection for the Learning 

Management System (LMS)

3. Develop a system of rating that builds our abilities to meet 

today’s and tomorrow’s National Network and client needs

Planning and Development

• Establish a Coordinating Committee (Steering Group)

• Create a framework that defines and aligns actions, roles and 

responsibilities

– FORME LMS Platform (Launched June 2018)

– Future is Now Knowledge Sharing Committee

– NIST MEP System Learning

• Establish Small Teams to implement components of the plan

Getting the right 

information, 

to the right 

people, in the 

right media, at 

the right time!
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Research Project 

Examining the Quality, Market Value, and Effectiveness of Manufacturing Credentials

• The study will be released later this month, with anticipated findings to include:

– Project will contribute to the body of knowledge for manufacturing related skills credentials

– Project evaluates the quality of the credentials against national and/or international standards

– Project identified the following: 

• Many choices of credentials

• Significant lack of independent research

– Quality

– Market value

– Effectiveness of manufacturing specific credentials 

• Skill gaps that could be filled by creating new credentials and replacing existing ones that are ineffective

• Credentials being used by manufacturers that are representative of the industry

• Need for new credentials

– Scope and outcomes needed of the credential

– What organizations might be willing and capable of creating the credential

– Project determined the following: 

• Market value of credentials based on data from the credential issuer

• How the credential is being used

• How the effectiveness of the credential is being determined in work settings

33

Project Sponsored by MEP, in 

coordination with NIST SCO: 

engaged Workcred, an affiliate 

of ANSI
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Workcred Summary Recommendations

• Improve understanding about the content and value of credentials

• Expand the use of quality standards for credentials

• Strengthen relationships between manufacturers, education and 

training providers, and credentialing organizations

• Add employability skills components to existing and new credentials

• Create credentials that focus on performance and address new roles

• Increase the number of apprenticeships and expand apprenticeships 

to more occupations 

34
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

2017 Hurricane Disasters: MEP Assisted Manufacturers 

(Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria)

Five Awards to MEP Centers

(September 2017-January 2018):

• Texas 

• Louisiana 

• Florida

• Puerto Rico

• Georgia 

– $6.2 million total funding

– Over 800 planned assessments

– Used NIST Authority, Non-Competitive Award process, no cost share

Objectives

• Identify obstacles keeping affected manufacturers from returning to normal operations

• Develop plans to support recovery 

• Connect SMMs to local, state, and federal resources 

• Collect information, best practices, etc., and disseminate

• Development of proactive strategies for risk avoidance by U.S. manufacturers

• Recovery planning for manufacturers across the U.S.

FEMA Disaster Declared Counties:

# of Manufacturers- >41,000

# of Employees- >340,000 employees 

Totaling- > $221 billion in manufacturing GDP

35
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

The MEP Program Marks a Major Milestone

36

1988 - 2018
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Interactive Working Session

Lisë Stewart, Eisner Amper

Spreading the Good Word – Best Practices for Powerful Advocacy

37
Spreading the Good Word – Best 

Practices for Powerful Advocacy!

Facilitated by Lisë Stewart
Question:

• What compelled you to be 

a part of this organization? 

39

– What makes you proud? What do you like to share about 

this organization?
Great Boards

...

40

• Have committed members –

“here because we really believe 

in the mission”

• Understand their responsibilities • Remain Strategic – “Don’t buy a dog and then do the 

barking yourself”.

• Set clear BOARD objectives (for 

the Board)

• Monitor against those objectives 
Continued...

41

• Self evaluate, commit to continuous improvement 

• Welcome robust conversations in service of the 

mission

• Serve as advocates, mentors and true advisors 

(informed, active and engaged)

• Refresh their membership regularly 

• Value the contributions of the operational staff (and if 

not, resolve the issue). 
Center and Manufacturing Advocate

42

• Educate and Communicate to major 

stakeholders and partners.

• Promote a manufacturing agenda across 

the region and across the nation!
What is Advocacy?

“Advocacy in democracy is about 

getting what you want out of the 

government. In a democracy, 

which is a collection of voices, it 

is everyone’s job to use their 

voice to remind the government 

about what people want.” 

~ Matthew Kaplan 

(former congressional staffer)

6/18/2018

43
Why You?

• You are the unique and 

authentic link between 

the program, the 

community and the 

policy makers. 

• A citizen advocate’s 

voice matters more 

than most!

44
What makes a Powerful, Compelling 

Advocate?

• What can you do 

to be heard? 

45
Simple Guidelines 

• Keep messages short and 

concise 

• Be passionate, polite and 

positive 

• Aim for the heart 

• Don’t bury the lead

• Create curiosity 

• Make it relevant 

• Make it personal 

6/18/2018

46
Guidelines... 

• Make it viral 

• Connect in the moment 

• Link to timely issues 

• Have a call to action 

• Be prepared to follow up 

with more...

6/18/2018

47

• Pictures really are worth 

a thousand words 

• The numbers matter 

• Stories reign supreme

• Stand in their shoes 
+

Be a part of something that 

makes you proud!

Overall Economic 

Impact

2015: $1 Billion!

2014: $504.4 M

2013: $441.9 M

2012: $234.8

2011: $240.6

2010: $277.7

2009: $214

2008: $254.8

2007: $357

2006: $441.5

2005: $88.5

2004: $96.4
What do 

you need to 

be 

successful 

advocates?

49
Thank you! 

50

Lisë Stewart | Director, Center for Family Business 

Excellence

D: 732.243.7790 | C: 208.867.6251

E: lise.stewart@eisneramper.com

111 Wood Avenue South, Iselin, NJ 08830-2700 
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Presentation

Update from the Manufacturing U.S.A. Institutes

Dr. Frank Gayle, NIST Office of Advanced Manufacturing

51
52

Manufacturing USA Program Update

MEP Advisory Board

Frank W. Gayle, Deputy Director

NIST Office of Advanced Manufacturing and the 

Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

An interagency team building partnerships with U.S. industry and academia

June 13, 2018
53

1. Manufacturing USA® Background

2. MEP Embedding Projects

3. What’s Ahead

Topics
54

Manufacturing USA

Background
55

Mission: Connecting people, ideas, and 

technology to solve industry-relevant 

advanced manufacturing challenges, 

thereby enhancing industrial 

competitiveness and economic growth and 

strengthening our national security.

Vision: U.S. global leadership in advanced 

manufacturing
56

Addressing

National Needs

• The U.S. leads the world in innovation 

and inventions

• But the manufacturing capabilities and 

new products get developed in other 

countries instead

“Embracing technological innovation and 

speeding adoption are critical for U.S national 

security and economic competitiveness.”

The Work Ahead 

Council on Foreign Relations

April 2018
57

Why Manufacturing USA Revitalize American 

Manufacturing and 

Innovation (RAMI) Act

• 118 bipartisan co-sponsors

• Signed into law December 16, 2014

Manufacturing Employment (Millions)
58

Manufacturing USA Technology Projects

Bridge Gaps
59

Institutes Designed to

Transform Collaboration Manufacturing 

USA Network

Government

Federal State and Local

Economic

Development

Organizations

Academia

and

National Labs Industry

Start-ups

Small and

Medium

Enterprises

Large

Manufacturing

Companies

Community

Colleges

Universities Manufacturing 

USA Institute

• Prototype labs/shops

• Research facility

• Computer lab

Shared Use Facility

National Labs
60

Each Institute 

Advances U.S. Manufacturing

1. Industry-led consortium with a clear 

mission based on critical industry need 

2. Effective collaboration space for precompetitive applied R&D, solving big 

challenges

3. Creates value for industry participation 

and funding 

4. Federal start-up funding must catalyze 

at least 100% co-investment

5. Addresses the skills gap on education 

and workforce skills for their technology 

areas
61

Institute Manufacturing Technology

Digital Automation

Additive manufacturing

• 2012

• DOD funded

• Youngstown, OH

Advanced robotics

• 2017

• DOD funded

• Pittsburgh, PA

Digital manufacturing + design

• 2014

• DOD funded

• Chicago, IL
62

Institute Manufacturing Technology

Electronics

Integrated photonics 

• 2015

• DOD funded

• Albany + Rochester, NY

Flexible Hybrid Electronics

• 2015

• DOD funded

• San Jose, CA

Wide bandgap semiconductors

• 2015

• DOE funded

• Raleigh, NC
63

Institute Manufacturing Technology

Materials

Advanced fibers and textile

• 2016

• DOD funded

• Cambridge, MA

Advanced composites

• 2015

• DOE funded

• Knoxville, TN

Lightweight metals

• 2014

• DOD funded

• Detroit, MI
64

Institute Manufacturing Technology

Energy Usage / Environmental Impact

Modular chemical process 

intensification

• 2017

• DOE funded

• New York, NY

Sustainable manufacturing

• 2017

• DOE funded

• Rochester, NY

Smart sensors and digital

process controls

• 2016

• DOE funded

• Los Angeles, CA
65

Institute Manufacturing Technology

Bio Manufacturing

Biofabrication +

regenerative manufacturing

• 2016

• DOD funded

• Manchester, NH

Biopharmaceutical manufacturing

• 2017

• DOC funded

• Newark, DE
66

Led by Industry: Impact to U.S.

Innovation Ecosystem 1,291 members (FY 2017)

• +50% increase in 

membership over 2016 

• 65% from industry

• 65% of manufacturers are 

small and medium-sized

• 297 universities, community 

colleges, and other academic 

institutions

• 150 federal, state, and local 

government, federal 

laboratories, and not-forprofits

23% 

Academic

65% 

Mfg.

12% 

Other

65% 

Small

35% 

Large

Membership breakdown of 12 institutes in FY 

2017
67

Developing an Advanced

MFG Workforce Nearly 200,000 people participated in 

workforce development training programs

 7X increase from 2016

• 185,425 students in institute research 

and development projects, internships, 

or training

• 4,302 workers completed institute-led 

certificate, apprenticeship, or training 

programs

• 1,299 teachers and trainers in instituteled training for instructors

Students Workers Teachers and trainers

Students in institute projects or 

internships = 185,425
68

Technology

Advancement

• Many collaborative technology 

R&D projects can take several 

years to conclude

• High level of participation by 

industry + progress in meeting 

technical objectives are early 

indicators of success

273 Major Collaborative 

R&D Projects in FY 2017
69

NIST Congressional Responsibilities

Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act

RAMI Calls Upon the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to 

Establish:

Manufacturing USA Program: to convene and 

support a network of institutes (network function) 

National Program Office at NIST: to oversee and 

carry out the Program (currently with 9 staff members and 3 

detailees or fellows)

New Institutes: using open topic competitions

And, established role of MEP
70

NIST Functions Leading the 

National Program Office

Coordination

• Network meetings (semiannual)

• Institute Directors (monthly)

• Interagency meetings (biweekly)

• Communications Team (biweekly)

• Education/Workforce Team (biweekly)

• Task Teams (three)

• Institute Directors Council
71

Network Support

• Online Shared Services

• Resource of best practices, 

reference materials, 

program calendar

• 15 Secure Collaboration 

Sites

• Provided to all institutes 

and agencies

• Used by cross-institute 

teams, interagency teams 

NIST Functions Leading the 

National Program Office
72

Communications

• ManufacturingUSA.com

• Manufacturing.gov

• Manufacturing USA Annual Report

• Manufacturing USA Strategic Plan

NIST Functions Leading the 

National Program Office
73

MEP 

Embedding Projects
74

Flexible Hybrid 

Electronics

San Jose, CA

Smart Sensors and 

Digital Process 

Control

Los Angeles, CA

Modular 

Chemical Process 

Intensification

New York, NY

Bio-pharmaceutical 

Manufacturing

Newark, DE

Digital 

Manufacturing 

& Design

Chicago, IL

Integrated 

Photonics

Albany, NY

Rochester, NY

Regenerative 

Manufacturing

Manchester, NH

Advanced 

Fibers and 

Textiles

Rochester, NY Cambridge, MA

Sustainable 

Manufacturing

Wide Bandgap 

Semiconductors

Raleigh, NC

Advanced 

Composites 

Knoxville, TN

Detroit, MI

Lightweight 

Metals

Detroit, MI

Advanced 

Robotics

Pittsburgh, PA

Additive

Manufacturing

Youngstown, OH

El Paso, TX

Manufacturing USA 

Institutes & MEP
75

MEP Center Staff Embedded at 

All 14 MFG USA Institutes

• 14 NIST MEP-funded projects

• ~$17M investment

• Centers have successfully used 

the projects to learn more 

about the institutes’ 

technology areas and position 

themselves with SMMs 

nationally

• Institutes benefit from MEP 

Centers’ reach with SMMs
76

Digitizing Legacy 

Equipment

University of Cincinnati

Raytheon

Faurecia

ITI

TechSolve

Project Highlight 

Partners Develop New Computer Vision 

Toolkit

• Cameras read legacy displays + 

control dials to digitize information 

for emerging industry-standard 

format

• Software and hardware toolkit will 

cost <$1,000 per machine

• Even the smallest manufacturer can 

update processes without replacing 

costly legacy equipment

• Open source framework
77

DMDII Embedding Project

Joint collaboration between the MFG USA 

institute and MEP center: 

• New digital assessment tool

• Train the Trainer program

• Cybersecurity awareness + compliance
78

Lightweight

Car Frame

Partners invent a 

lightweight aftermarket 

car frame

• C2 Corvette 

prototype (1963 to 

1967)

• requires no welding

• reduces material cost

LIFT

IAMCI – The Composites 

Institute

Michigan Manufacturing 

Technology Center

Tennessee MEP

Industry Partners
79

What’s Ahead
80

Global Competition:

Reproducing MFG USA Elsewhere

China started up MFG USA-like institutes

• Planning 40 institutes by 2025 

• China’s 13th national 5-year plan puts 

China Manufacturing 2025 as one of six national 

priorities 

Canada: “advanced manufacturing 

superclusters”

• $950 million for five innovation ‘superclusters’ awarded 

2018

• consortia of small and large businesses, academia, other 

groups

• 1:1 match required; actual $1.5 B match to date

Manufacturing USA reports promptly 

translated into Chinese
81

After Network and Institute Start-Up

• Post-cooperative agreement institute performance 

• Federal engagement in the long term

• RAMI changes

• Measuring technology diffusion + program success

• MEP Center support of the institutes

• New institutes 
82

Securing

AMERICA’S FUTURE

Making an Impact

• 14 institutes developing new 

manufacturing techniques

• 65% of members are from industry

• ~300 ongoing major collaborative 

R&D projects

• 200,000 people trained in 

advanced manufacturing

• $1B federal investment matched by 

over $2B non-federal funds

Join us: www.ManufacturingUSA.com @MFGUSA
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Lunch Break

Return at 1:00 p.m.

83
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

1:30 – 1:35 p.m. Welcome Back/Afternoon Overview

1:35 – 2:20 p.m. Working Group Update:

• Supply Chain Development Working Group

• Board Feedback & Discussion

2:20 – 3:05 p.m. Working Group Update:

• Performance/Research Development Working Group

• Board Feedback & Discussion

3:20 – 4:00 p.m. Working Group Update:

• Executive Committee Working Group

• Board Feedback & Discussion

4:00 – 4:30 p.m. Wrap-up/Public Comments

84

Welcome Back - Meeting Agenda Continued
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP Advisory Board 

Working Group Updates

85
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Supply Chain Development Working Group

• Committee Members

– Board Leadership

• Matthew Newman

– Board Members

• LaDon Byars, Bernadine Hawes, Mary Isbister, Chris Weiser, Jeff Wilcox

– NIST MEP Support

• Dave Stieren, Phil Singerman, Mark Schmit

• Deliverable

Guidance and perspectives on the MEP National Network support and development of 

manufacturing supply chains with an emphasis on defense suppliers regarding Defense Industrial 

Base gaps; and expertise on who should be brought into the discussion to provide insight on 

defense supplier gaps

86
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Discussion Topics for the Board

NIST MEP is seeking Advisory Board perspectives on 

strategic importance of this work to MEP National 

Network, including focusing of the messaging to MEP 

Centers, the DOD, and most importantly, small U.S. 

manufacturers going forward

Background info follows on next 3 slides

MEP National Network support for DOD Supply Chains encompasses 

many areas, highlighted by:

• Cybersecurity assistance

• Involvement in Defense Industry Adjustment efforts of the DOD Office of 

Economic Adjustment

• Working with the DOD-sponsored Manufacturing USA Institutes

87
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP and DoD Supply Chain Support

MEP National Network continues to maintain strong DoD 

relationships and support for DoD supply chains

• Cybersecurity

• Ongoing relationship with DoD’s Office of Economic Adjustment 

(OEA) Defense Industry Adjustment Program 

• Ongoing Embedding Projects with all 8 of Manufacturing USA 

Institutes sponsored by DoD – focused on engaging small 

manufacturers in technology focus areas of Mfg USA Institutes via 

hands-on assistance mechanisms and services offered by 

MEP Centers

88
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP National Network Cybersecurity Program

18 MEP Centers with OEA projects

165 Awareness/Training 

Events

>1700 Small Manufacturers 

served, 150 projects conducted

Expanding Capabilities 

Across Network 

18 MEP Centers currently 

doing OEA Cyber project work, 

funded at $4.6M

89
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP National Network Cybersecurity Progress 

(06/13/18)

25% 

of Defense Contractors 

DFARS/800-171 

Compliant

40

MEP Centers in 

Cybersecurity WG

39/51

MEP Centers with 

Cyber Practice

90
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

MEP National Network Cybersecurity Progress – 06/13/18

Metric Current Progress Desired End State

MEP Centers with Cyber Practice 39 51

3rd Party Svc. Providers Partnering with 

MEP Centers ? ?

Cybersecurity Assistance Tools Utilized

3

rd party svc providers using an array of 

tools; NIST MEP tools include NIST 

Handbook 162, assessment tool

100% of MEP Centers trained on use of 

NIST Handbook 162, other 

national tools

MEP Cyber Awareness / Training Events 165 ?

U.S. Manufacturers Served in Cybersecurity 1700; 150 projects 10x in near term?

DOD OEA Activity 18 MEP Centers doing Cyber work, 

funded at $4.6M

MEP Centers participating as 

Cyber svc providers on all proposals 

doing cyber work 

Cybersecurity Partnerships with 

Mfg USA Institutes 1 All 14?

States providing Cybersecurity Funding to 

MEP Centers ? ?

Defense Contractors Compliant w/DFARS 

Cyber Requirements ~25% 100%?

Auto Suppliers Compliant w/OEM Cyber 

Requirements n/a 100%?

U.S. Suppliers Compliant w/Other OEM 

Cyber Requirements n/a ?

91
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

2

Additional Guidance

Process Excellence

Reduce to Practice

Excellent program 

and division level 

working 

relationships

Established 

bi-monthly 

coordination 

meetings

Participate in 

handbook 

publication 

development

- SP 800-171A final draft

- FY 19 “starter profiles”

Coordination 

meetings

Shared NIST MEP

Cybersecurity 

Assessment Tool

Promoting use of 

Cybersecurity 

Excellence Builder 

in Manufacturing

Coordination on 

meetings

CSF manufacturing 

profile

Jointly develop 

additional guidance 

for manufacturers

One NIST: MEP Cybersecurity Connects

92

IT Laboratory

Baldrige 

Quality 

Program Engineering 

Laboratory
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Performance & Research Development Working Group

• Committee Members

– Board Leadership

• Leslie Taito

– Board Members

• Jose Anaya, Carolyn Cason, Joe Eddy, Kathay Rennels, Jim Wright, Bernadine 

Hawes, Jeff Wilcox 

– NIST MEP Support

• Ken Voytek, Chancy Lyford

• Deliverable

Input and guidance on the management portfolio and Program performance measurement 

processes of the MEP National Network. In addition, the Working Group will provide 

feedback and suggestions for establishing a research agenda that will support and enrich 

NIST MEP’s performance and evaluation management system through improved Center 

evaluation processes, the promotion of system learning and by enhancing the portfolio of 

network information services for Centers

93
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Deliverable Draft

• Draft pending Chair Review

• Share with rest of working group

• Final report to Board by September 2018

• Draft consists of 4 Sections

– Background

– Observations

– Continuous Improvement

– Recommendations (including some research suggestions)

94
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

95

Seeking Board input and guidance:

• What factors are most important in explaining Center 

performance variation across the National Network?

• How can we improve Network efficiency and effectiveness 

with limited resources?

• Would it be worth the Program’s investment to engage 

outside resources to capture lessons learned from Center’s 

new initiative engagements; perhaps developing a 

manufacturing research agenda? 

• How can we accurately capture multi-center delivery of 

client impacts to ensure proactive collaboration by Centers 

involved and not be a roadblock to collaboration?

Discussion Topics for the Board

With uneven Center performance across the Network; the number of clients and projects 

relatively flat; new initiatives taking shape and the creation of an integrated National 

Network 
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

96

Executive Committee Working Group

• Committee Members

– Board Leadership

• Jeffrey Wilcox, Chair of MEP Advisory Board

• Bernadine Hawes, Vice-Chair of MEP Advisory Board

– Board Members

• Carolyn Cason

• Mitch Magee

• George Spottswood

– NIST MEP Support

• Carroll Thomas, Cheryl Gendron, Gary Thompson, Wiza Lequin

• Deliverable

Guidance on future Advisory Board leadership and insights from the Board 

Assessment; Board membership; Board role in regards to MEP Center Boards
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

New Member Support

• Mentoring (informal)

• Job Roles & Responsibilities Document (in development)

• Glossary (in development)

• Onboarding Presentation (currently in practice)

• Other?

Discussion of Current Bylaws

• Right amount of prescriptive direction

– Attendance at Meetings: Expectations

– Succession (Chair & Vice Chair)

– Specific Member Types Outlined in Statute

• Collecting ideas for future changes

– Communicate any suggested changes to the Executive Committee Working Group

– Process for change is extensive

97

Discussion Topics for the Board
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Future Meeting Schedule

2018

• September 12, 2018 – Kansas City, MO

– Mark your calendar for 9/11-13/2018 to join us for the MEP’s National Network 

Update Meeting plus the Board Meeting.

• Also option to stay for the Foundation for Manufacturing Excellence (FORME’s) Best Practice 

Conference through Friday at noon

2019 (dates subject to change)

• February 27, 2019 – Washington, DC

• June 18, 2019 – Location TBD*

• September 11, 2019 – Possible Post-Summit*

*Calendar invites sent once confirmed

98
MEP Overview

U . S . D E P AR T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N AT I O N AL I N S T IT UT E O F S T AN D AR D S AN D T E C H N O L O G Y M AN U F AC T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P AR T N E R S H I P l l

Thank You

99

Stay Connected

Search NISTMEP or NIST_MEP

VISIT OUR BLOG! 

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/manufacturing-innovation-blog

Get the latest NISTMEP news at:

www.nist.gov/mep

Taxi/Uber Pick-up Address: 

300 W. First Street