Response	to	RFI

For	the	Manufacturing	Technology	Acceleration	Centers

Monday,	July	15,	2013

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.

a) MEP’s have a high degree of access to SME’s at the right level (C-level). They also have 

the ability to form collaboratives. Collaboratives have inherent ability to reduce the cost 

per employer while delivering high quality services as well as promote interactions and 

“benchmarking among the individuals within the collaborative.

b) Specific Tools and Services_

i) Comprehensive Enterprise readiness assessments

ii) Active resource center of qualified, experienced consultants with proven 

commercialization expertise

iii) Access to research & technology centers _ Universities and private enterprise

iv) Training and Technology skills development

2) MEP’s have access to third party resources that represent ability to deliver specific tools and 

services tailored to the individual needs without delays associated with development time to 

“home grow”.....( Give examples). The proposed M-TACs would plug into this existing 

delivery mechanism.

a) Mass MEP has diligently worked at developing meaningful partnerships for this purpose. 

Other state and local agencies, Chambers of Commerce, Banks, Venture Capital firms, 

Industry Associations, Economic Development Councils, etc. The MassMEP technology 

Acceleration initiative is done in conjunction with UMass. MEP contracts with UMass to 

supply a Technology Acceleration Liaison who is a University employee for example. 

These are all part of the current delivery mechanisms focused first on client needs and 

then locating and providing essential resources to address the needs.

b) MEP has established relationships with technology rich enterprises looking to assist other 

SME’s in the emphasis of Technology Diffusion, product development, and supply chain 

integration services as a basic service of the program in addition to providing technical 

and business assistance.

3) How would M-TAC services complement the services currently offered by MEP Centers?

a) MEP’s are always looking to expand their deliverables to their existing client base as well 

as develop new clients. For many existing clients the success of the ongoing work of 

improving competitiveness has left clients asking for and MEP’s seeking the answer to 

the question, “What’s next?” The M-TACs hold the promise of answering that question 

for both stakeholders. There have been tremendous individual efforts among individual 

MEPs to address this issue, but little if any opportunity to compare notes and best 

practices and develop a more unified approach. M-TACs could provide much needed 

benchmarking between and among MEPs.

4) 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?
a) At Mass MEP, we have already found a strong desire among larger manufacturers to do 

business locally with SME’s. Being able to translate the complex requirements of 

technology driven projects in a way that an SME both understands, has the needed 

technology and can be upgraded to meet the Large company requirements is far more 

likely to be accomplished by the M-TAC/MEP combination. The smaller SME’s often 

require more than just aces to new technology. They need ISO or other certifications, 

compatible information systems, upgraded quality systems and Lean elements that focus 

on on-time delivery, reliability, etc.

b) Mass MEP has invested in developing partnership relationships with associations (New 

England Nanotechnology Manufacturer’s Association for example), Professional 

Societies such as National Machine Tool Association) as well as financial institutions in 

order to provide a wide range of solution based resources to SME’s. Bridging the gap

between the larger OEM’s and the SME’s becomes a case by case situation. The more 

arrows in the quiver, the greater likelihood of success. MTACs will provide a critical 

arrow.

5) 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?

a) This is an interesting question that requires an understanding of the current “Technology 

Transfer” general process and its inherent weaknesses as well as studying the exceptional 

processes and their reason for success.

b) In a typical University Process, patent applications are written broadly and the university 

wants to hold on to all rights in perpetuity. There is no incentive for an SME to adopt a 

technology that can easily show up at a competitor. CVIP departments are generally rigid 

in their demands and require long term royalty payments at a very high rate. In addition 

the legal processes are tortuous and not conducive to any SME timeframe nor do they 

want to add legal costs that accrue from scrutinizing every word of every sentence.

c) To the extent possible, a “Pay it Forward” approach is best for all concerned, but negative 

cash flow needs to be prepared for and offset over time. Recently in Oregon a proposal 

was approved that would allow Oregonian students to attend college tuition free with no 

loans in exchange for paying 3% of their income for 20 or so years. The Pay It Forward 

concept was originated by the Economic Opportunity Institute, a nonprofit policy group 

in Seattle, and is based in part on a model used in Australia. This type of thinking could 

be applied to the MTAC concept as part of a mixed model.

6) 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?

a) We all know that an SME has to have some “skin in the game”. At the same time “Pay it 

forward” approach makes technology more accessible. Therefore a balanced approach is 

called for. Once again this requires expert knowledge as to what is appropriate and what 

SMEs are capable of providing (yet another argument for regional experts). There will 

likely be other stake holders (Universities, Partners, Venture Capital groups, etc.). While 

there needs to be some flexibility around individual circumstances it is critical that the 
MEPs communicate among each other in order not to create too wide a disparity from 

MEP to MEP or region to region.

b) In the cases where larger OEMs are looking to promote local sourcing (This is happening 

frequently give political unrest in the world and the fed policy to weaken the currency 

and the resurgence of U.S. based energy supplies) the OEMs are a logical underwriting 

source to cover some of the costs. This can be in the form of cash in exchange for 

favorable supply terms or exclusive supply arrangements for example.

c) IN any event any model needs to have both components of upfront costs and residual 

income to stake holders.

d) Collaborative approaches where multiple SME’s participate in programs that enable

transition and are common to all participants offer a cost effective means for cost 

reductions for access to otherwise unattainable opportunities. 

7) The generation of intellectual property is possible, and even likely as a result of M-TAC 

operations. What types of intellectual property arrangements and management constructs 

would promote active engagement of industry in these pilots, especially among small and 

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.

a) We have used a model with some success. Of course it depends on the source of the IP. 

Assuming that it comes from a University, There needs to be clear guidelines. Often 

times Universities write patent applications very broadly to cover as much market space 

as possible and then want to retain all rights in all spaces. We have been able to grant 

“narrow slices” to manufacturers and still retain the rights to all other applications. This

gives incentives to the SME while keeping future options open for alternative 

applications. This has sometimes been difficult as university CVIP offices have carved 

out much of that turf. Often these arrangements are largely based on % of future sales 

being the overriding income source. This also puts this type of arrangement within reach 

of small and medium sized SMEs. There is sometimes an upfront cost to prepare samples, 

transfer the technology or provide testing and certifications. To the extent possible this 

should be borne by the SME directly. To the extent this is not possible, it should be 

reflected in the ongoing sales agreement either extending the life of or the % of sales 

paid.

8) 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. Show citation box

a) The one true performance measure that relates to the economic needs of the country is 

“Number of Jobs Created”. Sales growth is an indicator. $’s in to the MCAT is another 

trailing indicator. $’s into the IP owner also a trailing indicator. The NIST survey can 

easily be used as a more current indicator, albeit trailing to some extent.

9) 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.

a) Given the nature of SMEs, there will likely be a time lag before the program can selfsustain (I assume that $’s paid to IP owners will be considered as part of the measured 

returns) There needs to be a value assigned to Job created (That must be the main goal)

b) Don’t look for $’S in $’s out since the $’s out will not necessarily go to the MTAC.
c) There will be greater than expenses involved in the regional approach as travel costs will 

be higher. The ability to support true experts regionally offset these costs

d) Performance driven measures should determine the tenure of the “experts”, but also 

promote the sharing of ideas and successes. This sharing model is not ubiquitous in 

current MEP activities although it is far less necessary.

e) The choice of which expert where is likely to cause some dissent among regional SMEs, 

since geographic proximity and personal favorites can be divisive rather than 

collaborative.

Submitted,

A. Michael Wilson

With respect to the M-TAC initiative it will be critical to focus on technical training and workforce 

development needs. The supply chain will certainly need guidance and assistance as they will be tasked 

to conform to new and rapidly evolving standards, and processes that will result. 

Sincerely,

Ted Bauer

Manager of Workforce Development Programs

MassMEP

In consideration when establishing performance impact assessments, there should be consideration for 

the allowance of time when measuring the efficacy of the NIST investment.

Our center's past and current experience has shown that it takes an inordinate amount of time to 

complete the legal aspects of Intellectual Property transactions, especially when such transactions 

involve a University.

The legal aspects of commercialization for both existing and emerging product and process technologies 

can often require lengthy negotiations that would require a longer horizon for an effective economic 

survey impact.

Regards,

Jack Healy

Director

MassMEP