“M-TAC RFI Comments”

T. Phillips, HVTDC 8/6/2013

Comments will be accepted by email only. Comments must be sent to diane.henderson@nist.gov

with the subject line “M-TAC RFI Comments.”

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.

1.1- In our experience the number one deterrent to the wide scale adoption of new technology 

into SMEs processes and products is the inherent risk associated with large investments. The 

costs and time associated with implementing new technology can easily represent several 

hundreds of thousands of dollars and several months and as such, place SMEs into a major risk 

position. The SMEs would be well served if the M-TACs were positioned to financially 

subsidize the upfront costs with an agreed to cost recovery plan to mitigate the upfront risk.

1.2- M-TACs should provide or have ready access to cost-effective design, development, and 

prototyping tools and services. In addition they should provide or have access to, 

commercialization services including but not limited to design for manufacture, material and 

component sourcing, industry certifications (e.g. UL, FCC), etc.

1.3- M-TACs should also provide pro-active services whereby appropriate SMEs are informed of 

new technologies, research, components and products that are relevant to their business. SMEs 

do not historically have a significant amount of time to do in depth research of new happenings, 

information and technology in their respective areas.

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

In addition to response 1.2, the M-TACs should focus on the “application” of the technology for 

commercialization purposes, a role not largely covered within the current MEP system. This 

should include a role of technology or technical integrators, bringing multiple SMEs of perhaps 

divergent skills together to create a more complete application of technology(ies). Provide 

complete systems or sub-systems versus individual parts or pieces...larger value add to OEMs.

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? M-TACs should have an active role as integrator with focus on 

application (response 1a above) and commercialization services as described in response 1.2. 

OEMs should participate and be encouraged to “delegate” technical, technology, etc 

specifications and requirements to the M-TACs who in turn would put together a plan and 

“team” if required to meet the OEMs needs.

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 
“M-TAC RFI Comments”

T. Phillips, HVTDC 8/6/2013

effectively access and benefit from the technology transition and commercialization assistance 

and other resources they need? Participating SMEs should be expected and required to pay a 

success fee based on future revenue as it is realized (pay for performance). The success fee 

should be variable based on the SME’s upfront financial investment to the project. The 

performance fees would generate funds to sustain the M-TAC beyond the initial public funding 

years.

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 financial model described above would generate cash 

match that should provide adequate cost share obligations after the first two or three years.

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

operations. What types of intellectual property arrangements and management constructs would 

promote active engagement of industry in these pilots, especially among small and 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. IP arrangements must be 

flexible. For instance, if an SME pays 100% for M-TAC services from day one, then they should 

own any resultant IP. If on the other hand, they enter into a full or partial pay for performance 

(later) agreement the IP ownership should be shared. Perhaps SME has exclusive rights for a 

given industry for a set period of time and the M-TAC owns for all other applications. 

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.Show citation box Standard NIST MEP survey 

impacts and financial reporting. In addition, financial reporting should measure progress 

achieving financial sustainability.

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. N/A