REQUEST	FOR	INFORMATION	ON	PILOTS	TO	INFORM	THE	CREATION	OF	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.

The	M-TACs	should	be	configured	to	accelerate	OEM	requirements	for	new	supply and	technologies	

down	through the	pipeline	to	tier	1,	2	and	3	level	suppliers.	Specific	tools	would	include:

 Industry-specific	technical	elements	such	as	geometric	dimensioning,	rapid	proto-typing,	and	

CAD	design.

 Business	planning	tools	such	as	target	costing.

 Technology	scouting	 and	TDMI	tools.

 Supplier	sourcing	and	qualification	tools.

 Operational	excellence	tools.

 Business	development	and	growth	tools.

M-TAC	personnel	must	be	deeply	conversant	in	all	aspects	of	the	key	technologies,	supplier	

requirements,	business	relationships,	and	future	trends	within	a	given	industry	sector.	M-TAC	personnel	

must	have	access	through	existing	and	developed	commercial	relationships	within	the	MEP	system	at	all	

levels.	This	means	that	a	strong	network	must	be	developed	among	centers	to	facilitate	crossjurisdictional	communication	and	interaction.

Question	1a:	How	would	M-TAC	services	complement	the	services	currently	offered	by	MEP	

Centers?

The	existing	MEP	center	network	provides	unusual	access	to	tier	2	and	3	suppliers	that	is	unique	among	

all	other	public-private	entities	engaged	in	providing	services	to	small	business.	Existing	mechanisms	for	

finding	and	qualifying	appropriate	companies	and	engaging	with	company	leaders	to	facilitate	change	is	

the	stock	and	trade	of	the	MEP	system.	This	will	be	a critical	success	element	for	the	M-TACs.

The	alignment	of	M-TAC	services	within	the	center	structure	will	be	critical	to	success.	Models	that	

support	strong	interaction	with	existing	center	tool	sets,	including	operational	excellence,	access	to	

finance,	business	growth	tools,	and	development	of	human	capital,	must	be	developed.	As	mentioned,	

systems	that	facilitate	inter-center	activity	will	also	be	critical.	Supply	chain	work	requires	an	agnostic	

attitude	to	local	or	state	boundaries	and	M-TAC	staff	must	be	empowered	to	move	freely	within	the	

MEP	system	to	access	services	and	companies.

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?
M-TACs	should	function as	the	repository	for	all	information	and	access	to	technical	expertise	relevant	

to	a	particular	supply	chain.	To	accomplish	this,	the	M-TAC	must	have	relationships	with	key	OEM’s	at	

both	the	highest	level	and	at	key	procurement	levels.	Procurement	decision-makers	are	key	influences	

within	supply	chains	and	relationships	must	be	cultivated	and	grown.	This	will	require	a	strong	emphasis	

on	the	value-added	element	of	the	M-TAC—the	ability	to	bring	qualified	suppliers	to	the	OEMs	and	the	

ability	to	strengthen	the	efforts	of	the	existing	supply	base.	

A	key	catalyst	in	establishing	and	building	industry	sector	relationships	are	the	various	industry,	trade,	

professional	and	employer	associations. Because	of	their	non-commercial	nature	and	role	as	business	

developers	and	purveyors	of	best	practices	within	their	sectors,	they	are	usually	a	trusted	source	for	

industry	and	a	critical	player	in	developing	industry	relationships.	Most	MEP	centers	have	developed	

strong	relationships	with	these	groups	and	the	availability	of	value-added	services	would	position	the	MTACs	well	as	partners.

To	solidify	these	critical	relationships,	it	is	worth	considering	establishing	industry	sector	M-TAC	advisory	

panels that	consist	of	key	OEMs,	and	trade	and	professional	associations.	A	structure	that	provides	for	

national	level	panels	by	industry	with	affiliated	local	chapters	could	be	a	key	way	to	ensure	that	M-TAC	

services	were	aligned	with	industry	needs.	If the	M-TAC’s	value-added	element	can	be	sufficiently	

defined	and	demonstrated,	a	play-to-play	position	on	the	advisory	panels	could	be	workable.	

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?

Effective	operation	of	M-TACs	will	require	an	on-going	financial	investment.	Standard	federal	

mechanisms,	such	as	state	or	local	funding,	would	not	be	workable	because	of	the	cross-jurisdictional	

nature	of	supply	chains.	In	addition,	project	fees	would	only	be	applicable	to	the	portion	of	the	work	

that	is	directly	value-adding	to	a	particularly	company	benefitting	from	the	service.	Other	general	

activities	including	industry	research,	broad-based	technology	scouting,	advisory	panel	management,	

and	company	relationship	development	and	management	would	require	an	independent	source	of	

funding.

As	suggested	in	the	response	to	question	2,	if	the	value-added	element	of	the	M-TACs	can	be	clearly	

demonstrated,	it	may	be	possible	to	develop	a	financial	support	system	of	fees	to	be	charged	to	large	

OEMs,	tier	1	suppliers,	and	industry	professional	associations.	This	is	likely	to	be	a	management	

challenge	in	and	of	itself	as	any	membership	organization	leader	can	tell	you.

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	performance	measure	to	business	growth.
Measurement	of	M-TAC	effective	requires	a	recognition	at	more	than	one	level.	Level	one	is	the	

development	of	a	knowledge	system	that	benefits	a	particularly	industry	sector.	This	would	include	

activities	such	as	supplier	qualification	matrices,	technology introduction	through	stronger	relationships	

among university	and	industry	labs	and	supply	chain	participants,	improvements	to	requirements	

communication	up	and	down	the	supplier	chain,	and	other	similar	activities.	These	activities	would	be	

hard	to	measure	and	simply	counting	instances	of	desired	actions	would	not	be	particularly	meaningful.	

A	system	of	deeper	and	more	thoughtful	investigation	from	evaluation	panels	whose	key	purpose	would	

be	to	share	best	practices	and	approaches	among	M-TACs	to	enhance	system	development	would	be	

more	useful	than	counting	activities	or	outcomes and	provide	insight	into	performance.

At	another	level,	M-TAC’s	will	ultimately	not	deemed	to	be	effective	without	measures	related	to	

economic	benefit	at	the	industry	and	company	level.	A	thoughtful	system	focused	on	a	small	number	of	

financial	outcomes	relevant	to	each	particular	industry’s	needs,	current	state,	and	desired	future	state	

would	work	best.	Performance	measure	research	shows	that	overall	measures	of	performance	based	on	

“one-sized-fits-all”	assumptions	regarding	success	will	only	encourage	short-term	thinking	and	

measurement	game	playing.

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?		Is	so,	

please	address	those	issues	here	and	explain	your	response.

The	ASMC	has	provided	a	response	to	this	RFI	and	we	are	in	support	of	the	overall	response	to	question	

5	contained	in	that	document.	Key	elements	of	concurrence	include:

1. A	national	perspective—the	program	should	not	be	gerrymandered	within	the	existing	system.	

Industry	supply	chains	exist	exclusive	of	jurisdictional	boundaries	and	the	system	finances	and	

measurement system	should	be	designed	to	support	and	encourage	true	and	deep	inter-MEP	

center	collaboration.

2. Strong	financial	support—Existing	federal	match	requirements	will	cause	centers	to	model	their	

M-TACs	after	proven	existing	activities	that	are	successful	at	securing	match.	That	may	mitigate	

against	the	big	thinking	and	creativity	necessary	to	put	this	new	system	into	place.

3. MEP	Center	Involvement—Although	it	appears	that	M-TAC	operation	will	be	based	on	the	

existing	MEP	center	framework,	it	is	worth	emphasizing	this	critical	element. A	parallel	structure	

would	result	in	redundancy	of	both	management	and	services	and	create	significant	brand	

confusion	for	the	existing	MEP	operation.