Review of the Manufacturing-Related 

Programs at NIST

Prof. Kanti Jain, Panel Chair

October 17, 2012

LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD

Summary of the Report by the NRC 

Panel of the National Academies
Contributors

LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD

Panel KANTI JAIN, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Chair

HADI A. AKEEL, Amteng Corporation

JULIE CHEN, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

DIANNE CHONG, The Boeing Company

RANDALL R. GORHAM, JR., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

JEFF GUST, Fluke Calibration

LAWRENCE L. KAZMERSKI, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

JOHN W. KOZARICH, ActivX Biosciences, Incorporated

DOUGLAS LOY, Deloy, LLC

ROBERT E. SCHAFRIK, General Electric Aircraft Engines

LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (retired)

F. STAN SETTLES, University of Southern California

MICHAEL G. SPENCER, Cornell University

MATTHEW J. ZALUZEC, Ford Motor Company

Staff CY BUTNER, Sr. Program Officer, Laboratory Assessments Board

JAMES P. McGEE, Director, Laboratory Assessments Board
3

Scope of Review

• Nanomanufacturing (including Flexible Electronics)

• Smart Manufacturing (including Robotics)

• Next-Generation Materials Measurements, Modeling, and Simulation

The Panel’s assessment included manufacturing research at NIST 

broadly, with emphasis on the following advanced manufacturing areas:

Review of Manufacturing-Related 

Programs at NIST
4

Charge by NIST to the Review Panel

Review of Manufacturing-Related 

Programs at NIST

• Assess the technical merit and scientific caliber of NIST’s 

manufacturing programs relative to comparable programs worldwide

• Assess the efficacy of NIST’s engagement with outside stakeholders

• Assess coordination and cohesion across NIST of programs in the 

specific Advanced Manufacturing topics
5

Key Findings: Nanomanufacturing

• Technical merit, scientific caliber of research: Among the best in the world

• Equipment and facilities: Very impressive; a unique resource; a great 

national asset

• Area lacks overall ownership under a clear leader.

• Area lacks self-identification: Lacks clear definition of what 

Nanomanufacturing means.

• Area presents as a collection of projects: Lacks organization from 

Nanomanufacturing perspective.

• Choices should be made on area scope and topics to pursue

– Selection process should also decide what not to do — remember 

X-ray lithography and high-temperature superconductors.

– When making choices, should include critical mass among criteria 

and avoid spreading too thin.

– Good to maintain focus on NIST’s core mission: measurements 

techniques, standards, reference materials.
6

Key Findings: Nanomanufact. (Cont.)

• In addition to focus on current semiconductor technologies, should also 

work with industry to develop metrics for benchmarking potential 

next-generation technologies.

• Should have better coupling with DOE’s PV centers (PVMC-Albany, 

BAPVC-Stanford) — NIST has much to offer in standards, technology 

roadmapping, manufacturing support.

• Biomanufacturing program, although in its infancy, is ideally suited to 

leverage current research in protein science and cell biology for new drug 

development.

• As a resource for industry: Should develop sound criteria for saying “yes”, 

placing emphasis on NIST mission and technical uniqueness, and avoiding 

being used as a low-cost provider of scientific expertise and advanced 

technical facilities.

• Increase awareness of “bankability”: Should avoid projects that may 

provide exciting research opportunities but are weak in manufacturability 

and/or commercialization potential (too expensive, insufficient market size). 

Same examples apply again.
7

Key Findings: Smart Manufacturing

• Technical merit, scientific caliber of research: Team is highly qualified and 

competent. Publications are in leading journals.

• Equipment and facilities: Well equipped to meet program needs.

• Level of maturity of thrust areas lags significantly behind industry state of 

the art.

– Examples: Additive manufacturing and robotics.

– In this lag, what role is being played by the need for new capital 

equipment?

• Should expand scope of materials in fabrication projects; current efforts 

seem to be limited to metallics.

• Program metrics should be more meaningful and quantitative; currently they 

seem to be only project milestones.
8

Key Findings: Smart Manuf. (Cont.)

• Engagement and communication with stakeholders and customers is 

primarily through standards committee meetings, industry workshops, etc. 

These vehicles for interaction are not sufficiently structured and targeted.

• More effective engagement through visits to companies with well planned 

agendas is needed. (Note: Visits by companies to NIST will be less useful.)

– A few visits to companies have occurred; these should be increased 

and take place before undertaking significant projects.

• Key rationale behind above impression: To make sure the problems NIST 

is working on are important.

• There is periodic coordination between different NIST laboratories. This 

should be more structured.

• A well defined process is needed for determining and prioritizing projects 

that should be undertaken.
9

Key Findings: Next-Generation Materials

• Technical merit, scientific caliber of research: Equal to the best in the 

world, both academia and industry.

Post-doc positions are highly sought after; they are important outreach.

• Quality of data, models, and equipment used: Among the best in the world; 

excellent repository and gatekeeper of scientific data from multiple sources.

• Numerous impressive accomplishments, e.g.:

- partnerships with automotive, semiconductor, and construction industries.

- vast scope of length scales.

- top-notch quality of reference materials.

• Development of computational mechanics and manufacturing should be 

expanded. Program’s partnership with industry should be strengthened to 

identify future challenges.

• Number of global standards increasing: Working with other international 

agencies, NIST can take lead in consolidating and simplifying the large 

number of standards, and perhaps even providing them for profit.
10

Key Findings: Next-Generation Materials (Cont.)

• Material Genome Initiative: NIST has the best expertise and resources, 

and should play the leading role; has the capability but lacks enthusiasm.

Interaction with industry should be stronger. A targeted workshop with 

carefully selected participants and tight agenda would be beneficial.

• Program organization and management should be improved, with emphasis 

on rationale and objectives in selecting projects, and clear metrics in 

judging progress.

• Collaborations with other NIST units are strong and coordination is 

encouraged and effective.

• As in other areas, increase awareness of “bankability”: Should avoid 

projects that may provide exciting research opportunities but are weak in 

manufacturability and/or commercialization potential (too expensive, 

insufficient market size). Same examples again.
11

Key Findings: Overall Summary

• Technical merit, scientific caliber of research: Teams are highly qualified; 

among the best in the world. Equipment and facilities: A national asset.

• Project selection: Vetting process should be improved, with greater 

attention to industry need, manufacturability, and commercial potential.

• Organization: Programs give appearance of collection of projects. 

Ownership and leadership of programs should be stronger.

• Program metrics should be more quantitative. Some appear to be merely 

project milestones.

• Interaction with industry should be expanded, with more visits to companies 

and greater awareness of industry practices.

• Coordination across NIST laboratories is broad but seems ad hoc and 

informal. Greater benefits would be realized with structured coordination.

• For its technical and scientific capabilities and accomplishments, NIST 

deserves more national visibility than it gets. Possible reasons: lack of 

enthusiasm to claim leadership; institutional modesty
12

Manufacturing: A National Priority

• Because the vast scope of manufacturing encompasses a wide array of 

disciplines, systems, applications, and environments, contributions made 

by NIST impact the U.S. industry in a multitude of ways. As a result of its 

highly qualified researchers and advanced facilities that are a national 

asset, NIST is uniquely positioned to support U.S. manufacturing broadly.

 

• Perhaps it is as a recognition of these capabilities that in the recent launch 

of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) initiative by President 

Obama at the recommendation of the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology (PCAST), NIST has been rightfully accorded a 

leading role in being selected for the Advanced Manufacturing National 

Program Office.