MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

1 of 16

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Advisory Board

Minutes of the May 15, 2011 Meeting

Background

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP), MEP Advisory Board met in an open session from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 

May 15, 2011, at the Orlando World Center Marriott in Orlando, Florida. Approximately 60 

attendees, composed of MEP Advisory Board members, NIST and MEP participants, guest 

speakers, and observers, attended the meeting.

Attendees

Board Members

Mark Rice, Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Maritime Applied Physics

Jim Bean, Vice Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Preco Electronics, Inc.

Dennis Dotson, Chairman, Dotson Iron Castings

Eileen Guarino, President and Chief Operating Officer, Greno Industries

Cheryl Hill, Owner and Chief Executive Officer, Hill Manufacturing, Inc.

Edward "Ned" Hill, Dean, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

James Jacobs, President, Macomb Community College

Fred Keller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Cascade Engineering (via phone)

Kenneth Priest, President and Chief Executive Officer, Kenway Corporation

Vickie Wessel, Founder and President, Spirit Electronics, Inc.

Edward Wolbert, President, Transco Products, Inc.

NIST Participants

Phillip Singerman, Associate Director, Innovation and Industry Services, NIST

MEP Participants

Roger Kilmer, Director, NIST MEP

Aimee Dobrzeniecki, Deputy Director, NIST MEP

Karen Lellock, Senior Policy Advisor, NIST MEP

Mark Troppe, Manager, Strategic Partnerships and State Relations, NIST MEP

Guest Speakers

Ken Poole, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, and 

Executive Director, Council for Community and Economic Research 

Rob Atkinson, President, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Doug Woods, President, The Association for Manufacturing Technology
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

2 of 16

MEP Observers

Ronald Gan, Administrative and Financial Management Officer, NIST MEP

Diane Henderson, Business Liaison Specialist, NIST MEP

Dan Lilley, Account Manager, NIST MEP

Mark Schmit, Program Manager, National Accounts, NIST MEP

Mike Simpson, Director, Systems Operations, NIST MEP

Phillip Wadsworth, Account Manager, NIST MEP

Tab Wilkins, Account Manager, NIST MEP

Gary Yakimov, Manager, Policy Initiatives, NIST MEP

Other Observers

William Barnes, Director, University of Maryland Manufacturing Assistance Program

Zenagui Brahim, Director of Operations, New Hampshire MEP

Manny Chavez, Chairperson, New Mexico MEP Board

Mike Coast, President, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center

Eric Esoda, Executive Director, Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center

Thomas Fallo, Chairperson, California Manufacturing Technology Consulting Board of 

Directors

Sara Garretson, President, Industrial and Technology Assistance Corporation, New York MEP

Steve Hatten, Executive Director, Idaho TechHelp

Carrie Hines, Executive Director, American Small Manufacturers Coalition 

Steve Holland, Director, Montana Manufacturing Extension Center

Sandy Haslem, State Director, Nevada Industry Excellence

Charles "Chip" Howison, Secretary/Treasurer, Finance Committee, Florida MEP Board of 

Directors

Randy Innis, INNIS Enterprises

Jeff Kohler, Executive Director, Genedge Alliance 

David Landsman, mfg.com

James Lange, Member, Florida MEP Board of Directors

Joe LaRussa, Director of Membership, Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Gene Lussier, Chairperson, Maine MEP Board of Directors

Paul Mastro, Chairperson, Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions Board of Directors

Andy Mead, Member, California Manufacturing Technology Consulting Board of Directors

Tom Palisin, Manufacturing Ombudsmen, Pennsylvania Department of 

Community & Economic Development

Richard Peck, Chairperson, Florida MEP Board of Directors

John Pickering, Member, Montana Manufacturing Extension Center Advisory Board

Rosemary Presnar, Operations Manager, Maine MEP

Steve Quindlen, Executive Director, Delaware MEP

Flo Raitano, Chairperson, Colorado Association for Manufacturing and Technology Consulting 

Board of Directors

Benjamin Rand, President, Insyte Consulting, New York MEP

Catherine Renault, Principal, Innovation Policyworks

Larry Stewart, Center Director, Manufacturing-Works

Mark Tomlinson, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Society of Manufacturing 

Engineers

Robert Trachtenberg, President, Technology Development Organization, New York MEP

Phillip Van Buren, Member, New Mexico MEP Board of Directors
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

3 of 16

Assisted by

SciComm, Inc.

Welcome, Introductions, and Opening Remarks

Speakers: - Roger Kilmer, Director, NIST MEP

- Mark Rice, Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Maritime Applied 

Physics

Speaker: Roger Kilmer, Director, NIST MEP

Members of the MEP Advisory Board were welcomed. It was announced that Cheryl Hill would 

be leaving the MEP Advisory Board, but that Ms. Hill would continue to work with the National 

MEP System in other capacities. Ms. Hill was thanked for her contribution to the MEP Advisory 

Board and to the National MEP System.

Speaker: Mark Rice, Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Maritime Applied 

Physics

The MEP Advisory Board welcomes three new members:

• Eileen Guarino, President and Chief Operating Officer, Greno Industries,

• Vickie Wessel, Member, Arizona MEP Board of Directors, and Founder and President, Spirit 

Electronics, Inc., and

• Edward Wolbert, President, Transco Products, Inc.

The MEP Advisory Board was challenged with two objectives. The first objective is to develop 

a better relationship between the MEP Advisory Board and the 60 MEP Center Boards of the 

National MEP System. The second objective is to develop specific recommendations and an 

outline for the September 2011 MEP Advisory Board meeting in Washington, D.C.

Manufacturing Jobs and MEP Impacts in an Overall Economic Context 

Speakers: - Ken Poole, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Regional Economic 

Competitiveness, and Executive Director, Council for Community and Economic 

Research

- Aimee Dobrzeniecki, Deputy Director, NIST MEP

--------------------------------------

Speaker: Ken Poole, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Regional Economic 

Competitiveness 

An overview of the state of manufacturing, with a focus on a new, Web-based approach to 

analyzing real-time manufacturing and workforce data, was discussed.

• Economic Overview: A Few Key Data Points

− Manufacturing is bouncing back from the recession.

− Exports of durable goods are driving growth.

− Manufacturing productivity continues to increase.

− Jobs "creation" is finally outpacing jobs "destruction."
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

4 of 16

− Growth leaders include the pharmaceutical, semiconductor, and the medical-device 

industries. 

− Skill leaders include engineering, information technology, sales, and supervisory 

management.

• An Assessment of Web-based Manufacturing Job Postings

− Manufacturers (non-union) are using the web to post job openings – 65,000 job postings 

during the recession with close to 140,000 posting in April 2011. 

− Industries that are posting the greatest number of job openings are the pharmaceutical, 

semiconductor/devices, and sensor/instrumentation manufacturers.

− A greater increase in production-job postings is seen among large manufacturers versus 

SMEs since 2009. The new production-job postings are led by machine shops and 

plastics and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Many of these manufacturers are not hiring 

because they are not finding the appropriate skill sets.

− In 2009, half of manufacturing jobs were production jobs. Recently, the mix is changing 

to engineering, management, installation/repair, business/finance, and computer support. 

• Who is Hiring and the Skills Sought 

− Largest concentration of advertised manufacturing jobs include the Northeastern part of 

the country, California, and Minnesota.

− About 40% of manufacturing jobs across the U.S. demand high-skilled workers, requiring 

at least a 4-year degree. 

− Top manufacturers seeking workers include Lockheed Martin, IBM, Pitney Bowes, and 

GE Energy.

− Top firms seeking production workers include Georgia-Pacific, Eaton, Goodrich, Parker 

Hannifin, and Boeing.

Discussion

• Really good initiative on the part of MEP and good work by Ken

• Workforce element deserves more emphasis than it has received. Particularly important 

if there is a resurgence in U.S. manufacturing. Data provides a basis for MEP 

management to make decisions on this increased emphasis. 

• Should be updated regularly and find a way to get it broadly distributed within the MEP 

system and beyond.

• Recommend that MEP explore this area during the coming year.

• Need to work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the state Labor Market Information 

Services to understand the data. This is a biased dataset but we do not know the bias.

• Having real time, transactional data on job vacancies has great potential.

MEP Impacts in an Overall Economic Context

Speaker: Aimee Dobrzeniecki, Deputy Director, NIST MEP

• While the manufacturing gross domestic product (GDP) has been steady/slight increase, 

MEP sales impacts decreased in 2009, but recent quarterly trends show an incline.

• While manufacturing employment has been steady from 2009 to 2010, MEP has seen an 

employment increase in recent months among small manufacturers, indicating renewed 

confidence. 
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

5 of 16

• Since the third quarter of 2010, manufacturers began investing into their companies, despite 

decreased cost savings reported during the same time. 

• MEP has seen the greatest increase in Next Generation Strategy (NGS) projects that involve 

sustainability (31% increase between 2009 and 2010), which matches well with cost-saving 

projects and increased market opportunities. During the same period, increases were seen 

among growth projects (6% increase) and technology-services projects (10% increase).

Discussion

Q: Can MEP compare last year's results to this year's results?

A: MEP currently collects quarterly information and reports it annually. Results are available 

to Board members as well as MEP Centers.

Q: How does MEP funding compare from last year to this year?

A: MEP saw an increase of $9 million from last year. Impact results are a reflection of the 

increased funding as well as the economy recovering and increased confidence among 

manufacturers. 

Office of Innovation and Industry Services, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology

Speaker: Phil Singerman, Associate Director, Innovation and Industry Services, NIST

An overview of NIST’s organization and MEP support, budget, and challenges were discussed. 

• Introduction

− The MEP Advisory Board was thanked for their service to NIST and the National MEP 

System.

− MEP is the gold standard for manufacturing assistance.

− MEP offers continuity and consistency to the manufacturing community.

• MEP Support

− MEP is strongly supported by the Executive Branch. In the President's State of the 

Union, President Obama strongly supported the importance of Research and 

Development (R&D).

− MEP is supported by the Legislative Branches. 

− MEP enjoys strong bipartisan support.

• MEP Budget

− MEP has strong budget. The FY11 budget is solid and MEP FY12 is very promising. 

The budget may grow from $128 to $142 million with strong support from the Executive 

and Legislative Branches, despite the tight economy.

• National Innovation

− With more resources to support national innovation come more responsibilities. MEP 

must use its resources to lead communities and to develop closer relationships with the 

States.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

6 of 16

• MEP Advisory Board Challenge

− Challenge #1: MEP Advisory Board must work with MEP Center Boards. The MEP 

Advisory Board should be actively engaged with local MEP Center Boards.

− Challenge #2: MEP Advisory Board should help nurture Federal/State relationships.

Discussion

• Board asked Phil to continue his work to articulate and formalize a NIST and DOC 

strategy for manufacturing for the following reasons:

o Without an umbrella strategy, the MEP program is viewed as an adjunct rather 

than as a core part of DOC strategy.

o Without an umbrella strategy, it is more difficult to describe the importance of the 

program and to explain this to new members of Congress.

• Board members are willing to undertake expanded roles in helping NIST develop and 

articulate a National Manufacturing Strategy.

States and Innovation: Setting the Stage for Job Creation

Speaker: Mark Troppe, Manager, Strategic Partnerships and State Relations, NIST MEP

Results of the 2010 elections, the composition of State legislatures, the MEP State Relations 

Team, and MEP's strategy to reach out to the State legislatures were discussed. 

• 2010 State Governor Election Results

After the November 2010 elections, there are 26 new governors. MEP has an opportunity to 

build new relationships with the new governors. MEP needs to tell them what MEP is doing 

and the importance of the National MEP System.

• State Legislature Composition

There was a dramatic change in the State legislatures. Before November 2010, there were 14 

Republican-controlled legislatures and 27 Democratic-controlled legislatures. After 

November 2010, there are 25 Republican-controlled legislatures and 16 Democraticcontrolled legislatures.

• MEP State Relations Team Composition

− Dan Berglund, State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI)

− Ken Poole, Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness

− Mary Jo Waits, National Governor's Association (NGA)

• Three-Part State Strategy 

− Part 1 - Immediate strategy 

o Distributed a new package that included manufacturing and MEP facts and 

talking points.

− Part 2 - Intermediate strategy

o Meet with new Governors, Federal officers, and State representatives in 

Washington, D.C.

o Follow-up with individual States.

o Follow-up with individual MEP Center Directors.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

7 of 16

o Develop strategy for reaching out to key States that did not attend.

o Develop longer-term, in-depth, outreach efforts.

− Part 3 - Long-term strategy

o Develop a strategy based on meeting in March.

o Plan to convene annual meeting on manufacturing strategy, following a hybrid 

NGA format. This will give the National MEP System an opportunity to work 

closely with States and policymakers over an extended period.

Discussion

• It seems that the real work in this area is inherently local. While the coordination with 

the National organizations is important, the real impact to the MEP centers seems to be a 

function of their local initiatives rather than the national initiatives. 

• Lingering questions: How does MEP relate the national-level “State” initiatives to the 

local initiatives?:

o How involved are the local centers?

o How do the MEP regional managers engage?

o Are best practices distributed?

MEP Advisory Board and MEP Center Board Discussion – Opportunities and 

Challenges at the Local Level

Facilitator: Mark Rice, Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Maritime 

Applied Physics

The MEP Advisory Board is looking for ways to improve its relationships between the MEP 

Advisory Board, MEP management, and the 60 individual MEP Center Boards. 

• Background to the MEP Advisory Board

− Authorized under the America COMPETES Act.

− The MEP Advisory Board reports to MEP, NIST, and to Congress. Reporting to 

Congress gives MEP an opportunity to speak directly to Congress.

− MEP Advisory Board members include affiliations with universities and manufacturers.

− Current members include manufacturers and some must serve on MEP Center Boards.

• MEP's Next Generation Strategies (NGS)

The goal of MEP’s NGS is to increase manufacturers’ capacity for innovation, which should 

result in sales growth. MEP’s approach is to reduce manufacturers’ bottom-line expenses by 

increasing efficiencies and to add top-line sales with business growth services that focus on 

new sales, new markets, and new products. The five key areas of MEP’s NGS are:

− Continuous improvement, 

− Sustainability, 

− Supplier development, 

− Technology acceleration, and 

− Workforce development.

• Breakout Session with MEP Advisory Board Members and MEP Center Board Members

The MEP Advisory Board would like to become more engaged with the individual MEP 

Center Boards. To this end, MEP designed four breakout sessions. Discussions from the 

breakout sessions will help MEP develop strategic goals for the National MEP System.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

8 of 16

MEP Center and Board members were divided into four groups to discuss the following four 

questions:

• Question 1 - What problems, issues, and opportunities should be elevated to the strategic 

planning level for the future of MEP? With NGS in mind, what are your recommendations 

for changes in programs, plans, policies, and strategies?

• Question 2 - What are the capability gaps that are constraining the success of SMEs?

• Question 3 - How can the National MEP System better explain the importance of U.S. 

manufacturing to policymakers at the Federal level? What is working at the local level?

• Question 4 - With the growth of SME/Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) 

relationships, opportunities for smaller manufacturers to take advantage of technology in 

national laboratories and universities, of the development of new, international markets, and 

of MEP Center playing a brokerage role and communications between the diverse entities are 

key. How do we set up mechanisms to enhance this communications? How do MEP Centers 

connect the dots that create opportunity for manufacturers? How does this communication 

work with the customer SME so that the manufacturer perceives great benefit?

After the breakout session, the breakout groups reconvened and provided a summary of their 

recommendations to the National MEP System.

Breakout Group One - Summary of Key Points

Facilitators: - Dennis Dotson, Member, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Dotson Iron 

Castings

- James Jacobs, Member, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Macomb 

Community College

• MEP Center Board training is important – need more of it and to a broader cross section 

of the local boards – particular emphasis on relating the local Board functions and 

responsibilities to the National need

• Need to improve consistency across centers. 

• Focus on both impact and quality of the service delivery

• More work to define Center roles in workforce development, what is the right mix, how 

do the financial models for the Centers work?

• Need more Center staff training so that relationships can be built at the C level 

• Evaluation needed at the level of the trainer, in addition to the output metric used by the 

MEP

Breakout Group Two - Summary of Key Points

Facilitators: - Edward "Ned" Hill, Member, MEP Advisory Board, and Dean, Levin College 

of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

- Kenneth Priest, Member, MEP Advisory Board, and President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Kenway Corporation
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

9 of 16

• Access to capital (difficulty of accessing bank finance remains a problem).

• How can the leadership of companies be freed up from working in their businesses to 

work on the business?

• Suggest that best practices and technical information could be exchanged through new 

“regional” meetings of the local boards – since many regions are large and still would 

require air travel, would it be better to do an annual summit for local boards? Southeast 

region is going to have a conference call with local chairs. 

• Gap exists in services related to family company transitions by asking “what is your exit 

plan” it can start a good discussion on current needs.

• Gap exists in services related to large OEMs and their supply chains

• Desire for more “peer councils” that allow CEO to CEO sharing – what role can/should 

the MEP centers play? Is this a new offer? There is also a potential for a plant manager 

peer group. Peer councils are currently being used at some MEPs. 

• The system needs to help strengthen board governance and the relationship between the 

board and the CEO of the MEP affiliate.

Breakout Group Three - Summary of Key Points

Facilitators: - Jim Bean, Vice Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Preco Electronics, Inc.

- Vickie Wessel, Member, MEP Advisory Board, Member, Arizona MEP 

Board of Directors, and Founder and President, Spirit Electronics, Inc.

• Relationships are the key to making the case for the importance of U.S. manufacturing. 

The one-on-one meetings between manufacturers and policy makers are critical. 

• Message needs to make it clear that MEP is a way to achieve a net savings in federal 

dollars. The ROI on this investment is positive.

• Consensus that the MEP needs a new “national brand” that can be easily recognized and 

understood by policy makers and reflected through the local brand

• Endorsement of existing efforts to improve communications between MEP leadership, 

the Centers, the Advisory Board, and the local boards. Perhaps the weekly e-blast to 

centers should also be sent to the local and national boards. 

• Need to strengthen the connections between the local and national levels.

• Desire to get more manufacturing success stories published. Particularly in the area of 

innovation.

• Recognition of the importance of non-Federal entities in delivering this message – MEP 

can make the data and information available but others must do the advocacy. 

Breakout Group Four - Summary of Key Points 

Facilitators: - Mark Rice, Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Maritime 

Applied Physics

- Eileen Guarino, Member, MEP Advisory Board, and President and Chief 

Operating Officer, Greno Industries

• Innovators within the organization may not be at the management level. MEP service 

must work with company management to identify the innovators. 

• Consensus that there is a HUGE communication gap between the national lab researcher 

and the shop floor innovator. Consider NIST level programs to address this. Options 
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

10 of 16

may include “shop floor innovator” internships at the national labs and/or scientistengineer internships within the manufacturing organization. 

• Broaden the definition of innovation to include low-end innovations and low-end 

technology transfer. 

• MEP centers should facilitate Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

(CRADAs) as a service function. 

• NIST has a new role in evaluating the tech transfer proficiency of national labs. Perhaps 

this can be linked back to MEP Center opportunities. 

• Some states, while having cut back on MEP cost share, are still funding Tech 

Deployment programs. MEP Centers need to look for opportunities to tap into these 

funding streams (e.g., FAST, proposed UTAH GAMBIT program, possible Rapid 

Product Transition Centers). 

• Need for staff training if MEP centers are to perform tech transfer functions. 

• If NIST can provide technology screening or otherwise facilitate tech transfer, perhaps a 

monthly webinar would be a good format to push this out into the centers. 

• Suggestion that NIST role as a clearinghouse for tech transfer could emerge. 

• Broad agreement that the impediments are: 1. Communication of opportunities, 2. 

Training on “how to”, and 3. Templates for successful financial models that the Centers 

could emulate. 

Manufacturing Innovation

Speaker: Aimee Dobrzeniecki, Deputy Director, NIST MEP

• The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act

− The America COMPETES Act requires the NIST Director to establish an Innovative 

Services Initiative within the National MEP System

− The Innovative Services Initiative is designed to assist SMEs with 1) reducing energy 

usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental waste, 2) accelerating domestic 

commercialization of new technology, and 3) expanding into new markets.

• National Association of Manufacturers Innovative Data

− Manufacturing is global and mobile.

− Companies must move quickly to meet the demands of a rapidly changing marketplace.

− Innovation has helped manufacturers maintain global leadership.

− R&D has spurred innovation and technologically advanced growth between 2000 and 

2006.

• Deloitte Innovation Data

− Global competitive landscape for manufacturing is shifting.

− Manufacturers will continue to be an essential path for attracting investments, spurring 

innovation, and creating high-value jobs.

− Manufacturing superpowers of the late 20th century (U.S., Japan, and Germany) are 

expected to become less competitive over the next 5 years.

− U.S. economic future is innovative manufacturing.

• MEP Survey Data

− Clients are primarily seeking 1) continuous improvement and cost reduction, 2) 

identification of growth opportunities, and 3) product innovation and development.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

11 of 16

• Accomplishments

− The National MEP System has established a nation-wide system of MEP Centers.

− The National MEP System has developed strong Centers.

− The National MEP System has developed a strong reputation.

• Current State of the National MEP System

− The National MEP System does what MEP knows best, primarily point solutions.

− The National MEP System has not significantly progressed beyond point solutions.

− The National MEP System has stagnated in terms of professional development.

− The National MEP System is not fully responsive to manufacturing needs.

− The National MEP System's market penetration is trending in the wrong direction.

− Neither the National MEP System nor the MEP Centers have developed sales skills.

− The National MEP System's number of projects is declining and impacts per project are 

declining.

• Today's Challenge

− NIST MEP needs to evaluate how MEP can better serve U.S. manufacturers and be 

responsive to their needs. 

• Innovation Engineering Management System (IEMS)

− IEMS fosters collaboration with entrepreneurs, universities, national laboratories, and 

OEMs. 

− IEMS has four components: Define, Discover, Develop, and Deliver. 

• Benefits of IEMS to MEP

− IEMS provides a common framework for creating, communicating, and implementing 

new ideas.

− IEMS wisely invests limited resources.

− IEMS builds bridges to new partners.

− IEMS drives out risk.

− IEMS changes the National MEP System culture.

− IEMS increases the international competiveness of U.S. manufacturers.

• Next Steps

− MEP IEMS training.

− MEP IEMS support.

− MEP IEMS managers focused on integrating existing and new MEP services.

Discussion

• The MEP objectives in promoting this program are broadly endorsed. 

• Recognition that this rigidly “proscribed” black belt approach is correct for a certain 

client base – particularly those who are not experienced in innovation processes but have 

the staff in place and a budget for this structured approach. 

• There are three black belts focused on center management, sales, and product delivery. 

But the connection to enterprise transformation and the MEP customer’s outcomes is not 

evident. 
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

12 of 16

• Recognition that this “proscribed” approach is helpful in developing the staff at some 

Centers that do not have a experience or track record of performance innovation 

functions.

• General consensus that this approach may not work in some sectors.

The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy

Speaker: Robert Atkinson, President, The Information Technology and Innovation 

Foundation

• State of U.S. Manufacturing

− The U.S. manufacturing story - is it the Agricultural story or the Rust Belt story?

Agriculture produces more with less people; agriculture is more productive than large 

manufacturing.

− Manufacturing as share of total employment - big cities have lost more jobs than small 

cities.

− Manufacturer output has grown slower than the GDP in the 21st century.

− Most manufacturers have lost output, which is related to loss of products.

− Only four sectors grew: 15 of 19 sectors produced less between 2000 and 2009. 

Aviation, petroleum and coal, computer, and electronics grew. 

− Real manufacturing has added value to the GDP.

− China has created more manufacturer jobs. In 4 years, China created more jobs than the 

total number of U.S. manufacturing jobs. In one instance, 150,000 new workers were 

added at one facility.

− Capital stock for many manufacturing sectors has fallen. Capital stock is down 20%. If 

one uses less capital, one cannot produce more.

− Overall, growth in U.S. manufacturing assets has stalled.

− The U.S. is falling behind growth in total private fixed assets.

− The U.S. is moving away from manufacturing to industries like entertainment and 

financials services.

• Why is a National Manufacturing Strategy Important?

− A robust manufacturing sector is needed to close the trade deficit.

− Manufacturing is a key source of employment and good jobs.

− Manufacturing is a key source of R&D and innovation activity.

− Manufacturing and services are inseparable and complementary.

− Manufacturing is vital to U.S. national security.

• Why We Need a National Manufacturing Strategy

− Other countries have manufacturing strategies and are investing in innovation.

− Systemic market failures affect manufacturer activity.

− U.S. is not likely to restore key manufacturer-sectors jobs once they are lost.

• Outline of a National Manufacturing Strategy

− The "Four T’s" must be examined:

o Tax code,

o Trade,

o Talent, and

o Technology.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

13 of 16

− Global models for technology development include:

o Universities and national laboratories,

o Applied R&D, and

o Industrial R&D.

• Why We Do Not Have a National Manufacturing Strategy

− Flawed concept: More savings is the answer.

− Flawed concept: New firms and new technologies are enough.

− Flawed concept: All we need are better innovation "inputs."

− Flawed concept: We can win without helping big corporations.

Discussion

The Board asked Dr. Atkinson to comment on his recommendation for changes to the MEP 

system based upon his findings:

• Need for more MEP linkage to innovation processes

o Need to look at innovation as a federated process

o Future papers will provide ability to compare and contrast MEP roles with other 

international efforts

• Need for an MEP approach to manufacturing sectors that may be regional

o Value of clusters

o Possible role for NIST to identify emerging technology for sector focus – other 

countries play a much more proactive role in this regards

• Exporting is key – more emphasis needed to solve the national problem.

Accelerating Economic Growth Through Innovation

Speaker: Doug Woods, President, The Association for Manufacturing Technology 

• Introduction – Need for Change

− In Washington, D.C., there is no coherent manufacturing strategy.

− U.S. needs a coherent manufacturing strategy and it is time for a new economic model.

• Goals for a National Manufacturing Strategy

− Create incentives for innovation and R&D.

− Assure availability of capital.

− Increase global competitiveness.

− Minimize structural burdens.

− Enhance collaboration between government, academia, and industry.

− Build a better-educated and trained "smart" force.

• Focus for a National Manufacturing Strategy

− Increase incentives for innovation.

− Increase global competitiveness.

− Build a better-educated workforce.

• Structure for a National Manufacturing Strategy

− Create an interagency manufacturer structure.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

14 of 16

− Science, technology, and manufacturing agencies should have an office under the 

Secretary of Commerce.

− Create a national policy.

− Use existing MEP distribution channel.

− Focus on areas of higher density of manufacturers.

• Early Manufacturing Technology Distributors

− Two simple programs: Sales/service and process improvement.

• Today's Manufacturing Technology Distributors

− One-stop coordinated effort for manufacturing services, like financing and SBIR awards.

• Powering Productivity

− Manufacturing technology.

− Cloud manufacturing.

− Automation.

• Advances That Will Shape Our Future

− Mass customization.

− Open innovation manufacturing (i.e., open-source code).

− Cloud manufacturing.

• The National MEP System holds the key for U.S. manufacturing

Discussion

• Suggestion that MEP create a Federal Opportunities Databank

• Suggestion that MEP play a more aggressive role in technology transfer

• Strong appreciation for the importance of this message.

• The “smartforce” concept might be a valuable branding for MEPs to use.

Observations and Recommendations for the National MEP System

Facilitator: Mark Rice, Chairperson, MEP Advisory Board, and President, Maritime 

Applied Physics

The MEP Advisory Board members were asked to develop a list of observations and 

recommendations for the National MEP System. 

• The lack of a broader NIST manufacturing vision is a complication for the MEP program. 

The MEP program stands in some isolation and would benefit from a defined relationship to 

a broader NIST and Department of Commerce vision of the Federal Government’s role in 

spurring both innovation and manufacturing.

• The MEP Advisory Board needs to communicate on a broader level. The Board can do 

more. 
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

15 of 16

• In terms of an innovation strategy, the MEP Centers need a better vision of their financial 

model. From a financial point of view, how can the MEP Centers promote innovation?

• There is a hole in leadership training for SMEs. Engineering schools are heavily siloed. 

MEP could help fill the hole.

• MEP needs to make a better case for manufacturing. The case is better this year than last 

year. MEP needs a consensus document.

• Training for MEP staff is coming together. Funding is coming from States and clients. State 

funding is very important. MEP needs to help State legislatures understand MEP's role.

• MEP needs to develop a sales plan for products and services that the National MEP System is 

providing.

• Training of MEP staff is a good investment.

• MEP must be clear that the National MEP System is the deployment arm of manufacturing.

• MEP needs to be the conduit between the innovator and the manufacturer.

• There is a need to further hone the economic case for supporting U.S. manufacturing

‐ Compare ourselves to global competitors – look outside the U.S.

‐ Promote an understanding that international exporting is both highly competitive and 

a critically important part of our manufacturing strategy.

‐ Increase public understanding of MEP as a “deployment” arm of policy and practices

o Federal role in understanding and promoting segments and sectors

o Recognition of different strategies for different segments

 Product oriented sectors

 Process oriented sectors

 Innovation is non-linear and different among sectors

 Look at Center role as a node connector in the innovation process 

rather than as a teacher of innovation

o Need to engage States to develop a technology pull vs a Federal technology 

push

• How does MEP best exploit the expertise of the MEP Advisory Board? How does MEP 

aggregate the experience of the MEP Advisory Board and the MEP Center Boards? MEP 

has a great opportunity to get its message out.

• The importance of what the National MEP System does needs to be communicated. From 

being a customer of a local MEP Center, a current MEP Advisory Board member indicates 

the constant learning of new information that can benefit manufacturers around the country.

• MEP needs collaboration with other Federal and Department of Commerce advisory boards.

• Each MEP Center offers different products and services. It would be nice to know services 

offered by each MEP Center.

• MEP is very complex. It would be useful for a focus on two or three critical success factors.

• What does the National MEP System stand for? What is its niche?

• MEP is a part of a larger effort to restore American manufacturing.

Adjournment

Advisory Board members, NIST and MEP participants, presenters, and observers were thanked 

for attending the meeting. The next MEP Advisory Board meeting will be held on September 

21, 2011, in Washington, D.C. 
MEP Advisory Board Meeting

May 2011

16 of 16

.