3/21/2016

1

MForesight: Alliance for Manufacturing Foresight

Sridhar Kota, DirectorHerrick Professor of Engineering

The University of Michiganwww.mforesight.org

Sponsored by:

S.Kota

1

Overview of Day’s Activities

Topic 1: Technology ForecastingHow can MForesight best select critical emerging technologies for further evaluation?

Process, criteria and evaluation of emerging technology topics. Marketplace for game‐changing ideas

Topic 2: Investment GapWhat factors/policies promote industry investment in translational research?

How does Industry typically identify/evaluate/support promising new and potentially game‐changing ideas from universities and federal labs? Barriers? How can we learn?

Topic 3: Education & Workforce DevelopmentWhat role could MForesight play in addressing key workforce development challenges?How do we democratize learning? IT‐driven learning tools…

S.Kota 2

3/21/2016

2

Vision and Objectives

Vision:

MForesight serves as the voice of the U.S. advanced manufacturing 

community and is focused on predicting future critical needs in advanced 

manufacturing across sectors and technologies as well as addressing broader 

challenges and opportunities in education, workforce development and 

technology commercialization

Objectives:

1. Actively seek input from industry 

2. Identify emerging technologies and best practices in education, tech transfer etc.  

3. Prepare timely reports for (a) Federal agencies and (b) MForesight‐directed 

studies. 

4. Communicate opportunities in engineering and advanced manufacturing

S.Kota 3

MForesight: Rapid Response Reports

Sought and received detailed information on:• Translational Research and Industry Investment• Regulations and Barriers, Partnership models • Technology Transfer & International Benchmarking

• Two reports submitted (Dec 18, 2015)• To be released for public comment in March 2016• Panel Experts were primarily from the private sector 

Selection criteria: • Cross‐cutting platform technologies • Likelihood of private sector co‐investment and • Translational R&D opportunities

S.Kota 4

3/21/2016

3

Next Two Rapid Response Reports 

In response to a White House request, MForesight will be launching a White Paper Competition (March 2016) to solicit ideas to lower barriers to cost‐effectively manufacture goods of greater value and variety in low‐volumes (ex: 1000 ‐ 5000 units) in the US. 

MForesight is soliciting ideas on: hardware for physical production, novel process technologies, software for design/machine interfaces and new business models including collaborative manufacturing ecosystems. 

Democratization of Manufacturing (Beyond 3D printing)

Cost‐competitive Small‐lot manufacturing 

Zero tooling costs

Intelligent Design Software tools

Open‐architecture custom machines

New business models

Seeking Innovations in:

S.Kota 5

“Manufacturing 101” for Startups – DOE EERE

Biggest challenge in energy entrepreneurship is “translating an idea into a commercially viable product”. Energy entrepreneurs lack of manufacturing know‐how. 

Goal: Outline the relevant content to include in “Manufacturing 101” training modules for clean energy entrepreneurs. 

MForesight to convening subject matter experts to establish the nature and content of technology‐agnostic online‐modules, software tools, relevant case studies, delivery methods etc. on

• Materials and Process Selection tools• Realistic Product Cost Estimation tools• Design for Ease of Assembly tools• Design for Injection Molding• Design for X• PCB design for large‐scale • Tools/techniques peculiar to electronic and chemical industries. 

S.Kota 6

3/21/2016

4

Topic 1: Technology Forecasting

BackgroundMForesight’s current focus is to identify topics suitable for investment in translational R&D (TRL* 4‐7) and commissions reports. 

A list of 15 candidate topics were identified by: 

(a) scanning hundreds of basic research topics currently supported by various 

federal agencies,  and 

(b) Soliciting ideas from affiliate members and leadership council members. 

Based on information received/gathered, two‐page summaries on each topic were prepared for consideration by the Leadership Council. Each two‐page summary addresses the key evaluation criteria to varying degrees. 

S.Kota 7

* TRL = Technology Readiness Level

Topic 1: Technology Forecasting

How can MForesight best select critical emerging technologies for further evaluation?

• Review key selection criteria • Design a rational method for identifying and evaluating 

emerging technologies.• (Off‐line) Select and Rank three (3) emerging technologies from 

a list provided by MForesight.

S.Kota 8

3/21/2016

5

Topic 1: Technology Forecasting

9

Here is one way to identify & select emerging technology topics

INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUT

Leadership Council Consultations

Needs of Major Industry Sectors

Rapid Response Request

Prioritize Technologies **

Identify & Convene Subject Matter Experts

Deep Dive Technology Report

Extended White Paper

Rapid Response Report** Candidate Technologies are prioritized using 

weighted PCAST criteria

Candidate Technologies

Rapid Response Topic

Suggestions by Leadership council

Suggestions by Affiliates

Federal R&D topics Search

Candidate topics

Translational R&D Topic 1 Population‐Specific Medical Devices 2 Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing3 Engineering Cementitious Composites (ECC)4 Impulse Joining and Forming5 Predictive Analytics for Predictive Manufacturing Systems6 Research Data Utilization Improvements7 Regenerative Medicine 8 Cybersecurity for Manufacturing9 Inline detection of Microbial Contamination10 Functional Nanocoatings11 Mechanical Meta Materials 12 Advanced Ceramics and Metals13 Mass‐Produced Micro Fluidics14 Energy Storage15 Quantum Computing

Note: The goal is to identify a subset (3‐5) of these topics that are worthy of further elaboration through workshops & reports. 

S.Kota 10

3/21/2016

6

Technology Evaluation Criteria

1. Economic Impact: Potential impact of the technology on economic growth and jobcreation

2. Cross‐cutting impact: If matured, the technology would positively impact multipleindustry sectors and manufacturers of all sizes in the supply chain.

3. Identifiable Market Failures: No single company or industry would invest intechnology maturation because the benefits will spillover to competitors or inabilityto capture benefits.

4. International benchmarking: Likelihood of potential first‐mover advantage to theU.S.

5. Private sector investment: Likelihood that private sector would co‐invest with thegovernment.

6. Leveraging strengths and investments: Leverages previous investments by the USgovernment in basic research, research infrastructure, raw materials, or supplychains.

7. US‐based Manufacturing: If matured, the scale‐up is likely to be anchored in theU.S.

8. National Interests: The technology is aligned with either U.S. national securityneeds or energy independence goals, or enhancing health outcomes.

S.Kota 11

R&D and Trade Deficits

U.S. Trade Balance (2015)

Goods: ‐$758 billion

Services: +$227 billion

Net: ‐$531 billion

Trade Deficit in Advanced Technology Products (ATP): $92 billion

Advanced Materials, Aerospace, biotechnology, ICT, Electronics, Life Sciences, Nuclear, Opto‐electronics, Weapons

U.S. approx. $465 billionS.Kota 12

3/21/2016

7

Innovation Gap & Investment Gap

Basic Research Translational Research Applied R & D Full Volume Mfg.

Incremental Innovation; Improving current products

Discoveries Inventions Radical Innovations; Game‐changing ideas; 

Defense

Non‐Defense

Industrial r&D~ $ 325 billion

SBIRNNMI

Innovation Gap

New products/processes

Trade deficit: Goods ~$ 760BInvestment $140B 

Federal R&d~$140 billion

TRL 1‐3 TRL 4‐7 TRL 8‐9

S.Kota 13

Innovation Gap & Investment Gap

Defense

Non‐Defense

• Economic impact• Cross‐cutting appeal• Govt.‐Industry co‐investment• Leverage prior investments• US‐based manufacturing

Federal investments in 

research

Innovation‐based ManufacturingIdeas worth scaling

Bridging the Gap

Ideas worth researching

S.Kota 14

Discoveries Inventions Radical Innovations; Game‐changing ideas;  New products/processes

Basic Research Translational Research Applied R & D Full Volume Mfg.

3/21/2016

8

TRL, MRL definitions

S.Kota 15

NSF definitions: Basic and Applied Research

Basic research ‐ “gain more complete knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts, without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.” 

Applied research ‐ “gain knowledge or understanding necessary for determining the means by which a recognized need may be met.” 

Development ‐ “systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes."  

S.Kota 16