Skip to main content

Advanced Manufacturing: Commerce Could Strengthen Collaboration with Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes

GAO-17-320 Published: Apr 06, 2017. Publicly Released: Apr 06, 2017.
Jump To:

Fast Facts

Over the past few decades, the United States has become less competitive in manufacturing. In response, the Manufacturing USA program supports public-private manufacturing innovation institutes. The institutes are intended to develop and promote advanced manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing.

An interagency team was responsible for outlining agencies' roles and responsibilities in the program, but didn't include all relevant agencies in the process or fully identify how agencies could contribute. We recommended that the Department of Commerce, in its coordinating role, take action to address this concern.

Manufacturing USA Institutes Established by DOD, DOE, and Commerce as of December 2016

Table of Manufacturing USA institute names, technology focus, year established, and agency sponsor.

Table of Manufacturing USA institute names, technology focus, year established, and agency sponsor.

Skip to Highlights


What GAO Found

As of December 2016, the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Commerce (Commerce) collectively had signed agreements to establish 11 manufacturing innovation institutes. Four of these institutes were established prior to enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI Act), which requires Commerce to establish a network of institutes for manufacturing innovation. Since 2014, the network—called the Manufacturing USA network—has grown as DOD, DOE, and Commerce have established seven more institutes, and Commerce, DOD, and DOE plan to sponsor up to four more institutes. Each institute is a public-private partnership between the sponsoring federal agency and a nonfederal entity in charge of operations, with the nonfederal entity matching or exceeding the federal financial assistance. GAO's analysis of institute membership from May through September 2016 shows that about 780 members had joined the seven institutes that were operating during GAO's review (i.e., supporting research projects in their technology focus areas). Members receive a variety of benefits, such as access to intellectual property and networking opportunities.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE worked together to develop initial performance measures to track progress toward the Manufacturing USA program's statutory purposes. Additionally, DOD, working with Commerce and DOE, hired a consultant to review the Manufacturing USA program. The consultant's January 2017 report included recommendations on revised measures to track program progress. After considering the results of this review, Commerce plans to work with DOD and DOE to reach agreement on a revised set of measures. While Commerce may face challenges with assessing the program, such as the timeframe over which results may need to be measured, it has taken steps or has identified options to address these challenges.

Commerce has used a variety of mechanisms to coordinate the Manufacturing USA program. These mechanisms incorporate several key practices GAO has identified for enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration. However, GAO found that the process used to develop a governance system that outlines agencies' responsibilities for contributing to the program did not include all relevant non-sponsoring agencies (agencies that do not sponsor institutes), or ensure that their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the program are fully identified. Specifically, non-sponsoring agencies, such as the Department of Labor (DOL)—which administers discretionary grant programs that can help increase the number of skilled workers in advanced manufacturing—were not actively involved in developing the governance system. Additionally, the governance system does not specify any responsibility for non-sponsoring agencies to provide information or expertise related to their activities to the program. A Commerce official told GAO that the governance system is subject to revision, but participation in the program is up to each agency. However, including all relevant agencies in the process of revising the system and fully identifying non-sponsoring agencies' roles and responsibilities could strengthen Commerce's efforts to leverage and coordinate agencies' contributions to the program, consistent with key practices for interagency collaboration.

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2012, DOD and DOE have been establishing innovation institutes to promote the research, development, and commercialization of advanced manufacturing technologies. The RAMI Act of 2014 requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program, with eight specified purposes, that includes a network of manufacturing innovation institutes. Commerce, through a program office, is to coordinate this program—called Manufacturing USA.

The RAMI Act includes a provision for GAO to assess the program every two years, with a final assessment in 2024. This is GAO's first report in response to the statutory provision. Among other objectives, GAO examined (1) the status of the network and use of the institutes, (2) the extent to which performance measures are in place to assess progress toward achieving the statutory program purposes, and (3) the extent to which Commerce has taken steps to coordinate agencies contributing to the program.

GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from Commerce, DOD, DOE, DOL, the Department of Education, and Manufacturing USA institutes; and held discussion groups with a nongeneralizable sample of institute member representatives.


GAO recommends that Commerce work with all relevant federal agencies to fully identify roles and responsibilities for how agencies that do not sponsor institutes could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. Commerce agreed, but suggested an alternative recommendation. GAO modified the recommendation to clarify its intent.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Commerce To enhance interagency collaboration in the Manufacturing USA program, the Secretary of Commerce should direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with all non-sponsoring agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing to revise the Manufacturing USA governance system to ensure the roles and responsibilities for how these agencies could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program are fully identified.
Closed – Implemented
Commerce took several actions in response to this recommendation. According to information the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provided in January 2018, the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office--an interagency team housed at NIST--conducted outreach and informational briefings with the Departments of Labor, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services. As a result of this outreach, NIST indicated that the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services named representatives to the Manufacturing USA interagency team, and began engaging in Manufacturing USA meetings. For example, Labor representatives provided a presentation on the workforce development system at an October 2017 Manufacturing USA interagency meeting. The presentation included information on the role of different entities in the workforce development system, as well as information on Labor programs and resources related to advanced manufacturing. Further, NIST, working through the Manufacturing USA interagency team and the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, issued a revised Manufacturing USA governance document in October 2019. The revised document included a new component clarifying the responsibility of agencies that do not sponsor Manufacturing USA institutes to facilitate information sharing about their programs and funding opportunities relevant to the institutes. As a result of these efforts, NIST will have greater assurance that the programs and resources of these non-sponsoring agencies that could contribute to the Manufacturing USA institutes are effectively leveraged and coordinated.

Full Report

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs


CompetitionInteragency relationsInternational relationsManufacturing industryPerformance measurementProgram managementReporting requirementsResearch and developmentTechnological innovationsPublic and private partnershipsManufacturingScience and technologyManufacturing competitiveness