Workshop: U.S.-Germany Collaborative Research inAdvanced Manufacturing in Darmstadt, Germany

February 10-12, 2016

Final Report

Barbara Linke, Steven Schmid, Peter Groche, Petra WiederkehrNSF funding award 1550261

DFG funding award GZ: 44.01.07/23/15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States and Germany share many characteristics, and have been allies and friends for generations. Both countries rank among the world leaders for technological sophistication, high technology product development and advanced manufacturing research activity. Both countries have strong support for scientific and engineering research, and there are significant overlaps and synergies between the funded research portfolios. While there are potential areas for collaboration, there are few venues where research topics that are mutually beneficial can be identified and jointly funded. For this reason, a workshop was held on February 10 – 12, 2016 in Darmstadt, Germany, to investigate the potential for collaborative research between the US and Germany.

Both Germany and the U.S. have analogous funding agencies – the National Science Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft serve similar purposes in their respective countries, as do the Fraunhofer Institutes and the developing National Network for Manufacturing Innovation program. For basic research, both NSF and DFG have similar foci and funding levels for projects, and similar proposal and reporting requirements. Therefore, the infrastructure to develop and support collaborative research programs already exist in the US and Germany.

There are some differences in the American and German career tracks of academic researchers. The main difference is that the German professors typically spend 10-15 years in industry after receiving their doctorate degree before returning to the university. In the United States, it is very rare that professors have industry experience, and professors in their early career (assistant and associate professors) cannot easily devote time towards international collaborative projects if there is no strong output for their tenure and merit promotions. However, exchanges can best take place with graduate research assistants and, with shorter durations, between senior faculty, perhaps including associate professors when they have institutional support.

Not all research topics are suitable for international collaboration. While there are serendipitous benefits to collaboration, it is thought that research topics should be beneficial and sufficiently broad to warrant investment by both nations. There are a large number of such thematic areas; additive manufacturing and Industry 4.0 (digital manufacturing) were identified and discussed at the workshop, but a large

1

number of other topics were suggested as being suitable for collaborative research. When such research occurs, it is necessary that real collaborations, leveraging unique capabilities in both countries, should be developed.

The workshop recommended that a new collaborative research program be developed by the National Science Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and that existing funding opportunities (such as integrating international travel and exchange in NSF or DFG awards) should be more advertised and utilized. The particular recommendations address proposal review practices, funding levels, reporting requirements and evaluation of best practices.

1. Workshop Objectives

The United States and Germany share many characteristics, and have been allies and friends for generations. Both countries rank among the world leaders for technological sophistication, high technology product development and advanced manufacturing activity. Both countries have strong support for scientific and engineering research, and there are significant overlaps and synergies between the funded research portfolios. While there are potential areas for collaboration, there are few venues where research topics that are mutually beneficial can be identified and jointly funded. For this reason, the workshop on February 10 – 12, 2016 in Darmstadt, Germany brought together advanced manufacturing researchers from the U.S. and Germany, with the following aims:

1. Identify best practices of collaboration between U.S. and German researchers in advanced manufacturing.

2. Formulate recommendations for future joint research initiatives.3. Provide a forum for researchers from the U.S. and Germany to network

and develop future collaborations.4. Identify administrative / organizational /structural challenges observed

by researchers in both countries for U.S.-German collaboration. 5. Examine research needs in advanced manufacturing across a range of

technologies.6. Identify needs, gaps and challenges facing advanced manufacturing, as

well as potential collaborative research topics. Both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the German Research

Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) recognize the importance of advanced manufacturing, and maintain healthy manufacturing research portfolios. Advanced manufacturing has the largest economic multiplier of any sector in a modern economy, making this sector essential for economic prosperity. Further, manufactured products drive exports for both countries, and therefore infrastructural needs are similar. That is, a well-trained workforce, engineering sophistication, computer integration and advanced technologies are needed in both Germany and the U.S. However, there are very few research interactions, even when the research goals align and synergies/cost savings can be achieved.

2

The workshop on advanced manufacturing provided a forum to promote interaction between German and American researchers in advanced manufacturing in a broad range of areas. In addition, the workshop brought together researcher leaders and manufacturing thought-leaders who already had experience in collaborative research between U.S. and Germany or were in a position for foster new interactions.

2. Relationship to the Needs and Interests of the Supporting Programs

Advanced manufacturing receives considerable support in both Germany and the United States. Both the NSF and DFG have an annual expenditure of around $50 million for basic research in advanced manufacturing. Both Germany and the United States have similar mechanisms for applied research (Fraunhofer and NNMI Institutes), and at much higher funding levels. For example, each Institute in the NNMI program in the U.S. has an annual budget in excess of $20 million, and nine Institutes will be established by the end of 2015; in Germany, the Fraunhofer Program has a $2 billion euro annual budget, of which around one-third is provided by the Federal Government. Germany has additional funding avenues for collaborative and applied research, such as the German Federation of Industrial Research Associations – AiF, Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi).

A unique problem now exists – funding in applied manufacturing research requires a “pipeline” of innovation to continue a stream of technologies to flow to the marketplace. This requires funding at all stages of a product’s development. While the main foci of the NSF and DFG align and provide support for basic research in many areas, the budget for basic research in advanced manufacturing is limited.

The pipeline can be filled by increasing funding in an area, but a more cost-effective approach can be to foster collaboration and exploit the strengths of collaborative research teams that can be assembled in the U.S. and Germany. Thus, the budgets at both DFG and NSF can be leveraged because of interactions between German and American researchers.

3. Workshop Overview

The workshop took place at the University of Darmstadt and at the Fraunhofer Institute IPA in Stuttgart, with visits to ZF Sachs in Schweinfurt and cultural visits in Würzburg.

The conference agenda is contained in Appendix A. The first day focused upon background information and identification of cultural differences that can inhibit successful interactions. Existing funding opportunities at NSF and DFG were identified, and their applicability to international collaborations was discussed.

The second day was dedicated to tours of university and industry research facilities, and allowing time for individual discussions about research topics and funding mechanisms. First the workshop attendees toured the Institute for Production Engineering and Forming Machines (PtU) and the Institute of Production

3

Management, Technology and Machine Tools (PTW), both at the University of Darmstadt. The PtU is headed by Professor Peter Groche and has currently 39 scientific associates, 11 administrative and technological members of staff as well as about 70 student research assistants.

In the afternoon, the workshop participants visited ZF in Schweinfurt. ZF is a global leader in driveline and chassis technology as well as active and passive safety technology, and is known in the United States as the purchaser of TRW and still maintains the TRW product line of automotive products. It has about 230 locations in about 40 countries and is one of the top three automotive suppliers worldwide. Tours through the Tool Shop and the Torque Converter Production gave an impression of the company’s expertise and structure.

The third day started with group work on project structure. The results were presented by the three groups. NSF and DFG representatives commented on potential project design. The workshop organizers summarized the results of the workshop presentations and discussions and presented proposed next steps. In the afternoon, the attendees toured the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA in Stuttgart. The Fraunhofer IPA is one of the largest institutes in the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft with nearly 1000 employees. It has an annual budget of over 60 million euros, with more than one third coming from industrial projects.

4. Landscape of Advanced Manufacturing Research in the U.S. and Germany

4.1 Existing research programs at NSF and NNMI Centers

NSF is an independent federal agency created by the U.S. Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…" With an annual budget of $7.5 billion (FY 2016), NSF is the funding source for approximately 24 % of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities.

Research in advanced manufacturing is funded through different divisions (horizontal boxes) and programs (vertical boxes) highlighted in Fig. 1. Not a part of NSF, but an important part of the U.S. Manufacturing Research landscape is the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). NNMI is a network of industry-led Institutes that represent a partnership between government, industry and academia on topics of national interest. Each Institute for Manufacturing Innovation has a unique focus, such as the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics, the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute, or the Institute of Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (http://www.manufacturing.gov/institutes.html). Seven institutes have been established since 2012, with two currently being evaluated. By the end of 2016, there will be 15 Institutes in the NNMI. To date, funding has predominantly come from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, although both NIST and NSF contributed funding to the first institute, America Makes (focused on additive manufacturing).

4

Figure 1: NSF Manufacturing funding landscape (courtesy of Bruce Kramer, NSF).

NSF focuses on basic research, which can be defined on a Technology Readiness Level or Manufacturing Readiness Level of 0-3. Institutes in the NNMI focus on TRL or MRL 4-7. Thus, there is a natural dependence on the NNMI Institutes on NSF research; a project pipeline that originates at NSF provides a significant portion of the project portfolio at Institutes. The mechanisms for informing Institutes of NSF projects that have progressed to higher TRL or MRL levels are still being formulated, but the continuum of research funding from fundamental principal to research to enable pilot production is in the process of being established at scale.

4.2 Existing research programs at DFG and other funding opportunities in Germany

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)1 is the self-governing organization for science and research in Germany and focuses on funding and supporting excellent research. In organizational terms, the DFG is an association under private law. Its membership consists of German research universities, non-university research institutions, scientific associations and the Academies of Science and the Humanities. The DFG receives the large majority of its funds from the federal government and the states, which are represented in all grants committees.

1 http://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/programmes/index.jsp

5

The budget in 2014 was approx. € 2.8 billion in direct research funding. The voting system and procedural regulations guarantee science-driven decisions.

Individual grants are the central form of the research funding provided by the DFG (typical duration: 2 or 3 or 2+2 years, typical funding amount: 180,000€ (for a 2 year period). A research grant can be used to fund staff, scientific instrumentation, consumables, travel as well as most of the other financial requirements of a research project. A Research unit (duration up to 6 years) is made up of a team of researchers working together on a research project that extends beyond the funding options available under the Individual Grants Program or Priority Program. A particular feature of the Priority Program (duration up to 6 years) is the nationwide collaboration between its participating researchers. (International) research training groups (duration up to 9 years) are established by universities to promote young researchers. Their key emphasis is on the qualification of doctoral researchers within the framework of a focused research programme and a structural training strategy. Collaborative Research Centers (duration up to 12 years) are institutions established at universities that enable researchers to pursue an outstanding research program, crossing the boundaries of disciplines, institutes, departments, and faculties.

The European Union (EU) provides funding through Framework Programs such as Horizon 20202. Balanced international cooperation and exchanges are highly appreciated and industrial interest is a prerequisite. The BMBF (German Ministry for Education and Research)3 works with Projektträger (“Project Carriers" ) like VDI Technology Center or KIT Karlsruhe to organize funding. Topics are commonly decided by industry consortia who give monetary or in-kind distributions. The AiF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen "O. v. Guericke" e.V.)4 is a working community of industrial research associations with a focus on small and medium sized enterprises. Funding is distributed through research associations in a two-step-process with draft and invited full proposal. There are more federal and corporate programs that fund research in addition.

Fraunhofer is the largest research organization for applied research in Europe. Its research fields are orientated towards society‘s needs: health, safety, communication, mobility, energy and the environment.

The WGP5 Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Produktionstechnik e.V. (The German Academic Society for Production Engineering) is a consortium of German professors of production engineering. It was founded in 1937, is organized as a club and has 59 members (active and emeriti) at this point. The WGP consults politicians and communicates with BMBF, DFG, and AiF.

2 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/3 https://www.bmbf.de/en/index.html4 http://www.aif.de/en/about-aif.html5 http://www.wgp.de/?&L=1

6

4.3 U.S. and German academic careers

A typical mechanical engineering student in the U.S. pursues a Bachelor of Science degree, typically taking four years. Students with a BS degree will work in industry or return to a university for a Master’s degree (about 2 additional years) or Doctorate degree (typically 4-6 years, or 2-4 years beyond a Master’s degree). A PhD is commonly desired for an academic career or research positions at National Laboratories or in large companies. Each university will establish its own testing rules (they are not nationalized), and typically a Qualifying Exam and a Proposal Defense are the major milestones prior to defending the PhD thesis. PhD students generally receive a tuition waver and stipend, usually paid from their advisor’s research grants.

Tenured and tenure-track faculty positions are, in order of seniority, Assistant, Associate and Full Professorships. All ranks have similar responsibilities (teaching, research, service), but with changing expectations. The proportion of these three ranks is fairly uniformly distributed. Assistant Professors are given 6-7 years to establish their research and teaching ability, and at that time will either be promoted to Associate Professor with tenure or will be required to leave their university. At the time of promotion to Associate Professor, individuals should demonstrate the ability to conduct world-class research and should be published in leading journals. The tenure case can be assisted by international reach of research by international visits, exchanges, and small/two-person collaborative research proposals and participation in international organizations, but this depends on the particular institution. Effective teaching is also more or less valued at different universities.

Promotion from Associate to Full Professor is not according to any particular timeline; it can happen at any stage in a person’s career, or it may never occur. To be promoted to Full Professor, Associate Professors need to demonstrate a strong internationally-recognized reputation. Full Professors are well established in their field with strong international reputation. They can lead international research efforts and serve in international organizations.

Industry experience is not required in American universities, although many maintain a so-called co-op program. A co-op student will typically spend two years at the university, then will alternate semesters at the university and an industry employer. There are no educational requirements for the co-op experience.

A typical mechanical engineering student in Germany studies mechanical engineering in a Diplom program (minimum of 9 semesters, average 14 semesters), a Bachelor (4 years) and Master (2 years) program. The Diplom program has become less popular as Europe has progressed to uniform requirements and has adopted many American practices. However, in the German programs, thesis work is required as well as internships of up to 26 weeks. Vocational training or apprenticeship programs are a typical path for machinists and can be taken by students after 10th grade of school.

Doctoral students are typically employed as full-time researchers at research institutions (at universities or Fraunhofer institutes) and do not have to take classes. Several efforts are performed to reduce the time to graduation (average 5

7

years) and introduce PhD classes. Almost all Doctors of Engineering will leave academia for industry and will fill manager or R&D positions. A Habilitation is a formal way to prove the ability to become a professor, but about 2/3 of all professors in the WGP have been in industry for several years and demonstrated teaching and research capabilities through lectures and publications. The number of Full Professors compared to scientific staff (permanent and non-permanent) is very small, so that typical groups in manufacturing are composed of 10 – 35 PhD students, group leaders, chief engineers, many paid student workers and BS and MS students writing their theses headed by one professor.

There is no Assistant or Associate Professor ranking system as in the U.S., but the newly introduced Junior Professorship allows younger academics to establish themselves within a tenure track.

Figure 2: Generic career paths for U.S. and German mechanical engineering students (courtesy of Barbara Linke, UC Davis).

4.4 Best practices in international research programs

There have been a few successful sustained interactions between German and American researchers. One notable example is a long-term collaboration between Prof. Lucca (Oklahoma) and Prof. Brinksmeier (IWT, Bremen). Their interaction was initially funded a Humboldt-Forschungspreis from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and a Mercator Professorship by the DFG. Their work involved collaborations in the molding of optic lenses, requiring advanced diamond machining capabilities.

8

Dr. Lucca indicated that the interaction was long-term, and yielded research results that are favorably evaluated using traditional metrics (funding, publications, students matriculated, etc.).

Prof. J. Aurich (FBK, TU Kaiserslautern) discussed his experiences within the International Research Training Group (IRTG), which is funded by the German Research Foundation. The IRTG started in July 2014 between the University of Kaiserslautern and the University of California (Berkeley and Davis). It is the first IRTG in Germany in the field of production engineering.

5. Examples of Research Topics

The conference organizers recognized that not all topics are best suited for international collaboration. There are very many high-profile research areas, but the conference organizers selected the topics of Additive Manufacturing and Industry 4.0 as exemplary broad topics that could be examined. Additional topic suggestions were determined from breakout sessions involving all workshop participants. It was noted by many of the participants that naming of particular topics was not always useful, as this gave an impression of a bias towards these areas of research. Instead, it was desired to identify topics that exemplified certain characteristics of research programs that are worthy of international collaboration:

Are the topics important enough to warrant investment by the U.S. and Germany?

Is there a benefit for each country that can be gained from a joint program? That is, can redundancy be avoided and/or core competencies in each country leveraged for the benefit of both nations?

Is there funding institution (NSF or DFG) support for the research area?There are many topics that meet these requirements, including additive

manufacturing and Industry 4.0. Some of the topics mentioned were forming, micro/nano/precision manufacturing, sustainable manufacturing, and competiveness in manufacturing.

5.1 Additive manufacturing

Additive manufacturing (AM) includes a suite of processes that build parts in layers based on 3D part models. The number of papers and NSF awards for additive manufacturing has steadily increased since 2007, and an Institute in the NNMI (America Makes, headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio) was established in 2012 on additive manufacturing. Research on additive manufacturing is highly integrative and interdisciplinary, spanning thermal and mechanical modeling, material, process and topological design, and simulation, and incorporates many additional disciplines such as tissue engineering.

Today, AM is still not widely used in industry for real production beyond a few parts at a time due to current technology limitations. Major challenges are to reduce cost, increase speed, and improve process validation and material certification.

9

Example projects include the extension to new materials and combinations of materials, methods to increase speed and reduce machinery costs, improvements in validation, development of processes suitable for composite and biological materials, and technologies to reduce the cost of consumables. Both American and German industries are poised to exploit additive manufacturing technologies for batch production, but research needs to be extended to improve additive manufacturing so that it moves beyond prototyping.

5.2 Industry 4.0

The term Industry 4.0 (sometimes referred to as the Industry Internet of Things in the U.S.) covers the current efforts to include Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) into manufacturing as the forth industrial revolution.

In Germany, the key stakeholders are the federal government (Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi), academia (Universities and Fraunhofer Institutes), and the private sector, led by Plattform Industrie 4.0 and individual companies, such as Bosch and SAP.

Example projects deal with cyber physical control, sensor / mems / band-com trade-off, standardization / certification, detecting and developing rules, models, decisions, patterns and translating these to physics-based models, data visualization, issues in communication such as locals vs. global and speed, and new control architectures to leverage data. The benefits of collaborative research between the U.S. and Germany are standardization and interoperability across global systems and infrastructures. In addition, leveraging effects happen between the different working conditions and environments for validation and implementation. Industry 4.0 will leverage strengths of U.S. American and German workforce, equipment and their ability to create and execute new business models. Industry 4.0 needs a broad spectrum of expertise including technical depth and multiple perspectives and standards which can be offered by both countries.

6. Recommendations

The workshop identified many opportunities and mechanisms for joint research on advanced manufacturing. The U.S. and Germany are culturally and economically aligned and face similar challenges. Collaboration brings higher global impact in fundamental research, and benchmarking will be simplified. For some projects, collaboration is natural and leverages core competencies in both nations. For other projects, benefits are real but not necessarily obvious.

It became clear that expectations for international collaboration are different at different stages in academic careers. Graduate student exchanges are always possible, whereas junior faculty are not likely candidates for exchange or development of multi-national programs. Senior faculty in contrast may not have time for extended exchanges and short visits are currently already possible. Often

10

there is no reward for collaboration and the individual collaborative projects require extensive planning.

Recognizing the pitfalls and promise of successful interactions, the workshop recommendations are:

1. A joint program, with combined proposal review, should be enacted as soon as possible.

2. An initiation phase is needed, where the first project(s) get special treatment. The recommendation is to set aside funding for an initial few (three to five) projects. The initial projects should have a 2-3 year duration, with $100-120K annual budget. There should be a follow-up workshop to identify the lessons learned from these trailblazing projects after the first year. From these lessons, a streamlined approach can be more completely defined.

3. Projects should be jointly evaluated and with real-time collaboration and feedback between NSF and DFG. The attendees noted that success rates in Germany are around 30% for research proposals, and they are 15-20% in the United States. With limited funding rates, a likely danger exists that a collaboration proposal will be funded by one country but not the other, thereby jeopardizing the entire project.

4. One common proposal should be submitted and jointly evaluated by NSF and DFG. This requires that NSF and DFG compromise regarding proposal formats, lengths, etc.

5. All proposals should be evaluated according to intellectual merit per existing NSF and DFG practices; basic research excellence should not be compromised. Indeed, it should be enhanced through collaborations.

6. Projects must be beneficial for both nations. Therefore, the topic areas should be recognized as priorities for both Germany and the U.S., and needs to be large enough so that there is a benefit in avoiding duplication of efforts. This will require a match of research capabilities and core competencies that do not simultaneously exist in Germany and the U.S.. Thus, by NSF and DFG funding a German-American effort, results are better than occur when funding two disparate projects, and the exploitation of each research partner’s strengths allows economical research efforts. This results in simultaneous high-quality research and good stewardship of research funding budgets.

7. Make the program open topic, without predetermined subjects. Topics of mutual interest and benefit can be found everywhere; it is best to not restrict funding topics.

8. It is recognized that it can be difficult to effectively collaborate with very young faculty (assistant professors in the US), but good opportunities exist for Ph.D. students and senior faculty. Still, there is a benefit to real exchanges, even if the duration for faculty is only a few weeks at a time. Therefore, the envisioned new program should require real interactions, and not merely virtual or video conferencing via Skype or equivalent. It is thought that graduate students can accommodate up to one-year interactions without significantly increasing their time of study; senior faculty may have

11

fortuitously-timed sabbaticals, but far more like are physical interactions of up to two weeks or so. In any event, travel to the research partner’s location is thought to be essential and should be required of funded programs. Language training should be allowed in the project budgets, when necessary.

9. Funding needs to be slightly larger than traditional grants to allow for travel expenses of graduate students and more limited exchanges of senior faculty. The program should allow consideration of 1-2 PIs on each side and budgets that match such interactions.

10. Create mid- to long-term stability regarding proposal evaluation procedures. A program that does not have a sustained commitment will be ignored by academe in both countries.

12

7. Conclusions

The workshop on “U.S.-Germany Collaborative Research in Advanced Manufacturing” in Darmstadt, Germany gathered the academic leaders in manufacturing research in the United States and Germany. All attendees felt that the workshop was productive, well-organized and executed, and beneficial. It was universally felt that basic research collaborations between the U.S. and Germany can be beneficial on a number of levels.

As a result of the workshop, it was concluded that a joint program, with combined proposal review, should be enacted as soon as possible. The joint program should have, at a minimum, the following characteristics:

1. An initiation phase, with special treatment of the first projects and a follow-up workshop to identify best practices.

2. Joint evaluation between NSF and DFG. 3. One common proposal should be submitted and jointly evaluated by

NSF and DFG. 4. All proposals should be evaluated according to intellectual merit per

existing NSF and DFG practices.5. Projects must be beneficial for both nations. 6. The program should be open topic, without predetermined subjects. 7. The program should require real interactions, and not merely virtual or

video conferencing via Skype or equivalent. 8. Funding needs to be slightly larger than traditional grants to allow for

travel expenses of graduate students and more limited exchanges of senior faculty.

9. There are existing opportunities for German-American interaction, and these should be promoted and utilized until a new joint program can be initiated.

A program that does not have a sustained commitment will be ignored by academe in both countries. Therefore, it was also recommended that mid- to long-term stability regarding proposal evaluation procedures should be created.

At present, there is significant enthusiasm between the American and German researchers in Advanced Manufacturing. A program that facilitates interactions in basic research in advanced manufacturing will be well-received and will attract strong proposals that benefit researchers, their institutions, and both nations.

13

Appendix A: Workshop Summary

A.1 Workshop agenda

Wednesday | 10/02/2016Session 1: Workshop Opening | Exchange of Basic Information7:30 - 8:00 Breakfast at Welcome Hotel, Darmstadt8:00 – 8:15 Registration8:15 - 8:25 Welcome | Workshop structure, Prof. Peter Groche8:25 - 8:35 Welcome | Motivation and goals, Prof. Steven Schmid8:35 - 8:50 Welcome | NSF research programs in advanced manufacturing,

questions, Profs. Deborah Goodings and Bruce Kramer8:50 - 9:05 Welcome | DFG research programs in advanced manufacturing,

Questions, Dr. Ferdinand Hollmann9:05 - 9:15 German research associations in advanced manufacturing and

German-U.S. related associations, Prof. Zäh9:15 - 9:25 U.S. research associations in advanced manufacturing and

German-US related associations, Prof. Scott Smith9:25 – 9:35 Differences between German and American PhD students,

Prof. Barbara Linke9:35 – 9:40 U.S. academic careers, Prof. Brad Kinsey9:40 – 9:45 German academic careers, Dr. Tobias Redlich9:45 – 9:55 U.S.-German academic exchange programs,

Prof. Petra Wiederkehr9:55 – 10:15 Break10:15 – 10:25 Group photo

Session 2: Best Practices and Pitfalls10:25 – 10:45 Best practices and pitfalls in U.S. and German research

collaborations, Profs. Don Lucca, Laine Mears, Jan C. Aurich, Ottmar Riemer

10:45 – 11:45 Questions and discussion, conclusion11:15 – 12:00 Research topics – Identification of the common research needs,

Profs. Peter Groche/ Steven SchmidIntroduction (5 min)a. Additive manufacturing (U.S. & Germany, 5 min each), Profs. Jian Cao, Michael Schmidtb. Industry 4.0 / Industrial Internet (U.S. & Germany, 5 min

each) Profs. Tom Kurfess, Bernd Kuhlenkötterc. Further proposals (15 min)

Prof. Barbara Linked. Select research topics, moderators and annotators (10 min)

12:00 – 13:30 Working Lunch

14

Session 3: Group Work13:30 – 14:30 Group Work (3 sessions on three different research topics)

Groups are expected to answer the following questions:1. What are the five most important research questions?2. What are the suitable projects to answer these questions?3. What is the added value of US - German bilateral projects in

this research field?14:30 – 15:00 Presentations by group moderators and annotators (10 min

each)15:00 – 15:30 Break

Session 4: Organizational Framework15:30 – 15:40 Introduction, Profs. Peter Groche/ Steven Schmid15:40– 15:50 US Examples on existing bilateral programs and evaluation

procedures for project proposals, Drs. Khershed Cooper, ZJ Pei15:50 – 16:00 German Examples on existing bilateral programs and

evaluation procedures for project proposals, Dr. Ferdinand Hollmann

16:00 – 17:00 Group discussion on project designGroups are expected to answer the following questions:1. How proposed bilateral projects connect with existing

national programs?2. How should a new bilateral program with maximum impact

look like in terms of:a. Project sizeb. Number of applicantsc. Durationd. Evaluation proceduree. Goalsf. Research areag. Distribution of project work in U.S. and Germanyh. Additional qualification of participants

17:30 – 21:30 Workshop working dinner

Thursday | 11/02/2016Industrial tours and Informal discussion07:30 – 07:50 Breakfast at Welcome Hotel, Darmstadt08:00 - 09:30 Visit to PtU and PTW, TU Darmstadt09:30 - 11:00 Bus transfer to Schweinfurt11:00 - 15:00 Industrial visit – ZF Sachs including break15:00 - 22:00 Cultural program and dinner

Friday | 12/02/2016Workshop in Stuttgart

15

07:30 – 07:50 Breakfast at Ghotel Hotel and Living, Würzburg9:30 - 10:00 Preparation of group presentations on project design10:00 – 10:45 Group presentations on project design10:45 – 11:00 Break11:00 – 11:15 Comments by DFG and NSF representatives11:15 – 12:00 Next steps and discussion, Profs. Linke, Schmid, Groche and

Wiederkehr12:00 – 13:00 Working Lunch13:00 – 15:00 Visit to FhG15:00 – 15:30 Summary and farewell, Profs. Linke, Schmid, Groche and

Wiederkehr

16

A.2 List of participants

Selection of workshop participants

The American participants consisted of invited researchers, organizers Drs. Schmid and Linke and Drs. Cooper, Goodings, Kramer, and Pei from the NSF. Drs. Schmid and Linke are well-known in the American manufacturing sector, and compiled a list of leading manufacturing professors These candidates were sent a questionnaire and their responses were evaluated based on the following metrics:

How likely is the candidate to develop research interactions with German counterparts? Does the candidate express interest in German collaborations? (50 points)

Are the research areas of interest sufficiently broad to be adaptable to topics of interest? (20 points)

Is the researcher’s area of interest orthogonal to other participants? (15 points)

Is the researcher’s university not already represented by other participants? (15 points)

The responses were collected by an administrative assistant and distributed to the conference organizers with all indications of author removed. The surveys were then evaluated according to the pre-determined metrics, and the top 15 scores were invited to participate in the workshop.

The German participants included professors from various institutes as well as DFG representatives. For selection of German participants, a technology matrix with various research areas and advanced technologies was created in conjunction with the scope of the workshop. The participants were then selected according to their research backgrounds and fitted in this technology matrix to represent a broader range of topics. The preference was given to the professors who had prior experience in bilateral projects with American colleagues.

Participants

U.S. Participants University1 Dr. Steven Schmid University of Notre Dame (Organizer)2 Dr. Barbara Linke University of California, Davis (Organizer)3 Dr. Laine Mears Clemson University4 Dr. Jian Cao Northwestern University5 Dr. Ihab Ragai University of Pennsylvania - Erie6 Dr. Don Lucca Oklahoma State University7 Dr. Brad Kinsey University of New Hampshire8 Dr. Yingchun Yuan University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee9 Dr. Kevin Chou University of Alabama10 Dr. Frank Pfefferkorn University of Wisconsin - Madison

17

11 Dr. Brigid Mullany University of North Carolina - Charlotte12 Dr. Robert Carpick University of Pennsylvania13 Dr. Farhang Pourboghrat Ohio State University14 Dr. Thomas Kurfess Georgia Tech15 Dr. Kevin Smith University of North Carolina - Charlotte16 Dr. I.S. (Jawa) Jawahir University of Kentucky17 Dr. John Roth University of Pennsylvania - Erie18 Dr. Albert Shih University of Michigan19 Dr. Deborah Goodings (NSF Representative)20 Dr. Bruce M. Kramer (NSF Representative)21 Dr. Khershed Cooper (NSF Representative)22 Dr. Zhijian (ZJ) Pei (NSF Representative)

German Participants University1 Dr. Peter Groche Technische Universität Darmstadt (Organizer)2 Dr. Petra Wiederkehr (Kersting) Technische Universität Dortmund (Organizer)3 Dr. Jan C. Aurich Technische Universität Kaiserslautern4 Dr. Oltmann Riemer University of Bremen5 Dr. Alfred Hypki Ruhr University Bochum

6 Mr. Lukas Prasol Technische Universität Berlin

7 Dr. Thomas Redlich Helmut-Schmidt-Universität

8 Dr. Günter Hörcher Fraunhofer IPA

9 Dr. Michael Schmidt Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

10 Dr. Bernd Kuhlenkötter Ruhr-Universität Bochum

11 Dr. Thomas Bauernhansl Universität Stuttgart

12 Dr. Michael Zäh Technische Universität München13 Dr. Ferdinand Hollmann (DFG representative)14 Dr. Wieland Biedermann (DFG representative)

15 Ms. Katja Pelzer (DFG representative)

In total, 28 participants were engaged in the workshop from geographically diverse institutions, as illustrated in Fig. A.1.

18

Figure A.1: American and German participant institutions (courtesy of Peter Groche, TU Darmstadt).

19

A.3 Organizational Framework

Dr. Cooper and Dr. Pei from NSF presented existing international collaborative programs as best-practices. In general, NSF funds are given only to US institutions and researchers in other countries will need to work with their funding agencies.

The U.S.–Korea Collaboration in Advanced Manufacturing Research evolved from joint workshops between U.S. American and South Korean researchers in both countries. Five critical research topics were identified. NSF posted a Dear Colleague Letter in December 2014 (NSF 15-029) introducing the acceptance of unsolicited proposals to collaborate with Korea-based researchers on any of the topics listed above to appropriate programs in CMMI during the regular unsolicited proposal submission windows. NSF received a handful of proposals and they were reviewed along with the regular proposals in panels with a similar theme.

The collaborative research between China and the U.S. is funded through NSF-NSFC Joint Environmental Sustainability Competitions. The first competition was announced in a Dear Colleague Letter in August 2014 (NSF 14-102) and covered two topics. Every proposal had to include the participation of researchers from at least one U.S. institution and at least one China institution. Each team had to submit the same proposal to each of NSF (in English) and NSFC (in Chinese). NSF funds the U.S. researchers of winning teams, while NSFC funds the China researchers of winning teams. Each agency reviewed the proposals and decided jointly on the three winning proposals. The second competition on two different topics was posted July 2015 in the Dear Colleague Letter NSF 15-091.

Ms. Pelzer and Dr. Hollmann from DFG presented on the DFG avenues for international research projects. Similar to NSF, DFG only funds researchers working in Germany, while their partners abroad apply for funding at their respective partner organizations. All DFG funding programs generally allow the integration of international components such as travel allowance and exchange of students and scientists. Special programs are funding for the initiation of international cooperation, the Individual Grants Program & Mercator Fellowships, and International Research Training Groups. DFG works with three evaluation procedures for collaborative project proposals:

- Both funding agencies do separate reviews and separate decisions (funding only if both agencies give positive decision).

- Proposals are evaluated commonly, but both funding agencies decide separately (funding only if both agencies give positive decision).

- Both agencies decide on a common procedure for evaluation, but one agency acts as lead agency and decides about funding and the other agency agrees to this decision.

After more discussions among all workshop participants, three randomized groups were built to discuss and present on the following questions:

1. How can new bilateral projects connect with existing national programs?2. How should a new bilateral program with maximum impact look like in

terms of:a. Project size

20

b. Number of applicantsc. Durationd. Evaluation proceduree. Goalsf. Research areag. Distribution of project work in U.S. and Germanyh. Additional qualification of participants

1. It was clarified that NSF has already existing programs for collaborative research, such as travel grants, workshop grants, conference grants and regular unsolicited grant (in regular size or up to $1.5 million as high-risk-high-reward grant). NSF can give supplements to existing grants of up to 20 %. In addition, NSF funds Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), and Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID). The Department of Defense (DOD) can fund international grants as well.

The DFG has the Mercator Fellowship which funds travel and salary for international visitors for a 2 – 3 months stay in Germany. German researchers can visit the U.S. through standard travel money within grants. DFG gives supplementary funding for guest scientists for 2 – 3 weeks. DFG also funds international workshops.

2. New funding avenues could start with an unsolicited proposal to NSF with a corresponding proposal to DFG. A Dear Colleague Letter could drive the effort. A future demonstrated collaboration history (e.g. on a specific research topic) could lead to a targeted call.

Furthermore, it was proposed that a project should include 1 – 2 PIs with $120k per year and 4 – 5 year project duration. A favored evaluation procedure includes standard reviews for NSF and DFG followed by a joint review of the results between the Program Directors of both agencies. The project area should be open, but complementary with a focus on science, building of collaborations and improving research value.

21

Appendix B: Workshop Survey Results

At the workshop, the attendees were charged with providing feedback on the workshop, but also to provide answers to the two fundamental questions of the workshop:

1. Please summarize what you think are logical next steps forward and provide feedback on the workshop findings and recommendations as presented.2. Describe the structure of collaborative projects that you could foresee being funded by DFG and NSF.

The results from the surveys have been reviewed by the organizing committee and incorporated into the Recommendations in the report. This Appendix summarizes all responses to these queries.

B.1 Please summarize what you think are logical next steps forward and provide feedback on the workshop findings and recommendations as presented.

1. Recommendations should be developed for a prototype program targeting initial interactions. The prototype program should be implemented and analyzed to ensure that subsequent opportunities from a more complete program are fine tuned to maximize the quantity and quality of interaction. It would be good if the prototype program were available for the September time frame.

2. I fully support the recommendations that were presented at the end of the workshop by Steve Schmid. The plan moving forward as described at the end of the workshop should be executed. For me, the next step is starting conversations with German colleagues who I would like to collaborate with. I will also send out PowerPoint slides to the attendees at this workshop to better inform them of the research activities in my lab.

3. To Do for the Researchers: Find Basic Research Topics which are innovative, scientific interesting and Combine an additional value for both sides in Terms of collaboration. Search for practical Solutions for the challenge to host the phd/doctoral students when they visit their Project Partner. To Do for the funding agencys: Find a way to submit one and the same proposal to both funding agencys und establish a common Review procedure.

4. This is an excellent workshop I really enjoyed. The findings and recommendations from the workshop are fantastic.

5. It is great to have NSF and researchers together on both sides to find a common ground for logical next step. I hope more "specific" funding will be available to this collaborative program. Otherwise, it will be

22

difficult to sustain. The logical next step is a Dear Colleague Letter to outline opportunities for collaboration with DFG on manufacturing.

6. Set up an easy way for a limited number of joint/bilateral projects with one US and one German proposal each. Submission might be coupled to NSF scheduling (September 2016, February 2017). Review and should be made within this small program (pilot program) and Evaluation on each package of two proposals. Complementary effects and synergy should be an essential part of the proposal and therefor evaluated and validated in the reviewing process.

7. The workshop was very helpful in comparing and contrasting the educational system and the method of training PhD students in USA and Germany. The impression I got is that German industries are not expected to put up any research money, as the German government provides sufficient amount of research funding to universities to pay their students and also purchase state-of-the-art equipment. German universities, in collaboration with industrial partners, educate PhD students in using, improving, and developing new ideas for manufacturing equipment and processes, as part of a thesis. PhD students who receive their degree from a German university are well trained and prepared to start as project managers as soon as they enter the work environment.

On the contrary, in the US, the government provides majority of the funding to university faculty (single and multi-PIs) to develop basic sciences, and there is much less funding for purchasing equipment . US industries are expected to pay their own funding to university faculty to develop technology and processes. As a result, the US universities place lots of emphasis on educating PhD students in basic sciences, and do not have the responsibility for training students to be effective employees. This disparity has resulted in manufacturing industries hiring less and less PhD graduates, except for few R&D positions, and provide their own on-the-job training to new employees. It is my opinion that neither the US nor the German model is perfect. Both models have their own strong and negative points. The US model produces PhDs who may be outside-of-the-box thinkers, and more apt to come up with novel ideas that could sprout new businesses. On the other hand, PhDs produced in German institutes are more adept in pushing to improve the state-of-the-art technology that guarantees the prominent position that German manufacturing industry holds in the world. To move forward, it will be ideal for scientists and university faculty from the two countries to collaborate on common projects. This can only be possible if NSF and DFG provide separate funding to their respective faculty to collaborate with their colleagues from the other country on common research projects. To make sure that these funding are supporting collaborative work, the US and German

23

proposals must be reviewed by a panel of scientists from both NSF and DFG. In other word, proposals cannot be treated independently, as this will contradict the collaborative nature of the effort.

8. The workshop has yielded solid and thoughtful action items. Obviously, there are lots of synergies between the two countries. Look forward to the adoption and the execution of those recommendations.

9. I agreed with the workshop findings, in particular that funds should be set aside in NSF budgets to support this initiative and that specific research focus areas should not be specified.

10. Dear colleague letter (DCL) should outline the organization discussed, including how projects should be judged together with DFG for the German counterparts. What will the situation be when the NSF half is approved but the DFG half is not? Describing that there is a clear contingency plan will help garner more applications. In all, I thought it a beneficial workshop. However, the Germans seem already well-funded by the governments so there is more benefit from the relationship to the American counterpart who relies on 100% grant funding for support.

11. The next step should definitely include keeping the communication channels open with the German part. Not scheduling teleconference/US visit/any sort of communication will cause the initiative to fade out. The recommendations included establishing a common review structure to facilitate the review process and to encourage collaboration. If every party (NSF and DFG) insists on receiving separate proposals, then there's no advantage or incentive from this initiative. As everyone understands that the initiative is not a "match-making," it is still the researcher's responsibility to find/communicate with a German counterpart, there should be some incentives to encourage collaboration. If everything remains the same, then why did we have to travel to open the communication channels?

24

B.2. Describe the structure of collaborative projects that you could foresee being funded by DFG and NSF.

1. I envision some faculty time in terms of exchanges between two institutions, perhaps up to 2 weeks per exchange. Also, I student exchanges between 3 and 12 months for collaborative research efforts. Longer terms visits for U.S. students would be more viable if the students were senior PhD students that have already completed their course work. It might also be possible under special circumstances for longer faculty visits over the summer period or during a sabbatical, if proper planning and coordination occur.

2. 1 or 2 investigators at one U.S. university collaborating with 1 or 2 investigators at one German university and 1 Ph.D. student at each university. The professors will visit each other once per year for 1 week during each visit. The graduate students will visit the collaborating university for 3-6 months each year. The students will always be in the same location when visits are happening so that they can collaborate. The idea is that these are collaborative projects where the work is so dependent on each side that all publications have both students and all investigators as co-authors because they all made an intellectual contribution to it. The project lasts for at least 3 years in order to achieve publishable results and cover most most of a student's time to degree. The research that is accomplished on each side will depend on the individual expertise of the investigators.

3. small Projects up to 3 years and up to 300T$/€ for each side in one proposal reviewed by one Review Panel.

4. About 50%:50% of efforts between DFG and NSF, for 3~4 years of timeline.

5. I envision the structure will have two parts. The first part is the supplement to existing NSF grant to allow students and collaborators to travel to Europe on joint NSF-DFG projects. Assume 10 supplements are granted this year, this can be a great boost to start to collaboration. The 2nd part is a dedicated funding opportunity. I understand NSF colleagues are reluctant to create a program similar to the collaborative program with China. It is an essential step. Otherwise, most of the panel reviewers will not understand the needs and priority.

6. Bilateral projects of two partners might be the best (and easiest) way to set-up collaborations. But: integration in larger project structures or programs (Collaborative Research Centres (SFB), Priority Programmes (SPP), Research Training Groups

7. In my opinion, the collaborative project must contain elements of basic sciences and applied research. It should be made clear in the proposal who is responsible for performing which part of the

25

project, the resources needed, time frame, etc. Also, the proposal must clearly justify the collaborative nature of the proposed project. In other words, it will be the responsibility of the collaborators from the US and Germany to clearly describe and delineate their roles in the project. For example, I could envision a collaborative project with a German institute in which I would perform computational material modeling and automated material design for a manufacturing process, such as tube hydroforming or incremental forming of hollow extrusions at elevated temperatures. My colleagues in German institution would ideally have the capability to perform these experiments on machines that are instrumented for measuring deformation, texture, temperature, etc. during the process. By combining computational modeling and experimental measurements, new materials could be designed that could withstand the large deformation loads without failure, as well as to improve the forming process and machine control.

8. Bilateral projects (duration: up to three years) of two partners would be very interesting. A combined project of more than two partners (maybe two or three from country A and one from country B) should also be possible. A combined proposal which is evaluated by both sides (US and Germany) seems to be practical (not an individual evaluation of the both parts).

9. Often we see one propose a numerical model that is verified by his/her own experimental results. It will be great if we can take advantage of various testing facilities in two countries and collaboratively explore different phenomena and therefore, uncover and enhance the modeling capabilities. This can be applicable to areas, such as additive manufacturing and metal forming. Metal forming research particularly can take advantage of this collaboration as we typically have small-scale test apparatus here in the US and there are many mid-size to large-scale testing facilities in Germany.

10. There are several mechanisms for potential funding as outlined in the workshop findings, including joint proposals funded by both NSF and DFG as well as supplements to existing grants to initiate collaborations.

11. In the first two years, pilot grants to test the idea that collaborative relationships bring better value. This should be underscored by the presentation of preliminary results (first results of a multi-year project is fine, no need to restrict the first projects' scopes). When a pattern of benefit to the national economies emerges and is demonstrated to the community, the program should evolve to targeted solicitation with special funding, and should anticipate a large number of proposals.

26

12. Typical basic/fundamental research projects that would include researchers from universities in both countries. Also, GOALI projects can be included as they represent a major venue to promote university-industry partnerships.

27

Group Photo

28