NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL 3.0

Transcription

1 NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL 3.0 OVERVIEW and Q & A JUNE

2 Agenda 2017FLEX Additional Resources NextFlex Background Process, Schedule, Themes PC 3.0 Topics Manufacturing Thrust Area (MTA) Topics Technology Platform Demonstrator (TPD) Topics Agency Driven Project Evaluation Criteria Q & A (All)

3 2017FLEX REGISTER AT: 2017FLEX.COM NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 2

4 Additional Resources PROPOSERS NETWORKING MEETING LINKEDIN When Thursday, June 22, 2017, 4:45-6:00 PM Where Co-located at 2017FLEX (2017FLEX.com) Hyatt Regency Monterey Room: Regency Grand Ballroom (Main) What Get updates on Project Call 3.0 and meet potential collaboration partners at this event created to foster project call proposal teaming. Meet others who are interested in PC 3.0 and the various funded topic areas. Chat with potential collaboration partners. Receive updates, reminders, ask questions, etc. MANUFACTURING READINESS LEVEL (MRL) WEBINAR MRL background, classifications/substantiation, and how to apply it to your proposal. LOCATION: Additional Resources section at bottom of the Project Call 3.0 webpage. NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 3

5 QUESTIONS? Use Questions Pane

6 NEXTFLEX BACKGROUND PROJECT CALL 3.0

7 Announcement Day AUGUST 28, 2015 NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 6

8 A Public-Private Partnership Established 28 August 2015 Lead Hub Location Proposal Contributors Federal Funding Committed Matching Government Agencies Engaged FlexTech Alliance San Jose, California 145+ in 27 states $75 million over 5 years $96 million 17 DOD & OGAs NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 7

9 NextFlex FHE Vision Catalyzing a robust and innovative manufacturing ecosystem at the intersection of the electronics and high performance printing industries NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 8

10 Dual Use 120 Impedance (ohm) DI Water 0.1 um Orexin-A 1 um Orexin-A 10 um Orexin-A 100 um Orexin-A 500 um Orexin-A 1000 um Orexin-A Frequency (Hz) NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 9

11 Tier 1 Membership Corporate * Academic / Non-Profit Tier 2 * * Tier 3 * * * * Observer * Founding Member Honorary

12 MRL and TRL Definitional Material Solution Analysis Technology Development & Commercial Merit Engineering & Manufacturing Development MRL 1 Mfg feasibility assessed MRL 2 Mfg concepts defined MRL 3 Proof of Mfg concept MRL 4 Breadboard & manufacturing processes in a laboratory environment MRL 5 Breadboard & component manufacturing in a relevant environment MRL 6 Prototype, system & subsystem in production relevant environment MRL 7 Prototype, system & subsystem in operations and production environment MRL 8 Pilot line capability demonstrated; Ready to begin lowrate initial production MRL 9 Low-rate production demonstrated; capability in place to begin fullrate production NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 11

13 PROCESS, SCHEDULE, THEMES PROJECT CALL 3.0

14 PC 3.0 Topic Process Roadmap Gap Analysis (Sep 2016) Key Topic Identification at U Mass Lowell Road-Mapping (Nov 2016) Drafting by Technical Working Group (TWG) Co-Leads (Dec 2016) Topic Priority by Technical Council (TC) Input (Feb 2017) Topic Refinement by TC Input at Face to Face Meeting (Feb 2017) Revisions by TWG Co-Leads (Mar 2017) TC Voting Member Priority (Apr 2017) Governing Council (GC) Voting Approval (May 2017) NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 13

15 PC Process Improvement Steering Committee PC 3.0 Steering Committee Corporate (Large/Medium) John Williams (Boeing) Corporate (Large/Medium) Girish Wable (Jabil) Corporate (Small) Joseph Kunze (SI2 Technologies) Academic/Non-Profit Suresh Sitaraman (Georgia Tech) Government SME James Lyke (AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate) NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 14

16 PC PC Process 3.0 Steering Improvement Committee Impact Steering Committee Tables of Contents were refined for pre-proposal (PP) and full proposal (FP) and were also aligned between PP and FP Clear emphasis on quantitative objectives and current state of the technology Provide a proposers event for interested partied to engage in teaming Longer time for the pre-proposal stage in order to get financials and teaming aligned NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 15

17 Some PC 2.0 Webinar Questions Is it possible to know the accepted projects from last call? Yes, there are links to the abstracts for all funded project on the new NextFlex website. Can you please discuss Intellectual Property (IP) rights for/access to IP by FHE for awarded projects? IP rights are retained by the developers. The requirement of participation is that members get an evaluation license for non commercial use of the subject IP. Do PC 2.0 projects need to be industry-led like PC 1.0? There is a strong preference for industry-led proposing teams and, at a minimum, a commercial partner who intends to develop this technology for commercial use. This is not intended to be fundamental or basic research. NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 16

18 NextFlex-Funded Projects & Membership Minimum of 50% of each project s cost must be cost-share provided by recipients 50% minimum cost-share requirement is based on entire team not individual contributors Cost share can include labor, materials, use of equipment, travel Any recipient of NextFlex funding must be a member Companies supplying standard components to team members are not required to be members of NextFlex NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 17

19 Manufacturing USA A New Way of Doing Things Submitters with experience in government funding should take special note that the ways in which NextFlex and manufacturing USA institutes operate may be quite different than what you may be accustomed to. NextFlex development projects should not be compared to SBIR, STTR, NIH, or other similar programs. NextFlex projects are designed around time bound and measurable deliverables with clear performance specifications. If these cannot be established at the outset of the project, the subject matter under consideration may be of too low an MRL and thus more suitable for an NSF or NIH type proposal. Unlike government acquisitions, these programs are aimed at co-funded development and thus a cost share element is required. Project reimbursements follow cost plus approved overhead rates. Commercial rates or profit (fee) are not suitable for funded project submissions. NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 18

20 PC 3.0 Timeline Start Steering Committee Process refinement 11/29-2/28 May 31 Project Call Released Jul 12 Pre-Proposals Due Jul 25 Complete Review Pre- Proposal Review and Selection Sep 18 Compile Reviewers Inputs Sep 14 Full Proposal Reviews Completed Aug 30 Full Proposals Due Sep 20 Tech. Council Review Sep 26 Finalize Recommendation to Governing Council Oct 4 Governing Council Approval Oct 16 Send out Dev./Membership Agreement to awardees Dec 31 Complete all Agreement & Award Grant

21 PC 3.0 Themes TPD = FHE Subsystem Development: Develop common components of FHE systems that can be used/re-used by subsequent members to develop product concepts and FHE demonstrators more quickly. TPD projects require manufacturing innovations, but specifications are related to the tech demonstrator rather than the manufacturing processes. MTA = FHE Process Gap Development To develop and share manufacturing methods for key common gaps in the manufacturing process. Characterize the performance of those structures for use in system level FHE integration. Collect data from those efforts which we can use with the PDK which is being developed in PC 2.0 enabling an interface with EDA tool to facilitate FHE system design and modelling. NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 20

22 MANUFACTURING THRUST AREA PROJECT CALL TOPICS

23 Manufacturing Thrust Areas (MTA) This topic area focuses on developing and qualifying manufacturing processes, methods, or tools identified as FHE needs via the roadmapping process and discussions with TWG leads and member companies. Developments documented in a level of sufficient detail that it is reliably replicable MTA topics include: Material Database inputs at the quarterly reporting intervals following the acquisition of the data. A flow chart of the process steps and design information (such as drawings, CAD files, etc.) for device fabrication or process repetition. Relevant process information including: Resolution, thickness and material properties (e.g., sheet resistance) that can be obtained with the developed recipe Tolerance and yield of components, along with a comparison to device manufacturing processes that are currently used in the industry Consistency of print quality (line edge raggedness, loss or gain in dimension, uniformity in thickness and layer roughness) of the layer(s) in the device Consistency in device properties (resistance, capacitance, inductance, etc.) along with a comparison to similar devices that are commercially available Optimized print equipment parameters (print speed, ink volumes, ink viscosity, curing conditions, print environment, etc.) Mechanical constraints (e.g., tensile strength, bending) of the printed devices Details of the method of test and measurement performed during development to establish TRL and MRL advancements Identification of the specific task and outcome that results in TRL and/or MRL advancements Cost model framework for the proposed manufacturing technique NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 22

24 MTA 3.1 Printed Circuit Elements for RF and High Speed Applications Topics $750K maximum government funds Prototype and characterize direct-write printing of RF and high-speed circuit features Frequency range, 1 MHz - 50 GHz Applications for RF circuits, antennas, hybrids, amplifiers, meta-materials Demonstrate the following attributes in prototypes for electrical characterization: - Low resistance conductors and low dielectric material printing - Printed RF transmission lines, differential pairs, waveguides, and power dividers - Low-loss chip interconnections including all printed connections - Printed Power/Ground planes for impedance control - Antenna Elements; broadband, narrowband, beamforming, phased array, metamaterial, FSS - Cooling and heat management for high power - Characterize conductor electrical stability over temperature - Characterize conductor surface roughness and skin effect (as appropriate) NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 23

25 MTA 3.2 Printed Passives for FHE Including Material, Tools, and Process Documentation $500K maximum government funds Produce optimized printing process recipes (including materials, equipment, and process) Resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc. Tolerance for printed passive components is ±10 % Include preliminary cost models as a comparison between printed and PnP The proposed program should include consideration and a proposed design for in situ test and repair of passives, but not necessarily demonstrating the capability in this phase. Topics NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 24

26 MTA 3.3 Z-Axis Interconnect and Via Formation $200K maximum government funds Methods and process for producing Z-axis interconnects in FHE devices Various via formation methods may be utilized If laser processing is used, provide: wavelength, pulse profile, and other process parameters Conductive interconnection in the z-axis should be tested and characterized Basic reliability tests on these should be carried out Topics NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 25

27 MTA 3.4 Additive and Semi-additive Manufacturing Methods for High Density Interconnects $500K maximum government funds Additive manufacturing techniques for producing high density flexible circuits Line width and spacing 50 µm Technologies proposed should show some potential cost reduction Sheet resistances of 10 mω per square or less (comparable to 2 μm copper foil) Layer counts of two or more Functioning through vias Topics NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 26

28 TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM DEMONSTRATOR PROJECT CALL TOPICS

29 Technology Platform Demonstrators (TPD) Quantities of delivered prototypes have been identified as an amount that will ensure scalable manufacturing techniques are used Demonstrators will provide a common subsystem approach that will allow subsequent projects or teams to rapidly develop application based demonstrators TPD projects will provide the following: Description of the capability provided by the TPD or manufacturing process Expected size, weight, and volume of the TPD Expected operating environment The approach to powering the TPD and methods for recharge or battery replacement, if appropriate Data acquisition approach and communication protocols, if appropriate Material Database inputs at the quarterly input following the acquisition of the data A flow chart of the process steps and design information (such as drawings, CAD files, etc.) for device fabrication or process repetition for R&D purposes. (E.g., materials, schematics, component bill of materials, netlist, layouts, print files, materials used, manufacturing methods, tools and process information, as well as programming information) Details of the method of test and measurement performed during development to establish TRL and MRL advancements NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 28

30 TPD 3.5 Control- and/or Condition-Based Monitoring Applications $750K maximum government funds; minimum 25 deliverables Develop a sensor microsystem integrated assembly Robust, low-mass, small form-factor Attachable to non-planar surfaces Two or more types of sensor measurements Operation of at least one week Measurements: temperature, strain, pressure, humidity, vibration or other types as appropriate Adhere to multiple material surfaces such as metals, plastics and woods Function under normal operating modes of the application such as random movement, linear motion or rotating motion Bluetooth LE or Zigbee (alternate protocols are appropriate if justified) Power management and distribution integrated into the assembly Topics (short range or NFC-type communication approaches are not appropriate as devices with these capabilities are commercially available today) NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 29

31 TPD 3.6 Adaptive Wearable or Structural Articles with Soft Robotics Response $1.0M maximum government funds, minimum 25 deliverables Soft robotics systems require the ability to sense a state, to make a decision based on that state, and to respond to achieve the new desired state Development of a prototype soft robotic device Wearable or structural articles that can sense, monitor, and/or respond to some internal or external parameter(s) Robotic soft actuator(s) combined with flexible sensors Motion and sensor signals are coupled by a control system Flexible, lightweight materials Low power, is lightweight, and addresses the hard/soft interface Flexible/stretchable FHE sensors to provide feedback to the electronic controls Examples Wing control surface, antennae array, small lightweight autonomous soft robots, wearable blood pressure monitor with reactive tourniquet for severe injuries, wearable body temperature monitoring with reactive cooling, system that senses bedridden patient discomfort and automatically adjusts bedding to compensate. Topics NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 30

32 MTA 3.7 Low-cost, High-performing Multi-sensor Systems Integrated in User-friendly Wear-and-Forget Formats Low cost, ultimately single use Minimum three sensors Wear and forget for at least three days For medical applications $1M maximum government funds, minimum 25 deliverables Demonstrate functionality and accuracy multi-sensor monitoring system Mobile and active users Wireless communication should be demonstrated Topics For worker safety applications $500K maximum government funds, minimum 25 deliverables Hands-free, not impact worker movement or routines Always on Capable of delivering critical information to a worker immediately Interface with other body-worn sensors that monitor worker health and capability Critical work functions, extreme environments, dangerous solitary situations. Vital signs, posture, motion, and environmental factors NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 31

33 AGENCY DRIVEN PROJECT PROJECT CALL TOPIC

34 Agency Driven Project (ADP) Rather than originating through the roadmap process, these projects instead are defined by the funding agencies, who maintain ultimate authority in proposal selection. NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 33

35 ADP 3.8 3D Component Placement and Interconnect Equipment Development $400K maximum government funds Develop a tool with the capabilities of integrating electronic components and sensors into 3D structures Demonstrate integration or printing sensors meaningful for soldier biometrics Laser ablate or drill through vias in 3D Anneal deposited materials Compatible with the ARL nscrypt 3D printing tool Printing can be deposited normal to the surface of the part with 3D topography, minimally a hemisphere Dispense high viscosity (greater than 100 cp) materials Features at or below 50 um in a 1:1 aspect ratio Curing or laser sintering in situ Working envelope of 10cm in all three axes Ability to fabricate micro-bumps. Interface with commercially available design tools and file formats May include subtractive capability Deliver a functional system to the US Army Research Lab Setup, instructions, and demonstration at ARL Topics NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 34

36 EVALUATION CRITERIA PROJECT CALL 3.0

37 Pre Proposal Evaluation Criteria PC3.0 Preproposal Project Review Criteria /Score Card - for TPD, MTA and ADP Proposals Project Topic & Title: PC3.0- Score Guide: Low=1, High=5 Criteria -for TPD, MTA, & ADP Proposal Section Proposal Section Criteria Explanation for PP 1.0 Background and Need (1) Problem statement and innovative solution Evaluate the problem definition in line with the background information and the gap analysis provided. 3 (2) Technical scope & approach Evaluate based on the alignment between objectives and approach; Technical Objectives (3) Logical technical plan; Key deliverables and Is the project plan and approach logically organized? look for key deliverables, specifications and metrics to assess the successful outcome Work Plan (4) Project organization Evaluate based on the overall duration and cost of the project, and feasibility (5) Probability of success to achieve the stated goals Commercialization Strategy (6) Business case/value Proposition (7) MRL/TRL assessment (8) Manufacturing approach (9) Tool accessibility (hardware and software proposals only) How is the technology/product a differentiator or a game changer in the targeted application or market or on US manufacturing? What is the realism of stated MRL/TRL start and end levels in line with the preliminary development and manufacturing paths? Will the demos/equipment /tool/sw/pdk developed as part of the proposal assist the growth of the ecosystem? (10) Cost and cost realism Determine if the overall budget proposed is pragmatic to achieve the goals. Budget Justification and Cost Share (11) Value and quality of cost share Assess based on the cost share value, cost share source and the purpose of 4 Capability to Meet Technical and (12) Experience of personnel and quality of 6.0 Business Goals relevant facilities 7.0 Workforce Development (13) Quality of WFD section Assess the strength of the PI team as well as the partner/subcontract organization based on proposed WFD objectives and outcome- is it intern, graduate student or training etc.? Example Score Average score 3.36 Preproposal 2 Comments Provide succinct overall comments. Highlight strengths and weakness with reference to any particular section NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 36

38 PC3.0 Full Proposal Project Review Criteria /Score Card - for TPD, MTA and ADP Proposals Project Topic & Title: PC3.0 - Score Guide: Low=1, High=5 Criteria -for TPD, MTA, & ADP Proposal Example Full Proposal Section Criteria Explanation for Full Proposal Section Score Proposal 1.0 Background and Need (1) Problem statement and innovative solution Evaluate the problem definition in line with the background information and the gap analysis provided. 3 (2) Technical scope & approach Is the objective, scope and approach aligned with the problem definition? 5 Does the specifications and deliverables meet the proposed objectives and 2.0 Technical Objectives (3) Logical technical plan; Key deliverables and final deliverables? What are the key tangible deliverables & how do we specifications assess success? 5 Is the project organized well with milestones and tasks; Are the task (4) Project organization descriptions clearly articulated: Is the schedule aligned well with critical Work Plan interdependencies identified? (5) Probability of success Based on all of the above, including the cost and the team capability, assess the feasibility to achieve the stated goals Commercialization Strategy (6) Business case/value Proposition (7) MRL/TRL assessment (8) Manufacturing approach (9) Tool accessibility (hardware and software proposals only) (10) Cost and cost realism 5.0 Budget Justification and Cost Share 6.0 Capability to Meet Technical and Business Goals (11) Value and quality of cost share (12) Experience of personnel and quality of relevant facilities 7.0 Workforce Development (13) Quality of WFD section Are the starting MRL/TRL accurate? Are the end MRL/TRL assessed correctly, and is it realistic considering the overall quality of the project and maturity of technology and approach? How does it impact US manufacturing? What is the targeted application or market? How is the technology/product a differentiator or a game changer? Is the technology/approach matured and ready for manufacturing? Is it the right approach? Does it help advance the MRL/TRL goals? Do they have the right partners? Are they US-based? How is the maturity of process and/or manufacturing infrastructure? Evaluate based on if the demos/equipment /tool/sw/pdk developed as part of the proposal will be available to the ecosystem, and where they will be located. Evaluate if the cost assessment is pragmatic based on the overall assessment of the project inline with its objective, team, advancement, timeline etc. Assess based on the cost share value, cost share source and the purpose of the cost share. Assess the strength of the PI team as well as the partner/subcontract organization and evaluate the proposal based on the set goals. What aspects of WFD is proposed? Is it intern, graduate student or training etc.? Average score Comments Provide succinct overall comments. Highlight strengths and weakness with reference to any particular section NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 37

39 Q&A Use Questions Pane

40 MORE QUESTIONS?

41 2017FLEX REGISTER AT: 2017FLEX.COM NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 40

42 Additional Resources PROPOSERS NETWORKING MEETING LINKEDIN When Thursday, June 22, 2017, 4:45-6:00 PM Where Co-located at 2017FLEX (2017FLEX.com) Hyatt Regency Monterey Room: Regency Grand Ballroom (Main) What Get updates on Project Call 3.0 and meet potential collaboration partners at this event created to foster project call proposal teaming. Meet others who are interested in PC 3.0 and the various funded topic areas. Chat with potential collaboration partners. Receive updates, reminders, ask questions, etc. MANUFACTURING READINESS LEVEL (MRL) WEBINAR MRL background, classifications/substantiation, and how to apply it to your proposal. LOCATION: Additional Resources section at bottom of the Project Call 3.0 webpage. NEXTFLEX WEBINAR PROJECT CALL JUNE 2017 PAGE 41

43 THANK YOU