Enter as a guest on Conference America: https://ncms.adobeconnect.com/jteg/
We will be using a separate line for audio: Call: 888-537-7715, Conference ID: 16161715#
1300-1309 Welcome and Overview – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD) Presentation
1309-1310 Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1310-1320: Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX) – John Wilcynzski/Joe Fagan Presentation
1320-1330: Tech Data Package (TDP) Standard Project – Greg Kilchenstein Presentation
1330-1340: Cybersecurity Challenges & Solutions – Dana Ellis/Tim Abbott Presentation
1340-1350: IP Management – Mike Acosta Presentation
1350-1400: Database & Common Language – Dr Yan Lu/Jenn Wolk Presentation
1400-1410: Standards – Matt Borsinger/Jim McCabe Presentation
1410-1420: Quality Assurance/Post Processing – Mark Benedict/Ron Edmunds Presentation
1420-1430: AM Contracting Guide – Debbie Lilu/John Ballou Presentation
1430-1440: AM Supply Chain Integration – Andrew Meighan/Ben Thompson Presentation
1440-1450: Workforce Development – David Heckman Presentation
1450-1500: DoD AM Policy Development – Greg Kilchenstein/Steve Linder Presentation
This session will be consist of the Working Group outbriefs from the DoD Additive Manufacturing Workshop to be conducted on 18-19 June 2019 at the Lockheed Martin Global Vision Center in Crystal City, VA. The purpose of this workshop is to address five foundational aspects of additive manufacturing necessary for DoD’s wide adoption of this game-changing capability. The workshop is being sponsored by DoD’s Joint Additive Manufacturing Working Group, America Makes Additive Manufacturing for Maintenance and Sustainment Advisory Group and the Additive Manufacturing for Maintenance Operations (AMMO) Working Group. We are looking for government, industry and academia/non-profit to actively participate in the workshop.
Additive Manufacturing Working Groups
Data Standards and Data / Model Sharing Work Group
- JAMMEX (America Makes Project) Sub-Group – John Wilcynzski / Joe Fagan
- Abstract: This working group will review the status of the Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX) project, a first phase 3D model sharing platform for the DoD and look “Beyond JAMMEX”. The objective is to look at industry best practices and identify needs within the DoD and industry for data and information sharing that support and expand on the concept that JAMMEX represents.
- TDP Standard Project Sub-Group – John Schmelzle / Tony Delgado
- Abstract: DoD activities have done significant work in the development of Technical Data Packages (TDPs) for Additive Manufactured items. MIL-STD-31000 has been revised and TDP standard procedures have been developed to create a model base TDP in a neutral format addressing many of the challenges AM presents in the TDP process. This working group shall evaluate the different TDP procedures/formats, addressing the pro and cons of each, to try to establish a more universal approach to TDP development for AM items in the DoD
- Cybersecurity Challenges and Solutions (Blockchain Experience) Sub-Group – Jim Regenor / Dana Ellis / Tim Abbott
- Abstract: We’ll focus on changing the technological landscape required to address the cybersecurity challenges and solutions for Additive Manufacturing required to support the warfighter and tomorrow’s soldier on the battlefield. As one specific objective, this group will evaluate an Additive Manufacturing Blockchain supply chain process in producing an Additive Manufacturing part. The workshop will address a range of better tools and solutions to protect data from hackers, preventing potential fraud and decreasing the chance of data being stolen or compromised during data transfer, as well as security of hardware and quality assurance systems.
Qualification and Certification Work Group
- Database & Common Language Sub-Group – Dr. Yan Lu / Jennifer Wolk / Peter Coutts (PSU)
- Abstract: The objective of this working group is to further the development of a common data format and data dictionary for materials and process data for additive manufacturing. Defining common terms and definitions for AM data elements and fields is foundational to being able to share and/or connect AM materials and processing data sets that may have different schemas. This working group will look at existing data architectures/schemas and provide a forum for the community to discuss a common understanding of data definitions and the materials data related to supporting the implementation of AM.
- Standards Subgroup – Matt Borsinger / Jim McCabe
- Abstract: The origin of this subgroup was to help address the gap QC4 “Process Approval for DoD-procured Parts” from the America Makes & ANSIAdditive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative (AMSC) Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing. In this group we will discuss the issues that affect the DOD for Qualification and Certification, such as determining which standardization gaps the DOD should prioritize, what standards are mature enough for the DOD to adopt, and how to have a centralized DOD response to questions related to non-government standards for Additive Manufacturing.
- Quality Assurance / Post Processing Sub-Group – Mark Benedict / David Busby / Ron Edmunds / Teresa Clement
- Abstract: This working group will look at how Quality Assurance processes need to be modified to incorporate AM specific data and requirements to certify parts and qualify vendors. The working group is targeted to be an opportunity for interaction between the AM technical community and the QA and acquisition communities to identify gaps in documents or procedures that need to be updated with AM specific content and information. What documents, processes and procedures need to have AM specific content incorporated in order to certify parts and qualify vendors?
Business Practices Work Group
- AM Contracting Guide Sub-Group – Tim Koeppel / Bob Appleton / Debbie Lilu / John Ballou
- Abstract: This Additive Manufacturing (AM) Contracting Guide will be the first reference incorporating AM considerations within the Department of the Navy during the acquisition, contracting, and program management processes. A working group of professionals representing the military services, industry, and academia will review and provide final edits before the official draft is signed out in September.
- AM Integration into Supply Chain Sub-Group – Andrew Meighan / Ben Thompson
- Abstract: This working group will identify the key steps needed to integrate additive manufacturing into the DOD supply chain. A Directive-Type Memorandum issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, identifies to the Military Services and the Defense Logistics Agency the responsibilities necessary to ensure safe and effective use of AM in the DOD Sustainment Enterprise. Participants will utilize Use Cases to explore how AM items could be cataloged in the supply chain, what technical data is needed to define a procurable and qualified AM part and the impact on demand signals across the supply chain. Outcomes from this session will feed into policy and operational changes that are still being finalized, such as DOD cataloging, digital data exchanges, data protection, and demand planning models.
- IP Management Sub-Group – Mike Acousta / Tim Slabouz / Howie Marotto
- Abstract: This working group will take a deeper look at a “netflix,” or “pay as you go” data rights licensing effort that was initiated at the DoD Business Model Wargame II in May 2017. The workshop will include a mock licensing negotiation exercise utilizing a factual scenario with two competing defense contractor teams and a government team trying to negotiate access and rights to OEM data to support DoD additive manufacturing.
Workforce Development Working Group – Jim Davis, Michael Britt-Crane, Adrian Bailey
Abstract: Discuss and develop short and long term strategies for the development of the DoD workforce in the application of additive manufacturing technology as it applies to their respective field. The objective is to identify gaps and prioritize needs within different stakeholder groups within the DoD workforce. There will be three distinct sub-groups focused on the particular needs and challenges within these communities and the groups they engage (e.g. what information do leadership, peers, and others need to know?). Sub-working group outputs from the workshop will include a list of stakeholders and opportunities/roadblocks identified for their sub-working group as they apply to short and long-term strategies.
- AM technician training and certification for the conventional supply chain as well as forward deployed and tactical applications.
- DoD engineering education and training requirements (conventional supply chain focus)
- DoD acquisition of professional education and training requirements
DoD AM Policy Development Working Group – Greg Kilchenstein / Steve Linder
Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) needs strategic alignment, collaboration, and enterprise-level guidance to focus and streamline AM implementation across the Military Services and DoD Components, maximize the value of AM investments, and ensure interoperability of AM capabilities in support of sustainment. On 12 March 2019, Ms. Ellen M. Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment signed a Directive-type Memorandum (DTM) that provides “Interim Policy and Guidance for the Use of Additive Manufacturing (AM) in Support of Materiel Sustainment”. The DTM expires in 12 months. This working group will review current policy, to include the AM DTM, and develop new, long term AM policy, guidance and implementation strategies to holistically integrate AM across DoD acquisition, technology development and application, engineering, and logistics.
DoD AM Workshop Link: https://ammo.ncms.org/events/2019-additive-manufacturing-workshop/
Event: On 26 June 2019, the Joint Technology Exchange Group (JTEG), in coordination with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), hosted a virtual forum on “Additive Manufacturing Workshop Out-brief”.
Purpose: The purpose of this forum was to present the work group out-briefs from the 2019 AM Workshop which addressed five foundational aspects of additive manufacturing necessary for DoD’s wide adoption of this game-changing capability.
Welcome: Greg Kilchenstein – OSD(MPP) welcomed everyone to the forum, previewed the agenda, discussed the objectives and importance of the workshop, and stated that the workshop was sponsored by DoD’s Joint Additive Manufacturing Working Group (JAMWG), America Makes Additive Manufacturing for Maintenance and Sustainment Advisory Group and the Additive Manufacturing for Maintenance Operations (AMMO) Working Group.
Administrative: This was an open forum. The presentations, along with questions and answers, were conducted through Defense Collaboration Services (DCS) and Adobe Connect. A separate audio line was also used. Approximately 80 participants from across DOD and industry joined in the forum.
Data Standards and Data / Model Sharing
- JAMMEX (America Makes Project) Work-Group – John Wilcynzski and Joe Fagan presented their group’s work with the Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX) project. Their objective was to create a DoD capability to interoperably share AM Data. Their takeaways include conducting user acceptance testing and needing more users to review and test the system, especially forward operators. The next step is the release of version 1.0 expected in August 2019.
- TDP Standard Project Sub-Group – John Schmelzle and Tony Delgado described their objective as working to develop and institute a standard DoD AM Tech Data Package. Their takeaways include working with JAMMEX, the JAMWG, and the military services on existing TDP guidance, and with workforce development WG on TDP development. Their next steps include leveraging ASTM (formerly known as American Society for Testing and Materials, it is an international standards organization) /International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for Joint ISO/TC (Technical Committee) 261-ASTM F 42 Group: Digital product definition and data management.
- Cybersecurity Challenges and Solutions (Blockchain Experience) Sub-Group – Dana Ellis’ work group focused on exploring and recommending cybersecurity solutions for AM. Their takeaways were the recognition that we need to combine cybersecurity knowledge with AM workflow application. Their next steps are to establish a cybersecurity AM strategic interest group with government and industry to collaborate on policy and address gaps.
Qualification and Certification Work Group
- Database & Common Language Sub-Group – Peter Coutts (PSU) described the WG’s objective as emphasizing that DoD-wide sharing of AM data requires common AM language. Their takeaways were the need to establish a qualification challenge to develop and demonstrate the value of data sharing. Their next steps include the completion of an AM data dictionary, and to develop a common data exchange format.
- Standards Subgroup – Jim McCabe presented their group’s objective to accelerate the development of AM standards in order to accelerate AM use. Their takeaways include needing more data and specifications associated with performance of materials to move further. Their next step include the need to unify the classifications (beyond color) for the different AM parts to allow original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to better serve the DOD.
- Quality Assurance / Post Processing Sub-Group – David Busby described the group’s objective to develop common and accepted AM quality assurance (Q/A) processes. Their takeaways include the need for information sharing of engineering data already produced and to have systems, policies and resources in place that encourage or require it. Their next steps include developing an “AM Lifecycle Qualification Map Guide” to pair with the Contracting Guide/Acquisition Guide to walk through differences for AM.
Business Practices Work Group
- AM Contracting Guide Sub-Group – Debbie Lilu described their group’s objectives to develop and issue AM acquisition and contracting guidance. Their key takeaways were that multiple policy changes are necessary to address AM in acquisition, that the AM acquisition guide will supplement policy, and that OSD should consider assigning an acquisition program to pilot the guide. The group’s next step is to draft and coordinate a DoD AM Acquisition Guide.
- AM Integration into Supply Chain Sub-Group – Group leaders Andrew Meighan and Ben Thompson were unavailable, but Greg Kilchenstein described the objective as exploring how to successfully integrate AM into the supply chain processes. The key takeaways include that the issues extend to all advanced manufacturing technologies, DoD needs to create an agile framework that maximizes AM implementation, and that DoD must leverage industry/academia capabilities and expertise to accelerate implementation of Advanced Manufacturing. Next steps include drafting updated DoD AM policy language to provide more detailed guidance, and developing a Joint Regulation on AM in the supply Chain.
- Intellectual Property (IP) Management Sub-Group – Mike Acosta described the group’s objectives as determining how to remove IP as an AM Barrier, and understanding AM IP Challenges and Issue IP Guidance. Key Takeaways include Government recognition of the need to incentivize industry (GPR and Unlimited Data Rights is a disincentive to industry and limits options/drives up cost), the Government should only ask for what they need, and the risk profile for AM approach is different, requiring changes to the contracting approach, e.g. profit mechanism might no longer be sustainment, but licensing (not AM unique). Next Steps include developing and issuing IP Guidance with the DoD AM Acquisition Guide.
Workforce Development Working Group – David Heckman described the group’s objective to advance the competency of the AM workforce. Takeaways include alignment of tasks and knowledge areas to the technical roadmap: Design, Process, Supply, Material, identifying three defined AM workforce Segments: Engineers, AM Users, Acquisition, creating a map of available DoD AM training and education to need segments, and characterizing and documenting the training needs for each defined job role. The nest steps are to formalize documents and then integrate into policy and guidance.
DoD AM Policy Development Working Group – Greg Kilchenstein described the group’s objective as expanding DoD AM policy beyond the Sustainment AM DTM. Key takeaways include the development of two dozen policy statements in a dozen different disciplines, and the assignment of those policy statements to the appropriate responsible organization(s). The next steps include completing a draft DoD Instruction and beginning internal coordination in July, starting formal DD106 Coordination in Sep, completing coordination and Signature by Jan 2020, and reaching publication and issuance by Feb 2020.
Q&A – A Q&A occurred after each briefer finished their presentation. Questions and answers will be posted on the JTEG website with these minutes.
Closing Comments: Greg Kilchenstein thanked the presenters for their contributions and all the work done to support the AM workgroups efforts. He emphasized that the AM workshop was neither a beginning nor an end, and continued work in all five areas will be required. He encouraged continued collaboration beyond the forum and the importance of information exchange within the DoD sustainment community.
- All the briefings are cleared for “public release” and have been posted to the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ .
Next JTEG Meeting: The next scheduled JTEG virtual forum is 30 July, 1:00 – 3:00 pm EST. The topic is “USMC Sustainment Technology”.
POC this action is Ray Langlais, email@example.com , (571) 633-8019
JAMMEX John Wilcynzki
Q1. How can the community access JAMMEX? Do you need a CAC or other credential?
A1. Yes, a government issued common access card (CAC) is required. User testing has been for DoD and support contractors only.
Q2. Will JAMMEX provide a robust search function?
A2. That is our goal.
Q3. How do we get added to be a user for the beta version?
A3. Reach out to John Wilcynzski if you are interested in participating as beta users.
TDP Standards: John Schmelzle
Q1. Did you discuss the unification for the criticality determination specific to AM? Each service seems to have a different color coding schema that may have varying different reasons for categorizing.
A1. It is bigger than AM. It’s really dependent on what is in the technical data package (TDP).
Cybersecurity: Dana Ellis
Comment. Just want to point out that there are various issued patents regarding the combination of using block chain with Additive Manufacturing technical data. Acosta, USMC Patent Attorney
IP Management: Mike Acosta
Comment: AM is mentioned in: DI-FNCL-82009
Q1. What are some of the industry incentives your group discussed?
A1. I can give a partial answer – Reduction in overhead and/or transfer some risk to the government.
Q2. Would you advocate for an expanded section in the AM Contracting guide?
A2. There would be a lot of duplication if there were a need for a separate guide.
Database & Common Language:
Q1. Does Peter Coutts agree that the standard for AM Q&C terminology is adequate? Any feeling if anyone would sponsor future efforts to improve?
A1. No interest in a group, but there is interest in a workshop.
Comment: FYI, there is a DOD specification for storing metal powder used in munitions. The powders used are similar in size
Q1. How do we get there in the near term?
A1. There are so many processes to understand how they interact. The next step is to talk to the appropriate council and fill in the gaps in the materials data.
AM Contracting Guide:
AM Supply Chain Integration:
DoD AM Policy Development: