Second, the briefing document noted potential contributions to DOD’s  mission. DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement Additive Manufacturing to Improve Performance, Improve Combat Capability, and Achieve Cost Savings

DOD has taken steps to implement additive manufacturing to improve  performance and combat capability, as well as achieve associated cost  savings. We obtained information on multiple efforts being conducted  across DOD components. For example, the Army used additive  manufacturing, instead of conventional manufacturing, to prototype  aspects of a Joint Service Aircrew Mask to test a design change, and it  reported thousands of dollars saved in design development and potential  combat capability improvements. According to a senior Air Force official, the Air Force is researching  potential performance improvements that may be achieved by embedding  devices such as antennas within helmets through additive manufacturing  that could enable improved communications. DOD uses additive manufacturing for design and prototyping  and for some production—for example, parts for medical applications— and it is conducting research to determine how to use the technology for  new applications, such as printing electronic components for circuitry and  antennas. See figure 12. DOD Uses Various Mechanisms to Coordinate on Additive Manufacturing Efforts but Does Not Systematically Track Additive Manufacturing Efforts Department-wide

DOD uses various mechanisms to coordinate on additive manufacturing  efforts, but it does not systematically track components’ efforts  department-wide. DOD components share information regarding additive  manufacturing through mechanisms such as working groups and  conferences that, according to DOD officials, provide opportunities to  discuss challenges experienced in implementing additive  manufacturing—for example, qualifying materials and certifying parts. However, DOD does not systematically track additive manufacturing  efforts, to include (1) all projects, henceforth referred to as activities,  performed and resources expended by DOD; and (2) results of their  activities, including actual and potential performance and combat  capability improvements, cost savings, and lessons learned. DOD has not  designated a lead or focal point at the OSD level to systematically track  and disseminate the results of these efforts, including activities and  lessons learned, department-wide. Without designating a lead to track  information on additive manufacturing efforts, which is consistent with  federal internal control standards, DOD officials may not obtain the  information they need to leverage ongoing efforts. Without designating a lead or focal point responsible for developing an  approach for systematically (1) tracking department-wide activities and  resources, and results of these activities; and (2) disseminating,  department-wide, the results of these activities and an inventory of  additive manufacturing equipment, DOD officials may not obtain the  information they need to leverage resources and ongoing experiences of  the various components. To determine the extent to which the briefing  document to the Senate Armed Services Committee (henceforth referred  to as “the Committee”) addresses the three directed elements, two GAO  analysts concurrently assessed DOD’s May 2014 briefing document to  determine whether it included the following Committee-directed elements:  (1) potential benefits and constraints of additive manufacturing, (2) how  the additive manufacturing process could or could not contribute to DOD  missions, and (3) what technologies being developed at America Makes  are being transitioned for DOD use. To determine the extent to which DOD has taken steps to implement  additive manufacturing to improve performance, improve combat  capability, and achieve cost savings, we reviewed DOD planning  documents, such as the December 2014 DOD Manufacturing Technology  Program report and briefing reports documenting the status of DOD’s  additive manufacturing efforts, as well as examples of any actual or  potential performance and combat capability improvements, and  examples of actual or potential cost savings.
Why GAO Did This Study

Additive manufacturing—building products layer-by-layer in a process often referred to as three-dimensional (3D) printing—has the potential to improve aspects of DOD's mission and operations. DOD and other organizations, such as America Makes, are determining how to address challenges to adopt this technology throughout the department.
Senate Report 113-44 directed DOD to submit a briefing or report on additive manufacturing to the Senate Armed Services Committee that describes three elements. Senate Report 113-176 included a provision that GAO review DOD's use of additive manufacturing. This report addresses the extent to which (1) DOD's briefing to the Committee addresses the directed elements; (2) DOD has taken steps to implement additive manufacturing to improve performance, improve combat capability, and achieve cost savings; and (3) DOD uses mechanisms to coordinate and systematically track additive manufacturing efforts across the department. GAO reviewed and analyzed relevant DOD documents and interviewed DOD and academia officials.

What GAO Found

GAO determined that the Department of Defense's (DOD) May 2014 additive manufacturing briefing for the Senate Armed Services Committee addressed the three directed elements—namely, potential benefits and constraints; potential contributions to DOD mission; and transition of the technologies of the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (“America Makes,” a public-private partnership established to accelerate additive manufacturing) for DOD use.
DOD has taken steps to implement additive manufacturing to improve performance and combat capability, and to achieve cost savings. GAO obtained information on multiple efforts being conducted across DOD components. DOD uses additive manufacturing for design and prototyping and for some production, such as parts for medical applications; and it is conducting research to determine how to use the technology for new applications. For example, according to a senior Air Force official, the Air Force is researching potential performance improvements that may be achieved by embedding devices such as antennas within helmets through additive manufacturing that could enable improved communications; and the Army used additive manufacturing to prototype aspects of a Joint Service Aircrew Mask to test a design change, and reported thousands of dollars thereby saved in design development (see figure).
DOD uses various mechanisms to coordinate on additive manufacturing efforts, but it does not systematically track components' efforts department-wide. DOD components share information regarding additive manufacturing via mechanisms such as working groups and conferences that, according to DOD officials, provide opportunities to discuss challenges experienced in implementing additive manufacturing—for example, qualifying materials and certifying parts. However, DOD does not systematically track additive manufacturing efforts, to include (1) all activities performed and resources expended by DOD; and (2) results of these activities, including actual and potential performance and combat capability improvements, cost savings, and lessons learned. DOD has not designated a lead or focal point at a senior level to systematically track and disseminate the results of these efforts, including activities and lessons learned, department-wide. Without designating a lead to track information on additive manufacturing efforts, which is consistent with federal internal control standards, DOD officials may not obtain the information they need to leverage ongoing efforts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD designate an Office of the Secretary of Defense lead to be responsible for developing and implementing an approach for systematically tracking department-wide activities and resources, and results of these activities; and for disseminating these results to facilitate adoption of the technology across the department. DOD concurred with the recommendation.