A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop (2001)

Science and Technology Parks at the Millennium: Concept, History, and Metrics

A Background Paper for Planners of the Ames S&T Park

Michael I. Luger

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Research/Technology Centers and Technopoli

In the literature and common practice at least two additional terms are used that are not types of parks, but are related to park development: research/technology centers and technopoli. Research/technology centers are physical facilities in which science and technology-related activities take place, including R&D, meetings, skill training, testing, and tele-conferencing, for instance. Research/ technology centers are commonly used as anchors within parks: for example, the biotechnology and microelectronics/information technology centers built by the state within Research Triangle Park in North Carolina; centers for biotechnology, materials science, information technology, and microelectronics built by the government in the National S&T Development Agency park near Bangkok; and a training center for IT workers to be built as part of a new Palestinian initiative on the border of the West Bank and Israel.¹

Technopoli are regions developed around several interrelated “knowledge” elements, including, but not limited to, science parks, research/technology centers, and universities. Technopoli require special planning, including infrastructure development, housing, and transportation, to make sure the elements work together. Prominent examples include Tsukuba Science City in Japan and Taedock Science Town in Korea. The Chinese (PRC) government is working on a plan to develop its largest metropolitan region—Chongqing—into a technopolis.²

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARKS FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES

While these parks share common elements, they differ in terms of

1 See TSG (The Services Group, Inc.) A Feasibility Study for the Khadouri Technology Development Center. Final Report to the U.S. Agency for International Development. Arlingon, VA: TSG, Inc., 1999.

2 See Michael Luger, Deog Song Oh, and David Gibson, Editors, Technopolis as Regional Development Policy. World Technopolis Association. 1998.

Objectives

The design, services, and functions of a technology park are first a reflection of its basic purpose. Many countries fail to recognize the fundamental diversity of science and technology parks, and tend to view these projects as specialized industrial parks. But the purpose and forms of science and technology parks vary greatly. Common objectives of science and technology parks are to

While none of these objectives are mutually exclusive, successful parks have generally had a clear focus and a limited set of objectives.

Size and Physical Layout

Parks range in size from one large building in an urban setting—for example, the University City Science Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and several facilities in Germany—to several thousand hectares, such as the 8,000 hectare Sophia Esterel Science Park in France.

One common (if not universal) feature of science and technology parks is their physical attractiveness. Park developers believe that good design and natural amenities are necessary to develop a conducive work environment for knowledge-based industries. As a result, many parks are developed as beautiful campuses with office park facilities. A leading example is the Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park in Taiwan, which was deliberately developed to resemble facilities in Silicon Valley in order to attract diaspora Taiwanese engineers working in California.

Ownership and Management

Science and technology parks are owned by universities (University of Utah and Stanford Research Parks in the U.S.), government agencies (the National Science and Technology Development Agency Research Park in Thailand— NSTDA), by private companies (Kyoto Science Park), and by consortia of different public and private stakeholders.

The objectives of the parks reflect their ownership. University-owned parks tend to focus on university-originated technology and on building industry-university linkages. However, universities also see parks as potential sources of real estate revenue (Centennial Campus at North Carolina State University; Cambridge Research Park, U.K.). Parks sponsored by government agencies are typically part of regional or national development efforts. An increasing number of

Typical Activities and Occupants

Parks also differ in terms of their sectoral focus and industry orientation. Many parks tend to specialize in a few technology and industry areas, serving as “centers of excellence,” promoting innovation in a particular area. Examples include the following:

Government-run science and technology parks oriented to basic science and R&D typically host government labs. Examples include the NSTDA park in Thailand, the national science labs in the U.S. (Sandia, Los Alamos, and others), and Taedok Science Town in South Korea. Other science and technology parks resemble typical office or business parks, accommodating regional and international headquarters companies. Leading examples include Stanford Research Park, Cambridge Research Park, and Dublin Science and Technology Park in Ireland.

Links to Universities and Technology Bases

Most successful science parks had a meaningful connection with an institution of higher education. As noted, some parks have been developed by universities as sites for university-related activity (e.g., Stanford Research Park, U.S.A.; Cambridge Research Park, U.K.; Parque Industrial de la Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico; The Australian Technology Park). Others have forged relationships with nearby universities (Amsterdam Science Park; Sophia Antipolis, France; NOVUM Research Park, Sweden; Patras Science Park, Greece; Tecnopolis Csata Novus Ortis, Italy). Parks developing in regions without institutions of higher learning have created them as part of the park's amenities to tenants. That approach, clearly, is costly. Increasingly, parks are connecting to universities and colleges electronically, making immediate proximity less important.

The second type of focus is around technology sectors, usually capitalizing on existing strengths in the regional industrial base and the local universities. Larger parks may have several foci (Research Triangle Park with electronics, pharmaceuticals and biotech, and telecommunications; NSTDA Park in Thailand around biotech, electronics, and materials science). But many parks focus more narrowly, and even use the focus in their name as a marketing ploy (Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park; Harry Hines Medical Research Park; Environmental Technology Center Neopoli Oy, Finland; Agro-Business Park, Denmark; Infopark, Budapest; and Kalundborg Eco-industrial Park, Denmark).

Incentives

Different parks provide, through their sponsoring entity, a wide variety of incentives for businesses. Those incentives tend to be largest when the park is part of the national or state government's economic development program. Israel's central government, for example, provides businesses moving to Tefen (and other designated locations) a benefit of 24 percent of their investment in building and equipment grants, or a ten-year income tax holiday. However, these types of incentives are usually available to all qualifying high-tech investments, whether or not physically located within a technology park.

However, a few countries have either adapted existing incentives (usually within free zone schemes) or developed new packages specifically for enterprises located within science and technology parks. For example, the software-oriented parks in India (such as Bangalore) have done well, in part, because of the favorable tax treatment accorded those businesses locating there. The favorable treatment extends to foreign capital and has been responsible for an inflow of investment.³

3 See TSG (The Services Group, Inc.), A Feasibility Study for the Khadouri Technology Development Center, op.cit.

Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services

Unlike most general industrial parks, science and technology parks emphasize purpose-built infrastructure and facilities, tailored to meet the requirements of target industries and activities. The range of facilities typically found include the following:

The overall objective is to create a conducive work environment that enhances worker productivity and promotes technological collaboration and innovation among a cluster of inter-related companies.

BENEFITS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS

Depending on the type of park, industrial focus, extent of government funding, additionality of investment—the magnitude of economic benefits from science and technology parks varies significantly. The value of a technology park is also different for each potential beneficiary—the host country or region, private companies, or participating universities.

Assessing Economic Impact

The economic impact of science and technology parks is difficult to estimate, given the large variations on types of parks worldwide. The science and technology parks that exist account for a significant part of high-tech manufacturing and services, especially in developing countries. The software technology parks in India, for example, account for 70 percent of the export earnings of the software sector overall. Selected examples of these types of projects are profiled in the following table:

Source: TSG, 1999

FOUR RECENT TRENDS IN S&T PARK DEVELOPMENT

Parks being developed at the dawn of the new millennium exhibit four new trends:

Cluster Analysis

With intensified competition for R&D, parks are tying into existing and emerging “clusters” more and more. A cluster is a group of firms and related institutions where the competitiveness of any firm is dependent on the competitiveness of other members of the cluster.⁴ Clusters can be formed among businesses related through input-output linkages, among firms that use the same types of labor and support services, or among businesses that share the same market.

One implication of this recognition of clusters is that a “park” may be spread over several locations in a region (or more broadly in the case of a “virtual” park, described below). One park location may house high-end R&D and another may be the site of the companies' prototype production, with both functions being connected via fiber, microwave, and/or satellite links.

One interesting application of this concept are the Global Transparks being developed in North Carolina and on the east coast of Thailand. These “parks” are being built along air strips (both of which had previously had military use). The Asian site will ship component parts manufactured in Asia using relatively cheap labor. Those parts (modules) would then be flown to North Carolina to be assembled, largely along a robotocized assembly line, and then delivered to market in the U.S. and Europe. Orders would come to the North Carolina plant electronically. That order would trigger a chain of supply orders that would be completed with very little need for inventory. Speed to market would be achieved by the electronic nature of the process, but also because time is saved moving goods from Asia to the U.S., across the international dateline. An order shipped on Monday from Thailand would arrive in North Carolina the same day. If the final product were then going to the Central, Mountain, or Pacific time zones, additional hours would be gained. A park is planned for Frankfort, Germany, to save time further. Then, components would be shipped straight to Germany from Thailand, and then to European markets.

A New University Connection

As indicated in the IASP definition on the first page of this paper, a university connection is a common feature of all science parks. Luger and Goldstein show, as well, that U.S. parks tend to be university-owned, university-operated, or somehow affiliated with universities.⁵ That university connection has trans-

4 See Edward Feser, High Tech Clusters in North Carolina. Report Prepared for the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Economic Development, 2000. See also Michael Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press, 1990.

5 See Michael Luger and Harvey Goldstein, Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional Economic Development. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Virtual Parks

With the advent of increasingly affordable high-speed communications via fiber optics, microwave, and satellite, businesses do not have to have propinquity to be connected, and therefore can be part of a virtual park. Those parks may be owned and managed by the same group, who helps the scattered businesses maintain their connection, and still provides common services, but now, over the web.

Many companies have maintained connections with its own branches via teleconferencing facilities. Now, unrelated companies are growing their connec-

DEFINING AND MEASURING SUCCESS

Economic development policy makers face two critical questions:

The first of these is the ex ante policy analysis question; the second is the ex post policy evaluation question.

Ex post Evaluation

Program evaluation is becoming more common in government. At the federal level, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 required government agencies to develop strategic plans and then file annual reports marking progress to the articulated goals. Congress and state legislatures have instituted sunset provisions in some legislation, requiring performance reviews before funds are renewed. Benchmarking is becoming more popular at the state level, and in the area of S&T policy, indicators are becoming more and more prevalent. (NSF has just released a major RFP toward that end.)⁷

From a practical standpoint, these efforts to look systematically at programs' progress toward goals have several benefits for policy makers. Good results strengthen the claim on resources. Questionable results provide an opportunity for planners to fine tune or change the program. That is important since one of the “critical success factors” in S&T park development is adaptability—the revision of objective, change in focus, and alteration of programs in response to changing market conditions and new opportunities.

Ex post evaluation has different uses when done short-term and long-term. The short-term assessment—done a year or two after implementation—is cruder, but still useful for fine tuning programs. Long-term assessment is useful to judge the net social benefits (via cost-benefit analysis). It requires more data (over more years). It also becomes more difficult because the benefits are both direct and indirect. Efficiency assessment also requires the evaluator to separate gross from net (or induced) effects.

Application to S&T Parks

A major ex post evaluation of S&T parks in the United States concluded that successful parks tend to have a number of common attributes:

7 For a summary of these developments, see Catherine Renault, Leslie Stewart, and Michael Luger, Economic Development Evaluation and Monitoring System for North Carolina, Report prepared for the North Carolina Department of Commerce, July, 31, 2000.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NASA AMES

Some lessons can be gleaned for NASA Ames from this overview of S&T park development. First, the traditional real estate criteria for success are abundantly present: the very availability of developable land in the heart of Silicon Valley, proximate to major high-tech corporations and world-class universities, bodes well for the marketability of the development. Second, the scientists and engineers at NASA Ames are engaged in high-powered research that would seem to have considerable commercial potential (assuming the science is not classified). Third, the NASA research budget is substantial and, therefore, attractive to university and industry researchers who seek contracts and joint research opportunities. The planners of the Ames S&T Park project need to evaluate for themselves whether there is sufficiently strong leadership, visionary planning, deep pockets patience, appropriate services, and meaningful relationships with universities.

In terms of the design of the project, to be consistent with 21^st century trends, planners of the project and university partners should provide support to maximize the commercial payoff through new product development and spin-off companies. That includes meaningful connections among university, government, and private sector researchers (including implementation of the green door concept) and the establishment of virtual connections with distant researchers and organizations. The location of facilities on-site by Carnegie-Mellon is an example of that. NASA Ames also might consider a focus on a subset of its technology areas, choosing technology foci that correspond with existing and emerging strengths in the industry base of the region.

Finally, in order to use resources efficiently and to ensure continued governmental (NASA and Congressional) support it will be important to incorporate the ex ante and ex post evaluation procedures into the planning and implementation of any park.

8 See Michael Luger and Harvey Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, op.cit.

The Prospects for a Technology Park at Ames: A New Economy Model for Industry-Government Partnership?

David B. Audretsch

Indiana University

THE TRADITIONAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PARK MODEL

Park Objectives

While the definitions of traditional S&T parks remains elusive, the objectives are remarkably singular and focused:

S&T parks vary considerably in their organizational, managerial, and locational characteristics, with parks now in place in 42 states. They are located in urban areas of all sizes, ranging from the largest metropolitan areas to small cities hundreds of miles from the nearest metropolitan area. Some parks are situated in old, rehabilitated factory or warehouse buildings in dense parts of central cities, while others are laid out along winding roads in low-density, green, campus-like, suburban environments. Around one-quarter of the parks are units of public or private universities. State or municipal governments account for another 16 percent. Slightly more than one-fifth of the parks are non-profit corporations or foundations. Fifteen percent of existing parks are owned by for-profit corporations, while the remaining 21 percent are joint public-private ventures.

The size of research parks, measured in aggregate employment, ranges from no employees to 32,000. About one-third of the parks have no employment at all. While the mean workforce of research parks is about 1,700 employees, the skewed size distribution results in the large majority of research parks having a workforce of fewer than twenty employees.

Finally, S&T parks differ in the managerial strategies and policies that managers adopt. These differences, in turn, reflect differences in the particular objectives of the park. For example, many parks target the R&D branch plants of multilocational corporations, while others focus on generating start-ups with local entrepreneurs and nurturing small, innovative-oriented business start-ups. The nature of the physical facilities—for example, the overall land use density in the park and the existence of multi-tenant buildings and incubators—and the types of services provided by the park management often reflect the strategy pursued.

Benefits from Traditional S&T Parks

The widely accepted premise underlying the traditional research park strategy is to promote the economic development of the region. Thus, the locus of bene-

Success Factors in S&T Parks

Why are some S&T parks more successful than others? Studies⁶ have identified seven key factors that shape the success of S&T parks. These factors are university involvement, the presence of high-tech talent, project funding, physical infrastructure, entrepreneurial culture, amenities, and leadership.

Presence of High-Tech Talent

In order for an S&T park to be successful, a critical mass of knowledge workers needs to be in the region. As Luger⁷ points out, if a S&T park is analyzed purely from a real estate perspective, it must attract a minimum number of companies in order to survive. Such companies come from high-tech talent.

Project Funding

Successful S&T parks share a common characteristic of long-term funding. While there are a wide variety of sources of funding for S&T parks, many of these sources provide funds only for the first couple of years, with the expectation that the S&T park will be financially viable and sustainable. However, this is not the case of the traditional S&T park. Thus, long-term funding makes a large difference in enabling S&T parks to develop.

There are a number of sources providing funding and/or resources for technology-based start-ups. For example, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program provides grants to businesses for innovative research in areas where there is a high potential for commercialization.⁸

7 Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, op.cit., pp. 14-33.

8 For an overview of this $1.2 billion program, see National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: Challenges and Opportunities, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

Physical Infrastructure

A well-developed transportation network, with emphasis on the highway system and proximity to a major international airport, enhances accessibility of an S&T park. This feature is of particular importance for ensuring the mobility of resources—supplies, products, and people. The physical infrastructure is a complementary asset in attracting conferences, visiting scientists, researchers, and businesses. In an increasingly digitalized economy, communication networks are also essential to successful S&P parks. The presence of high-speed fiber optic communication lines facilitates video conferencing and rapid transfer of data.

Entrepreneurial Culture

Since the traditional S&T parks have focused on technology transfer from the S&T park to the private sector, in order to serve as an engine of regional economic development, the existence of an entrepreneurial culture has played an important role. The ability and willingness of individuals and teams of individuals to commercialize some of the knowledge in the S&T park by starting a new firm serves as a key vehicle for this knowledge transfer. Some analysts suggest that a number of S&T parks that have not been successful lacked such an entrepreneurial culture.⁹

Amenities

A high quality of natural and social environments contributes to the overall quality of life. Although the desirable combination of natural amenities may differ according to personal preferences, most individuals place a high value on clean air, water, and the natural surroundings, and tend to find places plagued by high levels of pollution and crime undesirable. A high-quality social environment typically includes the presence of good quality residential areas, elementary and secondary schools, hospitals, and access to public facilities, such as museums, entertainment, and other forms of recreation. Additional social amenities include established, proven universities, tertiary education establishments, and research institutions. A high quality of amenities is a prerequisite for attracting knowledge workers to the region.

Dedicated Leadership

Dedicated leadership champions the enterprise and characterizes successful parks. For example, the success of the technology incubator in Austin, Texas,

9 Amy Glasmeier, “Factors Governing the Development of High-Tech Industry Agglomerations: A Tale of Three Cities,” Regional Studies, 22(4): 287-301, 1987.

AMES: A NEW MODEL FOR INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP?

A Unique Goal

Thus, the proposed NASA Ames Research Park has a very different goal than that of traditional S&T parks. While traditional S&T parks are oriented toward transferring technology from the knowledge source to the external regional community, the goal of the Ames Research Park is to provide the internal knowledge source—NASA—economically efficient access to knowledge and capabilities either found in the external community or which a strategic partnership could develop more efficiently and economically.

Multiple Means

This goal would be accomplished by the following:

The Role of Universities

Universities will provide one leg of the strategic triad upon which the Ames Research Park will be based. In order for the NASA Ames Research Park to succeed, mechanisms have to be developed to facilitate the interaction of Ames scientists with the university research community. Such mechanisms are provided in the Ames Research Park design.

The Carnegie Mellon Partnership

A second initiative providing a framework institutionalizing interaction between Ames' scientists and the university research community is provided by a strategic partnership with Carnegie Mellon University. This partnership will have an initial focus on robotics and high reliability computing, two of the traditional strengths of Carnegie Mellon. Ames will provide Carnegie Mellon students with internships. In addition, the partnership will form the basis for consortia with Silicon Valley companies.

The partnership will provide NASA with access to the research resources and scientists on the Pittsburgh campus as well as provide a gateway to Silicon Valley for Carnegie Mellon scientists and graduates. It is anticipated that NASA and Carnegie Mellon will develop some unique educational programs to meet the needs of the partnership.

From its experience in partnerships with the Robotics Institute (with Westinghouse) and the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon has learned that education complements research and is an essential component of technology transfer. The proposed partnership will involve collaborative research with NASA and other universities as well as companies located in Silicon Valley. This partnership should yield benefits for NASA's space mission, because Carnegie Mellon has extensive experience and expertise in developing robotic systems. This competence will be the basis for joint research on reliability, autonomy, robot team coordination, robotic work systems, and robotic exploration and discovery. This research is expected to yield valuable applications for life seeking in extreme environments and planetary global exploration.

Industry Participation

Private industry is a key player in the NASA Ames Research Park model. Potential industry partners, such as Lockheed Martin Corporation, argue that there is a critical mass of shared objectives to make the partnership successful. In particular, the complementary research assets in key technologies such as astrobiology, information technology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, life and microgravity sciences, and aeronautical and space technology provide potential gains to both industry partners as well as NASA.

Joint research should be promoted through the creation of unique facilities and laboratories for research collaboration, as well as workforce enhancement, such as the joint appointment of scientists, internship programs, graduate students, and doctoral students. In addition, continuing education programs spon-

The Research Initiative Fund

To support these goals, Lockheed Martin proposes the creation of a Research Initiative Fund, which would be held in an interest-bearing escrow account. The application of the Initiative Fund would be determined jointly by the three legs of the Ames Research Park triad—NASA, private industry, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. The funds would be used for grants for academic fellowships, funding for NASA research programs, and the development of new mechanisms to promote research.

The facilities at Ames, including the buildings, would be used in a manner that utilizes the complementary assets between NASA and private industry. In terms of Lockheed Martin, this would involve facilities dedicated to information technology, including computer hardware, software, internet, electronics, broadcasting, and telecommunications, as well as astrobiology, aviation, aerospace, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.

Managing the Tripartite Model

The success of the NASA Ames Research Center depends not just on the conception of the model but also on how it is managed. The issue of Center management revolves around developing mechanisms and tools for NASA to access the resources of strategic partners and to focus them on meeting goals consistent with NASA's missions. Only through developing such instruments can the Ames Research Park reach its full potential.

Potential Barriers

It is anticipated that as a result of collaborations with industry and universities, NASA will be able to leverage its resources to effectively double its investment. However, in order to accrue the benefits of strategic partnerships with industry and universities, a number of barriers and hurdles must be overcome.

Intellectual Property: One set of barriers involves issues surrounding the competing needs for intellectual property rights for each partner. Since the joint product of research collaboration is intellectual property, each partner has a vested interest in holding the rights to that intellectual property. Unless new models can be developed from sharing and/or allocating the intellectual property accruing from the joint research, industry and universities will be hesitant to join in such partnerships.

Decision-Making: A second set of barriers involves bureaucratic processes. The pace of government is considerably slower than industry. Government processes typically require massive paperwork in decision-making processes and

The NASA Enterprise Fund

Another instrument for park management is the NASA Enterprise Fund. The business concept underlying the NASA Enterprise Fund is the establishment of a technology investment fund that is market driven and has a return on investment criterion. NASA can be included as a limited investment partner, drawing upon a portfolio of a $900 million annual technology program and a $100 million annual Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The SBIR projects span 18 major technology areas and cover around 95 projects per year. This will enable venture partnerships with NASA based on technologies not normally seen by the investment community. In addition, NASA will be able to participate in partnerships in an effective collaborative manner that is not limited by the traditional constraints and rigidities associated with government. These new ventures will be targeted in investment areas identified as critical to the NASA mission – information technology, nano-technology, MEMS, compact sensors, and biotechnology.

The NASA Enterprise Fund will provide access to new technologies being developed by private industry as well as accelerated technology development.

MONITORING AND MEASURING THETECHNOLOGY PARK IMPACT

Because the goals and mission of the Ames Research Park are markedly different from that of traditional S&T parks, monitoring and measuring the impact of Ames must reflect this difference. As explained in the second section, the approach to monitoring and measuring the impact of traditional S&T parks has been to focus on the flow of knowledge from the park to the external region with a particular emphasis on commercialization, job creation, and growth.¹¹

However, the logic of Ames is radically different. The main mission of Ames is to facilitate the attainment of NASA's mission. Thus, the flow of knowledge is much more from external partners into NASA. At the same time, much

11 See the discussion in Luger's paper in this volume.

CONCLUSIONS

The traditional S&T parks were founded on the premise that a government and/or university institution had the competitive advantage in the production of knowledge over private industry. The goal of the S&T park was to provide an instrument for channeling that knowledge into commercialization opportunities for private industry. Through the flow of knowledge from the source within the park to commercial opportunities in the region, the traditional S&T park served as an engine for regional economic development.

The Ames Research Park is founded on the very different premise that private industry is no longer at a competitive disadvantage in the production of knowledge, but is at least an equal, if different, partner. In order for NASA to attain its mission, access to the knowledge resources in the private industry and university sectors is required. Thus, the flow of knowledge is no longer outward, with the aim of regional economic development, but rather inward and interactive, with the goal of enabling the government agency to achieve its goal by accessing the complementary knowledge assets in the industry and university sectors.

As private industry becomes increasingly based on knowledge in the New Economy, the Ames Research Park model for an interactive industry-government