SBIR PROGRAM DIVERSITY AND ASSESSMENT CHALLENGES

REPORT OF A SYMPOSIUM

CHARLES W. WESSNER, EDITOR

Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program

Policy and Global Affairs Division

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium SBIR PROGRAM DIVERSITY AND ASSESSMENT CHALLENGES REPORT OF A SYMPOSIUM CHARLES W. WESSNER, EDITOR Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program Policy and Global Affairs Division NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DASW01-02C-0039 between the National Academy of Sciences and U.S. Department of Defense, N01-OD-4-2139 (Task Order #99) between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, NASA-03003 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, DE-AC02-02ER12259 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy, and DMI-0221736 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09123-3 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-52944-1 (PDF) Limited copies are available from the Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; 202-334-1529. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Printed in the United States of America Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Committee for Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program* Chair Jacques S. Gansler Interim Dean and Roger C. Lipitz Chair, School of Public Affairs University of Maryland David Audretsch Ameritech Chair of Economic Development and Director of the Institute for Development Strategies Indiana University Gene Banucci Chairman and CEO Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. Jon Baron Director Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy Michael Borrus Managing Director The Petkevich Group, LLC Gail Cassell Vice President, Scientific Affairs and Distinguished Research Fellow Eli Lilly and Company Elizabeth Downing CEO 3D Technology Laboratories Kenneth Flamm Dean Rusk Chair in International Affairs Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin M. Christina Gabriel Vice Provost and Chief Technology Officer Carnegie Mellon University Trevor O. Jones Chairman and CEO BIOMEC, Inc. Charles Kolb President Aerodyne Research, Inc. Henry Linsert, Jr. Chairman and CEO Martek Biosciences Corporation W. Clark McFadden Partner Dewey Ballantine Duncan T. Moore CEO Infotonics Technology Center *   As of April 2004

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Kent Murphy Chairman and CEO Luna Innovations Linda F. Powers Managing Director Toucan Capital Corporation Tyrone Taylor President Capitol Advisors on Technology Charles Trimble CEO (ret) Trimble Navigation Patrick Windham President Windham Consulting PROJECT STAFF Charles W. Wessner Study Director Tabitha M. Benney Program Associate McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Associate Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Officer David E. Dierksheide Program Associate Christopher S. Hayter Program Associate

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium RESEARCH TEAM Zoltan Acs University of Baltimore Alan Anderson Consultant Philip A. Auerswald George Mason University Grant Black Georgia State University Peter Cahill BRTRC, Inc. Robert Carpenter University of Maryland Julie Ann Elston University of Central Florida David H. Finifter The College of William and Mary Michael Fogarty University of Portland Robin Gaster North Atlantic Research Ken Jacobson Consultant Albert N. Link University of North Carolina Rosalie Reugg TIA Consulting Donald Siegel Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Paula E. Stephan Georgia State University Nicholas Vonortas George Washington University

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium POLICY AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS Ad hoc Oversight Board for Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program Robert M. White, Chair Professor and Director Data Storage Systems Center Carnegie Mellon University Anita K. Jones Lawrence R. Quarles Professor of Engineering and Applied Science School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Virginia Mark B. Myers Visiting Professor of Management The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Contents PREFACE   xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 I.   INTRODUCTION   5      A Brief History of the SBIR Program   6      The Founding,   6     Box A.  Small Businesses as Engines of Growth and Job Creation,   8      The SBIR Development Act of 1982,   8      SBIR’s Structure and Role,   9     Box B.  SBIR—Addressing Small Business Concerns,   10      SBIR Reauthorizations,   11      The NRC Assessment,   12      Logic of the Study,   15      SBIR in the U.S. Innovation System   16      The Broader Policy and Regulatory Environment,   16      Uncertainties in Early-Stage Financing,   17      Role of Government Funding in Early-Stage Technology Development,   18      The Role of Government Partnerships,   21      Overcoming Investment Barriers,   21      Capitalizing on National Investments in Research,   22      Meeting New National Challenges,   23     Box C.  SBIR Haiku,   23     Box D.  Partnerships and NIAID’s Response to Counter Bioterrorism,   24

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium      Assessing SBIR   24      Some Contrasting Views of the Program,   25      Key Issues from the Conference   28      Administrative Flexibility,   28      Operational Diversity,   31      Measurement and Assessment Challenges,   32      Tracking Awards,   32      Measuring Indirect Impacts,   33      Gauging Commercial Success,   33      Program Effectiveness,   34      Realistic Expectations,   35      Addressing Tomorrow’s Challenges   36 II.   PROCEEDINGS         Opening Remarks Charles W. Wessner, National Research Council   39      Introduction Jacques S. Gansler, University of Maryland   39      Small Business and the SBIR Program Roscoe G. Bartlett, U.S. House of Representatives   40 Panel I:   SBIR at the Department of Defense Moderator: William B. Bonvillian, Office of Senator Lieberman   45      Achievements, Opportunities, and Challenges Charles J. Holland, Department of Defense   48      A Defense Supplier Perspective Richard Carroll, Digital System Resources   55      Discussants: Gene Banucci, Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. (ATMI) Jon Baron, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy Kenneth Flamm, University of Texas at Austin   59

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Panel II:   SBIR at the National Institutes of Health Moderator: James Turner, House Science Committee   72      Achievements, Opportunities, and Challenges Jo Anne Goodnight, National Institutes of Health   73      The NIAID Perspective Carole A. Heilman National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases   77      Discussants: Henry (Pete) Linsert, Jr., Martek Biosciences Corporation Gail Cassell, Eli Lilly and Company Maryann Feldman, Johns Hopkins University   83 Panel III:   SBIR at NASA Moderator: Duncan T. Moore, University of Rochester   93      Achievements, Opportunities, and Challenges Robert L. Norwood, NASA   95      Discussants: David H. Finifter, The College of William and Mary Charles Kolb, Aerodyne Research   100 Panel IV:   SBIR at the Department of Energy Moderator: Patricia R. Forbes, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship   108      Achievements, Opportunities, and Challenges Milton D. Johnson, Office of Science, Department of Energy   108      Discussants: Rosalie Ruegg, TIA Consulting David B. Audretsch, Indiana University   112

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Panel V:   SBIR at the National Science Foundation Moderator: Jacques S. Gansler, University of Maryland   123      Achievements, Opportunities, and Challenges Joseph Bordogna, National Science Foundation   123      Discussants: Gregory H. Olsen, Sensors Unlimited Christina Gabriel, Carnegie Mellon University Robin Gaster, North Atlantic Research David Goldston, House Science Committee   128 Panel VI:   Roundtable Discussion Moderator: Jacques S. Gansler, University of Maryland Jon Baron, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy Paula E. Stephan, Georgia State University Michael Borrus, The Petkevich Group, LLC Linda F. Powers, Toucan Capital Corporation James Turner, House Science Committee   138 III.   APPENDIXES     A.   Biographies of Speakers   147 B.   Participants List   170 C.   Bibliography   175

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Preface Today’s knowledge economy is driven in large part by the nation’s capacity to innovate. One of the defining features of the U.S. economy is a high level of entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurs in the United States see opportunities and are willing and able to take on risk to bring new welfare enhancing, wealth generating technologies to the market. Yet, while innovation in areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, and nanotechnology present new opportunities, converting these ideas into innovations for the market involves substantial challenges.1 The American capacity for innovation can be strengthened by addressing the challenges faced by entrepreneurs. Public-private partnerships are one means to help entrepreneurs bring new ideas to market.2 The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is one of the largest examples of U.S. public-private partnerships. Founded in 1982, SBIR was designed to encourage small business to develop new processes and products and to provide quality research in support of the many missions of the U.S. government. By including qualified small businesses in the nation’s R&D effort, SBIR grants are intended to stimulate innovative new technologies to help agencies meet the specific research and development needs of the nation in many areas, including health, the environment, and national defense. 1   See Lewis M. Branscomb, Kenneth P. Morse, Michael J. Roberts, and Darin Boville, Managing Technical Risk: Understanding Private Sector Decision Making on Early Stage Technology-Based Projects. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce/National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2000. 2   For a summary analysis of best practice among U.S. public-private partnerships, see National Research Council, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies: Summary Report, C. Wessner, ed., Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2002.

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium As the SBIR program approached its twentieth year of operation, the U.S. Congress, asked the National Research Council to conduct a “comprehensive study of how the SBIR program has stimulated technological innovation and used small businesses to meet federal research and development needs” and make recommendations on improvements to the program.3 This conference report is the first in a series to be published by the National Academies in response to the Congressional request and the first report to provide a comprehensive overview of the program’s operations at the five agencies responsible for 96 percent of the program’s operations. As part of the first phase of the National Academies study, Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, reviewing the Small Business Innovation Research Program at the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation, this report will summarize the proceedings of an initial symposium designed to provide an overview of the program’s operation and current issues. PROJECT ORIGINS The current assessment of the SBIR program follows directly from an earlier analysis of public-private partnerships by the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP). Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus of Intel, guided STEP’s eleven volume study of public-private partnerships. This study reviewed the drivers of cooperation among industry, universities and government; operational assessments of current programs; emerging needs at the intersection of biotechnology and information technology; the current experience of foreign government partnerships and opportunities for international cooperation; and the changing roles of government laboratories, universities, and other research organizations in the national innovation system.4 This analysis of public-private partnerships included two published studies of the SBIR program. Drawing from expert knowledge at a 1998 workshop held at the National Academy of Sciences, the first report, SBIR: Challenges and Opportunities, examined the origins of the program and identified some operational challenges critical to the program’s future effectiveness.5 The report also highlighted the relative paucity of research on this program. 3   See SBIR Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 5667 - Section 108). 4   For a summary of the topics covered and main lessons learned from this extensive study, see National Research Council, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies: Summary Report, op. cit. 5   See National Research Council, SBIR: Challenges and Opportunities, C. Wessner, ed., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium Following this initial report, the Department of Defense asked the NRC to assess the Department’s Fast Track Initiative in comparison with the operation of its regular SBIR program. The resulting report, SBIR: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, found that DoD’s Fast Track Initiative was achieving its objectives and recommended that the program be continued and expanded where appropriate.6 The report also recommended that the SBIR program overall would benefit from further research and analysis. These two NRC reports highlighted the need for an analysis of SBIR—a program that had grown over its 20 year history to be the largest U.S. program for innovation awards. As a part of the 2000 reauthorization of the SBIR program, Congress called for a review of the SBIR programs of the agencies that account collectively for 96 percent of program funding. The five agencies meeting this criterion, by size of program, are the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation. HR 5667 directs the NRC to evaluate the quality of SBIR research and evaluate the SBIR program’s value to the mission of the agencies that administer it. It calls for an assessment of the extent to which SBIR projects achieve some measure of commercialization, as well as an evaluation of the program’s overall economic and non-economic benefits. It also calls for additional analysis as required to support specific recommendations on areas such as measuring outcomes for agency strategy and performance, increasing federal procurement of technologies produced by small business, and overall improvements to the SBIR program. One of the central challenges in evaluating the SBIR program is that while it operates under a common structure with the same broad goals, it is operated by a very diverse group of agencies and departments, with equally diverse goals and priorities. To capture both this commonality and diversity, the NRC brought together—at a symposium held at the National Academy of Sciences in October 2002—the officials and managers responsible for the operation of SBIR at the agencies, successful award winners, and academic experts to discuss the program’s operations, accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities. The resulting report describes some of the accomplishments, challenges, and potential of this program. In doing so, it provides a point of departure for the analysis of the program and the identification of potential improvements in the program. 6   See National Research Council, SBIR: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, C. Wessner, ed., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001. Given that virtually no published analytical literature existed on SBIR, this Fast Track study pioneered research in this area, developing extensive case studies and newly developed surveys.

OCR for page R1
SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges: Report of a Symposium ACKNOWLEDGMENTS On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants in the symposium. We particularly appreciate that Congressman Bartlett, who brought his personal experience as an entrepreneur and as a leading Congressional advocate for small business, was present to open the proceedings. We are also very much in debt to officials from the leading departments, including Charles Holland of the Department of Defense, Joseph Bordogna of the National Science Foundation, Milton Johnson and Robert Berger of the Department of Energy, Robert Norwood and Carl Ray of NASA, and Jo Anne Goodnight of the National Institutes of Health. Appendix B of this volume provides a full list of participants. A number of individuals deserve recognition for their contributions to the preparation of the conference and this report. These include Alan Anderson, Sujai Shivakumar, Christopher Hayter, David Dierksheide, and Tabitha Benney. Special thanks are due to Sujai Shivakumar for his many contributions to the Introduction and to the review process. Without their collective efforts, amidst many other competing priorities, it would not have been possible to prepare this report. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REVIEW This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity and evidence. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Irwin Feller, Pennsylvania State University; Thomas Pelsoci, Delta Research, Inc.; Lori Perine, Interpretech; Todd Stewart, Ohio State University; and Richard Wright, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Mark Myers, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. Jacques S. Gansler Charles W. Wessner