An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program

Project Methodology

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

Division of Policy and Global Affairs

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
An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program Project Methodology Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program Division of Policy and Global Affairs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
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. Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
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 chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee for Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: As 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 B. Audretsch Charles Kolb Ameritech Chair of Economic Development President and Director of the Institute Aerodyne Research, Inc. for Development Strategies Indiana University Henry Linsert, Jr. Chairman and CEO Gene Banucci Martek Biosciences Corporation Chairman and CEO Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. W. Clark McFadden Partner Jon Baron Dewey Ballantine Director Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy Duncan T. Moore CEO Michael Borrus Infotonics Technology Center Managing Director The Petkevich Group, LLC Kent Murphy Chairman and CEO Gail Cassell Luna Innovations Vice President, Scientific Affairs and Distinguished Research Fellow Linda F. Powers Eli Lilly and Company Managing Director Toucan Capital Corporation Elizabeth Downing CEO Tyrone Taylor 3D Technology Laboratories President Capitol Advisors on Technology Kenneth Flamm Dean Rusk Chair in International Affairs Charles Trimble Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs CEO (ret) University of Texas at Austin Trimble Navigation M. Christina Gabriel Patrick Windham Vice Provost and Chief Technology Officer President Carnegie Mellon University Windham Consulting Trevor O. Jones Chairman and CEO BIOMEC, Inc. _______________ * As of April 2004 v

OCR for page R1
Project Staff Sujai J. Shivakumar Charles W. Wessner Program Officer Study Director David E. Dierksheide Tabitha M. Benney Program Associate Program Associate Christopher S. Hayter McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Associate Program Associate Research Team Michael Fogarty Zoltan Acs University of Portland University of Baltimore Robin Gaster Alan Anderson North Atlantic Research Consultant Albert N. Link Philip A. Auerswald University of North Carolina George Mason University Ken Jacobson Grant Black Consultant Georgia State University Rosalie Reugg Peter Cahill TIA Consulting BRTRC, Inc. Donald Siegel Robert Carpenter Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Maryland Paula E. Stephan Julie Ann Elston Georgia State University University of Central Florida Nicholas Vonortas David H. Finifter George Washington University The College of William and Mary vi

OCR for page R1
DIVISION OF 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 Mark B. Myers Lawrence R. Quarles Professor Visiting Professor of Management of Engineering and Applied The Wharton School Science University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Virginia vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
PREFACE and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document provides an initial version of the methodological approaches to be taken in the Congressionally- mandated study of the SBIR program at the five agencies accounting for 96 percent of the SBIR program expenditures.1 The proposed methodology draws extensively on the methodologies developed for the review of the previous NRC assessment of the SBIR at the Department of Defense, SBIR: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative. 2 While this previous experience has provided a valuable point of departure, the methodologies proposed here reflect a new effort to determine the best means of assessing the SBIR program. The methodology, developed by the National Academies' Research Team and approved by the Committee, is the result of many months’ work by the Research Team in consultation with private sector participants, congressional staff, and program managers. Indeed, the proposed methodology has benefited from substantial input of senior staff from the five agencies involved in the study. The agency contributions have been particularly important, providing a collegial environment for the analysis of one of the nation’s most significant programs for early-stage finance for small firms. Through the two public symposia and multiple private meetings, agency managers have provided valuable expertise and insights into the diverse goals and operations of the program. Indeed many agency representatives have come to see the study as a useful vehicle for assessing the mechanics and outcomes of their SBIR programs, and as a means of benchmarking their own policies and procedures. 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, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. 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: John Bailar III, University of Chicago; Anthony DeMaria, Coherent DEOS; Irwin Feller, Pennsylvania State University; Fred Gault, Statistics Canada; Mary Good, Venture Capital Investors, LLC; Stephen Kohashi, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Peter Moulton, Q-Peak Inc.; Roger Noll, Stanford University; Maxine Savitz, Honeywell, Inc. (Ret.); Todd Watkins, Lehigh University; Richard Wright, III, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Ret.); and Leo Young, Department of Defense (Ret.). Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lewis Branscomb, Harvard University, and Robert White, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were 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. 1 These are the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, and National Science Foundation. 2 See National Research Council. 2000. Charles W. Wessner, ed. The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………. 1 I. METHODOLOGY PAPER 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………............ 4 2. Overview of the Study Process………………………………………………….. 9 3. Clarifying Study Objectives……………………………………………………….. 11 4. Developing Operational Definitions and Concepts…………………….12 5. Potential Metrics for Addressing Study Objectives…………………… 17 6. Existing Data Sources………………………………………………………………… 23 7. Methodology Development: Primary Research………………………… 26 II. ANNEXES Annex A SBIR Legislation………………………………………………………….. 34 Annex B Sample Proposal………………………………………………………….. 36 Annex C Memorandum of Understanding…………………………………. 42 Annex D Additional Research Areas of Committee Interest…….. 47 Annex E Bibliography………………………………………………………………… 49 Annex F Research Matrix…………………………………………………………… 58 Annex G Issues Related to Sampling………………………………………… 61 Annex H Committee and Research Team Bios……………..…………… 63 Annex I Tasks to Further Develop and Implement…………………… 78 the Methodology Annex J Template for Individual Agency Reports…………………….. 81 III. RESEARCH TOOLS 1. DRAFT PHASE I SURVEY……………………………………………………….. 86 2. DRAFT PHASE II SURVEY……………………………………………………… 91 3. DRAFT PROGRAM MANAGER SURVEY………………………………….. 101 4. CASE STUDY TEMPLATE………………………………………………………… 110 xi