2
NEW BUILDING TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, AND GOVERNMENT INTERESTS

There are at least three key reasons why government, in general, and the federal government in particular, might take special interest in new technology and innovation in building:

  1. to achieve an appropriate balance of cost (initial or over the course of a building's life cycle), quality, and performance in government facilities;

  2. to enhance quality of life in the United States generally (with worldwide benefits as well) by encouraging better cost—initial or life cycle—quality, and performance in private sector building; and

  3. to enhance the productivity and commercial success of U.S. construction-related industries in domestic and overseas markets.

Moderating such interests is government's responsibility to protect its citizens and the national interest by avoiding harmful technologies and conserving scarce resources. This responsibility is reflected in a variety of building codes and regulations, as well as broader laws and review procedures.

Government agencies can seek to foster—or at least support—the development and adoption of new technology through a variety of actions.7 Aggressive adoption of new ideas in the commercial marketplace, direct

7  

Appendix B presents a summary of activities by agencies sponsoring this study.



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 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building 2 NEW BUILDING TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, AND GOVERNMENT INTERESTS There are at least three key reasons why government, in general, and the federal government in particular, might take special interest in new technology and innovation in building: to achieve an appropriate balance of cost (initial or over the course of a building's life cycle), quality, and performance in government facilities; to enhance quality of life in the United States generally (with worldwide benefits as well) by encouraging better cost—initial or life cycle—quality, and performance in private sector building; and to enhance the productivity and commercial success of U.S. construction-related industries in domestic and overseas markets. Moderating such interests is government's responsibility to protect its citizens and the national interest by avoiding harmful technologies and conserving scarce resources. This responsibility is reflected in a variety of building codes and regulations, as well as broader laws and review procedures. Government agencies can seek to foster—or at least support—the development and adoption of new technology through a variety of actions.7 Aggressive adoption of new ideas in the commercial marketplace, direct 7   Appendix B presents a summary of activities by agencies sponsoring this study.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building purchase of new technologies that may not yet meet generally applied standards for acceptance in the private sector, and solicitation of technologies that meet new higher standards set by government are mechanisms typically used to encourage private sector activities leading to innovation. Encouragement of joint public and private efforts to develop new technologies for specific applications, and financial support for research and development in research centers, represent more directed involvement in the new technology development process. Government can also provide legal protection, risk sharing, indemnification, and other indirect methods of increasing private incentives to innovate. Support for education—in universities and for practitioners in all phases of building—enhances both the nation's research capability and the market's propensity to test and adopt potentially valuable new ideas. Various agencies have, from time to time, pursued all of these means, sometimes as a matter of agency policy and sometimes motivated by legislative requirements.8 PUBLIC BENEFITS OF INNOVATION Economists tell us that one of the basic determinants of growth in the economy as a whole is growth in productivity, (i.e., improvements in the efficiency of the economic engine of an area or nation). In turn, technological change and the investment embodying that change, employed by properly trained people, are the keys to productivity growth and rising standards of living (Landau and Hatsopoulos, 1986). One historian, reflecting on this relationship of technological creativity and economic progress, has suggested that the difference between rich nations and poor nations is simply that the former produce more goods and services, because their technology—their ability to control and manipulate nature and people for productive ends—is superior (Mokyr, 1990). Technological change is any alteration in the production process to increase efficiency; it may result from the application of entirely new information or the diffusion of existing information to new users. Such change springs largely from innovation. Innovation is an abstract concept, having to do with putting new ideas into practice, but specific products and procedures reflect the result of innovation and are viewed by most people as the embodiment of innovation9 (see box). 8   Appendix C presents an overview of key federal laws and regulations. 9   The literature on technological innovation and its history, economics, sociology, and political science aspects is vast. Appendix B presents a brief discussion of key points and definitions from this literature that the committee considered.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building THINKING ABOUT NEW TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION Innovation, the introduction of a new idea, entails both production and transfer of new information to people who can use that information to solve problems, to see the world in a new way, or to enhance their efficiency, effectiveness, or living quality. Technological innovation may be a new product or process of production; a substitution of a cheaper material in an otherwise unaltered product; or the reorganization of production, internal functions, or distribution arrangements, leading to increased efficiency, better support for a given product, or lower costs. Many of the construction industry's technologies involve combinations of hardware and software. Technological innovation can also be an improvement in the ways of making or doing innovation. Industrial research facilities such as the telephone industry's Bell Labs have been recognized as major contributors to innovation in electronics. New technology that is not put to productive use is not innovation. At the same time, even technology that is well known and widely used in some industries or places may be new and innovative in a different setting. Successful new technology and innovation tend to be inspired primarily by practical needs. Technological innovation may also be initiated by scientific invention—new discoveries and developments—but ''market pull'' is felt widely to be more influential than "technology push" as a force for innovation. Although innovation improves productivity, innovative individuals or groups are not necessarily more productive. Nevertheless, the absence of innovative adaptation to a rapidly changing environment is a generally reliable indicator of future decline and possible extinction for economic enterprises as well as biological species. However, the distinction between the invention of a new product or process and subsequent innovation is important, because putting new ideas (i.e., new products or procedures) into practice determines if innovation has occurred. In addition, a distinction should be made between adoption of new ideas and achieving improved effectiveness (i.e., greater speed, profitability, competitiveness, quality, safety, or some other measure of success). Innovation is important not for its own sake, but rather for the benefits it can bring to the individuals, organizations, and societies that use it (Tornatzky, et al., 1990). Innovation can occur in all stages of a facility's life cycle (from programming, planning, design, and construction, through repair and maintenance), and in the software (e.g., design procedures, contracting, administration, management) as well as the hardware of a building. Much of the innovation in con-

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building struction occurs in response to unique problems encountered on an individual project, but much also is embodied in equipment, materials, and products that emerge from conventional manufacturing operations and are to be used in the design office or on the construction site. As discussed in Chapter 3, new technology is developed throughout the construction-related industries, and even casual observation reveals that the past several decades have brought many beneficial changes in the processes and products of building. "Beneficial" may be defined in terms of reduced time, cost, or hazard in planning, design, and construction; improved performance of the product (i.e., the constructed facility or its elements); or all of these. Performance encompasses durability, safety, and a range of other factors—both qualitative and quantitative—that have direct or indirect impact on the owners and users of facilities. GOVERNMENT AS PURCHASER AND FUNDER OF RESEARCH In general terms, government's influence on building technology has a long history. According to historians, what technological progress there was in the classical world, especially in Roman times, served public rather than private purposes (Mokyr, 1990). Roman leaders gained popularity and power by carrying out successful public works. The Rome of A.D. 100 is said to have had better paved streets, water supply, and fire protection than the capitals of civilized Europe in 1800. Supplying Rome with water was begun by Appius Claudius in 312 B.C. and the system reached unprecedented complexity in the first and second centuries A.D. Sewage and garbage disposal systems were also highly developed. Cement masonry, observed to have occurred earliest in Asia Minor and reported in North Africa by Pliny, is viewed by some as the only great discovery that can be ascribed to the Romans, who vastly improved its use and quality control. Commissioning of the Thames tunnel in nineteenth century England fostered major advances in underground construction,10 and London's Crystal Palace, a landmark of Victorian England, did likewise for flat-glass manufacturing. Since World War II, the U.S. government has become an active sponsor of research and development, which has in turn led to much innovation. By one estimate, the federal government provides about 46 percent of all funds for R&D spending in the United States (National Science Foundation, 1990). These funds 10   The Brunels' success with the shield tunneling method was considered a triumph and helped to consolidate Marc Isambard Brunel's reputation.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building are expended at government laboratories, universities, quasi-governmental laboratories,11 and private research organizations. Much of this spending has been directed toward military ends. Weapons systems have unquestionably become more sophisticated as a result of this concentrated R&D effort. However, R&D activity does not necessarily lead to innovation. Federal R&D programs in nondefense areas have often been criticized for underestimating the challenge in transferring new information into practice. This transfer can generally occur in two principal ways. One is through publication of reports, organization of workshops, and other noncommercial mechanisms for information exchange. The other is through commercialization of the new product or process via patenting and licensing, new venture sponsorship, or other means for bringing new technology to the marketplace. Government programs have historically focused primarily on the former approach, although a number of federal programs initiated in the 1980s have been intended to shift the emphasis toward commercialization (see Appendix C). One of the more aggressively pursued programs has been the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' still young Construction Productivity Advancement Research (CPAR) program. CPAR seeks to demonstrate how the research payoff can be improved, by allowing the government's private research partners to make profits from the development of ideas produced under the program. Frequently the problems of commercialization have involved the substantial investment required to develop new technology from research demonstration to marketable product. For example, the Solar Energy Research Institute 12 was unable to interest manufacturers or trade associations in new vacuum glass and electrochromic windows developed during the mid-1980s, because of this investment cost (Inc. Magazine, 1987). However, another reviewer of federally supported R&D to improve energy efficiency in the building sector suggested that resulting commercially viable innovations may have been brought into use years sooner than would have been achieved by the private sector alone (Geller et al., 1987). New technologies developed for application in government facilities often have a better chance for more widespread use. The U.S. Army's Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, for example, is able to show returns on investment (measured by life-cycle cost savings on government facilities) for 21 11   Such institutions as the Argonne National Laboratories and the Mitre Corporation were founded as adjuncts to government agencies and still enjoy a special status in their access to government research and development funding. 12   This research organization, located in Colorado, was established initially by the U.S. Department of Energy.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building research projects, conducted over the course of a decade, ranging from 4:1 to more than 100:1. As already noted, roughly half of all estimated U.S. Research and Development is federally funded, but only a small portion of this funding is devoted to construction. A 1985 Building Research Board (BRB) study estimated that federal agencies, acting as both sponsors of research and users of research results, spent some $200 million annually on construction research (i.e., about 16 percent of all research in the field). BRB staff estimates suggest that amount may have increased to approximately $230 million (in current dollars, an increase of about 15 percent) in fiscal year 1991. Total direct program spending by federal agencies for new construction, amounting to nearly $13 billion in 1985, grew to $16 billion over the same period (approximately a 23 percent increase) (BRB, 1988; MacAuley, 1990). The committee was unable to determine the impact of this apparently declining federal commitment to building-related research on rates of new technology development and innovation. Other areas of federal R&D spending might yield new technology that could be transferred to the building-related industries. Such 'harvesting' in electronics and materials manufacturing has yielded a variety of new products, from air traffic control devices to children's games. The committee noted that there is no government agency or organization responsible for this task, which requires imagination as well as stamina. The results to be harvested are often difficult to find within a daunting array of government programs and agency operations. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY For a government concerned with the well-being of its citizens, technological growth—and, in turn, innovation and new technology—necessarily become matters of public policy. Experience suggests that in certain technical areas, the free market system, operating undirected, is unlikely to produce technological innovation at rates that are achievable and desirable from the point of view of society as a whole (Mokyr, 1990). Several factors account for this less-than-optimum performance: The costs or disbenefits of adopting new technology are both private (the inventor) and public (society as a whole). However, the latter are often poorly recognized in the allocation of costs and rewards for innovation in the free market system. Hence, the public has been asked to bear the burden of risk or adverse impact of past innovation and may resist new technology when it does not understand the benefits.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building Government and the rule of law are required to protect inventors' rights and allow innovators to reap the benefits that offset the costs and risks of innovation. When patents cannot be granted or enforced, government is sometimes called on to use direct funding of R&D costs or other ways to compensate or encourage inventors. Market size and integration influence both the generation and the spread of new information. Government can facilitate the introduction of new technology in small or poorly integrated markets. Government involvement with issues of technological innovation is endorsed and mandated by a variety of legislation (refer to Appendix C). Much of this legislation has been associated with defense or industrial technology and applies to building technology only in general terms. Some programs, such as the Small Business Innovation Research program that is implemented through specialized agencies such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense, may include building technology as an area of specific interest, although the overall program does not. The Army's CPAR program, the Department of Energy's Building Technologies programs, and the activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF) are the primary examples of federal activities intended specifically to advance building technology. These programs act through contracts and grants for specific studies, typically for projects of relatively short duration. Programs in some states, such as Pennsylvania's Franklin Partnership, may also support building technology, although state programs generally are oriented toward activities viewed more as 'high tech' and likely to enhance opportunities for employment growth in new industries. Procurement methods that encourage new technology have sometimes been used by government agencies.13 The development of performance specifications and the solicitation of design-build proposals are among these methods. Both state (e.g., Florida) and federal (e.g., Corps of Engineers and Naval Facilities Engineering Command) agencies have had some success in bringing designer and constructor together early in the development process, a technique sometimes termed "partnering." Another proposal that has received some support is the establishment of research centers focused on particular areas of building science and technology. NSF has provided funding for centers devoted to cement technology (at Northwestern University), earthquake engineering (the State University of New York at Buffalo), and studies of large-scale structures (Lehigh University). The 13   Some observers feel that government procurement practices represent a serious deterrence to innovation. However, this observation now is the subject of some dispute and may be the basis of a future BRB study.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building Department of Transportation administers a congressionally established set of 10 regional transportation "centers of excellence," and the Army's Construction Engineering Research Center maintains a close working relationship with its neighbor, the University of Illinois. Besides direct purchase of new technology and funding of R&D, government influences innovation and new technology indirectly through regulatory policy or tax policy. New regulations may create a market for new technology, as is the case with building seismic safety devices, the increased use of residential smoke detectors, and changes in the designs of construction equipment to meet federal safety standards. The potential ban on chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants has spurred research and development to find alternatives. Tax credits, immediate expensing of R&D expenditures (i.e., rather than having to amortize expenditures over the life of the resulting products), and other tax-based incentives for private research and development have encouraged innovation in a number of fields, including construction-related industries. Sometimes the incentives work indirectly. For example, tax advantages for the renovation of historic structures led to rapid growth in this market in the 1970s and 1980s, supporting in turn the development of many new construction procedures and products suited to the particular problems of preserving and rehabilitating aging materials. Incentives for energy conservation have had a more direct but nevertheless similar impact on insulation technology. Policymakers in the 1970s argued that the U.S. government, as a whole, was funding a substantial amount of research and development activity that could be used more effectively throughout government and have commercial application. The Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) was established in 1974 to provide a basic link between government laboratories and potential users of government-developed technologies. This cooperative network was supplemented when Congress enacted the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 198014 to foster technology transfer from government to the private sector. This act established technology transfer as a mission requirement of each federal laboratory, and required each lab and R&D center to cooperate in programs to advance technology transfer. While it established a technology transfer mission, this legislation's effectiveness was hampered by ambiguities regarding licensing, procedures for undertaking cooperative research with industry, and others. The Stevenson-Wydler Act, which referred to the role of the FLC, was supplemented by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986,15 which provided a formal charter and limited funding for the FLC's activities. The 14   PL 96-480, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 3710a et seq. 15   PL 99-502.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building latter act was further strengthened by a 1987 executive order and has undergone other limited, more recent, modifications. Each federal laboratory and R&D center is generally responsible for developing its own program for technology transfer. However, these research institutions were created to meet the needs of government agencies rather than to assist industry. As a recent study for the U.S. House of Representatives noted, "technology transfer roles and responsibilities are imposed upon a system which is made up of participants not accustomed to working together" (Congressional Research Service, 1991). A study by the General Accounting Office (1991) found that the laboratories differ substantially in their efforts to fulfill this responsibility, and nearly half have no structured program for technology transfer. On the whole, the committee was unconvinced that substantial progress has been made, in technology transfer from federal laboratory R&D, but it felt that opportunities exist, particularly with regard to such areas as building materials and products. Nevertheless, some committee members were skeptical, questioning whether important new technology has been produced that has yet to be transferred. As is discussed in Chapter 5, this is an area that warrants further investigation. Finally, government facilitates development and diffusion of new ideas by supporting education and communication in the building professions. Educational and training scholarships and fellowships provided through the National Science Foundation serve such a purpose, although the level of spending has fallen substantially in recent years. State and federal cooperation in the highway program has helped support the nation's transportation research activities, which have produced innovations in several areas of construction. IMPACT OF THE BUILDING REGULATORY PROCESS The construction of buildings is regulated by the government for the purpose of protecting and ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of the building's occupants. The authority to administer and enforce building regulations lies with the states, although in actual practice, local municipalities have typically been given this responsibility, without general statewide regulation. In fact, there are more than 44,000 code-enforcing units in the United States, and only 36 states have maintained preemptive control at the state level. This fragmented administration leads to difficulties for all parties in the construction process, and is often cited as a disincentive to intermunicipality and interstate construction

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building activity. Today, in the United States, three primary model codes are available for adoption with or without modification by local code-enforcing units:16 Basic National Building Codes (NBC or BOCA code) by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), Uniform Building Codes (UBC) by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and Standard Building Codes (SEC) by the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). The NBC code is prevalent in the Northeast, UBC in the West, and SBC in the South. These building codes set forth definitions, standards, and regulations governing occupancy classifications, building types, egress, fire resistance, and structural requirements. The remaining essential building systems are governed by mechanical, plumbing and sprinkler, electrical, and accessibility codes published by a variety of agencies. These agencies include the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the National Fire Protection Association, as well as BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI. In many topic areas, the model codes reference or adapt documents provided by standards-writing agencies such as the American National Standards Institute; the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; the American Society of Testing and Materials; and the Underwriters Laboratory. Many other groups are active in narrow subareas. Many efforts to consolidate the plethora of building codes into either statewide or national codes, since the early 1900s, have failed to have major impact. However, with the post-World War II construction boom, interest began anew, and in 1966, under the leadership of the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology), the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) was formed to enhance cooperation between states and to assist states with the development of statewide code control to improve the regulatory process. NCSBCS continues to be active today and works closely with the systems-built housing industry to assist its interstate regulatory procedures. Nevertheless, the government regulatory process in the private sector is still generally complex and a real barrier to innovation. In addition to these regulatory controls, the courts play an influential role. Issues of liability for loss and damage associated with new technologies that fail to perform as expected or that have unanticipated effects have been a central 16   This is true for nonresidential construction. The Council of American Building Officials, an umbrella organization, issues a code for single-and two-family construction that is accepted by the three other organizations.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building focus in public policy debate that has waxed and waned over several decades (see Appendix F). Critics of the use of tort litigation and large monetary awards to plaintiffs argue that the risk of such action retards private initiative, is too often unrelated to causal circumstances, and places the party with the greatest capability to pay damage awards—the "deep pockets"—at greatest risk. Others claim that the time lag between the introduction of new technology and the discovery of compensable injury, combined with the high costs of bringing action, leads to underdeterrence of potentially risky new technology. Even those who argue that the U.S. tort liability system, operating optimally, maximizes societal benefits often acknowledge that the system's current operations entail high incidental costs—"friction" losses—that reduce the system's effectiveness. The balance of the impact of tort concerns on innovation, in the private sector in general or on the building industries in particular, remains subject to debate. GOVERNMENT'S CURRENT ROLE IN FOSTERING NEW TECHNOLOGY The various government activities described in this chapter, directed at encouraging new building technology, fall into two primary areas: mission-oriented agencies17 that create a market for new technology by using direct purchase of products and services and R&D funding to seek improved and cost-effective performance that new technology may offer; and agencies as promulgators of policies intended to accomplish broader social goals (e.g., energy efficiency or industrial competitiveness), and to promote development of new technologies that serve these policies. The committee agreed that both roles—in the context of current federal policies—are appropriate and necessary for all agencies involved in facilities construction and management. Agencies that procure facilities can act broadly to establish an environment conducive to innovation on their building projects. Participation of facility users and agency staff in all phases of project development is important, and these participants can be given responsibility for fostering exploration of new ideas. Even those agencies that do not have direct construction or management responsibility may take an active role in fostering 17   These are agencies established for specific purposes such as national defense or administering veterans' affairs, compared to those concerned with legislation on more general policy matters in areas such as science and technology or international relations.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building new technology in the design or renovation of facilities intended for their own use. As discussed further in Chapters 3 and 4, responsible government officials must apply their own best professional judgment to ensure that individual health and safety are adequately protected when new technologies are employed. However, just as these officials are expected—as matters of public policy—to meet requirements for open competition and equal opportunity in procurement and environmental protection, so too they should be permitted and encouraged to adopt new technologies that could have broad benefit for the government and the nation. Congressional action or changes in Office of Management and Budget procedures may be needed to facilitate decisions to give priority to new technology. Government R&D expenditures represent risk money to those agencies for which research and development is not an explicitly assigned responsibility. R&D expenditures by agencies are more frequently the means for trying new ideas rather than developing—in the sense that a private company might—profitable new products. There appear to be opportunities for improving the contribution of these expenditures to innovation in the construction-related industries overall. Although the committee did not undertake a thorough assessment of the productivity of federal building-related research, anecdotal evidence indicates that these programs generally have failed to achieve effective dissemination of research results into practice, as reflected in commercialized products or processes.18 The committee found that the criteria government construction agencies use for establishing priorities among areas of potential research should be more clearly linked to the potential value of the new ideas—in practice—that may result from research. However, agencies lack guidance as to the appropriate balance between costs and anticipated benefits of new technology or the success rates that can reasonably be expected in the field testing of new ideas. Better guidance can be provided by involving potential commercializers of new technology in all aspects of R&D planning and execution. Expanded programs to encourage solid partnerships between researchers and users of research results are a potentially effective means for enhancing links that turn new ideas into practical innovation. 18   The dissemination problem is apparently quite general. Speaking at a 1989 National Academy of Engineering symposium, industrial innovator Simon Ramo lamented that practically no attempts have been made to educate students in the "art and technique" of turning new ideas into marketable products.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building The committee found also that the procedures employed in agricultural, medical, and health care procurement,19 as well as defense systems, which have been by far the major motivators of government-sponsored R&D effort, highlight a particular need for mechanisms for field testing of new building technology, to ensure that the new technology is likely to perform as promised. Government agencies, and the building industry in general, lack good means for moving from research efforts to ''test-validated'' new technology. The federal laboratories, in particular, could play a more extensive role in testing and prototyping new technology. It may be possible, under existing regulations and procedures, to use contract incentives, project set-asides, value engineering, and other such programs to encourage innovation. Such specific responses to the committee's findings are discussed further in Chapter 4. REFERENCES Building Research Board (BRB). 1988. Building for Tomorrow: Global Enterprise and the U.S. Construction Industry. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Congressional Research Service. 1991. Transfer of Technology from Publicly Funded Research Institutions to the Private Sector. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Geller, H., J. P. Harris, M. D. Levine, and A. H. Rosenfeld. 1987. The role of federal research and development in advancing energy efficiency: A $50 billion contribution to the U.S. economy . Annual Review of Energy 12:357–397. General Accounting Office. 1991. Diffusing Innovations; Implementing the Technology Transfer Act of 1986. GAO/TEMD-91-23. Washington, D.C. Inc. Magazine. 1987. Uncle Sam, research director. (February): 23–25. Landau, R., and G. N. Hatsopoulos. 1986. Capital formation in the United States and Japan. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. MacAuley, P. H. 1990. Federal construction-related expenditures, 1984 to 1991. Construction Review 36(3):iii–xvii. 19   Some examples are food and drug certification and agricultural extension services.

OCR for page 17
The Role of Public Agencies in Fostering New Technology and Innovation in Building Mokyr, J. 1990. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New York: Oxford University Press. National Science Foundation. 1990. Federal R&D Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 1989–91. Washington, D.C. Tornatzky, L. G., M. Fleischer, et al. 1990. The Process of Technological Innovation, Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.