STTR: An Assessment of the Small Business Technology Transfer Program (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix G: Annex to Chapter 5: Quantitative Outcomes
Appendix G: Annex to Chapter 5: Quantitative Outcomes
Pages 271-299
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 271... ...
The answers reveal substantial differences between SBIR and STTR respondents. Overall, 95 percent of STTR respondents reported a university connection of some kind, while only 46 percent of SBIR respondents did so.
|
From page 272... ...
worked on this 53.0 26.0 project in a role other than PI Graduate students worked on this project 51.1 20.3 The technology for this project was licensed from an RI 18.4 6.9 The technology for this project was originally developed at an RI by 29.3 11.1 one of the participants in this project An RI was a subcontractor on this project 70.3 25.8 None of the above 4.5 53.7 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING QUESTION 266 1,795 SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 71. Overall, 167 different RIs were identified from 292 projects.
|
From page 273... ...
For almost 80 percent of STTR companies in the sample, at least one founder had an academic background (see Table G-5)
|
From page 274... ...
TABLE G-3 STTR Impacts on SBC-RI Relationships Percentage of Responses Substantially enhanced it 37.8 Somewhat enhanced it 33.2 Made no real difference 23.7 Made it somewhat worse 4.6 Made it substantially worse 0.8 BASE: STTR AWARD RECIPIENTS 262 SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 74. While 56 percent of company founders were previously employed at other private companies, 59 percent of respondents reported at least one founder previously employed at an RI or a National Lab (see Table G-6)
|
From page 275... ...
This appendix provides additional details of the commercial outcomes of the SBIR/STTR programs, as well as quantitative outcome measures related to expanding the U.S. science and engineering base.
|
From page 276... ...
TABLE G-6 Prior Employment of Founders Percentage of Company Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees Other private company 55.9 64.8 Research institution 57.3 40.1 Government 7.2 6.5 FFRDCs or National Labs 1.4 0.9 Other 3.9 8.3 BASE: TOTAL COMPANIES ANSWERING 173 1,039 QUESTION NOTE: Because multiple responses were received from some companies, responses here are weighted to provide the average response per company. SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 6.
|
From page 277... ...
The 2011-2014 Survey was sent to all PIs who received an SBIR/STTR or STTR Phase II award from one of the five study agencies during the study period. In an effort to improve response rates for NIH and DoE, when a PI could not be reached, the survey was sent to alternate company contacts at the targeted companies (which generated approximately 100 additional responses)
|
From page 278... ...
The latter at least would likely be different for each project in each company. • Should commercialization include sales by licensees, which may be many multiples of royalty revenues provided to STTR recipients, but are more difficult to track and to assign causality to specific STTR awards?
|
From page 279... ...
14.4 22.0 Other sales (e.g., rights to technology, licensing, etc.) 6.6 7.1 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING QUESTION 271 1,856 NOTE: Respondents could select multiple types of sales for a single project, so percentages for types of sales do not sum to "Any sales to date." SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 32.
|
From page 280... ...
Most respondents reported sales at the lower end of the ranges: 62 percent of STTR respondents reported revenues of less than $500,000, compared with 57 percent of SBIR respondents. One percent reported revenues of at least $20 million.
|
From page 281... ...
0 1.2 1 6.3 2 10.1 3 or 4 19.6 5 to 9 25.6 10 to 19 15.2 20 to 49 13.0 50 to 99 4.9 100 or more 4.0 Mean 19 Median 6 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS 163 ANSWERING QUESTION NOTE: For questions where company (rather than project) responses are reported, SBIR responses are not included because in many cases STTR winners also received SBIR awards and vice versa.
|
From page 282... ...
ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT The ability of projects and companies to attract additional investment has traditionally been a defining metric for SBIR/STTR commercialization outcomes. 8 There has also been interest in the sources of additional funding for high-tech innovation because the United States has historically been at the forefront of venture capital and angel investment.
|
From page 283... ...
Six percent of STTR respondents indicated that they had received venture capital funding, and 3 percent received funding from angel and other private equity investors. Fifteen percent reported strategic investments from partners (see Table G-13)
|
From page 284... ...
45.5 62.1 Personal funds 14.3 17.3 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING QUESTION 189 1,239 NOTE: Responses for subcategories do not total to categories because more than one response was permitted. SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 31.
|
From page 285... ...
TABLE G-15 Participation in Commercialization Training (percentage of responses) Percentage of Responses STTR SBIR Awardees Awardees Yes 30.0 36.1 No 70.0 63.9 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING QUESTION 267 1,809 SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 49.
|
From page 286... ...
claimed to have been awarded at least one patent related to any SBIR-funded technology; 5.5 percent of STTR respondents reported at least 10 related patents (see Table G-18)
|
From page 287... ...
The questionnaire also asked questions about intellectual property related to the specific award being surveyed. Forty-two percent of STTR respondents reported receiving at least one patent related to the surveyed technology.
|
From page 288... ...
Eighty-two percent of STTR respondents indicated that an author at the surveyed company had published at least one scientific paper related to the award. Forty-six percent reported publishing three or more related papers (see Table G-20)
|
From page 289... ...
. TABLE G-20 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Related to the Surveyed Project Percentage of Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees 0 17.7 23.0 1 17.2 19.2 2 19.5 17.5 3 or 4 21.4 19.9 5 to 9 12.6 12.3 10 or more 11.6 8.1 1 or more 82.3 77.0 Mean 4.5 4.4 Median 2.0 2.0 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING 215 1,341 QUESTION SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 38.4.
|
From page 290... ...
Table G-24 shows that 20 percent of STTR projects received no other related TABLE G-22 Percentage of R&D effort Funded by SBIR/STTR Percentage of Responding Companies STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees 0% 28.1 25.4 1-10% 19.4 13.1 11-25% 10.9 14.2 26-50% 13.2 16.9 51-75% 11.8 14.8 76-100% 16.6 15.5 BASE: TOTAL COMPANIES ANSWERING 158 1,010 QUESTION NOTE: Because multiple responses were received from some companies, responses here are weighted to provide the average response per company. SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 10.
|
From page 291... ...
TABLE G-24 Prior SBIR/STTR Phase I Awards Related to the Surveyed Project Percentage of Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees 0 20.0 20.0 1 37.6 36.8 2 18.8 17.8 3 or 4 11.8 16.3 5 to 9 8.6 6.6 10 or more 3.1 2.5 1 or more 80.0 80.0 Mean 2.1 2.1 Median 1 1 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING 255 1,701 QUESTION SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 39.1.
|
From page 292... ...
Their comments are summarized beginning on the following page, focused on the ways in which SBIR and STTR made a major difference to the company in the long term. TABLE G-25 Other SBIR or STTR Phase II Awards Related to the Surveyed Project Technology Percentage of Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees 0 22.7 24.8 1 47.0 42.3 2 15.4 17.5 3 or 4 10.5 11.3 5 to 9 3.6 3.1 10 or more 0.8 1.0 1 or more 77.3 75.2 Mean 1.4 1.5 Median 1 1 SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 39.2.
|
From page 293... ...
What follows is therefore a limited list of impacts drawn from the survey responses. Impacts included the following: • Supported company formation • Encouraged faculty to form companies without being forced to leave their academic positions • Provided first dollars • Funded areas where venture capital and other funders were not interested • Supported development of critical company infrastructure • Opened doors to potential partners • Helped address niche markets too small for major players/funders • Funded technology development • Enabled projects with high levels of technical risk and high potential return • Supported adaptation of technologies to new uses, markets, and industry sectors • Funded development of core technology • Diversified expertise, allowed hiring of specialists • Gave companies immediate credibility • Funded researchers to enter business full time • Transformed company culture to become more market driven • Created new companies and kept companies in business (that would not exist without STTR funding)
|
From page 294... ...
The evidence from survey respondents suggests that this positive jolt is not an uncommon effect of these awards. Industry Sector Previous analyses of SBIR/STTR have not addressed a potentially important intervening variable: industry sector.
|
From page 295... ...
8.1 11.6 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING QUESTION 272 1,861 NOTE: Answers do not sum to 100 percent because respondent could select more than one sector. SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 20.
|
From page 296... ...
Project Delays Absent STTR Funding As with project scope, the immediate supposition is that, absent STTR funding, projects would have been delayed while other funding was identified and acquired. However, as we will see when considering program operations TABLE G-28 Project Undertaken in the Absence of This STTR Award Percentage of Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees Definitely yes 1.8 1.9 Probably yes 7.3 7.6 Uncertain 15.3 15.4 Probably not 37.2 40.3 Definitely not 38.3 34.8 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING 274 1,867 QUESTION SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 24.
|
From page 297... ...
TABLE G-30 Likely Delay Absent STTR Funding Percentage of Responses STTR SBIR Awardees Awardees Less than 3 months 4.0 11.5 3 to 6 months 24.0 14.5 7 to 12 months 48.0 36.4 Over 12 months 24.0 37.6 Average months 15.6 15.0 Median months 12 12 BASE: COMPANY WOULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN 25 165 PROJECT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AWARD SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 26A.
|
From page 298... ...
TABLE G-31 Participation of Woman- and Minority-owned Companies in the STTR/SBIR Program Percentage of Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees Woman-owned 8.4 10.6 Minority-owned 9.1 9.1 Asian-Indian 4.6 3.5 Asian-Pacific 2.3 3.4 Black 1.1 0.3 Hispanic 1.1 1.5 Native American 0.4 0.2 Other 0.4 0.3 Not woman- nor minority-owned 83.7 82.3 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING 263 1,789 QUESTION SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 15. TABLE G-32 Participation of Female and Minority PIs in the STTR/SBIR Program Percentage of Responses STTR Awardees SBIR Awardees Woman 10.0 8.9 Minority 14.1 11.3 Asian-Indian 4.1 4.1 Asian-Pacific 4.1 5.1 Black 0.7 0.2 Hispanic 3.0 1.3 Native American 0.7 0.2 Other 1.5 0.5 Not a woman nor a minority 79.3 81.2 BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS ANSWERING 270 1,856 QUESTION SOURCE: 2011-2014 Survey, Question 16.
|
From page 299... ...
APPENDIX G 299 Data for PIs are similar, although both female and minority participation are greater than for woman-and minority-owned firms. Again, minorities other than Asian-Americans were especially poorly represented.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.