The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

2 Program Management
Pages 28-43

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 28... ... 1 While this effort is commendable, it also carries with it potential costs, notably that some of the more speculative research that is less aligned with specific acquisition programs is no longer being funded, and that earlier stage or higher risk research is also likely to be discouraged. In addition, the demands by the agency for funded technologies may be quite limited, while the agency specification may not closely match company market opportunities and may make it difficult for them to enter broader commercial markets with their project outputs. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... . Because staff and faculty at research institutions usually focus on earlier stage research, ensuring that there is a connection to these institutions and a pathway for the eventual commercialization of this technology is important. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... Requirements for Research Institution Participation Under SBIR, there is no requirement that the research team include a research institution, and no requirement that any specified amount of funding flow to the RI. SBIR awardees are required to perform at least two-thirds of the research or analytical effort in house for Phase I and at least 50 percent for Phase II, and there are no constraints on the selection of subcontractors. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... The following section describes STTR activities at the five study agencies. STTR AT THE FIVE STUDY AGENCIES Department of Defense For each phase at DoD, success rates for STTR are consistently higher than those for SBIR. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... TABLE 2-1 Research Partners for Phase I and Phase II STTR Projects at DoD Phase I Phase II 88% Universities 83%Universities 4% FFRDC 6% FFRDC 5% Nonprofit 4% Nonprofit 28% Small Businesses 37%Small Businesses 6% Large Businesses 6% Large Businesses 2% Other 5% Other NOTE: FFRDC denotes Federal Funded Research and Development Corporations. SOURCE: Christopher Rinaldi, "STTR at DoD," presentation at the Academies STTR Workshop, May 1, 2015. Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... TABLE 2-2 Teaming Agreements in SBIR Awards at DoD Phase I Phase II 18% Universities 14% Universities 0.5%FFRDC 0.1%FFRDC 2% Nonprofit 3% Nonprofit 19% Small Businesses 22% Small Businesses 11% Large Businesses 20% Large Businesses 4% Other 6% Other SOURCE: Christopher Rinaldi, "STTR at DoD," presentation at the Academies STTR Workshop, May 1, 2015. FIGURE 2-2 Source of technical topics at Army, FY2011-2015. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 11 Sources for this section are Manny Oliver, "The DoE STTR Program," presentation at the Academies STTR Workshop, May 1, 2015; discussions with DoE staff; and other material provided by DoE. Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... Since the program permitted such a switch in 2011, 10 out of 83 STTR Phase I applicants for Phase II funding have sought SBIR Phase II funding, and 4 have received it. In 2013, DoE began a new technology transfer initiative, using the SBIR and STTR programs to transition technology developed at DoE National Labs and universities funded by DoE to the marketplace. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... Most of these funding opportunities are open to SBIR or STTR applications. Overall, success rates for NIH STTR Phase I applications are slightly higher than for SBIR Phase I applications, but success rates have varied substantially by year (see Figure 2-3) Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 37 FIGURE 2-3 Success rates for STTR, SBIR, and Fast Track at NIH, FY2014. SOURCE: Matthew Portnoy, "The NIH STTR Program," presentation at Academies STTR Workshop, May 1, 2015. Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... These programs are described in more detail in the 2015 Academies report on the NIH SBIR program. 16 Overall, NIH staff have made it clear that, from the agency's perspective, there are no strategic differences between the SBIR and STTR programs, and to the maximum extent possible runs them in parallel (for example, offering only a combined solicitation) Read the entire page →
From page 39... ... , which has 17 Sources for this section are Barry Johnson, "NSF STTR Program," presentation at the Academies STTR workshop, May 1, 2015; discussions with NSF staff; and other material from NSF and the NSF web site. 18 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, SBIR at the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. Read the entire page →
From page 40... ... at each Center works with the CCT to rank and prioritize proposals received in response to the solicitation, and it is the CCT who provides the final ranking and recommendations for funding to the SBIR/STTR Program Executive. 19 Sources for this section include discussions with Robert Yang, NASA SBIR/STTR Program Executive, Joseph Grant, NASA SBIR/STTR Deputy Program Executive, other NASA staff, and materials provided by NASA or from the NASA SBIR/STTR web site. Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... STTR and SBIR are represented as being further along the development axis than these other programs. SOURCE: Barry Johnson, presentation at the Academies STTR Workshop, May 1, 2015. Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... The SBA STTR policy directive includes two such benchmarks, which are identical to the language provided by SBA for the SBIR program, and which have now been implemented in the agencies' more recent solicitations: (A) "The Phase II Transition Rate Benchmark sets the minimum required number of Phase II awards the applicant must have received for a given number of Phase I awards received during the specified period. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... above) , 22 but the 2015 Academies study of the NIH SBIR program found that none of the top 20 companies in terms of number of Phase I awards won would come close to being excluded based on this benchmark rate. Read the entire page →

From page 28...

... 1 While this effort is commendable, it also carries with it potential costs, notably that some of the more speculative research that is less aligned with specific acquisition programs is no longer being funded, and that earlier stage or higher risk research is also likely to be discouraged. In addition, the demands by the agency for funded technologies may be quite limited, while the agency specification may not closely match company market opportunities and may make it difficult for them to enter broader commercial markets with their project outputs.

2 Program Management Pages 28-43

2 Program Management
Pages 28-43