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
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES CHARLES W. WESSNER, EDITOR Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Policy and Global Affairs NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 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. 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 0-309-08502-0 Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies 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 chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R5
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies Steering Committee for Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies* Gordon Moore, Chair Chairman Emeritus, retired Intel Corporation M. Kathy Behrens Managing Director of Medical Technology Robertson Stephens Investment Management and STEP Board Michael Borrus Managing Director The Petkevich Group, LLC Iain M. Cockburn Professor of Finance and Economics Boston University Kenneth Flamm Dean Rusk Chair in International Affairs LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin James F. Gibbons Professor of Engineering Stanford University W. Clark McFadden Partner Dewey Ballantine Burton J. McMurtry General Partner, retired Technology Venture Investors William J. Spencer, Vice-Chair Chairman Emeritus International SEMATECH and STEP Board Mark B. Myers Senior Vice-President, retired Xerox Corporation and STEP Board Richard Nelson George Blumenthal Professor of International and Public Affairs Columbia University Edward E. Penhoet Chief Program Officer, Science and Higher Education Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and STEP Board Charles Trimble Chairman U.S. GPS Industry Council John P. Walker Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Axys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Patrick Windham President, Windham Consulting and Lecturer, Stanford University * As of March 2002.
OCR for page R6
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies Project Staff* Charles W. Wessner Study Director Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Officer Adam Korobow Program Officer Alan Anderson Consultant David E. Dierksheide Program Associate Christopher S. Hayter Program Associate Tabitha M. Benney Program Associate McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Associate * As of March 2002. In the course of this extensive review of Government-Industry Partnerships, several other staff contributed to our work. These include John B. Horrigan, John Oldfield, Ryan Catteau, and Laura Holiday.
OCR for page R7
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the STEP Board is to integrate understanding of scientific, technological, and economic elements in the formulation of national policies to promote the economic well-being of the United States. A distinctive characteristic of STEP’s approach is its frequent interactions with public and private-sector decision makers. STEP bridges the disciplines of business management, engineering, economics, and the social sciences to bring diverse expertise to bear on pressing public policy questions. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below. Dale Jorgenson, Chair Frederic Eaton Abbe Professor of Economics Harvard University M. Kathy Behrens Managing Director of Medical Technology Robertson Stephens Investment Management Bronwyn Hall Professor of Economics University of California at Berkeley James Heckman Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics University of Chicago Ralph Landau Consulting Professor of Economics Stanford University Richard Levin President Yale University William J. Spencer, Vice-Chair Chairman Emeritus International SEMATECH David T. Morgenthaler Founding Partner Morgenthaler Mark B. Myers Senior Vice-President, retired Xerox Corporation Roger Noll Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Economics Stanford University Edward E. Penhoet Chief Program Officer, Science and Higher Education Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation William Raduchel Chief Technology Officer AOL Time Warner Alan Wm. Wolff Managing Partner Dewey Ballantine * As of March 2002.
OCR for page R8
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies STEP Staff* Stephen A. Merrill Executive Director Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Officer Craig M. Schultz Research Associate Camille M. Collett Program Associate David Dierksheide Program Associate Charles W. Wessner Program Director Adam K. Korobow Program Officer Tabitha Benney Program Associate Christopher S. Hayter Program Associate McAlister Clabaugh Program Associate * As of March 2002.
OCR for page R9
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies National Research Council Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Sponsors The National Research Council gratefully acknowledges the support of the following sponsors: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of the Director, Defense Research & Engineering National Science Foundation U.S. Department of Energy Office of Naval Research National Institutes of Health National Institute of Standards and Technology Sandia National Laboratories Electric Power Research Institute International Business Machines Kulicke and Soffa Industries Merck and Company Milliken Industries Motorola Nortel Procter and Gamble Silicon Valley Group, Incorporated Advanced Micro Devices Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the project sponsors.
OCR for page R10
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R11
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies Reports in the Series Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Industry-Laboratory Partnerships: A Review of the Sandia Science and Technology Park Initiative Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. The Advanced Technology Program: Challenges and Opportunities Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. The Small Business Innovation Research Program: Challenges and Opportunities Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001. The Advanced Technology Program: Assessing Outcomes Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001. Capitalizing on New Needs and New Opportunities: Government-Industry Partnerships in Biotechnology and Information Technology Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. Partnerships for Solid-State Lighting Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. Securing the Future: Regional and National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, (forthcoming).
OCR for page R12
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R13
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies Contents PREFACE xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I. INTRODUCTION 7 Public-Private Partnerships, 8 Drivers of Partnerships, 8 Varieties of Partnerships, 10 Overall Lessons About Partnerships, 11 The Committee’s Focus and Approach, 11 Conditions for Successful Partnerships, 13 A Guide to This Report, 16 II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 Summary of Findings, 23 Recommendations, 30 III. AN ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION 35 The Policy Context of Growth, 35 The Pace of Technology Development and Growth, 39
OCR for page R14
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies IV. FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 47 A Brief History of Federal Support, 47 Current Trends in Federal Support, 51 Changing Priorities and Funding, 52 Shifts in Composition of Private Sector Research, 54 Stagnation and Decline in Key Disciplines, 54 Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges, 58 Federal Support, 58 The Competitive Challenge of the 1980s, 59 The Policy Response, 62 Industry Leadership, 64 The Impact of SEMATECH, 65 Perspectives from Abroad, 66 A Positive Policy Framework, 67 Technical Challenges, Competitive Challenges, and Capacity Constraints, 68 Challenges to U.S. Public Policy, 69 Addressing the R&D Gap: The Focus Center Programs, 71 Meeting New Challenges—Countering Terrorism, 72 V. THE ROLE OF PARTNERSHIPS IN CURRENT TECHNOLOGY POLICY 77 The Relevance of Partnerships, 77 The Roles of Partnerships, 77 Toward More Effective Partnerships, 80 Science and Technology Parks and Regional Growth Clusters, 82 The Sandia S&T Park, 83 The Ames S&T Park, 84 Consortia, 85 The Nature of Consortia, 85 The Case of SEMATECH, 88 SEMATECH’s Contributions to Best Practice, 91 Addressing New Challenges, 94 A Potential Consortium in Solid-State Lighting, 96 Government Awards to Fund Innovation, 97 Firm Size and Sources of Innovation, 97 The Role of Small Firms in Innovation, 98 Cooperation as a Policy Goal, 99 Problems that Small Businesses Face in Financing Growth, 103 The Small Business Innovation Research Program, 105 The Advanced Technology Program, 106
OCR for page R15
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies VI. ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSESSMENT 111 The Need for Goals, Metrics, and Assessment, 111 The Role of Analysis, 112 The Need for Regular Assessments, 114 “Picking Winners and Losers?,” 115 Assessing Small Business Innovation Research: The Department of Defense Fast Track, 118 Assessing the Operations of the Advanced Technology Program, 120 VII. GLOBAL DIMENSIONS: COMPETITION AND COOPERATION 125 Comparisons in a Global Economy, 125 Examples of Initiatives in Other Countries, 127 National and Regional Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry, 128 Expanding National Programs Abroad, 130 Competition and Cooperation, 134 VIII. CONCLUSIONS 139 Key Lessons, 139 Partnerships and Early-Stage Finance, 141 U.S. Partnerships in a Global Context, 141 Policy Impacts of this Study of Partnerships, 142 IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 BOXES Box A: New Growth Theory and the Knowledge-Based Economy, 36 Box B: The New Economy, 41 Box C: Federal Support of Biomedical and Information Technology Research, 53 Box D: Key Findings and Recommendations of the Committee for Government-Industry Partnerships in Biotechnology and Information Technologies, 60 Box E: Developing Links Among Federal Agencies—The Case of TRP, 80 Box F: Lessons from the SEMATECH Consortium, 95 Box G: Principal Federal Legislation Related to Cooperative Technology Programs, 102 Box H: Critical Characteristics of the Advanced Technology Program, 108 Box I: National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry, 132 Box J: International SEMATECH, 135
OCR for page R16
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies FIGURES Figure 1: Total Real R&D Expenditures by Source of Funds, 1960-2000, 52 Figure 2: Real Changes in Federal Obligations for Research, FY 1993-1999, 56 Figure 3: DARPA’s Annual Funding of Microelectronics R&D, FY 1999-2005, 71 Figure 4: Worldwide Semiconductor Market Share, 89 Figure 5: National Expenditure on R&D, 126 Figure 6: Government-University-Industry Collaboration in Japan, 129
OCR for page R17
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies Preface The mission of the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) is to improve policy makers’ understanding of the interconnections between science, technology, and economic policy, and their importance to the American economy. The STEP Board’s activities reflect the increased recognition of the importance of technology to economic growth. In recent years public-private partnerships to develop new technologies have played an increased role both in the United States and abroad. In the United States, partnerships are sometimes controversial. The premise of this study is that an objective analysis could lead to a better understanding of the contributions and limitations of partnerships. To further our understanding of the motivations, operations, and policy challenges associated with public-private partnerships, the STEP Board launched a major review of U.S. and foreign programs. This program-based analysis is led by Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus of Intel, and Bill Spencer, Chairman Emeritus of International SEMATECH, and carried out by a distinguished multidisciplinary Steering Committee that includes members from academia, high-technology industries, venture capital firms, and the realm of public policy.1 Topics taken up by the Committee on Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies include the drivers of cooperation among industry, government, and universities; operational assessments of current programs; emerging needs at the intersection of biotechnology and information technology; the current experience of foreign government partnerships and opportu- 1 The members of the Steering Committee are listed in the front matter of this volume.
OCR for page R18
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies nities for international cooperation; and the changing roles of government laboratories, universities, and other research organizations. PROJECT PARAMETERS The Committee’s analysis has included a significant but necessarily limited portion of the variety of cooperative activity that takes place between the government and the private sector.2 The Committee’s desire to carry out an analysis of current partnerships that is directly relevant to contemporary policy making has conditioned the selection of the specific programs reviewed. The study, in addition, has focused on “best practices” as a way of drawing out positive guidance for future public policy. Reports in the series, as well as this Summary Report, have therefore focused attention on conditions for success rather than on analyzing failures. The Committee also recognizes the importance of placing each of the studies in the broader context of U.S. technology policy, which continues to employ a wide variety of ad hoc mechanisms that have evolved through the government’s decentralized decision-making and management process. To meet its objective of policy-relevant analysis, the Committee has focused on the assessment of current and proposed programs, drawing on the experience of previous U.S. initiatives, foreign practices, and emerging areas resulting from federal investments in advanced technologies.3 Finally, the Committee has chosen to make policy recommendations and not operational prescriptions regarding specific public-private partnerships. Given the enormous variety in the size and scope of partnerships found in the United States, a detailed list of recommendations is simply not feasible or appropriate. The specific standards of operational success vary with the technologies, goals, and participants. Recognizing the limits imposed by this diversity, the Committee has chosen to highlight general positive recommendations rather than to attempt to develop specific blueprints; there is no “one size fits all” approach. 2 For example, aside from SEMATECH (where DARPA served as the government partner) and broader references to DARPA’s role in the development of the Internet, DARPA’s programs and contributions have not been specifically reviewed. For an overview of the scope of cooperative activity at the federal and state levels, see C. Coburn and D. Berglund, Partnerships: A Compendium of State and Federal Cooperative Technology Programs, Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, 1995; and the RaDiUS database. See <http://www.rand.org/services/radius/>. 3 The Committee has focused its attention on “best practices” rather than the practices of less successful partnerships, although it is certainly true that much can be learned from failures as well as successes. For an analysis of lessons that might be learned from comparing the experience of a less successful and a successful partnership, see John B. Horrigan, “Cooperating Competitors: A Comparison of MCC and SEMATECH.” Monograph, Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1999.
OCR for page R19
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies The Committee’s analysis divides among four primary areas. These are current U.S. partnership programs, potential U.S. partnership programs, industry-national laboratory partnerships, and international collaboration and benchmarking. The analysis of current U.S. partnerships has focused on two innovation and award programs, the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Advanced Technology Program. The review of potential partnerships for specific technologies, based on the project’s extensive generic partnership analysis, has focused on needs in biotechnology, computing, and solid-state lighting. The industry-laboratory analysis has reviewed the potential and assessed policy challenges of science and technology parks at Sandia National Laboratories and the NASA Ames Research Center. The Committee’s focus on international collaboration and benchmarking has included a wide review of new opportunities resulting from the U.S.-E.U. Science and Technology Agreement. In addition, the Committee documented and collaboratively reviewed programs at the regional and national level that had been designed to support the semiconductor industry, with a focus on Japan, Europe, Taiwan, and the United States. The need to work together in addressing common challenges, even as national technology programs support competing firms, is an overarching theme of the Committee’s analysis. Although interrelated, these analyses were self-contained and did not address the question of optimal allocation of funding among programs.4 Practical policy relevance has been a guiding principle. A series of 10 intermediate reports on these programs and topics has already been published by the National Academies.5 In general, the Committee’s analysis of partnerships has focused attention on the operation of partnerships—the lessons they offer and how to apply those lessons, both positive and negative—to make partnerships more effective. Given this pragmatic orientation, the study did not (and was not intended to) take up the issue of whether partnerships should exist (they do), and the study was not designed to make comparisons between different partnership programs. Instead, the Committee’s charge has been to take a pragmatic approach to address such issues as the rationale and organizing principles of public-private partnerships, current practices, sectoral differences, means of evaluation, the experience of foreign-based partnerships, and the roles of government laboratories, universities, and other non-profit organizations. Given the depth, breadth, and complexity of this subject, and the number of intermediate reports already published as part of the STEP Board’s larger project, 4 Political realities of Congressional oversight, departmental authority and responsibilities, and existing constituencies often make recommendations for the reallocation of funds problematic. Moreover, the diversity of U.S. programs is one of the U.S. innovation system’s strengths. Different programs often address different points in the innovation system. 5 The 10 publications in this series are listed in the front matter.
OCR for page R20
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies an important purpose of this summary report is to explain, organize, and emphasize the key findings and recommendations of the earlier reports, and the Committee views on the project as a whole, for the benefit of policymakers. Most important to emphasize are the common threads that appear within the analysis of different partnerships. The Committee’s desire to ensure that its deliberations and analysis are directly relevant to current policy making has allowed it to be responsive to requests from the Executive Branch and the U.S. Congress to examine various policies and programs of current policy relevance. Policy-relevant analyses include a response to the White House and State Department request for an evaluation of opportunities for greater transatlantic cooperation—in order to better capitalize on the U.S.-E.U. Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation. It includes as well a response to a request by the Defense Department’s Under Secretary for Technology and Acquisitions to review the Small Business Innovation Research program’s Fast Track initiative at the Department of Defense. Also included in the Committee portfolio of activities is the assessment of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), requested by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in compliance with Senate Report 105-235. The ATP program was the subject of two Committee reports: The first describes the program’s goals, operations, and challenges. The second report assessed the operations and achievements of the program, and made suggestions on how to improve what was found to be an effective partnership program.6 There is broad support for this type of objective analysis among federal agencies and the private sector. Federal agencies that provided support for this analysis include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (especially the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences), the Office of Naval Research, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Sandia National Laboratories and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have also provided important contributions. Support has also come from a diverse group of 10 private corporations.7 The conclusion of this intensive program-based study enables us to look at the multiple examples of public-private partnerships in the United States and elsewhere with informed perspective. The purpose of this final report is to highlight the larger issues and to summarize the insights gained through this analysis of partnerships, with the goal of generating a fuller, more informed appreciation 6 See Senate Report 105-235, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1999, and the Report from the Committee on Appropriations to accompany Bill S. 2260, which included the Commerce Department FY1999 Appropriations Bill. 7 The complete list of sponsors is listed in the front matter of this report.
OCR for page R21
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies of past, current, and potential contributions of partnerships to the welfare, competitiveness, and security of the United States. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants of various conferences. A number of individuals deserve recognition for their contributions to the preparation of this summary report, the eleventh produced by the project. Among the STEP staff, Dr. Sujai Shivakumar played a major role in the preparation of this report, showing great skill in drawing together the disparate elements of this multifaceted assessment of public-private partnerships. He also frequently contributed original research and his own valuable insights. His colleague, Christopher Hayter, brought his enthusiasm, commitment, and considerable skill to the project to ensure the accuracy and quality of the report as well as its timely production. The study as a whole owes a great debt to McAlister Clabaugh and David Dierksheide, both of whom worked long, hard, and well over several years to hold the meetings and produce the reports required by this broad-based review. Their ability to master multiple priorities and provide uncompromising quality made the project possible. Without their collective efforts, among many other competing priorities, it would not have been possible to prepare this report in the required time frame. 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, 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: Philip Auerswald, Harvard University; Robert Carpenter, University of Maryland; Merton Flemings, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Christina Gabriel, Carnegie Mellon University; Paul Horn, International Business Machines Corporation; Henry Kelly, Federation of American Scientists; Charles Kolb, Aerodyne Research, Inc.; Vernon Ruttan, University of Minnesota; Jeffrey Sohl, University of New Hampshire; and Nicholas Vonortas, George Washington University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda-
OCR for page R22
Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies tions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. Gerry Dineen has overseen the Academies review process for this report. Appointed by the National Research Council, he 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. This multi-year study has produced 11 volumes, many of which have benefited from Gerry Dinneen’s guidance and good counsel. The STEP Board and Project Committee recognizes and are grateful for his contribution. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Following the Executive Summary listing core findings and recommendations, this volume summarizes the analysis of the Committee in eight sections. This Preface has set out the role of the Committee and the parameters of its work. The Introduction in Part I describes public-private partnerships, the motivation for partnerships, and the varieties of partnerships, and then identifies some core conditions contributing to successful partnerships. Part II contains the Committee’s findings and recommendations. Following Part III’s overview of the broader environment for innovation, Part IV looks more specifically at U.S. innovation policy, in both retrospect and prospect. It identifies some of the central challenges facing U.S. policy makers in this area. Part V provides an overview of the Committee’s review of selected U.S. public-private partnerships. These include a synopsis of the Committee’s analysis of the SEMATECH consortium, a summary of the assessments of the Small Business Innovation Research and ATP programs, as well as a précis of the scope and potential of science and technology parks associated with the Ames and Sandia national laboratories. Part VI takes up the issues of accountability and assessment, which the Committee identifies as key factors contributing to successful partnerships. In today’s interconnected world, partnerships have to be assessed in a global context; Part VII provides this important perspective. Finally, Part VIII sets out the Committee’s conclusions; suggests further directions for analysis; and outlines considerations for policy makers seeking to foster innovation through public-private partnerships. Gordon Moore Bill Spencer Charles Wessner