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 R2
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 R3
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
OCR for page R5
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 R6
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 R7
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 R8
OCR for page R9
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 R10
OCR for page R11
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
