|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 62
Best Practices in Small-Business
Technology Development Programs
Helmut List
Chairman
Industrial Research and Development Advisory Council, Austria
Dr. List opened the session by observing that technology development for
small businesses is an important topic for both the United States and Europe.
Deploying technology in small businesses is a highly effective way to enhance
innovation, create jobs, and spur business growth. The Industrial Research and
Development Advisory Council has been promoting ways to make the Fifth
Framework Programme more accessible to small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
· TO
in Europe.
Recalling Ambassador Hugo Paemen's earlier comment that what fits for
small business development on one side of the Atlantic may not fit on the other,
Dr. List expressed the hope that this session would allow both sides to learn from
one another. He stressed, however, that we should do more than compare notes
on our respective experiences. We should begin the process of making transatlan-
tic cooperation work for SMEs on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the area of high-technology start-up companies, Dr. List said that the
United States is the model for the world. Europe is trying to create an environ-
ment in which small-business start-ups can thrive, and it hopes to draw lessons
from the United States. A key feature of the U.S. environment is the availability
of venture capital. Having capital available early in the innovation process is
critical for SMEs. Although Europe has lagged the United States in developing a
vibrant venture capital industry, Dr. List believes it is now making strides in this
area.
In broader terms, Dr. List said that there are two reasons for the growing
importance of small businesses in the economy:
· The original equipment manufacturing (OEM) industry has been restruc
62
OCR for page 63
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 63
lured. OEMs are turning to smaller companies, with entire systems or
subsystems being contracted out to small firms.
.
Technology and the shortening of product cycles have caused rapid
changes in the market. These changes create opportunities for small firms,
which can move more quickly than larger ones.
Dr. List concluded that Europe and the United States must create stronger
links between small businesses, universities, and government labs. Such a
multidisciplinary approach could truly open new doors for small businesses.
INDUSTRY-LABORATORY COOPERATION:
THE AMTEX EXPERIMENT
Jerry Cogan
Millikan Research
Dr. Cogan began his comments by describing a conference that the national
laboratories held in 1992 that brought together industries that the labs had not
dealt with in the past. The textile industry participated in the conference, although
many people in the textile industry and the national labs wondered whether they
could develop a meaningful relationship with the labs. The textile industry was
largely unaware of the specific capabilities of the labs, other than knowing that
U.S. national laboratories held a tremendous store of technology. At the confer-
ence lab officials asked representatives from the textile industry to consider ways
in which the textile industry and labs could become partners.
Issues in Industry-Laboratory Partnerships
A key question that laboratory officials posed to representatives from the
textile industry was: How important is your industry to the overall economy? Dr.
Cogan presented figures showing the size of the textile industry relative to the
entire manufacturing sector. Although a very disaggregated industry, with ap-
proximately 25,000 separate companies, the textile industry in 1992 had 9 per-
cent, or 1.7 million, of all manufacturing jobs in the United States. The industry
was, however, losing jobs and market share; from 1992 to 1996 the number of
jobs in the textile industry fell from 1.7 million to 1.2 million. The industry was
also losing market share to foreign producers.
A second question raised was whether the U.S. textile industry could make
effective use of laboratory technology. The answer was strongly affirmative. Dr.
Cogan observed that heavy use of technology in the textile industry would come
as no surprise to Europeans, because the European textile industry is very tech-
nology intensive. From the U.S. perspective, when an industry is struggling to
survive, as textiles have been, modernization is the strategy to undertake. The
OCR for page 64
64 NEW VISTAS IN T^NSAT~IC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
textile industry's efforts to modernize are reflected in investment data; the
industry's capital investment is higher than that of other manufacturing industries
and has been, on average, for the past 10 years.
In short, the textile industry and the laboratories quickly realized, said Dr.
Cogan, that lab-textile industry partnerships could be a "real win-win." Because
the textile industry is so diffuse 25,000 separate firms it was necessary to find
a way to organize a lab-industry partnership in a way to involve the entire indus-
try. Fortunately, the industry was already organized for research when the lab
partnership opportunity presented itself, with collaborative efforts under way at a
number of universities. The industry had also organized a National Textile Center
to conduct research.
As a result of these initial contacts, the American Textile (AMTEX) Partner-
ship was launched through a cooperative research and development agreement
(CRADA) with the national laboratories. The CRADA covered a number of
projects at the following national laboratories: Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho,
Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Pacific
Northwest, Princeton, and Sandia.
The Demand-Activated Manufacturing Architecture Project:
Reducing Waste
As an example of one lab-industry project under AMTEX, Dr. Cogan de-
scribed the Demand-Activated Manufacturing Architecture (DAMA) project.
DAMA is important to industry because it addresses waste. The waste of materi-
als used in textile production represents a $45 billion problem annually for the
industry; this amounts to 25 percent of U.S. retail apparel sales. DAMA's objec-
tive is to reduce waste by using tools of electronic commerce to better manage
inventory and advanced software and computers to reduce the time to market.
In concluding Dr. Cogan listed several elements of the lab-industry partner-
ship in textiles that he suggested may serve as lessons for other partnerships:
involve all of the industry; have industry develop technology roadmaps; focus on
precompetitive technologies (i.e., manufacturing process technologies and sys-
tems); make sure that the partnership contributes to the core missions of the pub-
lic partner; define the benefits for partners at the outset, including intellectual
property rights; and capitalize on existing government resources so that govern-
ment does not expand existing staff or facilities.
LABORATORY PARTNERSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY
Dan Hartley
Sandia National Laboratories
Dr. Hartley said that his remarks would focus on why the national laborato
OCR for page 65
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 65
ries seek partnerships with industry, what gives the labs the legal right to do so,
and why the labs think it is important to have close ties with industry. Although
the AMTEX partnership is important, he wished to address these broader issues.
Increasing Cooperation with Industry
Dr. Hartley characterized his job at Sandia as one of looking to the future of
the lab, which in effect means increasing collaboration with industry. Looking at
Sandia's mission historically, he noted that for 50 years its major mission has
been to develop nuclear weapons for the Department of Defense (DOD). Starting
in the 1970s, Sandia began to undertake other weapons missions for DOD; in the
1980s it turned to energy-related work for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
More recently it has focused on critical infrastructure issues and worked with
other countries on handling nuclear materials. From the mid-1980s to the present,
Sandia has been working more closely with private industry.
Sandia's Core Mission
In describing Sandia's traditional mission more fully, Dr. Hartley said that a
typical nuclear missile contains about 6,000 parts. Sandia makes approximately
5,500 of those parts essentially everything but the nuclear components of a
weapon. Livermore and Los Alamos labs make the nuclear devices for weaponry.
Sandia's role in making over 5,000 parts gives the lab the same expertise as any
large manufacturing firm, whether it is in consumer electronics or auto manufac-
turing.
The Push Toward Computer Simulation
Changes in the law have led Sandia to rely more heavily on computer simu-
lation in recent years. At one time the U.S. government could test a weapon by
underground explosions in Nevada. That is now prohibited, so Sandia must turn
to computer simulation to test weapons. This is known as Science-Based Stock-
pile Stewardship and is a program managed by DOE.
Sandia has also expanded into antiterrorism because the nature of worldwide
threats has changed. Sandia makes a highly sensitive explosives detector that is
used in airports. Another new component to the Sandia mission is in the disposi-
tion of nuclear waste. Dr. Hartley said that Sandia designed a salt cavern in south-
ern New Mexico in which low-level nuclear waste is stored.
Infrastructure
With respect to critical infrastructure, Sandia explores the survivability of
major systems. As an example Dr. Hartley described Sandia's role in addressing
OCR for page 66
66 NEW VISTAS IN T^NSAT~NTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
Japan's concern about the construction of a nuclear power plant near a U.S. air
base in Japan. The Japanese government was worried about the safety implica-
tions of a potential crash of a U.S. plane into the reactor of the power plant. Using
computer simulation technology, Sandia was able to assure Japan that a plane
could not penetrate the reactor's wall and that a plane crashing into the reactor
would be reduced "to powder" rather than cause a nuclear incident.
Industry's Role
Turning to industry's role in Sandia's mission, Dr. Hartley emphasized that
it was crucial that Sandia work with industry. Such a relationship helps the labo-
ratory keep abreast of new scientific and technical developments, and the lab
shares in the gains, and costs, of collaboration with industry. To capture the rela-
tionship, Dr. Hartley recalled a story regarding the Goodyear Tire Company when
he was preparing congressional testimony. Dr. Hartley had asked Goodyear for a
sentence or two to convey why it thought collaboration with Sandia was worth-
while. A Goodyear official responded by saying: "Goodyear may have a job that
requires A + B. Sandia may have a job that requires A + C. Why not work to-
gether on A?" In sum, Dr. Hartley said that all of Sandia's missions can benefit
from work with industry.
In addition to lab-industry collaboration aiding Sandia in remaining on the
cutting edge technically, Dr. Hartley noted that changes in federal law in recent
years have encouraged collaboration. The Bayh-Dole Act, the Stevenson-Wydler
Act, and the Federal Technology Transfer Act have all encouraged the national
labs to work closely with the private sector.
From the perspective of the private sector, Dr. Hartley identified two reasons
why he believes industry turned to Sandia and other national labs: a concentration
of world-class facilities and a businesslike culture, especially at Sandia. For 45
years Sandia was run by AT&T, and it has been run by Lockheed Martin for the
past five years. This has given the lab an appreciation of how to cooperate with
industry to carry out its mission.
Dr. Hartley then provided an outline of Sandia's world-class facilities:
.
Microelectronics. Sandia's microelectronics facility houses a number of
advanced projects, including one on microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS). MEMS are tiny machines whose dimensions are as small as a
red blood cell that can bring computing power to new applications. Intel is
one of many industry partners working on MEMS at Sandia.
· Manufacturing. It takes world-class manufacturing capability to build the
5,000 parts that Sandia must make for its weapons mission. Sandia's
manufacturing facility can serve as a model for industry. As one example
Dr. Hartley pointed to Sandia's computer-aided design technology, which
OCR for page 67
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 67
enabled users to move from computer design to a three-dimensional struc-
ture in one step.
· Robotics. Sandia has what may be the most modern robotics facility in the
world. One project involves small robots that serve as "collective agents"
in the battlefield as they look for intruders. Each robot perceives only a
portion of the environment, so the robots must communicate with one
another to collectively locate the intruder. Dr. Hartley also said that Sandia
is working with Lockheed Martin to develop an intelligent robot for paint-
ing aircraft that does not inadvertently punch through the aircraft body
while painting.
· Teraf lop computer. This is part of DOE's Advanced Strategic Computing
Initiative, and Sandia's teraflop computer, built by Intel, is the fastest
computer in the world. The computer simulated the plume of the Shoe-
maker comet before it struck Jupiter, and the simulation compared very
well to the actual plume captured by the Hubbell telescope.
Collaborating with Small Business
In closing Dr. Hartley said that Sandia places great priority on engaging
SMEs in the lab's activities. Sandia has logged over 1,300 small business "as-
sists" and has over 300 CRADA partners. Sandia's CRADA partnerships are
located in all regions of the country. Although the laboratory is open to increased
cooperation, Dr. Hartley emphasized that Sandia does not engaged in "job shop-
ping," that is, entering into partnerships just for the sake of doing so. Sandia
believes in the value of partnerships but also that they must be done right and
carefully specified ahead of time to be mutually beneficial.
THE U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS
INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
Joshua Lerner
Harvard Business School
Dr. Lerner began his remarks by observing that the growth of high-technol-
ogy clusters in the United States (e.g., Silicon Valley, Route 128 in Boston) has
generated a great deal of interest abroad in how to emulate such technology-
driven successes. There is a strong and sensible intuition that high-technology
industries are sources of job and income growth, although the precise mecha-
nisms through which to foster such growth remain subject to debate. A key ques-
tion Dr. Lerner proposed to address in his presentation is the role that public
venture capital programs have played in developing clusters of high-technology
economic activity in the United States.
Dr. Lerner recalled some history of public venture capital efforts in the United
OCR for page 68
68 NEW VISTAS IN T^NSAT~IC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
States, noting that U.S. public venture capital programs have historically been
sizable. From 1958 to 1969 the Small Business Investment Corporation (SBIC)
provided $3 billion to small firms, which was three times the sum provided by
private venture capital firms. In 1995 small business financing programs pro-
vided $2.4 billion in funding, compared with $3.9 billion provided by private
venture capital funds to small businesses. Beyond the size of public venture capi-
tal programs, they have been reputed to be important to the early success of well-
known companies, such as Apple, Chiron, Compaq, FedEx, and Intel. Moreover,
public venture capital programs have served as training grounds for private ven-
ture capitalists. Many leading figures in the U.S. venture capital industry were
part of the SBIC program of the 1960s. Dr. Lerner noted that countries with
vibrant venture capital sectors, such as Israel, Singapore, and Taiwan, each have
public venture capital programs as complements.
The association between public venture capital programs and private venture
capital does not establish causality; it may be a historical accident that public
venture capital programs and the development of clusters of high-technology U.S.
firms have coincided with one another. However, if it is not a historical accident,
it is necessary to explore the mechanisms by which public venture capital pro-
grams are translated into innovative behavior in the economy.
To address these issues Dr. Lerner proposed to examine the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The SBIR program was enacted in 1982
and requires that federal agencies with extramural R&D budgets in excess of
$100 million set aside a portion of their budgets for awards to small business.
Initially, 1.25 percent of the agencies' R&D budget was to be set aside for SBIR;
this figure was increased to 2.5 percent in 1992. For fiscal year 1996 the 2.5
percent set-aside resulted in $1.1 billion in funding for the SBIR program.
Dr. Lerner described two theoretical motivations for government assistance
to small business:
.
.
R&D spillovers. In generating the know-how that underpins new technol-
ogy, knowledge usually flows somewhat freely among a technical or sci-
entific community. A firm investing in technology therefore cannot cap-
ture all of the knowledge that goes into creating a new product or process.
In economists' parlance, such a positive externality is a social good but
leads to underinvestment in knowledge by a private firm. Government
assistance is thus justified to make up for the underinvestment.
Information asymmetries. A high-technology entrepreneur will usually
know a great deal more about a technology and its market potential than a
banker who may be considering extending a loan to the entrepreneur. A
venture capitalist can serve an intermediary function between banker and
entrepreneur. In other words, the venture capitalist provides a signal to the
banker by investing (or not) in a small high-technology start-up firm. Such
certification by a venture capitalist is useful, but venture capitalists fund
OCR for page 69
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 69
only a small fraction of start-ups. Public venture capital programs can fill
this gap and serve as an additional certification mechanism for private
capital markets.
Even with the theoretical benefits of government assistance, Dr. Lerner raised
the issue of potential problems in public venture capital programs. Distortions
could exist if public venture capital programs favor certain entrepreneurs who
may have well-established channels to policymakers. Officials in public venture
capital programs may also give grants to firms destined for success, so that pro-
grams are judged positively when they are assessed.
Before discussing the results of his study, Dr. Lerner said that it is generally
thought that the SBIR program functions well. The dispersed nature of the pro-
gram is a virtue. SBIR is spread out among 11 agencies, and grants are usually no
more than $750,000, small enough by federal standards to attract little attention.
Agencies, moreover, have taken steps to keep political interference to a minimum
in allocating awards. However, there have been concerns raised about the pro-
gram, and they fall into two categories:
· Regional distribution. SBIR awards have gone predominantly to areas
with a concentration of private venture capital, such as California and
Massachusetts. Some believe that there should be a wider geographic dis-
tribution of awards.
.
Clustering of awards by institutions. Some organizations win a large num-
ber of awards, suggesting that winning awards has become an end in it-
self, as opposed to commercializing new technology.
In his study Dr. Lerner examined the long-term impacts of the program, rather
than relying solely on anecdotes for evaluation. He looked at 1,435 small firms
over a 10-year period, with some firms being SBIR awarders and others being
nonawardees with characteristics that were similar to the awarders. The SBIR
program itself is very competitive, with about 5 percent of applicants winning
grants; although firms with fewer than 500 employees are eligible, awarders tend
to be much smaller than that. Dr. Lerner's analysis showed that:
.
SBIR awarders experienced stronger job growth over time than
nonawardees. Employment at SBIR awarders grew by 26 employees on
average over the 10-year time horizon of his study versus job growth of 6
employees on average among nonawardees.
· SBIR awards went to regions with active venture capital sectors, such as
California and Massachusetts.
· The first few SBIR awards have the strongest impact on job growth, with
later awards showing little effect.
OCR for page 70
70 NEW VISTAS IN T^NSAT~NTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
Overall, Dr. Lerner concluded that the SBIR program has had a positive
impact on high-technology start-ups that have won SBIR awards. There is room,
however, for fine-tuning implementation of the program. With the SBIR program
scheduled for congressional reauthorization in 1999, Dr. Lerner said that there
would be an opportunity to consider improvements.
Comments from the Audience
A participant observed that Dr. Lerner had talked about the private return to
participation in SBIR by firms but not the government's return. Dr. Lerner was
asked to comment on the government's return from the SBIR program. In re-
sponse, he acknowledged that his focus on the private return is a limitation of his
analysis. There is, however, great difficulty in assessing social returns because it
is hard to separate the portion of investment activity that would have occurred in
SBIR awarders from the portion that the program induced. Even if a good bit of
the investment activity would have taken place without SBIR, Dr. Lerner said
that the R&D spillovers generated by SBIR firms would be an additional benefit.
Dieter Seltzer, director of the Fraunhofer Institute, in Erlangen-Nurnberg,
asked for examples of how SBIR awards work in agencies. Dr. Lerner commented
on the tremendous diversity among agency approaches to implementation and
SBIR awarders. With respect to implementation, agencies such as DOD and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration use SBIR as a procurement tool
for technologies with very specific purposes. Other agencies, while adhering to
SBIR's mandate to carry out agency missions, may fund technologies with longer
time horizons before payoff. Regarding diversity, Dr. Lerner said that SBIR
awards run a wide gamut of technologies, in contrast to venture capitalists, who
tend to fund a narrower range of "hot" technologies, such as Internet technologies
today.
A participant asked whether it was possible to compare the results of SBIR
with those of venture capitalists. Although he had not done a systematic compari-
son, Dr. Lerner's strong suspicion was that firms funded by venture capitalists
perform better than those funded by SBIR. Venture capital-funded firms undergo
strict scrutiny, and only a small fraction of companies seeking venture capital
receive it. It is important to recognize that the goals of SBIR differ from those of
venture capitalists, given SBIR's focus on agency missions. In fact, Dr. Lerner
added, there might be a great concern if SBIR focused only on biotechnology
firms, as many venture capitalists do today, as opposed to the wide variety of
firms that the SBIR funds.
OCR for page 71
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 71
THE EU EXPERIENCE WITH SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
Patrice Laget
European Commission
Dr. Laget observed that SMEs are important to economic development in
Europe and that the European Commission (EC) has tried to focus on what can be
done on a community level to increase access to new technologies among SMEs.
SMEs are in an increasingly competitive international economic environment but
often lack the research and development (R&D) capacity to stay current with the
latest technologies. In previewing his remarks Dr. Laget said his focus would be
on the EC's program to aid SMEs, the result of a survey of SMEs that participate
in EC programs, and how SMEs may be able to benefit from the U.S.-European
Union science and technology (S&T) agreement.
The EC's program to stimulate technology access for SMEs involves three
efforts to support SME R&D activity and access:
· collaborative research, in which SMEs participate and conduct R&D in a
consortium setting using government, university, or private industrial labs
(this a share-cost approach by which the EC provides some funding);
· cooperative research, in which two or more SMEs use EC funds to
outsource R&D to a third party; and
· exploratory research, in which SMEs are given small grants for early-
stage R&D.
Program Design
The EC recognizes that there are different types of SMEs with different
needs. Some SMEs are very small start-ups that are developing technology but
are far from commercialization. Others are technology followers, which may not
innovate but need quick access to cutting-edge technologies. Finally, there are
technology users, which integrate new technologies into production processes for
their goods or services. Dr. Laget also observed that SMEs usually are oriented to
the local level, as opposed to operating across borders. The EC is sensitive to
local concerns and tries to focus on how it can have a positive impact on the
business environment for SMEs.
It is important to have intelligent coordination among localities, the EC, and
member states. To meet this goal, the EC, through quarterly meetings, attempts to
ensure equal access among all members of the EC to information about programs
to aid SMEs. In addition to providing programmatic information, the meetings
facilitate communication among SMEs in the various member states.
OCR for page 72
72 NEW VISTAS IN T^NSAT~IC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
Rules for SME Programs
To take advantage of EC technology programs for SMEs, at least two SMEs
from two member states must join together to obtain grants for exploratory re-
search (the grants are on the order of $50,0001. For collaborative research two or
more SMEs should be prime contractors to conduct R&D. For cooperative R&D
at least four SMEs from at least two member states must identify a technology
need that is then outsourced to industrial, government, or university labs. SMEs
share the cost of research on a 50-50 basis, with the EC matching SME contribu-
tions up to $1 million. Large companies can be involved in these programs.
Survey Results of SMEs Participating in the
Fourth Framework Programme
Of SMEs involved in assistance programs for SMEs, 70 percent were first-
time participants. In cost-share (cooperative) R&D projects, 50 percent of com-
panies are SMEs, whereas the remainder are large business firms. For SMEs
receiving exploratory grants, 70 percent reported subsequent success in receiving
collaborative research grants based on exploratory work.
There has been an increase in the number of SMEs participating in EU re-
search programs. From the Third Framework Programme to the Fourth Frame-
work Programme, the number of SMEs in collaborative research doubled. There
was also a dramatic increase in the number involved with cooperative research.
Cooperative research programs are used mainly by newcomers to the EU SME
programs; such firms need cutting-edge technologies but do not have the resources
to develop technologies themselves. Participants in cooperative R&D programs
generally increase their contacts with other SMEs.
Dr. Laget identified other lessons from EU work with SMEs. It is rare, for
example, for SMEs that have participated in EU cooperative R&D programs to
involve themselves with local or regional cooperative R&D programs. Such SMEs
seem to prefer working with the KU, and this may indicate an interest in working
in the framework of the new U.S.-EU S&T agreement. Furthermore, promoting
flows of information with and among SMEs is critical. SMEs report that the pro-
cess of obtaining funds from the EU functions well but that there are "internal"
barriers to the use of R&D generated in EU programs. In conclusion, Dr. Laget
said that with the large number of SME programs in the United States and Europe
it would be interesting to compare programs in the remainder of the session.
OCR for page 73
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 73
DISCUSSANTS
Jon Baron
U.S. Department of Defense
SBIR Program
Mr. Baron said that his remarks would focus on the presentation of Dr.
Lerner, expand on and clarify some of Dr. Lerner's points, and comment gener-
ally on efforts to fund small business development in the United States. Mr. Baron
noted that most studies of the SBIR program, whether by academics or the U.S.
General Accounting Office, have taken a favorable view of the program. Dr.
Lerner's work on the SBIR is regarded as one of the best such studies because it
takes a systematic and empirical look at SBIR-funded firms and a comparable set
of firms that received no SBIR support. Mr. Baron also expressed the belief that
Dr. Lerner approached his study without any bias or preconceptions about the
program. Mr. Baron then made several points to supplement the presentation of
Dr. Lerner.
SBIR Versus Venture Capital
Mr. Baron pointed out that SBIR funding differs from traditional venture
capital financing because it funds technology feasibility studies; this is a much
earlier stage of development activity than a venture capitalist typically funds. Mr.
Baron recounted the three phases of the SBIR program funding:
Phase I: a six-month feasibility study that explores the likelihood that a
technology may pay off;
Phase II: an award of up to $750,000 that funds the development of a
prototype if Phase I yields promising results; and
Phase III: a matching award to Phase II recipients that is conditioned on
awarders demonstrating that they have raised funds from the private sec-
tor or elsewhere in the government to develop the technology further.
Purpose of the SBIR
While noting that the broad purpose of the SBIR program is to develop tech-
nologies to help meet agency missions, Mr. Baron observed that there are differ-
ences across agencies with respect to purpose. Some agencies may place empha-
sis on economic development objectives in disbursing SBIR grants. For the DOD,
SBIR is seen as a means to improve defense capabilities.
As an example, Mr. Baron cited the development of "savvy tag" technology
as a way to better track military materials. A Silicon Valley start-up received an
SBIR award several years ago to develop a radio transceiver, about the size of a
OCR for page 74
74 NEW VISTAS IN T^NSAT~IC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
deck of cards, to track military cargo anywhere in the world. Keeping track of
military cargo has traditionally been very difficult, and such difficulties often
result in costly waste. During the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. General Accounting
Office estimated that such waste cost $2.7 billion. DOD has estimated that savvy
tags could have saved $2 billion of that waste. Today, all U.S. shipments to Bosnia
use savvy tags, and the tracking of cargo has improved dramatically.
Selection Challenges
An ongoing challenge to the SBIR program is weighing technological prom-
ise against business capabilities. DOD is very good at assessing the scientific
merits and technological potential of an idea but is less skilled at scrutinizing
business plans and assessing market potential. From internal reviews DOD has
found that many companies have excellent R&D capabilities, but their ideas of-
ten do not make it to the market because of a lack of business sophistication.
Fast Track Program
Mr. Baron said that the Fast Track program had been developed to address
selection challenges that DOD has faced with SBIR. Under Fast-Track proce-
dures, applicants have a greater chance of winning Phase II funding if they have
received third-party funding (e.g., from a venture capitalist or other private fi-
nancing). Such financing sends a strong signal to DOD that, beyond the technical
merits, the SBIR-funded technology has marketplace potential. The Fast Track
program has brought a new set of companies into the SBIR program, and Mr.
Baron noted the National Research Council is working on a study assessing the
program.
Attilio Stajano
DGIII, European Commission
Mr. Stajano opened his remarks by complementing Dr. Laget's presentation
and reiterating the importance of integrating SMEs into the EU's R&D Frame-
work Programme. He noted that in the Fourth Framework Programme, about
one-third of all research funds went to SMEs. With respect to communications
and information technologies, Mr. Stajano said that the European program to
promote information technology, ESPRIT, had fostered over 100,000 person-
hours of cross-border R&D since 1983. This has created an environment in which
scientists and industrialists, from small and large companies, have been able to
develop business solutions using information technologies.
Mr. Stajano listed four conditions that are necessary for successful economic
relationships between scientists, engineers, and small businesses:
OCR for page 75
BEST PRACTICES IN SMALL-BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 75
Networks. Creating linkages between scientists and industrialists, as
ESPRIT has done, is important. Such networks must be dynamic but long
lived enough to produce results.
Development of business solutions. It is one thing for cooperative pro-
grams to generate scientific breakthroughs, but it is important for such
breakthroughs to be translated into products or processes that help build
market share for participants.
· Ties with universities. In citing the "Cambridge University" effect, Mr.
Stajano noted the importance of developing an entrepreneurial spirit
among university professors.
Financial support. Early-stage financing is crucial to SME development,
and Mr. Stajano said that ESPRIT has worked to provide early-stage fi-
nancing to SMEs.
.
In concluding, Mr. Stajano said that promoting visibility of small business is
another way in which governments can help. ESPRIT, working cooperatively
with the U.S. Department of Commerce, plans to bring approximately 200 Euro-
pean SMEs to Texas in April 1999 to meet with 200 U.S. counterparts on joint
electronic commerce ventures. By working to build such transatlantic connec-
tions, governments can help build vibrant small-business sectors in regional
economies.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
textile industry
