L-4 Applicant
Perceptions of the ATP Proposal Process
The Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) aims to make the proposal process useful to companies and
ensures fair and equal treatment of all applicants. The Survey
of ATP Applicants 2002 collected information about applicants’ perceptions
of the proposal process.
Respondents
were asked to indicate:
a)
How useful to their company was the process of preparing
the ATP proposal
b) How useful to their company was information received from
ATP during the review process
c) The extent to which they believed the ATP review and decision
process was a fair process
d) The likelihood that they will apply for funding again
from ATP
|
Most applicants
view the ATP proposal process as useful
- Preparing
an ATP proposal may be useful to an applicant for
a variety of reasons.
It may catalyze discussion and planning, focus attention
on specific R&D or
business issues, or clarify management commitment.
- Three-quarters
of all applicants report that the process of preparing
an ATP
proposal is useful (see Figure 1). 1
- Just
over two-thirds of all applicants regard the information
received from ATP
during the proposal process to be useful (see Figure 1)
- During
the proposal process, companies respond to questions
from ATP in oral
review regarding technical risk and business aspects of the
project. In telephone
debriefing of Nonawardees, companies receive feedback on
the strengths and
weaknesses of their proposal against ATP criteria.
- The
extent to which the 2002 applicants viewed the ATP
proposal process as useful
to their company is almost identical to that found for the
year 2000 applicants.
|
Figure 1. Usefulness
to Company of the ATP Proposal Process
Most applicants
view the ATP proposal process as fair
- Three-quarters of
all applicants report that the ATP review and decision process is
a fair process (see Figure 2). 2 These findings for the
2002 applicants arecomparable to what was found for the year 2000
applicants.
- ATP places great
emphasis on ensuring the integrity and fairness of the proposal
review and decision process. All proposals are peer-reviewed
by technical and business specialists and evaluated according
to clearly established criteria.3
Figure 2. Beliefs
that the ATP Review and Decision Process is Fair
Many applicants
believe they will apply for funding again
- Two-thirds of the
2002 applicants say that they will apply for funding again from ATP
(see Figure 3). 4
Figure 3. Likelihood
of Applying for Funding Again from ATP
Both Awardees and
Nonawardees view the ATP proposal process positively
- Not surprisingly,
Awardees view the ATP proposal process more favorably than Nonawardees
(see Figure 4).
- Still, most Nonawardees
view the ATP proposal process favorably, and are likely to apply
for funding again.
Figure 4. Awardee
and Nonawardee Perceptions of the ATP Proposal Process
1 The response scale for this item
ranged from "not at all useful" to "very useful."
2 The rsponse scale for this item ranged from "not at all" to "large extent."
3 The response scale for this item ranged from "very unlikely" to "very likely",
and also
included a "don't know" option. |
Companies seeking to partner
with the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) submit proposals to the ATP.
Proposals must be for the development of innovative technologies that
could not obtain private funding due to the high technical risk and that
have the potential to produce widespread benefits to the economy and
society. Proposals are evaluated for technical and economic merit in
a rigorous competitive review process.
____________________
1. We have combined the response categories “very useful” and “somewhat
useful” for ease of reporting.
2. We have combined the response categories “large extent” and “moderate” for
ease of reporting the portion of applicants that view the process as fair.
3. Technical reviewers are government employees and business reviewers are
private sector business specialists. All reviewers sign a strict nondisclosure
agreement to ensure confidentiality of the information in the proposals.
4. We have combined the response categories “very likely” and “somewhat
likely” for ease of reporting.
Return to Table
of Contents or go to next factsheet in
Portfolio.
Date created: July 22,
2005
Last updated:
August 11, 2005
|
