L-6 Applicant
Views of the Usefulness of ATP Information Sources
The Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) aims to make the proposal process a smooth one for applicants
and utilizes a variety of outreach efforts. For example, ATP sponsors
a web site with detailed information, holds conferences for potential
proposers, and operates information booths at a variety of professional
meetings. Information about ATP also travels by “word of mouth” among
researchers. The Survey of ATP Applicants 2002 asked applicants how useful
they view these information sources.
Respondents
were asked to indicate how useful each of the following have
been for them as an
information source about ATP:
a)
ATP Web site
b) ATP Proposers Conference
c) ATP information booth at industry or trade association
meetings
d)
Industry or company colleagues
Respondents
were also asked to report any additional information
sources about ATP that they found to be useful. |
Applicants
find the information sources about ATP to be useful
- 85%
of the applicants say that the ATP Web site is useful
to them (see Figure 1). 1
- Half
of all applicants report having no experience with
ATP Proposers Conferences. Although only 37% of applicants
indicate that the Proposers Conferences are useful
(see Figure 1), this represents over three-quarters
of applicants who have experience with this source.
- The
majority of applicants (72%) have no experience with
the ATP information booths at professional meetings.
However, over half who do have experience with this
source rate it as useful (see Figure 1).
- Two-thirds
of applicants view industry or company colleagues
to be useful sources of information about ATP (see
Figure 1).
|
Figure 1. Applicant
Views of the Usefulness of ATP Information Sources
- The
survey asked applicants to tell us of any other information
sources about ATP which they had found useful. Sources they
identified largely fell into the following three groups:
- Mailings from
ATP, including the ATP Proposal Preparation Kit
- Direct contact
with ATP staff
- Previous experience
with the ATP process
Awardees view the
information sources as more useful than do Nonawardees
- Overall, Awardees
were more likely than Nonawardees to say they found the source to
be “very useful” (see Figure 2).
- If applicants have
experience with an information source covered by the survey, both
Awardees and Nonawardees tend to view the source as useful (see Figure
3).
- ATP information booths
at meetings appear to be viewed as less useful, relative to the other
sources asked about in the survey.
Figure 2. Awardee
and Nonawardee Views of ATP Information Sources as “Very Useful”
Figure 3. Awardee
and Nonawardee Views of ATP Information Sources as Useful: Applicants
with Experience Using the Source
Note:
Percentages above are based on those respondents reporting a usefulness rating
for that source (i.e., excluding those who reported they have no experience with
the source).
Across ATP
technology areas, applicants differ in how useful they view the
information sources
- Applicants in the
Information Technology field were most likely to view the ATP web
site as being “very useful” (see Table 1).
- Applicants in Materials
and Chemistry were most likely to view the ATP Proposers’ Conference
as useful. Those in the Electronics area were more unlikely to have
had experience with a Proposers Conference (see Table 1).
- Applicants in the
Information Technology field were least likely to view ATP information
booths at meetings as being useful (see Table 1).
- Applicants in the
four technology areas were similar in viewing industry or company
colleagues as a useful source of information.
TABLE 1. Applicant
Views of ATP Information Sources, by Technology Area
| |
BIOTECHNOLOGY |
MATERIALS
AND
CHEMISTRY |
ELECTRONICS |
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY |
| ATP
Web site |
| Very useful |
43% |
39% |
45% |
53% |
| Somewhat useful |
45% |
46% |
39% |
30% |
| Not useful |
8% |
7% |
7% |
11% |
| No experience |
4% |
8% |
9% |
5% |
| ATP
Proposers’ Conference |
| Very useful |
15% |
19% |
12% |
19% |
| Somewhat useful |
20% |
25% |
17% |
20% |
| Not useful |
7% |
11% |
10% |
12% |
| No experience |
58% |
44% |
60% |
50% |
| ATP
information booth at meetings |
| Very useful |
3% |
4% |
1% |
5% |
| Somewhat useful |
14% |
16% |
11% |
5% |
| Not useful |
12% |
12% |
14% |
15% |
| No experience |
71% |
68% |
73% |
75% |
| Industry
or company colleagues |
| Very useful |
32% |
30% |
32% |
25% |
| Somewhat useful |
31% |
36% |
36% |
34% |
| Not useful |
18% |
12% |
12% |
19% |
| No experience |
19% |
22% |
20% |
22% |
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.
Return to Portfolio's Table
of Contents.
Date created: July 22,
2005
Last updated:
August 11, 2005
|
