Measuring ATP Impact
2004 Report on Economic Progress

Bringing the Best Minds Together fir R&D

Collaboration in ATP Projects

ATP’s statute includes a mandate to “aid industry-led United States joint research and development ventures.” Various studies by the ATP Economic Assessment Office and others have looked at joint ventures in terms of their stability, the factors that help them succeed, their benefits and costs, and the role of universities. A 1995 study of early ATP projects found that the average joint venture had six members, and that 43 percent of joint venture members “forged subcontracting relationships with an average of five additional companies.” ³¹

More recently, an analysis of BRS data from 415 participants in 198 ATP projects provides further evidence that collaborative activities are extensive. Among singlecompany applicants and joint ventures, 86 percent of respondents had collaborated with others on projects, with 69 percent of these companies stating that ATP brought about the collaboration “to a great extent.”  The same study noted that many strategic alliances—with producers, suppliers, customers, distributors, and licensing partners—had been formed primarily to commercialize ATP-funded technologies. ³²

Another study of firms that won—or failed to win—ATP awards determined that the program successfully encouraged applicants to propose projects featuring collaboration, frequently with entirely new partners. While 79 percent of 1998 applicants included other organizations in their proposals to ATP, 59 percent of award winners sought first-time partnerships, while only 42 percent of non-winners sought first-time partnerships. These numbers support the idea that the selection process at ATP encouraged new partnerships by favoring the selection of proposals that included new partnership opportunities. ³³

Table 9 summarizes the incidence of collaboration as tracked in a number of surveys throughout the life of ATP. Similar findings resulted from the Survey of Applicants 2000, which studied companies submitting proposals to ATP in the 2000 competition. ³⁴

University Involvement

In its first decade of operation, ATP came to recognize the importance of universities as collaborators in projects. Universities involved in R & D efforts provide major benefits to the participants and their research: Companies working with universities gain access to eminent researchers, while universities collaborating with private firms in an ATP project acquire needed additional funding and, often, insights into industry problems that hone their research efforts. Table 10 shows the prominent role played by universities in the first 50 completed ATP projects.

Nearly 70 percent of joint ventures and more than 50 percent of single-company projects involve universities; one study found that as of 1999, 57 percent of all ATP projects included universities as joint venture members or subcontractors. ³⁵  As reflected in Figure 13, 78 percent of firms included in the Survey of Applicants 2000 considered university involvement to be a factor in proposals to ATP. It was “somewhat” or “very critical” to 51 percent of those surveyed.

A 2002 study queried 47 ATP participants about universities as research partners (collaborators or subcontractors). Results from such a small sampling couldn’t provide accurate measures, but showed important trends:

• Projects involving universities usually took on more ambitious research.
• Respondents working with a university participant were more likely to report difficulty in acquiring and assimilating knowledge needed for progress toward the project’s goal.
• University participants were more likely to act as ombudsmen or referees in the process.
• Projects involving universities tended to end in success, but took longer to complete — perhaps because of the more ambitious nature of the research. ³⁶

The Branscomb study also found that universities played a vital role in ATP research projects. Said the study, “Universities represent a vital source of new technical ideas for firms of all sizes. The ferment of industrial relationships pervades even the most elite academic institutions.” ³⁷

Changes in Collaborative Relationships

Because ATP projects typically unfold over a number of years, changes in the makeup of a joint venture can take place. One survey found that 59 percent of projects were carried out without changes in the group of collaborating organizations. The same survey found that for “23 percent of the projects, at least one participating company was changed to a different company, and [for] 18 percent, at least one participant, along with that company’s piece of the project, was dropped altogether.” ³⁹

Such changes in collaborative arrangements are important because they raise an issue for ATP project managers: At what point does a change in project makeup or goals no longer comply with the original criteria by which the project was selected for an ATP award? ⁴⁰ By analyzing changes within projects, project managers can better understand this issue. It therefore represents a valid component of evaluation.

Determining Collaborative Success

In 2001 the ATP Economic Assessment Office published a study of ATP project managers and representatives of firms involved in 18 joint venture projects in the automobile industry begun between 1991 and 1997. EAO wanted to first determine how participants defined “success” for a joint venture, and then look at ways to determine if success was achieved in such projects. The findings would then form the basis for more in-depth studies later.

Indicators of joint venture success in the eyes of participants included: achieving technical objectives, reaching commercialization, obtaining patents, acquiring unanticipated technology, or forming unexpected networks of relationships.

There Is No ‘Lone Ranger’ It doesn’t happen alone. Innovation—from initial idea through end use by industry and the American people—involves companies of all sizes working with universities, non-profits, federal labs, and other independent researchers. As shown below, ATP fosters collaborative efforts early in the process to enhance the likelihood of success. All participants bring unique capabilities; working together allows them to leverage strengths across organizations. When larger and smaller firms collaborate, they realize powerful synergies. Larger firms can gain access to promising new technologies, while their smaller partners can benefit from big-company expertise in product commercialization and marketing. Almost one-third (29 percent) of ATP projects are formal joint ventures, and ATP has studied the factors that influence the success of R & D joint ventures in achieving technical and commercialization objectives. 38 On average, these joint ventures include 4.9 partners and 7.5 total organizations, including subcontractors. Nearly 70 percent of joint ventures involve universities and 80 percent include a small company. Although 71 percent of ATPfunded projects are led by a single company, 4 out of 5 of these projects include other organizations. Single-company projects usually include two additional organizations at one time or another. More than 75 percent of all single-company projects involve a small company; more than half include a university as a subcontractor. New Ties and Company Relationships: Single Company versus Joint Venture Applicants (From Survey of Applicants 2000 )

The study identified factors affecting the chances of achieving this vision of success.  They included the past experience of firms working together, competitors working together (it’s difficult for them to do so successfully), the size of the joint venture, and maintaining the same people working on the project. The study also notes that, “…compared to collaborative R & D alliances without government involvement, ATP is accelerating and improving the successful outcome of collaborative endeavors." ⁴¹

Benefits and Costs of Collaboration

The 1996 survey of ATP participants by Silber and Associates revealed that 60 percent of respondents benefited “to a great extent" from collaboration, and another 35 percent “to a moderate extent." 42 Powell and Lellock, in their analysis of the BRS survey, continued to look at benefits of collaboration. Table 11 compares results of the two studies on the subject of benefits of collaboration. These benefits are listed in the left column in order of importance. The center column of BRS data lists the number of times the benefit was mentioned by respondents. The right column does the same in the Silber survey. Both studies reveal “stimulating creative thinking" to be the most important benefit of ATP R & D collaborations.

Table 11. Specific Benefits of Collaborations

*   The Silber survey’s closest matching category was called “increased customer acceptance.”
** The Silber survey’s closest matching category, for which the percentage applies, was called, “enabled you to develop technology while you engineered for volume manufacturing.”

Collaborations also bring with them inherent problems, as revealed by the same studies. The Silber survey identified problems that included:

• Cultural differences between large and small companies, between companies and universities, and between individuals
• Differing agendas and needs among collaborating organizations
• No single source of direction (“no general, only 10 colonels")
• Lack of trust among collaborators
• The time-consuming nature of relationship building

Both Silber and the Powell analysis of BRS data indicate that costs associated with collaboration are present, but not serious, amounting more to “minor stumbling blocks" (according to Silber) than major barriers to success. 43 At the same time, 96 percent of joint venture respondents said they would pursue future joint ventures, providing evidence that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for collaborative research efforts. ⁴⁴

_____________________
35. From ATP Business Reporting System data.

36. Bronwyn H. Hall, Albert N. Link, and John T. Scott, Universities as Research Partners , NIST GCR 02-829, 2002, pp. vi-vii.

37. Branscomb et al. Managing Technical Risk , p. 6.

38. Jeffrey H. Dyer and Benjamin C. Powell, Determinants of Success in ATP-Funded R & D Joint Ventures: A Preliminary Analysis Based on 18 Automobile Manufacturing Projects , NIST GCR 00-803, December 2001.

39. Silber and Associates, p. 33.

40. Responding to project changes requires balancing the need for flexibility to allow firms to make changes needed for project viability, with the need to adhere to ATP’s legislated mandate to fund high-risk research to develop technologies with potential for generating broad-based benefits. To protect the public trust, ATP decides on a case-by-case basis, after reviewing changes in project makeup, whether to approve or disapprove the changes.

41. Jeffry H. Dyer and Benjamin C. Powell, Determinants of Success in ATP-Funded R & D Joint Ventures: a Preliminary Analysis Based on 18 Automobile Manufacturing Projects , GCR 00-803, 2001, p. vi.

42. Silber and Associates, p. 24.

43. Ibid, p. 31.

44. Ibid, p. 33.

Return to Table of Contents or go to next section.

Date created:  March 15, 2005
Last updated: August 15, 2005

ATP website comments: webmaster-atp@nist.gov  / Technical ATP inquiries: InfoCoord.ATP@nist.gov.

NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department
Privacy policy / Security Notice / Accessibility Statement / Disclaimer / Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) /
No Fear Act Policy / NIST Information Quallity Standards / ExpectMore.gov (performance of federal programs)