January 30, 1996

Prepared by: Silber & Associates
Dr. Bohne Silber
13067 Twelve Hills Road
Clarksville, MD 21029-1144

Due to the early stage, the primary emphasis of the interviews was the impact of the ATP award on recipient organizations. How, if at all, has the award changed things for the companies in the program? What difference, if any, has the award made thus far on the award recipients?

With the exception of three participants, who expressed clear-cut dissatisfaction, the other 122 cited numerous examples of the program's positive impact. Many maintain that the ATP has been the lifeblood of their company's innovative research efforts, permitting them to venture into arenas new to American industry. Even several companies whose ATP funding ended early spoke favorably about the program.

Most of the participants believe that, owing in large part to the ATP, the U.S. now has realistic potential to be first on the technological frontier in some areas which otherwise, they insist, would become foreign domain. The ATP, say most of the participants, has meant the difference between success and failure, between vision and reality.

A researcher described how the ATP was the crucial factor which kept his technology in U.S. hands. "We looked for private sector funding for our technology for two years, and we had run out of places to look. If it weren't for the ATP, we probably would have ended up getting into bed with a Japanese or Korean company. They expressed interest, and domestically, the companies were too wary of the high-risk."

The impact of the awards is significant and far-reaching. Four factors in particular were mentioned as the most important outcomes of the ATP award, each of which is discussed in detail on the following pages, beginning on page 14. The percentages in the box below exceed 100% because participants were instructed to name three outcomes with the greatest impact.

One of the three participants who were negative about the ATP is, in fact, a company whose project was not renewed through its scheduled completion date. The respondent, supportive of an ATP-like program in theory, disagreed with the specific decision of ATP administrators not to renew the project on grounds that the risk-level of the technical work was being lowered by substitution of low-risk goals. He reported that he "never got straight answers from NIST," their attention to the research project was inadequate, ATP's technical liaisons had insufficient authority, and that, despite his company's diligence on a difficult project, the ATP award was rescinded. In his words, "We felt stood up by NIST. We did a lot of work, and they changed their mind."

Another critic of ATP focused on the complexities of joint venture research. "It's a messy way to do research," he said. "You have seven different entities without a common agenda and a leader without true power. It's like a football game where the game will end if anyone leaves--and everyone wants to be quarterback...it's impossible to throw together these different agendas."

The third participant who complained about his ATP project says his joint venture was mismanaged by the consortium in charge of the project, which, he says, supported low quality and "worthless" work for fear of retribution from the other participants. "The chance to do high-risk research was squandered," he said, "and was of low to no impact on my company. The project was mismanaged by the (company) project leader and companies involved." His company, which he blames in part for the shortcomings of the experience, thought about pulling out because of the "lousy work." He emphasized the importance of having decision makers involved beyond the scientists carrying out the work and maintained that his company's project manager did "a bad job...and didn't involve our company and let us know the opportunity for us." The respondent went on to say that changes have been made, including replacing the project manager, and that things have begun to turn around.