Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Introduction

CHAPTER 1 - Overview of Completed Projects

Characteristics of the Projects
Timeline of Expected ATP Project
    Activities and Impacts
Gains in Technical Knowledge
Dissemination of New Knowledge
Commercialization of the New Technology
Broad-Based Economic Benefits

CHAPTER 2 - Biotechnology

Aastrom Biosciences, Inc.
Aphios Corporation
Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Thermo Trilogy Corporation
Tissue Engineering, Inc.

CHAPTER 3 - Chemicals and Chemical Processing

BioTraces, Inc.

Auto Body Consortium (Joint Venture)
HelpMate Robotics, Inc.
PreAmp Consortium (Joint Venture)
Saginaw Machine Systems, Inc.

CHAPTER 5 - Electronics

Accuwave Corporation
AstroPower, Inc.
Cree Research, Inc.
Cynosure, Inc.
Diamond Semiconductor Group, LLC
FSI International, Inc.
Galileo Corporation
Hampshire Instruments, Inc. (Joint Venture)
Illinois Superconductor Corporation
Light Age, Inc.
Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Multi-Film Venture (Joint Venture)
Nonvolatile Electronics, Inc.
Spire Corporation
Thomas Electronics, Inc.

CHAPTER 6 - Energy and Environment

American Superconductor Corporation
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company
Michigan Molecular Institute

CHAPTER 7 - Information, Computers, and Communications

Communication Intelligence Corporation #1
Communication Intelligence Corporation #2
Engineering Animation, Inc.
ETOM Technologies, Inc.
Mathematical Technologies, Inc.
Torrent Systems, Inc.

CHAPTER 8 - Materials

AlliedSignal, Inc.
Geltech Incorporated
IBM Corporation

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Development of New Knowledge and Early Commercial Products and Processes

Appendix B: Terminated Projects

END NOTES

End Notes

Click here for PDF version of report.

Return to Main Page.

A few ATP projects that are announced are not carried through to completion. Some of them never actually start. Others are stopped significantly short of completing their proposed research agenda.

Announced projects may not start or may be stopped prior to completion, for a variety of reasons. But the main reason observed to date centers on difficulties with joint venture agreements. Sometimes companies that plan to collaborate may find last-minute obstacles to signing a joint venture agreement and decide to disband their planned partnership.

A project may also be derailed because technical challenges are found to pose too high a risk from the company's perspective, even with the ATP award. Or, a company--particularly a small company--may encounter cash-flow difficulties and have to drop its research activities to pursue short-term survival. In addition, the technology and business climate may change in ways that obviate the need for a project, or alter participants' willingness to proceed. Sometimes, companies simply change their strategic directions and get out of research areas they formerly wished to pursue. Over the multi-year span of ATP-research projects, a variety of personal, business, and technical circumstances can develop that alter original plans. Such change is to some extent inevitable.

From the beginning of the program in 1990 through March 1997, the period covered by this report, 12 ATP-announced projects that were scheduled to complete during this period did not complete, and, therefore, are not included in the group of projects addressed in the body of this report. Of the 12, four were announced but then were canceled without ever getting underway; eight went some distance in their research agenda, but were stopped without completing substantial portions of their planned research. The ATP contributed a total of $9.4 million to the eight projects that went part way, and $0 to the four that were stopped up front.

The following analysis identifies the major factor that contributed to the termination of each of the 12 projects, while providing anonymity to the companies to preserve their rights regarding proprietary information:

Case 1: The company, a single-company awardee, found it necessary to reassign key R&D personnel in order to pursue critical short-term objectives that were unanticipated at the time it submitted the proposal. The company requested that the project be terminated before any costs had actually been incurred, and the ATP agreed.

Case 2: ATP chose not to renew this single- company project after the first year of performance because it was not demonstrated that the company could successfully carry out the technical effort proposed.

Case 3: The company, a single-company awardee, requested that the project be terminated following its acquisition by another firm which did not wish to pursue the ATP project's area of technology development, and the ATP agreed.

Case 4: As a result of financial trouble, which entailed severe restructuring, this single-company awardee decided to end its research in the technical area of its ATP project in order to concentrate its limited resources in other areas with more immediate prospects for generating needed revenue.

Case 5: Members of the joint venture wished to stop the project due to changes in market trends in the relevant technology areas, and the ATP agreed.

Case 6: The company requested that the project be discontinued when results produced from its early work on the project were not as promising as had been expected, and the ATP agreed.

Case 7: A key member of the planned joint venture membership withdrew from the project during the negotiating phase, and ATP determined that, as a result, the project was no longer competitive against the ATP's selection criteria, and canceled it before it got underway.

Case 8: The single-company awardee ran into financial trouble, and needed to stop its research effort in order to focus on short-term survival.

Case 9: The joint venture members were unable to correct organizational deficiencies identified by the ATP, and the ATP canceled the award before research work began.

Case 10: The ATP elected not to renew this joint venture award because it determined that the project was unlikely to achieve its technical objectives in a number of different areas and that the joint venture organization was not functioning effectively either managerially or administratively.

Case 11: The companies failed to negotiate with one another the terms of their joint venture agreement, and subsequently proposed significant changes to their plan and joint venture team. The ATP rejected the revisions as not competitive against ATP selection criteria, and the project was never started.

Case 12: The companies were unable to reach agreement among themselves on the terms and conditions of their joint venture project, and it was never started.