• 30% for scientific and technical merit;
• 20% for potential net broad-based economic benefits;
• 20% for adequacy of plans for eventual commercialization;
• 20% for level of commitment and organizational structure; and
• 10% for experience and qualifications.

  3. EAO's published economic studies are generally available at the ATP Website, http://www.atp.nist.gov, or can be requested by calling 301-975-4332.

Chapter 1

  2. Does not add to 100%, due to rounding.

  3. Under a recent change in the ATP cost-share rules, companies as large as the Fortune 500 companies who apply as single applicants are required to cover at least 60% of total project costs, but none of these first completed projects are affected by the change.

  4. Proposers to the ATP are asked to identify potential markets for products that might one day incorporate the new technology to be developed in the project. They are also asked to discuss plans and pathways for commercializing and diffusing downstream products or processes based on the technology, assuming that their proposed research objectives are achieved and commercialization becomes technically feasible. But the ATP's funding contribution to the project is restricted to research activities and may not be used for product development.

  5. "New" in this context means that the product or process is new in fundamental terms or that it is significantly improved over earlier versions. The 38 completed projects under study here have commercialized products or processes of both kinds. And the term "product" is also used, where there is little chance of confusion, to include both products and processes.

  6. Figure 2 and the explanatory text are taken from Ruegg (1999). An earlier version of Figure 2 may be found in Ruegg (1994).

  7. See Powell (1997).

  8. See Laidlaw (1997).

  9. The Torrent Systems project was funded in ATP's Component-Based Software Focused Program Competition in 1994.

  10. As noted above, ATP funding and the research and development work it supports typically are part of a larger picture. A recipient frequently will have started some related research and development work before receiving ATP funds and may continue with additional efforts after the ATP project has been completed. It is unusual to find a project in which there is an exact one-to-one matching between technical achievements of the ATP-funded project and an award citation. For all of the entries in the table, company officials confirmed that the award was for achievements that were at least partly the result of the ATP-funded project.

  11. For two projects, the company response to the question about patent applications that had been filed but for which the grant had not yet been received was "several" instead of a precise number. For tabulation purposes, the number four has been used; it is the simple average of the number for the ten projects for which a precise answer was given.

  12. Includes projects reporting "several" papers.

  13. For a detailed treatment of the relationship between spillover benefits (knowledge and market) and commercialization, see Jaffee (1997). With reference to spillovers that occur as a new project is sold commercially, he notes: "Market spillovers will not be realized unless the innovation is commercialized successfully. Market spillovers will not be realized unless the innovation is commercialized successfully. Market spillovers accrue to the customers that use the innovative product; they will not come to pass if a technically successful effort does not lead to successful commercialization" (p. 12). In commenting on spillovers that occur because new knowledge is disseminated to others outside the inventing firm, he observes: "Note that even in the case of knowledge spillovers, the social return is created by the commercial use [emphasis in original] of a new process or product, and the profits and consumer benefits thereby created" (p. 15).

  14. There were several reasons why answers were not available for the six remaining projects. In one case, the lead company was out of business and the owner deceased. In another instance, the company had changed hands twice, and the current owners were not knowledgeable about the role of the ATP. In other cases, key staff on the project had left the company. Finally answers in a few cases were too ambiguous to tabulate.

  15. Project leaders for three of these 21 projects said their companies would have gone out of business had the ATP award not been made.

  16. Another factor potentially influenced by ATP funding - the scope and scale of the project - was not explicitly covered in the interviews for this report.

  17. Mansfield, et. Al. (1977).

  18. When the awardee supplied a range, the midpoint is used for this tabulation. One company, HelpMate Robotics, said the research was completed "much sooner" than it could ave been done without the ATP funds. It was counted in the 21 months lag group which is the median.

  19. It is unclear whether the authors used 8 or 15 years in their calculations for this set of innovations. Therefore, both numbers are given hear.

  20. See Ruegg (1998) and Powell (1997).

  21. The ATP's Economic Assessment Office has commissioned detailed economic evaluation case studies for selected projects. See Ruegg (1998).

  22. See RTI (1998), pp. 1-22, table 1-3.

  23. See Consad Research Corporation (Consad) (1996).

  24. See Consad (1996). The Consad study estimated economy wide benefits for applications of the technology in the automobile industry only, so its estimates contain no information about potential benefits from application of the new technology in other industries.

  25. See RTI (1998), pp. 1-23, table 1-4.

  26. See RTI (1998), pp. 1-22, table 1-3.

  2. Ibid., pp. 1-22, table 1-3.

  3. See RTI (1998), p. 1-22, table 1-3.

Chapter 4

Chapter 7

  2. Technology Transfer Report (1994).

  3. Gupta (1995).