 |
Performance
of 50 Completed ATP Projects
Status
Report - Number 2
NIST SP 950-2
Chapter
1 - Overview
|
|
Part
1 - Project Characteristics
|
| The
majority of the first 50 completed projects were led by small businesses,
who submitted proposals to ATP as single-company applicants. Almost
all of them had collaborative relationships with other firms and universities.
Nearly all were funded in ATP’s General Competitions. More than
one-third of the technologies were classified as “electronics,
computer hardware, or communications.” ATP and industry shared
the $208 million in total project costs about equally. |
Single Applicants
and Joint Ventures
Eighty-four percent of the 50 projects were “single-applicant projects.”
This means that a single company proposed the project, and that it was
subject to an upper limit on ATP funding of $2 million and a time limit
of 3 years.
The dominance of single-applicant
projects occurs for two reasons. First, single-applicant projects make
up the majority of all projects. Second, the constraint on single-applicant
project length means they end sooner than most joint ventures.
Sixteen percent of
the 50 projects were joint ventures. Each of these projects had a minimum
of two for-profit companies sharing research and costs. Typically, the
joint-venture membership included other organizations, such as other for-profit
companies, universities, and nonprofit laboratories. These projects, free
of the funding constraint, tended to take on larger problems for longer
periods of time.
Project Leaders
The high percentage of small companies tends to result from a high percentage
of single-applicant projects, most of which are led by small businesses.
Thirty-one of the 42 single-applicant projects, among the 50, were led
by small businesses. “Small” is defined according to the Small
Business Administration’s definition and includes companies having
fewer than 500 employees.
Medium-sized companies
led 3 of the 42 single-applicant projects. Large companies—defined
as Fortune 500 or equivalent firms—led 6. Nonprofit institutions
led 2.(8)
Of the 8 joint-venture
projects, small companies led half of them. A large company led 1. Industry
consortia led the other 3.
A Variety of Technologies
The 50 completed projects fall into five different technology areas used
by ATP for classification purposes. Figure 1, the lower of each pair of
bars, shows the percentages of completed projects by technology area.
The highest concentration, with 19 projects and 38 percent of the total,
is in Electronics/Computer Hardware/Communications. Manufacturing follows
with 11 projects, comprising 22 percent. Biotechnology and Advanced Materials/Chemicals
each have 7 projects or 14 percent each. The lowest concentration is in
Information Technology, with 6 projects or 12 percent.
For comparison purposes,
Figure 1.1, the upper of each pair of bars, shows the distribution across
the same five technology areas for 468 projects awarded through 1999.
For the portfolio of ATP projects, Information Technology makes up the
largest share of projects, followed by Advanced Materials/Chemicals.
Figure 1.1 Distribution
of Projects by Technology Area
Projects classified
as Electronics/Computer Hardware/Communications and Manufacturing are
more strongly represented in the set of 50 completed projects than in
the portfolio of all ATP projects, while the other three categories—particularly
Information Technology—are underrepresented. Differences in the technology
make-up of the 50 study projects and the larger ATP portfolio of projects
largely reflect the changing composition of applicants and awardees over
time. Nearly all of the 50 first-completed projects come from ATP’s
general competitions that were open to all technologies. A substantial
part of ATP’s total portfolio comes from the focused program competitions
that were held from 1994 through 1998. These competitions funded technologies
in selected areas of focus.
Since successful information
technology projects tend to progress faster than some of the other technology
areas, it is possible that a set of projects more reflective of ATP’s
overall technology distribution would show more progress than the current
set of 50.
Collaborative Activity
Although only 16 percent of the 50 projects were joint ventures, 84 percent
had collaborative arrangements. As shown in Table 1, nearly half the 50
had close R&D ties with universities, and more than half the projects
formed collaborative arrangements to pursue commercialization.(9)
|
Table
1. Collaborative Activity
|
| Type of Collaboration |
Number
of Projects
|
Percentage
|
| Collaborating
on R&D with other companies or nonuniversity organizations |
21
|
42%
|
| Close R&D
ties with universities |
24
|
48%
|
| Collaborating
on R&D with other companies or nonuniversity organizations OR
close R&D ties with universities |
33
|
66%
|
| Collaborating
on commercialization with other organizations |
27
|
54%
|
| Collaborating
in one or more of the above ways |
42
|
84%
|
Duration of Projects
The median length for the 50 projects was three years. Half of the projects
lasted 33 to 36 months. Another group clustered around the two-year mark.
Five joint-venture projects lasted longer than 36 months.
Costs of the Projects
As shown in Table 2, ATP and industry together spent a total of $208 million
on the 50 projects. They shared almost equally in the costs. The ATP spent
an average of $1.5 million per single-applicant project and an average
of $4.9 million per joint-venture project. Across the 50 projects, the
average total cost (ATP plus industry) per project was $4.2 million. (Funding
amounts and cost-share percentages are displayed project by project in
Chapters 2 through 6).
|
Table
2. ATP Funding, Industry Cost Share, and Total Costs of 50 Completed
Projects
|
|
Type
of Project
|
Single-Applicant
Projects
|
Joint
Venture Projects
|
All
Completed Projects
|
ATP Funding
($ Millions) |
64.5
|
39.5
|
104.0
|
Industry Cost
Share($ Millions) |
57.0
|
47.0
|
104.0
|
Total Project
Costs
($ Millions) |
121.5
|
86.5
|
208.0
|
ATP Share of
Costs (Percent) |
53
|
46
|
50
|
Industry Share
of
Costs (Percent) |
47
|
54
|
50
|
Most of the single-applicant
projects had total research costs under $3 million, and an ATP share between
$1 and $2 million. Twelve percent had total costs in excess of $5 million.
The ATP funded 53 percent of the total cost of the 42 single-applicant
projects.
Nearly half of the
joint ventures received $2 to $5 million from ATP, and all but one received
less than $10 million. Nearly three-quarters of the projects had total
costs (ATP plus industry) between $5 and $20 million. Joint ventures,
which comprised only 16 percent of the total number of projects, accounted
for 38 percent of total ATP funding.
____________________
8.
Nonprofit institutes were eligible for funding as single applicants in
the first two years of the program, before Congress changed the provisions
to make them ineligible. Two nonprofits, Michigan Molecular Institute
and Microelectronics Center of North Carolina, received awards in ATP’s
second competition.
9. This assessment of collaborative relationships
likely understates the number because it focused on the project’s
lead organization and probably missed some of the informal collaborative
relationships of other participants.
Return to Table
of Contents or go to next section.
Date created: April
2002
Last updated:
April 12, 2005
|
