The
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) aims to make the proposal
process useful to companies, and ensures fair and equal treatment
of all applicants. The Survey
of ATP Applicants 2002 collected information about
applicants’ perceptions of the proposal process.
Respondents
were asked to indicate:
- how
useful to their company was the process
of preparing the ATP proposal
- how
useful to their company was information
received from ATP during the review process
- the
extent to which they believed the ATP
review and decision process was a fair
process
- the
likelihood that they will apply for funding
again from ATP
|
Most applicants
view the ATP proposal process as useful
- Preparing
an ATP proposal may be useful to an applicant for a variety
of reasons. It may catalyze discussion and planning,
focus attention on specific R&D or business issues,
or clarify management commitment.
- Three-quarters
of all applicants report that the process of preparing
an ATP proposal is useful (see Figure 1).
- Just over
two-thirds of all applicants regard the information received
from ATP during the proposal process to be useful (see
Figure 1).1
- During
the proposal process, companies respond to questions
from ATP in oral review regarding technical risk and
business aspects of the project. In telephone debriefing
of Nonawardees, companies receive feedback on the strengths
and weaknesses of their proposal against ATP criteria.
- The extent
to which the 2002 applicants viewed the ATP proposal
process as useful to their company is almost identical
to that found for the year 2000 applicants.
We have combined
the response categories “very useful” and “somewhat
useful” for ease of reporting.
Companies
seeking to partner with the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) submit proposals
to the ATP. Proposals must be for
the development of innovative technologies
that could not obtain private funding
due to the high technical risk and
that have the potential to produce
widespread benefits to the economy
and society. Proposals are evaluated
for technical and economic merit
in a rigorous competitive review
process.
|
FIGURE
1 - Usefulness
to Company of the ATP Proposal Process
Most applicants
view the ATP proposal process as fair
- Three-quarters
of all applicants report that the ATP review and decision
process is a fair process (see Figure 2).
- These
findings for the 2002 applicants are comparable to what
was found for the year 2000 applicants. 2
- ATP places
great emphasis on ensuring the integrity and fairness
of the proposal review and decision process. All proposals
are peer-reviewed by technical and business specialists
and evaluated according to clearly established criteria. 3
FIGURE
2 - Beliefs
that the ATP Review and Decision Process is Fair
We have combined
the response categories “large extent” and “moderate” for
ease of reporting the portion of applicants that view the
process as fair.
Technical
reviewers are government employees and business reviewers
are private sector business specialists. All reviewers sign
a strict nondisclosure agreement to ensure confidentiality
of the information in the proposals.
Many applicants
believe they will apply for funding again
- Two-thirds
of the 2002 applicants say that they will apply for funding
again from ATP (see Figure 3).4
FIGURE
3 - Likelihood of Applying for Funding Again from ATP
We have combined
the response categories “very likely” and “somewhat
likely” for ease of reporting.
Both Awardees
and Nonawardees view the ATP proposal process positively
- Not surprisingly,
Awardees view the ATP proposal process more favorably
than Nonawardees (see Figure 4).
- Still,
most Nonawardees view the ATP proposal process favorably,
and are likely to apply for funding again.
FIGURE
4 - Awardee
and Nonawardee Perceptions of the ATP Proposal Process
___________________
1 We
have combined the response categories “very useful” and “somewhat
useful” for ease of reporting.
2 We
have combined the response categories “large extent” and “moderate” for
ease of reporting the portion of applicants that view the
process as fair.
3 Technical
reviewers are government employees and business reviewers
are private sector business specialists. All reviewers sign
a strict nondisclosure agreement to ensure confidentiality
of the information in the proposals.
4 We
have combined the response categories “very likely” and “somewhat
likely” for ease of reporting.
Date
created: February 2, 2005
Last updated:
August 10, 2005
|
