The
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) aims to make the proposal
process a smooth one for applicants, and utilizes a variety
of outreach efforts. For example, ATP sponsors a website
with detailed information, holds conferences for potential
proposers, and operates information booths at a variety of
professional meetings. Information about ATP also travels
by “word of mouth” among researchers. The Survey
of ATP Applicants 2002 asked applicants how useful
they view these information sources.
Respondents
were asked to indicate how useful each of
the following have been for them as an information
source about ATP:
- ATP
website
- ATP
Proposers Conference
- ATP
information booth at industry or trade
association meetings
- Industry
or company colleagues
Respondents
were also asked to report any additional information
sources about ATP which they found to be useful. |
Applicants
find the information sources about ATP to be useful
- 85% of
the applicants say that the ATP website is useful to
them (see Figure 1).1
- Half
of all applicants report having no experience with
ATP Proposers Conferences. While only 37% of applicants
indicate that the Proposers Conferences are useful
(see Figure 1), this represents over three-quarters
of applicants who have experience with this source.
- The majority
of applicants (72%) have no experience with the ATP information
booths at professional meetings. But over half who do
have experience with this source rate it as useful (see
Figure 1).
- Two-thirds
of applicants view industry or company colleagues to
be useful sources of information about ATP (see Figure
1).
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 - Applicant
Views of the Usefulness of ATP Information Sources
- The survey
asked applicants to tell us of any other information
sources about ATP which they had found useful. Sources
they identified largely fell into the following three
groups:
- Mailings
from ATP, including the ATP Proposal Preparation
Kit;
- Direct
contact with ATP staff;
- Previous
experience with the ATP process.
Awardees
view the information sources as more useful than
do Nonawardees
- Overall,
Awardees were more likely than Nonawardees to say they
found the source to be “very useful” (see
Figure 2).
- If they
have experience with these information sources, Nonawardees
are more likely to view them as useful than not useful
(data not shown).
FIGURE
2 - Awardee and Nonawardee Views of ATP Information Sources
as “Very Useful”
Across
ATP technology areas, applicants differ in how useful
they view the information sources
- Applicants
in the Information Technology field were most likely
to view the ATP website as being “very useful” (see
Table 1).
- Applicants
in Materials and Chemistry were most likely to view the
ATP Proposers Conference as useful. Those in the Electronics
area were especially unlikely to have had experience
with a Proposers Conference (see Table 1).
- Applicants
in the Information Technology field were least likely
to view ATP information booths at meetings as being useful
(see Table 1).
- Applicants
in the four technology areas were similar in viewing
industry or company colleagues as a useful source of
information.
Applicants
on Joint Venture proposals were more likely to view colleagues
as useful information sources about ATP
- Four
out of five applicants submitting Joint Venture proposals
report that industry or company colleagues have been
useful sources of information about ATP, compared to
61% of single applicants.
TABLE
1 - Applicant
Views of ATP Information Sources, by Technology Area
| |
Biotechnology |
Materials
and Chemistry |
Electronics |
Information
Technology |
| ATP
Website |
| Very
useful |
43% |
39% |
45% |
53% |
| Somewhat
useful |
45% |
46% |
39% |
30% |
| Not
useful |
8% |
7% |
7% |
11% |
| No
experience |
4% |
8% |
9% |
5% |
| ATP
Proposers' Conference |
| Very
useful |
15% |
19% |
12% |
12% |
| Somewhat
useful |
20% |
25% |
17% |
20% |
| Not
useful |
7% |
11% |
10% |
12% |
| No
experience |
58% |
44% |
60% |
50% |
ATP
information booth at metings |
| Very
useful |
3% |
4% |
1% |
5% |
| Somewhat
useful |
14% |
16% |
11% |
5% |
| Not
useful |
12% |
12% |
14% |
15% |
| No
experience |
71% |
68% |
73% |
75% |
Industry
or company colleagues |
| Very
useful |
32% |
30% |
32% |
25% |
| Somewhat
useful |
31% |
36% |
36% |
34% |
| Not
useful |
18% |
12% |
12% |
19% |
| No
experience |
19% |
22% |
20% |
22% |
__________________
1 We have combined the response categories “very
satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” for
ease of reporting
Date
created: February 2, 2005
Last updated:
August 10, 2005
|
