Project Antecedents

The current assessment of the SBIR program follows directly from an earlier analysis of public-private partnerships by the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP). Under the direction of Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus of Intel, the NRC Committee on Government-Industry Partnerships prepared eleven volumes reviewing the drivers of cooperation among industry, universities, and government; operational assessments of current programs; emerging needs at the intersection of biotechnology and information technology; the current experience of foreign government partnerships and opportunities for international cooperation; and the changing roles of government laboratories, universities, and other research organizations in the national innovation system.⁵

This analysis of public-private partnerships included two published studies of the SBIR program. Drawing from expert knowledge at a 1998 workshop held at the National Academy of Sciences, the first report, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: Challenges and Opportunities, examined the origins of the program and identified operational challenges critical to the program’s future effectiveness.⁶ The report also highlighted the relative paucity of research on the SBIR program.

Following this initial report, the Department of Defense (DoD) asked the NRC to assess the Department’s Fast Track Initiative in comparison with the operation of its regular SBIR program. The resulting report, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, was the first comprehensive, external assessment of the Department of Defense’s program. The study, which involved substantial case study and survey research, found that the SBIR program was achieving its legislated goals. It also found that DoD’s Fast Track Initiative was achieving its objective of greater commercialization and recommended that the program be continued and expanded where appropriate.⁷ The report also recommended that the SBIR program overall would benefit from further research and analysis, a recommendation subsequently adopted by the U.S. Congress.

SBIR Reauthorization and Congressional Request for Review

As a part of the 2000 reauthorization of the SBIR program, Congress called for a review of the SBIR programs of the agencies that account collectively for 96 percent of program funding. As noted, the five agencies meeting this criterion, by size of program, are the Departments of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation.

HR 5667 directed the NRC to evaluate the quality of SBIR research and evaluate the SBIR program’s value to the agency mission. It called for an assessment of the extent to which SBIR projects achieve some measure of commercialization, as well as an evaluation of the program’s overall economic and noneconomic benefits. It also called for additional analysis as required to support specific recommendations on areas such as measuring outcomes for agency strategy and performance, increasing federal procurement of technologies produced by small business, and overall improvements to the SBIR program.

Acknowledgments

On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants of the conferences and meetings, as well as by survey respondents and case study interviewees who participated over the course of this study. We are also very much in debt to officials from the leading departments and agencies. Among the many who provided assistance to this complex study, we are especially in debt to Kesh Narayanan, Joseph Hennessey, and Ritchie Coryell of the National Science Foundation; Michael Caccuitto, Victor Ciardello, and John Williams of the Department of Defense; Robert Berger and later Larry James of the Department of Energy; Carl Ray and Paul Mexcur of NASA; and Jo Anne Goodnight and Kathleen Shino of the National Institutes of Health.

The Committee’s research team deserves major recognition for their role in the preparation of this report. Special thanks are due to Dr. Robin Gaster who stepped in to lead the DoD research team. Without his enormous energy, persistence, and productivity, this report would not have been completed. The DoD report and project as a whole are in debt to Peter Cahill, who made available his unparalleled knowledge of the program and its data. The important contributions made by Dr. Irwin Feller, who provided early, insightful, draft of the DoD study and conducted a large number of case studies are gratefully acknowledged. Paul Fowler also provided a valuable empirical perspective. Dr. Zoltan Acs carried out a number of case studies and contributed his valuable insights on the challenge of early-stage finance for innovative small businesses. Sujai Shivakumar also merits thanks for his careful review, edits, analysis, and written contributions, which were essential for the preparation of this report. Without collective efforts of these individuals, amidst many other competing priorities, it would not have been possible to prepare this report.

National Research Council Review

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.

We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Robert Barnhill, Arizona State University; William Bonvillian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley; and Heidi Jacobus, Cybernet Systems Corporation.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Robert Frosch, Harvard University, and Robert White, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring Committee and the institution.

Jacques S. Gansler

Charles W. Wessner

Footnotes

1

See Lewis M. Branscomb, Kenneth P. Morse, Michael J. Roberts, Darin Boville, Managing Technical Risk: Understanding Private Sector Decision Making on Early Stage Technology Based Projects, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2000.

2

For a summary analysis of best practice among U.S. public-private partnerships, see National Research Council, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies: Summary Report, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002.

3

See the SBIR Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 5667, Section 108).

4

National Research Council, SBIR: Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004. National Research Council, SBIR and the Phase III Challenge of Commercialization, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

5

For a summary of the topics covered and main lessons learned from this extensive study, see National Research Council, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies: Summary Report, op. cit.

6

See National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: Challenges and Opportunities, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

7

See National Research Council, The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. Given that virtually no published analytical literature existed on SBIR, this Fast Track study pioneered research in this area, developing extensive case studies and newly developed surveys.