Excerpt

As the SBIR program approached its twentieth year of operation, the U.S. Congress asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a "comprehensive study of how the SBIR program has stimulated technological innovation and used small businesses to meet federal research and development needs" and make recommendations on improvements to the program. HR 5667 directs the NRC to evaluate the quality of SBIR research and evaluate the SBIR program’s value to the mission of the agencies that administer it. It calls 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 non-economic benefits. It also calls for additional analysis as required to support specific recommendations on areas such as measuring outcomes to enhance agency strategy and performance, increasing Federal procurement of technologies produced by small business, and overall improvements to the SBIR program.

Contents

• The National Academies
• Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program
• Policy and Global Affairs
• Preface
• I. Introduction: SBIR and the Phase III Challenge of Commercialization
  • THE CHALLENGE OF TRANSITION AND PROCUREMENT
  • SBIR PHASE III: ACTIVITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES
  • PHASE III CHALLENGES
  • AGENCY INITIATIVES AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  • PARTICIPANTS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PHASE III
  • SUMMARY
• II. Proceedings
  • Opening Remarks
    • The Complex Process of Innovation
    • Crossing the “Valley of Death”
    • Focus of the Conference
  • Introduction
    • Purpose of the SBIR Review
    • Wide Variations Among Agencies
    • The Focus on Technology Transition
    • The Meaning of Commercialization
    • Expediting the Transition to Commercialization
    • An Increased Need for the SBIR Program
  • Meeting Mission Needs
    • Science and Technology in the DoD
    • DoD’s Strategic Plans
    • DoD’s S&T Strategy
    • Expanding the S&T Base
    • DISCUSSION
  • Panel I: The SBIR Program: Different Needs, Common Challenges
    • A Non-linear Technology Commercialization Process
    • Leveraging Small Business Innovation to Benefit the Warfighter
    • Imperfect Quantitative Metrics
    • The Advantage of Requirements “Pull”
    • Technology Insertion as a Team Effort
    • SBIR as a Source of Innovation
    • An Effective Technology Assistance Program
    • Role of the Prime Contractors
    • SBIR Programs Do Not Cover Administration Costs
    • A Need for More Staffing
    • Improving Topic Generation
    • The Function of OnPoint
    • Barriers to Success
    • The Three Phases of the SBIR Program
    • Helping Small Businesses Understand Agency Needs
    • DISCUSSION
  • Panel II: Transitioning SBIR: What Are the Issues for Prime Contractors?
    • Long Involvement with SBIR
    • Boeing’s SBIR Procedures
    • Some Boeing Success Stories
    • Advantages of a Team Approach
    • Understanding the Customer’s Needs
    • A Need to Improve Procedures
    • Sharing Responsibility
    • Developing a More Strategic Outlook
    • Building a Relationship between Prime Contractors and Small Businesses
    • Using SBIR to Leverage Emerging Technologies
    • The Need for Integrated Roadmaps
    • Benefits of SBIR and STTR to Raytheon
    • Raytheon Success Stories
    • SBIR Brings Access to High-level Expertise
    • Strategies for Engaging Technologies
    • Advantages of SBIR …
    • … and Impediments to Execution
    • DISCUSSANT
    • DISCUSSION
  • Keynote Speech Accelerating Innovation: The Luna Innovation Model
    • DISCUSSION
  • Panel III: Challenges of Phase III: SBIR Award Winners
    • SOME PHASE III TRANSITIONS
    • Improving the Acquisition System
    • Moving SBIR into the Mainstream
    • A Suggestion for Filling the Funding Gap
    • Unleashing the Innovative Power of Small Business
    • Looking Beyond SBIR to Commercialization
    • The Advantage of “Small Phase III” Grants
    • The Downside of Contract Downsizing
    • The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
    • SBIR Projects
    • A Project with an Unhappy Outcome
    • Protecting Sensitive Knowledge
    • A High Success Rate
    • Improving the Phase III Transitions
    • The Need for Overall Improvements
    • Difficulties of Technology Insertion
    • A Strengthening Alliance with Prime Contractors
    • Challenges in Working with the Program
    • Financing Difficulties
    • DISCUSSANT
    • DISCUSSION
  • Panel IV: Best Practice for Agency Programs: Program Executive Offices and Program Offices
    • Advantages of an Outreach Strategy
    • Suggestion in the Gansler Memo
    • An Emphasis on Research
    • Thinking about Commercialization from the Outset
    • SBIR Projects that Benefited from Collaboration
    • Success from the Point of View of Integrated Product Teams
    • Success from the Prime’s Point of View
    • Success from the Small Business Point of View
    • “Passing the Baton” from Phase II to Phase III
    • What Works, What Doesn’t Work
    • Factors that Bring Success
    • Where to Add, Where to Strengthen
    • DISCUSSION
  • Panel V: Lessons Learned
    • How to Fund Phase III
    • The Advent of Spiral Development
    • The Advantage of Beginning with “Phase Zero”
    • Using the Company Commercialization Report
    • Blending a New Technology with Other Technologies
    • DISCUSSION
  • Concluding Remarks
• III Appendixes
  • A Biographies of Speakers
  • B Participants List 14 June 2005 Symposium
  • C Bibliography

This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DASW01-02C-0039 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense, N01-OD-4-2139 (Task Order #99) between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, NASW-03003 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, DE-AC02-02ER12259 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy, and DMI-0221736 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.