SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges Report of a Symposium (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Panel VI — Roundtable Discussion
Panel VI — Roundtable Discussion
Pages 138-144
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 138... ...
He also expressed the desirability that some of the smaller SBIR agencies participate in the study, at least in terms of input and recommendations. "The very worst thing," he said, "would be to end up with recommendations that have an adverse effect on the smaller agencies." He said that the focus would necessarily be on the five largest agencies, which receive 96 percent of the SBIR dollars, but noted that the small ones may have some good practices to learn about "because they may be more nimble and faster to move." He turned to the Department of Energy's discussion of proprietary data.
|
From page 139... ...
Baron noted that the symposium had heard examples of "the program at its best, of technology from companies whose SBIR-developed products have contributed to our lives in important ways." He referred to the cases of Martek Biosciences and Advanced Technology Materials. Technology developed by the latter company, he said, made it possible to transport toxic gases safely and avoid the need to evacuate whole communities should a transport truck crash.
|
From page 140... ...
Stephan said that her comments about the SBIR program stem from her interest in what leads scientists and engineers to be productive and the role that federal funding plays in fostering productivity. First, she said, her work leads her to expect the benefits of the SBIR program to be highly skewed and distributed unevenly.
|
From page 141... ...
He said that NASA, for example, had done strong work with technical and commercial assistance; DoD with self-assessment; DoE with criteria to evaluate Phase III and to speed up the process as a whole; and NIH in using NIAID's infrastructure to support clinical outcomes. "I hold a somewhat heretical view," he said, "that the best ways to improve the program are more likely to come from what's already present and working in the program than from external benchmarks or insights we might bring from outside the program." Remaining Relevant The third challenge, he said, was a contextual challenge: where and how does SBIR fit (1)
|
From page 142... ...
She said it was appropriate to be sensitive about redundancy and work burdens, but that reporting was essential -- knowing the outcome of a project and being able to measure it. Here again she advocated a simple approach: was the company still alive and making any sales, and was any portion of its product mix related to a product or process specified in the SBIR grant?
|
From page 143... ...
"The reason so many companies die trying to get across the valley of death is that it is so wide and takes companies so long to cross it." A lot of that time is spent waiting for grant cycles and other agency procedures, she said. In the biotech world, each day that passes costs a company $3 to 5 million to develop a major product; for a small biotech firm, the product cost is about $1 million a day.
|
From page 144... ...
"A cold in the Department of Defense can be pneumonia for the Departments of Commerce and Education," he said. "So there is a reason to look at all of them in some way." He concluded by pointing out that the symposium had drawn excellent attendance from representatives of every sector participating in the SBIR program, including congressional staff, agency representatives, and the small business community.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.