An Assessment of the SBIR Program (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 91-107
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 91... ...
See National Research Council, An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program at the National Institutes of Health, Charles W Wessner, ed., Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
|
From page 93... ...
93 PREPUBLICATION COPY Figure 3-10 Annual change in the number of Phase I applications 100 Annual % change in number of Phase I proposals 80 60 NIH 40 NSF NASA 20 DoD 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -20 -40 Source: Agency data UNEDITED PROOFS
|
From page 94... ...
94 PREPUBLICATION COPY Figure 3-10-b The Venture Capital Bubble 3.6 Geographical distribution The geographical distribution of awards reflects but does not mirror the distribution of science and engineering talent. For Phase I, six states received more than 2,000 Phase I awards between 1992 and 2005: Table 3-2 States with 2,000 or more Phase I awards % of all Phase I awards California 20.8 Massachusetts 14.5 Virginia 5.5 Maryland 5.1 New York 4.2 Texas 4.0 54.0 Source: SBA UNEDITED PROOFS
|
From page 95... ...
General Accounting Office, 1999. See also Small Business Administration, "An Analysis of the Distribution of SBIR Awards by States, 1983-1996." Washington DC: SBA, 1998.
|
From page 99... ...
99 PREPUBLICATION COPY Figure 3-12 Phase I awards to minority-owned firms, 1992-2005 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source: SBA Tech-Net Database The number of awards provides only part of the story. Context is provided by the overall number of awards made, and hence by the shares of Phase I awards to women and minority-owned firms: UNEDITED PROOFS
|
From page 101... ...
20 15 10 5 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source: SBA Data for Phase II are comparable: UNEDITED PROOFS
|
From page 103... ...
5 In the data collected from the agencies on Phase II awards made from 1992 to 2002, there were 2,257 firms who had at least one Phase II, but were not in the DoD database These firms were not included in the table above. Of these 2,257 firms, only six had received 15 or more Phase II during the ten years for which UNEDITED PROOFS
|
From page 104... ...
Once again, this is not a metric tracked by SBA, but agencies provide their own figures on new entrants into the program. At NIH, for example, "new" firms – not previously funded by the NIH SBIR program– accounted for about 60% of applicant firms in recent years, and for about 40% of Phase I winners: Table 3-6 New Phase I applicants and winners at NIH % of applicants not % of new firms among previously funded funded firms 2000 63.0 47.1 2001 58.0 39.8 2002 61.8 42.2 2003 63.7 42.8 2004 63.5 41.7 2005 61.0 35.8 Source: NIH Data from NSF are quite similar, indicating not only that the percentage of new winners ranges from 41% to 63%, but that the number has increased from 1999 to 2005, even though the number of past winners in the pool of potential applicants continues to increase every year: we received award data.
|
From page 105... ...
A detailed assessment of this issue is provided in Chapter 5. 6 See DoD Report, Chapter 2: Awards UNEDITED PROOFS
|
From page 106... ...
• Expanding the knowledge base Congress has not prioritized among the four objectives, although report language and discussions with Congressional staff suggest that commercialization has become increasingly important to Congress. Still, it remains important to assess each of the four objectives is mandatory, and each should therefore be taken as equally important in evaluating the achievements and challenges of the SBIR program.
|
From page 107... ...
Three kinds of comparison seem possible: with other programs at each agency, between SBIR programs at the various agencies, and with early-stage technology development funding in the private sector, such as venture capital activities. Yet, the utility of each of these three types of comparison is limited.
|
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.