An Assessment of the SBIR Program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Program Management
5 Program Management
Pages 105-150
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 105... ...
In 2006, further reorganization led a change in the balance of management power between the Mission Directorates and the centers, with the former assuming much more direct authority over SBIR topic and award selection. Because of this churn, any assessment of program management at NASA must deal with a moving target.
|
From page 106... ...
5.2 MANAGING SBIR AT NASA 5.2.1 Guiding Principles NASA has based the management of its SBIR program on the following four principles: • Aligning research topics to the highest technology priorities of the agency. • Focusing on program effectiveness as measured by Phase III commercialization.
|
From page 107... ...
Level 2. SBIR Program and Procurement Policy Managers. The NASA SBIR Program Management Office, at the NASA Ames Research Center, runs SBIR in conjunction with NASA Mission Directorates and centers.
|
From page 108... ...
found that only about six percent of NASA's 1,739 SBIR Phase II awards during this period supported technologies that were eventually infused into NASA or other federal programs via Phase III funding. The reorganization also reflects changing needs and priorities within NASA. The addition of new missions and the expansion of existing ones have placed additional demands on Mission Directorates, squeezing funding for basic research.
|
From page 109... ...
The goal was to make the SBIR program a strategic asset for NASA by integrating all aspects of these programs with NASA's mission. The change involved implementing an organizational structure that better supported the technology goals of what were then NASA's four Mission Directorates: Aeronautics, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations.
|
From page 110... ...
At NASA, this outreach is undertaken mainly through participation in national and regional SBIR conferences. NASA does not organize these events. Representatives from the ten NASA field centers regularly attend these conferences, where they set up briefing charts and displays, and hand out literature about the program.
|
From page 111... ...
External reviewers are also used for many Phase II applications, primarily for reviewing 11 Interview with Paul Mexcur, Program Manager, November 21, 2003. 12 This is based on an interview with Carl Ray, Executive Director and Paul Mexcur, Program Manager of the NASA SBIR/STTR Program.
|
From page 112... ...
To enhance fairness in the selection process, NASA screens for multiple applications from a single company, as well as duplication of proposals or technologies.15 NASA will not accept more than ten Phase I applications from the same firm in a given year, and will make not more than five Phase I awards to a single firm.16 Program management also makes sure that awards are spread appropriately across different technical areas and Mission Directorates. Problems are resolved by adjusting the rankings of proposals.
|
From page 113... ...
Each center ranks the proposals recommended for award relative to all other proposals recommended by that center. Center rankings are then forwarded to the Program Management Office for analysis, and are then presented to the Source Selection Official and Mission Directorate Representatives.
|
From page 114... ...
Once again, each center makes recommendations for awards among those proposals that it evaluates. The center recommendations are forwarded to the Program Management Office for analysis and presented to the Source Selection Official and Mission Directorate Representatives.
|
From page 115... ...
These reports are used by the COTR and the COTR's management to help identify potential for Phase III.21 The NASA contracting officer is supported by the Contract Officer's Technical Representative (COTR)
|
From page 116... ...
The data provided by the chart also serve internal marketing purposes, with the ultimate goal being to move projects from Phase II to Phase III. Technology Development for a Low-Cost Deployable Lidar Telescope Project No.
|
From page 117... ...
5.4 BEYOND PHASE II -- THE TRANSITION TO PHASE III As NASA wrestles with the problem of increasing the take-up of SBIR technologies within the agency, it will be necessary to address a number of different related issues. 23 Historically it has happened just two times in eight years.
|
From page 118... ...
There are important structural obstacles to the development of commercially 24 Based on interview with Paul Mexcur, Program Manager, November 21, 2003. 25 The issue of changing mission priorities at was raised by NASA at the NRC 2005 conference on the Phase III in Transition Conference.
|
From page 119... ...
Thus Phase III can be sole source. However, this is little evidence that this potential advantage for SBIR contractors has played much part at NASA -- according to interviews with Mission Directorate staff.29 More significantly, NASA does not track Phase III awards across the agency on an ongoing basis.
|
From page 120... ...
32 Based on interview with Paul Mexcur, Program Manager, November 21, 2003. 33 NASA tracks changes in the technology over the course of the project, distinguishing between the times required for a supported technology to move from Phase II to Phase III.
|
From page 121... ...
The absence of reliable data on Phase III -- especially on Phase III contracts within NASA, is a matter of concern both to the SBIR program office and the Mission Directorates. It is hard to manage a program effectively if there are no reliable indicators for the most important dimensions of success.
|
From page 122... ...
Based on an extended survey of SBIR awardees, this 2000 study found that during 1983-1996 about 15 percent of the 1,739 NASA SBIR Phase II awardees who responded to the NASA survey34 generated technologies that infused into NASA or other federal programs via Phase III funding.35 Thirty-one percent commercialized in the private sector.36 NASA defines commercialization as the sale of NASA technology-derived products or services that resulted in actual revenues for the SBIR firm. The Commercial Metrics survey noted "a minimum of 612 products and services" commercialized from 1983-1996 that generated at least $2.28 billion of cumulative revenues in nonfederal markets.
|
From page 123... ...
Table 5-1 shows the number of success stories produced by each NASA center, and provides one indication that "success" varies considerably by centers and regions. NASA centers with fewer success stories include Stennis, Dryden, Ames, Kennedy, and Langley.
|
From page 124... ...
On the one hand, sales alone ignore other costs: the $2.3 billion in sales generated by SBIR firms also involved financial as well as opportunity costs for the firms and for NASA far beyond NASA's $1.1 billion investment in SBIR funding. On the other hand, the calculations did not 39 Access the NASA SBIR Commercial Metric Survey at |
From page 125... ...
All materials are provided free to potential technology customers and endusers on a subscription basis, as handouts at selected technical and investment community events, and online at NASA's Web site. Senior SBIR staffers see such 40 At NASA, the effort to link SBIR technology development with mission program utilization is termed "infusion," defined as a Phase III occurrence at the end of the SBIR Phase I -- Phase II program.
|
From page 126... ...
, Innovation Partnership Program offices in each of ten NASA Centers, six Regional Technology Transfer Centers (RTTC) (currently being phased out)
|
From page 127... ...
This chapter could link seven incubators in southern five states to cull NASA and other SBIR Phase II inventories for technologies that respond to defined needs in NASA and DoD acquisition programs. At present, chapter partners are still examining the feasibility of a Southeastern NASBO chapter, due to the small number of SBIR awardees in these states.
|
From page 128... ...
• NASA Illinois Commercialization Center. cialization revenues but are pursuing Phase III strategies.
|
From page 129... ...
5.6.3 Access of SBIR Firms to Prime Contractors One key to successful Phase III contract activity is careful management of the relationship between SBIR firms and prime contractors performing platform or system work for federal customers. NASA's SBIR infusion strategy focuses on developing "market pull" from Mission Directorate project offices for SBIR technologies.
|
From page 130... ...
However, eight field centers have evolved processes that task the SBIR project monitor, or SBIR subtopic manager, with brokering such relationships, with varying degrees of specificity. This process, at its simplest, entails identifying prospective Phase III investors among NASA mission programs and projects during Phase I and II proposal evaluation.
|
From page 131... ...
. 5.8 THE REGIONAL DIMENSION NASA, with its ten field centers, has considerable potential for a regional technology orientation.
|
From page 132... ...
132 SBIR AT THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TABLE 5-3 NASA Phase I and Phase II Awards by State and Region, 1983-2003 Number Number of Total Region and NASA of Phase I Phase I Phase II Phase II Number of Total State Center Awards Dollars Awards Dollars Awards Dollars Far West 1,433 83,404 596 301,863 2,029 385,268 Alaska 2 100 1 500 3 600 Arizona 109 6,530 37 19,250 146 25,781 California ARC, 1,116 64,822 460 231,629 1,576 296,450 JPL, DFRC Hawaii 10 528 7 3,710 17 4,239 Idaho 3 209 0 0 3 209 Nevada 15 821 5 2,357 20 3,178 Oregon 66 3,931 32 16,764 98 20,695 Washington 112 6,463 54 27,653 166 34,116 Mid-Continent 607 134,946 242 124,657 849 160,829 Arkansas 5 259 1 594 6 854 Colorado 248 14,817 93 49,068 341 63,885 Iowa 10 557 6 2,635 16 3,193 Kansas 5 324 2 1,195 7 1,519 Missouri 10 658 4 2,286 14 2,944 Montana 16 1,029 5 2,536 21 3,565 Nebraska 4 220 2 732 6 952 New Mexico 77 4,709 24 12,503 101 17,211 North Dakota 1 70 0 0 1 70 Oklahoma 2 98,874 1 311 3 410 South Dakota 1 69 0 0 1 69 Texas JSC 188 11,008 88 44,434 276 55,442 Utah 37 2,161 14 7,366 51 9,527 Wyoming 3 191 2 997 5 1,188 Midwest 315 18,857 117 60,993 432 79,851 Illinois 44 2,494 16 7,843 60 10,337 Indiana 34 1,912 15 8,167 49 10,079 Michigan 68 4,011 27 13,655 95 17,666 Minnesota 52 3,217 20 10,596 72 13,814 Ohio GRC 117 7,223 39 20,732 156 27,955 New England 1,256 73,318 529 276,133 1,785 349,451 Connecticut 125 7,312 50 26,168 175 33,481 Maine 6 336 2 1,071 8 1,406 Massachusetts 724 41,883 292 150,328 1,016 192,211 New 94 5,612 47 25,103 141 30,715 Hampshire New Jersey 118 6,942 49 25,995 167 32,937 New York 177 10,434 85 45,080 262 55,514 Vermont 12 799 4 2,388 16 3,187
|
From page 133... ...
The management challenge is even more complex because the SBIR program is a component of NASA's Innovation Partnership Program (IPP) .46 Although often overlooked, each of IPP's components interacts with state and local science and technology infrastructures.
|
From page 134... ...
The intermediary brought knowledge of business, the investment community, regional economies, and the ability to provide a base for sustained interactions between sources of NASA technology and firms.47 Although the rationale was clear, the evidence supporting the network's performance was weak and mostly anecdotal. For instance, despite documentation by NASA of numerous individual success stories, there were no compelling studies substantiating the contribution of the regional infrastructure to innovation and technological change -- either to spin-out or spin-in uses.
|
From page 135... ...
As a result, much of the Innovation Partnership Program's infrastructure is now being reorganized to focus on its mission of leveraging technology for NASA's Mission Directorates, programs, and projects. Whatever structure emerges from the rethinking and reorganization of the Innovation Partnership Program (IPP)
|
From page 136... ...
First, rather than turning to regional organizations established to commercialize federally funded research for regional benefit, individual NASA centers (and their researchers) will need to take greater responsibility for identifying companies best matched to the Center's specific technology needs.
|
From page 137... ...
• New Resources and Approaches. Second, with spin-in, NASA centers will need to find new resources and new approaches to managing SBIR from solicitation to Phase III.
|
From page 138... ...
In specific terms, this implies: • A higher percentage of Phase I companies achieving Phase III; • A faster rate of development of high priority NASA technologies from R&D in Phase I to use of technology by NASA in Phase II and Phase III for space missions; and • A larger fraction of SBIR technology used by NASA to advance its own capabilities.
|
From page 139... ...
Organizational NASA Centers takes primary States take primary responsibility Responsibility responsibility for 1) evaluating for funding a new RTTC-like proposals, 2)
|
From page 140... ...
. some of NASA's largest Phase III contracts come from Ames SBIR contracts, whose technology was infused into Space Life Sciences Payloads programs."51 Among the 18 Phase III contracts from Ames documented since 1983, Ames claims the largest Phase III dollar aggregate from SBIR projects among the ten NASA field centers.
|
From page 141... ...
To me, the business case of a SBIR project has to focus on Phase III opportunity -- but our administrative resources to help SBIR projects in this regard are very limited."53 DFRC SBIR has no estimate of its Phase III results from SBIR contracts. According to the NASA EHB Web site, DFRC has had two Phase III contracts.
|
From page 142... ...
As with all field centers, SBIR Phase I activity includes evaluation of infusion/commercialization opportunity in the Phase I proposal technical review process. Phase II proposal evaluation also includes a formal outside peer review of infusion/commercialization opportunities.
|
From page 143... ...
GSFC was, however, the first Center to produce and disseminate a Success Stories publication -- a function now assumed by NASA SBIR Levels 1-2 through Spin-off and other publications. According to the NASA EHB Web site, Goddard has had 15 Phase III contracts over the years.
|
From page 144... ...
SBIR topic/subtopic managers have technical/management responsibilities at JPL and NASA Headquarters levels. As with all field Centers, SBIR Phase I activity includes evaluation of infusion/commercialization opportunities in the Phase I proposal technical review process.
|
From page 145... ...
56 Some other field centers reportedly use a lower dollar threshold to determine Phase III success. 57 Itshould be noted that there is only one Phase III contract cited on the NASA EHB Web site.
|
From page 146... ...
JSC uses NASA's Success Stories Quad format of one-page summaries of SBIR projects, for use in infusion/commercialization marketing and Phase III recordation work. Although JSC SBIR Program Office does actively monitor its SBIR portfolio of companies to assess Phase III success, tracking statistics are not available except to NASA SBIR Levels 1-2 principals for inclusion in the agency-wide Spin-off and other publications.
|
From page 147... ...
According to the NASA EHB Web site, there have been nine Phase III contracts over the years at KSC. As KSC SBIR is aligned with the center's Human and Robotic Technology Program and that program's Element Plan, the SBIR Program Office holds periodic evaluative discussions with the infusion "gatekeepers" from Expendable Launch and Space Station organizations.
|
From page 148... ...
However, according to the NASA EHB Web site, there have been 29 Phase III contracts over the years at Langley. As regards the Technology Partnership Initiative, according to Northrop Grumman Newport News sources, in December, 2004 the shipyard was pursuing discussions about further collaboration with six of the SBIR projects that presented at the July, 2004 conference.
|
From page 149... ...
This was an MSFC decision, that the SBIR Program Office needed expert support to accurately track infusion/commercialization success."61 Among the ten NASA field centers, MSFC approach to recording Phase III results is unique. Like other field Centers, MSFC evaluates its SBIR infusion/commercialization practices informally, and it participates in discussions at the semi-annual meetings of field center SBIR PMs with NASA SBIR Level 1 and 2 staff.
|
From page 150... ...
According to the NASA EHB Web site, SCC has had eight Phase III contracts over the years.
|
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.