Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 Quantitative Outcomes
Pages 111-127

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 111...
... 2 This chapter provides an analysis of program outcomes related to the goals of stimulating technological innovation, using small business to meet federal R&D needs, increasing private-sector commercialization of federally funded research, 3 and fostering technology transfer through cooperative R&D between small businesses and research institutions. The approach analyzes outcomes as revealed primarily by the performance of Department of Energy (DoE)
From page 112...
... The overall target population for the survey reported in this chapter is DoE Phase II SBIR and STTR awards made FY 2001-2010, 5 and most response data 6 is reported at the project level. Some survey questions, however, collect company-level information (such as number of employees)
From page 113...
... The committee acknowledges that the study lacks an experimental or quasi-experiment study design that allows a randomly based comparison of the outcomes of companies that applied and did not apply and of those that received SBIR/STTR awards and those that did not -- a design that would allow testing of the award's impact and the effect of gender and ethnicity on applications, awards, and success rates. As is typically the case in studies of competitively based grant programs, study designs that allowed comparisons only of the application or grant effect was impossible because the populations of applications and non-applications and of award recipient and non-recipients differ in many more ways than whether or not they applied and in whether or not they received an award; also, the program has criteria for making awards that are not randomly based.
From page 114...
... have not failed or been acquired) , and a bias toward PIs who have received multiple awards because they are in the system multiple times and they may tend to have a greater reliance on the SBIR program, a more favorable view of it, and a greater willingness to complete the survey; furthermore, they may have greater recall about the program from working with it multiple times.
From page 115...
... TABLE 5-1 Impact of Phase II SBIR/STTR Funding on Project Initiation, Reported by 2014 Survey Respondents Question: In your opinion, in the Percentage of Respondents absence of this SBIR/STTR award, would the company have undertaken this project? Overall SBIR Awardees STTR Awardees Definitely yes 1 1 0 Probably yes 9 10 3 Uncertain 18 20 7 Probably not 36 35 42 Definitely not 35 34 48 N (Number of Respondents)
From page 116...
... Quantitative Survey Evidence that DoE Increased Commercialization and (2) Quantitative Survey Evidence that DoE Stimulated Technological Innovation.
From page 117...
... Sales Perhaps the single most used metric for assessing SBIR-type programs is sales by the company and/or licensee of products, processes, or services or other sales incorporating the technology developed during the surveyed project. As discussed in the introduction to this report -- and echoing cautions in the 2008 National Academies report on the DoE SBIR program 11 -- overreliance of this particular metric may lead to incorrect conclusions.
From page 118...
... As shown in Figure 5-2, of the 49 percent of respondents reporting sales, most were at the lower end of the scale: 55 percent or respondents reported less than $500,000. Two percent reported sales of at least $20 million, while about 7 percent reported sales between $5 million and $20 million.
From page 119...
... Overall, 78 percent of survey respondents indicated that their project received additional investment in the technology related to the surveyed project (see Table 5-2)
From page 120...
... SOURCE: 2014 Survey, Question 36. TABLE 5-2 Additional Investment by Amount to Surveyed Project, Reported by 2014 Survey Respondents Amount of Additional Percentage of Respondents Investment (Dollars)
From page 121...
... . QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE THAT DOE STIMULATED TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION One of the congressionally mandated objectives for the SBIR and STTR programs is to "stimulate technological innovation." Evidence for this TABLE 5-3 Sources of Further Project Investment, Reported by 2014 Survey Respondents Percentage of Respondents SBIR STTR Source Overall Awardees Awardees Non-SBIR/STTR Federal Funds 40 40 39 Private Investment: U.S.
From page 122...
... With regard to patents related to the specific project being surveyed, 39 percent of respondents reported at least one patent related to the surveyed project, and 2 percent reported the receipt of five or more related patents (see Table 5-4)
From page 123...
... In addition to patents, the survey asked about articles in scientific publications. Interviews with company executives such as those of Calabazas Creek Research and Physical Sciences indicated that, for many companies, even though technical knowledge and trade secrets are very important, the company strongly supported peer-reviewed publishing (see Appendix E)
From page 124...
... , Reported by 2014 Survey Respondents Percentage of Respondents Overall SBIR Awardees STTR Awardees The PI for this project was at the time 1 0 10 of the project an RI faculty member The PI for this project was at the time of 2 2 3 the project an RI adjunct faculty member Faculty member(s) or adjunct faculty member(s)
From page 125...
... Twenty-seven percent of responding companies reported that zero percent of company revenue was was SBIR/STTR funding for the most recent fiscal year at the time of the survey, while 24 percent reported that more than one-half of the company's revenues consisted of SBIR/STTR funding for the most recent fiscal year. 19 The survey also asked about the overall impact of SBIR/STTR on the company.
From page 126...
... In the commercialization-sensitive environment created by the BayhDole Act, SBIR and STTR awards are increasingly seen as a source of earlystage financial support for promising ideas arising from university laboratories. Further, SBIR and STTR are seen as effective tools to help universities directly address new missions in technology commercialization and regional development.
From page 127...
... QUANTITATIVE OUTCOMES 127 These complementarities notwithstanding, some speakers and case study companies acknowledged the challenges involved in managing a successful partnership. These include working through administrative details of the company–university collaboration to assure smooth working relationships, sorting out who pays for what and who owns what, and supporting faculty that are not skilled in the technology commercialization aspects of SBIR/STTR programs.


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.