ATP-MEP TECHNOLOGY
DIFFUSION PILOT PROJECT
Final
Report
Prepared
for
Susannah Schiller
Advanced Technology Program
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Prepared
by
Bob Weinstein, Ph. D.
Project Director
Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center
February
1, 2002
Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Executive
Summary
- Introduction
- Project
Objectives
- Project
Organization
- Project
Limitations
- Summary
of Project Phases
- Technology
Screening Process
- Overview
of Diffusion Pilots
- Key
Findings
- Recommendations
- References
- Appendix
A: Project tasks and Timelines
- Appendix
B: Screening Questions: ATP Awardee Participation in ATP-MEP Technology
Diffusion Pilot Study
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is
the result of the efforts of many individuals over a period spanning
over three years. The initial idea for this project was the result
of a working group meeting sponsored by NIST in 1998 involving representatives
from the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership. John Gudas and George Gillespie of the
ATP program played an important role in the formation of this project.
Although John and George left NIST prior to the initiation of the
project, their contributions were important to the initial development
of the project.
From 1999 to 2001,
the work of completing the project design and overseeing its implementation
fell to the Project Management Team members including:
- Charlie Alter,
EISC, Inc./Lake Erie MEP
- David Cranmer,
NIST-MEP
- Joe Houldin,
Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center
- Bob Martin,
Western New York Technology Development Center, Inc.
- John Redman,
NIST-MEP
- Susannah Schiller,
NIST-ATP
- Elliot Schulman,
CONN/STEP (CTA)
- Dennis Thompson,
South Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center
- Bob Weinstein,
Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center
The dedication and many contributions of the project management teams
members were a key to success of the project.
Each of the three
diffusion pilots were performed by a cross-function team that included
participants from MEP centers and from technology developer companies.
In addition to their efforts to faithfully implement their diffusion
plans, these teams provided valuable reports and other feedback that
contributed to the evaluation of the project. The efforts of the
three Diffusion Pilot Team leadersMark Laurenzo, Bob Martin,
and Shelly Dolingerwere instrumental to the effective implementation
of the pilots.
An important part
of this project was the documentation of effective practices and lessons
learned. Many thanks are due to Charlie Alter and John Redman, who
worked with the evaluation consultant, Robert Yin of COSMOS Corporation,
on the development of evaluation reports on both the technology screening
process and the diffusion pilots.
Finally, I want
to thank Susannah Schiller, who served as grant manager for ATP for
this project. Throughout the project, Susannah maintained a high
level of personal involvement and interest, providing valuable comments
and suggestions to improve the projects overall effectiveness.
Thanks also to Amit Bagchi and Robert Fireovid of ATP for reviewing
this report and providing insightful comments.
Please note that
the content of this report, including its recommendations, does not
necessarily represent the views of the National Institute of Standards
Technology, Advanced Technology Program. Any errors in the content
of this report are, of course, the responsibility of its author.
Bob Weinstein,
Chairman
Project Management Team
ATP-MEP
TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION PILOT PROJECT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
PURPOSE
OF THE PROJECT
The primary goal
of this project was to evaluate the feasibility of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) centers serving as a vehicle to accelerate the diffusion of
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) technologies to smaller manufacturing
enterprises (SMEs). For purposes of this project, technology diffusion
was defined as the process by which technologies are introduced to
potential user organizations, evaluated by those organizations, and
ultimately adopted. By developing and implementing pilot diffusion
plans for three selected ATP-funded technologies, the project was
designed to accomplish the following objectives:
- Develop a screening
process to identify advanced technologies that may be suitable for
diffusion to SMEs,
- Evaluate the
utility of cross-functional teams selected from multiple MEP centers
and ATP technology developers in the technology diffusion process,
and
- Identify key
success factors and significant obstacles to effective diffusion
of selected ATP technologies to SMEs through the MEP system.
TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR DIFFUSION PILOTS
The project management team
recognized at the start of the project that one of the most important
phases would involve screening and selection of three technologies
that would be the focus of the diffusion pilots. A systematic approach
was used in the screening process, based on the stage-gate
process. Thirty candidate technologies were screened for the applicability
of the technology to SMEs, the cost of adoption, and the willingness
of the technology owner to participate in the diffusion process.
As a result, the following three technologies were selected for diffusion
pilots:
- 4DI System,
developed by Intelligent Automation Systems, a non-contact system
that employs sensors to extract three-dimensional information from
objects in real time,
- Terfenol-D®
Ultrasonic Transducers, developed by ETREMA, can operate
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at higher power levels in comparison
with competitive systems, and
- Dylyn Diamond-Like
Coatings, developed by Advanced Refractory Technologies, Inc. (ART)
and acquired by Bekaert Corporation, a hard, amorphous carbon thin
film that can provide thin, hard, low-friction coating with a broad
range of characteristics.
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Key success factors for
screening advanced technologies to identify those with potential for
diffusion to SMEs
It is critical
that MEP centers efforts to diffuse advanced technologies be
focused on those technologies most likely to generate significant
improvements in SME productivity and competitiveness. Given the broad
scope of the mission and services provided by MEP centers, limited
resources are available for involvement in the diffusion of advanced
technologies. Substantial costs are involved in testing and evaluating
technologies for specific SME applications, and in training MEP center
staff on the nature of the technology and its applications. Therefore,
an effective technology screening process is essential if these efforts
are to be efficiently undertaken.
- A phased process,
such as the stage-gate approach used for this project,
is needed to ensure systematic screening of alternative technologies.
Investing time and resources to gather more information in the earlier
stages will help improve the quality of screening decisions and
should simplify the decision process in later phases of the selection
process.
- Commitment
on part of the technology developer must be confirmed during the
screening process. All expectations of the technology owner should
be clearly defined at the outset of the diffusion process.
- Technologies
should have strong evidence of their competitive advantage in specific
applications appropriate to SME markets to be selected for diffusion
through MEP centers. For technologies that are not quite ready
for diffusion within SME markets, a process for testing and verifying
the cost-effectiveness of specific applications is needed.
Cross-functional teams selected from multiple MEP centers and ATP
technology developers in the technology diffusion process are valuable
for screening technologies, identifying applications, and designing
diffusion plans.
The project involved
cross-functional teams in the technology screening and selection process
as well as in the diffusion pilot planning and implementation process.
Cross-functional teams were effective in screening and selecting technologies
for diffusion efforts. They were also valuable in the design of the
diffusion plans, in the identification of potential new applications
for the selected technologies, and in validating their cost-effectiveness.
However, cross-functional teams were of less value in efforts to diffuse
specific technology applications to individual SMEs. Once an application
of a new technology has been tested and its cost effectiveness has
been verified, communicating with companies regarding the potential
for applying the technology within their operations can be accomplished
by trained, individual field specialists.
Obstacles to the diffusion
of advanced technologies to SMEs
Obstacles to SME
adoption of new advanced technologies include lack of information,
lack of expertise, lack of funds, and risk-averse attitudes. In addition,
SME participation in the diffusion process is inhibited by factors
related to both technology developers and SMEs. In most cases, technology
developers are primarily focused on large manufacturers as the target
for transfer and eventual commercialization of their technologies.
While in some cases, the technology developers were themselves small
companies, they tended to focus on large companies because of the
more significant economic benefits that they would obtain from larger
firms and the perceived lower cost of sales in relation to total potential
benefits. Working to develop relationships with a large number of
small manufacturers was typically not preferred to working with a
few large manufacturers.
For SMEs, the
key obstacles to early adoption of new advanced technologies include
lack of available internal expertise to evaluate the potential benefits
that would be obtained from alternative technologies, availability
of financial resources to experiment with new technologies
that had not already been proven to be superior and cost-effective,
and an aversion to taking on the risks associated with new technologies
and their related costs. These costs include not only costs associated
with acquiring the technology, but also costs associated with adapting
the technology to the SMEs existing systems and training employees
in their use. Because of the limited internal capital base of many
SMEs they would need to depend on external financing to acquire some
new technologies. Before making any significant investment, most
SMEs want to minimize the risk that the investment will not generate
a satisfactory rate of return.
MEP involvement can
accelerate the diffusion of advanced technologies to SMEs
MEP centers can
contribute to accelerating the diffusion of advanced technologies
and helping SMEs overcome obstacles to adoption of new technologies.
The centers can help identify SMEs that are willing to participate
in initial (Phase 1) trials of advanced technologies. Centers can
help identify new applications that are particularly appropriate for
implementation by SMEs. Once the competitive advantages of new advanced
technologies are verified, MEP centers can help disseminate information
and case studies that illustrate the economic advantages of the technologies.
The technical experts working in MEP centers and affiliated organizations
can then help fill the expertise gap that often prevents
SMEs from adopting new technologies. Throughout the diffusion process,
MEP centers can help SMEs disseminate information regarding new technologies
through workshops (conducted in cooperation with technology developers),
publications, and through direct discussions with SMEs that would
be likely adopters of the technology. Finally, MEP centers can
help SMEs evaluate the benefits of new technologies and make optimal
decisions to enhance their productivity and competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to fully
realize the potential of the MEP system to accelerate technology diffusion,
a number of actions are recommended:
- Expanded technology
testing and evaluation resources, and a systematic process for identifying
the most cost-effective technology options, should be established.
These resources need to have extensive expertise in technology assessment
and in quantifying the costs and benefits associated with new technologies
in particular industrial applications. Lack of good, unbiased information
on the competitive advantages of new advanced technologies will
otherwise inhibit efforts of centers to encourage the adoption of
such technologies.
- An effective
business model should be developed that would enable
MEP centers to participate in technology diffusion efforts on a
fee for service basis, without adversely affecting their ability
to meet MEP performance and matching funds requirements. The model
needs to identify sources of revenue to support assistance to SMEs,
appropriate business relationships that can be formed with technology
developers without compromising the independence and reputation
of the center and MEP, and effective strategies for developing service
engagements with SMEs. The resources needed to enable MEP centers
to participate in this process can come from a variety of sources,
including technology developers, federal stakeholders, and state
technology and economic development agencies.
- Centers should
review and modify the performance objectives assigned to field staff
in order to provide incentives for field staff involvement in technology
diffusion activities. As was demonstrated in all three diffusion
pilots, the time frames required for diffusion of advanced technologies
are lengthy. Efforts undertaken by center staff in working with
technology developers and SMEs can yield valuable benefits to SME
competitiveness, but will often require substantial investments
of time and many personal contacts with technology developers and
SMEs. Staff performance metrics may need to recognize the multi-year
nature of technology diffusion projects and not discourage staff
from these extensive time commitments so long as they eventually
contribute to the centers operational and financial objectives.
If technology developers are willing to make financial commitments
to the involvement of MEP centers in technology diffusion efforts
and if federal and state stakeholders are willing to recognize and
encourage MEP centers to deliver technology diffusion services, MEP
centers will be able to make valuable contributions to accelerating
the rate of diffusion of new advanced technologies and maximizing
the competitive advantages that these technologies will provide to
U.S. manufacturers.
INTRODUCTION
The development
of new technologies is the foundation for U.S. economic growth and
prosperity. New technologies contribute to our economic well being
both by creating new products and services and by enabling more efficient
ways of producing and distributing existing products and services.
Invention of new technologies, however, is only a necessary condition
for economic progress. In order for the benefits of new technology
to be realized, they must be broadly adopted in different applications
and organizations. This process of identifying applications of new
technology, testing and verifying their competitive advantages, and
commercializing them so that they are adopted throughout industry--the
technology diffusion process--is the sufficient condition for economic
progress.
Changing Trends in Technology
Diffusion
Prior to WWII,
new technology invented within a particular country was diffused initially
by companies located in that country, giving the originating country
valuable comparative economic advantages. Over time, diffusion would
then spread to other countries that would purchase the products of
the new technology, resulting in growth in employment within the originating
country. Only over a long period of time would the use of the new
technologies in product and the development of new applications spread
to other countries.
However, the advent
of new communications technologies and the broad access to the results
of technology related research and development since WWII have facilitated
changes in the pattern of technology diffusion. Particularly in the
past 30 years, many new technologies created within the U.S. have
been diffused rapidly to other countries, with the benefits of enhanced
comparative, competitive advantage accruing to these other countries,
and with consequent decline in U.S. exports and declining relative
rates of productivity growth in the U.S.
A second major
concern regards the involvement of smaller manufacturers in adopting
new more advanced technologies. According to the results of U.S.
Census data research conducted by NIST-MEP in the U.S., over the past
30 years, the extent of manufacturing output and employment in smaller
manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) has been growing in relation to larger
manufacturers. During this same period, productivity of SMEs has
declined relative to larger manufacturers.(1) A
lower rate of adoption of new technologies and improved manufacturing
practices by SMEs have contributed to these trends. Currently, more
than 50% of U.S. manufacturing output comes from SMEs. In order to
maximize the benefits of new technologies for the U.S. economy, these
technologies need to be adopted more rapidly by SMEs.
Thus, being a
leader in research and invention of new technology is not sufficient.
In order for the benefits of new technology to be realized in the
U.S., these technologies must be diffused rapidly throughout industry,
not only to large manufacturers, but also to smaller producers and
suppliers. A number of obstacles affect the pace of this diffusion
process to and within smaller companies.
Obstacles to Adoption
of Advanced Technologies by SMEs
First, these firms
often lack internal expertise needed to verify which new technologies
are most relevant to their operations. New technologies are continually
being developed. Understanding which ones offer the greatest competitive
advantage is difficult and often requires extensive technical understanding
of the technology and its application.
Second, these
technologies also often require applied research to enable their successful
implementation by specific companies. Most smaller companies do not
have internal research and development capabilities needed and must
rely on either resources of companies that are selling the new technologies
or independent third party organizations.
Third, the risk
to smaller companies associated with adopting new technologies is
significant, due to the scale of their operations. Larger firms can
more easily implement and test new technologies without significantly
affecting their productive capacity. Also, the financial risk of
failure of new technologies to generate the necessary benefits to
recover investments is less for larger companies that have greater
internal capital resources. Smaller firms typically lack access to
capital required for early stage technology applications.
For these and many other reasons, the risk of being involved in the
diffusion of new technologies for smaller companies is significant.
In order to accelerate
the diffusion of new technologies within the U.S., federal and state
governments have established programs to enable greater access to
the funding and technical expertise. Federal programs established
to help accelerate the diffusion of new technologies include the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP)(2)
and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) programs of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).(3)
Both ATP and MEP
programs operate on the basis of public-private partnerships in which
private sector companies play an active leadership role in efforts
to develop and/or implement new technologies. Although these two programs
are complementary, they have significantly different approaches to
technology diffusion. ATP provides matching, seed capital to companies
of all sizes for the development of new high risk technologies
that have potential for broad applications and/or improvements in
productivity across multiple industries. MEP does not provide grants
to manufacturers, but rather MEP centers provide smaller manufacturers
with affordable access to technical expertise. This helps them to
evaluate new technology applications, shop-floor and business process
improvements and assists in their implementation within their operations.
Over the past 10 years, both ATP and MEP programs have generated significant
economic benefits, contributing to the development of new technologies
and improving the competitiveness and productivity of U.S. industry.
PROJECT
OBJECTIVES
The primary goal
of this project was to evaluate the feasibility of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) centers serving as a vehicle to accelerate the diffusion of
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) technologies to smaller manufacturing
enterprises (SMEs). For purposes of this project, technology diffusion
was defined as the process by which technologies are introduced to
potential user organizations, evaluated by those organizations, and
ultimately adopted. By developing and implementing pilot diffusion
plans for selected ATP-funded technologies, the project was designed
to accomplish the following objectives:
- Develop a screening
process to identify advanced technologies that may be suitable for
diffusion to SMEs,
- Evaluate the
utility of cross-functional teams selected from multiple MEP centers
and ATP technology developers in the technology diffusion process;
- Identify key
success factors and significant obstacles to effective diffusion
of selected ATP technologies to SMEs through the MEP system;
- Develop a
report for use by NIST to disseminate project results to MEP system
centers and other interested organizations, so that the lessons
learned through the project can be utilized in future efforts to
involve small manufacturers in the diffusion of advanced technologies.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The Project Director
and Chair of the Project Management Team was Bob Weinstein, Ph. D.,
President of the Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center (IMEC).
IMEC served as fiscal agent for the project. Susannah Schiller,
of the Advanced Technology Program, served as the NIST-ATP Contract
Manager. The Project Management Team included the following additional
individuals:
- Charlie Alter,
EISC, Inc./Lake Erie MEP
- Joe Houldin,
Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center
- Bob Martin,
Western New York Technology Development Center, Inc.
- Elliot Schulman,
CONN/STEP (CTA)
- Dennis Thompson,
South Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center
- John Redman,
NIST-MEP
- David Cranmer,
NIST-MEP
The project management team was responsible for developing the project
plan, the technology selection phase of the project, oversight for
the three pilot diffusion teams, and review of the projects
reports. To provide an independent evaluation of the technology screening
and pilot implementation phases of the project, NIST-MEP contracted
with Robert Yin of COSMOS Corporation to conduct interviews and prepare
reports on the evaluation of the project. Mr. Yin worked with the
projects evaluation team members Charlie Alter (team leader),
John Redman, and Bob Weinstein.
PROJECT
LIMITATIONS
The diffusion
process involves many different activities ranging from identifying
potential applications of new technologies, testing and demonstrating
their effectiveness, to efforts to commercialize the technologies
and market them to users without need for significant modification.
This project was performed using funding provided by NIST ATP. This
funding is limited to assisting in diffusing technologies and not
to commercializing or marketing them. This affected the selection
of technologies and the types of activities undertaken as part of
projects pilots. Technologies that had progressed into the
commercialization or marketing phases of the
diffusion process were not selected for the three pilots. Rather,
the project was limited to technologies that were not being sold to
SMEs but that were likely to have feasible applications for these
manufacturing markets. As a result, the focus of the diffusion pilots
was on (1) developing relationships between technology developers
and SMEs that were interested in early trials of the technology, (2)
identifying new applications of the technology relevant to SME markets,
and (3) validating the potential of the technologies to improve SME
productivity and competitiveness.
A second limitation
was the amount of funding. After allowing for costs associated with
project management, technology selection, and evaluation of project
activities, funding availability was limited to three diffusion pilots.
As a result of this restriction, the technology screening process
was focused not only on identifying ATP technologies that might have
applications within SME markets, but also on filtering
these technologies down to the three that would be the focus of the
diffusion pilots.
A final restriction
concerned the period of the project. The project management team
decided to limit funding for use within about two years. The first
8 months were used in project design, technology selection, and diffusion
team development. The last 18 months were used for diffusion pilot
implementation and evaluation. While this time period was sufficient
for the development and implementation of many diffusion activities,
it was understood that the timeframe would not be sufficient to identify
the longer-term impacts of the diffusion pilots. As will be shown
later in this report, in many cases, diffusion efforts were on going
at the conclusion of the project. As a result, some potential benefits
are still to be determined.
SUMMARY
OF PROJECT PHASES
The project was
approved in September, 1999 and was completed at the end of November,
2001. The performance of this project involved five phases. Appendix
A provides an overview of each project phase and its component
tasks. Phase 1 concerned the identification, screening, and selection
of ATP technologies. In this phase a modified stage-gate
process was used to select three technologies.(4)
In Phase 2, diffusion teams were established for each technology and
each team developed a technology diffusion plan. Phases 1 and 2 were
completed by June, 2000. Phase 3 involved the implementation of the
three pilot diffusion plans. This phase was completed by August,
2001. Phase 4 concerned the evaluation of the project. The COSMOS
Corporation prepared two separate evaluation reports. The first
concerned the technology selection and diffusion team development
process (Phases 1 and 2). The second concerned the implementation
and results of the three diffusion pilots. Finally, in Phase 5, the
results of the project were developed into a final report and the
results were presented at the 2001 NIST-MEP National Conference on
November 5, 2001.
TECHNOLOGY
SCREENING PROCESS
In the first stage
of the process, technologies that were developed with support from
ATP were reviewed to identify those ready for diffusion.
Because of limitations regarding use of ATP funding, technologies
that were already being commercialized and used by SMEs were excluded
from consideration. At the other end of the diffusion continuum,
technologies that still required significant research and development
for commercial application were also excluded from consideration.
ATP project managers identified 30 ATP supported technologies as potential
candidates for the three diffusion pilots.
- Whether the
technology developer had identified applications appropriate to
SMEs
- Willingness
of technology owners to work as part of the pilot to develop a diffusion
strategy for SMEs involving the MEP system
- Capital requirements
for transferring the technology to smaller manufacturers are affordable
- Minimal additional
research and development expenditures are required for application
of the technology within smaller manufacturers
- Existing diffusion
strategies have not been effective in penetrating small manufacturer
application markets
- Willingness
of the technology developer/owner to enter into mutually beneficial
arrangements with SMEs for the diffusion of the technology
- 4DI System,
developed by Intelligent Automation Systems
- Terfenol D
Ultrasonic Transducers, developed by ETREMA
- Dylyn Diamond-Like
Coatings, developed by Advanced Refractory Technologies, Inc. (ART)
and acquired by Bekaert Corporation
OVERVIEW OF DIFFUSION PILOTS
The project was
designed to encourage independent efforts by each of the diffusion
pilot teams. The project management team provided guidelines for
the selection of team members and for the development of the diffusion
plans. Prior to the implementation of the pilots, the qualifications
of diffusion pilot team members and each of the three diffusion plans
were reviewed and approved by the Project Management Team. Because
of differences in the nature of the three selected technologies and
differences in their stage of development, each of the diffusion plans
involved distinctive diffusion strategies.
The following
sections provide a brief overview of each of the three diffusion pilots.
Due to the requirements to maintain the confidentiality of information,
the detailed reports of the results obtained from these pilots are
not available.
Rapid Agile Metrology
for Manufacturing Pilot (5)
The 4DI system
is a non-contact system that employs sensors to extract three-dimensional
information from objects in real time The 4DI system is capable of
being used in a wide range of manufacturing processes, with a focus
on online quality inspection and non-contact dimensional gauging.
It processes images of objects instantly, measuring complex
shapes of both opaque as well as reflective surfaces. The technology
was developed by Intelligent Automation Systems, Inc (IAS) of Cambridge,
MA. The 4DI system is capable of being used in a wide range of manufacturing
processes. A principal competitive advantage is its ability to be
applied to moving objects in real time.
MEP centers and
affiliated organizations involved in this diffusion pilot included
- CONN/STEP,
the MEP center for the state of Connecticut, and
- MEP Management
Services, Inc. (MEPMSI), the MEP center for Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Arizona, New Mexico, and Hawaii
The technology owner, Intelligent Automation Systems, Inc. (IAS),
viewed participation in the Pilot as an opportunity to determine the
feasibility of using the 4DI technology within smaller manufacturing
companies and ultimately to expanding the potential market for the
technology. IAS participated as a full partner in the Pilot, assigning
a staff member as an interface throughout the Pilot. IAS provided
briefings and demonstrations to MEP staff and conducted tests and
evaluations of applications. In addition, IAS provided financial
support for an SME client workshop.
Sheldon Dolinger
of Connecticut Technology Associates was the diffusion team leader.
Several different approaches were implemented and their effectiveness
evaluated for engaging the Manufacturing Extension Partnership network
in diffusion of ATP-developed technologies to smaller manufacturing
enterprises (SMEs). The following mechanisms were used by the pilot
to diffuse the 4DI technology to SMEs:
- MEP Field Engineers
in Connecticut (CONN/STEP) and other New England states (through
MEPMSI) identified SMEs with potential to apply the 4DI technology
and helped introduce the technology to these companies.
- Information
on the technology was directly disseminated to 41 MEP Centers in
34 states through mailings, phone and e-mail communication.
- Several MEP
centers used newsletters to provide information to SMEs on 4DI
technology applications.
- Workshops
were held for SMEs in Connecticut and Massachusetts
- MEP centers
encouraged SMEs to attend Trade Shows where the 4DI technology
was exhibited.
Of these mechanisms, workshops were found to be the most effective
mechanism in creating awareness of the technology and increasing the
likelihood for diffusion. In a workshop the technology owner interfaces
directly with the SME user without any intermediaries. However, the
cost and effort to create a workshop is high and an intermediary is
needed to perform this function. Use of newsletters to promote awareness
of the technology was also found to be effective. However, the cost
of this approach was increased by the need for individual follow-up
by MEP staff and diffusion team members with companies responding
to newsletters. Broad direct mail distribution of information to
MEP centers was not found to be highly effective. Without personal
contact and incentives to build interest within the MEP community,
direct mail of technology information did not result in the identification
of diffusion opportunities.
Efforts to diffuse
the 4DI System technology were continuing at the conclusion of the
diffusion pilot. The time frame required for diffusion was found
to be lengthy for the 4DI System technology. In part this reflects
the significant cost of the technology and the need for applied research
to customize 4DI systems and software to each unique application,
and in part it reflects the bad macro-economic conditions at the time
of the pilot. At the conclusion of the pilot, 16 SMEs had been identified
that expressed interest in applying the technology within their operations
and three were in the process of formalizing relationships with the
technology developer to integrate the 4DI System technology into their
operations.
Terfenol
D Utrasonic Transducers Pilot (6)
Terfenol-D® is
a "magnetostrictive" material, meaning it changes shape
in a magnetic field, converts electrical power to mechanical power,
and vice versa. Advantages of Terfenol-D based ultrasonic transducers
are their ability to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at higher
power levels in comparison with competitive systems. ETREMA Corporation,
located in Ames, Iowa, provides design and manufacturing of Terfenol-D®
driven products.
The Terfenol-D®
based ultrasonic technologies diffusion plan was developed and implemented
by a cross-functional team that included individuals with technical,
industrial, and technology transfer backgrounds from the following
MEP centers:
- Ben Franklin
Technology Partners (associated with Pennsylvanias MEP centers)
- EISC, Inc.
/ Lake Erie MEP in Toledo Ohio
- Iowa State
University, Center For Advanced Technology Development, affiliated
with the Iowa MEP
- Minnesota Technology,
Inc., the MEP center for the state of Minnesota.
The pilot attempted to diffuse Terfenol-D® technology through the
following strategies:
- The Diffusion
Team developed an understanding of the Terfenol-D® technology and
identified its high potential applications, targeted industrial
sectors, and SMEs most likely to be interested in adopting the technology.
- The Diffusion
Team worked through the MEP system to identify specific SME companies
that had potential interest in the technology for product and process
development.
- The Diffusion
Team implemented a proactive technology diffusion process that:
- Provided
demonstrations of the technology, either at the ETREMA Corporation
site or at another location proximate to the locations of potential
adopters.
- Conducted
workshops for potential adopters of the technology regarding its
applications.
- Disseminated
short articles describing the technology and SME application opportunities
through MEP Center newsletters and other appropriate publications.
- Identified
business agreements and other strategies to provide for the diffusion
of the technology.
- Identified
critical adoption success factors and created strategies to overcome
significant obstacles prohibiting the effective diffusion of ETREMA
technologies to SMEs.
To focus the diffusion plans activities and maximize potential
for technology diffusion, these strategies were employed for technology
applications in food processing, sonochemistry, and wastewater treatment.
A total of 248 companies (166 sonochemistry, 37 wastewater treatment,
and 45 food processing companies) were targeted for diffusion efforts.
Thirty-two more contacts introducing the ETREMA 6kW technology were
made by Diffusion Team members to MEP client customers in Ohio and
Minnesota, as well as from attendance at regional conferences and
trade shows.
Targeted SMEs
were contacted by telephone to determine how they made technology
adoption decisions, and whether they were interested in learning more
about ETREMAS 6kW ultrasonic technology. A total of 47 interviewed
companies (representing sonochemistry, wastewater treatment, and food
processing) expressed interest in the technology.
Follow-up with
these companies found that most of them were looking for integrated
solutions to their process or product development. In addition, many
of the SME companies did not have the internal resources (R&D
budget and engineering staff) to develop the process for their application.
In order to reach SMEs, this required ETREMA to focus on technology
providers (integrators) that can develop process equipment and applications
to meet a market need.
Therefore, the
pilot team became committed to finding a technology demonstration
event that would showcase an applied demonstration platform for the
food processing industry. The negotiations with Richter, a technology
consultant to major food processors, were unsuccessful, so ETREMA,
the pilot team, and ISU researchers then worked together to develop
a research and development project and application demonstration for
the ultrasonic treatment of Escherichia coli experimentally inoculated
into ground beef. ISU conducted two experiments with ETREMAS
in-line sonication system, and found no effect of the
process. The results for both total microbial populations and Escherichia
coli for the processed samples were not statistically different from
the control, untreated samples. Further testing of the system design
and optimization of the process parameters are needed to determine
the impact of ultrasonic treatment of Escherichia coli experimentally
inoculated into ground beef.
ETREMA has also
pursued relationships with some SMEs idenfied through this pilot.
The updated status of on-going technology development diffusion application
projects with potential technology adopters is:
- 27 companies
have on-going discussions regarding the ETREMA technology
- 5 companies
have undergone proof of concept testing
- 3 are in the
process of deciding whether to proceed with prototype development
DYLYN Diamond-Like Coating Pilot Results
(7)
Dylyn technology
is a unique family of diamond-like coatings. Dylyn is a hard, amorphous
carbon thin film deposited from readily available hydrocarbons. The
properties of the material are fully tailorable through doping and
can provide thin, hard, low-friction coating with a broad range of
characteristics. It is considered a platform technology, because it
has potential applications in many industries. The coating is currently
being commercially used in the U.S. semiconductor market.
For this diffusion
pilot, the plastics industry was chosen as the target. Plastics industry
SMEs are widely scattered throughout the country and the MEP system
has a successful history of working with them. Also, Bekaert had
some early success providing Dylyn coatings to plastics applications
in Europe. This technology diffusion pilot investigated the potential
competitive advantages that could be provided to SMEs in the U.S.
plastics industry through the use of Dylyn technology. The participants
in the project included:
- Advanced Refractory
Technologies, Inc. (ART) and Bekaert Corporation, the technology
owners
- Plastics Technology
Deployment Center (PTDC), an MEP specialty center, a technical resource
- Western New
York Technology Development Center (TDC), an MEP center, the project
leader.
The principal tasks in the project included:
- Introducing
Dylyn to SMEs in the plastics industry through the MEP system,
- Testing and
evaluating Dylyn in a broad range of commercial applications at
SMEs,
- Developing
a plan for ART/Bekaert to continue to diffuse Dylyn technology,
- Attempting
to diffuse Dylyn through involvement of the MEP system.
Of the 139 plastics companies initially targeted for participation
in the project, 12 companies with 14 commercial applications completed
pilot tests. The tests focused on three primary objectives: decreasing
mold wear, improving mold release, and reducing wear in parts other
than molds (e.g., injector pins). Although Dylyn demonstrated some
performance advantage compared to existing technologies in three of
the applications, these tests demonstrated no overwhelming competitive
advantage for Dylyn.
Bekaert designs
and prices each coating to the specifications of the customer. In
this pilot diffusion project Bekaert had not developed pricing, and
without it, participants were unable to compare the cost of Dylyn
to currently available technologies. Because of uncertainties associated
with cost and performance, none of the participating SMEs were willing
to commit to using the technology.
The results of
the testing phase of this diffusion pilot project are inconclusive.
The fact that Dylyn demonstrated no clear performance advantage is
puzzling, because strong market acceptance for Dylyn is reported among
European SMEs. In attempting to understand this puzzle, the diffusion
team identified two critical questions that the pilot did not answer.
Were the specific applications studied the best applications for the
coatings? Were the coatings applied under optimal conditions? In
the project, both of these issues were the responsibility of ART/Bekaert,
the technology owner, whose U.S. team had limited commercial coating
experience and used a deposition chamber that had not been qualified
for production coatings. The inconclusive results of the pilot may
be a function of the art of coating rather than the technology. Additional
testing is needed. Unless tests can show a conclusive competitive
advantage for Dylyn, the MEP system should be unwilling to use its
resources to help diffuse Dylyn to U.S. SMEs.
Development of
a plan for continuing diffusion of Dylyn was also part of the project,
although the implementation of the plan was outside the projects
scope. In the plan, Bekaert will continue to test and diffuse Dylyn
technology through the following activities:
- Establishing
commercial coating operations,
- Transferring
technology from Bekaert operations in Europe,
- Conducting
additional analysis,
- Conducting
tests and analysis for new applications of Dylyn.
Each of these continuing diffusion activities is underway. A measure
of Bekaerts continuing commitment to the diffusion of Dylyn
is their new commercial coating facility that opened near Buffalo,
NY, in August 2001; it is currently operating at full capacity. Also,
Bekaert has expressed an interest in continuing its work with NIST
MEP to evaluate the use of Dylyn by SMEs in the stamping and electronics
industries.
KEY
FINDINGS
A careful review
and evaluation of the technology screening process and the diffusion
pilot development and implementation process were part of the project
design. The evaluation studies were conducted by COSMOS Corporation.(8)
This section of the report provides key findings and recommendations
related to the three primary project objectives: (1) developing a
process for screening advanced technologies that could be diffused
into SME markets, (2) evaluating the utility of using cross-functional
teams, and (3) identifying obstacles and effective strategies for
involving MEP centers in the technology diffusion process.
Screening advanced technologies
to identify those with potential for diffusion to SMEs is critical
It is critical
that MEP centers efforts to diffuse advanced technologies be
focused on those technologies most likely to generate significant
improvements in SME productivity and competitiveness. Given the broad
scope of the mission and services provided by MEP centers, limited
resources are available for involvement in the diffusion of advanced
technologies. Substantial costs are involved in testing and evaluating
technologies for specific SME applications, and in training MEP center
staff on the nature of the technology and its applications. Therefore,
an effective technology screening process is essential if these efforts
are to be efficiently undertaken.
The project demonstrated
that screening advanced technologies is not a simple process. Because
of the early stage of development of these technologies, many require
significant additional research and development, despite the claims
made by their developers. In the cases of the DYLYN and Terfenol
D diffusion pilots, despite efforts to ensure that the technologies
were appropriate for diffusion, significant gaps were identified in
research and verification of the cost-effectiveness of technology
applications. These gaps resulted in the need to devote funding to
testing and evaluation phase of the diffusion process, leaving less
time and resources for the application phase of the process.
The following
are recommendations to develop a more robust and generalizable technology
screening process:
- A phased process,
such as the stage-gate approach used for this project,
is needed to ensure systematic screening of technologies. Investing
time and resources to gather more information in the earlier stages
will help improve the quality of screening decisions and will simplify
the decision process in later phases of the selection process.
The cost associated with adopting a technology should be factored
into the technology selection process. If these costs are relatively
high, many small- and medium-size manufacturers are less likely
to have the necessary resources or be willing to commit the necessary
resources to adopt the technology. If these costs are not known,
the likelihood of SME interest in the technology will be significantly
reduced.
- Commitment
on part of technology developer must be confirmed during the screening
process. All expectations of the technology owner should be clearly
defined at the outset of the diffusion process. Efforts on the
part of MEP centers should be contingent on the willingness of the
technology developer to provide both financial and other resources
to support diffusion efforts undertaken by the centers. The willingness
to provide these resources is a key test of the interest on the
part of the technology developer in the diffusion of the technology
to SMEs.
- Technologies
should have strong evidence of their competitive advantage in specific
applications appropriate to SME markets to be selected for diffusion
through MEP centers For technologies that are not quite ready for
diffusion within SME markets, a process for testing and verifying
the cost-effectiveness of specific applications is needed. Because
of the diversity and the complexity of technical issues associated
with different new advanced technologies, it is not
likely that a single center could be effective in performing this
critical role for all new/emerging technologies. NIST may wish
to consider developing efficient programs for testing and evaluating
new technologies rather than relying on individual centers to perform
this essential function. Such efforts might be developed in dialogue
with other federal programs, as well as with the state science and
technology community.
Cross-functional teams selected from multiple MEP centers and ATP
technology developers in the technology diffusion process are valuable
for screening technologies, identifying applications, and designing
diffusion plans.
The project involved
cross-functional teams in the technology screening and selection process
as well as in the diffusion pilot planning and implementation process.
Cross-functional teams were effective in screening and selecting technologies
for diffusion efforts. The diversity of the expertise of members
of the project management team and their experience in working both
with technology and smaller manufacturers were important for effective
screening of technologies.
Cross-functional
teams were also valuable in the design of the diffusion plans, in
the identification of potential new applications for the selected
technologies, and in validating their cost-effectiveness. Such teams
need members who are experienced in technology and marketing, as well
as in the financial and legal issues related to the specific technology.
Cross-functional
teams were of less value in efforts to diffuse specific technology
applications to individual SMEs. Once an application of new technology
has been tested and its cost effectiveness has been validated, communicating
with companies regarding the technologys potential within their
operations can accomplished by trained, individual MEP field specialists.
Also at this stage, diffusion involves on-site extensive meetings
and personal contact with individual SMEs. While a team approach
would no doubt provide some additional value in initial meetings with
SMEs, a team approach to this phase of diffusion is less critical.
For example, in the case of the Terfenol D diffusion pilot, one MEP
center staff member was able to effectively communicate the potential
of this technology to many individual SMEs. However, once an SME
has been identified as interested in applying the technology, a team
approach may once again be needed to fully assess the technical and
market feasibility of its application.
Key success factors
and significant obstacles to effective diffusion of selected ATP technologies
to SMEs through the MEP system.
In order to provide
a framework for discussing the role of the MEP system in the diffusion
of advanced technologies, it is helpful to consider the involvement
of SMEs at each of the four stages of the diffusion process, as illustrated
in Figure 1. The line illustrates the normal process of diffusion
of a new technology from zero to 100% of its potential market penetration.
The bars illustrate the extent of SME participation in
each stage of the diffusion process measured as a percent of total
SME involvement. An explanation of the stages is provided below.
FIGURE
1- An Illustration of SME Involvement in the Technology
Diffusion Process
Note: Bars
illustrate extent of SME involvement
Stage 1: Technology
application development and trial implementation
- Smaller manufacturers
can be initial developers of new advanced technologies either individually
or as part of consortia with larger companies
- Trials within smaller
facilities are easier to implement, enhancing potential SME involvement
Stage 2: Early adoption
of the technology for commercial applications
- Smaller manufacturers
are typically not targeted by technology developers for early adoption
- Large manufacturers
generate more revenues and have lower cost of sales (transaction cost)
- Large manufacturers
are seen as industry leaders and have more influence on future technology
adoption trends
- Smaller manufacturers
are usually not interested in being early adopters
- SMEs are more
concerned with downside risk of adoption due to limited
access to capital
- Many SMEs lack
internal expertise to evaluate and successfully implement new technologies
- Many SMEs underestimate
the potential economic/competitive benefits of new advanced
technology due to lack of knowledge and ability to fully evaluate
them
Stage 3: Rapid
commercialization of the technology and market penetration
- As the effectiveness
of the technology is proven, some SMEs and most larger manufacturers
become users
- While SME adoption
of new technologies is greater in this stage, the extent of participation
remains relatively low. Lack of expertise to evaluate new technologies,
underestimation of benefits, and risk aversion contribute to slower
adoption of new technologies in Stage 3.
Stage 4: Late
adopters acquire the technology as it saturates the market
- Once the technologys
competitive advantage is well known, late adopters acquire
the technology in order to remain competitive.
- SMEs are
over-represented in Stage 4 adoptions of the new technology.
Results obtained from
the three diffusion pilots demonstrated that the MEP system and its affiliated
resources can contribute to expanded involvement of SMEs in the diffusion
process. The potential impact of MEP centers on the diffusion process
is illustrated in Figure 2 below. Stage 1 activities were the primary
focus of the three diffusion pilots. The diffusion pilots resulted in
increased involvement of SMEs in trial implementations of the technologies.
Stage 1 Obstacle:
Cost of research and development related to these applications Stage
1 Success Factors: the ability of MEP centers to help identify a source
of funding for initial trials. The pilots also demonstrated the potential
of the MEP system to help technology developers identify new applications
of the technologies that would be appropriate to SME markets.
Stage 2 Obstacle:
Resistance on the part of technology developers to focus their efforts
on smaller manufacturers. In the case of all three advanced technologies,
the developers were themselves small companies with limited resources
available to introduce their technologies to potential users. The developers
were predisposed to focus their efforts on larger companies as early adopters
in order to reduce the transactions cost in relation to the
economic benefits that they would derive from successful adoption of their
technologies.
Stage 2 Success
Factor:
MEP centers can expand the focus of the technology developers to applications
involving smaller manufacturers given available funding. Even after
the conclusion of the pilots, the technology developers were continuing
their efforts to work with smaller manufacturers in the development and
early adoption of specific technology applications. These results demonstrated
the ability of MEP centers to be effective catalysts for the diffusion
of advanced technologies to SMEs.
None of the efforts
undertaken as part of the pilots focused on expanding SME involvement
in Stage 3 of the diffusion process. As was noted in the study limitations
section of this report, technologies that were ready for commercialization
and broad implementation were not considered for inclusion in the project.
However, given the nature of the resources of MEP centers and their mission,
this is the stage of diffusion that is most likely to have potential for
the centers to make significant value-added contributions to accelerating
technology diffusion. MEP centers have a primary focus on helping SMEs
evaluate new technologies including not only equipment, but also software
and improved operational systems. The key to accelerating SME involvement
in Stage 3 of the diffusion process will be the establishment of mechanisms
for careful initial testing and evaluation of new technologies to identify
those that offer significant competitive advantages to the manufacturers
that adopt them. The creation of a systematic mechanism for the conduct
of initial evaluation and testing, as was recommended in the preceding
section, would provide a reliable basis for MEP centers to encourage SMEs
to adopt technologies. Lacking evidence of a technologys competitive
advantages, it would not be appropriate for MEP centers to encourage its
adoption by SMEs.
Finally, with respect
to Stage 4 of the diffusion process, if MEP centers are successful in
accelerating SME involvement in Stages 2 and 3, fewer SMEs will be expected
to be involved in Stage 4 adoptions. In addition, MEP centers can play
a role in identifying SMEs that have lagged in the adoption of superior
technologies and assist in the dissemination of information regarding
successes experienced by SMEs that are using them within their operations.
Ultimately, however, the market system will provide the pressure needed
to encourage late adopters to acquire new technology. Faced
with competitive pressure from smaller and larger manufacturers that have
benefited from adopting these technologies, these lagging companies will
either adopt the technologies or lose market share.
Cumulatively, the
potential impact of MEP centers on the rate of diffusion of new technologies
could be substantial. Expanded participation of smaller manufacturers
will result in an upward shift in the diffusion curve, reflecting the
more rapid pace of technology diffusion. Figure 2 below illustrates these
impacts and the potential for increased SME involvement in the technology
diffusion process.
Note: Bars
illustrate extent of SME involvement
MEP involvement can accelerate
the diffusion of advanced technologies to SMEs
MEP centers can contribute
to accelerating the diffusion of advanced technologies and helping SMEs
overcome obstacles to their adoption of new technologies. The centers
can help screen advanced technologies ready for evaluation/adoption by
SMEs as well as identify SMEs that are willing to participate in initial
(Stage 1) trials of advanced technologies. Centers can help identify
new applications that are particularly needed by SMEs. Once the competitive
advantages of new advanced technologies are verified, MEP centers can
help disseminate information and case studies that illustrate the economic
advantages of the technologies. The technical experts working in MEP
centers and affiliated organizations can then help fill the expertise
gap that often prevents SMEs from adopting new technologies in Stages
2 and 3 of the diffusion process. MEPs can help reduce the risk of early
adoption by working with the SMEs to fully evaluate the technologies and
their competitive advantages. MEP services are most likely to be effective
in Stage 3. Risks associated with Stage 3 adoptions by SMEs are much lower
than compared with Stage 2. MEPs can use case studies regarding the economic
benefits obtained by Stage 2 SME adopters to help SMEs more accurately
evaluate the benefits of the new technology. Finally, throughout the diffusion
process, MEP centers can work in cooperation with technology developers
to understand the requirements for applications of the technology within
SME markets. Regardless of the stage, MEPs can help SMEs evaluate costs
and benefits of new technologies and make optimal decisions to enhance
their productivity and competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to fully
realize the potential of the MEP system to accelerate technology diffusion,
a number of actions are recommended:
- Expanded technology
testing and evaluation resources, and a systematic process for identifying
the most cost-effective technology options, must be established. These
resources need to have extensive expertise in technology assessment
and in quantifying the costs and benefits associated with new technologies
in particular industrial applications. Lack of good, unbiased information
on the competitive advantages of new advanced technologies will otherwise
inhibit efforts of centers to encourage the adoption of such technologies.
- An effective business
model needs to be developed that would enable MEP centers to participate
in technology diffusion efforts on a fee for service basis, without
adversely affecting their ability to meet MEP performance and matching
funds requirements. The model needs to identify sources of revenue
to support assistance to SMEs, appropriate business relationships that
can be formed with technology developers without compromising the independence
and reputation of the center and MEP, and effective strategies for developing
service engagements with SMEs. The resources needed to enable MEP centers
to participate in this process can come from a variety of sources, including
technology developers, federal stakeholders, and state technology and
economic development agencies.
- Centers need to
review and modify the performance objectives assigned to field staff
in order to provide incentives for field staff involvement in technology
diffusion activities. As was demonstrated in all three diffusion pilots,
the time frames required for diffusion of advanced technologies are
lengthy. Efforts undertaken by center staff in working with technology
developers and SMEs can yield valuable benefits to SME competitiveness,
but will often require substantial investments of time and many personal
contacts with technology developers and SMEs. Staff performance metrics
in some cases may need to recognize the mulit-year nature of technology
diffusion projects and not discourage staff from these extensive time
commitments so long as they eventually contribute to the centers
operational and financial objectives.
If
technology developers are willing to make financial commitments to the
involvement of MEP centers in technology diffusion efforts and if federal
and state stakeholders are willing to recognize and encourage MEP centers
to deliver technology diffusion services, MEP centers will be able to
make valuable contributions to accelerating the rate of diffusion of new
advanced technologies and maximizing the competitive advantages that these
technologies will provide to U.S. manufacturers.
REFERENCES
1. Review of Mission and Operations
of Regional Centers of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1998.
2. The ATP program was originally established under
the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418,
15 U.S.C. 278n). ATPs authorization was amended by the American
Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-245). For additional
information regarding the ATP program see Overview of ATP,
ATP website, www.atp.nist.gov, December 2001.
3. The MEP program was originally established under
the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418,
15 U.S.C. 278n). For additional information regarding the MEP program,
see Review of Mission and Operations of Regional Centers of the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
February 1998.
4. R. G. Cooper, Winning at New Products,
2nd Edition, September, 1993.
5. ATP-MEP Diffusion Pilot Final Report: 3D
Imager for Rapid Agile Metrology for Manufacturing, Sheldon Dolinger,
Connecticut Technology Associates, Inc., March 2001.
6. ATP-MEP Diffusion Pilot Final Report: The
ETREMA 6 kW Ultrasonic Transducer System, Mark Laurenzo, IOWA Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, September, 2001.
7. ATP-MEP Diffusion Pilot Final Report: Diffusion
of Dylyn Technology into the U.S. Mold Market, Robert Martin, Western
New York Technology Development Center, August, 2001.
8. ATP-MEP Technology Diffusion Pilot Project:
Technology Diffusion Case Studies. Robert Yin, COSMOS Corporation,
September, 2001 and ATP-MEP Technology Diffusion Pilot Project:
Case Study of the Technology Selection Process. Robert Yin, COSMOS
Corporation, September, 2000.
APPENDIX
A
DESCRIPTION OF EACH PROJECT TASK
PHASE 1: ATP Technology Identification
and Selection
Task 1: Identify Candidate
ATP Technologies
A multi-center team
from the MEP system worked with the ATP Contract Manager to refine criteria
for use in screening ATP technologies to identify those with potential
for diffusion to smaller manufacturers. The criteria were used to identify
10 candidate technologies for inclusion in the pilot project. To
facilitate the rapid implementation of the project, the following criteria
were used in screening ATP technologies for inclusion in the project:
- Whether the technology
developer had identified applications appropriate to SMEs
- Willingness of
technology owners to work as part of the pilot to develop a diffusion
strategy for SMEs involving the MEP system
- Capital requirements
for transferring the technology to smaller manufacturers are affordable
- Minimal additional
research and development expenditures are required for application of
the technology within smaller manufacturers
- Existing diffusion
strategies have not been effective in penetrating small manufacturer
application markets
- Willingness of
the technology developer/owner to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements
with SMEs for the diffusion of the technology
Task 1 Milestone:
- Identification
of 10 ATP technology options that satisfy all screening criteria.
Task 2: Evaluate ATP technology
candidates and select specific technologies for pilot project implementation
The ATP Contract Manager
provided a report on nine technologies including responses to screening
survey questions, information regarding the technology developed from
materials submitted to ATP by the technology developers, and information
regarding successful and unsuccessful diffusion efforts for each specific
technology.
The Project Management
Team reviewed submitted materials and select 5 technologies for further
consideration. The Project Management Team also developed an interview
format for meetings with the selected technology developers/owners.
Owners of the selected
technologies were contacted by members of the project management team
to discuss the pilot project, benefits associated with their participation
in the pilot, and their role in its implementation in the event that their
technology was selected.
The Project Management
Team and ATP Contract Manager members reviewed the results of the interviews
and select three technologies for inclusion in the project.
Task 2 Milestones:
- Meetings with
ATP technology developers of each of the 6 selected technologies.
- Selection of up
to 3 ATP technologies for inclusion in the pilot project.
PHASE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
DIFFUSION TEAMS AND DIFFUSION PLANS FOR EACH SELECTED TECHNOLOGY
Task 3: Selection of pilot
diffusion teams for each of the three selected technologies
Based on the characteristics
of the three selected technologies and staff qualifications from the involved
MEP centers, the Project Management team selected cross-functional teams.
Depending on the requirements of each of the ATP technologies, these teams
were selected to have experience in the followings areas: (1) the industrial
sector(s) to which the technology was applicable, (2) technologies/systems
relevant to the adaptation of the technology to small manufacturing environments,
(3) market analysis, and (4) financial analysis. Additional expertise
was added to the team through the use of subcontractors as required.
In addition, the ATP technology developers/owners selected one or more
individuals to be an active participant on the diffusion team.
Each Pilot Diffusion
Team had a leader selected from the staff of an MEP center located in
proximity to the technology developer. The team leader was responsible
for managing the pilot project, ensuring completion of tasks on schedule
and within budget, and communication/reporting with the Project Management
team.
Each Pilot Diffusion
Team was briefed by the technology developer members of the Diffusion
team regarding the nature of the selected technology, and was provided
with the results of all previous screening analyses relevant to their
respective technology. The Pilot Diffusion Team developed questions regarding
issues and obstacles affecting diffusion of the technology to small manufacturing
environments including estimates of the amount of investment costs required
to adapt the technology to SME operations. The Teams also identified
the anticipated benefits that smaller manufacturers and the ATP technology
developers/owners would result from the diffusion of the technologies.
Each team met with representatives of the ATP technology developer to
discuss the identified issues and obstacles.
Working together with
the ATP technology developer, each team developed their respective Pilot
Diffusion Plans. These plans included items from the following elements
and diffusion strategies that best fit the nature of the selected technology
and were most likely to result in success of the pilot:
- Work with ATP
technology developers/owners to identify potential application of the
technology within smaller manufacturing enterprises (SMEs)
- Profile the characteristics
of SMEs most likely to be interested in adopting the pilot technology.
- Work through the
MEP system to identify specific companies that have potential interest
in the pilot technology.
- Identify contractual
terms and conditions and other strategies to provide for the transfer
of intellectual property rights necessary for diffusion of the technology
to take place
- Disseminate information
regarding the pilot technology to SMEs meeting profile characteristics.
- Provide technology
demonstrations of the technology, either at the ATP technology developers
company site or at another location proximate to the locations of target
customers.
- Conduct workshops
to brief potential customers on the strategy, using the same logic as
the demonstrations.
- Disseminate short
articles describing the technology and SME application opportunities
through targeted industry publications and MEP Center newsletters and
other publications.
The Diffusion Team
Leaders submitted their diffusion plans to the Project Director. The
plans included a description of each primary activity to be completed,
assigned responsibilities, line-item and activity based budgets (not to
exceed $45,000), and detailed timelines and milestones for implementation
of the plan over a 12 month period of time. The Project Management Team
and ATP Contract Manager reviewed and approve the Pilot Diffusion Plans.
In order to enable completion of some diffusion tasks, the time period
for completion was extended to 16 months.
Task 3 Milestones:
- Selection of members
of each of the Pilot Diffusion Teams.
- Submission of diffusion
plans by each Diffusion Team Leader.
- Approval of diffusion
plans by the Project Management Team and ATP Contract Manager
PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF
DIFFUSION PLANS
Task 4: Implementation of
Pilot Diffusion Projects for each of the three selected technologies
Each of the three
Pilot Diffusion Teams implemented their respective diffusion plans. In
addition to other responsibilities established as part of these plans,
each Diffusion Team leader provided the following reports to the Project
Evaluation Team:
- Quarterly reports
regarding progress toward completion of Diffusion Pilot tasks and milestones
- A list of SMEs
contacted regarding the selected ATP technology for the purpose of follow-up
evaluation
- Information on
the number of SME representatives (firms and participants) at all workshops
and technology demonstration events
- Information on
SMEs and primary contacts for those SMEs adopting the selected ATP technology
for the purpose of follow-up evaluation.
With
input from the Project Evaluation Team, participating MEP centers contacted
SMEs indicating an interest in the pilot technology who decide not to
proceed with its adoption to identify the obstacles to technology diffusion.
Task 4 Milestones:
- Specific Milestones
were established as part of each Project Diffusion Plan.
PHASE 4: PROJECT EVALUATION
AND DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT RESULTS
Task 5: Project Evaluation
The key element of
Task 5 was the development and implementation of the project evaluation
plan. Because the primary focus of this project was to evaluate the feasibility
of diffusion of ATP technologies to smaller manufacturer through the efforts
of MEP centers, the primary focus of this evaluation plan was to understand
the obstacles to successful technology diffusion through MEP centers,
the types of activities that were successful in overcoming these obstacles,
and the types of technologies most likely to be applicable for diffusion
to smaller manufacturers.
Task 5 Milestones:
- Completion of the
Project Evaluation Plan and approval by the NIST Project Manager.
- Preparation of
the Evaluation Report on the Technology Selection and Diffusion Team
Development Process
- Preparation of
the Evaluation Report of implementation and results of the Technology
Diffusion Pilots
Task 6: Dissemination of
Project Results
The Project Director,
working with the Management Team, prepared the Project Final Report.
It was presented at
the November 5, 2001 MEP National Conference.
Task 6 Milestones:
- Preparation of
the Project Final Report (including evaluation results) and submission
to the NIST Project Manager.
- Presentation of
Project Results at MEP National Conference
- Dissemination of
Case Study Reports on Each Diffusion Pilot
APPENDIX
B
Screening Questions: ATP Awardee Participation in ATP-MEP Technology
Diffusion Pilot Study
ATP Company/Joint
Venture Name(s):
Project Title:
Primary Company Contact:
Award Period:
ATP Point of Contact:
Do you envision any
opportunities to diffuse your ATP-funded technology to small manufacturing
enterprises?
Describe the technology
and its potential applications.
Are you willing to
disseminate your intellectual property to smaller manufacturers, through
licensing arrangements, joint ventures, product development, or other
appropriate avenues? (we are NOT suggesting that anything be given away)
Are you interested
in participating in this pilot effort, understanding that it will involve
commitment on your part?
- You would have
to support your participation in the diffusion activities with the MEP
centers.
- If smaller manufacturers
turn out to be interested in an application of your technology, what
would it take for you to be willing to pursue the transfer of IP through
the appropriate mechanism?
- From whom in your
organization would we get official commitment for your participation
in this pilot?
- If it appears
that there will be sufficient benefit to your company, would you be
willing to make a financial commitment to the project?
How many dollars of
additional investment are required before this technology is ready to
be transferred to smaller manufacturers?
Date created: February
1, 2002
Last updated:
June 14, 2005
|