INTRODUCTION

The Advanced Technology Program (ATP), administered by the U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology, partners with U.S. industry to fund the development of high risk and enabling technologies, with significant potential for stimulating U.S. economic growth. Through a highly competitive peer review process, projects with strong technical and business/economic merit are selected for funding. The ATP shares with industry the research costs of the ATP-funded projects; the companies are fully responsible for business planning, product development, and other future commercialization costs.

The ATP has issued 352 awards, amounting to nearly $1.2B, since the program's inception in 1990. The awards involve about 850 project participants in 30 separate competitions. Although the ATP has no specific allocation for small businesses, many of those have been successful in the selection process. Of the total awards to date, 146 awards have been made to small companies (companies with fewer than 500 employees) proposing single-company projects, and 39 awards have been made to joint venture/consortia led by small businesses. A total of over 300 small businesses participate directly in ATP projects. Many additional small businesses are subcontractors to the award recipient companies.

The paper first reviews the current literature on small technology-oriented firms to determine major concerns specific to small firms and to identify "strategies for success" and related issues of interest to the ATP. Then, using data collected through ATP's database, the paper examines specific plans and progress of ATP-funded small firms, including impacts of ATP funding. Differences between the populations of small firms and all organizations funded by the ATP during the period 1993 through 1996 are identified. In addition to considering factors conducive to private firm success, this paper looks at the potential for economic spillover benefits to the nation; i.e., benefits to the U.S. beyond those accruing directly to the firms funded by the ATP. Features of business plans and early effects of ATP funding that indicate opportunities for spillover benefits are characterized.

Some have questioned whether small firms, with limited resources and business experience but with highly innovative research proposals, will be successful in executing relatively large-scale technology development projects and ultimately in commercializing their ATP-funded technologies and generating substantial spillover benefits. From this study, the ATP will gain a better understanding of the unique roles, risks, and opportunities for small-firm participants in the ATP and assess small-firm experience to date. In addition, the international science and technology evaluation and public policy communities are likely to benefit from ATP's efforts in implementing a comprehensive database for tracking early business progress and economic impact of government cost-shared R&D through the technology development stage into early phases of commercialization. The ATP database provides an opportunity to assess the experience of small firms in the context of a portfolio of small, medium-sized, and large firms and other research organizations.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF ISSUES IMPORTANT TO ATP-FUNDED SMALL FIRMS

A number of general issues emerge from the literature of relevance to the ATP in assessing the experience of its many small-firm funding recipients. Although inconsistencies occur across the many studies, some "strategies for success" also emerge.

In the process of downsizing, breaking up, and shedding many of their operations, large companies are creating new opportunities for small businesses. Large firms are outsourcing basic tasks, including R&D previously performed in-house. Changes in the international marketplace include the possible demise of mass production, an increase in uncertainty and market fragmentation, an explosion in products and services, an emphasis on superior quality and fast response time, and a de-emphasis on cost, price, and economies of scale [Lefebvre et al., 1990; Phillips, 1991; Winger, 1994; Lawler, 1997]. Like many others, Winger [1994] observes that "entrepreneurs are risk takers" and that smaller, less hierarchical firms have the organizational flexibility and freedom to take more risks than larger ones on an aggressive time scale.

Both Yap and Souder [1994] and Litvak [1992] identify a broad set of factors critical to a small firm's success. Their findings have implications for ATP-funded small firms. In their study of 12 entrepreneurial high-tech electronics firms, Yap and Souder found that 1) products requiring a high degree of modification of customer behavior were negatively correlated with success; 2) speed-to-market should not be achieved at the expense of innovativeness; 3) under conditions of high market uncertainty, highlighting superior performance and uniqueness was counterproductive, while highlighting high product compatibility fostered success; and 4) under conditions of low market and low technical uncertainty, comparison of the new product with an existing one was a determinant of success provided the customer was not required to form a new frame of reference. (In this study, "customers" were industrial purchasers of electronic components for use in industrial or institutional applications.) Yap and Souder [1994] postulated that small firms were not viewed by customers as influential enough (and market resources were not adequate) to create a new class of product; therefore, their message was not deemed credible. The resulting prescription was rather conservative: "Stay close to core technologies; seek niche opportunities, and don't overextend." Litvak [1992] considered a broader set of issues. Among the "strategies for success" that seemed paramount, he cited: 1) A global marketing niche strategy; 2) concentration on products for which competitive advantage can be sustained; 3) integration of R&D and marketing strategies, and successful transition from a research orientation to a product development and manufacturing orientation; 4) use of government R&D grants and other government business for cash flow in tight periods and to enhance credibility of the technology-based firm to potential investors; 5) patents for the purposes of establishing a market niche and enhancing firm credibility in the eyes of potential investors; and 6) use of horizontal or vertical strategic alliances to promote corporate growth.

These studies raise a number of questions for ATP to be considered in this paper: Do ATP-funded small firms exhibit the management and growth characteristics needed to succeed in the international marketplace? For example, are they emphasizing superior quality, rapid response, and multiple-product strategies rather than economies of scale? Are they taking steps to maximize their commercial advantage and minimize the challenges to successful introduction of highly innovative products into the marketplace? Are they making effective use of collaboration and strategic alliances?

The following issues were investigated in the literature at greater depth because they suggest areas where programs like the ATP may be able to provide critical assistance:

• The benefits of cycle-time reduction and tradeoffs between innovativeness and technical content versus time-to-market. The increasing emphasis on acceleration of R&D has been cited in numerous studies, including those mentioned above. The research by Ali et al. [1995] explored the relationship among technical content, innovation, cycle time, and breakeven time. They found that technical content and innovation lengthen cycle time. Where product advantage produced some incompatibility with customers' existing way of doing things, it seemed to increase breakeven time for the innovator. The study poses an interesting opportunity for the ATP: By accelerating the R&D process and catalyzing collaborative linkages of small firms with customers, can programs like the ATP offset the negative effect of developing innovative technology on cycle time and the negative effects of highly innovative, new-to-the-world products on both cycle time and customer acceptance?

• Financing R&D and the Challenge of Raising Capital. Financing concerns limit the R&D performed and commercialization strategy choices of small firms. Himmelberg and Peterson [1994] demonstrated that "because of capital market imperfections, the flow of internal finance is the principal determinant of the rate at which small high-tech firms acquire technology through R&D." Gompers and Lerner [1998] investigated the availability of support for entrepreneurial technology firms. They reported that although venture capitalists have mechanisms for dealing with information problems in debt and equity markets, their funding is uneven, typically concentrating on a few narrow technologies and a few geographic locations. They further noted that individual investments by the angel community are typically very small compared with venture capital. Piper and Lund [1996], researchers in the U.K., offer some insights for the U.S., as well, particularly for angel investments. The small scale of the seed-capital financial sector and the reluctance to invest in early-stage technology firms may be due to 1) perceived risks, 2) failures to understand the technology, and 3) perceived low average rates of return.

  Winger [1994] noted that the U.S. Department of Defense's procurement of high-tech products in the 1980's served to reduce the risks and remove market uncertainties associated with new technology. Civilian S&T programs such as the ATP operate differently, relying on industry for partial funding of R&D (including full product development costs) and on the commercial marketplace for customers. Although it takes a different approach than the defense and other mission-based programs, ATP's cost sharing of technology development is intended to reduce technical risk. Furthermore, ATP's documented, rigorous award process may to some extent mitigate perceived investor risk.

• The role of collaboration and strategic alliances. Development of successful collaboration strategies is of obvious interest and concern. Jonash [1996] expects 80 percent of technology-related growth to derive from external relationships of various types. Maynard [1996] states that "strategic alliances are quickly becoming a necessity for firms across the spectrum of industries and for a wide variety of purposes." On the other hand, collaborations create substantial management complexity. The 10-year study performed by Slowinski [1996] showed that only about 25 percent of alliances were considered successful by both partners; "50 percent didn't meet stated objectives;" and the remainder were "disasters." Nevertheless, partnerships offer opportunities for tackling larger and more difficult problems and realizing cost efficiencies relative to single-firm solutions; and they may encourage product innovation, bring financial stability, expand product portfolios, forge new supplier relationships, and provide for risk sharing. Small firms are finding that a strategic partner is often required for credibility with investors [Maynard, 1996]. Jonash [1996] reported that though "the jury is still out on the effectiveness, value and risk of increasing technology collaborations, there is clearly no retreat from the general trend."

  The ATP is actively encouraging collaborative relationships, with emphasis on benefits of small-firm participation. Is there evidence that the ATP is serving to catalyze collaborations? Are ATP collaborations overcoming the typical difficulties and exhibiting some of the positive characteristics cited above; for example, encouraging product innovation, bringing financial stability, forging new supplier relationships, and encouraging risk sharing?

THE DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The ATP's Business Reporting System (BRS) is a comprehensive data collection tool for tracking, on a regular basis, progress of projects in pursuing business plans and achieving anticipated economic benefits outlined in the project proposals. Electronically administered, the survey system has been implemented for projects funded since 1993, from their inception. This paper draws upon the BRS reports filed through September 1997 from 452 organizations in 210 ATP-funded projects initiated during the period 1993 through 1996. These reporting organizations represent nearly 100% of the projects funded during the period and about 70% of all project participants. (Some organizations with very limited joint-venture roles are not required to report; others were late in submitting reports.) Of the 452 organizations included, 167 organizations were small firms participating in 124 different projects as either a single-company award recipient or joint-venture participant. About 10% of the organizations had completed their projects; about 40% had received two or three years of ATP funding; about 40% had received just one year of funding; and 10% had just started their projects.

The subgroup of small firms was studied separately from the portfolio of all organizations. The comparison of small firms with all organizations funded helps illuminate the distinct characteristics and experience of small firms within the context of the entire ATP portfolio.

BUSINESS PLANS AND PROGRESS OF SMALL FIRMS COMPARED WITH ALL ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED BY THE ATP

Small firms are a subgroup of 37% of all organizations included in the study. The remainder of all organizations consists of medium-sized firms (31%), large firms (Fortune 500 or equivalent) (21%), and universities and non-profit organizations partnering with industry in joint venture projects (11%). The small-firm subgroup contains a larger percentage of single-company awardees and a smaller percentage of joint venture participants than the all-organization group. In general, joint venture projects are longer, larger-scope, and more infrastructural, and may offer fewer early product opportunities, which may account for some of the differences found in the analyses. The technology areas addressed by small firms compared with all organizations is also somewhat different, with small firms relatively more often involved in biotechnology and electronics projects and all organizations more engaged in materials development, manufacturing, and chemicals/chemical processing - which may also account for some of the differences found. (Small-firm involvement in information and computing technologies was similar to that of all organizations.)

Project Goals and Expected Commercial Advantage

Figure 1 provides comparative analyses of project goals and expected commercial advantage for small firms and all organizations. These analyses encompass over 800 commercial applications for ATP-funded technologies being planned by 388 organizations in 208 projects, including about 350 applications being developed by 153 small firms in 118 projects. Universities and non-profit organizations are not expected to provide commercialization plans. Therefore, analyses of commercialization goals and strategies and business progress in this and other sections, in general, reflect business plans of for-profit organizations.

Small firms reported plans for a larger number of applications, on average, per firm than the all-organization group. In separate analyses conducted for single-company and joint-venture participant subgroups, small firms consistently reported plans for a larger number of applications, on average, per firm than all organizations.

Applications pursued by both small firms and all organizations more frequently involved product than process applications, with the focus on product applications greater for small firms. This is not surprising given the relatively greater biotechnology and electronics component focus of the small firms and their lack of large-scale process operations.

The types of commercial advantages expected by small firms were not much different from all organizations. Over one-third of applications were considered "new-to-the-world" solutions (innovative products that create entirely new markets), and for most of the remaining applications, performance advantages over existing products were more important than cost for both small firms and all organizations. There were greater differences in the specific performance and cost goals reported for applications of small firms compared with all organizations. Small-firm applications had more aggressive performance and cost goals. Performance improvements of 100-999+% were expected for 43% of small-firm applications, but only for 31% of relevant applications of all organizations. Cost reductions of 50-99% were expected of 38% of small-firm applications, but only for 26% of relevant applications of all organizations. Major performance/quality improvements were more frequently anticipated than major cost reductions for small-firm applications and across all applications.

The pursuit of "new-to-the-world" products and/or leaps in expected values of performance attributes of the anticipated future products tends to imply a substantial technical accomplishment or innovation. Large performance, cost, and other advantages of proposed technology development projects create opportunities for spillover benefits to downstream customers and users while also indicating the innovator's commercial advantage. Moreover, the number and diversity of commercial applications expected to result from a technology development project reflect its enabling character and suggest further opportunities for spillover benefits. (See [Jaffe, 1996] for a more complete discussion of the framework for analyzing spillovers used by the ATP.) With respect to two key aspects of ATP's mission - technical challenge and significant opportunities for economic spillovers - small firms appear to be attempting to achieve more ambitious project goals than all organizations as a whole.

Strategies for Commercialization

Figure 2 illustrates some of the differences in strategies for commercialization planned by small firms compared with all organizations. "Licensing to others" was a primary strategy for 38% of small-firm applications, compared with 27% of applications planned by all organizations. Thus, the large number of applications reported by small firms did not necessarily reflect unrealistic demands on their limited resources. For at least some applications, licensing represents revenue opportunities for the firms without major product development expenditure. Licensing is of interest to the ATP because it increases chances of spillover benefits through additional technology development and diffusion into new markets. There was no difference in the percentage of incidences of strategies for "in-house production of a product or service" for small firms compared with all organizations.

Figure 2 also shows plans for strategic alliances for commercialization. Such alliances were consistently a primary or secondary strategy for a higher percentage of small-firm applications than all applications. Not surprisingly, "forming alliances with customers" was the most common primary or secondary strategy for small-firm applications. This strategy was cited as primary or secondary for 48% of small-firm applications but only 37% of all applications. "Forming joint production alliances" was a primary or secondary strategy for 44% of small-firm applications, but only 30% of all applications. "Forming alliances with distributors" was a primary or secondary strategy for 38% of small-firm applications but only 26% of all applications. Overall, small firms seem to recognize the need for supply chain linkages for at least some applications.

Collaboration Experiences on ATP Projects

Formation of collaborative R&D relationships among companies, universities, and other research organizations is specifically part of ATP's legislated mandate, and collaborative R&D is cited frequently in the literature as a key "strategy for success." Collaborative activity has been quite vigorous since the beginning of the ATP and occurs both within the official bounds of ATP research joint ventures and beyond those bounds. Both single-company award recipients and joint-venture members often engage in informal collaborations and subcontractor arrangements. Figure 3 summarizes selected findings for collaboration experiences. In general, more organizations in the all-organization group cited collaboration experience than small firms (82% compared with 76%), which is likely due to the greater number of joint venture members in the all-organization group. Both small firms and all organizations believed the ATP was responsible to a great extent for the collaborations.

The specific effects of collaboration were consistently stronger for small firms than for all organizations. Figure 3 illustrates the greatest differences. A higher percentage of small firms than all organizations cited a "significant" effect of collaboration in "identifying customer needs" (55% compared with 43%), "stimulating creative thinking" (78% compared with 72%), and "attracting investment capital" (20% compared with 15%).

A number of other potential collaboration effects were explored (not illustrated). Although differences were not substantial, a larger percentage of small firms reported a "significant" effect rather than a "moderate" effect or " no" effect compared with all organizations. More than half of both groups believed that collaboration had helped "significantly" in obtaining R&D expertise and in accelerating entry into the marketplace, and about 80% of both groups believed it had helped "significantly" or "moderately." A slightly higher percentage of small firms believed collaboration had delayed the beginning of R&D and/or increased coordination and management costs "significantly" or "moderately." Approximately half of both groups believed coordination and management costs had increased as a result of collaboration. Most of those reporting increased cost for coordination and management judged it "moderate," rather than "significant."

Effects of ATP Funding

The ATP seeks to use its funding to make a difference over what industry would do on its own, taking into account industry's financial investment in R&D and the nature, scale, scope and time required to do the R&D. Figure 4 illustrates effects of ATP funding on the scope and nature of R&D conducted, acceleration of R&D, and the amount of industry funds invested in the ATP-funded technology areas. Results for small firms and all organizations were not very different except for the change in the amount of industry investment from internal funds that occurred as a result of the ATP (described below). Of those that believed they would have gone on without the ATP, slightly more small firms reported an expanded R&D scope and an increased ability to take on technical challenges and to pursue long-term research with ATP funding than members of the all-organization group. Nearly 80% of small firms reported an increase in both scope and technical challenge.

Acceleration of R&D has been cited in the literature as an increasingly important "strategy for success" where the flexibility and aggressiveness of small firms would appear to provide a distinct advantage. Acceleration is also part of ATP's legislated mandate and has been frequently cited in past studies as an important effect of ATP funding [Laidlaw, 1997; Powell, 1997; Silber, 1996]. In analyses shown in Figure 4, small firms and all organizations as a whole experienced an acceleration effect, with 88% of small firms and 85% of all organizations believing they were already ahead in the R&D cycle as a result of ATP funding. Of those experiencing acceleration, 79% of small firms and 80% of all organizations felt they were either ahead by at least one year or would not have pursued the project without ATP. The similarity of the acceleration effect across small firms and all organizations likely relates to the effects of ATP funding on expanding project scope/scale and fostering collaborative activity.

Differences in the interest and willingness of small firms to finance and to apply scarce resources to high risk and enabling research compared with all organizations could signal differences in the motivations of the various segments of the R&D community in proposing to the ATP. Figure 4 illustrates that 25% of small firms indicated they would not have made any investment in the project without ATP funds, compared with 33% of all organizations. ATP funding may be more critical to the ability of joint-venture members, which comprise a larger percentage of the all- organizations group than of small firms, to undertake their ATP-funded projects at any level. Small firms more frequently reported that the actual amount of funds committed to the project from internal industry funds had increased as a result of the ATP. Among small firms, 57% reported such an increase, compared with 39% of all organizations. Together, these findings seem to suggest that the ATP has (as intended) a leveraging effect both in encouraging industry to pursue more ambitious technology development projects, aimed at more distant, future products, and in stimulating industry to increase its own internal funding of such projects.

Small firms estimated that the ATP served to catalyze an additional $704K per firm of industry spending in the ATP-funded areas. All organizations provided estimates amounting, on average, to $458K per organization. The greater effect for small firms is somewhat unexpected given the tighter financial constraints and smaller overhead rates expected for small firms and the larger percentage of single-company awardees among small firms than among all organizations as a whole. (Small, single-company, ATP award recipients must cover their indirect costs as a minimum cost share.) On the other hand, single-company award recipients may be more committed to and have a greater stake in their ATP projects than individual joint venture members, and this effect may be stronger for small firms, whose strategic focus is often the ATP-funded technology area. In contrast, some ATP-funded joint ventures have a substantial number of partners, with varying levels of financial commitment and R&D participation among partners.

Progress Towards Commercialization of ATP-funded Technologies

As reported above, small firms are pursuing more ambitious research and commercialization goals compared with all organizations and are equally engaged in collaborative activities that can enhance their chances of success. But are they making equivalent progress towards commercialization of ATP-funded technologies? (Industry must bear the full costs associated with product development and other commercialization activities; the BRS tracks early commercialization activities year-to-year, including early, spin-off product revenues.)

Findings for a selected group of early commercialization activities are illustrated in Figure 5.

Separate analyses were performed for 1) the percentage of all applications being pursued for which the specific activity had occurred; and 2) the percentage of organizations having completed the activity for at least one application - after two years of ATP funding. Across all commercial applications being pursued, results for the small-firm group were similar to results for all organizations. Both small firms and all organizations reported having produced a production prototype for 49% of applications involving a product or service. Small firms had set up pilot production or a commercial demonstration for slightly more applications (34% compared with 28%), small firms had begun production for more applications (11% compared with 7%), and small firms had earned product revenues for 15% of applications compared with 13% of applications of all organizations. The entire group of all organizations had adopted process improvements for 34% of applications compared with 32% for small firms.

Analyses of the percentage of firms having completed the commercialization activity for at least one application showed more substantial differences between small firms and all organizations. More small firms had set up pilot production or a commercial demonstration for at least one application (54% of small firms compared with 42% of all organizations), and more small firms had begun production for at least one application (20% of small firms compared with 11% of all organizations). Small firms may be seeking early commercial opportunities for product spin-offs more aggressively under the pressure to begin revenue generation and thereby improve cash flow at the earliest possible time - and also to establish a market niche. Conversely, results for the all-organization group may reflect the larger percentage of joint venture participants. As noted above, joint venture projects tend to be longer, broader in scope, and more infrastructural, and on average may provide less opportunity for spin-off products after only two years of project funding.

Patents will be needed for firms to license their ATP-funded technologies and, in many cases, to provide adequate protection of intellectual property. Furthermore, as noted in the literature review, patents may be needed for small firms to establish credibility and start building a market niche. Figure 6 (prior page) provides a summary of patents filed, including the averages per firm, for small firms and for all for-profit firms within the all-organization group. (Only for-profit firms are entitled to hold title to intellectual property created with ATP funding.) To account for the different stages of R&D across projects, separate averages were computed for firms at different levels of project completion. The "after one year" and "after two years" subgroups of all firms reported more patents per firm, on average, than the subgroups of small firms. The "after three years/project completed" subgroup of small firms reported more patents per firm, on average, than the comparable subgroup of all firms. The intense patent activity of a few large firms affected the outcome for all-firm subgroups. Separate analyses (not illustrated) of firms in each group that had filed at least one patent found that a higher percentage of small firms than firms in the all-organization group had filed at least one patent - after two years, after three years/project completed, and across all time periods. Overall, small firms appear to be taking the necessary steps to pursue their intellectual property and licensing strategies, and small firms appear to be engaging in a comparable amount of patent activity to all firms despite the high cost of patenting.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

This study of a broad array of characteristics and experience of small firms receiving ATP awards, compared with all organizations receiving awards in the period 1993 through 1996, suggests that small firms are likely to be a strong force in determining the program's ultimate economic impact. Small firms represent a large fraction of award recipients. Small firms are undertaking challenging R&D and pursuing aggressive commercialization goals for a large number of commercial applications, with plans to license for a substantial portion. They seem to be using federal financing to leverage internal company funding to expand the level, scope, and challenge of their R&D efforts and to accelerate the R&D process. They are actively engaging in collaboration to achieve their R&D and commercialization goals. They are progressing in early commercialization activities at a pace at least equivalent to the portfolio of all organizations. Together, these characteristics and signs of progress appear to indicate that ATP-funded small firms are pursuing necessary "strategies for success."

Evaluation of the long-run economic impact of ATP-funded technologies developed by small firms, as well as by all organizations, lies in the future. Most of their projects are still at a relatively early stage. Only about 15 percent of the ATP-funded projects covered in the database had been completed at the time of this paper. Many of the technologies will require considerable additional development and/or undergo FDA regulatory approval before commercialization, and the full economic impacts across diverse applications and industries will typically unfold over many years after the initial ATP-funded research. Nevertheless, at this time, evidence presented in this paper suggests that small firms are "keeping up" and engaging in collaborative and other commercialization activities needed both for firm success and national impact. Time and more in-depth analyses will be needed to pinpoint whether small firms are able to meet their ambitious R&D and commercialization goals and achieve impact through the myriad of applications they plan for their ATP-funded technologies.

This paper represents ATP's first effort to use BRS data to investigate a subset of ATP participants; i.e., small firms. As the BRS grows, new types of analyses become feasible. Future work will 1) extend the BRS to post-ATP project data collection, 2) analyze other ATP subgroups, and 3) use the BRS in conjunction with other data sources to support a variety of evaluation studies, including case studies and econometric analyses.

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdul; Krapfel, Robert Jr; and LaBahn, Douglas (1995). Product Innovativeness and Entry Strategy: Impact on Cycle Time and Break-even Time, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, pp. 54-69.

Gompers, Paul and Lerner, Josh (1998). Capital Formation and Investment in Venture Markets, forthcoming.

Himmelberg, Charles P and Petersen, Bruce C. (1994). R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries, Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, pp. 38-51.

Jaffe, A.B. (1996). Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Jonash, Ronald S. (1996). Strategic Technology Leveraging: Making Outsourcing Work for You, Research-Technology Management, March April 1996, pp. 19-25.

Laidlaw, Frances J. (1997). Acceleration of Technology Development by the Advanced Technology Program: The Experience of 28 Projects Funded in 1991. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 6047.

Lawler, Edward E. III (1997). Rethinking Organization Size, Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1997, pp. 24-35.

Lefebvre, Louis; Lefebvre, Elizabeth; and Poupart, Robert (1990). The Shape of the New Winner: Innovativeness and the Strategic Edge in Small Firms, National Productivity Review, 9, pp. 313-320.

Litvak, Isaiah A. (1992). Winning Strategies for Small Technology-Based Companies, Ivey Business Quarterly, 57, pp. 47-51.

Maynard, Roberta (1996). Striking the Right Match, Nation's Business, 84, pp. 18-28.

Phillips, Bruce D. (1991). The Increasing Role of Small Firms in the High-Technology Sector: Evidence from the 1980s, Business Economics, 26, pp. 40-46.

Piper, Adrian and Lund, Melanie (1997). The Financing of Technology-based Small Firms: An Update, Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, May 1997, pp. 210-213.

Powell, Jeanne W. (1997). Advanced Technology Program--Development, Commercialization, and Diffusion of Enabling Technologies: Progress Report for Projects Funded 1993-1995. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 6098.

Silber & Associates (1996). Survey of Advanced Technology Program 1990-1992 Awardees: Company Opinion About the ATP and Its Early Effects. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Slowinski, Gene; Seelig, Gerard; and Hull, Frank (1996). Managing Technology-Based Strategic Alliances Between Large and Small Firms, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 61, pp. 42-47.

Winger, Alan R. (1994). Is Big Really Bad? Business Economics, 29, pp. 38-42.

Yap, Chee Meng and Souder, William E. (1994). Factors Influencing New Product Success and Failure in Small Entrepreneurial High-Technology Electronics Firms, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, pp. 418-432

NIST publications listed above are available on the Web at http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/pubs.htm.

ATP website comments: webmaster-atp@nist.gov  / Technical ATP inquiries: InfoCoord.ATP@nist.gov

NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department
Privacy policy / Security Notice / Accessibility Statement / Disclaimer / Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) /
No Fear Act Policy / NIST Information Quallity Standards / ExpectMore.gov (performance of federal programs)