- ATP research consortia
increase overall research productivity and R&D spending
of participating firms
- Firms increase research productivity 8 percent per year
for each ATP-funded consortium project in which they
participate.
- Participating
firms’ overall R&D spending
increases as patenting in the technological areas targeted
by research consortia increases.
- ATP research consortia increase patenting levels above pre-consortia
levels in the technological areas targeted by consortium
projects
- ATP research
consortia show sharp increases in patent applications
in the technological areas targeted by the consortia
two to three years after inception of the ATP project.
- Long-term
benefits of ATP research consortia may be underestimated
in current study because patent data are limited
to a four-year period (1991-1995). Japanese data
covering a 13-year period show increases in patent
outcomes long after the inception of the project.
- Firms
that participate more frequently in ATP consortia
generate more patents per unit of spending on research
and development than firms that participate in fewer
ATP consortia or do not participate in ATP research
consortia at all.
- Larger
firms generate more patents from consortia-sponsored
research than smaller firms.
- Consortia whose members have technologically similar patent
portfolios are more successful than other types of consortia
- ATP research consortia whose members are technologically
similar in their patent portfolios apply for more patents
than consortia whose member firms are technologically
diverse.
- Japanese data validate U.S. findings
- Japanese data confirm positive association between technologically
similar firms in research consortia with patenting activity
in the technological areas targeted by research consortia.
- Japanese data confirm increases in patenting
activity in technological areas targeted by research
consortia above pre-consortia levels.
- Japanese data show pre-commercial focus, decentralization,
and exclusion of product market rivals from consortia are
positively associated with patenting outcomes
- Research projects
that Japanese firms perceive to be more “basic” or “pre-commercial” rather
than “close to commercialization” are positively
associated with patent outcomes.
- Management
of Japanese research consortia is more centralized
than ATP model. Japanese government is more involved
in establishing consortia, selecting member firms,
and directing research objectives. In contrast, ATP
relies on firms to organize themselves. Authors find
that as centralization increases, “good” outcomes
decline.
- The
number of times firms in a given consortia compete
in a product market is negatively associated with patent
outcomes. Bringing product market rivals into a consortium
does not lead to successful outcomes. Few ATP consortia
have this horizontal structure.
- Future research suggested due to limitations of current
study
- Expand patenting data beyond 1995 in order to examine
long-term effects of ATP research consortia.
- Difficult
to examine long-term outcomes with current dataset.
Few ATP projects begun in the early 1990’s
ended by 1995. Majority of ATP projects began after
1995.
- Develop more comprehensive mapping of technological
goals of consortium projects to U.S. patent classification
syste
- Collect quantitative
data on small, privately-held firms involved in ATP
joint ventures (e.g., R&D spending,
sales, and capital investments).
- ATP
staff should conduct additional firm-level analysis
using ATP’s Business Reporting System (BRS)
data to avoid compromising data confidentiality.
- To maintain
confidentiality, the study averaged survey responses
among participating consortia members. Since
BRS survey data on firms’ perceptions
of the impact of participating in ATP research consortia
are confidential, authors recommend ATP staff conduct
additional firm-level analyses internally.
____________________
These
findings are taken from Mariko Sakakibara and Lee Branstetter’s
report to ATP, Measuring the Impact of ATP-Funded Research
Consortia on Research Productivity of Participating Firms: A
Framework Using Both U.S. and Japanese Data, NIST GCR 02-830
(November 2002).
Factsheet 1.E3 (February 2003) |