/* FILE ARCHIVED ON 6:52:57 Sep 16, 2008 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE AN OPENWAYBACK INSTANCE ON 13:27:32 Sep 12, 2024. JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY OPENWAYBACK, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE. ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C. SECTION 108(a)(3)). */
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Journal of Technology Transfer,
VOL. 23 (2): 33-41.
ATP's Impact on Accelerating
Development and Commercialization of Advanced Technology*
|
Technology and Type of Lead Organization | Organization |
---|---|
Ten (10) Advanced Materials | |
Cree
Research, Inc. Nanophase Technologies Corp. Spire Corp. |
|
Armstrong
World Industries Allied Signal Aerospace IBM Corp. |
|
Leading JVs |
Ford
Motor Co. Honeywell Westinghouse Electric Corp. |
Michigan Molecular Institute | |
Nine (9) Electronics | |
American
Superconductor Corp. AstroPower Iterated Systems X-Ray Optical Systems |
|
Leading JVs |
Conductus,
Inc. Spectra Diode Laboratories |
Leading JVs |
American
Scaled-Electronics Consortium National Storage Industry Consortium |
The Microelectronics Center of North Carolina | |
Five (5) Biotech | |
Aastrom
Biosciences Aphios Biosym Technologies BioSys Engineering Animation |
|
Four (4) Manufacturing | |
Transitions Research Corp | |
Leading JVs |
Auto
Body Consortium National Center for Manufacturing Sciences South Carolina Research Authority |
The research results describe the impact that the ATP program had on the 28 awardees from the 1991 competition, as related by the principal investigator of each project's lead organization. No attempt was made to generalize the results beyond the particular cases studied.
Twenty-seven, or 96% of the 28 interviewees, indicated that it was "very important" for their companies to reduce cycle time, while 1 (4%) indicated that it was "important." These results are consistent with findings from an open literature review that found that cycle-time reduction was viewed as important because it enhances a company's global competitiveness and helps a company to better achieve its performance goals. These results are also consistent with (though not identical to) findings from other studies.
When the 28 interviewees were asked "Why is it important for your company to reduce cycle time?" most gave more than one reason. There is obvious overlap among the types of reasons given, but in order to preserve the flavor of the responses, these were kept separate rather than grouped under umbrella headings:
The finding that the most frequently given reason to reduce applied research cycle time was to meet competition is consistent with the paramount finding from the literature review that cycle-time reduction is important because it enhances global competitiveness. Other research that has explored the relationships among technical content, innovation, cycle time, and break-even time, has found that increasing technical content and degree of innovation has strong delaying effects on cycle time. As postulated by Powell (1998), ATP's acceleration of cycle time may to some extent offset the negative effects of innovation on cycle time.
To the question, "How much (by what percentage change) did participation in the ATP affect your ATP project's applied research cycle time?" the median response of the 28 interviewees was that participation in ATP reduced their ATP project cycle time by 50% or 3 years (see Table 2). The median response was that without ATP, the same project would have taken 6 years. In terms of years saved, the range was from 1 to 2 years at the low end, to 10 years and more (infinity) at the high end. In terms of percentage cut in cycle time, the range was 25% to 80%.
Rank Order by % Reduction | % Reduction | Number of Years Shorter |
---|---|---|
(1) small | * | unbounded |
(2) small | * | unbounded |
(3) medium/large | * | unbounded |
(4) medium/large | * | unbounded |
(5) medium/large | * | unbounded |
(6) small | 75 to 80% | 10 years shorter |
(7) medium/large | 66-75% | 6 to 9 years shorter |
(8) small | 50-66% | 5 to 6 years shorter |
(9) small | 50-60% | at least 5 years shorter |
(10) small | 50% | 5 to 6 years shorter |
(11) small | 50 % | 5 years shorter |
(12) small | 50% | 5 years shorter |
(13) medium/large | 50% | 5 years shorter |
(14) small | 50% MEDIAN | 3 years shorter |
(15) small | 50% RESPONSE | 3 years shorter |
(16) medium/large | 50% | 3 years shorter |
(17) medium/large | 50% | 3 years shorter |
(18) medium/large | 50% | 3 years shorter |
(19) medium/large | 50% | 3 years shorter |
(20) medium/large | 50% | 3 years shorter |
(21) medium/large | 50% | 2 years shorter |
(22) medium/large | 50% | 2 years shorter |
(23) small | 50% | 1.5 years shorter |
(24) small | 50% | 1.25 years shorter. |
(25) small | 33-50% | 1 - 2 years shorter. |
(26) small | 33% | 2 years shorter |
(27) medium/large | 30% | 3-5 years shorter. |
(28) medium/large | 25% | 2 years shorter. |
When asked, "Do you expect the impact on cycle time in the applied research stage to flow through to other stages in the technology development life cycle?" 24 (86% of the 28 interviewees) said yes. One interviewee suggested that this is better described as a cascade effect, not a flow, since it is not linear. He described it as a driving force that has a broad effect. This implies that, at least in some cases, speeding up the R&D may have a disproportional impact on the later stages in technology development.
Of the four interviewees who did not give a clear yes to the question, one said "probably yes," but that he wasn't sure, and three said that it was not applicable. Two of those provided the following reasons for the lack of applicability of the question: According to one, "We only do technology development. We get a commercial partner interested and transfer technology to them. The intellectual property revenue stream seeds and funds internal R&D" According to the other, "The applied research only advanced to the demonstration stage. That's when market analysis revealed that new competitive challenges in the marketplace had rendered our applied research obsolete. As a result, we did not advance the applied research beyond the demonstration stage." A careful review of the literature did not yield many articles that touched specifically on the flow-through of applied research cycle-time savings to later stages in the technology development cycle. Most of the R&D evaluations conducted by industry, government, academia, and science over the past four decades have focused on the short-term; few studies have directly linked research inputs to research outputs and research outcomes. If there were neither flow-through nor linkage between research cycle-times and the time required for commercial outcomes, then there would be no marketplace benefit associated with reducing applied research cycle time. If, on the other hand, there is a flow-through or linkage, then the potential for accelerated long-run economic benefits exists from shortening the research phase. Common sense would cause us to expect a flow-through of time savings from the earlier stages to the later stages, and, indeed, the study found that most of the interviewees expected the impact on research time to flow through to later stages in the technology development and commercialization cycle. Though the study made the anticipated linkage, the impact of earlier-stage time savings on the timing and size of longer-term outcomes needs to be more fully explicated.When asked, "Can you give a `ballpark estimate' of the economic value of reducing applied research cycle time by one year?" 22 (79% of the 28 interviewees) gave either a quantitative or qualitative "ballpark estimate." Fifteen, or 54% of the 28 interviewees, gave a quantitative estimate.
The estimates range from one million dollars to "billions" for a one-year reduction in applied research cycle time, and for the most part appear to relate specifically to the direct economic values to the company or JV member companies rather than to the potential additional benefits that might be realized by accelerating economic spillover effects. The estimates in Table 3 are listed in order of the size of the value, with the largest estimated value listed first. The median estimate of the economic value of reducing the applied research cycle time by just one year is $5 million to $6 million.Type of Organization | Economic Value of Getting to Market One Year Sooner | Nature of the Economic Value |
---|---|---|
(1) medium/large | $100's of millions to billions | sales revenue |
(2) medium/large | $1 Billion | sales revenue |
(3) medium/large | $100 to 200 million | sales revenue |
(4) small | $15 to 250 million to ultimately ½ billion | sales revenue |
(5) small | $10 to 100 million | sales revenue |
(6) small | $10 to 30 million | sales revenue |
(7) medium/large | $15 million | sales revenue |
(8) small | $5
mil. to $6 mil
MEDIAN VALUE |
sales revenue |
(9) small | $5.2 million | capital cost savings |
(10) medium/large | $2 to 5 million | sales revenue |
(11) small | Millions of dollars | sales revenue |
(12) small | Millions of dollars | sales revenue |
(13) small | Millions of dollars | sales revenue |
(14) medium/large | $2 million | sales revenue |
(15) small | $1 to 2.25 million | sales revenue and cost savings |
When the 28 interviewees were asked "How were the cycle-time improvements achieved; in other words, what did you do differently as a result of participating in ATP?" they gave 58 answers. When the answers are grouped by the type of ATP practice that helped interviewees reduce cycle time, we find that there are five major ATP categories. Table 4 shows aggregate total frequencies and percentages.
ATP Effects that Helped Interviewees to Reduce Cycle time | Frequency of mention | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
ATP's Required Project Planning and Management | 15 | 25.86% |
Achievement of Critical Mass of Resources With ATP Funding | 12 | 20.69% |
Attraction of Additional Financial Support through ATP "Halo Effect" | 12 | 20.69% |
Greater Project Stability Through Focus on Technical Problem | 12 | 20.69% |
ATP's Emphasis on Collaboration | 7 | 12.07% |
TOTAL | 58 | 100.00% |
1. ATP's Required Project Planning and Management [15 interviewees]
For this sample of 28 interviewees representing 28 projects from the 1991 competition, the detailed project planning that ATP required and the project management it provided to ensure that companies followed the project plan were most frequently cited as the ATP effect that helped interviewees to reduce cycle time. It was felt, in general, that the well laid-out plan required by ATP from the companies lent stability to the applied research program. According to one interviewee: "Of greatest value, with ATP we had a well-laid-out plan, and followed the plan without interruption. Without the ATP plan, the vagaries of our business would have caused us to vary the plan. If we were not having a good year financially, we would probably have pulled the plug but ATP's involvement lent stability to the research program." ATP's requirement for an integrated business and R&D plan with its emphasis on concurrent engineering seemed to speed things up. This was described by one interviewee: "For us, product testing typically comes later in the product development cycle. ATP wanted us to work early-on with potential customers and users. One of our primary interests from the very beginning was to work with potential users. We wanted to work in a `true manufacturing envelope' with `true manufacturing equipment.' ATP made this happen." Other project planning and management techniques that were said to be important to cycle-time reduction and attributed to the ATP involvement included: using a systematic approach; developing definable time lines and value; benchmarking and selecting technology applications; integrating the voice of the customer; assuring quality; and enhancing documentation procedures.
2. Achievement of a Critical Mass of Resources Through ATP Funding [12 interviewees]
ATP funding was important to applied research cycle-time reduction because it enabled interviewees to gain the critical mass of resources necessary to conduct the applied research. This was mentioned by interviewees from small for-profit companies, medium-to-large for-profit companies, and nonprofit consortia. For most interviewees, this meant increasing staffing, but a couple mentioned material resources, and one said that the company was able to more fully dedicate existing staff to the applied research project. An interviewee from a large company stated: "Major companies are structured into decentralized divisions each little fiefdom (division) has a budget. Our division didn't have adequate funding to pursue this project." An interviewee from a small company stated, "ATP enabled us to acquire a critical mass of resources. The corporation has limited resources. We looked around. We wouldn't have had enough resources to reach critical mass to develop and leverage resources. As a small company, we wouldn't have been able to do the R&D, period."
3. Attraction of Additional Financial Support through ATP "Halo Effect" [12 interviewees]
Some interviewees mentioned their improved ability to stimulate interest and acquire capital to continue pursuing their advanced technologies as an important ATP effect on cycle time. The additional infusion of capital was said by some to have been critical. Many of the scientists and engineers appear to have taken on an entrepreneurial role to support and speed the development of their technology.
A few of the comments about the effect of attracting additional capital on reducing applied research cycle time follow: "There is a question in our minds as to where we would have gotten funding, and a question as to whether we would have survived. We didn't round up private funding until after we got ATP funding. It's a high-risk project, and we had previously operated by bootstrapping, which would not have lasted long." "If we had not had ATP funds, we would have had to attract capital. That would have been difficult without ATP. With ATP, we got press and were able to generate excitement. It easily halved the development time." "We were able to leverage ATP participation to quickly acquire additional funding. Selection as an ATP project resulted in the perception that we were a viable organization. We were able to get new venture capital for other technology projects, programs, and platforms."
4. Greater Project Stability Through Focus on Technical Issue [10 interviewees]
Six interviewees commented that participating in the ATP enabled them to shorten the applied research cycle time by allowing them to concentrate on solving the technical problem.
One large company interviewee said, "The ATP contract allowed an R&D group to do enough work on a technology to go to other people in a large company with more than a prototype. The company was reducing the R&D budget and manpower; and the ATP support was critical because it allowed us to focus on the technology problem, rather than the organizational problem." Another large company interviewee said, "The technology development wouldn't have happened without ATP. The ATP was really a catalyst. The match was not only important from a financial standpoint but from a strategic standpoint as well. What is most difficult for us in a large bureaucracy is to get the snowball started and that's what ATP helped us to do." A small company interviewee said, "The ATP gave us the ability to make certain mistakes in research participating allowed us to proceed in an orderly, `unpanicked' way."
5. Enhanced Collaboration [6 interviewees]
Six interviewees said ATP enhancement of collaboration helped reduce the applied research cycle time. Four interviewees explained that: "ATP brought strange bedfellows together who were competitors. ATP also brought members of the supply chain together to define what they needed in the supply chain. As a result, it helped us and other members of the supply chain to move further, faster." "Perhaps most importantly, ATP brought competing companies together. This would not have otherwise happened. They never would have worked with each other without ATP. Within mega-corporations, there is oftentimes much personal competition between the senior executives. The benefit of a joint venture is that senior executives from different companies are sometimes more willing to share ideas with executives from other companies than with peers in their own organization. This enhances the innovative thinking and collaborative processes. The members of the ATP joint venture were so compatible with each other that they moved smoothly like a dance team it got to the point that in meetings that they were building on each other's words and finishing each other's sentences." "Beyond enhancing collaboration between competitors, ATP enhanced collaboration between technology developers and technology purchasers. We developed the technology in a joint venture partnership. Two of our partners didn't want to buy R&D directly from us, but they wanted to invest in our technology development under the auspices of ATP." "Through ATP, we structured a mutual win-win with a joint venture partner that had a complementary set of technology skills that enabled both of us to develop the technology more quickly."
The finding that ATP's required project planning and project management support was mentioned more frequently than its funding support for this particular sample of program participants, though not statistically significant, is suggestive. It highlights one of the unusual characteristics of this governmental program: it does more than disburse funds, it requires both R&D and business advance project planning, and it monitors project progress against both technical and business goals, over the multi-year project life. ATP views the companies as partners in the technology development process and takes an active role in overseeing how the projects are carried out. As a result, the relationship between the "partners" (ATP and the awardee organizations) entails a detailed technical and business review by ATP of the proposed project, with feedback to the proposers; rigorous competition among proposers against published selection criteria; and a kickoff meeting where technical milestones and business goals are further reviewed and detailed. The kickoff meeting is followed by quarterly reports and annual reviews until the project is completed. Failure to perform can lead to project termination. Then, there is post-project tracking of further developments. This active participative role appears to be the reason why ATP was viewed by the interviewees as strengthening their planning for technology development, enhancing strategic focus, and providing stability to see the job through. It is interesting to note that there are two types of acceleration implied in the responses. One relates to overcoming delays in starting technology development projects. The other relates to speeding up performance of the research once it is underway. The ATP funding seems to have played a critical role in overcoming the inability to get the projects off the ground. The advance technical and business planning requirements, project oversight to hold it on course, and research efficiency gains from collaboration in addition to the funding seem to have been critical factors in speeding up the research once the projects began.When the 28 interviewees were asked, "Did the cycle-time improvements that were a result of participating in the ATP carry over to other technology development projects?" 24, or 86% of the 28 interviewees, said yes; 3 (11%) said no; and 1 (3%) said they didn't know if cycle-time improvements "carried over." Most of the interviewees explained ways in which the ATP-fostered cycle-time reductions were transferred to other technology development projects. These responses are listed in Table 5, grouped by nature of response and placed in order of total frequency of mention.
Type | Carryover of Cycle-Time Improvements | Frequency | Percentage % |
---|---|---|---|
(1) | Yes - Enabling, Generic, Precompetitive Technology | 9 | 32.14% |
(2) | Yes - Adopting "ATP Practice" to Related Projects | 6 | 21.44% |
(3) | Yes- Extended Adoption of New Methodologies and Processes | 4 | 14.29% |
(4) | Yes- Cultural Change | 2 | 7.14% |
(5) | Yes - A Little | 3 | 10.71% |
(6) | No | 3 | 10.71% |
(7) | Don't Know | 1 | 3.57% |
Total | 28 | 100.00% |
1. "Yes, Enabling, Generic, Precompetitive Technology" [9 interviewees]
Nine interviewees, or 32% of the sample, said that cycle-time improvements that were a result of participating in ATP were carried over to other technology development projects because the ATP resulted in an enabling technology that had broader applications that allowed them to speed up other projects. Two different interviewees explained this well: The first said, "Through ATP, we built a better understanding of technology. We can spin-out products at a faster rate because we have a fundamental understanding of core technology with multiple applications." The second said, "It turned out that the technology we were developing through ATP had utility for other applications. It has become a technology platform for other applications" (Note that this effect could also be viewed in the context of intra-firm spillovers and economies of scope.)
2. Adopting "ATP Practice" to Related Projects [6 interviewees]
Six (6) interviewees, or 21% of the sample, said that cycle-time improvements resulting from their ATP participation were carried over to related projects within the company, with other government organizations, and with industry because they are applying ATP-required planning and project management practices to other projects. One interviewee explained: "Our organization has changed. We were once a small independent research entity but things have changed significantly. We've received a large contract from industry. . . . The ATP cultural imperative and requirement that experiments be written up in a rigorous fashion did have an impact we are giving the write-ups to an archivist; and we are using similar methods on our industrial contract. We do not have a separate quality assurance department, but following the ATP practice, we have embedded quality into our day-to-day work habits."
3. "Yes, Extended Adoption of New Methodologies and Processes" [4 interviewees]
Four (4) interviewees, or 14% of the sample, reported that cycle-time improvements were enabled by the adoption of new methodologies and processes resulting from their ATP participation. As one interviewee explained, "Peer pressure being what it is, once two groups come up with a way to reduce cycle time others immediately find out what is going on and apply the new methodology to their own group." As another explained, "We used ATP funds to do process development. It was a building block for other developments. We now have a reliable base to build on and benefit from the cumulative effects."
4. "Yes, Cultural Change" [2 interviewees]
Two (2) interviewees, or 7% of the sample, believed that the cycle-time improvements that were a result of participating in ATP resulted in a cultural change that carried over to other projects. As one stated, "By doing this on a faster speed in the ATP project, we built a culture that expects to do things faster. By focusing on long-term needs, it allowed us to better manage short-term needs."
5. "Yes, A Little." [3 interviewees]
Three (3) interviewees, or 11% of the sample said, "Yes, the cycle-time improvements were carried over `a little,' in other words, to a minimum extent," but didn't elaborate as to how.
6. "No, No Change." [3 interviewees]
For the three (3) interviewees, or 11% of the sample, who said that cycle-time improvements were not carried over, they attributed the lack of carryover to internal organizational dynamics. For example, one interviewee stated: "No but our company is going through a series of changes we're restructuring every operation into decentralized units. The company is breaking up into smaller units. This reduces opportunity for cross-fertilization. In another organization with a more centralized research system, more benefits could have been derived. This is frustrating because the potential existed but could not be realized."
7. "Don't know." [1 interviewee]
One interviewee, or 3.6% of the sample, said they didn't know if there was a carryover to other projects.
When ATP practices result in cycle-time improvements that are carried over, we can say that to some extent, these practices have been institutionalized. In fact, this study found that the representatives for the lead-company awardees thought that ATP-originated practices were, for the most part, carried over, (hence institutionalized). Interviewees attributed the carryover to the enabling technologies that positioned the companies to execute a number of subsequent spin-off activities faster; to the use on related projects of ATP-acquired practices that foster project acceleration; to the wider application of new methodologies and new processes that reduce cycle time; and to cultural changes associated with adopting a faster pace as a way of life. They discussed how participating in the ATP program enabled them to remove organizational barriers to cycle-time reduction. But beyond brief characterizations, they did not provide much detail. To the extent that other work in the ATP-funded companies was accelerated by the companies' participation in the ATP, the benefits of ATP on the participating companies may be systemic in nature and greater than anticipated.
Burkhart, Robert E. "Reducing R&D Cycle Time." Research Technology Management, May_June 1994, pp. 27_32.
Laidlaw, Frances J. Acceleration of Technology Development by the Advanced Technology Program. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NISTIR-6947, September 1997.
McGrath, Michael E., Michael T. Anthony, and Amram R. Shapiro. Product Development: Success Through Product and Cycle-Time Excellence. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992.
Powell, Jeanne W. Small-Firm Experience in the Advanced Technology Program. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD: Paper presented at the High-Technology Small Finance Conference, University of Twente, The Netherlands, June 1998.
Silber & Associates. Survey of Advanced Technology Program, 1990-1992 Awardees, Company Opinion About the ATP and Its Early Effects. January 30, 1996.
Solomon Associates. The Advanced Technology Program An Assessment of Short-term Impacts: First Competition Participants. February 1993.Frances Laidlaw is a manager in R&D at Motorola specializing in technology planning. She holds a doctoral degree in Engineering, an M.B.A. from Columbia University, and a B.A. from the University of Illinois. Before joining Motorola, she was a Fulbright fellow conducting post-doctoral research at the University of Paris; and before that, a doctoral student at George Washington University, and a consultant-on-staff in the Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Return
to Table of Contents
Date created:
September 1998
Last updated:
August 4, 2005
![]() |
ATP website comments: webmaster-atp@nist.gov / Technical ATP inquiries: InfoCoord.ATP@nist.gov. NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department |
![]() |