The research
for this study was conducted under the auspices of the National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The NBER is a private,
non-profit, non-partisan organization engaged in quantitative
analysis of the American economy. This study has not undergone
the review accorded official NBER publications; in particular,
it has not been submitted for approval by the Board of Directors.
The views expressed in the study are those of the authors. |
Table
of Contents
View PDF
version of report.
Abstract
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
2 Analysis
of the Data
- The Population
of ATP-Funded Projects
- Selection
of a Sample of ATP-Funded Projects
- Analysis of
Terminated Projects in the Population
- Estimation
of the Probability of Response to the Sample Survey
3 Role
of Universities in ATP-Funded Projects
- Role of Universities:
Reason for Inclusion in Projects
- Role of Universities:
Effect on Research Efficiency
- Role of Universities:
Effect on Acceleration and Commercialization of Technology
4 Concluding
Observations
- Universities
Create Research Awareness in ATP-Funded Projects
- Research Funding
Influences the Scope of the Research
5 References
Appendix
A: Additional Results Supporting Findings in the Study A-1
Appendix
B: Survey Instruments B-1
Tables
- Table
1. Distribution of ATP-Funded Projects by Type of
University Involvement
- Table
2. Simulation of Probability of Termination of ATP
Information Technology Project Begun in 1991
- Table
3. Predicted Probability of Survey Response
- Table
4. Determinants of Difficulty Acquiring Basic Knowledge
- Table
5. Determinants of the Problems in the Project: Ordered
Probit Estimates
- Table
6. Percentage of Unproductive Research Time and Cost:
Sample Selection Estimates
- Table
7. Performance Determinants: Ordered Probit Estimates
with Correction for Response Probability
Appendix
A Tables
- Table
A1. Determinants of the Probability of Early Termination:
Probit Estimates
- Table
A2. Probit Estimates for the Probability of Survey
Response
- Table
A3. Overall Determinants of Sampling Probability:
Probit Estimates
- Table
A4. Difficulties Acquiring and Assimilating Basic
Knowledge
- Table
A5. Conceptual Research Problems Versus Expectations
- Table
A6. Equipment-Related Research Problems Versus Expectations
- Table
A7. Personnel-Related Research Problems Versus Expectations
- Table
A8. Percent Unproductive Research Time on Project
- Table
A9. Percent Unproductive Financial Resources for
Project
- Table
A10. Potential New Applications of the Technology
Have Been Recognized
- Table
A11. Technology to be Commercialized Sooner than
Expected
Appendix
B Survey Instruments
- B1.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with no university
- B2.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with university involvement
as a subcontractor
- B3.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with university involvement
as a research partner
- B4.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with university involvement
- B5.
Survey instrument for single applicants with no university
involvement
- B6.
Survey instrument for single applicants with university involvement
as subcontractors
ABOUT
THE AUTHORS
Abstract
Universities
are a key institution in the U.S. innovation system, and an important
aspect of university involvement is the role universities play in
private-public partnering activities. This study seeks to gain a
better understanding of the performance of university-industry research
partnerships by using a survey of a sample of pre-commercial research
projects funded by the U.S. Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Although
results must be interpreted cautiously because of the small sample
size, the study finds that projects with university involvement tend
to be in areas involving new science and therefore the
projects may experience more difficulty and delay but also are more
likely to end successfully. This finding implies that universities
are contributing to basic research awareness and insight among the
partners in ATP-funded projects.
Acknowledgments
We are
grateful for comments on an earlier version of this paper from Lee
Baldwin, Adam Jaffe, Don Siegel, and participants at the ASSA 2000
meetings in Boston and the Wake Forest University economics workshop.
Also, we appreciate the suggestions and guidance during the data
collection stage of Rosalie Ruegg, former Director of the Economic
Assessment Office of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and now
retired from government and Managing Director of TIA Consulting,
and Jeanne Powell, Senior Economist, ATP. We extend our thanks for
editorial comments and suggestions to Barbara
Cuthill, project manager, ATP; Robert Fireovid, Group Leader,
Chemistry & Materials Group, ATP; Connie
Chang, Senior Economist, ATP; and Stephanie
Shipp, Director, Economic Assessment Office, ATP.
Return
to Contents or go to next
section.
Date created:
October 18, 2002
Last updated:
August 2, 2005