# Presentation: 127446

## Rosalie Ruegg, DirectorEconomic Assessment Office
Advanced Technology Program
Tel:  301-975-6135  rosalie.ruegg@nist.gov

***Rosalie Ruegg, Director******Economic Assessment Office***
***Advanced Technology Program***
***Tel:  301-975-6135  rosalie.ruegg@nist.gov***

***“******Delivering Public Benefit With Private Sector Efficiency Through the ATP”***

***NAS/NRC/STEP Workshop on***
***Assessing the ATP***
***Washington, D.C.***
***April 25, 2000***

-  A Decade of . . .

-  Innovation
-  Program Assessment
-  Benefits to the Nation

## A Decade of Innovation

- 468 projects co-funded
- 1,067 participants and 1,027 subcontractors
- > 50% of projects led by small businesses
- More than 145 Universities participating
- Nearly 20 national laboratories participating
- $3 billion of advanced technology development funded
- ATP Share = $1.496 billion
- Industry Share = $1.499 billion

**Notes:**
Now is an exciting time for ATP – we are entering our tenth year and can say with confidence that the Program is making a difference -- ATP has a lot to brag about!
You can read the numbers for yourself, but I want to especially draw your attention to the third bulleted point.  Of the almost $3 billion of R&D funded through projects, industry has footed more than half of the bill, demonstrating that the program is a true government-industry partnership.
Large corporations are not our only project partners.  In fact, they’re in the minority.
Over half of all awards are led by small businesses, and they participate in many others.  A significant proportion of these small businesses are really small -- fewer than 25 employees.
I also want to stress the importance that ATP places on partnership.  Universities and national labs are important players within ATP projects.  They are frequently subcontractors to single applicants or joint ventures, and are joint venture partners in other cases.

## Direct & Indirect Paths to  Impacts

## “Direct Path” BenefitsPrivate and Social Returns to R&D

***Source***:  Jaffe 1996, Modified by Ruegg.

-  **Pure Market Spillover**

## “Direct & Indirect Path” BenefitsPrivate and Social Returns to R&D

***Source***:  Jaffe 1996, Modified by Ruegg.

## “Direct & Indirect Path” BenefitsPrivate and Social Returns to R&D

***Source***:  Jaffe 1996, Modified by Ruegg.

## “Direct Path” Benefits:Example

**	****Mt. Prospect, IL**
**	****plus subcontractors and**
**	****   ****research partners**
-  Startup funded by ATP in 1990
-  8 employees at project start
-  ATP funding = $1.98 Million
-  Company funding = $1.56 Million
-  Project duration = 3/1/93 – 2/29/96
-  Successful IPO
-  Built production plant
-  Producing products based on
-     ATP work
-  75 employees in 1997

***“******Direct Path” Benefits:******Example***

## “Indirect Path” Example:  ISC

## “Direct Path” Benefits:Example

-  **Aastrom Biosciences, Inc.**
-  Startup funded by ATP in 1991
-  ATP funding = $1.2 Million
-  Company funding = $1.5 million
-  Subsequent private investment for clinical trials
-  and commercialization

## “Indirect Path” Example:  Aastrom Biosciences

***“******Indirect Path” Example:  Aastrom Biosciences***

## “Indirect Path” Example:  Armstrong

## “Indirect Path” Example: MFC

## ATP’s Multi-Component Assessment Measures “Direct” and “Indirect” Effects

## Who Does the Studies?

## Early Program Results

***Early Program Results***

**Leap-frog technologies developed**
- 37% of applications represent “new-to-the-world” solutions
- 63% of applications represent dramatic cost reductions or performance improvements
**Rich technology platforms developed with multiple uses**
- Many prize-winning technologies
- 4.5 applications per project
**Emphasis on collaborations among companies, universities, and non-profit organizations**
- 157 Joint Ventures
- Most “single applicants” have alliances and subcontractors
- Many benefits and few costs of collaborating reported
**High Risk R&D Accelerated**
- 86% ahead in R&D cycle
**Estimated public benefits from several projects alone exceed total ATP costs**

**Notes:**
After 10 years, the evidence (both our internal studies and external assessments) is conclusive, the ATP is making a difference!
The ATP has been successful in helping to bridge the gap between the laboratory and the marketplace.  
Some interesting accomplishments:
ATP has been responsible for accelerating R&D and reducing the time-to-market -- 86% of our projects report that they are ahead in their R&D cycle as a result of ATP funding. 
Further, our business reporting system has identified 37 % of ATP applications as “new-to-the-world” solutions.
ATP projects have:
identified 1200 potential applications (4.5 per project) and
produced over 100 new technologies that are commercialized, as products, processes, or services.

## Performance Data for First 50 ATP Projects Completed

## Terminated Projects (40 of 468, as of April 2000)

**Notes:**
We learn a lot from examining why certain project fail or are terminated.
This chart shows the reasons for why 8 percent of our projects have been terminated. 

## Contact Information

## Key Features of the ATP

- Emphasis on innovation for broad national economic benefit
- Industry leadership in planning and implementing projects
- Project selection based on technical and economic merit
- Project selection rigorously competitive, based on peer review
- Focus on the civilian sector
- Focus on enabling technologies with high spillover potential
- Focus on overcoming difficult research challenges

## Key Features of the ATP (cont’d)

- Encouragement of company-university-laboratory collaboration
- Positioned after basic science and before product development
- Requirement that projects have well-defined goals/sunset provisions
- Demonstrated need for ATP funding
- Coordination with other public and private funding sources
- U.S. companies planning and organizing for technology applications
- Program evaluation from the outset

## ATP’s “Business Reporting System” Tracks Progress(During Project and Post-Project)

- Project goals/Expected commercial advantage
- Strategies for commercialization
- Collaborative activities and experiences
- Effect of ATP on project timing/scale/scope/ risk level/ability to do long-term R&D/private investment dollars ($)
- Commercialization progress
- Knowledge dissemination
- ID of customers and competitors
- International standing