# Presentation: 906913

## The ERC-Industry Interaction:

**Recognizing 15 Years of Partnership**

**Joseph Bordogna**
**National Science Foundation**
**http://www.nsf.gov/bordogna**

**Engineering Research Centers 2000 Annual Meeting**
**November 6, 2000**

**Notes:**
1
Good morning and thank you for the kind introduction.  It is a pleasure to be here.  There is something to be said, however, about a conference speaker who is scheduled between an audience and their lunch.  I’ll have to say something riveting to keep your attention.

This is an exciting time to come together in Washington D.C.—the day before Election Day—with the closest presidential race in years.  

Let me say right up front: I come in peace.  I have no intention of making any comments about this year’s political fight.  As Sir Winston Churchill said, “Political skill is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow . . . And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”  

Fortunately for us, we don’t find ourselves in that position today.  We have come together to celebrate the rich 15-year history and undeniable success of the Engineering Research Centers. 

The ERCs have become recognized as flagships of a new form of engineering education facilitated by partnership.  I’d like to begin today by briefly discussing their history and highlighting some of their greater benefits to society.  I then want to foster discussion on how to expand the ERC culture of collaboration, integration, and holism to the entire U.S. scientific and engineering enterprise.   

## ERC Program Announcement 

***“******The goal of the Centers program is to develop fundamental knowledge in engineering fields that will enhance the international competitiveness of U.S. industry and prepare engineers to contribute through better engineering practices.” ***

**Notes:**
Here’s some history to refresh our memories.  The deadline for the first NSF/ERC proposals was in October of 1984.  The language in the first program announcement was full of the tenor of the times.  It recognized the nation’s need for a new kind of engineer.  The goal was clear: to boost U.S. competitiveness in the world marketplace. 

We all remember what was shaping the larger context.  Throughout the early 1980s, U.S. industry was being battered by foreign competition in nearly every sector.  The Japanese were rapidly gaining market share in the automotive, computer, and consumer electronics industries.  They did it with more innovative design, more agile manufacturing, and lower prices. 

## NAE: Guidelines for Engineering Research Centers  

***“******. . .to lessen several weaknesses in engineering education: ***
***an inadequate understanding by students of engineering practice; that is, the understanding of how engineering knowledge is converted by industry into societal goods and services.” ***

**Notes:**
The seminal document was the NAE’s 1984 report with the Guidelines for the ERCs.  It told us to look in the mirror: part of the problem was the engineering education system.  Students had an inadequate understanding of industrial engineering practice.  They lacked the integrative training to convert engineering knowledge into real gains for society.  

In the 1980s, American companies were spending six months to a year training newly hired engineers.  This was just to acquaint them to industrial practices and technological innovations.  It would be another two years before industry could expect them to transform knowledge into new products.  Industry and academe, both, needed a new systems-oriented, integrationist perspective.  

That’s the beginning.  Each ERC could be different in breadth and scope, as we have seen over and over.  They share overarching, defining characteristics.  The Centers have fostered collaboration and cooperative learning for industry, academe, and government, based on a mutual respect. 

We certainly can’t claim credit for inventing university-industry partnership.  (We’re not running for President.)  But together, we have carried it to new heights.  Our educational approach has lead the way.

## Measures of ERC Success

- Industry support for Centers: 28%
- 21% of ERC industrial members are now small companies
- In 15 years:
- 58 companies spun off
- 600 inventions
- 300 patents
- 1400 software licenses
- In 1999, 200 technologies transferred
- Graduated over 7000 students

**Notes:**
The facts speak for themselves.  

Industry support for the Centers is about 28% of the total.  
Twenty-one percent of all ERC industrial members are now small companies.
Fifty-eight companies have been spun off by ERCs over the last 15 years. 
To date, ERCs have unveiled over 600 inventions, and procured over 300 patents and 1,400 software licenses.
In 1999 alone, ERCs transferred over 200 different technologies   to member partners that impacted their business. 
And lastly, we’ve graduated almost 7,000 students. 

## Georgia Tech/Emory ERC

## Creative TransformationsThe Schumpeterian Factor

- “The interaction of technological innovation with the competitive marketplace is the fundamental driving force in capitalist industrial progress.” (Schumpeter, 1942)
- “...a normally healthy economy was not one in equilibrium, but one that was constantly being disrupted by technological innovation.”  			(The Economist (on Schumpeter), 1999)

**Notes:**
The observation of new ideas constantly changing the economy is not a new realization.  

It dates to the Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter.  In 1942, Schumpeter developed the "rule-breaking" theory of economics.  He described the hallmark of technological innovation as "the perennial gale of creative destruction." 

According to Schumpeter, a normal healthy economy was not one in equilibrium, but one that was constantly being disrupted and transformed by technological innovation. 

History is replete with examples:
Transistor technology disrupted the vacuum-tube industry, 
the compact disc pushed out the LP, and 
the Internet is currently reinventing the retail sales industry, among other things.

## Traditional vs. Cyber Infrastructure

**Facilities**
**Instrumentation/ equipment**
**Research platforms**
**vehicles**
**multi-user facilities (e.g., telescope)**

***Traditional Physical***
_***Infrastructure***_

***New Cyber***
_***Infrastructure***_

**Advanced computing resources**
**Digital libraries**
**Shared data and information bases**
**Research and education networks**
**Distributed user facilities**
**Standards and protocols**

**Notes:**
One particular issue we should discuss is infrastructure.

We know from past experience that infrastructure can either expand or inhibit our potential.  An infrastructure system can provide potential in one era, but drag us into obsolescence in another era.  In this sense, infrastructure can be thought of as “perishable.”

The newest infrastructure territory is in cyberspace.  It is fast becoming an overarching influence on the conduct of everything from science and engineering to songwriting and shopping. 

This chart contrasts the “traditional physical infrastructure” and the “new cyber infrastructure.”

The former includes facilities and major instrumentation and research platforms, such as telescopes, research vessels, fabrication laboratories, and atomic particle detectors and accelerators. The new infrastructure includes items such as databases, digital libraries, and network capabilities.

For progress in science and technology to continue unfettered, we must plan a cyber infrastructure that is oriented to 21st century needs and goals.  One that is designed for specific long-term goals, yet remains flexible to the unpredictable.  

## NSF’s Strategic Goals

**Ideas **- *Discovery across S&E frontiers, connected to learning, innovation and service to society*
**Tools** - *Accessible, state-of-the-art, and shared research and education tools *

**NSF’s Strategic Goals**

**Notes:**
8
NSF’s strategic goals are summed up by three key words: 
People, Ideas, and Tools.

We continually help break new ground through the research and education we support, but we can’t let the knowledge generated lie fallow.

NSF is as much about preparing a world-class workforce as it is about discovery.  That’s a primary benefit from our support of academic research... and that’s been the intent for NSF since its start.

And the tools -- the research platforms, telescopes, databases, and user facilities -- open up the new vistas and frontiers for learning and discovery.

## The NSF Vision

***	******Enabling the Nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation...***

**Notes:**
7
NSF's vision is clear and simple:  

“Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation.”

## New Capabilities

-  Nanoscale
-  Complexity
-  Cognition
-  Holism

**New Capabilities**

## “Our knowledge is a torch of smoking pine that lights the pathway but one step ahead.”

**- George Santayana (1863-1952)**