NIST

PUBLICATIONS

|V 1 1 CTT United states Department of Commerce

I \J 1213 1 National Institute of Standards and Technology

NAT L INST. OF

^H|||| ^ A111D3 M3E3 C1S

NIST Special Publication 786

Technology-Based Economic Development:

A Study of State and Federal Technical

Extension Services

Robert E. Chapman, Marianne K. Clark, and Eric Dobson

100

.U57

#786

1990

C.2
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS &

TECHNOLOGY

Research Information Center

Gakhersburg, MD 20899

DATE DUE

\G 1 f /1 1XL.

Demco, Inc 38-293
M5T Special Publication 786

Technology-Based Economic Development:

A Study of State and Federal Technical

Extension Services

Robert E. Chapman

Office of Technology Commercialization

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

and

Mariannne K. Clarke and Eric Dobson

National Governors' Association

Center for Policy Research

444 North Capitol Street

Washington, DC 20001

June 1990

SfATES O* +

U.S. Department of Commerce

Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

John W. Lyons, Director
National Institute of Standards U.S. Government Printing Office

and Technology Washington: 1990

Special Publication 786

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

Spec. Publ. 786

159 pages (June 1990)

CODEN: NSPUE2

For sale by the Superintendent

of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) , formerly the

National Bureau of Standards, conducted a study of state and federal

technology extension services. The study was requested in the Omnibus Trade

and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418) , to capture information

on the various programs the states are using to promote technological

innovation. Interest in the various state programs is based both on the

number of programs and the variety of services they provide. Furthermore,

many state programs benefit from federal technology transfer programs and

financial support as well as private sources of funding.

The study was carried out in cooperation with the National Governors'

Association (NGA) . NIST and NGA worked through the Governors' Offices,

primarily their Science and Technology Advisors, to collect information on

their state's key programs.

To date, no study of state economic development - technological innovation

activities has focused on identifying those programs which reach out to

provide technological assistance to businesses at the local level, or on the

degree to which such programs make use of federal programs and activities in

carrying out their missions. This study serves to document these activities

as well as identify potential sources of synergism between the states and

federal technology transfer programs. In addition to satisfying a Congressional mandate, this study provides a unique opportunity to inventory

the level of state- funded activities involved in technological innovation and

assistance, and will provide the basis for establishing a Department of

Commerce Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity,

Technology, and Innovation which is also required under the Act.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the study's major findings and to

provide recommendations on the future federal role in technology extension.

A two-pronged approach was used in carrying out the study. The first part of

the study focused on an in-depth review of the literature on technology

transfer and technology extension services. Special emphasis was placed on

federal technology transfer efforts and on identifying and documenting state

technical outreach and economic development activities. Emphasis was also

placed on analyzing what the states are doing in the key areas of program

implementation (e.g., strategic plans) and program evaluation (e.g., selfassessment issues) . The second part of the study involved a nationwide

survey of state and federal extension services. Among the major findings of

the survey, are the following.

The present system for delivering services to small and medium- sized

businesses is decentralized. There are a large number of organizations,

supported by both the federal and state governments, working directly with

businesses - the survey identified over 200 organizations providing

assistance to businesses. The services offered by these organizations vary

greatly as does the extent to which these programs provide assistance on

technological issues. Total funding for all federal and state programs

included in the survey was $620 million in fiscal year 1988. Forty-eight

percent of the funding for these programs comes from state government, with

iii
the federal government contributing approximately 26 percent. The remainder

is contributed by industry (12 percent) and universities (9 percent) . Local

governments contributed approximately one percent.

All regions of the country are served by organizations providing direct

assistance to businesses, although the type of organizations providing

services and the services provided may differ greatly. The largest number of

responses were received from the Midwest. The South accounted for the

largest amount of total dollars, 35 percent of total 1988 expenditures. The

North and the Midwest accounted for 29 and 24 percent of spending,

respectively, while the West accounted for 12 percent. An examination of

source of funds by region shows that the distribution of funds by source

differs significantly. In the North, 26 percent of total funding is

provided by industry, compared with only 4 to 7 percent in the other three

regions, and state funding matches federal funding at a rate of 2 . 8 : 1 . In

the South and Midwest, the ratio of state to federal dollars is 1.8:1, while

in the West the ratio is 1.4:1.

The firms being assisted by federal and state-supported organizations are

overwhelmingly small businesses. This is true regardless of the type of

service being provided. A breakdown by size of firm shows that 60 percent of

the firms being assisted have fewer than 50 employees. Another 23 percent

have between 50 and 500 employees. Furthermore, these businesses need access

primarily to existing off-the-shelf technology rather than advanced

state-of-the art technology. The survey respondents reported that for those

businesses receiving technology assistance 64 percent require access to

established technologies while 35 percent require access to new technologies.

Figures for firms participating in other program areas were similar to those

receiving technology assistance.

Of the $620 million total funding for all federal and state programs included

in the survey, 84 percent or $519 million is earmarked for specific program

categories. Technology assistance services accounted for $121 million or 23

percent of the earmarked funds. Another 23 percent is allocated to

technology research centers and 17 percent to business assistance. Twentyfour percent of total funds are allocated to other activities (i.e.,

activities not covered by the survey questionnaire). A majority of these

funds are probably allocated to research and development grant programs.

Technology assistance services are being provided at a fairly even rate to

manufacturing and non- manufacturing firms. Approximately two-thirds of the

firms receiving business assistance, however, are non-manufacturing firms.

While 167 state and federally-supported organizations reported providing

technology assistance services (e.g., technical information, invention

evaluation, technical counseling and patent information) , the number of

"technology extension services" - as defined to be those programs whose

primary purpose is to provide direct consultation to manufacturers for

technology deployment - is much smaller. The study identified 13

state -supported organizations in nine states that fit this more limited

definition. Both the state and federally-supported organizations providing

primarily business assistance services (e.g., Small Business Development

Centers and state business assistance programs) serve on average a much

iv
higher number of clients per year than do those organizations that provide

primarily technology assistance services. Business assistance services

include financial analysis, management assistance and business plan

preparation.

The federal program cited as being of greatest assistance in promoting

technological innovation is the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Program. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents reported using the SBIR

Program and 74 percent gave the program a rating of good. The SBIR Program

was established by Congress in 1982 to provide the opportunity for small

firms to participate in federal research and development. The states have

found the program to be an important source of seed capital for small

technology-based businesses. Over a dozen states have established state

programs to complement and build on the federal SBIR Program. Other highly

rated but less frequently used programs included the Economic Development

Administration's University Centers, the Agricultural Extension Service,

NSF's Indus try/University Cooperative Research Centers, the Department of

Commerce's Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation (now the Office

of Technology Policy), and NASA's Commercial Use of Space Program.

State and federal program managers agreed that they would place greatest

emphasis on cooperating actively with federal agencies in their technology

transfer programs and establishing a training program at the state and local

level focused on federal technology transfer and cooperation. The state

respondents placed greater emphasis on cosponsoring demonstration projects as

compared to drawing on a federal clearinghouse to disseminate information on

federal research and development while the federal respondents favored the

clearinghouse over demonstration projects.

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 directs NIST to provide

technical assistance to state technology programs throughout the United

States, to help those programs help businesses - particularly small and

medium-sized businesses - enhance their competitiveness through the

application of science and technology. The Act directs that such assistance

include, but not be limited to: (1) technical information and advice from

NIST personnel; (2) workshops and seminars for state officials interested in

transferring federal technology to businesses; and (3) entering into

cooperative agreements as authorized under the Act.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the many individuals who contributed time and

information for the development of this report. First and foremost, thanks

are due to the managers of the state and federal programs who responded to

the survey

.

Thanks are also due to those individuals who reviewed the manuscript and

provided advice and guidance. Special thanks are due to Ms. Beverly Jones

for her pioneering work on state technology programs while at the Minnesota

Department of Trade and Economic Development. Special thanks are also due to

Dr. Donald R. Johnson and Messrs. David Edgerly and Joseph Berke , National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Mr. DeWitt John and Ms. Kristen Gooch,

National Governors' Association, and Dr. Philip Shapira, West Virginia

University

.

vi
CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

1 . INTRODUCTION 1 1 . 1 Background 1 1 . 2 Purpose 2

1 . 3 Scope and Approach 3

PART I FEDERAL-STATE INITIATIVES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 5

2. FEDERAL INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 7

2.1 Agricultural Extension 7

2.2 State Technical Services Program 7

2.3 Federally-Sponsored Industry/Technology-Assistance

Programs 8

2.4 Initiatives Under the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988 19

3. STATE INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO STIMULATE TECHNOLOGY-ORIENTED

INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 23

3.1 Historical Perspective 23

3.2 Organization of State Efforts 28

3.3 Technologies Targeted 33

3.4 Program Implementation and Evaluation 33

PART II RESULTS FROM A NATIONWIDE SURVEY OF STATE TECHNICAL

EXTENSION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 39

4. SURVEY-RELATED ISSUES: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 41

4.1 Cooperation with the National Governors' Association .. 41

4.2 Selected Results Analyzed by Type of Program and

Type of Service 43

5. MICRO-STUDIES OF SELECTED TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION PROGRAMS 63

5.1 State-Based Programs 63

5.2 Federal Affiliates 69

6. STATE-FEDERAL INTERACTIONS 73

6.1 Use of Federal Programs 73

6.2 Suggested Approaches for Promoting the Transfer

of Federal Technology 78

7. SUMMARY - 85

vii
APPENDIX A STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR TECHNICAL- ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT 91

APPENDIX B STATE COORDINATOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE 127

APPENDIX C PROGRAM MANAGER'S QUESTIONNAIRE 139

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

2.1 Relevant Legislation and Policy Guidance Governing Federal

Technology Transfer Activities 10

3.1 Mechanisms Used by States to Stimulate Business Investment

and Development 24

3.2 State Offices for Promoting Initiatives in Science and

Technology 30

3.3 Selected Science and Technology Programs by State 31

3.4 Technologies Targeted by State 34

4.1 Types of Services for Which Information Was Collected in the

Nationwide Survey 44

4.2 State-by-State Tabulation of Programs Classified by Type of

Service Provided 46

4.3 Funds Received by Federal Affiliates During Fiscal Year 1988 ... 56

4.4 Summary Statistics on Establishments Receiving Technology

Assistance From Each of the Four Federal Affiliates 57

4.5 Summary Statistics on Establishments Receiving Business

Assistance From Each of the Four Federal Affiliates 60

6.1 Federal Programs Rated Most Highly by Respondents 74

6.2 Use and Assessment of Selected Federal Programs 75

6.3 Potential Strategies for Promoting Federal Technology 79

ix

1 . INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 BACKGROUND

The rapid loss of competitiveness of U.S. industry in international markets

is an extremely serious problem with wide-ranging consequences for our

material well-being, our security, and our political influence. Its causes

are many, but among them certainly are the slow rate at which new technology 1

is embodied in commercial products and processes, and the lack of attention

paid to manufacturing. We need to compete in world markets with high- valueadded products, incorporating the latest innovations, manufactured in short

runs with flexible manufacturing methods. We need research, management, and

manufacturing methods that support change and innovation.

Many ideas originating in the American scientific and technical community are

being commercially exploited in other parts of the world. We, as a nation,

have been slow to capitalize on new technology developed from our own

intellectual capability and to improve our manufacturing capability. In the

past, small and medium-sized firms have led U.S. industry in innovation. We

must now determine the extent to which the federal government can support

such companies in the development of improved manufacturing capabilities and

the marketing of new, competitive products.

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (Public Law 100-418) was signed

into law on August 23, 1988. Two issues raised in the competitiveness

portion of the Act are of central importance to this study. First, the Act

created the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from the

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , the nation's central laboratory for

developing and disseminating measurement standards and scientific data. In

addition to the name change, NIST was assigned new responsibilities which

augment and build on the technical expertise of NBS. NIST is the only

federal laboratory with a specific mission to support U.S. industry.

Basically, NIST is charged to "assist industry in the development of

technology and procedures needed to improve quality, to modernize

manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability, manufacturability

,

functionality, and cost-effectiveness, and to facilitate the more rapid

commercialization ... of products based on new scientific discoveries."

Second, the Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a nationwide

study of state technology extension services and to report findings and

recommendations to Congress on an appropriate federal role in encouraging

such programs. The Act requires that the study include the following items:

A. A thorough description of each state program, including its

duration, annual budget, and the number and types of businesses it

has aided;

Technology is defined as technical information applicable to

products and processes.

1
B. A description of any anticipated expansion of each state program and

its associated costs;

C. An evaluation of the success of the programs in transferring

technology, 2 modernizing manufacturing processes, and improving the

productivity and profitability of businesses;

D. An assessment of the degree to which state programs make use of

federal programs, including the Small Business Innovation Research

program and the programs of the Federal Laboratory Consortium, the

National Technical Information Service, the National Science

Foundation, the Office of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation

(now the Office of Technology Policy) , and the Small Business

Administration;

E. A survey of what additional federal information and technical

assistance the programs could utilize; and

F. An assessment of how the services could be more effective agents for

the transfer of federal scientific and technical information,

including the results and application of federal and federally- funded

research

.

In addition to satisfying a Congressional mandate, this study provides a unique opportunity to inventory the level of state-funded activities involved

in technological innovation and assistance, and will provide the basis for

establishing a Department of Commerce Clearinghouse for State and Local

Initiatives on Productivity, Technology and Innovation which is also

required under the Act.

The study was carried out by NIST in cooperation with the National Governors'

Association (NGA) . NIST and NGA worked through the Governors' Offices,

primarily their Science and Technology Advisers, to collect information on

their state's key programs. Appendix A contains a list of the economic/

technical outreach programs that provided detailed information.

Two separate questionnaires were used to capture the study data. The first

(see Appendix B) is of a summary nature and is designed for use by State

Coordinators (e.g., a Governor's Science and Technology Advisor). The

Second (see Appendix C) is designed for use by the individual Program

Managers

.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is twofold. First, it summarizes the recent

literature on technology transfer and technology extension. Included in the

2 Technology transfer is defined here as the process by which technology,

knowledge, or information developed in one organization, in one area, or for

one purpose is applied and utilized in another organization, in another area,

or for another purpose

.

2
literature survey is a review of selected federal technology transfer

programs, a review of state technical outreach and economic development

activities, and an analysis of state efforts in the key areas of program

implementation and program evaluation. Second, it summarizes the results of

a nationwide survey of state and federal technology extension services. The

survey was carried out in cooperation with NGA. It represents the first

comprehensive study of how these programs reach out to provide technological

assistance to businesses at the local level and the degree to which such

programs make use of federal programs and activities in carrying out their

missions

.

1.3 SCOPE AND APPROACH

The report is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on summarizing some of

the recent work in the areas of technology transfer and technology extension

carried out by the federal government, associations and individual states.

Part I consists of Chapters 2 and 3. Part II summarizes the major findings

of a nationwide survey of state and federal technology extension services.

Part II consists of Chapters 4, 5 and 6.

Chapter 2 traces the history of federal technology transfer activities from

its emphasis on agriculture in the early 1900s to the new missions outlined

in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.

Chapter 3 discusses results from several recent surveys concerned with

incentives and programs designed to promote technology-oriented development.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of state-based strategic planning

activities and the issue of program evaluation.

Chapter 4 begins with a description of the cooperative effort between NIST

and NGA, with special emphasis placed on the data collection strategy. The

key findings of the survey are then presented. Results are analyzed by type

of program and type of service provided.

Chapter 5 is an in-depth analysis of a small set of technology extension

programs. The purpose of these "micro-studies" is to provide a series of

snapshots illustrating the way in which the state-based and federalaffiliated programs operate.

Chapter 6 focuses on how the states are using a wide variety of federal

technology transfer programs. The chapter includes recommendations provided

by program managers on ways in which they can more effectively promote the

transfer of federal technology.

Chapter 7 provides a brief summary of the study's major findings.

3

PART I

FEDERAL-STATE INITIATIVES:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

5

2. FEDERAL INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

2.1 AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

Among the oldest federal programs for technology transfer is the U.S.

Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Cooperative Extension Service. The

origins of the system date back to the first federal appropriations for

agricultural research. Early activities included: the establishment of the

Department of Agriculture and the land-grant universities in 1862 under the

Morrill Act; and the funding of state agricultural experiment stations in

1887 under the Hatch Act. The current program began in the early 1900s. The

program became nationwide with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.

The Smith-Lever Act provided for a cooperative system of agricultural

extension to be developed between the federal government, land-grant

universities, and county extension boards.

The system aims to integrate agricultural research, education and technology

transfer. New agricultural technology is produced by researchers located at

universities, experimental stations and USDA laboratories. USDA's own

agricultural research occurs in 148 locations around the country, taking

about three-quarters of USDA research funds. The remaining research funds go

mainly to universities. Total federal spending on agricultural research was

$822 million in 1987. Private industry, university, state, and foundation

funds also support agricultural research.

The Cooperative Extension Service takes the results of this research effort

and seeks to transfer the technology to farmers as well as provide a feedback

loop between farmers and researchers. The Cooperative Extension Service

maintains an office in almost every county in the 50 states, in the District

of Columbia and in affiliated U.S. territories. In 1987, funding for the

extension system totaled more than $1.1 billion ($339 million from the

federal government and $801 million from state and local sources) . During

that same period, more than 16,000 staff were engaged in providing technical

services

2.2 STATE TECHNICAL SERVICES PROGRAM

With the passage of the State Technical Services Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-

182) , the federal government initiated the State Technical Services (STS)

Program. The objective of the STS was to help states accelerate the

adoption of new scientific and technological advances by industry. The Act

sought the involvement of states, universities, and industries in a cooperative effort to use advanced technology to upgrade industry, increase

employment, and enhance the competitive position of U.S. products in world

markets. States were asked to designate a qualified agency to develop plans

and programs which were then submitted to an Office of State Technical

Services in the Department of Commerce for review and funding.

The Act classified technical services as "activities or programs designed to

enable business, commerce and industrial establishments to acquire and use

scientific information more effectively." Program activities falling within

the meaning of the Act included: (1) preparing and disseminating technical

7
information (e.g., through state technical information centers); (2)

sponsoring seminars, industrial workshops and training programs; (3)

identifying and making referrals to sources of engineering and other

scientific expertise; (4) person-to-person contacts to identify problems and

find or adapt technologies to solve them; and (5) demonstrations of new

technologies to encourage their application in industry.

Between 1965 and 1969, the STS gave $10.9 million in grants to states. The

states used these funds in a variety of ways. New York established a science

and technology agency patterned after the National Science Foundation. North

Carolina and Pennsylvania set up industrial extension services, somewhat akin

to an agricultural extension. Pennsylvania's program (the Pennsylvania

Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP)) is still in existence; it provides

technical services to firms through the state university system.

An evaluation of the STS Program by Arthur D. Little in 1969 3 indicated that

the program was resulting in technological and economic benefits. Arthur D.

Little reported that the program was "most helpful to small and medium-sized

firms which do not have broad technical and research capabilities . . . and

provided useful technical services to firms who would not or could not pay

for such services." It was recommended that the STS Program should

concentrate its resources on such firms. Recommendations were made to

improve federal coordination and increase communication between the states

about useful resources and techniques. Unfortunately, when federal funding

for the STS Program was terminated in 1969, only a few states continued to

support the agencies and programs which STS helped to establish.

2.3 FEDERALLY- SPONSORED INDUSTRY/TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Except for the few instances where industrial development is regarded as a national security concern, the federal government most directly stimulates

technological innovation in private industry through technology transfer

programs. These programs make available the results of federally- funded

research and development (R & D) efforts or support their application. The

amount spent on disseminating knowledge gained through federal R&D efforts

is considerably smaller than the expenditures required to gain that

information.

Although no estimates of the economic benefits of federal technology transfer

programs to the nation's businesses are available, there is clear evidence

that these activities are beneficial to the national economy. For example, a 1984 study by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 4 concluded that

federal technology transfer programs are more likely to contribute to

regional high- technology development than are federal R&D programs. The

OTA study cited two reasons. First, the more than 700 federal laboratories

3 Arthur D. Little, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Office of State

Technical Services . Cambridge, MA, October 1969.

A Technology. Innovation and Regional Economic Development . Washington,

DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-238, July 1984.

3
and technology development centers are located throughout the nation. To the

extent that technology transfer takes place on a decentralized basis, federal

laboratories can become a vital component in the technological infrastructure

of the areas in which they are located. Second, many of the high- technology

development initiatives launched by state and local governments and

universities focus on technology transfer and improved linkages between

academic research and industrial application. As a result, these state and

local mechanisms are in a better position to provide local businesses with

information about federal technologies and access to federal technical

specialists

.

The recognition that the federal laboratory system has extensive science and

technology resources, developed as a consequence of meeting mission

requirements of the federal departments and agencies, has prompted

legislation to promote the transfer of federal technology to the private

sector where commercialization activities can be undertaken. The key

legislation affording access to the federal laboratory system is the

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480), as amended

by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502). Table 2.1

provides brief descriptions of both Acts, as well as legislation affecting

the ownership of patents derived from research performed under federal

funding, and Executive Order 12591 regarding facilitating access to

federally- funded technology.

Inter-Agency Programs and Activities

Federal technology transfer activities are of two basic types, those which

are agency specific and those which cut across several agencies. The purpose

of this section is to provide a brief description of three key programs which

cut across most of the federal agencies participating in research and

development. These programs are: (1) the creation of Offices of Research and

Technology Applications (ORTAs) within the federal laboratories; (2) the

Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) ; and (3) The

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.

Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA)

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480) and the

Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502) state that it is the

responsibility of the federal government to ensure full use of the results of

the nation's federal R&D investment and mandates that, where appropriate,

technology be transferred to state and local governments and the private

sector. These Acts created an organizational structure within the federal

laboratory system to meet this mandate. Each federal agency with one or more

laboratories must make available not less than 0.5 percent of its R&D

budget for technology transfer activities (this requirement can, and has,

been waived if the agency can demonstrate that it is in compliance with the

intent of the law) . To assist the flow of technology and expertise from the

system, each laboratory is required to create an Office of Research and

Technology Applications (ORTA); laboratories with 200 or more full-time

equivalent scientific, engineering, and related technical positions must have

one or more full-time equivalent professionals staffing the ORTA.

9
Table 2.1 Relevant Legislation and Policy Guidance Governing Federal

Technology Transfer Activities

P.L. 96-480

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act

P.L. 96-480 specifically states that it is the responsibility of

the federal government to ensure "... full use of the results of

the Nation's federal investment in research and development" and

to share, and where appropriate, to transfer federally- owned or

originated technology to state and local governments and the

private sector. The law also created an Office of Research and

Technology Applications (ORTA) in each major federal laboratory

and the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology, which is

currently located within the National Technical Information Service

(NTIS).

P.L. 99-502

The Federal Technology Transfer Act

P.L. 99-502 amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act

to promote technology transfer by authorizing government -operated

laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development

agreements (CRDAs). It allows companies, regardless of size, to

retain title to inventions resulting from research performed under

CRDAs with the federal laboratories . The government retains a

royalty- free license to use these patents.

P.L. 96-517

The University and Small Business Patent Procedure Act

P.L. 96-517 provides, in part, for title to federally- funded

inventions to be vested in a contractor if it is a small business,

a university, or a not-for-profit institution, subject to the

government receiving a royalty- free license to use the discovery.

10
Table 2.1 Relevant Legislation and Policy Guidance Governing Federal

Technology Transfer Activities (Continued) 5

P.L. 98-620

Amendments to the Patent and Trademark Laws

P.L. 98-620 affects the transfer of technology from federal laboratories to the private sector. The amendments authorize governmentowned, contractor-operated (GOCO) laboratories run by small business,

universities, or not-for-profit institutions to elect to retain title

to inventions resulting from federally- funded research. The law also

authorizes federal agencies to negotiate with federal contractors

regardless of size, as to the disposition of rights in federallyfunded inventions.

Executive Order 12591

Facilitating Access to Science and Technology

Executive Order 12591, signed April 10, 1987, directs the head of

each executive department and agency, to the extent permitted by

law, to promote cooperative research and development efforts between

the federal laboratories, State and local governments, universities,

and the private sector "... to assist in the transfer of technology

to the marketplace." This also includes granting title to the

results of federally- funded research and development to all contractors, regardless of size, in exchange for royalty-free use by, or on

behalf of, the federal government. In addition, the Executive Order

calls for the establishment of a Technology Share Program for selected federal laboratories to work with private industry consortia in

areas of research and technology with potential long-term national

benefits and convenes a Task Force on Technology Transfer from

Federal Laboratories under the auspices of the Office of Science

and Technology Policy.

5 Wendy H. Schact, Commercialization of Federally-Funded R & D: A Guide

to Technology Transfer from Federal Laboratories . Washington, DC:

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, September 1988.

11
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLO

The FLC was originally established under the auspices of the Department of

Defense in 1971 to assist in transferring defense technology to industry.

Several years later it was expanded to include other federal agencies in a voluntary organization of approximately 300 federal laboratories. The

Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 provided the FLC with a legislative

mandate to operate and required the membership of most federal laboratories.

The primary purpose of the FLC is to promote the effective utilization of

technical knowledge developed within the federal laboratory system by linking

these facilities with other federal entities, state, local and regional

governments, and the private sector. The FLC assists in identifying,

structuring, and addressing user needs in light of the increasing demands

placed on state and local jurisdictions for technical solutions to problems.

It also establishes a means by which federal technology and expertise can be

publicized and made available through individual laboratories to private

industry for further development and commercialization. Access to the

resources of the full federal laboratory system can be made through any

laboratory representative (e.g., an ORTA staff member), the FLC regional

coordinators, the Washington area representative located at the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, or by contacting the Chairman or

Executive Director.

The FLC, itself, does not transfer technology; it assists and improves the

technology transfer efforts of the laboratories where the work is performed

The legislation requires that the FLC perform various functions including the

development of material, techniques, and training methods on how to transfer

technology from the federal laboratories and to further advise and assist the

agencies and laboratories in their technology transfer programs. The FLC

will serve as a clearinghouse for requests for assistance and will either

refer requesters to the National Technical Information Service for written

information or to the appropriate federal laboratory or agency. When

requested, the FLC can: (1) assist the private sector, universities, and

state, local and regional jurisdictions in creating technology transfer

programs; (2) facilitate appropriate technology transfer mechanisms

(including personnel exchange) within the laboratories; (3) help establish

transfer programs using volunteers; and (4) seek advice outside the

laboratories as to the effectiveness of the technology transfer program.

The work of the FLC is funded by a set-aside of 0.008 percent of the portion

of each agency's R&D budget used for the laboratories. This money is

transferred to the National Institute of Standards and Technology which, in

turn, provides it to the FLC to cover its various activities. The FLC uses

5 percent of its funding for a technology transfer demonstration program.

This effort involves grants, awards, or cooperative agreements with state,

local, or non-profit organizations to develop programs and mechanisms which

may be utilized by the states to transfer technology from the federal

laboratories and which will enhance on-going federal, state, and local

technology transfer activities

.

12
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program

Research by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the barriers to small

firm participation in federal R&D procurement formed the basis for the

design of a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program at the NSF.

The NSF program was the predecessor of the current SBIR Program created by

the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-219)

One of the major benefits of the SBIR Program is that it brings new

technological vendors to federal science and engineering research programs.

The 12 government agencies with extramural research and development

obligations over $100 million annually participate in the SBIR Program. Each

agency sets aside a small percentage of its external research and development

budget for the program. At present, the required set aside is 1.25 percent.

Section 8008 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act requires an

investigation into the SBIR Program to consider increasing each agency's set

aside by 0.25 percent a year until the amount represents 3 percent of the

total extramural research and development funds. There are other suggested

amendments to the SBIR Program being proposed that are required to be

addressed in the Comptroller General's Study. 6

Agencies issue solicitations on subjects related to their missions. The

SBIR projects are funded in two phases. Phase I awards funds for feasibility

studies, usually for 6 months and less than $50,000. Successful projects

enter Phase II which generally lasts 2 years with up to $500,000 in funding.

Where two or more proposals for a Phase II project are evaluated as being of

approximately equal scientific and technical merit and feasibility, special

consideration is given to those proposals with non-federal capital

commitments to commercialize the research. Once Phase II work is finished,

the firm is expected to find Phase III funding from the private sector to

bring the innovation into the marketplace. If a federal agency has

continued interest and need for the innovation, acquisition may proceed with

non-SBIR funds.

About $1.5 billion has been awarded to SBIR Phase I and II projects from the

program's inception up through fiscal year 1988. In fiscal year 1985, 39

percent of the SBIR Program's $199 million funding was spent by the

Department of Defense, 23 percent by the Department of Health and Human

Services, 15 percent by NASA, and 13 percent by the Department of Energy. By

fiscal year 1988, the SBIR Program's funding level had risen to $360 million

of which 58 percent was spent by the Department of Defense, 15 percent by

the Department of Health and Human Services, 9 percent by the Department of

Energy, and 8.5 percent by NASA

6 Federal Research: Assessment of Small Business Innovation Research

Programs . Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED- 89 - 39 , January

1989.

13
Agency- Specific Programs and Activities

The focus of this section is on agency-specific technology transfer

activities. These activities may be classified into four basic modes of

operation: (1) technical information; (2) technology brokering; (3)

cooperative research and development; and (4) technical extension services.

Technical information is usually provided in the form of newsletters,

directories, or computer data bases that list federal technologies available

for licensing and use by private firms. Technology brokering by agency staff

involves seeking out potential users of federally-owned technologies, or

providing referral services for inventors seeking technical or financial

resources. Cooperative research and development involves partnering with

industry, generally in the early stages of research and development, to

transfer technology or know-how. Technical extension services provide

consultants to assist firms in solving technical problems in a certain field

of specialization.

NASA

NASA's Technology Utilization Program was initiated in 1962 to bring new

aerospace technologies to the attention of American industry. The program's

first efforts were in the publishing and distribution of NASA R&D results.

By the mid-1960s, program staffers had found that the availability of

technical information alone would not transfer technologies effectively, so

they began a process of matching potential users to information and skills at

NASA installations. In 1971, NASA became even more active in technology

brokering through technology adaptation, the re-engineering of NASA

technology for other uses, such as a fire-fighter breathing system based on

spacesuit technology.

Another part of the Technology Utilization Program with particular relevance

here is NASA's 10 Industrial Applications Centers (IACs) . All are located

at universities, where they offer information services, workshops, and

technical assistance to industrial clients.

Two types of literature searches are offered. The first, retrospective

searches, identify published or unpublished literature. Results are screened

and documents are identified according to a client's interest profile.

Results are tailored to specific needs. Backup reports identified in a

search usually are available upon request. The second, current awareness

searches, provide selected weekly, monthly, or quarterly abstracts on new

developments in any selected area of interest. Companies receive printouts

automatically

.

Technical assistance is also available. IAC engineers will help industrial

clients evaluate the results of a literature search. They can find answers

to technical problems and put clients in touch with scientists and engineers

at appropriate NASA Field Centers.

The Computer Software and Management Information Center (COSMIC) serves as

NASA's software dissemination center. COSMIC makes available to business and

industry over 1400 computer programs covering all areas of NASA project

14
involvement. Source code is supplied for each program along with detailed

user documentation.

Department of Commerce

The Department of Commerce (DoC) operates a variety of programs which provide

technology-oriented assistance to the private sector. Among the DoC programs

reviewed by this study are: (1) The Center for the Utilization of Federal

Technology (CUFT) within the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

(2) the University Centers Program operated by the Economic Development

Administration (EDA); (3) the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers Program

(TAAC) operated by the International Trade Administration; (4) the Office of

Productivity, Technology and Innovation (now the Office of Technology

Policy); and (5) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

CUFT was created by the Stevenson- Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to

serve as the collection point for the information generated by the ORTAs

Acting as a special information resource for all agencies, CUFT offers

businesses a series of special information products linking them with federal

technology and resources. These products include: (1) Tech Notes : (2)

Government Inventions for Licensing : and (3) Directory of Federal Laboratory

and Technology Resources .

Tech Notes is a monthly alerting service. Tech Notes provide one-page

monthly fact sheets, often illustrated, of new processes and new products

developed by federal agencies and their contractors. Each fact sheet details

a specific invention, process, software, material, instrument or technique

selected for application. Tech Notes are available by subscription in any of

10 categories. Annual collections of all 10 categories of Tech Notes are

also bound in single, soft-cover volumes.

Government Inventions for Licensing is a weekly newsletter. The newsletter

presents summaries of new patent filings and issuances on governmentsponsored inventions. All inventions are available for licensing (often

exclusive). The newsletter describes some 1200 new inventions annually.

All inventions are presented in a single annual publication, the Catalog of

Government Patents . This catalog arranges descriptions of these 1200

inventions under 41 subject areas for easy reference.

The Directory of Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources is a unique

single-source guide to hundreds of federal agencies, laboratories,

engineering centers, and some 90 Technical Information Centers. The special

expertise, facilities and services of each resource are described and the

name of a personal contact is provided.

EDA operates three technical assistance programs; they are designed to

promote economic development and alleviate underemployment and unemployment

in distressed areas. The National Program supports demonstrations,

information dissemination and studies of economic development issues of

national significance. The Local Program supports feasibility studies and

other projects leading to local economic development. The University Centers

Program provides funds to involve the resources of universities in economic

15
development in their areas. Currently, there are 57 University Centers, 11

new ones having been established in 1988 with 4 scheduled for 1989. DoC

funding for the program during fiscal year 1988 was $4.79 million. The

Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP) is one such University

Center

ITA's Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides trade- impacted small and

medium- sized manufacturers with in-depth technical help, including advice on

engineering design, production, marketing, and finance. Twelve regional

Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs) deliver the program's services.

DoC funding for the 12 TAACs during fiscal year 1987 was $16 million. The

TAACs operate either as independent non-profit corporations or as affiliates

of universities.

The Office of Technology Policy operates a Shared Flexible Manufacturing

Systems Program. This program provides basic data on concepts related to

financing methods and organizational structures that can make automation a

realistic option for small and medium-sized manufacturers. Information is

provided on computer- integrated manufacturing, and especially on automated,

flexible manufacturing systems. The Office of Technology Policy also

operates programs designed to help companies to learn about improved

productivity, quality and competitiveness techniques and to provide training

on the innovation process

NIST operates a variety of technology transfer programs. These programs

include the exchange of technical information and data as well as in-depth

personal assistance relating to research activities.

The Office of Energy-Related Inventions encourages innovation in nonnuclear technology by helping individual inventors and businesses develop

promising energy-related inventions. A description of any new concept,

device, product, material or industrial process may be submitted for

evaluation. The invention need not be patented. The office evaluates all

submitted inventions and recommends those that are promising to the

Department of Energy (DoE) . DoE then reviews the recommended inventions and

determines the next reasonable step for the invention. The most promising

inventions receive a grant from DoE to further their development.

The Research Associate Program offers a unique opportunity for business,

industry and academia to work with NIST professionals of recognized stature

and makes available the extensive laboratory facilities at NIST. This is an

effective way to transfer NIST technology and a means of communicating

industrial views and needs directly to NIST. The Research Associate remains

the employee of the sponsoring organization, which pays the salary, fringe

benefits, travel and relocation. NIST provides, at no cost to the sponsor,

technical supervision, office and laboratory space, routine supplies and

services and the use of research equipment not normally subjected to time and

usage charges. NIST also encourages the use of its unique facilities for the

conduct of proprietary research on a cost recovery basis when equal or

superior facilities are not otherwise readily available.

16
Small Business Administration

Under the provisions of the Small Business Innovation Development Act, the

Small Business Administration (SBA) surveys and monitors SBIR programs in

participating agencies. SBA's Office of Innovation, Research and Technology

formulates and issues policy directives for government -wide operation of SBIR

programs, operates an SBIR information program, develops a source file of

qualified small firms wishing to participate, publishes advance announcements

of all SBIR solicitations from participating agencies, and coordinates with

the private sector on commercialization of SBIR innovations.

SBA also supports a network of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)

.

Each SBDC receives a grant from SBA based on a population formula. SBDCs

have a legislative mandate (P.L. 96-302) to assist in technology transfer,

make use of federal laboratories and equipment, and coordinate and conduct

research they deem worthwhile. Currently, there are 53 lead SBDCs. The lead

SBDCs serve a coordinating function, two states Texas and New York, have more

than one lead agency. The lead SBDCs oversee more than 500 sub -center SBDCs

across the country. During fiscal year 1988, federal appropriations totaled

$40 million; federal appropriations were raised to $45 million in fiscal year

1989.

Department of Defense

The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) is the central point within

the Department of Defense for acquiring, storing, retrieving, and

disseminating scientific and technical information to support the management

and conduct of defense-related R&D activities. DTIC's main facility is

located in Alexandria, VA; other DTIC sites are: (1) Boston, MA; (2) Los

Angeles, CA; and (3) San Diego, CA. All sites are equipped with dedicated

terminals and staffed with information specialists.

The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) has initiated a program

to accelerate the transfer of SDI -developed technologies to the private

sector, federal agencies, state and local governments, and universities.

SDIO's role in this technology transfer process is to act as a bridge between

those who have a need for the technology developed with SDI research funds

and the inventors and developers of that technology. SDIO does this by

identifying potential private and public sector applications for emerging

SDI technologies and then providing information about these technologies to

individuals and organizations within the private and public sectors that can

use the SDI technologies as a source for other research and development

efforts

.

Department of Energy

DoE's National Appropriate Technology Assistance Service (NATAS) helps

entrepreneurs develop the business side of energy-related appropriate

technology by providing business information and direct business assistance.

NATAS can assist with such activities as acquiring financing, marketing,

business planning, and business organization development. NATAS works

17
closely with federal, state and local programs to coordinate technical

assistance activities.

In addition, DoE operates an extensive system of laboratories with an annual

budget of $6.5 billion. The system includes nine multi-program, nine major

single program, and numerous other smaller laboratories. Some of the major

laboratories (e.g., Oak Ridge National Laboratory) are quite progressive in

their technology transfer efforts. In the areas of licensing technology and

software DoE has embarked on a program through which: (1) intellectual

property policy is being streamlined and simplified; (2) all non-profit

laboratory contractors can retain patent rights and license the technology in

all technical areas except defense and other sensitive areas; (3) for-profit

laboratory contractors may soon have similar capability (presently, these

contractors operate via case-by-case patent waivers) ; (4) all laboratory

contractors can copyright and license computer software to realize its

technology transfer value; (5) each laboratory does its own licensing; and

(6) government -owned patents are licensed from DoE Headquarters. 7

National Science Foundation

NSF supports scientific and engineering research. NSF provides most of its

support in the form of grants to assist in the conduct of specific projects. 8 By-and- large , most of NSF's funding is directed at individual research

projects performed at U.S. universities. However, as part of the federal

government initiative to improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers,

NSF has created a series of Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) to promote

multidisciplinary engineering research. The ERCs are located at academic

research institutions across the country.

The ERCs were created as a response to changing patterns of industrial

competitiveness. NSF views technology and the training of scientists and

engineers through cross-disciplinary research and development critical to

U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. The ERCs are the most recent attempt to

promote cross-disciplinary research through university/industry cooperation

and technology transfer from universities to the private sector. The 11

Materials Research Laboratories, which focus on interdisciplinary materials

research, came under NSF control in 1972. NSF also supports the Industry/

University Cooperative Research Centers which link industry and universities

through joint R&D projects in the manufacturing sciences. 9

Claire H. Sink, "Opportunities to Work with Department of Energy

Laboratories," Proceedings of Tech-Link 89: Roles for the States in

Technology Transfer from DoE to Industry . Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National

Laboratory, June 1989.

8 Small Business Guide to Federal R&D Funding Opportunities . Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, March 1986.

9 John S. Wilson, Productivity and Competitiveness: Industrial Extension

Services and Technology Transfer Programs in the United States . Washington,

DC: The World Bank, (in press).

18
2.4 INITIATIVES UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRADE AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1988

With the passage of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, federal

technology transfer activities took on a new and expanded role. The Act

assigned new roles for the Department of Education, the Small Business

Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) , formerly the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . Central to the

competitiveness portion of the Act was the expanded mission of NIST. The

Institute's new responsibilities augment and build on the technical expertis

of NBS. NIST will maintain the traditional functions of NBS and will

continue to offer the full array of measurement and quality assurance

services that were provided by NBS. These services include calibration

services, standard reference materials, standard reference data, and

measurement assurance programs

.

NIST is a relatively small agency and its resources are quite modest when

compared to research and development expenditures by industry and the federa

government, or with the $620 million expenditure by the various state

programs for technology development and commercialization. The new programs

being developed by NIST will be collaborative, highly leveraged, and can

serve as examples to be followed by others with greater resources.

The Act establishes four new major programs aimed at the rapid and effective

transfer of technology to U.S. industry to enhance the country's

technological competitiveness. The four programs are:

(1) the Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology;

(2) the Industrial Extension Services Program;

(3) the Advanced Technology Program; and

(4) the Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity,

Technology, and Innovation.

These expanded responsibilities will cast NIST in a new and different role

working with new constituencies such as state and local economic development

organizations and such federal agencies as the Small Business

Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the International

Trade Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Short

descriptions of the four new programs follow.

19
Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

The aim of the regional centers is to bring modern automated manufacturing

technology to small and medium-sized manufacturing firms that cannot compete

in the international markets because their resources for research or

technological improvement are insufficient. The program focuses on

technologies appropriate to small businesses (e.g., automation of existing

facilities with off-the-shelf equipment within the reach of the personnel,

finance, and engineering capability of such companies).

The regional centers program emphasizes "hands-on" experience. Senior

managers from business and industry will be invited to the centers to observe

and participate in demonstrations of automatic equipment that will be

advantageous to their companies. They will be assisted in choosing the

proper equipment, in selecting a reputable supplier, and in acquiring and

training the staff that will operate the equipment. The program will

encourage a partnership with academic institutions, with special focus on

training of workers that could be provided by community colleges or

vocational schools.

NIST will create these centers in partnership with non-profit organizations

established by state and local governments, academic institutions, or

companies. Three organizations have been selected to become the first NIST

Regional Manufacturing Technology Centers: (1) the Manufacturing Technology

Center at the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program in Cleveland, Ohio;

(2) the Northeast Manufacturing Technology Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute in Troy, New York; and (3) the South Carolina Technology Transfer

Cooperative based at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South

Carolina. NIST has now established cooperative working arrangements with

each of these organizations.

Industrial Extension Services Program

The objective of the extension services program is to improve the use of

technology, particularly federal technology, by small and medium- sized

businesses by working through existing state and local extension activities.

A number of federal agencies now sponsor extension programs of various kinds.

The role of NIST will be to work through existing state and local extension

activities to assist in the identification, retrieval and dissemination of

federal technology. In addition, NIST will provide technology assistance to

extension services as appropriate, develop workshops and seminars on

technological issues, and provide increased access and utilization of

available NIST services. A pilot effort to network local biotechnology

companies and supporting firms has been operating successfully at NIST for

more than a year. Experience gained from this pilot program will benefit the

NIST efforts in other technologies.

Another part of this program will be the technical evaluation of promising

inventions that are not energy-related - a program that is modelled after a successful- 12-year-old program for energy-related inventions managed by NIST

for the Department of Energy.

20
Advanced Technology Program

The objective of this program is to accelerate the commercialization of

scientific discoveries and manufacturing technologies . The focus of the

program is on small entrepreneurial firms. This program will provide limited

federal funding to encourage and leverage private sources of support for

developing generic technology, developing new products from specific

projects, and improving existing manufacturing processes.

NIST has developed a preliminary program plan that calls for the initiation

of several operating program components that together would: (1) encourage

U.S. business to look to the future and to improve their competitive

positions through technological innovation; (2) capture greater civilian

market potential from existing federal investment on basic research: and (3)

systematically couple different aspects of federal research investment to

additional sources of funding from state and local governments.

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity.

Technology, and Innovation

This is a shared assignment with the Department of Commerce. The Clearinghouse will gather and analyze information on the many state and local

technology development programs across the nation. NIST will offer technical

and analytical support to the Clearinghouse. The objective of this program

is to develop a central base of information on what programs are available,

what has been tried, and what the results have been. The information will be

shared through workshops and other mechanisms

.

The Clearinghouse will be a resource for state and local governments when

deciding on new technology policies. This will be accomplished in part

through the development of a network of technical contacts within the state

and local policy level staff, and through the collection of information on

current programs. The Clearinghouse will provide the type of information

needed at the state and local level by governors, county executives, mayors,

and other decision makers as they plan new programs and make policy

decisions. The total investment at the state level is large and the

influence on the overall direction of U.S. high technology industries and,

hence, the impact on the nation's balance of trade could be substantial.

Consequently, the availability of a quality database on state technology

programs is an essential resource for decision makers.

21

3. STATE INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO STIMULATE TECHNOLOGY-ORIENTED INVESTMENT

AND DEVELOPMENT

3.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In the past 10 to 20 years, several regions of the United States have

developed strong local economies based on fast-growing, technology-oriented

industries. Encouraged by these successes, state and local governments,

universities and private sector groups are launching initiatives to promote

similar technology-oriented development in their regions. They are

optimistic because technology-oriented industries are spreading beyond their

original strongholds. While technology-oriented industries represent less

than one quarter of the total U.S. employment, they play a major role in many

local economies and could be a force in the revival of distressed regions and

cities, especially in the Midwest.

The intense competition for technology-oriented development has generated

literally hundreds of state and local initiatives. State and local

organizations are beginning to take a number of actions to encourage

technological innovation and economic activity. Generally speaking, the

three common goals of these initiatives are: (1) job creation; (2) business

development; and (3) economic diversification.

Virtually every state has some form of incentive to either attract firms to

locate within its boundaries or to keep new or established firms from moving.

A recent survey published by the National Association of State Development

Agencies (NASDA) provides a perspective from which to select a small set of

incentives directed at technology-oriented economic development 10

. These

incentives are summarized in table 3.1. We begin with a discussion of the

single nonfinancial incentive shown in table 3.1, customized industrial

training. Each of the financial incentives appearing in table 3.1 will then

be discussed.

Trained labor increasingly is being viewed as an essential element in

development, growth, and redevelopment efforts. Private industry realizes

that training can make a difference in reducing manpower costs, increasing

productivity, and even making certain operations possible when they rely on

particular manpower skills. Many states have already discovered the strong

relation between developing labor resources and developing business. In

their traditional role of attracting industry, states found that a suitable

labor force was essential, and that training programs were a big help in

upgrading the work force. In fact, the mere existence of such a training

program acts as a powerful incentive to business. Consequently, most states

have developed training programs customized to particular industries or even

to specific company needs. The emphasis has been on training workers for

10 Directory of Incentives for Business Investment and Development in the

United States: A State-by-State Guide . Washington, DC: National Association

of State Development Agencies, 2nd Edition, 1986.

23
Table 3.1 Mechanisms Used by States to Stimulate Business

Investment and Development

Type of incentive (column headings for Table 3.1):

1. Customized Industrial Training

2 . Direct Loan Programs

3. Enterprise Zones

4. Grant Programs

5. Industrial Development Bond Guarantees

6 . Tax Incentives

7. Umbrella Bonds

Incentive Provided (* = yes)

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

t\ laoania * Alaska * Arizona

Arkansas * * * * California * *

LiO xoiraao * Connecticut >r * * * Delaware * Florida * Georgia * *

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois * Indiana * * * * * Iowa * * *

Kansas * * Kentucky * * * Louisiana * Maine * * Maryland * * *

Massachusetts * Michigan * * * * Minnesota * * * Mississippi * * * * Missouri * * * * *

24
Table 3.1 Mechanisms Used by States to Stimulate Business

Investment and Development (Continued)

Type of incentive (column headings for Table 3.1):

1 . Customized Industrial Training

2. Direct Loan Programs

3 . Enterprise Zones

4. Grant Programs

5. Industrial Development Bond Guarantees

6. Tax Incentives

7. Umbrella Bonds

Incentive Provided (* = yes)

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Montana * Nebraska •k Nevada * * New Hampshire

New Jersey * •k

in ew nexi c o •k New York A.A k * North Carolina •k North Dakota * * k

Ohio * * * * k

Oklahoma * * k k

Oregon * k * Pennsylvania * * k k

Rhode Island k * * k

South Carolina * k *

South Dakota

Tennessee * Texas * Utah k

Vermont * k

Virginia •k k k

Washington k

West Virginia k k

Wisconsin k

Wyoming •k

25
real jobs, in real companies, which were likely to be available to them.

The programs have been designed to reflect local economic realities and

private corporate needs, with the latter a major factor. The private sector

plays a central role in the design and implementation of these training

programs. More than 40 states have formal customized training programs.

Financial incentives are a major component of virtually all state programs.

States depend on outreach activities and investment incentives to bring

companies and investment into their jurisdictions. States provide a range of

technical services such as demographic data on communities and the work

force, as well as information on available sites and buildings. These

services, along with the growing number of direct financial incentives,

provide powerful follow-up to state advertising outreach efforts.

Direct financial incentives include direct state loans, grants, industrial

development bonds (IDBs) , and loan guarantees. States also provide various

tax exemptions, deductions, and credits as incentives to businesses and

investors

One or more direct loan programs are reported in more than half the states.

Many loan programs are established as revolving funds in order to make the

most of limited capitalization. These loan programs are utilized

predominately by small and medium-sized businesses because maximum loan

amounts are often less than $1 million. Generally, a state provides less

than 100 percent of the total project costs. In many instances, the state's

loan is provided as part of an overall package that includes a commercial

loan. State direct loans usually carry a below-market interest rate.

Enterprise zone programs could be classified as advanced tax incentive

programs. The initial concept embodies a basic premise of economic

development: to leverage investment by reducing the cost of doing business.

Enterprise zones carry with them the idea of targeting assistance to

specified "distressed" areas within the state. Businesses locating or

expanding in these designated areas are eligible for a variety of incentives,

which vary by state. Currently nearly half the states have an enterprise

zone program.

Grants are the most direct and heavily subsidized form of state assistance.

Because of the high cost, nonretrievability , and legal constitutional

constraints on such assistance, direct state grants to businesses are rare.

States do, however, give grants to help underwrite various costs of economic

development. Examples include grants to build or improve the physical

infrastructure; grants to support R&D activities, support local economic

development activities, and help subsidize and implement specific development

proj ects

The most common tool used for economic development financing is the

industrial development bond (IDB) program. All 50 states allow for the

issuance of such bonds; some actually issue the bonds at the state level.

The interest on IDBs is federally tax exempt, and the lower rates that can be

paid on such bonds are then passed on to the companies by the public issuer.

26
Most commonly, IDBs are used to subsidize the financing of land and site

development or of other fixed assets.

Two of the more innovative uses of IDBs, industrial development bond

guarantees and umbrella bond issues, are designed to make IDB financing

available to small businesses. IDB guarantees are similar in principle to

loan guarantees. The additional security provided by the guarantee improves

the marketability of the bonds. Thus, these programs seek to improve the

financing terms for sound companies with projects too small to attract

investors. Currently, a little less than 20 percent of the states utilize

IDB guarantees

.

Umbrella bond issues are used by states to market several individual bond

issues of $1 million or less in one package. This reduces the credit risk to

the bond purchasers and lowers the costs of bond financing to the small

businesses. Under most umbrella or pooled IDB programs, eligible loans are

bundled as a package and bonds are sold when a certain minimum limit is

reached. In general, umbrella bond programs provide financing for projects

too small to qualify for the normal revenue bond program. With these

programs, borrowers pay below-market interest rates for long-term loans. The

pooled risk and economies of scale in costs permit the companies and private

lenders to participate in deals that might otherwise be too risky or not

sufficiently profitable. Roughly one third of the states have some form of

pooling program, and the number is expected to grow.

Tax incentives can promote economic development in a variety of ways. These

include reduction of the overall level of taxation, both personal and

business taxes, revision of the tax structure, and use of tax credits to

encourage particular types of investments. A recent survey by the National

Governors' Association11 indicated that 15 states have recently enacted tax

cuts to stimulate economic activity. Twelve states reported decreases in

business taxes, and five reported decreases in personal income tax rates.

Two states repealed unitary tax measures and three revised their unitary tax

system, adopting the alternative "water's edge" concept. The unitary tax

method allows states to tax corporations based on the ratio of their state

profits to their worldwide profits. Under a water's edge system, companies

are taxed on earnings based on the ratio of their in-state profits to their

profits within the United States. Profits earned in foreign countries are

excluded from the calculation.

11 Marianne K. Clarke, Revitalizing State Economies: A Review of State

Economic Development Policies and Programs . Washington, DC: National

Governors' Association, 1986.

27
3 . 2 ORGANIZATION OF STATE EFFORTS 1 2

Currently, 43 states have at least one program that specifically encourages

technological innovation. Programs range from business assistance to

comprehensive, multi-million dollar programs. Some states invest in only one

type of technology program, while others approach technological development

by investing in a number of areas simultaneously.

Table 3.2 summarizes information on those states which have boards,

commissions, authorities, or offices that oversee or coordinate state

technology initiatives. The most common type of structure is a

public/private partnership comprised of representatives from private firms,

academia, and state government. Technology offices may operate as

independent public agencies or private nonprofit corporations. States

without a technology office may have a science and technology policy advisor.

The duties and responsibilities of technology offices range from the

administration of multi-million dollar technology centers to providing

information dissemination and advisory services.

Information on six general classes of state technology programs is provided

in the table 3.3. A seventh class, Other, is also included in the table to

indicate the importance of highly- focused programs which have a local or

regional flavor. The following is a brief description of the six classes of

state technology programs summarized in table 3.3:

Business Assistance: Business assistance focuses on providing general

business management information such as personnel, accounting and

legal advice.

Incubators: Incubator facilities provide office and lab space for

start-up companies at below-market rates. Shared support services such

as clerical, reception and data processing are often made available.

Research Parks: Research parks are planned groupings of technology

companies that encourage university/private relationships.

Seed Capital: Money is provided for projects that are at an early stage

of development or that offer job creation potential but may not have the

return on investment expected by commercial venture capitalists. Includes research grant and product development programs.

12 The material presented in this section is based on information from:

State Technology Programs in the United States . St. Paul, MN: Office of

Science and Technology, Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic

Development, July 1988.

28
Technology Assistance: Technology assistance focuses on providing

specialized services such as technical information, invention evaluation, technical counseling and patent information. Technology

assistance includes both information exchange and active out-reach

programs to provide access to newly-created technologies and to promote

innovative applications of established technologies.

Technology/Research Centers: These centers generally concentrate their

studies in a particular field which is usually based on the strengths

of the university and/or the major industries in the state.

The Minnesota study found that individual state expenditures for science and

technology programs varied widely. In general, those states that have

invested most intensely in technology programs are the traditional

manufacturing states of the Northeast and Midwest. Rural and Western states

tend to provide the fewest programs and the least money. Reference to table

3.3 reveals that 30 states offered business assistance, 18 had incubators, 11

had research parks, 31 provided seed capital, 40 offered technology

assistance, 30 funded technology/research centers and 37 operated one or more

special-purpose programs.

Most of the financial resources for these programs come from state general

funds. Other sources include bond issues, state lottery funds, pari-mutuel

gambling receipts, and state employee pension funds. Iowa and Oregon use

lottery funds in addition to state general funds. Kansas allocates both

state general funds and gaming funds. Alabama's general funds are

complemented by the State Trust Fund Income. South Dakota's Future Funds are

residuals from its unemployment compensation reserve.

29
Table 3.2 State Offices for Promoting Initiatives in Science

and Technology

State Office

;Ai S-1 flV>PTTlfl cx l_/ cj-i 1 1 o. LA1 _L_ 1 pHpmfl CX U CXlllCX Dp'n^Tt'TTiP'nl" IS ^ L/ CX i. 1— ill LIU of\J i. Fpnnnmip i i > V ' L Ll_filL J- ^— anH CX 1 1 —1 Clomniiini '_j W 11 Li 11 <_!. 1 1 J. l~v L> V flA"F"P^it*<; -1_ j— CX -L -L O

nA -i- 1 aska ci J in. cx Sri ±J V— J- ptipp V— 1 1 V— «— prifi Ql F.ncrinppTi 1 1 1 It 1.1 LC !_ J_ tip 1 i fcl nkl ArfviV J_ OqnTv W !_ V floinnn' V—A V_J 11 LI 11 J- Ocj^inn O J- \-t L 1 A

T* k ATI c; a c AvV^tiq^iq ^pipnpp ^TiH Tpphnrt 1 n L7V Aiif~Viori 1

Jl \j 1_ IX QlLoQG J.CUOC CXI LU 1 C i_ W Elj y nLi LUU 1 X L- V Co lorado Colorado Advanced Technolof?v Institute

CntTnpp t~ 1 put" HnvPTTiriT* ' q TppTrnnl ncxv A(i\7i qot*v Rn^frl

Delaware High Technology Task Force

Florida X X \s X. J_v_i-CL FX -L1 nrU 1 iX rlfl VXCX Hllxc.ll i crh Tpphnn ICLLlllUiyty 1 o p"v And UllU Tndu^; lilUUO t*T*v L.X V flnunr V> \J UL LVo lX. X1 Georgia Advanced Techno lo fv Deve loDment Center

Hawai i Hiiii. phsl, i- 1 Technolopv x \— ill i w x_ \_/ t—. y DeveloDment is ^> v ^ \_/ k_/ in %— 1 1 Comoration w ' x. vy x u. -i- v 1

1

111 X J. -1- ino J. X iv i-1_ shJ Governor's Conunission on Science and Technolopv

Indi X L LU. J_ ana CX 1 Id CofnoTaf \J \J X \J \J X CX (w- ion X Ks L L X.foTX Science \—> '— X- 1 1 w 1 —- and CX 1 1 VX Technolopv X '— V^ 111 IV/ X. E. y Iowa Iowa Hiph Technolosv Council

Kansas Kansas Technoloev Enterorise Comoration

Kentuckv Office \_/ i 1 1 X,^ — ofV-/ X_ Business 1 J VX *J X. 1 L h—J h_J and CX 1 IV- Technolo^v X V— 111 1 W -L_ V Maine 1Maine 1CX J_ 1 1 Science _ V-^ X 1 1 V and CX 1 L \J* Technolocrv X v— \__^ 1111 V/ X V/ Y Board X^ V Wl X NX Marvland Science L__/ \w- x 1 1 >—' Advisorv i ivj v x v/ x T Council \_> V-/ vx i iv J— x» Mas s achus e 1 1 s iMassachusetts icx —- o cx v 1 1 vX v \ kj Office x_ x -i- \— of\-/ x Science u V-^ x_ 1 1\»^ and Cwi 1 1 Technolosv x v* ' iii x. \_/ v/ y Michi fan 11X Michigan V L I X. CI. CX 11 Hi111. phL 1 Technolopv X V— \_ 111 IV X V-/ E_ y Task X CX LI IV Force X X >

Minnesota Office of Science and Technology

Missouri Missouri Corporation for Science and Technology

Montana Montana Science and Technology Alliance

Nebraska Nebraska 1 * X CX i—' IVCX Research XX. V_-» \^ UX \—' 1 1 and CX 1 1V> Develooment XS *—' V -L. \S fc—' UlCrf 1 1 w Authoritv 1 1 M V* 1 1 V X -I— V— y New Jersey New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology

New Mexico New Mexico Science and Technology Commission

New York New 1 1 rt York x v_/ x i v Science l_/ \/ x ,*— 1 1 V' and cx 1 1 v* Technoloev x V—' iiii v X- v j Foundation J- 1 1 v*Cni v- x ' 1

1

North Carolina North Carolina Board of Science and Technology

Ohio Thomas Edison Program

Oklahoma Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and

Technology

Oregon Oregon Resource and Technology Development Corporation

Pennsylvania Ben Franklin Partnership Program

Rhode Island Rhode Island Partnership for Science and Technology

South Carolina South Carolina Research Authority

Tennessee Tennessee Technology Foundation

Virginia Center for Innovative Technology

Washington Washington High Technology Coordination Board

Wyoming Wyoming Science, Technology, and Energy Authority

30
Table 3.3 Selected Science and Technology Programs by State

Type of program (column headings for Table 3.3):

1 . Business Assistance

2 . Incubators

3 . Research Parks

4. Seed Capital

5. Technology Assistance

6. Technology/Research Centers

7 . Other

Type of Program (* = provided)

State J.1 2 3 L 7/

Alabama * * * * * Alaska * Arizona k * Arkansas * * California *

Colorado

Connecticut * * * * * Delaware * * Florida

Georgia * * *

Hawaii * * * * * * Idaho * Illinois * * * Indiana * * * Iowa * * * *

Kansas k * * Kentucky * * * * * Louisiana

Maine * * Maryland * * * * *

Massachusetts * * Michigan * * * Minnesota * * * * Mississippi * * Missouri * * *

31
Table 3.3 Selected Science and Technology Programs by State (Continued)

Type of program (column headings for Table 3.3):

1. Business Assistance

2. Incubators

3. Research Parks

4. Seed Capital

5. Technology Assistance

6. Technology/Research Centers

7. Other

Type of Program (* = provided)

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Montana * * Nebraska * * * * Nevada

New Hampshire * * New Jersey * * * * * *

New Mexico * * * New York * * * * * North Carolina * * * North Dakota J- Ohio * * * *

Oklahoma * * * Oregon * * * * Pennsylvania * * * Rhode Island * * * * South Carolina * * *

South Dakota * Tennessee * * * Texas * Utah * Vermont * *

Virginia * * * Washington * * * * * West Virginia * * Wisconsin * * Wyoming *

32
3 . 3 TECHNOLOGIES TARGETED1 3

Many state programs target one or more particular technologies that states

hope to develop. In fact, states have targeted over 64 different

technologies. These include technologies as diverse as biomedical, energy,

food processing, lasers, robotics, superconductivity, and welding.

Grouping similar technologies into categories, table 3.4 provides a

convenient state-by-state summary. As might be expected, biotechnology and

information technologies have been targeted by many of the states. Reference

to the table shows that 23 states targeted biotechnology and the life

sciences and 22 targeted information technologies. Similarly, materials

sciences were targeted by 22 of the states.

Many states target technologies which hold promise for being spun off and

enhancing the state's existing economic base. For example, while Michigan

targets such emerging technologies as biotechnology and materials sciences,

it also is placing a major emphasis on developing advanced manufacturing

process technologies, including robotics and flexible manufacturing systems.

In fact, at least 13 states are targeting manufacturing technologies.

Other states have targeted technologies for development which, while not

making up a large part of their current industrial structure, are hoped to

contribute to new forms of development in the future. For example, the

Microelectronics Center of North Carolina is a major research effort designed

to both attract microelectronics firms to the state and to support the

microelectronic firms currently in the state. Similarly, Colorado is

targeting, among other technologies, computers and artificial intelligence.

3.4 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

As a means of stimulating technology-based economic development, a number of

states have prepared strategic plans. Strategic planning is an exercise

borrowed from the private sector. Its key elements at the state level are

the establishment of long-term economic goals that may realistically be met,

an audit and analysis of internal strengths and weaknesses, and an assessment

of opportunities that may be exploited by the state's particular mix of

economic resources and capabilities

.

1

A

The plan is designed to focus

resources over the long term on a state's comparative advantages and to

prevent the effort from becoming fragmented. A crucial aspect of state

strategic planning is the identification of certain industries likely both

13 The material presented in this section is based on information from:

Robert D. Atkinson, State Programs for Technology Development . Washington,

DC: National Association of State Development Agencies, April 1988; and Paul

B. Phelps, Centers of Excellence: A Catalogue . St. Paul, MN: Office of

Science and Technology, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic

Development, January 1988.

1A Peter K. Eisinger, The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State . Madison, WI

University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

33
Table 3.4 Technologies Targeted by State

Type of technology targeted (column headings for Table 3.4):

1 . Aerospace

2. Biotechnology and Life Sciences

3. Earth Sciences

4. Information Technologies

5. Manufacturing Technologies

6. Materials Sciences

7 . Other

Technology Targeted (* = yes)

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Alabama

nlaS A 1 *3 C Ka1 7 o Arizona

Arkansas * California

Colorado * Connecticut

Delaware

r lor iaa * * Georgia * * *

Hawaii * * * Idaho

Illinois * * Indiana

Iowa

Kansas * * Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland *

Massachusetts * * * * Michigan * * * * Minnesota * * * * Mississippi * Missouri *

34
Table 3.4 Technologies Targeted by State (Continued)

Type of technology targeted (column headings for Table 3.4):

1 . Aerospace

2. Biotechnology and Life Sciences

3. Earth Sciences

4. Information Technologies

5. Manufacturing Technologies

6. Materials Sciences

7 . Other

Technology Targeted (* = yes)

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

nun Lctiid

£\ f"v -y o C L'" o INcULaS Ka

IN ti Vadd.

New Jersey k •k k •k

MOT.T MQv 1 f\ in t; w ric Aitu •k •k •k "k New York. k •k •k •k

iivi L.11 uai uinia k * *

Ohio * * k * k

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania * * * k * Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee * k

Texas k

Utah * * k

Vermont

Virginia * k k

Washington * * West Virginia k

Wisconsin * k * Wyoming

35
to provide high economic development benefits and to flourish in the state's

business environment.

The emphasis in strategic planning is on specific feasible goals attained

according to a timetable. By 1986, at least 17 states had written some sort

of strategic plan designed to focus state resources on certain targeted

industries of special interest to the state. 15 The growing interest in

strategic planning has risen from a need to use public resources in a more

focused way in a highly competitive environment. As states compete with each

other, as local producers compete abroad, and as entrepreneurs compete with

one another, state decision makers have concentrated on those economic

sectors and businesses most likely to produce job growth. Strategic planning

provides the guidelines for such efforts.

One critical and complicated element in all long-term planning activities is

the assessment process. Complications arise because any assessment process

needs to take into account that economic development is unlikely to occur in

the short run. Two concerns are at the heart of this issue. 16 The first

concern is the extent to which officials feel they can correlate economic

growth within the state to the impact of their specific programs either in

the short-term or in the long-term. The second concern centers on the fact

that there are two different audiences within the state that judge how the

program is doing: (1) the individual program managers; and (2) the officials

responsible for allocating resources.

One useful mechanism for assessment, given that program outcomes may not

exist or may be difficult to assess in the short-term, is to focus on the

process of establishing the structure of the program. Rather than measuring

program effects, states can determine the degree to which the program is

developing according to the state's original plans (e.g., where it fits into

the state's strategic plan). Two measures of program structure are the

composition of the clientele and the type of services offered by the program.

If the original intent of the program clearly identifies which industries it

wishes to serve, what size and type of businesses it wishes to assist (e.g.,

small manufacturers), and what services it wants to provide, then assessing

how well the program's expectations are being met will be a helpful measure

in determining how closely the development of the program has followed its

original plans

.

Several states are developing formal mechanisms and measurement techniques

that will provide data which they feel are accurate and representative of how

their program contributes to economic development. Pennsylvania uses such

quantitative measurements and estimates in its assessment process . Among the

numbers that officials from Pennsylvania have been collecting are: (1) the

number of new jobs that the program has assisted in creating; (2) the number

15 Ibid . p. 28.

16 State Government Strategies for Self -Assessment of Science and

Technology Programs for Economic Development . Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1987, p. 4.

36
of relocated firms where the program played a significant role; (3) the

number of start-up firms established; and (4) the amount of venture capital

attracted to firms related to the program. For each of these estimates the

program provides explicit definitions, details for presenting results, and

their role in the assessment process.

One program which has been in existence long enough to generate a body of

quantitative information, is the Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program

(PENNTAP). PENNTAP began operation in 1965. At regular intervals, PENNTAP

has asked the businesses which use its services to evaluate what they

accomplished and what PENNTAP 's services meant to them. Based on results

reported in the most recent survey, PENNTAP 's clients estimated cumulative

benefits in excess of $123 million; the benefits for 1988 alone were nearly

$8 million. The benefits have been tabulated since 1971 when PENNTAP began

emphasizing the one-to-one assistance of its professional staff. During the

same 17-year period, expenses to operate the statewide service network

totalled approximately $7 million. 17

17 H. LeRoy Marlow, PENNTAP: 1988 Update , mimeo , 1989, p. 13.

37

PART II

RESULTS FROM A NATIONWIDE SURVEY OF STATE

TECHNICAL EXTENSION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

39

4. SURVEY-RELATED ISSUES: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

To develop the list of programs which constitute the survey population, NIST

conducted extensive reviews of past studies covering state-supported

economic development programs, as well as site visits and interviews with

state economic development officials. Approximately 400 economic

development/technical outreach programs were identified as the survey

population.

The survey was designed to capture information on what each state is doing to

encourage innovation and increase competitiveness. In order to conduct the

survey, it was necessary to develop two separate questionnaires; one for

State Coordinators and one for Program Managers. The two questionnaires

differ in their focus. The State Coordinator's version establishes a set of

control totals against which the individual programs can be measured. The

Program Manager's version is fairly detailed and is divided into two parts:

(1) background information; and (2) program orientation. Background

information (Part 1) relates to the size and objectives of the respondent's

organization; funding levels; percentage of resources allocated to six broadbased economic development functions; and the respondent's knowledge of and

relationships with key federal programs. Every respondent was asked to

complete all of Part 1. Program orientation (Part 2) has six sections,

depending upon the orientation of the respondent's organization (e.g.,

business assistance versus technology assistance) . Respondents only

completed those sections of Part 2 that related to their program.

4.1 COOPERATION WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION

The nationwide survey was a joint effort between NIST and the National

Governors' Association (NGA) . This approach was taken because NGA has played

a key role in promoting state initiatives to support technological

innovation. NIST worked closely with NGA and, through it, with its

established network of contacts in the Governors' Offices in assuring a

maximum amount of cooperation from respondents and to prevent overlap or

possible duplication of effort.

In 1986, NGA's Committee on Economic Development and Technological Innovation

appointed Richard Celeste, Governor of Ohio, as the Lead Governor for Science

and Technology. Under his direction, a Working Group on State Initiatives in

Applied Research has been organized. The members of the Working Group

include Governors' Science Advisors and directors of state technology

development programs.

To obtain the data requested in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of

1988, NGA administered, on behalf of NIST, a survey of state technology

extension services. NGA and NIST worked through the Governors' Offices,

specifically the members of the Working Group on State Initiatives in Applied

Research, to capture the study data. Appendix A contains a list of the

state-funded economic development/technical outreach programs which responded

to the survey

.

41
In early November, the survey instrument was sent to the Governors via a

transmittal letter jointly signed by the Secretary of Commerce and Governor

Gerald Baliles of Virginia, the Chairman of the NGA. Accompanying the

transmittal letter and survey instrument was a list of organizations

involved in economic development and/or technical outreach, with a request

that the Governor's Office coordinate the state's response. NIST and NGA

worked with each State Coordinator to confirm the list of respondent

organizations within the state and to have respondents complete the survey.

All survey data was returned to NGA for processing.

As the questionnaires were returned to NGA for processing, they were assigned

to one of two categories. Those programs which were state funded were

returned through the State Coordinator; these questionnaires tended to arrive

on a state-by-state basis. Those programs which were designated as federal

affiliates were returned on an individual program basis. This is because

each federal affiliate was mailed directly a Program Manager's version of the

questionnaire. For example, all Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)

University Centers (UCs) , Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs) , and

NASA Industrial Applications Centers (IACs) , as federal affiliates, receive a portion of their funds from the Small Business Administration (SBA) , the

Economic Development Administration (EDA) , the International Trade

Administration (ITA) , and NASA, respectively. Each of these programs was

surveyed directly.

As the questionnaires were received at NGA, the data were collated, reviewed

and entered into a database. Once the survey data had been entered into the

database, it was verified for accuracy and completeness. Summary statistics

were then prepared as well as a draft report. These statistics served to

highlight differences and similarities between programs due to their

geographical location, size and orientation, and their use of federal

programs

Several members of the Working Group on State Initiatives in Applied

Research, and other individuals with expertise on the topic of technology

extension services, were then asked to review the draft report and

participate in a roundtable discussion of the preliminary findings. The

purpose of the roundtable was to review our progress, present results, and

provide an opportunity for comments and suggestions for alternative methods

of analysis. Based on the roundtable, a Final Report was prepared by NGA and

submitted to NIST. 18

The NGA Final Report, which documents the methodology and results of the

survey, is being released jointly by NIST and NGA. NGA's Final Report

includes descriptions of both state-based programs and federal affiliates as well as summary data from the survey. Much of the material presented in

Part II is either abstracted from NGA's Final Report, or derived directly

from the survey data.

18 Marianne K. Clarke and Eric Dobson, Promoting Technological

Development: The Role of State and Federal Extension Activities . Washington,

DC: National Governors' Association, 1989.

42
4.2 SELECTED RESULTS ANALYZED BY TYPE OF PROGRAM AND TYPE OF SERVICE

The present system for delivering services to small and medium-sized

businesses is decentralized. There are a large number of organizations,

supported by both the federal and state governments, working directly with

businesses. The survey identified 231 organizations providing services to

businesses, however, the services offered by these organizations vary greatly

as does the extent to which these programs provide assistance on

technological issues. The types of services for which information was

collected are summarized in table 4.1.

Total funding for all federal and state programs included in the survey was

$620 million in fiscal year 1988. Forty-eight percent of the funding for

these programs comes from state government, with the federal government

contributing approximately 26 percent. The remainder is contributed by

industry (12 percent) and universities (9 percent). Local governments

contributed approximately one percent.

All regions of the country are served by organizations providing direct

assistance to businesses, although the type of organizations providing

services and the services provided may differ greatly. The largest number of

responses were received from the Midwest. The South accounted for the

largest amount of total dollars, 35 percent of total 1988 expenditures. The

North and the Midwest accounted for 29 and 24 percent of spending,

respectively, while the West accounted for 12 percent. An examination of

source of funds by region shows that the distribution of funds by source

differs significantly. For example, in the North, 26 percent of total

funding is provided by industry compared with only 4 to 7 percent in the

other three regions. Furthermore, in the North, state funding matches

federal funding at a rate of 2.8:1. In the South and Midwest, the ratio of

state to federal dollars is 1.8:1 while in the West the ratio is 1.4:1.

Of the $519 million allocated to specific program categories, $121 million

or 23 percent is allocated for technology assistance services. Another 23

percent is allocated to technology/research centers and 17 percent to

business assistance. Twenty- four percent of total funds are allocated to

other activities (i.e., activities not covered by the survey questionnaire).

A majority of these funds are probably allocated to research and development

grant programs. Technology assistance services are being provided at a

fairly even rate to manufacturing and non-manufacturing firms. Approximately

two- thirds of the firms receiving business assistance, however, are

non- manufacturing firms

.

43
Table 4.1 Types of Services for Which Information Was Collected in the

Nationwide Survey

Type of

Service

Description of Service Provided

Business

Assistance

Business assistance focuses on providing general

business management information such as personnel,

accounting and legal advice.

1 Incubators Incubator facilities provide office and lab space

for start-up companies at below-market rates.

Shared support services such as clerical, reception

and data processing are often made available.

Research

Parks

Research parks are planned groupings of technology

companies that encourage university/private

relationships

.

Seed

Capital

Money is provided for projects that are at an early

stage of development or that offer job creation

potential but may not have the return on investment

expected by commercial venture capitalists. Includes

research grant and product development programs.

Technology

As s istance

Technology assistance focuses on providing specialized ft. V— \JL sprvirps w JL V J_ \_» V' O i3cnrhft ft a*; CL »-> technical V- V— \s ft ft ft ft J. V— CX J_ information J_ L L J_ \S J— llLCLft \- J_ V ft ft • invent- J_ L L V ft ft ion evaluation, technical counseling and patent information. Technology assistance includes both information exchange and active outreach programs to

provide access to newly-created technologies and to

promote innovative applications of established

technologies

.

Technology/

Research

Centers

These centers generally concentrate their studies

in a particular field which is usually based on the

strengths of the university and/or the major industries in the state.

44
While 167 state and federally- supported organizations reported providing

technology assistance services, the number of "technology extension services"

- as defined to be those programs whose primary purpose is to provide direct

consultation to manufacturers for technology deployment - is much smaller.

The study identified 13 state-supported organizations in nine states that fit

this more limited definition (see sec. 5.1). Both the state and

federally- supported organizations providing primarily business assistance

services (e.g., Small Business Development Centers and state business

assistance programs) serve on average a much higher number of clients per

year than do those organizations that provide primarily technology assistance

services. Business assistance services include financial analysis,

management assistance and business plan preparation. See table 4.2 for a

state-by-state tabulation of programs classified by type of service

provided. 1

9

State-Based Programs

State governments are actively involved in promoting economic growth within

their states. During the 1980s, state economic development policies have

begun to focus on ways to improve the productivity and competitiveness of

existing firms. Two distinct sets of programs have evolved to achieve this

goal. First, almost every state provides management and technical assistance

to small and medium-sized businesses. Such assistance may take many forms

such as helping a firm locate and secure financing, or providing advice on

accounting or inventory controls. Such business assistance programs vary in

the extent to which they help businesses with technological issues.

Second, a large majority of the states have adopted policies and programs to

promote technology development. Such initiatives encourage the development

and application of advanced technology by both existing and new firms. For

the purposes of this study, technology development initiatives include the

following elements: (a) incubators; (b) research parks; (c) seed capital;

(d) technology assistance; and (e) technology/research centers.

19 Since some programs may provide more than one type of service, the

column totals add up to more than 231, the total number of programs from

which detailed information was received. It is important to note that the

information on services provided by a particular state recorded in table 4.2

may differ from those in table 3.3. Whereas the information recorded in

table 4.2 is based on specific responses to the survey questionnaire, the

information in table 3.3 is based solely on previously published studies.

45
Table 4.2 State-by-State Tabulation of Programs Classified by Type

Service Provided

Type of program (column headings for Table 4.2):

1. Business Assistance

2 . Incubators

3 . Research Parks

4. Seed Capital

5. Technology Assistance

6. Technology/Research Centers

Number of Programs Responding

State 1 oZ

QJ _> 0

n_l a. \~j cllilcl 3

1I Alaska c

_>

1111 Arizona

At*lean cjfl 1 1 1 2 1

California ii J

Co 1 nradn Z

i1 z Connecticut oJ

oz z9

De laware 1 1 1 1

Florida 4 2 1 3

Georgia 4 2 3 1

Hawaii 3 1 2 2

Idaho 2 2 2 1 2 1 Illinois 14 5 2 5 12 2

Indiana 2 1 3 1

Iowa 5 2 1 3

Kansas 2 1 6 3

Kentucky 5 1 4 2

Louisiana 1 1 Maine 2 1 2 2

Maryland 1 1 2

Massachusetts 5 1 1 3 4 1

Michigan 16 4 3 17 5

Minnesota 6 1 1 1 5 2

Mississippi 1 1 1 Missouri 4 2 4 1

46
Table 4.2 State-by-State Tabulation of Programs Classified by Type of

Service Provided (continued)

Type of program (column headings for Table 4.2):

1. Business Assistance

2 . Incubators

3 . Research Parks

4. Seed Capital

5. Technology Assistance

6. Technology/Research Centers

Number of Programs Responding

State 1 2 3 4 5 6

Montana 3 1 1 5 3

jNeurasKa 1 1 1 2

Nevada 1 1 iNew nampsniire

New Jersey 8 2 4 13 4

iNew riexico 3 1 4 1

in eW lOtK 5 2 1 2 4 2

iNoircn iiaroiina 1 2 2 2 1

iNOj.cn uaKoca 3 1 1 2 1

Ohio 1 1 1 1

Oklahoma 3 2 1 4

Oregon 1 2 2

Pennsylvania 6 4 1 2 7 2

Rhode Island 1 1 South Carolina 1 1 2 1

South Dakota 1 1 1 1

Tennessee 6 4 2 2 5

Texas 2 1 3 1

Utah 1 1 Vermont

Virginia 1 1 1 1

Washington 6 1 1 2 3 2

West Virginia 4 1 1 4 2

Wisconsin 4 2 1 1 7 1 Wyoming 1 1 1

47
Funding

Seventy-eight percent of the state-supported programs included in the survey

can be categorized as technology development programs. These programs

reported total fiscal year 1988 funding of approximately $465 million. Of

this amount 28 percent was allocated to technology research/centers, 22

percent to technology assistance, 13 percent to seed capital, 9 percent to

business assistance, 4 percent to incubators, and 1 percent to research

parks. Twenty-three percent was allocated to "other" activities. The other

category includes research and development grant programs.

Fifteen percent of the state respondents operate programs which are primarily

business assistance programs. These programs are included in the analysis . because they provide some element of technological assistance to businesses.

These business assistance programs account for $54 million in fiscal year

1988 funding or 10 percent of total funding for the state-supported programs

in the study. Sixty-six percent of total funding was allocated to the

"other" category indicating the nontechnical nature of these programs.

Included in this category would be the full range of traditional economic

development activities. Of the remainder, 26 percent was allocated to

business assistance services, 5 percent to technology assistance, 2 percent

to incubators, and 1 percent to technology/research centers.

Services Provided

While it is possible to identify programs which concentrate their resources

primarily on one activity, the vast majority of the organizations responding

to the survey provide some combination of services. For example, one

organization may provide business assistance, technology assistance, and see

capital while another may provide technology assistance and operate an

incubator. The text which follows provides narrative and descriptive

statistics covering the wide range of services being provided by the

state-supported programs within each of the following areas: (1) technology

assistance; (2) business assistance; (3) incubators; (4) research parks; (5)

seed capital; and (6) technology/research centers.

( 1 ) Technology Assistance

Recognizing that the major benefits of technology development will be

experienced when new discoveries are introduced into existing firms, states

have become increasingly active in providing technology assistance and

encouraging technology transfer.

Technology transfer can be accomplished by examining existing research,

actively searching for technology that has commercial application, and then

assisting in the development of a process or product and associated business

It can also attempt to accelerate the diffusion of advanced off-the-shelf

technology to existing industry. The latter is usually accomplished by

providing some combination of information and field service. Both types of

programs are included in the survey population.

48
One hundred and twenty-two state -supported organizations, 69 percent of the

total responding to the survey, provided detailed information on their

technology assistance efforts. The median number of firms assisted by these

programs in 1988 was 60, although the number of firms assisted ranged from 20

or less to several thousand. This very large range indicates the varying

level of services provided by individual programs. In some cases, a business' request for assistance may be handled by a single phone call. In

other programs, a firm may be provided with in-depth, on-site technical

assistance as the firm seeks to adopt a new technology. Overall, the number

of firms an organization can provide technology assistance to in a year tends

to be much smaller than the number of establishments that can be provided

with business assistance services.

The respondents were asked to indicate the types of services being provided

during the 1985 through 1987 time period and in 1988 and to identify the

services to be expanded during the 1988-1989 year. Their responses indicated

that, by and large, the organizations are expanding services currently being

offered rather than changing the mix of services provided. For example, 85

percent are currently engaged in networking and referrals and 69 percent are

planning to expand those services, 81 percent offer seminars and workshops

and 66 percent plan to expand, and 77 percent provide technical counseling

and 60 percent plan to expand. On the other hand, only 43 percent provide

liaison to the nation's system of federal laboratories and only 36 percent

plan to expand.

Ninety- four of the respondents provided information on the number and type of

businesses served. Of the approximately 35,000 firms receiving technology

assistance services, 52 percent were manufacturers and 48 percent were

non-manufacturing businesses. The firms receiving technology assistance from

these organizations are overwhelmingly small businesses - 63 percent of the

firms have fewer than 50 employees and 25 percent have between 50 and 500

employees. Thus only 12 percent of the firms had more than 500 employees.

On average, 66 percent of the firms assisted required access to established

technology while only 37 percent required access to new technologies.

The program managers indicated that they are assisting firms in the following

areas

:

(a) product/process development 33 percent

(b) product/process commercialization 25 percent

(c) product/process testing 12 percent

(d) prototype development 11 percent

(e) other 19 percent

The types of technologies targeted in 1988 include: manufacturing

technologies (35 percent), information sciences (15 percent), biotechnology

and life sciences (15 percent), material sciences (10 percent), and aerospace

and earth sciences ( 4 percent each)

.

49
(2) Business Assistance

As stated previously, every state provides business assistance services to

small and medium-sized firms. The organizations included in the survey

represent only a small sample of these programs. The organizations included

in the survey, however, in addition to providing business assistance, also

operate some type of technology development program.

One hundred and eighteen state-supported organizations (66 percent of the

total) provided information on their business assistance activities. Of

these, 88 organizations provided information on the number and type of

businesses assisted. These organizations assisted over 77,000 firms in 1988.

Economic development organizations accounted for approximately 40,000 of

these firms with each organization assisting an average of 2,664 firms per

year. Organizations responsible for technology development programs assist

an average of only 500 businesses per year.

The most common services provided are business plan preparation and

evaluation (73 percent) , small business consulting (72 percent) , management

assistance (61 percent), and financial analysis (55 percent). The least

commonly provided services include labor analysis (19 percent) , business

forecasting (26 percent) , and site location assistance (42 percent) . As was

the case for technology assistance, the organizations included in the survey

intend to continue to expand existing services rather than change the mix of

services offered.

With regard to the size of firms being assisted, the distribution is similar

to the businesses receiving technology assistance, 60 percent had fewer than

50 employees, 23 percent had 50 to 500 employees, and 16 percent had greater

than 500 employees. Unlike the firms receiving technology assistance where

52 percent were manufacturers, only 34 percent of the firms receiving

business assistance were manufacturing firms.

State economic development organizations account for the majority of

non- manufacturing firms receiving assistance. These organizations report

that 80 percent of the firms receiving business assistance from their

organizations are non-manufacturers whereas the technology development

organizations report that the firms receiving business assistance from them

are evenly divided between manufacturing and non-manufacturing firms.

(3) Incubators

A specific tool used to support new, small business is the incubator.

Incubator facilities provide low-rent office and lab space for entrepreneurs

or early start-up firms. Additional on-site support services such as office

support and computer access are also frequently provided along with on or

off-site management and technical services on a referral basis. While

incubators can serve a variety of firms, they are often developed to serve

technology-based clients.

A 1988 study identified 300 business incubators in the United States. While

the first state programs supporting incubators was adopted in 1983, 5 years

50
later approximately half the states have programs that support the

development of incubator facilities.

Thirty-seven state-supported organizations provided detailed information on

incubator operations. Of these, seven were economic development

organizations, and 30 were technology development organizations. Data was

provided on 164 incubators. The number of incubators more than doubled

between 1985 and 1988.

A 1985 survey of business incubators - the study was not limited to those

targeted to technology-based firms - found that almost twice as many firms

survive to move out of an incubator as fail while there. "Thus initial

comparisons with the general business environment where roughly four times as many firms fail as succeed during their first 5 years, are favorable." 20

For those incubators covered in the survey, the average number of jobs per

incubator was 32. On average, each incubator facility housed 6.5

establishments with an average size of 5 employees per firm. A 1988 survey

of incubators conducted by David Allen and Mary Ann Dougherty found a

somewhat higher level of job creation. Their survey of 127 incubators

yielded an average of 85 jobs per facility and 8.5 jobs per tenant. 21 This

difference may be due to the fact that the incubators included in our survey

are more likely to be targeted to technology-based businesses.

According to the current survey, the average number of years a firm spends in

an incubator is three. Most incubators limit the time a firm can remain in

the incubator to 4 years. The incubators reported 367 graduates (i.e., firms

that went on to move out of the incubator). Of these, the respondents

indicated that 91 percent are still in business.

The respondents indicated that an average of 55 percent of the business

located in the incubators require access to established technologies while 45

percent require access to new technologies. As compared to other program

areas, the businesses in incubators appear to have a greater need for access

to new technologies. This may be a result of the fact that incubators are

focusing on new, technology-based firms.

What we are not able to determine from the survey is the exact nature of the

services being provided in the incubators, nor the extent to which incubators

are targeting technology-based businesses or assisting businesses with

20 David N. Allen, Creating Jobs by Creating Businesses: The Role of

Business Incubators . Washington, DC: National Council for Urban Economic

Development, 1985.

21 David N. Allen and Mark L. Weinberg, The State's Role in Incubator

Planning and Operation . Washington, DC: National Council for Urban Economic

Development, February 1989.

51
technological needs, although it is known that many incubators do. The

three major technologies targeted by the incubators in the survey are: (1)

information technologies; (2) manufacturing technologies and biotechnology;

and (3) life sciences.

(4) Research Parks

Research parks, often affiliated with universities, have been established

throughout the country to stimulate the growth of technology-based

businesses. Such parks often encompass a broad array of private research

firms and, on occasion, light manufacturing facilities. A recent study of

research parks reports that there has been nearly a 300 percent increase in

the number of parks in the United States since 1982 and the authors suggest

that such growth is likely to continue. There are now approximately 130

research parks nationwide. 22

Although many states participate in the development of research parks, few

states have established programs to manage them. One exception is South

Carolina where the South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA) is developing a statewide research park system. Established in 1983, the SCRA has acquired

and developed land for research parks in three locations throughout the

state. Several other state technology programs support one or more research

parks

.

Sixteen state-supported organizations provided information on 27 research

parks. The average number of establishments per park in 1988 was six, with

an average of 27 employees per park. In 1988, the program managers reported

an average occupancy rate of 41 percent. While care must be taken in drawing

conclusions from such a small sample, the data seem to support the contention

of Goldstein and Luger that we are perhaps overbuilding research parks. They

suggest that regional economic conditions, the presence of major research

universities, the cooperation and long-term commitment of local leaders, and

good fortune are all factors that determine whether parks become successful.

(5) Seed Capital

States have become increasingly active in providing start-up and early stage

financing for new technology-based businesses. Very early stage financing is

often referred to as "seed" capital. An entrepreneur who has developed a new

process, product, or service often needs such financing to support activities

involved in proving a technology concept from a business point of view.

Start-up capital is essential for further product development and refinement

prior to commercial scale production and marketing and to begin initial

market testing.

It is difficult to say definitively how many states support seed capital

programs. A recent study of state competitive research grant programs

22 Harvey A. Goldstein and Michael I. Luger, "Research Parks: Do They

Stimulate Regional Economic Development?" Economic Development Commentary . Spring 1989, pp. 3-8.

52

«
prepared by the National Governors' Association identified approximately 50

research grant programs operating in over half of the states. The report

notes

:

...27 percent of the programs [included in the competitive research

grant study] identified seed capital as an activity they support; 11

percent of the programs support seed capital activities exclusively.

But 71 percent of the programs support activities that would be

considered traditional seed capital activities (i.e., business plan

development, prototype development, and business operations). 23

Forty-three program managers provided information on state-supported seed

capital programs. Total funding for these programs was reported as $41

million in public funds and $59 million in private funds. These programs

assisted approximately 1,300 firms in 1988. One-third were manufacturing

firms and two-thirds were non-manufacturing firms. As might be expected, the

vast majority of these firms are very small - 88 percent had fewer than 50

employees. What is surprising is that firms with greater than 50 employees

also received "seed" capital. While this would seem to be a contradiction in

terms, one explanation would be that some of this funding was used to support

new product or process development.

The program managers reported that 89 percent of the businesses assisted are

still in business. Of the firms receiving seed capital, 55 percent require

access to new technologies and 48 percent require access to existing

technologies

.

The respondents reported that 36 percent of their 1988 funds were used for

product and process development, 28 percent for product and process

commercialization, 13 percent for prototype development, and 8 percent for

product and process testing. Fourteen percent was used for other activities.

Program managers reported targeting 30 percent of their 1988 funds to

manufacturing technologies, 20 percent to information technologies and 18

percent to biotechnology and life sciences.

(6) Technology/Research Centers

Technology/research centers, often called centers of excellence or advanced

technology centers, are vehicles for conducting research in a specific

technological area. Usually, the state identifies those areas in which the

university system has expertise or that are particularly pertinent to the

state's major industries. A research center is established to focus efforts

on these targeted technologies with the state serving as a catalyst to bring

the resources of the private sector and the university together.

Technology/research centers can be designed to attract new industry to a state, to encourage the creation of new firms through spin-off of new

2

3

John Forrer, State Competitive Research Grant Programs . Washington,

DC: National Governors' Association, June 1989.

53
products and processes, or to help solve the technological problems of

existing industries. A 1988 study commissioned by the State of Minnesota

identified approximately 100 state-supported centers of excellence

.

2

A

Forty-one state-supported organizations provided data on technology/research

centers. These organizations supported 137 centers in 1988. The largest

concentration of centers is in the Midwest with 53, followed by the South

with 34, the West with 29, and the North with 21. The program managers

reported that nearly 2,000 firms are participating in these 137 centers.

Over half of these firms are small and medium-sized companies, four-fifths

of these are manufacturers

.

Federal Affiliates

These programs are sponsored by a federal agency to address a specific need

for information or assistance. Four program types were analyzed in the

survey. Each program receives funds from the federal government which must

be matched by funds from other sources (e.g., state or local funds).

The first federal affiliate is the Small Business Development Centers

Program. The Small Business Development Centers are partnerships between the

Small Business Administration (SBA) , state and local government, the

educational community and the private sector. Each Small Business

Development Center (SBDC) serves as a one-stop assistance center for

businesses and provides services ranging from pre-business start-up

counseling to technical advice for existing businesses. The SBDC mission is

to serve as a vehicle for up-to-date counseling, training and research

assistance in small business management. In addition, the SBDCs have a legislative mandate to assist in technology transfer, make use of federal

laboratories and equipment, and coordinate and conduct research they deem

worthwhile. Survey responses were received from 26 of the 53 lead SBDCs.

The University Centers Program is the second federal affiliate; it is

administered by the Department of Commerce's Economic Development

Administration (EDA) . The University Centers Program provides funds to

involve the resources of universities in economic development within the

community. Funding is provided to establish or augment centers that provide

economic development and/or technical assistance. Each University Center

(UC) gives top priority to projects which are addressing the economic

distress of an area. Survey responses were received from 14 University

Centers

.

The NASA Industrial Applications Centers Program is the third federal

affiliate. There are currently 10 Industrial Applications Centers (IACs)

affiliated with universities across the country; survey responses were

received from seven IACs. IACs offer clients access to a national data bank

that includes over 100 million documents of accumulated technical knowledge,

2

A

Paul B. Phelps, Centers of Excellence: A Catalogue . St. Paul, MN:

Office of Science and Technology, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic

Development, January 1988.

54
along with their expertise in retrieving information and applying it in

support of clients' needs. The IACs are backed by IAC Affiliates,

state-sponsored business or technical centers, that provide access to the

technology transfer network.

The last type of federal affiliate is the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers

Program. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs) are administered by

the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) . Each

TAAC provides trade- impacted small and medium-sized manufacturers with

in-depth technical assistance. The TAAC assists firms in petitioning the

Department of Commerce evidencing their lost sales and production as a result

of import competition. Upon approval of the petition, the TAAC does a diagnostic examination of the firm and provides an adjustment plan. Survey

responses were received from six of the 12 TAACs.

Funding

The federally- supported programs responding to the survey, received

approximately $73 million in fiscal year 1988. Of this amount, 46 percent

was from the federal government; 22 percent was from state government; 18

percent was from universities; 7 percent was from industry; 2 percent was

from local government and 4 percent was from other sources. The federal and

state funds for these federal extension programs account for 66 percent of

the total allocated funds (see table 4.3).

Services Provided

The federally-supported programs provided technology assistance to over

13,500 establishments, and business assistance services to over 74,000

establishments in 1988. SBDCs serviced the majority of these firms,

accounting for 56 percent of the firms receiving technology assistance and

95 percent of the firms receiving business assistance. The technology

assistance services provided by the federal programs concentrate on small

business (56 percent) , with 21 percent directed to large firms (over 500

employees), and 16 percent to medium-sized firms. The business assistance

services provided by the federal programs concentrate on small business (less

than 50 employees) (53 percent) and on non-manufacturing firms (80 percent)

with only a small portion being provided to manufacturing firms (18 percent)

.

In addition, 56 percent of the services provided were for non-manufacturing

establishments and 41 percent to manufacturing establishments.

(1) Technology Assistance

Table 4.4 provides summary statistics on the number of businesses which

received technology assistance during fiscal year 1988. The table is divided

into two parts. Part A shows the breakdown between manufacturing and nonmanufacturing establishments. Part B shows the breakdown between small

establishments (i.e., less than 50 employees), medium-sized establishments

(i.e., 50 to 500 employees) and large establishments (i.e., more than 500

employees)

.

55
Table 4.3 Funds Received by Federal Affiliates during Fiscal Year 198825

Source of Funds SBDC uc IAC TAAC TOTAL

BY SOURGh,

Federal Government 19 , 173 4, 945 5,057 5 , 807 34,982

State Government 8,152 7,774 95 0 16,021

Local Government 1,477 104 0 100 1,681

University 10,640 826 1,658 160 13,284

Industry 478 2,503 1,483 419 4,883

All Other 1,981 47 904 110 3,042

TOTAL ALL SOURCES 41 ,901 16,199 9,197 6,596 73,893

\

2

Federal affiliates may receive funding from more than one federal

program. All estimates of program funding by source of funds are based on

the responses of the individual program managers. No estimate has been made

for those programs which did not respond to the survey questionnaire.

56
Table 4.4 Summary Statistics on Establishments Receiving Technology

Assistance From Each of the Four Federal Affiliates26

Part A: Summary Statistics by Type of Establishment Assisted

Type of

Es tab 1 i shmen

SBDC UC IAC TAAC

Manufac tur ing 1,380 2,395 1,722 80

Non- Manufac tur ing 5,874 369 1,361 0

Unknown 284 37 44 0

TOTAL 7,538 2,801 3,127 80

Part B: Summary Statistics by Size of Establishment Assisted

Size of

Establishment

SBDC UC IAC TAAC

Less than 50 employees 3,948 2,150 1,408 19

50 to 500 employees 638 570 913 57

More than 500 employees 2,127 44 722 4

Unknown 825 37 84 0

TOTAL 7,538 2,801 3,127 80

2

All estimates of firms receiving technology assistance classified by

type of establishment and size of establishment are based on the responses

the individual program managers. No estimate has been made for those

programs which did not respond to the survey questionnaire.

57
SBDCs

In 1988, SBDCs provided technology assistance to approximately 7,500 firms.

In terms of the breakdown between manufacturing and non- manufacturing

clients, SBDCs provided services to four times as many non-manufacturing

clients as manufacturing clients. This was true for both technology

assistance and business assistance. This is the only federally-supported

program which provided more assistance to non-manufacturers than

manufacturers. Technology assistance services were provided to over 3,900

small firms, over 600 medium-sized firms, and over 2,100 large firms. In

this area, SBDC efforts appear to be more as a facilitator than an active

participant. The technology assistance most commonly provided by SBDCs are

seminars and workshops (100 percent), networking (96 percent), technical

consulting (74 percent), and product design assistance (70 percent).

Assistance such as demonstration projects (17 percent) , state liaison (39

percent) and technical literature (52 percent) , were less frequently

provided. The establishments assisted by SBDCs required little access to

technology. When technology assistance was provided, on average, 27 percent

required access to new technology and 49 percent to established technologies.

University Centers

In 1988, University Centers provided technology assistance to over 2,800

establishments. On average, the centers provided assistance to over 300

clients per year, a much smaller number of clients than are served by SBDCs

per year. This may reflect the more technical nature of the services being

provided by the University Centers. University Centers also concentrate more

on serving manufacturing firms. Eighty- five percent of the firms receiving

technology assistance were manufacturers. Seventy-seven percent of the firms

receiving technology assistance were small businesses, 20 percent were

medium-sized establishments. Over 90 percent of the centers provided

technical consulting, networking, and seminars and workshops. In addition,

the majority of the centers provide technology assistance in product design,

technical data, user requests and technical literature. These services are

ones which rely on the resources and expertise available through the

university at which the center is located. The establishments assisted by

university centers do not need extensive access to new or established

technologies. In the provision of technology assistance services, an average

of 28 percent required access to new technology and 53 percent to established

technology

.

NASA Industrial Applications Centers

NASA IACs provided technology assistance to over 3,100 firms. The technology

focus of the IACs is evident in that technology assistance was provided five

times as often as business assistance (compare the figures in table 4.4 with

those in table 4.5). Forty-five percent of the firms receiving technology

assistance had less than 50 employees, 29 percent had between 50 and 500

employees and 23 percent of the firms employed more than 500 people. The

number of large firms receiving assistance is significantly larger than the

58
other state and federal programs included in the survey. One -hundred percent

of the IACs provide technology assistance. Of the technology assistance

services provided, 100 percent of the IACs provide networking, technical

data, and technical literature, 86 percent provide seminars/workshops,

technical counseling, responding to user requests and serve as state liaison,

and 71 percent provide assistance in product design. The most commonly cited

technology assistance services appear to be ones requiring specific technical

expertise. The establishments receiving technology assistance from IACs

required access to technologies more than any of the other federallysupported programs. An average of 36 percent of the firms required access to

new technologies while 76 percent required access to established

technologies

.

Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers

TAACs provided technology assistance services to 80 establishments. The

clientele that the TAACs work with are highly specialized and are in

industries that have been severely impacted by trade. One -hundred percent of

the firms assisted were manufacturing firms. TAACs are the only federallysupported extension program that concentrates solely on manufacturing

establishments. Technology assistance was provided primarily to medium-sized

firms (71 percent) , followed by small firms (24 percent) . With regard to

technology assistance services, 66 percent of the centers surveyed provide

assistance in product design and technical counseling. In addition, at least

one -third of the centers provide networking, technical data, technical

literature, and user request and response. None of the centers surveyed

served as state liaison to the federal labs. Of the TAACs included in the

survey, only a few (5) indicated that the businesses they serve required

access to new or established technologies. Of those responding, 11 percent

of recipients required access to new technologies, 59 percent to established

technologies. The lack of responses on this question could indicate that

among establishments seeking help from TAACs, need for management and

marketing assistance outweighs their need for technology assistance. It is

surprising, however, that assisting these companies in modernizing their

operations does not appear to be a major component of the TAAC program.

(2) Business Assistance

Table 4.5 provides summary statistics on the number of businesses which

received business assistance during fiscal year 1988. The table is divided

into two parts. Part A shows the breakdown between manufacturing and nonmanufacturing establishments. Part B shows the breakdown between small

establishments (i.e., less than 50 employees), medium-sized establishments

(i.e., 50 to 500 employees) and large establishments (i.e., more than 500

employees)

.

SBDCs

In 1988, SBDCs provided business assistance to over 70,000 firms. The large

number of clients receiving business assistance from SBDCs, an average of

2,700 clients per year per SBDC, suggests that the majority of requests for

59
Table 4.5 Summary Statistics on Establishments Receiving Business

Assistance From Each of the Four Federal Affiliates27

Part A: Summary Statistics by Type of Establishment Assisted

Type of

Establishment

SBDC UC IAC TAAC

Manufac tur ing 11,407 1,486 393 260

Non- Manufac tur ing 57,985 1,333 169 0

Unknown 1,267 48 0 0

TOTAL 70,659 2,867 673 260

Part B: Summary Statistics by Size of Establishment Assisted

Size of

Establishment

SBDC UC IAC TAAC

Less than 50 employees 36,504 2,380 605 94

50 to 500 employees 4,065 471 60 156

More than 500 employees 843 16 3 10

Unknown 29,247 0 5 0

TOTAL 70,659 2,867 673 260

27 A11 estimates of firms receiving business assistance classified by

type of establishment and size of establishment are based on the responses

the individual program managers. No estimate has been made for those

programs which did not respond to the survey questionnaire.

60
assistance are handled with a minimal amount of staff input. The business

assistance efforts of the SBDCs appear to be concentrated on smaller

businesses (those with less than 50 employees) , but about 40 percent of the

businesses assisted are of unknown size. SBDCs provided business assistance

services to over 3,600 clients with less than 50 employees, over 400 mediumsized companies (50 to 500 employees) and over 800 large companies (over 500

employees) . Management assistance and business plan development are

provided by 100 percent of the SBDCs. While marketing surveys, small

business consulting and financial analysis are provided by 96 percent of the

SBDCs.

University Centers

In 1988, University Centers provided business assistance to over 2,800

establishments. Fifty-one percent of the establishments receiving business

assistance in 1988 were manufacturing firms. The efforts of the University

Centers are concentrated on assisting smaller businesses (those with under 50

employees). Of the business assistance provided, 83 percent of the firms had

less than 50 employees, and 16 percent had between 50 and 500 employees. The

services provided by the University Centers are tied to the types of

resources the home-university can help provide. Of the centers responding,

100 percent provide management assistance and 91 percent provide small

business consulting services. In addition, the majority of the centers

provide feasibility studies, financial analysis, market surveys and site

location assistance and business plan development.

NASA Industrial Applications Centers

NASA IACs provided business assistance to over 650 establishments. Of the

business assistance services provided to IAC clients, approximately 70

percent was provided to manufacturing firms, and 30 percent to nonmanufacturing firms. The size of the establishment assisted varied

considerably between technology assistance and business assistance. Of those

firms provided business assistance, 90 percent had less than 50 employees and

9 percent had between 50 and 500 employees. As was noted above, the firms

provided technology assistance tended to be medium-sized. Forty-two percent

of the IACs indicated that they provide no business assistance services. Of

those that do provide business assistance services, 100 percent provide

feasibility studies and small business consulting. In addition to this, 75

percent provide management assistance, market surveys and site location

assistance. The rest of the business assistance services are provided by a small percentage of the centers. Based on the types of business assistance

services provided, it appears that the IACs business assistance efforts are

ones with a more technical focus.

Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers

The TAACs main allocation of funds is towards business assistance services

(68 percent) . The services provided by TAACs are geared to helping

businesses improve their management or processes and therefore the business

assistance component is emphasized more than technology assistance. TAACs

provided business assistance services to 260 establishments. Business

61
assistance efforts tended to concentrate on medium-sized firms, those with

50 to 500 employees. Of the business assistance services provided, 36

percent were to small firms, 60 percent to medium-sized firms and 4 percent

to large firms. The TAACs consistently provide the most comprehensive

services of the federally-supported extension programs. One-hundred percent

of the TAACs provide business assistance in the form of business plan

development, financial analysis, business management, market surveys and

small business consulting. The other business assistance services are

provided infrequently reflecting the nature of the TAAC program (i.e.,

assisting trade- impacted manufacturers).

62
5. MICRO- STUDIES FOR SELECTED TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION PROGRAMS

5.1 STATE-BASED PROGRAMS

While the state programs described earlier contribute to technology

transfer, most of them pursue this objective as only one of several.

Frequently, technology transfer is not the primary objective of these

organizations. A much smaller subset of state programs have evolved whose

primary function is to help small and medium-sized businesses, particularly

manufacturers, adopt advanced technologies.

Based on an examination of organizational objectives, 13 state-based

programs were identified as candidates for micro-studies. In two cases, the

Industrial Extension Service at the Georgia Institute of Technology and

Michigan's Industrial Technology Institute, the extension service is housed

in an organization with additional responsibilities for technology

development. This section discusses the data provided by these programs; a

snapshot description of each program is also provided. The 13 program

descriptions draw on the survey data, research conducted by Philip Shapira of

the University of West Virginia, and information supplied directly by the

managers of the individual programs. 28

The 13 programs discussed below, accounted for only 4 percent ($25 million)

of total expenditures on the range of development initiatives covered in the

survey. It should be noted, however, that half of this amount ($12.4

million) is accounted for by one organization, the Michigan Industrial

Technology Institute. Forty-nine percent of these funds support technology

research centers, 47 percent support technology assistance services, 3

percent support business assistance activities, and 1 percent support seed

capital programs. If, however, the Industrial Technology Institute is

excluded, the amount allocated to technology assistance increases from 47

percent to 75 percent and the amount allocated to technology research centers

decreases substantially from 49 to 17 percent. Budget size ranged from

$450,000 to $12.4 million annually. With the exception of ITI , most budgets

fall within the $500,000 to $1.5 million range.

The programs range in staff size from 1 to 122. For the majority of the

programs the staff is small, averaging about 20. Overall, the program

managers reported providing assistance to 5,029 firms in 1988. Over

three -fourths of these firms, however, are accounted for by two programs, the

Ohio Technology Transfer Organization (OTTO) program, and the Pennsylvania

Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP) . The remaining programs typically

served 150 to 250 clients per year. This wide range in the number of

businesses served may reflect the different approaches employed by these

programs. Some of the programs act primarily in a broker's role, matching

businesses with various sources of expertise, others take a more active role

with staff providing one-on-one consulting services.

28 Philip Shapira, "Modern Times: Learning from State Initiatives in

Industrial Extension and Technology Transfer," Economic Development

Quarterly . Vol. 4, No. 3, 1990, pp. 186-202.
Georgia Institute of Technology's Industrial Extension Service

Established in 1956, the Industrial Extension Service (IES) is one of the

oldest technology extension programs. Using a network of regional offices

and field staff, the service provides manufacturers and local communities

with information and technical assistance on new technologies, management

tools and techniques, and access to problem solving engineering skills.

A firm interested in securing services through the IES will usually contact

a regional office. An initial site visit to the firm is used to collect

information about the business, including data describing production methods,

management structure and financial conditions. The IES staff can provide

recommendations or tap the expertise of Georgia Tech's faculty and research

centers. Technical assistance is not limited to engineering questions; staff

members have business problem- solving experience and diverse industrial

backgrounds

.

The IES encompasses the Southeastern Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, a University Center, and an Apparel Manufacturing Technology Center supported

by the Defense Logistics Agency. Total funding for all of these programs was

$12.2 million in 1988. Approximately $2.5 million is used exclusively for

the extension service. In 1988, IES provided business assistance to nearly

900 firms, 80 percent of which were manufacturers. Nearly all had fewer than

500 employees. Technology assistance was provided to 1,500 firms, 90 percent

of which were manufacturers. Seventy-six percent had fewer than 50 employees

and 23 percent had between 50 and 500 employees.

Maryland's Technology Extension Service

Maryland's Technology Extension Service (TES) is quite similar to Georgia's

IES. The program, which is housed in the Engineering Research Center of the

University of Maryland, was established in 1984. The role of TES is to

provide appropriate assistance in all areas of technology to all Maryland

firms on request. Working through five regional offices, TES can address

company problems through regional staff expertise, staff of the Engineering

Research Center, university faculty, and use of outside resources. The

offices are staffed by industrially trained engineers who respond to

companies, providing individual technical advice and problem solving. On

average the TES will provide up to 5 days of support per problem.

Total funding during fiscal year 1988 was $550,000. TES assists an average

of 300 firms per year, most are small and medium- sized manufacturers. Of

the 300 firms assisted in 1988, 270 (90 percent) were manufacturers. The

program manger reports that 90 percent of the firms assisted require access

to established technologies, 10 percent require access to new technologies.

Major areas of assistance include:

o process improvement 30 percent

o industrial waste management 25 percent

64
o

o

o

oo

product/process development

materials handling

product/process commercialization

plant layout

prototype testing

15 percent

10 percent

10 percent

5 percent

5 percent

Michigan's Industrial Technology Institute

The Industrial Technology Institute (ITI), an independent non-profit center,

has created a multi-faceted program for technology development, technology

deployment, and training designed to encourage the adoption of productivity

enhancing technologies in the durable goods industry. ITI focuses on the

design and operation of the factory of the future.

ITI offers its clients a variety of services including: research and

development; applications engineering; strategic and technical consulting;

evaluation and testing; training; and information services. A number of

these services are provided by ITI on a fee for service basis.

ITI was established in 1982. The fiscal year 1988 funding includes $4

million in state funding, $2.4 million in industry funding, $600,000 in

federal funding, and $5.4 million in other funding, largely accounted for by

contracts with industrial clients. Twenty percent of ITI ' s budget is

allocated to technology assistance, the remainder is allocated to the

Institute's multiple research centers. In 1988 ITI provided technology

assistance to approximately 150 firms, all of which were manufacturers.

Ninety percent of this assistance was in the area of product and process

development, the remaining 10 percent was for product and process

commercialization.

Established in 1985, the Michigan Modernization Service (MMS) now operates as

part of the Industrial Technology Institute described above. The MMS

provides direct consultations to small and medium-sized manufacturers in the

areas of technology deployment, workforce development and market analysis.

This consultation includes a basic assessment of the firm's manufacturing

operations, and their technology, training, and market needs.

After the initial assessment, an on-site visit is conducted. Following the

visit, MMS staff develop a detailed report with recommendations and

references. A follow-up meeting is held with the firm to develop an

implementation plan.

A unique aspect of the program is the integral role of training. MMS visits

to firms are always made by a team which includes a person with expertise in

the training area. All recommendations developed for firms also include a training component.

Michigan Modernization Service

65
With total fiscal year 1988 funding of $3.2 million, the program employs 48

staff, 28 of whom are technical, 20 business and 7 support. In 1988, the

program served 180 manufacturing firms; in 1989 the program expects to handle

300 clients. On average a client receives approximately 6 days of in-depth

assistance. The program manager reports that for the most part the firms

assisted by the program require access to off-the-shelf technology.

Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program

The Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP) is a joint program

of Pennsylvania State University and the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce.

Established in 1965, PENNTAP helps business and industry overcome operational

setbacks of engineering, scientific, and technical problems, which affect

their ability to remain stable and to compete in the marketplace.

It employs full-time professionally trained and experienced technical

specialists who provide personalized attention to each problem. The staff

also includes technical librarians who operate PENNTAP 's Library Information

System. From their own knowledge or from the many scientific and technical

resources available to them, the technical specialists pass along solutions

that represent current and proven information.

PENNTAP, with 13 professional staff, 11 technical and 2 business, had a 1988

budget of $1.3 million. Two-thirds of its budget comes from the university,

approximately 20 percent is provided by the state, with the remainder

provided by the federal government. PENNTAP serves approximately 1,000 firms

per year, 75 percent of whom require access to established technologies.

The following types of services are provided:

o productivity improvement 45 percent

o product and process development 25 percent

o product and process testing 15 percent

o prototype development 10 percent

o product and process commercialization 5 percent

Unlike some of the other extension programs, PENNTAP provides no business or

management assistance to their clients. Firms needing this type of

assistance are referred to other sources.

Pennsylvania's Industrial Resource Centers Program

In 1988, Pennsylvania initiated a new Industrial Resource Centers (IRC)

Program designed to transfer both known and advanced technology to small and

medium-sized firms. Unlike many of the extension services, the program is

not university-based. The centers will help firms address problems

encountered in integrating computers into manufacturing processes, improving

quality control and production planning, utilizing inventory controls, and

providing specialized training for workers.

66
The program is funded at $10 million a year for 3 years. These state funds

must be matched on a 1:1 basis. Eventually it is hoped that the centers will

become self-supporting. Initially each center plans to assist 30 to 70 firms

annually.

New Jersey's Technology Extension Center Program

The New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology has established a series

of Technology Extension (TEX) Centers in four technological areas. They

inc lude

:

o The John P. Caufield Technology Extension Center for

Investigative Cancer Research. The primary focus of this TEX

Center is to develop partnerships among industry, hospitals,

clinics, and physicians to facilitate technology transfer.

o New Jersey Polymer Extension Center. The Polymer TEX Center

provides assistance to New Jersey's polymer firms to resolve and

prevent technical problems regarding materials selection,

process engineering, and quality control. In addition, the

center seeks to accelerate the application of advanced

technology to the state's polymer processing industry.

o Technology Extension Center in Information Sciences. This TEX

Center exists to aid New Jersey businesses in the areas of

computers and telecommunications by providing training,

reference resources, demonstration and testing facilities, and

the extension services of a full-time professional staff and of

subject matter experts, primarily drawn from the faculties of

the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Stevens Institute, and

other New Jersey colleges and universities.

o Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology Extension Center. This

TEX Center aims to improve the productivity of industrial and

natural systems used by the states' fisheries and aquaculture

industries. The center both conducts and transfers applied and

basic research.

Each center receives approximately $500,000 in annual funding from the

Commission. During 1988, the four centers served nearly 600 businesses, with

each center serving between 100 and 200 clients.

New York State Industrial Innovation Extension Service

The Industrial Innovation Extension Service (IIES) was established by the New

York Science and Technology Foundation in 1983. The program provides

established, small manufacturing businesses with knowledge, attitudes, and

skills so they can address issues of technology-based productivity

improvements. Services are provided through five regional organizations

operating under contract to the Foundation. Staff of these regional offices

67
provide assistance to companies to research, evaluate, and implement

opportunities for technology and productivity-related improvements.

In the initial stages of the program, the IIES works primarily with

manufacturing firms in need of newer, more efficient processes and product

development technologies. Management assistance, worker training, and other

assistance can also be requested by clients. In these situations, the field

representatives act as brokers, referring the client to an appropriate local

organization that can provide the needed service.

Total funding for the IIES program in 1988 was $781,000, of which $500,000

was provided by state government. The remainder was provided by

universities ($112,000), local governments ($69,000), and other sources

($100,000). IIES assisted 200 manufacturing firms in 1988, over 90 percent

of which had fewer than 500 employees. Eighty percent of the services

provided was helping companies use existing technology.

Ohio Technology Transfer Organization

Part of Ohio's Thomas Edison Program, the Ohio Technology Transfer

Organization (OTTO) provides Ohio businesses with direct access to new

technology and research through a statewide network of 34 technology

transfer agents based at two-year colleges.

The primary services and activities of OTTO are to:

o Provide one-on-one confidential, technology-related services to

Ohio businesses;

o Forecast and identify strategic manufacturing- related

technologies crucial to the enhanced productivity of Ohio

businesses

;

o Assist Ohio businesses in applying strategic technologies

considered essential to their future growth; and

o Provide engineering, research and development, and business

management problem-solving assistance to Ohio businesses.

OTTO agents work with businesses to determine a company's specific needs and

then act as a liaison with a variety of government and education resources

throughout the state. In this sense, OTTO is really a brokering program.

The program was funded at $1.5 million in 1988, all of which is provided by

the state. Of the 3,000 firms assisted in 1988, approximately 40 percent

were manufacturers, 90 percent had fewer than 50 employees. Ninety-one

percent of these firms required access to existing technologies.

68
5.2 FEDERAL AFFILIATES

These programs are sponsored by a federal agency to address a specific need

for information or assistance. Four program types were analyzed in the

survey. The four program types are: (1) the Small Business Development

Centers Program administered by the Small Business Administration; (2) the

University Centers Program administered by the Department of Commerce's

Economic Development Administration (EDA); (3) the Industrial Applications

Centers Program administered by NASA; and (4) the Trade Adjustment Assistance

Centers Program administered by the Department of Commerce's International

Trade Administration (ITA) . Brief descriptions of each program type were

given in section 4.2.

Each program receives funds from the federal government which must be matched

by funds from other sources (e.g., state or local funds). Certain federal

affiliates differ from the state-based programs described earlier because

they place a greater emphasis on business assistance. These distinctions are

worth noting, especially in the case of the Small Business Development

Centers Program. Examples of specific programs are described below.

Small Business Development Centers Program

The Rhode Island Small Business Development Center (RISBDC) , located at

Bryant College, is typical of SBDCs . Founded in 1982, the center has 15

staff members, almost half of which are business, the rest are technical (13

percent) and support (40 percent) and the majority of their efforts are in

the area of business assistance. The RISBDC is a cooperative effort and is

jointly funded by the Rhode Island Department of Economic Development, the

SBA and the state university system. The RISBDC provides free consulting,

low-fee training and related business development services to small state

businesses. These services, which are offered at five offices throughout the

state are often provided by private consultants who work with RISBDC on a

case-by-case basis. The RISBDC has also branched beyond its professional

management assistance and has specialty programs in export assistance and

SBIR. Eighty percent of the firms assisted were manufacturing and 86 percent

were small businesses.

University Centers Program

An example of an EDA University Center is the Nebraska Technical Assistance

Center, located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The Center is a cooperative effort and is jointly funded by the University of NebraskaLincoln, the Nebraska Department of Economic Development and EDA.

Established in 1985, the Center provides technical assistance and

information to manufacturers and processors in the area of engineering and

technology with the objective of helping these companies improve their

productivity. Through these efforts the Center seeks to produce a positive

economic impact, as measured by increases in profits, job creation, and

investments. The Center accomplishes its objectives through a variety of

means, the most significant being direct one-on-one, short-term consultations

69
with businesses. The Center also facilitates technology transfer through a variety of ways including newsletters, technical bulletins, information

searches, workshops, and seminars. Other services include non- legal patent

and trademark assistance, research assistance, and referral assistance to

other service providers. NTAC specializes in providing short-term,

diagnostic technical assistance to manufacturers in the areas of production

control, plant layout, safety, materials handling, and automation. Of those

firms assisted in 1988, 81 percent were manufacturers, 68 percent were small

businesses, and 27 percent were medium-sized businesses. The highest

percentage of establishments assisted was small manufacturing firms (52

percent) . The Center is part of a network of related service providers

including the Nebraska Business Development Centers, the Nebraska Food

Processing Center, the State College, and Technical Community College

systems. NTAC is also a NASA IAC affiliate.

Industrial Applications Centers Program

The Southern Technology Applications Center (STAC) in Alachua, Florida is one

of the 10 IACs across the country. Founded in 1977, the center currently

has just over 30 staff, 34 percent of which are technical and 25 percent

business. STAC was founded by the state university system and NASA to

provide state business and industry with easy access to the latest available

information and technology. STAC activities and services can be grouped in a number of categories - information research and document procurement,

education, linkage development, business assistance, and funded projects.

The diverse services and activities that fall in these categories are all

designed to increase high technology economic development and enhance

economic competitiveness for the United States. The activities of STAC

involve the private, public and academic sector. STAC has area offices

throughout the state university system as well as affiliations with 23

universities in the south. Program funds of STAC are oriented primarily

towards technology assistance (65 percent) , although 15 percent goes to

business assistance activities. The majority of the firms assisted by STAC

are non-manufacturing (67 percent) and small business (68 percent) . The

highest percentage of companies assisted is small non-manufacturing companies

(44 percent)

.

Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers Program

The Western Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, located in Los Angeles is an

example of an ITA TAAC . Founded in 1978, the center consists of 5 full-time

equivalent (FTE) technical, 5.5 FTE business, and 3 FTE support staff. The

objectives of the center are to assist: (1) U.S. manufacturers to qualify for

trade adjustment assistance; (2) U.S. manufacturers with defining areas of

improvements and formulate implementation plans for executing these technical

and/or business structural improvements; and (3) with the implementation of

structural, long-term improvements through technical assistance and project

management activities. The areas of specialization are related to three

objectives cited above. The first, pre-certification assistance, helps firms

in the preparation of petition forms and supporting documentation required

for certification of eligibility in order to apply for trade adjustment

70
assistance. The second, post-certification assistance, involves diagnostic

surveys, the preparation of adjustment proposals to address the firm's shortterm problems, assistance in finding non- government funding, and defining the

firm's technical needs to carry out the adjustment proposals. The third,

post-approval assistance, is concerned with helping the firm to carry out the

approved adjustment proposals. The TAAC conducts product development,

diversification, marketing, productivity improvement, and related studies.

The TAAC assists the impacted firm in the design and installation of

accounting, financial, and management control systems. The impacted firm

receives assistance with loan applications for government direct, government

guaranteed, and non- government funding. The TAAC continues to monitor the

firm's activities to ensure that approved strategic plans are on-course and

that loan covenants and conditions are being complied with. The orientation

of the program is 63 percent technology assistance and 37 percent business

assistance. All of the firms assisted in 1988 were manufacturing firms, 63

percent were mid-size companies (50 to 500 employees) and 37 percent were

small businesses.

1

71

6. STATE-FEDERAL INTERACTIONS

6.1 USE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

A wide variety of federal programs designed to encourage technology transfer,

technology development and general business development have been established

over the years . One element of this study was to examine the extent to which

the state and federally- supported programs described above are aware of and

use these federal programs and to obtain an assessment of their usefulness.

Overall the federal programs were rated highly by the program managers. The

federal program cited as being of greatest assistance in promoting

technological innovation is the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Program. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents reported using the SBIR

Program and 74 percent gave the program a rating of good.

The SBIR Program was established by Congress in 1982 to provide the

opportunity for small firms to participate in federal research and

development. The states have found the program to be an important source of

seed capital for small technology-based businesses. Over a dozen states have

established state programs to complement and build on the federal SBIR

Program.

Other highly rated but less frequently used programs included: (a) EDA's

University Centers; (b) USDA's Cooperative Extension Service; (c) NSF's

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers; (d) the Department of

Commerce's Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation; and (e) NASA's

Commercial Use of Space Program (see table 6.1).

An examination of the use of the 25 federal programs selected for inclusion

in the questionnaire, indicates that most of them were used by less than a third of the respondents (see table 6.2). In some cases, this may be due to

the fact that these programs provide specialized services that would only be

of interest to a limited number of firms. NASA's Commercial Use of Space

Program, for example, may have limited value to the majority of the small to

medium-sized manufacturers receiving assistance through these programs.

It is also the case, however, that some of these programs appear to be under

utilized. Three programs requiring closer examination are: (1) the Federal

Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) ; (2) the Center for the

Utilization of Federal Technology (CUFT) ; and (3) the NASA Technology

Utilization Program. The first two programs were described in chapter 2.

The NASA program was described briefly in chapter 2 and analyzed in greater

detail in chapters 4 and 5.

Recall that the FLC is an initiative designed to provide access to the

technical expertise of the staff of the nation's federal laboratory system.

Yet, based on the results of the survey, only 39 percent of the respondents

have used the program. Greater outreach may be needed both on the parts of

the FLC and its member laboratories, particularly NIST, in order to make

program managers aware of the resources that are available to them through

the FLC. One way in which this can be done is through the Offices of

73
Table 6.1 Federal Programs Rated Most Highly by Respondents

Program Name

and Sponsor

Percent of Total

Respondents that

have used the

Program

Percent of Total

Respondents giving

the Program an

Assessment of Good

Small Business

Innovation Research

(SBIR) Program 69 74

University Centers (EDA) 32 74

Commercial Use of Space

Program (NASA) 29 69

Cooperative Extension

JCi. V 1^>C \ KJ iD Ut\ J

H" -J 68

Technology Utilization

Program (NASA) 35 68

Office of Productivity,

Technology and

Innovation29 (DOC) 24 67

I ndus try/Univer s i ty

Cooperative Research

Centers (NSF) 26 67

Policy.

74

Now the Office of Technology
?able 6.2 Use and Assessment of Selected Federal Programs

Program Name

and Sponsor

Percent of Total

Respondents that

have used the

Program

Percent of Total

Respondents Giving

the Program an

Assessment of Good

Small Business Innovation

Research Program (All) 69 74

Small Business Development Center Program (SBA) 66 55

SCORE/ACE (SBA) 48 47

Patent and Trademark

Office (Commerce) 43 62

Cooperative Extension

Service (Agriculture) 43 68

Job Training Partnership

Act (Labor) 41 60

Federal Laboratory

Consortium (All) 39 63

Center for Utilization

of Federal Technology

(Commerce/NTIS) 36 60

Technology Utilization

Program (NASA) 33 64

Community Development

Block Grants (HUD) 30 57

75
Table 6.2 Use and Assessment of Selected Federal Programs (continued)

Program Name

and Sponsor

Percent of Total

Respondents that

have used the

Program

Percent of Total

Respondents Giving

the Program an

Assessment of Good

Energy-Related Inventions

(Energy and Commerce/NIST) 30 58

University Centers

Program (Commerce/EDA) 27 69

Commercial Use of Space

Program (NASA) 27 67

Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business

Utilization (All) 27 46

Small Business Investment

Companies (SBA) 27 47

Indus try/Univers i ty

Cooperative Research

Centers (NSF) 26 67

Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers Program

(Commerce/ITA) 25 38

Office of Productivity,

Technology and Innovation30 (Commerce) 24 67

Energy Extension Service

(Energy) 19 59

30 Now the Office of Technology Policy.

76
Table 6.2 Use and Assessment of Selected Federal Programs (continued)

Program Name

and Sponsor

Percent of Total

Respondents that

have used the

Program

Percent of Total

Respondents Giving

the Program an

Assessment of Good

! National Appropriate

Technology Assistance

Service (Energy) 19 59

Computer and Information

Science and Engineering

(NSF) 18 61

Measurement and

Engineering Research

Grants (Commerce/NIST) 8 53

Scientific, Technological

and International

Affairs (NSF) 7 57

Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers (Labor) 6 46

Program for Mathematics,

Science, Computer Learning

and Critical Foreign

Languages (Education) 2 50

77
Research and Technology Applications (ORTAs) located at each of the major

federal laboratories. Because nearly every state has one or more federal

laboratories, such an approach would have the advantage of being locallybased.

The second program, the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology

(CUFT) , was created by the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980

to serve as the collection point for the information generated by the ORTAs.

Acting as a special information resource, CUFT offers program managers and

the businesses they serve a series of special information products linking

them with federal technology and resources. Since many of the resources

provided by CUFT bear on the activities of the federal laboratory system, any

outreach effort to promote the use of the FLC should also include CUFT. CUFT

is also developing its own outreach program which will include on-site

training and an information packet of key documents. The training will

include information on-line databases as well as on other programs (e.g.,

the FLC and NIST) , whereas the information packet will enable program

managers to determine which resources are best suited to the businesses they

serve

.

The third program is the NASA Industrial Applications Centers (IACs) . It is

unclear why more state-based programs have not taken advantage of this

program. The IACs are distributed across the country, in order to promote

ease of access. Furthermore, the services they provide include on-line

literature searches as well as training and networking. Several of the IACs

are also developing a system of "Affiliates" to bring state-based programs

into their service network.

6.2 SUGGESTED APPROACHES FOR PROMOTING THE TRANSFER OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY

State and federal program managers agreed that in terms of strategies to

promote the transfer of federal technology they would place greatest emphasis

on: (1) cooperating actively with federal agencies in their technology

transfer programs; and (2) establishing a training program at the state and

local level focused on federal technology transfer and cooperation.

Additional strategies of lesser importance are: (a) cosponsoring

demonstration projects that apply federally-developed technology; and (b)

making use of a clearinghouse to disseminate information on federal research

and development. In the area of cosponsoring demonstration projects, NIST's

State Technology Extension Program will provide funds on a matching basis to

the states to: (1) demonstrate methods by which the states can, in

cooperation with federal agencies, increase the use of federal technology by

businesses within their states to improve industrial competitiveness; or (2)

help businesses in their states take advantage of the services and

information offered by the NIST Regional Centers for Transfer of

Manufacturing Technology. The clearinghouse approach, on the other hand,

will draw on resources such as the shared responsibility between NIST and the

Department of Commerce in developing and disseminating information through

the Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity,

Technology, and Innovation.

78
Table 6.3 Potential Strategies for Promoting Federal Technology

Potential

Strategies

Average Allocation of $100

scace oupporteo

Programs

T? C± ^1 V* O 1 1 IT Ql 1 T"\ T

rcQcLally jUpput1 f^i ~Y~ fLcU — Q /I Programs

Cooperate actively with

federal agencies in their

technology transfer

programs 34 35

Cosponsor model demonstration projects 24 15

Draw on a federal clearinghouse to disseminate information on federal R&D 16 24

Maintain a training program at

the state and local level

focused on federal technology

transfer and cooperation 26 26

79
Whereas both state and federal program managers agreed on the ranking of

items (1) and (2) , they disagreed on the rankings of items (a) and (b) . The

state respondents placed greater emphasis on cosponsoring demonstration

projects, item (a), as compared to drawing on a federal clearinghouse to

disseminate information on federal research and development, item (b) . On

the other hand, the federal respondents favored the clearinghouse, item (b)

,

over demonstration projects, item (b) , by nearly the same margin (see table

6.3).

State and federal program managers suggested a number of federal resources

which their programs could utilize; most of the suggested information/

technical assistance resources focused on the importance of building and

maintaining a "system of networks." The suggestions can, however, be divided

into several broad categories: (1) federal publications focused on

opportunities for technology commercialization; (2) an on-line system for

matching a small business' technology needs to expertise within a federal

laboratory; (3) a system of "federal laboratory affiliates;" and (4)

personnel exchange programs. The four categories listed above are arranged

according to the degree of commitment they require from a participating

program. Each category will be described briefly in the text which follows.

The section concludes with an outline of a process for matching specific

technological needs with a federal source of expertise.

Several federal agencies prepare publications which describe technologies

thought to have potential for commercialization. Perhaps the best known

examples of this type of publication are NTIS's Tech Notes and NASA's Tech

Briefs . Tech Notes is published by CUFT and was described earlier. Tech

Briefs is published by NASA's Technology Utilization Program. Tech Briefs is

widely disseminated by NASA; it has been published since 1962. Each of its

10 yearly issues contains information on newly developed products and

processes, advances in basic and applied research, improvements in shop and

laboratory techniques, new sources of technical data and computer programs,

and other innovations originating at NASA field centers or at the facilities

of NASA contractors. Firms interested in a particular innovation may get

more detailed information by requesting a technical support package from

NASA. The Technology Utilization Program also publishes an annual Spinoff

volume and the NASA Patent Abstracts Bibliography , a semiannually updated

compendium of NASA patented inventions available for licensing.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory publishes a series Technology Applications

Bulletins . These bulletins are made available through the Energy Systems

Office of Technology Applications. Each bulletin contains brief descriptions

of selected technologies and reports. The bulletins provide guidance on how

to obtain further information, gain access to technical resources, and

initiate direct contact with Energy Systems researchers.

On-line systems are an important resource for many programs. Several states

have initiated programs to develop software for matching the research needs

of small businesses with research organizations (e.g., a state university or

a center of excellence). Many states, through the university/college system,

have developed faculty profile databases. Generally, these databases are

searched using keywords to describe the individual's area of expertise.

80
Although some databases can provide only name, address, telephone number, and

areas of expertise, others can give complete professional and educational

background. In addition, a variety of publications exist which list

databases by subject area. Some documents provide information on such

categories of information as: data centers; expert databases; high tech

directories; SBIR; selling overseas; and technology assistance.

Two federal resources aimed at linking businesses with federal technical

experts are CUFT's Directory of Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources

and the FLC Clearinghouse. whereas CUFT produces a publication which can,

at least in principal, be put on-line, the FLC Clearinghouse is an

operational database. The FLC Clearinghouse contains information on most of

its member laboratories. Basically, the FLC Clearinghouse provides each

member laboratory with a questionnaire. One or more technology transfer

agents (e.g., a member of an ORTA) completes the questionnaire by indicating

the types of research being performed at the laboratory. This information is

then stored in the FLC Clearinghouse database.

The FLC Clearinghouse contains much of the type of information needed to

match the needs of businesses with a federal expert. Unfortunately, there

are a number of complicating factors which have reduced the usefulness of the

FLC Clearinghouse. Survey results indicate that many program managers are

unaware of the FLC and hence would not know about the FLC Clearinghouse.

Another, and potentially serious, problem concerns the completeness of the

FLC's database. The last area concerns the keywords used in classifying

federal technologies and how they relate to the keywords used by states which

have on-line systems. The three complicating factors just mentioned imply

that the FLC Clearinghouse needs to be analyzed critically from the

perspective of the states and their business clientele before the program

managers will be able to use the system with confidence.

A system of "federal laboratory affiliates" is currently being used by

organizations such as NASA to provide access to federal technology. The

NASA affiliates system creates partnerships between state-based programs and

a NASA Industrial Applications Center (IAC). The state-based programs

benefit because their domain of expertise is expanded (e.g., new capabilities

to retrieve computerized business and technical information).. Similarly, the

SBDCs have a special arrangement which enables them to access a wide variety

of on-line databases at no charge to their clients.

Technology transfer has frequently been described as a "contact sport."

Consequently, several states have used personnel exchange programs to ensure

that the one-on-one relationships between their program and a federal

laboratory are formed. For example, New York places state-sponsored

technology transfer specialists at each of the two major federal laboratories

in the state. During their internship, the state specialists gain in-depth

and first-hand knowledge of the lab's R&D activities. Similarly, the state

encourages personnel from the federal labs to become familiar with the

business needs within the state and the state resources available to

businesses. Such an exchange, repeated at regular intervals, promotes a more

complete understanding of business needs and how the federal labs can be of

greatest assistance.

81
The previous discussion begins to bring into focus a process through which

state -based programs can more efficiently access federal technology. Over

the past several years many approaches have been explored. Of particular

relevance to this study is a model process used by NERAC, Inc. The NERAC

process has been tested and documented. 31 In addition to providing a

conceptual framework for the transfer of federal technology, it serves to set

the stage for several specific recommendations given in the next chapter.

The NERAC Process

The NERAC organization had its start as a regional program known as the New

England Research Applications Center. After leaving the University of

Connecticut, the full name was dropped and the organization incorporated as

NERAC. Also, since NERAC, Inc. operates nationally, the New England part of

the original acronym was no longer felt to be appropriate.

Each time a business requests guidance on a technical problem, NERAC assigns

the problem to the technical specialist most knowledgeable in the topic

area. This individual works with the business and other NERAC staff in order

to gain a complete understanding of the problem area.

Next, NERAC 's technical specialist identifies the federal laboratory

responsible for work in this area. This step actually takes place in several

stages. Having defined the problem to a narrow topic area, NERAC 's technical

specialist determines what federal agency is responsible for research in the

topic area. Next, he or she telephones the ORTA in the agency's nearest

laboratory to request assistance in identifying the most appropriate agency

laboratory performing research in the topic area. The underlying premise is

that the technology transfer officer in the laboratory's ORTA is better

qualified than NERAC to identify the best source of assistance within its

sister laboratories.

Based upon this individual's recommendation, NERAC contacts the technology

transfer officer at the appropriate laboratory. After a preliminary

discussion, this officer refers NERAC to the laboratory scientist or engineer

most qualified in the specialized topic area. NERAC 's staff contacts this

federal expert, describes the problem or technological area and ascertains

the person's receptiveness to talking with the business. Most often, this

federal expert agrees to talk with the business, but sometimes he or she

refers NERAC to someone who is more directly involved in the research area.

Finally, the business and federal expert are put in contact with each other.

Through this process, NERAC lays the groundwork for direct telephone

communication between its clients and the appropriate laboratory personnel.

Followup accompanies all such exercises to verify satisfactory performance.

31 Daniel U. Wilde and Nan R. Cooper, "Exploiting the Resources of the

Federal Laboratories," Proceedings of the 1989 Technology Transfer Society

Meeting . March 1990, pp. 43-48.

82
This model procedure differs greatly from alternative models in that NERAC

is situated at the juncture of the information flow between industry and

government. That is, NERAC receives input from the industrial participant

clarifying what information is desired, then seeks out the appropriate

federal source based upon the recommendations of those most closely

acquainted with the federal network. At no time is there a loss of "control"

in this process.

Several advantages accrue from NERAC 's model procedure. First, it results in

a direct, convenient, and fast transfer of technology and information. The

typical turnaround time in linking businesses with a federal expert is 36

hours. This short response time means businesses are able to move forward

undelayed. Other models of technology transfer often require several days

before a response is provided.

Second, it assures greater control. NERAC controls the search for the bestqualified federal expert for each unique problem. Consequently, the problem

of miscommunication between laboratory personnel is minimized. The end

result is therefore a higher-quality, more appropriate match. Moreover, the

NERAC search procedure keeps to a minimum information on the research

activities of the business. This measure ensures that limitations are placed

on the number of "outsiders" who have knowledge of any business' proprietary

research activities.

83

7. SUMMARY

Chapters 1 through 6 of this report have presented the major findings of a study requested in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public

Law 100-418) . The purpose of the study was to capture information on the

various programs the states are using to promote technological innovation.

The study was carried out in cooperation with the National Governors'

Association (NGA) . NIST and NGA worked through the Governors' Offices,

primarily their Science and Technology Advisors, to collect information on

their key programs.

A two -pronged approach was used in carrying out the study; this approach

corresponds to Parts I and II of the report, respectively. The first part o the report focused on an in-depth review of the literature on technology

transfer and technology extension services. Special emphasis was placed on

federal technology transfer efforts and on identifying and documenting state

technical outreach and economic development activities. The second part of

the report was concerned with a discussion of the major findings associated

with a nationwide survey of state and federal extension services.

Because so much information was presented in the body of the report, it is

useful to revisit the six items stated in section 1.1 which the Act requires

the study to include. The text which follows provides an explicit statement

of items (a) through (f) of the Act as they were given in section 1.1.

Following the statement of each item, a brief description is given of the

study's major findings which relate to that item. This approach provides a capsule summary of the overall study.

Crosswalk Between Study Requirements and Study Findings

Requirement A: A thorough description of each state program, including its

duration, annual budget, and the number and types of businesses it has aided

The present system for delivering services to small and medium-sized

businesses is decentralized. There are a large number of organizations,

supported by both the federal and state governments, working directly with

businesses. The services offered by these organizations vary greatly as doe

the extent to which these programs provide assistance on technological

issues

.

All regions of the country are served by organizations providing direct

assistance to businesses, although the type of organizations providing

services and the services provided may differ greatly.

Total funding for all federal and state programs included in the survey was

$620 million in fiscal year 1988. Forty-eight percent of the funding for

these programs comes from state government, with the federal government

contributing approximately 26 percent. The remainder is contributed by

industry (12 percent) and universities (9 percent). Local governments

85
contributed approximately one percent. State-based programs accounted for

nearly $550 million of the total. The four federal-affiliated programs

(i.e., the Small Business Development Centers, University Centers, Industrial

Applications Centers, and Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers) accounted for

the balance (somewhat in excess of $70 million).

Although a number of the programs have been in operation for more than 20

years, many are relatively new. Of the 230 programs for which detailed

information was received, 156 were in operation prior to 1986. Between 1986

and 1988, 74 new programs were created. The more-established programs

(i.e., those in operation prior to 1986) tended to have significantly higher

average expenditures - the margin was in excess of 2:1.

The firms being assisted are overwhelmingly small businesses. This is true

regardless of the type of service being provided. A breakdown by size of

firm shows that approximately 60 percent of the firms being assisted have

fewer than 50 employees. Furthermore, these businesses need access primarily

to existing off-the-shelf technology rather than advanced state-of-the art

technology

.

Program managers allocated $519 million for services to businesses. Of this

amount, $121 million or 23 percent is allocated for technology assistance

services. Another 23 percent is allocated to technology research centers and

17 percent to business assistance. Twenty-four percent of total funds are

allocated to other activities (i.e., activities not covered by the survey

questionnaire). A majority of these funds are probably allocated to research

and development grant programs. Technology assistance services are being

provided at a fairly even rate to manufacturing and non- manufacturing firms.

Approximately two- thirds of the firms receiving business assistance, however,

are non-manufacturing firms.

Requirement B: A description of any anticipated expansion of each state

program and its associated costs .

In the near future, most programs are planning to expand the services they

offer to small and medium-sized businesses. The 156 programs which were in

existence prior to 1986 are projected to increase their expenditures by

approximately 17 percent. 32 When data on all programs were considered, total

expenditures rose from $620 million in fiscal year 1988 to $663 million in

fiscal year 1989. Generally speaking, the types of services planned for

expansion focus on technology assistance and business assistance.

The respondents were asked to indicate the types of technology assistance

services being provided during the 1985 through 1987 time period and in 1988

and to identify the services to be expanded during the 1988-1989 year. Their

responses indicated that, by and large, the organizations are expanding

services currently being offered rather than changing the mix of services

32 Total expenditures during fiscal year 1988 were estimated to be $487

million; for fiscal year 1989 total expenditures were projected to be $569

million.

86
provided. For example, the responses from the state -based programs indicated

that 85 percent are currently engaged in networking and referrals and 69

percent are planning to expand those services, 81 percent offer seminars and

workshops and 66 percent plan to expand, and 77 percent provide technical

counseling and 60 percent plan to expand. On the other hand, only 43 percent

provide liaison to the nation's system of federal laboratories and only 36

percent plan to expand.

The most common business assistance services provided by the state-based

programs are business plan preparation and evaluation (73 percent) , small

business consulting (72 percent), management assistance (61 percent), and

financial analysis (55 percent). The least commonly provided services

include labor analysis (19 percent), business forecasting (26 percent), and

site location assistance (42 percent) . As was the case for technology

assistance, the organizations included in the survey intend to continue to

expand existing services rather than change the mix of services offered.

Requirement C: An evaluation of the success of the programs in transferring

technology, modernizing manufacturing processes, and improving the

productivity and profitability of businesses .

Technology transfer can be accomplished by examining existing research,

actively searching for technology that has commercial applications, and then

assisting in the development of a process or product and associated business.

It can also attempt to accelerate the diffusion of either advanced or

off-the-shelf technology to existing industry. The latter is usually

accomplished by providing some combination of information and field service.

A review of programmatic objectives indicates that many state -based programs

focus strongly on assisting small manufacturers. Similarly, many states

which are developing strategic plans or have undertaken other types of

planning activities have targeted manufacturing technologies (see sec. 3.3

and 3.4). Both the micro activities of the programs and the macro

activities of the states affect small manufacturers, although it may be some

time before the objectives of individual programs are folded into the

objectives of a state's strategic plan. whereas a strategic plan may focus

on actions (e.g., businesses formed, jobs created, etc.), an individual

program provides services which tend to be more activity related. To be

sure, the target audience and the types of services provided vary

considerably across programs (see sec. 4.2 and 5.1 for specific examples).

The level of service is also a variable (e.g., literature searches, referrals

to experts, on-site visits, etc.). One measure of program activity is

throughput. This measure provides information on the number of firms

assisted by type of service; it is straight forward and unambiguous and

provides a reference point for more complex analyses. For this item, three

types of services are of central importance: (1) technology assistance; (2)

incubators; and (3) seed capital.

Ninety-four of the state-based programs provided information on the number

and type of businesses receiving technology assistance services. Of the

approximately 35,000 firms receiving technology assistance services, 52

87
percent were manufacturers and 48 percent were non-manufacturing businesses.

The firms receiving technology assistance from these organizations are

overwhelmingly small businesses - 63 percent of the firms had fewer than 50

employees. On average, 66 percent of the firms assisted required access to

established technology while only 37 percent required access to new

technologies. The areas within the innovation process where technology

assistance services were provided include: (a) product/process development,

33 percent; (b) product/process commercialization, 25 percent; (c)

product/process testing, 12 percent; (d) prototype development, 11 percent;

(e) other, 19 percent. The types of technologies targeted in 1988 include:

manufacturing technologies (35 percent); information sciences (15 percent);

biotechnology and life sciences (15 percent); and material sciences (10

percent)

.

A specific tool used to support new, small businesses is the incubator.

Thirty- seven state -supported organizations provided detailed information on

incubator operations. Of these, seven were economic development

organizations, and 30 were technology development organizations. Data was

provided on 164 incubators. The number of incubators more than doubled

between 1985 and 1988. Based on the survey, the average number of jobs per

incubator was 32. On average, each incubator facility housed 6.5

establishments with an average size of 5 employees per firm; the average

number of years a firm spends in an incubator is three. Most incubators

limit the time a firm can remain in the incubator to 4 years. The

incubators reported 367 graduates (i.e., firms that went on to move out of

the incubator). Of these, the respondents indicated that 91 percent are

still in business.

States have become increasingly active in providing start-up and early stage

financing (i.e., seed capital) for new technology-based businesses.

Forty-three program managers provided information on state-supported seed

capital programs. Total funding for these programs was reported as $41

million in public funds and $59 million in private funds. These programs

assisted approximately 1,300 firms in 1988. One- third were manufacturing

firms and 88 percent had fewer than 50 employees . Program managers reported

targeting 30 percent of their 1988 funds to manufacturing technologies, 20

percent to information technologies and 18 percent to biotechnology and life

sciences

.

Requirement D: An assessment of the degree to which state programs make use

of federal programs, including the Small Business Innovation Research program

and the programs of the Federal Laboratory Consortium, the National Technical

Information Service, the National Science Foundation, the Office of

Productivity. Technology, and Innovation, and the Small Business

Administration .

Overall, federal programs were rated highly by the states. The program cited

as being of greatest assistance in promoting technological innovation was the

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The SBIR Program was

established by Congress in 1982 to provide the opportunity for small firms to

participate in federal research and development. The states have found the

program to be an important source of seed capital for small technology-based

88
businesses. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents reported using the SBIR

Program and 74 percent gave the program a rating of good. In addition, more

than a dozen states have established state programs to complement and build

on the federal SBIR Program.

Other highly rated but less frequently used programs included: (a) EDA's

University Centers; (b) USDA's Cooperative Extension Service; (c) NSF's

Indus try/University Cooperative Research Centers; (d) the Department of

Commerce's Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation (now the Office

of Technology Policy); and (e) NASA's Commercial Use of Space Program.

An examination of the use of the 25 federal programs selected for inclusion

in the questionnaire, indicates that most of them were used by less than a third of the respondents. In some cases, this may be due to the fact that

these programs provide specialized services that would only be of interest to

a limited number of firms. NASA's Commercial Use of Space Program, for

example, may have limited value to the majority of the small to medium-sized

manufacturers receiving assistance through these programs. It is also the

case, however, that some of these programs appear to be under utilized.

Three programs which will require follow-up examinations are: (1) the Federal

Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) ; (2) the Center for the

Utilization of Federal Technology (CUFT) ; and (3) the NASA Technology

Utilization Program.

Requirement E: A survey of what additional federal information and technical

assistance the programs could utilize .

State and federal program managers suggested a number of federal resources

which their programs could utilize. Most of the suggested information/

technical assistance resources focused on the importance of building and

maintaining a "system of networks." The suggestions can, however, be divided

into several broad categories: (1) federal publications focused on

opportunities for technology commercialization; (2) an on-line system for

matching a small business' technology needs to expertise within a federal

laboratory; (3) a system of "federal laboratory affiliates;" and (4)

personnel exchange programs.

Several federal agencies prepare publications which describe technologies

thought to have potential for commercialization. Perhaps the best known

examples of this type of publication are NTIS's Tech Notes and NASA's Tech

Briefs . These publications provide guidance on how to obtain further

information, gain access to technical resources, and in some cases initiate

direct contact with technical specialists.

On-line systems are an important resource for many programs. Two federal

resources aimed at linking businesses with federal technical experts are

CUFT ' s Directory of Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources and the FLC

Clearinghouse. whereas CUFT produces a publication which can, at least in

principal, be put on-line, the FLC Clearinghouse is an operational database.

The FLC Clearinghouse contains information on most of its member

laboratories

.

89
A system of "federal laboratory affiliates" is currently being used by

organizations such as NASA to provide access to federal technology. The

NASA affiliates system creates partnerships between state-based programs and

a NASA Industrial Applications Center (IAC) . The state-based programs

benefit because their domain of expertise is expanded (e.g., new capabilities

to retrieve computerized business and technical information)

.

Several states have used personnel exchange programs to ensure that the oneon-one relationships between their program and a federal laboratory are

formed. Such an exchange, repeated at regular intervals, promotes a more

complete understanding of business needs and how the federal labs can be of

greatest assistance.

Requirement F: An assessment of how the services could be more effective

agents for the transfer of federal scientific and technical information,

including the results and application of federal and federally- funded

research .

State and federal program managers agreed that in terms of strategies to

promote the transfer of federal technology they would place greatest emphasis

on: (1) cooperating actively with federal agencies in their technology

transfer programs; and (2) establishing a training program at the state and

local level focused on federal technology transfer and cooperation.

Additional strategies of lesser importance are: (a) cosponsoring

demonstration projects using new federally- developed technology; and (b)

making use of a clearinghouse to disseminate information on federal research

and development.

whereas both state and federal program managers agreed on the ranking of

items (1) and (2), they disagreed on the rankings of items (a) and (b) . The

state respondents placed greater emphasis on cosponsoring demonstration

projects, item (a), as compared to drawing on a federal clearinghouse to

disseminate information on federal research and development, item (b) . On

the other hand, the federal respondents favored the clearinghouse, item (b)

,

over demonstration projects, item (a), by nearly the same margin.

90
APPENDIX A

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR

TECHNICAL-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

91
Ms . Janet Nye

SBDC State Director

Small Business Development Center

University of Alaska

430 W. 7th Avenue #115

Anchorage, AK 99504

907-274-7232

Mr. Robert Poe

Director

Office of International Trade

Office of the Governor

3601 C Street, Suite 798

Anchorage, AK 99503

907-561-5585

Mr. Ed Clinton

Chairman

Alaska Science and Technology Foundation

PO Box 23507

Anchorage, AK 99523

907-562-5818

Dr. Henry Cole

Special Assistant for Science Affairs

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box AD

Juneau, AK 99811

Mr . Tom Laws on

Acting Director

Division of Business Development

P.O. B

Juneau, AK 99811

907-465-2017

Mr . Henry Burdg

Director

Auburn Technical Assistance Center (ATAC)

Auburn University

111 Drake Center

Auburn, AL 36849

205-826-4684

Mr. Carl Ziemke

Research Scientist

Alabama High Technology Assistance Center

ASBDC/SBA

University of Alabama

Huntsville, AL 35899

205-895-6409

92
Dr. D. Munsell McPhillips

Division Chief

Science, Technology & Energy Division

AL Dept. of Economic Affairs

3465 Norman Bridge Road

P.O. Box 250347

Montgomery, AL 36125

205-284-8952

Dr. David Miller

Director

Alabama Productivity Center

The University of Alabama

P.O. Box 870318

Room 104 Farrah Hall

Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

205-348-8956

Dr. John Ahlen

President

Arkansas Science & Technology Authority

100 Main Street, Suite 450

Little Rock, AR 72201

Mr. Dave Harrington

Executive Director

Arkansas Industrial Development Commission

One State Capitol Mall

Little Rock, AR 72201

501-682-2052

Mr. Radford King

Director

University of Southern California

Western Research Application Center

3716 S. Hope Street #200

Los Angeles, CA 90007

213-743-8988

Mr. Herbert Asbury

Director

NASA Industrial Applications Center

Western Research Applications

use

3716 South Hope Street

Los Angeles, CA 90007

213-743-6132

93
Mr . Teddy Johnson

Director

Western Trade Adjustment Center

ITA US Department of Commerce

3716 South Hope Street

RAN 200

Los Angeles, CA 90007

213-743-8427

Dr. Thomas Walters

Director

Office of Competitive Technology

1121 L Street

Suite 600

Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. Richard Nelson

Director

CA Deptartment of Commerce, Office of Small Business

1121 L Street

Suite 501

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-324-1295

Dr. Graham C. Taylor

Director

Rocky Mountain Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

3380 Mitchell Lane

Suite 102

Boulder, CO 80301

303-443-8222

Ms. Patty Martillaro

Executive Director

CU Business Assistance Center

1690 38th Street

Suite 101

Boulder, CO 80301

303-444-5723

Mr. Sam McKay

General Partner

Connecticut Seed Ventures Limited Partnership

30 Tower Lane

The Office Green

Avon, CT 06001

203-677-0183

94
Mr. Eric Ott

Director CONNTAC

Connecticut Technology Assistance Center

210 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

203-566-4587

Ms. Martha Highsmith

Director

Cooperative High Technology Research and Development Grant

Office of Research

Department of Higher Education

61 Woodland Street

Hartford, CT 06105

203-566-4645

Mr. David Driver

President

Connecticut Product Development Corporation

845 Brook Street

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

Dr. Daniel Wilde

President

NERAC, Inc.

One Technology Drive

Tolland, CT 06084

203-872-7000

Mr. John Casey

Director

Delaware Development Office

99 Kings Highway

P.O. Box 1401

Dover, DE 19903

302-736-4271

Ms. Pamela Riddle

Director

Florida Product Innovation Center

Small Business Development Center Florida

One Progress Boulevard

Box 7

Alachua, FL 32615

904-462-3942

95
Mr. Roy Thompson

Director

Florida Economic Development Center

Economic Development Administration

Talahassee, FL 32306

904-644-1044

Mr. Ray Iannucci

Executive Director

Florida High Technology and Industry Council

107 W. Gaines Street, Room 501 -A

Collins Building

Tallahassee, FL 32399

904-487-3134

Mr. Steve Mayberry

Director

Division of Economic Development

Florida Department of Commerce

Division of Economic Development

510 C Collins Building

Tallahassee, FL 32399

904-488-6300

Mr. W.C. Flewellen

Acting Director

Georgia Small Business Development Center

U.S. Small Business Administration

Chicopee Complex -- UGA

East Broad Street

Athens, GA 30602

404-542-5760

Mr. David Clifton

Laboratory Director

Georgia Institute of Technology

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Economic Development Laboratory

Atlanta, GA 30332

404-894-3841

Dr. Johanna Thomas

Senior Research Associate

Southeastern Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

U.S. Department of Commerce

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332

404-894-3858

96
Mr. Richard Meyer

Director

Advanced Technology Development Center

Georgia Tech

430 Tenth Street NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

404-894-3575

Mr. Daniel Ishii

Assistant to the President

University of Hawaii

2444 Dole Street

Bachman 112

Honolulu, HI 96822

808-948-6408

Mr. Roger Ulveling

Director

Department of Business and Economic Development

Business Services Division

P.O. Box 2359

Honolulu, HI 96804

808-548-3033

Mr. William Bass

Executive Director

High Technology Development Corporation

Hawaii Department of Business and Economic Development

220 S. King Street

Suite 840

Honolulu, HI 96813

808-548-8996

Mr. Maurice Kay

a

Energy Program Administrator

Department of Business and Economic Development

Energy Division

335 Merchant Street

Room 110

Honolulu, HI 96813

808-548-4150

Ms. Darlene Gluck

Manager

Iowa State Innovation System

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011

515-296-9900

97
Mr. Lloyd Anderson

Interim Director

Center for Industrial Research and Service

Iowa State University

205 Engineering Annex

Ames, IA 50011

515-294-3420

Mr. Walter Fehr

Director

Iowa State University

Office of Biotechnology

1010 Agronomy

Ames, IA 50011

515-794-6865

Mr. Daniel Dittemore

Administrator

Iowa Department of Economic Development

Division of Innovation Technology

200 East Grand Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50309

515-281-5292

Mr. Doug Getter

Bureau Chief

Domestic Marketing Bureau

Iowa Department of Economic Development

200 East Grand Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50309

515-281-3036

Mr. James Hawkins

Director

Idaho Department of Commerce

Division of Science and Technology

Statehouse

700 W. State Street

Boise, ID 83720

208-334-2470

Mr. Ron Hall

Director

Idaho Business and Economic Development Center

College of Business

Boise State University

1910 University Drive

Boise, ID 83725

208-385-1640

98
Ms. Shari Zussman

Director

Technology Commercialization Center

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

312-972-5936

Mr. Richard Carrigan

Head ORTA

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

State of Illinois DCCA

P.O. Box 500

MS-208

Batavia, IL 60510

708-840-3333

Ms . Martha Cropper

Director

Technology Commercialization Center

Illinois Department of Commerce

Economic and Regional Development Office

Washington Square Bldg. C

Carbondale, IL 62901

618-536-7551

Dr. Harry Barrington

Director

University of Illinois at Chicago

Board of Trustees

Suite 312

1737 W. Polk Street

Chicago, IL 60612

312-996-7018

Dr. Stephen Fraenkel

Director

Technology Commercialization Center - IIT

Illinois Department of Commerce

10 W. 31st Street

Room 229B, Stuart Building

Chicago, IL 60616

312-567-5115

Mr. Larry Sill

Director

Northern Illinois University Technology Commercialization Center

Department of Commerce

Northern Illinois University

DeKalb, IL 60115

815-753-9524

99
Mr. Jim Mager

Director TCC

Technology Commercialization Center

Southern Illinois University

Campus Box 1108

Edwardsville, IL 62026

618-692-2166

Mr. Jack Bishop

Director

Technology Commercialization Center, NW University

State of Illinois, DCCA

906 University Place

Evans ton, IL 60201

312-491-3750

Ms . Nancy Pfhal

Center Manager

College of DuPage Procurement Assistance Center

Illinois Department of Commerce

COD/BPI Procurement Assistance

22nd Street & Lambert Road

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

312-858-2800

Mr. Joseph Dobranich

Incubator Manager

Des Plaines River Valley Incubator

912 E. Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60433

815-726-0028

Mr. Jerry Abner

TCC Director

Technology Commercialization Center

Illinois State University

Media Center - Room 215

Normal, IL 61761

309-438-7127

Mr. Paul Gerbers

Manager

Government Contracts Assistance Center/Moraine Valley

Illinois Department of Commerce

Procurement Asstistance Program

620 East Adams Street

Palos Hills, IL 60465

312-974-5452

100
Mr. Bob We ins te in

Associate Provost

Bradley University Business Assistance Programs

DCCA

1501 West Bradley Avenue

Lovelace

Peoria, IL 61625

312-677-2264

Ms. Beverly Kingsley

Director, SBDC/PAC

Rock Valley College Procurement Assistance Center

DCCA

1220 Rock Street

Rockford, IL 61101

815-968-4087

Mr. James Allen

Director

Procurement Assistance Center

South Suburban College

15800 South State Street

South Holland, IL 60473

312-331-4369

Mr. Steven Gage

President

Indiana Corporation for Science and Technology

One North Capitol Avenue, Suite 925

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-635-3058

Dr. Thomas Franklin

President

Indianapolis Center for Advanced Research

NASA and EDA

611 North Capitol

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-262-5000

Mr. Ben Hillberry

Director & Professor

Technical Assistance Program

Purdue University

Civil Engineering Building, Room G175

W. Lafayette, IN 47907

317-494-6258

101
Dr. Robert Zerwekh

Associate Vice Chancellor

Industrial Liaison Office

University of Kansas

Research/Graduate Studies Office

226 Strong Hall

Lawrence, KS 66045

913-864-3301

Dr. Richard Hayter

Director, Engineering Extension Program

Kansas State University

Ward Hall

Manhattan, KS 66506

913-532-6026

Dr. J. Garth Thompson

Professor

Center for Research in Computer Controlled Automation

Kansas State University

Durand Hall, #302

Manhattan, KS 66506

913-532-5610

Mr. Harvey Dean

Director

Center for Technology Transfer

Pittsburg State University

112 West 6th

Topeka, KS 66603

316-231-7000

Dr. W.H. Wentz

Executive Director

Institute for Aviation Research

The Wichita State University

Wichita, KS 67208

316-689-3678

Mr. Thomas Hull

State Director

Kansas Small Business Development Center

The Wichita State University

021 Clinton Hall, Box 148

Wichita, KS 67208

316-689-3193

102
Dr. D.M. Stein

Executive Director

Office of Business and Technology

Cabinet for Economic Development

Capitol Plaza Tower, 24th Floor

Frankfort, KY 40601

502-564-7670

Mr. William Gruver

Director

University of Kentucky

Center for Robotics and Manufacturing Systems

779 Anderson Hall

Lexington, KY 40506

606-257-6262

Mr. James Owen

Director

Kentucky Small Business Development Center

Center for Business Development

Room 18

Porter Building

Lexington, KY 40506

606-257-7668

Mr. William Strong

Director

NASA University of Kentucky Technology Applications Center

Graduate School

109 Kinkead Hall

Lexington, KY 40506

606-257-6322

Mr. Robert Bauer

Wood Technologist

Office of Wood Technology

Morehead State University

U.P.O Box 721

Morehead, KY 40351

606-783-2627

Dr. John Hubbell

Director

NASA/Southern University Industrial Applications Center

Southern University

Department of Computer Science

NASA Building, Farm Road

Baton Rouge, LA 70813

504-771-4950

103
Dr. Ivan Miestchovich

Director

Center for Economic Development

University of New Orleans

College of Business Administration

BA 368

New Orleans, LA 70148

504-286-6663

Mr. John Ciccarelli

State Director

Massachusetts Small Business Development Center

School of Management

Amherst, MA 01003

413-549-4930

Ms . Megan Jones

Director

Massachusetts Centers of Excellence Corporation

9 Park Street

Boston, MA 02108

617-727-7430

Mr. Richard McLaughlin

Executive Director

New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center Inc.

Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance

120 Boylston Street

Boston, MA 02116

617-542-2395

Ms. Jane Weissman

Director

Massachusetts Photovoltaic Center

Executive Office of Energy Research

One Massachussetts Tech Center

Logan International Airport

Boston, MA 02128

617-567-2864

Mr. John Hodgman

President

Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation

l^f State Street

Suite- 21

5

Boston, MA 02109

617-723-4920

104
Mr. James Peiffer

Director

Division of Business Development

Redwood Tower

10th Floor

Baltimore, MD 21202

301-333-6985

Mr. W. Travis Walton

Director

Technology Extension Service

University of Maryland

Engineering Research Center

College Park, MD 20742

301-454-1941

Ms. Rita Colwell

Director

Maryland Biotechnology Institute

University of Maryland

Directors Office

1123 Microbiology

College Park, MD 20742

301-454-8119

Ms. Tish Tanski

Executive Director

Maine Science and Technology Commission

State House Station

#147

Augusta, ME 04333

207-289-3703

Mr. Ray Noddin

Director

Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship

University of Maine

Maine Tech Center

16 Godfrey Drive

Orono, ME 04473

207-581-1465

Mr. Robert Hird

Statewide Director

Maine Small Business Development Center

University of Southern Maine

96 Falmouth Street

Portland, ME 04102

207-780-4420

105
Mr. Larry Crockett

Director

University of Michigan

Special Projects Division

Institute of Science & Technology

2200 Bonsteel Boulevard

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

313-763-9000

Mr. George Kuper

President

Industrial Technology Institute

P.O. Box 1485

Ann Arbor, MI 48106

313-769-4000

Mr. William Cassell

Executive Director

Michigan Technology Council

2005 Baits Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

313-763-9757

Mr. Charles Jacobus

Director

Center for Autonomous and Man-Controlled Robotics and Systems

P.O. Box 8618

Ann Arbor, MI 48107

313-994-1200

Mr. Donald Smith

Director

Industrial Development Division

University of Michigan

2200 Bonisteel Avenue

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

313-764-5260

Mr. John Mogk

President

MERRA

Suite 328

Executive Plaza Building

Detroit, MI 48226

313-964-5030

106
Mr. Charles Henderson

President

Metropolitan Center for High Technology

2727 Second Avenue

Detroit, MI 48201

313-963-0616

Mr. Michael Martin

Director

Industrial Development Institute

Michigan State University

D130 West Fee

East Lansing, MI 48824

517-355-0143

Mr. Herman Koenig

Assistant Vice President

Industry Assistance

Michigan State University

228 Administration Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

517-355-2180

Mr. Henry Kowalski

Director

GMI Engineering and Management Institute

1700 West Third Avenue

Flint, MI 48504

313-762-9811

Mr. Bruce Chubb

President

Research and Technology Institute of West Michigan

301 West Fulton

7th Floor

Grand Rapids, MI 49504

616-771-6800

Mr. Richard Tieder

Director

Michigan Technological University

Bureau of Industrial Development

Houghton, MI 49931

906-487-2470

107
Mr. Raleigh Byars

Acting Director

Mississippi Small Business Development Center

University of Mississippi

3825 Ridgewood Road

Jackson, MI 39211

601-982-6395

Mr. William Cotton

Director

Western Michigan University Office of Public Service WESTOPS

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

616-387-2714

Mr. John Cleveland

Director

Michigan Modernization Service

106 West Allegan Street

Hollister Bldg. #212

Lansing, MI 48913

517-373-7411

Mr. Gregory Zeikus

President

Michigan Biotechnology Institute

P.O. Box 27609

Lansing, MI 48909

517-337-3181

Mr. Jeff Padden

Director, Small Business

Michigan Technology Transfer Network

Michigan Department of Commerce

P.O. Box 30225

Lansing, MI 48909

516-373-8487

Ms. Jean Johnson

Manager

Business Development Center/Business Incubation Program

Michigan Department of Commerce

P.O. Box 30225

Lansing, MI 48909

616-451-9836

108
Mr. Paul Rice

Administrator

Venture Capital Division

P.O. Box 15128

Lansing, MI 48901

517-373-4330

Mr. D. Gregory Main

Director

Manufacturing Development Group

Michigan Department of Commerce

565 West Ottawa Street

Lansing, MI 48909

517-373-0602

Mr. Peter Plastrik

President, MSF

Seed Capital Program

Michigan Department of Commerce

P.O. Box 30234

Lansing, MI 48909

517-373-7550

Mr. Jerry Cartwright

State Director

Minnesota Small Business Development Center

College of St. Thomas

1107 Hazeltine Boulevaard

Suite 530

Chaska, MN 55318

612-448-8810

Mr. John Hawk

Interim Director

Science and Technology Resource Center

Southwest State University

Marshall, MN 56258

507-537-7440

Mr . W . W . Lindemann

Director MEIS

Center for Microelectronic & Information Sciences

Institute of Technology

University of Minnesota

227 Lind Hall

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612-624-0256

109
Mr. Herbert Johnson

President

Minnesota Technology Corridor

1200 Washington Avenue, S.

Minneapolis, MN 55415

612-370-0111

Mr. Terry Montgomery

President

Greater Minnesota Corporation

1250 International Centre II

920 Second Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55402

612-338-6666

Mr. Gil Young

Acting Director

Office of Science and Technology

900 American Center Building

150 East Kellogg Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55101

612-297-4367

Ms . Dorothy Dahlenburg

Program Coordinator

Enterprise Development Partnerships

400 Capitol Square

550 Cedar Street

St. Paul, MN 55101

612-296-9586

Mr. Robert de la Vega

Deputy Commissioner

Business Promotion Division

900 American Center Building

150 E. Kellogg Boulevard

St. Paul, MN 55105

612-296-3977

Mr. Bill Reisler

President

Center for Business Innovation

Missouri Corporation for Science

4747 Troost Avenue

Kansas City, MO 64110

816-561-8567
Mr. Richard Hetherington

Interim Director

Center for Advanced Technology

University of Missouri-Kansas

5100 Rockhill Road

Kansas City, MO 64110

816-276-2399

Mr. H. Dean Keith

Associate Dean of Engineering

University of Missouri-Rolla

School of Engineering

101 Engineering Research Laboratory

Rolla, MO 65401

314-341-4151

Mr. Robert Brockhaus

State Director

Missouri Small Business Development Center

U.S. Small Business Administration

3674 Lindell Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63108

314-534-7204

Mr. Gene Boesch

Managing Director

St. Louis Technology Center, Inc.

10143 Paget Drive

St. Louis, MO 63132

314-432-4204

Mr. J. Mac Holladay

Director

Mississippi Department of Economic Development

1200 Walter Sillers Building

P.O. Box 849

Jackson, MS 39205

601-359-3450

Institute for Technology Development

Suite 500

700 N. State Street

Jackson, MS 39202

Mr. William Taylor

Director

University Technical Assistance Program

Montana State University

402 Roberts Hall

Bozeman, MT 59717

406-994-3812

111
Mr. James Brock

Dean

College of Business

Montana State University

Bozeman, MT 59715

406-994-4423

Mr. Gerald Lapeyre

Interim Director

Center of Excellence in Advanced Materials

Montana State University

Physics Department

Bozeman, MT 59717

406-994-6155

Mr. James Kambich

Director

Butte/Silver Bow Business Development Center

305 W. Mercury Street

Courthouse

Butte, MT 59701

406-723-4061

Dr. Larry Twidwell

Professor of M.E.

Advanced Minerals & Hazardous Waste Processing

West Park Street

Butte, MT 59701

406-496-4208

Mr. Steve Huntington

Executive Director

Montana Science & Technology Alliance

46 N. Last Chance Gulch

Suite 2B

Helena, MT 59601

406-449-2778

Mr. Andy Poole

Acting Director

Business Assistance Divison

Montana Department of Commerce

1424 9th Avenue

Helena, MT 59601

406-444-3923

112
Dr. Walter Hill

Director

Center of Excellence in Biotechnology

University of Montana

Science Complex, Room 202

Missoula, MT 59812

406-243-4188

Mr. Robert Bernier

Director

Nebraska Business Development Center

College of Business Administration

#407

University of Nebraska - Omaha

Omaha, NB 68182

402-554-2521

Dr. Earl MacCormac

Executive Director

Office of the Governor

Board of Science & Technology

116 West Jones Street

Raleigh, NC 27603

919-733-6500

Mr. Brent Lane

Executive Director

North Carolina Technological Development Authority

430 N. Salisbury Street

Raleigh, NC 27611

919-733-7022

Dr. Richard Fair

Acting President

Microelectronics Center of North Carolina

P.O. Box 12889

3021 Cornwallis Road

Res. Triangle Park, NC 27709

919-248-1816

Dr. Charles Hammer

President

North Carolina Biotechnology Center

P.O. Box 13547

79 Alexander Drive, 4501 Building

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

919-541-9366

113
Mr. H.L. Reese

Director

North Carolina Science and Technology Center

North Carolina Department of Commerce

2 Davis Drive

P.O. Box 12235

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

919-549-0671

Ms. Carole Bordenkircher

State Director

North Dakota Small Business Development Center

Economic Development Commission

Liberty Memorial Building

Capitol Grounds

Bismarck, ND 58505

701-224-2810

Mr. Robert Sullivan

Director, Special Projects

Center for Economic Development

North Dakota State University

Box 5376

University Station

Fargo, ND 58102

701-237-8873

Mr. Bruce Gjovig

Director

Center for Innovation & Business Development

Box 8103, UND Station

212 Harrington Hall

Grand Forks, ND 58202

701-777-3132

Mr. Thomas Spilker

Director

Nebraska Technical Assistance Center

Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln

Room W191, Nebraska Hall

Lincoln, NE 68588

402-472-5600

Mr. Franklin Sekera

President

Nebraska Research & Development Authority

Department of Economic Development

NBC Center, Suite 646

Lincoln, NE 68508

402-475-5109

114
Mr. Robert Staats-Westover

Director, NJPEC

NJ Polymer Extension Center

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

Stevens Institute of Technology

Castle Point - PPI

Hoboken, NJ 07030

201-420-5880

Mr. Peter Day

Director

Center for Agricultural Molecular Biology

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

Rutgers University

Martin Hall, Cook College

New Brunswick, NJ 08903

201-932-8165

Dr. Myron Solberg

Director

Center for Advanced Food Technology

Cook College, Rutgers University

Center for Advanced Food Technology

New Brunswick, NJ 08903

201-932-8306

Dr. Richard Lutz

Director

Fisheries & Aquaculture Technology Extension Center

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

Rutgers University

Blake Hall, Room 302

New Brunswick, NJ 08903

201-932-8959

Dr. Michael Pappas

Acting Executive Director

Center for Manufacturing Engineering Systems

NJ Institute of Technology

323 Dr. M. Luther King Boulevard

Newark, NJ 07102

201-596-3338

Mr. William Kennedy

Executive Director

Technology Extension Center (TEX Center)

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

NJ Institutute of Technology

Center for Information Age Technology

Newark, NJ 07102

201-596-3035

115
Dr. Thomas Hall

Director, TEX ICT

Caufield Tech Extension for Investigational Cancer Treatment

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

Center for Molecular Medicine

1 Bruce Street

Newark, NJ 07103

201-456-5500

Dr. Richard Magee

Executive Director

Hazardous Substance Management Research Center

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

NJ Institute of Technology

323 Martin Luther King Blvd.

Newark, NJ 07102

201-596-3006

Dr. Aaron Shatkin

Director and Professor

Center for Advanced Biotechnology & Medicine

Rutgers University

CABM

675 Hoes Lane

Piscataway, NJ 08854

201-463-4665

Dr. Dale Niesz

Director, Center for Ceramics

Center for Ceramic Research

National Science Foundation

Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ 08855

201-932-4817

Dr. Herbert Freeman

Director

Center for Computer Aids for Industrial Productivity

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

Brett and Bowser Road

Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ 08855

201-932-4208

Dr. Doyle Knight

President C for S P

John von Neumann National Supercomputer Center

National Science Foundation

665 College Road East

Princeton, NJ 08540

609-520-2000

116
Mr. Edward Cohen

Executive Director

NJ Commission on Science & Technology

122 West State Street, CN 832

Trenton, NJ 08625

609-633-2740

Mr. James Ray

Director

Business Assistance and Resource Center

Economic Development Administration, DOC

University of New Mexico

1920 Lomas NE

Albuquerque, NM 87131

505-277-3541

Mr. Gary Smith

Director

Technology Commercialization Office

University of New Mexico

457 Washington & E, Suite C

Albuquerque, NM 87108

505-277-7110

Mr. Stanley Morain

Director

Technology Application Center

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87131

505-277-4000

Mr. Larry Icerman

Director, NMRDI

Science & Technology Commercialization Commission

Pinon Building, Suite 358

1220 South St., Francis Drive

Santa Fe, NM 87501

505-827-5886

Mr. Sam Males

State Director

Nevada Small Business Development Center

University of Nevada - Reno

BB 411

Reno, NV 89557

702-784-1717

117
Mr . James King

State Director

New York State Small Business Development Center

State University Plaza

Albany, NY 12246

518-443-5398

Mr. H. Graham Jones

Executive Director

Regional Technology Development Organization Program

99 Washington Avenue

Suite 1730

Albany, NY 12210

518-474-4348

Mr. Lawrence Nedelka

Acting Executive Director

Metro New York Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

Long Island Area Development

1425 Old Country Road

Plainview, NY 11803

516-756-9590

Mr. Christopher Coburn

Executive Director

State of Ohio, Department of Development

Ohio's Thomas Edison Program

77 S. High Street, 26th Floor

Columbus, OH 43266

614-466-3086

Mr. Jeff Shick

State Coordinator

State of Ohio

Department of Development

65 East State Street, Suite 200

Columbus, OH 43266

614-466-4286

Mr. Steve Hardy

President, CEO

Rural Enterprises

10 Waldron Drive

P.O. Box 1335

Durant, OK 74702

405-924-5094

118
Dr. Carolyn Smith

Interim President

Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science & Technology

205 NW 63rd Street, Suite 305

Oklahoma City, OK 73166

405-848-2633

Mr. Michael Hensley

Co-Director

Technology Resource Center -Advanced Manufacturing Center

OSU Technical Branch

Noble Center

Suite 100

Oknulgee, OK 74447

918-756-6211

Mr. Roy Peters

State Director

Oklahoma State Department of Vocational & Technical Education

1500 West Seventh Avenue

Stillwater, OK 74074

405-377-2000

Mr. Terry Edvalson

Director

Regional Services Institute

Eastern Oregon State College

8th and K Street

La Grande, OR 97850

503-963-1755

Mr. John Beaulieu

President

Oregon Resource & Technology Development Corporation

10300 SW Greenburg Road

One Lincoln Center, Suite 430

Portland, OR 97223

503-246-4844

Mr. Mark Lang

Executive Director

Lehigh University

NET Ben Franklin Technology Center

125 Goodman Drive

Bethlehem, PA 18015

215-758-5210

119
Mr. Jacques Koppel

Director

Department of Commerce

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Office of Technology Development

352 Forum Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120

717-787-4147

Mr. Gregory Higgins

State Director

Pennsylvania Small Business Development Center

Vance Hall - Fourth Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19104

215-898-1219

Mr. Paul McWilliams

Executive Director

NASA Industrial Applications Center

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

412-648-7000

Mr. H. LeRoy Mar low

Director

Pennsylvania State University

PENNTAP

J. Orvis Keller Building

University Park, PA 16802

814-865-0427

Mr. John Werner

President and CEO

Ben Franklin Technology Center of Central PA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - DOC

Fifth Floor, Rider Building

120 S. Burrowes Street

University Park, PA 16801

814-863-4558

Mr. Jose Vega

Director

Economic Development University Center

University of Puerto Rico

Box 5000

College Station

Mayaguez, PR 00709

809-834-2566

120
Mr. Bruce Lang

Executive Director

Rhode Island Partnership for Science and Technology

7 Jackson Walkway

Providence, RI 02903

401-277-2601

Mr. Douglas Jobling

Director

Rhode Island Small Business Development Center

Bryant College

450 Douglas Pike

Smithfield, RI 02917

401-232-6111

Mr. Wayne Sterling

Director

South Carolina State Development Board

120 Main Street

AT&T Capitol Center

Columbia, SC 29202

803-737-0400

Dr. Robert Henderson

Executive Director

South Carolina Research Authority

P.O. Box 12025

Columbus, SC 29211

803-799-4070

Dr. Robert Todd

Director

Center for Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship

South Dakota State University

Administration Building, Room 222

Brookings, SD 57007

605-688-4111

Mr. Don Greenfield

State Director

South Dakota Small Business Development Center

University of South Dakota

414 E. Clark Street

Vermillion, SD 57069

605-677-5272

121
Mr. Robert McAuley

Executive Vice President

Partners for Economic Progress

1001 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402

615-752-4305

Dr. David Patterson

President

Tennessee Technology Foundation & Tech Corridor

P.O. Box 23184

Knoxville, TN 37933

615-694-6772

Mr. Ric Nuber

President/CEO

Biomedical Resource Zone

BRZ Development Corporation

740 Court Avenue

Memphis, TN 38105

901-526-1165

Dr. John Crothers

Director

Department of Economic & Community Development

High Technology Development Division

320 6th Avenue North, 6th Floor

Nashville, TN 37219

615-741-5070

Mr. T.C. Parsons

Executive Director

Center for Industrial Services

The University of Tennessee

226 Capitol Boulevard Building

Suite 401

Nashville, TN 37219

615-242-2456

Ms . Jenny Lemons

Interim Director

Nashville Business Incubation Center

Tennessee State University

315 10th Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37203

615-251-1180

122
Mr. Thomas Bailey

Executive Director

Tennessee Valley Aerospace Region

B.H. Goethert Parkway

Tullahoma, TN 37388

615-455-0631

Mr. J. William Lauderback

Executive Director

Texas Department of Commerce

P.O. Box 12728

Austin, TX 78711

512-472-5059

Dr. Helen Baca Dorsey

Director

Texas A&M University System

Technology Business Development Division

310 Wisenbaker Engineering RC

College Station, TX 77843

409-845-0538

Dr. Jon Goodman

Region Director

Small Business Development Center

University of Houston

401 Louisiana

Houston, TX 77002

713-223-1141

Mr. Bruce Hugurlet

Director, SARTAC

San Antonio Regional Technical Assistance Center

University of Texas at San Antonio

P.O. Box 40

San Antonio, TX 78291

512-227-1595

Mr. Kumen Davis

Executive Director

Utah Small Business Development Center

660 South 200 East #418

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

801-581-7905

123
Mr. Linwood Holton

President

Center for Innovative Technology

CIT Building, Suite 600

2214 Rock Hill Road

Herndon, VA 22070

703-689-3000

Mr. David DoughertyDirector

Business Assistance Center

919 Lakeridge Way SW

Olympia, WA 98502

206-586-4848

Mr. Lyle Anderson

Acting State Director

Washington State University

Small Business Development Center

441 Todd Hall

Pullman, WA 99164

509-335-1576

Mr. Larry Simionsmeier

Interim Director

WSU Research and Technology Park

Washington State University

NE 1615 Seagate Boulevard

Pullman, WA 99164

509-335-5526

Mr. Ronald Horst

Director

Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

U.S. Department of Commerce

900 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 2430

Seattle, WA 98164

206-622-2230

Mr. Robert Sloman

President

Washington Research Foundation

Suite 303

4225 Rossevelt Way NE

Seattle, WA 98105

206-633-3569

124
Mr. Donald Baldwin

Director

Office of Technology Transfer

University of Washington

201 The Graduate School

Mail Stop AG- 10

Seattle, WA 98195

206-543-5900

Mr. William Pinkovitz

Director & Associate Dean

Small Business Development Center

University of Wisconsin- Ext

432 North Lake Street

Madison, WI 53706

608-263-7794

Mr. David Martin

Assistant Vice President Government -Relations

University of Wisconsin Systems

1220 Linden Drive

Room 1844

Madison, WI 53706

608-262-4464

Mr. Bruno Mauer

Secretary

Wisconsin Department of Development

123 West Washington Avenue

9th Floor

Madison, WI 53707

608-266-1018

Dr. John Entorf

Director

Center for Innovation and Development

University of Wisconsin Stout

206 Fryklund Hall

Menomonie, WI 54751

715-232-1252

Ms. Debra Knox-Malewicki

Program Manager

Wisconsin Innovation Service Center

Small Business Development Center

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

402 McCuthon Hall

Whitewater, WI 53190

414-472-1365

125
Ms. Eloise Jack

State Director

Small Business Development Center Division

Governors Office of CID

Capitol Complex

Charleston, WV 25305

304-348-2960

Mr. William Edwards

Director

Marshall UniversityWest Virginia Board of Regents

Regents Center for Education and Research

Huntington, WV 25701

304-696-3367

Dr. John Spears

Director

Center for Regional Progress

Marshall University

323 Old Main

Huntington, WV 25755

304-696-6797

Ms. Rachel Tompkins

Associate Provost and Director

West Virginia University Extension Service

P.O. Box 6031

Morgantown, WV 26506

304-293-5691

Dr. Jack Byrd

Executive Director

The Center for Entrepreneurial Studies & Development, Inc.

West Virginia University

P.O. Box 6101

Morgantown, WV 26506

304-293-5551

Mr. McRay Bryant

State Director

Wyoming Small Business Development Center

130 N. Ash

Suite A

Casper, WY 82601

307-235-4825

Mr. Sam Dorrence

Wyoming Science, Technology & Energy Authority

P.O. Box 3395

Laramie, WY 82071

126
APPENDIX B

STATE COORDINATOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE

127
Return to:

Marianne K. Clarke

National Governors' Association

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 250

Washington, DC 20001

Code #

A STUDY OF CURRENT STATE TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION SERVICES

SUMMARY QUESTIONNAIRE

TO BE COMPLETED BY STATE COORDINATORS

Congress and the Administration have called upon the National Institute

of Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau of Standards,

to carry out a program of technology development and transfer in

collaboration with industry, universities, other Federal agencies, and

with State and local governments. Among the National Institute of Standards

and Technology's new responsibilities outlined in the Technology

Competitiveness Act portion of the Trade Bill, is a Study of Current State

Technology Extension Services. The Study is being undertaken jointly with

the National Governors' Association (NGA) with advice and guidance from the

NGA Working Group on State Initiatives in Applied Research.

The purpose of the Study is to provide an understanding of what each State

is doing to promote technological innovation and job creation. This

information will be useful for Congress in identifying a Federal role

which is supportive of State efforts and will be of use to Governors in

assessing the effectiveness of their technology extension efforts.

In order to cover a wide array of State programs that may be administered

by a number of different agencies or offices, we are asking that the members

of the NGA Working Group serve as State coordinators . The State coordinator

will be responsible for: (1) completing this Summary Questionnaire, if

applicable; and (2) either completing the Program Manager's Questionnaire

or distributing it to the appropriate State offices for completion. The

Program Manager's Questionnaire requests information on the following types

of programs: (1) Business Assistance; (2) Incubators; (3) Research Parks;

(4) Seed Capital; (5) Technology Assistance; and (6) Techno logy/Research

Centers. If the State operates several programs within any of these

categories, please complete a survey form for each program.

128
Attached is a list of programs which we have identified in your State for

inclusion in the study. Please add any programs that have been omitted.

Please note that Small Business Development Centers and EDA-supported

University Centers will receive questionnaires directly and need not be

included in your response.

We would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation and support. We

know that the completion of the questionnaire will require time and effort

on your part but we believe the final product will be useful to you and your

colleagues in other States. If you have any questions, please call Marianne

Clarke at (202) 624-5380.

PLEASE RETURN BY NOVEMBER 30, 1988

This questionnaire was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (0MB)

on September 28, 1988, 0MB Control Number 0693-0007.

129
This Summary Questionnaire should be completed only by those States with a

single office responsible for science and technology programs. If such an

office does not exit, please complete the Program Manager's Version of the

questionnaire

.

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION

1 . Organization Name :

2. Administering Agency:

3. Address: a)

b)

c)

4. City:

6 . Zip Code

8. Director:

9. Title:

10. Telephone:

11. Principal Contact:

12. Title:

13. Telephone:

14. Telecopier:

15. Number of staff (full-time equivalent) employed (as of June 30, 1988):

a) Professional (Technical) :

b) Professional (Business):

c) Support Staff:

16. Organizational Objectives (50 words or less):

5. State:

7. Date Established:

130
17. Financial Data: Estimate the total funds (including overhead and

any other operating costs) received or anticipated (in thousands

of $) by your organization by fiscal year from each of the sources

listed below. Indicate when your fiscal year begins ( ) .

Source of Funds

Funds (thousands of $)

1986 1987 1988 1989(est)

a) Federal Government

b; btate Government

c) Local Government

d) University

e) Industry

f) All Other

TOTAL

Please use the following definitions in answering question 18.

Business Assistance: Business assistance focuses on providing general

business management information such as personnel, accounting and

legal advice

Incubators: Incubator facilities provide office and lab space for

start-up companies at below-market rates. Shared support services such

as clerical, reception and data processing are often made available.

Research Parks: Research parks are planned groupings of technology

companies that encourage university/private relationships.

Seed Capital: Money is provided for projects that are at an early

stage of development or that offer job creation potential but may not

have the return on investment expected by commercial venture

capitalists. Includes research grant and product development programs.

131
Technology Assistance: Technology assistance focuses on providing

specialized services such as technical information, invention evaluation, technical counseling and patent information. Technology assistance

includes both information exchange and active out-reach programs to

provide access to newly- created technologies and to promote innovative

applications of established technologies.

Technology/Research Centers: These centers generally concentrate their

studies in a particular field which is usually based on the strengths

of the university and/or the major industries in the State.

18. Program Orientation: List the programs supported by your office

and the date they were established.

Functional

Area

Program Name and Date Established

a) Business Assistance

b) Incubators

c) Research Parks

d) Seed Capital

e) Technology Assistance

f) Techno logy/Research

Centers

132
19. Support Services: Check the box in Column 1 if your office provided

that service during 1985, 1986 or 1987. Check the box in Column 2 if

your ogranization is currently providing that service. Check the box

in Column 3 if your organization is either providing that service at

an increased level or is planning an expansion in 1989.

Type of

Service

Column 1 Provided

85, 86, 87

Column 2

Provided

88

Column 3

Expanded

88 or 89

a) Bond Issues for TechnologyBased Businesses

b) Business and/or Technology

Assistance to Small and

Medium-Sized Businesses 1 1 1 1

c) Export Assistance for

Technology-Based Businesses ni i ni i n

d) Indus try-University

(Research and/or Personnel

Exchange

)

i—

i

i—

i

i—

i

LI

e) Joint Venture/Partnership

Counseling

f) Marketing Programs for

Technology-Based Businesses

g) Matching Grants

h) Networking and Referrals

i) Patenting and Licensing

133
SECTION II: RELATIONSHIPS WITH FEDERALLY-SPONSORED PROGRAMS

20. If your organization has used or been associated with a specific

program, provide an assessment of how well that program complements

your organization's objectives.

Program Name

Have Used

Program

Y=Yes

N=No

If Yes,

Frequency

of Use

l=Frequent

2=Some times

3=Seldom

If Yes,

Program

Assess

.

l=Good

2=Fair

3=Poor

a) Center for Utilization

of Federal Technology

(Commerce/NTIS)

b) Commercial Use of Space

Program (NASA)

c) Community Development

Block Grants (HUD)

d) Computer and Information

Science and Engineering

(NSF)

e) Cooperative Extension

Service (Agriculture)

f) Energy Extension

Service (Energy)

g) Energy-Related Inventions

(Energy and Commerce/NBS)

h) Federal Laboratory

Consortium (All)

i) Indus try/University

Cooperative Research

Centers (NSF)

134
20. (Continued)

Program Name

Have Used

Program

Y=Yes

N=No

If Yes, If Yes,

Frequency Program

of Use Assess

.

l=Frequent l=Good

2=Sometimes 2=Fair

3=Seldom 3=Poor

j) Job Training Partnership

Act (Labor)

k) Measurement and

Engineering Research

Grants (Commerce/NBS)

1) National Appropriate

Technology Assistance

Service (Energy)

m) Office of Productivity,

Technology and Innovation (Commerce)

n) Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business

Utilization (All)

o) Patent and Trademark

Office (Commerce)

P) Program for Mathematics,

Science ComDuter Learninp

and Critical Foreign

Languages (Education)

q) Scientific, Technological

and International

Affairs (NSF)

r) SCORE/ACE (SBA)

1 1

s) Small Business Development Center Program (SBA)

t) Small Business Innovation

Research Program (All)

135
20. (Continued)

Have Used If Yes, If Yes,

Program Frequency Program

Program Name Y=Yes of Use Assess

.

N=No l=Frequent l=Good

2=Sometimes 2=Fair

3=Seldom 3=Poor

u) Small Business Investment

Companies (SBA)

v) Technology Utilization

Program (NASA)

w) Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers Program

(Commerce/ITA)

x) Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers (Labor)

y) University Centers

Program (Commerce/EDA)

Other Federal Programs (Please List)

136
21. Below is a list of strategies through which your organization does

or could facilitate the transfer of Federal scientific and technical

information, including the results and application of Federal and

Federally- funded research/technology . Indicate the importance of

each strategy by showing how you would allocate $100 of program funds

among them.

Strategies

How would you

allocate $100?

a) Cooperate actively with Federal agencies

in their technology transfer programs

b) Cosponsor model demonstration projects

c) Draw on a Federal clearinghouse to

disseminate information on Federal R&D

d) Maintain a training program at the State

and local level focused on Federal

technology transfer and cooperation

22. Provide comments and/or indicate other ways in which your organization

does/could promote:

a) Federal technology transfer:

b) Technology transfer in general:

137

APPENDIX C

PROGRAM MANAGER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

139
Return to:

Code #

Marianne K. Clarke

National Governors' Association

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 250

Washington, DC 20001

A STUDY OF CURRENT STATE TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION SERVICES

PROGRAM MANAGER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Congress and the Administration have called upon the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau of Standards, to

carry out a program of technology development and transfer in

collaboration with industry, universities, other Federal agencies, and

with State and local governments. Among the National Institute of Standards

and Technology's new responsibilities outlined in the Technology

Competitiveness Act portion of the Trade Bill, is a Study of Current State

Technology Extension Services. The Study is being undertaken jointly with

the National Governors' Association (NGA) with advice and guidance from the

NGA Working Group on State Initiatives in Applied Research.

The purpose of the Study is to provide an understanding of what each State

is doing to promote technological innovation and job creation. This

information will be useful to Congress in identifying a Federal role

which is supportive of State efforts and will be of use to Governors in

assessing the effectiveness of their technology extension efforts.

This questionnaire is designed for use by managers of a technology

extension program. A separate, summary questionnaire, has been designed

for use by State coordinators who may be responsible for a variety of

programs in their State.

The questionnaire for this portion of the Study is divided into two parts:

1 . Background Information

2 . Program Orientation

Part 1 contains 2 sections. Part 1 is designed to collect information on

your program and on its relationships with several key Federal programs.

The two sections of Part 1 are entitled:

I . General Information

II. Relationships With Federally-Sponsored Programs

140
Part 2 contains 6 sections. Each section refers to a specific program

focus. Only those sections which are of major importance to your program

require a response. The six sections in Part 2 are concerned with the

following extension program activities:

III. Business Assistance

IV. Incubators

V. Research Parks

VI. Seed Capital

VII. Technology Assistance

VIII. Technology/Research Centers

We would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation and support. We

know that the completion of the questionnaire will require time and effort

on your part but we believe the final product will be useful to you and

your colleagues in other States. If you have any questions, please call

Marianne Clarke at (202) 624-5380.

PLEASE RETURN BY NOVEMBER 30, 1988

This questionnaire was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (0MB)

on September 28, 1988, 0MB Control Number 0693-0007.

141
PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Organization Name:

2. Administering Agency:

3. Address: a)

b)

c)

4. City: 5. State:

6. Zip Code 7. Date Established:

8. Director:

9. Title:

10. Telephone:

11. Principal Contact:

12. Title:

13. Telephone:

14. Telecopier:

15. Number of staff (full-time equivalent) employed (as of June 30, 1988):

a) Professional (Technical) :

b) Profes sional (Business):

c) Support Staff:

16. Organizational Objectives (50 words or less):

142
17. Financial Data: Estimate the total funds (including overhead and

any other operating costs) received or anticipated (in thousands

of $) by your organization by fiscal year from each of the sources

listed below. Indicate when your fiscal year begins ( ) .

Source of Funds

Funds (thousands of $)

1986 1987 1988 1989(est)

a) Federal Government

u j ouate ooveriuncuc

c) Local Government

d) University

e) Industry

f) All Other

TOTAL

18. Outreach: Below is a list of strategies for increasing your clients

awareness of how your program could benefit them. Indicate the importance of each strategy by showing how you would allocate $100 of program

funds among them.

Strategies

How would you

allocate $100?

a) Advertising (e.g., journals, radio,

trade associations, etc.)

b) Direct solicitation

c) Field agents

d) Networking (e.g., seminars, workshops, etc.)

e) Other (

)

143
Please use the following definitions in answering question 19.

Business Assistance: Business assistance focuses on providing general

business management information such as personnel, accounting and

legal advice

.

Incubators: Incubator facilities provide office and lab space for

start-up companies at below-market rates. Shared support services such

as clerical, reception and data processing are often made available.

Research Parks: Research parks are planned groupings of technology

companies that encourage university/private relationships.

Seed Capital: Money is provided for projects that are at an early stage

of development or that offer job creation potential but may not have the

return on investment expected by commercial venture capitalists. Includes research grant and product development programs.

Technology Assistance: Technology assistance focuses on providing

specialized services such as technical information, invention evaluation, technical counseling and patent information. Technology

assistance includes both information exchange and active out-reach

programs to provide access to newly-created technologies and to promote

innovative applications of established technologies.

Technology/Research Centers: These centers generally concentrate their

studies in a particular field which is usually based on the strengths

of the university and/or the major industries in the State.

19. Program Orientation: Estimate the percent of staff resources allocated

to each functional area during 1988. Estimate the percent of total

funds allocated to each functional area during 1987, 1988 and 1989.

Functional

Area

Percent

of Staff

1988

Percent of Funds

1987 1988 1989(est)

a) Business Assistance

b) Incubators

c) Research Parks

d) Seed Capital

e) Technology Assistance

f) Technology/Research

Centers

g) Other:

TOTAL 100 100 100 100

144
SECTION II: RELATIONSHIPS WITH FEDERALLY-SPONSORED PROGRAMS

20. If your organization has used or been associated with a specific

program, provide an assessment of how well that program complements

your organization's objectives.

Have Used If Yes, If Yes,

Program Frequency Program

Program Name Y=Yes of Use Assess

N=No l=Frequent l=Good

2=Sometimes 2=Fair

3=Seldom 3=Poor

a) Center for Utilization

of Federal Technology

(Commerce/NTIS)

b) Commercial Use of Space

Program (NASA)

c) Community Development

Block Grants (HUD)

d) Computer and Information

Science and Engineering

(NSF)

e) Cooperative Extension

Service (Agriculture)

f) Energy Extension

Service (Energy)

g) Energy-Related Inventions

(Energy and Commerce/NBS)

h) Federal Laboratory

Consortium (All)

i) Industry/University

Cooperative Research

Centers (NSF)

145
20. (Continued)

Program Name

Have Used

Program

Y=Yes

N=No

If Yes,

Frequency

of Use

l=Frequent

2=Some times

3=Seldom

If Yes,

Program

Assess

.

l=Good

2=Fair

3=Poor

j ) Job Training Partnership

Act (Labor)

k) Measurement and

Engineering Research

Grants (Commerce/NBS)

1) National Appropriate

Technology Assistance

Service (Energy)

m) Office of Productivity,

Technology and Innovation (Commerce)

n) Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business

Utilization (All)

o) Patent and Trademark

Office (Commerce)

p) Program for Mathematics,

Science, Computer Learning

and Critical Foreign

Languages (Education)

q) Scientific, Technological

and International

Affairs (NSF)

r) SCORE/ACE (SBA)

s) Small Business Development Center Program (SBA)

t) Small Business Innovation

Research Program (All)

146
20. (Continued)

Have Used If Yes, If Yes,

Program Frequency Program

Program Name Y=Yes of Use Assess.

N=No l=Frequent l=Good

2=Sometimes 2=Fair

3=Seldom 3=Poor

u) Small Business Investment

Companies (SBA)

v) Technology Utilization

Program (NASA)

w) Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers Program

(Commerce/ITA)

x) Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers (Labor)

y) University Centers

Program (Commerce/EDA)

Other Federal Programs (Please List)

aa)

bb)

cc)

147
21. Below is a list of strategies through which your organization does

or could facilitate the transfer of Federal scientific and technical

information, including the results and application of Federal and

Federally- funded research/technology. Indicate the importance of

each strategy by showing how you would allocate $100 of program funds

among them.

Strategies

How would you

allocate $100?

a) Cooperate actively with Federal agencies

in their technology transfer programs

b) Cosponsor model demonstration projects

c) Draw on a Federal clearinghouse to

disseminate information on Federal R&D

d) Maintain a training program at the State

and local level focused on Federal

technology transfer and cooperation

22. Provide comments and/or indicate other ways in which your organization

does/could promote:

a) Federal technology transfer:

b) Technology transfer in general:

148
PART 2: PROGRAM ORIENTATION

SECTION III: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE

Answer questions 23 through 27 if your organization provides business

assistance

.

23. Type of Service: Check the box in Column 1 if your organization

provided that service during 1985, 1986 or 1987. Check the box in

Column 2 if your organization is currently providing that service

.

Check the box in Column 3 if your organization is either providing

that service at an increased level or is planning an expansion in 1989.

Type of

Service

Column 1 Provided

85, 86, 87

Column 2

Provided

88

Column 3

Expanded

88 or 89

a) Business Forecasting n ni i ni i b) Business Plan

Preparation/Evaluation

c) Feasibility Studies

d) Financial Analysis

e) Joint Venture/Partnership Counseling

f) Labor Analysis

g) Management Assistance

and Studies

h) Marketing Surveys

i) Site Location Assistance

j) Small Business Consulting

149
24. Estimate the number of establishments assisted:

a) 1985

b) 1986

c) 1987

d) 1988

e) 1989

25. Establishment Data: Estimate the number of establishments assisted

by your organization during 1988. Please classify establishments by

type (manufacturing versus non-manufacturing) and size. An

establishment, as defined by the Census, counts each store, office,

or plant with one or more employees as a separate entity. Nonmanufacturing establishments are those major industry groups involved

in: agriculture, mining, construction, and services (transportation,

finance, government enterprises, etc.).

Type of

Number of Establishments T

0

T

A

L

Establishment Less than

50

Between

50 & 500

More than

500

Don'

t

Know

Manufac tur ing

Non- Manufac tur ing

Don't Know

TOTAL

26. Assistance to Individuals: Estimate the number of individuals assisted

(e.g., innovators, entrepreneurs, etc.) during 1988: .

27. Percentage of establishments assisted during 1988 which required access

to:

a) Newly-created technologies:

b) Established technologies:

150
SECTION IV: INCUBATORS

Answer questions 28 through 32 if your organization supports incubators.

28. Provide estimates of the following background statistics:

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Incubators Establish- Employees Graduates

ments

a) 1985:

b) 1986:

c) 1987: _____

d) 1988: _________

e) 1989:

29. Percentage of establishments incubated during 1988 which required

access to:

a) Newly-created technologies:

b) Established technologies:

30. Percentage breakdown by type of technology targeted during 1988:

a) Aerospace:

b) Biotechnology and Life Sciences:

c) Earth Sciences:

d) Information Technologies:

e) Manufacturing Technologies:

f) Materials Sciences:

g) Other (_

):

31. Number of years an establishment spends in an incubator:

a) Average : b) Maximum:

32. Percentage of establishments graduated between 1985 and 1987 which:

a) Are Still in Business:

b) Are No Longer in Business:

c ) Don ' t Know :

151
SECTION V: RESEARCH PARKS

Answer questions 33 through 35 if your organization supports research

parks

.

33. Provide estimates for the following background statistics:

Number of Percent of Available

Parks Space Occupied

(Square Feet)

a) 1985:

b) 1986:

c) 1987: ______

d) 1988: _"_

e) 1989:

34. Provide estimates for the following establishment statistics:

Number of Number of

Establishments Employees

a) 1985:

b) 1986:

c) 1987:

d) 1988:

e) 1989:

35. Percentage breakdown by type of technology targeted during 1988:

a) Aerospace:

b) Biotechnology and Life Sciences:

c) Earth Sciences:

d) Information Technologies:

e) Manufacturing Technologies:

f) Materials Sciences:

g) Other (

):

152
SECTION VI: SEED CAPITAL

Answer questions 36 through 41 if your organization provides

seed capital.

36. Establishments assisted:

Year

Number of

Establishments

Public (thousands of $) Private

(thousands

Pension Other of $)

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

37. Establishment Data: Estimate the number of establishments assisted

by your organization during 1988. Please classify establishments by

type (manufacturing versus non- manufacturing) and size. An

establishment, as defined by the Census, counts each store, office,

or plant with one or more employees as a separate entity. Nonmanufacturing establishments are those major industry groups involved

in: agriculture, mining, construction, and services (transportation,

finance, government enterprises, etc.).

Type of

Number of Establishments T

0

T

Es tab 1 i shment Less than

50

Between

50 & 500

More than

500

Don'

t

Know

A

L

Manufac tur ing

Non-Manufacturing

Don ' t Know

TOTAL

153
38. Percentage of establishments assisted between 1985 and 1987 which:

a) Are Still in Business:

b) Are No Longer in Business:

c) Don't Know:

39. Percentage of establishments assisted during 1988 which required access

to:

a) Newly-created technologies:

b) Established technologies:

40. Percentage breakdown by type of technology targeted during 1988:

a) Aerospace:

b) Biotechnology and Life Sciences:

c) Earth Sciences:

d) Information Technologies:

e) Manufacturing Technologies:

f) Materials Sciences:

g) Other (

):

41. Percentage breakdown by type of funds provided during 1988:

a) Product/process development:

b) Product/process testing:

c) Prototype development:

d) Product/process commercialization:

e) Other:

154
SECTION VII: TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE

Answer questions 42 through 48 if your organization provides

technology assistance.

42. Type of Service: Check the box in Column 1 if your organization

provided that service during 1985, 1986 or 1987. Check the box in

Column 2 if your organization is currently providing that service.

Check the box in Column 3 if your organization is either providing

that service at an increased level or is planning an expansion in 1989.

Type of Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Service Provided Provided Expanded

85, 86, 87 88 88 or 89

a) Demonstration Projects 1—

i

u

1—

i

u

1—

i

u

b) Joint Venture/Partnership Counseling

c) Networking & Referrals

d) Product Design and/or

Evaluation n n ni i

e) Seminars/Workshops

f) State liaison to

Federal Labs

g) Technical Counseling

h) Technical Data

Services

i) Technical literature

dissemination/review

j) User request and

response

155
43. Estimate the number of establishments assisted:

a) 1985:

b) 1986:

c) 1987:

d) 1988:

e) 1989:

44. Establishment Data: Estimate the number of establishments assisted

by your organization during 1988. Please classify establishments by

type (manufacturing versus non- manufacturing) and size. An

establishment, as defined by the Census, counts each store, office,

or plant with one or more employees as a separate entity. Nonmanufacturing establishments are those major industry groups involved

in: agriculture, mining, construction, and services (transportation,

finance, government enterprises, etc.).

Type of

Number of Establishments T

0

T

Establishment Less than Between More than Don' A

t

50 50 & 500 500 Know L

Manufacturing

Non-Manufac tur ing

Don' t Know

TOTAL

45. Assistance to Individuals: Estimate the number of individuals assisted

(e.g., innovators, entrepreneurs, etc.) during 1988: .

46. Percentage of establishments assisted during 1988 which required access

to

a) Newly-created technologies:

b) Established technologies:

156
47. Percentage breakdown by type of technology targeted during 1988

a) Aerospace:

b) Biotechnology and Life Sciences:

c) Earth Sciences:

d) Information Technologies:

e) Manufacturing Technologies:

f) Materials Sciences:

g) Other (

):

48. Percentage breakdown by type of assistance provided during 1988

a) Product/process development:

b) Product/process testing:

c) Prototype development:

d) Product/process commercialization:

e) Other:

157
SECTION VIII: TECHNOLOGY/RESEARCH CENTERS

Answer questions 49 and 50 if your organization supports technology

centers or research centers.

49. Provide estimates for the following background statistics:

a) 1985

b) 1986:

c) 1987

d) 1988;

e) 1989

Number of

Centers

Number of

Establishments

Participating

49. Background statistics (continued):

Number of Number of

Small and Manufacturing

Medium-sized Establishments

Establishments

a) 1985

b) 1986

c) 1987

d) 1988

e) 1989

50. Percentage breakdown by type of technology targeted during 1988:

a) Aerospace:

b) Biotechnology and Life Sciences:

c) Earth Sciences:

d) Information Technologies:

e) Manufacturing Technologies:

f) Materials Sciences:

g) Other (

):

158
NIST-114A

(REV. 3-90)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NUMBER

NIST/SP-786

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

3. PUBLICATION DATE

June 1990

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Technology-Based Economic Development: A Study of State and Federal Technical

Extension Services

5. AUTHOR(S)

Robert E. Chapman, Marianne K. Clarke and Eric Dobson

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (IF JOINT OR OTHER THAN NIST, SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

7. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER

8. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP) U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-WORD OR LESS FACTUAL SUMMARY OF MOST SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION. IF DOCUMENT INCLUDES A SIGNIFICANT BIBUOGRAPHY OR

LITERATURE SURVEY, MENTION IT HERE.)

This report presents the findings of a Nationwide study of State and Federal

organizations providing business and technology assistance to small and

medium-sized businesses. The purpose of this report is twofold. First, it

summarizes the recent literature on technology transfer and technology

extension. Included in the literature survey is a review of selected Federal

technology transfer programs, a review of State technical outreach and

economic development activities, and an analysis of State efforts in the key

areas of program implementation and program evaluation. Second, it

summarizes the results of a Nationwide survey of State and Federal technology

extension services. The survey was carried out in cooperation with the

National Governors' Association. It represents the first comprehensive study

of how these programs reach out to provide technological assistance to

businesses at the local level and the degree to which such programs make use

of Federal programs and activities in carrying out their missions.

12. KEY WORDS (6 TO 12 ENTRIES; ALPHABETICAL ORDER; CAPITALIZE ONLY PROPER NAMES; AND SEPARATE KEY WORDS BY SEMICOLONS)

Business assistance; economic development; extension services; technology

assistance; technology transfer.

13. AVAILABILITY

X~| UNLIMITED

FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE TO NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS).

X ORDER FROM SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, DC 20402. ORDER FROM NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS), SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161.

14. NUMBER OF PRINTED PAGES

159

15. PRICE

ELECTRONIC FORM

»U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990-261-982:23445



1 J.kJ JL Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—Reports NIST research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Institute

is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences.

Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and

the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute's scientific and technical activities.

Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports,

and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in

scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed un- der a worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data

Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

is published quarterly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the

durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treat- ment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in

treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST

under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally

recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common

understanding of the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program as a supplement

to the activities of the private sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NIST research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NIST publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NIST publications—FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law

89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11,

1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed

by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(formerly National Bureau of Standards)

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300