Members of the 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 

Private Citizens 

Daniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., C/u&nun, San Francisco, California 

Mary Ellen Joyce, Arlington, Vii&ii 

Members of the U.S. Senate 

Dave Durenberger, Minnesota 

Carl Lwin, Michigan 

Charles S. Robb, Virginia 

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Dick Armey, ‘I&as 

Sander Levia, Michigan 

Ted Weiss, New York 

Officers of the Executive Branch, 

U.S. Government 

Debra Rae Anderson, Deputy As&ant to the President, 

Director, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary, Department of ‘flansportation 

Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General 

Governors 

John Ashcroft, Miiui 

George A. Sinner, North Dakota 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Mayors 

Donald M. Fraser, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Members of State Legislatures 

John T. Bragg, ‘Wnessee House of Representatives 

David E. Nething, North Dakota Senate 

Ted Strickland, Colorado Senate 

Elected County Officials 

Harvey Ruvin, Dade County, Florida, County Commission 

Sandra Smoley, Sacramento County, California, Board of Supervisors 

James J. Snyder, Cattaraugus County, New York, County Legislature 
Advisory Commission 

I 

on Intergovernmental Relations 

May 1990 A-114 

i 
The competitiveness of American business in the 

global economy has become a pervasive challenge to be 

reckoned with in policymakmg by all governments in our 

federal system. As such, competitiveness has become a 

prominent motivator of innovations in state and local economic development programs. 

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 

(Section 5122) established a Clearinghouse for State and 

Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in the U.S. Department of Commerce. In introducing 

this proposal, Se”. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas noted that 

many state and local governments are “acting boldly and 

pragmatically” to address the competitiveness issue. His 

proposal was a modest one to assist state and local governments in their efforts to enhance business competitiveness 

by spreading the word about the many creative stepsbeing 

taken by those governments. 

Because this new Clearinghouse needs to be connected closely to the activities of state and local governments, as well as to related activities of the federal government, the U.S. Department of Commerce concluded an 

interagency agreement with the Advisory Commission on 

Intergovernmental Relations to develop strong relationships with state and local governments and to assist in designing appropriate roles for the new Clearinghouse that 

would be of greatest support to state and local competitiveness initiatives. 

The Commission staff conducted a year of research 

and consultation with state and local governments, approPreface 

priate federal agencies, and a range of private-sector organizations. On September 2&1989, the Commission delivered to the Department of Commerce a report, based on 

these consultations and its own research, which recommended an overall design for the Clearinghouse and a series of priority activities. 

The key finding of the research is that many of the 

functions envisioned for the Clearinghouse are being performed by a variety of state, local, and federal agencies, 

and by some private units. Thus, establishing a nonduplieating niche is essential for the new Clearinghouse. 

Initial funding for the Clearinghouse is small 

($25O,O@l per year), prospects for major increases are dim, 

and parallel activities exist. Therefore, the most effective 

contribution the new Clearinghouse can make will be to 

link the other actors together into a readily accessible and 

highly utilized network. The ACIR strategy urges implementation of such a network, with the new Clearinghouse 

serving to enhance the operations of the other actors. 

The report prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Commerce provided a basis for Commission findings and 

recommendations, which were adopted by the Commission at its meeting on January 26, 1990. 

Robed B. Hawkins, A 

Chairman 

Acknowledgments 

Barbara .I. Lipman was the project Director and principal author of the report. She was assisted by ACIR staff 

members Marcia Carroll, Lori Coffel, Andree Reeves, and 

David Schaller. 

The project resulted from an interagency agreement 

with the U.S. Department of Commerce. A Clearinghouse 

organization was established within the Department of Commerce by the Om~&us i’hzde and Coqetitiwnw Act of 1988 

and was staffed by Thornton (Dp) Parker, Elizabeth 

Robertson, and Dick Johnson. Special thanks are expressed to Tip Parker for initiating contact with ACIR and 

providing steady guidance throughout the project. Others 

at the Department of Commerce who were helpful in thii 

project were Bob Chapman, Larry Casey, David Edgerly, 

Mary Ann Knauss, Ted Lettes, Marci Levin, Carol Ann 

Mears, and Jack Williams. 

A parallel project was undertaken by the National 

Governors’ Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the Omnibus Trade and CompetitivenessActofl988to inventory state technologyextension programs. Special thanks are expressed to Marianne 

Clarke and Tim Masanz of NGA for coordination with the 

Commission’s project and access to NGA’s committee of 

state science and technology advisors. 

Thanks are expressed also to Marta Goldsmith, Edward Kelly, Louis Mogavero, Sally Rood, and Kenneth 

Susskind for preparing research papers on special topics of 

relevance to the Commission’s work. 

The Commission consulted with hundreds of individuals for the project in seven meetings at the Commission offices, by phone, and in person. Most of these individuals 

are listed in the Guide to Professional Program Developers 

and Admintirators @age 144). 

ACIR is grateful for the advice, materials and criticisms 

offered throughout the project by all of those persons mentioned above. Full responsibiity for the content of this report, however, lies with the Commission and its staff. 

John Rincaid 

Executive Director 

Brace D. McDowell 

Dire&o< Government Policy Research 

ii 
Contents 

ACIRFINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 

Findings ........................................................................................ 

1. Internationally Competitive Businesses Must Be State of the Art, Highly Productive, Farsighted, 

and Wise to the Ways of International Markets ............................................... 

2. ManySourcesofAssistanceExist ........................................................... 

3. Three Types of Assistance Are Available from Existing Sources ................................ 

4. Despite the Seeming Surfeit of Information Sources, Deficiencies Exist ......................... 

5. Technology and Productivity Innovations Have Not Been Analyzed Adequately .................. 

6. Experiences of Earlier Clearinghouses Offer Lessons for Success .............................. 

7. Many Constituents Can Benefit from the Clearinghouse Established by the Omnibus Trade 

and Cmpetitiwness Act of 1988 ................................... . ......................... 

Recommendations ................................................................................ 

Recommendation I -Establishing the CIearinghouse Operation .................................... 

Recommendation 2-Developing a Network of Affiliated Organizations .............................. 

Recommendation 3-Focusing Limited Federal Funding on Existing Clearinghouses .................. 

Recommendation 4-Reconsidering the Level oFFederal Funding ................................... 

SCOPE AND DESIGN OF THE CLEARINGHOUSE FOR STATE AND LOCAL INITIATlvES 

ON PRODUCTMW, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION .......................................... 

Abstract ............................................................................................ 

Intmduetioo ......................................................................................... 

The Clearinghouse Legislation ................................................................. 

Fundamental Principles for the Clearinghouse Design and Operation ........................... 

Who the Clearinghouse Should Selve ....................................................... 

The Mission of the Clearinghouse .......................................................... 

Administrative Aspects of the Clearinghouse ................................................ 

Clearinghouse Operations ................................................................. 

TheRepository Function ...................................................................... 

ACurrentListofContacts ................................................................ 

Locate and Leverage Sources of Information ................................................ 

Bibliographiesand Resource Guides ........................................................ 

Identifying Gaps in Information ............................................................ 

NetworkingFunction ......................................................................... 

TheCaseforCooperation ................................................................. 

Clearinghouse Operations Group ........................................................... 

Participation in Conferences and Workshops ................................................. 

WorkingGroups .......................................................................... 

Analytical Role .............................................................................. 

Lessons Learned about Types of Initiatives .................................................. 

AFrameworkforAnalysis ................................................................. 

Building the Research Agenda around the Analytical Framework .............................. 

A”State-of-the-Art”Report ............................................................... 

Administrative Aspects of the Clearinghouse ........................................................ 

Operating Principles .......................................................................... 

Summary of Early “Products” by the Clearinghouse .................................................. 

RESEARCH PAPERS ................................................................................ 

State Policies and Programs For Encouraging Innovation and Tecbnologg Development ...................... 

1 

2 

3 

3 

5 

6 

I 

7 

7 

i 

9 

9 

9 

; 

LO 

10 

11 

11 

12 

12 

12 

14 

14 

14 

15 

17 

17 

17 

17 

19 

21 

m 
Introduction.. ................................................................................... 21 

State Policies and Strategies to Promote Technology Development ..................................... 22 

The State Role in Economic Development ...................................................... 22 

StateScienceand~chnologyCouncils . 

Technoloa Development for Economic Development 

..................................................................................................... $ 

Table l-Science and Technology Olfces .................................................... 23 

State Technology Development Policies ......................................................... 23 

The Role of,Multistate Organizations .............................................................. 24 

The National Governors’ Association ........................................................... 

SouthernTechnology Council .................................................................. 

; 

Council of Great Lakes Governors ............................................................. 

Western Research Application Center .......................................................... 

OtherOrganizations .......................................................................... 25 

Topologies of State Programs ...................................................................... 26 

State Technology Programs in the United States: 

A Report by the Minnesota Office of Science and Technology .................................. 26 

State Technology Development Programs: 

A Report for the National Association of State Development Agencies ......................... 26 

Recent State Initiatives: An Overview of State Science and Technology Policies and Programs ......... 27 

State Technology Programs: A Preliminary Analysis of Lessons LeamedA Paper for the Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies ................................. 27 

OrganizationofStatePrograms ................................................................ 27 

Table 2-Administrative Responsibilities of State Science and Technology ONices ................ 28 

Funding for State Technology Programs ......................................................... 

TechnologiesTkrgeted ........................................................................ 

2 

Table 3-1988 Fiscal Funding for Technology Initiatives ....................................... 29 

&we l-Science and Technology Initiatives Distribution of State Expenditures in the U.S., 

Fiscal Year 1988 ...................................................................... 30 

Table 4-State Expenditures by Program ‘I@ ............................................... 30 

Table 5-Technologies Targeted by States .................................................... 31 

PattemsandTrendsinStatePrograms .............................................................. 31 

Trends in Policy .............................................................................. 31 

ExpenditureTrends 

RegionalTrends ......................................................................................................................................................... 

z: 

Tab[e6-TargetingofTecbnologyby Region 

Figwe 2-State Technology Programs Total Expenditures 

....................................................................................... 

ii 

Analysisand Assessment ...................................................................... 32 

Table 7-Expenditures on Programs by Region (in percent) .................................... 33 

Figure 3-State Technology Programs Per Capita Expenditures ................................ 33 

Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................... 34 

Findings 

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 

g 

Federal Technology ‘lkansk: Critical Perspectives ....................................................... 37 

Introduction..............................~ ...................................................... 37 

Background ..................................................................................... 37 

ObjcctivesofTechnologyTransfer 

.......................................................................................................................................... 

37 

PerpsectivesofKeyPlayers 38 

BusinessEnd-Users .......................................................................... 38 

Summary .................................................................................... 39 

TechnologyBrokers ........................................................................... 40 

Summary .................................................................................... 

Federal Technologists ......................................................................... 

Summary 

MechanismDevelopers ........................................................................................................................................................... 

44: 

iv 
Summary .................................................................................... 

Technology?tansferMechanisms .................................................................. 

Passive Mechanisms .......................................................................... 

Semi-ActiveMechanisms ...................................................................... 

ActiveMechanisms ........................................................................... 

LessonsLearned ................................................................................. 

Conclusions-Implications for the Clearinghouse .................................................... 

view and Comparison of Clearinghouse Systems: Implications for the Clearinghouse for State 

and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation ...................................... 

Introduction.. ................................................................................... 

Methodology ................................................................................. 

Organization of This Report ................................................................... 

Clearinghouse Approaches ........................................................................ 

Introduction ................................................................................. 

On-Line DataBases .......................................................................... 

Publication and Report Clearinghouses ......................................................... 

InquiryandReferralSetices .................................................................. 

User-Driven Research and Technology Networks ................................................. 

Hybrid Systems .............................................................................. 

Summing Up ................................................................................ 

Clearinghouse Examples: Selected Characteristics ................................................... 

ModeofAccessingClearinghouse.. ............................................................ 

ClearinghouseOperators ...................................................................... 

ClearinghouseFundiogandFees ............................................................... 

‘QpesofInformationProvided ................................................................. 

Sources of Information Used by the Clearinghouses .............................................. 

Other Products and Services ................................................................... 

ClearinghouseUsers .......................................................................... 

Pattemsinthe~ble .......................................................................... 

Summing Up ................................................................................ 

LessonsLearned.. ............................................................................... 

InstitutionalIssues ........................................................................... 

Institutional Barriers Related to Central Repositories ......................................... 

Overlaps among Related Organizations and Clearinghouses ................................... 

The Need for Federal Leadership and Funding ............................................... 

System Evolution ......................................................................... 

ComponentsofApproaches ................................................................... 

Consideration with On-Line Data Bases ..................................................... 

MixofOn-LineandStaffResponse ......................................................... 

Benefits of Electronic Mail Feature ......................................................... 

Considerations in Brokering Technical Resources ............................................. 

Considerations in Networking Arrangements ................................................ 

Planning .................................................................................... 

Clearinghouse Planning and Start-Up ....................................................... 

Clearinghouse Staffing .................................................................... 

NetworkingTechnologyAgents ............................................................. 

Design ...................................................................................... 

People-to-People Interaction ............................................................... 

The Need for Variety ..................................................................... 

Clearinghouse Content .................................................................... 

Relation of the Data Base Structure to the Clearinghouse Market .............................. 

Collecting and Evaluating Information ...................................................... 

Adding Value to Information ............................................................... 

Timeliness of Information and Updating ..................................................... 

42 

42 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

50 

ZJ 

51 

51 

51 

52 

2; 

52 

52 

52 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

z 

54 

z 

zi 

55 

55 

55 

2: 

55 

55 
Data Base Search Capabilities .............................................................. 

Accessing External Clearinghouses ......................................................... 

Clearinghouse Activities ...................................................................... 

The Need for Market Analysis ............................................................. 

Promoting a Clearinghouse ................................................................ 

DoNot Oversell .......................................................................... 

Need for User Statistics and Follow-Up Evaluations .......................................... 

Financial Issues .............................................................................. 

Considerations in Subscriber Charges ....................................................... 

The Question of Affordability .............................................................. 

MiscellaneousLessons.; ...................................................................... 

Ensuring Help to Domestic Firms .......................................................... 

Learning from an Initial Demonstration ..................................................... 

Implications for the Commerce Clearinghouse ....................................................... 

Introduction ................................................................................. 

Assumptions.. ............................................................................... 

RoleoftheFederalGovernment ........................................................... 

Audience for the Clearinghouse ............................................................ 

Subject Focus of the Clearinghouse ......................................................... 

Funds of the Clearinghouse ................................................................ 

Special Niche for the Clearinghouse ........................................................ 

Externalcoordination .................................................................... 

Clearinghouse Design and Administration ................................................... 

Clearinghouse Staffing .................................................................... 

SummingUp ............................................................................. 

&pen&-Clearinghouse Descriptions .......................................................... 

National Alliance of Business Clearinghouse (NAB). ............................................. 

Federal Research in Progress Data Base (FEDRIP) .............................................. 

Federal Applied Technology Data Base (FATD) .................................................. 

Technology Applications Information System FAIS) .............................................. 

The Local Exchange (LEX) .................................................................... 

Local Government Information Network (LOGIN) ............................................... 

Management Information Service (MIS) ........................................................ 

National Legislative Network (LEGISNET) ..................................................... 

Integrated State Information System (ISIS) ...................................................... 

National Council for Urban Economic Development Clearinghouse (CUED) ........................ 

State Technology Programs Information Base .................................................... 

National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers (NAMTAC) ................. 

Federal Laboratory Consortium Clearinghouse (FLC) ............................................ 

TheSBDCConnection ....................................................................... 

Teltech ...................................................................................... 

Energy Research for Governors Data Base ...................................................... 

National Innovation Network (NIN) ............................................................ 

NASA Technology Utilization Program (TU) .................................................... 

Table I-Clearinghouse Characteristics ..................................................... 

Technical and Managerial Infonaation and Services Used by Small TechnolowBased Firms: 

Implications for Federal Research and Program Initiatives ............................................... 

Introduction ..................................................................................... 

The American Economy-Mixed Signals ........................................................ 

Federal Research and Technology Development Environment ..................................... 

Industrial Research and Technology Development Environment ................................... 

StateGovemmentResponse ................................................................... 

LocalGovemmentResponse .................................................................. 

Statement of the Problem ..................................................................... 

Research and Analysis Context ................................................................. 

Framework .............................................................................. 

51 

57 

51 

57 

; 

57 

51 

:78 

58 

:: 

58 

58 

58 

:; 

59 

59 

59 

60 

61 

61 

62 

63 

63 

F5 

2 

71 

13 

; 

76 

Tl3 

i? 

ii 

84 

86 

88 

91 

91 

99: 

92 

ii 

;: 

95 

vi 
Constraints ............. . ................................................................ 95 

Published Data from Secondary Sources ........................................................ g5 

Published Literature ...................................................................... 95 

State Government Strategy Development and Program Reports ................................ 95 

Program Development and Management Reports ............................................ 9fj 

Limitations of Published Data .............................................................. 96 

Nature of Data Collected from Primary Sources ................................................. 96 

Framework .............................................................................. 96 

Nature of Information and Services ......................................................... 

Nature of Fiis Assisted .................................................................. zi 

Nature of Provider ........................................................................ 96 

Limitationsof&imarySources ............................................................. 97 

Survey Methodology: Technology-Based Small Firms. ......................................... 97 

Survey Methodology: Provider Institutions ................................................... 97 

Hypotheses of the Study ................................................................... 98 

SurveyResults ............................................................................... 98 

Technology-Based SmallFirms ................................................................. 98 

Providers of Information and Services ....................................................... 98 

Information and Services Provided .......................................................... 99 

Finding Provider Organizations or Individuals ................................................ 99 

ApproachesforAccessingAssistance ....................................................... 99 

Individuals versus Organizations as Sources .................................................. 99 

LessonsLearned ......................................................................... 99 

Provider Institutions .......................................................................... 100 

Users of Information and Services .......................................................... 100 

Information and Services Provided .......................................................... 100 

Approaches for Providing Assistance ........................................................ 100 

LessonsLearned ......................................................................... 100 

Implications for Federal Research and Program Initiatives ......................................... 101 

Framework .............................................................................. 101 

Assumptions.. ............................................................................... 101 

FederalRoles ............................................................................ 101 

Target Audience for Federal Initiatives ...................................................... 101 

Subject Focus of Federal Initiatives ......................................................... 102 

FundingLevels ........................................................................... 102 

Potential Initiatives ....................................................................... 102 

StrengthenInstitutionalCapacity ........................................................... 102 

Systematize and Accelerate the Development and Diffusion of Knowledge and Experience ........ 102 

Identity and Fill Gaps in Knowledge and Experience .......................................... 103 

FacilitateNetworking ............................................. ..i ..................... 103 

Summing Up .................................................................................... 103 

Implications for the Clearinghouse ............................................................. 104 

Introduction ............................................................................. 104 

Assumptions.. ............................................................................... 104 

ClearinghouseRoles ...................................................................... 104 

Target Audience for the Clearinghouse ...................................................... 104 

SubjectFocusoftheClearinghouse ......................................................... 104 

Funding Levels for the Clearinghouse ....................................................... 104 

Potential Initiatives for the Clearinghouse ....................................................... 104 

StrengthenInstitutionalCapacity ........................................................... 105 

Systematize and Accelerate the Development and Diffusion of Knowledge and Experience ....... 105 

Identify and Fill Gaps in this Knowledge and Experience ...................................... 105 

FacilitateNetworking ..................................................................... 105 

ClearinghouseDesignandOperations .......................................................... 105 

Summing Up ............................................................................. 106 

vii 
Appendix A-State R&TD.Based Business and Economic Development Strategies ................... 107 

Appendix B-Protocol for Telephone Survey of State R&TD Leadership ............................ 108 

Appendix C-Protocol for Telephone Survey of Users ............................................. 1139 

Appendix D-Protocol for Telephone Survey of Providers ......................................... 111 

Appendix E-Categories of Provider Institutions Surveyed ........................................ 113 

References ................................................................................... 113 

A GUIDE TO DIRECTORIES PROVIDING INFORMATION ON FEDERAL, STATE, 

ANDLOCALINITIATIVRS ....................................................................... 118 

ToPromoteAmerieanBusiness ........................................................................ 119 

HowToUseThisGuide .............................................................................. 119 

Contents ..................... .; ..................................................................... 120 

~pesofInfoormationProvided(Tahle) .................................................................. 121 

Directories.. ........................................................................................ 122 

Technology,Research,andDevelopment ............................................................ 122 

Centers of Excellence: A Catalogue ............................................................ 122 

Directory of Federal and State Business Assistance: A Guide for New and Growing Companies 

1988-1989 ................................................................................ 122 

Directory of Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources 1986-1987: 

A Guide to Services, Facilities, and Expertise ................................................ 122 

Directory of Incentives for Business Investment and Development in the United States: 

AState-by-State Guide .................................................................... 122 

The Industrial R&D and Technology Resource Directory .......................................... 123 

Promoting Technological Excellence: The Role of State and Federal Extension Activities ............. 123 

State-Funded Seed Capital Programs Available for New Technology-Based Ventures ................. 123 

State Technology Development Programs: A Summary and State-by-State Listing .................... 124 

State Technology Programs in the United States ................................................. 124 

Tapping Federal Laboratories and Universities to Improve Local Economies: 

TheRoleoftheMayorandCity Government ................................................ 124 

Technology-Based Regional Economic Development: An Overview ................................. 125 

Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development .................................... 125 

General Business and Economic Development ....................................................... 125 

Capital Formation in the States ................................................................ 125 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. ........................................................ 126 

Directory of Economic Development Programs at State Colleges and Universities ................... 126 

The Guide to State and Federal Resources for Economic Development ............................. 126 

The Small Business Resource Guide ............................................................ 126 

The States and Small Business A Directory of Programs and Activities ............................. 127 

Working Together: A Guide to Federal and State Resources for Rural Economic Development ........ 127 

A GUIDE TO NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSES ON FEDERAL, STATE, 

ANDLOCALINFORMATIONANDASSISTANCE .................................................. 129 

ToPromoteAmerieanBusiness ........................................................................ 130 

HowToUseThisGuide .............................................................................. 130 

contents ............................................................................................ 131 

Services Offered by the Clearinghouses (Table) .......................................................... 132 

MethodsofAccesstoClearinghouses ......... ..I ...................................................... 133 

Community and Economic Development ............................................................ 134 

National Council for Urban Economic Development Clearinghouse (CUED). ....................... 134 

CommunityInformationExchange ............................................................. 134 

Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System (FAPRS) .......................................... 134 

Handsnet .................................................................................... 135 

National Alliance of Business Clearinghouse (NAB). ............................................. 135 

National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers (NAMTAC) ................. 136 

RuralInfotmationCenter ..................................................................... 136 

SBDC Connection: The Information Link for Small Business ...................................... 136 

TheThrivingHometownsNetwork ............................................................. 137 

vu 
State and Local Government Operations ............................................................ 138 

Civic Information and Techniques Exchange (CIVITEX) .......................................... 138 

Integrated State Information System (ISIS) ...................................................... 138 

National Legislative Network (LEGISNET) ..................................................... 138 

Local Exchange .............................................................................. 139 

Local Government Information Network (LOGIN) ............................................... 139 

Management Information Service (MIS) ........................................................ 140 

TechnologyInformation ........................................................................... 141 

Federal Laboratory Technology Data Base (File FATD) ........................................... 141 

Federal Research in Progress Data Base (FEDRIP) .............................................. 141 

The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer Clearinghouse (FLC) .................. 142 

NASA Technology Utilization Program (TU) .................................................... 142 

Technology Applications Information System FAIS) .............................................. 143 

Teltech ...................................................................................... 143 

A GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM DEVELOPERS AND ADMINISTRATORS ..................... 144 

To Promote American Business ........................................................................ 

How To Use This Guide .............................................................................. 

Contents ............................................................................................ 

U.S. Government Listings ............................................................................. 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ................................................ 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of ................................................................... 

AgriculturalResearchSenrice .................................................................. 

ExtensionService ............................................................................ 

Rural Information Center ..................................................................... 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 

Commerce,U.S.Departmentof ................................................................... 

Economic Development Administration ......................................................... 

‘IbchnologyAdminiitration .................................................................... 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation ............ 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISI’) ........................................... 

National Technical Information Service, Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology (NTISKUFT) 

Technology Commercialization ................................................................. 

Technology Policy ............................................................................ 

Congres$ U.S. ................................................................................... 

HouseofRepresentatives ..................................................................... 

Committee on Science, Space, and Txhnology ............................................... 

Senate ...................................................................................... 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ....................................... 

Committee on Small Business .............................................................. 

LibraryofCongress ........................................................................... 

‘&chnology Assessment, U.S. Office of .......................................................... 

Defense,U.S.Departmentof ...................................................................... 

Education, U.S. Department of .................................................................... 

Energy,U.S.Departmentof ....................................................................... 

FederalEmergency Management Agency ........................................................... 

Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology ‘Ii-ansfer .............................................. 

General Services Administration, U.S. .............................................................. 

Labor,U.S.Departmentof ........................................................................ 

Management and Budget, U.S. Office of ............................................................ 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. ................................................ 

National Institutes of Health, U.S. ................................................................. 

NationalScienceFoundation ...................................................................... 

Small Business Administration, U.S. ................................................................ 

~nnesseeValleyAuthority ........................................................................ 

14.5 

145 

146 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

149 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

151 

151 

151 

151 

151 

151 

151 

151 

152 

152 

152 

ix 
, 

Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. ............................................................ 152 

'Ikansportation,U.S.Departmentof ................................................................ 152 

Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of .............................................................. 152 

State and Local Institutions and Organizations ......................................................... 153 

ArkansasScienceandTechnologyAuthority....................................r .................... 153 

Indiana Corporation for Science and llzchnology ..................................................... 153 

Iowa Department of Economic Development ........................................................ 153 

Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development .................................... 153 

Montgomery County High Technology Council, Inc. .............................................. 153 

Michigan Modernization Service ................................................................... 153 

Michigan StrategicFund .......................................................................... 153 

New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development ................................ 153 

New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology .................................................. 153 

New York State Science and Technology Foundation ................................................. 153 

North Dakota Economic Development Commission .................................................. 154 

Ohio-Thomas Edison Program ................................................................... 154 

Pennsylvania-Ben Franklin Partnership ............................................................ 154 

Viginia-Center for Innovative Technology ......................................................... 154 

Universities ......................................................................................... 155 

University of Southern California, Western Research Application Center ............................... 155 

University of Florida, Southern Technology Applications Center ....................................... 155 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Center for Urban Economic Development ............................. 155 

Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indiinapolii Center for Advanced Research, Inc. .... 155 

University of Maryland, Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship ........................................ 155 

University of Maryland, Technology Extension Service-Engineering and Research Center ............... 155 

State University of New York at Buffalo, N.Y. Disability Technology Information Network ................ 155 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Small Business and Technology Development Center ........ 155 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro ......................................................... 155 

Ohio-Central State University, Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Research. ................. 155 

Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania ‘Ikchnical Assistance Program .............................. 156 

South Dakota State University, Engineering and Environmental Resource Center ....................... 156 

Virginia-GeorgeMasonUniversity ... ...... ........ ............. 

............................................................. 156 

Washsington, DC-Howard University, Small Business Development Center. 156 

West Virginia-Marshall University ................................................................ 

West Virginia University, Regional Research Institute ................................................ 

:$ 

Nongovernmentalorganizations ....................................................................... 157 

Advanced Development Distribution, Inc. ........................................................... 157 

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business ................................................ 157 

American Electronics Association .................................................................. 157 

AntericanPlanningAssociation .................................................................... 157 

American Society for Training and Development ..................................................... 157 

Association for Manufacturing Technolo@National Machine Tool Builders’ Association ................. 157 

Association of University Related Research Parks .................................................... 157 

C & J Industries ................................................................................. 157 

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government ....................................... 

Carson, Thomas B. ............................................................................... 

:g 

Chamber of Commerce Small Business Center ...................................................... 157 

ChapmanResearchand Associates.. ............................................................... 

ChicagoHigh.Tech&socia&on .................................................................... 

$ 

Civic Information and Techniques Exchange ......................................................... 

Committee for Economic Development ............................................................. 

::$ 

Community Information Exchange ........... :. 

.......... 

. .......................................... 

Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturing Assoclatlon ........................................ 

::i 

Council for Urban Economic Development ......................................................... 

Council of State Governments.. ................................................................... 

i:’ 

Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies ....................................................... 

CoonciloaCompetitiveness ....................................................................... 

::i 

CrayResearch ................................................................................... 

DPA,Inc. ....................................................................................... 

i:i 

x 
Edward ‘I? Kelly and Associates .................................................................... 158 

Financial Alternatives ............................................................................ 159 

FiscalPlanningServices ........................................................................... 159 

Handsnet ....................................................................................... 159 

Hansen,McOuatandAssociates ................................................................... 159 

IndustrialBiotechnologyAssociation ............................................................... 159 

IndustrialResearchInstitute ...................................................................... 159 

IndustrialTechnologyInstitute ..................................................................... 159 

InnovationAssociates ............................................................................. 159 

International City Management Association ......................................................... 159 

KPMGPeatMarwick ............................................................................. 159 

LingTechnologies,Inc. ........................................................................... 159 

Lipman, Barbara ................................................................................. 159 

LoginInformationServices ........................................................................ 159 

Louis&ma Partnership for Technology and Innovation ................................................. 159 

McDowell Group Corporation ..................................................................... 160 

McGovern&Associates .......................................................................... 160 

NationalAcademyofSciences ..................................................................... 160 

National Alliance of Business ...................................................................... 160 

National Association of Counties ................................................................... 160 

National Association of Development Organizations ................................................. 160 

National Association of Management and T&hnical Assistance Centers ................................ 160 

National Association of Manufacturers ............................................................. 160 

National Association of State Development Agencies ................................................ 160 

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges ................................... 160 

National Association of Towns and Townships ....................................................... 160 

National Conference of State Legislatures .......................................................... 161 

National Governors’ Association ................................................................... 161 

NationalLeagueofCities ......................................................................... 161 

National Society of Professional Engineers .......................................................... 161 

National University Continuing Education Association ............................................... 161 

Owens Corning Fiberglass ......................................................................... 161 

Phelps,PaulB. .................................................................................. 161 

PublicTechnology,Inc. ........................................................................... 161 

Pymatuning Group ............................................................................... 161 

Science Park Associates ........................................................................... 161 

Software Productivity Consortium .................................................................. 161 

Solar Energy Research Institute ................................................................... 161 

SouthemTechnologyCouncil ...................................................................... 161 

SpaceCommerceInternational,Ltd. ............................................................... 162 

Systems Engineering and Management Associates, Inc. (SEMA, Inc.) .................................. 162 

Technology AcceptanceGroup ..................................................................... 162 

Teltech .......................................................................................... 162 

Texas Research and Technology Foundation ......................................................... 162 

ThomasPublishingCompany ...................................................................... 162 

Trantek,Inc ...................................................................................... 162 

TRW, Inc. ....................................................................................... 162 

Wyckoff,JamesM. ............................................................................... 162 

Urban Land Institute ............................................................................. 162 

xi 

ACIR Findings 

and Recommendations 
Findings 

1. Internationally Competitive Businesses Must Be 

State of the Art, Highly Productive, Farsighted, and 

Wise to the Ways of International Markets 

Many businesses achieve these characteristics on their 

. . . - . . . 

own, but others neeo help m oomg so. 1 ney Inay neeo nelp 

to acquire new technologies; install flexible manufacturing 

processes that can be more responsive to quickly changing 

markets; obtain favorable financing (whether it be seed 

capital, venture capital, or permanent capitalization); develop adequate management capacity; understand export 

markets; have access to trained labor pools, obtain space to 

expand; and enjoy good labor-management cooperation, a 

favorable business climate, and adequate patent protection. Abusiness may need only one or a few types of assistance, but, in the aggregate, the business community-especially smaller businesses-is likely to need all of these 

formsof assistance toachieveitsfullpotentialforsucceeding in increasingly demanding domestic and international 

markets. 

2. Many Sources of Assistance Exist 

Many state and local governments offer assistance 

through such programs as business incubators, venture 

capital, seed capital, foreign investment, research parks, 

export marketing services, vocational and technical training, higher education, and joint industry/academic research and development resources. At the same time, the 

federal government offers assistance in (1) commercializing federal research fiidings, (2) disseminating published 

federal research results, (3) making federal laboratories 

available for testing and for joint research and development projects with industq and academic institutions, and 

(4) supporting small business development. 

Several national clearinghouses assist businesses in 

finding information about federal, state, and local initiatives for productivity and technology improvements. 

These include the NGA/NIST survey of state technology 

extension services, the joint information program of the 

National League of Cities and Public Rchnologies Incorporated, the NTIS Center for Utilization of Federal Technology, the Department of Commerce Productivity Center, the NASA technology utilization centers, the Federal 

Laboratories Consortium, the Small Business Development Centers, the ‘Echnolow Applications Information 

System of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, 

and the C&z&= of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

One recent survey suggests that state governments 

have taken the lead in providing assistance to help U.S. 

manofacturers obtain and use technologies, modernize 

manufacturing processes, and improve productivity and 

profitability. Of the $620 million identified by the National 

Governors’ Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology as being spent on such programs in 

1988, state governments provided 48 percent of the funding and the federal government provided 26 percent; the 

remaining 26 percent came from a combination of indw 

try, university, and local government sources. 

3. F~ree+es ofAssistance Are AvaiIable from Existing 

0 

Some sources of assistance provide only passive information dissemination. E?xamples are prognun catalogs and 

directories, passive clearioghouses, newslettets, and articles. 

Other sources provide brokering services; that is, they 

attempt to match businesses with information and assistance related directly to identified needs. Examples in 

elude interactive clearinghouses public economic development agencies, and private technology and management 

improvement brokers. 

Still other sources of assistance provide hands-on 

help. Examples include federal laboratories. university research units, joint ventures among industries (including industry/federal and industty/university consortitmw), business assistance offices, job training and education units, 

and financial institutions. 

Abusiness may need only one type of assistance, but it 

is important to have all three available for those that may 

need them. 

4. Despite the Seeming Surfeit of Information Sources, 

D&i&n&s Exist 

Many businesses and the state, local, and federal officials attempting to serve them are unaware of the variety 

of resources available to them in the productivity, technology, and innovation field. Furthermore, it is not eav toobtain this information. 

For example, an evaluation of 19 recently prepared directories of technology and productivity programs shows 

substantial information overlap, but also some gaps. In 

large part, these limitations reflect differences in objectives and targeted audiences. Some directories are designed primarily as “phone books.” They list contact information for a broad array of programs, but provide little or 

no descriptive information. Otherdirectories identify state 

programs within a particular category: for example, capital 

assistance programs or university-based technology centers. Still other directories review initiatives for a selected 

nwnber of states. Although the directories taken as a 

whole provide a good picture of federal and state activities, 

few people have access to all of them. There is little information in these directories about local initiatives. 

Another limitation of directories is that they become 

out-of-date quickly as states create new progrants and dismantle or restructure old ones. State and local officials 

usually resist resurveys because of the administrative burdens. Such resistance is strongest when the survey contes 

from a far-off federal agency with little prospect of returning benefits to the respondent. 

5. Technology and Productivity Innovations Have Not 

Been Analyzed Adequately 

Most clearinghouses and directories of state, local, 

and federal initiatives on productivity, technology, and innovation are largely or completely descriptive. They give 

little guidance to a potential imitator as to what works best 

and the conditions under which success can be attained. 

Some of the best known programs have been evaluated, 

2 
and the National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a computerized file of program evaluations performed for legislative audit purposes, but there is relatively little agreement about how such programs should be 

evaluated and the validity of the evaluations. In addition, 

there has been little evaluation across groups of programs of 

similar types. Thus, it is difficult to advise the Congress, state 

legislatures, city and county governing bodies, and others 

about what works best, where, and under what conditions. 

Although the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 

of 1988 prohibits the Clearinghouse from evaluating individual state and local initiatives unless requested to do so 

by the program’s sponsor, the Act clearly anticipates the 

Clearinghouse providing policy analysis that could help 

elected officials choose better programs for future support. This could be accomplished by peer reviews of groups 

of programs, focusing on a “lessons learned” approach 

rather than on comparisons and/or ratings of individual 

programs. To assist others in evaluating programs, the 

Clearinghouse could develop, through broad consultation 

processes, sound evaluation criteria to be applied sensitivelybyothers toproductivityand technology innovations. 

6. Experiences of Earlier CIearinghouses Offer Lessons 

for success 

Some Clearinghouses that have emphasized the accumulation of large amounts of disparate information in a 

single data bank have become too difficult to maintain, too 

impersonal, and too remote from the sources of hands-on 

assistance that a business often needs to cope with specific 

problems. Often, requests for information are difficult to 

frame in terms that elicit an appropriate response from the 

system, and, frequently, the response produces much irrelevant information. Cooperation from data suppliersusually wanes after the initial start up, and maintenance costs 

grow too high. In short, smaller, decentralized, relatively 

specialized clearinghouses operating close to their information sources have proven to be more successful than the 

larger, more diffuse efforts. 

7. Many Constituents Can Benefit from the Clearing 

house Established by the Omnibus Wade and Corn. 

petitiveness Act of 1988 

State and local governments want more timely information about each others’ technology and productivity innovations, as well as analytical guidance about which ones 

workbest under what conditions. In addition, they want information about sources of federal assistance to be more 

readily available. At the same time, federal agencies 

charged with responsibility for promoting the commercialization of federal research could use this Clearinghouse to 

help market their inventions and research findings more 

effectively to a broader range of state and local governments and businesses. The Congress expects assistance 

from the Clearinghouse in helping it to determine the best 

ways to reinforce state and local efforts to enhance the 

competitiveness of American businessesand stimulate the 

growth of the nation’s economy. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1 

Establishing the Clearinghouse Operation 

The Commission finds that improving the ability of 

American business to compete successfully in world markets isan urgent national objective, and that state and local 

governments are well equipped to assist in achieving this 

objective. It is in the national interest, and relatively inexpensive, for the federal government to encourage and reinforce state and local initiatives toward this end by performing certain clearinghouse functions designed to 

interrelate activities and improve the effectiveness of any 

existing clearinghouses. 

m? Gmlmission recommends, then&on?, that the c!Ls. DeparbnenI of Gwfmerce quickly put into operation an &ctive 

Clemitzghouse for St& and Loud Inifialives on Pnxbaivi& 

Tbchno@y, and Ionovotioo in accordance with the Omnibus 

Wade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, and thaf tie initial 

utivhies of thti Clearinghouse include: (I) maimurn urilirarion 

yf erish’ng ivjo/‘tmIion so”nxs $mided by the srole, loud, and 

fedemlgovemments; (2) promotion of and ossistimcefor the @icieot development of these existing sounw qf ir&omwtkm about 

pmductivity, technology, and inoovotio~ and (3) an mnlytiml 

function that will help government off~iais bwohvd in such octivities iden@ and a.wt?ss imhixtives that work best. 

Recommendation 2 

Developing a Network of AtlXated Organizations 

The Commission finds that many state, local, and federal officials, and private-sector organizations and individuals promote productivity, technology, and related innovations to help American businesses achieve greater 

competitiveness in international markets. These officials 

and their private-sector counterparts generally are eager 

to participate in national efforts to improve the success of 

their activities. In fact, many of them contributed substantially and enthusiastically to the Commission’s study of appropriate designs for the Clearinghouse. Their expertise is a valuable resource that cannot be recreated by a national agency. 

In particular, the Commission finds that a wide array 

of national clearinghouses arc relevant to the role of the 

Clearinghouse established by the Omnibus Trade and CompetitivenessActof 1988. These clearinghouses perform useful tasks and have developed constituencies that are vital 

to accomplishing the goals established for the Clearinghouse by the Congress. Together, they possess resources 

far in excess of those available to the new Clearinghouse. 

Yet, their resources are stretched thin and there is duplication among them. 

The Commission recommends, therefore, that the US. 

Deportment of Commerce reach out to all relevant state, local, 

and federal oficials, and others, including those in the business and the academic communities, to encourage theirpartifipotion in the activities of the Clearinghouse. More particularly, the Commission recommends that the existing national 

clearinghouses in the&Id ofproductivi& technology, and inoovotioo 48i[iale themselves with this ~WW Cltwinghoose in the 

US. Deparhent of Commerce, and provide services in cooperotion with the other clearinghouses in the nehvork of &Ii&s. 

3 
Recommendation 3 

Foewine Limited Federal Fundine 

on Exist&g Clearinghouses - 

The Commission finds that various federal agencies 

have contributed substantial resources for many years to 

national clearinghouses of information related to productivity, technology, and innovation. Prominent amongagenties providing such funding are the Economic Development Administration, the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, the federal laboratories of many agencies 

and departments, and the National Science Foundation. 

Nevertheless, federal resources for these purposes have 

become increasingly scarce in recent years. The resources 

available to the existing national clearinghouses in theproductivity, technology, and innovation field, on which the 

new Clearinghouse must depend, are declining and are 

only marginally adequate at best. 

The Commission recommends, therefore, that appropriatefideral agencies considerfocusing the use oftheirfundsfor 

national clearinghouses on those that participate actively in 

the new Clearinghouse. 

Recommendation 4 

Reconsidering the Level of Federal Funding 

The Commission finds unanimous agreement among all 

the interests consulted that the current federal funding for 

the new Clexinghouse is inadequate to achieve full success 

even with the most noncentralized form of activity. At a minimum, the Clearinghouse needs a small core staff, a regular 

newsletter, a secretariat function to support a variety of 

working groups, an analytical capability, and a modest 

amount of seed money for enhancing the capacity of existing 

national clearinghouses and establishing one or more new 

ones to fdl gaps in existing information sources, such as the 

relative scarcity of information about local initiatives. 

The Commission recommends, ther&re, that the Congress and the Administration review thepresentfuundingavailable to the Clearinghouse carefully and increase it as the 

Clearinghouse demonstraies its ability to make eflectiire use of 

its funding for the pwposes recommended in this report. The 

President and the Congr&s sholrld evaluate tkororrghly the e/- 

fectiveness and role of the Clearinghouse during its f?th year of 

operation to make sure that its reauthorization continues to be 

in the national interest. 

4 
Scope and Design 

of the Clearinghouse 

for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation 

Submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce 

September 28,1989 
Abstract 

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988s 

tablished the Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. The Clearinghouse was intended to make available information on state and local efforts to help American businesses become more competitive in world markets. It also is concerned with federal 

policies and programs that encourage or inhibit state and 

local initiatives. 

The primary pulpose of the Clearinghouse is to create 

a nationwide awareness of these state and local initiatives 

and to assess their usefulness and the degree to which they 

can be replicated. An additional purpose of the Clearinghouse is to make available to state and local governments 

information about federal resources they can use to assist 

the business community. 

Many of the individuals consulted about the Clearinghouse role are active either in planning or operatingfederal, state, and local initiatives, or in providing technical assistance, information, and support to those who do. Alarge 

number of national clearinghouses compile information 

about these activities. 

These findings lead to the conclusion that the Clearinghouse should build on and enhance the efforts of other 

organizations. This can be accomplished by (1) identifying 

“who is doing what” and what organizations provide assistance to program managers and policymakers; (2)fostering 

resource and experience sharing among those who provide 

information and assistance to businesses; and (3)providing 

an analytical perspective on the variety and effectiveness 

of federal, state, and local initiatives and distilling lessons 

learned about “what works where.” 

Although it is difficult to predict precisely the specific 

questions that will be asked of the Clearinghouse, a number of issues likely will be of concern to its federal, state, 

and local constituents. These include examples orprogram 

models to assist in program design, methods for refining 

the operations of programs in place, and suggested criteria 

for measuring program effectiveness. 

It is anticipated that most requests from businesses will 

continue to be directed to other clearinghouses, state and local governments, federal laboratories, and a wide range of 

technology brokers that already provide such assistance. 

By focusing its efforts on those who assist businesses, by 

organizing these resources into an effective network, and by 

p&ding an analytical lens through which to develop a picture of “what works where,” the Clearinghouse for State and 

Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology and Innovation 

will make a significant contribution toward improving the international competitiveness of American businesses. 

6 
When Se”. Dale Bumpers introduced the legislation 

to establish a Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation, he cited the 

national concern about declining American competitiveness abroad-in both manufacturing and services-and 

the paucity of federal efforts to correct the problem. He 

pointed out that many of the boldest and most pragmatic 

strategies to counteract this trend are being pursued by 

state and local governments, where the effects of eroding 

competitiveness hit home, where necessity demands specific solutions to particular problems, and where ideological debates quickly become irrelevant. 

Examples of state and local initiatives include an 

agency in California that guarantees 85 percent repayment 

on bank loans to small companies that develop new exports; the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority, 

which identifies and applies new technologies in partnership with industry; and joint university and private sector 

efforts in many states to educate and train workers in new 

manufacturing techniques. 

Including the authorizing legislation for the Clearinghouse in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988 highlights the sense of urgency and concern. The leg 

islation also concerns the ways that existing federal initiatives impede or enhance state and local efforts. In fact, 

another section of the act creates a new state technology 

extension program, to be operated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to help transfer 

existing technologies to businesses. 

The Clearinghouse Legislation 

Specifically, the Clearinghouse is intended to serve as 

a central mechanism for making available information on 

(1) the initiatives undertaken by state and local govemmerits to enhance the competitiveness of American business through the stimulation of productivity, technology, 

and innovation; and (2) federal efforts to assist state and 

local governments to enhance competitiveness. 

The legislation enables the Clearinghouse to establish 

working relationships with all governments; provide technical t+s&.ance; collect and disseminate information on the nature, extent, and effects of initiatives; disseminate information tbrougb conferences, handbooks, and seminars; enter 

into contracts for the collection of information; and develop 

evaluation methodologies. The Clearinghouse is prohibited 

from evaluating individual state and local programs unless 

specifically requested to do so by the state or locality. 

The Clearinghouse was established by law at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (see Exhibit 1 for the enabling 

legislation). Because of the emphasis on the relationship 

between federal, state, and local initiatives, the Department enlisted the assistance of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) in designing 

an appropriate scope and role for the Clearinghouse and in 

developing an implementation plan. 

Fundamental Principles 

for the Clearinghouse Design and Operation 

This report recommends an appropriate scope and 

role for the Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation. The recommendations in this report are based on consultations with a 

broad spectrum of public and private interests. 

To a large extent, the purpose and mission of the 

Clearinghouse are mandated by the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988. The Clearinghouse grew out 

of a concern for the declining competitiveness of American business. Recognizing that government initiatives to 

counteract this trend have been localized, varied, creative, 

and piecemeal, the Congress intended the Clearinghouse 

to serve as a central mechanism for making available information on (1) the initiativesof state and lo&governments 

to enhance the ‘competitiveness of American business 

through the stimulation of productivity, technology, and 

innovation; and (2) federal efforts to assist state and local 

governments to enhance competitiveness. 

ACIR and the Department of Commerce heard many 

suggestions and ideas for sharpening the focus of the 

Clearinghouse, refining its role, and guiding its operations. 

Almost 200organizationrand individualsfrom thepublic,private, and nonprofit sectors; from federal, state, and localprogram.3 andpeqxctiw; and from rural and urban localities were 

consulted. Issue papers were commissioned from independent consultants, and special analyses of existing sources of 

federal, state, and local program information were undertaken by ACIR and the Department of Commerce. 

Out of this process, several fundamental points about an 

appropriate scope and role for the Clearinghouse emerged: 

A g~eor dealof informzion on fedeml, state, and, to a 

lesser extent, local initiatives on productivity, technology, and innovation is collected and diswninated 

by a variety of public and private organizations. 

I&isting information is formatted in many ways for 

different purposes and different audiences. Some 

information is collected and updated systematically 

while some is gathered in an ad hoc and fragmented 

fashion. There is considerable duplication of effort in 

some areas and considernblegaps in others where inform&m is either unavailable or out-of-date. 

Program managers familiar with one set of program experiences, personal contacts, or data 

sources tend to be unaware of many of the others. 

Asurprising numberof clearinghouses try to integrate information, but many people do not know 

about the availability of these ~t~ourct~. For example, state and local officials expressed the view 

that it is difficult to find information on federal 

initiatives to support their programs. There are, 

however, several readily available resources that 

compile federal program information. 

Although information is collected on the various 

types of federal, state, and local initiatives, little is 

known about “what works where.” The little analysisthat hasbeendonein thisareaisscatteredand 
not obtained easily. Thus, providing an annlyticol 

focus would be a unique niche for the Clearinghouse. 

The Clearinghouse should not seek to be all 

things to all people. Given its modest mou~ces, it 

shouldphnsein itsoperationrgmdtully, concentrating 

first on federal, state, and local government entities, 

and producing a few early and tangible products. 

Among the major players in the field, there is a 

reasonably high level of enthusiasm, tempered by 

realistic expectations about the resources available to the Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse 

should continue the proc&s of consultation it has 

started and build on this base of support by encouragingco;ltinuedpntlin’pation of its constituents 

in the Clminghouse agenda and affairs. 

The recommended scope and role for the Clearinghouse is, therefore, a restatement of the broader congressional intent. It is based on an important lesson learned in the 

course of consulting many potential constituents of the 

Clearinghouse: The appropriate niche for the Clearingho~e is 

one that will build on the distinguished work of others, increase 

knowledge and contact amow those hying to achieve complein&q objectives, and fill the gaps in the understanding about 

which policies appear to be most @‘e&e where, when, and how. 

Who the Clearinghouse Should Serve 

The primary constituents of the Clearinghouse 

should be federal, state, and kwal agencies, with 

other intermediaries phased in as resources permit. 

The consensus was that the primary constituents of 

the Clearinghouse should be the individuals and organizations that create and operate federal, state, and local initiatives that foster technology, productivity, and innovation. Given the modest resources of the Clearinghouse, 

this emphasis should be phased in by concentrating first on 

federal, state, and local governmental initiatives. Initial focus 

on government program managers and policymakers presents a clearly defined set of users who have at least a somewhat narrowed set of priorities and with whom the Clearinghouse can establish a rapport. 

In addition to federal agencies, the Congress is an especially important national audience for information on state 

and local initiatives and the degree to which they are 

impeded or enhanced by federal programs, resources, and 

regulations. 

Some private sector representatives agreed that this 

governmental focus is appropriate. Those businesses that 

are targeted by federal, state, and local programs, and that 

pay tax dollars to support those programs, stand to benefit 

from this early governmental emphasis as well. 

In its day-to-day operations, the Clearinghouse can be 

wide ranging in terms of organizations with which it establishes linkages znd rewurce sharing. There are many groups 

receiving priwe funding or only partial government funding 

that have much to offer in the way of helping federal, state, 

and local government program managers assist businesses. 

The Mission of the Clearinghouse 

The Clearinghouse should serve as a rqmsitory of “who is doing what” in the area of federal, 

state, and local initiatives to enhance competitiveness. As a part of its repository function, the 

Clearinghouse should locate existing directories, 

surveys, program guides, handbooks, and assess. 

merits and work to increase access to this materi. 

al through existing organizations. 

Specific Clearinghouse activities should include: 

The Clearinghouse should serveas anetwork, 

_ . . . fostering resource and experience snaring among 

those who provide information and assistance to 

help businesses become more competitive. It 

should build knowledge and foster contacts 

among those trying to achieve complementary objectives, encourage intergovernmental cooper* 

tion, and increase awareness of the data and in. 

formation capacity of existing organizations. 

Specific Clearinghouse activities should include: 

Maintaining a current contact list of individuals and organizations active in federal, state, 

and local initiatives; 

Ascertaining which organizations do a thorough job of producing or collecting information and making arrangements to coordinate 

activities; 

Producing bibliographic guides to publicize 

existing resources and making them available 

to federal, state, and local program managers 

and policymakers; 

Identifying topics for which information isnot 

available or up to date and seeking to fill 

those gaps, either through its own efforts or 

by funding others. 

“Keeping in touch” by establishing a continuing relationship with Clearinghouse constituents through an informal Operations Group; 

Setting up small, ad hoc working groups to address the issues and agenda items identified as 

priorities by members of the group and others; 

Contributing to the conferences and workshops held by other organizations to spread 

the word about projects and products. 

The Clearinghouse should serve as an analytical institution concerned with the variety and ef. 

fectiveness of state, local, and federal initiatives. 

As part of this function, the Clearinghouse should 

develop an analytical framework for understand. 

ing the role that these initiatives play in enhane 

ing the competitiveness of American business: 

document the different forms these initiatives 

take in achieving this objective; and investigate 

the lessons learned about “what works where.” 

Specific Clearinghouse activities should include: 

N Developing an analytical framework by which 

8 
to categorize federal, state, and local initiatives and using this framework to guide the 

agenda for Clearinghouse operations; 

Organizing comprehensive analyses or case 

studies by recognized experts on selected 

classes of initiatives in response to the needs 

and priorities of Clearinghouse constituents; 

Examining outside assessments and evaluations and producing a “state-of-the-art” report on the questions posed, methodologies 

employed, criteria used, conclusions reached, 

and current thinking in the field; 

Drawing on its pool of participating program 

managers and experts to validate and critique 

the analyses and case studies carried out as 

part of this effort. 

Administrative Aspects of the Clearinghouse 

The credibility of the Clearinghouse is its currency among federal, state, and local program 

managers and policymakers. The principles guiding the daily operations of the Clearinghouse, 

therefore, must develop and enhance this intangible hut essential attribute. 

The Clearinghouse should operate by the following 

principles: 

Avoid setting an agenda that exceeds its limited resources. 

Build institutional knowledge on the part of 

Clearinghouse staff concerning federal, 

state, and local initiatives. 

Cultivate a “personal touch” in working with 

Clearinghouse constituents. 

Concentrate on organizing resources before 

marketing services. 

Solicit the internal support and resources of 

the new Technology Administration and the 

Department of Commerce as a whole. 

Clearinghouse Operations 

THE REPOSITORY FUNCTION 

The Clearinghouse should serve as arepository of “who is doing what” in the area of federal, 

state, and local initiatives to enhance competi. 

tiveness. As part of this function, the Clearing 

house should locate directories, surveys, pro. 

gram guides, handbooks, and assessments, and 

work to increase access to this material through 

existing organizations. 

A Current List of Contacts 

Many of the individuals consulted about the Clearinghouse role are active in planning or operating federal, state, 

and local initiatives, or in providing technical assistance, information, and support to those who do. Some play a passive 

roleby disseminating information on request or by publishing 

newsletters and articles (such as the Tech Nom, distriiuted 

by the National Technical Information Service). Others take 

a more active ‘%rokering” role by linking those requesting assistance with the appropriate information source (for example, linking up an entrepreneurial fm with a public agency). 

Still others render direct personalized assistance (as in the 

case of a federal laboratory employee providing outreach to a 

specific company). All of these mechanisms of transferring 

knowledge have strengths and limitations, and all have potential links to the Clearinghouse. 

The planning process for the Clearinghouse has produced a pool of organititions and individuals that are exper& in their respective areas and who are informed and 

enthusiastic about the Clearinghouse and its activities. 

They are candidates for sharing information with each other and with the Clearinghouse, serving on the Clearinghouse Operations Group to develop an agenda, and participating in working groups focusing on issues close to their 

area of expertise. These experts also act as sources of information about projects and programs for inclusion in 

Clearinghouse activities. They publicize these activities to 

those with whom they come in daily contact. 

Therefore, an early and usefulproduct for the Clewinghouse is the list of contacts, and maintaining and eqmnding 

that list. Two other important resources should be added to 

this basic list: (1) program managers and operators respondingto thesurveycarriedoutbytheNationalInstitute 

of StandardsandTechnology and the National Governors’ 

Association under part of the Trade Act, and (2) the 1989 

Directory of Federal and State Assistance to New and 

Growing Companies, which contains the latest contact inFormation for a variety of federal business assistance programs. 

ACIR has provided all three items to the Department 

of Commerce. An early Clearinghouse task should be to 

categorize the individual contacts on this list according to 

the type of assistance they can provide either tobusinesses 

or to other public agencies. 

Locate and Leverage Sources of Information 

The Clearinghouse should locate information on federal, 

state, and local initiatives and work with the orgonizatiom that 

have assembled this material to determine how it might be updated, maintained, and made available to federal, state, and 

local program monogers and policymakers. 

It is difficult to predict precisely who will be in contact 

with the Clearinghouse and what they will ask. Still, iffederal, state, and local government program managers and 

policymakers are the primary constituents, inquirers may 

come with questions such as: How does one go about setting up a revolving seed capital fund for developing prototypes of innovative products? What is the best way to design application materials for an incubator program for 

small technology-based manufacturers? How do we 

strengthen the linkages between our local university and 

industries to commercialize new technologies more quickly? How can we fine tune our export promotion initiative to 

target the firms we assist? Are there other criteria besides 

jobs creation that we should be using to judge the effectiveness of our technology commercialization efforts? 

9 
What is a proper mix of technology development and technical training programs? What initiatives are most appropriate for rural settings? Whom can I talk to who has done 

this before? 

Obviously, different resources are required to answer 

these questions. The Clearinghouse has the means of linking its constituents with the network of organizations and 

individuals that have resources and experiences in many 

areas of program planning, design, operations, and assessment. As it builds its institutional knowledge, the Clearinghouse will be able to provide guidance to states and Iocalities on the lessons learned about “what works where.” 

When the Clearinghouse receives inquiries about specific technologies or processes or particular advances in 

scientific research, it will refer these calls to the appropriate laboratory, university, or federal, state, or local agency. 

While the Clearinghouse will not solicit direct inquiries 

from individual firms, such calls will be referred to the appropriate public agency or other source of business assistance. 

One of the first tasks confronting the Clearinghouse, 

therefore, is to develop the proper linkages with the many 

organizations that provide information on productivity, 

technology, and innovation. 

Many public policy organizations representing state 

and local governments actively provide technical assistance and information to their members. A number of 

these organizations collect the same information and 

package it in different ways for their respective audiences. 

While different audiences may require particular emphases or unique formatting of information, there is some 

duplication of effort. The Clearinghouse needs to determine what it can do to encourage and coordinate the expansion and sharing of these resources. 

For some organizations, the collection and provision 

of information to their members and to the public is a profit-making enterprise. For others, it is merely a service they 

are expected to provide. Now that many of these organizations have been identified through the Clearinghouse 

planning process, an early task of the Clearinghouse will be to 

approach these groups individually and to&d out what data 

collection services they want toprovide, what they want to discontinue, what they want to keepproptietary, and what they are 

unable to maintain. Based on this assessment, the Clearinghouse should enter into agreements to guarantee access to 

material and resources to a wider audience. Such agreements could include help with questionnaire development 

and surveying, in-kind contributions of computer and analysis time, or direct financial assistance. 

Bibliographies and Resource Guides 

The Clearinghouse canperform a useful service simply by 

summarizing the kinds of resources available andpublishinga 

bibliographic guide on what they contain and how to obtain 

them. 

Although there is no established annual or biennial 

census of state and local initiatives, some organizations 

have collected and assembled information on an ad hoc basis. Clearinghouse staff examined a number of directories 

of initiatives, including the Minnesota study of state science and technology programs, the Northeast-Midwest 

Governors case studies of economic development programs, two surveys by the National Association of State 

Development Agencies, and a directory of business assistance from the Small Business Administration. 

Simply increasing awareness of these guides would be 

a low-cost way to fulfill part of the repository role of the 

Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse can review these directories and produce a written guide to their usefulness: the 

type of information they contain, how they are indexed, 

when they were updated, and where to obtain them. ACIR 

has completed a guide to published resources, a guide to 

resources in clearinghouses, and a guide to program developers and administrators. 

The guides also will serve to address the concerns expressed by state and local officials that federal program information is not easily accessible. In fact, a number of information sources on federal programs do exist, aIthough 

they may not be well advertised or affordable. If the latter 

is the problem, the Clearinghouse should seekways to lower the cost of producing theseguides (through encouraging 

cooperative ventures) or to produce less expensive versions (by circulating the subset of information that is of 

greatest interest to Clearinghouse constituents). 

The Department of Commerce is perhaps its own best 

resource of federal program information on innovation 

and competitiveness. For example, the NationalTechnical 

Information Service (NTIS), publishes the Directory of 

Federal and State Assistance to New and Growing Companies, and distributes many other federal directories. The 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a 

direct provider of technical information and assistance to 

businesses. NIST’s new activities under the same Trade 

Act that authorized the Clearinghouse include a joint survey with the National Governors’ Association on state 

technology programs and a new federal initiative known as 

the State Technical Extension Program. These agencies 

are natural conduits for information that willbe an integral 

part of the Clearinghouse’s database on federal programs. 

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

is another agency that has much to offer the Clearinghouse. EDA funds the production of a number of handbooks and guides for state and local economic development officials to help them plan, operate, and assess their 

programs. 

Identifying Gaps in Information 

The Cleatinghouse should identify gaps where information is 

not collected or curznt Under the guidance of its constituents, 

the Clearinghouse should help develop an appropriate format for 

the information to be collected and the means to ji/l those gaps. 

This taskshould be connected closely to the other main jimctionc 

of the Cleatinghouse: nehwrking and omdy.sis 

In establishing its repository of “who is doing what, 

where, and how”on federal, state, and local initiatives, the 

Clearinghouse is fortunate tobeable tobuildon thedistinguished work of others. Some of these program directories 

were examined by Clearinghouse staff and found to vary 

considerably in the type of programs covered and the scope 

of information provided (see’I&ble 1). Some directoriesfo10 
Milestones for the Repository Role 

Month to be 

Activity Completed 

Internal Database 

ACIR contact list on-line Completed 

NTIS federal and state assistance Completed 

catalog on-line 

NIST/NGA survey results on-line Completed 

Produce bibliography of guides Completed 

to federal, state and local programs 

Produce guide to clearinghouses Completed 

Begin to expand on-line listings November 1989 

(on-going) 

Establish Linkages 

Analyze directories for gaps Completed 

Approach organizations individually January 1990 

for assessment of resource sharing 

Begin arrangements for new data February 1990 

collection (on-going) 

Begin coordination arrangements March 1990 

with selected organizations (on-going) 

cas exclusively on technology development programs: others concentrate on a single aspect of economic development, such as access to finance; and still others include a 

broad array of state economic development programs. 

The detail varies substantially among directories. A 

number of directories are essentially program listings with 

little descriptive information. Most directories provide 

brief program summaries that frequently include information on goals, services offered, and contacts. Only a few select a limited number of state programs and analyze them 

ia detail. Finally, few directories provide information on 

local initiatives. 

For the most part, individual directories do not provide a complete listing of all the economic development 

programs within a given state or all of the programs of a 

specific type across the nation. @ble 2, which classifies 

businessdevelopment programs in the State of Massachusetts, illustrates the point.) This means that any effort to 

identify comprehensively a full set of programs must rely 

on a number of directories. 

Recently, some efforts have been made to increase the 

comprehensiveness of available information. For example, 

besides the NISTlNGA survey of state technology programs, the National Science Foundation is completing a 

study on state research and development activities. The results of both will be made available to the Clearinghouse 

for the purpose of cataloging programs. 

While useful, such surveys are only one mechanism 

for data collection, and they have limitations. For one 

thing, they are unlikely to capture the nuances of program 

design or to reveal the politics underlying a state or local 

initiative. Another problem is that survey information in 

the field of competitiveness-where things are changing 

quickly-means that the information collected soon becomes dated. The way to overcome both problems is to 

speak directly with program participants. The Clearinghouse contact list, and active participation by the Clearinghouse in workshops and conferences, can promote direct 

contact and information exchange among participants. 

Another outgrowth of the Clearinghouse repository 

function is the collection (or access to a collection) of mocel programs that will be of interest to other states and localities. For this purpose, massive amounts of data for each 

state or for each of the 3,042 counties are less important 

than is highlighting good examples of a relatively few program types. Here, as part of its analytical function, the 

Clearinghouse may want to commission case studies to 

capture the kind of comprehensive information that 

Clearinghouse constituents will find useful. 

Where the Clearinghouse is able to identify gaps in information, data collection efforts could be funded for organizations well positioned via expertise or membership to 

collect the needed material. 

The Clearinghouse should serve as a nehvork, 

fostering resource and experience sharing among 

those who provide infornmtion and assistance to 

businesses. It should build knowledge and pro. 

mote contacts among those trying to achieve cornplementary objectives, encourage intergovernmental cooperation, and increase awareness of the data 

and information capacity of organizations. 

The Case for Cooperation 

The Clearinghouse will rely ultimately on the experience and expertise of those who plan, manage, and operate 

federal, state, and local initiatives, as well as on various 

other organizations involved in economic development. To 

promote the sharing of resources and experience, the 

Clearinghouse must forge an enduring and cooperative 

working relationship with these wganizations. 

Key among the organizations that should be affiliated 

with the Clearinghouse effort are: 

Sources of information about local government initiatives (e.g., the joint information center of the National 

League of Cities and Public Technologies, Inc., plus the 

National Council on Urban Economic Development); 

Sources of information about stare government initiatives (e.g., the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology and the National Governors’ Association, 

which recently completed the survey on state technology programs); 

Sources of information about assistance to small bosinesses (e.g., the Small Business Development Centers); 

Sources of information about initiatives targeted to 

rural areas (e.g., the National Rural Information 

Clearinghouse); and 

Sources of information about federal government initiatives (e.g., the National Technical Information Service, the Federal Laboratory Consortium. and the 

Technology Utilization Centers of NASA). 

11 
This cooperative approach will build on a process begun 

with the series of ACIR “Thinkerss’ Sessions, ” In these sessions, potential Clearinghouse constituents and others 

played an integral role in developing a conceptual framework for the Clearinghouse and a workable plan for implementing it. Indeed, the Thiiers’ Sessions have generated 

enthusiasm for and raised the expectation of continued involvement by constituents in the Clearinghouse operation. 

Specifically, establishing an ongoing cooperative relationship between the Clearinghouse and its constituents 

would: 

Allow the Clearinghouse to keep its finger on the 

pulse of its clientele and ensure that the Clearinghouse does not operate in a vactmm; 

Leverage Clearinghouse resources by drawing on the 

experience of others; 

Strengthen the Clearinghouse’s credibility-especially critical during its early years-in the eyes of state 

and local governments; 

Publicize Clearinghouse efforts; and 

Engender realistic expectations among potential constituents concerning the kinds of activities that can be 

accomplished with Clearinghouse resources. 

Clearinghouse Operations Group 

A Clearinghouse Operations Group composed of representative consriruents should be established. This group could 

meet on an as-needed basis to: 

1) Recommend priorities for each year’s activities; 

2) Help the Clearinghouse staff identify gaps and 

outdated material in the Clearinghouse database; 

3) Act as a sounding board to ensure the quality and 

relevance of Clearinghouse products; and 

4) Suggest key issues that should be addressed in detail by working groups convened to assist with specific projects. 

Two potential options exist for convening meetings of 

this Operations Group. The first option would be forACIR, 

or another intergovemmentaf organization, to act as convener: 

Thesecond option wouldbeforpublicpolicygroups that represent state and local interests to rotate a.s the convener of such 

meetings. The reason for sharing responsibility for convening these meetings is to ensure active participation by a 

wide range of state and local public policy groups. 

The Operations Group should involw individuals who 

plan, qanage, and operate federal, state, and local initiatives. 

These program managers are direct beneficiaries of Clearinghouse infdrmation and have first-hand technical program experience. Public policy organizations representing 

state and local interests also should be included. The National Govctnors’ Association, the National Conference 

of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, 

the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors, the International City Management Association. 

the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the National Council 

for Urban Economic Development are some of the many 

public policy organizations that should be involved. 

Given the Clearinghouse’s unique analytical role, it also 

is important to includenwgnizd expe?i~ in the fields of technology, economic development, and program assessment in 

these meetings. 

Although business interests are not the primary audience for direct involvement in Clearinghouse activities, 

they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the information and 

programs administered and operated by Clearinghouse 

constituents. Therefore, they also should be involved. 

These meetings on Clearinghouse operations should be 

large and varied enough to include key representatives of 

Clearinghouse constituents, but should not be so large as to 

make the group unwieldy and unfocused. A good place to begin the search for potential representatives is the contact list 

of organizations active in the ACIR Thinkers’ Sessions. 

Participation in Conferences and Workshops 

The Clearinghouse should participate in and contribute to the conferences and workshops held by other organizations to publicize Clearinghouse projects and products 

and to keep the Clearinghouse current on the projects and 

products of others. 

A vital networking tool for the Clearinghouse is attendance at the meetings, conferences, and workshops sponsored by national public policy organizations and intergovernmental groups to spread the word about Clearinghouse 

activities and to keep abreast of new initiatives and programs. 

The Operations Group could help facilitate contacts 

with conference sponsors and suggest further networking 

efforts, such asregularmailings alerting potential constituents to Clearinghouse activities. 

working Groups 

The Clearinghouse, afrer consultation withpotentialconstituents, should establish working groups to address specific 

issues in greater depth. Working groups necessarily would 

have a more focused membership (i.e., individuals who 

have technical knowledge about a particular program or 

initiative type or who are trained in program evaluation 

and cost-benefit analysis). Such an approach would expand 

the body of expertise available to the Clearinghouse and 

increase the Clearinghouse’s ability to gather program information and develop its credibility and usefulness. 

Examples of issues that working groups could address 

would include: strategies for strengthening linkages among 

other national clearinghouses; analysis of federal efforts to 

commercialize federal technology; the extent to which states 

have used incubator facilities successfully to foster new fums 

preparation of a state-of-the-art report on evaluations and 

studies of state and local technolog initiatives; and development of methodological guidelines that program managers 

and policymakers could use in assessing their own programs. 

Products of these Working Groups might include recommendations to the Congressconcerningproposed legislation; recommendations to federal agencies on removing 

regulations that inhibit technology initiatives: reports on 

lessons learned from specific state and local initiatives and 

the degree to which such initiatives can be replicated in 

other states or localities; and meetings or conferences focused on particular topics. 

A few examples of working group agendas follow. 

12 
Working Group fiample #I 

Improving Linkages 

with Other National Clearinghouses 

Issue: How can cooperation and coordination be improved 

among the various national clearinghouses that provide information and assistance to states and localities on productivity, technology, and innovation? 

Background: A range of federally sponsored and public interest clearinghouses provide information and technical 

assistance on economic development and technology 

transfer issues to states, localities, and private businesses. 

Because many of these clearinghouses compete with one 

another, there may be a natural reluctance to share information. Consequently, many clearinghouses gather essentially the same data, resulting in costly duplication of efforts and gaps in the aggregate database. 

Such duplication and gaps could be avoided or minimized by better coordination among clearinghouses. Furthermore, many states and localities desiring assistance 

are unaware of the clearinghouses. 

ACIR has produced a guide that identities the national 

clearinghouses, and a digest that summarizes the information 

contained in 19 directories of federal, state, and local economic development initiatives. 

Tasks: A working group of affiliated clearinghouses can be 

convened to focus on improving coordination and operating efficiencies. 

Issues that could be addressed include: ways to overcome proprietary concerns and encourage information 

sharing; cost-effective ways to collect, organize, and disseminate information; identification of information gaps; 

ways to reduce duplication of efforts; agreements under 

which individual clearinghouses might specialize in specific areas; and potential funding mechanisms to support essential clearinghouse efforts. 

Suggested Organizalions: Community Information Exchange, National League of Cities’ Local Exchange, National Conference of State Legislatures’ LEGISNET, 

NGA State Technology Programs Information Base, Department of Education’s ERIC Clearinghouse, Department of Agriculture’s Rural Information Exchange, and 

Federal Laboratory Consortium Clearinghouse. 

Working Group Emmple #2 

“State.of.the.Art” Review of Assessments 

of State Technology Programs 

Issue: ‘Ib critique and validate a “state-of-the-art” report 

that identifies and reviews assessments and studies of the 

effectiveness of state technology programs. 

Background: Many entities assess and evaluate state technology programs. States prepare program performance 

audits in response to sunset requirements and other legislative requirements. The National Conference of State 

Legislatures hascompiled about 35 auditsof economicand 

technology development programs in 19 states. In addition, academics, private consultants, and public interest 

Milestones for the Networking Role 

Activity 

Month to be 

Completed 

Operations Group 

Begin to identify representatives October 1989 

and a convener for Clearinghouse 

Operations Group 

Conferences and Outreach 

Coordinate with public interest November I989 

groups to attend and participate (on-going) 

in their scheduled conferences 

working Groups 

Establish first workiig group December 1989 

on topic chosen by Clearinghouse 

constituents 

groups have undertaken such assessments, often with public funding. 

Tasks: The Clearinghouse could undertake or commission 

a report that identifies and reviews the various studies assessing and evaluating state technology programs. The report would review methodologies employed, criteria used, 

and lessons learned. 

A working group could be convened to provide leads 

for locating evaluations and to suggest a program focus 

(e.g., state technology transfer initiatives, incubators, orfinancial assistance programs). Once the report has been 

drafted, the working group could review it before it is published and disseminated to Clearinghouse constituents. 

This state-of-the-art report could be the basis for formulating guidelines that states and localities might follow in 

assessing their own programs. 

Suggested Organizations: National Conference of State 

Legislatures; Council for Urban Economic Development; 

National Governors’ Association, and National Research 

Council; individual state program managers and authorsof 

books examining state technology programs: the Economic Development Administration, which has commissioned 

handbooks and program assessment guides; and private 

consulting organizations, such as Battelle. The Urban Institute, and SRI, which have prepared assessments for 

states and localities. 

Working Group Example #3 

Commercialization of Federal Technology 

Issue: How can federal efforts to promote the commercialization of federal technology be improved? More specifically. how can state and local programs better use the Federal Laboratory Consortium as a resource in assisting 

businesses? 

Background: The Stevenson-Wyd/m Technology Innovation 

Act directs federal agencies and laboratories conducting 

research and development to identify technology having 

13 
potential commercial application and to take steps to encourage the transfer of this technology to the private sector. 

For a variety of reasons, the private sector has not utilized fully the available federal technology and expertise. 

These reasons include a lack of awareness of federal technology resources on the part of busin- a perception by businesses that federal technology is too complex for their needs, 

and a federal approach toward technology transfer that is 

largely random and uncoordiited rather than systematic. 

Tasks: Building on the Clearinghouse research paper on 

the process of transferring federal technology (see Appendix A), the Working Group could focus on current mechanisms used by federal agencies to transfer technology to 

the private sector and, more specifically, recommend ways 

in which states can make better use of the Federal Laboratory Consortium as a resource in assisting businesses. 

Suggested Organizations: Federal Laboratory Consortium; National Technical Information Service/Center for 

the Utilization of Federal Technology; program managers 

of specific state and local technology transfer programs; 

private-sector technology transfer experts; university-based technology centers; and one or two technology-based firms. 

The Clearinghouse should serve as annnalyfical institution concerned with the variety and effectiveness of state, local, and federal initiatives. 

As part of this function, the Clearinghouse should 

develop an analytical framework for understanding the role that federal, state, and local initiatives play in enhancing the competitiveness of 

American business; document the different forms 

these initiatives take in achieving this objective; 

and investigate the lessons learned about “what 

works where.” 

Lessons Learned about Qpes of Initiatives 

A careful and practical distinction can be made between evaluating a specific initiative and analyzing a category of program. The Cluinghouse should take a “lessons 

leamed”approoch os opposed to evaluating and rooking individual progmms. 

The legislation gives the Clearinghouse the green 

light to develop methodologies to examine the extent, nature, and effects of state and local programs. Manyparticipants in the Clearinghouse planning process were enthusiastic about creating a role for the Clearinghouse in 

providing an analytical focus to descriptive material on 

state and local initiatives. While recognizingthnt directfederal awmment is inappropriate, mnny of those presenting this 

viewpoint urged the Clearinghouse to work toward developing 

aframeworkfor looking at initiatives and determining “‘lessom 

learned” about “‘what works where, when, and how.” 

This sort of analysis could fill a definite need. Most of 

the guides to federal, state, and local programs are intended primarily as catalogs, not as tools for analysis. What 

is lacking from most of these sources is a hard look at the 

effectiveness of each initiative or strategy. They do not undertake a systematic analysis of the probable costs and 

benefits of one economic development tactic over another. Nor do they consider the portfolio of total state and local development activities and the appropriateness of this 

mix of activities to the geographic and economic context of 

thelocale. Fewofthesedirectoriesaddresstheissueofwhy 

the initiative was designed the way it was, and why any other locality might want to replicate it. 

Moreover, in the Thinkers’ Sessions, both policymakers 

with a national perspective and, significantly, state program managers expressed a desire to “operate by something more than the seat-of-the-pants.” Because scarce resources are devoted to these experimental initiatives, 

there is much to be gained from the experiences of others 

who have gone before. From program design issues to the 

targeting of limited funds to the self-assessment of programs by managers, the lessons learned can provide a key 

to understanding what kinds of strategic investments are 

most promising and under what circumstances. 

The unique contribution of the Clearinghouse will be its 

nationalperspective. It will be in a position to discern patterns among initiatives. It can document the overlap of 

programs within geographic areas and the regional variations among them. It can shed light on the extent to which 

similar programs in adjacent states complement each other or cancel each other out. And, it can examine the effect 

of federal programs and regulations on state and local programs, and work toward encouraging federal actions that 

foster state and local innovation and removing impediments that stifle grass roots creativity. Of particularimportance to its mission and operation, the Clearinghouse can 

begin to examine the question of whether initiatives can be 

transferred and replicated successfully among states and 

localities? 

To make this analytic process work, consider it a 

four-tier process, as depicted in Figure 1. Tiers 1 and 2 establish the analytic framework, as explained below. Tiers 3 

and 4 refer to building the agenda around that framework. 

A Framework for Analysis 

Recognizing that no single analytical framework can 

encompass all aspects of initiatives in productivity, technology, and innovation, the Clearinghouse should adopt the 

analytical scheme that is deemed most usejid in the eyes of 

Clearinghouse constituents and use thisframeworktoflesh out 

its agenda for analysis. 

Although knowledgeable observers agree that there is 

no one way to view initiatives to enhance competitivenes 

they also agree that so little work has been done in the area 

that analytical efforts are hampered by a lack of common definitions or even standardized categories of initiatives on 

which to base the analysis. Moreover, no single source provides generic descriptions of models to assist those designing 

programs. Admittedly, creating a common language among 

diite audiences and activities is a difficult and daunting 

task beyond the resources of the Clearinghouse. However, 

the Clearinghouse could strive to develop a consistent 

framework as a basis on which to build its operations and as a 

part of its function asan analytical institution. Ifit provesuseful, the framework might be adopted to guide the work of 

others outside the Clearinghouse. 

14 
Milestones for the Analytical Role 

Month to be 

ACtiVtty Completed 

Understanding the Role of Initiatives 

Designation of an appropriate December I989 

framework for future activities 

ffiier 1) 

Begin categorizing initiative types January 1990 

(Tier 2) (on-going) 

Choose priority initiatives for further Febrwy 1990 

study 

Document Different Forms Initiatives Take 

Assemble material on program models February 1990 

for selected initiatives vier 3) (on-going) 

Investigate “What Works Where” 

Convene Working Group to identify Febnrq 1990 

studies for “state-of-the-art” report 

Commission or undertake study March 1990 

of program models for selected 

initiative (Tier 4) 

Begin disseminating to Congress 

and other federal agencies 

August 1990 

Based on the discussions in the Thinkers’ Sessions and a 

review of the typologies used in directories, there are several 

pxsibilities for adopting a framework. These include the 

steps in the technological innovation process, the industry 

lifecycle trend, and the flaws in economic conditions. 

Once thefrnmework is selected, the generic tpes offeder- 

;‘i 

@ 

al, state and local initiatives-for example, n manufacturing 

modemizationprognzm, a venture capitalfind, or a technical 

i; tmbdng program-can be arrayed against the framework. 

~‘( Then, based on theperceptions andpriorities of Clearinghouse 

1: conrtrtuents, someof thesecan besingled out for more detailed 

studies. These more detailed examinations would address 

1 sach issues as: What are the two or three most common 

i ~organimtional forms? In what economic or political con- 

: teats do these forms tend to arise? What would he appro- 

: priatecritetiafor judging the effectivenessof these forms? 

Figure 1 shows how this “tier system” would work and 

why it would be useful. It starts with the recognition that 

state and local programs such as modernizing manufacturing, risk financing, and technology training represent a departure from traditional local economic development 

strategies. These new initiatives seek to generate new jobs 

from the indigenous economicbase, as opposed to attracting them from elsewhere in the region. The question is, 

how does this approach to economic development fit into 

the scheme of increased competitiveness? 

Consider these initiatives from the perspective of the industry life cycle. Tier 1 in the diagram represents this chosen 

analytical framework. The lie-cycle concept depicts the 

stages of growth of an industry, from conception and hiih to 

emerging growth to development and diversification to maturity to death. Needs vary as the industry passes through the 

stages of the cycle. Firms in infant industries need assistance 

in research and development, or in the production of a prototype. Fiis in an industry in the launching stage require help 

with marketing and mannfacturing. Firms in mature industries may need both technical and fmancial assistance for 

adopting an automated manufacturing process. 

Tier 2 in the diagram represents the arraying of general program types against the life cycle. Seed capital funds 

intervene at the emergence stage, for instance. Technology brokering programs seek to apply new processes to industries in the maturity stage. Technical training programs 

are likely to help firms in several phases, including early 

development and automation. Why is it useful to know 

this? Because by systematically laying out the goals of 

these programs against the natural process they are trying 

to influence one can begin to address questions about their 

design and effectiveness. 

Building the Research Agenda 

around the Analytical Framework 

With the advice of many program managers, 

policymakers, and experts, the framework should be used to 

set theagenda andprioritiesfor data collection, workshopconvening, more complex analytical tasks, and the marketing of 

Clearinghouse services as a whole. 

Based on an agenda growing out of the framework, the 

Clearinghouse should undertake or commission, in conjunction with other organizations, analytical work and case 

studies of program models and impacts. The priorities for 

further study should be developed in consultation with 

Clearinghouse constituents. In developing the agenda, 

there would be no lack of questions to be answered, only a 

lack of resources to answer them. 

Tier 3 of Figure 1 addresses the concern that there is a 

lack of information available for genetic program models, 

and no standardized way to categorize them. Taking the example of risk capital discussed above, the Clearinghouse 

could develop brief accounts of the various ways such programs are organized: as development credit corporations, 

loan programs, product development corporations, or pension fund pools. The write-ups could array the relative advantages and disadvantages of each and develop checklists for 

items to be considered in program design. Risk capital a particularly appropriate example to illustrate how such a framework could he developed. The U.S. Small Business Administration has done considemhle work on this subject, and the 

Clearinghouse role would be to assemble information, incorporate it into the framework, and develop or commission material to fdl in the gaps in knowledge. 

‘Her 4 arrives at the heart of the question about policy 

effectiveness. What lessons have been learned about which 

types of state and local risk capital funds tend to be most effective under what conditions? Tier 4 is tackled as Clewinghouse resources permit and as priorities are set. Here, the 

Clearinghouse can start by summarizing what is known about 

the effectiveness of risk financing programs. It can commission studies on specific questions, such as the conditions under which public venture capital funds substitute for private 

money, and the kinds of political and economic costs and 

benefits involved in committing rewmces to such a fund? 

15 
a6ms luawdolanaa layJew 

a6Qs UO!)3npOJNJl 

% 

E 

, 

a6els UOgmpOJd ~!3JaLUUJo3 

a6als Gu!isal tayJel4 

a6es UoympoJd heu!uJ!laJd 

3 a6els wauJdolanaa pue 

og 

5;; 

43JeasaH layleyy 

DnPoJd 

‘05 

SE 

3% 

a6ei-s 

gi5 lualudolama pue - 

2 

n 

43Jeasau p3!uq3al 

a6as 

sp~~euv Mww 

[e3y3al/ssau!sng 

a6els uo!lenlehg eapl 

a64s uoQeJauag eapl 

16 
A “State-of-the.Art” Report 

In general, as part of its overall effort to understand 

“what works where and how,” the Clearinghouse should 

eramineassessmentsnndevaluationsdone by thestatesand 

by others, andproduce or commission a “store-of-the-on” 

report giving an overview of the kinds of questions asked, the 

methodologies used to answer them, and the criteria commonly employed to assess success. 

The Clearinghouse should not strive to be a census 

taker, but rather to be a selective purveyor of information 

about noteworthy types and classes of state and local activities. Its role is to net, not ar a judge, but as o collector of informafion about the impact and effectiveness of these initintives. It can begin by collecting studies and assessments by 

program managers and legislative auditors. Studies by outside evaluators (often paid for with public funds) should be 

included as well because the development of methodologies is a goal explicit in the legislation, and some of these 

studies are in the forefront in this area. 

‘Ihe Clearinghouse should review how often these studies ace done, who commissions them, the criteria commonly 

used, measurement techniques, lessons drawn, and the degree to which the studies are conclusive. Clearinghouse constituents could be involved in a continuous process of identiljingnoteworthy studies, focusing on key issues, and offering 

aitiques of methodologies. This report-a kind of 

“state-of-the-art” review-could be disseminated to federal, 

state, and local program operators and policymakers and 

muld serve as the basis for recommending changes in federal 

policy to facilitate state and local success. 

Administrative Aspects of the Clearinghouse 

Thecredibility ofthe Clearinghouse is its cur. 

rency among federal, state, and local program 

managers and policymaken.The principles guid. 

ing the daily operations of the Clearinghouse 

therefore, must develop and enhance this intangi. 

hle hut essential attribute. 

Operating Principles 

The ACIR Thinkers’ Sessions, extensive interviews 

with directors of operating and defunct clearinghouses, 

and a research paper commissioned by ACIR on the expe- 

‘thence of previous clearinghouses, confirm that the most 

sucmsful clearinghouses have followed these guidelines: 

The Clearinghouse must avoid setting on ogemia that erc&s ifs limited resources. Given its modest resources, it 

should phaw in its operations gradually, and avoid unrealistic 

expectations and disappointments that would undermine its 

aedaiility. 

A!anvled@ble sfo#is necesswy ifthe Clearb@~~use is to 

nqmd q$ectiwt) to its comtihwnts. The staff must “knov?’ 

where 10 look for information, whether in answering a queslion, pmvidimg a refer@ or developing an analytical product. 

Moreover, the staff must be familiar with the types of inhiatives being used. Attending conferences and workshops 

sponsored by other organizations and working with outside 

olpetIswil1 assist the staff in this process. Undoubtedly, instihttional knowledge will evolve over time, but an initial investment instaffeducation will pay off in the long run in termsof 

enhanced Clearinghouse credibility and usefulness. 

A “personal rouch”is an essential ingredient for n useful 

and responsive Clearinghouse. Clearly, there is a role for the 

computerization of certain kinds of information and indexation to provide access to it. Yet, state and local 

policymakers and program managers should be able to talk 

with a Clearinghouse staff person who can help refine 

their questions and locate an answer or another source 

that can provide the answer. 

The Clearinghouse should concentrate on organizing its 

resources before marketing its services. During its initial 

months, the Clearinghouse should not undertake marketing efforts. After it has begun to develop its resources and 

expertise, tlugeted marketing efforts should be launched. 

Letters to stafe and local policymakers and program managers, especially those on the ACIR contact list, should be 

prepared. Columns for publication in newsletters of other 

organizations can alert potential constituents to current 

and future Clearinghouse activities. But it is important 

that the Clearinghouse not create unrealistic expectations 

among its potential constituents by overselling itself. 

The Clearinghouse should how the itiemnl support and resources of the new T~hnology Administration and of the Department of Commerce (IS a whole. There are seven1 forms such 

support should take. First, the Clearinghouse should be assured of adequate staffmg (a minimum of three full-time persons) and sufficient physical space for its operations. Second, 

the Clearinghouse should be provided with adequate d&etionaty travel funds. These funds should be used to ensure 

geographically mixed participation in its working groups. 

Travel funds also would permit Clearinghouse staff to attend 

regional conferences sponsored by a variety of groups as part 

of its outreach efforts. Thii, the Clearinghouse should be 

integrated into the current activities of the new Technology 

Administration and promoted in the press releases and 

speeches of Department officials. 

Summary of Early ‘Products” by the Clearinghouse 

Four research papers that focus on (1) state policies 

and programs that encourage technology development, (2) national clearinghouses that provide technology and economic development information, (3) 

the process of transfening federal technolom and, (4) 

sou%es of business assistance used ry s&Ii, 

high-technology firms. 

An annotated guide to directories on federal, state, 

and local initiatives. 

An annotated guide to national clearinghouses that 

provide information and assistance to states and localities on productivity and technology. 

Categorization of the contact list by type of assistance, 

type of agency or organization, and geographic location. 

An on-line database of federal and state programs, the 

NIST/NGA smvey results, and contact information for 

individuals and organizations active in the ACIR Thinkers’ Sessions for in-house use by Clearinghouse staff. 

Draft of general framework to classify federal. 

state, and iocal initiatives in productivity,.technology, and innovation. 

Draft “state-of-the-art” review of assessments and 

evaluations of technology and innovation programs to 

be critiqued by working groups. 

17 
CHOOSING AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 

Draft Discussion Points 

Given that many recent federal, state, and local initiatives are technology oriented, someparticipantsin the 

Thinkers’ Sessions suggested that the process of innovation would be a useful format for organizing the kinds of 

initiatives that will be included in the Clearinghouse. 

The various kids of state and local business assistance 

programs would be arrayed against the depiction of 

stages in the innovation process. One likely outcome of 

this exercise is that it would show the federal emphasis 

on the front end of the pipeline (basic research and development) and the relative importance of the other end 

(commercialization) to the design of state technology 

programs. This could be the basis for a recommendation 

to the Congress and other federal agencies that some 

federal resources be shifted toward commercialization. 

The shortcomings of the innovation model are 

two-fold. First, it tends to emphasize new products and 

new firms. Although it does not exclude theintroduction 

of new processes to products and firms, the model commonly is associated with “technological breakthroughs” 

rather than with incremental improvements in processes 

or techniques. Yet, it is the latter that has the potentially 

most far-reaching effect on America’s competitiveness. 

Second, the heavy slant toward technology tends torelegate education and training initiatives to a second tier. 

Education, however, is precisely the area where states 

and localities have traditionally been most influential. 

The industry life-cycle model extends the innovation process model and addresses some of these issues. It 

explicitly recognizes that the problems of the mature industry-in terms of both technology and human resoorces-are different from those of the emerging industry. 

Arraying initiative types against this model (see page 31 

of text) would reveal the extent to which the mix of programs tends to be comprehensive. It could help answer 

questions such as, in State X, given the composition of 

industry, are programs disproportionately targeting new 

fiis to the neglect of existing ones? Or, where along the 

industry life-cycle trend line do the bulk of federal programs reside? 

The main argument against both the industry 

life-cycle framework and the innovation process model is 

that they abstract from the real life predicaments of program development. That is, the connection between the 

model and the programs may not be clear and direct to 

most people. State legislatures and program designers 

usually do not begin with a whole picture of industrial 

development and then proceed to the choice of a program that pinpoints a part of that process to influence. 

Instead, programs tend to arise from political and economic pressures and constraints, and from the need to 

develop a response to a critical or festering problem. 

That is not to say that some programs are not anticipatory and developed in the course of a strategic plan for a 

state or regional economy. As pointed out by public interest group representatives in the Thinkers’ Sessions, 

many programs are ad hoc responses to immediate 

needs. And, in the rush to emulate other states and localities that have had apparent success, these ad hoc responses may not be the most appropriate ones. 

Therefore, an alternative framework for analysis 

may be one that focuses explicitly on the economicand 

political imperfections that impede private sectoradoption of technology and innovation. Such a typology was 

developed by David Osborne ia his recent report on 

state technology programs for the Council of State 

Policy and Planning Agencies. For example, Osborne 

identifies as one problem the inadequate transfer of 

technological advances from research institutions, such 

as universities, to local corporations. Initiatives that fit 

into this category include awarding matching grants to 

university-industryresearchprojectsand creatingbrokerlfacilitator organizations to bring industry and oniversity personnel and resources together. Another 

problem is insufficient deployment of new process technologies by manufacturers. Government industrial extension services are created to address this problem. 

One problem with Osborne’s typology is that it omits 

the human resource component (chiefly because it was 

outside the scope of his report). If the Clearinghouse were 

to use this framework, it would need to augment it by including initiatives in education and training. 

Of course, these models are not mutually exclusive, 

and other possible frameworks need to be explored. Use 

of all three, or incorporation of several-in-one, is apt to be 

cumbersome and unwieldy. Therefore, selection of the 

one that is deemed most useful in the eyes of Clearinghouse constituents representing a variety of perspectives 

will ensure a useful contrilxtion to our understanding of 

“what works where and how.” 

18 
Research Papers 

State Policies and Programs 

for Encouraging Innovation and Technology Development 

Marta V Goldsmith, Urban Land Institute 

Federal Technology Transfer: Critical Perspectives 

Louis Mogavero, ‘Rantek, Inc. 

Kenneth Susskind, Space Commerce International 

A&mad M. Chadran, Space Commerce International 

Review and Comparison of Clearinghouse-lope Initiatives 

Sally A. Rood, Systems Engineering & Management Associates, Inc. 

Edward T Kelly, Edward T. Kelly and Associates 

Sources of Technical and Managerial Information and Services 

Used by Technology-Based Small Business Firms 

Edward 7: Kelly, Edward T. Kelly and Associates 

19 

State Policies and Programs for Encouraging Innovation and Technology Development 

Marta V Goldsmith 

Introduction 

David Osborne, in his booklaboratories ofDemocracy, 

suggests that two forces have transformed the United 

States economy in recent decades-technological innovation and global competitiveness. He points out that in 

l!Xl, only 20 percent of goods produced in the United 

States were in active competition with foreign products; by 

1980, that percentage had reached 70. Because we must 

now compete with foreign producers, some of whom have 

much lower wage rates, our competitive advantage must 

lie in sophisticated new products and services that depend 

on advanced technologies and skilled workers.’ 

In 1988, the United States Congress enacted The Omnibus Trade and Compeitiveness Act, the most sweeping trade 

bii of the decade. Respondiig to a growing national concern 

that the United States was falling behind in international 

competition, the Congress looked to all areas of public poli- 

~-immigration, education, training, and research and development, as well as more traditional tmde policy-to fiid 

solutions. A critical concern in the development of that legislation was the degree to which American universities, private 

fiis, and other research and development institutions are 

able to convert the results of their research into products to 

compete successfully in international markets. As Governor 

John McKeman, Jr., of Maine points out in a recent report 

issued by the National Governors’ Association: 

Although the United States is still the match of any 

country in research and development of technology, 

our competitors have become more adept at turning 

those technologies into products and marketing 

them around the world.. America can tap the vast 

potential in technological innovation, but to do so 

we must recognize that the process of commerciaiziig technology has changed. Research and development efforts must be more attuned to market 

needs; they must be driven by rapid technological 

innovation and consumer preferences. Speed, 

adaptability, and quality products are essentiaL2 

Yet, the federal government’s role in promoting civiliin 

technological innovation and commercialization has been extremely limited. According to Walt Plosila, president of the 

Montgomery County (Malyland) High-Technology Council: 

The national government’s role in technological 

innovation has in this decade focused on national 

defense matters; forming of multidisciplinary national engineering research centers and national 

supercomputercenters; and, to a more limited extent, small business innovation. While the 

mid-1980s witnessed an increased national government interest in international competitiveness, the Reagan Administration has had a decidedly non-interventionist approach, arguing that 

the free market will handle technology; that the 

federal role should be limited strictly to increased 

funding for basic research or science.3 

Both Osborne and Plosila make the case that state govemmerits have taken the lead in instituting programs that foster 

the innovation and commercialization so vital for economic 

growth in today’s economy. Osborne refers to the states as 

“laboratories” of democracy, a term coined by Justice Louis 

Brandeis in 1932, to describe the activism with which states 

have undertaken a wide range of efforts to stimulate economic growth, particularly through the encouragement of innovation, technology development, and commercialization. 

It was with this realization that Sen. Dale Bumpers introduced legislation, which became part of the 1988 trade 

bill, calling for a Clearinghouse to serve as a “central repositoryof informationon initiativesbystateandlocalgovernments to enhance the competitiveness of American 

business through thestimulationofproductivity, technology and innovation .” (Section 5122, Omnibus Trade and 

Comperihmess Act of 1988, P.L. 100.418, August 24,1988). 

The Clearinghouse, which is to be established within the 

Office of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, is authorized to establish 

relationships with state and local governments and regional and multistate organizations, collect and disseminate information on state and local initiatives, provide technical assistance and advice, study ways in which federal agencies are 

able to assist state and local governments and these organizations, make recommendations to federal agencies regarding 

modifications to federal policies and programs to improve 

federal assistance to state and local governments, and develop methodologies to evaluate state and local programs. 

The purpose of this paper is to provide background and 

support to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 

Relations, which has an interagency agreement with the Depaament of Commerce to design the Clearinghouse. The 

paper will review state policies and programs in technology 

development and report on the work of multistate organizations. The findings and conclusions contain general observations about the state of the art and suggestions on howfederal agencies or other organizations interested in providing 

additional support to these programs might proceed. 

The emphasis is on programs in “technoloa development,” that is, those research, commercialization, education, technologytransfer, and businessassistanceactivities 

undertaken by a state to promote economic growth. In 

some places, other terms such as “science and technology” 

or “technological innovation” are used to refer to these 

programs. This is done generally to be consistent with a 

reference that is being cited. For the purposes of this paper, they usually mean the same thing. 

21 
State Policies and Strategies 

to Promote Technology Development 

The State Role in Economic Development 

Historically, the federal and state governments have 

played a role in promoting economic growth in the United 

States. In general, the federal government has taken the 

more macroeconomic approaches of monetary policy, tax 

policy, and f-1 policy. Although state policymakers also 

have used tax policy, they generally take more targeted approaches, such as management assistance, regulation, loans 

and loan subsidies, provision of infrastructure, education and 

training, and structuring labor-management relations. 

According to Marianne Clarke of the National Governom’ Association (NGA), states have three broad goals when 

setting policy to promote economic growth within theirborders. States seek to: (1) create an environment for economic 

growth; (2) promote the state and its products; and (3) intervene in the marketplace. Based on a study conducted by the 

NGA in 1985, Clarke suggests that states are becoming more 

interventionist in these roles, targeting industries and geographic areas, and that the majority of states continue to further strategies in support of all three of these goals.” 

State Science and Technology Councils 

In the 19f5Os, when science was viewed as a panacea for 

many of society’s ills, numerous governors adopted science 

and technology policies, hoping to bring the benefits of 

scientific research and innovation to government. State 

science advisors were appointed and state science councils 

were empaneled to advise the governors on policies that 

would tap scientific resources for economic growth as well 

as for the improvement of public service delivery. These 

efforts were encouraged, in part, by the U.S. Department 

of Commerce, which made grants available through its 

State Technical Services (STS) program to build state capacity for technology transfer. Most of these state programs foundered late in the 1960s when the Department of 

Commerce discontinued the funding. 

In the early 197Os, several federal agencies funded 

what Lynn Muchmore refers to as “intergovernmental science.” The Intergovernmental Programs unit at the National Science Foundation (NSF) was a capacity-strengthening program to help governors and legislators better 

incorporate science and engineering expertise into public 

policy. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration promoted the use of satellite mapping techniques. 

Other agencies, such as the departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Commerce, offered different programs to encourage states to tap scientific research to meet public 

needs.5 In 1977, the NSF initiated the State Science, Engineering, and Technology (SSET) program, which funded governors and legislators to study how state government could 

use science and technoloa to better meet its needs.6 In general, these programs focused on applying scientific research 

to the traditional functions of government, met with limited 

succes, and foundered as federal funding ceased. 

Technology Development for Economic Development 

The basic premise of David Osborne’s book is that in 

the last 10 to 20 years, our economy has evolved from one 

in which growth was generated through occasional major 

research breakthroughs and the expansion of assembly-line manufacturing in large stable firms to one in which 

growth is based on continuous innovation and rapid 

change. He suggests that state governments, in their economic development policies, have recognized this transition and have adapted their policies accordingly. 

It was not until the late 1970s and into the early 1980s 

that most state governments began to incorporate scientif. 

ic research and technology development into their overall 

economic development strategy. In 1983, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment found 150 programs 

in 22 states to promote technology as a major sector of the 

state’s economy. In the NGA survey conducted two years 

later, 40 states reported having technology development 

initiatives.’ Some analysts suggest that these programs 

were initiated in response to the success of areas like 

Route 128 in Boston, Silicon Valley in California, and Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, where high-tech 

industries accumulated and grew, creating nonpolluting, 

high-paying jobs for hundreds of area residents. 

In fact, themotivation behind state policies adoptedin 

the last ten years to promote technology development and 

innovation were more complex and far-reaching in their 

origins and came about for several reasons. 

First, state policymakers were responding to the economic recession of 1981-1982 Unlike earlier cyclical downturn& the duration and level of unemployment were so extensive that state policymakers realized that at least some of 

the problems were due to structural changes in the economy. 

They recognized that their development policies would have 

to be altered to respond to these permanent changes, particularly in terms of the increase in foreign competition and the 

increasing importance of technological innovation. 

Second, policymakers realized that much of the state’s 

opportunity for growth lay in the success of indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs, especially those that incmporated 

a high degree of technological innovation. They came to realize that fums already in the state were more likely to stay and 

that local entrepreneurs could create fast-growing cxxnpanies with the potential to generate the kinds of jobs they 

sought. Policies directed at encouraging expansion and innovation could pay dividends in new job creation. By comparison, past practices designed to attract new manufacturing facilities from other areas were not going to be as successful as 

they had been in the past. There were fewer healthy large 

manufacturing facilities to draw from other areas of the 

country, the competition among states for these facilities had 

become much keener, and a company that would relocate 

intoastatewasve~likelytomoveout again, to anotherstate 

or overseas, in a relatively short period of time. 

Third, state policymakers began to realize that incentives that had promoted economic development in the 

past--natural resources. cheap labor and land, low taxeswere not the primary attractions to growth firms of the future. The kinds of firms that were going to stay and grow in 

a state were looking for assets that would help them inno22 
Table 1 

Science and Technology Offices 

state 

Arkansas 

z.):p!$ 

Idaho 

nlid 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Maine 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

’ Montana 

1, 

office 

Arkansas Science and Technology Authority 

Florida High Technology and Industry Council 

Science and Technology Program 

Department of Business and Economic Development 

Division of Science and Technology 

Governor’s Commission on Science and Technology 

Corporation for Science and Technology 

Research and Development Office 

Department of Economic Development 

Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation* 

Office of Business and Technology 

Maine Science and Technology Board 

Centers of Excellence Corporation 

Michigan Strategic Fund 

Governor’s Office of Science and Technology 

Corporation for Science and Technology 

Montana Science and Technology Alliance 

Montana Department of Commerce 

i 

Nebraska Nebraska Research and Development Authority 

New Jersey New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology 

New Mexico Science and Technology Commission 

New York New York State Science and Technology Foundation 

North Carolina North Carolina Board of Science and Technology 

Ohio Division of Technological Innovation 

Ohio Department of Development 

Oklahoma Oklahoma Center for the Adva!u%nent of Science and Technology 

Pennsylvania Office of Technology Development 

Pennsylvania Department of Commerce 

Rhole Island Rhode Island Partnership for Science and Technology 

South Carolina South Carolina Research Authority 

South Dakota Office of Enterprise Initiation 

Governor’s Office of Economic Development 

Tennessee High Technology Development 

Department of Economic and Community Development 

TenaS Department of Commerce 

Utah Utah Technology Finance Corporation 

Virginia Center for Innovative Technology 

Wyoming Wyoming Science, Technology and Energy Authority 

l Replaced Kansas Advanced Technology Commission established in 1983. 

Year 

Establishec 

1983 

1984 

1965 

1987 

1983 

1982 

1987 

1985 

1985 

1985 

1983 

1983 

1985 

1987 

1985 

1983 

1963 

1963 

1987 

1983 

1985 

1983 

1987 

1982 

1986 

1987 

Source: Marianne C. Clarke, “Recent State Initiatives: An Overview of State Science and Technology Policies and Programs,” in 

Jurgen Schmandt and Robert Wilson, eds., Growth Policy in the Age of High Technology (Boston: Unwin Hynun), p. 6. 

pfe, be ilexible, and attract and retain a high-quality 

, f+xkforcc. For all of these reasons, state governments 

wgan to adopt technology development strategtes as part 

I their overall economic development efforts. 

$e Technology Development Policies 

i One indication of the movement to incorporate techtiogydevelopment into economicdevelopment is the exI &at to which governors and legislators designated agen1 ‘Us !? administer science and technology policies and 

&ugrams. The 1985 NGA survey found that 31 states 

Waiatained science and technology offices (see Table 1). 

I Lxt other states had science and technology programs 

& :at were administered by other offices of economic development or by institutions of higher education. According 

to the enabling legislation for these programs, theirprimary goal was and continues to be economic development.8 

In any state, the budget is probably the most relevant 

policy document. The recent report of the NGA ‘I&k 

Force on Research and Technology finds that in fiscal 1988, 

44 states spent $550 million on their applied research and 

technology activities. How are these funds being used? 

The report suggests that they go to a variety of innovative 

programs, including research consortia, seed and venture 

capital funds, incubators, endowed university chairs, technology fellowships, and equipment subsidies.9 These and 

other specific technology development programs will be 

reviewed later in the paper. 

23 
The strategies that states now pursue to promote economic development indicate an awareness of the changing 

economic climate. Osborne suggests nine categories of 

economic development policy reflective of this new emphasis on technological innovation, smaller and 

entrepreneurial indigenous businesses and more direct 

state involvement. Today, he says, states are focusing on: 

An intellectual infrastructure to provide support 

for research and commercialization; 

A skilled and educated workforce; 

An attractive quality of life; 

An entrepreneurial climate-one that provides 

support, capital, technical assistance, and other 

encouragement to new businesses; 

Availability of risk capital; 

A market for new products and processes; 

A commitment to industrial modernization-innovation and flexibility in traditional industries; 

A new industrial culture--more cooperation, 

continuous changes of products and processes 

and decentralization; and 

Better social organization-more opportunities 

for retraining, family support systems, and, when 

necessary, relocation. 

Unlike state development activities 20 or even 10 

years ago, which focused on attracting major assembly-line 

production plants, these initiatives are designed to create 

an environment, “a context in which innovation flourishes 

as a continuous, everydayprocess.“lOToday, state development activities directed toward technology development 

go far beyond efforts to attract “high-tech” industries. 

While attracting business remains part of many state strategies, most states are also incorporating policies to foster 

technical innovation in many different industries. They 

seek to create an environment in which innovation is continuous and widespread, leading to improvements in products and processes across industries, which, in turn, should 

result in more widespread economic growth. 

The Role of Multistate Organizations 

Multistate organizations-public interest groups, regional councils, special purpose associations-can serve an 

important function in helping states with their technology 

development policies and programs. These organizations 

support states’ efforts to determine their economic development needs, understand changing national economic 

trends, pursue federal assistance, learn from other states, 

and evaluate the success of their programs. A few of these 

organizations have undertaken science and technology activities. Fewer still have ongoing programs. This section of 

the paper looks at the science and technology programs of 

three organizations that are most active in this area. 

The National Governors’ Association 

Probably the leading multistate organization in the area 

of science and technology development policies and programs is the National Governors’ Association (NGA). NGA 

serves as an informal clearinghouse to help states exchange 

information and ideas, provides technical assistance to design 

and implement programs, and cxnnmunicates the science and 

technology interests of states to the Congress and federal 

agencies. NGA has been involved in technological innovation and development since the early 1980s. 

Much of NGA’s work has been to survey the states and 

report on the nature of policies and programs for technological innovation for economic development. NGA’s fist 

major survey was done in 1982 when Governor Iii 

Thompson of Illinois, who was then chairman of the association, appointed a Task Force on Technological Innovation, chaired by then Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina. The final report of the task force, entitled Technology 

and Growth: State Initiatives in Technological Innovation, 

was published in October 1983 with a grant from the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce. In it, NGA reported: 

States have sought by a variety of means to foster 

cooperation and produce consensus among business, labor, government and academia on ways to 

promote technoIogicaJ and industrial innovation. 

Governors have (1) appointed special advisory cotnmissions, councils and task forces; (2) established 

new partnerships (3) broadened the mandates of 

existing state agencies; and (4) established nonprofit 

public corporations and universityaffiliated institutions to promote technological research and development, improve education and training, and facihtate industrial expansion. The vast majority of 

these state initiatives have been undertaken only 

within the last three year~.“~’ 

In 1985, NGA surveyed the states regarding their 

overall economic development policies and programs and 

included questions about state technology development 

programs. In repotting on that survey, NGA identified 

three ways in which states promote technology development: (1) by investing in education; (2) by investing in research and development; and (3) by assisting in the commercialization process by offering both financial and 

“0”fii”&l assistance. I2 The report suggested that the 

states are emphasizing innovation rather than the development of high technology as a specific industty and that state 

strategies in this area are shifting from attracting high technology industries to encouraging the use of technological innovation to improve the products and production processes 

of all industries, includiig indigenous industries.‘3 

Recently, NGA has collaborated with other organizations to broaden the scope of their state activities. In Fall 

1986, NGA teamed up with The Conference Board, with 

support from the National Science Foundation, to survey 

industry, university, and state government officials on 

state and federal science and technology policies, especially with regard to how they are helping or hindering U.S. 

international competitiveness. In 1988, NGAcollaborated 

with the Society of Research Administrators to study the 

structure and function of state science and technology offices. Currently, the association is working with the Na24 
tioaal Institute for Standards and Technology on a survey 

of state technology extension services. 

The National Governors’ Association first adopted 

‘@icy addressing technological innovation in 1984. The 

statement is far-reaching in terms of suggested federal actions, including increased priority for support for basic and 

applied research in the civilian sector, improving the tax 

1 climate for innovation, continuation of and flexibility in 

blockgrants and the SBIR program, enhancing the role of 

thefederallabsin economicdevelopment,priorityforsupport of university programs to train scientists and engineers, and modification of antitrust statutes. States are en- 

! 

couraged to continue to improve elementary and secondary 

education, provide traini& encourage university/industry 

collaboration, and provide a range of assistance to new and 

growing businesses. The policy explicitly supports the establishment of a clearinghouse on state technology development programs as mandated in the omnibus trade bill. 

Finally, NGA has, for the last four years, served, along 

with the state of Ohio, as convener for the Working Group 

on State Initiatives in Applied Research. Appointed by the 

governors, representatives to the working group generally 

have the lead responsibility for technology development programs in the their state. The working group convenes semiannually as a forum to exchange experiences and ideas 

among states and to consult with federal agencies on interI governmental activities. Activities of the working group, on 

occasion, have been funded by the National Science Foundation through grants to NGAs Center for Policy Research. 

Southern Technology Council 

The Southern Technology Council is a highly active 

sad, according to many experts, the most effective multistate technology development organization in thecountly. 

Chartered in 1986, this public/private advisory body to the 

Southern Growth Policies Board was formed to “provide a 

regional forum for sharing ideas and strategies; study the 

intemationaliition of technology and suggest state and federal policies; inform and educate state legislatures, govemmeat agencies, and the public regarding the importance, MIue, and effects of new technology; and facilitate the transfer 

of ideas to the marketplace by bringing together innovators 

with venture capitalists and business people.” 

The council’s membership is made up of two guberoatorid representatives from each of the 12 member states, two 

members selected by the executive committee of the Southera Legislative Conference and one member from each participating nongovernmental (business or education) entity. 

llte council is chaired by a governor. Funding for the coundl’s budget of approximately $1 million comes from member 

dues and grants from government agencies and foundations. 

One of the council’s current major initiatives is a Consortium for Manufacturing Competitiveness, which involves demonstration sites in community and technical 

colleges in 13 states in the region to enhance technology 

diffusion and provide skills assessment and training for 

small and rural firms. The council also has a Centers of Excellence project, in which it works through southern universities to establish model multistate research centers to 

improve the quality of research and development by building expertise. A third major effort of the council is the development of a Strategic Plan for Science and Technology 

for the South. The plan specifies what should be done and 

by whom to improve science and technological resources 

in the South. The plan was released at the annual meeting 

of the Southern Growth Policies Board in July 1989. 

Council of Great Lakes Governors 

The Council of Great Lakes Governors has taken the 

lead on two initiatives in that region. The fit, the Great 

Lakes Research and Development Compendium, collects 

information on the region’s strengths in research and technology. The compendium is a tool for marketing the capabilities of the region to federal agencies and international 

businesses. The second is the Great Lakes Research Network, which is designed to help states identify multistate 

projects that have demonstrable benefits to industry and 

are of world-class stature. Once these projects are selected, the networkwill work with them to develop a strategy for leveraging federal funds. 

Western Research Application Center 

The Western Research Application Center (WestRAC) is a business assistance and technology transfer center operated by the University of Southern California under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). While not a multistate organization like the ones described above, it serves a multistate 

clientele and is worthwhile to consider as an example of 

the regional technology transfer programs funded by 

NASA. The primary program operated by the center is the 

NASA Industrial Applications Center, which supports 

technology transfer by (1) providing business clients with 

information retrieval services and access to federal and 

private data bases, (2)providingaccess to expertsinfederal 

laboratories and elsewhere, and (3) assisting business clients to develop relationships with federal laboratories 

such as NASA. WestRAC works through a network of 

state-supported business assistance centers in 16 western 

states. Most of these centers are the primaly technology 

development organizations for their states. Future plans 

include expanding the network to other nonprofit business 

assistance organizations within the states. Funds for WestRAC come from NASA, the University of Southern California, and fees paid by clients. Large corporations access 

the center’s resources on a direct fee basis. Nonprofits use 

the services on a subsidized fee basis. 

Other Organizations 

Several other multistate organizations have undertaken technology development projects, but these have generally been single projects with little follow-up. The National Association of State Development Agencies 

(NASDA) commissioned a state-by-state survey of technology development programs. The National Conference 

of State Legislatures includes technology development in 

itsannual survey of state legislative initiatives. Technology 

development issues are likely to be included on the agenda 

of the Committee for Economic Development. The Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies has commissioned a paper by David Osborne on “State Technology 

Programs: A Preliminary Analysis of Lessons Learned,” 

25 
which takes a first look at developing a methodology for 

assessing past experiences as a basis for the design and 

management of future programs. The Northeast-Midwest 

Institute, a regional organization for economic policy analysis formed by members of Congress from that region, has 

compiled The Guide to State and Federal Resources for Economic Development. The guide includes a chapter on cooperativeresearchand technologycenters,describing theobjectives of and models for these centers and the role they 

play in overall economic development. Case studies are 

presented for programs in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode 

Island, along with very brief summaries of cooperative research and technology centers in other states. 

?)pologies of State Programs 

Several analysts have developed topologies of state 

technology development programs in an effort to better 

understand the state of the art and to draw some general 

conclusions about what states are doing. Some of these are 

based on surveys of state programs, while others evolved 

out of working with and observing the programs over time. 

A review of these typologies is helpful in reaching a better 

understanding of what activities states undertake and how 

they have changed. This information can also be useful in 

deciding how best to structure programs undertaken by 

federal agencies or multistate organizations to provide additional support to state programs. 

Probably the most frequently cited source of information on state technology programs is State Technology Propm in the United States, 1988, prepared by the Office of 

Science and Technology in the Minnesota Department of 

Trade and Economic Development. The publication, 

which updates a 19% edition, reports the findings of a 

state-by-state survey conducted in November 1987. Active 

programs that have received state funds are described and 

categorized into 11 types. Information is also provided on 

funding sources and amounts for specific programs as well 

as total and per capita state funding for technology initiatives. The findings are summarized in an overview, and a 

contact list is included for each state. 

The 11 program types that the report covers are: 

. Technology offices (36 states); 

Each state section begins with a description of offices, 

boards, or commissions that may set policy, advise the governor or legislature, administer programs, or provide information services. Other programs are described under 

the categories listed above. Relationships among programs 

and between technology programs and other state agencies are described briefly for some states. Program descriptions include services provided, technologies targeted, 

and, in some cases, funding sources. 

State Technology Development Programs: 

A Report for the National Association 

of State Development Agencies 

Concurrent with the Minnesota survey, Robert Atkinson conducted a survey of technology development programs in Fall 1987 for the National Association of State 

Development Agencies. The survey was intended in part 

to update the 1986 Minnesota survey, and although there 

are many similarities with the 1988 Minnesota report there 

also are differences. Minnesota reports that $550 million 

was allocated for science and technology initiatives for FY 

1988, while Atkinson reports a 1987 total of close to $400 

million. Rather than indicate a substantial increase in 

spending from one year to the next, the differences are 

more likely to result from different treatment of multiyear 

appropriations spent out of bond issues. 

Atkinson also uses slightly different categories of programs than the Minnesota study. He divides programs into 

six categocies and then subdivides four of the categoties: 

His report includes: 

Programs to Stimulate Research 

University Research Centers 

University Research Grants 

Business Research Grants 

Programs to Support Capital Acquisition 

Loan Programs 

Equity Programs 

Programs to Assist Management 

Management Assistance Programs 

Incubators 

Technical Assistance 

Programs to Introduce Technology into Firms 

Technology Transfer 

Diffusion of Technology 

Research Parks 

. Technology research centers (29 states); R&D Tax Credits or Deduction 

. Research grants (25 states); Programs to ‘Ikain Labor 

. Research parks (11 states); Policy Development 

. Incubators (18 states); 

n Technology transfer (26 states); 

. Technical/managerial assistance (30 states); 

. Seed/venture capital (10 states); 

. Technical training (10 states); 

. Information/networking (15 states); and 

n Equity/royalty investment (2 states). 

This kind of breakout is helpful when designing a new 

program offering information about different approaches 

to providing a specific type of assistance. 

Atkinson provides more in-depth analysis in the overview, whileprovidinglessinformation in the state-by-state 

program descriptions. The overview includes regional 

trends, per capita expenditures. and organizational patterns of state programs. His program descriptions include 

information on program type, organization name, program 

26 
name, year established, annual funding, technologies supported and very short program descriptions. 

Recent State Initiatives: An Overview of State Science 

and Technology Policies and Programs 

In a chapter written for a forthcoming book entitled 

Growth Policy in the Age of High Technology, Marianne 

Clarke, Senior Research Associate at the National Governors’ Association, suggests a typology for state initiatives 

in science and technology that covers a wider range of activities than those that evolved out of the surveys described 

above. Clarke divides state initiatives into three categories, each of which is subdivided. She includes: 

Investing in Education 

Investing in Facilities and Equipment 

Upgrading Faculty and Students 

Training Technicians and Other Technical Workers 

Improving Science and Mathematics Education 

Supporting Research and Development 

Research and Development Grant Programs 

Technology Research Centers 

Commercialization Assistance 

Facilitating Information Exchange 

Assisting Business and Entrepreneurs 

Financial Assistance 

This approach is useful because its emphasis on education is important to states and is not included, to this extent, in other typologies. It might be worthwhile fororganizations seeking to support state programs to give more 

attention to a broader range of education programs as a 

way to better serve the interests of states. 

State Technology Programs: 

1 A Preliminary Analysis of Lessons LearnedA Paper for the Council of State Policy 

and Planning Agencies 

David Osborne, in a paper prepared for the Council of 

i State Policy and Planning Agencies, takes a more analytib cal approach to classifying technology development pro- 

: grams. Osborne cites Lou Tomatzky of the Center for Social and Economic Issues at the Industrial Technology 

Institute in Michigan and other observers in saying that the 

time has come to begin to evaluate the technology develI 

opment programs that states have instituted. His paper is 

an attempt to “push [that] process forward by raising 

questions and drawing tentative conclusions.“” 

In an effort to set the stage for this evaluation, Osj borne organizes a typology of state programs around the 

j problems that they are designed to address. He defines 

! fourproblems and then looks at from four to eight technology development strategies states used to respond 10 

them. The problems are: 

1. A research base that is too small to stimulate the 

commercial development of new technologies in 

the regional economies; 

2. Inadequate transfer of technological advances 

from research institutions, such as universities, to 

local corporations; 

3. Insufficient support for new enterprise development, as a means to commercialize new technologies; and 

4. Insufficient deployment of new process technologies by existing manufacturers. 

In reviewing the state strategies to address these problems, Osborne makes tentative but useful observations 

about their effectiveness. For example, he outlines four 

strategies states use to respond to problem 3-insufficient 

support for new enterprise development as a means to 

commercialiie new technologies. The first strategy is “ensuring an adequate supply of risk capital.” After describing 

several stat& approaches in this area he concludes: 

After a decade of innovation, in development finance, the record is quite mixed. The primary objective of state intervention should not be to 

create public organizarions that will add a few 

dozen loans or equity investments to the marketplace, but to change the very nature of that marketplace-so private firms begin making the kinds 

of investments needed to commercialize new 

technologies. More often than not, however, 

states still create small public funds rather than 

seeking to change the marketplace. They retail 

money, rather than using it to wholes&--to 

change private investment patterns.“1s 

In the third section of his paper, Osborne takes on an 

important subject that other ?ypologies fail to considerthe need for states to take a multidimensional, comprehensive approach to technology development. “Getting 

the mix right,” says Osborne, “is as important as providing 

one or two of the elements that are missing. Hence, programs that focus on the entire mix-programs that are 

comprehensive in nature-are often the most effective.“lb 

He cites the Ben Franklin Partnership in Pennsylvania 

and, to a lesser extent, the New York Science and Technology Foundation and the Ohio Thomas Edison Program as 

examples of successfully integrated state programs. 

Finally, Osborne outlines lessons learned from talking 

with program administrators and observing their programs, 

and draws some general conclusions. His lessons fall into 

three categories-policy, design, and political. In general, 

they are simple and straightfonvard. For example, one of his 

policy lessons is “dictate ends, not means.“” His conclusions 

cite what most states are doing wrong, for example, ‘Too 

many state technology dollars have gone into physical infrastructure-new buildings, new laboratories, new research 

parks-rather than intellectual infrastruct~re.“~~ 

As Osborne admits, his analysis is preliminary. But his 

problem-solving orientation, emphasis on evaluation and 

lessons learned, and recognition of the multidimensional 

nature of state programs is constructive and offers much 

food for thought to state policymakers and program designers as well as to those working to support program development and management. 

Organization of State Programs 

Both Robert Atkinson, in his survey of state programs, 

and the National Governors’ Association, in a study con21 
Table 2 

Administrative Responsibilities of State Science and Technology Offices’ 

Total States 

Direct Indirect 

Responsibility 

Repotting 

Responsibility Oversight Responsibility 

Program budget preparation 24 7 3 29 

Program budget approval 10 10 3 22 

Drafting legislation 16 13 4 30 

Program development 26 3 3 30 

Program management 27 3 4 29 

Intrastate communications networks 18 5 3 w 

Interstate communications networks 15 2 1 16 

’ Thirty states responding. 

’ Sum may exceed total as some states reported both direct or indirect responsibility and oversight responsibility for a single function. 

Source: NGA/SRA Survey of State Science and Technology Offices, September 1987. Updated July 1988. Published in National 

Governors’ Association, Copiro~ Ideas, September 1, 1988, p. 5. 

ducted in conjunction with the Society of Research Administrators, addressed the question of how states have “rganized their technology development programs. In 

summarizing hi findings, Atkinson states: 

States differ in the way they have organized their 

programs. Many of the most active states have developed independent science and technology boards 

which often develop innovation policies and administermanyof thestate’sprograms. At least 14states 

have established a formal technology development 

organization. Other states, while not developing 

formal umbrella technology development orgatitions, operate many of their programs either 

through quasi-public organizations or the state development agency. Often in these states, overall direction for state policy is provided by an independent, quasi-public technology board.19 

The results of the NGA study, published in the September 1988 edition of Copita[ Ideas, a newsletter published by the NGA Center for Policy Research, was more 

specific.” According to that report, 38 states maintain science and technology offices, only three of which were established before 1982. About half of these offices are divisions of larger state offices. The other half are 

independent agencies, quasi-public corporations, or private nonprofit corporations. 

The enabling legislation for these offices generally 

states that their primary purpose is to stimulate and support economic development through supporting research 

and development and technology-based businesses. In 

some cases, building closer ties among government, education, and industry, and/or encouraging and promoting 

excellence in scientific and technological education, are 

also mentioned. 

The survey also asked about the functions of the offices 

surveyed. Twenty-seven states (out of 30 responding) reported that they had direct responsibility for program management, 26 reported direct responsibility for program development, and 24 reported direct respanslXlity for program 

budget preparation. Ten states have direct responsibility for 

program budget approval, and 16 offices reported responsihilities for drafting legislation (see ‘Bible 2)~l 

Funding for State Technology Programs 

According to the Minnesota study, state expenditures 

from science and technology programs range from zero to 

over $76 million per state. In general, the manufacturing 

states of the Northeast and Midwest spend the most, while 

Western states spend the least. Most of the money comes 

from state general funds. Other sources include bond issues, state lottery funds, pari-mutuel gambling receipts, 

and state employee pension funds (see Table 3).22 

The Atkinson and Minnesota reports contain summatydata on state expenditures by program. Atkinson reports 

1987 expenditures; the Minnesota study contains 1988and 

1986 expenditures. While xnne of their findings are comparable, there ate also some disparities. 

Both reports put spending for research centers between 41 and 42 percent. However, while the Minnesota 

study shows the next largest category to be research grants 

at 27.3 percent, Atkinson reports equity programs second 

at 21.4 percent. and research grants (businessand university combined) third at 17.1 percent. The Minnesota report 

places capital programs (seed and venture combined) 

much lower on the list at 6.8 percent Fable 4 and Figure 

l)?’ Some of these differences may be due to variations in 

data collection and program definitions. 

Technologies Targeted 

According to Atkinson, most states target specific industries on which to focus technology development activitics. He identifies 64 technologies that states hope to develop, from robotics to food processing to welding, and 

groups them into seven categories with summaries of 

those targeted most frequently. 

Not surprisingly, computers and computer-related 

technology are the most popular, with advanced manufacturing technologies a close second. Other popular technol28 
1 

Table 3 

1989 Fiscal Funding for Technology Initiatives 

State 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Total state 

state General 

Funding Funds 

$2,855,2OS 1,055,205 

30,000 30,oOil 

7,000,ooo 7,OwlOo 

3,150,OOo 3,150,OOO 

5,900,OOil 5,900,OOO 

Initial 

state 

Funding 

Bond 

Issue 

3,100,OOo 

1cQoOO 

MlSCdlCMl~OUS* 

Funding 

Source 

1,800,ooOa 

2,851,0@0 2,851,OOO 

n 

13,540,000 12,540,oOO 

10,637,500 10,637,500 

4,895,OoO 1,395,OOJl 

1,oOO,Mlo 

Kansas 

Kentucky (FY89) 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

3,550,ooo 3,425,oOO 

560,000 560,000 

0 

184,280 184,280 

7,365,750 7,365,750 

14,665,OOo 14,665,OOo 

13,063,500 13,063,500 

39,439,200 39,439,200 

9,300,ooo 9,300,000 

28,566,ooO 28,466,OOO 100,000 

3,550,wo 3,550.ooo 

858,500 858,500 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

0 

200,OcO 200,cGu 

76,345,OiM 19,345,OOO 

3,500,OlMb 

125,oooe 

57,OOO,c0l 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 12,046,375 12,046,375 

Oregon 2,214,OoO 2,215,000d 

Pennsylvania 49,050,00l 49,050,oMl 

Rhode Island 2,000,000 2,000,000 

South Carolina 0 

South Dakota 3,050,oOO 3,050,OOOC 

Tennessee 13,109,400 13,109,400 

Texas 60,690,ooo 60,690,OOO 

Utah 5,187,cOO 5,187,OOO 

Vermont 0 

Virginia 9,400,OMl 9,400,000 

Washington 11,000,Otxl 11,000,000 

West Virginia 150,000 150,000 

Wisconsin 18,978,ooO 18.987.000 

Wyoming 0 

* Miscellaneous Funds: 

‘State Trust Funds %3te Lottery CState Faming Funds “State Lottery CFuture Fund 

Source: Office of Science and Technology, Store Technology P~vgrarm in the Uniled Srafes, 1988, (St. Paul: Minnesota Department 

of Trade and Ewnomic Development, July 1988). p. 8. 

29 
Table 4 

State Expenditures by Program vpe 

Program Type 

University Research Centers 

Equity Programs 

University Research Grants 

Business Research Grants 

Incubators 

Diffusion of Technology 

Technology Transfer 

Research Parks 

Amount 

$166,779,421 

85,037,343 

51,170,425 

X,886,457 

15,4lO,459 

15,057,174 

12,395,wO 

12,12O,oLHJ 

Percent Program Type Amount Percent 

41.9 Technical Assistance. 9,381,845 2.4 

21.4 Management Assistance 8,933,050 2.3 

12.9 Training 8,597,3cil 2.2 

4.2 Loan Programs 4,070,oGa 1.0 

3.9 Policy Development 2,470,900 .6 

3.8 R&D Tax Credits or Deductions NIA N/A 

3.1 

3.0 Total Expenditures $397,617,rn9 loo.0 

Source: Robert D. Atkinson, State Technology Pmgmmr (a State-by-StateLi&& (Washington, DC: National Association of State 

Development Agencies, March 1988), p. 4. 

Figure 1 

Science and Technology Initiatives 

Distribution of State Expenditures in the U.S., Fiscal Year 1968 

Technology/Research Centers 41.2% 

Parks/ 

Incubators 6.7% 

Other Technology Programs 7.7% Venture Capital 2.6% 

Technical/Managerial Assistance 2% 

Source: Office of Science and Technology, Sfate Technology Pmgmns in the United States, 1988 (St. Paul: Minnesota Department 

of Trade and Economic Development, July 1988), p. 7. 

30 
L 

Table 5 

Technologies Targeted by States 

Computers and Computer Related Technology 19.3% 

Advanced Manufacturing Technologies 18.2% 

Biotechnology 16.2% 

Miscellaneous Advanced Technologies 14.1% 

Natural Resources 9.9% 

Medical Technologies 8.6% 

TOM 100.0% 

Source: Robert D. Atkinson, Srale Technolo@~ Pmgmms (A 

Srate-by-State Lirring) (Washington, DC: National 

Assocaition of State Development Agencies, 

March 1988), pp. 56. 

ogy categories include biotechnology, miscellaneous advanced technologies, and natural resources. ‘fhble 5 indicates, on a percentage basis, the popularity of each technology category. 

Patterns and ‘Rends in State Programs 

While there are trends and patterns in state technology development programs, it is important to note that, on 

the whole, these programs are characterized by unusual di- 

’ versity. Perhaps because they originate out of unique local 

economic conditions and are designed to capitalize on local advantage rather than in response to federal mandates, 

they vary greatly in their organization, their clientele, the 

industries they target, and their relationship to the education community. 

This diversity is a fertile ground for innovation and is 

*ece~ to be most responsive to any particular state setting. However, it can create problems in classifying information so that it is easily retrievable and most useful for states 

looking to start or improve their own programs. This variety 

also makes it more dificult for federal policymakers to decide how best to structure their own programs to be most 

supportive. There are some discernible trends among the 

states, which have been outlined here. 

‘Rends in Policy 

According to several observers, states are becoming 

much more activist in their approach to economic development, and their technology development efforts are on the 

cutting edge of this activism. Whereas states previously 

confined their programs to the more passive public posture 

of taxes, infrastructure, and general marketing of the state 

as a good place to do business, state economic development initiatives now include strategic plans, loans to and 

: 

equity positions in private enterprises, targeted training 

for specific firms and industries, and active marketing of 

products and services of individualbusinesses. State development officials are finding ways to influence the market 

more directly and shape economic output within their 

boundaries?’ 

As explained earlier, many state officials, in responding to a changing economy, are shifting their strategies 

from stimulating basic research and attracting high technology companies to creating an environment in which 

companies are more inclined to use innovation to improve 

products and processes. Hand in hand with this has come 

an increased emphasis on smaller and newer firms, indigenous to the state, with high-growth potential. 

Almost without exception, state initiatives in technology development have incorporated, as a matter of policy, 

a wide variety of education programs, including business/ 

university partnerships, university research centers or 

grants, fellowships, university chairs, increased funding in 

graduate studies in science and engineering, more mathematicsandsciencein theelementaryand secondarycuniculum, or targeted training. While the program mix varies 

from state to state, education policy will very likely continue to play a major role in the promotion of technology development in almost all slates. This trend coincides with 

the broader educational reforms that most governors and 

legislatures across the country have instituted. In response 

to many of the same concerns-international competition, 

changes in the economic base, the need to integrate the 

disadvantaged into the economic mainstream-states are 

pursuing education and technology development policies 

in tandem as a strategy for economic growth. 

Expenditure Wends 

Some of the variation in expenditure data reported by 

Atkinson and the Minnesota Office of Science and Technology may be attributable to differences in accounting 

procedures for the studies. The differences also may indicate changes in state priorities. The Minnesota study reports that between 1986 and 1988, “Financing of technology/research centers remains very strong as states seek to 

develop new technologies through applied research. At 

the same time, there appears to be a marked decrease in 

spending for venture capital programs, and a shift in emphasis toward research grants, technical and managerial 

assistance, and information network systems.“2s The Minnesota report goes on to suggest that these shifts in expenditures indicate that states are relying more heavily on the 

private sector for less risky venture funding while continuing to provide seed capital. Further comparisons of the two 

years indicate that states are increasing their funding for 

technology training and information networks while 

spending less on technology transfer. 

Regional ‘IYends 

Althoughstatesinallregionsof thecountry haveinstituted technology development programs, regional variations are evident. Robert Atkinson, in his report for the 

National Association of State Development Agencies, 

notes that because states tend to target technologies that 

will enhance their existing economic base many of them 

may continue to focus on traditional sectors in their technology development programs. That focus is coupled with 

strategies targeted to industries that may not be part of the 

existing base but may be able to take advantage of assets 

the state has to offer. For example, in Atkinson’s survey, 

states in the Midwest and South tend to focus on advanced 

manufacturing technologies that build on a history of large 

manufacturing facilities. The western states focus heavily 

31 
Table 6 

Targeting of Technology by Region 

and west to Minnesota. The one state outside this region 

that falls into the highest spending category is North Carolina (see Figure Z).*’ On a per capita basis, in 1987, the 

North- MldNortheast led the nation, spending $2.15 per capita. MidTechnology east west South West western states spent an average of $1.98 per person, the 

South spent $1.48, and the West, $1.00. The national averBiotechnology l3% 22% 10% 19% age was $1.69 per capita (see Figure 3).28 

Computers 18% 22% 17% 28% 

Miscellaneous 16% 12% 15% 11% 

Expenditures on types of programs varied by region, as 

Advanced 

well. Southern states spent the highest percentage (almost 

Manufacturing 18% 23% 25% 11% 

69 percent) of their total 1987 expenditures on university 

Materials 11% 9% 10% 9% related programs. The Midwest and West spent more on 

Medical 11% 3% 15% 5% capital programs than did other regions. The Northeast 

Natural Resources 13% 9% 8% 26% spent more than other regions of the country on training 

workers and diffusing existing technology to manufacturSource: Robert D. Atkinson, Slate Technology Pmgmrm (A 

ing firms (see ‘Ihble 7)” 

state-by-sfateLisring) (Washington, DC: National Analysis and Assessment 

Assocaition of State Development Agencies, 

March 1988), pp. 5, 6. Several experts indicate that states are placing a growing emphasis on program analysis and assessment. Although none of the surveys reviewed for this paper inon natural resources, while biotechnology also ranked 

high. In the northeastern states, where educational levels 

tend to be higher and the resource base more diverse, targeted technologies were more varied, including biotechnology, miscellaneous, and natural resources. Computers 

and computer-related technologies rank high in all regions 

(see Table 6).26 

Regional variations also can be seen in state expenditure levels. The states that spend the most in absolute dollars on science and technology are generally in the Northeast and Midwest, forming a band from New Jersey north 

eluded assessment, other readings and discussions with 

practitioners indicate that this is a growing interest among 

policymakers and program managers. While most of these 

programs are less than ten years old, and economic growth 

is not an overnight proposition, many of these initiatives 

have been in operation long enough to have measurable 

outcomes. At the same time, as public resources become 

more scarce, policymakers are looking for reliable measures to ensure that their dollars are being spent in a 

worthwhile manner. 

In 1987, the National Governors’ Association, the National Research Council and the Government-UniversiFigure 2 

State Technology Programs Total Expenditures 

$0 to $4 million 

$4 to $12.6 million 

$12.6 to $60 millior 

Source: Atkinson, 

p. 4. 

32 
Program vpe 

Research Centers 

University Research Grants 

Rasinw Research Grants 

Loan Programs 

Equity Programs 

Management Assistance 

Incubatols 

Technical Assistance 

Technology Transfer 

Diffusion of Technology 

Research Parks 

R&D Tax Credits 

Table 7 

Expendiwres on Programs by Region 

(in percent) 

Northeast Midwest 

54.0 36.0 

4.9 13.6 

6.6 2.4 

1.5 .1 

6.2 21.3 

1.6 3.4 

5.0 7.0 

0 5.9 

1.9 3.7 

12.4 .7 

0 4.5 

N/A N/A 

South west 

49.9 

18.8 

2.2 

28.3 

18.1 

10.8 

5.3 

23.8 

0 

11.0 

2.7 

1.5 

2.0 

4.6 

1.7 

2.7 

N/A 

.s 

1.4 

.2 

1.6 

0 

8.0 

N/A 

Paining 5.5 .9 1.8 0 

Policy Development .2 .5 .7 1.7 

Total lw.o 100.0 loo.0 100.0 

Source: Robert D. Atkinson, State TechnologvPmgmms (A Stale-by-State LtifingJ (Washington, DC: National Association of State 

Development Agencies, March 1988), p. 9. 

ty.Industry Research Roundtable hosted a workshop entitled “State Government Strategies for Self-Assessment 

of Science and Technology Programs for Economic Development.” Workshop participants discussed how state officials could address two key assessment questions: (1) Is the 

program a worthwhile investment, considering all of the 

other demands for state money? and (2) Is the program 

structured most effectively?30 Several points raised in that 

workshop are instructive in thinking about state analysis 

and self-assessment strategies. 

Fist, the participants agreed that science and technology programs are “long-term initiatives” not expected to 

yield results for five to ten years. Second, state programs 

have both ultimate goals, in terms of economic growth, and 

proximate goals, such as strengthening graduate education, producing new industrial processes, and improving 

Figure 3 

-- State Technology Programs Per Capita Expenditures 

Source: Atkinson, 

p. 4. 

33 
the transfer of knowledge and expertise into commercial 

applications. Third is the recognition that self-assessments 

have at least two audiences-those who fund the programs 

and those who run them. Finally, the point was made that 

it is easier to assess a program if its goals and purposes are 

articulated clearly from the beginning.” As state programs 

mature, more policymakers and program operators are 

likely to undertake self-assessments as part of their ongoing efforts to improve the design and effectiveness of state 

technology development programs. 

Findings and Conclusions 

There is much that federal agencies, multistate organizations, and others interested in assisting states to improve 

their technology development programs can learn from what 

is being done and from the wealth of analysis and writing that 

has gone before. This section summarizes some general observations made as a result of the research done for this paper and draws some conclusions about what would be most 

useful to help states improve their programs. 

Findings 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Most states have programs to promote technological 

innovation and development. These programs vary in 

size, scope, funding level, and sophistication. In almost all cases, these programs are developed and implemented as part of a state economic development 

program and are institutionally linked to the state office of economic development. 

Programs to promote technological innovation and development are substantially different from traditional 

economic development programs and appear to be designed in response to changes in the national and international economic environment. More traditional programs rely on tax incentives, regulation, and business 

recruitment. Programs to encourage technological innovation and development include research, education, 

provision of capital, technology transfer, and training. 

There is wide diversity in state programs to promote 

technological innovation and development. State program managers design their programs to respond to 

local economic and political conditions and to take advantage of existing industries or technologies in which 

state policymakers feel the state has a competitive advantage and which hold potential for development. As 

a result, there is wide variation among state programs 

in structure, relationship to state government, clientele, and services. 

There is a fairly strong informal network among state 

program managers and others who support their work. 

There is an ongoing exchange of experiences and 

ideas, albeit in a fairly unstructured manner. However, there continues tobe a need for more detailed, current, and complete information about these programs, 

the conditions under which they operate and, especially, their outcomes. There also seems to be a desire 

on the part of many program managers to have more 

opportunities to consult, both with one another and 

with academics and others studying these programs, 

on a more structured basis. State associations, especially the NGA Working Group on State Initiatives in 

Applied Research, provide this forum to some extent, 

but more of this kind of interaction may be needed. 

Summary information on most state programs has already been collected and categorized. In the Minnesota report, Robert Atkinson’s report for NASDA, several NGA surveys, and other sources, state program 

data has been compiled on a nationwide basis. This information is limited, according to most observers, because it does not cover all state programs, is superficial, is outdated almost as soon as it is published and 

collected, and is categorized in ways that frequently 

result in the loss of valuable information. 

The work of the multistate organizations in the area of 

technology development is, in general, limited, although valuable. The National Governors’ Association and the Southern Technology Council have the 

most extensive programs. Their activities include surveys, technical assistance, task forces, and ongoing 

communication with federal agencies. A few otherorganizations-the National Association of State Development Agencies, the Council of Great Lakes 

Governors, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the National Conference of State Legislatures-have either 

included technology development in their overall economic development activities or have undertaken a 

one-time project with little or no follow-up. This may 

be attributed to the absence of federal funds in this 

area, for the states themselves as well as for the organizations that serve them. 

Conclusions 

There is d continuous needfor accurate, current, 

complete information about state programs. 

All experts consulted, including state program diiectors, 

agree that there is a need to have quality, current information on what poliies and programs states are implementing. 

This information serves several purposes. State program 

managers use the information to develop and improve their 

own programs. Federal officials use it to make federal programs more responsive to state initiatives. Multistate organizations use the information in targeting the assistance they 

provide to states and in representing the interests of the 

states to federal agencies. Information about state policies 

and programs is also used by academics to track changes and 

trends over time and conduct other research necessary to improve the practice. Finally, university and industry people use 

information about state policies and programs to stmctare 

their participation in collaborative efforts. 

State officials are willing to share information about 

their policies and programs, but they would also lie to have 

an intemxdiaxy who can respond to the most common and 

timeconsuming inquiries. They are looking for an information source that could take some of the burden of responding 

to inquiries from their shoulders while providing them with 

more in-depth information than is currently available. 

One suggested model was the funding of several ombudsman positions. These officials would become extremely 

knowledgeable about state programs and have regular contact with key people in the state. They could call on a cvm34 
paterized data base, but would be able to go much further in 

respnding to inquiries because they could analyze the problem that the “client” was t+g to address, synthesize the infomtion on fiie, be current on changes in state initiatives 

and be able to provide a more tailored response. 

The dive&v among state programs in technology development creates a special problem in terms of 

collecting and categorizing i&maticwz. 

State technolow development programs are extremely 

varied. Because they are designed to respond to kxal economic and political conditions and they involve so many diiferent players-government, universities, private firms, 

quasi-private organizations-each progmm has unique characteristics. These programs may vxy from one another more 

tbao other types of state programs, because they were not designed in response to a federal mandate or grant progmm 

and they involve so many diierent kinds of players. Whatever the reason, it is this diversity-the innovation in techno- 

@ical innovation programs, so to speak-that makes inforlation sharing even more rich and valuable. 

It is this diversity that also makes it diicult to collect injmtion about programs and even more diffmlt to orgaize the information in a way that it can be retrieved. Frepxntly, the names of programs are sin&x, but they provide 

feq different services. Other times, similar programs have 

different names. How can information about state programs 

lx collected and maintained so as not to lose vahmble information, but still be able to respond to categorical questions? 

One approach to this dilemma is the ombudsman role 

mentioned above. Someone who knew the particulars of a 

stateprograminmoredepth than thewrittenorcomputertied information and could understand the linkages between an inquiry and an existing program could be more 

helpful than the data base alone. Another important consideration is how the data are collected in the fmt place. 

Much of the information that has been collected about ail 

state programs to date has been done through a smvey instrument designed to “force” the information coIlected 

into descriptions that can be compared and summarized to 

produce a national picture. This approach has its merits 

and purposes. However, if the primary purpose of collecting information about state programs is to help other 

states learn from earlier experiences, a more open-ended 

description not geared toward summary and comparisons 

might be of more use. Case studies on many of the best 

programs in the county exist as models for colIecting this 

kind of information. But many programs have not been 

documented in this way. Studies of these programs could 

also be highly instructive. 

A third approach to collecting and categorizing information about state progmms is to follow the example set by 

David Osborne in the paper prepared for the Council of 

State Policy and Planning Agencies. Designed around “problem-solving,” thii approach to categorization might be more 

responsive to the kinds of questions that a client poses. 

In whateverfom the information is organized, several 

experts suggest that it be coIlected through a self-repor& 

; ing system that is maintained on a computerbase. If possiI 

1 

ble, updates wouldbe sent in electronically when there are 

changes in the program. In addition, every year or so, the 

information would be sent to program managers who 

35 

would be asked to make changes or corrections that may 

not have been made during the year. 

There is a needfor better assembling and coordination of information on federalprngnzms for technology development. 

Several individuals interviewed suggested that thereis 

a need to have some organization or agency take overall 

responsibility for identifying and coordinating information 

on federal programs. States could then access this source 

when looking for federal assistance or programs to integrate with their technology development activities. Although there are few if any federal programs that help 

states plan or implement technoloa development programs, there are economic development assistance programs that can be used, in some cases, to support technolom development activities. There also are many more 

federal R & D andbusiness assistance programs that could 

be used in conjunction with state technoloa development 

programs if state development officials had complete and 

current information on them. 

There is presently no place where complete and current 

information on these programs exists, much less any staff to 

help states fiid ways to integrate them with their own init& 

tives. The same agency that assumes responsibility for maintainiig this data base and contacts list also could sponsor 

seminars and technical assistance sessions for state program 

managers to help in integrating federal and state programs. 

There is a need for and interest in developing 

and conducting more and better program analysis 

and &f-assessments. 

Probably the most frequently mentioned and the most 

sensitive area in which states could use assistance is in program analysis and self-assessment. Many state programs 

have been in place long enough for program funders, 

policymakers and program managers to expect measurable 

results. A few states have conducted self-assessments or 

hired outside consultants to analyze or evaluate their programs. In addition, some assessments of programs and 

practices have been undertaken by academic institutions 

interested in the field. In general, however, analysis and 

assessment have been anecdotal or preliminay. 

Many observers indicated that states could benefit 

from a comprehensive assembling and documenting of the 

analyses and assessments of state programs, both anecdotal information and comprehensive assessments. State and 

local officials also need assistance in developing methodologies to measure the progress and success of their own efforts. This assistance could be provided in a variety of ways, 

including from peers; from academicswho study programs, 

develop methodologies, and conduct assessments; or in 

seminars for state and local officials to discuss the issues 

and questions surrounding analyses and self-assessments. 

In conclusion, many states have instituted technoloa 

development programs. The programs are as varied as the 

economic and political environments in which they operate. 

States have found informal ways to share information and 

learn from each other, as well as the more formal collabomtion that occmx through multistate organizations. But there 

are still many things that could be done to increase and en- 
Rich fhaf infemcfion fo fhe benefit of state programs and 

overall economic growth throughout the nation. 

‘David Osborne, Labomtotia of Democracy: A New Bwd of 

Governor Cm&s ModelsforNational Gmwth msto”: Harvard 

Business Scho”l Press, 1988), pp. 3-4. 

2Ametica in Tmmition: Repoti of the Twk Force on Re.wwch and 

Z?chno/ogy (Washington, DC: National Governors’ Assccatio”, 1989), pp. vi-vii. 

3 Walter H. Plosila, “Science Engineering and Technology Centax Experience at the State and Lzxal Level.” A paper presented to theMontgomeryCo”nty(Maryland)HighTechnology 

Council, 1988, p. 10. 

4Mariannc C. Clarke, &wit&& State Eco”omiex A Review of 

State Economic Development I’o/icies and Pn~gmnw (Washingto”, DCz Center for Policy Research and Analysis, National 

Governors’ Association, 1986), p. 1. 

sDaniel B. Gamy, ed., Gubemalotial Policy Making thmugh Scie”ceAdvice(Washington,DC: OfficeofStateServices,National 

Governors’ Association, 1982), p. 2. 

6Marianne C. Clarke, “Recent State Initiatives: A Preview of 

State Science and Technology Policies and Programs.” Prepared for Jwgen Schmandt and Rob& Wilson, eds., Gmwth 

J%/;cy in fhe Age of Hi& Techno/ogv (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 

Ltd.). 

‘Clarke, Revifolizing State Economiq p. 57. 

8Clarke, “Recent State Initiatives,” pp. 4-S. 

9Ameriaz in Tmmition, pp. 20-X 

‘“O&mte, Labwatonu of Democmq p. 4. 

“Task Force on Technological Innovation, Tec/z”o/o~ and 

Gnwth: State Initiativa in Techno/ogica/ Innovations (Washingto”, DC National Governors’ Association, 1983), p. 12. 

I* Clarke, Revitu/izing St& Economies, p. 56. 

131bid., p. 57. 

M David Osborne, “State Technology Programs: A Preliminary 

AnalysisofLessons Leamed.“Unpublishedpaperpreparedfor 

the National Association of State Policy and Planning Age”- 

ties. January 1989, pp. Z-3. 

Is Ibid., p. 42. 

161bid., p. 66. 

171bid., p. 77. 

‘aIbid., p. 1Cil. 

w Robert D. Atkinson, State Techno/oa Development Pmgnzms (A 

Summaq and State-by-State Listing) (Washington, DC National Ass&&ion of State Development Agencies, 198Q p. 6. 

*O “The Structure and Function of State Science and Technology 

Offices,” Capita/ Ideas (Washington, DC Center for Policy Research, National Govemom’ Aswciation), September 1, 1988, 

pp. l-6. 

z’lbid., p. 4. 

*2Stote T&no/o@ Pmgmms in the United Stutq I988 (St. Auk 

Office of Science and Technology, Minnesota Department of 

Trade and Economic Development, 198@, p. 3. 

231bid., p. 7. 

*4.10nathan Rawh, “Stateside Strategizing,” Nationa/ Jowxd, 

May 27, 1969, pp. 1294-1297. 

I5 Smc Techno/o@ Pmgrams in the United Slates, 1988, p. 2. 

*6Atkinson, State Techno/og~ Development Programs, p. 5. 

2’Ibid., p. 4. 

zeIbid., p. 3. 

m Ibid., p. 9. 

m Stde Gowmment Sfrategia for Se/f-Assessment of Science and 

Tec/7~ofo~Pm~ms~rEconomic Deve/opment. A rep”rt from 

a w&shop jointly sponsored by theNational Governors’ Asscciation, the Government-University-Industry Research 

Roundtable and the National Research Council, April 10, t987 

&%shington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987), p. 1. 

j’Ibid., pp. 3.13. 

References 

America in Transition: Report of the Tak Force ore Raemrh and 

Techno/ogx Washington, DC National Governors’ Asswiation, 

1989. 

Atkinson, Robert D. State Technology Development Pmgmms (A 

Summ~ and Slate-by-St& List;ng). Washington, DC National Association of State Development Agencies. March 1988. 

Bartsch, Charles (ed.) The Guide to State and Fedem/ Resowcesfcw 

Economic Development. Washington, DC Northeast-Midwest 

Institute. 1989. 

Clarke, Marianne C. “Recent State Initiatives: A PrwiewofState 

Science and Technology Policies and Programs.” Jwgen 

Schmandt and Robert Wilson, eds. Gmw/h P&y in t/z Age of 

High Technologv. Eoston: IJnwin Hyma”, Ltd. 4 

J&vit&zi”g Sfafe Economies:,4 Review ofStufe Economic Develop 

mmt Policies and Pmgmms. Washington DC Center for Policy 

Research and Analysis, National Governors’ Association. 1986, 

Gary, Daniel B., ed. G&emuf”tiu/ Po/iq Muking thmugh Science 

Advice. Washington, DC: Office of State Services, National 

Govemo~’ Association. 1982. 

Institute for Illinois and the Council of Great Lakes Governors 

Science and Technoiogv in A4id-Ametica Fact Book. Washington, 

IX Institute for Illinois. t989. 

Osborne, David. Labomtotiesof Demouq: A New Bmed of Govemor Creates Models for Nationa/ Gmwth. Boston: Harvard 

Business School Press. 1988. 

“State Technology Programs: A Preliminary Analysis of Lessons Lamed.” Unpublished paper prepared for the 

National Association of State Policy and Planning Agencies. 

Janwy 1989. 

Plosila, Walter H., “Science Engineering and Technology Centers: Experience at the State and Local Level.” A paper presented to the Montgomq County (Maryland) High Technology 

Council, 1988. 

Po/icyPositionsl9&3-1989, Washington, DC: National Governors’ 

Association. Sentember 1988. 

Ranch, Jonathan. “Stateside Strategizing.” NutiomdJouma/. May 

27, 1989, pp. 1294-1297. 

The Ro/e of Science and Tech~~olo~ in Economic Competitivem.w 

Washington, DC National Governors’ Association and The 

Conference Board. September 1987. 

Stafe Government Stmtegies for Sel~Assesmw~f of Science and 

Techno/og~ Pmgmms for Economic Dtw/opment. A rep”ri from 

aworkshop jointlysponsoredbytheNationa1 Governors’ Asso. 

ciation, the Government-University-Industry Research 

Roundtable and the National Research Council. April 10.1987. 

Washington, DC National Academy Press. 1987. 

State Te&o/ogy Pmgmms in the United St&s, 198% St. Pauk Office of Science and Technology, Minnesota Department of 

Trade and Economic Development. July 1988. 

“The Structure and Function ofState Science and Technology Offices.” Capital Ideas. Center for Policy Research. National Governors’ Asscciation. September 1. 1988. 

Tech~~ology and Gmu~th: State I~?itiatives in Technological hmovaI;O”S. Washington, DC; Task Force on Technological Innovation, National Governors’ Association. October 1983. 

Watkins, Charles B. StatePmgmms to Encowage the Commerckdiz&;mz of l”“w&w Teclmo/o~. Washington, DC National 

Governon’ Awxiation. December 1985. 

36 
Introduction 

This paperoutlinescritical perspectivesof key entities 

involved in the transfer of federally funded technolo@ to 

the private sector. The intent is to provide added insight to 

the technology transfer process through lessons learned by 

these entities and gained through actual experience, be it 

from the perspective of a business, broker, or technologist. 

Space Commerce International, Ltd. (SCI) and Trantek, 

Inc. have been involved in various issues pertaining to 

technology transfer and utilization activities. Our experiences, combined with the perceptions and misconceptions 

of key players in the technoloa transfer process, will form 

the basis for conclusions that are intended to serve as useful 

inputs for a Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on 

Productivity, Technology, and Innovation. 

SC1 specializes in providing technical support, technolo- 

&y transfer, and marketing services. Tmntek special&s in 

transfening technology behveen companies and behveen 

governments and industry, domestically and overseas. Areview of relevant literature was conducted in the coume of developing the ideas which follow, although this research seizes 

chiefly to suppot? the invaluable primary research and 

hands-on experience that are at the core of thii paper. 

Background 

The federal government spends snore than $62 billion 

annually on research and development.1 These funds are allocated each year to programs developed by the departments 

of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Agriculture, and Health 

and Human Setices, and NASA, National Science Foundation, and other government agencies. Thii constitutes an extensive resource base of technologies and innovations, a 

*eat many of which have commercial applications. 

While federal technology transfer efforts have existed for a long time, beginning with the Department of 

Agriculture’s extension activities and, more recently, 

NASA’s Technology Utilization program, its promotion 

on a government-wide basis began when the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Irmovution Acf was passed in 

1980. The act mandated the transfer of non-sensitive 

technologiesby federal departments and agencies to the 

private sector and state and local governments. 

In 1986, the act was amended by the Federal Technobgy 

Transfer Act. Among the provisions of the latter act was a 

n~eansforfacilitatingcooperative R&Dagreementsbetween 

private industry, universities, and federal laboratories. 

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive 

Order 12591, “Facilitating Access to Science andTechnology,” which sought to promote further cooperation between private industry and the federal laboratories by allowing the laboratories to license, assign, or waive their 

rights to technological innovations. Private companies 

were now free to pursue the commercial applications for 

technologies they helped develop for national missions. 

In August 1988, President Reagan signed the Omnibus 

Trade and Competitiwmw Act of 1988. The new act redesignated the National Bureau of Standards as the National 

Institute of Standards and Technoloa, established a new 

Undet’secretaty for Technology, and created a new Technology Administration within the Department of Commerce It is this new act which contains provisions for the 

establishment of a Clearinghouse, within the Department 

of Commerce, which will serve as a central repositov of 

information on federal, state, and local initiatives on productivity, technolom, and innovation. 

Objectives of Tecbncdogy ‘lkansfer 

In any discussion of the potential role, design, and operation of the Clearinghouse for State and L,ocal Initiatives on Productivity, Technolom, and Innovation, it is important that we understand that the basic motivation of 

any business is to maximize profits in order to remain corn 

petitive. Therefore, any application of external forces that 

help achieve this goal should be energetically pursued. 

The predominant objectives of these forces are to: (1) 

reduce costs (make an existing product or service less expensive), (2) improve qmdi~ (make the product or service 

more reliable), and (3) da&p new products or services. 

When one or more of these aims are accomplished? the 

business isbetterpositioned to increase salesvolume or to 

create a market for new or improved products or services, 

thereby increasing profits. 

The three major sources of external assistance are: (1) 

infusion of capital, (2) increased manpower, and (3) introduction of new technology. Of the three, this discussion 

will focus on the introduction of new technology, specifically,federaliyfinded technology, toachieve the goalof improved competitiveness. 

Both foreign and domestic studies related to the 

cost-benefits of government-sponsored technoloa transfer 

efforts reflect positive ratios. In some cases, the benefits resalt in a significant return on the investment. One stw conducted by Mathematics, Inc., showed the ovemll benefit-t 

ratio of one federally funded technology transfer prolqam to 

be as high as 6 to 1. Another study, conducted by A.D. Little, 

Inc., found benefit-cost ratios of at least 3 to 1 for fiis participating in the three or four most successful State Technical 

Services (STS) programs in each state.2 One may conclude 

that any program that enhances the transferprcxess and ultimately increases competitiveness should make a positive 

contribution to the economic health of the country. 

37 
-- 

The method by which this process may be undertaken, 

however, is currently a source of a great deal of discussion. 

Many different solutions have been proposed to increase 

the rate of technology transfer and successful utilization, 

as witnessed by the estabIishment of a CIearinghouse for 

State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, 

and Innovation. Acentral concept of this paper is that the 

perspectives of all of the key entities involved in the technology transfer process are inevimbIe factors that have an 

impact on the successful operadon of such programs. ‘IXerefore, a sensidvity to these perspectives is crucial to the design, 

implementation, and operadon of any new i&k&es. 

Perpsectiv& of Key Players 

The players actively involved in technology transfer 

activities may be grouped into four major categories: business end-users, technology brokers, federal technologists, 

and mechanism developers. An on-going program to promote successful technology transfer depends on a careful 

consideration of a11 of these perspectives. The end-users 

are the ultimate beneficiaries of any well designed technology transfer program; “amrally, their needs, experiences, and perceptions are most important. Without the 

input of the technoIogy brokers, federal technologists, and 

mechanism developers, however, it would be difficult to 

design and implement a technology or innovation initiative 

sensitive to end-user needs. 

The purpose of thti section is to establish a common 

basis for understanding the general nature of technolo&y 

wmsfer and the role of innovation, in particular, on the 

transfer process. This section will describe the. activities undertaken by key pIayers invoh& in technolow transfer, their 

diifering motivations, and the nature of their interaction. 

Business End.Users 

The busin= end-usets of federal &hnoIogy resowxs 

are comprised of those companies that seek comp&ive advantage through the application of new technologies. As descriied above, this group is motivated by the overridiig goal 

of increasing competitiveness and, &imateIy, profits. Beyond this goal, however, there maybe Feat diierences in the 

way new technoloa is perceived by different companies. 

One might assume that the federal laboratories are 

deluged by people asking for assistance, but this does not 

necessarily happen. There are factors linked to corporate 

perceptions, such as a reluctance to expose proprietav information, an aversion to dealing with the federal system, 

and a hesitation to invest time and money to wwel to the 

source of information, that serve to keep the number of inquiries relatively low. In addition, it seems as though private R&D technologists fear that this type of technology 

search might reflect neg&veIy on their own innovative 

ability. Below are a few of the end-users’ key perceptions 

that affect their access of technology information. 

Perceived Sophistic&ion of Technology. One reason 

some business end-users do not attempt to access federal 

technology dam is that there is frequently a misconception 

of the sophistication of the technologies involved. For exampIe, technology transfer agents, in interviews at the 

University of Southern CaIifomia, University of OkIahoma, and Stanford Research Institute, reported that when 

corporate technologists were queried about their reasons 

for not searching for federally developed technologies, a 

significant number believed that these technoIogies were 

too sophis&xted for their needs. The companies these 

technologis& worked for were usually at the small business 

end of the specmxn, but the perception was found in large 

companies as well. They were conditioned to believe that 

NASA was involved with work in the “hard sciences” needed 

for space exploration; the Department of Defense with nussive, complex wea!xms systems; the Department of Energy 

with intticate enera genemting plants; etc. AI1 too often, 

they feel technologically inferior and intimidated by the vast 

amounts of R&D bemg conducted in areas of their interest. 

Short.Term Focus, Another factor limiting a firm’s incentive to seek federal Pxhnologies is the current tendency to seek near-term solutions. The prevailing tendency is 

to solve problems within a one- to two-year time period, 

thereby shifting the focus from long-term new product design to short-tern product improvement During an interview with a Fortune 5CH.l company president, he remarked 

that, “If I don’t come up with a new product and show an 

increase in our profits in the next two years, I’ll be fired,” 

and this is not an isolated example. The net result of this 

tendency is to shift the focus of the search strategy from 

research to development technologies. When this shiit occurs, there is little incentive to seek out federal government technology. 

“Not Invenkd Here.” Technology transfer to the private sector may be hindered by the commonly observed 

“not invemed here” (NIH) syndrome.3This is the mindset 

that precludes from application any technology or innovation generated outside the firm. The NIH syndrome may 

be attributable to a need to protect annual R&D budgets, 

to a real or perceived stigma within the firm against externally developed technologies, or to a simple mistrust of 

other people’s work. A case in point is our experience with 

a client, one of the largest food processing companies in 

the United States, that requested coma% with federal 

technologists working on unique membrane technologies. 

During our discussions, the vice president for R&D became somewhat hostile, and when gsked his reasons for his 

sudden change in attitude, he responded, “My credibility is 

being called into question by my subordinates because it 

appears that I can’t handle my job and need external help!” 

Large Companies. In general, large companies can 

gain much advantage by acquiring federal technology. 

These companies usually have large technical staffs that 

can more easily assimilate the federal technoloa into 

their current programs. They generally have well dewIaped information management systems, as well. In some 

extreme cases, certain companies have learned that their 

current R&D programs could be curtailed or redirected. 

This happens because there is a greakr exchange of information between company technologists and their counterparts in the federal laboratories. 

The interpersonal exchange of information between 

large firms’ technica staffs and federal technologists often 

38 
allows the fiis tobeassformal technology transferchan- 

~1s: However, a lack of awareness does exist among these 

technical staffs as well, which may leave many federal 

technolom resources untapped. Where these resources 

are actively sought out, it is usually for specific infomation. Corporate technologists are often referred to federal 

technical information informally, through their peer networks, and, not swprisingly, through the use of a simple 

research twl-the telephone. 

The preference among large corporations is usually 

’ fortechnicaldataasprovidedbyapassivedatabaseorpublishing mechanism. For proprietary reasons, large fiis 

seldom seek technology &ension services or other active 

~ 

1 

technology transfer mechanisms. These mechanisms osw 

+.lt f require in-depth discussions of the problems~ at hand, 

an 1 are perceived to threaten corporate security. 

Small Companies. For small companies or individual 

el ,trepreneors, a diiferent pattern exists. First of all, by 

d eir very nature, small businesses are even more 

ti~ort-term oriented than large companies. They have 

r Luch less resilience to dramatic changes in fiiancial perf jmance, and so cannot afford to invest heavily in R&D. 

econd, small companies seldom have the technical staffs 

needed to interpret technical literature. Rarely do they 

law a staff dedicated solely to devising solutions totechnii 

cal problems. Third, current technology transfer prograxns, for the most pa& have not adequately addressed 

1 the particular needs of small businesses. Many agencies 

have only begun to implement the 1986 ikhnolog~ Tramfer 

ht and the 1987 Executive Order with respect to increased attention to small businesses.5 The small business 

community is a ready target for technology transfer efforts, but they do not have the resources to work with any 

but the most active mechanisms. 

Tbe primary obstacle to technology utilization on the 

part of small businesses is a lack of awareness of available 

programs. Ironically, their need and williigness to seek 

out such programs, once identified, is often greater than 

that of large firms. Here, proprietary information may not 

be a critical issue, and small businesses therefore could 

benefit from more comprehensive assistance, such as may 

be provided by technology extension or broker services. 

Mission Requirements and Private-Sector Applica. 

lions. In the final analysis, the great majority of most 

successful transfers occur when a personal relationship is 

developed between the federal technologist and the information seeker. With the exception of those technologies 

1 that are developed for specific private-sector applications, 

! such as environmental science, transportation, and mediin 

[ 

cal technologies, much of the R&D conducted at the federa1 level is generated for the purpose of satisfyiig mission-related requirements for agencies like NASA and 

1 

; 

DOD. The R&D conducted for these agencies is perfamed with litde or no thought about possible private sectar spinoff applications. 

i 

Any application of these technologies to other problems usually requires additional research, development, 

g and product engineetig. Requesters know what they are 

! after, but often do not fully understand the technology 

they are seeking. Conversely, technologists understand 

the technologies they develop, but know little or nothing 

about the reqoestors’ problems or about their own technotogies’ pos&le apptications. 

Additionally, mission-oriented research is not generally goided or restricted by rigid cost pressures. It is usually 

guided more by safety and reliability considerations, so 

that even when technologies are retated more directly to 

the requesters’ requirements, further development and 

product engineetig have to be conducted. Therefore, 

there is an ongoing, unfortunate straggle between access 

and the benefit of personal interaction with the technologists, on the one hand, and the mission requirements that 

the technologists ultimately must satisfy, on the other. 

Perceived Cost ofTechnolog. An interesting phenomenon we have observed is that little value is placed on free 

technology. An everiment was conducted at the University of Pittsburgh’s Industrial Application Center, in which 

technology information was distriiuted under three different cost schemes. Information seekers in one group were 

given the information completely free of charge, a second 

groop was charged half the cost of providing the information, and a third group paid the full cost for the materials. 

In follow-up studies conducted within a year after distriiw 

tion, it was found that the group that bore the full cost of 

the information had the highest rate of successful utiliition of the technology. When technology is made available 

at no cost to the user, the motivation to make certain it is md 

is apparently lessened. When charged for the technologythat is, chargd for the @&I to get it to the we-the user’s 

application efforts increase in direct relation to the charges. 

Technologies vs. SoIutions. Our work in technology 

brokering has shown that most infomation seekers arenot 

looking for technology as much as they are ttying to get 

help to solve problems. More often than not, it has been oar 

cxpxience that when a technotoa is identified to solve apartitular problem, that technology is not the one ori@nally 

sought out by the client. In their quest to apply technological 

solutions to the* problems, entrepreneurs lean heavily on 

the federal technicians to fiid ways to apply the technology to 

their specific purposes. Txhnologists, on the other hand, attempt to ondemtand the problem and offer possible uses of 

the technology. Some middle ground is often sought between 

the two, wherein both attempt to understand the other’s 

needs and expertise. It is during the cowse of these diissions that application breakthroughs usually oozur. 

Summary 

The motivation to seek (or shun) federal technologies 

differs between large and small companies. By most accounts, the primary motivation to acquire these technologieh 

and thereby gain the competitive advantage, is there. This is 

tempered, however, by attitudinal and practical constraints. 

These differences are pronounced enough to merit 

specialized attention to small and targe businesses. While 

there is a solid foundation of work in transferring technology to large corporations-indeed, most discussions of 

technology transfer are limited to this aspect alone-very 

little research has been conducted on small-business technology transfer. Any programs that are planned by state 

39 

I 
atid locat initiatives or federal agencies should therefore 

be prepared to ~ccotntttodate the differing needs of these 

two constituent groups, or else to accept targeting one or 

the other group exclusively. 

Part of the information that any new technology trans. 

fer initiative will need to disseminate to its potential users 

is sotne idea of the amount of iuvesttnent one will likely 

need to make, in terms of both time and utouey, in order to 

successfully utilize a given federal technology. This infortnation wonld be especially helpful for the small-business owner 

or entrepreneur, whose budgets are already restricted. Any 

potential end-user will be better preparcd to decide whether 

to seek f&t-al technology if such investment is provided. 

TechnoIogy Brokers 

There is an ove~hdmingvatiety of scmx.es o<federally funded technology, including publications, seminars, 

laboratory technicians, and computerized data banks. Few 

people even know of their existence, Iet aIone are familiar 

with the intricacies of extracting the information. These 

intricacies result in a voidbetween those seeking new technologies and those who wish to provide it. In tnany cases, 

this void is filled by technology broken. 

Technology brokers are agents who specialize in 

tnatching sources of technology with potential end-users. 

This breed of entrepreneur operates between the user and 

the technologist. They function as intermediaries-ttying 

to understand the users’ problems and to match them with 

the appropriate technology and/or technologist. In effect, 

they fit into a mode which nxty be described as somewhere 

between active and passive. They are referred to asbrokers 

because they neither solve the problem nor generate the 

technology, but narrow the search field for both sides to 

high potential marriages of the two. 

Time Value of Brokers. The value of technoloa brokers is in keeping current with ongoing R&D in govern 

merit and industry, and in understanding the needs of the 

client. Obviously, no one person can keep current with all 

ongoing R&D, but the broker usually has developed a network of enough contacts to get to the appropriate technology in a relatively short titne. Therein lies the technology 

broker’s value: saving time. 

The value of technology brokers to their clients lies in 

their talent to analyze and understand quickly the technology requirements of the problem at hand, and their subsequent ability to identify rapidly the relevant technology 

and its location. Users are confronted with a basic choice. 

They tnay choose to identify a mace of information independently , search for the information, acquire the information, understand the infortnation, identify the innovator, and, finally, arrange a contact. Ahernatively, they tnay 

choose to enlist the assistance of a broker to do it for them. 

It is usually tnore cost effective to let the broker make the 

connection because of the time involved in learning where 

to go and how to get the information. 

Some large technically oriented companies, appreciating the vat~e of the technical broker, have developed 

their own in-nouse counterparts to perform this function. 

These companies have full-time resident brokers who specialize in seeking those technologies having a potential impact not only on current product lines, but also on future 

product development. 

Summary 

Technology brokering developed in response to the 

needs of both information seekers and technologists. Infortnation seekers are ordinarily faced with an enormous 

task in order to find an appropriate technology, if such exists. ‘Ihchnologists would like to assist information seekers, 

but often do not understand their problems, or cannot set 

aside their primary mission-oriented responsibilities. 

Federal Technologists 

Fedem fechnoIogists, as defined here, inchtde the 

bench scientists who workon mission-related technologies 

and the managing scientists who supervise their work. 

They are responsthle for pioneeting technoloB innovations, bringing these innovations to the attention of brokers or technology transfer agents, and furnishing potential users with further assistance. This assistance can be 

structured in tmmy forms, ranging from simple explanations of the technology to hands-on help in re-engineering 

the technology for a specific application. Following arc 

some key perspectives involving technology transfer, at 

they relate to federal technologists. 

Conflicting Priorities. When called on to help therequestor, a number of questions present themselves to the 

technologist. Foremost is, “Why should I take time from 

tny regular work to help this person?” In practice, otn 

sotnces have shown that very few have refused to spend a 

few moments to send additional information or briefly exe 

plain sotne of the subtleties of the technolouat hand. Federal technologists generally haves personal interest in the 

application of their innovations either within the scope of 

their research project or in a spinoff in the private sector. 

Beyond that, we find a wide range in the level of assistance 

being offered, depending on the state of mind of the technologists and/or the policies of their management. To sup. 

port this statement, NASA commissioned the American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) to conduct 

a technology ttnnsfer project for Fottune Xkl non-aentspace 

companies. When the people who conducted this mnltiyeat 

study, both withii NASA and the AMA, were asked questions regarding the cooperative attitudes of the federal technologists toward the non-aerospace engineers and scientists, not one instance of uncooperative behavior was 

identified. It must be noted, however, that this project had 

the complete support of the NASA Administrator and the 

laboratory directors, which indicates that when encowaged by top management, cooperative attitudes result. 

This important observation is not meant to reflect 

negatively on the professionalism, qualifications. or dedication of federal technologists for their ptimaty mission 

assignment. It is merely intended to focus attention on the 

reality of the technologists’ position, having to divert attention from their prirnaty responsibility, unless encouraged to do so by laboratory tnanagers. 

No firm rules have been developed toforce the technologist to spend time with the requestor. The perfortnante of government technologists is not being evaluated 

on their ability to help non-government requests forassis40 
tance. Performance evaluation, the key to pay increases 

and promotions, isbased on the technologist’s ability to enhance the agency’s mission, not on the aptitude to help in 

the solution of non-mission problems. 

No doubt much may be said in opposition to this statement, citing rules, regulations, policies, and recently enacted laws to the contrary. Years of experience with this 

process, however, have shown that, in practice, any assistance given by federal technologists is directly related to 

theirsupervisorb acquiescence and willingness to allow time 

to be taken from mission-related work and applied to 

non-mission problems. One incredible event occurred 

when a supervisor told one of his outstanding federal technologists not to spend any more time on technology transferbecause the supervisor was oveNhelmed with requests 

for his subordinate to speak at various technical functions. 

Management~Level Considerations. From a purely 

pragmaticviewpoint, the technologists’ supervisors are put 

in a position of trying to serve two masters. On the one 

hand, they have an obligation to apply all of their resources 

to the missions at hand, with theirperfomance being evaluated on how well that is accomplished. On the other 

hand, they are obligated to set aside sonw portion of their 

resources to transfer activities. 

Our experience indicates that only a very small percentage of technologists have been promoted to higher 

levels of responsibility based on work in technology transfer. In fact, there are cases where bench technicians have 

been penalized for spending what their superiors considered as “too much time on outside business,” while working to transfer technology. 

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that few 

technologists view work in technology transfer as a path 

leading to promotions within their technical career fieldthat is, the discipline in which they were educated, trained, 

and, in most cases, hired. 

On the other hand, we have observed that most supervisxs have a sense of responsibility to help the taxpayer, from 

which all their resources flow, particularly if it enhances the 

wmomic health of the nation. But this service is always 

supplied on a non-interference basis, and rightfully so. 

Technologist-Level Considerations. Much can be said 

for the incentive of the laboratoq technical innovatorsthe technologists. Most laboratory technologists work on 

esoteric research, and all technologists live with the hope 

of seeing the results of their labor applied to their agency’s 

mission, or at least applied to the solution of a private sector problem. Therefore, a greater degree of cooperation is 

found at the bench level in federal laboratories than at the 

management levels. 

Here, technologists help with the expectation that 

they will see their work applied to something more immediite and thereby gain immediate gratification. Laboratov 

specialists are driven more by a desire to see the results of 

their laborput to II% than by any other consideration, including cash awards. Such awards may bring with them a 

degree of public recognition but are usually not large 

enough to stimulate dedication to technology transfer. 

Summary 

Lacking a formal structure to assist in the technolou 

transfer process, federal technologists are hard pressed to 

fulfill their roles as technoloa transfer agents under current legislation. The focus on how to get more assistance 

from the technologist should be aimed at the federal laboratov management level in order to have a defiied level-of-effort set aside for this purpose. As an example, 

Langley Research Center developed a special time charge 

code for technolom transfer projects. All time expended 

on this type of activity could be collected, analyzed, and 

used as budget bargaining tool. 

Therefore, an examination of the incentive systems already in place in the nation’s federal laboratories serves to 

provide useful insight into the successes and constraints of 

technology transfer activities. If these incentives are determined to be insufficient to reward technology assistance, 

then the burden of assistance must fall back onto other entities or programs, such as state and local initiatives. 

Mechanism Developers 

Technology transfer mechanism developers are those 

federal government policymakers responsible for the design and implementation of technology transfer processes 

and programs. 

Notwithstanding the great progress made in the federal government’s efforts to transfer technology, this field is 

still a vast, uncharted territory that government employees 

are commissioned to ex@ore. Still, the fact remains in almost all cases that the training and occupationalconditioning of these employees teaches them to concentrate on developing technology, not transfming it.

In fact, it was not until recently that formal courses in 

technoloa transfer were offered at educational institutions. 

This highlights the fact that, hiitorically, this dtipline was 

acquired only through on-the-j& training. Understandiig 

the motivation of private sector entrepreneurs was not a prerequisite for the job. 

Therefore, it was difficult at first for the technology 

transfer mechanism developers to understand why all this 

wonderful, sophisticated, highly acclaimed technology was 

languishing in the warehouse in spite of their herculean efforts. As one manager put it, “Here we are all dressed up 

for a party and we haven’t received an invitation!” Below, 

we cite wme examples why. 

Understanding Consumer Needs. Technolom transfer mechanism developers learned quickly what their 

counterparts in industrial R&D learn& you have to know 

who your customers are and what their needs are. To quote 

a well known travelling salesman’s idiom, “You have to 

know the territov.” This is a diicult transition for the federal technolo@t to make, having been accustomed to responding to mission requirements rather than consumer needs. 

To their credit, these mechanism developers swn 

adapted to the marketplace and learned toconsult with the 

people who required the technology. This provided NASA 

with guidelines for the selection of the mechanism most 

beneficial to the userand the manner in which the technology should be “packaged” to sustain the user’s interest. A 

case in point is the development of the popular!Gls,4 Tecfi 

41 
Brief Journal, which won national acclaim for its composition and format. In its original form, technical descriptions 

were disseminated individually (one for each innovation), 

on a multi-page fomat, and were written using technical 

terminology. Readercommentswere solicited, which later 

led to the conclusion that in order to make the technology 

more easily read, the descriptions should be couched in lay 

terms and include diagrams whenever possible. Also, to 

improve the “shelf life” of the information, it was decided 

to limit the descriptions to one page and package them in 

book form, that is, provide a journal of descriptions, issued 

periodically, with a continuing index, so that each description 

could be referred to at some later date. For an in-depth anderstanding of the costbenefits of various transfer mechanisms, the reader is diiected to a study conducted by the Industrial Economics Division of the Denver Research 

Institute titled “A Swmnary of Cost-Benefit Studies.” 

An additional example of how experience provided 

guidelines for the selection of mechanisms most beneficial 

to the user was the establishment of NASA’s Industrial 

Applications Centers (IAC). These centers, located 

throughout the cotmtq, encouraged the IAC technologists to interact personally with the information seekers in 

an attempt to better understand the seeker’s needs, rev 

quirements, and motivations. The intent here was to gain 

useful, ongoing feedback on how best to design and update 

NASA3 Technology Utilization program From this feedback, many adjustments were made, which included innovative advertising techniques, modified interviewing procedures (of the infomation seeker to gain a better insight 

to hii problem) and follow-up strategies. 

Funding Mechanisms. As in all government-suplxxted 

services, funding considerations exert a major influence on 

theconcept and implementation of well meaning projects. 

Thus, technology transfer mechanisms were not always 

optimal or cost effective, given the objectives and budgetary constraints. A specific example of how one transfer 

mechanism was substituted for another given funding constraints is as follows: A project developed jointly between 

NASA and Computer Aided Manufactwing International, an industry association, attempted to bridge the gap between engineering design and manufacturing by using a 

computer program. This gap is generally referred to as 

“production planning.” The concept held much promise, 

but required considerable mock-up and testing. Neither 

organization had sufficient funds to underwrite the 

proof-of-concept prototype, so rather than have thii innovative idea languish in a reference file for lack of development funds, it wasdecided to resort to the passive transfer 

mode and publish it in a technical journal. Subsequently, 

an aerospace cotnpany decided to introduce the technology into its process planning operations. 

Summmy 

From the perspective of mechanism developers, the 

primwy obstacle to tramfem~gtechmlo~ has been, and still 

is, the limited understanding of the requirements, motivations, 

and experier~es of the end-users. As these factors began to 

have an impact on the design of later technology transfer 

mechanisms, more attention was focused on the funding 

required to support the more active programs. The increased responsiveness to the business user came with a 

price. Designers of new technology transfer initiatives 

would be well adv?sed to work closely with mechanism developers who have benefited from their work during the 

early years of technology transfer programs. Their methodologies for targeting end-users, analyzing their specific 

needs, and responding to new and changing demandswere 

developed through many years of practice and experimentation. These mechanism developers understand the limiting parameters of the operation of technology transfer 

progratns, as well as the trade-offs between price and perfonnance. The information they provide, and the actual lessons they have learned from hands-on experience, provide 

extremely beneficial insight for both new technology transfer 

program development and existing program assessment. 

Technology nansfer Mechanisms 

The purpose of this section is to categorize and describe three basic approaches to transfening federal technology to the private sector. The particular advantages and 

disadvantages of each approach are identified and described, and the specific conditions under which they tray 

be most effective are highlighted. In order to develop a national Clearinghouse structured to assist effectively in the 

communication of information on technology and innovation initiatives, it is necessary to understand the transfer 

mechanisms currently in operation in various government 

agencies. We can then make effective use of the lessons 

learned and avoid repeating mistakes. 

During the formative years of the fedeml technology 

transfer movement-that is, the decision to make a concerted effort to bring federally developed technoloa tobear 

on private sector problems-the phase “search before research” was used extensively by NASAs ‘I&hnolo&v Utiliition program to convey to the public the notion that solutions 

to their problems may exist and may be available on request. 

As logical as this phrase sounded, however, it soon 

became apparent that more work would be required to 

motivate the general public to seek solutions in the federal data repositories. Doors were opened, and the 

“Welcome” sign hung in conspicuous places, but still the 

reservoir of knowledge remained virtually untapped. It 

is ironic that so little interest was being expressed byprivate companies in acquiring the technology for which 

they had already paid in federal taxes. 

Federal government agencies in both executive and 

legislative branches, including the Office of Management 

and Budget, the Department of Defense, the Department 

of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the staffs of 

both House and Senate oversight committees, were 

pressed to find answers to this perplexing problem. This 

resulted in the development of a number of approaches to 

rectify the apparent lack of public interest. 

A concerted effort led to extensive advertising and 

publicity through direct-mail campaigns. national magazines, television and radio programs, and newspapers. 

Concurrent with this external media venture, three different approaches to more active federal participation with 

the technology transfer process were formulated. 

42 
The mechanisms that resulted may be divided into 

three categories: passive, semi-active and active. While the 

general trend in technology transfer programs has been 

(and continues to be) toward active mechanisms, there are 

niches which each type may successfully occupy. 

Passive Mechanisms 

Initially, it seemed that the quickest vfay to start the 

ball rolling was simply to m&e technology infmmatim availde. This was the major thrust of most technology transfer 

mechanisms at the outset, due in large part to budgetary 

constraints, lack of understanding of the needs of a nebw 

lous target audience, and a further lack of organized mechanisms to implement shod-range plans. 

The primaxy aim of the passive type of transfer activity is 

to reach as many people as possible tithin a liiited budget. 

The most common ways for accomplishiig this include publications, data bases, seminars, technical meetings, and other 

methods gexed to reach large numbers of people. All of 

these methods are relatively inexpensive and easy to manage. 

Examples of successful passive mechanisms for technology transfer include NASA’s published abstracts of 

technologies, Tech Brie& the Department of Defense’s 

Defense Technical Information Setice, and a newsletter 

published by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of 

Miies. The National Technical Information Service 

@ITS), maintained by the Department of Commerce, is 

the federal government’s largest technoloa data base. In 

addition, the Office of Technology Assessment reports 

that passive technology transfer programs are supported 

by as many as 35 other government agencies.6 

What all of these methods have in conunon is that they 

are indeed passive. In otherwords, there is no involvement 

with the solution of any specific problem. Data are collected, collated, and distributed to mass audiences. Identities of the recipients are limited to names and addresses. 

To what use the requestor may put the information is not 

known. Furthermore, it n-~ay not even be deemed necessary, given that this technology transfer procedure was intended to be passive. 

For precisely these reasons, it is difficult to measure 

the success of this tpe of transfer endeavor, at least in 

terms of the ultimate. application or use of the technology. 

lf the program’s success is based on the number of people 

reached, then the passive route is, with minor exceptions, 

the most effective and economical. However, the people 

who operate this type of mechanism know little of the 

end-users’ problems or of the success of the applications 

without extensive (and expensive) follow-up. 

Passive mechanisms, nonetheless, may be ideal for 

large firms with full-time technical and information management staffs. In these cases, the anonymity with which a 

researcher can obtain information may be viewed as a cornpetitive advantage. As illustrated earlier, federal ttinologv 

sonnation is often accessed with the help of a technologtit’s 

peer network, thereby miniiizing the search process. 

SembActive Mechanisms 

In semi-active technology transfer mechanisms, a 

f&n&a broker, rather than the entrepreneur, does the 

searching for appropriate technology. These mechanisms 

involve searching for an appropriate technology, but do 

not involve the actual application of that technology. The 

broker thus leads the requestor to the technology, but is 

not required to assist in the application of the accessed 

technoloa to the problem. 

Perhaps the best known of these is NASA’sTechnology 

Utilization (TU) program, which was initiated in l%Z. 

While the TU program began as an R&D publishing and 

distributing operation, the quest for a greater success rate 

in applications led to the exploration of a brokering type of 

activity. By 1971, NASA had gone even further, developing 

a network of regional broker programs now known as Industrial Application Centers. 

In this case, due to a close association with the entrepreneur, the technologybrokergainsaninsight intotherequestor’s objective and the problem at hand, and has a preconceived idea of one or more technologies that may 

potentially provide a solution. Although the broker may 

not be completely taken into the confidence of the information seeker, some knowledge of the problem is gained 

through personal contacts and an exchange of information. This may be conceptualiied as a basic technology 

search service with “value-added” aspects. 

Having some knowledge of the requestor’s problem, 

the added value coraes from the ability of the technology 

broker to reduce the volumes of possible technical candidates to only those having a high degree of possible application. The broker’s specialty is knowing where to search 

and how to get access to information sources, thereby saving the requestor considerable time and n~oney in 

dead-end pursuits. 

Federal technology brokers appear to be most useful 

andproductiveforsmall or medium-sized businessconstituents who do not have full-time technical staffs. Because 

brokers do not specialize in the application of technology, 

and because incidences of misdirected searches are frequent, son~e degree of technical proficiency on the part of 

thebusinessesisanimportantprerequisite.Thisisparticolarly true for small businesses, whose problems may often 

extend beyond technical issues a2d into areas of management and operations. 

Active Mechanisms 

As the technology transfer process became more sophisticated, and as more pressure was applied to show the 

fruits of federal funding in transfer activities, mechanisms 

became more involved with the application of the technology. Systems started to beuxnemore“active.“Moreattention was now focused on how the technology was to be 

applied to specific problems. 

At the most active end of the spectrum, there is total 

involvement with the actual application of the technology. 

Briefly, these methods may involve identifying the appropriate technolom required to solve a problem, re-engineering the technology to fit the application. conducting 

market analyses to determine the size and character of the 

potential market, providing feedback to refine the techni- 

~1 approach, and doing whatever is necessary to bting the 

end product to the marketplace. 

At the federal level, the best known of the progmms 

that use active mechanisms is the Department Of Agficol43 
tune’s Cooperative Extension Service, a portion of whose 

activities is devoted to technology transfer. At the state 

level, an exemplary program is the Pennsylvania Technical 

Assistance Program (PENNTAP), an industrial etiension 

program modeled largely after Agriculture’s Cooperative 

Extension Service. 

With active technology transfer mechanisms, more resources are devoted to the total transfer process. Therefore, technology agents must focus on fewer problems. Although this method may not be as cost effective as the 

diisemination mode, the rate of successful applications is 

very high, due in large part to the selection process. Another major advantage from the viewpoint of the transfer 

agent is the ability to remain constantly involved and, 

therefore, better able to track the transfer Process and final application. 

5. 

6. 

In the coume of the active technology transfer process, much is learned about the transfer mechanism, such 

as how and why it works and does not work. This information, in turn, leads to constant iterations and, hopefully, to 

improvements to the system. 

7, 

Further, one must consider the advantage gamed by 

providing visual proof to the funding authorities in both 

the IegisIative and executive branches of the government 

that their investment in the transfer process has resulted 

in demonstrable applications. This advantage is possible 

only with active technology transfer mechanisms. 

8, 

Technology extension and other active mechanisms 

seem tailor made for small businesses and entrepreneurships. The only limiting factor in their overall impact is the 

cost of providing the services. For example, in fiscal yeat’ 

1984, the USDA’s extension budget was $334 million. In 

9 

contrast, NASA’s entire technology transfer budget in fiscal year 1983 was $9 million.’ Cost considerations aside, 

the close interaction between agents and end-users helps 

to minimize the possibility of technoloa mismatches, and 

allows much needed guidance in management and other 10. 

related areas of technology utilization. 

L,esscms Learned 

The precedmg discussion suggests some central points 

about transferring technology to the private sector. These 

may be summarized as follows: 

11, 

1~. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Federally funded technologies may be an important resources for companies seeking increased 

competitiveness by reducing costs, improving the 

quality of their product or service offerings, O[ developing new products or services. 

The benefits of effective technology transfer programs often result in significant returns on investment in the,programs’ operation, both forpat’ticipatingbusinesses and in terms of productivity, job 

creation, and tax income. 

ogies is a complex process, invoivmg me CreaWay 

Federal ~technology transfer programs are vahtable resources forbusiness, reducing the need for 

large inte&%l R&D budgets and accelerating the 

natural process of innovation. 

The successful transfer of federally funded technol- 

. ~. 

12. 

13. 

14, 

nd hard work of four key entities: business end- I 

sets, technolou brokers, federal technologfsts 

nd mechanism developers. Fach has a unique set 

If motivations, perceptions, and vahtes that provide 

mportant insight into the technology transfer proess and which are based on hands-on experiences. 

‘otential business end-users of federal governnent technologies are often hindered by a lackof 

wareness of federa resources, a tendency tovard short-term planning, and the “not invented 

tere” syndrome. 

-arge companies that are aware of federal techlology resources often bwass formal channels of 

;echnology transfer by making use of interpersonal methods such as technologist peer networks, 

which minimize the search process by helping to 

identify specific technologies with high promise. 

Smalt and medium-sized companies t-are\y have the 

human resources that large fiis have to collect, interpret, and apply technologies or technical information to their operations. Their technical problems axe often accompanied, ot’ overshadowed, by 

other business-related problems, such as fmancing 

or management capability. 

Technology transfer should be viewed as problem 

solving, rather than simply a technology’ search 

exercise. Brokers and other technology agents 

consistently find that a targeted technology isnot 

always the most appropriate one for the problem 

being looked at. 

Technology brokers provide valuable intermediary assistance by matching business end-users 

with appropriate federal technologists. These entities also can provide useful input to the Clearinghouse based on personal experiences. 

Federal technologists have a personal desire to 

assist in the application of mission-oriented technologies to private-sector problems, but usually 

do not have the time or authorization to provide 

this assistance. 

Technology transfer mechanism developers are 

charged with the difficult responsibility of implementing programs based on requirements that 

are highly specialized, depending on the target 

audience and on processes that are only recently 

being understood and analyzed for assessment. 

Technology transfer mechanisms may be categotied in one of three ways: passive, semi-active, and 

active. 

Passive mechanisms often involve published technical information or data base services, with little 

or no consideration for outreach, assistance, Or 

feedback. They are generally best suited for large 

corporate technology end-users. 

Semi-active mechanisms involve tech”oloa brakers, who lead corpwate researchers to federal 

technologists, but do little to assist in the actuai 

application of the technology. They are especiafty 

valuable to small or medium-sized business endusers with some degree of technical proficien’+ 

44 
15. Active mechanisms incomorate ou&ach kchniques with a high level 02 interaction and feedback between the technology agent and the business end-user. They are most valuable for small 

businesses and entrepreneurs. Active mechanisms are also, unfortunately, the most costly to 

implement successfully and fully. 

16, Valuable, practical infomation exists from “the 

field,” and it should be made available to entities 

seeking analytical support for new program development and/or assessment in the area of technology transfer and utiliition. This information is 

derived from crucial, hands-on experiences and 

the collective perspectives of the key entities involved in existing technologytransferprograms. It 

would be advisable for any entity to gain an aecurate understanding of the “lessons learned” by 

these entities prior to embarking on new initiatives in involving technology transfer. 

Condusions-Implications for the Clearinghouse 

Having reviewed crhical perspectives of key entities 

involved in federal technology transfer programs, we now 

diiect our attention to the implications these perspectives 

away have for the design and operations of a Clearinghouse 

for State and Local Initiatives on F’roductivity, Technology, 

and Innovation. We also have the second issues paper by 

the Advisoq Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), proposing a draft plan for the Clearinghouse. Briefly, the second issues paper proposes that the 

Clearinghouse’s initial target audience be federal, state, 

and local agencies, and that its offered services be analytical support for self-assessment by these entities when considering technology transfer initiatives. With this understan&mg in mind, we propose that the following points be 

considered by the Clearinghouse: 

1. Any initiative on productivity, technology, and innovation, be it federal, state, or local, faces a difficult task when defining its missions and audiences 

at the outset, quantifying its funding levels, staffing, and other operating parameters. Drawing on 

the experiences of prior technology transfer programs would be a useful starting point for consid.. 

eration. Some examples are: The services provided by the National Technical Information 

Service, an excellent passive technology transfer 

mechanism; the National Institute for Science 

and Technology, which employs the active mechanism to great advantage; and the Federal Laboratoq Consortium, which has considerable experience with all types of mechanisms. The reader is 

strongly urged to draw on their eqeriences. Special attention must be given by designers of 

these initiatives to the potential advantages and 

disadvantages of duplicating the efforts of existing programs. If the Clearinghouse can provide 

guidance along these lines, its work will be highlyvaluableandpossiblycataly~icin nature, multiplying in productivity the workof existing tech. 

nology transfer programs. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The hands-on work of entities currently involved 

in the field of technology transfer, both in the govermnmtandin the private ssctor, fern a substantial foundation on which to build a “data base” 

based on practical experiences that can be made 

available by the Clearinghouse to its clientele. 

The experiences, perceptions, and findings of 

technology transfer expects who have in the past 

assisted in conceiving, implementing, and operating successful techn”loB transfer progmxns should 

be considered carefully as an important asset to the 

Clearingbonse and can be of real value to its clientele and, uldmately, to U.S. productivity. 

Of equal importance. to planning the Clearinghouse is a clear understanding of the intended 

user base and the specific goals and objectives of 

the proposed technoloa transfer program. Similarly, the means by which the success of the program will be measured must be considered. This 

will havea significant bearing on the initiative’sfinal design. For example, success may be. measured 

in terms of the number of people reached annually, the frequency of returning information seekers, or the total number of successful transfers. 

These criteria are inextricably linked to the program’s overall goals, and to the anticipated measurable success. 

In addition to cataloging and disseminating existing information on technology transfer programs, 

the Clearinghouse has the unique opportunity to 

act as an impartial analytical body and, based on 

its national perspective, to be in a position to develop methodologies to assess the effectiveness, 

uniqueness, and replicability of program types 

currentlyopera~ingat the local, state, and federal 

levels. This added value function is much needed 

and currently lacking. To house this capability in a 

centrally located organization or Clearinghouse 

will benefit many users who currently suffer from 

not knowing where to look and what examples exist that may help in their own technology transfer 

program design process. 

In its recommendations regarding initiatives on 

technology transfer, the Clearinghouse should 

particularly examine active or semi-active mechanisms currently in effect. Our sources have indicated the importance of inMpzrsona1 contact in 

any technology transfer activity. This is true for 

any size business. Furthermore, as correctly acknowleciged by ACIR, there is value that can be 

added to the various federal government data 

base and catalog setvices in existence, particularly 

those of NTIS and NIST This value is found in the 

analytical aspects that can accompany this data. 

The Clearinghouse should acknowledge that the 

NTIS Center for Utilization of Federal Technologies (CUFT), which will incorporate active iden& 

fication and assessment of R&D projects, with the 

intent to help state and local governments identify innovations of particular utility to their private 

sectors, is attempting this same function. This is a 

prime example of how a technolow transfer ini45 
tiative may add value through the implementation 

of an active mechanism, and is applauded by many 

in the industry. 

6. The successes of technology brokering techniques 

n~ay serve as useful inputs for the Clearinghouse. 

Asbrokering developed to fill a niche between existing technologists and information-seekers, so 

the Clearinghouse has announced its intention to 

coordinate and operate among existing technology transfer programs. The “value-added” concept 

is also valid as it relates to the mission of the 

Clearinghouse. Ideally, the Clearinghouse will increase the effectiveness of existing programs, and, 

based on “lessons learned,” allow access to information on ways to duplicate successful programs. 

7. Finally, when we consider that small businesses 

constitute approximately 95 percent of the nation’s employers,* it might be advantageous to 

consider the special needs of technology transfer 

initiatives that address this important and growing 

segment of the nation’s econon~y. It is anticipated 

that small businesses, an important constituency of 

state and lwal concerns, will be the prime benefactors of proposed business and technical assistance 

programs being looked at by these concerns. 

Given the above conclusions we have formed 

from our experiences in technology transfer activities and those of others outliied in this paper, as 

well as the issues presented by ACIR, the following role and activities emerge as liiely candidates 

for the Clearinghouse. Although some of the following recommended Clearinghouse roles and 

activities may deviate slightly from the positions 

taken by the authors of this paper, and those attendiig the ACIR “thiiker session,” we believe 

that they present what realistically can be 

achieved, given the expected funding and political 

constraints raised at the “thinker sessions.” 

8. When we consider the number of competing federal and state technology transfer programs, it 

would seem that the only missing link between 

these services and potential users is a method by 

which the users are made aware of the existence 

of, and access protocols for, technology assistance 

programs. Somewhat analogous to a travel 

agency, the Clearinghouse could be a very effecv 

tive mechanism by offering to the user preferred 

routes to a destination. Thii will require a minimum amount of added value on the part of the 

Clearinghouse personnel. The user decides 

where to go, and the Clearinghouse determines 

the options that are available to get there. 

9. A choice of mechanisms depends to a great degree on a number of variables, not the least of 

which is funding. mo viable sources of funding 

for this activity are the private sector and government allocations from state and federal levels. 

Our experience with both these options leads us 

to recommend that government sources are the 

most realistic from which to expect support for 

this program Private sector funding, mostly in the 

form of “pay for services,” would be very diicult to 

obtain, given the number of no-cost options that are 

available if the user has the time and energy to locate them. It comes down to cost versus time. We 

believe cost will deter the user in thii case. Therefore, government fundiig seems to be the more 

realistic option for the Clearinghouse concept as it 

is now envisioned. If this proves to be the case, funding limitations will dictate that the Clearinghouse 

would elect to base it’s program on the passive 

mode, that is, to act exclusively as a referral seti. 

10. Regarding the question often raised concerning 

the target audience, that is, federal, state, and local government and/or the private sector, we 

believe that any publicly funded technology 

transfer program should be structured to serve 

the people who supported the development of 

the technology-the raxpayer. The Clearing 

housecouldbest serve thepublicby targetingail 

sectors of the national economy, both public 

and private. We believe that the primary goal of 

the Clearinghouse should be to provide the widest possibledisseminationofpubliclyfundedresearch similar to the instructions provided in 

the Space Act that created NAS.4. 

11. Among the many operational options available, 

we believe the Clearinghouse should consider seriously the use ofz publications, telephone referral 

services, and personal computers. Each of these 

optionsisbeingusedbytransferprograms, suchas 

NTIS (publications), NASA’s IACs (telephone), 

DOD (computers), and we believe that ample 

data are available for the Clearinghouse program 

designers to use in their deliberations. 

12. Given our recommendation that the Clearinghouse operate in the passive mode, the problem 

most cited by transfer agents we interviewed (who 

also operate in the passive mode) is the lack of 

public knowledge of the availability of their services. Among the various tools available to the 

Clearinghouse are media advertising (such as 

newspaper advertisiig, television and radio cornmercials, magazines, etc.), direct mail programs, 

technical meetings, and telephone solicitations. 

These methods have been proven consistently to 

be cost effective and have evolved into sophisticated instruments for reaching that segment of 

the public most likely to use services such as the 

Clearinghouse proposes. Studies conducted by 

the School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh support these recommendations. 

13. Finally, and we believe one of the most important 

recommendations to the Clearinghouse, is the 

need to establish a comprehensive follow-up program to measure the efficiency of the effort and 

provide feedback to keep the program current 

and responsive to it’s clients needs. We reemphasize the importance of determining at the outset 

what evaluation procedures will be used and what 

is intended to be measured before attempting to 

design an “effective” Clearinghouse mechanism. 

46 
n Operate i” the passive mode, without being involved i” problem solvi”g; 

a F’rovide its services to all U.S. citizens, not just 

government agencies; 

a Investigate the advantages of “sing publications, 

telephone services, and the personal computer 

for delivering its product; 

. Institute a” aggressive publicity program by 

adopting one or more of the media vehicles to 

propagate the availability of its services;‘and 

B FYovide a comprehensive follow-up effort. 

‘, Notes 

‘From a” opening statement made by Hon. Doug Walgre” 

(D-PA), Chaimxm, S&committee on Science, Research and 

Technology, Field Hearing o” tinomic Development 

through Technology Transfer, State Capitol Building, Denver, 

’ Colorado, Febi-uy 5, 1988 

‘A.D. Little, Inc., Pmgmm Evaluation of the Oj~Xceof.Qate Technical Savices, prepared for the Department of Commerce, 

Office of Program Planning, Co”wact No. 9-35335, October 

1969, pp. 17,24,29, as cited in Tahnoloa, Innowtion, and Regiind Economic Development (Washington, DC U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-238, July 

1 1964). 

%ee Science and F’ublic Policy Program, Univenity of Oklaho6 

ma, FinolReport, Impmvingthe Tdrand Use of Scientific and 

7khnical Infommtion: The Fedeml Role, Volume II, “Pmhlems 

and Issues in the Transfer and Use of STI,” November 1986, pp. 

z&14,2-15. 

1 

41hid., pp. 2-12, Zl3. 

%ee. US. General Accounting Oftice, .Sm& Bu.r;ne.w Invohxmat in Federal Rtxarch and Development, Brieting Report to 

i 

the Chairman, Subcommi”ee on l”“ova~ion, Technology, and 

Pmducdvhv. Committee on Small Business. U.S. Senate. Feh- 

“my 1986;~. 1. 

‘Technoioa, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development 

(Washinemn. DC US. Conaress. Office of Technolow Asses- 

&d, ~TA&K~S, hdy fis4); p. 79, 

‘Ihid., p. 80. 

‘According to statistics maintained by the U.S. Small Business 

Administradcm, small businesses being detined as those with 

fewr than 5C4l employees. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~~n~~~.~G~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

D Tmmferjiom Fedeml Laboratories Washingmn, w Congressional Research Servic.?, Library of Congas, for the S&cm”- 

mittee o” Science, Research, and Technology, Transmitted to 

the Committee o” SC&~, Space, and Tahnology, House of 

Representatives, September 1988. 

CommerciXzation of FedemIly Funded R&LkA Guide to Technolo0 T+r firn Federal Labomtmies. Washington, DC US, 

Senate, Committee o” Commerce, Science, and Trans~rtation, Ocw&zx 4, 1988. 

Constitent Critoia are Needed to Asas Small-Business Innovation 

Initiatiw. Washington, DC U.S. General Accmmting Office, 

July 7, 1961. 

Economic Development thmugh Techno& Tmmfq Heting befm the Subcwnmittee on Science, Research and Technc&y of the 

Ccmmittee on Science, Space, and Technology, HM.W ofReprwntotives Washington, DC? U.S. House of Representatives, Febmary 5, 1988. 

Fedeml Rmewch: Small Busine~ Involvement in Fedeml Rewrch 

and Development. Washington, DC? U.S. General Acwunti”g 

Oftice, February 1988. 

Schacht, Wendy H. Industtial Illnovation:De~te~v~~G~v~~~~nt 

F$~~&shington, DC Congressional Research Service, July 

-. Technoioa T?amfer: Uti/i.zation of Federally Funded Research and Development. Washington, DC Congressional Research Service, July 20, 1988. 

-. T&e, Technoloa, and Comqxtitiveness. Wehingmn, DC 

Congressional Research Service, July 2Q, 1988. 

Small Business Involvement in Federal Reseoxh and Development. 

Washington, DC U.S. General Acmunting Office, Febmxy 1988. 

The Techno&-iiol Dimensions of International Compethkw.xr A 

Repoti to the Council of the National Academy of Engiiwing, 

Washington, DC: Commi”ee on Technology Issues that Impact 

International Competitiveness, 1988. 

Technology, Innovation, and Regicmal Economic Development. 

Washington, DC U.S. Congress, Oftice of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-238, July 1984. 

Technology Thmsfer: Constmints Perceived by Federal Labomtwy 

and Agency Oficials. Washington, DC U.S. General hunting Oftice, March 1988. 

Technoloa Tmmfeq Joint Heating before the Committee on Science 

and Tech”&@, House of Reprexntativq and the Subcommittee 

on Enew Rexaxh and Development of the Committee on Enew 

andNatumlResources. Washington, DC Committee on Scie”cz 

and Technology, and Commi&x o” Energy and Nahual ReSOUKS, U.S. Senate, September 4, 1986. 

Patent Policy; Recerxf Chmges in Federal Law Considered Beneficiul, 

Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Oftice, April 1987. 

47 

Review and Comparison of Clearinghouse Systems: 

Implications for the Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation 

Sally A. h.ood and Edward T filly 

Introduction 

This report mviews previons or ongoing federal, state, 

and local initiatives to provide access to information on technolo@ased innovations that might improve state or local 

government operations or improve regional economies. 

The reprt covers: (1) typical approaches; (2) examples of each approach; (3) lessons leame@ and (4) implications for a U.S. Department of Commerce Clearinghouse 

for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, 

and Innovation created by the Omnibus Trade and Competitivemw Act of 1988. 

Methodology 

Individuals working with the clearinghouses discussed 

in this paper were interviewed about the organizations’ natnre and operations (not available from secondary sources) 

and about their view of the lessons learned (both positive 

and negative) from implementing the clearinghouses. Existing program evaluation reports, where available, also 

were reviewed. Finally, the intewiew responses and evaluation report findings were anaIyzed and compiled. 

Organizakm of This Report 

The authors present an overview of approaches to 

clearinghouses that have served the state and local government community, as well as related users in the private see 

tor. These include: on-line databases; publication and repxt 

clearinghouses; inquify and referral sources userdriven 

research and technology network; and hybrid systems. 

Examples are presented for each approach, with 

tables showing selected characteristics of the clearinghouses. Some are current; others no longer exist. The 

sponsors of the cIearinghouses have included the federal 

government, public interest associations, other nonprofit 

organizations, and the private sector. Some clearinghouses have had mul&institutional sponsors. 

Summaries of the lessons learned from each of the 

c4earinghouses examined are catego- by related issue areas. This is foIlowed by a discussion of the implications of thii 

study for the U.S. Department of Commerce Clearinghouse. 

Detailed descriptions of the clearinghouses are contained in the Appendix. 

CLEARINGHOUSE APPROACHES 

Inkoduckm 

The design and development of the Department of 

Commerce Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Techuolog, and Innovation will be determined largely by the content and format of related clearinghouses. Several different approaches are being 

employed that can be grouped into five broad categories: 

. On-line data bases; 

n Publication and report clearinghouses; 

n Inquiv and referral services; 

n User-driven research and technolom (R&T) networks; and 

n Hybrid Systems. 

A sixth categov of clearinghouse-in which information is provided predominantly in the form of one-to-one 

technical assistance-does not exist at the national level. 

Such assistance may be provided as part of the clearinghouse organization’s overall activities, however, or maybe 

provided by member institutions, such as a state agency or 

individual laboratov or university center. Each of the five 

clearinghouse approaches is desxiied below in more detail. 

On.Line Dab Bases 

In general, on-line data bases are accessible directly by 

users who have a computer and modem and have been issued a password. On-line data bases that are accessible 

onlyby the administrator and staff are covered in the other 

approaches. On-line data bases tend to be menu and key 

word driven, have multiple files or subsets, and contain 

bibliographic citations and/or abstracts and contact points. 

They may also provide access or references to other 

on-line data bases. 

Users generally receive manuals and/or a customer 

service number (either “gO0” or a to11 call), and perhaps a 

computer-based tutorial or other training program. 

All but one of the on-Iine data bases reviewed here 

have subscriber or other usage fees in addition tolongdistance access charges. This is the case whether the clearinghouse is part of a federal agency, a state or local govemmerit association, another intermediav organization, or a 

for-profit organization. The data base may have had some 

federal or private support in its start-up phase. 

In many cases, the information in the data base is also 

available in hard copy (the only difference being that the 

on-line version is updated more often). This is particularly 

tme for the state and local associations. 

Only three of the six on-line clearinghouses contain 

information on research and technology developments, 

and theseareallfederallysponsored.Tbeother threecontain economic and business development information. 

By definition, on-line clearinghouses tend not to produce original publications or to provide other products and 

services, with the exception of electronic mail messaging 

and inquiq-response services. However, where such clearinghouses are part of state and local associations or other in49 
teI’nKdiities, the organizations usually develop publications 

and provide services independently of the clearinghouse. 

~&“s%Z&“&a&~E&as~d&?W 

those that pmcicle an ckctronk rnait inqu*-re~mse fekture and those that do not. This feature provides the user 

with an additional infornmtion sonrce. It also indicates to the 

data base adminiirator that a topic is not being addressed by 

the data base, which is pa&nlarly important with regard to 

new and emerging issues. T~ically, if a response to the inquiry appear through the electronic mail feature, thii infonuation is reviewed for inclusion in the data base. In addition, the 

inquiry may lead the admllistrator to initiate a special effort 

to locate dwznments or other materials in that field in order 

to establish a new category withii the data base. 

The six representative on-line data bases reviewed in 

this paper are: 

. Without electronic mail inquti/response feature: 

National Alliance of Business (NAB) Clearinghouse; 

Federal Research in Progress (FEDRIP) Data 

Base of the National Tezhnical Information 

Service (NTIS); 

Federal AppliedT&nology Data Base @AID) and 

Federal and State Business Assistance (FSBA) 

Data Base of the Center for the Utilization of 

Federal Technology (CUFT) within NTIS; and 

Technology Applications Information System 

@AIS) of the Department of Defense’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). 

. With electronic mail inque/resPonse feature: 

Local Exchange (LEX) of the National League of 

Cities et al.; 

LOGIN of the Wiiliim Norris Institute (Control 

Data Corporation). 

Publication and Report Clearinghouses 

Publication and report clearinghouses provide access 

to the source documents referenced by the bibliographic 

citations and/or abstracts contained in data bases. 

The data bases of these clearinghouses may or may not 

be diiectly accessible by the user on an on-liiebasis. Whatever the case, the user calls or writes the clearinghouse to 

borroworobtainapemanent copyofneededdocument(s) 

by mail or FAX. 

The four representative publication and report clearinghouses covered in thii paper are: 

n On-line to user: 

National Legislative Network (LEGISNET) of 

the National Conference of State Legislas 

tures (NCSL); and 

Integrated State Information System (ISIS) of the 

Council of State Governments (CSG). 

n Not on-liie to user: 

Management Information System (MIS) of the 

International City Management Association 

WMA); 

National Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) Clearinghouse. 

Inquiry and Referral Sem4ces 

Inquiry and referral services operate as brokerage 

mec6&ms to fi-nd%d&ii&& wtio can provide necessary 

ticxma%ion ox assistax.e. In pubucation an‘3 ~epcm clearinghouses, the contact point is the sonrce of the document 

needed. With inquiry and referral setices, the contact 

point is the individual (or organizatipn) identified as an expert who provides assistance directly to the user. 

As with publication and report clearinghouses, inqnixy 

and referral services n~ay or may not be provided on-line. 

Two of the four inquiry and referral services reviewed here 

are not automate& two are automated, but acces&le 

on-line only by the staff; the fifth is being developed and 

will be accessible on-line. 

Only one of the five inquiry and referral services 

charges fees. A for-profit finu, it has a yearly subscriier 

charge for unliiited use of the expert network. Another is 

operated by a private firm on behalf of a federal agency, 

but hasnoservicecharges.Theotherthreeareoperatedby 

intermediiw organizations, one representing state governments and the other two representing providers of 

technical and business assistance. One of the latter gronp 

has federal operating support. 

In general, inqu@ and referral services do not produce publications or provide other products and services, 

although the state government association has received 

federal funds to prepare and disseminate several publications drawing on the programs related to the data base. 

Regarding subject areas, three of the inquiT and referral services provide information on economic and business development, and three provide information on research and technology development. 

The five representative inquiry and referral services are: 

n Not on-liie to user: 

Data base not automated: 

State Technical Programs Information Base 

of the National Governors’ Association 

(NGA); and 

National Association of Management and 

Technical Assistance Centem (NAMTAC). 

Data base automatedz 

Federal Laboratory Consortium Clearin&!. 

house (FLC) 

. On-line to user: 

SBDC Connection and Teltech. 

User-Driven Research and Technology Networks 

These research and technoloa (R&T) networks are 

characterized by strong “user pull”-that is, the collection 

and distribution of information follows the research agenda established by the network members. The on-line data 

bases and publication and report clearinghouses discussed 

earlier are repositories of information on existing research 

and technologies and other business and economic development initiatives. 

The two user-driven R&T networks representative of 

thii category are no longer in existence. One involved research resulting from by the energy crisis of the 1970s; the 

other was the victim of federal budget cuts by the sponsor50 
ing agency. One network was operated by a public interest 

association; the other was a consortium of nonprofit intermediary organizations representing local governments. 

Because of the specificity of the subject matter of such 

networks, federal spnsorship appears to be necessary, either in the start-up phase or permanently. Both networks 

were funded entirely with federal support and, as noted, 

the activities were largely terminated when the federal 

funding stopped. 

One of the two network-type clearinghouses had its 

information automate& neither vfas accessible on-line by 

the state and local government users. In both cases, the 

user community contributed most of the infomation; 

thus, the networks involved shared information available 

without additional fees. 

The two representative user-driven R&T networks arc 

n Enerw Research for Governors Data Base of 

NG& and 

. National Innovation Network (NIN) sponsored by 

the National Science Foundation. 

Hybrid Systems 

Hybrid systems, in the context of this paper, are clearinghouses that combiie several of the approaches of the 

more specific categories noted above. 

Some of the clearinghouses discussed under the other 

four categories could, in conjunction with the larger orga- 

“i&ions of which they are a part, be considered hybrid systerns. NTIWCUFT is one example. NTIS has among its 

many components the NTIS Bibliographic Data Base; 

FEDRIP; the CUFT Office of Applied Technology with its 

FATD and FSBAdatabases; and the Office of Federal Patent Licensing, which evaluates and promotes federal technology with commercial potential. 

The obvious “model” for a hybrid system is the agricultural extension system approach. It: 

Involves an extensive variety of data bases; 

Provides publication and report clearinghouses; 

Provides inquiry and referral services; 

Involves research and technical assistance; and 

Features technology push and pull, in that it is driven 

by user needs and scientific breakthroughs. 

However, the agriculture extension system is not diiectly 

relevant here for several reasons. Fht, although the agricultwal extension system has evolved essentially into a technical 

assistance service for nonmetropolitan arw its research focus is still heavily on agriculture. Second, with extension 

agents all the way down to the county level and spread geegmphically acmss the country, the service is more extensive 

and diveme than required for the purposes of thii study. Finally, the system is too pensive to be useful-even more so 

than the expensive NASA technoloa transfer system. 

NASA’s Technology Utilization p) progmm is another 

representative hybrid system. This program also has many 

components, including data bases, publications, applications 

teams, and inqui@response and referral capabilities. 

Although the TU effort is intended to transfer aerospace technology for commercial applications, it actually 

serves a variety of users, including: 

9 State and local governments seeking technology-driven solutions to their problems; 

n Private sector fims looking for assistance with 

technology development; 

. Technical and business assistance providers looking for additional information to help their clients; and 

. Researchers looking for scientific advances and 

technological breakthroughs. 

The TU program is federally funded and operates 

through NASA facilities and NASA-supported organizations, especially academic institutions. 

Summing Up 

The five clearinghouse approaches described in this 

section are intended to be all-inclusive. They are not III”- 

tually exclusive, however; as noted, some of the 18 representative clearinghouses have aspects of more than one 

approach, even though they tend to portray one dominant 

approach. Hybrid systems, by definition, combine aspects 

of each approach. 

The major features of the 18 clearinghouses are presented in tables in the next section. They are detailed further 

-using a standardized series of questions-in the Appendix. 

CLEARINGHOUSE EXAMPLES: 

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 

This authors examine in detail 18 clearinghouses 01% 

ented toward state and local government or technologydevelopment. They are: 

National Alliance of Business (NAB) Clearinghouse 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Federal Research In Progress (FEDRIP) Database 

Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology 

(CUFT) Federal Applied Technology Database 

@A=3 

Strategic Defense Initiative’s Technolom Applications Information System PAIS) 

National League of Cities’ Local Exchange 

International City Management Association’s Management Information Service (MIS) 

LOGIN 

National Conference of State Legislatures’ (NCSL) 

National Legislative Network (LEGISNET) 

National Council for Urban Economic Development 

(CUED) Clearinghouse 

Council of State Governments’ Integrated State Infomation System (ISIS) 

National Governors’ Association State Technology 

Programs Information Base 

National Association of Management and Technical 

Assistance Centers (NAh4TAC) 

Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) Clearinghouse 

Small Business Administration’s SBDC Connection 

Teltech 

51 
NaZional Gownors Association (NGA) Energy Research for Governors Database 

NSF’s National Innovation Network (NIN) 

NASA Technology UtiIization (TV) Program 

The clearinghowe descriptions appear in the Appendix. 

For each clearingbowes, the following questions were asked 

of staff members in fac&to-face or t&phone interviews: 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse 

offer (e.g., sewice deliwy, economic development, research/technology development) and 

what is the extent of its listings? 

How is information generated for inclusion in the 

clearinghouse and/or evaluated? Does it access 

external data bases? 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and 

services (e.g., technical assistance)? 

If the clearinghouse offers technical assistance, 

what tpe of expertise is available? 

How big is the clearinghouse staff? 

What are examples of questions the cleatinghouse can be expected to answer? 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched 

(e.g., is a computer needed)? 

What kiid of help is provided in accessing the 

clearinghouse? 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or 

particular products and services? 

What is the clearinghouse histoq and legislative 

and/or programmatic background? 

What are the lessons learned from this clearing. 

house? 

The answers to the first 15 questions are listed in the 

Appenclix. Answers to the last question are analyzed in the 

next section on Lessons Learned.” 

This section presents a tabular summary of selected 

characteristics of the 18 clearinghouses, including: 

Mode of Accessing Clearinghouse 

Clearinghouse Operators 

Clearinghouse Funding and Fees 

mes of Information Provided 

Sources of Information Provided 

Other I’mducts and Services Provided 

Clearinghouse Users 

Thii table and related topics are diiwsed below. Factual data about cleminghouse stafrmg is contained in the Appendii. Whiie it might have been revealing to have cro&s 

compared the responses on staff& thii was diificult to do 

because of incomplete data or unrelated variables. In some 

cases, the information on the size of the staff was proprietary 

and, therefore, not available. In other cases, the clearinghouse preferned to be judged on petiormance rather than 

number of staff, so the figures disclosed in the interview were 

vague, although not incorrect. It would have been particularly interesting-yet it turned out to be particularly diiicultto analyze the number of client responses per full-timeequivalent staff year. In addition to the inconsistencies already noted, however, some clearinghouses were newer than 

others and staff was still being hired and trained and/or the 

data base was still being developed. Similarly, the user clients 

had not all been reached by marketing information; therefore, the user data was premature. 

Mode of Accessing Clearinghouse 

Nine of the 18 clearinghouses are on-line to the user. 

Four of these also offer staff assistance with their on-line 

service. Another five clearinghouses are automated but 

not on-line to the user. Four clearinghouses are not 

on-line or automated. 

Clearinghouse Operators 

Five of the clearinghouses are operated by a federal 

agency and/or federal contractor. Seven clearinghouses 

are operated by state or local government interest associations, and four are operated by other tses of intermediav organizations. Two of the 18 clearinghouses are privately operated. 

Clearinghouse Funding and Fees 

Half of the 18 clearinghouses are free of charge. Four 

of them operate on a subscriber basis, and five charge fees 

for specific services. 

In terms of funding, half of the clearinghouses operate 

in whole or in part with federal funding. Five are funded 

in-house, that is,fromtheoperatingorganization’sbudget. 

Seven arc supported through the dues and fees paid by 

subscribers and users. 

Types of lnfonnation Provided 

Nine of the clearinghouses offer information related to 

state or local government policy, management, operations, 

and service delivev in general. Thirteen offer information 

related to economic and business development progmrns. 

Nine clearinghouses offer information on research and technology development programs. Ten of them offer access to 

network contacts and peon-to-peso” expertise. 

Sources of Information Used hy the Clearinghouses 

Fourteen of the clearingl,ouses obtain information 

from within the organization or through the organization’s 

network of constituents or clients. Twelve clearinghouses 

obtain information from users. Seven of them provide information through other data bases or clearinghouses. 

Nine of the clearinghouses develop information through 

federally funded projects on specific topics. Another nine 

offer information provided by federal sources. 

Other Products and Services 

Nine of the clearinghouses provide person-to-person 

contact referral services. Three of them provide a “bulletin board” inquiry-response service. Seven of the clearinghouses provide publications and reports from a variety of 

52 
sources; ten provide in-house publications and reports. 

Three of the clearinghouses provide technical assistance 

to outside (“external”) users, and 13 provide technical assistance to members or subscribers only. 

The clearinghouses have as users technical, management, and business assistance providers (IO), research and 

technology sources (7), small and large businesses (7), the 

operating organization’s staff (8), state and local govemmerits (8), and federal government officials (12). 

Patterns in the Table 

A readily discernible pattern is that the four pobiication/report CIearinghouses are operated by public interest 

associations. This approach also appears to correlate with 

themes of information provided (i.e., policy/administrative/management information; operationsand service delivery information; economic and business development information; and provision of network contacts). 

With only one exception, the on-rrne clearinghouses are 

not free. The inquti and referral types of clearinghouses appear to tap the widest range of information sources. The publication/repxt types of clearinghouses do not tend to be oriented to users in research and technology sowces and small 

and large businesses. Moreover, in terms of other products 

and setices offered, they tend to focus on technical assistance to their own network of member or constituents. 

Summing Up 

The clearinghouses examined represent a wide variety 

of users, operators, funding sources, fee structures, mes 

and sources of information provided, additional products 

and services, and modes of access. Just as there is no single 

approach to setting up a clearinghouse, there do not appear to be any major patterns among the clearinghouse 

characteristics as they relate to each approach. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

From the pempective of the adminiitratom of the clearinghouses discussed in this report, several major lessons have 

bzen learned from their operations. (For the defunct clearinghouses, pemons who had been involved in their operation 

were consulted and evahxxtion reports were located.) 

The lessons are a compilation from theclearinghouses 

examined, and are not intended to be interpreted as broad 

generalizations drawn from rigorously developed samples 

of data. As can be expected, a number of the clearinghouses have lessons in common, which have been grouped 

iato seven broad categories or “common denominators”: 

iastitutional issues, components of approaches, planning, 

design, clearinghouse activities, financial issues, and miscellaneous lessons. 

Institutional Issues 

br&utional Barriers R&led to CentraI Repositories 

There tend to be many institutional barriers to estabkhiig a central repository-or “super data base”-of information to serve clients such as state and local governments. One such barrier is the “turf” problem. Many 

organizations and agencies serve this audience, and it follows 

that each wiI1 tend to look out for its own interests throughout the process of collecting or distributing information. ‘Ibrf 

problems exist both among and &Km organizations. 

Institutional Barriers and the PubIic Interest Associations. The everience of the defunct LINUS system provides documentation of the turf problem in establishing 

one repositow for a group of associations. LINUS was the 

predecessor to the current Local Exchange. It involved the 

National League of Cities, International City Management Association, Public Technology, Inc., and other such 

organizations, and it was plagued by a lack of cooperation. 

There are several good reasons why the state and local 

government associations may not coaperate with each other 

on developing a central repxitoty. Fiit, each organization 

likes to provide services directly to its member and, more 

impxtan!, to get credit for doing so. Second, there maybe an 

opportumty for each either to sell information to nonmembers & to recruit additional membetx for the association. 

Tbii is not to imply that these associations will not work together in generating, sharing, and distriioting information. 

Institutional Bar&m in Federa Agencies. NASA was 

one of the first federal agencies to practice technology transfer and disseminate scientific and technical information for 

purposes other than agency mission. Because it competes for 

overall agency support while not directly relating to the 

age&s mission, the NASA Rchnology Utilization (IW) 

program confronts more barriers than another program 

might (e.g., the Agricultural Extension Service, which is 

more in line with the Agriculture Department’s objectives). 

Overlaps among Related Organizations 

and Clearinghouses 

There is substantial overlap in the work of the clearinghouses. ColIection and organization of information xkited to state technology development programs is one example. Severalpeopleandorgani.zationsgatheressentially 

the same data, and there is a great need forcwrdination, 

for the organizations to share or exchange their information and/or act as pointerbrokers to one another. Clearinghouses are more likely to be successful when they work 

with other organizations serving the same clients. This 

way, each will have different roles and semices, although 

there may be a certain amount of overlap. LOGIN. for example, may be an independent provider and distributor of 

information, but, at the same time, it can bolster the local 

government interest associations in doing their jobs. 

The Need for Federal Leadership and Funding 

If an issue is nationwide in its impact and deemed critical enough (e.g., the significance of the energy issue of the 

197Os), state and local governments have made immediate 

commitments of funds and personnel-even if only small 

amounts of money are involved-to develop data bases 

and information clearinghouses through their intermediary associations. The size of these activities, however, as 

well as the length of time in operation may be heavily dependent on federal support. The intermediav associations 

will work with the federal government to fmd a common 

ground for integrating activities for their mutual benefit if 
each government is Rexible in approach. The NGA Eners~ 

Research Projects Information Base provides evidence of 

this. Additional evidence is provided by the NGA state technology development information base, the NSF-funded local 

government networks, and the NAB Clearinghouse. 

From the beginning, there has been a need to automate 

the NGA profdes of state economic and technolou development, but NGA was never able to devote internal funds to do 

so. Without a sustained effort, each report in this area becomes a one-time effort, and for evety new report, work has 

to be started over again. Recently, NISI provided funds for a 

suwey of selected state programs and for automating that information. However, updating the data base, adding more 

details, and/or expanding it to provide comparable lxogmm 

descriptions across states in other areas is not liiely to be 

achieved without additional external support. 

In the 197Os, NSF’s local government networking program developed momentum through simultaneous support of national, state, and regional activities. The federal 

grants stimulated a commitment by some local governments. 

When federal patticipation was cm back in the early 19g%, 

many of the networking activities were discontinued. 

Some parties involved with the NAB Clearinghouse 

had envisioned a self-supporting system. When the federal 

funding ended, however, it was found that the on-line data 

base service did not generate sufficient revenue to survive 

without continued outside funding. For example, no additional users responded to the discount pricing plan offered 

by NAB early in 1987. This demonstrates the problem with 

data bases that have a limited focus and, thus, a limited 

number of potential users. 

System Evolution 

Each of the clearinghouses examined has evolved over 

time. That is, when they began operation, they were essentially different entities than they became several years later. 

For example, at start-up, the Local Exchange was primarily an electronic mail network for local officials, with 

limited data base offerings. More case studies have been 

added, and it is intended that the Exchange will continue 

to build itself and that users will submit information. In 

fact, new data bases and bulletin boards are being added 

and others are in the planning stage. 

Other tyRes of clearinghouses also have evolved over 

time. For example, the National Association of Management and Technical Centers (NAMTAC), a networking 

clearinghouse, evolved from being an Economic Develop 

merit Administration university centers organization to in 

elude Small Business Development Centers and NASA’s 

Industrial Application Centers. Given thii expansion in focus, NAMTAC has been redefinmg its role to incorporate 

the views of a variety of federal agencies on how to provide 

business and technical assistance. 

Components of Approaches 

Consideration with On.Line Data Bases 

The major reason for having an on-line data base appears to be a more productive allocation of clearinghouse 

resources, especially where there are repeat users. 

Being on-line is a challenge. One must consider 

whether the intended users are ready to do their own 

searchmg (after initial training). Agovernment interest association like the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is perceived as a “personal” service organization by its members, finds it difficult to switch to an on-line 

system and have its members regularly use it. The process 

is slow and evolutionary and requires marketing and education before a sizable proportion of the users is willing 

and able to go on-line. 

Thus, ease of use of on-lme data bases is critical. 

Whether one uses an existing system as host (e.g., 

GTE-Telenet for the Iocal Exchange) or devises a new one, 

the concept of %er friendliness” cannot be overstated. 

In summaty, there appear to be three reasons for not 

offering a data base on-line: 

1) The likely users may not access the system frequently, and might require assistance in doing so 

each time. 

2) The historical “culture” of the organization may 

be so oriented toward personal setvice that the users may not feel comfortable with an on-line, depersonalimed system. 

3) Since the user must contact the clearinghouse 

staff to request specific documents, an on-lime 

data base may not be perceived as necessary. 

Mix of On.Line and Staff Response 

In order for an on-line data base to be self-supporting 

or even profitable, as in the case of private clearinghouses, 

it should be able to answer a substantial percentage of the 

inquiries. The remaining inquiries could be handled 

through the electronic mail inquiry/response component 

of the clearinghouse or addressed by a staff member (either from personal knowledge, after contacting an expert, 

or by accessing another data base). LOGIN’s director refers to thii as the “gO/20 mle,” a reference to the percentage split for his data base. 

Benefits of Electronic Mail Feature 

An electronic mail inquiry/response feature provides 

the user with an additional source of potential information 

and indicates to the data base administrator that a topic is 

not being addressed by the data base. This is particularly 

important with regard to new and emerging issue areas. 

TheIntegrated StateInformation System (1SIS)found this 

feature necessary to identify emerging issues and those of 

current critical importance to the states. 

Considerations in Brokering Technical Resources 

An information system alone rarely will provide the total 

solution to a problem or need, although a document search 

can be a useful prelude to contacting experts (in some cases 

the authors of the documents). Successful transfer often requires follow-up beyond identification through a data base. 

Additional diiemination efforts, such as fact sheets and other printed matter, still may not be sufficient. 

There are opportunities and diificulties associated 

with linking users or intermediiries in state and local govemments with various scientific and technical and/or business assistance resources. For example, the staff at the 

54 
:nter for the Utilization of Federal Technology (CUFT) 

ted that their reports desctibiig business assistance initives may not be useful if the staff of the business a&sIce organizations are not helpful. This indicates that the 

ality of referrals may be difficult to control. 

The Federal Laboratov Consortium Clearinghouse 

X), a pointer/broker type system, can perform its role 

;t when the user’s request is stated as specifically as posle. In fact, the FLC Clearinghouse has been most effec- 

: when answering specific problems. 

With pointer/broker type clearinghouses, a key issue 

1 be the proximity of the technology resource to the 

:r.It isalsosuggested that it isbettertoinhiate aninquifiectly with a laboratory if the user is located near a lab, 

becially if the issue relates to an industq in the area. 

nsiderations in Networking Arrangements 

A nehvorking @e clearinghouse is a useful framework 

identifying common needs, locating appropriate technolr, and adapting and applying it. A nehvorking armngement 

Itides an environment for risk taking othewise less attaine at the state and local level; thus, a nehvork-lype clearhouse can perform the role of market amegation. 

Networks engage both in quick-fix solutions and in 

(eloping generic approaches that can be applied 

‘ass the board. Such generic approaches rarely can be 

nsferred intact; adaptation is almost always required. 

rthermore, developing generic approaches is a diffit and slow process, sometimes taking up to five years 

m concept to development. 

Special leadership is needed to initiate a network- 

:n more so than for the other types of clearinghouses. A 

working clearinghouse must have a strong operating 

:ncy (e.g., PublicTechnology, Inc., was referred to as the 

me that holds the Urban Consortium together”). me 

xs involved also should be fairly innovative or at least 

receptive to new approaches and improvements. 

Planning 

aringhouse Planning and Start-Up 

Proper planning is essential to avoid failure. The plang activities depend largely on the clearinghouse apsch. For example: 

The NSF networks demonstrated that a needs 

assessment is an important initial activity for a 

networking clearinghouse in order to establish a 

common agenda. 

For a subwiher&ased on-line system, some sort of 

early market analysis of potential users is crucial. 

‘Ihe planning phase for a pointerhroker clearinghouse would involve idendf@g not only the. co&tuency but also the technical resources to be used. 

Establishing a new institution for disseminating and/ 

brokering information generally appears to require a 

nning phase of six months to a year, and a “gearing up” 

iod. Three to seven years were needed to develop fully 

ny of the mechanisms examined for this paper. 

Clearinghouse Statling 

All clearinghouses mmmemed on adequacy of stimg. 

In terms of the number of staff members, ISIS reported that 

more usem can be serviced with about the same level of staff 

as a greater percentage of users access the system on-line. 

In the 197Os, state and local officials were concerned 

with solving their own problems. Now, their focus goes beyond that to state and local economic development.These 

problems and opportunities require scientific and engineering expertise to a greater extent than the previous set 

of issues. Among the reported benefits of Teltech, for example-which is oriented toward scientists and engineers 

in high tech companies-are quick resolution of technical 

problems, accelerated new product commercialization, 

and substantial increases in engineeting productivity. 

‘Ib be effective, the clearinghouse staff must be perceived as credible by the users. For example, data bases 

geared toward research and technology development, 

such as Federal Research in F’rogress (FEDRIP) in the National Technical Information Service and the Technolo&v 

Applications Information System (TAIS) of the Strategic 

Defense Inidadve Organization, may need a varieIy of backgrounds among staff members (e.g., titers to edit abswacts 

and develop key words, technologists to assess technolow 

content, marketingpersonnel ~oassesscommercialpo~en~ial, 

and ou&ach staff to alert audiences to availabiiiiy). 

Nehvorking Technology Agents 

The technology agents that were part of the 

NSF-funded networks found that full-time technology 

agents could provide in-depth services to local governmen& circuit riding &hnology agents could raise awareness 

of many lwal governmen&, but with lower levels of service. 

Technology agents providing technical assistance 

should have a scientific or technological background. 

Ideally, this would be combined with business or public administration experience. 

Design 

People+3~People Interaction 

Almost all of the clearinghouses examined offered 

lessons regarding the need for people-to-people interaction, whether they were electronically based systems, brokers, or networks. For example, the electronically based 

TAIS does not just provide information in response to inquiries by users, it also encourages the scientist or engineer to contact the person requesting the information. In 

this manner, TAIS sewes as a two-way technology assistance broker for problem defmition and problem solving. 

The document-based Management Information Service (MIS) service also offers peer-to-peer exchange. In 

addition to receiving a document, users receive the name, 

address, and phone number of a contact person in the locality to which the document pertains. The same person-to-person interaction is part of LEGISNET and ISIS. 

CUFT offers both data bases and documents. In fact, 

CUFT is the only program at the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) that develops original products, 

and these products are among the service’s most popular. 

It has been suggested, however, that although the CUFT 
on-line data bases and related reports are very thorough in 

their coverage, they may not offer the solution if the user 

needs direct assistance from a scientist or an individual 

with business expertise. 

The FLC “Clearinghouse” is actually a technolow 

brokerage service between the user and scientistjengineer. In addition to the FLC Clearinghouse, the total FLC 

network includes regional coordinators and technical spe- 

&I&s who are vital factors in respondiog directly to users. 

It is said that the real strength of NAMTAC lies in the 

nehvorking that takes place among member at the NAMTAC meetings, which often leads to future correspondence. 

The experience of the NSF-funded networks was that 

the single most important ingredient in transfening technology wccessfulIy to the public sector was the role played 

by people in the process. 

The Need for Variety 

LOGIN demonstrates that a clearinghouse needs a 

broad range of types of information as well as formats to be 

a complete resource to its usen-the data base should not be 

narrowly focused. As such, pointerbroker resource diiectories, for example, woold be ooly one compnent of a clearioghouse (albeit a cm&l component, as noted above). 

In its long history of transferring technologies, the 

NASATU program has provided information in many formats, thus offering an example for other agencies seeking 

to have similar successes in this area. 

Clearinghouse Content 

TheMIS experienceindicates that information should 

be practical and case study oriented. Thus, it should not 

contain theoretical studies on solid waste, but how to collect or dispose of it. MIS users also want the information to 

be in a useful form. They do not want extensive studies or 

textbook responses. In the cast of local government information, the clearinghouse should contain ordinances, regulations, budgets, manuals, handbooks, and the like. From 

brief abstracts of available documents, the users want to 

select one or several they believe most appropriate. They 

want to apply (i.e., adapt not adopt) the selected information directly to their problem. 

The respondents to a 1984 smvey regarding the National Alliance of Business Clearinghouse (NAB) said 

they needed to know why one program worked better than 

another, not just a description of various program components. A follow-up 1986 sm’vey indicated that maoy respondents felt the information was oriented too much toward long-term planning. The NAB staff, on the other 

haad,felt poteotialuserswererelatinguseof thedatabase 

to research work rather than to ways in which the information could be used to assist in day-to-day activities. 

Relation of the Data Base Structure 

to the Clearinghouse Market 

Organizing clearinghouse information oo a comprehensive basis covering all state/local government issues, 

rather than on a more limited client need basis, provides 

opportunities for eventually marketing the same database 

to more groups of clients. The LOGIN operators, for example, have found that many of the subject areas in LOGIN are of interest to the private sector as well as to its 

primav audience of local government officials. 

Similarly, because the TAIS data base structure is organized according to the standardized Militarily Critical 

Technologies List, it has features common to other federal 

agencies that use the same technology categories in their 

programs. For example, the congressionally mandated en 

port control program is administered jointly by the departments of Defense and Commerce. Additional agencies, 

such as NASA, and the departments of Justice and State, 

are involved in export control of sensitive military and 

space technologies. 

Collecting and Evaluating Information 

A major issue for a clearinghouse like MIS is finding 

information that is timely and relevant. One approach that 

MIS uses is to write letters to a number of International 

City Management Association (ICMA) members each 

month asking for their help on soy issue they feel would be 

relevant to their colleagues. In effect, ICMAiscapitaliziog 

on the level of commitment of members of a professional 

society to that profession (as well as on the staff’s contacts). Although many of the members may underestimate 

the value of their contributions to MIS, the contributions 

are, in fact, quite useful, in part because they are practica1 

and appropriate to most local government environments. 

In collecting information from members, the state/local and public interest associations are confronted with an 

awkward situation. For example, governmental intermediaq organizations by their nature represent all jurisdictions. 

Their staffs caonot be expected to assess the efficacy of any 

jmisdiction’s programs or progmm area% it is remgnized that 

the approptiteness of soy specific program is unique to the 

circumstances of that jurisdiction at a given time. 

Adding Value to Information 

LEGISNET indicates that a clearinghouse should 

provide some major value added for the users, such as data 

analysis or assessment. For example, LIS reviews each report for mentions of all states cited in the report and these 

names are added to a iield that cm be accessed by LWIX Siiilarly, the Energy Research for Governors project added a 

field containing the phone number of the research director. 

Timeliness of Information and Updating 

For the Local Exchange, timeliness of the data is difficult to maintain. This is the case not only for on-line data 

bases but also for document providers and referral services, The MIS experience also indicates that the information in a clearinghouse must be up to date and, thus, systematically purged. 

There is always an initial surge in collecting the data, 

and the resources generally are there to accomplish it. The 

problem is having the resources to keep the data fresh and 

relevant by purging out-of-date information and adding 

new information on a regular basis. 

TheTAIS methodof userresponse setsupan efficient 

way to update the system. For example, oo an annual basis, 

a letter is sent to all the principal investigators of research 

projectslisted in the system.Thiscorrespondencerequests 

an update on recent technological advances, spinoff activity, and/or changes to their projects. 

56 
Data Base Search Capabilities 

LEGISNET indicates that full text search is more desirable than an abstract, preferably using a proximity 

search rather than only an adjacency search. (An adjacency 

search looks for words next to each other; a proximity 

search looks for words within the same sentence, paragraph, page, or general area of the text.) 

Accessing External Clearinghouses 

The NASA IACs each perform a clearinghouse function, and have recently expanded to include information 

from many other federal and non-federal sources, including commercial data bases. Furthermore, a couple of years 

ago, the IAC network established wperative agreements 

with many state-sponsored technical assistance centers. 

Clearinghouse Activities 

The Need for Market Analysis 

The NAB Clearinghouse indicates that it is important 

to know the intended audience, their information needs, 

and how they want to receive the information. The NAB 

Clearinghouse users were not ready for or comfortable 

with the on-line medium. The NAB staff users did not 

have the time, the training, or even the necessav equipment in many cases. Even whenNAB marketed the system 

for direct access, the users did not have the proper equipment and NAB did not have the necessary interface capahility. Some of the two dozen subscribers contacted in a 

1986 survey had not used the NAB Clearinghouse at all. 

The respondents said most frequently that there was a lack 

of time to use the data base. 

Users may need to be educated, although this may be 

wmewhat less true today than during the mid-1980s when 

the NAB Clearinghouse was in full operation. 

Promoting a Clearinghouse 

Use of a given clearinghouse is highly dependent on 

xating awareness and on outreach to promote its availbiiity. For example, although TAIS is accessible by more 

than 13,CHl firms and virtually any federal agenq, many of 

these qualified users are not aware that they can use the 

system. There is a noticeable increase in use following 

journal publications or workshop presentations on TMS. 

Asaresult, theTAISs@ffrecentlyinitiatedamoreaggressive outreach effort. A built-in statistics capability allows 

t:w targeting of specific technology users in public relat,ons efforts, a feature of the system that shows much 

::rom,ise for future promotional efforts. 

It has been suggested that NAB’s clearinghouse did 

! :x1 ::xceed because the marketing activities were not suf- 

:.Y,cient to recruit the intended audience. When NAB 

‘# QMI~ d the cleariighowe for diiect access by outside sub- 

~ wiiers (not just the NAB staff), it was felt that this would 

~ !!$t the research burden to the questioner, reducing the 

!aff time required to respond to inquiries. Not many direct 

wessaccounts were opened. Furthermore, it wasdiivered 

; hat even more staff time was required to market the data 

i$!se in order to generate and maintain subscriiem 

1: The Council of State Governments ISIS offers another example of the importance of generating additional use. 

ISIS shows that an automated inquby-response system 

should be cost-effective on a per unit basis. Thus, activities 

need to be undertaken to market the system in states with 

relatively low usage. 

Teltech illustrates that, although a sewicemaybefast, 

real-time, and convenient, current organizational culture 

often operates against using it. The Teltech management 

suggests the need to work at raising awareness of the potential of information setices. Because information @hering 

by individuals and organizations does not occur naturally, 

training, point-of-use promotion, and follow-up is required. 

Do Not Oversell 

The NSF-funded networks taught that during the early phases of a network or clearinghouse it is important not 

to create unrealistically high expectations in either the 

state and local government users or the potential technology suppliers. In the first phases, early success stories are 

helpful to create the desired impression. 

Need for User Statistics and Follow.Up Evaluations 

User statistics are important elements of a clearinghouse. They provide data on user trend analysis (who is accessing, what is being accessed) and on the usefulness of 

the clearinghouse information/contacts. It is one thing to 

know who uses a clearinghouse and what subject areas are 

being tappea it is clearly another to know if and how the 

information is being used and what the results are. Therefore, it is expensive and difficult to evaluate clearinghouse 

operations. A private sector clearinghouse finds that these 

are even more critical concerns. 

The LEGISNET and FLC approach to evaluation is to 

have a good user group that will provide timely feedback 

without being asked. Critical to the success of some of the 

clearinghouses (e.g., the NSF networks), has been the active participation of an advisory board dominated by users. 

‘The use of built-in system capabilities makes evaluation 

easy and prcductive for both ISIS and TAIS. With ISIS, the 

recordmg of inquiries (what and who) is built into its inquiry-response system. The staff sugests that thii should be the 

case, whether automated or manual, because it is useful documentation for the system’s continued operation. It is also 

necessary in order to refine the system’s format and content, 

accessibiity, and complementav services. 

The TAIS user response method provides a record for 

automatically evaluating the system’s viability. For example, within 60 days of an inquity, a follow-up letter and 

questionnaire is generated and mailed to the user. The information providers are queried systematically every six 

months so as not to overload them. The letter asks about 

the adequacy of the information received and any activities 

that ensued as a result of the contacts established, and offers further assistance if necessary. 

Financial Issues 

Considerations in Subscriber Charges 

The decision whether to charge association members 

for a clearinghouse service is important. This might include subscriber fees and/or computer time charges. On 
the one hand, members of associations may perceive that 

the clearinghouse data base is just an extension of services 

being provided. On the other hand, services provided free 

within the overall membership dues (as opposed to a separate subscriber fee) may be perceived as not very valuable 

(“too cheap, ” “worth what you pay for it”). 

LOGIN shows us that one of the barriers to the use of 

fee-based clearinghouses is the so-called “library mentality” that information is free. This barrier was reinforced by 

federal support of data bases and clearinghouses in the 

late 1960s and 1970s. Users do not always differentiate between access to information and facilitating finding the information needed. One might use DIALOG to find a reference to an article, but determine that the article is 

available in a local public or university libraq. Organization of the knowledge and facilitating access is what is being paid for, although clearinghouses also tend to have information not available elsewhere. 

The Question of AtTordahility 

CUFT has found that state and local users, with their 

limited budgets, cannot afford to purchase some of the 

CURpublications. AIthough this audience is targeted for 

timely coverage, the effort is irrelevant if the publications 

are out of their price range. Congress requires that CUFT 

be essentially self-supporting, which has an impact on the 

range of services it can afford to provide. 

If entrepreneurs and small businesses are the intended audience, it has been noted that free access to a 

clearinghouse is essential (that is, they wil1 pay only for the 

phone call). High or even moderate charges discourage 

use and are prohibitive for small businesses. 

The issue of charges may need to be viewed in a state 

versus local perspective. Obviously, there are more potential local government users than state government users. 

Specifically, there are 39,CsX units of general local governments, whereas there are only 50 states (and seven territories and other instrumentalities that are members of the 

state government associations). Thus, the potential market is larger when focusing on local government, and a 

state-oriented clearinghouse would probably be more expensive to operate on a per user basis. 

Obviously, there are economic issues unique to a 

clearinghouse operated by a for-profit organization. 

The viability of such a clearinghouse is contingent on a 

critical massof usersand the associated fees to cover the 

fixed costs. However, the number of users is not the issue in and of itself, but merely an indicator. Diversification by the organization into more services within a 

clearinghouse is also important (for example, there may 

befeesforaccessing the clearinghouse, reporMpublications, or technical services). 

Miscellaneous Lessons 

Ensuring Help to Domestic Firms 

Certain of the clearinghouses have security provisions 

and provide lessons regarding limiting access to users in 

the United States, a desirable feature in temw of competitiveness. For example, as a result of federal legislation, access to certain FEDRIP data on DOE and NASA is limited 

to domestic users. 

TAIS security provisions are reliance on militarily critical technology certification and limitations on time and 

number of accesses per day. These safeguards have been 

accepted as satisfactoq by the Department of Defense 

community for security purposes, while not discouraging 

users from accessing the system. 

Learning from an IniGal Demonstration 

It is possible to test the viability of a clearinghouse, 

early on, using a limited test audience. For example, a 

demonstration could experiment with a sample of users in 

one region. A regional demonstration project was initiated 

for the NAB Clearinghouse in 1987 with the cooperation 

of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration office in Region IV The project 

was to operate for a year, but was terminated early to refocus the overall NAB Clearinghouse services. 

On the other hand, the FLC Clearinghouse evolved 

out of a demonstration project undertaken in the Far West 

Region of the FLC at the beginning of the decade. 

IMPLICATIONS 

FOR THE COMMERCE CLEARINGHOUSE 

Introduction 

The implications of the analysis of the 18 representative clearinghouses for the design and operations of the 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technoloa, and Innovation are based on assnmptions regarding the roles of the federal government in 

stimulating innovative activities by state and local governments, as well as the organizations to which they turn for 

information and assistance (especially the public interest 

associations). 

The discussions at the five “thinkers’ sessions” convened by the Advisoq Commission on Intergovernmental 

Relations (ACIR)-especially the consensus that appeared to evolve-provided additional context to this section. This consensus refers, in particular, to the issue of 

Clearinghouse audience and subject focus. 

There are other sources of implications for the Clearinghouse that are beyond the scope of this paper, but that, 

ultimately, will help shape the Clearinghouse design and 

operations. This would include the other papers commissioned by ACIR, and any imperatives within the Department of Commerce that are not apparent at this time. 

Assumptions 

Role of the Federal Government 

The Clearinghouse obviously does not exist in a vacnurn. The issue of R&T-based business and economic development is of concern to all governments, and all have development initiatives. Associations representing state and 

local governments are increasingly active in this area. 

These associations and other intermediary organizations 

provide services and operate clearinghouses devoted entirely or in part to this topic. 

Therefore, the appropriate roles of the federal gov58 
ernment, operating through the Department of Commerce and its Clearinghouse, need to be examined within 

this context. ‘l%e authors posit that these roles come under 

the generic heading of stimulating and facilitating activities by others rather than undertaking them directly. 

This assumption suggests four broad appropriate 

roles, given the overall goal of the Clearinghouse and the 

context and institutional environment at the federal, state, 

and local levels withim which it will operate: 

Strengthening the institutional capacity of the intermediafy organizations that operate clearinghouses and provide other services (particularly 

the state and local government associations); 

Systematizing and accelerating the development 

and diffusion of knowledge and experience regarding federal, state, and local i&&iv&; 

Identifying and filling the gaps in this knowledge and experience and in the existing clearinghouses; and 

Networking the operators of the existing clearinghouses serving federal agencies and state and localgovernments to foster the sharing of resources 

and cross-fertilization of activities. 

Audience for the Clearinghouse 

With the exception of the first thinkers’ session, a consensus appeared to evolve that the Clearinghouse existed 

to serve federal agencies and state and local governments 

(and their intermediaries). They are to be both the audience and the users. 

Adistinction was made behveen users andbeneficiaries. 

Ultimately, the beneficiaxies are large corporations and small 

fms, which could benetit from new technolo&based prodacts, new materials and better manufacturing process technologies. Other beneficiaties are scientitic researches developen of technologies, provides of technical and business 

assistance, and the intermediaq organizations that represent 

each of them. In the context of the legislation and the consensus, these individuals and organjzations benefit in the 

long term from the federal, state, and local initiatives and are 

the whole reason for such initiatives. But they are not the 

near-term and direct users of the Clearinghouse, 

Subject Focus of the Clearinghouse 

The same legislative context and emerging consensus 

applies to the subject matter for the Clearinghouse. The 

focus is to be on program initiatives, not scientificadvances 

and technological breakthroughs; on data bases of federal, 

state, and local activities, not data bases of research in 

progress, research results, technological developments, 

and technologies available for licensing; on program contact names, not scientists, engineers, andbusiness experts. 

An additional idea for subject focus, which emerged 

most clearly at the fiith session, was the desirability of reexaminiig the technolom development and commercialization 

pnxess. Using the process of a commissioned paper and a 

small (Xl-25 person) meeting of qerts for review and cornmerit, the resultant state-of-knowledge (research) and 

state-of-practice (case emmples) would be provided to each 

clearinghouse serving state and local governments. 

Funds of the Clearinghouse 

In the absence of information to the contrary, it is assumed that the existing budget level ($25Cl,CUXl/year) is not 

fixed, and might be increased if a strong programmaticcase 

should be made. It has been assumed further that the percentage mix of intramural expenditures for staff salaries 

and related staff expenses and of extramural grants and 

contracts also is not fixed. Again, this might be changed if a 

strong case should be made. 

Special Niche for the Clearinghouse 

Based on these assumptions and the analysis of the 18 

clearinghouses, there is an extremely important special 

niche for the Clearinghouse to contribute to the nation’s 

economic health and international competitiveness. This 

niche is the composite of the stimulating and facilitating 

activities organized under the four roles noted above. 

Of particular importance in suggesting this niche is 

the recognition that the public interest associations and 

the other intermediav organizations representing state 

and local governments have a number of clearinghouses 

devoted entirely or in part to technoloa-based business 

and economic development initiatives. Centralizing such 

databases in a meta-clearinghouse in the Department of 

Commerce would be duplicative and have no value added 

(in fact, there would likely be a diminution of value based 

in part on lessened credibility of the federal government as 

the provider of state and local program information). 

Strengthening lns~itutional Capacity. There are severa1 mechanisms to disseminate information to state and 

local governments on improving management and service 

delivery and on economic development, in general. There 

are not as many mechanisms that focus on state and local 

technoloa development efforts within the realm of economic development. 

There hasbeen a clear shift in focus for these clearinghouses from the role of scientific and technological information and expertise for improving policy development, 

government operations, and service deliveq in general toward economic development specifically. This has positive 

implications for the Clearinghouse in the 199%. 

The economic development-related clearinghouses 

that do exist are underfunded, do not have complete information (either not all programs are included or not all desired information has been collected on each program), 

and may not have the information automated (much less 

accessible on-line). 

In addition, the information collected by one organization may overlap that collected by another. Finally, 

there is no commonality of categories of information collected by each organization among both state or local programs and, thus, analysis of program initiatives across governments is extremely difficult. 

The specific implications for the Clearinghouse would 

include: 

. Provision of the Clearinghouse’s extramural 

funds to support enhanced data collection, organization, andautomationbypublicinterest associations, including selected information on all state 

and local programs, more detailed case examples, 

and evaluation/assessment studies; and 

59 
. Use of convening power and “bully-pulpit” to 

work with the public interest associations and other intermediaries to reduce overlap in collecting 

data, and to increase commonality in selected 

categories of information collected on each state 

and local program initiative-providiog, in effect, 

a “crosswalk” among data bases. 

Syslematizing and Accelerating the Development and 

Diffusion of Knowledge and Experience. As a result of the 

termination of one of the extramural research programs at 

NSF, there is currently no federal agency responsible for 

research oo the technolo&y development and commercialization process. Agencies support research on some parts 

of the process (e.g., Economic Development Administration, Small Business Administration, NASA), but no one has 

taken the oversight role on behalf of the federal ioterest. 

Two examples of parts of the technology development 

process arose in the fifth thinkers session: seed capital and 

flexible manufacturing. The issue is not what is currently 

known about each subject (state of knowledge), or examples of successful use or application (state of experience); 

this is neceswy, but not sufficient. 

Rather, the issue is what state and local governments 

are doing to promote the development and use of seed 

capital and to promote the development and application of 

flexible manufacturing (in both instances, given the state 

of academic knowledge and practical eqerience). State 

and local governments need such information, and their 

clearinghouses do not have it. 

The specific implications for the Clearinghouse would 

include: 

Determination of the availability of federal 

funds from other agencies to update the researchand analysiseffort oo the technology and 

commercialization process, and attempt to persuade such agencies to support specific components of such an effort; 

Use of the Clearinghouse’s own funds to support 

specific priority components of such an effort; 

Provision of the Clearinghouse’s extramural 

funds to ensure that the results of such ongoing 

efforts (probably over several years) are included 

in the clearinghouses of public interest associations and other intermediaries serving state and 

local governments; and 

Identification, dxumentation, and dissemination of 

federal programs and actitities that complement 

state and local program initiatives in this area. 

Identifying and Filling Gaps in this Knowledge and 

Experience. There appear to be major and minor gaps in 

information about state and local programs. For example, 

one major issue noted by representatives of all the clearinghouses operated by state public interest associations is 

the lack of program assessments. 

Some assessments do exist; some of these are 

self-assessments, some are legislatively conducted, and 

some are performed by academic researchers. In addition. 

various assessment indicators are used: jobs created or retained; businesses created, expanded, or retainea taxes 

paid; firm sales; and corporate investments. 

There is limited agreement on appropriate evaluation 

methodologies. State and local governments could use information on this and similar areas, and their clearinghouses do not have this type of information. It is a gap that 

needs to be addressed to ensure the productive use of public resources. 

The specific implications for the Clearinghouse would 

include: 

Determination of the availabiity of federal funds 

from other agencies to fill such gaps as appropriate 

evaluation methodologies and attempt to persuade 

such agencies to support specific gap-fdliog efforts; 

Use of the Clearinghouse’s ow funds to support 

specific priority gap-fitling efforts; and 

Provision of the Clearinghouse’s extramural 

funds to ensure that the results of such ongoing 

efforts (probably over several years) are included 

in the clearinghouses of public interest associations and other intermediaries serving state and 

local governments. 

Networking Clearinghouse Operators. In addition to 

concerns about the data bases and their content (i.e., reducing overlap and filling gaps in the collection of data and 

increasing commonality in selected data categories), there 

appears to be a lack of ongoing communication and cooperation among the operators of the clearinghouses. This is 

particularly apparent among clearinghouses that operate 

within different governments. 

Communication and cooperation clearly exist oo an ad 

hoc basis to compile information or to address a specific iswe. What is missing is an ongoing and systematic crossfertilization among all these clearinghouses on federal 

programs and on state and local initiatives. 

The clearinghouses could share resources as weI1 as 

data base content. They could share experiences on lessons learned in operating clearinghouses and in providing 

a variety of products and services (e.g., data and information, publications and reports, technical services). This is 

another gap that needs to be addressed to maximize the 

potential of public expenditures. 

The specific implications for the Clearinghouse include: 

. Use of convening power and “bully-pulpit” to 

workwith theoperatorsof the clearinghousesand 

with the federal agencies: 

q To share resources to the extent possible given the vaqing nature of the clearinghouses 

and the organizations that house them; 

q To develop and share lessons learned in designing and operating clearinghouses and in 

determining the mix of products and services 

to be provided members or subscribers; and 

q To foster networking among members/subscribers of each clearinghouse and across 

clearinghouses. 

External Coordination 

The success of the Clearinghouse in its niche is dependent on coordination and cooperation with other 
federal agencies and with the state and local government interest groups. 

Interagency Coordination. The Clearinghouse must 

be committed to working closely with other line agencies 

having similar missions involving technology development. This includes agencies both within and outside of 

the Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration (e.g., NASA). It will help to ensure a comprehensive 

and complementary federal response to the state and local 

community and its program initiatives. 

Coordination with State and Local Interest Groups. 

The Clearinghouse must be willing to work constructively 

with the state and local interest groups. It is more IikeIy to 

succeed if, at a minimum, it attempts to coordinate its efforts through such existing groups and (preferably) has 

available funding to solicit their support. A strong commitment to the Clearinghouse wilIbe needed by the leaders of 

the user community-state and local governments. 

Clearinghouse Design and Administration 

Cextain desirable characteristics need to be built into the 

Clearinghouse design and administration. Administrative 

flexibility should characterize future plantig and implementation. Ideally, the Clearinghouse shotdd be planned and implemented in phases; thii way, as circumstances and wetiences change, provisions can be made for amending plans. 

The planning phase would involve worlcmg with the 

user community of state and local governments (preferably through their intermediary organizations) to assess 

their priority needs and topics of high interest within the 

framework of the Clearinghouse’s mission and its roles 

noted above. Such an assessment need not involve long 

drawn-out procedures. The process can range from regular, informal brainstorming to rigorous analysis of widely 

distributed smvey forms. For the Clearinghouse, the former may be more appropriate. 

Early success stories are important; the Clearinghouse 

can build on them. Options for consideration might include: 

Packaging of information on a priority issue area 

across governments (e.g., seed capital) by commissioning a paper and convening a review session 

by experts from the research and practitioner 

communities (including all governments); and 

Development of a multigroup network of individuals in a specific topic of high interest (e.g., flexible manufacturing and the roles of governments 

in developing and promoting it) through a conference sponsored by several federal agencies, the 

state and local interest groups, and otherintermediaries representing providers of technical and 

business assistance (such as university centers and 

trade associations). 

Success, however, is not likely tobe measuredby the 

number of products issued by the Clearinghouse, but 

rather by products supported by the Clearinghouse and 

issued by organizations (such as public interest associations) that have greater credibility with the audience of 

state and local governments. 

Similarly, success is not likely to be measured by the 

number of conferences convened by the Clearinghouse, 

but rather by such meetings supported and co-sponsored 

by the Clearinghouse and the intermediary organizations. 

The dissemination of information should be built 

around existing credible communications channels. If a 

new communications node (such as the Clearinghouse) is 

added to existing channels of communication, there 

should be a concern not to proliferate institutions, but to 

concentrate on using existing resources more effectively. For 

example, since the primary audience is state and local officials, respected channels of communications such as state 

and lxal govermnent associations should be involved to the 

extent possible. This helps to overcome resistance to change 

and lessens suspicion of new players. Thus, the Clearinghouse would not become an added channel, but would faci& 

tate and strengthen the capacity for communication. 

Similarly, the repository of information should be 

built around &sting, credible clearinghouses. Clearly, 

housing a centrally available clearinghouse at any one of 

the existing public interest associations is inappropriate. 

The state/local dichotomy means that local governments 

might not have easy access to the state-oriented program 

information, and vice versa. 

However, through the convening power and strategic 

investment roles of the Clearinghouse, such a central repositoty is neither necessary nor appropriate. Each public 

interest association needs to know only the categories of programs and the kinds of information atout each progmm in 

the other associations’ data bases (i.e., their structure). With 

that information, each astition can act as an inquiry/referml service for its members to any other association. 

It might be argued that each association would prefer 

not to receive additional requests from federal agencies or 

from the other associations and their members, particularly if from a different level of government. Thus, downloading the information into a centrally available Clearinghouse would prove desirable. 

Three lessons learned from the study of the 18 clearinghouses are relevant here. First, there is the “turf” issue 

of not giving up one’s information in order to demonstrate 

an organimtion’s utility to its membership. Second, the information provided by the trusted intermediaq is more 

credible. Third, if the information was downloaded, it 

would have been automated, and automating the information in some of the existing clearinghouses would allow 

more inquiries to be answered on-line, freeing up staff 

time for the additional requests. This is particularly relevant with the state interest associations, because the number of potential new inquirers (from thousands of local 

governments) is large compared to the number of jurisdictions now served (57). 

Clearinghouse Staffmg 

The foregoing implications for the Clearinghouse regarding roles and special niche. coordination. and design 

and administration have. in turn. implications for the staffing of the Clearinghouse. 

By the nature of the users directly served, it is obvious 

that the Clearinghouse staff must demonstrate, and must 

61 
be perceived as demonstrating, an understanding of the vices and their intermediaries (e.g., nonprofit, private, tmiroles and responsibilities of state and local governments versitybased). As with the focus in state and local as well as 

and an awareness of the importance of state and local ini- federal programs and initiatives, the ultimate beneficiaries 

tiatives in promoting technology development by industry. remah-the large corporations and small firms that proWhile state and local governments over the past three de- vide the country’s economic future and its place in the 

cades have returned tobeing true partnerswith the federal global economy. 

government in facilitating technolom-based business and - - 

&onomic development, ihis has noi-necessarily been appreciated by all federal agencies and their representatives. 

In addition, by the vev fact that it is establishimg a new 

entity, the Clearinghouse staff will need to be entrepreneurial in its vision. The Clearinghouse management has provided leadership in thii regard by the use of ACIR, focus 

groups, and commissioned papers for its development process. It has reached outside the federal establishment and 

has brought together representatives of many different affected communities who had not heretofore worked together to achieve conunon aims. The strategic thinking already undertaken in this development process provides a 

broad framework within which entrepreneurial tactical 

steps can be taken by the staff. 

Advisoiy Commission on Intcrgovcmmcntal Relations. “Issues 

Paox Draft Plan for Clearinahowc for State and Local Initiativ& on Productivity, Tcchn&8y, and Innovation.” Prepared 

for U.S. Department of Commcrcc. 1989. 

-. “Issues Paper F%ablishing a Clearinghowc for State and 

Ix& Initiatives on Productitity, Technology, and Innovation.” 

Prepared for U.S. Department of Conmwcc. 1989. 

Bingham, Richard D., Brett W. Hawkins, John F! Frendreis, and 

Mary I! LcBlanc. Pmfasional Asso&tions as Intemzediwies in 

7iimq Technob~ to CiW Governments. Milwaukee: Univcrsity of WisconsiwMilwaukce. June 1978 

Breckman, Paul R. “A Cooperative Nationwide Nehwk for Technolo8y Tiansfer A Back8round Paper on i@ Development and 

Present Status.” Alcxandtiz LFW Mana8cment Aswziatcs, Inc 

May X, 1987. 

Summing Up 

other agencies to achieve-mutual obieitives. The iimitaBy definition, the Commerce Clearinghowe for State 

and ti Initiatives on F’roductivity, Technology, and Innovation does not fall into any one of the five clearinghouse approaches discussed. Rather, it represents a “clearinghouse of 

clearinghouses? 

The potential for the Clearinghouse is necessarily limited in the near term by the staff and fiiancial resources 

made available to it directlv and leveraged indirectlv from 

Haggcrty, James J. Spinofll988. National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Off& of Commercial Programs, Tcchnolqq 

Utilization DivisirHayes, Kathleen C., The&xc .I. Maher, and James T Hall. Techno/o~ T-r A Profile of Agency Activitie io USDA. Submitted bv the Technoloev Transfer Subcommittee of the ReKlein, Susan S. “How Can the Federal Government Help Edwasearch &d Fdwation~‘Committee, U.S. Department of 

ive ScrAgriculture. Revised March 1989. 

Interview with clearinghowc administrators and staff conducted 

in the spring and summer of 1989. 

tion in yhe legislation regardiig the- user commtmity of 

state and local as well as federal government provides a focus for a phased implementation of the operations of the 

Clearinghouse. When successful, the Clearinghouse could 

then consider asking for authority and resources to expand 

its audience to the next category-the nongovernmental 

tion-Related Cleatinghowcs FYovidc More Cost-Eff&t 

v&s?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association. March 1989. 

Merccr, James L, and Susan W WC&ton. ‘The Lwai Gownment 

Science and Technolqq Netuork A National System: Evoiation, 

Characteristics and Lessons Learned.” Paper from the Bat& Mcmorial Institute, Center for Urban Technology for the National 

providers of technical and business information and ser- Science Foundation, Intergovcmmental Pmcm. (No date) 

62 
Appendix 

Clearinghouse DescripGons 

National Alliance of Business Clearinghouse (NAB) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The National Alliance of Business (NAB) Clearinghouse has operated in various formats and with various inputs since 1979. It has focused primarily on providing information on the federal government’s job training and 

employment programs created through the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 and its predecessor, the 

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Because 

the JTPA performance criteria are strictly defined, 

those in the field have a need to know about successful 

local programs. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

NAB traditionally has been sustained through federal 

funding (mostly from the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor) and corporate contributions. Individual memberships were offered 

beginning in 1989. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse otk 

(e.g., service deliwy, economic development, research/ 

technology development) and what is the extent of the 

ckaringhouse listings? 

The NAB database contains four kinds of files: 

Model Program File-descriptions of 700 programs that can be replicated, collected in seven 

years of program researck 

Program Leads Ffie-900 new and innovative 

project profiles according to location, key project 

characteristics, fundiig sources and amounts, target populations and occupations, types of training, business involvement, and a contact person; 

Reference File-an on4me bibliographic data 

base which abstracted over 2,8@3 valuable policy 

reports and how-to publications; and 

Contactsand ServicesFfie-described helpful organizationstoput theuserintouchwithanetwork 

of national, regional, state, and local sources of 

information and technical assistance. 

How is information generated for inclusion in the cIearinghouse and/or evaluated? Does the clearinghouse ac. 

cess external data bases? 

The projects supported by federal and corporate funding generate case studies and other information, which becomes the basis of the data base. 

In 1986, the U.S. Economic Development Administration supported joint projects between NAB and the National Council for Urban Economic Development 

(CUED), the National Association of Regional Councils 

@ARC), and the National Association of State Develop 

merit Agencies (NASDA). ‘IXe focus of the two-year efforts was the linkage between job training and economic 

development. Activities included documenting case examples of successful state, regional, and local activities, identifying needs in this area, and conducting a National Leadership Conference on the subject at the end of the project. 

Thus, EDA did not suppoti the three organizations to develop entries for the data base, per se; rather, the results of 

the joint efforts were entered into the data base. 

Does the clearinghouse produe publications? 

NAB produces numerous other publications that are 

not part of the computerized data base. In addition to its 

data base and library, NAB publications include: 

Bulletins-easy-to-read studies of successful programs outlining the essential information needed 

to plan, budget, and manage model projects; 

“WorkAmerica’‘-NAB’s monthly newspaper 

featuring model programs, interviews, and 

“Washington news” about the employment and 

training system nationwide; 

“Economic Development Briefs”-a free quarterlynewsletter on economicdevelopment trends 

throughout the nation; 

“Business Currents”-a biweekly newsletter analyzing legislative, administrative, and regulatory 

actions that affect employment, training, and education policies; and 

Special Reports-indexed in NAB Publications 

Liit. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(eg., technical assistance)? 

In 1988, the data base was converted to an in-house 

system and revitalized as a Special Research Library. The 

NAB staff has access to the computerized information as 

well as to the Z%rary, which provides a traditional collection of materials on employment, training, business/education partnerships, economic and human resource development. The NAB staff may borrow books, but non-NAB 

personnel must schedule an appointment to use the library’s resources; and they cannot check out bwks. Related clearinghouse services include periodicals circulation, book ordering, fact fmding, and research services 

(eg., smvey research or assistance with research and questionnaire design are provided on a contract basis). 

Through its familiatity with the library coIIection and 

skill in locating information, clearinghouse staff is able to 

track down information quickly. While the clearinghouse 

is responsive and helpful to the general public, activities 

now are driven by NAB staff needs. Services include: 

n Quick answer service (locating facts, studies, and 

appropriate experts); 

n Information searches (compiling infornm~ion 

packages from a variety of sources); and 

n Literaturesearchesandbibliographypreparation. 

At this time, because of limited staff, NAB is comput63 
erizing only citations for books added to the NAB library. 

Information on programs is filed in paper subject files instead of a data base. 

How big is the clearinghouse statl? 

As part of the NAB Special Research Library, the 

NAB Clearinghouse services are now provided by one 

full-time staff person. The Libraq has four full-time staff 

persons to cover each of four functions: periodicals circalation, book ordering, fact fiiding through the Clearinghouse, and research services. 

During the 1982-1985 period, when the research projects were ongoing, the Clearinghouse staff included two 

fulI-time persons. 

What are examples of questions the ckaringhouse can be 

expected to answer? 

The NAB Clcaringhowe has provided answers to inquiries on employment, job training, and economic development In addition to JTPA-related information, this has included such topics as enWepreneu&ip, worker d&cation, 

business-school partnerships for education, tax incentives, 

on-the-job training, business attraction and retention stategies, incubators, and small business development 

WKI “SW the cleminghow.e? 

Until 1984, the data base files were used to respond to 

inquiries from the NAB staff and the public (educators, 

business people, and federal, state, and local government 

officials, community-based persons, and cons&an&). 

From 1985 to 1988, direct access to the data base was 

marketed to members of the “JTPA system”-primarily 

Private Industry Councils and state Job Training Boards. 

Brochures were designed and distributed, and demonswations were performed at conferences. 

Since 1988, when the Clearinghouse was revitalized as 

a Special Research Library, the NAB staff has been using 

the information in performance of its own duties. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Until 1986, the data base had just over 40 subscribers. 

In 1986, economic development agencies were targeted 

and, within a year, the number of subscribers had increased 

to about 80. 

Direct access was terminated in June 1988. By this 

time, the database had half its original number of subscribers, in spite of intensified subscriber supporf services from 

1986 to 1987 (guidebook, quick reference guide, newsletters, telephone assistance, and training) and stepped up 

subscription expiration notices. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

During the direct access phase, data base users required a computer, modem, and NAB’s user manual. 

Information in the data base was organized (and could 

be searched) by funding source (e.g., JTPA). type of program operator (e.g., private industry council), industv, occupation, location, training type (e.g., on-the-job), and target group (e.g., dislocated workers). 

For those users without a computer and modem, the 

staff searched the database and other resources. Modest fees 

helped to defray these infomtion dissemination costs. 

Fu$ind of help is provided in accessing the ckaring 

Special one-on-one, how-to training sessions for accessing the system were provided at an additional cost 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

Users paid only for actual search time ($6Oper hour or 

$1 per minute), discounted for frequent users and for prepayment packages. There was also a $15 minimum usage 

fee during each monthly billing period, unless the data 

base was not accessed at all in that period of time. 

The user manual, “Guide to Searching the NAB Data 

base,” cost $30 at the time the user opened an account and 

received an individual access code. 

What is the clearinghouse history, legislative, and/or pro. 

grammatic background? 

The NAB Clearinghouse had its origins a decade ago; 

the information was gradually computerized over several 

years. Until 1984, the data base files were used to respond 

to inquiries from the NAB staff and the public. In 1985, 

NAB introduced direct access to the data base. In 1986, 

EDA suppofied two-year joint projects between NAB, 

NASDA, CUED, and NARC, which provided input for the 

data base. Surveys of subscribers were conducted in 1984 

and 1986, and two new pricing plans were offered in 1987. 

Also in 1987, a regional Clearinghouse demonstration 

project was initiated. In 1988, the Clearinghouse was revitalized as a library primarily for the NAB staff. 

Federal Research in Progress Data Base (FEDRIP) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

As the U.S. government’s central scientific, technical, 

and engineering infomation sewice, the U.S. Depaflmenf of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service (NTIS) is responsible for providing access to summaries of current and ongoing projects via the Federal 

Research in Progress Data Base (FEDRIP). 

FEDRIP’s uniqueness lies in its swucture; it is a nonbibliographic source of research in progress (as opposed to 

the well-known NTIS Bibliographic Data Base; once research is completed, the resulting final reports, etc., become listed in the NTIS Bibliographic Data base). 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

Agencies pay NTIS per project provided; users also 

pay NTIS via an arrangement with DIALOG Information 

Services. 

NTIS is required by law to be a self-sustaining agency, 

‘Ihe costs of NTIS salaries, marketing, postage, and all other operating costs are paid for by the sales revenues from 

its products. Costs are not covered by tax-supported congressional appropriations. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer 

(e.g., service delivery, economic development, research/ 

technology development), and what is the extent of its list. 

64 
iags? Also, how is infommtion generated for inclusion in 

the clearinghouse and/or evaluated? 

The FEDRIP Data Base contains n~ore than 93,COO citations about ongoing federally funded research projects 

in the physical sciences, engineering, and life sciences. 

Most research projects are described by an abstract or 

sunmary of the basis of the research, its objectives, and, 

sometimes, intermediate findings. 

FEDRIP is a compilation of input from nine government agencies, which accounts for its varied subject coverage. The data bases in FEDRIE their source, and the nomher of active projects are: 

AGRIC, U.S. Department of Agricoltore- 16,900, annual update; 

CRISE Public Health Service-4O,OOO, monthly 

update; 

ENRGY, Department of Enera-7,500, semiannual update; 

NASA-600, annual update; 

NBS, National Institute of Standards and Technology-80, annual update; 

NSF, National Science Foundation-8,500, semiannual update: 

TRANS, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences-4,000, annual update; 

USGS, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey-300, semiannual update; and 

VA, Department of Veterans Affairs-14,900, 

monthly update. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

No. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

No. 

How big is the clearinghoose statl? 

An NTIS Rduct Manager acts as a part-time liaison 

with the other federal agencies that forward magnetic tapes 

containing the data. The Commerce Department Computer 

Center converts the tapes to a standard format osedby NTIS. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can he 

expected to answer? 

Like the Federal Applied Technology Data Base described below under the section on CUFT, FEDRIP was 

not created as a inquity/response service. HowevFr, osers 

may access this large and multidisciplinary data base in a 

variety of subject areas. The areas of health and medicine 

are most prominent as a result of the input received from 

the Public Health Service and Department of Veterans Affairs. Other major subjects include agriculture, energy, 

and transportation. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

Researchers access FEDRIP to avoid duplication, locate sources of support, identify leads in the literature, 

stimulate ideas for planning, identify gaps in areas of investigation, locate individuals with expertise, and complement searches of completed research. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Because only one private vendor-DIALOG Information Services, Inc.-makes FEDRIP available on-line 

to the public, the “sage data is proprietary; if there were 

several vendors, the usage data from each fii could beaggregated and made available. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

FEDRIP is available on-line through DIALOG. 

The information in FEDRIP can be searched primarilyby subject and by organization name (including the organization performing the research and the sponsoring/ 

funding federal agency). Additional searching is by 

principal investigators, dates, geographic location, etc. 

FEDRIP also is available from NERAC, Inc., which 

performs customized searches. 

What ldod of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

house? 

Available free from NTIS is the “Search Guide to the 

Federal Research in Progress Data Base-FEDRIP” a 

60-page publication that includes database coverage, field 

hints, and searching specifics. 

NTIS also offers on-line training and presentations to 

groops. These sessions include a presentation of the specifics of the data base (format, content, etc.); an explanation of searching strategies and systems commands; and, if 

appropriate, a “hands-on” sessions. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

Connect time to DIALOG is $48 per hour. The 

off-line print rate is 20 cents for a full record; on-line type 

is 20 cents per line. 

W%at is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

Until the early 198Os, the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange (SSIE) was the major record of all govermnent-funded R&D in progress. The SSIE provided 

project summaries by subjects, principal investigators, 

dates, and funding amounts. In the early 1980% SSIE was 

folded into NTIS and continued as FEDRIP 

Federal Applied Technoloa Data Base (FATD) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The Federal Applied Technology Data Base (FATD) is 

one of a number of information products offered by the 

Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology (CUR) 

at the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). 

What distinguishes CUFT from FEDRIP is that 

CUFTproducts focuson special opportunities for utilizing 

the technologies produced from federally sponsored research. As such, CUFT is not just in the business of selling 

publications, but in transferring technologies. 

CUFI consists of two main divisions: the Office of 

65 
Applied Technology and the Office of Federal Patent Licensing. The activities of the Office of Applied Technology 

most closely relate to the clearinghouse concept. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

Since CUIT is part of NTIS, the Congress requires 

that CUFF be self-sustaining. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer 

(e.g., service delivery, economic, r’esearchltechnolo~ de. 

velopment), and what is the extent of its listings? 

FATD is a technoloa transfer resource linking U.S. 

companies and other wers with federal laboratory technologies, know-how, and other resources. The data base 

provides electronic access to all of CUFT’s information, 

such as the hard copy reports noted below. There are three 

types of information entries in the FATD: 

n More than 900 federal laboratory resources 

searchable by the following four mes: 

Expertise in an applied area; 

Facilities (equipment available for sharing); 

More than 90 technical information centers 

focused on specific subjects (e.g., fuels, toticolony, pesticides, etc.); and 

Services (special services for supplying R&D 

samples and supplies). 

. Technolom fact sheets on those having “better-than-average potential” (including the NASA 

Tech Briefs and the 1,4Kl yearly NTIS 7&h Notes). 

n U.S. government-owned inventions (descriptions 

of technologies companies can use to develop new 

products and processes drawn from more than 700 

patents and 9C0 patent application descriptions 

entries yearly). 

The data base contains names, telephone numbers, 

and sources of backup information for many of these entries. As of 1988, FAm’s six-year coverage includes more 

than 14,MKl records. 

How is information generated for bxhksion by the cleating. 

house and/or evaluated? Does it access external data bases? 

The information contained in FATD is the same as 

that collected for the printed reports described below. 

Some of the information in FAm, kh Notes and Government Inventions, specifically, are also available through the 

NTIS Bibliographic Data Base. 

FATD is updated biweekly. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

CUFI”s Office of Applied ‘Rxhnology publishes a 

number of publications on a regular basis, including: 

= Tech Note& a monthly subscription format covering current technological advances considered to 

have potential commercial or practical application (includes new processes, equipment, materials, software, and techniques); 

. Federal Technology C&&g, an annual publication 

summarizing the prior year’s Tech Notes in 23 subject headings; 

Government Inventions for LicensingAbstract Newsktter, weekly bulletins covering inventions from 

all federal agencies, which alert businesses and 

entrepreneurs to opportunities for licensing and 

marketing government-owned inventions (frequently on an exclusive basis); 

Catalog of Government Inventions for Licensing, an 

annual sununary of the weekly bulletins on the 

san~e topic, which announce more than 1,200 inventions annually and bring n~ore than 60 promising inventions to market each year; 

Dir&q of Federal Laboratory and i?chn&y Resources-A Guide to Services, Faci/ities, and Eqwfix, a convenient, easy-to-use biennial reference 

for large and small technology-oriented businesses to locate scientific and technical resottrces 

provided by federal agencies and their labs (it describes not only federal labs, but also more than 9il 

technical information centers that have been 

noted as untapped resources); 

D&tory of Federal and State Business Assistance-A 

Guide for New and Gnwing Compwzies, a biennial 

publication descr&iig more than 180 federal and 

403 state business assistance programs and 

Small Business Guide to Federal R&D Funding Opportunitie~, CUFI”s newest publication, with special emphasis on the SBIR program 

Other products are available (e.g., “Evaluating R&D 

and New Product Development Ventures,” etc.), but they 

will not be described here. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

CUFT’s Office of Federal Patent Licensing (OFPL) 

provides industry a one-stop source of information on 

patents available for licensing from a number of federal 

agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. As part of CUF-& OFPL 

also is expected to be self-sustaining. It generates income from the service fees charged those agencies, 

which essentially are paid through royalties from licensing agreements. 

If the clearinghouse offers technical assistance, what type 

of expertise is availabk? 

The OFPL staff evaluates federal technologies for their 

commercial potential. Expertise is technical and legal, 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can he 

expected to answer? 

The following examples of typical questions are provided in a descriptive brochure about FATD: 

. A small manufacturing company needed to know 

what ceramic technology has been developed for 

possible engine use: and 

. An architect needed technical help in the use of 

daylight for office lighting. 

FATD does not have a formal inquiry or response capability. Answers are obtained through the sources of ex66 
pert& and citations available from searching the database 

or through the mailing of printed reports noted above at 

specified charges. 

How big is the c1earingbcnw.e statI? 

An NTIS F’roduct Manager compiles and abstracts the 

data. Government contractors (including technical special&s such as chemists, etc.) index and key the data, as 

needed, on a part-time basis. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

CUFT users are from indust% universities; and federal, 

state, and 1-l government; as well as indiidual scientists 

and engineers. CUFT’s Offke of Applied T&hnolo~ has 

identified state technical assistance centers and state emcomic development programs to provide them with timely 

information through special flyers and other mailings. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Because until recently only one private vendor-BRS 

Information Technologies-had made the FAI’D available 

oa-line to the public, the usage data has been propriem. In 

the future, usage data from each of the hvo firms now offering FAm can be awegated and made available. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

Access to FAm is through two commercial on-line 

information services, BRS Information Technologies and 

NewsNet via TELENET and TYMNET Menu-driven 

searching is accomplished by diiling an 800 telephone 

number through a modem and computer terminal. 

All records in FAm are assigned searchable codes 

representing broad subject disciplines such as chemical 

aaalysis, air pollution, etc. These categories can be refined 

and searched through specific subject subsets. 

ro$kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

Available free from NTIS is the booklet “Online Access to Business and Technology Assistance: A Searcher’s 

Guide to the FAD on BRS,” a 35-page publication that 

iacludes access procedures, searching techniques, and 

data base descriptions. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

BRS charges are $60 per hour during “prime time” 

(6am-6pm local time, Monday-Friday), or $50 per hour for 

non-prime time. 

The fees associated for CUFF publications are: 

n Tech Notes-$157 per year; 

n Federal Technolo~ C&lo@-current year, $36 

(other annual editions are less) or free to Tech 

Nom subscribers; 

n Government Iwen~iomforLictwsingAbstract Newskm-$225 per year; 

n Catalogof Government ZwentionsforLicensingcurrent year, $45 (other annual editions are less) or 

free to the Abstract Newsletter subscribers; 

n Directory of Federal Laboratory and Technology Resources-$3% 

n Directov of Federal and State Easiness Ass& 

tance-42~ and 

a Small Business Guide-$12.50. 

Vvlxat is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic background? 

CUFTwas established in 1982 in response to the 1980 

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act to serve as a 

clearinghouse for: 

. ColIecting and disseminating infornution on federally funded R&D; 

n Acting as a referral agent to the federal laboratory 

system; and 

. Providing additional assistance, as needed, to 

complete the transfer of federal technology. 

Under the 1986 Federal Technology TransferAct, CUFT 

was formally subsumed into NTIS. 

As of 1987, most of the above products had been 

published through NTIS’s Office of Program and Product Management, although still largely developed by 

CUFr staff. 

Until recently, a Federal and State Business Assistance (FSBA) data base was also offered by CUFT. FSBA 

was comprised of two types of entries: more than 180 federal business assistance programs and about 400 state programs. The data base contained “quick glance” descriptive 

phrases as well as detailed information, contacts, and 

phone numbers. The following are sample questions that 

were addressed by using the data base: 

. How to get funding for a company’s R&Q 

. Where to get mail lists of potential ove:seas business buyers; and 

n What federal and state contacts offer free management and procurement consulting. 

The FSBA is no longer available on-liie from BRS because it did not generate sufficient commercial use; however, 

the FSBA information is still available in hard copy, as noted 

above, and has been a ‘%est seller” for CUFT and NTIS. 

Technolog Applications Information System (TAIS) 

What organization(s) operates and funds the clearing 

house? 

The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) in 

the Depamnent of Defense established an Office of Technolou Applications in 1987 to make SD1 technologies available to other federal agencies and the U.S. private sector. 

The SD10 Technology Applications office developed 

the Technology Applications Information System (TAIS) 

based on several principles, including: 

. Putting the right people together (e.g., inventors 

and technoloB developers) easily and quickly; and 

. Linking people within restraints established for 

the protection of sensitive technology and intellec~ual property rights. 

67 
What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.& 

service deliwy, economic development, research/technology 

development), and what is the extent of its listings? 

The main purpose of TAIS is to place those seeking to 

commercialize technology in touch with inventors of new 

technologies so that business negotiations, license agreements, and royalty arrangements can be expedited. The 

system provides: 

. 1,200 technoloa abstracts for technical and nontechnical users-unclassified summaries of available technologies containing some information 

o* patent matters, a contact point (principal investigator), and a listing of key words; 

. Updated requirements and closing dates for proposals to SDL 

Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 

program (15 research topics); and 

Innovative Science and Technoloa (IST) 

program (43 research topics in six broad research areas); 

n Listings of 14 other on-line federal data bases of 

technology information (NASA, NTIS, etc.); and 

. Descriptions of more than 180 federal and 400 

state business assistance programs. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

Users access TAIS primarily to learn about available 

technologies. The technologies that have been most popw 

la,-, as measured by the number of requests for further information, are: 

n Software design generator expert system; 

n Graphic computer-aided software engineering 

package; 

. Coated c&on and graphite-reinforced ceramics; 

. Attentive associative memory; 

. Miniature, radiation-hardened accelerometers; 

. Process for coating surfaces with thin layers of 

diamond crystals; 

. Infrared sensors; and 

. Distributed computing design system. 

TAIS also can indicate the proposal due dates for SD1 

research funding, as well as places where firms can go for 

business assistance. 

How is information generated for inclusion in the clear. 

inghouse and/or evaluated? Does it access external data 

bases? 

Approximately 50 percent of the technology abstracts 

are descriptions of SDI’s SBIR projects and projects sponsored by SDI’s IST program, which is open to both small 

and large firms as well as to researchers in universities and 

other public and private institutions. Both of these research programs use a peer review mechanism for identifying fundable projects. The remaining technology abstracts 

are from laboratory and industry R&D programs. The 

sources of information include contract documents, technical reports, conference presentations, news articles, etc. 

In order toassist in the identificationof furtherspinoff 

potential for the technologies described in TAIS, the SD1 

Technology Applications office has established a network 

of more than 50 voluntary scientific/technical advisors. 

Meetings of these advisors are held on a regular basis to 

review promising technological advances and breakthroughs. They are based at universities, federal laboratories, private research institutes, large corporations, and 

professional associations. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

In order to promote its services, the Technology Applications office produces an annual report, brochures, press 

releases, and a press kit containing fact sheets. 

Does the clearinghouse O&T other products and services 

or sponsor other activities? 

TAIS has built-in capability to track users and, thus, 

can automatically generate targeted mailing lists for conferences, suveys, and the like. 

How big is the clearinghouse staff? 

The system currently has one full-time administrator 

and a number of part-time support staff, including twoprogrammers, two scientists/engineers who can analyze and 

communicate the technology abstracts, a technical writer, 

a data loader, and an “outreach” person. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

TAIS is accessed by technolom developers in U.S. carporations and small businesses, as well as in DOD and otherfederal agencies. The list of users who have accessed the 

system includes such well-known corporations as Gramxnan Corporation, McDonnell Douglas, Motorola, Northrup, Rolls Royce, SAX, TRW, Teledyne, UNISYS, etc. (It 

is assumed that many of the less well-known fims on the 

user list are small businesses.) The federal users have 

ranged from NASAand the Air Force to the Customs Service and Department of the Treasuy. 

TAIS information on the SD1 Innovative Science and 

Technology program is of interest to high-tech firmsgenerally; information on SDI’s SBIR program is primarily of interest to small firms. Economic development offices are 

interested in both the SBIR and IST program information 

in order to increase the awareness of local firms about federal procurement opportunities. 

Information in TAIS is used also by university and laboratory researchers to share information. Universities currently using TAIS include the University of Tennessee, 

University of Colorado, and University of Texas. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched? 

TAIS is accessible via computer modem by any US. carporation or citizen who has completed a Militarily Critical 

Technology (MCI’) Data Agreement and has been certified 

as eligible for accw by the Defense Logistics Agency. More 

than 13,lXX.l American corporations and small busincsscs are 

M-certified at this time. Federal agency representatives 

may obtain access cefiification by addressing a request on official letterhead to the SDIOTcchnology Applications Office 

(approximately 325 have done so thus far). 

68 
Users n~ay browse TAIS’ largest data base, the technology abstracts, by using one of four search methodologies: technology hierarchy, key word, application area, or 

industrial classification. The technology categories are 

based on the categories used in the government’s Militarily Critical Technologies List, which is established for export controls of militarily sensitive technologies and, thus, 

is used by a number of federal agencies. 

WhenaTAIS userfindsa technology abstract ofinterest, a request may be made by computer for additional information. When such a request is made, the Technology 

Applications office responds to that user by mati-the letter is automatically generated that describes the technoloa~ and contact point for additional information. (The reason for responding by mail is to ensure that the 

Mm-certified user receives the information.) 

The office simultaneously informs the principal investigator/contact point that a specific user has an interest in 

additional information. The royalty incentives created by 

the 1986 technology transfer legislation serve to encourage a response by the scientist. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

TAIS has had 2,154 log-ens in 78 weeks, which averages 5.5 people logging on per day in a given work week. 

This is interesting because for security reasons the system 

limits the number of accesses per day per user, as well as 

the amount of time the user may log onto the system. 

In terms of requests for further information, the system has averaged 7.2 requests per week. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

house? 

The office has a phone number (non toll-free) to call 

for assistance in accessing the TAIS. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

There is no charge for accessing TAIS, only for the 

long distance telephone access charge. 

What is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

TAIS was established in response to the .%ewzson-Wyd/er Technology Innovative Act of 1980, the cooperative provisions of the 1986 Federal Techno/oa Transfer Act, 

and the 1987 Executive Order on Facilitating Access to 

Federal Science and Technology. It was established also in 

response to the Department of Defense Authorization Actsof 

1986 and 1987, and the DOD Fiscal Year 1989 appropriations language. TAIS was opened in conjunction with the 

directive to the Secretary of Defense contained in the 1987 

Executive Order requiring a response in six months on 

technology available through DOD. 

The Local Exchange (LEX) 

W%at organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

Local Exchange, an electronic network for local govermneot officials developed in partnership with GTE Edw 

cation Service, provides subscribers access to information 

compiled by the National League of Cities (NLC), International City Management Association (ICMA), Government Fiiance Officers’ Association (GFOA), and Public 

‘Ikchnology, Inc. (FIT). 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

The Local Exchange is self-supporting through subscriber fees. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.g., 

service detivtq economic deveIopment, ~seareh/technoIogy 

development), and %&at is the extent of its listings? 

Exchange data bases include: 

n NLC’s Urban Affairs Abstracts-weekly abstracting service of articles from more than 400 manicipally oriented national and regional periodicals 

(includes 5,000 bibliographic citations going back 

2.5 years); 

. Local Government Solutions-more than 2,ClXl 

case studies collected by NLC, FIT, and ICMA that 

document innovative and effective solutions to 

problems and needs in urban and rwal communities 

(it is anticipated that NACo will be adding its Innovations Program case studies to this data base) 

n NLC’s Economic Development Dispatches-100 

files downloaded from the economic development Bulletin Board containing case studies, publications, and news about upcoming conferences; 

. I’ll’s and KM& Microliik-a Bullet.in Board 

with information about microcomputer appIimtioos, prwluct announcements, and networking issues; 

n NLC’s Legislative News-1CHl to 203 files downloaded from a Bulletin Board with updated legislative and regulatory news from NLC’s Office of 

Federal Relations; 

n GFOA’s GF-Net, which currently has two components: 

Government Finance Abstracts, a file of 35Ll 

abstracts of publications of interest to finance 

officers that appear in GFOA’s monthlypublication Government Finance Review; and 

Financial news updated several times daily 

from the Dow Jones Capital Markets Wire 

(e.g., information on municipal bonds, CD 

rates, news from the Federal Reserve, etc.); 

m ICMKsJobs, an up-to-date listing of about 150 job 

opportunities in local governments; and 

m User Directov, a listing of all Local Exchange users, including~address&s and telephone nuibers 

(450-500 files). 

Also planned for near future is a data base, NLC’s 

Tclecom Trends. on cable television and telecommunications issues facing local governments. It will be downloaded from a Bulletin Board and include items from NATOA News, as well. 

How is information generated for inclusion in the clearing. 

house and/or evaluated? Does it access external data bases? 

69 
Most of the information found in the data base is the 

same information that is available in hard copy format to 

members of the involved organizations. It is the same type 

of information they have been providing for years. 

Through the Local Exchange, subscribers can aIso access such commercial data bases as News Grid, the Official 

Airline Guide, and stock information services at rates set 

by the information provider. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

The Local Exchange does not produce original publications. However, as noted above, the organizations involved produce a great number of technical assistance 

publications in a wide variety of areas of interest to state 

and local governments. 

The Local Exchange provides access to research services for members and subscribers of the sponsoring organizations. The research services are NLC’s Municipal Refcrence Service, ICMXs Management Information 

Service, and PII’s ANSWER. Using Local Exchange, 

members/subscribers may submit inquiries and obtain responses to questions from the staffs. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

The Local Exchange includes messaging and electronic maiI bulletin boards, whereby users can post questions 

and announcements for other subscribers. The following 

are avaihable: 

n EconDevelopment (providing economic development information); 

n LJniv.Commtmities (providing information on 

university communities); 

. SmalLCommunities (providing small cities news); 

n Updates (legislative and regulatory news from 

NLC); 

n QuestADM (questions and answers on administrative topics such as finance and personnel); 

n Quest.CED (community, economic development, planning); 

full-time-equivalent staff members devoted to this effort. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

From the data base, a user might request abstracts of 

the latest articles on the subject of Iiability. 

Similarly, a riser might scan the economic develop 

merit data base for: 

9 Case studies of specific city programs; 

= Descriptions of federal economic development 

funding programs; 

m Information about notable economic develop 

merit strategies and trends; or 

a Notices about economic development conferences and publications. 

Sample queries on the bulletin board have requested 

information on the following topics: 

a ProgramsforIatchkeychildreninlibraries,andlo. 

cal policies regarding parent supervision; 

n Ordinances, resomtions, or legislation that would 

require an individual or property owner to bear 

the expense of site improvement as a result of migratory birds or animals: and 

m Whether, when, and howjurisdictions codifyordinances. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

Local elected officials can use the clearinghouse for 

policy development ideas. City and county administrators 

can research management issues. Local government department staff can find information on operational concerns. Local finance and budget directors can access 

up-to-the-minute information to aid them in financia1 decisions. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer necessay)? 

The Local Exchange started operation in October 

1988. Meaningful aggregate data is not yet available. Anecdotal evidence indicates that some subscribers access 

the Exchange three to four times per week every week. 

n 

n 

Quest.PW (public works; transportation); and 

Quest.PS (pubbc safety, pohce, fire, emergency 

n 

services); 

Quest.General (questions and answers on other 

topics). 

Once a data base has been selected through the system’s main menu, the user types in the word or words on 

the topic of interest and begins a search. 

Local governments without computer modems may 

send and receive electronic mail messages via a FM machine. 

The Local Exchange also offers the opportunity to 

conduct on-line workshops on specific topics on specified 

days and times or over several days. 

Users also can genemte questionnaire forms, conference registration forms, and other types of forms on-line, 

This allows subscribers to provide information to other organizations in an easily usable form that facilitates the exchange of information. 

How big is the clearinghouse statl? 

The Local Exchange itself is operated by a vendor using GTE Telenet as the host system. The participating public interest associations in the aggregate have about 1.5-Z 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing. 

house? 

New subscribers receive a user’s manual. They aIso 

have access to an 800 customer service telephone number, 

a computer-based tutorial, and a training program. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

Fees are based on the population of the subscribing jurisdiction. For example, cities and counties with popuh70 
tions over 100,000 pay a basic price of $7C0 for 7 sign-on 

IDS; between 25,000 and lOLl,OOO, $500 for 5 IDS; under 

25,000, $3Ml for 3 IDS; state municipal leagoes, $400 for 3 

IDS. (Additional IDS may be obtained for $45). In addition, 

there are hourly connect charges and transmission charges. 

Packaged subscriptions allow the juisdiction to pay the 

annual fee and connect charges in advance. The subscriber 

receives a monthly invoice for setice hours wed and an indication of the remaining balance of the prepayment. There 

are four prepayment options ranging from $RXl to $3$X. 

What is the clearinghouse histow and IegisIative and/or 

programmatic background? 

Over the past decade, several of the involved organizations have experimented with other on-line information 

systems. For example, the predecessor to the Lwal Exchange at NLC was called LINUS. At one time, LINUS 

was tied into Control Da& Corpomhm’s LOGlN (described in more detail below), which also incorporated other local government associations, such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Association of Counties. 

LINUSwascreatedin 1986becauseLOGIN,byitsve~nature, could not provide the exact mix of clearinghouse information and inquiry/response services desired by the local government interest associations. 

Local Government Information Nehvork (LOGIN) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The Local Government Information Network (LOGIN Information Services) is owned and operated by the 

William Norris Institute, a nonprofit subsidimy of Conwol 

Data Corporation (CDC). 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

LOGIN is a for-profit venture, whose operations are 

supported by subscriber fees. CDC provided the original 

start-up costs. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.g? 

service delivea economic development, xwear&/technology 

development), and wimt is the extent of its Wings? 

The LOGIN data base is composed of some 

4O,C6il-50,@30 articles, program descriptions and other information units. The units, which are searchable by key 

words, include a subject line, a three-four lime brief, the 

text, and a contact person with address and phone number. 

The information in the data base covers a whole mnge 

of issues relevant to local governments-from solid waste 

disposal issues to descriptions of city arts and cultural initiatives. Themes of information in the LOGIN data base 

include: 

. Case studies of innovative local government progmms, projects, policies, and practices; 

. Announcements of new federal loans and grants 

and federal program changes; 

w Updates and news briefs about pending legislation and other important changing events in 

Washington, DC; 

Innovations and developments in local government finance; 

Approaches for serving the elderly, the homeless, 

and victims of domestic violence; 

Urban technologies from other countries; 

Examples of private-sector initiatives and public-private cooperation; 

Syndicated articles on state and local issues; 

Case studies of economic and community development; and 

Approaches and educational resoorces for improving productivity in government. 

How is infonoatioa generated for indosion in the clearinghouse and/or evaIoated? Does the clearinghouse ac. 

cess external data bases? 

Theinfom&on comesfrom a vaietyoforganiza~ions 

that serve local government, such as the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors, National League of Cities, League of California Cities, Academy for State and Local Government, 

Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Govemmerit, National Center for Public Productivity, National 

Institute of Justice, HUD and DOE. 

In addition, LOGIN offers on-line the Greenwood 

Press Index to Cwren~ Urban Documtws-more than 3,500 

citations listed annually of the reports generated by local 

governments in the U.S. LOGIN’s on-line version includes access to all volumes of the Index produced since 

1985. There is a separate charge for the Index (see below). 

Does the åhoose produce publications? 

LOGIN does not produce publications. Copies of the 

documents cited in the Greenwood Press Index can be ordered through LOGIN a microfiche version of the decomerits is supplied by mail within approximately 10 days. 

Does the clearinghouse o&r other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

LOGIN’s electronic mail has a feature that makes evcry user’s questions and any answers part of the data base. 

How big is the clearinghouse stat?? 

LOGIN has approximately 14-15 full-time-equivalent 

staff for this effort. There are 10 full-time staffers and 10 

additional consultants and part-time staff, whose roIe is to 

develop responses to inquiries in their fields of expertise. 

What a~ examples of questions the clearinghouse cao be 

expected to answer? 

Examples include: 

Q: 

AZ 

Q: 

AZ 

How can we deal with the growth of satellite dishes, which are causing complaints and zoning problems? 

A small New Jersey town adopted an ordinance 

on dish antennas. 

How can we cm% drug traffic, gambling, and prostitution? 

A large Oregon city passed an ordinance allowing 

city officials to close down buildings that are bases 

of illegal activity. 

71 
Q: 

AZ 

Q: 

AZ 

Q: 

AI 

Q: 

A: 

How can we be better prepared for cleanup of 

hazardous waste spills? 

A New York county created a hazardous materials 

response team to respond to emergencies. 

How can we attract new businesses and retain 

those we have? 

A medium-sized Montana community initiated 

efforts to improve entrepreneurship. 

How can we find out the number of homeless people in clllr county? 

A nonprofit Arizona organization developed a 

methodology for counting the number of homeless in a community. 

We need a personnel policy on AIDS. Have any 

cities already developed one? 

A large Miinesota city established a policy on 

AIDS in the Workplace. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

LOGIN is currently available to city and county governments, councils of governments and regional planning 

associations, state municipal leagues and county associations, state and federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations serving local government. 

Private sector organizations and individuals may not 

purchase full subscriptions to LOGIN. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

LOGIN has about 250 subscriber organizations (mostly cities). Since most subscribers have multiple access IDS, 

there are approximately 750 separate userswith IDS. In addition, some subscriber organizations centralize their access to LOGIN, for example, through a municipal reference library. Thus, it is not possible to determine at this 

time how many individuals use LOGIN indirectly. Based 

on names of individuals that appear in the electronic mail 

component of LOGIN either asking or answering questions, there are about 1,200 individuals using LOGIN directly. It is interesting to note that some of these non-ID 

individuals inquiring or responding are among the most active in the system. 

These LOGIN participants tapped the system more 

than 45,GOO times last year for information or to communicate with each other, a small increase over the previous 

year. Most inquiries are satisfied by the infomation in the 

system. In the past two years, however, LOGIN’S electronic 

mail feature responded to more than 8,lX0 questions. 

How is the ckarioghoose accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

Accessing LOGIN is through a computer and mcdem 

via one of more than 400 access ports across the country (in 

many cases this is a local call). The user signs on and tpesa 

password. 

Some su&cribing local governments that use LOGIN 

regularly have a central coordinator who serves as a focal 

point for electronic mail data base searches. 

r&&$ind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

New subscribers receive a user manual and reference 

guide. Users can also call the LOGIN toll-free (800) hotline for assistance. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

LOGIN is available by annual subscription membership packages, as follows: 

n Package A ($2,975) offers 2 electronic mail IDS, 

up to I hours per month on-line usage, up to 

$1,5Kl subscription credit, and an on-site training 

seminar at a rate of $300. 

. Package B ($4,295) offers 4 electronic mail IDS, up 

to 11 hours per month on-line usage, up to $2,400 

subscription credit, and one free on-site training 

seminar. 

n Package C ($5,8tXl) offers up to 6 electronic mail 

IDS, up to 16 hours per month on-line usage, up to 

$3,5@3 subscription credit, and one free on-site 

training seminar. 

Special membership packages are available for smaller jurisdictions, based on population. For example: 

. Jurisdictions under lO,C00 population, 875, including 3 hours of on-line time per montk and 

n Jurisdictions with populations 10,CGQ to 25,000, 

$1,100 to $2,KHl for l-2 IDS and 3-5 hours of 

on-line time per month. 

With all packages, additional hours are $35 and additional IDS are $250. 

LOGIN members may subscribe to the on-line version 

of the Greenwood Press Index as an add-on to their regular LOGIN subscription at reduced rates. Normally 

$l,KHl, LOGIN subscribers can access the Index for an annual fee of $495. With this, subscribers get quarterly hard 

copy updates, an annual clothbound cumulative volume, 

and access to previous year’s listings. 

Members may offset up to 50 percent of their renewal 

fee by participating in the Subscription Credit Program. 

Through this program, users who have undertaken a special project or solved a local problem may write up this information and send it to the LOGIN staff to be considered 

forinclusionin thelocalinnovationsdatabase.Ifaccepted, 

this is counted as credit toward the cost of the subscription 

according to the amount of information units provided. 

What is the clearinghouse histow and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

The concept behind LOGIN began in the late 197Os, 

when William Norris decided that CDC should develop a 

number of data bases to move information through ccxnputers. Data bases were created in agriculture, solar evergy, renewable energy, and appropriate technology for the 

third world. None of these data bases were expected to be 

self-supporting. 

A local government data base also was created (LOGIN). This database wasbased on two aspects of the PLATO models first, new knowledge bases would be created or 

72 
existing ones would be integrated within it; second, cmnputers would be the mode of access. IJJGIN was different from 

the other CDC systems in that it was intended from the start 

to be self-supporting after a star-up phase. 

LOGIN began operation in 1981 within CDC. It was 

transferred to the William Nonis Institute in January 1988. 

Management Information Service (MIS) 

What organization(s) operates the cleatinghouse? 

The Management Infornmtion Setice (MIS), operated by the International City Management Association 

(IRMA), is essentially an inquiry/response service. It consists of a bibliographic reference service as well as a source 

of the references selected and of reports from several of 

ICMA’s regularly issued series. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghowe? 

MIS is self-supporting through subscriber fees. 

What kind of hformation does the clearinghouse offer (e.g? 

service deliveT, economic development, rw.earch/technology 

development), and &at is the extent of its liithgs? 

MIS contains information on more than 16,000 documents. About 2,000 are added annually, and docw 

merits that become outdated are systematically eliminated. Approximately 12,000 of these documents cover 

background information and cast studies about what local governments are doing and generally are in the form 

of reports and articles. Another 5,000 of them are in the 

form of manuals, handbooks, ordinances, budgets, videos, and technical specifications. 

Each document in the MIS data base has the appropriate bibliographiccitationand keywords (includinglocalities mentioned in the document) as well as a short 

(lo-line) abstract. For the period since 1985, these abstracts follow a consistent content protocol; abstracts 

produced before that time and still in the data base may 

not have the same information. 

How is ioformation generated for inclusion in the clearing. 

house and/or evaluated? Does it access external data bases? 

The reports cited in MIS are generated by local governments, ICMA research and program staff, providers of 

services to local governments, as well as print and electronic media (newspapers, magazines, videos). 

No external data bases are accessed. However, if a response cannot be provided, MIS staff point inquirem~to other 

organizations (usually representing local governments or 

functional units within them, e.g., police chiefs). These organtitions may have their own data bases. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

MIS producesDuo Bux Q&w, a quarterly report highlighting new material& genemlly containing about 30 articles. 

In addition to documents identified in the inquiry/ 

response service, MIS subscribers get a number of ICMA’s 

series publications: 

MlS@xwt-monthly reports on critical issues of 

common concern to localgovernment officialsselected through annual subscriber surveys; 

MIS Bu/lefia-regularly issued newsletter reporting on recent inquiries and new contributions to 

the MIS data base; 

Info Packs-semiannual packets of materials, 

compiled from the MIS data base, on an issue of 

major importance to local officials, e.g., personnel policies, AIDS policies, city council manuals; 

Public Mwzagem&-ICMA’s monthly magazine; 

and 

Municipal Yearbook-annual publication providing analyses of the changing roles and functions of 

local governments and local government officials 

and highlighting major national and state legislation that affects local governments. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

None, other than the “Data Base Update” noted above. 

How hig is the clearinghouse stall? 

MIS is operated predominantly by student interns who 

work 30 to 40 hours a week. There are five full-time interns in 

a staff that ranges from 5 to 8 full-time-equivalent MIS sti. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

. How does one consolidate city and county govemmerits? 

n Are there examples of consolidating fire and police departments into a public safety department? 

. Are there examples of localities instituting drug 

free policies for facilities and/or for personnel? 

. Are there ordinances on teenage “cruising”? 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

The primaty users are local governments. Any local 

government official of a subscribing local government jurisdiction is authorized to use MIS on an unlimited basis. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

MIS responds to about 200 inquiries a month. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

MISisafullyautomatedelectronicdatabase, accessible on-line only by staff. An Inquiry Service user calls 

or writes MIS. The MIS researcher discusses each inquiry with the user, so that the material received is complete and appropriate. Since entries in the data base include the population and geographic location of the 

jurisdiction providing the material, information from 

places not compatible with the inquirer’s jurisdiction 

can be screened out. 

A response is mailed to the inquirer within 24 hours or 

can be sent by FAX. The response consists of bibliographic 

references to help the inquirer select the item(s) of most 

interest and appropriateness. Full text documents and videos are provided on loan once a selection is made by the 

73 
inquirer. In approximately 95 percent of the inquiries, one 

or more sample documents are sent to the inquirer. 

Wlmt kind of help is provided in accessing the cIearing 

IIOUS~? 

MIS researchexx discuss each inquiry folly with the “ser. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

MIS is a subscriber service with an annual fee based on 

the size of the jurisdiction. For one annual fee, any staff 

members of the locality can use the inquiry service on an 

unlimited basis. The number of copies of ICMA’s regularly 

issued report series included in the subscription varies by 

the size of the jurisdiction. 

Wlmt is the åhouse histmy and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

MIS began about 40 years ago, when local governments became aware of the need to communicate among 

themselves about what worked and did not work in their 

management and operations. Since ICMA was in existence, it was called on to provide such a service. MIS has 

become increasingly formalized, systematically organized, 

and finally automated. 

National Legislative Network (LEGSNET) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The National Legislative Network (LEGISNET) is essentially a research tool of the National Conference of 

State Legislatures (NCSL) in support of its inqui@resposse system and research activities. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

NCSL operates LEGISNET from its regular budget 

(ie., state legislative contributions). 

What tind of i&mm&ion does the clearingbowe offer (eg., 

service deliveT, economic development, research/technology 

development), and wimt is the extent of its listings? 

LEGISNET consists of the following databases: 

Legislative Infomation Service (LIS)-more 

than 12,000 report abstracts; 

Unifom~ and Model Acts-will be expanded to 

abwt 150 files after testing with new files added 

as new Acts are developed; 

On-line Index-the system’s thesaurus, with 

about 3,000 entries. 

How is infomntion generated for hcIusion in tbe clearing 

house and/or evaluated? Does it access external data bases? 

The reports cited in the LIS data base are abstracted 

by NCSL staff. The reports are generated primarily by 

state legislatures (generally research office and committee 

staffs) and NCSLprogran~ staff. The LIS database also contains son~e reports generated by other entities, e.g., state ezecutive branch agencies, other state government interest asw&ions, private asscciations and research institutes, and 

the federal government. 

The LIS data base is moving incrementally to full-text 

input and full-text searches, beginning with NCSLreports. 

DIALOG is the only external data base accessed by 

LEGISNET 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications or offer 0th. 

er products and services (e.g., technical assistance)? 

LEGISNET does not produce any publications and 

doesnot provideanytechnicalassistance orothersewices. 

How big is the clearinghouse statl? 

NCSL has approximately 4 to 5 full-time-equivalent 

staff assigned to this effort. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

The range of subjects covered by the abstracts in 

LEGISNET is limited only by the range of issues of interest to state legislatures. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

The primary users of LEGISNET are state legislative 

staffers, although, increasingly, state legislators are using 

the system by direct access from PCs. NCSL research and 

program staff use LEGISNET as one information resot~rce in their work program activities. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

In 1988, there were over l,WO connect hours to the 

system, representing over 2,600 separate sessions from the 

states. This is a 30 percent increase over 1987. These figures do not include access by NCSL staff. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

LEGISNET is a fully automated electronic data base 

directly accessible on-line by external users. LEGISNET 

distributed approximately 3,SCKl documents in 1988 in response to the selections made by the inquirers. Most were 

copies of reports, abstracts, acts, cases, and the like, for the 

permanent we of the inquirers, although some were made 

available only on loan. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

house? 

Once users become familiar with the system, there is 

limited need to contact the LEGISNET support staff, except to request specific reports or printouts of iofomation 

from the data base. However, manual scanning services 

are provided by LEGISNET operations staff. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

Since the operating costs of LEGISNET are part of 

regular NCSL budget, no fee is charged for its use. The 

only costs to the state legislative users are the telephone 

line charges. 

What is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic background? 

LEGISNET has been operated by NCSL as an integrated system since 1985. Its antecedents, however, go 

back to the early 1970s. 

74 
LEGISNET evolved out of &vo concurrent activities 

of NCSL in the mid-1970s: its inquity/response system and 

the Model Interstate Scientific and Technical Information 

Clearinghouse (MISTIC). When NCSL was formed in 

1975 (from two legislative organizations), it recognized the 

need for a clearinghouse of state legislative reports. The 

activity was minimal at first because it involved the manual 

me of cards with the information. This inquiry/response 

sewice was automated in 1979 as the Legislative Informadon Service. From 1977 through 1981, almost $ZZO,OC0was 

provided by NSF’s Intergovernmental Science and Technology F’rogram to support the operations of LIS. 

MISTIC was created in 1975 to as.& state legislators 

and their staffs in addressing issues with sciendfic and tcchnical cornpane”& MISTIC comprised several activities: 

. The operation of an information inquiry/response 

service drawing on MISTIC’s own compilation of 

S&Treports, the LIS, and state and federal agencies and other resources; 

n A resource directory of state, federal, univershy, 

indus@, and scientific and engineering society 

S&T resource contacts; and 

n A monthly newsletter (Science and Rchnology 

for the Legislawres) reporting on current legislative issues with S&T components, selected reports from state and federal governments, and 

status of state S&T activities. 

MISTIC also promoted interstate communication on 

S&T issues through: 

. The preparation of issue briefs (for a Legislator’s 

Handbook on S&T Issues); 

n The organization of seminars and briefings; and 

w The conduct of teleconferences and experimental 

computer conferencing. 

Rchnical services were provided through NCSEs Office of Science and Technology staff. In addition, MISTIC 

communicated to federal agencies the needs of stite legislatures for S&T information and priority research needs. 

Fiially, MISTIC began identifying future S&T issues that 

legislatures would be confronting. 

MISTIC received financial support (totalling about 

$625@0) from eight federal agencies operating through 

NSF’s Intergovernmental Science and Rchnology Rogram (NSF, DOT, EPA, ERDA, HUD, NASA, NBS, and 

NOAA). When federal funding ended for MISTIC and for 

the Office of Science and Technology, all activities were 

eliminated or reduced significandy, except for the reparts 

that were integrated into LIS. 

Integrated State Information System (ISIS) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The Integrated State Information System (ISIS) is operated by the Council of State Governmenu (CSG) 

through its States Information Center. 

mat organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

CSG operates ISIS as part of its regular budget (i.e., 

state membership contributions). 

What kind of infonoation does the clearinghouse ok (egsetvice delivem economic development, researcbkechool~ 

development), and what is the extent of its listings? 

ISIS is a data base of lS,!YKnl report abstracts and biiliographic citations. From 2,000 to 3,lXlO of the 15,OLUl entries 

are report abstracts; the remaining 13,Klil entries are bibliographic citations with appropriate key words. 

How is the ckaringhouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

On-line access to ISIS is limited to state officials who 

have been given a password. The only other requirement is 

a modem. 

What Mnd of help is provided in accessing the cIearing. 

house? 

Although ISIS is an on-line system, only about 20 percent of the state requests are generated that way. About g0 

percent of the inquiries are telephoned to the Center. 

There appear to be &vo reasons for this low percentage of on-line wage: the on-line system has been in existence for only &vo years; and the Council and the Center 

have the historical reputation of being service-oriented to 

CSG’s state members. 

Thii “organizational culture” perception is likely to 

evolve, albeit slowly. 

How is information generated for incIusion in the clearinghouse and/or evaluated? Does the clearinghouse access external data bases? 

Thesourcesof thereportscitedin theISIS database 

are: 

. Predominantly state agencies and CSG research 

and program staff (e.g., the state reports include 

the state submissions to the CSG Innovations 

Program); 

. Some federal agencies; and 

. Other state public interest associations. 

The reports are abstracted by the States Information 

Center staff or by CSG’s research or program staff (or an 

abstract may be included in the report). 

Does the clearingbowe produce poblica~ions or offer otb. 

er products and services (e.g., technical assistance)? 

The Center produces “Backgrounders,” which provide brief synopses of all the reports in ISIS on subjects of 

current high interest to the states. 

In addition to responding to specific inquiries, the 

States Information Center loans downen@ identified in 

the search process through CSG’sInterstate Loan Libraq. 

What an examples of questions the ckaringbouse can be 

expected to answer? 

The reports cited or abstracted in ISIS cover the full 

range of subjects of interest to state governments. 

How often is the clearingboose accessed? 

The Center received about 7,m to g@l inquiries in 

1988, which was about 30 percent over the previous year and 

about double the 3,@XI to 4,lXX inquiries of the early 198ls. 

75 
Wko uses the clearinghouse? 

Users represent the broad range of CSG membership 

(all staff and line entities at all levels of all three branches 

of state government). The modal group of users, however, 

is from the legislative branch (i.e., legislative libraries, research office and committee staffs, and legislators). CSG 

research and program staff use ISIS in their own work. 

About 70 percent of the inquiries are from the states, 

and the remainder from within CSG cmcluding its regional 

OffiS). 

How big is the clearinghouse’s statl? 

The operation of the Center and ISIS is undertakenby 

about 2.5 full-time-equivalent staffers. The Center is able 

to provide an appropriate response to about half the inquiries it receives. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

Since the services of the Center and of ISIS are operated as part of the CSG budget, no fee is charged for their 

use. The only costs to the state users are the telephone line 

charges, whether on-line access or staff time is involved. 

What is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

ISIS evolved out of CSG’s ongoing inquiry/response 

service-responding to internal and external inquiriesthat had been in existence essentially since the founding of 

its Iibrary (virtually throughout CSG’s existence). 

During the 1960s and 197Os, when substantial federal 

support was provided for a number of research and program 

activities, those staffs supplemented the libmry effort. 

Ultimately, the States Information Center was 

created. The concept of automating information on state 

and CSG reports was begun in the early 1980s. ISIS began 

operation as an on-Kme system in Februaq 1987. 

National Council for Urban Economic Development 

Clearinghouse (CUED) 

Mat organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The National Council for Urban Economic Development operates the CUED Clearinghouse. 

Wlmt organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

CUED membership dues, which range from $265 to 

$575 annually, support the operation of the CUED Clearinghouse. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.g., 

service delivea economic developmen& research/technology 

development), and what is the extent of its listings? 

Information is provided on economic development 

programsand strategiesaround the country, including, for 

example, enterprise zones or education/economic development linkages. 

Listings include books, periodicals, government reports, papers and clippings of relevant articles, as well as 

CUED publications. 

How is kformation genwated for inchwion in the c&ring. 

house and/or evahmted? Does it access external data bases? 

Information is received from member who are involved 

in economic deveIopment projects and send reports fmm 

their communities. Staff resexch and technical assistance 

pmjects generate further information. Materials are al= obtained through subxriptions and publications wchange. 

Access to outside data bases is not provided. 

Does the clearinghouse produce pohlications? 

CUED produces research publications, which are 

filed in the Clearinghouse. These include: 

Developments, a newsletter published 22 times a 

y=G 

Commef2tary, a quarterly journal presenting 

in-depth articles about successful economic development programs; 

Economic Development Abroad, a bimonthly global view of the field; 

Information Service (IS) Reports, which provide 

an in-depth focus on practical technical topics 

such as innovations in state and local development, entrepreneurial developmen or working 

capital for small business; 

Annual reviews of the economic development 

field and the federal budget; 

A series of legislative updates; and 

“How-to”g uidebooks and manuals that spotlight, 

for example: establishing an incubator, assessing 

local competitive advantage, operating a private 

development organimtion, or coordinating public 

and private resources. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

7Xe Clearinghouse does not offer other services. 

However, through itsTechnical Advisory Service (and for a 

nominal fee), CUED sends teams of eqert advisors to 

communities to provide on-site advice and recommendations on the best development strategies, followed-up by a 

written report. 

CUED also dispenses information through conferences, workshops and meetings like the other state and local interest associations. 

How big is the clearinghouse statl? 

A Clearinghouse coordinator is assigned from the 

CUED research staff. There is also wcasional intern assistance. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can he 

expected to answer? 

Examplesofquestions the Clearinghouse might beexpetted to answer include: 

. What are cities doing to strengthen their existing 

business base and promote new business development? 

. What real estate financing techniques work in 

today’s economic climate? 

The Clearinghouse can also provide examples of orga76 
nizations involved in business or real estate development 

projects, or communities using strategies such as enterprise zones, business retention, research parks, incubators, 

or commercial revitalization. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

CUED staff and members. CUED members represent all facets of economic development, including state 

and local development professionals, elected local officials, community organization leaders, chamber of cornrnerce directors, entrepreneurs, developers, public utility 

executives, and academicians. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Member inquiries are received at a rate of approximately one per day. St&f access is on a regular basis. 

How is the cleatinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

The Clearinghouse is accessed via telephone inquiries 

or letters from members; there is no computer access. The 

CUED staff perform manual searches of files. 

What idnd of help is provided in accessing the clearing. 

house? 

All inquiries are made through contact with the 

CUED staff. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

Staff time and copying costs are charged for CUED 

members’ requests requiring extensive research, and for all 

non-member requests. There is a nominaJ charge to rnemhers for CUED publications (such as IS Z?eporr~) and a somewhat higher charge to nonmembers. CUED newslettetx and 

journals are provided as part of the membeship package. 

What is the clearinghouse histoq and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

CUED was founded in 1%7 by a handful of economic 

development practitioners. The Clearinghouse has emerged 

as one of CUED’s ongoing mechanisms for disseminating information to its members, and is touted as “the single most 

extensive national clearinghonse in the field.” 

Sk& Technolou Programs Infonoation Base 

What organizaCon(s) opera& the clearinghouse? 

As m of its role as a state intermediary organization, 

theNational Governors’ Association-throughitsCenterfor 

Policy Research and Analysi.-has been collecting and organiziig information, and revnding to inquiries related toresearch and technolow development and commercialization. 

What kind of information does the cleatinghouse ok (e.g., 

service delbwy, economic development research/kchnology 

development), and tiat is the extent of ils listings? 

The clearinghouse offers information on states to promote R&D-based economic development, business development, and job creation. Through its ongoing information collection process, NGA staff has developed and 

refried categories of state strategies, policies, and programs in this area. 

What are examples of questions the ckatinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

NGA has become a repositov for the states to tap as 

they assess their own strategies and initiate development 

of new approaches. In addition to information on the state 

programs, NGA staff provides an appropriate contact for 

each state program. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

Over the years, the staff has organized its information 

on state programs into state-based resource files. Searches 

have been done manually in response to telephone and 

mail inquiries and to compile special reports. 

Through federally supported projects, funds recently 

have become available to begin to create an electronic data 

base for easier accessibility. However, full comparability 

across states of desired and detailed program descriptions 

or characteristics is not likely to be achieved without additional external support. 

How is information generated for inclusion in the clear. 

inghouse and/or evaluated? 

Information gathering is both systematic and ad hoc. For 

example, as part of its ongoing contacts with state officials, 

NGA staff gathers information about specific new state approaches and collects individual state reports and policies. 

Furthermore, the NGA staff is on the mailing list of 

state agencies and offices that operate these programs. 

Thus, NGA receives newsletters, annual reports, notices of meetings and conferences, and other publications from the states. 

For specific reports supported by federal funds, existing 

files are reviewed and telephone or maJ stnveys conducted. 

Does the clearinghouse access ex@xnal data bases? 

The National Association of State Development 

Agencies (NASDA) has a data base of state technology 

development programs similar to NGA’s resource base 

for its inquiry-response activities in this area. While 

NASDA’s orientation is in the direction of economic development, NGA’s orientation is toward research and 

technology development and commercialization. Consequently, the NGA staff refers some inquiries to the 

NASDA staff, and vice versa. 

The NASDA data base, which was compiled on a 

one-time basisbya NASDAintern as part of a dissertation, 

includesabrief descriptionof eachstateprogramas wellas 

several standardized program descriptors (e.g., program 

type, sponsoring organization, year established, and annual funding). 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

Since 1982, NGA has produced a number of publications that aggregate, summarize and analyze information 

on specific state research and technology development 

and commercialization activities. 

77 
Does the clearinghouse c&r other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

Technical assistance beyond the provision of information tends to be provided more by state o&ials to other 

states than by NGA staff. This type of information exchange is promoted by NGA, which helps identify appropriate officials to provide this assistance. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

‘Ihe primary users of this information are governors’ 

offices, state S&T offices, state policy development offices, and economicdevelopment agencies. Otherusersinelude researchers, academics and consultants, otherpublic 

interest associations, and the federal government. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

CaI\saxerccei-xd~ &eFK5A~ti% w=xyx~~4~fo~ kformation from outside users of the NGA resource base. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

No fees are charged to either state or nonstate users. 

What wgauizatiau(s) hut& the cleariughause? 

Support has been provided by three federal agencies 

for the pmpose of producing the special publications noted 

above: DOC (both EDA and NISI’), NSF (through two offices), and SBA. 

How big is the ckaringhouse statl? 

Simce the early 1980% the NGA staff devoted to this 

effort has been limited (approximately one full-timeequivalent person per year). 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

bouse? 

Because the clearinghouse has provided only traditional access, assistance has not been necessary. 

What is the ckaringhouse’s history and legislative and/or 

programmatic background? 

As noted, the NGA staff has been collecting and organizing information and responding toinquties as part of its 

role as a state intermediaq organization. It is anticipated 

that new state programs and new approaches will evolve 

over time. The NGA staff anticipates continuing its role in 

information collection and diisemination similar to the 

way it previously has been done. And, as in the past, most 

of the special reports will probably need to be supported by 

federal or other external funds. 

Nationzd Association of Management 

and Technical Assistance Centers (NAMTAC) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers (NAMTAC) is an organization of 

university agencies that provide management, technical, 

and economic development assistance to businesses and 

communities. 

NAMTAC helps its members serve their clients by 

keeping its membership informed about developments in 

the professional field. 

Wlmt orgardzation(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

NAMTAC is funded by membership dues and conference registration fees. 

What kind of i&mm&ion does the clearinghouse offer (e.g., 

service delivem economic development, researchkchnologv 

development), and what is the extent of its listings? 

Conferences me NAMTAC’s primay vehicle for 

keeping its membership informed. NAMTAC’s two-day 

annual conference is held in the fall, normally in October, 

in the Washington, D.C., area. Seminars and workshops 

during the conference spotlight the latest developments in 

the field, as well as the issues with which members must 

concern themselves. T$pical subjects around which sessions are conducted include: 

Entrepreneurship and new ventures; 

Turning basic university research into marketable 

products; 

Developing international markets; 

Dealingwith the dislocation ofplant closings; and 

University’s role in statewide economic develop 

merit. 

NAMTAC also sponsors eastern and western regional 

conferences in the spring of each year. 

How is kformation generated for inclusion in the clearing 

house and/or evaluated? Does it access external data bases? 

“Project-of-the-Year” awards are NAMTAC’s way of 

providing incentives to its membership for sharing successful experiences. These awards recognize the accomplishments of members in supporting the economic develop 

merit of the regions they serve. 

In recent years, nine awards have been made each 

year, for first, second, and third place in each of the three 

categories of assistance that NAMTAC members provide. 

Some of the projects that have received awards include: 

. Providing highly technical information to a small 

manufacturer of products relating to vidicon 

tubes that has resulted in lower costs and increased hiig; 

. Helping a manufacturer of construction equipment modernize its plant and install state-of-theart manufacturing methods; 

n Helping the inventors of new equipment for the 

restaurant trade find financing and marketing assistance; and 

n F’reventing a business from closing by finding a 

buyer and helping the new buyer reorganize and 

improve productivity. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

The AL4K74Ch%w/t~&r is published monthly. It contains items of news about the association and keeps members informed on the progress of legislation and other developments. 
NAMTAC also publishes a Resource Guide, a 

loose-leaf notebook that descriies the programs of all 

member. NAMTAC alw provides a compilation of the 

Evahmtion Forms used by member. A list of members’ publicadons may be obtained or borrowed by other members. 

Does the clearingboose offer other prodo& and services 

(e.g., kbnical assistance)? If the clearinghouse offers 

kchnical assistance, what type of expertise is available? 

NAMTAC encourages its more experienced members 

to visit the operations of less experienced members to advise on organization, administration, and programs. 

How big is the clearinghouse &!I? 

NAMTAC has a halkime Fxecotive Secretary who 

maintains an off& for the organization in Washington, DC. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

The primary type of information available through 

NAMTAC is information on administrative, programmatic, and policy issues related to operating a university-based 

management and technical assistance center. 

Who oses the clearinghouse? 

NAMTAC members comprise a wide variety of mes 

of organizations, from large universities with extensive 

academic and research facilities to smaller insGmdons 

providing services to relatively poor, rural communities. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Members call or write for assis&nce or information, 

although the number of calls received is not prohibitiveabout ten a week. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

No. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing. 

house? 

Help is not needed in accessing the NAMTAC office. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and sewices? 

OrganizaGonal, associate (nonprofiQ, and affiite membership in NAMTAC is $250 per year. Individual membership (for individuals working in NAMTAC constituency orgaaimdons) is $50 per year; all other individuals, $250. 

What is the clearinghouse histow and IegislaUve and/or 

programmatic background? 

NAMTAC started out as an organization for EDA 

Centers. It now also has as members SBA Small Business 

Development Centers, NASA Industrial Applications 

Centers, and independent state-funded organizadons. 

Currendy, NAMTAC has over 1% members. 

Federal Laboratory Consortium Clearinghouse (FLC) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology 

Transfer (FLC) was ins&utionalized by the Federal Technolo@Ttansfer Act of 19&X6, although it had existed informally since some Naval labomtories began communicadng with 

each other regwdiig their technologies in the late 1960s. 

The FLC Clearinghouse is one component of the total 

FLC network response system. It operates as a technology 

brokerage service to help users access the approptiate necessary expertise and research capabilities of federal lab+ 

molies. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

The FLC membership consists of individual participating laboratories from 12 agencies-currendy, 137 

agency representatives (as defined in the 1986 legislation), 

representing approximately 4@il federal lab facilities and 

centers. It is estimated by the FLC Administrator that 

these 400 represent more than 85 percent of the resources 

of the total 6Gil to 800 federal R&D establishmen&. 

The 1986 legislation requires each agency to provide 

the FLC with an amount equal to .@I5 percent of itslaboratories’ R&D budgets from fiscal year 1987 to 1991. This 

should provide about $9C0,OCQ annually to the FLC for all 

its activities, including the Clearinghouse. 

What kind of infonoation does the clearinghouse olTer (e.g., 

sewice delivem economic developmen& reseaxhkechnology 

developmenQ, and tiat is the extent of its listings? 

The Clearinghouse, through its brokerage role, has 

the capability to provide information on all technologies 

being developed in member federal laboratories (excluding selected DOD technologies). Such technologies might 

be used to develop or improve a product, make a manufacturing process more productive, increase service effitiency, or address policy and program needs in the state and 

local government sector, including economic and business 

development 

Examples of technologies that have been transferned 

include: 

. An innovative procedure for the analysis of sulfite 

content in a wide variety of foods; 

n A tiny microdqer to keep electronic and other 

water-sensitive materials free of moisture; 

. A computerized method of determining a building’s enerm performance and peak loads; and 

. A small linear induction accelerator to serve as a 

relatively inexpensive treatment source for food 

processing and preservation. 

The FLC Clearinghouse specializes in technology inquiries and awilabilides that are not easily satisfied with existing 

printed matter or data bases. The s@en@h of the Clearinghouse is the ability to put the inquirer or potential user in 

contact with a federal laboratory expert in the specific area of 

interest. Thus, the Clearinghouse has been developing a resource d&toy data base, identifying the technology expertise of individual laboratory scien&s and engineem Thii resource directoq now covers the scienGs@ and engineers in 

over one-third of the laboratories and centers. 

Thiiy-five major technology areas have been iden& 

fied by the Clearinghouse, and technical specialists have 

been designated for each of them. These technical specialists are expected to be knowledgeable about scientific ad79 
vances and technology breakthroughs in their specklities 

and to be conversant with the Jeading scientists and engineers in their field, wherever they may be found (federal, 

university, industrial, or nonprofit laboratories). 

How is information genemlti for inclusion in the detinghouse and/or evahmted? Does it access external data bases? 

The Clearinghouse service searches its own data base for 

appropriate technical resources in the laboratories. In addition, the Clearinghouse acts as a pointer by accessing other 

data bases from NTIS, NASA and elsewhere (mcluding even 

university resource directories) for answers to user inquiries. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

The Clearinghouse produces no reports. The FLC has 

publications about itself and the Clearinghouse (e.g., annual reports, “Putting Technolom to Work”). 

Does the clearinghouse ok other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

The FLC Clearinghouse is designed to: 

(1) Identify primary and secondary laboratory technical resources and FLC representatives capable of 

responding to specific requests; 

(2) Assist in the identification of applicable FLC 

proven technoloa and technology assessments; 

(3) Utilize the FLC Technical Specialist System to 

complement resource directoq searches; 

(4) Monitor status of laboratory and other responses; 

and 

(5) Obtain user feedback and evaluation. 

Once the linkage is made with a laboratory representative, the arrangements for the technical exchange are 

between the user and the lab. The exchange can be 

through available material, technical advice, or collaborative research. 

The Clearinghouse will work with industy groups to 

identify potential laboratory staff and help create a special 

technology interest group or “common interest group” 

(GIG) as it has done for the building industry. 

The Clearinghouse is working with LOGIN to develop 

a mechanism to channel needs of local governments and to 

serve as an additional information resource for LOGIN. 

How big is the clearinghouse statl? 

The Clearinghouse has four full-time-equivalent personnel devoted to its continued development, operations, 

and marketing. As a technology broker service, the Clearinghouse represents a small component of the overall FLC 

response system. It is the individual scientists and engineen 

in the Mxxatmies and the technicat speciaksts who provide 

the qertise in the specific areas of interest of the inquirers. 

If the clearinghouse offers technical assistance, what type 

of expertise is available? 

The Clearinghouse offers no technical assistance. 

Such assistance is provided by the laboratory personnel. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

How can the temperature of a high pressure furnace 

be measured without opening the furnace door? @‘he 

inquiry included information on what the firm had 

done but found inadequate). 

How can certain types of mail (e.g., ballots, order 

forms, prize entries) be automatically read without individually opening the envelope by hand or machine 

and reading the enclosure personally or hand inserting it into a scanner? 

Wbo uses the ckaringhoose? 

Users are from large corporations, small firms, local 

governments, and universities. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Of the &Xl inquiries received by the Clearinghouse from 

June 1988 to June 1989,42 percent were from small firms; 35 

percent were from large companies; and the balance was 

generally from universities and state and local governments. 

The current mte is about l@l inquiries per month. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

A Clearinghouse technical request form is provided 

for submitting users’ requests and for initiating the transfer process. In addition to the requestor’s name, affiliation, address, etc., the form requires a problem abstract, 

including definition, desired results, action to date, “what 

you can expect from the lab,” and schedule/date needed. 

The intention is for the user to identify parameters such as 

constraints, deadlines, problems areas, and intended use. 

Some inquiries are “shopping lists,” requesting anything in a number of listed technologies or even product 

fields, which may be broad or narrow. Others are very specific. The latter is neceswy in order to ensure a response. 

Areviewoftheinquiryoftenresultsin the identificationof 

five or six laboratories that may have the expertise appropriate for a response. 

The Clearinghouse sends the inquiry to the appropriate lab(s) by phone, mail, electronic mail, or FAX. Most of 

the responses in its first year of operation were sent by 

mail, although an increasing number are being relayed by 

electronic mail. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

house? 

Since the Clearinghouse is a broker or pointer service, 

it is important that the problem or need be specified in sufficient detail to identify the most appropriate expert(s) 

to ensure their response. The Clearinghouse provides assistance to inquirers in framing or refining their questions 

if the descriptions on the Technolom Request Form are inadequate. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

The information and linkages provided by the FLC 

Clearinghouse are free. 

80 
What is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic background? 

In the late 196Os, several Naval laboratories began informally to exchange information on technologies that 

might be of use in addressing problems of society. This period coincided with the increased emphasis within NASA 

to use NASA technology and technical expertise to solve 

the problems of state and especially local governments, 

and with the creation of NSF’s Intergovernmental Science 

and Technology Program. 

In late 1971, an engineer from one of these Naval laboratories was detailed to NSF to serve as the coordinator of 

their interests in reaching beyond their research and technology development missions. Laboratory technologies 

and personnel were beginning to assist state and local governments; attemptsvere being made to increase connnercialization of laboratory-produced technologies; and laboratories themselves were interested in learning about to 

process of problem solving in state and local governments 

and of technology transfer and commercialiition. Moreover, laboratories began to call on one another for assistance 

if they could not handle an inquiry from a state or local government or the private sector. This vohtntaty network of laboratories expanded to all DOD services and agencies and 

soon to laboratories throughout the federal government. In 

1974, this nehvork was formalized as the FLC. 

i By the end of the 1970s. the number of participating 

laboratories in the Consortium had grown to well over a 

hundred. A n~ore systematic approach was needed to improve network conununication and to respond to external 

inquiries. An electronic mail system had not proven to be 

as effective as hoped. 

At the beginning of this decade, a demonstration project was undertaken in the Far West region of the FLC. 

Frotn this demonstration grew the FLC Clearinghouse. 

TheFederal Technology 7’ramferAct of 1986 not onlyinstitutionalized the FLC, it also mandated that the FLCprovide 

aclearinghousefortechnologyuserrequests.’Ihepolicyof 

the FLC has been, and remains, to support member laboratoiy technology transfer in the widest sense for domestic 

application. 

After a period of development of its inqunylresponse, 

tracking, and monitotig sttwture, the Clearinghouse began 

operation in t&l-19&3. Operating modules are being tested. 

i New data base components are being added as needed. 

The SBDC Connection 

W&at organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), in 

cooperation with the Association of Small Business De= 

velopment Centers, has established the “SBDC Connection,” a nationwide data base for SBDCs. SBA’S 

SBDC program was initiated to further economic devel 

opment through the provision of management and technical assistance to smallbusinesses.The SBDC Connectionprovides aone-office, point-of-contact information 

locator for SBDCs around the country. These centers 

generzdly are located in state or local governments, and 

academic institutions, such as colleges, universities, 

community colleges, and vocational schools. They also 

may be located in chambers of connnerce or economic 

development corporations. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

SBA has entered into a contract with the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) at the University of 

Georgia to develop the Connection. 

WA kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.g., 

setice delivery, economic developmen& researcbkchnolo~ 

development), and tiat is the extent of its listings? 

SBDCs, nationwide, provide counseling, trainiig, and 

research assistance regarding small business management. 

SBDC services range from help with financial, marketing, 

production, organization, engineeting, and technicalproblems to the development of feasibility studies. 

The Connection is being established to provide information to SBDCs on the abovebusiness-related topics and 

to answer inquiries. 

How is ioformation generated for bxlosion in the cleating 

house and/orevalaated? Does it access external data bases? 

The information and experiences relayed through the 

data base are provided by SBDC directors and the SBA. 

The materials are evaluated by the SBDC Connection 

staff before incorporation into the data base. 

The Connection has access to many external data bases. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

The Connection does not produce publications, but is 

designed to share SBDC materials and resources as well as 

SBA pt’ogram information. Needed documents tnay be 

borrowed and returned to the Connection. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

No. 

How big is the clearinghouse staE? 

The clearinghouse employs four full-time persons 

plus an administrative secretary. Anumberof paid student 

assistants also are employed. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse caa be 

expected to answer? 

SBDCs provide services to inventors with patentable 

products, “how-to” export and import advice, guidance on 

business law, procurement matching assistance, venture 

capital formation, and small business incubators. 

W%o uses the clearinghouse? 

The Connection is accessible only by the 54 SBDCs in 

47 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. However, in 

each of these 47 states, a lead SBDC coordinates the services offered through a network of subcenters: therefore, 

the total SBDC network comprises more than 6CHl service 

locations. Each SBDC has a director, staff members, and a 

cadre of volunteers such as retired executives. part-time 

personnel, and consultants to assist clients requiring special&d expertise. 

81 
How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

In the clearinghouse’s fmt quarter of operation 

(April&me 1989), it rcceivcd more than 2% inquirie$ thcsc 

figures can be subdivided further into 43 literature searches, 

123 referrals, and 143 document deliveries (some inquiries 

involved more than one type of response). By the end of the 

second quarter, the number of inquiries had increased to 6LXl. 

How is the clearinghowe accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

The Connection is accessible through an m number, 

via mail correspondence, and by FAX. In the future, it is 

anticipated that it will include modem accessibility and 

electronic mail. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearin& 

house? 

Help is not necessmy. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

If it is nccessuy to copy six pages or more, a small fee is 

charged on a cost recovey basis. Postage fees are also 

charged. In addition, if an inquiry is detailed, computer 

search time is charged. The fees are billed through an 

SBDC account. 

W%at is the clearinghouse history and IegisMive and/or 

programmatic hackground? 

Public Law 96-302 required that SBA’s SBDC program establish and maintain a clearinghouse. As a result, 

the SBDC Connection began service in April 1989. 

Tekech 

What organizaGon(s) operates and funds the clearinghouse? 

Teltech is a privately owned and operated for-profit 

clearinghouse and technical consulting service. 

What kind of informaCon does the cletinghoase o&r (e.g., 

s&cc deliver economic development, research/technology 

development), and what is the extent of its IisGngs 

Teltech’s mission is to help scientists and engineers 

who are facing questions in new or unfamiliar technical areas. There are three facets to the Tehech service: 

. A network of technical experts; 

n An interactive literature. searching capability; and 

n Training courses. 

How is information genera&d for inchwion in the clearing 

house and/orevalu&d? Dots it access external data bases? 

A network of 6,000 technical experts is available for 

telephone consulting, drawn from universities, federal 

laboratories, consulting groups, private industry and the 

ranks of ou&tanding retired s&mists and engineers. Tpically, the print material provided by T&tech builds background 

understanding while the experts provide real-time insights. 

Teltech mainly provides access to external data bases. 

A partial listing of the 1,GiKl data base systems available 

through Teltech are: 

DIALOG-widest army of data bases covering 

science and technoloa, business, and current affairs; 

Dow Jones-including the Wall Street Journal and 

Barrm; 

Da×-U.S. Newspapers, newswires, and international newspapers; 

Newsnet-industry newsletters; 

MEDLAR-concentrations in medicine and 

toxicity; 

ORBlT-dealiig with patents, petroleum, packaging, and materials; 

World Patents Index; and 

U.S. Patents. 

Does the clearinghouse produce public&ions? 

NO. 

Does the ckaringhouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technica assiskmce)? 

Teltech offers professional development courses on 

video tape. Subjects range from engineering and science to 

manufacmring and management. 

If the clearinghouse offers kchnical assisCmce, what type 

of expertise is available? 

Telephone consultation is available in more than 1,4CO 

areas of science and technology. F’rint material access using 

the more than l,@Xl data bases covers technical information 

as well as general business information, such as marketing. 

How big is the clearinghouse sk&? 

Information on the size of the Teltech staff is proprietary. 

What are examples of questions the ckaringhouse can be 

expected to answer? 

Among the potential uses for the Teltech literature 

search sewice are: 

Identifying new materials and vendors; 

Tracking competitive activity (fiiancial and nonfinancial status of a company, patent information 

and technical papers); 

Monitoring market trends and evolution of technologies; 

Searching patent availability and keeping tabs on 

patent activity; 

Ex@oring market size and application requirements for proposed or evolving new products; 

Backgrounding in unfamiliar technical areas; 

Acquiring technical knowledge needed to solve 

product performance or manufacturing problems; and 

Reviewing pertinent codes and regulations. 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

Teltech’s growing list of more than 130 Fortune 5CKl clients and hundreds of small and medium-sized manufacu 

82 
turers nationwide includes: American National Can Company, Bell & Howell, Brig@ and Stratton, Gray Research, 

Dow Chemical, and Honeywell Avionics. Most of them 

have annual sales volumes of over $25 million. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

‘IUech subscribers now tap the service (that is, contact the network or use the interactive literature search capability) about 21,000 times annually. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

Teltech is accessible through CompuServe. An experienced infomation specialist will search the unmatched 

bank of electronic files accessible through Teltech, while 

the user watches on his or her computer screen and cornmerits by phone, pinpointing the documen& needed. Teltech coordinates delivery of printed materials. 

‘Rvo facets of Teltech’s service-its network of experts 

and its interactive literature searching capability-rely in 

whole or in part on on-line systems. However, actual contact between Teltech’s end user clients and the members of 

its network is via telephone. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

house? 

The T&ech literature search process begins with a 

toll-free telephone call to one of Teltech’s literature 

search specialists, who acts as a personal guide through the 

search procedure. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

A yearly subscription charge gives a company unlimited use of the expel? network and literature search. Since 

the service is customized, the first year annual fees range 

from $6,CHlO to $30,000 annually. Service agreement provisions include unlimited access to the literature search system without additional cost. (Document delivery costs, as 

well as those incurred by supplying large numbers of 

records from a search, are not included in the subscription 

fee.) Thus, frequent use is encouraged. 

While the subscription fees allow the client unlimited 

access to the network, the Clearinghouse pays the specialist a fee for each interaction with end users. 

Course work charges are independent of the subscription fee and vary with course selection. 

Mat is the clearinghouse histoy and legislative and/or 

programmatic background? 

Telwch was founded in 1984 by Joe Shuster, who conceived of the ne&vorkiig service concept while building a 

custom engineering firm and attempting to leapfrog the 

competition’s technology. Eventually, the engineering 

fii was so successful that it was bought out by Beatrice 

Corporation. At that time, Shuster developed the cornerstone for the initial Teltech network of 435 eqerts and the 

software and hardware for the literature searchiig and expert networking capabilities. The company began on a regional basis and went national in 1987. It now has nationwide sales representation and a strong growth rate-it has 

doubled in both revenues and clients every year. 

Energy Research for Governors Data Base 

Wbat organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The Energy Research for Governors data base was operated by the National Governors’ Association (and its 

predecessor the National Governors’ Conference) during 

the energy crisis of the 1970s. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

The data base was part of the Governors’ Energy 

Project, which from 1973 through 1979 received significant financial support from six federal agencies operating through NSF’s Intergovernmental Science and 

Technology Program (AEC, DOI, ERDA, FEA, NRC, 

and NSF). 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.gservice delivery, economic development, researcb/tecbnology 

development), and wixit is the extent of its lisdngs? 

Hundreds of state-sponsored energy-related research 

and demonstration projec& were identified. 

How is information generated for inclusion in the clearing. 

house and/or wahmted? Does it access external data bases? 

The purpose of the Enera Research data base was to 

collect and organize research in progress or completed by 

state agencies for which no federal funds were involved, 

Federal agencies were required to notify the Smithsonian 

Science Information Exchange (SSIE)of research projects 

they were funding and to place copies of reports of cornpleted projects in the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). 

However, there was no repository of notices of research in progress or of final reports if no federal funds 

were involved. During the energy crisis of the 197Os, states 

were supporting many research and demonstration efforts 

entirelywith theirownfunds, and therewasaneedforother states to learn from these efforts. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publkations or offer 0th. 

er products and services (e.g., technical assistance)? 

In addition to developing the NGA research agenda 

and research reports, the NGA staff also used the information to prepare policy reports. 

How big is the clearinghouse staff? 

The actual staff dme devoted by NGA to the efforl was 

very small (less than a ha&person year annually). Siice each 

state had an energy contact for NGA-related activities, the 

process of dealing with the individual states was simplified. 

However, the staff dme devoted by individual states to 

the collection effoti was much larger. The collection of information abwt wholly state-funded research projects within 

each stateby the state contactwassignificandymoredifficult 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

Inquiries reIated to the state-sponsored research and 

demonstration projects covered such issues as time-of-day 

pricing and other load-levelling approaches, energy efficiency studies, energy conservation approaches, and utility 

generation, distribution, and pricing modelling. 

83 
Who uses the clearinghouse? 

The NGA energy data base was accessible only by the 

NGA energy project staff to respond to inquiries from 

states, to develop its research agenda, to prepare its research and policy reports, and to make soggesdons to federal agencies about research and demonstradon priorities 

from the states’ perspective. 

Since agreements were made with SSIE and NTIS for 

the information to be entered into their data bases, a researcher or policy analyst was able to obtain information 

on both state and federally funded energy projects by accessing SSIE and NTIS. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

It is not clear how often the clearinghouse was accessed. First, a dozen years have passed since its inception. 

Second, users also could tap SSIE/NTIS; thus, any data 

would be misleading. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

The information on the state projects was computerized with a ZOO-word abstract, key words, and using the existing SSIE/NTIS formats and identifiers (e.g., principal 

investigator, organization). 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing. 

house? 

Since the data base was accessible only by the NGA 

$aff, assistance was not necessary for helping outside users access the system. 

Is there a fee for accessing the cIearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

No fee was charged any user (state or federal official, 

energy researcher) because the project of which the data 

base was part was funded by the federal government 

What is the clearinghouse history and IegisMive and/or 

programmatic background? 

When the state and federal governments and private 

sector re.spm.se to the energy crisii rcached a “steady state,” 

the emphasis of the Governors’ Enera Project shiited almost endrely to technical services to the states and exchanges 

of information on state policies and programs. 

At the same time, the federal government was increasing both research and program activities, and states 

were decreasing their research investments and increasing 

their program expendimres. 

For these reasons, the significance of a state energy rcsearch projects data base ultimately declined and NGA resources were directed elsewhere. 

NaConal Innovation Network (NIN) 

What organizaCon(s) opera&zs the clearinghouse? 

The Intergovernmental Science and Technology Program of the National Science Foundado” had theobjective 

of strengthening public management capacity by facilitating the integration of scienMic and technical resoorccs 

into the policy development, management, and operations 

of state and local government. 

The local government element of this program used a 

“ne&vorking” concept as one way to achieve its objective, 

which stressed administrative management and program 

operations issues. Networking operated on the premise of 

problem solving-that is, identifying problems or needs 

cormnon to many local governments, implementing innovative solutions, and sharing the results of the efforts 

axnong participating local governments. 

Theins~iMionalframeworkforcarryingou~ thisproblem solving approach included three national networks of 

local governments and a series of similar regional, state, or 

sobstate networks (called Innovation Groups). These local 

governments were pace-setting cities and counties willing 

to experiment with advanced state-of-the-art solutions. 

The national nebvorks, for example, were the U&an 

Consortium, the Urban Technology System, and the Community Technology Inidadves Program. E!ach was composed 

of about 30 cities and coundes grouped by size, as follows: 

The Urban Consortium consisted of the nation’s 

35 largest and most urban cities and counties 

(over 500,000); 

The Urban Technology System was a network of 

27 medium-sized jurisdictions (between 50,MKl 

and 500,000); and 

The Community Technology Inidadves Program involved small cities and townships (under 50,CW). 

Examples of the regional and state networks were the 

New England Innovadon Group and the Alabama Innovation Group. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

NSFwas~heprimaryfonderof thenetworks, although 

they were administered by existing organizations with other activities; therefore, they often had other financial sopport, as well. 

The three national networks received additional federal 

support outside of NSF to focus on specific problems. For example, the Urban Conwttium received funding from six dZferem fcdexal agencies by its third year of operadon. 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse ofler (e.g., 

service deliwy, economic development, research/~echnology 

development), and tiat is the extent of its listings? 

The networks focused on the problems confronting local governments, such as housing, transportation, environment, and law enforcemenL 

Once common problems were identified through a 

needs assessment and priority-setting process, the top 

priority problems then formed an agenda for R&D efforts 

and the network served as a common base for mobilizing 

resources to respond to those needs. The network provided the “test bed” fordevelopingand implementatinginnovadve solutions. Once the solutions were proven practiCal, they were given wide dissemination. 

How is information generated for inclusion in the clearing 

house and/or evalua@d? Does it access exPa-nal dabi bases? 

Sometimes, answers or solutions were readily available from untapped resources; other times, they needed to 

be developed or adapted from existing technologies. 

84 
The resources tapped included federal agencies, especially their laboratories, universities, land grant dkges, 

private industry, and research institutes. 

Does the clearinghouse produce publications? 

As noted above, once the solutions were proven practical, they were given wide dissemination. This often involved information buhetins and fact sheets, news coverage in the jotunals of the local government associations, 

handbooks, and other dissemination vehicles. 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

Urban TechnoloB System network of medimwsized 

jurisdictions placed a technology agent in each jurisdiction and each had a technical “back-up” site such as a 

university or lab. 

The Community Technology Initiatives Program used 

a cadre of federal laboratory personnel as “circuit tiding” 

technology agents. Each serviced several communities 

within one large geographic region, 

Sewn1 substate networks assembled councils of Johnteem to provide technical advice to local governments. 

In addition to this technica assistance supported by 

the individual networks, NSF sponsored national conferences to bring together the networking community to 

share ideas and solutions. 

How big is the clearinghouse staIT? 

Staff support for all three national networks was 

through Public Technology, Inc., a nonprofit R&D organization created by the local government interest associations, which served as the secretariat. Each network had a 

staff director and several full-time staff persons. 

The regional, state, and substate networks were organixed through a variety of institutions: state communityaffairs agencies, universities, municipal leagues, nrban observatories, nonprofit corporations, regional councils, 

mayors’ offices, or professional engineering societies. The 

decision of which framework to use was a local one. 

If the clearinghouse offers technical assistance, what type 

of expertise is available? 

In addition to the technology agents placed in or assigned to certain jurisdictions through their networks, the 

networks also served as contact points for identifying available resources for their member jurisdictions. 

The national networks tended to link the local govern 

merits with resowces most technically suited for the problem at hand; the subnational networks, on the other hand, 

attempted to link them with physically closer resources in 

their own region. 

As noted above, each of the technoloa agents of the 

Urban Technoloa System had a technical back-up site. At 

one point, this networkattempted a mix of back-up sites in 

terms of their geographic proximity in order to test whether this affected the success of linkages. 

What are examples of questions the clearinghouse can be 

expected to answer? 

Examples of innovations that were developed through 

the networks included: 

Who oses the clearinghouse? 

Police manpower deployment models; 

Refuse collection route models; 

Lightweight body armor; 

Infrared electronic distance meters; and 

Disaster warning systems. 

Thenetworksweredesignedasa toolforlocalgovet-nmerit managers/administrators and their staff offices and 

line departments. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

Membership in a network was an ongoing process that 

involved, among other things, attendance at meetings of 

the network policy bodies. The networks did receive calls 

from non-memberjurisdictions; however, there is ooaccw 

rate record of the level of these calls. 

HOW is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

Some of the innovation networks experimented with 

an Electronic Information System called EIES. However, 

this system, primarily a computerconferencing system, did 

not succeed partly due to lack of use. 

What kind of help is provided in accessing the clearing 

house? 

NSF provided grants to ICMA, USCM, NLC, and 

NACo to promote involvement in the networks. They 

were chosen for their local government contacts and capabilities for communicating with their constituencies. 

Is there a fee for accessing the clearinghouse, or partictdar 

products and services? 

For many of the networks, there was a fee for the locality, which varied according to many factors. More importantly,participatingjurisdictionswere expected tofund 

some or all of the operating cost of implementing the innovative solution in their locality. 

W%at is the clearinghouse history and legislative and/or 

programmatic background? 

In the 1960s and 197Os, local governments were beset 

by increasingly complex problems such as sprawling land 

development, deteriorating downtowns, environmental 

pollution, and rising crime. During the same time period, 

the costs of providing public services rose alarmingly due 

to inflation, collective bargaining, mandated programs, 

and rising citizen demands for government action. 

During the 1960s many federal agency programs for 

addressing these issues were designed along functional 

lines, i.e., community development, wastewater treatment, etc. In the 197Os, the NSF responded by initiating a 

program to contribute to comprehensive problem solving 

at the local level that was intcrdiscipliiaty, intergovernmental. and innovative. It sought to create of new kxal government linkages with outside technical resources so that new 

ideas for improving setice delivety might emerge. 

The progenitor of the NSF science and technology 

networks was the California Four Cities Program, established 

in 1971 by a grant from NSF to the Jet Propulsion Iaboratoty 

85 
(via NASA) to pair four cities with four high tech fiis so that 

they could apply their managerial and &hnical skills to city 

problems. Thii evolved into the Caliiomia Innovadon 

Group, a state nehvork liie the ones described above. 

In establishing its networks, NSF’s procedure was to 

award a small planning grant to formulate the network 

concept for the region or state, identify key players, and 

develop potential strategies and activities. Operational efforts followed the successful development of a plan. 

NSF’s Intergovernmental Science and Technolou 

Program ceased providing operating grants to these networks in the early 1980s when its budget was drastically reduced. Several networks and Innovadon Groups survived, 

but in significantly altered forms. 

NASA Technology UtiIization Program (TU) 

What organization(s) operates the clearinghouse? 

The National Aeronautics and Space Adminiitradon 

@ASA) Technoloa Udliidon (IU) pro- employs a variety of mechanisms to broaden and accelerate the transfer of 

aerospace technoloa to other sectors of the economy. 

What organization(s) funds the clearinghouse? 

The TU program is a line item in the NASA budget. 

The program also receives funds from other departments 

and agencies to solve problems of mutual interest and produce spinoffs (e.g., the Fire Protection Agency helped to 

fund a fireman’s breathing unit; DOT helped to fund an 

aerodynamic shield for trucks). Finally, the program also 

charges for advertising in Tech Briefs (see below). 

What kind of information does the clearinghouse offer (e.g., 

sewice dekwy, economic development, research/technology 

development), and what is the extent of its listings? 

‘I%rough its Industrial Application Centers, clients of 

the combined NASA TU network have access to about a 

million documents contained in the NASA data bank and 

more than 400 other computerized data bases. The NASA 

data bank includes the continually updated selected contents of some lS,OOO scientific and technical journals. 

Thus, the TU program provides information on research/technology development and also provides information on state and local government service delivery. 

How is infomxition generated for inclusion in the clearing 

house and/or evaluated? Does it access external data bases? 

The Scientific and Technical Information Facility 

(STIF) at the Baltimore-Washington Airport contains the 

results of all NASA R&D contracts. Each of the nine 

NASA Field Centers has a TU officer charged with theresponsibility of screening those research results and determining whether they should be included in Tech Briefs. 

Does the clearinghouse produce puhlicaCons? 

TheTUprogram’sprimatypublication fordisseminating information is Tech Briefs, published since the program’s inception. Ten issues are produced each year. Tech 

Briefs includes information on: 

Newly developed products and processes; 

Advances in basic and applied research 

Improvements in shop and laboratory techniques; 

Sources of technical data and computer programs; and 

Other innovations with commercial potential 

originating at NASAfield centers, or at the facilities of NASA contractors. 

Firms interested in particular innovations noted in 

Tech Briefs ruay get more detailed information by requesting a “Technical Support Package.” 

The TU program also produces .Ypi?x$, an annual volume to heighten awareness of the technology available for 

transfer and its potential for economic and social benefit 

Does the clearinghouse offer other products and services 

(e.g., technical assistance)? 

In addition to publications, the client-driven mechanisms employed by the NASA TU program include: 

TU Officers, as noted above, who serve as regional program managers for the TU program; 

Industrial Application Centers, ten user assistance centers affiliated with universities that provide both public and private information retrieval 

services and technical help to government and industry clients, (and not just regarding aerospace 

technologies); 

Industrial Application Center Affiliates, statesponsored business or technical assistance centers in 29 states that provide access to NASA’s 

technology transfer network: 

Applications Team working on engineering projects to solve both public and private sector problems through the application of pertinent aerospace technology; and 

Computer Software Management and Informadon Center (COSMIC) that provides computer 

programs adaptable to secondary use by industry 

and government clients. 

In addition, there are support teams which, with seed 

funding, develop prototype hardware to prove applicability 

of technology to problems; furthermore, applicationsproject comractors write, edit and publish Tech Briefs. 

How big is the clearinghouse statl? 

The TU program encompasses a massive network of 

professionalsacross the country. As notedabove, thereare 

TU officers and their assistants at each of the NASA field 

centers. Each IAC has a director and staff ranging in size 

from S to 40. The Applications Team at Research Triangle 

Institute in North Carolina has some 8 to 10 persons. COSMIC at the University of Georgia at Athens has another 20 

permanent employees, plus 9 part-time student employees. There also are support teams and contractors 

such as those who produce Tech Briefs. 

If the clearinghouse offers technical assistance, what type 

of expertise is available? 

The NASATU program covers a wide range of scientific and technical disciplines. 

86 
What ar’e examples of questions the clearinghowe can be 

expected to answer? 

Where can I find technolom within NASA to help me 

solve my problem? 

How can I get hands-on assistance to solve my problem? 

Who uses the clearinghouse? 

Ech Briefs is distributed to owr lOO,O@l industry scientists, engineers, and business executives, as well as government users. 

How often is the clearinghouse accessed? 

More than lC0,OOCl requests for Technical Support 

Packages are generated eveq year. In addition, a large 

number of users access the IACs every day. 

How is the clearinghouse accessed and searched (e.g., is a 

computer needed)? 

Users have access to NASA data and information 

through a remote interactive search system called RECON. The IACs are accessed by telephone, mail, or 

person-to- person meetings; the IAC staffs, in turn, may 

use the computerized RECON data base to search for information for a client. 

zs&kiod of help is provided in accessing the clearing. 

The NASA headquarters library can help users gain 

access to RECON. Users may also contact STIF for help. 

Is there a fee for-accessing the clearinghouse, or particular 

products and services? 

There are charges for computer searches and major 

charges for project services provided by the IACs. 

What is the clearinghowe history and legislative and/or 

programmatic ha&ground? 

NASA has conducted technology transfer since its 

creation in 1958 by the Nafiod ~~uce~ct with the mandate towidelydisseminate scientificand technicalinformation resulting from the space program. The TU program, which is part of the NASA Office of Commercial 

Programs at headquarters, has been in existence since 

19KLIt hasevolvedintoanationwidene&vorktoprovide 

technology and business assistance. Early on, the networkwasentirelyNASAfunded;morerecen~ly,manyof 

the IACs are becoming almost self-supporting. 

87 
. . . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

88 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . 

. 

. . 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . 

. 

. 

. 
. . . 

. . . . 

. 

. . . 

. . . . . 

. . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. 

. . 

. . 

. 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . 

. 

. . . . 

. . 

. . . . 

. . 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . 

. . . . 

. 

. . . . . 

. . 

. 

89 

Technical and Managerial Information and Services Used by Small Technology-Based Firms: 

Implications for Federal Research and Program Initiatives 

Edward T Kelly 

INTRODUCTION 

The American Ekonomy-Mixed Signals 

Over the past two decades, there has been a decline in 

U.S. technology development in relation to the nation’s 

history and to the rest of the world (52,57,63,64,79,114). 

Researchers have estimated that about tU3 to 90 percent of 

U.S. productivity growth in the 75year period before 1940 

wasattributeddirectlyorindirectly toinnovationand technology development, a rate that declined to 40 to 60 percent in the post-1945 period (23, 84, 103, 140). 

This relative decline is not unexpected, since the 

United States was starting from such a high base, the nature of economic activity was undergoing structural 

changes, the economies of individual countries were being 

melded into a global economy, and other nations were increasing their participation in the total global economy. 

Otherforcesatworkinsocietybegan toaffect theUS. 

economic environment (45, 52, 57, 79, 114, 140). Demographic changes were impacting the size, composition, and 

rate of growth both of the work force and of domestic 

markets (82). International competition was having 

many impacts across industrial sectors, particularly in 

mass-produced products (55). Many traditional, mature industries were underinvesting in pIant, equipment, and 

R&D (102). Industrial R&D was still growing overall, but 

that of major corporations appeared not to be keeping 

pace with inflation-a situation that may be reinforced by 

increasing mergers and acquisitions (19,34,47, 138). New 

“knowledge-based” industries were emerging, particulat’ly 

in amas of the country with current or historic defense, 

space, or health-related research investments (21). There 

was a move to an increasing set-vice economy, which was 

proving not to be the panacea many expected (10). 

Within thiscontext, some of the signalsat the national 

level have been exceptionally positive (15). The past decade has seen an unprecedented economic expansion and 

job growth, although there has been a recent slowing of 

economic activity. Inflation and interest rates have dedinted to a relatively low level. Overall unemployment 

rates have come down, although there are significant vatiations across the country, especially where natural resonme economies exist. The negative indicators have 

proved more intractable (12, 15, 57,71). The U.S. budget 

deficit grew to unprecedented heights, with the aggregate 

deficit increasing over two-and-a-half times in the 1980s. 

Although the annual deficit is slowly diminishing, the aggregate deficit has an impact on the value of the dollar and 

fomign investments in the U.S. 

While the U.S. merchandise trade balance moved into 

adeficit pattern in theearly 1970s. the manufactutingcomponent remained in a surplus position until 1982 (12, 15, 

115). The manufactuting deficit grew from $13 bilhon that 

year to ten times that amount four years later ($138 billion 

in 1986). Even the high technology industrial component, 

which produced a trade surplus of $27 billion in 1986, produced a deficit of about $2 billion in 1986. By 1985, it was 

estimated that 70 percent of domestic goods faced competition from imports. As a result, the nation moved frombeing the largest net creditor nation to the largest net debtor 

nation during the 1980s. 

Federal Research 

and Technology Development Environment 

In addition to thii broader macro-economic environment, there were tied signals in the msexch and technologvdevelopment (R&TD) environment of the federal government (53,57,77,79,86,87,88,93,99,110, Ill, 114). During 

the 1980s there emerged a sharper division between the 

roles of the federal government and the private sector. The 

federal government was seen as the most apptoptiate entity 

to support research, with its distributed benefits and the industrial sector to develop and commercialize technologies 

flowing from this research. Thii would produce the desired 

business and job growth and generate the profits and taxes. 

This led to an increased orientation toward tax expenditures 

mther than program expenditures at the federal level to 

stimulate technolom development and commemialimtion. 

In addition to the elimination or reduction in some 

technology- development-oriented programs, research expenditures also were affected (64,65 66,71). While federal 

obligations for all R&D from 1980 to 1987 increased 36 

percent in constant dollars, that for non-defense R&D declined 9 percent in constant dollars. However, virtually all 

of this decline came from non-defense applied research 

and development, as well as from S&E plant and equipment in universities. 

One set of progmms that was not mdnced involved technical and managed information and sewices. ‘fbe federal 

government’s roIe in supporting active knowledge transfer 

goes back to the agricultumJ extension system (43). The first 

program directed at providing technical set&es for economic development dates from the 19&, with the short-lived 

State Technical Services Progmm of the Department of 

Commerce. PENNTAP at Pennsylvania State University and 

the Engineering Extension Program at Georgia Tech are the 

major residual activities from that program. 

The array of federally supported programs that include technical or managerial information and services is 

broad and covers many agencies (112, 113, 121, 122, 127). 

Some programs are operated by the federal government 

directly or through subcontractors. These include the Federal Taboratory Consortium Clearinghouse, the Federal 

Research in Progress database and the Federal Applied 

Technology Database, both within the National Technical 

Information Service of the Department of Commerce (22, 

27, 28, 83, 123, 124). 

91 
Other progra~“s are supported by the federal govern 

merit through grants and contracts to provider organ&+ 

tio”s. These i”cl”de NAS& Technoloa Udliza~ion Program 

with its Ind”s@ial Applications Centers and SBA!s Small 

Business Development C&es. Txhnology centers (e.g., 

the Ma”“fact”ri”g Technology Cenws of the Department 

of Conunerce) and research centers (e.g., the Engi”eeri”g 

Research CenWs and the Ind”stv-University Cooperative. 

Research CenWs of NSF) genemlly include a component 

for providing technical information and services, but these 

activities may or “my not be li”&xi to participating i”d”sWial 

partner in the center (56,67,69,70,89). 

Over the past decade, the federal government has ircreased significandy the potential for technology transfer 

and commercialization of federally supported research, 

whether in the governmenVs own laboratories or in other 

research institutions (6, 25, 46, 80, 88, 104, 105, 106, 107, 

108,109,110,112,113,126). From the &wwz-Wy&r,4c~ 

of 1980 to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and, 

finally, to the Omnibus Trade and Competitivenem Act of 

1988, many changes were made. Offices of research and 

technoloa application were created in federal laboratories or agency research headquarters; patent and other in- 

~ellec~ual property rights were assigned to the innovator-researcher; and cooperative research efforts involving 

federa laboratories were encouraged. 

The Department of Commerce was the agency most 

changed by al1 this legislation: a Technology Administration was created; the National Institute for Standards and 

Technoloa replaced the National Bureau of Standards 

and was given greater responsibilities; the Manufacturing 

Technology CenVxs program became operative; and the 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives in Prod”c& 

ity, Technology, and Innovation was established. 

Industrial Research 

and Technology Devetopmen~ Environment 

The industrial environment of the 1980s hascontin- 

“ed many of the trends of the past, but often at a rate of 

change that provides warning signs for technology developmen& economic growth, a”d international compeWveness.Thissit”ation hasaffewed the issuesincorporated in the 1988 Act, as well as the response of state 

governments in their R&TD-based economic and business development strategies. 

The generally ascribed risk-adversive culture of large 

corporations and their apparently increasing emphasis on 

short-term indicators seems to have been exacerbated by 

the increased merger and acquisition activity of the 1980s 

(19,34,47,138). The rate of total industrial R&D expenditures in the four-year period 1976 to 1980 increased by 5 

percent per year in constant dollars, and in the five-year 

period 1980 to 1985, about 7percem peryear(partlyamib- 

“ted to the R&D tax credit). However, in the Wo-yearperiod 1985 to 1987, this rate rose only about 0.5 percent per 

year (64.71). Preliminaq indications are that R&D spending by major corporations is decreasing somewhat and that 

these corporations are buying other firms, increasing Iitensing activities, or entering into cooperative arrangements rather than developing their ow” technologies. 

The situation with technology-based small fimu is 

somewhat different. There has been a ten-fold growth in 

such fims over the past 25 years, and there are estimated 

to be 40,COO to 50,000 such fimw in this country (13). 

For the parposes of this paper, a small business is one 

which, including its affiliates, has a maximum of 5OG employees. This definition is essentially consistent with that 

of the Small Business Administration and is used in the 

Small Business Innovation Research Program (133). 

Many definitions are used for determining technolom-based fimx. Some studies, including several cited in 

this report, “se specificpercentagesof scientific, engineering, and technical employees’ and/or R&I’D eqendimres 

relative to sales. Other studies “se a Standard Industrial 

Classification code to identify technologybased firms, For 

this report, a broader and mom simplified approach is 

used: a technology-based small fim is a small business engaged in the research, development, and/or manufacture 

of a product or process with a technology-intensive focus. 

Small businesses as a group are very important to this 

country’s economy (5, 57,97, 103, 128, 130). They cons& 

t”te about 50 percent of private sector employment and 

about 4Opercen~ of gross domestic product (and 5Opercent 

of private, nonfat gross domestic product). In addition, 

they provide 60 percent to 80 percent of all new jobs and, 

from 1976 to 1986, over 1CKlpercent of net new jobs in manufacturing industries. During half of the decade, 1981 to 

1986, the Fortune 500 companies lost 2.8 million jobs. 

Small businesses conWii”te dispropxtionately to technology development growth (1,5,24,35,39,42,48,57,63,64, 

1%). Technoloa-based small fiis generate over half of the 

innovations mong all business fimx and the number of 

R&D scientists and engi”eem per million employees nationally for both small fimu and large corporations is about 

equal. Yet, these small fi”“s genemw &vice as many innovations per employee or per R&D dollar as large fiis. Moreover, they commercialize innovations at a significandy lower 

cost than larger fms. For all sized companies, the number of 

products produced per dollar of R&D or per dollar of net 

sales increases “nifomly as cxxnpany size decreases. 

Despite the innovation productivity of technology-based small firnx, they are underrepresented in the nation’s R&TD enterprise (90, 97, 133, 134). The National 

Science Foundation notes that federal support to small 

businesses for R&D has dropped by a third in the 198Os, 

despite the exisWnce of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Using another data set, the Small Business Administration reports that the small business share 

of federal R&D, as measured by R&D procurement over 

$25,000, declined fro? 7.8 percent in 1975 to6.8 percent in 

1980 to 4.8 percent in 1983 and rose again to 6.9 percent in 

1987. However, excluding the mandatoy SBIR program, 

which began in the 1983 fiscal year, the figures would be 

less: 4.5 percent in 1983 and only 5.7 percent in 1987. 

Geographic distribution of federal R&D monies is of 

great Qxxtance to state governments and affects the selecGon and design of many state programs (29, 44. 65). In total 

obligations for R&D, the top 15 states received 85 percent of 

the monies i” 1985; for R&D procwcme”~, they received % 

percent in the same period: and for small business R&D pro92 
curement, they received 92 percent. For the SBIR program, 

the 1983.1987 total shows a similar concentration, with the 

top 15 states receiving 82 percent of the funds. In each case, 

the top 15 states were not naxsarily the same. 

State Government Response 

Over the past 30 years, state governments had begun 

to evolve into true partners with the federal government in 

the governance of this country, particularly as it relates to 

R&I’D-based economic and business development. Daring the 196Os, state governments began to come into their 

own with the increased managerial capacity of governors 

and the increased professionalism of state staffs (11,17,73, 

85,95). During the 197Os, state governments increasingly 

were asked by their citizens or the federal government to 

take on issues with scientific and technological components, e.g., energy, environment, and health. Their response, with federal assistance, was to strengthen the capacity of their gubernatorial and legislative policy 

management processes to address these issues (16,26,31, 

32,36,54,99, 100, 137). In the 198Os, the issues and state 

policy response mechanisms and programs had evolved to 

include, as one of the highest priorities, R&TD-based economic and business development. 

During the last decade, state governments began to 

change their understanding of, and approach to, state economic and business development strategies (18,60,75,93). 

States had been concerned with attracting or keeping manufacturing industries, and developed tax policies and other 

incentives to achieve that end. The assumption made by 

the states had been that such industties were important for 

jobs and taxes and that they placed priorities on states with 

low taxes, low wages, and developed transportation and 

utility infrastructures. During the middle to late 1970% it 

became increasingly apparent that, with the exception of 

major foreign investments or federal facilities (e.g., superconducting super collider), “smokestack chasing” or its 

emerging equivalent, “chip chasing,” was not a cost-effective strategy across all the states (14,38). 

The response from the states to the major forces at 

work impacting the economy was a shift in their economic 

development strategies and in the mix of their policies and 

programs to stimulate business and economic growth. 

States continued to address the need to retain and expand 

existing industries, particularly where revitalization of lagging industrial sectors caused additional pressores. More 

importantly, states began to nurture indigenous emerging 

industries, especially those based on scientific advances 

and technological breakthroughs. Finally, states began to 

fill the technology development gap left by the federal govemrnent between government-supported basic research 

and industv-supported technology commercialization. All 

states have some program covering these three areas. 

(Numerous reports have been issued in the past decade 

documenting state activities; more than two dozen are cited 

in the appendii: 2,7,8,9,41,44,58,59,61,62,72,78,84,92, 

94, 98, 116, 118, 119, 121, 129, 131, 132, 135, 136, 139). 

Billions of dollars have been spent by the states since 

the beginning of the decade on new or expanded programs 

in economic development, some of which are devoted in 

whole or in part to R&I’D-based components. These programs include but are not limited to: education, training, 

and retraining; mitigation of plant closings and dislocations; loans and grants for industrial revitalization and for 

companies and products in emerging industries; R&D infrastructure investment; and information and technical 

services to technology-based and other industrial firms. 

Some statep~og~~~s~~e~nbystateagencies, some byesisting nonstate institutions receiving state funds, and some 

by new organizations created for that purpose. States have 

tended to direct their efforts toward the most innovative 

and entreprenewial sector of the economy: indigenous 

technology-based small firms. 

Emphasis has tended to be more on the requirements 

and opportunities of technology-based firms, especially in 

the newer or emerging “high-tech” sectors, than on linking 

technology advances to traditional mature industries in 

which advanced manufacturing fabrication and processing 

technologies are needed (e.g., 76). This is particularly significant because it is estimated that at the end of the next 

decade only about 14 percent of the workforce will be in 

the technology-based, emerging industrial sectors (82). 

Fortunately, states have begun to recognize that 

“high-technology” processes are as important as 

“high-technology” products in the nation’s economy and 

that “high-technology” processes also are needed for 

“high-technology” industries. Thus, they are increasing 

their technology information and assistance programs toward the traditional mature industries (139). 

State governments play pivotal roles in facilitating 

economic and business development: their investments 

complement federal investments. They make antecedent 

investments in the R&D infrastructure at academic institutions to attract federal research and technology-development funds. States make post-federal investments to 

foster commercialization of technologies evolving from 

federal research and to facilitate technical and managerial 

information and assistance services, using in part the expertise developed through federal research and technology development support. 

States’ R&TD program efforts can be divided into 

categories in many ways. A review of the published literature on state RT&D policies and programs demonstrates 

that there are as many typologies of state programs as 

there are reports. For the purposes of this paper, four 

broad categories of state investments of money or people 

are use& leadership/convening, information and services, financial assistance, and R&D infrastructure. Details on these 

categories and subcategories are found in Appendii A. It is 

estimated that states have spent over $1.5 biilion of new 

funds over the last five years just in R&TD-based programs. 

Traditionally, state and local governments supported 

technical and managerial information and services 

through public academic institutions. Engineering extension and industrial extension programs were adjuncts of 

engineering schools. Management assistance tended tobe 

provided through business schools, although some services 

were provided by state and local economic development 

agencies. There tended to be limited integration or mutu93 
ally reinforcing activities between these technical and 

managerial services. 

Two trends began to emerge in the 1980s. First, there 

was increased interaction between these hvo types of service& either through referrals and joint activities or through 

the creation of one-stop, multisewice centers. Second, support for these service providing units, which traditionally had 

come through the university or college system, is now also 

being provided in some states by the central fundiig organization responsible for implementing all or some of the state’s 

R&TD-based economic and business development stmtem. 

This has the potential for chang@ the emphasis of 

the sewice providing unit from the collective educationresearch-service objective of the academic institution to a 

more economic development oriented one. 

Local Government Response 

The response of local governments in this changing 

economic and industrial environment has some parallels 

to that of state governments’ response, but, necessarily, 

there also are some differences. The differences may be 

attributed in large part to the variations in roles of the ap 

proximately 39,000 units of general purpose local government. This implies a much greater variance in capacity to 

meet these changing environments than among stategovernments. Among the most innovative kxal governments, however, and those with the most professional management capacity, the response appears to be on about the same level as 

that among the leading states, given the differences in roles. 

Clearly, what is not equal among these governments is 

the documentation about their policy and program initiatives. The National Governors’ Assxiation, through its 

Center for Policy Research and Analysis, has undertaken 

several major efforts to collect and organize information 

related to state policies and programs for research, technology development, and commercialization (7,8,9,58,59, 

61, 62, 135, 136). 

The associations representing local governments have 

not been as active, in part because they have not received 

the federal support that NGAdid. The data bases of these 

associations’ clearinghouses do contain some information 

on some programs (83). These programs do not necessarily 

represent the range of local activity or a systematic sample 

of the programs. Moreover, these program initiatives are not 

separately identified in the data bases as part of a separate 

s&category of R&ID-based economic and business development within the category of economic development. 

Local governments have paralleled state govemmerits over the past two decades in strengthening their 

management capacity to address issues with scientific and 

technological components. Unlike state governments, 

which emphasized their policy management processes, local governments addressed improved service delivery and 

more productive administrative management (26, 31, 32, 

54, !a, 100, 137). 

Engineers brought their technological expertise and 

information sources to adapt technologies for newgovernmental purposes. Many of these technologies had been developed in federal laboratories or supported with federal 

funds in academia or industry. The federal government 

provided support to strengthen the capacity of some local 

governments to experiment with approaches to link local 

government needs to technological responses. In addition, 

federal support to many intermediaty organizations including the nationwide public interest assc&tions representing 

local governments, helped develop networks among the local 

governments for information sharing in this area. 

Local governments, like state governments, also began to increase their understanding of the changes that 

were taking place in economic and industrial development. Some of the local policies and programsbeing developed reinforce those in the states; others complement 

them (50, 51,74,93, 117). 

Local governments continued to address retaining 

and expanding existing industries and attracting new ones. 

For these industries, the approaches included property 

and inventory tax policies, loans and grants for new plants 

and revitalization of old ones, zoning changes, transportation and utility infrastructure investments, and workforce 

training and retraining. 

Increasingly, however, local governments, like state 

governments, have been finding ways to nurture smaller 

industries, especially those in the emerging and fastgrowth “high technology” sectors. For firms in these sectors, the approaches go beyond those of traditional industries. Some parallel approaches by states but, for the most 

part, they are unique to local governments. For example, 

local governments are strengthening their information 

and service assistance programs through resource directories and referral systems. Orientation workshops are being 

convened to assist local entrepreneurs in R&m-related 

areas, such as proposal preparation, government procurement, and patenting and licensing. I&m.1 business incubators and science parks are being developed, often in con= 

junction with a local university, which may be private or 

state supported. 

In the 1980s. two trends seem to be emerging among 

local governments regarding R&TD-based economic and 

business development. First, local governments have been 

increasing their understanding of the changing forces at 

work on the industrial sector of the economy and seem to 

be altering their approaches to address the problems 

created by these changes or to capitalize on their inherent 

opportunities. Second, local governments appear tobe initiating greater cooperation with each other, with statego”- 

ernments, and with the private sector. 

Statement of the Problem 

The importance of technolow-based small firms is 

clear from their relative innovativeness and productivity 

for teclmology development and commercialization. Numerous federal, state, and local programs and initiatives 

exist that support in whole or in part the provision of technical and managerial information and services. 

However, there appears to be no body of literature or 

analytical studies in the public domain that document 

where in fact such technolom-based firms go for such information and services, how they go about doing so, and 

what satisfaction they have with each source. This issue is 

94 
critical to state and local governments in supprting initiatives to provide technical and managerial information and 

setvices. It is important also to the federal government as it 

exercises its leadership role and as it creates new 

R&ID-based program initiatives or significant changes in 

existing ones to stimulate economic growth and enhance 

international competition. 

The purpose of this paper is to increase understanding 

of the sources of technical and managerial information 

and sewices used by technology-based small firms. The paper uses limited primary sources and secondary documentation. Both providers and users of such information and 

services were surveyed. However, because of the limitations in data collection, th& effort should be seen as an attempt to refiie the hypotheses regardiig this subject, rather than providing definitive results. Issues are identified 

and implications are provided for potential future federal 

research and program bxitiatives. 

Research and Analysis Context 

Framework 

Primary and secondary sources were used for this report. Secondary sources included the publiihed literature, 

as well as strategy development and program reports from 

state governments, provider institutions, and their intermediary organizations. Primary sources consisted of two 

groups: users of technical and managerial infomation and 

services, and the provider institutions and organizations. 

Constraints 

The research methodology for thii report was constrained by the resources and time available andby the fact 

that there is a restriction on the number of individuals who 

maybe stuveyed by mail, phone, or in person using federal 

funds without approval by the Office of Management and 

Budget of the protocol process and survey instmment. 

These constraints necessarily affect the ability to provide 

definitive fiidings and conclusions. Some insights and lessons learned can be gathered, however. 

Published Data from Secondmy Sowces 

Published Literature 

The review of readily available published studies indicates that the sources of technology and managerialinformation and setvices from the perspective of technology-based small firnu have not been explored 

systematically. Research journals and practitioner magazines were examined under the headings of clearinghouses, innovation process, technology development, 

technoloa transfer, and technology commercialiition. 

No studies from the users’ perspective were found in 

regularly issued journals. One extensive study of a state’s 

manufacturing fiis, which included information on research and technology needs, was published in the newsletter of the provider institution (96). Some reports maybe 

found in journals covering the provider community, devoted to one or more institutions (e.g., 3, 4). 

State Government Strategy Development 

and Proqam Reports 

Two other sources canvassed were state government 

offices involved in developing technology-based economic 

and business strategies or operating programs, and institw 

tions such as universities and federal laboratories that provide the infornution and services. 

Representatives of nine states were surveyed by telephone to determine the extent to which studies or rep+xts 

might be available that document user surveys related to 

technology and managerial information and service programs. Ashort swwy protocol was developed (see Appendix B). An attempt was made to contact at least four individuals who were on the NGA Working Group on State 

Xnitiatives in Applied Research and at least four who were 

not. Similarly, an attempt ws made to contact at least four 

individuals who were employees of coordinating state organizations (e.g., boards, commissions, foundations, cmtral agencies for economic development) and at least four 

who were part of an agency with one or multiple programs 

but that had no coordinating role. 

As anticipated, the respnses were conditioned by 

whetherthestatehadprogram(s)inplaceorwasbeginning 

anew, and by whether the effort was intended to create a 

structure with many programs or to develop one or several 

programs within an existing organization. Thus, in several 

states, there were diiferent responses for diiferent time 

periods in the 19%. 

More than two-thirds of the respondents noted that 

six approaches had been used at one time or another in decidingwhethertocreateanewprogramorchangeanexisting one. For the respondent states, no programs have yet 

been eliiinated. 

The six approaches include: 

Convening or using an existing task force, board 

of directors, or advisoty committee representing 

all institutions and sectors, as well as intended users, and undertaking strategic-level analyses generally using state staff resources; 

Undertaking detailed analyses by state staff, possibly including interviews of the user community, 

as well as other affected communities; 

Reviewing anecdotal evidence collected by policy 

board members and policy and program staffs for 

unmet needs or opportunities; 

Followhg op on the gubernatorial or legislative 

sense that “somethiig needs to be done”; 

Working with an “idea champion” to translate an 

idea into appropriate legislation and regulations; 

Analyzing other state programs for their applicability and for their potential to address needs or 

capitalize on opportunities. 

However, as one of the respondents noted, it is a 

“movable feast.” When a state is considering development 

and implementation on rin overall strategy for R&TDbased economic and business development with a new organizational entity (e.g., a foundation) and with a number 

of programs, a task force or advisory body may be created. 

Since its composition tends to be representative of the sec- 
tars and institutions affected (e.g., academic, industtil, financial, labor, governmental), the “user community” is involved and its viewpoint heard. Moreover, the staff 

assigned to support the effort tends to undertake various 

kinds of strategic analytical studies. Summary reports are 

published, but, according to the respndents, none would 

contain detailed information on where technology-based 

small fiis go for information and services. 

For other situations, such as creating a new, single program where none existed or adding a program, there tends to 

be less comprehensive and less detailed analyses: anecdotal 

evidence is reviewed, programs of other states are analyzed, 

or gubernatorial or legislative sense of need is addressed. Anecdotal evidence is used extensively in determining need for 

incremental changes in program design or operations. Only 

one state respondent noted that the expedience of other 

states had not been perceived as vey relevant. 

Once a decision is made to create or change a program, the program leadership is more likely to be analytical, to seek advice from the institutions and sectors affected, and to conduct user interviews. However, there do 

not appear to be any reports generated by the states that 

contain detailed information on the scmrces of information 

and services for technology-based small firms. 

Program Development and Management Reports 

Similarly, representatives of provider community institutions were queried about the availability of detailed 

user surveys as part of the interview process. At least two 

representatives from each of ten types of provider institutions were surveyed to determine whether reports exist 

that document studies related to technical and managerial 

information and service programs. These provider communities include state government agencies, local government agencies, trade associations, scientific/engineering 

societies, academic-based technical assistance centers, 

academic-based business assistance centers, research centers; manufactming technology centers, NASA centers, 

and federal laboratories. 

Of all the respondents, only one had undertaken a rigorous and detailed smvey of the potential user community. 

In most other situations, data on users often is completed 

for annual reports and/or for budget justification. More 

importantly, the operations of information and service 

provider organizations ensure ongoing feedback from users. By definition, however, this data on users and on their 

feedback is not representative. Actionsby provider organizations in the aggregate do not represent the totality of potential responses to user needs for technical and managerial information and services. Put another way, the needs 

of the user firms cannot be inferred from their use of different provider institutions, even ifan appropriate sample 

of provider institutionscould be determined and surveyed. 

Moreover, the number and type of individuals as providers 

cannot be estimated, much less located, whether they operate alone or are housed in a provider institution. Thus, 

any study of institutional providers without individual 

providers would be inaccurate. 

Limitations of Published Data 

The published data from secondmy sources has significant limitations: representativeness, timeliness, unevenness, and potential for misunderstandiig. The number of 

respondents from the statesandfrom provider institutions 

wastoosmall toberepresentativeoftheirrespectivepopulations. Reports containmg desired data were available 

only from provider institutions. With one exception, the 

reports reflect experience with small firms, not the overall 

needs of such firms for technical and managerial information and assistance. Where data sets are available in published form (e.g., annual reports) or unpubliihed form, there 

is an unevenness across sources in the categories used for 

types of information and services and for types of users 

saved. Finally, there is a lack of clarity in some instances as 

to whether usem are end-users or intermediary providem 

and, thus, the potential for misunde~tandiig exists. 

Nature of Data Collected from Primary Sources 

Framework 

Before beginning interviews with representatives 

from the user and provider communities, it was necessary 

to consider the range of potentially significant variables in 

the three areas: nature of information and services, nature 

of firms assisted, and nature of providers. 

Nature of Infommtion and Services 

The information and services fall into two broad categories, technical and managerial, each of which has subcategories. Technology information and services covers 

products, processes, and materials, as well as scientific advances and technological breakthroughs. Managerial information and services included business organization and 

startup; business operations; finance; inventory control; 

production; distribution; marketing; exporting; patents 

and other intellectual property rights; licensing opportunities, processes, and matchmaking; R&TD procurement 

opportunities and processes; and training and retraining. 

Nature of Firms Assisted 

Firms assisted have at least sixvariables with potential 

significance for the provision of information and services. 

These include: 

. Age-startup, fast growing, mature; 

n Size, within the 5@3 employee limit-vev small, 

mid-range, larger; 

n Geographic location-region of U.S., proximity 

to major research and service institution (university, federal labomtcxy), metropolitan/nonmetrop&tan; 

. Tpe-R&TD intensive vs. R&I’D plus production; 

. Funding sources-all federal, mostly federal, less 

than half federal; 

. Leadership-scientist, engineer, or technologist 

vs. business manager; 

Nature of Provider 

Providers have at least ten variables with potential significance to the provision of information and services to 

technology-based small firms. These include: 

n Organization vs. individual who happens to be 

within an organization; 

96 
Location-universities and other academic institutions, federal laboratories, professional associations and scientific and engineetig societies, 

other similar fiis, state and local governments 

(directly through their agencies or indirectly 

through institutions they created); 

Age-startup vs. mature; 

Size of provider tmit and backup in total institotion; 

Range of assistance provided (see catego&+ onder characteristics of information and setices 

provided); 

Funding sources-all federal, mostly federal, less 

than half federal; 

cost to Wxs-free, low fee, full recWery fee; 

Extent of information and services provided by individual or organization itself and/or backup institution-electronic data base (on-line or with personal assistance); inqtdry/referral (to individual 

or organization); inquiry/response (to network 

members through electronic mail feature); network contacts; publications and repcats; one-onone assistance (centrally provided and/or by field 

agent); subscriber-provided publications and reports (specific response or regularly issued), and/ 

or research and technical analysis backup; 

Mode of information and services provided, e.g., 

publications, electronic data, phone assistance 

~wi;h;~,;t~;~~;~ nu;ber); at provider ofProportion of users that are end-user technoloLJ-based small basin.% fm vs intermediaries that 

are providem of information or services to them. 

Limitations of Primmy Sources 

The collection of data from primary sources also has 

signiicant liiitations. There are too many variables, and 

the number of firms that can be interviewed without approval is insufficient and, necessarily, nonrepresentative. 

At best, as with the secondary published data, the collection of data from such fiis serves to support the refmemerit of hypotheses regardmg this topic. 

Survey Methodologyz Technology.Based Small Firms 

Smce thesurveywastobeliitedtoninerespondents, 

telephone intetiews were undertaken. A protocol was developed with a limited number of questions (see Appendix 

C). The time for the s~ey had been estimated at 20 minutes. However, discussions triggered by the questions 

raised the average time to over 30 minutes. 

One question was very extensive involving what 

amounted to an ahnost 4Wcell matrix. The respondents 

were asked to ident@ the types of organizations they had 

used in the past ftve years for each of 18 categories of technical and managerial information and setvices. Xventy-one 

types of organizations were provided, inchaling “within own 

firm” and “have not sought thii information or service.” 

The second question related to how the respondents 

found out about the organizations or individuals from 

which they ftiy got the desired information or setvice. The 

third question involved mnking by degree of helpftiess ten 

approaches for accessing information and services. 

The final two questions were more open ended. One 

was directed at the issue of contacting individuals versus organizatw the other was aimed at lessons learned in accessing ttical and manag& information and services. 

It was determined that a random selection of technolof-based small fms would not be useful. Therefore, the 

firms were selected from award lists of the federal Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. All were 

multiple winners and have received Phase II awards; thus, 

there is documentation that these firms are relatively sophisticated in technology development. Selection criteria 

included distribution of awards among the major SBIR 

funding agencies (i.e., DOD, DOE, HHS, NASA, and 

NSF) and geographic distriiution in order to ensure some 

broad representation. 

The firms surveyed bad certain characteristics that may 

not be shared by the oniverse of technology-based small fm 

in the nation. Prcduction is not the major activity of rn& of 

the fm. None of the respmdents vohmteered that they are 

looking for technologies to commercialize from universitiq 

federal laboratories, or other resexch organizations. Rather 

they tend to develop their own technologies. Most of the 

tirms came into existence or blame operational with 

full-time employees in the past ten years. Il~e fm varied in 

size, but those with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees dominated. The survey results are on page 98. 

Survey Methodologyz Provider Institutions 

Adetermjnation was made to identify a set of provider 

institution categories and to interview by telephone representatives of at least two institutions in each categov. Tim 

categories were selected (see Appendix E). Aprotocolwas 

developed for these interviews with a liiited number of 

questions (see Appendix D). 

The telephone interviews were origimlly estimated to 

take about 15 minutes. However, respmdents raised the average elapsed time to about 20 minutes. The fti question 

identitled 12 groups of institotions and individuals to which 

the respondents’ organizations maybe providing information 

and services. Based on smveys (such as annual reports) or 

pcmonal impressions, respondents were asked to determine 

what percentage of users come from each group. 

The second question listed 18 categories of technical 

and managerial information and services and requested 

that the respondents designate whether their organizations provide them. These are the same 18 categories as in 

the smvey of firms (see also Appendix C). 

The thiid question involved whether the organization 

used any of ten approaches to provide information and services. While the approaches were the same as in the user 

smvey, in that smvey, they were ranked by degree of helpfulness to the fms. 

The fourth question related to the operation of the 

provider organization and the extent to which it was reactive or proactive. The final question paralleled that of the 

user survey. It was open ended and was diiected at lessons 

learned in providing technical and managerial information 

and services. 

91 
Organizations were selected to maximize diversity 

across and within the ten provider groups. Lists of 

providerswere collected from intermediary organizations, 

federal agencies, and the author’s files. 

The selected providers had certain characteristics that 

may or may not be similar to those of all provider institutions, a groop about which not a great deal is known. 

Some of the institutions surveyed provide technical information and services; others offer managerial assistance; 

still do others both. Some provide such assistance in all 

technical areas or in all managerial areas, while others 

work in only part of an area. Of particular interest is the 

fact that many organizations have evolved to include more 

categories of either technical or managerial assistance, 

and some have combined both kinds of assistance. An effort was made to exclude organizations that provide information and services only to members. 

Hypotheses of the Study 

Recognizing the limitations of the data, this working 

paper is limited to issues of greatest potential importance 

to, and impact on, future federal research and program initiatives in this area. 

There were two basic underlying principles for the 

study: First, general approaches may be n~ore important 

than the specifics of the user, the provider, and the assistance provided. Second, these general approachesbuild on 

the consensus lessons learned in the technology development, transfer, and use process and in the innovation process (e.g., 20,40,46). 

From these two underlying principles, several hwtheses evolved that lend themselves to verification: 

Users tend to query friends, associates, and acquaintances as trusted “pointers” for referrals. 

Individual referrem and provides tend to be more 

important than the institutions that “house” them. 

Definition of the real user need tends to be important to the success of a provider’s response (even 

if only a referral), a factor that increases in significance when the user does not understand the true 

nature of the problem or does not defiie it specificZ3lly. 

As a corollaq, a tailored response (or at least the 

perception there09 tends to be important to a 

user’s need (i.e., “pull” mode not “push” mode). 

First contact with a potential provider individual 

or institution tends tobe most significant in determining the ultimate success of assistance and the 

perception of a user’s experience (i.e., the “gatekeeper” issue). 

An appropriate referral tends to be very important in determining the efficacy of a provider from 

a user’s perspective. 

F’roviders that can offer or access a full array of 

technical and managerial information and services tend to be helpful to the user, even if the initial request was narrow and within only one area 

(a technolo&y problem may in fact be managerial, 

and vice-versa). 

Other hypotheses evolved that were not as likely to 

lend themselves to verification, given the primary and secondary data sources. Information from a larger sample 

may provide the neceswy supprt for verification or nonverification. These hypotheses include: 

Ease in locating and accessing the appropriate information or service tends to be tnore important 

than its cost. 

Feasibility of implementation tends to be important in determining user’s perception of provider’s assistance. 

F’rovider’s response does not ensure utilization of 

the information or service, even if appropriate, 

since other factors might intervene. 

F’rovider institutions tend to be more successful 

when they do not merely replicate or adopt approaches of other successful simiir providers but 

adapt such approaches to the unique circumstances 

of their state or regions and to the fms they serve. 

Survey Results 

The interview results for the technology-based small 

fms and the provider institutions are reported in four 

parallel categories: providers accessed or users served; information and services provided; approaches to accessing 

or providing assistance; and lessons learned. The user SWvey yielded information in two additional categories: finding provider organizations or individuals; and accessing individuals verses organizations as sources. These survey 

results, as noted previously, should not be regarded as definitive conclusions. Rather, they should be read as outcomes or tendencies more likely to occur. 

Technology-Based Small Finns 

Providers of Information and Services 

The 21 types of organizations listed as sources of technical and managerial information and services divide into 

clusters. Four are part of the business community: manufacturers and sales representatives, suppliers, customers, 

and competitors. For this group of respondents, with their 

R&ID rather than production orientation, these organizations tend not to he approached, although customers 

sometimes provide unsolicited suggestions. The five research-oriented sources (e.g., universities, federal laboratories, and nonprofit research institutes) are among the 

most utilized, as would be expected for this group of firms. 

The respondents did not tend to distinguish between 

federal agencies and federal laboratories and NASA centers. Thus, federal agencies seemed originally to be well 

utilized. Further probing showed up this misunderstanding, and, at least for this group of respondents, federal 

agencies had to overcome hvo barriers: They are perceived as 

too dependent on data bases rather than tailored, pemonal 

services; and too oriented toward commercialiition of federally produced or supported technology and, thus, lessinterested in the needs of an individual fm. Both these perceptions may be the result of the type of fms surveyed. 

State and local governments, especially the former, 

tend to be perceived as important sources of financial as98 
sistance but not of technical or managerial assistance. All 

governments appear to suffer to some degree from the fact 

that peers are not providing information and services to 

peers. Peer relationships have two components here: first, 

there is the engineer-to-engineer or marketeer-to-marketeer peer relationship; second, there is the businessperson to businessperson peer relationship. Governmental 

staffers readily can overcome the first barrier; many cannot overcome the second because they do not have private 

sector experience, or not enough of it. 

The next group of four providers consists of intermediary organizations (e.g., trade associations, business assoc. 

ations, engineering or scientific societies, and professional 

societies). Because of the nature of the respondent fms, 

these sources are among the most wed. ‘Ibere is significant 

potential for peer-to-peer relationships. In addition, these research and technology development oriented fms use the 

journals, bulletins, newsletter, and otherpublications of the 

organizations to keep abreast of developments. 

The final group of four types of provider organizations 

involves consultants, financial advisors, accountants, lawyers, and other similar professionals. Since all of these 

firms receive federal funds and many have venture capital 

investors, financial, auditing, and managerial advice tends 

to be sought or provided on an unsolicited basis. 

Information and Services Provided 

The respondents indicated a greater need for assistance in seven managerial categories: finance; marketing; 

exporting; patents and other intellectual property rights; 

licensing opporttmities, processes, and matchmaking; and 

R&TD procurement opporttmities and processes. The last 

category was added after the first two interviews. 

Since these fms are somewhat established, assistance 

in organization and startup and in operations are not needed. 

Issues related to inventory control, production, and distribw 

tion are relatively tmimportant because these fms are entirely or predominantly R&ID oriented. ‘Ib the extent that 

products are manufacttmed, they tend tobe in small runs that 

do not lend themselves to extensive automation. On the other hand, the research the fm are doing may relate to advanced ma.nufactming process technologies. 

While, on the whole, these fms are not very large, 

they do depend on skilled, technical staff at all levels. The 

issue of training and retraining appears to be more a function of localized labor markets. Thus, with the geographic 

distribution of the firms, response to this question was mteven and not instructive. 

Finding Provider Organizations or Individuals 

Respondents were given five choices as to how they find 

out about the provider organirations or individttals. Four 

choices were highly rated, with strong similarities in the ranking order among the respondents. In descending these were: 

Prior experience with them; 

Friends or business and professional colleagues, 

who pointed you in the right direction; 

Being referred by another provider organization 

or individual originally contacted; and 

Printed matter received. 

Snce only one of the respondent fms diiectly accesses 

external data bases, this category was not rated. More sign& 

cantly, as noted in response to another question, these firms 

tend to prefer inquiry/response or inquiry/referral systems 

with personal services rather than the relatively “depersonalized” onlime data bases. ‘Ibis was tutanticipated, due to the 

data base sophistication of the fm’ staffs. 

Under the “other” category was mentioned fmancial 

advisors, accountants and auditors, and lawyers who referred the firms to appropriate information or services. 

The respondents were asked how many referrals it 

tended to take to get to the organiration or individual with 

the desired answer. In general, those surveyed expected to 

find the information or arrange for the service with no 

more than three referrals. In exceptional circmnstances, 

that nmnber could be significantly larger. 

Approaches for Accessing Assistance 

One set of questions had to do with how the respondents access information and services. They were asked to 

rate ten broad approaches as very helpful, somewhat helpful, or not helpful. 

The one-on-one visit approaches (at the firm’s site, 

off-site, such as at the provider’s office, or another low 

tion) had the highest rankings, asanticipated. Clearly, this 

appbes more to services than information. The other two 

approaches with a significant nmnber of very helpful rankings were: telephone or written inquiry/response or inquiry/referral systems; and magazines, journals, bulletins, 

handbooks, or other reports or printed matter. 

Conferences and workshops, and classes and seminars 

are considered somewhat helpful. Videotapes, films, television, or other video materials fall between somewhat 

helpful and not helpful, possibly due to the limited offerings for the types of firms. Online data bases generally are 

rated not helpful, as discussed above. For the categories of 

exchange of researchers and of joint research projects, 

there was no experience to rate. 

Individuals versus Organizations as Sources 

Respondents were asked whether they tend to contact 

individuals they know or have heardabout ororganizations 

they think should have the answer. Pimding and contacting 

appropriate individuals clearly is the driving force. The respondents did not consider important the specific organization or type of organiration where the individual was located. 

Lessons Learned 

The responses to this open-ended question regarding 

lessons learned in accessing technical and managerial information and services are similar to those for technology 

transfer and commercialization. Among the lessons stated or 

implied by two or more respondents include the following: 

9 Individual sources tend to be preferred to institw 

tional sources (person-to-person contact). 

n Technology questions appear to be easier to respend to than managerial ones (which may have 

much to do with the fact that most respondents 

are scientists or engineers and that they should be 

able to describe their technical problems more 

precisely than their managerial ones). 

9!3 
Personally provided information or services tend 

to be preferred over data bases, printed matter, 

and video materials (person-to-person contact). 

Receipt of the information or service as an individual tends to be preferred over a group setting 

(person-Zo-person contact). 

On-site receipt of technical services tends to be 

preferred (i.e., tailored response), but there are 

many exceptions (e.g., advanced factory floor experirnent at another firm, unique facilities or 

equipment at a university or federal laboratory). 

Some individuals and institutions are better able 

to tailor responses to the needs of the firm, but 

the firm has the responsibility to be specific about 

the problem or issue. 

Many organizations are not large enough and/or 

do not have sufficient backup support to respond 

appropriately; the real issue is whether they can 

provide a referral to a more appropriate provider. 

One-stop, multi-service centers which provide 

technical and managerial information and services, 

backup research, facilities, and equipment, a network of contacts are inherently preferable to therespondents because of the time they may save. 

Provider Institutions 

Users of Information and Services 

The 12 mes of organizations listed as users of technical and managerial information and services cover a broad 

range of groups. There is a considerable overlap between 

these 12 types of users and the 21 types of providers in the 

user survey. Nine types of user organizations are essentially equivalent to 15 of the 21 tpes of providers. 

The range of groups includes: small fms and large corporations; universities, federal laboratories, and nonprofit research institutes; federal, state, and local agencies; intermediary associations representing various sectors; consultants, 

fmancial advisors, auditors, lawyers, and other similar professionals; and foreign organizations and individuals. 

By their nature, most of the provider organizations sw 

veyed assist users in the private sector. Other user groups 

were represented, however, particularly the three categories 

of research institutions, an indication of one research organization helping another. For some provide& foreign organizations and individuals represent another me of aser group. 

With most of the providers, the users tend to be small 

firms more than Iarge corporations. ‘I%ere is a much greater number of small businesses, and they also tend to seek 

outside assistance more often than large corporations. 

Large corporations appear to be more interested in technology transfer for commercialization and in joint research 

efforts. The respondent technical information and service 

providers were aware that virtually all small-business users 

were from technology-based firms. The same cannot be 

said for managerial information and assistance providers, 

since the data available did not necessarily indicate the 

technology intensiveness of the firms. 

Information and Services Provided 

Organizations with the capacity to offer technical information and services tend to provide support in all four 

substantive categories: product development, manufactaring process technologies, materials, and scientific advances and/or technoIogica1 breakthroughs. The level of 

support and the range of areas vary. For example, manufacturing technoloa centers obviously are strong in manufacturing process technologies, but may be relatively 

weak in product development. 

There appears to be a greater diversity among 

providers regarding the categories of managerial information and services. Small business development centers are 

strongest in organization and startup, and in business operations. Originally oriented to the service sector, they are 

tending to expand their capacity to support the operations 

of manufacturing enterprises (e.g., inventory control, production, distribution, and marketing). More specialized areas, such as exports, intellectual property rights, licensing 

opportunities, processes, and matchmaking, and PX&D 

procurement opportunities and processes, are more likely 

to be the strengths of university-based centers. State and 

local government agencies alw are active in R&TD procurement oppixtunities and prwesses, particularly for the federal 

SBIR program, and in training and retraining activities. 

Approaches for Providing Assistance 

Provider institutions were requested to identify, from 

among the same ten choices as in the user smvey, the approaches they used to provide information and services, 

and to rank the choices in terms of frequency of use. 

Telephone responses to outside inquiries, one-on-one 

visits at the provider’s office, and provision of printed matter were mentioned most frequently by virtually all the respondents. Convening conferences and workshops and 

conducting classes and seminars were activities appropriate to governmental agencies and intermediary organ&ations. Organizations that provide technical services often 

makesitevisits tofirmsforone-on-oneassistance. Someof 

these organizations have the equivalent of engineering extension “circuit riders.” Exchanges of researchers and 

joint research projects are fostered by federal laboratories 

and centers and by industy-university cooperative research centers and their equivalents. Approaches such as 

video materials and online data bases do not appear with 

great frequency, but they are considered to be productive 

uses of resources by institutions providing them. 

With the exception of intermediary organizations (i.e., 

trade associations and scientific and technical societies), 

the respondents are not membership organizations. The 

remaining provider organizations tend to seek firms that 

could use their information or sewices. In most instances, 

however, a general marketing approach is used, such as 

mailing brochures or maintaining an exhibit booth at meetings. In other situations, such as the engineering extension 

“circuit riders,” a targeted outreach approach is used. 

Lessons Learned 

As in the case of the user smvey, the “lessons learned” 

rcmnses of the providers of technical and managetil information and services are similar to those in technology trans100 
fez and commercialization. Among the lessons stated or implied by three or more inditiduals smveyed include: 

Providers understand users’ preference for person-to-person contact, with individually provided 

assistance to an individual user at the user’s site 

tailored to the user’s specific needs, although they 

usually are constrained by mission objectives orby 

personnel or fiscal resources from adhering to 

those preferences. 

Ability to respond and provide appropriate information and setvices, whether technical or managerial, 

is dependent initially on the users’ capabiity to descriie problems fairly precisely and narrowly. 

Many organizations are not large enough and/or 

do not have sufficient backup support to respond, 

but they can be successful if they provide a more 

appropriate referral. 

A one-stop, multi-setice center, which provides 

technical and managerial information and services, 

backup research and facilities and equipment, and a 

network of contacts, is inherently prefemble because of its integrated approach, its potential for a 

timely response, and its productive use of rewurces. 

Implications for Federal Research 

and Program Initia!ives 

Framework 

This section reviews some preliminaq tentative implications from the analysis of the user and provider surveys. These implications are directed primarily to federal 

government research and program activities. In this instance, however, federal initiatives cannot be undertaken 

in a vacuum. Tbey would be dependent on the information 

and service providers, their intermediaries, and funders, 

including state and local governments. 

Moreover, these implications are based on assumptions regarding federal government roles in undertaking 

certain kinds of activities and stimulating activities by other organizations. For sources of information and services 

to technology-based small businesses, these other organizations would include provider institutions and their intermediary organizations, as well as state and local governments and their public interest associations. 

Assumptions 

Federal Roles 

As noted above, federal initiatives in this area would 

be dependent on the providers of technical and managerial 

information and services, their intermediaries, and funders, including federal, state, and local governments, all of 

which have policy and program initiatives. 

Broad appropriate roles of the federal government 

need to be examined within this context. We suggest that 

these broad roles come under the generic headings of stimulating and facilitating activities by others and performing 

some activities directly. Where possible, the role of stimw 

lating and facilitating activities by others is preferred by 

most clientele of federal initiatives. 

These assumptions suggest four operational roles for 

the federal government, given the context and institutional environments within which they will operate. These four 

roles include: 

Strengthen the institutional capacity of these public 

interest associations and intermediiry organizations, whose constituent membetx provide the information and services to fms and/or whose memhers support provider institutions in that activity. 

Systematize and accelerate the development and 

diffusion of knowledge and experience in providing such information and services and/or in sup 

porting the institutions that undertake that ass% 

tance. 

Identify and fill gaps in this knowledge and experience, including information about users. 

Facilitate networlcmg among providers of such information and services, among their intermediaries, and among supporters of that assistance. 

Target Audience for Federal Initiatives 

A simplistic model of the system of supplying information and services to such firms would be: users-providers - 

funden. As in the case of most models of human and institutional behavior, reality is more complicated. 

Users, the technolowbased small firms, may belong 

to intermediary organizations that provide information 

and sewices, e.g., trade associations, scientific or engineering societies, or professional associations. As a membership service, most of these intermediaries provide only 

referrals, a task done more indiiectly through newsletter 

and jomnals than directly through inquiry/response systems. 

Providers of technical and managerial information 

and services include a range of institutions, including federal, state, and local governments. Most of these providers 

have their own intermediary organizations, which can 

serve two important functions: the exchange of information on their experiences (i.e., what works under what conditions and why and the maintenance of a network of contacts. For example, tmiversity-based providers have the 

National Assxiation of Management and Technical Assistance Centers; small business development centem, the 

SBDC Connection; federal latwatories, the Federal Laboratory Consortium and its Clearinghouse; and state and lwal 

governments and their public interest associations. 

These intermediaries tend to be membership organizations, and the information and service functions are provided within the dues structure or through a separate subscriber fee. In some cases, the intermediary is a federal 

entity (e.g., the F’LC CIeatinghouse) or is suppxted in whole 

or in pati by federal monies (e.g., the SBDC Connection). 

In considering the role of the federal government in 

stimulatinginnovativeactivitiesbyothers,one must distinguish between the beneficiaries and the providers. Ultimately, the federal interest is in all businesses and beneficiaries, both large corporations and small firms that 

potentiallycouidbenefit fromnew technology-basedprodacts, bettermanufactmingpr~ess technologies. new materials, and scientific advances and technological breakthroughs. 

101 
Providers of assistance could be considered beneficiatie% but ody t” the serx*e of nz&iIlg t=Gdera, s”ppuIt Kl 

serve the ultimate users. In the wntext of the assumptions 

made here, these providers of assistance and their organim&xx1 n&work and supporters are the target audience 

for federal activities. This audience includes state and local governments because they are diiect providers of ass% 

time and fund program initiatives. 

The same federal programmatic ad IegiWive amtext also affects the suggested subject focus for any inhiative. Progmm iniWives by state and hxal government, information and nehvorldng progmms by provider intermediaries, 

and progmm contact names should be the focus. 

At the federalevel, additional attention need not be directed at resource directories of scientists, engineers, and 

management experts, and data bases of research in progress, 

scientifc advances, technological breakthroughs, and technologies available for licensing. The resources tend to be 

developed by the providers and their intermediaties, and 

many of them exist through the federal government (e.g., 

NTIS, FLC). This is not to imply that strengthening these 

federally supp+xted data bases is not an ongoing task. 

In addition, there is a need to better understand the 

processes by which technolog+-based small firms access 

technical and managerial information and services from 

provider organizations. J%le information is available 

from the fhs’ perspective on what kind of information is 

sought from which kinds of provider insthutions and how it 

is provided. Additionally, there is a need to know how satisfied the users are viith each type of provider, information 

or service, and mechankm used. Support of this research 

effort is most appropriate at the federal level because of 

the distributed benefits of the results. 

Funding Levels 

Implementation of new federal program initiatives in 

this area are not expected to be very expensive, especially 

since they are intended to build on existing capacity. It is 

assumed, therefore, that the major expenditures in the 

long term would be grants and wntracts rather than federal agency salaries and related staff expenses. This does not 

imply that xnnefederal initiatives cannot or should not be 

within these agencies. 

Potential Initiatives 

Based on these assumptions and the user and provider 

sumys, there appear to be important niches for the fedeml 

government to expand into in order to make a cost-effective 

oxmibution to the growth of the coune’s industrial health 

and competitiveness and its place in the global ecxmon~y. 

These niches flow from the composite of the stimulating and 

facilitating activities under the four roles noted above. 

Strengthen Institutional Capacity 

State and local governments provide technical and 

managerial information and services and fund other 

provider institutions (e.g., public university-based engineering extension programs). The asf.c&tions representing these governments operate clearinghouses on these 

state and Iocal program initiatives. 

The findings from a report on clearinghouses (see 

page 49) are instructive for potential federal initiatives. 

That report states: 

The economic development-related clearinghouses tbat do exist are underfunded, do not have 

complete information (either not all programs are 

included or not all desired information has been collected on each program), and may not have the information autom&d (muchless accessi0le on$nej. 

fn addition, the information collected by one 

organization may overlap that collected hy another. Fiially, there is no commonality of categories 

of information wllected by each organization 

bth among state or local programs and, thus, 

analysis of program ini&tives across levels of govemrnent is extremely difficult. 

A somewhat similar situation exists with the providers 

and their intermediary organizations. ‘Ib the extent that 

there are any “clearinghouses” of information about 

providers, they are embryonic (e.g., SBDC Connection) 

and/or contain limited information (e.g., NAMTAC). 

Moreover, for most groups of providers, the intennediaries provide referrals using their staffers’ anecdotal experience, if they provide any assistance at all. 

Thw little is known about each group of provider institutions and about what they provide to technology-based 

small business users, the charactetiics of the fm they 

save, how they provide information and services, and the 

feedback they receive. On this basis, the fmdings regarding 

the public interest asscciation clearinghouses apply to the intennediaq organizations, excepthat the public interest as- 

&tions are further along in their efforts. 

The implications for potential federal government iniGatives would include the following. 

Strengthen the capacity of intermediiryorganizations to improve their assistance programs by providing extratnur~~ funds to support enhanced data 

collection, organizations, and automation bypnblit interest associations and intermediiries representing providers, including selected information 

on state and local programs and provider assistance programs, more detailed case examples, 

and assessment studies. 

Use the leadership and wnvening powers of a 

lead federal agency to work with these associations and intennediaq organizations to rednce 

overlap in collecting data (but sharing infonnationabout thestmctureof thedata sets)and toincrease where appropriate commonality of information on each of the two groups of data (state 

and local initiatives and provider assistance programs), to provide a mechanism to link infonnation across data bases. 

Systematize and Accelerate the Development 

and Diffusion of Knowledge and Experience 

At the present time, there is no agency with responsibility for research on the technology development and 

cornmercialiition process, withii which is research on the 

issue of sources of information and services by technolo102 
@used small firms. At one time, such research might 

have been supported by the National Science Foundation. 

There is liiited research activity by individual agencies, 

but it is necessarily focused on their own operational missions (e.g., EDA, SBA). Thus, over the next few years, the 

opportunity exists to collect information on SBDCs 

through federal support of the SBDC Connection, but not 

about NAMTACs member institutions. 

No agenq has the oversight role on behalf of the federal interest in thii issue. The newly created Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in the Department of Commerce 

has a mandate to address state and local government programs and activities. A parallel mandate for nongovernmental provider institutions and their intemediaries does not yet exist. 

The implications for potential future government initiatives would include the following. 

Support through extramural awards research on 

sources of technical and managerial information 

and services by technoloa-based small firms 

Support through extramural awards expansion of 

existing data collection and analysis efforts related 

to the processesby which provider institutions andertake their assistance to the users and through 

which state and local governments support this 

provision of assistance. 

Identify, document, and disseminate through a 

lead agency information on federal programs and 

activities that complement state and local govemmerit initiativesand provider institutions’activities 

in this area (e.g., NTIS, FLC). 

Identify and Fill Gaps in Knowledge and Expedience 

As noted immediately above, there are major and minor gaps in information ahut state and local programs and 

the activities of provider institutions in this area. Another 

major gap exists in the assessment of the efficacy of these 

programs and activities. (See, for example, 30, 37.) 

Sane assessments do exist, usually as self-assessments 

performed by academic researchers. These assessments, 

with few exceptions, are liiited to how well the provider 

institutions are serving the firnw. Moreover, there is virtually no agreement on appropriate assessment methodologies. This information would be useful to state and local 

governments as providers and funders as well as to providing institutions. The intermediary organizations, including 

the public interest associations, could use this information 

to assist their members. 

The implications for potential federal government initiatives would include the following: 

Support through extramural awards research on 

assessment methodolodes appropriate for 

providers of information and a&stance to technology-based small fms and disseminate the results to 

providem through their intennediaq organizations. 

Initiate through extramural awards research on 

other priority gapfilling needs identified by an 

advisory mechanism (temporaw or permanent) of 

users, providen, and funders (including thefederal government). 

Facilitate Networking 

The success of new federal research and progmm initiatives in thii arca will depend in great part on cooperation among federal agencies and between them and public 

interest associations representing state and local govemmerits and intermediary organizations representing the assistance providers. 

Interagency coordination would involve agencies that 

provide information and services and fund organizations to 

do so (e.g., NASA and its Technoloa Utilization Program), as well as those that only provide information (e.g., 

NTIS). Funders of outside research (e.g., NSF) also would 

be involved. This coordination would help ensure a corn 

prehensive federal response that would complement the 

programs and activities of state and local governments and 

of provider institutions. 

The federal government can minimize its investments 

and increase its probability of success if it coordinates its 

efforts with the ongoing programs and activities of the 

state and local government associations. ‘Ihe same level of 

coordination with the intermediaq organizations in desirable for the same reasons, although these organizations 

tend to be less further along in their ability to provide information to members. Through such cooperation, the 

federal government would increase the probability that its 

efforts complement and reinforce those of organizations 

and institutions to which technology-based small firms 

tom for assistance. 

The implications for potential future federal initiatives would include the following. 

= Convene, through a lead agency, representatives 

of these public interest associations and intemediary organizations as well as federal agencies to 

exchange infomation on programs, activities, and 

contact names in this area. 

n Foster the creation of a network of these representatives to stimulate ongoing communication 

and to facilitate referrals among them. 

SUMMING UP 

The potential for future federal research and program 

initiatives in this area appears to be limited in no small part 

by a lack of understanding of how important the issue is. 

Federal, state, and local governments and private funders, 

as well as the provider institutions, have not undertaken 

comprehensive research on the users’ perspective of technical and managerial information and assistance programs. The few reports that do exist could provide the beginnings of a comprehensive baseline effort to sewe all 

providers and funders. 

In addition to this research effort, more attention 

needs to be directed at understanding how provider institutions operate. Fiially, there needs to be strengthened 

capacity of intermediary organizations representing the 

state and local governments and the providers to undertake dissemination and networking. 

In all of these efforts, there is a federal interest in contributing to the nation’s economic health and international 

competitiveness through the strategic investment of staff 

time and outside awards. In the long tern, the federal gov- 
ernment benefits because large corporations and small 

firms, especially those that are technology based, are the 

ultimate beneficiaries. 

bnplications for the Clearbtghuuse 

Introduction 

This section reviews sotne preliminary implications 

from the analysis of the provider and user surveys for the 

design and operations of the Department of Commerce 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation. As noted in the previous section, these implications are necessarily tentative 

because of the data limitations. 

Theseimplicationsflowdirecttyfrornthoseforfederal 

research and progrant initiatives. ‘Ihii section translates 

those suggestions, where appropriate, to the Clearinghouse. The implications were based on certain assutnplions regarding the roles of the federal government in undertaking certain kinds of activities and in stimulating 

activities by other organirations. The other organizations 

would include institutions that provide technical and tnanagerial infortnation and services to tecbnoloay-based small 

firms and their intermediaty organizations, as well as state 

and local governments, which provide and fund such assistance, and their public interest associations. 

The discussions at the seven focus group sessions, the 

five “thinker sessions” and the hvo review sessions of the 

papers, provided additional context to this section on n-nplicationsfor the Clearinghouse. Of particular importance 

is the consensus that was emerging on the issue of initial 

audience and subject focus. 

Assumptious 

Cleaninghouse Roles 

The previous section suggested that most clientele of 

federal initiatives prefer that the government stimulate 

and facilitate actions by others rather than undertake direct federal activities. 

These assumptions suggested four operational roles 

for the federal government and, by inference, for the 

Clearinghouse. These four operational roles include: 

strengthen institutional capacity; systematize and acoalerate the development and diiusion of knowledge and expetience; identify and fill gapg and facilitate networking. 

Target Audience for the Clearinghouse 

fn the previous section, the target audiences forfederal initiatives in this area were shown to be interntediary 

organizations representing providers of technical and 

managerial information and services, state and local governments and their public interest associations. 

A consensus evolved that the Clearinghouse should 

serve federal agencies and state and focal governments 

and their associations. This consensus was based both on a 

reading of the appropriate section from the Omnibus Pade 

and Cmpetihenas Act of 1988 and its legislative history 

and on the resources available to the Clearinghouse in the 

short tetm. 

On this basis, it is suggested that this consensus position 

be adopted for the initial operations of the Clearinghouse. A 

focused effort on the intermediary organizations would be 

delayed until either the initial phase is complete or additional 

resources are made available to the Clearinghouse. 

Subject Focus of the Clearinghouse 

The subject focus detailed in the previous section remains unchanged in principle. However, information and 

networking programs by intermediaries representing 

provider institutions other than those supported by state 

and local initiatives would necessarily be deferred to a later phase. Thus, the focus would be on progratn initiatives 

by state and local governments, information and nehvorking progratns by the public interest associations, and progrant contact names in governmental organirations and in 

public interest associations. 

The section on suggested federal initiatives also outlined the need to better understand the processes by which 

technology-based firms access technical and managerial 

information and services from provider organizations. Since 

state and local governments provide and fund such ass&mce 

of the provider institutions, this need is still appropriate in 

the inltial phase of the Clearinghouse’s operations. 

Funding Levels for the Clearinghouse 

The statement made in the report on clearinghouses 

(page 49) regarding funds is appropriate here also. It reads 

as follows: 

In the absence of information to the contrary, the authors of this paper have assumed 

that the existing budget level of the Clearinghouse ($BOK/year) is not fired, and might be increased if a strong programmatic case should be 

tnade. It further has been assumed that the percentagetnixof intramuralexpendituresforstaff 

salaries and related staff expenses and of extramural grants and contracts also is not fired. 

Again, this might be changed if a strong case 

should be made. 

Potential Initiatives for the Clearinghouse 

The framework for a special niche for the Clearinghouse, suggested in the section on potential federal research and progrant initiatives, is based in large part on the 

recognition that other federal agencies and the state and 

local government associations have a number of activities 

in the technology-based economic and business development arena. Thus, stimulating and facilitating additional 

activities by these associations and agencies would be a 

cost-effective approach to achieve the goals for the Clearinghouse stated in the legislation. 

Thii emphasis on the activities of other federal agencies and public interest associations is not an end in itself, 

merely a tneans to accomplish the Clearinghouse’s operational roles and supplement its limited resources. fn addition, stimulating and facilitating activities of others would 

permit the Clearinghouse to move tnore quickly beyond 

the initial target audience to address the needs and opportunities of nongovernmental provider organizations and 

104 
their intermediaty organizations, all in the setvice of the 

large corporations and small firms. 

The suggested niche for the Clearinghouse is organized under the same four operational roles of the federal 

government noted above. 

Strengthen Institutional Capacity 

Because of the need tomnit the initial activities of the 

Clearinghouse, the suggestions for potential federal govemment initiatives must be modified. Thus, the specific 

implications for the initial phase of the Clearinghouse 

would include the following: 

Strengthen the capacity of public interest associations to improve their assistance programs to 

members and federal agencies by providing extramural funds to support enhanced data collection, 

organization, and automation, including selected 

information on all state and local programs that 

provide information and services to technology-based small firms or that fund other institutions to do so, more detailed case examples on these 

programs and activities, and assessment studies 

where publicly available. 

Use the leadership and convening powers of the 

Clearinghouse to work with these associations to 

reduce overlap in collecting data (hut sharing information about the structure of the data sets) 

and to increase where appropriate commonality 

in selected categories of information on each 

state and local initiative to provide a mechanism 

to link information across data bases. 

Systematize and Accelerate the Development 

and DitTusion of Knowledge and Experience 

The initiatives suggested for the federal government 

under this operational role need to be adapted to the 

Clearinghouse limitations. On this basis, the implications 

for the initial phase of the Clearinghouse would include 

the following. 

Determine the availability of funds from other 

federal agencies or, if unavailable, use the Clearinghouse’s funds to support through extramural 

awards research on sources of technical and managerial information and services by technology-based small firms. 

Support through extramural awards expansion of 

existing data collection and analysis efforts related to the processesbywhich stateandlocalgovernment agency providers undertake their assistance to user firms and through which state and 

local governments support provision of assistance 

through nongovernmental provider institutions. 

Identify, document, and disseminate information 

on federal programs and activities that complement state and local government activities in this 

area (e.g., NTIS, FLC). 

Identify and Fill Gaps in this Knowledge and Experience 

The major and minor gaps outlined in the section on 

federal initiatives include references to providers of information and assistance, to be deferred to a later phase of 

the Clearinghouse’s operation. Thus, the specific implications for the initial phase of the Clearinghouse would include the following. 

n Support through extramural awards research on 

assessment methodologies appropriate for providers of information and assistance to technology-based small Pkms in order i’or state and i-i 

govetnments to improve the efficacy of their own 

assistance programs and of their programs of support to provider institutional and disseminate the 

results of such research to these governments 

through their public interest associations. 

. Initiate through extramural awards research on 

other priority gap-filling needs identified by an 

advisory mechanism (temporary or permanent) of 

representatives from the user, provider, and federal, state, and local government communities. 

Facilitate Networking 

Interagency and intergovernmental cooperation and 

coordination will contribute much to the success of the 

Clearinghouse and, at the same time, have the potential to 

minimize the Clearinghouse’s own investments. The set 

tion on federal initiatives included coordination with intermediary organizations, an activity appropriate for deferral 

to a later phase. On this basis, the specific implications for 

the Clearinghouse would include the following. 

. Convene representatives of appropriate federal 

agencies and of the state and local interest associations to exchange information on programs, activities, and contact names. 

. Foster the creation of a network of these representatives to stimulate ongoing communication 

and to facilitate referrals. 

Clearinghouse Design and Operations 

The programs and activities suggested for the Clearinghouse in thii section are relatively small in their demand for 

staff and extramural resources compared to programs and 

activities driven by substantive issues other than sources of 

information and services by technology-based smalj fms. 

Clearly, the necessity to implement the Clearinghouse in phases implies the need for flexibility in planning 

and implementing various potential program directions. 

Although driven by a broad mandate but limited funds, 

phased implementation within an overall strategic plan 

permits amending this plan as circumstances change and 

operational experience indicates a need for modifications. 

Temporaty task forces or a permanent advisoty committee 

composed of representatives of the user, provider, and 

governmental communities would ensure continued appropriateness of existing programs and priorities for potential new directions. 

Although this author would suggest that a focus on intermediaries should be part of the immediate next phase 

(in perhaps three to five years depending on resources 

made available to the Clearinghouse), it is recognized that 

many other priorities may emerge before that time. 
Summing Up 

The potential for the Clearinghouse is liiited in part 

by the resources made available to it and by a lack of understanding of the importance of some of the issues the Clearinghouse ultimately must address. One of these issues is 

the sources of technical and managerial information and 

semicm uset~by t&nno1oay-based small Yirn-6 and their experiences with these sources and with their mechanisms 

for providing such assistance. A comprehensive research 

effort in this field, a documentation of case examples, and 

a compendium of assessment efforts would assist f&ml, 

state, and 1~11 governments both as assistance providem and 

as fwiders of provider institutions. The Clearinghouse has an 

exceptional opportunity for a cost-effective strategic investment of staff and extramuml resources to make a major crmtribution ‘hi thii area that will contribute to the nation’s economic health and international competitiveness. 
Appendix A 

State R&TD-Based Business and Economic Development Strategies 

Categories of State Investment of Funds and People 

Leadership/Convening 

Development, articulation, and implementation of an 

integrated approach (e.g., Pennsybania, New York). 

Creation of state advisoty body with representatives 

from the government, academic, federal laboratoty, industry (especially small business that is 

generally underrepresented), finance, and workforce communities (e.g., Colorado). 

Creation of a research and technology development 

(R&TD) subcabiiet or interagency council (e.g., 

Colorado, Plotida, Kansas) 

Designation of an appropriate unit within the Executive Office of the Governor for continued oversight responsibibty in the implementation of the 

state’s integrated approach (e.g., Hawaii). 

Conduct of an R&TD audit to detenttine what policies 

and progmnts are in place that al&t R&ID for 

economic and business development (e.g., taxpolicies, pmcurement regulations) to this author’s 

knowledge, no state has perfomted such an audit. 

Technical and Business Information and Setvices 

Creation of a one-stop multisewice center that includes such infortnation and services on an integrated basis atnong its roles and responsibilities 

(e.g., Utah, Ohio). 

Orientation conferences or workshops in areas related to R&LID, such as proposal preparation, 

government procurement, patenting and licensing (e.g., Michigan). 

Entrepreneurship training and assistance (e.g., Pennsylvania). 

Financial Assistance 

Investment in innovative products or in technology-based small business fiis where permitted by 

state constitution; seed and startup capital to 

bridge gap between idea/prototype stage and traditional venture capital fundiig sowces (e.g., 

Colorado, Utah). 

Public pension fund participation in private venture 

capital pools and other capital formation progrants to increase availability of venture capital in 

state (e.g., Michigan) 

‘Iax policies that foster R&TD, including policies that 

promote technology-based small business firmsor 

capital formation for them (e.g., Montana). 

Statefundingprogratnsthatlcvcragcormatchfcdcral 

funds, as in SBIR bridge financing (e.g., New 

York, New Jersey) or SBIR proposal preparation 

support (e.g., Oklahoma). 

R&D Infrastructure 

Industry-university cooperative research centers, university-based advanced technology centers, and/ 

or centers of excellence, particularly with a specific technology transfer and commercialization 

component (e.g., Arizona, Washington). 

Research progrants that support individual research 

projects in universities and/or in private fimts that 

are intended to promote innovation and technoloa development (e.g., Arkansas). 

University policies that promote R&ID and cooperative research with technoloa-based firms and 

othercollaborativeorconsultingrelationshipsbetween individual researchers and such firms: 

n Tenure and promotion criteria; 

. Patent and other intellectual property tights 

policies; 

. Access to facilities, equipment, specialized 

research libraries. 

n University research foundations (e.g., Washington, Wisconsin). 

Incubator operations (e.g., Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania) 

and science parks (e.g., Arizona, North Caroliia), 

fostered or supported in whole or in part by state and 

local government, often through universities. 

107 
Appendix B 

Protocol for Telephone Survey of State R&TD Leadership 

(your state) has an array of prograras for 

R&D-based economic and business development. This 

is particularly true for assisting technology-based small 

firms. 

When -(your state) made or is making decisions 

regarding changing the mix of programs in its overall strateg, obviously it considers the programs in place. 

If a new program is to be created or an existing one 

changed or eliminated, how does your state go about deciding to do so and what to do? 

Convenes a task force or uses an existing umbrella organization representing all potentially affected institutions and sectors as well as intended usesUndertakes detailed anaIyses, poss~%Iy including surveys or interviews of potential users and of other affected communitiesReviews anecdotal evidence collected by policy board 

members and policy and program staffsFollows up on gubernatorial or legislative sense that 

“something needs to be done”- 

Works with an “idea champion” to translate an idea into 

approptite program legislation and regulationsAnalyzes programs in other states for their applic&ility and potential to address needs or capitalize on opportunitiesDoes the same approach(es) apply for level of dollars 

for a program? Yes- NoIf no, in what way is it different? For example, is 

there more analysis or less analysis? Is it more detailed 

or less detailed? 

Once a decision is made to create a new program or 

make major changes in an existing one, does the same approach apply to the program leadership as it determines 

the operating details, e.g., procedures, criteria for providing assistance? Yes- NoIf no, in what way is it different? 

108 
Protocol for Telephone Survey of Users 

As you know, federal and state governments as well as 

the private and nonprofit sectors spend a significant 

amount of money to provide technical and managerial information and services to fiis like yours. Yet, there are 

almost no studies on where technology-based small fiis 

go for this information and service. 

We know a lot about the types of providers of information and services, who they serve, and how they go about 

doing so. But without information from risers like yourself, 

we will be spending money poorly and allocating service 

people to the wrong tasks. 

The 1988 Eadeand CoqetitiventmAct mandated that 

the federal government conduct certain studies. Aspartof 

one of these efforts, I have been asked to explore where 

technology-based small firms like yours go to find technical and managerial information and services, as well as 

what their experience has been with the organizations and 

iadividuals in doing so. 

I would like to spend about 20 minutes on the phone 

with you to cover a number of questions. Can you take the 

time now or shall we reschedule the call to a more convenient time today or tomorrow/Monday? 

Fiist, I would like to ask you a few general questions 

about the firm. 

Does your firm conduct only research and technology development or are you also into production? R&ID- Prod - 

How long has the fii been in business? YearsSince - 

About how many full-time equivalent employees 

do you now have? aAre you an SBIR winner? Y- NHow many Phase Is have you won? #- 

How many Phase IIs? #- 

In what year did you win your fiist SBIR award? 

YearWhat is the fiim’s core technology area or areas? 

Now on to the details of the questionnaire. 

1. The first question is a long cme and, unfortunately, I am 

going to read you a list of 21 types of providers of technical 

and business infomation and services. You nmy want to 

get out a piece of paper and list them. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1 

Within my own firm 

Manufacturers representatives or sales presentations (specify large corporations or small firms) 

Suppliers (spec@ large corporations or small fiis) 

Customem (spe@ large corporations or small 

fms) 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20 

21, 

Competitors (specify large corporations or small 

fms) 

University/college-based engineering or business 

extension services (including SBDCs) 

University/college-based research institutes or 

centers 

University or college departments other than 

above 

Federal laboratories 

Nonprofit research institutes (e.g., Battelle, SRI) 

Federal agencies 

State or local agencies 

Trade associations, e.g., manufactming association, twl and die association 

Business associations, e.g., chamber of commerce 

Engineering or scientific societies, e.g., ASPE, 

ASME, ACS 

Professional societies 

Technical or managerial consultants 

Venture capitalists, bankers, or other financial advisors 

Accountants, lawyers, or other simiiar professioti 

Other individuals not associated with any organimtion listed above, e.g., friends, retirees 

Not applicable: have not sought this information 

or service 

Now I will read off different types of technical and 

managerial information and services you may have used. If 

you used more than one organization for one technical or 

managerial information or service, please also identify the 

one used most frequently. 

Also, please differentiate between your contacting an 

institution or organimtion as opposed to an individual you 

know or heard about who happened to be “housed” in that 

organization. 

For each of the following 18 categories of technical and 

managerial information and setices I will be reading off, 

please think about (or look over) the list of organizations you 

have heard (orwrhten down) and tell me the organization or 

organizations you have wed in the past iive yeam. 

A. Technical information and services 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Product development (new or existing) # 

from provider listManufacturing process technologies #- 

Materials #- 

Scientific advances and/or technological 

breakthroughs #- 

Other technical information or services 

@lease specify) #- 

109 
B. Managerial information and sewices 

6. Business organization and startup #- 

7. Business operations #- 

8. Finance #- 

9. Inventory wntrol #- 

10. Production #- 

11. Distriiution # - 

12. Marketing #- 

13. Exporting #- 

14. Patents and other intellectual property rights 

#- 

15. Licensing opportunities, processes, and 

matchmalcmg #- 

16. R&LID procurement opportunities and processes #- 

17. Training and retrainmg #- 

18. Other managerial i”fonnation and services 

W+4 #- 

2. The next question relates to how yoo tend to lind oul 

about the organizations or individuals from wbicb yen fi- 

“ally got the information or services yoo wanted. I will give 

yoo six possibIe answers and ask yoo to rank them. 

Agai”, how did you find out about the organizations or 

individuals which helped yo”: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

From prior experience with them #- 

From friends or business and professional co]- 

leagues, who poi”ted yo” in the right direction 

#-- 

From printed materials sent to you #- 

From electronic data bases yo” access #- 

From being sent by another provider organization 

or individual you origi”ally contacted #- 

From another source (s+ecify) #- 

If you were sent by another organization or individual, 

how many references does it tend to take to get to the organization or individual with the answer you want? #- 

4 The last two questions are short and open-ended. In 

general, do you tend to try to contact ao individual yoo 

know or heard about or an organization which yoo coosid. 

er should have the answer? Why? 

3. The next set ofquestions has to dowith yoorexperience 5. Finally, what major lesson or lessons have yoo learned 

with the ways you tend to access information and services. regarding accessing technical and managerial infonna. 

What we will be discussing is the most helpful to yoo ofthe tion and services? 

n~eans of accessing technical and managerial information 

and services. 

I will read off 10 broad approaches for accessing such 

information and services and ask yo” to detemine whether that approach is: 

Very helpful to you (V) 

Somewhat helpful (S) 

Not helpful, or (N) 

You have no opinion (X) 

The 10 broad approaches are: 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

Conferences and workshops 

Classes and seminars 

Magazines, jomnals, bulletins, handbooks, or 

other reports or publications 

Videotapes, films, television, orothervideomaterials 

Data bases directly accessed by you (inquiryIcesponse) 

Telephone or written i”quiry/response or referral 

systems 

One-on-one counseling at you firm’s site 

One-on-onecounselingoff site, i.e., at theprovider’s office or another location 

Exchange of researchers between yo”r fim and a 

university or federal laboratory 

Joint research project at a university, federal laboratory, or in another fti 

Of the - yo” rated “very helpful” (READ OFF 

LIST), please rank order them if yo” can. 

Would there be any difference in your answers between accessing information vers”s accessing sewices? 

110 
Protocol for Telephone Survey of Providers 

As you know, federal and sate. governments as well as 

the private and nonprofit sectors spend a significant 

amount of money to provide technical and managerial information and services to technology-based small business 

firms. Yet, there are almost no studies on where such fiis 

go for this information and services. 

Information regarding providers of information and 

services liie yourselves does exist, incluclmg mes of 

providers, who they serve, and how they go about doing it. 

However, this information tends to be gathered by the 

provider organizations but not aggregated or analyzed. 

‘Ike 1988 Track and Co-m Acf mandates that 

the federal government undertake several studies, including 

one for which I am developing a working paper on providem 

of technical and managerial information and services. 

ORION 1: 

Your name has been suggested to me by 

ORION 2: 

Your name has been selected because your organization is representative of one category of 

providers of technical or managerial information 

and services. 

I would like to spend about 15 minutes on the phone 

with you to cover several questions. Can we take the time 

now or shall be reschedule the call to a more convenient 

time today or tomorrow/Monday? 

First, I would like to ask you a few questions about 

~~~~ ~i~Ezii&&,i~ 

What kind of information and services does your orgap zation provide? 

How long has the organization been provklmg thii inf,ormation and services? Years- SinceHas the mix of information and services changed since 

your organization’sbegbming? Y N Ifso,inwhatway? 

About how many full-time equivalent employees do 

you now have? mAre your information and services open only to members? Y N 

Now on to the details of the questionnaire. 

1. The tirst question has to do with broad categories of 

organizations and individuals to which yew provide infw 

mation and services. Based on your cwn surveys (e.g., for 

yew own annual reports) or your impressions if such data 

is not available, what percentage of users come from the 

following 12 groups? 

I. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

I. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

Small business fiis? % -Anybreakdownbetweet technoloB-based small fms and others? 

Large corporations? %- 

Universities and colleges? %- 

Federal laboratories? %- 

Nonprofit research institutes? %- 

Federal agencies? % 

State or local agencies? %- 

Trade or business associations? % 

Engineering, scientific, or professional societies? 

%- 

‘I&hnical or managerial consultants; venture capitalists, bankers, or other financial advisors; accountants, lawyers, or other similar professionals? %- 

Foreign organizations and individuals? %- 

Other individuals not associated with any organization liited above? %- 

2. The next set of questions relates to the types of information and services your organization provides. For each 

of the following 18 categories of technical and managwial 

information and services I will be reading off, please state 

whether your organization provides them. 

A. Technical information and services 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

cod;$t development (new or existing) 

’ -‘.- 

Manufacturing process technologies 

Y N 

Materials 

Y -- N 

Scientific advances and/or technological 

P%-as -- 

Other technical information and services 

(please speciQ) 

Y N -- 

B. Managerial information and services 

6. Business organization and startup 

Y N -- 

7. Business operations 

Y N 

8. Finance 

Y--N9. Inventory control 

Y.--N-- 

10. Production 

Y N -- 

11. Distriiution 

Y N -- 

111 
12. Marketing 

Y N 

13. Exporting -7 F.r 1 -I”-.- 

14. Patents and other intellectual property rights 

Y N -- 

15. Licensing opportunities, processes, and 

matchmaking 

Y N 

16. R&TD procurement opportunities and processes 

v ?.l 

17. Training and retraining 

Y N -- 

18. Other managerial information and services 

(please specify) 

Y N -- 

Of the -categories you noted (READ OFFLIST), 

please rank order the top three most often requested by 

technolog-based small fiis? 

3. Next, I would like to inquire about the approaches 

you use to provide information and services. 1 will read 

off 10 broad approaches and ask you to identify which 

O”l3 yo” “se. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Conference and workshops 

Classes and seminars 

Magazines, journals, bulletins, handbooks, or 

other printed materials 

Videotapes,fibns, television, orothervideomaterials 

Data bases directly accessed by some outside individual or organization 

Telephone response to an outside inquiT, in&ding referrals 

I. 

8. 

9. 

One-on-one counseling off site, i.e., at a fim?s 

site or another location 

One-on-one counseling at your office 

Exchange of researchers between your organi=- 

tion and a firm 

10. Joint research project at your organization, a university, a federal lab, or in a private firm. 

Which of these 10 broad approaches do you believe 

are most helpful to technolom-based small businessfims? 

Of the ~ approaches you use (READ OFF 

LIST), please rank order them if you can in terms of freqaency of use. 

(FOR ORGANIZATION PROVIDING BOTH INFORMATION AND SERVICES) Would there be any difference in your answer between accessing information and 

accessing sewices? 

4. Does your organization respond exclusively to inqui. 

Ties or a0y0u also proactive\y se&individua\s and organimtions which can use the information and services you 

provide? Reactive -Proactive - 

(FOR MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION) What 

&x of marketing approaches do you use to elicit n~ore requests for information or services from your members? 

From nonmembers? 

5. Finally, what major lesson or lessons have you learned 

regarding the provision of infommtion and services to 

technolowbased small firms? 

112 
State government agencies 

Local government agencies 

Trade associations 

Scientific/engineering societies 

Academic-based technical assistance centers 

Academic-based business assistance centers 

Appendix E 

Categories of Provider Institutions Surveyed 

Academic-based research and technolom development 

centers 

Manufacturing technolofl centers 

NASA centers 

Federal laboratories 

References 

Numbers in the text refer to the numbers associated with the sources listed below. 

(1) AL-S, Zoltan I., and David B. Audretsch. “Innovation, Market Share, and Finn Size.” The Review of Economics and 

Shdks. November 1987. 

(2) Atkinson, Robert D. State Pmgmms for 7kchnolo~ Development-A Summmy artd Skzfe-by&& Ltidng. Washington, DC? National Association of State Development 

Agencies, April 19&X. 

(3) Bailey, Robert E., Linda E. Cooper, and Karen L Kramer, 

“The Ohio Technology Transfer Organization, OlT0 An 

Expxtment in Academia A&sting Business.” .&nxd of 

Echn&gY i-run&T. spring 1965. 

(4) Bingham, Richard D., Brett W. Hawkins, John P Frendreis, and Mary F! LeBlanc. “The Role of professional Associates in Teihnology Transfer.” Journal of Technology 

T&mj=er. Fall 1979. 

(5) Birch, David L, and Susan J. MacCracken. TheRolePlayed 

by High Technology Firms in Job Creation. 1984. 

(6) Boesman, William C. Government Pu~en~ P&y; 7he Own+ 

ership of Invendom Rz.wMngf?om FedemJly-Funded R&D 

@sue Brief). Washin@on, DC Science Policy Research 

Division, Congressional Research Service Updated July 9, 

1965. 

(7) CaliforniaCommission on Industrial Innovation. S&te Activiba to Encoumge Technologiml Innovation: An Update. 

Prepared for the National Governors’ Asxciation, Tak 

Force on Technological Innovation. February 1982. 

(8) Clarke, Marianne C. ~i~u/izi~?gS~u~e~conom~~~A~i~ 

of State Economic Development Po/icies and Pmgmmx 

Washington, DC National Govemo~~’ Association, Center for Policy Research and Analysis. 1986. 

(9) State-Supporied SBIRProgmmsandRelated .Skz~e Technology Pmgmms. Washington, DC National Governon’ Ass* 

ciation,CenterforPoliqResearch and Analysis. February 

1966. 

(10) Cohen, Stephen S., and John Zpman. ~~&~~~wing,%4u~- 

km The ?vfyth of he Fbst-Jnduwial Economy. New York 

Basic Books. 1987. 

(11) Committee for EconomicDevelopment. Modernizing State 

Govemmen~. New York 1967. 

(12) Committee for Fjzonomic Development, Research and 

Policy Committee. To//ofthe TwinDeficit~(Advance Copy). 

New York 1987. 

(13) Corporate Technology Information Services, Inc. (CarpTech). Discussion by author with senior representative of 

firm. 1988. 

(14) Corpxation for Enterprise Development. ,&king the 

Gmde: The Development Repoti Card for the Sha.v, Washington, DC: March 1988. 

(15) Council of Economic Advisors. Economic Repoti of the 

F’resident, 1989. Februav 1989. 

(16) Council of State Governments. Powerto the Sk&s, Mobi/izing Public Technology. Lexington, Kentucky: 1972. 

(17) CUmcil of State Policy and Planning Agencies, P&y Developmen~andPlanningin State Government: To&forGovemors in the 8Ok (unpublished manuscript: working title). 

Washington, DC June 19%. 

(18) Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies, State Scanning Netuork. “Forc&l Economic Crosscurrents: Realities, Myths, Potentials.“Reporz to the Govemo~. Number 2 

Washington, DC 1965. 

(19) Crawford, Mark. “R&D Suffers after Corporate Raids.” 

Science. February 17, 1989. 

(20) Creighton, J.W., J.A. Jolly, C.L Bailey, and R.A. Blanchette. Technolo~ Tnzmfer Concepts wide Suppwiing Abs@uc& Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Naval Material Command, Naval Postgraduate School. 1984. 

(21) Cyert, R.M., and D.C. Mow-y, eds. Technologq and Employment: Innovation and Gmwh in the US. Economy. 

Washington, DC National Academy Press, 1987. 

(22) Delabux & Associates, Inc Federal Lubomtory Consortium, 198839. 19@. 

(23) Denison, Edward I? lV/ly Gmw#z RukrDifler. Washington, 

DC The Bro&ings Institution. 1967. 

(24) Edwards, Keith L, and The&ore J. Gordon. Chamcwization of Innovations IMmduced ott dw U.S. Mada? in 1982. 

Washington, DC The Futures Group. March 1984. 

(25) Entingh, Daniel J., Clinton J. Andrem, Deepak C. Kenkeremath, John E. Mock, and I! Timothy Janis. Guidebook 

fir Technology Tiwwfer Managers Moving Public R&D to 0~ 

hfarketplace. Meridian CoqwrationlLlS Department of 

Energy/Indianapolis Center for Applied Research. June 

1987. 

(26) Federal Council for Science and Technology, Committee 

on Intergovernmental Science Relations. Public Technolo0, a Tool for Solv;ng NU~VXZ/ Pmblems. Washington, DC: 

May 1972. 

113 
(27) Federal Labaratov Consortium for Technology Transfer. 

ActivitiesoftheFedeml Labomtory Conso~;~~f~~T~~h~~l~- 

0 Tmn$er. Washington, DC April lPt?& 

c-w Activities and Accomplishments of the Federal 

Laburatory Comotiium for Technoiqy T~sfwPwsumt to 

fhe Federal Technology Tmn$er Act of 19%. Washington, 

DCz June 1989. 

(‘29) Federal prccwement Data System. An unpublished 

197P-lPg6datap~~toutofsumma~totalsby~t~t~offederal ccmtmct actions awarded over $lO,OD% 

(30) Feller, Irwin. “Evaluating State Advanced Technology F’Egrams.” Ev&ation Review (forthcoming). 

(31) “Science and Technology in State and Cal 

Governments: problems and Oppahmities.” TheFive-Kw 

Outlook: PmbIems, Opportunities and Cotwtmints in Science 

and Technoloa, Volume II. Washington, DC National Science Foundation. 1980. 

(32) The Role of the Fed& Government in the Impmved Use of Science and Techncdo&v at the State and Local 

Leve/x University Park Pennsylvania State University. July 

1979. 

(33) Finan, William E, Perry D. Quick, and Karen M. Sandberg. 

The U.S. Trade R&ion in High Technology: 1980-1986. 

Quick, Finan 8~ Associates, Inc. October 1986. 

(34) Fusfeld, Herbert I. “Corporate Restructuring: What Impact o” U.S. Industrial Research?” Rexcuch Manugement. 

July/August 1987. 

(35) Gellman Research Assc&tes, Inc. The Relationship be 

tweet IndwttiaI Corzcenfmtion, Finn Six, and Techrwlogical 

Innovation. May 1982. 

(36) Gollub, James O., James R. King, Roger M&k, and Ste 

ven A. Waldhom. Incraxing the CapacityforState Governments to Accew and Use of Scientific, En&wing, and Technick Resourcex SRI International. January 1979. 

(37) Govemment~Unive~i~-Indust~ Research Roundtahle. 

State Government Stmtegia for S~If-A.rse.wment of Science 

and Techrwlo~ Pmgrarns for Economic DeveIopment 

(Workshop Report). Washington, DCz National Academy 

Fvess. 1967. 

(38) Grant Thornton. Ninth AnnuaI Grant Thornton Manufach&g Chatm Study. Chicago: July 1968. 

(39) Hansen, John A., James I. Stein, Thomas S. Moore. Indw 

triaI Innovation in the United StatexA Survey of Six Hundzd 

Companies. Boston: Baton University, Center for Technology and Policy. August 1984. 

(a) Jolly, James A., J.W. Creighton, and I?A. George. Technology T&r Pmces .?4odeI ~dAnnol&d Se&ted Bibliogmphy. Naval Aviation Executive Institite, Naval Postgraduate School. August 1978. 

(41) Jones, Beverly. State TechnoIoa Pmgmm.s in the United 

States. St. Pauk Governor’s Office of Science and Technology, Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Dexlopment. September 1966. 

(42) Kamien, Morton I., and NancyL Schwartz. “Market Stmcv 

ture and Innovation: A Suvey.” 77?e Journal of Economic 

Litemtum. March 1975. 

(43) Kelly, Edward ‘IY “Knowledge Sharing: Background Context.” Wo&ing Paper on Knowledge Shting. Washington, 

DC October lPg6. 

(4‘9 Snd Bminess Innovation Raeaxh Pmgmm 

(Fact Sheit). Small Business High Technology Institute, 

April 1967. 

(45) - “Technology Transfer and the Eizonomy.” Pmceedings of the 12th AmuuJ Meeting and International Symp&urn-June 23.25, 1987. Technology Transfer SC&$ 

lP%l. 

cw - and .%@A. Rc& Cowun~ialia&nStratqies 

for High %npemtu!s? Supemxductors: Fedeml Pmgmms 

cmd Appmaches to Technolqy Tmmfer. Prepared for the 

US. Office of Technology Assessment, Industry, Technology, and Employment Division. Washington, DC January 

1988. 

(47) Knight, Jerry. ‘Are LBOs Really Good for Us? Some Aademics Question KKR’s Claims.” 7he Wahington Poxt, 

May 30, 1989. 

(48) L,ink, Albert N., and Barry Boaman. Fim~SizandInnova~ 

five Activiv; A Fufher Eramination. September 1987. 

(49) Machinery and Allied Products Institute. 77ze Industry 

R&D and Technolo&y Resource Dbzctory. Washington, DC 

December 1966. 

(50) Male&i, Edward J. “High Technology and Cal Ecmomic Development.” Journal of the Americmz Pkmning&ociation. Spring 19&t. 

(51) “R&D and High Technology: Realizing the Potential for 

Lccal Fxonomic Development.” Economic ~elopment 

commentaly. spring 1967. 

(52) Mansfield, Edwin, Anthony Romeo, Mark Schwartz, 

David Tm, Samuel Wagner, and Peter Brach. Tec~v~o/ogy 

Tmmfq Pmductiviv, Economic &/icy. New York W.W. 

Norton and Company. 1982. 

(53) Menitield, D. Bruce. “R&D Limited Partnerships we 

Starting to Bridge the Innovation-Translation Gap.” &- 

semch Management. May/June 1986. 

(54) National Action Conference on Intergovernmental Science and Technology Policy. Action Now: PartnenhipsPutting Technolo~ to Worfc. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Office of Science and Technology. 1972. 

(55) National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Technology Issues that Impact International Competitiveness. 

The Technologiial Dimensions of International Coqetitivenen. Washington, DC 1988. 

(56) National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Off& of 

Commercial Programs, Technology Utilization Division. 

Spin& Washington, DC 1987. 

(57) National Commission on Jobs and Small Business. Making 

Am&a Wok Again: Jobs, Small Bwineq and the In?ema* 

timal Ch&nge. Washington, DC: 1967. 

(58) National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research. A Stue of Cunwrt State Technology Extension Ser. 

vices. Washington, DC: 1969. 

(59) - Center for Policy Research. Operating II Slate 

Competitive Resemch Gmnt Pmgmm: Uwx Guide and Rexw+ze Man&. Washington, DC 1989. 

6’3) - Center for Policy Research. Making Am&u 

Wok: Pmductive People, Pmduc?ive Policies. 1987. 

651) - Task Force on Technological Innovation. Te& 

nolo~ and Gmwh: State Initiatives in Tech~~ok~g!cal Innovation Washington, DC October 1983. 

W - Task Force on Technological Innovation. Technology and Gmwth: State In;ti&ives in Technological Innovation, Append& 1963. 

114 
(63) National Science Board. Science Indicatorsl7k 1985 Re 

poti. Washington, DC Novemba 1965 

6‘9 A Science and Engiiwing Indicator-1987. 

Washington, DC November 1987. 

(65) National Science Foundation. Federal Funds for Resawch 

and Development. Washington, DC various tiscal yea-s. 

656) A National Partems of Science and Technoiogv Resxrw, 1987. Washington, DCz 1988 

m - Science and Technology Raearch Cenkrs (Program Solicitation, Fiscal Year 1988.) Washington, DC 

1987. 

@I - Twwf.s in Snuzll Companies’ R&D L$endi~ums. 

Washington, DC June 1984. 

(69) - Directorate for Engineering. En-iiwing Reseaxh CuzWr: Cenkrsfor Cmss-Dtkiplimny Raaich in Eng&wing (Program Announcement, Fiscal Year 1988). 

Washington, DC 1987. 

(70) - Directorate for Engineering. Indu.sQWnive&y 

Coopemtive Reawch CentuPmgmm (Program Announcement). Washington, DC 1986. 

(71) Office of Management and Budget. 7he Budget fir Fiscal 

Year 1989: Special Anolysa and Historical Tables. 19EE. 

(72) Oft& ofScience and Technology, Minnesota Department 

of Trade and Economic Development. St&z Technology 

Pmprm in the United Skzta I988 St. Paul: July 1988. 

(73) Olson, Kenneth C. 7?re .S&@ Governors, andPoliqManegemen~. Washington, DC: National Govemo& Conference, Center for Policy Research and Analysh. July 1975. 

(74) Palmintera, Diane, and Sally A. Rood. Impmving Local 

Economies thmugh Technology Tramfer. Washington, DC 

U.S. Conference of Mayo& Research and Education 

Foundation. October 1988. 

(75) P.&z, Michael, and Marc A. Weiss. “State and L.cal Government Roles in Industrial Innovation.” Journal of the 

American Pknning Axsociation. Swtmw 1964. 

(76) Pennsylvania Department of Commerce. Advanced Technologv Policies for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Harrisbwg: December 1985. 

(77) Peters, L&S., and Herbert I. Fusfeld. Reseunh and Dew+ 

opm& Limited Ptinerships (RDLPs) and Their SignifycanceforInnova~ion. New York New York University, Center for Science and Technology Policy, April 1986. 

(78) Phelps, Paul B. Cen&-mofExce/knce:A CatuIogue. St. Pauk 

Office ofScience and Technology, Minnesota Department 

of Energy and Economic Development. Janwuy 1988. 

(79) President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. 

G/obaI CornpeWon: 7k New RewJify (Volumes I and II). 

Janualy 1985. 

(80) Rahm, Dianne. Cooperative R&L? Fed& Eflotis to Enhance US Inkma~ional Comp&ivene.w rhmugh Encouragement of Domestic Cwpemtion. Presentation at the Fiftieth 

National Conference of the American Society for Public 

Administration, Miami, Florida. April 1989. 

(81) Rees, John. Indu.rtv Expedience with Technology Research 

Cenws (T’reliminaq Draft). Greensboro: Univmsity of 

North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Geography. 

January 1989. 

(82) Riche, Richard W., Daniel E. Hecker, and John U. Burgan. 

“High Technology Today and Tomorrow A Small Slice of 

the Employment Pie.” Monthly Labor Review, November 

1983. 

(83) Rood, Sally A., and Edward T Kelly. Review and Comparison of Clearinghouse-Typ Inhiativex Implication for the 

Cleatinghouse for Sk& and Local Ini&ivm on Pmductiviv, 

Technology, and Innovation at the US. Department of Cornmere. Prepared for the Advisory Commission on Intergovemmental Relations. Washington, DC August 1989. 

(84) Rosenfeld, Stuart A. Ana~s~ofEme~ngIssiies: Sowingthe 

See&for Gmwth-St& Suppmi forR&D in the South. Atlanta: Southern Growth Policies Board, December 1985. 

(85) Sabato, Larry. Goodbye to Good-Time Chtiie: The Am& 

can Governor Tmn$onned, 1950-1975. Lexington, Massachusetts: DC. Heath, Lzxington Books, 1978. 

(86) Schacht, Wendy H. Industtial Innovation: The Debate Over 

Govemmen~ P&y (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Library 

of Congxxs, Congressional Research Sewice, Science 

P&q Research Division. Updated Augw 22, 1984. 

@V Technology Tmmfer SWeand Local Govemmem 

Application of the Rtx& of Federally Funded Research and 

Development (Issue Brief). Washington, DC Library of 

Congress, Congressional Research Service, Science Policy 

Research Division. Updaed September 12, 1983. 

(88) -. TechncJoo Tmmfer Utilization of FederuUy 

Funded Research and Development (Issue Brief). Wahington, DC: Libray ofcongress, Congressional Research Service, Science Policy Research Division. Updated April 14, 

1988. 

(89) Scheiw, Mary Ann, Veronica E Nieva, Gregory H. Gaertner, Paul D. Newman, and Vivian E Ramsey. Innovation 

and Entqmise: A .%udy of NSF’s Inflowlion Centers Pmgram. ~eparedforNationalScien~Foundation. Washington, DC: Decemba 1985 

(90) Scheirer, William K. Smal/ Finns and Fedend R&D. Prepared for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office 

of Management and Budget. 1977. 

(91) Southern Technology Council. Regional Science and Tech 

nology Ce&rs of Excellence: A Pmpomf for S’Wengthening 

Research and Technology T&rin ?lze South. Atlanta: SepternhI 1987. 

(92) State Technology Deveioprnen~ Pmgmms in the 

South. Atid& 1987. 

(93) SRI International. Chan@i~g l&vs of Economic Developmew. Lwe Paper for Seminar on Economic Revitalization 

and Technological Change at the Regional and State Levels. Jaruaty 1984. 

(94) Innovations in Indus0ial CompeWveness at die Skxfe Level. 

Prepared for President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. October 1984. 

(95) Study Committee on Policy Management Assistance. 

Sheng~hening Public Management in the Inmgovemmen~al 

System. Prepared for Office of Management and Budget, 

Executive Office of the President. 1975. 

(96) Swanson, David H. “Iowa Manufacturers Repa’t Technology and Research Needs.” Management Guide. Ames: Iowa 

State University, Center for Industrial Research and Services, October 1984. 

(97) The State of Small Business: A Reporl of lhe Pzsident (lndividual Annual Reports on Small Business and Competition, 1983 through 1989). 

(98) The Urban Institute. Dirxxhwy of Incen~ivesfor Business Inv&mew and Development in the Unikd .S~u@s, A 

State-by-Slate Guide. Washington, DC 1986. 

115 

I 
(99) The White House. “Faci~i~a~i,?gAcce~~ to Science mjd Tech- 

“&& (Executive Order 12591). April 10, 1987. 

(100) “Implementing the President’s Policy of Addressing State 

and Local Needs in Federal R&D Activities.” (Memorandum to Heads of Departments and Agencies from OMB/ 

OSTP/The White House.) May 1980. 

(101) The Science and Technology Message of the President. 

Transmitted to Congress in March 1979. 

(102) Thurow, Lester C. “A Weakness in Process Technology.” 

Science. December 18, 1967. 

(103) Tibbetts, Roland. Slaying Compelhive by Stitmdafing the 

Founding and Growth of Small High-Technology Firms 

Presented at the Second International Technical Innomtion and Entrepreneurship Symposium, Birmingham, England. September 1987. 

(104) U.S. Congress. Federal 7kchnoloa TwsferAct of 1986 (?L 

99.502). October m, 1986. 

(105) National Coopemtive F&xaxh Act of 1984 (PL98.462). October 11, 1984. 

(106) Omnibus Tmde and Compe&iveness Act of 1988 (PL 

100-418). Aug”st 23, 1988. 

(107) Skwemon-Wydler 7kchnology Intzovakwi Act of 1980 (PL 

96.480). October 21, 1980. 

(108) Tmdemark C/an$ica~iofz Act of 1984 (l’L 98.620). July 1, 

1984. 

(109) Uniwsily and Small Business Patent Pmceduru Act of 1980 

(PL 96-517). 1980. 

(110) Congressional Budget Office. Using Fedend R&D to Pmmok Cornme&/ Innovation. April 1988. 

(111) Congressional Budget Of&. Federal Financial Supportfor 

High 7?chrzo/og+ Irzdur~!iex June 1985 

(112) General Accounting Off&. Fe=demlAgerkesAcksz.r to Implenwnt Section 11 of the S&wenwz-Wydkr Technoiogv lnnovation Act of 1980. March 14, 1984. 

(113) General Accounting Oftice. Technoloa Tmnsjk Zmplementaiion Status of the Federal Technology Trarqfer Aci of 

1986 (draft copy). May 1989. 

(114) House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology. Technology P&y and Its Effect on the Nat;o”al Economy (Committee Report). October 19, 1988. 

(115) Joint Economic Committee. ‘Tke Economy at Midyear A 

Legacy ojDebt. Augut 5, 1987. 

(116) Office of Technology Assessment. Technology, innovation, 

and Regional Economic Development: Census of St& Govemmen~ Initiatives for High-T&no&y Indurttial Develop- 

“lent (Background Paper). May 1983. 

(117) Technolo~, Innovation, ud Regional Economic 

Developmeu~: Encoumging High-Technology Dtw~opment 

(Background Paper #2). Februq 1984. 

(119) U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development 

Administration. Conneclivg Rural Economks: Strategiesfor 

Coping with Weskw Rum/ Economic Development Issues. 

November 1988. 

(120) International Trade Administration. AuA&wmenl of US. 

Conipe~i~ivewes in High Technolo~ lndustks. Februav 

1983. 

(121) National Technical Information Sew&. DimctoryofFederaland Stale BusirwsAssiskznce 1988-1989, A GuideforNcw 

and Gmwing Companies. May 1988. 

w-9 Directou of Fedeml Labomtory and Technolo~ 

Resowce~~988-1989, A Guide to Services, Facilhies, and&- 

per&?. January 1988. 

w3 - Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology. Anmul Repoti ofActivities for 1986. 1987. 

(124) - Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology. New Sources of Vabmble US, Govemmerrt Technologk 

and Asis~ance. Fehmary 1987. 

(125) - Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology. Unpublished 1989 data printout on categories ofNTIS 

c”sto”lers 

(126) Office of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation. Coopemfive R&Ll Co”soi+a: Kq Issues. December 4, 1987. 

(127) US Department of Energy, Research & Development 

Laboratov Technology Transfer Program. Teci~“olo~ %6 

(Annual Report). January 1987. 

(128) US. Small Business Administration. .%“a// Buk?es it! the 

Ame&m Economy: Cornpa&,, Report to /he State of SmoJ/ 

Bwiness (Fact Sheet). Washington, DC November 18, 

1988. 

(129) Wad&g Togedler A Guide ro Federal and State 

Resou~tx&r Rural Economic Developme~~t. July 1988. 

(130) - Office of Advocacy. Inuova~ion in SmaU Fimw. 

(&sue Alert #8 for the White House Conference on Small 

Business.) Washington, DC July 1986. 

(131) .Qak Activiiies irt ti&ure Capikd, Eady-Stage Fi- 

“an&g, and Secondq Ma~iws. Washington, DC May 

1984. 

(132) The Slam and Small Business: Pmgmms and Activities. Washington, DC: October 1983. 

(133) Office of Innovation, Research, and Technology. First kzr Rewlts under the Small Bminess lrmovakw 

Development Act of 1982. Washington, DC: Febmary 21, 

1984. 

(134) Small Busimss Immvotion Development Act: 

Fifih Year’Resu/k Washington, DC June 1988. 

(135) Watkins, Charles B. Pmgmms forlwovo~ive Tech~~olo~Reseaxh in State Swakgies for Economic Developnxr~t. National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Resewch 

and Analysis. December 1985. 

(136) State Pmgmms to Encourage the Commerciakation of Innova& Txhno/ogy Washington, DC: National 

Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research and 

Analysis, December 1985. 

(137) We%, William G., Jr., and Mary E. Morrison. Pamwrship~ 

fordIe 198OxA11 Overview ofl~~~e~oven~i~~e~~~a~ Science and 

Tech”&@ (Conference Report). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. June 

1981. 

(138) Wolff, M.E “As Battelle Sees Merger/Acquisition Impact.” 

Rwarcl~ Managemenf. March/April 1987. 

(139) Wyckoff, Andrew W.. and Louis G. Tomatzky. St&?-Level 

Effom to Tmmfw Mcuwfactwing Techuo/o~: A Surwy of 

Pmgrams and Practices. July 1986. 

(140) Young. John A. “Technology and Competitiveness: A Key 

tothe EconomicFuture ofthc UnitedStates.“Sciellce.luly 

15, 1988. 

116 
Guides 
TO PROMOTE AMERICAN BUSINESS 

PRODUCIlVITY, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION 

A GUIDE TO DIRJWTORIES 

Providing Information on Federal, State, and Local Initiatives 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Pmductivity, Technobgy, and Innovation 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

118 
To Promote American Business 

The Omnibus Trade and CompetitivenessAc~ of 1988 established the Clearinghouse for State and L.ocal Initiatives 

on productivity, Technology, and Innovation withii the 

U.S. Department of Commerce. The primary mission of 

the Clearinghouse is to enhance nationwide awareness 

and use of the many federal, state, and local initiatives that 

seek to bolster the competitiveness of American businesses in world markets. 

‘Ike Department of Commerce entered into an agreement with the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to develop a feas&le and effective operating plan for the Clearinghouse. The plan recognizes that 

a great deal of activity is under way to assist in promoting 

and adopting federal, state, and local initiatives to enhance 

the productivity, technology, and innovation of American 

businesses. Therefore, the Clearinghouse has been designed to reinforce these efforts rather than to replace or 

duplicate them. 

Thii booklet is one in a series of three Guides being 

distriioted by the Clearinghouse to acquaint users with 

the variety of resources available-including national 

clearinghouses that provide information and assistance on 

productivity improvement, technoloa transfer, and business innovation-and to encourage widespread contacts 

among organizations and eqerts in these fields. 

Comments and suggestions for improving the goidebook?-or about other Clearinghoose activities-are welcome. In addition to these guidebooks and other information 

semi- the Clearinghouse intends to provide policy analysk 

to help fedeml, state, and local policymakers identify and implement the most effective initiatives to stimulate business 

productivity, technological advance, and innovation. 

Inquiries should be directed as follows: 

By phone: (202) 377-0826 or 377-2922 

By mails Clearinghouse for State and Lccal 

Initiatives on Productivity, l&hnology, 

and Innovation 

Technology Adminiitration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

How to Use This Guide 

This guide summarizes 19 diiectories of progmms and 

initiatives undertaken by federal, state, and lwal governmerits to stimulate business competitivenw. ‘Ihe directoxies 

vary considerably in the type of information and amount of 

detail provided. ‘Ihe guide includes directories that (1) focus 

exclusively on programs and resources that promote tshnolow-based development; (2) emphasize a single type of business assistance, such as linancial aid; (3) list development resouses available at universitiq and (4) provide state-bystate listings of small business ass&mc=e programs. 

The directoties are grouped into two broad categories-technolom, research, and development; and general business and economic development. A summary of 

each diiectov describes the type and extent of information 

provide@ directory fomat; and cost and contact information. 

Key Directory Features. A table following thii section provides quick reference to the type of information in each directory. Specifically, the table identifies diiectoxies of 

state programs involving: 

near a university to help link university and private 

fims’ research activities. 

Seed Capi& Financing-early stage fiiancing for 

promisimg new and developing technological and innovative firms. 

0th Fming Assistance-loans, royally agreements, 

tax credits, and other fiicing mechanisn% to promote 

the development of new and innovative businesses. 

Incubators-facilities that nurture entrepreneurship 

by providing managerial, technical, and secretaxial 

support to start-up firms. 

FVo&er Training-programs that provide customized 

training. 

Business ,4.wizunce-programs of general assistance, 

such as management counseling, accounting, and legal advice. 

TechnoZog~ hsistuzce-information and specialized 

services that focus on problems managers face in developing and implementing new technologies, such as 

patent and legal information, invention evaluation, 

and product testing. 

Qorz ~sitiuflce-programs that promote international trade capabilities of in-state fiis, such as export fiiancing, international market research, and 

trade advice. 

Technolqy Research Centers-facilities that focus on a Cux Studies-analysis of selected state programs. 

particular area of research, generally liiked with a 

university and/or a major state indostfy. The table also indicates directories that provide information on federal resources and local initiatives, and highResearch Pmb-cluster of businesses often located light business promotion activities by other countries. 

119 
Contents 

‘@pes of Ioformaticm Provided (Table) .................................................................. 

D~ecto~es .......................................................................................... 

Te~nolo~,Resea~b,andDevelopment ............................................................ 

Centers of Excellence: A Catalogue ............................................................ 

Directory of Federal and State Business Assistance: A Guide for New and Growing Companies 

19w19a9 ................................................................................ 

Directoq of Federal Laboratory and ‘lkchnology Resources 1986-1987: 

A Guide to Services, Facilities, and Expertise ................................................ 

Directoq of Incentives for Business Investment and Development in the United States: 

A State-by-State Guide .................................................................... 

The Industrial R&D and Technology Resource Directoq .......................................... 

Promoting Technological Excellence: The Role of State and Federal Extension Activities ............. 

State-Funded Seed Capital Programs Available for New ‘kchnology-Based Ventures ................. 

State Technology Development Programs: A Summary and State-by-State Listing .................... 

State Technology F’rograms in the United States ................................................. 

‘Ripping Federal Laboratories and Universities to Improve Local Economies: 

~eRoleoftheMayorandCi~Govemment ................................................ 

Technology-Based Regional Economic Development: An Overview. ................................ 

Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development .................................... 

General Business and Ikooomic Development ....................................................... 

Capital Formation in the States ................................................................ 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance ......................................................... 

Directory of Economic Development Programs at State Colleges and Universities ................... 

The Guide to State and Federal Resources for Economic Development ............................. 

The Small Business Resource Guide ............................................................ 

The States and Small Business: A Directov of Programs and Activities ............................. 

Working ‘Ibgether: A Guide to Federal and State Resources for Rural Economic Development ........ 

121 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

123 

123 

123 

124 

124 

124 

125 

125 

125 

125 

126 

126 

126 

126 

127 

127 

120 
‘Apes of Information Provided 

Dir&o&s 

Sk& Programs 

TechnoIoby Assistance 

Technology Research Centers 

Research Parks 

Seed Capital Fiiancing 

Other Fi”anci”g Programs 

Incubator FaciIities 

Worker Trai”i”g 

Business Assistance 

Ezqort Assistance 

Case Studies 

Description of Federal Resources 

Local IniCaCves 

DescripCon of Foreign 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 

* ** 

** ** 

* * 

* ** 

* *SC 

* * 

* ** 

* * 

* * 

* 

* * * * 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

8. 

Directories 

Centers ofEm?lhce: A Catalogue (National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and LFW Management Associates, 

Inc., 1988) 

Dimclay of Federal and Stale Businas Assistance: A Guide for 

New and Gmwing Campunk (Center for Utilization of Federal Technology, National Technical lnfommtion Service, 

U.S. Depamnent of Commerce, 1988) 

Dkcfory of Fedeml Labomtwies and T?chnoloa Remwces 

1986.1987: A Guide to Sewicq FaciIitia and Expeviise (Centerfor Utilizationof FederalTechnology, NationalTechnical 

Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 19%) 

Dizctmy of Incentivcrfor Businexv Investment and Da&pnvmt (National Association of State Development Agencies, 

1986) 

IndusttialResewchand Developmentand TechnoIo~Rtxwce 

Directory (Machinery and Allied Products Institute, 19%3) 

Pmmofing Techrwlo&l ErceIlence: The Role of State and 

Fedend Ertcnsion Activitia (National Institute of Standards 

and Technology and the National Governors’ Awciation, 

1989) 

Stale-Funded Seed Capitol Pmgmms Availabk ForNew Tabno&y-Bawd V&?fu~ (LFW Management Associates,Inc, 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administmtioo, 

1989) 

State Technology DeveIopmen~ Pmgmmx A Summaiy and 

Sfufe-by&&? Lhting (h’ational Association of State Dew+ 

opment Agencies, 1988) 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

16. 

19. 

** ** * 

** ** * 

** ** 

,** *** * 

** *** * * * * 

** * * 

** ** * * 

** ** * *** 

* * * * * 

* * 

* *** * * 

* * * 

* 

Sufe Technology Pmgmrm in t/v? US. (Office of Science and 

Technology, Department of Trade and Economic Development, State of Minnesota, 1988) 

Typing Federal Labomtotia and Universities to Impmve Locd Economic: The Role of the Mayor and City Government 

(U.S. Conference of Mayors and the U.S. Economic Development Administration, 1988) 

Technology-Bared Ki?giomd Economic DeveIopment: An Overview (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institote, 1988) 

Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development 

(U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, 1984) 

CapitaIFomnxtion in the Saztu(US. Small Business Administration, 19&3) 

CumJog of Federal Lkmesfic Astitance (Oftice of Management and Budget and the U.S. General Setices Administmtion, annual) 

Db-ecrcq of Economic Development Pmgmms at State Co/- 

/ege.v and CIniversitiu (American Association of State Calleges and Universities, 1968) 

The Guide to State and Fedeml Rmm~for Economic DewIopment (Northeast-Midwst Institute, 1988) 

77~ Snwz0 Bu.rines Resoume Guide (AT&T and the U.S. 

Small Business Administration, 1988) 

77~ Smf@ and Sma!/ Busk.w (U.S. Small Business Administration, 1989) 

Working Together A Guide to Federal and Slate Rzmwces for 

Ruml Economic Dev&pment (U.S. Small Business Administration and Southvxstem Bell, 1988) 

121 
Directories 

Technology, Research, and Development 

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE A CATALOGUE 

la!4 pages, 1966 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Aemoautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

and LFW Management, Inc. 

l)pe of Information 

Summary information on stateluni~~i~lindust~ research and development ccnta-s. 

Extent of coverage 

Information oo R&D centas for each state includes nanc 

of the statewide ccadinator. Information for jointly funded 

R&D czntcm ixhxdes d+ztm’s name and amtact information, rcscarch focus, year cstablishcd, budget information, and private industry paiicipatin. 

Directory Fomnt 

R&D ce”tem arranged by state 

No index. 

cost 

FX% 

contact 

Technology Utilization Division 

NASA Headquartem-Me CLI 

600 Indepcndcnce Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20% 

(202) 4.53-a377 

DlRECTORY OF FEDERAL AND STATE B”SNESS ASSISTANCEz 

A G”IDE FOR NEW AND GROWNG COMPANIES 1988-1989 

170 page,, 19gS 

Sponsoring Organization 

Center for Utilization of Federal Technology, 

National Technical Information Swvicz, 

US. Department of Commerce 

l)pe of Information 

Descriptions of direct federal and state programs and 

services that address day-&-day and long-term business 

needs. 

Extent of Coverage 

Thedirectoryisdividedinto threesections: fcdcral,statc, 

and private. 

Descriptions of 182 fcdcral and 500 state programs 

and services include the type of assistance offered; cligibility requirements, and contact information. Emphasis 

is on state initiatives that support technologyaicntcd 

firms. The mivatc assistance section focuses cm manufactwing tec~“cllogy Lx”tcrs. 

Programs included offer as sistance in at least one. of 

following areas: finance, information, networking, marketing, management, technical. 

Directory Format 

Federal section a-ranged alphatxtically by department 

and age”cy. 

State assistance programs arranged alphabetically by 

state. 

Three private assistance organizations and a list of 

manufachning technology centas included. 

Index. 

cost 

$29 plus $3.GU handling 

COUtXt 

National Technical Information Se-vice 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 

(703) 4874650 

Order Number PEBg-101977 

lmtEcToRY OF FE0RRAL LABoRAToRY 

AN0 TEC”NOLOGY RESO”RCES t9tSt982 

A GUIDE TO SERVICES, FACL.,TIES, AND EXI’ERTISE 

3IN pages, 1966 

Sponsoring Organization 

Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology, 

National Technical Infommtion Service, 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

l)pe of Information 

Inventory of rcsowces at federal laboratories, engineeringcentas, and agencies available to assist academic and 

busin= sectors. 

Dcxriptions of facilities and programs with scientific 

and cngMcring expertise and equipment. 

Extent of Coverage 

Summa&s 903 federal resources under 32 subject categories. Resources arc identified as ez+rtise, facility, infommtion service, or other service. Descriptions include 

contact information. 

Directory Format 

Arranged by subject. Rcsounxs listed by title ofprogram 

or facility. 

Indexed by subject, rcscwce, state, and agency. 

cost 

$29 

contact 

National Technical Information Scn& 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

(703) 487-4650 

Order Numbex PEZ?&lOOOl3 

DDtECTORY OF INCENTIVES FOR B”SINESS 1N”ESTMENT 

AN0 DE”ELOPMENT IN THE “NITED STATESz 

A STATE-BY-STATE G”tDE 

687 pages, 19g6 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Asscciation of State Development Agencies 

ljpe of 1nfomlaticm 

Compilation of state financial inccntivcs and other assistancc to attract investment by out-of-state firms and expansion by in-state businesses. 

Dcwipticms of direct loans and loan guarantees, industrial revenue bonds, vcnturc capital program, and 

state gents to suppat research and development. 

Extent of Coverage 

Classifies initiatives as follows: 

Tms and Tar hcentives-tax credits for job creation, 

investment tax credits. property tax abatement, and tax 

exemptions for wearch and dcvclopmcnt. 

Special Pmgmm-cntcrprisc zones, publicly chartcrcd development banks, and worker training programs. 

lssueSpec$ic Pmgmms-small business development 

and high technology development. 

122 
Non-Finan&/ &&once-management training, 

and research and development. 

Desaiptions include ebgtbd~ty criteria, level of activity, application process, and contact infommtion. 

DIrectmy Format 

Arranged by state, with specific pmgranu listed by economic development category. 

Indexed by economic development sub&k. 

cost 

$682.5 plus S2lKl handling 

COIttXtS 

National As.w&tion of State Development Agencies 

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 611 

Washin~on, DC ‘20001 

(202) al-5411 

Univaity press of America (Orders) 

4720 Boston way 

Ianbarn, MD 2l705 

(301) 45P-3366 

T”E tNDUSTRL&L R&D 

AND TEC”NOLOGY RESOURCE DtRECtXXtY 

24s pages, 198a 

Sponswlng Organization 

Machinery and Allied F’mduck Institute 

Qpe of Information 

Sumnaries of state industrial research and development 

prog?ams, including technology transfer offices, seed 

capital funds, bttsintx incubators, research parks, financin~ assistance, and centers of excellence. 

Extent of coverage 

The diwtay is divided into three section.-state technology initiatives, industrial R&D consatia, and federal 

technology rrsowces. 

Descriptions of state technology initiatives include 

program history, staffing, accmnplishmenk, and amtact 

infomxxion for most programs. 

IMaiM d-scripbns of 14 industrial R&D onwtia 

tbataretxmptfmmantitiwtlaxwtmderthe lP84Nafionai 

Coopmtk Rcveadt Act contain tk w and goal of reseamhi number of consortium membetx bextik to busines. membew ml contact infommtiun Another 68 consortia ate identikd with a statement of nxarcb objectiws 

The dinxtay also desailxs ccmsortia that have filed 

for antitrust exemption, and how to obtain information 

on federal technology resources to support businw research and development. 

The section cm federal technology transfer rewurccs 

covers the following infommtion: 

Summaries of four directories published by the Gznter for the Utilization of Federal Technology, which identifj’ facilities, experk, and inventions that are available to 

the private sector. 

A list of key federal contack for Iinns interested in 

using federally developed technology. 

Descriptions of industry/government collalxxative 

initiatives s~nsored by the Deparhnent of Energy, National InstihW of Standards and Technology, and National Science Foundation. 

A list of 40 industry/university research centen and 

14 enginaing research centers spowred by the National Science Foundation. 

Directory Format 

Individual entries listed by subject and referenced to ditiny section (state, industrial consortia faleral) 

State program displayed in a table (Part A, Section 

l), with each program checked under one of fiw catege 

ries: general, business incuhatas, financing programs, 

centers of excellence, and research parks. Program descriptions and contact information are in Part B. 

Indexed by subject. 

cost 

S35 (MAP1 membm); $45 (non-members) 

COlkX!t 

Machine and Allied Prodwk Institute 

12tXll6th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 2tXl36 

(202) 331-8430 

PROMOTtNG l’EC”NOLOGDXL EXCELLENCEZ 

T,EE ROLE OF SLU’E AND FEDEML EXTEN!SION ,&C~““TES 

15 pages, 1989 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Institite of Standards and Technology 

and the National Governors’ Ass&&m 

lype of Information 

Findings of a 1988-89 nationwide survey of state and 

federal organizations providing business and technology assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. 

Overview of state-sup~rted programs and federal 

technology extension pmgmms, specialized technology 

extension program, and conchtsions and recommendations regarding an appropriate federal mle in encouraging technology extension programs. 

Extent of coverage 

Drawing on survey rqmues from 178 state-sup~rted 

cqantitions and 53 federal program centers, the dirwtory assessa state bathatom, rwxxch parks, seed capital, technology assistance, and technolcgy research enters. There is detailed infommtion on nine state 

technolo~ extension program. 

The directory describes the following federal pmgrams: small business development centers, univztity 

centers, industrial applications centers, and trade adjustme”t i3ssistan~ ce”tets. 

Directmy Format 

Individual plcgranls listi Imder state or federal tin% 

No index 

cost 

Sl5 fmm NGA; $17 plus $3.00 handling from NTIS 

COUWtS 

National Govemcm Association 

444 North Cauitol Street. NW 

Washington, bc 20001-ie2 

(m2) 624-5330 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Deparhnent of Commerce 

52SS Port Roval Road 

Spring&Id, Virginia 22161 

(703) 4&7-46.?0 

Order Numbx PBPO-120742 

108 pages, 1989 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Aeronautks and Space Administmtizm (NASA) 

and LFW Management Associates, Inc. 

lype of Information 

Compendium of state seed capital programs for technology-based businesses. 

123 
Extent of Coverage 

A brief sunmmry of each program includes funding 

methods, budget, types oftechnology targeted, ebg~bd~ty 

criteria, application process, and amtact information. 

Directory Format 

Arranged by state. 

No index. 

cost 

Free 

contact 

Technology Utilization Division 

NASA Headquata-Code CU 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20546 

(202) 453-8377 

STATE TECHNOLOGY DEVEI,OI’MENT ,‘ItOGRAM% 

A SUMMARY AND STATE-BY-STATE LISTING 

126 pages, 1988 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Association of State Development Agencies 

lype of Infomlation 

Lists of more than 2tXl programs in 45 states to promote 

technological innovation, including research grants, equity 

capital programs, incubator facilities, management as.&- 

tance, research parks, tax credits, and technical assiamce. 

Extent of Coverage 

Summti ream and hiitoricaJ effoti by each state to 

stimulate technology-based economic development, along 

with data on total and Iw capita program ~nditures, 

principal tech”olo@es targeted, c”mparis”n of technology 

plicym~ng bodies; and trends in technology efforts. 

State tihnology initiatives are gmuped into five broad 

tnxs-programs to stimulate research, support capital invatment, impmve nxmaganent, introduce technology into 

firms, and train labor-with a general description of aistame and goals. State program l&in@ include the administering “~@nization, year established, annual funding, technologjes supported, and assistance pmvided. 

Directog Format 

Programs classified and described by type (Fart 1) and 

listed by state (Part 2). 

cost 

%?Q 

contact 

National Association of State Development Agencies 

444 North Capitol Street, m, Suite 444 

Washington, DC 21X01 

(202) 624-5411 

STATE TECIINOLOGY PROGRAMS IN TIIE “N,TED STATES 

121 pages, 198a 

Sponsoring Organization 

Governor’s Oftice of Science and Technology, 

Minnesota Department of Trade 

and Economic Development 

Type of Information 

General overview of state initiatives to promote technol- 

“gy and stimulate innovation. 

Summaries of 43 state programs. 

Extent of Coverage 

The directory defines 11 types of program and initiatives: technology offices, technology research centers, research grants, research parks, incubators, technology 

transfer, technical/managerial assistance, seed and venturecapital, technical training,info~ationand networking, and royalty type investment. 

Tables and char@ show the following: listing of pre 

gram twes by state, distribution of program types for 

1966 and 1988, distribution of state program expe”ditures for 1988, total 19%3 state expenditures and source of 

funding, 1966 and 1988 state program funding levels, and 

1988 state per capita expenditures. 

Descriptions of individual programs and initiatives 

include the tfle ofassistance, total state funding, funding 

source, and budgets. 

Directory Format 

Table on program types, by state. 

Detailed state section organized by program tm. 

Appendix c”ntai”s amtact information. 

Glossaiy of technical tams. 

cost 

FIX 

contact 

Governor’s Office of Science and Technology 

Minnesota Department of Trade 

and Economic Development 

150 East Kellogg Boulevard 

St. Paul, MN 55101 

(612) 297~4368 

TAPPING FEDERAL LABORATORIES AND “NIVERSITIES 

TO IMPROW? LOCAL ECONOMIE% 

TIIE It0L.E OF T”E MAYOR AND CITY GOVERNMENT 

86 pages, 1988 

Sponsoring Organization 

U.S. Conference of Mayors and the U.S. Economic Development Administration 

ljpe of Information 

Analysis of the role of municipal government in promoting technology transfer from federal labwatories and 

universities to cities. 

Case studies of nine cities that have technology tramfer prograIns. 

Extent of Coverage 

The dixctov examines the benefits of technology transfer 

and the imp”rtance of lal gowmnent involvement, with 

an historical oaviewof f&era1 policies enc”uraging aperation betxen federal lab”ratories and the private s&or, 

Separate chapter discuss the three stages oftechnol- 

“gy transfer-research and development, product development, and c”mmercializatio”-and the local role in 

each stage. 

Ways that municipal governments can xcess state 

programs or enc”urage their states to establish such programs are highlighted. 

The casestudylcalities are: City-CountyofL”sAlam”s,NewMexic”;CityofGoldenlJeffersonCounty, Colorado; Oak Ridge, Termessee; Fort Wayw, Indiana; New 

Haven, Connecticut; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Birmingham, Alabama; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Tucson, 

AliZ”“& 

The case studies include: brief socioeconomic pm 

files, economic development and technology transfer 

strategiesz sources of technologies and technical assistance, intermediaries and facilitators. and examples of 

s”cces or progress. 

Directory Format 

Table of exhibits for individual programs. 

Includes (1)c”ntact information for regional university centers of the Federal Laboratory Consortium and 

the Economic Development Administration, and (2) list 

124 
of directories and technical publications available from 

the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology. 

COSi 

$16 

contact 

United States Conference of Mayors 

1620 Eye Street, NW 

Washington, DC 24X06 

(202) 293-7330 

TECHNOLOGY-BASED REOIONAL 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTz AN O”ER”,EW 

300 pages, 1988 

Sponsoring Organization 

Center for Science and Technology Policy, 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

lype of lnfor”latio” 

Impact of technological change and innovation on regional economic development. 

State initiatives to promote technology-based eco. 

nomic development. 

Analysis of case st”dies of state programs. 

Selected international programs, 

Extent of Coverage 

Thirty-three case s&dies of regional and state economic de 

wlopment initiatives are divided inta four categories: d&t 

support of resea”zh and deelopment, txchnology bansfer 

and inforntation trd”sfe~ training and ~&%“in~ financial 

a&tam% programs; and amsuIting nehwrla 

Separate chaptern review the role of technology 

parks and incubator centem; foreign technology initiatives: Michigan’s technology-based regional economic 

development programs, with recommendations for the 

Flint area; and state trends. 

Directory Fonnat 

Appe”dLx lists “tore than 550 technology-based initiatives and progrants, arranged by state and title under one 

of the four program categories, 

No index. 

cost 

$25 

co”tact 

Center for Science and Technology Policy, 

School of Management 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Troy, New York 12180 

(518) 276-6836 

TECHNOLOGX ,NNO”AT,ON, 

AND REGIONAL ECONOMK DE”ELOPMENT 

167 pages, 1984 

Sponsoring Organization 

Officx of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress 

vpe of I”for”mti0” 

Analysis of the potential benefits of high technology industries to regional and local economies. 

Review of state and local government initiatives, and 

the roles ofuniversities, the private sector, and the fedaal government in promoting technology development. 

(Acompanion publication-E”co~~~g;“gH;~?-~cl~~~oiogo Dev&pme”~-identities the state and local programs 

surveyed for this study.) 

Extent of Covera& 

Thz directory xviews defmitiom of high-tahnology indw 

try, with tabI= showing the number of jobs generated and 

the ~gional distribution of intiw factom that intluemx. 

the location of high-techtmlogy industries; a”d the impstam-x? of stat-up !%“ls and the role of vz”tu”$ capital. 

Findings of a 1983 s”rvzy of state and local initiatim 

are presznted, tith exxnples hrn among IS3 state pm 

grants that benefit high-@&now timts. Federal policies 

and progrmns “Gaved include tweaxh and development, 

technology tra”sfer, regional economic developments, and 

planting and demo”&ation projects. 

Directory Format 

Organizd by state, universities, local governntent, and 

the private sector. 

Appendices focus on (1) economic theories addressing the potential benefit of high-technology develop. 

mat; (2) the economic impact of fommtion and growth 

of high-technology firms; and (3) facton influencing location of high-technology firms, 

No index. 

cost 

Out of print but may be found in some libraries. 

contact 

Office of Technology Assament 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20510 

(2L2) 224-8!?96 

General Business and Economic DeveIopment 

CAPKU. KORMATtON IN T”E STATES 

62 pages, 1988 

Sponsoring Organization 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

lype of l”for”latio” 

Analysis of small business tinancing needs and cormspading state initiatives in tams of three stages ofbusi- 

“as development. 

Descriptions of a limited number of representative 

state progranls. 

Extent of Covera& 

Separate chapters analyze tinance mechanisms for each 

stage of business development: 

Stari-Up: research and development grants, seed capital loans, and royalty agreements, with a list of 33 assistance programs in 19 states. 

Gmn&SQ-e: state program funding through direct 

loans, loan guarantees, equity purchases, equity gwmntees,state-s~~oreddevelopment corparationstithprivate investors, taxcredits for investment in ventwe capital companies, and apal financing. 

.%fufu~~-Sta@?: programs that enhance “mt”re fbms’ 

access to capital markets by issuing debt and equity saxrities; state modification of state securities regulationblue sky lava-to simplify the securities offering p”xess 

for small firms; and the level of small business and venture capital investment pemitted for public employee 

pension funds, by state (table). 

Directory Format 

Appendix, organized by program category, contains detailed descriptions of selected state programs, including 

program title. total funding. year of establishment, and 

contact information for programs and key state officials. 

No index. 

cost 

F”X 

125 
contact 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

Office of Advocacv 

1441 L street, le 

Washington, DC 20416 

(202) 653X+33 

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE 

1,300 pages, annual, with semiannual update 

Sponsor& Organization 

US. Office of Management and Budget 

and US. General Services Administration 

Type of Information 

Compendium of 1,139 federal assistance programs, including business and commerce, education, employment 

training, and community development. 

Extent of Coverage 

Program descriptions include administering agency, objectives and goals, type of assistance, restrictions, eligibility requirements, application and award procedures, tw 

tal program tinding, examples of funded projects, 

proposal evaluation criteria, and contact information. 

The catalog includes a section on witing a federal 

grant propixd. 

Directory Format 

Arranged by federal department. Programs listed by 

number within 51 agencies. 

Appendices include executive review ~.cluirements, 

authorization, budget codes, regional and local office addresses, and information sources. 

Indexed by agency program, function, subject, and 

applicant eligibility. 

Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval &xvi=-an 

on-line version of the Catalog-is operated by GSA, 

(202) 453-4126. 

cost 

$38 

contact 

Surerintendent of Documents 

U.k Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC 20402 

(24?2) 783-3236 

St& Nhnbm 922-CKi9-OOLXX7 

DIIOK!TOItY OF ECONOMIC DE”E~OI’MENT I’IKXXAMS 

AT STATE COI,I,E~ES AND “NIVE~SITIES 

182 pages, 1988 

Sponsoring Organization 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

l)Qe of Information 

Directory of 382 economic development programs at 170 

public higher education institutions. 

Extent of Coverage 

The range of programs includes centers for small business development, research and development, and technology commercialization. 

Program descriptions include: goals; type of a&- 

tancelservicesoffered; beneficiarieqprogram structure-staffing, advisory board, funding, and evaluation 

criteria; products or publications; future plans; information for colleges interested in establishing a pm 

grate; and contact information. 

Directory Format 

Indexed by program objective and state. 

cost 

$22.50 plus $2.t?Jl handling 

CCUltXtS 

American Association ofState Colleges and Univekties 

One Duuont Circle 

Washin&n, DC 20036 

(202) 293-7070 

University Publishing Associates (Orders) 

4m Boston way 

Lanhmn, MD 20706 

(301) 459-3366 

TIIE GUIDE TO STAT’,? AND mD,!XAL ,tESO”IXES 

FOR ECONOMIC DtXWX.OFMENT 

394 pages, 1988 

Sponsoring Organization 

Northeast-Midwest Institute 

me of lufonuation 

Listofstate and majorfederaleconomicdevelopment reSOUi-CCS. 

Case studies of 60 state programs and descriptions of 

about a0 other state programs. 

Extent of Coverage 

The directory k divided into tw p&-state and federaL 

State economic development efforts include business development, cooperative research, finance, 

technology centers, targeted development programs, 

trade, infrastructure., training, and taxincentives. Separate chapters on each category contain an overview, 

case studies of selected state programs, and brief summar&of additional programs. Tables showprograms 

for financial and technical assistance, tax incentives, 

assistance targeted to distressed areas, and small busi- 

“es%% 

The federal section focus= on economic assistance. 

programs (grants, loans, loan guarantees, and technical 

akstance) administered by the Departments ofHousing 

and Urban Development, L&x, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Small Business Administration. Each 

program description includes ebg~b~bty criteria, current 

and projected funding, distribution of funds by state 

(table), discussion of cmmnon problems, program contacts, and local agency off& locations. 

Directmy Format 

Chapters arranged by types of assistance, with programs 

arranged by agency and program type. 

Reference tables identie state development areas. 

No index. 

cost 

$37.50 plus $2.00 handling 

contact 

Northeat-Midwest Institute 

218 D Street, SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

(202) 34-5200 

T”E SkIAIL E”SINES.3 RESO”tKE GUIDE 

133 pages, 1988 

Spousoriug Organization 

AT&T & U.S. Small Business Administration 

Qx of Information 

Directoryoffedeml, state, and private agencies and organizations that provide assistance and information for 

small business. 

126 
Extent of Coverage 

The directory is divided into three sections-federal, 

state, and private. 

The federal section identifies agencies, offices, and 

programs, with a brief description of each type of assistance and contact infommtion, 

The state s-zctkln lists agetltia offering programs or assistance. under the folkwing categories: business develop 

merit, linancid assistance, prcareme”t assistance, publications, special prog?ar”s, and international trade. Contact 

information is includd for the state economic dwelopment 

agency. There are no description of individual p-ms. 

A separate section lists private business associations 

and trade gro”ps, with short descriptions of services, 

There are listings of television show focusing on busi- 

“es issues and publications for small business managers. 

DirectaT Fomxtt 

Appendices list regional offices of f&eml deparh”ents and 

agencies, a3 ncll as contact i”formation; federal agencies 

that maintain a SmzJ B”sinm Innovatio” Research 

(SBIR) program; fore&!” emba.&!s and foreign chamber 

of commerce in the U”ited Statq and American Chamber 

of Commerce offices abroad, with contacts. 

Glossary of small business terms. 

No index. 

cost 

FI.5.5 

coutact 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

The Answer Desk 

1441 Lstreet, NW 

Washington, DC 20416 

(202) 653-7562 

T”E STATES AND SMALL B”SINESSz 

A DIRECTORY OF ,‘K”XAMS AND ACTWIT,ES 

411 pages, 1989 

Sponsoring Organization 

US. Small Business Administration 

l)pe of Information 

Directory of state assistance programs, oftices, and legislation to aid small business. 

Extent of Coverage 

State assistance program covered include mmagement, 

tinam%, pmc”reme”t, joint ventures, and regulator requirements. 

For each state, small business assistance is divided 

into five categories: small business offices, programs, and 

activities; governor’s advisory council or task force; legislative committees and sutexm”ittees: legislation; state 

small business conferences. 

Summaries of 1987 and 19S8 state legislation are fee 

tured. Each entry describes program goals, type of assistance, and amtact information. 

Directory Format 

Arranged by state. Programs classified by assistance categoiies. 

Appendices identify state Small Business Develop 

merit Centers and the 10 regional SBA offices, with w”- 

tact information: and business reg”latory flexibility acti 

in 24 states. 

Glossary of business development ten”s. 

No index. 

cost 

$12 

COItbXt 

Superintendent of Doamxnts 

US. Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC Z&t02 

(202) 783-3236 

Stock Number 045-Cn?O-00257-S 

WORKING TOGETHEk A GUIDE TO FEDERAL AND STATE 

RESOURCES IWR RURAL ECONOMIC DE”ELOPMENT 

207 pages, 1983 

Sponsoring Organization 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

and Southwestern Bell Telephone 

ljpe of hfomlation 

Summaries of federal and state program for r”ral em 

nomic development. 

Extent of Covera@ 

The directory is divided into two sections-federal a”d 

state. 

Assistance programs highlighted are financial assistance, business development, proarement assistance, 

and minority small business assistance, with co”tact 

“antes and phone numbers. 

The federal programs provide assistance in at least 

o”e of the following a~?.% small business, agric”ltire 

and rural communities, economic development, corm”u- 

“ities affected by defense programs, vrxational and adult 

education, energy related development, health and hu- 

“~a” services, communi~ development grants, develop 

meat of American Indian lands and people, job training, 

and transportation. Summaries include oxtact infomm 

tion for programs and federal offices in each state. 

The state section lists 703 progm”n, divided under 

six assista”cz categories: capital/finance, infomx+tionJ 

technical assistance, infrastmcture, marketing, technolo- 

~3 and wxkforce. 

FYogmm descriptions include contact information 

for programs and key state officials. There is an overview 

of types of r”ral assistance across states (chart). 

Directory Fommt 

Federal programs arranged by agency. 

State prognms arranged by state. F’mgmms classified by assistance categories. 

No index. 

cost 

FKX 

contact 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

1441 L street. NW 

Washington, DC 20146 

(202) 653-6365 

127 

TO PROMOTE AMERICAN BUSINESS 

PRODUCTIWIY, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION 

A GUIDE TO NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSES 

on Federal, State, and Local Infomation and Assistance 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 
To Promote American Business 

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 established the Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation within the 

U.S. Department of Commerce. The primary mission of 

the Clearinghouse is to enhance nationwide awareness 

and use of the many federal, state, and local initiatives that 

seek to bolster the competitiveness of American businesses in world markets. These initiatives include technology transfer, workforce preparation, international trade, 

innovative management and financing, and other essential 

services to the business community. 

The Department of Commerce entered into an agreement with the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to develop a fea&le and effective operating plan for thii Clearinghouse. The plan recognized that a 

great deal of activity is under way to assist io promoting and 

adopting federal, state, and kxal initiatives designed to enhance the productivity, technology, and innovation of American businesses. Therefore, the Clearinghouse was designed to reinforce these efforts rather than to replace or 

duplicate. them. 

This booklet is one in a series of three guides distributed by the Clearinghouse to acquaint users with the vari~ 

ety of resources available. It is a national directory of clearinghouses that provide infomx+tion and assistance on 

federal, state, and local initiatives in these fields. The other guides feature published directories of federal, state, 

and local initiatives on productivity, technology, and innovation, andarosterofcontactsforusebyorganizxtionsand 

experts in these fields to help them improve their services. 

Comments about the guidebooks-or other Clearinghouse activities-and suggestions for improvement are 

welcome. In addition to these guidebooks and other information services, the Clearinghouse intends to provide 

policy analysis services designed to help federal, state, and 

local policymakers identify and implement the most effective initiatives to stimulate business productivity, technological advance, and innovation. 

Inquiries should be directed as follows: 

By phone: (2QZ) 377-0826 or 377-2922 

By mail: Clearinghouse for State and Local 

Initiatives on Productivity, 

Technolom, and Innovation 

Technology Administration 

US. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

How to Use this Guide 

This guide describes 21 national clearinghouses that This guide delineates the kind of information, assisprovide information on community and economicdevelop- tance, and products offered by each clearinghouse. Emmerit programs, state and local government management, phasis is on the nature and scope of information available, 

or technology and technology transfer. Users of these how to obtain access to this infomution, and related fees 

clearinghouses include state and local governments seeking innovative economic development strategies, private and charges. The major features of these clearinghouses 

are tabulated for easy reference. 

sector fiis requiring technical assistance, business assis- The clearinghouses presented in this guide have been 

tance providers looking for additional information for 

their clients, community organizations seeking to network 

grouped into three functional categories according to the 

-e of information provided: community and economic 

with other organizations, and academic researchers look- development, state and local government operations, and 

ing for scientific technological breakthroughs. technology information. 

130 
Se~icesOfferedbytheClearingbouses(Table) .......................................................... 132 

MetbodsofA~sstoClearingbouses .................................................................. 133 

Community and Economic Development ............................................................ 134 

National Council for Urban Economic Development Clearinghouse (CUED). ....................... 134 

Communi~I~o~ation~change ............................................................. 134 

Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System (FAPRS) .......................................... 134 

Handsnet .................................................................................... 135 

National Alliance of Business Clearinghouse (NAB) .............................................. 135 

National Aswciation of Management and Technical Assistance Centers (NAMTAC) ................. 136 

RuralInfo~ationCenter ..................................................................... 136 

SBDC Connection: The Information Link for Small Business ...................................... 136 

The Thriving Hometowns Network ............................................................. 137 

StateandLo~lGove~mentOpe~tions ............................................................ 138 

Civic Information and Techniques Exchange (CIVITEX) .......................................... 138 

Integrated State Information System (ISIS) ...................................................... 138 

National Legislative Network (LEGISNET) ..................................................... 138 

Local Exchange .............................................................................. 139 

Local Government Information Network (LOGIN) ............................................... 139 

Management Information Service (MIS) ........................................................ 140 

Tecbnolo~Info~ation ........................................................................... 141 

Federal Laboratory Technology Data Base (File FAm) ........................................... 141 

Federal Research in Progress Data Base (FEDRIP) .............................................. 141 

The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer Clearinghouse (FLC) .................. 142 

NASA Technology Utiliition Program (TU) .................................................... 142 

Technology Applications Information System (TAIS) .............................................. 143 

Teltech ...................................................................................... 143 

131 
Services Offered by the Clearinghouses 

on-Lbm mated 

and Od.hlE ‘or 

SWf NO Stiff 

Assistance Assistance Searches 

Community and Economic Development 

Community InfomMion Exchange EN EN 

CUED 

FAPRS DB 

Handsnet EN 

mated, 

EN EN EN 

DSR DSR DSR 

DB 

EN EN 

DSR 

B B 

cs cs cs 

NAB 

NAMTAC 

DSR 

Rural Information Center cs 

SBDC Connection 

Thriving Hometowns 

State and Local Government Operations 

CIVITEX 

ISIS 

CS 

B 

DSR 

DSR 

DB DB 

Lqisnet 

Isal Exchange 

E 

Login 

MIS 

Technology Information 

File FATD 

FEDRIP 

Kc 

NASA TU 

TAIS 

DB DB 

EN 

EN 

DSR 

DB 

DB 

Legend: 

EN-Electronic Netuwk 

DB-On-Line Data Base 

DSR-Document Search and Retrieval 

B-Broker Services 

CS-Combined Services 

DB 

B 

cs 

Distributes Member Non-Member Accessto 

other Technical Technical 

Publica- ASSb AS&. %? 

B B 

DSR DSR 

DSR DSR 

DB 

DB 

EN EN EN 

EN 

DSR DSR 

DB 

B B 

cs 

DB DB 

EN 

DSR 

EN 

cs A 

B 

DB DB 

DB DB 

EN 

DSR 

DB 

EN 

DSR DSR 

DB 

B 

cs 

EN 

DSR 

EN 

DSR 

B 

B 

DSR DSR 

DB 

DB 

B 

DB DB 
Methods of Access to Clearinghouses 

The clearinghouses can be grouped into five catcgories that reflect major differences in the methods of user 

access to data bases: 

. Electronic Networks; 

n On-Line Data Bases; 

. Document Search and Retrieval Services; 

a Broker Services; and 

. Combined Services. 

Electronic Networks. Electronic network clearinghouses provide userswithboth on-line access to computerized data bases and interactive electronic networking services. These data bases generally encompass multiple 

subsets, bibliographic citations, abstracts, and contact information, and are keyword driven. 

The unique feature of electronic network clearinghouses is that they offer users an additional avenue of information-on-line communication with other users. 

Through electronic mail and electronic bulletin board services, users may exchange messages and documents directly 

with other users, as well as post information on upming 

conferences, legislation, and programs. After review, much 

of this user-genemtcd information is incorporated into the 

cleatighouse data base. 

On.Line Data Bases. These clearinghouses, like the 

electronic networks described above, offer users direct 

computer access to clearinghouse data bases and often 

provide access to other on-line data bases. They do not 

have electronic networkiig features. 

Document Search and Retrieval Services. The clearinghouses in this category generally maintain computerized data bases accessible only by clearinghouse staff. Users must call or write the clearinghouse and describe the 

type of information sought. The clearinghouse will mail or 

FAX the information to the user. 

Broker Services. Broker clearinghouses locate individuals who can provide the necessary information orassistance to users. Some of the clearinghouses in this category 

are on-line to users, while others must be accessed by 

clearinghouse srdff. In general, these clearinghouses do 

not produce publications or provide other services. 

Combined Services. These clearinghouses combine sevem1 of the attributes of the other categoties, but no single 

approach is predominant. Some of the specific activities cornbimed include computerized data bases, information retrieval, broker services, and electronic networking capabiiities. 

‘Ihe Clearinghouses are listed by method of access. 

Electronic Nehvorks 

Community Information Exchange 

HandsNet 

Lwl Exchange-National League of Cities et al. 

LOGIN-William C. Norris Institute 

OwLine Data Bases 

Federal Laboratoty Technoloa Data Base (File 

FAm)-Center for the Utilization of Federal 

Technolo&y (CUFIJ within the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System (online version of Cut&g of Fedend Domesr~c Amistaxe)-U.S. General Services Administration 

Federal Research in FYogress (FEDRIP) Data BaseNational Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

Integrated State Information System (ISIS)-Council 

of State Governments (CSG) 

National Legislative Network (LEGISNET)-National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) 

Technology Applications Information System 

vAIS)-Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Department of Defense 

Document Search and Retrieval Services 

CIVITEX-National Civic League 

Management Information System (MIS)-Intemationa1 City Management Association (ICMA) 

National Alliance of Business Clearinghouse (NAB) 

National Council for Urban Economic Development 

Clearinghouse (CUED) 

Thriving Hometowns Network-National Association of Towns and Townships (NA%lJ 

Broker Services 

Federal Laboratory Consortium Clearinghouse 

WC) 

National Association of Management and Technical 

Assistance Centers (NAMTAC) 

SBDC Connection 

Teltech 

Combined Services 

Rural Information Center-U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Extension Service and the National 

Agricultural Library 

Technology Utilization Program (TU-National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

133 
Community and Economic Development 

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR URBAN 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CLEARINGHOUSE (CUED) 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Council for Urban Economic Development 

Infommtion and Services 

Economic development programs and strategies nationwide, including enterprise nxxzs and educationlewnomic development linkages. 

Technical Advisory Service for cities and communities, @provide advice and recommendations on development strategies. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Includes bcnks, petiodicals, govwnment reports, formal papers, CUED publications, and clippings and artitles. Not cnmputerized. 

Data Sources 

Reparts from CUED members, including state and local 

elected officials, community organization leaders, entrcprenews, and academicians. 

Staff reszarch and technical assistan= projects. 

Subscriptions and publications exchange. 

Access to Clewinghcwe 

Access is through phone inquiries or mail. CUED publications are key in disseminating infommtion to usen, 

Clearinghouse Publications 

NOIE. 

CUED publications filed with the Clearinghouse include: 

Developments, newsletter (22 times a year); 

Commentmy, journal about successful economic development projects (quarterly); 

E$ymc Development Abmad, nanletter (bimonthlyb 

Information Sovice Rep&s, analyses of practical technical topics, such as innovation in state and local develop 

merit, entrepreneurial development, and wrking capital 

for small business. 

CUED also publishes annual reviews on economic 

development and the federal budget; a legislative update 

series; and “how-to” guides and manuals cm a range of 

subjects, such as establishing small business incubators 

Open primarily to CUED staff and members. Nomnembaa may use the Clearinghouse depending on staff availability and the nature of the request. 

Membership fees, $265 to $575 annually, includingpublications. 

Charges for staff time and copying for information requests requiring extensive research. 

Nonmembers charged for each request. 

contact 

Ms. Nancy McCrea 

National Council for Urban Economic Development 

1730 K Street, w, Suite 915 

Washington, DC 24X% 

(202) 22.3-4735 

COMMUNITY INFORMATION EXCHANGE 

Sponsoring Organization 

Community Information Exchange 

How to plan, finance, and develop community revitalization projects. 

Case stidies, leads on funding sources, referrals to 

technical e~rts, sample documents, and technical bulletins. 

On-line netwrk and customized research scwice, 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Contains abat 270 case studies of community develop 

mat projects, 225 listings of funding sources, 225 listings 

of technical assistance providers, and an annotated bibliography of abixt 400 publications covering community 

revitalization issues. Computerized. 

Data sources 

Newletters of other organizations. 

Books, qwts, and conferences. 

User contributions through networking and the electronic bulletin board, 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is through a modem and computer terminal. Users’ mantml provided. On telephone inquiries, staff 

searches the data bases. 

Clearinghouse PubIications 

Ahi, community development newletter (bimonthly), 

Knowkdge Bifs, one-page resource checklist (monthly), 

The Exchange alsa wxluces technical bulletins and 

paicdic special ~nfonn&on packets cm selected rwitali&on topics. 

US.33 

Subxriin in&de community-baxd organizations, naticmal and regional owanizations, state and loxI economic 

dexlopment-offices, &dad&~ and church mpa, generally waking for revitalization of lowincmne areas. 

FWS 

Annual subscription, $50. 

Computer fees, $25. Access, $40 txr hour forwmmunitv 

grouts and $70 pa hour f& aliothen. Computer n& 

working facilities, $10 per hour for community groups, 

$20 for othem. 

Staff assistance, the same as the hourly computer fees 

($4Q/$70). Customized research, $85 per hour for cornmtmity grcups and $125 per hour for others. 

contact 

Ms. Dorothie Haygood 

Community lnfommtion Exchange 

1029 Vermont Avenue. NW. Suite 710 

Washington, DC 24+Xlj 

(202) 628-2961 

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (FAPRS) 

Sponsoring Organization 

US General Services Administration (GSA) 

Information and Sewices 

On-line access to the Catalog of Fedeml Lbmestic Axismnce. Includes federal domestic assistance programs, including federal grants, loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance. 

Technical assistance available. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Contains nmre than l,O@l assistance programs administered by 51 federal agencies, with summaries of 

134 
agency fimctions, descriptions of assistance programs, 

eligibility criteria, and contact information. 

Organized in question-answer and key word format. 

FAPRS provides a list of program numbem and title.% the 

full text of selected programs; or spxific sections of the 

text. 

Data Sources 

Catalog of Fedend Lkmmfic As.ristmce 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is through a “c&m and compntw terminal. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Cafdog of Fedeml Lbmestic Astitmce and a semiammal 

new&tter. 

Use” include state and local govanments, small busincxes, rwa~ches, and libties. 

FkXS 

Cost-recovery basis. No initiation or monthly fee.% 

Telephone fees: 

800 telephone service-$6.lg/hc”r or 

T&net service-$l.3~$26O~hour 

Data F?ocessing fees (prime time rates> 

Connect Time-$3.Whour 

CPU Time-$.%/second 

GSA estimates that the average total cost for a prime 

time on-line session is: 

$446 for one search 

$749 for twu sewches 

$lO-$13 for three searches 

Keywxd searches are “ore expensive. 

COUtXt 

Mr. A. Jerald Varner 

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Staff (WKIJ) 

General Servicxx Administration 

300 7th Street, SW 

Ground Flax, Repate” Building 

Washington, DC 2IMO7 

(202) 453-4126 (until June 1, l!M) 

(2Jl2) 70&5126 (effmtive June 1, lm) 

L4NDSNET 

Spousoring Organization 

HandsNet 

Information and Services 

On-line library covering human service issues, including 

hunger, housing and homelwness, health cam, legal services, community and economic development, and available xsources and funding. 

Electronic mail services. 

Network from subscribing support ozntws. On-line 

technical assistance; toll-free number for assistance. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

On-line library, updated daily, of full-text articles, organixed by subject and key wxds. Includes le+islative 

alerts, calendar events, news and analysis of public policy, 

summa~es~mmaj~r~lyp~~~ andwirewvices,updates cm law and regulations, data bases of poverty statistics, Federal Register abstracts, and descriptions of 

model programs. 

Data Sources 

Data from national research centers, state and kxal government agencies, public @icy advocates, setice organizations, community action associations, legal savicz 

programs, and grassroots coalitions. 

Subscriber surveys. 

users 

Subscribers include housing advocates, homeless shelters, focd and nutritic” programs, health care providers, 

public policy activists, legal service providers, and othe” 

working cm human service issues. 

Clemimghouse Publications 

Newletter describing the wrk of the network, available 

0” request. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is through a modern and computer, using CONNBCT sofhvare. 

Subscription fee, $25 per month or $270 per year. Discounts available for group subscriptions. Required $100 

muchase of sofhvare. 

‘On& charges 

$10 per hour during busipess houi-s, 

$5 per hour nights, weekends, and holidays, 

Local acczss numben in most areas. 

COUtWt 

Ha&Net Subscxiptions 

619 Pacific Avenue,Suite 2 

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

(408) 427-0808 

Fax (4Og) 427-0115 

Connect ID: HNOOO4 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF BUSINESS CLEARINGHOUSE 

(NW 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Alliance of Business Special Research Library 

Information and Sewices 

Case studies on employment, job training, education w 

for”, and wrkplace learning to help businesses fill the 

need for highly qualified, job-ready w&e”. Includes information on economic development, entrepreneurship, 

worker diskxation, tax incentives, and on-the-job training opportunities. 

&vices include: quick answer service (locating facts, 

studies, and appropriate experts); information searches 

(compiling information packages from a variety of 

souxes); and literamre wnches and bibliographypreparations. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Consists of four computerized files: 

Abstracts of more than 2,100 policy reports and 

how-to publications; 

Contact information for a network of national, regional, state, and local sources of information and techniCal a.!sistance; 

Profiles of 700 innovative training projects, listing 

funding sources and amounts, target populations and occupations, types of training, bus&s involvement, and 

contacts; and 

Descriptions of 325 model state and local employment training and education programs. 

Data Sources 

SC&al uroiects conducted bvNAB and iointlv with three 

. -. other organnations. 

. , 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Accessis by phone, mail, and visit. In addition to tbedata 

base, the Special Research Library has a traditional cnilection of materials and baks on employment, training, 

and economic development. 

135 
Clea~rir&mse Publications 

NAB prcduczs “““xrous publications o” workforce 

issues. 

Direct access limited to NAB stti. Armngements “my 

be made with the Special Research Libray to obtain infommtion. 

F@ZS 

NOll.5 

contact 

Ms. Helen White, Senior Manager 

Clearingho”% Information Services 

National Alliance of Business 

1201 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 2892910 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT 

AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS (NAMTAC) 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centem 

Information and Services 

Support setice to NAMTAC members, supplying information and assistance on administrative, prognmmatic, 

and policy issues related to operation of university-baxd 

ma”ageme”t and technical assistance umters. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Monthly newsletter and other publications; amferences, 

seminars, and workshops @lighting such issues as: 

entrepreneunhip and new ventures; commercializing 

basic university research; developing international markets; dealing with dislocations caused by plant closings; 

improving manufachxing prcductivity; and the university’s role in stat&de economic development. 

Data Sources 

Members, which are university-based agencies, provide. 

information. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is by phone and mail from members and others. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

NAMTAC New&& (monthly) o” legislation and other 

developments of interest to membex 

R~~Iw Guide describes programs of all NAMTAC 

members. 

CornDilation of the evaluation fon”s used bv mea”- 

hers and.a list of member publications. . 

Primary “sers are NAMTAC members. Others may call 

for referrals. 

Organizational membership, $2.50 per year. Individual 

membership: $SOperyearfor thoseinNAMTACcnnstit- 

“e”cy organizations; $250 for othem 

Associate and affiliate memberships are available to 

agencies that share NAMTAC goals but are not “niversity hased. 

contact 

Mr. Harold Williams 

NAMTAC 

733 15th Street, NW, Suite 917 

Washington, DC 2@OS 

(24lZ) 347-6740 

RUR4L INFORMATION CENTER 

Sponsoring Organization 

Rural Information Center, U.S. Deparhnent of A@kuItire 

Informatio” and Services 

Infomntion and referral services on r”ral revitalization, 

including economic development, kxal goverm”e”t services, health services, quality of life and natural resources, and leadership and community change. 

Refen-als to wBide organizations or expert% 

Extension Service offices for additional technical 

wns”ltati0”. 

National Agric”lt”ral L.ibrary electronic bulletin 

board service, (301) 344-8510. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

National Agricultural Library and the E&tension Service’s nationwide educational network. Computerized. 

The Liirary m&aim an extensive collection of lx&s, 

jo”rnals, instmctio”al program manuals, audit-visual materials, and mmputer sofhvare; and AGRICOIA, an index to 

more than 25 million books and artickx. 

The nationwide. extension nehvorkprotidesprogram 

expertise and follow-up assistance, as well as outreach 

c0”tact.s. 

Computer access available to several other data 

bases, including DIALGG, LOGIN (Iacal Government 

Infommtion Network). NARS (Narrative Accomnlishme”t Reporting Sys&), FAPkS (Federal As&tance 

Programs Retrieval System), and IRCN (International 

Resource Center Netwrk). 

Data Sources 

National Agricultural Library. 

Center staff research. 

Fxtension Service programs and contacts. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is through the !&tension Service’s nationwide 

nehwrk of co”“ty and state offices, or by mail, E-mail, 

electronic bulletin bard, and phone. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Rural Infommfion Cemr Publicarion Sends 

Quick Bib/iogmphies 

USeI. 

Users include state and local govamn.e”ts, academic institutions, and community organizations working on rural revitalization. Opt” to anyone interested in r”ra1 development. 

FIXS 

No fee for RIG publications and data base searches by 

staff. Cost-recovery fees for extensive searches. 

contact 

Ms. Patricia John 

Rural Information Center 

National Agric”lt”ral L.ibraiy, Room 304 

Beltsville, MD 20705 

(301) 3442547 

SBDC CONNECTIONz THE INFORMATION LINK 

FOR SMALL BUSINESS 

Sponsoring Organization 

U.S. Small B”siness Administration (SBAh in cooperation 

with the Association of Small Business Development Cmten (SBDCQ managed by a Uniwsity of Georgia SBDC. 

lnfommtion and Services 

Nationtide data base for use by SBDCs on SBDC pre 

grams, experiences. and activities in providing b”sine% 

assistance, for ux by SBDCs. 

No technical assistance 

136 
Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

&gan servie in April 1969. Infommtion collected from 

each SBDC encompwes business counseling, training, 

management, finance, marketing, engineering, and technical assistance programs. 

SBDCs generally are located in colleges, universities, 

and vccational schools, but also may be found in some. 

local chambers ofcommerce and ewnomicdevelopment 

corporations. 

Data Sources 

SBDC offices and the SBA. 

Access to Cle.wln&me 

Access is through an 8M2phone number, mail, and FAX 

On-line @xx expected in the futire. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Newsletter, bibliographies, and other materials. 

Disseminates SBDC materials and SBA program information. Documents may be barrowed. 

USWS 

Restricted to the 54 SBDCs in 47 states, Puerto Rico, and 

the Vi@ Islands. In each, a lead SBDC extends the services offered through a netwrk of subcenters, for a total 

of more than 600 service kxations. Service to othercwpcrating agencies and instititions is available with some 

restrictions. 

GM-mmwy fee for copying six pages or more. 

Postage fees charged. 

Computer search time fee for detailed inquiries, billed 

through an SBDC wcount. 

contact 

Ms. Deborah Sommer 

SBDC Connection 

Uniwsity of Georgia 

118IJ East Broad Street 

Athens, GA 30602 

(404) 54x760 

THE THRMNG HOMETOWNS NETWORK 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Ass&&m of Towns and Townships (NATaT) 

fnfwmation and Services 

Data base of small town economic development case 

studies on how small communities can learn and adopt 

new approaches to problems, such as job creation. 

Case studies describe ecawmic problems faced by 

thecommunity;communitydemographicx;economicdevelopment strategy; project activities; organizations, gw 

anments, and others who spearheaded or assisted the 

project; total cost; project financing; obstacles encowtered and how they were overcome; project benefits and 

results. Includes wntacts. 

No technical assistance. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Netirk expcctd to te in operation by May l!KXl, with 

about 1Ml small town economic da&pment c&z shzdies, 

Additional case s&dies will be added on a continuing basis, 

Data Sources 

Case studies from NATaT files. Network expects to solicit 

newsmall town examples on aamtinuingbasis. (Approximately ll,OXl small local governments are members of 

NATaT) 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Initial access is by phone or letter for an inquiry form, 

Netwrkstaffsearches the data base and mails the appropriate case studies. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Guidebooks, videca, and wx!ahops on strategies for 

solving small town problems, from NATaT’s Center for 

Small Communities. 

Expected users include lcal elected ofiicials, rural developmcnt specialists, community organizations, state 

agemy staff, and local colleges. 

F@ZS 

NATaT expects to charge a nominal fee hased on the 

number of searches requested. 

contact 

Ms. Nancy Stark 

Thriving Hometowns Network 

National Association of Towns and Townships 

1522 K Street, w, Suite 730 

Washington, DC 24KlOS 

(202) 737-5zOo 

137 
State and Local Government Operations 

CMC INFORMATION AND TECHNIQUES EXCHANGE 

(CMTEX) 

Information and Services 

Documents, abs@ac$, and bibliographies on topics of interest to state legislatwe, executive, and judicial branches 

Sponsoring Organization of govenmlent 

National Civic League 

Infwmatio” and Services 

Infomwdon and referral setice focused on methods of 

cmmunity problem solving. 

No technical assistance, 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Three computetized data bases: 

Fmfile Data Base-brief descriptions of n~ore than 

7C4 recent and active cmmnunity projects; project pmtiles dwtik the type of problem, how the problem was 

solved, the type of financing. Includes con@& Types of 

problems involve economic development, health, housing, education, and the environment 

CIVIDEX Data Ba.%-referral information on approximately 200 organizations; and 

~~cS~diesDataB~-one-pagesumma~esofapproximately 6Cill problem-solving projects of the 1960s. 

Data Sources 

National Civic League All-America Cities prograin. 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation. 

John Hay Whitney Found&m. 

Local groups and individuals involved in connnuni~y initiatives. 

Data bases verified and updated periodically. 

Access tu Clearinghouse 

Access is through a toll-free number, Staff searches the 

data bases and mails the appropriate profiles. 

Cleari”ghouse Publications 

NOII‘Z. 

The National Civic League publishes: 

A’ti~m14 Civk Rev&, fccusing on innovative methcds of solving community problems (bimonthly). 

Civic Action, newletter (bimonthly). 

National Civic League publications list available. 

USIXS 

Users include local governmen&, ccnnmuni~y groups, 

churches, businesses, and nonprofit organizations, Open 

to any individual or organization. 

Charge per search, depending cm number of profiles. 

National Civic League membership includes five 

searches: individuals, $50; corporations, $lO@ Ical govemments, $lOO-$300, according to pepuladcm; nonprofit 

organizations, $7.5. 

CODtXtS 

Ms. Joanne Greek 

Ms. Betsy Ho&y 

CIVITEX 

National Civic League 

1601 Grant Street, Suite 250 

Denver, CO 602Q3 

(600) 2236OC4 

INTEGRATED STATE INFORmTION SYSTEM (ISIS) 

Response to specitic inquiries and document loans. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Tw computerized data bases: 

BiblioFile-bibliographicdata base containing more 

than 9,000 tides. Includes “xords for state and federal 

documents listed in the Smte Government Re.w,wrb 

Checklist since March 1961 and other docum.en& published by CSG and other organizations; and 

Stak+Baz-long-text data base containing n~orc 

than ZSLlO abstracts and full-text records of CSG products. Includes abstracts ofCSG issuebriefs, ne~lewzrarticks, model legislation, and innwaive shee pmgmms. 

D&a Sources 

Sme agencies. 

CSG research and program staff, 

Federal agencies and public interest associations, 

Access to Cleari”ghouse 

Access for CSG membas is through a modem and cornputer terminal or telephone requests. On-line searches 

by key wrds. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Backgroundem @eri&ic~ brief summaries of rep”* in the 

ISIS data base on subjects of auren~ imerest to the states. 

users 

Available only to state govermnen~ officials and staff, 

and to private sector members of the CSG Assccia~es 

Program. Primary users are legisladve branches. 

Fees 

Part of CSG membership fee; telephone line charges are 

separae. 

contact 

Mr. William Voit 

Integrated State Information System 

States Information Center 

Council of State Governments 

Iron Works F’ike 

PO. Box 11910 

Iexin@m, KY 40578 

(606) 231-1827 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE NETWORK (LEGISNET) 

Sponscwi”g Organization 

Nadonal Conference of State Legislatures 

Information and Services 

On4in.e data base of state legislative report abseacts, 

program evaluations, briefs on state legislative issues, 

case law, and federal and asscciadon reports. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Three on-line data bases: 

L+l&ive Information System @IS)-more than 

12$%U reports, monographs, papers, briefs, and ardcles; 

Llnifo”” and Model A&s-will contain all the acts 

promulgated by the National Conference of Commissionerson Uniform StateLaw. aswell asmodel actsmeSponsoring Orgauizatio” 

States Information Center, Council of State Governments (CSG). 

pared by other organizations; ind 

LBGISNET Index-on-line version of the LEGISNET thesaums. 

No technical assistance 

138 
Data sources 

State legislamrcs and executive offices, and other state 

gcwermnent associations, 

Private associations, research organizations, and the 

federal govenmwnt. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Acces.~ is through a mcdcm and computer or request for 

NCSL staff to seanh the data base. LEGISNET training 

sessions are available. 

Abstracts, issue briefs, and articlez arc available for 

full text printing by the user. Other documents met be 

ordered through LEGISNE’X 

Clwingbouse Publications 

NCXl.2. 

NCSLpublishes a numbaofpublications on innovative economic development strategies, 

US.YS 

Available tostate legislators and their staffs. Otherssub 

scribe to NCSI?s Foundation for State Legislatures. 

F.XS 

No charge for state legislatures. Foundation for State 

I.egiSlaNreS subscriptions, $l,SOO. 

COUNCtS 

Mr. Bob Fmhling 

Ms. Jo Martinez 

LEGISNFiT 

National Conference of State Legislatures 

1050 17th Street, Suite ZlOil 

Denver, CO 80265 

(303) 623-7800 

LOCAL EXCHANGE 

Sponsoring Organization 

National League of Cities (NLQ International City 

Management Association f&MA), Public Technology, 

Inc. (PTI), Government Finance Oflicas Association 

(GFOA), and Association of Metropolitan Sewerage 

Agencies (AMSA), developed in partnership with GTE 

Education Service. 

Infommtion and Services 

On-line information network for local gcnermnent 

palicy development and problem solving. Includes information on such topics as management, finance, budgeting, and improving municjpal services. 

Electmnic bulletin boards cover administration, cornmunity and cmnamic dev&pment, public safety and public v&a, uniwsity camnunitie5, small communitia, leg& 

latix a!d Egulatory u&tcs, and general tapics. 

Opporhmity to conduct on-line u&shops cm spxifk 

top&, and to generate questionnaires, confwence @~@ation fomn, and other types of forms. Sutxrii~~ provide information to other organization in an easily usable form. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Eight computerized data bases include: 

NLC’s Urban Affairs Abstracts-monthly service, 

articles from 4OU municipally oriented pcriaiicals; 

Local Govcmmcnt Solutions-more than Z,G0l case 

studiescollected by NIC, PTI, and ICMA that document 

innovative solutions to lwal problems; 

NLC’s Economic Development Dispatches-lm 

files of infommtion on case sNdies, publications, and 

“ews about “pcomhlg conferences; 

PTI’s and ICMA’s Microlink-a data base with information about micnxomputer applications, pnduct announcements, and nehvorking issues; 

NLC’s Legislative News-infommtion on current 

legislative and regulatory news; 

GFOA’s GF-Net-more than 600 abstracts of intercst to municipal finance officers (covering economic, 

Federal Reserve, money market, municipal market, and 

municipal ratings). GF-Net is updated several times aday 

from the Dow Jones Capital Mark.% Wire; 

ICM.Xs Jobs-an uptc-datc listing of job opporhu$ 

ties in local governments; 

User Directov-a listing of all Local Exchange users, including addresses and telephone numbas 

Data Sources 

NE, ICMA, WA, and GFOA. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Arxess is through a mcdem and computer terminal, 

Search by key words. 

Subscribers rcccivc a training diskette. An 8tXl customer 

service phone number also is available. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

NOIE. 

Spamx-ing organizations produce a number of publications of interest to state and kxal gwemmcnts, 

users 

Primary users are lcal government officials and their 

mffs. 

FIXS 

Subscription service. Fees based on ~pulaticm: over 

lIXl,CNX, of $700 for seven sign-on IDS; 25,000 to l@l,C@J, 

WI for five IDS; and under 25,000, $300 for three IDS. 

State municipal leagues, $4Gil for three IDS; additional IDS, $45. 

Hourly connect charges and transmission charges. 

contact 

Ms. Kathryn Shanc McCarty 

Director of Information Services 

Leeal Exchange 

National League of Cities 

1301 Pennsvlvania Avenue. NW 

Washing&, DC 2IXlO4 

(202) 6x3180 

LUCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION NETWORK 

WGU’O 

Sponsoring Organization 

William C. Norris InstiNtc (Control Data Corporation) 

Information and Services 

On-line infommtion wvicz offering articles, cast 

studies, prograin descriptions, and other infommtion on 

issues ranging from solid waste dispxxal and economic 

development to city arts and cultural programs. 

Electronic mail feaNre with a question and answer 

format. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Computerized databw contains smne 4O,OL!0-50,000 artitles, program descriptions, and other infommtion, 

Search by key wrds. Includes a subject line, a 34 line 

sumnary, the text, and umtact perso”. 

Typzs of information include: 

Case studies of innovative local govcmment pm 

grams, projects, policies, and practices; 

Announcements ofnew federal loans and grants and 

federal program changes; 

Updates and new% briefs about pending federal legislation; 

Innovations in local govcmmcnt finance; 

Approaches for serving the elderly, the homeless, 

and victims of domestic violence; 

Urban technologies from other countries; 

139 
Examples of private-sector initiatives and pubiicprivate ccn+watioll; 

Syndicated articles on state and Ical government isS”W 

Case studies of economic and community develop 

mat: and 

Approaches and educational resources for improving 

pmductivity in goven”ne”t. 

On-line aaxss to the Greemuxd Press Index to Current Udxm Documents, which lists rno~ than 3,50l citaticm. 

Data So”rces 

Variety of organizatio”s that saw Ical gowm”ent~, such 

as U.S. Co”ference of Mayors, National League of Cities, 

Leq,ue of California Cities, Academy for State. and Iccal 

Gmmuuent, Hanad IJ”iwxity John I? Keunedy S&xl 

of Gownment, US Department of Housing and Urban 

Dewlopment, and U.S. Depatment of Energy. 

Access to Clwiu&me 

Access is through a mcdem and a computer tennina via 

one of more than 400 xcesa ports across the co”ntry. Users assigned an ID. Search by key words. 

Subscribers rweive 8 user manual and reference 

guide. Toll-free assistance hot-line is available. 

Cleari”gbouse Publications 

NOIX. 

Doc”ments cited in the Greemecd Press Index t”ay 

be ordered through IBGIN. 

USIYS 

Open only to lcxxl goverm”ent of&i&, state municipal 

leagws, state and federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations serving kxal g”vernmenL=,. 

Annual subsaiption/membership package ranging from 

almost $3,lMO to almost $6,m. Special membership 

packages available for smaller jurisdictions. 

contact 

LOGIN Infommtion Services 

245 E. 6th Street, Suite 609 

St. Paul, MN SSlOl-9ix6 

(600) 328-1921 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICE (MIS) 

Sponsoring Organization 

International City Management Aswciation (ICMA) 

Information and Services 

1”for”mtio” o” issues ranting i?om economic and business 

development to local administration and management. 

No technical assistance. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Contains information cm nmre than 16,OCml documents. 

Approximately 12,000, generally reports and articles, 

cover background information and case studies on local 

government pmgrans and initiatives; abat 5,000 we 

manuals, handba!e, ordinances, budgets, videos, and 

technical spwifxaticms. Computerized. 

Approximately 2,OOil dcc”ments are added annually. 

Outdated dwuments are eliminated systematically. 

Data Sources 

Reports from kxal governments. 

ICMA research staff reports. 

Service providers to local gowmnents. 

Print and electronic media. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Acces&ble only by MIS staff. Usem call or wite; biblicgraphic references are sent by mail or FAX; full-text dcxuments and videos are loaned once the user makes 8 selection 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Data Bose Update (quarterly), report highlighting “av 

materialsi” thedatabase and generally~ntainingabout 

30 articles. 

Subscribers to MIS also nxeive a number of ICMA 

publications: 

MIS Repotis (monthly), report o” critical issues of 

co”cmn to l”cal g0”em”le”t.s; 

Mt.7 Bulletin, “ew&tter on recent inquiries and new 

contributions to the MIS data base; 

Info Packs, semiannual packet of materials cm a selected issue (compiled from the MIS data base); 

Public Management (monthly), magazine: and 

Mw+xz/ Yea-book (annual), providing analysis of 

the changing roles and f”ncticms of local governments 

and highlightsof majornational andstate legislation that 

affects l”cal gowninents. 

US.ZS 

Primary usm are kxal gowmnents. Any official of a subscribing jurisdiction may “se MIS “” an unlimited basis. 

F0?S 

Subscription service. Fees based o” population. 

Non-subscribers, $50 per inquiry. 

contact 

Ms. Joy Pierson 

Inquiry Service Manager 

Management Information Service 

International City Management Association 

777 North Capital Street, NE, Suite SXI 

Washington, DC 20002 

(202) 962-3659 cn 962.3632 

140 
Technology Information 

FEDERAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY DATA BASE 

(File FATD) 

Sponsoring Organization 

Center for the Utilization of Federal Tehnology 

(Cum), National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Information and Services 

Technology transfer resource linking U.S. companies 

and other wers with technology expertise and information at federal latwatories. Offem access to all informa 

tion CUFT collects for its publications on resarces 

available fmm federal laboratories. CUFF licenses govemmentavned inventions on behalf of a number of 

agencies. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

The information-more than 16,lHlO records as of 

1989-includes the following: 

Identification of more than 1,100 federal laboratory 

resources listed by area of expertise; facilities and equipment available for sharing; technical information tenten; and special services for supplying R&D samples and 

supplies; 

New technologies hating “better-than-average pe 

tentiar’ for domestic application; and 

Descriptions of U.S. government-znvned inventions 

that companies may use to develop new products and 

pKlCSS%. 

Contact and source information is included for many 

of these entries. 

Data Sources 

CUFT collections for its printed publications. Data b&x 

updated every two weeks. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Aaxss is through a cnmmertial on-line information service2 BRS Information Technologies, Menudriven 

searching is available via a mcdem and computer terminal. All records are assigned subject codes, searchable 

through specific subject subsets. 

Fed& Labomfoy Technolow-Online, free public.+ 

tion, includes acce~ procedures, searching techniques, 

and data base descriptions. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

NOW,. 

CUFT publishes a numberofpublicaticms and directories on technology transfer and business assistance 

programs. Some of these publications include: 

Tech Note (monthly), covering current technological 

advances considered to have potential commercial or 

other application ($175 per year) 

Federal Labomtory Tecbnob~g~ Ct~talog (annual), summarizing the prior year’s Tech N&Y ($39); 

Government Inventions for Licensing Abstmct Newsletter (weekly), bulletin covering inventions from all federal agencies that alerts businesses and entrepreneur to 

opportunities for licensing and marketing government-avned inventions ($235 per year); and 

Diwztoty of Fedeml Labomloty and Tecbno~ogv Re 

s0,ucet ($59.95). 

Users 

Usas include industry, universities, federal, state, and local governments, as well as individual scientists and engi- 

“WTS. 

$60 per hour during office hours; $50 pa hour during 

off-hours. 

COlltXtS 

Information about the data base and CUFT publicatkms: 

National Technical Information Setice 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5625 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

(703) 467450 

Ask for brcchures PR-801 and PR-725. 

Information not covered in the brochures: 

Mr. Edward Lehmann 

Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5825 Port Royal Road 

Springtield, VA 22161 

(703) 487-480s 

F’EDER4L RESEARCH IN PROGRESS DATA BASE (FE 

DRIP) 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. 

Department of Commerce 

Information and Sewices 

On-line data base with summaries of active, federally 

funded research projects in the physical sciences, engineering, and life sciences. 

No technical assistance 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Compilation of about 116,OlXl citations of active research 

projects funded by the federal government. Eleven gcw 

emment agencies share information with F’EDRIF! Abstracts describe the basis of the research, its objectives, 

and, in many instances, intermediate tindings. The 

agency data bases available to FEDRIP are: 

AGRIC, Department of Agriculture (17,504l proj- 

.ZtS); 

CRISE Public Health Service (49,100 projects); 

ENRGY, Department of Energy (5,9QO projects); 

NASA (700 projects); 

NBS, National Institute of Standards and Technolca PI PM~tO 

NSF National Science Foundation (13,5Oil projects); 

TRANS, Transportation Research hard of the National Academy of Sciences (4,0X1 projects); 

USGS, Water Resources Division of the U.S. Getlogical Survey (300 projects); 

VA, Department of Veterans Affair (14,!%l pmjectsk 

SBIR, Small Business Innovation Research Program 

(7,800 projects); and 

NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (300 projects). 

Data Sources 

Federal agencies described above. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is through DIALOG Information Services via an 

800 number, mcdem. and computer tem?inal. Searched 

primarily by subject and organization name (including 

the organization performing the research and the spcmsoring or funding federal agency). 

141 
Available also from NERAC, In& which pwfonns 

se”rchcs based on a user profile, 

Seamh Guide to the Fedend Resemch in Pmgmm Data 

Bme-FEDIUP, a free bmkJet, dexrJJm the range ofjnfomntio” covered and the procedure. On-line training 

and group presentations arc available. 

Ckaringbouse Publications 

NOIE. 

USWS 

Users include w+%uchcrs from business, universities, 

and goven”“c”t. 

DIALOG hourly computer connect fee, $81. 

NERAC subscription rate based on anticipated “sc. 

contact 

DIALOG Information Services 

34&l Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 943C4 

(800) 3342564 

NERAC. Inc. 

One T&hnology Drive 

Tolland, CI 06OS4 

(203) 87%7lNl 

THE FEDERAL IARORATORY CONSORTIUM 

FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFRR CLRARINGHOUSE (FLC) 

Sponsoring Organization 

Federal Laboratory Consortium 

Information and Services 

Operates 8s a technology broker between federal laboratories and private and public sector users. 

Technology information exchanges arranged to assist 

business product development, as wcll as to address sta.te 

and local lwlicy and progra” needs. 

Technical assistance provided The Cle”ringho”x will 

wxkwitb ind”sby gm”pa to help create and identZy potential laboratoiy staff for a special technology interest gro”p. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Capable of providing wcess paints for all technologies 

being developed in member federal laboratories (exclude 

ing selected Department of Defew tech”olo@). 

Resource diwctoty data baw identifies exp-ztlse of 

individual laboratories and coven over one-third of the 

laboratories and centers. 

“Technical spe&listY for each of 35 technology arMS respond to specific requests. 

Data Sources 

Clcaringho”sedatabases. Access todatabwsoftheNationalTexhnical Infon”ationScwic.%NationalAero”autics and Space Administration, and others for referral information. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Access is through a technical request form indicating the 

problem, desired results, action to date, what the inquirer 

expects from the labemto~, and the date the information or assistance is needed. Request sent to the appropriate laboratory by phone, mail, electronic mail, or 

FAX. 

Initial access is contact with the Industrial Application 

Centers by phone, mail, or meetings. Staff searches data 

base through a system calkxl RECON. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

NASA Tech Bnkfs (monthly) provides information o”: 

Newly developed product? and processes; 

Advances in basic and applied research; 

Improvements in shop and labaatory techniques; 

So”rces of technical data and comp”tcr programs; and 

Other innovations with commercial potential origi- 

“sting at NASA field centers or at the facilities ofNASA 

contmcto~. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

NOIlC 

More detailed information on particular innovations 

is wailahle in a “Technical Support Package.” 

Spinofi annual volume to heighten “warencss of 

technology transfer and its potential for economic and 

social benefit. 

FIG produces publications on the Clearingho”se Uscn include state and local governments, private tirms, 

and its othm activities, including a montly newletter technical and business wistawe providers, and w 

highlighting available laboratory technology. searchers. 

USWS 

R’bnary users generally from corpaations, state and I& 

cal governments, and univemitics. Open to any inter- I 

ested individual a- mgmi.?ation. 

Fe.3 

FE.% 

contact 

Mr. Alla” Sjoholm 

FIX Clearinghouse 

l&l7 5th Avenue, Suite 810 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 544-9033 

NASA TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PROGRAM (Ill) 

Sponsoring Organization 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) (at NASA facilities and NASA-supported organizations, such as academic institutions), 

Infomtatim and Services 

Information and technical assistance to broaden and acc&rate the transfer of aemspace technology to other 

secton of the cccmomy. 

Access to ?evaal NASA a&tance progm”u including 

Industrial Application Centen-ten user assistance 

centers, affdiated with universities, that provide both 

public and private infommtion retrieval services and 

technical help to government and industry clients: 

Industrial Application Center Affiliatcs-statcsponsored business or technical assistance centcrs in 29 

states that provide access to NASAs technology transfer 

network and 

Applications Team-working on engineering projects to solve public and private sector problems through 

the application of pertinent acrospxe technology. 

Suppxt teams, with wed funding, develop prototype 

h”rdnwe to prove applicability of technology ti problems 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

Access to about o”c million doc”me”ts in the NASA 

data bank and in more than 400 other computerized data 

bases. Includes selected contents ofsome 15,Wl scicntific and technical joum&. 

Data Sources 

NASA R&D contracts. 

Access to Clearinghouse 
Charg‘v for comp”ter searches and project services pmvided by the Industrial Application Centers. 

COUtCXt 

Mr. Leonard Ault 

Tmhnology Utilization Division 

NASA Hcadauartexs 

600 Inde&ence Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20546 

(202) 4s3433l.l 

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS INFORMATION SYSTEM 

O-MS) 

Office of Technology Applications, Strategic Defense 

Initiative Organization (SDIO), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 

Information and Services 

On-line computerized referral system containing de 

scriptions of technologies develofi for the Strategic 

Defense Initiative (SDI)program. As permitted by DOD 

rules, links organizations and individuals seeking to cornmercialize SDI technology with the inventon. 

Office of Technology Applications makes unclassifed, nonproprietary SD1 technologies available to other 

federal agencies and to the US. private sector. Technolcgy Applications Oftice staff provides penonalii business assistance on request. 

Nature and Scope of the Data Base 

As of March l!KU, contains: 

1,300+ technology abstracts containing unclassified 

summaries of SD1 funded technologies with spinoff lxtential; 

Descriptions of rmve. than lg0 federal and 420 state/ 

local business assistance programs; 

Opportunities and xquirements for submitting pm 

peals for SD1 research funding under the SD1 Small 

Business Innovation Research program and the SD1 Innovative Science and Technology program; and 

Listings of 15 other on-linef&cral databases oftechnology infomation (DOD, NTIS, etc). 

Data Sources 

Researchers and/or govermncnt sponsors responsible 

for SD1 contrac@. The information rceived from thee 

sources is standardized to fit the TAIS format. 

Other federal agencies and organizations. 

Access to Clearinghouse 

Ace.w through computer modem. Technology abstracts 

sexched by technology hierarchy and key wxds. Additional information may be requested on abstracts. T&hnology Applications Office responds by mail and also informs the holder of the technology of the user’s interest. 

Clearinghouse Publications 

Annual repxts, bmchurw press releases, and presskits. 

users 

Primary users are large corporations, small firms, entrepreneurs, universities, federal agencies, and state. and local governments. 

TAIS is available. to any U.S. citizen or business that 

has completed a Militarily Critical Technical (M(X) 

Data Agreement (DD Form 2345) and has been certitied 

as eligible for access by the Defense Logistics Agency 

(81%35%3572). Federal agency representatives may obtain access certification by addrcssing a request on official letterhead to the SD10 Technology Applicaticw Office, OSD/SDIO/TNO, Washington, DC 20301-7100. 

FHS 

Free (pwiblc longdistance telephone charge> 

COUtWt 

Cal. Daniel Hcitz, Director 

Technology Applications Office 

Strategic Defense Initiative O~anization 

OSD~SDIOA’NO 

Am: TAIS 

Washington, DC 20301-7l@l 

(24n) 693-I.553 

ZLTECH 

Sponsoring Organization 

Teltech 

Information and &vices 

Consulting service for scientists and engineers facing 

questionsin neworunfamiliartwhnical are&% Includes a 

network of technical qrts, an interactive literature 

searching capability, and training courses, 

Telephone consultation available in more than 2JCn.J 

science and technology subjects. 

Nahw and Scope of the Data Base 

Access to nmre than 1,20l external data bases, and 

printed materials covering technical and general businew infomation. A partial listing includes: 

DIALOG-data bases covering science and technology, business, and cwrent affairs; 

Dow Jones-includiig the l+‘uIl Street Jcmmd and 

BCTIl0ll.f; 

Datatim~-domesticandintemational”~pa~~; 

Newsnet-industry new.lettem; and 

ORBIT-dealing with patents, petroleum, packaging, and materials. 

Netwxk of 7,000 technical wrts available for telephone consultation, drawn t?cnn universities, federal lab. 

oratories, consulting grou~6, and private indusby, aswell 

as from retired scientists and engineem 

Data Sources 

Data bases described above. 

Access to Clearin@ouse 

Access is through CompuServe. Infomation specialist 

searches data base; user watches on a computer screen 

and cmmnen~ by phone, pintinting tlx dcauncn~ needed T&e& cxmdinates deliwy of ptinted matxials. 

Interactive literature searching service relies on 

on-line systems. Specialists nehwrk uses an on-line system or users may call Teltech’s help staff. 

Clea&ghouse Publications 

NOIIC 

Uscm include corporations, and small and medium-sized 

manufachvers. 

Fees 

Subscription service. Annual fees, 55,m to %%l,@Xl, cow 

all data base and starch charges % well as expert contact 

contact 

Mr. Ron Heleeson 

tech - 

i5 West 78th Street 

F.&n Fwirie. MN 55344 

(6lz) tu!hloo 

143 
TO PROMOTE AMERICAN BUSINESS 

PRODUCTMTY, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION 

A GUIDE TO 

PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM DEVELOPERS AND ADMINISTRATORS 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

144 
To Promote American Business 

The Omnibus Trade and Competitivemw Act of 1988 estabIished the ClearinghoweforStatea.ndLocalInitiatives 

on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation within the 

U.S. Department of Commerce. The primary mission of 

the Clearinghouse is to enhance nationwide awareness 

and use of the many federal, state, and local initiatives that 

seek to bolster the competitiveness of American businesses in world markets. 

The Department of Commerce entered into an agreement with the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to develop a feasible and effective operating plan for the Clearinghouse. The plan recognizes that 

a great deal of activity is under way to assist in promoting 

and adopting federal, state, and local initiatives designed 

to enhance the productivity, technology, and innovation of 

American businesses. Therefore, the Clearinghouse was 

designed to reinforce these activities rather than to replace or duplicate them. 

This selected Guide to Professional Program Developers 

and Admirds?rators is not a clearinghouse information Iist. 

Do not call these people for Clearinghouse information. 

Its purpose is to facilitate contacts amo*g organizations 

and eqerts in these fields to help them improve their services. The other booklets in this series of three Guides being distributed by the Clearinghouse acquaint users with 

the variety of resources available-a directory of national 

clearinghouses that provide information and assistance on 

productivity improvement, technology transfer, and business innovation, and a directory of federal, state, and loca1 

initiatives in these fields. 

Comments and suggestions for improving the guidebooks-or about other activities of the Clearinghouse-are 

welcome. In addition to these guidelxoks and other information services, the Clearinghouse intends to provide policy 

analysis services designed to help federal, state, and local 

policymakers ident% and implement the most effective initiatives to stimulate business productivity, technological advance, and innovation. 

Inquiries should be directed as foIlows: 

By phone: (202) 377-0826 or 377.2922 

By mails Clearinghouse for State and Local 

Initiatives on Productitity, Technolom, 

and Innovation 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

How to Use this Guide 

This directoq consists of four parts: (1) a master list, names by geographical location; and (4) an alphabetical 

by organization, with separate sections for the federal gov- liit of names. The number before each ?urnt! directs the usa 

ernment, state and local institutions and organizations, to the corresponding entry in the master list, which contains 

universities, and nongovernmental organizations; (2) a list addresses and phone numbers for each person and organiof names categorized by subject of expertise; (3) a liit of zation. 

145 
Contents 

U.S.GovemmentListings ............................................................................. 149 

Advisov Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ................................................ 149 

Ag~~lture,U.S.Depa~mentof ................................................................... 149 

Ag~culuralResearchSe~ce .................................................................. 149 

ExtensionSetice ............................................................................ 149 

RuralInfotmationCenter ..................................................................... 149 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 149 

Commerce,U.S.Departmentof ................................................................... 149 

Economic Development Administration ......................................................... 149 

Technology Administration .................................................................... 149 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on Productivity, Technology, and Innovation ............ 149 

National Institute of Standards and Technology .................................................. 149 

National ‘Ikchnical Information Service, Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology ............. 150 

TechnologyCommercialization.. ............................................................... 150 

TechnologyPolicy ............................................................................ 150 

Congress,U.S .................................................................................... 1% 

HouseofRepresentatives ..................................................................... 150 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ............................................... 1% 

Senate ...................................................................................... 150 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Tkmsportation ....................................... 150 

Committee on Small Business .............................................................. 150 

Libm~ofCongress ........................................................................... 150 

Technology Assessment, U.S. Office of .......................................................... 150 

Defense,U.S.Depa~mentof ...................................................................... 150 

Edu~tion,U.S.Depa~mentof .................................................................... 150 

Ener~,U.S.Depa~mentof ....................................................................... 151 

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency ........................................................... 151 

Federal Laboratov Consortium for Technoloa Tmnsfer .............................................. 151 

General Services Administration, U.S. .............................................................. 151 

~bor,U.S.Depa~mentof ........................................................................ 151 

Management and Budget, U.S. Office of ............................................................ 151 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. ................................................ 151 

National Institutes of Health, U.S. ................................................................. 151 

NationalScienceFoundation ...................................................................... 152 

Small Business Administration, U.S ................................................................. 152 

~nnesseeva~ey~tho~ty ........................................................................ 152 

Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. .................. ; ......................................... 152 

‘Bansportation, U.S. Department of ................................................................ 152 

VeteransAffairs,U.S.Departmentof .............................................................. 152 

State and Local Institutions and Organizations ......................................................... 153 

Arkansas Science and Technology Authority ......................................................... 153 

Indiana Corporation for Science and Technology ..................................................... 153 

IowaDepa~mentofE~nomicDevelopment ........................................................ 153 

Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development .................................... 153 

Montgomery County High Technoloa Council, Inc. .............................................. 153 

MichiganModemizationService ................................................................... 153 

MichiganStrategicFand .......................................................................... 153 

New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development ................................ 153 

146 
New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology ................................................. 153 

New York State Science and Technoloa Foundation ................................................ 153 

North Dakota Economic Development Commission ................................................. 154 

Ohio-ThomasEdisonProgram .................................................................. 154 

Pennsylvania-Ben Franklin Partnership ........................................................... 154 

Vii&h-Center for Innovative Technology ........................................................ 154 

Universities ......................................................................................... 155 

University of Southern California, Western Research Application Center ............................... 155 

University of Florida, Southern Technoloa Applications Center ....................................... 155 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Center for Urban Economic Development ............................. 155 

Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indianapolis Center for Advanced Research, Inc. 155 

University of MaTland, Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship ........................................ 155 

University of Maryland, Technology Extension Service-Engineering and Research Center ............... 155 

State University of New York at Buffalo, N.Y. Disability Technology Information Network ................ 155 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Small Business and Technology Development Center ........ 155 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro ......................................................... 155 

Ohio-Central State University Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Research .................. 155 

Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program .............................. 156 

South Dakota State University, Engineering and Environmental Resource Center ....................... 156 

Veiny-GeorgeMa~nUnivers~y ................................................................ 156 

Washsington, DC-Howard University, Small Business Development Center. ........................... 156 

WestVirginia-MarshallUniversity ................................................................ 156 

West Virginia University, Regional Research Institute ................................................ 156 

Nongovernmentalorganizations ....................................................................... 157 

~vancedDevelopmentD~tribution,Inc ............................................................ 157 

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business ................................................ 157 

American Electronics Association .................................................................. 157 

American Planning Association .................................................................... 157 

American Society for Training and Development ..................................................... 157 

Association for Manufacturing Technology/National Machine Tool Builders’ Association ................. 157 

Association of University Related Research Parks .................................................... 157 

C&JIndustries ................................................................................. 157 

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government ....................................... 157 

Carson, Thomas B. ............................................................................... 157 

Chamber of Commerce Small Business Center ...................................................... 157 

ChapmanResearchand Associates.. ............................................................... 157 

ChicagoHigh’IbchAssociation .................................................................... 158 

Civic Information and Techniques Exchange ......................................................... 158 

Comm~teeforE~nomicDevelopment ............................................................. 158 

Community Information Exchange ................................................................. 158 

Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturing Association ........................................ 158 

Council for Urban Economic Development ......................................................... 158 

Counc~ofStateGovemments ..................................................................... 158 

Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies ....................................................... 1.58 

CouncilonCompetitiveness ....................................................................... 158 

Gray Research ................................................................................... 158 

DPA, Inc. ....................................................................................... 158 

EdwardTKellyand Associates.. .................................................................. 158 

Financial Alternatives ............................................................................ 159 

Fiscal Planning Services ........................................................................... 159 

Handsnet ....................................................................................... 159 

Hansen,McDuatandAssociates ................................................................... 159 

Industrial Biotechnology Association ............................................................... 159 

IndwtrialResearchInstitute ...................................................................... 159 

Industrial~chnolo~Institute ..................................................................... 159 

Innovation Associates ............................................................................. 159 

International City Management Association ......................................................... 159 

147 
~MGPeatMa~ick ............................................................................. 159 

LingTechnologies,Inc. ........................................................................... 159 

Lipman,Barbara ................................................................................. 159 

Login Information Services ........................................................................ 159 

Louisiana Partnership forT&hnolow and Innovation ................................................. 159 

McDowellGroupCorporation.. ................................................................... 160 

McGovern&Associates .......................................................................... 160 

NationalAcademyofSciences ..................................................................... 160 

National~~mnceofBusiness ...................................................................... 160 

National Association of Counties .................................................................. 160 

National Association of Development Organizations ................................................. 160 

National Association of Management and Technical Assistance Centers ................................ 160 

National Association of Manufacturers ............................................................. 160 

National Association of State Development Agencies ................................................ 160 

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges ................................... 160 

National Association of ‘Ibwns and Townships ....................................................... 160 

National Conference of State Legislatures .......................................................... 161 

NationalGovemo~‘~s~iation ................................................................... 161 

NationalLeagueofCities ......................................................................... 161 

National Society of Professional Engineers .......................................................... 161 

National University Continuing Education Association ............................................... 161 

OwensCorn~gFiberglass ......................................................................... 161 

Phelps, Paul B. .................................................................................. 161 

Public Technology, Inc. ........................................................................... 161 

PymatuningGroup ............................................................................... 161 

Science~rk~soc~tes ........................................................................... 161 

Software Productivity Consortium .................................................................. 161 

SolarEner~ResearchIrtstitute ................................................................... 161 

SouthemTechnolo~Counc~ ...................................................................... 161 

SpaceCommerceIntemational,Ltd. ............................................................... 162 

Systems Engineering and Management Associates, Inc. (SEMA, Inc.) .................................. 162 

Technolo~~eptanceGroup ..................................................................... 16’2 

Te~ech .......................................................................................... 162 

Texas Research and Technolo&y Foundation ......................................................... 162 

ThomasPublishing Company ...................................................................... 162 

TRANT!ZK,Inc. ................................................................................. 162 

TRW,Inc. ....................................................................................... 162 

Wyckoff,JamesM. ............................................................................... 162 

UrbanLandInstitute ............................................................................. 162 

148 
ABYISORY COMMISSION 

ON INTERGOYBRNMENTAL. REL4TIONS 

1. Dr. Bruce D. McDowll, Director 

Govwnment Policy Raearch 

Advisay Commkaion 

on Intagmm”lental Relatim 

11112Qth Street, NW Suite 2OGU 

Washington, DC 20575 

(202) 653-5540 

Clearinghow Operations, P”blic Policy 

and Legislatio”, Technology ‘Ransfa 

U.S. Government Listings 

Fkonomic Development Administration 

14th Street and Constih~tio” Ave”“e, NW 

R”om 73t9 

Washington, DC 202.30 

(202) 377-2127 

Fxonomic Development, Tahnology Tktnsfer, 

Scimtific Reearch 

%h”oIog~ Admi”istrati0” 

Ckainghouse for State and I&c& Initiatives 

cm Pr”ductivity, Tech”olo&v, and 1”“ovatto” 

AGRICUIJ’URE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

Ag~?culhwal Research Service 

7.. Mr. James Hall, Technology lk”sfer Coordinatcw 

USDA-ARS-CK!I 

4th Fkwr, Building Gil5 

Bebsvioe, MD 20705 

(301) 344-4045 

Technology Transfer 

Extension Service 

3. Dr. Theodore Maher, 

Nrdional Progmn Leader for LaxI Governments 

Jktension Service 

U.S. Department of Agsiadtwe 

R”om 3&55, South B”ilding 

Washington, DC 2l?ZC-O!%O 

(202) 447-7185 

Ekxmomic Development, Technology ‘Ikansfer, 

workforce Freparatton 

Rurzd I”for”aatio” Center 

4. Ms. Patricia John 

Rural lnfommtion Center 

Room 304, National Agric”ltural Library 

Beltsville, MD 20705 

(301) 34%2547 

Clearingho”se Operations, Technology Ti’ansfer, 

F.conomic Development 

APPAIaACHL4f.l REGIONAL COMMISSION 

5. Mr. Robert Decker, Director 

Pmnomic and Program Analyxis 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC ZJl2.35 

(202) 673-7g49 

Ekonomic Development, F’rogram Evaluation, 

Technology Transfer 

COMMERCE, U.S. DEPARMNT OF 

Fxonomic Development Admi”istratio” 

6. Mr. David H. Geddes. Director 

Mr. Richard E. Hag& 

National Technical A&stance Cwxdinator 

Tshnical ksiitance Research Division 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

149 

Dr. Robert Atkbwn, Coordinator 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

HUG 

-ty, -rechmw, ard 1”“ovatio” 

U.S. Demwtment of Cmm”erce 

Washi”&n, DC 20230 

(202) 377-0659 

Clearinghow Operations 

Mr. Richad A. Johnson, Manager 

State and Local Data Bases 

Clearinghouse for State and Loal Initiatives 

HM: 

Pmdnbity, Technolqy, a”d bmovati”” 

US. De”artment of Gxmnerce 

Washi”&“, DC 2tZ?Jl 

(202) 377-2922 

Ckuingho”se Operations 

Ms. Elizabeth Robertson 

Clearingho”x Industry Analyst 

Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives 

Hut 

Praiu&ity, T&“a!qy, and Innwatin 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20238 

(202) 377.a32.5 

Clearinghouse OIxrations 

National Institute of Standards and Tech”ology (NIST) 

Dr. Robert E. Chapman, Acting Director 

Office of Technology Commetialization 

National Institite of Standards and Technolcgy (NIST) 

Btdlding ?X, Room A-343 

Gaithemburg, MD 2OS!J9 

(301) 975-2723 

Clearinghouse Opxations, Research Assistance, 

Technology Transfer 

Dr. David E. agerly, Acttng Deputy Director 

Technology Services 

National Institite of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Building 221, Room A-363 

G&h&b&, MD 2Og!X 

(301) 97545Ml 

Clearinghouse Operations, Research Assistance, 

Technolow Transfer 
12 

13 

14 

IS 

National Technical Information Service, Center 

for the Utilization of Federal Technology (NTlS/CUFT) 

Dr. Dar& Bracken 

National Technical lnfomxition Service, 

Center for the Utilization “f Federal Technoloa 

Rwm 304, Forbes Building 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

(703) 487~4S36 

TechnoloB Transfer 

Tech”rdogy Commercialization 

Mr. Joseph P Allen, Deputy Director 

Office of Technology Commercialization 

H4418 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

(202) 377-8100 

Technology Transfer 

Mr. Theodore J. L&es, Manager 

Advanced Manufacturing Program 

Oftice of Technology Commercialization 

H4418 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 2tX.30 

(202) 377-8111 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Tmnsfer 

Tech”o&y Policy 

Mr. Tip Parker 

Senior Technology Economics Specialist 

Office of Technology Policy 

H4835 

US. Department of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

(202) 3774825 

Technology Transfer 

CONGRESS, U.S. 

House of Representatives 

16. 

17. 

Committee “” Science, Space, and Tech”oIo$y 

22. Cal. Daniel Heitz 

Technology Application lnfamation System 

Strategic Defense Initiative Organization 

OSDiSDIOrTlTA 

U.S. Dep&&nt of Defense 

Washington, DC 20301-7100 

(202) 693-1563 

Mr. James Turner, Counsel 

Mr David G&&t”“, Republican Spxial Assistant 

Subcommittee on Science, Research 

and Technolcgy 

Technology Transfa 

EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

23 

US. House of Representatives 

2319 Raybum House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

(202) 225-8844 (mner) 

(202) 22.54024 (Goldsto”) 

Dr. Susan S. Klein, Senior Research Asscciate 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

U.S. Department of Education 

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20208-5724l 

(202) 357-6289 

Public Policy and Legislation 

Mr. Wesley Warren, Republican Spxial A.&tant 

Subcommittee on Natural Resources, 

Agricultw. Research and Environment 

U.S. How of Representatives 

388 House Office Building Annex II 

Washington, DC 20515 

(202) 226-693 

Clexingho”se Operations, Program Evaluation, 

Workforce Preparation 

24 Dr. Winifred Warnat, Director 

Vocational Technical Education 

U.S. Department of Education 

330 C Street. SW. R”om 4315 

Washington, DC’ 20202.7241 

(202) 732-2441 

Public Policy and Lgislation Workforce Preparation 

18. 

19. 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and lkansportation 

Mr. Patrick J. Windham 

Subcommittee “n Science, Technology, and Space 

U.S. House of Representatives 

427 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

(202) 224-9360 

Public Policy and Ixgislaticm 

Committee on Small Business 

Mr. Charles E. Ludlam, T&x Counsel 

SR-428A Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6350 

(24l2) 224-8495 

Public Policy and Legislation 

Library of Congress 

20. Ms. Wendy Schacht, Specialist 

Science and Technology 

CRSISPRD, L.M 413 

U.S. Library of Congress 

101 Independence Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20540 

(202) 707-7066 

Clearinghouse Operations 

Technology Assessment, U.S. OfIke of 

21 Ms. Edith Page, Senior Awciate 

Office of TechnoloB Assessment 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20510-8025 

(2@2) 224-8713 

Program Evaluation 

DEFENSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

150 
ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

25. Ms. Claire Sink, Program Manager 

R&D Technology Ttansfer Program 

Offict of Energy Research 

U.S. Department of Energy, ER-42 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

(202) 586-3560 

Technology Transfer 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

26. Mr. James S Grichar, Senior Economist 

Office of Mobilization Preparedne~ 

Federal Emergenq Management Agency 

500 C Street, SW, Room 627 

Washington, DC 20472 

(24l2) 646-3054 

Innovative Management and Financing 

FEDERAL LABORATORY CONSORTIUM 

FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 

‘27. Dr. Beverly Berg.% W%shington, DC Representat& 

Federal Labomtay Gmsatium 

for Technology Transfer 

1550 M Street, w, 11th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 331-422n 

Technology Transfer 

28. Mr. Del Delabarre, FLC Administrator 

PO. Bax 545 

Sequim, WA 98382 

(206) 683-1005 

29. Mr. Clifford E. Lanham, Manager 

Army Domestic Technology Program 

U.S. Amy Laboratory Command 

Attn: AMSLC-TP-T-I’ 

2800 Powder Mill Road 

Adelphi, Maryland 20783-1145 

(202) 394-4210 

Scientific Research, Technology Transfer 

30. Dr. L.oren C. Schmid, Chairman 

Federal Laboratmy Consortium 

for Technology Transfer 

Pacitic Northwest Laboratay 

F!O.BOX999 

Richland, Washington 99352 

(509) 3752559 

Scientific Research, Technology Transfa 

31. Mr. Allan Sjohohn, Manager 

FK Clearinghow 

1007 5th Avenue, Suite 810 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 544-9033 

Clearinghouse Operations, Technology Transfer 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTIWTION, U.S. 

32. Mr. A. Jerald Vamer 

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

GSA 

300 7th Street, SW, Ground Flea 

Washington, DC 20407 

(202) 453-4126 

Clearinghouse Operations 

IABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

33. Mr. Kelly W Bryant, II 

Bureau of International Labor Affairs 

US. Department of Labw 

24M Constitution Avenue, NW, Rcan S-5325 

Washington, DC 20210 

(202) 523-6201 

W&force Preparation 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 

U.S. OFFICE OF 

34. Mr. Richard J. O’Brien, Management Analyst 

Productivity Management Branch 

Oftice of Management and Budget 

725 17th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

(202) 395-3692 

Productivity Analysis 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMlNISTlWTION, U.S. 

35. Mr. Leonard Ault, Deputy Director 

Technology Utilization 

NASA Headquarters 

Mail Code CU 

600 Indewmdence Avenue. SW 

Washing& DC 20546 

(202) 453-8722 

36. Mr. Henry Clarks, Director 

Technology Utilization 

NASA Headquarters 

Mail Code CU 

6m IndeIxmdence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20546 

(202) 453-8722 

Technology Tmnsfer 

37. Mr. Ray L Gilbert, Manager 

Applications Engineering 

NASA Headquartem 

Mail Cede CU 

600 Indeuendemx Avenue. SW 

Washing&, DC ~m5& 

(24?2) 453-8722 

Technology Transfer 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, U.S. 

36. Dr. Philip S. Chen, Jr. 

Associate Director for Intramural Affair 

National Institutes of Health 

Building 1, Rcan 14U 

9UOJl Rockville Pike 

151 
Bethesda, MD 2Og92 

(301) 496-3561 

Research Assistance 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

39. 

40. 

Ms. Margaret Gnua, Study Director 

Government Studies Group 

National Science Foundation 

2JlOO L Street, NXJ Room 602 

Washington, DC 20550 

(202) 634-4636 

Technology Development, TechnoloB Transfer 

Ms. Joyce Ham&y 

State Liaison Specialist 

National Science Foundation 

lg@l G Street, m, Room 527 

Washington, DC 20550 

(202) 357-9638 

Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

41. Mr. Mark Hankins, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Innovation and Economic Regulation 

Office of Advocacy 

Small Business Administration 

1725 I Street, NW, Suite 403 

Washington, DC 20416 

(202) 634-6115 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Clearinghouse Operations 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

42. Mr. Brown Wright, Manager 

Technology Utilization, 

TVA OCH 2E55B 

4@l West Summitt Hill Dr. 

Knoxville, TN 37902 

(615) 632.6435 

Technology Transfer 

TRADE REPRESENTATWE, OFFICE OF THE U.S, 

43 Mr. J. David Mom&y, Director 

Capital Manufactures and Materials Trade Policy 

Oftice of the US Trade Representative 

6tIl 17th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20506 

(202) 395-4946 

International Trade 

TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

44. Mr. Norman Paulhw 

Technology Shting Program 

US. Department of Transportation 

DRT-1DT Room 9402 

4Cil7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC Xl590 

(202) 36&42@3 

Technology Transfer 

VRTERANS AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

45. Dr. Margaret Giannini 

Deputy Assistant Chief Medical Director 

for Rehabilitation and Prosthetic 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 938 (110) 

Washington, DC 20420 

(202) 233-5177 

Workforce Preparation 

152 
State and Local Institutions and Organizations 

ARKANSAS MICHIGAN 

Arkansas Science and Technolo&v Authority 

46. Ms. Alice Smith, Vice President 

Arkansas Science and Technology Authority 

100 Main St”+.% Suite 450 

Little Reek. AR 72201 

(501) 3?1-3554 

Techno&y Transfa 

INDIANA 

Indiana Corporation for Science and Technology’ 

41. Dr. Stephen Gage, President 

Indiana Corporation for Science and Technology 

One North Capitol Avenue, Suite 925 

Indianqolis, IN 462042242 

(317) 635-3058 

Technology Transfel 

*State funded nonprofit corporation 

IOWA 

Iowa Department of Economic Development 

48, Mr. David Plazak 

Iowa Department of FZonomic Development 

200 East Grand Avenue 

Des Moines, IA 503G9 

(515) 2Sl-3850 

Innovative Management and Financing 

MARYLAND 

Maryland Department of Economic 

and Employment Development 

49. Mr. Campbell C. Johnson, III, Manager 

Marketing Resources 

Division of Business Development 

Maryland Department of Economix 

and Employment Development 

217 East Redwwd Street, 10th Fkwr 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

(301) 333-6980 

Innovative Management and Financing Research Assistance 

Montgomery County High Technolow Council, Inc.* 

50. Mr. Walter H. Plosila, President 

Montgomay County High Tehnology Council, Ix 

51 Monroe Street, Suite 1701 

Rockville, MD 20650 

(301) 762-6325 

NEW YORK 

56. 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Clearinghouse Gperatiom, Economic Development 

Mr. John S. Deftigos. Deputy Executive Director 

New York State Science and Tech”&gy Foundation 

99 Washington Avenue. Suite 1730 

Albany, NY 12210 

(518) 474-4349 

l No”p&it+ no”gcwe”“nent, deals tith county government 

tinomic Development, Technology Development, 

Technology Transfer 

Michigan Modernization Service 

51. Mr. John Cleveland, Director 

Michigan Mcdwnization Service 

106 W. Allegan, Rcmm 212 

Lansing, MI 4S913 

(517) 373-7411 

Technology Tmnsfel 

Dr. James Kenworthy, Manager 

Research and Tahnology 

Michigan Strategic Fund 

525 west Ottawa street, 3rd Floor 

Lansing, MI 4S933 

(517) 373-0349 

Innovative Management and Financing 

Mr. Steve Rohde, Director 

Private. 1”stit”tions Prog”un 

Michigan Strategic Fund 

525 West Ottawa Street. 3rd Floor 

Lansing, MI 4g933 

(517) 373-7551 

Innovative Management and Financing 

New Hampshire Department of Resources 

and Economic Development 

54. Mr. William E. Pillsbuy, Director 

Off& of Industrial Development 

PO. Box 656 

Concord, NH 03301 

(603) 2712591 

Innovative Management and Financing 

NEW JERSEY 

New Jersey Commission on Science and Technologv 

55. Mr. David Gocdman, Deputy Director 

New Jersey Cam”i&m o” Sclera and Technol~ 

122 west state street 

CN-g32 

Trenton, NJ Og6254832 

(fXl9) 633-2740 

153 
N ORTII DAKOTA 

57. Mr. William A. Patrie, Director 

North Dakota Economic Development Commission 

Lowty Memorial Building 

Bismarck, ND 58505 

(701) 24-2810 

Ben Franklin Partnership 

59. Mr. Jaques Koppel, Executive Director 

Ben Franklin Partnership 

464 Forum Building 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

(717) 787-4147 

Innovative Management and Financing 

innovative Management and Financing, 

Research Assistance, Technology Development 

OHIO VIRGINIA 

Thomas Edison Program 

58. Mr. ChristoDher Coburn. Executive Dire&x 

Center for Innovative Technology 

60. Dr. Gene Cal-at, Director 

Technology Transfer 

Center for Innovative Technology 

2214 Rock Hill Road, Rcan 600 

Hemdon, VA 22070-4005 

(703) 689-3037 

Thomas E&son Prograi 

77 South High Street, 26th Floor 

Columbus, OH 43266.0330 

(614) 466-3086 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Transfer 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

154 
Universities 

CALIFORNIA 

University of Southern California 

Western Research Application Center 

61. Mr. Radfcird King, Executive Director 

Western Research Application Center 

at the University of Southern California (USC) 

3716 S. Hop-e Street, Suite 200 

Im Angeles, CA 9MHl7 

(213) 743-8988 

Clearinghouse Opex=Sions, Technology Transfer 

FLORIDA 

University of Florida 

Soutbem Technology Applications Center 

62. Mr. Ronald J. Thornton, Director 

Southern Technology Applications Center 

University of Florida 

One Progress Boulevard 

&x24 

Alachua, FL 3261s 

(904) 462-3913 

Technology Transfer 

ILLINOIS 

University of Illinois at Chicago 

Center for Urban Economic Development (UICUED) 

63. Dr. Wim Wiewel, Director 

Center for Urban Economic Development 

University of Illinois at Chicago 

815 West Van Buren Street, Suite SIO 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 9964329 

Economic Development, Innovative Management and 

Financing 

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 20742 

(301) 454-8080 

Innovative Management and Financing 

Technology Extension ServiceEngineering and Research Center 

66. Mr. W. Travis Walton 

Engineering and Research Center 

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 20742 

(301) 454-1941 

Innovative Management 

and Financing, Technology Transfer 

NEW YORK 

State University of New York at Buffalo 

N.Y. Disability Technologv Information Nehvork 

67, Dr. William C. Mann 

New York Disability Technology 

Information Network 

Department of Occupational Therapy 

State University of New York at Buffalo 

Sl5 Stockton Kimball Tower 

Buffalo, New York I4214 

(7l6) 831-3141/2 

W&force Preparation 

NORTH CAROLINA 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Small Business and Technologv 

Development Center 

68. Mr. Scott Daugherty, Director 

Small Businw and Technolow Development Center 

Universitv of North Carolina 

Raleigh, kC 27612 

(919) 733-4643 

Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis 

(XJPIJI) 

Indianapolis Center for Advanced Research, Inc. 

64. Dr. E Timothy Janis 

Director, Technology Transfer 

Indianapolk Center for Advanced Research, Inc. 

611 North Capitol Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

(317) 262~soca 

Technology Transfer 

MARYL4ND 

University of Maryland 

Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship 

65. Dr. Charles 0. Heller 

Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship 

College of Business and Management 

Innovative Management and Financing, Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

69. Dr. John Rees, Chairman 

Department of Geography 

Room 129 Graham 

University of North Carolina 

Greensboro, NC 27412 

(919) 334-5388 

tinomic Development, Program Evaluation, 

Public Policy and Legislation, Technology Tramfer 

OHIO 

Central State University 

OtXce of Strategic Planning 

and Institutional Research 

70. Dr. Barbara Fleming, Director 

Office of Strategic Planning 

and Institutional Research 

155 
Central State University 

Wilbaforce, Ohio 45384 

(513) 376-6234 

Innovative Management and Financing 

PENNSVIXANIA 

Pennsylvania State University 

Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program 

(PENNTAP) 

71. Dr. H. LeRoy Ma-low, Director 

PENNTAP 

Pennsylvania State University 

I01 George Building 

University Park, PA 16SOZ 

(814) 865.6277 

Technology Transfa 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

South Dakota State University 

Engineering and Environmental Resource Center 

72. Mr. LaDelI R. Swiden, Acting Director 

Engineering and Environmental Resource Center 

South Dakota State Universitv 

Bax 507, Wenona Hall 

Broakings, SD 57007-Ol!% 

(605) 6S8-4184 

Economic Development, Productivity Analysis, 

Research Assistance, Technology Development, 

Technology Transfer 

George Mason University 

73. Dr. Brack Brown 

Department of Public Affairs 

George Mason University 

4400 University Drive 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

(703) 323-2272 

Public Policy and LegisIation 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Howard University 

Small Business Development Center 

74. Ms. Nancy Flake 

Small Business Development Center 

Howard University 

School of Business and Public Administration Building 

6th & Fairmont Streets, NW Room 12g 

Washington, DC 20059 

(202) 636-5150 

Innovative Management and Financing, Clearinghouse 

Operations 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Marshall University 

75. Dr. Robert F Maddox 

Executive Assistant to the President 

Oftice of Research and Economic Development 

Marshall University 

1050 4th Avenue 

Huntington, WV 25755 

(304) 69&6797 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Economic Development, International Trade, 

Workforce Preparation 

West Virginia University 

76 

77 

Dr. Rachel B. Tompkins 

Associate Provost for F.conomic Development 

and Extension 

West Virginia University 

P.O. Box 6031 

Morgantown, WV 26505.6031 

(304) 293-5691 

Economic Development, Program Evaluation, 

Technology Transfer 

Regional Research Institute 

Dr. Philip Shapira 

Regional Research Institute 

West Virginia University 

511 North High Street 

Morgantown, WV 2.5506 

(304) 293-2896 

E&nomic Development 
iVongovernmenta1 Organizations 

ABVANCEII DEYELOPMENT DISTRIBUTION, INC. 

7j. Mr. Paul R. Brockman 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Advanced Development Distribution, Inc. 

PO. Box 88 

Alexandria, VA 22313-0088 

(703)971-3580 or(703)68‘&6331 

Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

AMERICAN ASSEMBLY OF COLLEGIATE 

SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Public Policy and L+lation, TechnoloB Ttansfer, 

International Trade 

ASSOCIATION OF UNNERSITY RELATED 

RESRARCH PARKS 

84. Mr. Chris Boettcher, Exec”tive Director 

Association of University Related Research Parks 

45Ml S. Lakesbore Drive, Suite 475 

Tempe, AZ 852SZ 

(602)75mOO2 

79. Ms. Jacqueline Hanington 

Assistant Director for Public Policy 

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business 

605 Old Ballas Road, Suite 22Q 

St. Louis, MO 63141 

(314) 872-8481 

Workforce Preparation 

AMERICAN ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION 

80. Mr. J. Richard Iverson 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

American Electronics Association 

1225 I Street, NW, Suite 1225 

Washington, DC 20lO5 

(XI2)682-9110 

P”blic Policy and Legislation, Techology Development, 

Technology Transfer 

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 

81. Ms. Maya Morris 

Planning Advisory Service 

American Planning Association 

1313 E. 60th Street 

Chicago, IL 60637 

(312) 955-9100 

Innovative Management and Financing, Economic Developnlent 

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TRAINING 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

82. Dr. Curtis E. Plott, Executive Director 

American Society for Training and Development 

1440 Duke Street 

PO. Box 1440 

Alexandtia, VA 22313 

(703)683-8lCKl 

Workforce Preparation 

ASSOCIATION 

FOR MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY/ 

NATIONAL MACHINE TOOL 

BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION (NMBTA) 

83. Mr. John B. Dean, Technical Director 

NMBTA 

7901 Westpark Drive 

Mclean, VA 22102 

(703)893-2900 

C & J INDUSTRIES 

8s. Mr. Harold Corner, President 

C & J Industries 

760 Water Street 

Meadville, PA 16335 

(814) 724-4950 

Technology Transfer 

CARNEGIE COMMISSION 

ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVBRNMENT 

86. Mr. David Z. Beckler, Associate Director 

Mr. David A. Kitxh, Program Associate 

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, 

and Government 

10 Waverly Place 

New York, NY lMKl3 

(212) 998-2150 

Public Policy and Lzgislation 

CARSON, THOMAS B, 

87. Mr. Thomas B. Carson 

3323 Nebraska Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 24Hll6 

(202)7.44-6629 

Economic Development 

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

SMALL BUSINESS CENTER 

88 Ms. Christine Russell, Director 

House of Representatives Liaison 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

1615 H Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20062 

(202)463-5603 

Innovative Management and Financing 

CHAPhIAN RESEARCH AND ASSOCIATES 

89. Dr. Richard Chapman 

Chapman Research Group. Inc. 

6631 South University F!alevard. Suite 212 

Littleton, CO 80121 

(303)730-2226 

Program Evaluation, Public Policy and Legislation. 

Technology Transfer 

157 
CHICAGO HlGH TECH ASSOCIATION 

90. Mr. Ken Boyce, Executive Dir&or 

Chicago High Tech Awxiation 

53 West Jackson, Suite 1634 

Chicago, IIk~ois 1%504 

(312) 939-5355 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Economic Development, Technology Transfer 

CMC INFORMATION 

AND TECHNIQUES EXCHANGE 

91. Ms. Joanne Greek, CIVITEX 01 .Fcrator 

Ms. Betsy Ho&y; CIVITEX Operator 

CIVITEX 

National Civic League 

16Lll Grant Street, Suite 250 

Iknver,co 

(800) 223-6004 

Clearinghouse Opemtions, F,wnomic Development 

COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT 

92. Mr. Scott Fosler, Vice President 

Committee for Economic Development 

1700 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

(X2) 296-5660 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Economic Development, F’rogmm Evaluation, 

Public Policy and Legislation 

COMMUNITY INFORMATION EXCHANGE 

93, Ms. Domthie Haygood, F’mgram Director 

Community Information Exchange 

1029 Vermont Avcnw, NW, Suite 710 

Washington, DC 20005 

(m2) 62&29Sl 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

clearingba op-ations, 

Economic Dcwlopment 

COMPUTER AND BUSINESS EQUIPMENT MANIJFACTURING ASSOCL4TION (CBEMA) 

94. Mr. Jobn L Pickitt, President 

Ms. Maryam Karinch, Director of Communications 

Computer and Business l&.uipmcnt 

Manufachuing Asstiiation 

311 First Street, NW, Suite 500 

Washington, DC 2OMll 

(202) 737-S&7 

Prcductivity Anal&, Public Policy and Lcgislaticm 

Technologj E@efopment, ‘I&hnology Tlwsfer, 

lntemational~‘@?de 

COUNCIL FOR URBAN 

ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT 

95. Mr. Kenneth Poole 

Director of Technical Assistance 

CUED 

1730 K Street, NW Suite 915 

Washington, DC 24lOO6 

(202) 223-4135 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Clcwinghousc Operations, 

Economic Development 

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 

96. Mr. William Voit 

States Information Center 

Cound of State Governments 

Iron Works Pike 

P.O. E&x 11910 

Lmin@m, KY 40578-1910 

(606) 2.31-1939 

Clearinghouse Operations, Economic Development 

COUNCIL OF STATE POLICY 

AND PLANNING AGENCIES 

97. Mr. lames M. Souby, Executive Director 

Council of State Policy and Planning Agencies 

4CU N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 291 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 624-5367 

Economic Dwclopmcnt 

COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS 

98. Dr. Kent H. Hughes, F’widcnt 

Council on Competitiveness 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 900. North L.obbv 

Washingion, DC ti 

(202) 662-S76O 

Innovative Management and Financing, Public Policy and 

Legislation, International Trade 

CRAY RESEARCH 

99. Ms. Kathleen Bernard, Director 

Science Policy and Technology F’mgrams 

Gray Research 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 133lN 

Washington, DC 2OOC4 

(202) 636-6000 

Public Policy and Legislation, 

Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

DPA, INC. 

100. MI. Dorm PhiIpot 

16 Ashley Square 

2373 Dclo Drive 

Gibsonia, PA 15C44 

(412) 4446715 

Clearinghow Opations, Technology Dedopment, 

Technology Transfer 

EDWARD T. KELLY AND ASSOCIATES 

101. Mr. Edward T Kelly 

Edward T Kelly and Awxiates 

1233 20th Street, NW, 7th Flocn 

Washington, DC 2CO% 

(202) 223-5899 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Transfer 

158 
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES 

102. Mr. Kevin Dyer, F’resident 

Financial Alternatives Inc. 

Eastgate Plaza, 1st Floor 

Dellslow, WV 26531 

(3@4) 296-1456 

Innovative Management and Financing 

FISCAL PL4NNING SERYICES 

103. Mr. Stuart Rabinwitz 

Fiscal Planning Services 

1430 K Street, NW, Suite 1lCKl 

Washington, DC 20lOS 

(202) 638-5522 

Innovative Management and Financing 

HANDSNET 

104. Ms. Chris Williams 

Ms. Susan Dormanen 

HandsNet 

819 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2 

santacmlz,cA 95060 

(408)427&UX7 

Clearinghouse Operations, Economic Development 

HANSEN, McOUAT AND ASSOCIATES 

105. Mr. Derek P Hansen 

Hansen, McOut and Associates 

601 California Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

(415) 397-2171 

Innovative Management and Financing 

INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION 

106. Mr. Richard Godown. President 

Industrial Biotechnol&y Awxiation 

1625 K Street, w, Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 2NX6 

(202)857-0244 

Technology Development, Technology Transfa 

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

107. Mr. Charles Lamon 

Industrial Research Institute 

1550 M Street. NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202)872-6350 

Technology Transfer 

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOL4XY INSTITUTE 

108. Dr. L.ou Tomatzky 

Industrial Technology Institute 

PO Box 14S5 

Ann Arbw, MI 4glO6 

(3l3)769-4144 

Technology Transfer 

INNOVATION ASSOCIATES 

X9. Ms. Diane F’almintera 

Innovation Associates 

l@Xl Vermont Avenue, m, Suite 400 

Washington, DC 2OfM5 

(202)84%4549 

Economic Development, Tmhnology Transfer 

INTERNATIONAL 

CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 

110. Ms. Cheryl Farr 

Director of Research and Infommtion 

ICMA 

777 North Capital Street, NEZ, Suite 5@3 

Washington, DC 20002 

(202)289-4262 

Clearinghouse Operations, Economic Development 

KPMG PBAT MARWICIZ 

Ill. Ms. Kirsten Nymp, National Coordinator 

Tbchnology Development Services 

KPMG F’eat Marwick 

303 East Wacker Drive. 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 93g-5@27 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Transfer 

LING TECHNOLQGIES, INC. 

112. Dr. James G. Ling 

Ling Technologies, Ix 

1111 Arlington Boulevard, W615 

Arlington, VA 22209 

(703)243&m 

Technology Transfet 

LIPMAN, BARBARA 

113. Ms. Barbara Lipman 

Forecasting and Policy Division 

National Association of Realtors 

m 14th street, NW 

Washington, DC 2OIXt5 

(202) 383-1249 

Clearinghouse Operations 

LOGIN INFORMATION SERVICES 

114. Ms. Joan Coleman, Customer Service 

LOGIN Information Services 

245 East 6th Street, Suite. gC9 

St. Paul, MN 55101-!xlc6 

(612) 297-6!XJO 

Clearinghouse Operations 

LOUISIANA PARTNERSHIP 

FOR TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

115. Mr. J. Trent Williams, Vice President 

Ioui$iana Partnership for Technology and Innovation 

PO. Box 14787 

Baton Rouge, LA 7OSYg 

(504)92sY 189 

159 
Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Transfer 

MCDOWELL GROUP CORPORATION 

116. Ms. Haniette McDowell, President 

McDowell Group Corporation 

223 Brie Boulevard West 

syIacuse,NY 13204 

(31s) 476-2223 

Innovative Management and Financing 

MCGOVERN &ASSOCIATES 

117. Mr. Kevin McGovern 

McGovern &Associates 

2 Pickwick Plaza 

Greenwich, CT I36830 

(203) 622-1101 

Innovative Management and Financing 

NATIONAL ACADEMV OF SCIENCES 

118. DT. Casey Kieman 

Govemment~Unive~i~-lndust~ 

Research Roundtable 

National Academy of Sciences 

2101 Constitution Aventte, NW, Rwm NAS 340 

Washington, DC Xi418 

(202) 334-3486 

Tkchnology Development, Technology Transfer 

119. Mr. Jerome ‘I? Maddock, Manager 

Information Services 

Tmnsportation Research Board 

National Academy of Scien~s 

2101 Constitution Avenue. NW 

Washington, DC 20418 

(202) 334-299s 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF BUSINESS 

120. Ms. Helen Wbite, Senior Manager 

Clearinghouse Information Sewices 

National Alliance of Business 

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 2CLJX 

(202) 289-2910 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Clearinghouse Operations, 

Economic Development, Workfonx Preparation 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

121. Mr. James D. Golden 

Research Director 

National Awciation of Counties 

44U First Street, NW 

Washington, DC 2LXIlll 

[m2) 393-62% 

E&manic Development 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT 

ORGANIZATIONS 

122. Ms. Alicearm Wohlbmck 

Executive Director 

National Awxiation of Development Organizations 

4lXl North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 372 

Washington, DC Xl001 

(24t2) 6X-7806 

!Zconomic Development 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT 

AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS 

123. Mr. Harold Williams, JZxecutive Seaetq 

NAMTAC 

733 1Sth Street, m, Suite 917 

Washington, DC 2000s 

(202) 347-6740 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Economic Development 

NATIONAL ASSOCJATION OF MANUFACTURERS 

124. Mr. William G. Morin, Director 

High Technology Council Defense Forum 

National Asscciation of Manufacturers 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite lSGiJ, North Lobby 

Washington, DC 2OC+t-1703 

(202) 637-3lS8 

Technology Transfer 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE DEVELGPMENT AGENCIES 

125. Mr. William Malamud, Director 

International Business Development 

NASDA 

444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 611 

Washington, DC 2OC@l 

(202) 624-S411 

EZwnomic Development 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE UNIVERSITIES 

AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES 

126. Dr. Nwin Brown, Assistant Director 

Urban Affair 

National Asswiation of State Universities 

and Land-Grant Colleges 

One DuPont Circle, NW, Suite 710 

Washington, DC 20036~1191 

(202) 778-08Sl 

Economic Development, Workforce Preparation 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS 

127. Mr. Hamilton Brown, Asswiate Director 

Ms. Narw Stark 

Assc&te’for Economic Development 

NATaT 

1X22 K Street, NK St& 73ll 

Washington, DC 2000s 

(202) 737~s2Oo 

160 
Clearinghouse Operations, Economic Development, 

Program Evaluation 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE 

OF STATE LEGISIATURES 

128. Mr. Daniel E. F’ilcher, Program Manager 

Economic Development 

Ms. Barbara F%ls, Policy Analyst 

National Conference of State Legislatures 

1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2100 

Denver, CO gO265 

(303) 62%7g4nl 

Clearinghouse Operations, Program Evaluation, 

FQblic Policy and Legislation 

NATIONAL GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

129. Ms. Marianne Clarke, Program Director 

Center for Policy Research 

National Govemors~ Association 

444 North Capitol Street, Suite 250 

Washington, DC 20001 

(2@2) 624-5380 

FLcmvxnic Dev&pment, hblic Policy and J&g&k&m, 

Technology Transfer 

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 

130. Ms. Kathryn Sham? McCarty 

Local Bxchange 

National League of Cities 

1301 Pennsvlvania Avenue. NW. 6th Floor 

Washing&, DC 2OO& 

(202) 6263CUXl 

Clearinghouse Operations, Technology Transfer 

NATIONAL SOCIETY 

OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 

131. Mr. Paul Peters, Director of Technical Development 

National Society of Professional Engineers 

1420 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

(703) 684-zoo 

Technology Development, Technology Tmnsfer 

NATIONAL UNIYERSITY 

CONTINUING EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

(NUCEA) 

132. Dr. Kay J. Kohl, Executive Director 

National Univenity 

Continuing Fdwation Asscciation 

One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 615 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 659-3I30 

Workforce Preparation 

OWENS CORNING FIBERGLASS 

133. Mr. Helmut I. Glaser, Senior Research Fellow 

Owns Coming Fiberglass 

Technical Center 

Granville, OH 43023 

(614) 5g7-7476 

Technology Development 

PHELPS, PAUL B. 

134. Mr. Paul B. Phelps 

2X! Martha’s Road 

Alexandria, VA 22307 

(703) 765-0605 

Economic Development, Technology Tmnsfer 

PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

135. Dr. Costis Toregas, President 

Public Technology, Inc. 

I301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20Xl4 

(202) 626-2400 

Clearinghouse Operations, Economic Development, 

F’ublic Policy and Lzgislation, Technology Tmnsfa 

PYMATUNING GROUP 

136. Dr. Ruth Davis 

Mr. Edwin J. Iswan 

The Pymahming Group, Inc. 

2030 N. 15th Street, Suite 707 

Arlington, VA 222012643 

(703) 2434993 

Technology Development 

SCIENCE PARR ASSOCIATES 

u7. Mr. John Gorhmn, Managing Partner 

Mr. Tripp Peake, Managing Partner 

Science Pwk Associates 

5 Science Park 

New Haven, CT 06511 

(203) 766-5575 

Clearinghouse Operations, Economic Development, 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

Technology Development, Technology ‘Ihmsfer 

SOFTWARE PRODUCTMTY CONSORTIUM 

138. Dr. Kenneth E. Nidiffer 

Manager, Education and Training 

Software Productivity Consortium 

2214 Rock Hill Road 

Hemdon, VA 22070 

(703) 742a77 

Workforce Preparation 

SOIAR ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SERU 

139. Mr. Stephen A. Rubin, Senior Technical Analyst 

SERI 

1617 Cole Boulward 

Golden, CO I?0401 

(303) 231-1365 

Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

140. Dr. Stuart A. Rwnfeld, Director 

Southern Technology Council 

Southern Growth Policies Board 

5OUl South Miami Boulevard 

PO. Box 12293 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

(919) 941-5145 

Economic Development, Fvblic F’olicy and Ixgislation 

161 
SPACE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, LTD. 

141. Mr. Kenneth R. Swskind, Pxsident 

Space Commerce International, Ltd. 

1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 71X3 

Washington, DC 20036 

(20.2) 637-9133 

Technology Transfer 

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. (SEMA, INC.) 

142 Cal. James A. Ball, Director 

Technology Development 

Ms. Sally Rood, Manager 

Technology Information Services 

SEMA, Inc. 

5111 Leesburg Pike 

Falls Church, VA 22041 

(703) 2S479.50 

Cletinghouse Opxations, Technolo~ Development, 

Technology Transfer 

TECHNOLOGYACCEPTANCEGROUP 

143. Dr. Jack Fellman 

Technology Acceptance Group 

PO. Box 236 

Kendall Park, NJ Ogg24 

(201) 359-299s 

Technology mnsfer 

TRLTECH 

144. Mr. Joseph Shuster, Chief Executive Officer 

Mr. Ron Helgeson, Vice President 

Teltech 

9655 Wat 78th Street, Suite I50 

Eden Prairie, MN 55344 

(612) 8294000 

Clearinghouse Operations, Technology Tmnsfer 

TEXAS RESEARCH 

AND TECHNOUKX FOUNDATlON 

145. Dr. Richard W. Morris 

Vice President and Executive Associate 

Texas Research and Technology Foundation 

14765 Omicron Drive, Suite 100 

Texas Research Park 

San Antonio, TX 78245 

(512) 677-6000 

Innovative Management and Financing, 

IntemationaI Ttade, Fublic Policy and Legislation, 

Technology Development, Technology Transfer 

THOMAS PUBLISHING COMPANY 

146. Mr. Ralph Richardson 

Thomas Publishinz Conmanv 

(212) 629-1501 

Clearinghouse Operations 

TRANTEK, INC. 

147. Mr. Louis Mogavem, President 

Tmntek, Inc. 

PO. Box 3913 

Mclean, VA 22103 

(703) g27-8256 

Clearinghouse Operations. Technology Transfer 

TRW, INC. 

148 Dr. Arden L Bement, Jr., Vim President 

Science and Technology 

TRW, Inc. 

19CW3 Richmond Road 

Cleveland, OH 44124 

(216) 291-7880 

Technology Development, Technology Tmnsfer 

WYCKOFF, JAMES M. 

149. Mr. James M. Wvckoff 

243MI Hanson C&t 

Gaithersburg, MD 2OS82 

(301) 253-4314 

Technology Transfa 

URBAN L4ND INSTITUTE 

150. Ms. Marta Goldsmith, Senior Associate 

The Urban Land Institite 

lG90 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 24lOO5 

(202) 289-3392 

bnomic Development 

162 
Ckaringhcwe Operations* 

1 Atktnson, Dr. Robert D. 

142 Ball, Cal. James A. 

127 Brown, Mr. Hamilton 

10 Chapman, Dr. Robert E. 

114 Coleman, Ms. Joan 

104 Dormanen, Ms. Susan 

11 Edgerly, Dr. David E. 

110 Fan Ms. Cheryl 

74 Flake, Ms. Nancy 

137 Gorham, Mr. John 

91 Greek, Ms. Joanne 

41 

93 

144 

91 

Hankins, Mr. Mark 

Haygood, Ms. Dorothie 

He&son, Mr. Ron 

Horsley, Ms. Betsy 

John, Ms. Patricia 

Johnson, Mr. Richard A. 

King, Mr. Radford 

Klein, Dr. Susan S. 

J-&es, Mr. Thedore J. 

Lipman, Ms. Barbara 

Maddwk, Mr. Jerome 

McCarty, Ms. Kathryn Shane 

McJJowll, Dr. Bruce D. 

Mogavero, Mr. Louis 

Parker, Mr. Tip 

Peake, Mr. Tripp 

Philpot, Mr. Dorm 

Pilcher, Mr. Daniel E. 

Plosiia, Mr. Walter H. 

Poole, Mr. Kenneth 

F’uls, Ms. Barbara 

Richardson, Mr. Ralph 

Robertson, Ms. Elizabeth 

Rood, Ms. Sally 

Schacht, Ms. Wendy 

Shut.%, Mr. Jceph 

Sjoholm, Mr. Allan 

Stark, Ms. Nancy 

Torega-,, Dr. Costis 

Vamer, Mr. A. Jerald 

Voit, Mr. William 

White, Ms. Helen 

Williams, Ms. Chris 

l 

61 

23 

8 

113 

119 

130 

1 

147 

15 

137 

100 

123 

50 

95 

128 

146 

9 

142 

20 

144 

31 

127 

145 

32 

96 

120 

104 

Economic Development 

90 Boyce, Mr. Ken 

78 Bmckman, Mr. Paul R. 

127 Brown, Mr. Hamilton 

126 Brown, Dr. Nwin 

87 Carson, Mr. Thomas B. 

129 Clarke, Ms. Marianne. 

5 Decker, Mr. Robert 

56 Deffigos, Mr. John S. 

104 Domxmen, Ms. Susan 

110 Fax, Ms. Cheryl 

92 Fosler, Mr. Scott 

6 Geddes, Mr. David H. 

121 Golden, Mr. Jama D, 

150 Goldsmith, Ms. Marta 

137 Gorham, Mr. John 

91 Greek, Ms. Joanne 

6 

93 

91 

4 

75 

3 

12.5 

81 

109 

I37 

134 

50 

95 

69 

140 

77 

97 

127 

72 

76 

135 

96 

ml 

63 

12.3 

104 

122 

Hage, Mr. Richard E. 

Haygocd, Ms. Dorothie 

Ho&y, Ms. Betsy 

John, Ms. Patricia 

Maddox, Dr. Robert E 

Maher, Dr. Theodore 

M&mud, Mr. William 

Morris, Ms. Maya 

Palmintem, Ms. Diane 

Peake, Mr. Tripp 

Phelps, Mr. Paul B. 

Plceila, Mr. Walter H. 

Poole, Mr. Kenneth 

Rees, Dr. John 

Rwnfeld, Mr. Stuart A, 

Shapira, Dr. Philip 

Souhy, Mr. James M. 

Stark, Ms. Nancy 

Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

Tompkins, Dr. Rachel B, 

Toregas, Dr. Costis 

Voit, Mr. William 

White, Ms. Helen 

Wiewel, Dr. Wim 

Williams, Mr. Harold 

Williams, Ms. Chris 

Wohlbruck, Ms. Aliceann 

Indexes 

Innovative Management 

and Financing 

90 Boyce, Mr. Ken 

60 Calvat, Dr. Gene 

58 Coburn, Mr. Christopher 

68 Daugherty, Mr. Scott 

83 Deam, Mr. John B. 

102 Dyer, Mr. Kevin 

74 Flake, Ms. Nancy 

70 Fleming, Dr. Barbara 

92 Fosler, Mr. Scott 

137 Gorham, Mr. John 

26 Grichar, Mr. James S. 

41 Hantxins, Mr. Mark 

10s Hansen, Mr. Derek R 

93 Haygood, Ms. Dorothie 

65 H&r, Dr. Charles 0. 

98 Hughes, Dr. Kent H. 

49 Johnson, MI. Campbell 

101 Kelly, Mr. Edward T, 

52 Kenworthy, Dr. James 

59 Koppel, Mr. Jacques 

14 Lzttes, Mr. Theodore J. 

75 Maddox, Dr. Robert F 

116 McDowell, Ms. Hatiette 

117 McGovern, Mr. Kevin 

81 Morris, Ms. Marya 

145 Morris, Dr. Richard W 

Ill Ny~op, Ms. Kimten 

57 Patrie, Mr. William A. 

137 Peake, Mr. Tipp 

54 Pillsbury, Mr. William E., Jr. 

48 Plazak, Mr. David 

50 Plosila, Mr. Walter H. 

95 Poole, Mr. Kenneth 

103 Rabinowitz, Mr. Smart 

53 Rohde, Mr. Steve 

88 Rnsz,ell, Ms. Christine 

66 Walton, Mr. W. Travis 

120 White, Ms. Helen 

63 Wiewl, Dr. Wim 

123 Williams, Mr. Harold 

115 Williams, Mr. J. Trent 

Program Evaluation/ 

Productivity Analysis 

127 Brown, Mr. Hamilton 

89 Chapman, Mr. Richard 

5 Dec!w, Mr. Robert 

92 Fosler, Mr. Scott 

94 Karinch, Ms. Maryann 

23 Klein, Dr. Susan S. 

34 O’Brien, Mr. Richard J. 

21 Page, Ms. Edith 

94 Pickitt, Mr. John L 

128 Pitcher, Mr. Daniel E. 

128 Puls, Ms. Barabara 

69 Rees, Dr. John 

127 Stark, Ms. Nancy 

72 Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

76 Tompkins, Dr. Rachel B. 

Public Policy 

and Legislative Contacts 

86 Beckler, Mr. David Z. 

99 Bernard, Ms. Kathleen 

73 Brown, Dr. Brack 

89 Chapman, Mr. Richard 

129 Clarke, Ms. Marianne 

83 Deam, Mr. John B, 

92 Fosler, Mr. Scott 

16 Goldston, Mr. David 

*The numbers refer to the order of listings in the O~anikafion section of this directory. 

163 
40 Hamaty, Ms. Joyce 

98 Hughes, Dr. Kent H. 

80 Iverson, Mr. J. Richard 

94 Kainch, Ms. Maryann 

86 Kii-sch, Mr. David A. 

19 Ludlam, Mr. Charles E. 

1 McDowell, Dr. Bruce D. 

145 Morris, Dr. Richard W. 

94 Pickitt, Mr. John L 

128 Pilcher, Mr. Daniel E. 

128 F’uls, Ms. Barbara 

69 Rees, Dr. John 

140 Rosenfeld, Mr. Stuart A. 

135 Toregas, Dr. Costis 

116 Turner, Mr. James 

17 Warren, Mr. Wesley 

18 Windham, Mr. Patrick J. 

10 

38 

11 

55 

s9 

72 

Research Assistance 

Chapman, Dr. Robert E. 

Chen, Dr. Philip S., Jr. 

Eklgerly, Dr. David E. 

Goodman, Mr. David 

Koppel, Mr. Iacques 

Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

Scientitic Research 

and Technology Development 

142 Ball, Cal. James A. 

148 Bement, Dr. Ardent L 

99 Bernard, Ms. Kathleen 

84 Boettcher, Mr. Chris 

78 Brockman, Mr. Paul R. 

60 Calvat, Dr. Gene 

68 Daugherty, Mr. Scott 

I36 Davis, Dr. Ruth 

56 Deffigos, Mr. John S. 

6 Geddes, Mr. David H. 

133 Glaser, Mr. Helmut I. 

106 Godown, Mr. Richard 

137 Gorham, Mr. John 

39 Gtucm, Ms. Margaret 

6 Hage, Mr. Richard E. 

40 Hamaty, Ms. Joyce 

136 ktvan, Mr. Edwin J. 

80 Iverson, Mr. J. Richard 

94 Karinch, Ms. Maryann 

118 Kieman, Dr. Casey 

59 Koppel, Mr. Jacques 

29 Lanham, Mr. Clifford E. 

145 Monis, Dr. Richard W. 

137 Peak.% Mr. Tripp 

131 Peters, Mr. Paul 

100 Philpot, Mr. Dorm 

94 

142 

139 

30 

72 

13 

35 

142 

148 

27 

99 

90 

12 

78 

60 

89 

10 

129 

36 

zi 

85 

68 

83 

5 

56 

7.8 

11 

143 

47 

6 

37 

133 

106 

137 

39 

6 

2 

40 

22 

144 

80 

64 

4 

94 

101 

118 

61 

29 

Pickitt, Mr. John L 

Rcod, Ms. Sally 

Rubin, Mr. Stephen A. 

Schmid, Dr. Loren C. 

Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

Technology lkmsfer 

Allen, Mr. Joseph P. 

Ault, Mr. Leonard 

Ball, Cal. James A. 

Bement, Dr. Ardent L 

Berger, Dr. Bwerly 

Bernard, Ms. Kathleen 

Boyce, Mr. Ken 

Bracken, Dr. Darcia 

Brockman, Mr. Paul R. 

Calwt, Dr. Gene 

Chapman, Mr. Richard 

Chapman, Dr. Robert B. 

Clarke, Ms. Marianne 

Cl&s, Mr. Henry 

Cleveland, MI. John 

Coburn, Mr. Christopher 

Corner, Mr. Harold 

Daugherty, Mr. Scntt 

Dam, Mr. John B. 

Decker, Mr. Robert 

Deftigm, Mr. John S. 

Delabarre, Mr. Del 

Edgerly, Dr. David E. 

Fellman, Dr. Jack 

Gage, Dr. Stephen 

Geddes, Mr. David H. 

Gilbat, Mr. Ray L 

Glaser, Dr. Helmut I. 

Godown, Mr.Richard 

Gorham, Mr. John 

G~cza, Ms. Ma@aret 

Hag?, Mr. Richad E. 

Hall, Mr. James 

Ham&y, Ms. Joyce 

Hei& Cal. Daniel 

Helgeson, Mr. Ron 

Iverson, Mr. J. Richard 

Janis, Dr. E Timothy 

John, Ms. Patricia 

Karinch, Ms. Maryann 

Kelly, Mr. Edward T 

Kieman, Dr. Casey 

King, Mr. Radford 

Ianham, Mr. Clifford E. 

107 Lamon, Mr. Charles 

14 Lettes, Mr. Tbecdore J. 

112 Ling, Mr. James 

75 Maddox, Dr. Robert F 

3 Maher, Dr. Theodore 

71 Marlow. Dr. H. LeRoy 

130 McCarty, Ms. Kathryn Shane 

1 McDowell, Dr. Bruce D. 

147 Mogawo, Mr. Louis 

124 Morin, Mr. William G. 

145 Morris, Dr. Richard W. 

111 Nyrop, Ms. Kirsten 

lw Palmintera, Ms. Diane 

44 Paulhus, Mr. Nommn 

137 Peake, Mr. Tripp 

131 Peters, Mr. Paul 

134 Phelps, Mr. Paul B. 

100 Philpot, Mr. Dorm 

94 Pickitt, Mr. John L. 

69 Rees, Dr. John 

142 Rend, Ms. Sally 

139 Rubin, Mr. Stephen A. 

30 Schmid, Dr. Iaren C. 

144 Shuster, Mr. Joseph 

2.5 Sink, Ms. Claire 

31 Sjoholm, Mr. Allan 

46 Smith, Ms. Alice 

141 Susskind, MI. Kenneth 

72 Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

62 Thornton, Mr. Ronald J. 

76 Tompkins, Dr. Rachel B. 

135 Toregw Dr. Costis 

108 Tomatzky, Dr. IXXI 

66 Walton, Mr. W Travis 

115 Williams, Mr. J. Trent 

42 Wright, Mr. Brown 

I49 Wyckoff, Mr. James M. 

International Trade 

83 Dean, Mr. John B. 

98 Hughes, Dr. Kent H. 

94 Karinch, Ms. Mayann 

75 Maddox, Dr. Robert F 

43 Monissy, Mr. J. David 

145 Morris, Dr. Richard W. 

94 Pickitt, Mr. John L 

Workforce Preparation 

126 Brown, Dr. Nevin 

33 Bryant, Mr. Kelly W.. II 

45 Giannini, Dr. Margaret 

79 Hanington, Ms. Jxclueline 

23 Klein, Dr. Susan S. 

132 Kohl, Dr. Kay J. 

75 Maddox, Dr. Robert I? 

3 Maher, Dr. Theodore 

67 Mann, Dr. William C. 

138 Nidiffer, Dr. Kenneth E. 

62 Piott, Dr. Curtis E. 

24 Warnat, Dr. Winiircd 

120 White. Ms. Helen 

164 
State Listing 

Arkansas 

46 Smith, Ms. Alice 

Arizona 

84 Bcettcher, Mr. Chris 

California 

104 Donnanen, Ms. Susan 

105 Hansen, Mr. Derek R 

61 King, Mr. Radford 

31 Sjohohn, Mr. Allan 

104 Wiltiams, Ms. Chris 

Colorado 

89 Chapman, Mr. Richard 

91 Greek, Ms. Joanne 

91 Ho&y, Ms. Betsy 

128 Pilcher, Mr. Daniel E. 

128 Puls, Ms. Barbara 

139 Ruhin, Mr. Stephen A. 

Connecticut 

137 Gorham, Mr. John 

117 McGovern, Mr. Kevin 

137 Peake, Mr. Tipp 

Florida 

62 Thornton, Mr. Ronald J. 

Illinois 

90 Bay% Mr. Ken 

81 Morris, Ms. Marya 

111 Nyrop, Ms. I&ten 

63 Wiewl, Dr. Wim 

Indiana 

47 Gage, Dr. Stephen 

64 Janis, Dr. F Timothy 

IOWk3 

48 Plazak, Mr. David 

Kentucky 

96 Voit, Mr. William 

Iauisiana 

115 Williams, Mr. J. Trent 

Maryland 

49 Johnson, Mr. Campbell C., III 

Michigan 

51 Cleveland, Mr. John 

52 Kenworthy, Dr. James 

53 Rohde, Mr. Steve 

108 Tomatzky, Dr. Lx, 

Minnesota 

114 Coleman, Ms. Joan 

144 Helgeson, Mr. Ron 

144 Shuster, Mr. Joseph 

Missouri 

79 Harrington, Ms. Jaqueline 

New Hampshire 

54 Pillsbury, Mr. William E, 

New Jersey 

143 Fellman, Dr. Jack 

55 Goodman, Mr. David 

146 Richardson, Mr. Ralph 

New York 

86 Beckler, Mr. David 2. 

56 Deffigav, Mr. John S. 

86 Kirsch, Mr. David A. 

67 Mann, Dr. William C. 

116 McDowell, Ms. Htiette 

146 Richardson, Mr. Ralph 

North Carolina 

68 Daugherty, Mr. Scott 

69 Rees, Dr. John 

140 Rosenfeld, Mr. Stuart A. 

North Dakota 

57 Patrie, Mr. William A. 

Ohio 

148 Bement, Dr. Arden L 

58 Coburn, Mr. Christopher 

70 Fleming, Dr. Barbxa 

133 Glaser, Mr. Helmut I. 

Pennsylvania 

85 Comer, Mr. Harold 

59 Koppl, Mr. Jaques 

71 Marlow, Dr. H. IzRoy 

108 Philpot, Mr. Donald 

South Dakota 

72 Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

TeIllleSSee 

42 Wright, Mr. Brow,, 

Texas 

145 Morris, Mr. Richard 

Washington 

28 Delahame, Mr. Del 

30 Schmid, Dr. L.or.en C. 

West Virginia 

102 Dyer, Mr. Kevin 

75 Maddox, Dr. Robat E 

77 Shapira, Dr. Philip 

76 Tompkins, Dr. Rachel B. 

Washington, DC Metropolitan &ea 

13 Allen, Mr. Jweph R 

7 Atkinson, Dr. Robert 

35 Auk, Mr. Leonard 

142 Ball, Cal. James A. 

27 Berger, Dr. Beverly 

!?9 Bernard. Ms. Kathleen 

12 

7a 

73 

127 

126 

33 

60 

a7 

ii 

129 

36 

136 

Bracken, Dr. Da& 

Brockman, Mr. Paul R. 

Brown, Dr. Brack 

Bmwn, Mr. Hamilton 

Brown, Dr. Nevin 

Bryant, Mr. Kelly W., II 

Calvat, Dr. Gene 

Carson, Mr. Thomas B. 

Chapman. Dr. Robert E, 

Chen, Dr. Philip S., Jr. 

Clarke, Ms. Marianne 

Clark% Mr. Henry 

Davis, Dr. Ruth 

83 

5 

11 

110 

74 

92 

6 

45 

31 

106 

121 

150 

26 

39 

6 

2 

‘tc 

41 

93 

22 

65 

98 

136 

80 

4 

8 

94 

101 

118 

23 

132 

29 

107 

14 

112 

113 

19 

119 

3 

125 

130 

1 

147 

124 

43 

136 

34 

21 

lC9 

15 

44 

131 

I34 

94 

50 

62 

95 

103 

I 

I 

I 

1 

; 

I 

C 

1 

F 

F 

F 

1 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

Dean, Mr. John B, 

Decker, Mr. Robert 

Edgerly, Dr. David E. 

Far, Ms. Cheryl 

Flake, Ms. Nancy 

Fosler, Mr. Scott 

Geddes, Mr. David H, 

Giannini, Dr. Margaret 

Gilbert, Mr. Ray L 

Godown, Mr. Richard 

Golden, Mr. James D. 

Goldsmith, Ms. Marta 

Grichar, Mr. James S. 

Grucza, Ms. Margaret 

Hage, Mr. Richard E. 

Hall, Mr. James 

Ehnaty, Ms. Joyce 

Hankins, Mr. Mark 

Haygocd, Ms. Dorothie 

Heitz, Cal. Daniel 

Heller, Dr. Charles 0. 

Hughes, Dr. Kent H. 

ktva”, Mr. Edwin J. 

IVeI’son, Mr. J. Richard 

John, Ms. Patricia 

Johnson, Mr. Richwd A. 

Karinch, Ms. Maryann 

Kelly, Mr. Edward T 

Kieman, Dr. Casey 

Klein, Dr. Susan S. 

Kohl, Dr. Kay J, 

Lanham, Mr. Clifford E. 

h-s”“, Mr. Charles 

I.&es, Mr. Theodore J. 

Ling, Mr. James 

Lipman. Ms. Barbara 

fadlam, Mr. Charles E. 

Maddock, Mr. Jerome 

Maher, Dr. Theodore 

M&mud, Mr. William 

ticCarty, Ms. Kathryn Shane 

McDowll, Dr. Bnu D. 

W?gavero, Mr. huis 

HOrin, Mr. William G. 

‘donisy, Mr. J. David 

qidiffer, Dr. Kenneth E, 

~Brien, Mr. Richard J. 

‘age, Ms. Edith 

‘ahnintera, Ms. Diane 

‘arka, Mr. Tip 

‘aulhw Mr. Nomwn 

‘eters. Mr. Paul 

‘helps. Mr. Paul R. 

‘ickitt. Mr. John L 

‘losila. Mr. Walter H. 

‘Iott, Dr. Curtis E. 

look, Mr. Kenneth 

tahinowitz, Mr. Stuart 
9 Robertson, Ms. Elizabeth 

142 Rcwd, Ms. Sally 

SS Russell, Ms. Christine 

20 Schacht, Ms. Wendy 

125 Sink, Ms. Claire 

91 Souby, Mr. James M. 

127 Stark, Ms. Nancv 

141 Swkind, Mr. K&“etb R. 

135 Toregas, Dr. Costis 

16 Turner, Mr. lames 

32 Vamer, Mr. A. Jerald 

66 Walton, Mr. W. Travis 

24 Warnat, Dr. Winifred 

17 Warren, Mr. Wesley 

120 White, Ms. Helen 

123 Williams, Mr. Harold 

18 Windham, Mr. Patrick J. 

122 Wohlbruck, Ms. Aliceann 

149 Wyckoff. Mr. James M. 

166 
Alphabetical List of Individuals 

39 

6 

7. 

4Q 

41 

105 

79 

93 

22 

65 

91 

96 

136 

80 

64 

49 

94 

101 

52 

101 

52 

118 

61 

86 

23 

132 

59 

29 

107 

14 

112 

113 

119 

119 

75 

3 

125 

67 

71 

130 

1 

116 

117 

147 

124 

81 

145 

143 

138 

111 

34 

21 

109 

Grucza, Ms. Margaret 

Hage, Mr. Richard E. 

Hall, Mr. Janea 

Hamaty, Ms. Joyce 

Hankins, Mr. Mark 

Hansen, Mr. Derek R 

Haningtcm, Ms. Jacqueline 

Haygood, Ms. Dorothie 

Heitz, Cal. Daniel 

Hella, Dr. Charles 0. 

Ho&y, Ms. E3etsy 

Hughes, Dr. Kent H. 

Istvan, Mr. Edwin J. 

Ivemn, Mr. J. Richard 

Janis, Dr. F. Timothy 

John, Ms. Patricia 

Johnson, Mr. Campbell C., III 

Johnson, Mr. Richard A. 

Karinch, Ms. Maryann 

Kelly, Mr. Edwanl T 

Kenwxthy, Dr. James 

Kieman, Dr. Casey 

King, Mr. Radford 

Kirsch, Mr. David A, 

Klein, Dr. Susan S. 

Kohl, Dr. Kay J. 

Koppel, Mr. Jaqws 

Lanham, Mr. Clifford E. 

Lawn, Mr. Charles 

Lettes, Mr. The@dore J. 

Ling, Mr. James 

Lipman, Ms. Barbara 

Ladlam, Mr. Charles E, 

Maddwk, Mr. Jerome 

Maddox, Dr. Robert E 

Maher, Dr. Theodore 

M&mud, Mr. William 

Mann, Dr. William C. 

Marlow, Dr. H. LeRoy 

McCarty, Ms. Kathryn Shane 

McDowell, Dr. Bruce D. 

McDowell, Ms. Han-&e 

McGovern, Mr. Kevin 

Mogaveq Mr. Lads 

Main, Mr. William G. 

Morris, Ms. Maya 

Morris, Mr. Richard 

Monissy, Mr. J. David 

Nidiffer, Dr. Kenneth E. 

Nymp, Ms. Kirsten 

O’Brien, Mr. Richard J. 

Page, Ms. mith 

Palmintem, Ms. Diane 

113 

7 

35 

142 

86 

148 

27 

99 

84 

90 

12 

76 

73 

127 

126 

33 

60 

87 

89 

10 

38 

129 

36 

51 

56 

114 

85 

68 

136 

83 

5 

56 

28 

104 

102 

11 

110 

143 

74 

70 

92 

47 

6 

45 

37 

133 

106 

121 

150 

16 

55 

137 

91 

26 

Allen, Mr. Joseph P 

Atkinson, Dr. Robert D. 

Auk, Mr. Leonard 

Bail, Cal. James A. 

Beckler, Mr. David Z 

Bement, Dr. Ardent L 

Berger, Dr. Beverly 

Bernard, Ms. Kathleen 

Bixttcher, Mr. Chris 

Boyce, Mr. Ken 

Bracken, Dr. Da& 

Bnxkinan, Mr. Paul R. 

Brown, Dr. Brack 

Brown, Mr. Hamilton 

Brown, Dr. Nevin 

Bryant. Mr. Kelly W., II 

Calvat, Dr. Gene 

Carson, Mr. Thomas B. 

Chapman, Mr. Richard 

Chapman, Dr. Robert E. 

Chen, Dr. Philip S., Jr. 

Clarke, Ms. Marianne 

Clarks, Mr. Henry 

Cleveland, Mr. John 

&bum, Mr. Christopher 

Coleman, Ms. Joan 

Comer, Mr. Harold 

Daugherty, Mr. Scott 

Davis, Dr. Ruth 

Dean, Mr. John B. 

Decker, Mr. Robert 

Deffigos, Mr. John S. 

Delabarre, Mr. Del 

Dormanen, Ms. Swan 

Dyers Mr. Kevin 

Edgerly, Dr. David E. 

Fan, Ms. Cheryl 

Fellman, Dr. Jack 

Flake, Ms. Nancy 

Fleming, Dr. Barbara 

Fosler, Mr. Scott 

Gage, Dr. Stephen 

Geddes, Mr. David H. 

Giannini, Dr. Margaret 

Gilbert, Mr. Ray I. 

Glaser, Mr. Helmut I. 

Gcdown, Mr. Richard 

Golden, Mr. James D. 

Goldsmith, Ms. Marta 

Golds&m, Mr. David 

Gmdman, Mr. David 

Gorham, Mr. John 

Greek, Ms. Joanne 

Grichar, Mr. James S. 

1S Parker, Mr. Tip 

57 Patrie, Mr. William A. 

44 Paulhus, Mr. Norman 

137 Peake, Mr. Tipp 

131 Peters, Mr. Paul 

134 Phelps, Mr. Paul B. 

1OC Philpot, Mr. Donald 

92 Pick& Mr. John L 

128 Pilcher, Mr. Daniel E. 

54 F’illsbuy, Mr. William E., Jr 

4a Plazak, Mr. David 

50 PI&la, Mr. Walter H. 

82 Plott, Dr. Curtis E. 

95 PC&, Mr. Kenneth 

128 Puls, Ms. Barbara 

103 

69 

146 

5: 

142 

140 

139 

al7 

Rabimnvitz, Mr. Smart 

Ret%, Dr. John 

Richardson, Mr. Ralph 

Robertson, Ms. Elizabeth 

Rohde, Mr. Steve 

Rood, Ms. Sally 

Rosenfeld, Mr. Stuart A, 

Rubin, Mr. Stephen A. 

Russell, Ms. Christine 

m Scbacht, Ms. Wendy 

30 Schmid, Dr. Laren C. 

77 Shapira, Dr. Philip 

144 Shuster, Mr. Joseph 

25 Sink, Ms. Claire 

31 Sjoholm, Mr. Allan 

4.6 Smith, Ms. Alice 

97 Souby, Mr. James M. 

127 Stark, Ms. Nancy 

141 Swskind, Mr. Kenneth R. 

72 Swiden, Mr. LaDelI R. 

62 Thornton, Mr. Ronald J, 

76 Tompkins, Dr. Rachel B. 

13s Toregas, Dr. C&s 

101 Tomatzky, Dr. Lou 

16 Turner, MI. James 

Vamer, Mr. A. Jerald 

Volt, Mr. William 

66 Walton, Mr. W. Travis 

24 Warnat, Dr. Winifred 

17 Warren, Mr. Wesley 

im White, Ms. Helen 

63 Wiewl, Dr. Wim 

104 Williams, Ms. Chris 

123 Williams, Mr. Harold 

lI5 Williams, Mr. J. Trent 

16 Windham, Mr. Patrick J. 

122 Wohlbmck, Ms. Aliceann 

42 Wright, Mr. Brown 

149 Wyckoff, Mr. James, M. 

Recent Publications of the 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 

Significant Features of FiscaI Federalism, 1990 Edition Vol. I, Budget Processess 

and Tax Systems, M-169, 4&O, 16Il PP. 

Local Revenue Diversification Rural Ekonomies, SR-13,3/W, 96 pp. 

State Taxation of Banksz Issues and Options, M-168, 12189, 48 pp. 

A Catalog of Federal Grant.in.Aid Programs to State and Local Governments: 

Grants Funded FV 1989, M-167, 10/89,40 pp. 

Local Revenue DiversiIication: Local Sales Taxes, SR-12,9/89,56 pp 

Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taxes: 1989, S-18,9/89,36 pp. 

State Constitutions in the Federal System: Selected Issues and Opportunities 

for State Initiatives, A-113, 7189, 128 PP. 

Residential Community Associations: Questions and Answers for Public Off%ials, 

M-166,7/89, 40 pp. 

Residential Community Associations: Private Governments in the Intergovernmental 

System? A-112, 5189, 128 m. 

Readings in Federalism-Perspectives on a Decade of Change, SR-11, 5189, 128 PP. 

Disability Rights Mandates: Federal and State Compliance with Employment Protections 

and Architectural Barrier Removal, A-111,4/89, 136 PP. 

1986 State Fiscal Capacity and Effort, M-165,3/89, 12E pp. 

Hearings on Constitutional Reform of Federalism: Statements hy State and Local 

Government Association Representatives, M-164, l/89,60 PP. 

State and Federal Regulation of Banking: A Roundtahle Discussion, M-162, 11/88, 36 pp. 

Assisting the Homeless: State and Local Responses in an Era of Limited Resources, 

M-161, 11188, 160 m. 

Devolution of Federal Aid Highway Programs: Cases in StateLocal Relations and Issues 

in State Law, M-160, 10188, 60 pp. 

State Regulations of Banks in an Era of Deregulation, A-110,9/88,36 PP. 

State Constitutional Law Cases and Materials, M-159, 9/88, 480 pp. 

Local Revenue Diversitication: Local Income Taxes, SR-10, g/88, 52 pp. 

Metropolitan Organization: The St. Lauis Case, M-158,9/88, 176 pp. 

Interjurisdictional Competition in the Federal System: A Roundtable Discussion, M-157, 

g/88,32 pp. 

State.Local Highway Consultation and Cooperation: The Perspective of State Legislators, 

SR-9, 5188, 54 pp. 

Governments at Risk Liability Insurance and Tort Reform, SR-7, 12/87,42 pp. 

The Organization of Local Public Economies, A-lW, 12187, 64 pp. 

Measuring State Fiscal Capacity, 1987 Rdition, M-156, 12187, 152 pp. 

Is Constitutional Reform Necessary to Reinvigorate Federalism? A Roundtahle 

Discussion, M-154, 11/87, 39 pp. 

Local Revenue Divemification: User Charges, SR-6, 10187, 64 pp. 

The Transformation in American Politics: Implications for Federalism, B-9R, 10187, 

K? PP. 

Devolving Selected Federal.Aid Highway Programs and Revenue Bases: A Critical 

Appraisal, A-108,9/87, 56 pp. 

Estimates of Revenue Potential from State Taxation of Out.of.State Mail Order Sales, 

SR-5, 9187, 10 pp. 

Fiscal Discipline in the Federal System: National Reform and the Experience 

of the States, A-107,8/87,58 pp 

Federalism and the Constitution: A Symposium on Garcia, M-152, 7187, 88 PP. 

$17.50 

$8.Oil 

$10.00 

$10.00 

$8.00 

$10.00 

$15.00 

$5.00 

$lO.cml 

$lom 

$10sm 

$l5sxl 

$5.00 

$5.00 

$10.00 

$503 

$10.o4l 

$25.Oil 

$5.00 

$10.00 

$5.00 

$S.ca 

$5sHl 

$5.00 

$lO.Kl 

$5.00 

$5sM 

$5.00 

$10.00 

$3.00 

$10.00 

$10.00