April 2006

Identifying Technology Flows

and Spillovers Through

NAICS Coding of

ATP Project Participants

ADVANCED TE CHNOLOGY P OLOGY P ROGRAM

NISTIR 7280

National Institute of Standards and Technology • Technology Administration • U.S. Department of Commerce

John Nail

Hayden Brown
Identifying Technology Flows 

and Spillovers through NAICS 

Coding of ATP 

Project Participants

By:

John Nail

Economic Assessment Office

Advanced Technology Program

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4710

Hayden Brown

Office of Applied Economics

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603 

April 2006

U.S. Department of Commerce

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

Technology Administration

Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

William Jeffrey, Director

Advanced Technology Program

Marc G. Stanley, Director

NISTIR 7280

Page iii

Table of Contents

About the Authors ........................................................... v

Abstract ............................................................................ vii

Acknowledgments .......................................................... ix

1. Introduction ................................................................. 1

Project Overview......................................................................................................1

Economic Studies Involving the Trace of Technology Flows ..................................2

Report Organization.................................................................................................5

2. Identifying and Measuring Spillovers..................... 7

3. Creation of the NAICS Data Set ................................ 11

Data Sources ..........................................................................................................11

Simple Model of Economy Flows ..........................................................................13

The NAICS Assignment Process ............................................................................14

Examples of the NAICS Assignment Process.........................................................16

4. Data Analysis .............................................................. 19

Large Increase in Number of Industries Covered by ATP Projects .......................19

Distribution of Own-Industry for ATP Participants .................................................19

Distribution of Use-Industry for ATP Participants...................................................20

Do ATP Participants’ Own-Industries Generate Technology? ...............................22

Evidence of Multi-Use Technologies .....................................................................23

Evidence of Infrastructural Technologies ..............................................................23

Do ATP Participants Intend to License ATP-Funded Technology

Outside of Own-Industry?......................................................................................24

DO Applications Outside Own-Industry Remain Commercially Viable? ...............25

Other Ways to Use the Data .................................................................................26

Appendices and Discussion...................................................................................28

5. Key Findings and Suggestions for Future Research..31

Key Findings ..........................................................................................................31

Suggestions for Future Research ..........................................................................32
Page iv Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

References ........................................................................ 33

AppendiCES

A. Factors Affecting Market and Knowledge Spillovers ....................................35

B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector .................................................39

BOXES

1-1. A Note on Terminology: Own- and Use-Industries .........................................3

2-1. Economic Spillovers and Technology Flows....................................................8

3-1. SIC and NAICS ..............................................................................................12

3-2. Key NAICS Attributes....................................................................................12

FIGURES

2-1. Private and Social Returns from R&D ..............................................................9

3-1. Simple Model of the Economic Pathways through Which Different 

Industries Produce Goods for Each Other ....................................................14

4-1. Distribution of Own-Industry for ATP Participants by Six-Digit NAICS Code .20

4-2. Distribution of Use-Industry for ATP Participants by Six-Digit NAICS Code ...21

4-3. A Demonstration of Potential Economic Benefits to the State of Idaho

Resulting from Spillovers of an ATP Project ..................................................27

4-4. A Demonstration of Potential Economic Benefits to the Nation Resulting

from Spillovers of an ATP Project..................................................................28

TABLES

3-1. Summary of Decision Process to Assign Own-Industry NAICS Codes and

Use-Industry NAICS Codes: Three Examples................................................18

4-1. Number of Unique NAICS Codes Assigned to ATP Projects, 1999–2004 ....19

4-2. Percentage of ATP Participant Firms in Industries Characterized as

Technology Employers and/or Primary or Secondary Technology 

Generators, 1999–2004.................................................................................22

4-3. Percentage of ATP Participants That Propose at Least One Commercial

Application Outside of Their Own-Industry, 1999–2004...............................23

4-4. Percentage of Firms Licensing ATP Technology Outside of Their 

Own-Industry and Whether the Commercial Application Is Still Viable .......25

4-5. Percentage of Applicants Reporting Their Commercial Application as 

Still Viable......................................................................................................26

4-6. Percentage of Commercial Applications That Are Still Viable 

Outside of a Participant’s Own-Industry .......................................................26
Page 

About the Authors

John M. Nail is an economist in the Advanced Technology Program’s (ATP’s) Economic Assessment Office. His general research interests include the economics of 

innovation, patenting, and venture capital. Dr. Nail co-authored a study of stationary fuel cells for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He 

spoke at a conference on military fuel cell applications held in Arlington, Virginia, in 

September 2004 and presented a paper on the commercial outcomes of ATP projects at the 2003 Western Economic Conference in Denver, Colorado. Before joining 

ATP, he conducted economic analyses of legal and regulatory matters, assisted in 

expert witness testimony involving price-fixing in the sports apparel and prescription 

drug markets, and developed an economic valuation of employee stock options. Dr. 

Nail holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of North Carolina; his areas of 

expertise include health care economics, industrial organization, and applied financial 

economics. 

Hayden Brown is an economist in the Office of Applied Economics at NIST. The 

Office of Applied Economics, part of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at 

NIST, provides economic research and consulting to industry and government agencies in support of productivity enhancement, economic growth, and international 

competitiveness. Dr. Brown has conducted economic analyses of the assistance provided by Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers, and is currently studying the 

selection of firefighting protective gear as well as exterior housing elements, based 

on multiple attributes. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of 

Kentucky.

Page vii

Abstract

This report describes a methodology used to refine industry classification data used by the Advanced Technology Program’s (ATP’s) online Business Reporting System 

(BRS) project database. The primary method for classifying industries is the North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) developed by an Office of Management and Budget interagency working group. The authors assigned six-digit NAICS 

codes to each ATP project participant’s own-industry and the use-industry of any commercial applications reported by project participants, for all projects funded between 

January 1999 and July 2003. This report documents the authors’ methodology used 

for coding and provides an evaluation to show that ATP projects demonstrate certain 

factors that suggest high spillover potential; these include multi-use innovation, infrastructural technology, and licensing of technology outside of their own-industry. In 

addition, a majority of ATP participants’ own-industries are characterized as primary 

technology generators while approximately a third of the use-industries are characterized as either primary or secondary technology generators. This finding suggests that 

ATP project selection enables technology to be developed in the more sophisticated 

technology sectors, which may then flow into less sophisticated technology sectors. 

This methodology provides ATP a new approach to monitor its technology portfolio. In particular, these data enable one to view the industries that may be affected 

by commercialization. Eventually, this methodology may lead to a broader effort by 

the Federal government to track its overall R&D technology portfolio on a more systematic basis. For example, a 2002 report, Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment, issued 

by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, recommends that “OSTP, in cooperation with the appropriate federal agencies, should assess and analyze the adequacy of 

Federal R&D investments in light of national interests, international competition and 

human resource needs.” 

Key words: NAICS, SIC, spillovers, technology flows, technology portfolio, interindustry diffusion, own-industry, use-industry, R&D, Advanced Technology Program

Page ix

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following people in the Advanced Technology Program’s (ATP’s) Economic Assessment Office: Connie Chang, Jeanne Powell, 

Prasad Gupte, and Stephanie Shipp. We would also like to thank Lorel Wisniewski, 

Deputy Director of ATP; Harold Marshall of the Office of Applied Economics from the 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory; Laura Schultz from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis of the Department of Commerce; and Brian Belanger, former Deputy Director of ATP; for their helpful comments. 

We thank Nita Congress, with the editing firm Grammarians, for her outstanding 

editing and desktop design. 

Page 

Introduction

Project Overview

The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) provides cost-shared funding to private company research and development (R&D) projects that promise significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the nation. ATP project selection focuses 

on generic technologies developed by upstream producers that enable downstream 

producers to improve the quality of their products or reduce their costs. To facilitate 

tracing the flow of ATP-enabled technologies and their spillover benefits, a methodology, documented in this report, was developed to identify each project participant’s 

own-industry North American Industry Standard Classification (NAICS) code and the 

NAICS code of the downstream use-industries for each separate proposed commercial application for all ATP projects that started between January 1999 and July 2003.

The motivation for this project was twofold. First, NAICS coding enables matching 

of ATP projects with external data that use NAICS codes (e.g., the economic Census, National Science Foundation R&D expenditure data, and Compustat data). This 

matching in turn will facilitate research on project impacts and economic outcomes. 

Second, NAICS coding provides evidence that ATP project selection focuses on projects with high spillover potential. 

ATP invests in risky, challenging technologies with the potential to deliver significant national economic benefits. Between 1990 and September 2004, ATP awarded 

768 projects involving 1,511 project participants. Of the 768 awards, 550 were led by 

a single company, and 218 were joint ventures. To date, a total of $4.4 billion of highrisk research has been funded, consisting of $2.27 billion from ATP and $2.1 billion 

from industry. Small businesses lead 66 percent of all such projects. 

This report has two parts. The first part documents the methodology developed 

to assign NAICS codes to each of the ATP participants and commercial applica1. Some commercial applications may be tied to multiple NAICS codes. However, since these data will be used 

in economic studies, having multiple observations for a single piece of data may prove to be problematic.

1
Page Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

tions, using ATP’s Business Reporting System (BRS) data. The authors identified the 

own- and use-industry NAICS codes by cross-checking ATP project descriptions with 

industry data from Compustat and Hoover’s databases and the Internet. After an initial coding of each commercial application, the exercise was repeated to ensure that 

consistent decisions had been made regarding the assignment of NAICS codes across 

the various commercial applications.

The second part of this report is an analysis of the ATP project portfolio using 

a January 1999–July 2003 data sample. The analysis consisted of examining factors, 

identified by Jaffe (1996), that possess high spillover potential. The findings suggest 

that ATP selects projects with high spillover potential. In addition, the data were organized into the five different technology areas as defined by ATP. These technology 

areas include biotechnology, electronics, chemicals and materials, manufacturing, and 

information technology. The data provide a snapshot of the ATP technology portfolio, 

as contained in appendix B. 

Economic Studies Involving the Trace of

Technology Flows

ATP selects projects with broad economic impact; therefore, ATP tries to measure how 

R&D performed by its project participants flows through the U.S. economy. ATP has 

conducted many standard benefit-cost analyses. These studies examine individual 

projects on a case-by-case basis. They follow the Mansfield et al. (1977) method of 

examining innovations at the company level and interviewing company officials and 

customers about the associated benefits resulting from the innovation. These studies provide precision in measuring the benefits of individual projects. However, they 

fail to provide a sense of the overall technology flows (defined in box 1-1) occurring 

throughout the entire ATP portfolio. In addition, the cost of conducting in-depth benefit-cost studies makes them impractical to use for each and every ATP project.

Another method, used by economists to study the effects of R&D performed, 

looks at how technology flows occur from upstream developers to downstream users. 

Early discussions of technology flows can be found in Brown and Conrad (1967) and 

Terleckyj (1974). These authors were interested in measuring the impact of R&D, 

. The BRS is a set of survey instruments used to capture data on ATP project participants over the life of the 

ATP funding and up to six years after funding ends; see section 3 for more information.

. See the following examples for benefit-cost analysis: Pelsoci (2003), White and Gallaher (2002), and Austin 

and Macauley (2000). For a literature review of ATP Economic Assessment Office studies through 2000, see 

Ruegg and Feller (2003).

. ATP generates status reports on every ATP project. A status report is a mini-case study of the project 

about three to four years after the completion of the ATP project.
1. Introduction Page 

mostly performed by manufacturing industries, on downstream industries that utilized 

the capital goods in their production process. To identify these technology flows, they 

used the Input-Output tables produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to allocate R&D expenditures from origin to using industries. An Input-Output table lists the 

expenditures by industry that it uses to make its products. For example, almost one 

out of three of the inputs in the agricultural sector are manufactured goods. Improvements in those manufactured goods used by the agricultural sector may eventually 

flow into the agricultural sector, thereby, raising the productivity of that sector. This is 

the main thrust behind analyzing R&D expenditures using Input-Output tables. 

Instead of using the Input-Output tables, Scherer (1982) looked at patents by 

companies performing R&D as a proxy for their innovative output. His group analyzed 

over 15,000 patents produced by the firms that accounted for 74 percent of total U.S. 

R&D expenditures for the year 1972. They identified the use-industries from each 

patent and discovered that two out of three possessed one to three use-industries. 

For the first two-thirds patents where a use-industry was identified, he allocated the 

R&D expenditures from those origin industries directly to the use-industries. With the 

remaining third, R&D expenditures were allocated across the use-industries, based 

upon the percentage that each use-industry consumed of the origin industry’s output, 

as determined by the Input-Output tables. He used these numbers to estimate the 

Box 1-1. A Note on Terminology: Own- and Use-Industries

The literature uses the terms own-industry and use-industry, as well as upstream and 

downstream industry, to convey the path by which goods and services flow through the 

economy. Typically, economic studies using the Input-Output tables employ the terms 

own- and use-industry because the Input-Output tables are not based upon the concept 

of upstream/downstream but of use and make tables. Other economists use the terms 

upstream and downstream especially in the spillover literature. For the purposes of our 

study, we explicitly use the terms own- and use-industry to describe our data. However, 

conceptually, we think of the economy as a circular flow of goods between three types of 

producers; upstream, midstream, and downstream, which we describe in more detail below. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the term own-industry is used to refer to each participant’s primary industry. Use-industry refers to the primary industry in which the commercial application will be employed. The terms upstream and downstream industry illuminate the structure of ATP own- and use-industries in relation to the overall structure of the 

U.S. economy.
Page Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

short-run effect of R&D expenditures on using industries. Scherer (2003) revisited the 

exercise by using the same 1972 data on R&D expenditures, but this time he allocated the R&D expenditures using variations of the Input-Output tables. 

The motivation behind both exercises was to determine how R&D performed 

in the upstream industries might affect productivity in the downstream industries. In 

general, using both the 1982 and 2003 methods, Scherer found that allocating a portion of upstream R&D expenditures to downstream using industries explained some 

of the observed downstream productivity increases. It would be possible to perform a 

Scherer-type analysis on the ATP projects using the NAICS data.

Popkin (2003) used SIC/NAICS codes to develop a method to estimate the 

potential spillover effects of ATP projects resulting in successful commercialization.

Popkin calculated total spillover potential by summing the intra-industry shipments 

involving the own- and use-industries for ATP project participants. For example, he 

showed where one ATP project participant’s own-industry was printed wiring boards. 

The ATP participant proposed a commercial application in the communications equipment industry which would be the use-industry. Popkin asked, “What potential impact 

might improvements in the printed circuit board industry have on the communications 

equipment industry and vice-versa?” 

The logic behind his method is, the more an industry uses an input to make a 

final product, the greater the impact improvements in that input will have on the final 

product. In addition, improvements in the use-industry may spillover into the ownindustry. In the printed wiring board case, about 9 percent of the inputs that the communications equipment industry uses come from the printed wiring board industry. 

Also, how much an industry uses, as its own input, would be impacted by improvements within the industry. For example, 20 percent of the printed wiring board’s 

inputs are printed wiring boards. This is known in the literature as the “diagonal” 

since it is a column that goes across diagonally in a square Input-Output table matrix. 

He suggested that improvements in the communications equipment industry (in 

this case, the use-industry) would result in spillovers within the communication equipment industry. The impact of these spillovers would be related to the amount of communications equipment used by the communications equipment industry (the diagonal) and the amount of communications equipment used by the printed wiring board 

industry (a.k.a. the amount of use-industry needed to make own-industry). 

. Polenske and Rockler (2004) performed an analysis of the effects of a single project involving the automobile industry and its impact on the U.S. economy including both direct and indirect effects.

. See Popkin (2003), pp. 3–5, for a review of the economic spillover literature.
1. Introduction Page 

The sum of these four measures is the measure for total potential spillovers. 

Popkin argued that the likelihood of spillover impact was directly related to the sum 

of the four measures and suggested the methodology be used to analyze all ATP 

projects. 

The research presented in this paper identifies industry codes for all the proposed commercial applications of projects still in progress. We then examine whether 

ATP selects projects with high spillover potential. Popkin examined already completed 

ATP projects, identified the commercialized product (if there was one), and classified 

the own- and use-industry SIC code for the entire project. These data may be used to 

perform a similar analysis once commercial outcomes are known. 

Report Organization

This section introduces and defines industry classification terminology and provides a 

brief overview of industry classification in spillover analysis. Section 2 reviews the concept of economic spillovers and how coding facilitates the identification of projects 

with high spillover potential. Section 3 contains a brief history of ATP efforts to capture SIC and NAICS code data through its data collection system and describes the 

process of NAICS coding by the authors of this report. Section 4 contains a detailed 

analysis of the research findings. Section 5 concludes and provides suggestions for 

further research.

Page 

Identifying and 

Measuring Spillovers

T he economic analysis of ATP projects includes, as a key component, quantifying the spillover benefits to the users of the technology. To facilitate the identification of spillovers, this report documents a methodology for assigning six-digit NAICS 

industry codes to the own-industry and use-industry in the BRS. NAICS codes are very 

detailed, and a BRS survey respondent must navigate thousands of NAICS codes at 

the six-digit level and several hundred at the three-digit level. Also, differentiating 

some codes is difficult, and two different respondents could reasonably assign two 

different NAICS codes for the same application. Jaffe (1996) identified three types of 

spillovers: knowledge, market, and network, noting that the three interact synergistically to increase their combined effect. These are defined in box 2-1.

Figure 2-1 shows the source of each spillover and provides a schematic of the 

interaction process. According to this figure, firm 1 invests in R&D, generating new 

knowledge that it uses to improve its products or lower its production costs. Assuming that the firm successfully commercializes the results, market competition causes 

the value of some of firm 1’s improvements to be captured by its customers in the 

form of lower prices or higher quality. This effect alone would cause a spillover gap 

equal to the customer benefit. But the figure shows other effects as well. 

The first downward-pointing arrow indicates that knowledge spillovers flow from 

firm 1’s knowledge base to other firms through disembodied outputs such as papers 

and patents as well as the process of “reverse engineering” another firm’s new product. The second downward-pointing arrow indicates that knowledge also passes from 

firm 1 to other firms through research results embodied in its new commercial products and processes. 

The arrow that connects other firms’ knowledge with better products/lower 

costs, acknowledges that some of the firms benefiting from the knowledge spillovers 

. By reverse engineering the new device, a company may be able to figure out how it was designed and 

made, and can come up with a similar, though non-IP-infringing, product.

2
Page  Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

are competitors of firm 1, which then introduce cheaper or better products into firm 

1’s markets—taking some of its profits and creating some additional customer benefits. Meanwhile, these other firms may also introduce improved or lower-cost products 

and process into their own markets, resulting in profits for them and benefits for their 

customers. As Jaffe observes,” it is the combination of knowledge spillovers along 

with competitive interaction which increases the spillover gap both by raising the 

social return and lowering the private return” (Jaffe 1996, p. 17).

Jaffe provides a list of factors that affect the potential for market and knowledge 

spillovers. He also provides a list of factors that increase the likelihood of interacting 

market and knowledge spillovers, leading to potential network spillovers. Appendix A 

contains the complete list of factors identified by Jaffe. 

This study provides data needed to analyze some of the factors identified by 

Jaffe as favorable to market and knowledge spillovers. Three of these factors are analyzed using the NAICS codes: 

Multi-use innovation, in which many uses are likely to be commercialized by 

others. The identification of both market and knowledge spillovers is facilitated 

by these data since one can identify multi-use technologies in projects where 

commercial applications cover several different use-industries.

1.

Box 2-1. Economic Spillovers and Technology Flows

Economic spillovers that accrue from R&D activity fall into three categories: Market, 

Knowledge, and Network, according to Jaffe (1998)

Market spillovers occur when market transactions involving a new product or process result in some of the benefits flowing to market participants in addition to the 

innovating firm. 

Knowledge spillovers occur when knowledge created by one person is used by 

another person without compensation, or with compensation less than the value of 

that knowledge. 

Network spillovers occur when the commercial or economic value of a new technology is strongly dependent on the development of a set of related technologies. 

When developing complex new technologies, there are often several parts that must 

be developed simultaneously in order for the technology to function properly. 

Technology flows refer to the processes by which technologies are developed in 

one industry (typically an upstream industry) and then are employed by users in 

downstream industries.










2. Identifying and Measuring Spillovers Page 

Infrastructural technology (i.e., other researchers are a significant component of the market for the new technology). A second factor likely to enhance 

spillovers is whether the technology is infrastructural. The example Jaffe gives 

is technology that enables other researchers to perform their jobs more efficiently and, therefore, are a significant component of the market for the new 

technology. These data may be used to identify projects where the use-industry 

is primarily focused on R&D activities; such projects may be characterized as 

infrastructural.

Technology in which licensing to others is likely to be important. An important source of potential market spillovers is projects where licensing occurs 

across multiple use-industries. For example, companies that commercialize a 

technology within their own-industry, but license the same technology to companies outside of their own-industry possess the potential for market spillovers. 

2.

3.

Figure 2-1. Private and Social Returns from R&D

Source: Jaffe (1996).
Page 10 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

These are some of the most apparent ways these data may be used to identify 

factors likely to generate spillovers. Other factors may be measured using these data, 

but they must be combined with other data such as those collected through the BRS. 

For example, NAICS codes would not be very helpful in identifying industries that 

have difficulty protecting their innovations. However, the BRS contains questions that 

specifically ask how intellectual property is used. The answers to those questions can 

be properly assigned to project participants’ own-industry NAICS code. 

There are other areas in which the NAICS coding may help to identify potential 

spillovers. Ruegg (1999) observed that diffusion of technology across industries was 

much more difficult than within their own-industries. Ruegg noted that it was not 

enough to accept a company’s assertions that applications exist. She said that, if the 

potential is to be realized, there must be knowledge gained about which types of 

projects work best for cross-industry diffusion and what obstacles exist. NAICS data 

could be merged with commercial outcomes data in order to determine which projects diffused technology outside of their own-industry.
Page 11

3 Creation of the NAICS 

Data Set

Data Sources

The ATP Economic Assessment Office (EAO) uses multiple survey instruments, collectively referred to as the BRS, to capture project participants’ business data and 

commercialization progress; these data help in evaluating the success of ATP projects. Between 1993 and 1998, EAO used a disk-based survey instrument that asked 

companies to provide the SIC codes applied to their potential commercial applications. Beginning in 1999, EAO switched to a web-based survey instrument and to the 

collection of NAICS codes. In 1999 and 2000, companies were asked to identify the 

three-digit NAICS codes for both their own-industry and the industry of their potential 

business applications. Starting in 2001, EAO reevaluated this request, when it determined that it placed a large reporting burden on the companies but did not yield 

particularly helpful or consistent data. Box 3-1 defines the SIC and NAICS system of 

classification. Box 3-2 outlines important attributes of NAICS.

Using this focal information as guidance, EAO assigned six-digit NAICS codes 

to project participants’ own- and use-industries (see box 1-1). Potential spillovers 

and other associated economic impacts from an ATP project can be more precisely 

measured using six-digit NAICS codes than the three-digit level. For example, NAICS 

code 325, which represents all chemical manufacturing, contains 34 separate six-digit 

industries. By assigning six-digit NAICS codes to own and use-industry, these data 

will better enable ATP to trace the technology flows that potentially result from ATP 

projects. 

. For Information on the BRS and the methodology, see Powell (1996).

. For information on SIC codes for ATP projects between 1993 and 1997, see Powell and Lellock (2000).

. Instead of NAICS codes, companies were instead asked to classify their technology in terms of National 

Institute of Standards and Technology’s 7 focus and 43 sub-focus areas. These focus and sub-focus areas are 

different than the five technology categories ATP uses to classify its projects.
Page 12 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

These data help reveal how ATP-funded technologies are diffused across multiple industries. One method used to track spillovers created by a technology is to 

identify the own-industry and the use-industry. The own-industry is the primary industry in which the company operates; the use-industry is that of the potential business 

application(s) resulting from the new technology. Detailed industry data facilitate 

research into the pathway by which the benefits developed by a company from its 

own-industry spill over into the downstream industries of the various business applications. If ATP were to rely on three-digit NAICS codes alone, the spillover potential 

would be seriously understated. 

Box 3-1. SIC and NAICS

The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system is a series of number codes used to 

classify all business establishments by the types of products or services they make available. Establishments engaged in the same activity, whatever their size or type of ownership, are assigned the same SIC code. These definitions are important for standardization. 

The SIC codes were developed to facilitate the collection, tabulation, and analysis of data 

and to promote comparability in statistical analyses. 

Beginning in 1997, the SIC system was replaced by the North American Industry Classification System. The six-digit NAICS code is a major revision that not only provides for 

newer industries, but also reorganizes the categories on a production/process-oriented 

basis. This new, uniform, industry-wide classification system is designated as the index for 

statistical reporting of all economic activities of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Box 3-2. Key NAICS Attributes

Common code for the United States, Mexico, and Canada. 

Compatibility with two-digit-level of International SIC (ISIC) codes of the United 

Nations. 

More industries and more precise distinctions among industries. 

Many new emerging high-tech industries and service industries included. 

Entirely new information industry category. 

New six-digit codes instead of four-digit codes as in the SIC. 












3. Creation of the NAICS Data Set Page 13

Simple Model of Economy Flows

Figure 3-1 shows a simple model of the economic pathways by which different industries produce goods for each other (inter-industry flows) and then how raw materials 

and intermediate goods end up in their ultimate final use by the consumer. The figure 

uses three types of industry classifications: 

upstream, which represents the industries that produce basic raw materials such 

as oil and grains;

midstream, which refers to industries that produce a wide variety of products 

which are used by other industries to produce an end product or deliver a service; and 

downstream, which refers to those industries in which finished products or services are produced

The upper left-hand box in figure 3-1 shows the upstream industries, the upper 

right-hand box represents midstream industries, and the box below them represents 

downstream industries. Raw materials are extracted or grown by upstream industries. 

The midstream companies transform those goods into intermediate goods. Downstream industries purchase the intermediate goods and produce end-use products. 

An example of this process is the making of an automobile. Upstream producers 

extract iron ore, copper, oil, and other raw commodities. Intermediate goods producers convert iron ore into steel, and fabricated metal shops transform this steel into the 

various parts of an auto body. Smelters take the copper ore to produce copper for use 

by wire manufacturers; these then turn the copper into fine copper wire for the electrical components of automotive electronics. Utilities convert oil or coal into electricity. 

Auto manufacturers purchase the metal, copper, and plastic parts as well as engines, 

transmissions, and tires. Using electricity purchased from a utility, the auto manufacturer assembles the various parts into motor vehicles. 

The process described above is linear and sequential. However, as shown in figure 3-1, the process includes feedbacks from the downstream to the midstream and 

upstream industries as well as from midstream to upstream industries. For example, 

farmers purchase transportation equipment such as tractors and trucks from downstream industries, and intermediate goods are consumed by upstream industries. An 

example of an ATP project enabling a better intermediate good to be used by a raw 

material producer is found in Pelsoci (2004). In that ATP project, a materials producer 

created an improved oil drilling part, known as a riser, which allows oil extractors to 

drill for oil in water depths previously unavailable to them. Another ATP project exam-






Page 14 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ple involves a producer of catalysts for the natural gas industry. Natural gas producers 

increase their yield of usable natural gas through improved removal of nitrogen and 

other impurities.

The NAICS Assignment Process

Beginning with their baseline report—i.e., the first BRS survey given to all ATP project 

participants at the beginning of a project—companies are asked to identify potential 

commercial applications resulting from the technology developed from their ATP 

Figure 3-1. Simple Model of the Economic Pathways through 

Which Different Industries Produce Goods for Each Other

Source: Authors.

Transportation Equipment

Construction

Food

Services

Downstream Industries

(Final Users)

Upstream Industries

(Raw Materials)

Grains 

Oil

Raw Commodities

Midstream Industries

(Components and

Process Materials)

Chemicals

Machine Tools

Measuring Instruments

Raw Materials Used by

Midstream Industry

Process Materials, Tools Used

to Produce Raw Materials

Raw Materials 

Used by

Downstream

Industry

Process Materials,

Tools, and Industry

Components Used by

Downstream Industry

End Products

Used by

Upstream

Industry

End Products

Purchased by

Midstream

Industry
3. Creation of the NAICS Data Set Page 15

project. In subsequent annual surveys, they are asked whether any new applications 

emerged and whether existing ones are still applicable. In this research, the authors 

collected all commercial applications listed by participating companies in the BRS 

beginning with projects that started in 1999, when the web-based version of the BRS 

was implemented, up to January 31, 2004. Depending on how long a company’s project had progressed, each participant completed between one and four BRS reports. 

Some projects had already been completed; others had been terminated early. Sometimes a company completed a baseline report, but did not report commercial applications until the project’s first anniversary. 

The raw data set resulted in 1,786 observations of potential applications. 

Because companies were asked in later surveys whether the application was still viable, there are duplicate observations in this set. We coded all commercial applications 

even if a project had been terminated or the commercial application was indicated 

to be nonviable in subsequent annual surveys. After eliminating those observations 

where there was baseline information but no commercial applications and duplicate 

commercial applications captured in the annual surveys, 852 unique commercial 

applications remained, involving 372 unique companies participating in 265 unique 

projects. 

We examined each project participant individually in order to code its ownindustry, i.e., the primary industry in which the company operates. In making this 

determination, the three-digit NAICS codes (if reported by the company) provided 

some guidance; we additionally relied on Compustat information for NAICS codes for 

public companies and the Hoover’s database for private companies. If more than one 

NAICS or SIC code was listed for the company, we used the one that appeared most 

closely related to the technology used in the project. If neither Hoover’s nor Compustat listed any codes, we conducted further web searches to identify the own-industry 

code. Through this process, each project participant was assigned a unique ownindustry NAICS code.

A similar process was followed to determine the most common use-industry of 

each application. In many cases, defining the industry of the commercial application 

was more difficult than defining the own-industry. The commercial application titles 

provided by the companies tend to be short; these are frequently either too broadbased (e.g., “Auto”) or vague (e.g., “Drug Discovery”). Second, because these products and services are often completely new commercial lines of business, no specific 

NAICS code yet exists to describe them. We often used the long description of the 

project that the company provided at the beginning of a project as a way to better 

understand the applications being proposed. Companies were also asked whether 

the commercial application was a new product, service, license, or process. This infor-
Page 16 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

mation helped clarify the potential usage for the product, and was helpful in determining appropriate NAICS codes. 

Examples of the NAICS Assignment

Process

This section presents three examples of the NAICS assignment process to better illustrate the methodology and the challenges faced in implementing it. 

THM Biomedical participated in a single-applicant project awarded by ATP; the 

project began in 1999. Based on the project abstract, THM Biomedical proposed a new bio-absorbable implant intended to affect the repair and regeneration of articular cartilage defects, including the layer attached to the bone. 

It proposed a single commercial application described as “articular cartilage 

repair.” Sometime during the project, the Kensey Nash Corporation purchased 

THM Biomedical. Since Kensey Nash is a publicly traded corporation, it has its 

own-industry NAICS code from the Compustat database—339112, Surgical 

and Medical Instrument Manufacturing. However, the commercial application 

was described as a product, not a process. Since this type of material would be 

placed inside the patient, it was not really an instrument. NAICS code 339113 is 

for Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing; one of the categories within 

that code is surgical implants manufacturing. Therefore, we classified the ownindustry as NAICS code 339112, and the use-industry as 339113. 

Thar Technologies participated in a single-company project beginning in 2002. 

It proposed development of a miniature, low-cost vapor compression system—a 

“cooler on a chip”—for microelectronics applications. Thar envisioned two 

potential applications to be licensed: a microelectronics cooling system and 

application within the air-conditioning industry. Thar Technologies is listed in the 

Hoover’s database under the industry description NAICS code 334516, Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing. We classified the downstream industry 

for the microelectronics cooling system as NAICS code 334418, which is the 

Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing. The second application was classified as 

NAICS code 333415, which is the Air-conditioning Manufacturing.

Coding a joint venture was even more complicated, as it was often difficult to 

identify what each of the participants would commercialize in a particular project 

based on the brief commercial descriptions provided. In 2001, a joint venture 

was formed among three private companies (Kahuku Shrimp Company, Zeigler 

Brothers, and Pig Improvement Company) and the Scripts Oceanic Institute to 






3. Creation of the NAICS Data Set Page 17

study shrimp genetics. The research institute was classified with the own-industry NACIS code 541710, which is research and development in the physical 

sciences. Two of the small companies were found in Hoover’s: Kahuku Shrimp 

Company was classified as NAICS code 112512, which is Shrimp production 

through farming, as opposed to catching fish, which is NAICS code 114112 

Shellfish fishing; and Pig Improvement Company was classified as NAICS code 

112210, which is Hog and Pig Farming. To classify Ziegler Brothers, which could 

not be found in Hoover’s, we looked at the company’s website and learned that 

it manufactures premium feed for the zoo and agriculture industries. We therefore decided to include it in the Other Animal Food Manufacturing industry 

which is NAICS code 311119. 

The Scripps Oceanic Institute proposed an application for something it called 

“bio-secure shrimp production,” a technology it proposed to license. Kahuku 

proposed an application with the same name, but described it as a new product. 

We assumed that one company might actively commercialize the technology 

and one would license the technology to companies operating in that industry; 

we decided that both applications would be commercialized within the Shrimp 

Farming industry and coded them NAICS code 112512, Shellfish Fishing. 

Kahuku proposed a second application simply called “biotechnology,” which 

we coded as something to be used by the R&D sector, NAICS code 541710. Pig 

Improvement proposed an application called “shrimp genetics,” which we also 

coded as 541710. Finally, Ziegler Brothers proposed a license for a technology 

called “BioZest,” which we assumed would be used by the shrimp industry and 

we coded the use-industry as such. 

The decision process is summarized in table 3-2. 

Note that, when displayed in a table, the process may appear straightforward; 

however, it took much detective work and analysis to assign NAICS codes to ATP participants (own-industry) and applications (use-industries). Ultimately, one can observe 

how much variety in expertise is brought to the latter joint venture project. The Pig 

Improvement Company’s expertise is concentrated in pig production, but it may be 

able to bring some fresh insight to shrimp genetics. An animal feed manufacturer 

adds expertise to the shrimp food side. The fact is that different producers from various industries bring unique skills and knowledge sets to this project. All of these conditions stimulate the potential for spillovers. 


Page 18 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

Table 3-1. Summary of Decision Process to Assign Own-Industry NAICS 

Codes and Use-Industry NAICS Codes: Three Examples

Company

Own-industry Naics

Code

Technology 

Application

Use-industry Naics

Code

Kensey Nash 

Corporation

339112: Surgical 

Medical Instrument 

Manufacturing

Articular cartilage 

repair

339113: Surgical 

Appliance 

and Supplies 

Manufacturing 

(surgical implants 

manufacturing)

Thar Technologies 334516: Analytical 

Laboratory Instrument 

Manufacturing

Microelectronics 

cooling system

334418: Printed Circuit 

Board Manufacturing

333414: Air 

Conditioning 

Manufacturing

Joint Venture:

Kahuku Shrimp 

Company

112512: Shrimp 

Farming 

Bio-secure shrimp 

production;

112512: Shrimp 

Farming

Biotechnology 541710: R&D in the 

Physical Sciences

Zeigler Brothers 311119: Other Animal 

Food Manufacturing 

Biozest 112512: Shrimp 

Farming

Pig Improvement 

Company

112210: Hog and Pig 

Farming

Shrimp genetics 541710: R&D in the 

Physical Sciences

Scripts Oceanic 

Institute

541710: R&D in the 

Physical Sciences

Bio-secure shrimp 

production

112512: Shrimp 

Farming
Page 19

4 Data Analysis

Large Increase in Number of Industries

Covered by ATP Projects

As Jaffe (1996) notes, market and knowledge spillovers are more likely to occur when the technology may be used in many different applications, particularly 

technology that may be applied outside of developer’s own-industry. The transition 

from three- to six-digit NAICS codes results in a large increase in the available detail 

of the ATP portfolio as measured by the number of different industries potentially 

affected by ATP-funded technology. Table 4-1 shows the increase in unique three- and 

six-digit NAICS codes before and after the coding. The number of unique six-digit 

own-industries is 106; the number of unique six-digit downstream industries is 180. 

Table 4-1. Number of Unique NAICS Codes Assigned to ATP 

Projects, 1999–2004

Industry Unique Six-Digit NAICS Codes (After Coding)

Own 106

Use 180

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.

Distribution of Own-Industry for ATP 

Participants

Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of own-industries for ATP participants. The largest own-industry is NAICS code 541710, Research and Development in the Physical Sciences. This represents almost a quarter of all participants’ own-industry 

categorizations. 
Page 20 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

As shown by figure 4-1, other own-industries include software, electrical equipment manufacturing and semiconductors. These industries may be characterized as 

midstream industries as shown on figure 3-1. They typically provide inputs to the 

upstream and downstream industries. This graph only provides the counts of the number of firm’s own-industry within each industry and is not adjusted for dollars spent 

per project or the fact that a single joint venture might contribute several companies 

to these counts while a single applicant provides only one. A disproportionate number of ATP company participants are small firms, many of them are relatively new, and 

consider their primary business at this stage to be research and development. This 

fact explains the relatively large number of ATP firms whose own-industry is the R&D 

industry. As they develop commercial products, many of them will reclassify themselves into the NAICS code of their new industry. 

Distribution of Use-Industry for ATP 

Participants

An examination of figures 4-1 and 4-2 reveals differences between own- and useindustries. The own-industry category contains a significant number of R&D and 

Figure 4-1. Distribution of Own-Industry for ATP Participants 

by Six-Digit NAICS Code 

(Projects Started between January 1999 and July 2004)

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.

Reseach & Development (24%)

Software (12%)

Electrical Equipment

Manufacturing (7%)

Machinery Manufacturing (7%)

Semiconductors/Fuel Cells (5%)

Instruments Manufacturing (4%)

Other (41%)
4. Data Analysis Page 21

software firms as well as instrument and machinery manufacturers (about 45 percent 

of total own-industry). Own-industries are likely to be characterized as midstream 

industries, which provide components, materials, and process technologies for both 

upstream and downstream industries. 

Use-industries, on the other hand, include transportation equipment, medical 

care, computer manufacturing, and pharmaceutical manufacturing. Such industries 

are more likely to be characterized as downstream industries, which purchase components from midstream industries to assemble their products or deliver their services.

The “other” category in both figures 4-1 and 4-2 includes many NAICS codes 

too numerous to list here. However, appendix B contains a list of all own and useindustry NAICS codes by commercial application.

Figure 4-2. Distribution of Use-Industry for ATP Participants by 

Six-Digit NAICS Code 

(Projects Started between January 1999 and July 2004)

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

(9%)

Machinery Manufacturing (7%)

Pharmaceutical and Medicine

Manufacturing (6%)

Instruments Manufacturing (6%)

Computer, Peripheral and Commucations

Equipment Manufacturing (6%)

Semiconductors/Fuel Cells (6%)

Medical Equipment and Supplies

Manufacturing (5%)

Software (5%)

Reseach & Development (5%)

Medical Care (5%)

Other (40%)
Page 22 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

Do ATP Participants’ Own-Industries

Generate Technology? 

The Carnegie Mellon Heinz Business School conducted a study of NAICS codes and 

technology industries. The researchers defined “technology employer industries” as 

those that employ three times the national average of employees in R&D, or almost 

10 percent. They defined an industry as a “primary technology generator” if the 

industry per employee R&D expenditures exceeds the national average of $11,297 

and if the industry’s proportion of R&D scientists and engineers to total employees 

exceeds the U.S. average of 6.5 percent. A secondary technology generator industry 

meets one of these two criteria.

Using these definitions, we analyzed ATP participants’ own- and use-industries 

to determine the percentage of firms that are in industries known as technology 

employers and either primary or secondary technology generators. Table 4-2 shows 

the results of this analysis. 

An ATP firm’s own-industry is more likely to be a technology employer and/or a 

primary or secondary technology generator than its use-industry. This finding suggests 

that ATP companies participate in technology-generating industries, but that the benefits go to users in industries less likely to be a significant generator of technology. It 

may be an indication that ATP catalyzes research by R&D performers whose spillover 

benefits may accrue to predominately non-R&D performers although further research 

would be necessary to answer this question.

. Paytas and Berglund (2004).

Table 4-2. Percentage of ATP Participant Firms in Industries 

Characterized as Technology Employers and/or Primary or Secondary 

Technology Generators, 1999–2004

Industry

Technology 

Employers

Primary Technology GeneratorSecondary Technology Generator

Total Primary 

and Secondary 

Generators

Own 60 55 5 60

Use 29 26 8 33

Sources: BRS, NAICS coding; Paytas and Berglund (2004). 
4. Data Analysis Page 23

Evidence of Multi-Use Technologies

Multi-use technologies possess high spillover potential. One way to measure such 

potential in ATP projects is to see whether project participants’ own-industry differs 

from the use-industry of their proposed commercial applications. 

Table 4-3 indicates that most ATP participants propose a commercial application 

outside of their own-industry. In fact, 84 percent of project participants propose at 

least one commercial application outside of their own-industry’s six-digit NAICS code. 

Potential diffusion of ATP-funded technologies is fairly consistent across the five 

technology areas that ATP uses to classify projects (listed in table 4-3); over 80 percent of all project participants within each technology area propose at least one application outside of their own-industry. Across all commercial applications, almost half 

are outside of the participant’s own-industry.

Evidence of Infrastructural 

Technologies

Infrastructural technologies support the development of generic technologies and 

subsequent market applications, and may be described as “tools for the toolmakers.” The first method used to determine infrastructural technologies was whether the 

proposed commercial application use-industry was the R&D industry (NAICS code 

Table 4-3. Percentage of ATP Participants That Propose at 

Least One Commercial Application Outside of Their OwnIndustry, 1999–2004

Technology Area Percentage of Participants

Overall 84

Biotechnology 82

Chemicals/materials 88

Electronics 82

Information technology 80

Manufacturing 82

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.
Page 24 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

541710). Recall from figure 4-1 that almost a quarter of all own-industry participants 

were in the R&D industry. However, only 5 percent of use-industry applications are in 

the R&D industry. 

We divided use-industry applications into the five ATP technology categories, 

and we found that biotechnology had the most use-industry commercial applications 

for the R&D industry. In fact, almost one out of five (17.8 percent) commercial applications in biotechnology may be used by the R&D industry. 

Advances in biotechnology tools drive biotechnology’s R&D industry. In the past 

10 years, more than 45 ATP awards have supported the development of diagnostic 

tools used to isolate and evaluate genetic information. Developments include production of a nucleic acid micro-array, a micro-fluidic system, an informatics package, and 

an integrated platform that offers faster and cheaper methods of producing genetic 

data on a routine basis.

Do ATP Participants Intend to License 

ATP-funded Technology Outside of

Own-industry?

Jaffe’s third factor suggests the potential for spillovers is high when the proposed 

commercial application is outside of the own-industry and the commercial strategy is 

to license. Licensing provides an avenue for knowledge diffusion while improving the 

welfare of producers and customers. For example, a firm may develop a technology 

but lack the expertise or willingness to commercialize it outside of its own-industry. 

A license allows another firm to develop the commercial application for the industry; 

presumably, it costs less to license the technology than to develop it in-house. The 

firm that developed the technology receives a licensing fee, which defrays some of 

the costs of developing the technology, and provides an incentive for further development of enabling technology. Sometimes proposed commercial applications become 

impractical or unfeasible as the project progresses. Therefore, ATP queries companies 

each year about whether any proposed commercial applications are still viable. Table 

4-4 presents an analysis of whether a commercial application was outside of the ownindustry and whether those applications are still viable. An application is considered 

viable if the company indicated so in its last submitted BRS report (as of January 31, 

2004). 

. www.atp.nist.gov/eao/2004annual/2004annual.pdf.

. To the extent that the licensor possesses market power then the spillover benefit may be somewhat negated. But, a new technology may not be a perfect substitute for the existing technology, and therefore, the 

licensor may have to reduce the price somewhat in order to induce the firm to purchase their license. 
4. Data Analysis Page 25

The proportion of applications that are licensed outside of their own-industry is 

between 10 and 20 percent across the five technology areas. In four areas, at least 80 

percent of the applications are still viable. The comparable proportion in manufacturing is somewhat lower: in this area, applications retain their commercial viability in a 

little over half of the time. 

DO Applications Outside Own-Industry 

remain Commercially Viable? 

Table 4-5 shows the extent to which proposed commercial applications remain viable 

as the project progresses. It shows that the proportion of applications reported as still 

viable since the last report is in the 90 percent range until project closeout; even then, 

the proportion only drops to slightly below 80 percent.

As Ruegg (1999) suggests, developing technology outside of one’s own-industry can be difficult. We analyzed whether participants’ commercial applications were 

outside of their own-industry and what percentage is still viable based upon each 

participant’s latest submitted BRS report. Table 4-6 shows the data by technology 

area. The still-viable designation is based on the last report submitted involving each 

application. 

Table 4-4. Percentage of Firms Licensing ATP Technology 

Outside of Their Own-Industry and Whether the Commercial 

Application Is Still Viable 

(Projects Started January 1999–January 2004)

Technology Area

Firms Licensing Outside 

of Own-Industry

Firms Licensing Outside 

of Own-Industry Whose 

Applicable Is Still Viable

Biotechnology 14 96

Chemicals/materials 11 81

Electronics 13 95

Information technology 18 81

Manufacturing 10 55

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.
Page 26 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

Other Ways to Use the Data

Figures 4-3 and 4-4 illustrate the use of NAICS codes to explain how an ATP project 

diffuses technology from midstream to downstream industries. NAICS data are available at the national, state, and county levels, so different levels of industry aggregation can be selected to make this point. The example provided in figure 4-3 involves 

a titanium project based in Idaho. This project encompasses two applications, motor 

vehicle body and titanium powders, both of which industries are important to the 

Idaho economy. The project originates from a small research company specializing 

in titanium powders. If the project is successful, the benefits will flow into the Idaho 

economy through use by the motor vehicle body manufacturing sector, which generTable 4-5. Percentage of Applicants Reporting Their 

Commercial Application as Still Viable

(Projects Started January 1999–January 2004)

Report Application still viable

Baseline 91

First anniversary 92

Second anniversary 91

Third anniversary 93

Closeout 79

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.

Table 4-6. Percentage of Commercial Applications That Are 

Still Viable Outside of a Participant’s Own-Industry 

(Projects Started January 1999–January 2004)

Technology Area

Commercial Applications Still Viable 

Outside Own-industry

Biotechnology 88

Chemicals/materials 89

Electronics 91

Information technology 88

Manufacturing 95

Source: BRS, NAICS coding.
4. Data Analysis Page 27

ated $126 million in sales in 1997 for Idaho and the inorganic chemical manufacturing sector, which generated sales of $450 million and whose jobs pay an average of 

$52,000.

Figure 4-4 illustrates the potential benefits from a “Stirling engine” project 

involving Praxair Corporation. The company proposes three possible commercial 

applications: gasoline engines, air-conditioning and industrial gas manufacturing. The 

US markets for these industries are $18.6, $22.9 and $5.2 billion, respectively. Success 

in this project could potentially be diffused into markets totaling almost $50 billion 

employing over 180,000 people. 

Figure 4-3. A Demonstration of Potential Economic Benefits to 

the State of Idaho Resulting from Spillovers of an ATP Project

Source: 1997 Economic Census.

State: Idaho

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing

(NAICS 336211)

Total Industry Sales in State of Idaho:

$124,000,000

Idaho Employment in NAICS 336211:

1,157

Idaho Titanium Technologies, Inc.

State: Idaho

Research and Development in the 

Physical, Engineering, and Life

Sciences (NAICS 541710)

Total Industry Sales in the State of

Idaho: $26,000,000 (1997 Economic

Census) 

Idaho Employment in NAICS 541710: 

271 

State: Idaho

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical

Manufacturing (NAICS 3251)

Total Industry Sales in State of Idaho:

$425,000,000

Idaho Employment in NAICS 3251 : 

697

Average Salary of Idaho Worker in

NAICS 325: $52,000

Project 4451

Title: Titanium Hydride Production

ATP project leader, Idaho Titanium Technologies,

operates in R&D in the physical sciences industry.

They have identified potential applications in the

auto body and titanium metal powder industries.

The boxes show the economic impact of those

industries in the state of Idaho.

Auto Body Manufacturing

Titanium Production
Page 28 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

Appendices and Discussion

Appendix A contains the list of Jaffe’s factors affect market and knowledge spillovers. 

We analyzed three of these factors. We found evidence that ATP selects projects 

with the potential for broad economic impact. Multi-use technologies provide both 

market and knowledge spillovers. ATP enables multi-use technology development 

by either selecting single-applicant projects where the potential commercial applications are multiple and extend outside of the firm’s own-industry or though selecting 

joint ventures such as the shrimp genetics’ project involving multiple partners from a 

disparate set of own-industries; proposing commercial applications outside of their 

own-industry.

Figure 4-4. A Demonstration of Potential Economic Benefits to 

the Nation Resulting from Spillovers of an ATP Project

Source: 1997 Economic Census.

Project: One�Megawatt Thermo�acoustic Stirling

Heat Engine

Description: Design, build, and test the first 1�

megawatt Thermo�acoustic Stirling heat engine

and an orific pulse tube refigerator for a cryogenic

refrigeration system with no moving parts 

ATP project leader, Praxair Inc., 

operates in the industrial gas

manufacturing sector. It identified

three potential applications for its

technology: LNG for vehicular fuel,

refrigeration for superconductors,

and liquefaction of industrial gases. 

Praxair

Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS

325120)

Total Industry Sales: $5.2 billion (1997 

Economic Census)

U.S. Employment in NAICS 325120: 

12,000 

U.S. Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts 

Manufacturing (NAICS 333618)

Total U.S. Industry Sales: $18.6 billion

U.S. Employment in NAICS 333618:

56,000

U.S. Air�Conditioning, Warm Air

Heating Equipment and Industrial

Refrigeration Equipment

Manufacturing (NAICS 333415)

Total U.S. Industry Sales: $22.9 billion

U.S. Employment in NAICS 333415: 

119,000

Industrial Gas

Refrigeration

LNG for 

Vehicular Fuel

U.S. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325120)

Total Industry Sales: $5.2 billion 

(1997 Economic Census)

U.S. Employment in NAICS 325120:

12,000
4. Data Analysis Page 29

Other factors that lead to spillovers include projects where the commercial 

application involves research tools. We found that biotechnology is the technology 

area most likely to involve the use-industry research and development in the physical 

sciences; this is called an infrastructural technology. These may be also referred to as 

“tools for the toolmaker.” As the Biotechnology Industry Organization states:

Researchers use biotechnology to gain insight into the precise details of cell processes... Interestingly, the tools of biotechnology have also become important 

research tools in many branches of science other than cell and molecular biology, 

such as chemistry, engineering, materials science, ecology, evolution and computer 

science. The biotech-driven discoveries in these fields help the biotech industry and 

others discover and develop products, but they also help industries improve their 

performance in areas such as environmental stewardship and workplace safety.

As indicated by the above statement, biotechnology tool development has led 

to great spillover benefits outside of biotechnology and has spread throughout other 

sectors of the economy such as energy and agriculture. ATP contributes to this effort. 

Appendix B contains the lists for each technology area of own- and use-industry counts by commercial application. These lists provide an overall view of the ATP 

portfolio and the potential impacts that ATP projects have on which industries. These 

lists may be used as an inventory of the areas that ATP enables at a given time and 

may be used with lists from other government programs in order to compare across 

the entire government’s R&D portfolio, as was suggested by the 2002 Presidential 

Committee of Advisors and Science and Technology report, Assessing the U.S. R&D 

Investment.

. www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/biotechtools.asp.

Page 31

5 Key Findings and 

Suggestions for Future 

Research

Key Findings

The key findings of the report are as follows: the predominant six-digit NAICS ownindustry of ATP project participants is research and development in the physical 

sciences followed by the software, electronic machinery, and machinery manufacturing industries. All of these industries could be characterized as mid-stream industries. 

These intermediate goods producers supply inputs to the upstream and downstream 

industries. 

The distribution of use-industries is more diffuse. The most common use-industries include transportation equipment, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals, and 

electronic manufacturing. The use-industries are more likely to be characterized as 

downstream industries. 

Fifty-five percent of participants’ own-industries may be characterized as primary 

technology generators, while only 23 percent of participants’ use-industries may be 

characterized as primary technology generators. 

There is evidence ATP selects projects with potential for broad economic impact, 

based on the fact that a significant portion of proposed commercial applications 

involves an industry that is different from the project participant’s own-industry. Biotechnology is the technology area most likely to involve the use-industry research and 

development in the physical sciences; this is called an infrastructural technology. 

In another indication of spillover impact, we discovered that 10 to 18 percent 

of commercial applications, depending on the technology area, involve licensing 
Page 32 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

outside of their own-industry. These are projects where technology is developed by a 

company for their own-industry application, but they plan to license it outside of the 

own-industry. This situation typically allows a developing company to concentrate on 

commercializing the technology in the market where it presumably has more expertise, while allowing the licensing firm to commercialize the technology in its different 

own-industry, where it presumably possesses more expertise in commercializing the 

technology. 

Suggestions for Future Research 

Future work should focus on matching commercialization and patent outcomes 

data to the NAICS coding. Then, an inventory could be kept of which industries are 

affected by commercialization (market spillovers) and patent generation (knowledge 

spillovers) and which are not. The next step would be to apply the Scherer technology flow approach and use these data to determine the technology flows that result 

from ATP-enabled technology. This could be simply assigning the dollars spent on 

each project and then allocating them across the commercial applications. This would 

measure the potential spillover effects while one could also apply the commercial outcomes that actually occur and restrict allocation of the potential gains to them. 
Page 33

References 

Austin, D., and M. Macauley. 2000. Estimating Future Consumer Benefits from ATP-Funded 

Innovation: The Case of Digital Data Storage. NIST GCR 00-790. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Brown, M., and H. A. Conrad. 1967. “The Influence of Research and Education on CES Production Relations.” In M. Brown, ed., The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production, vol. 3 

of Studies in Income and Wealth, pp. 275–340. New York: Columbia University Press.

Jaffe, A. 1996. Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program. GCR 96-708. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology.

———. 1998. “The Importance of ‘Spillovers’ in the Policy Mission of the Advanced Technology 

Program.” Journal of Technology Transfer 23(2):11–19.

Mansfield, E., J. Rapoport, A. Romeo, S. Wagner, and G. Beardsley. 1977. “Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations.” Quarterly Journal of Economics

91(2):221–40.

Paytas, J., and D. Berglund. 2004. “Technology Industries and Occupations for NAICS Industry 

Data.” Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon Center for Economic Development and State Science 

and Technology Institute. 

Pelsoci, T. M. 2003. Low-Cost Manufacturing Process Technology for Amorphous Silicon Detector Panels: Applications in Digital Mammography and Radiography. NIST GCR 03-844. 

Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

———. 2004. Composites Manufacturing Technologies: Applications in Automotive, Petroleum, 

and Civil Infrastructure Industries. NIST GCR 04-863. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute 

of Standards and Technology.

Polenske, K. R., and N. O. Rockler. 2004. Closing the Competitive Gap: A Retrospective Analysis of the ATP 2mm Project. NIST GCR 03–856. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology.
Page 34 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

Popkin, J. 2003. Inter-Industry Diffusion of Technology That Results from ATP Projects: Preliminary Research of the Potential Impacts of ATP Funding. NIST GCR 03-848. Gaithersburg, 

MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Powell, J., and K. Lellock. 2000. Development, Commercialization, and Diffusion of Enabling 

Technologies: Progress Report. NISTIR-6491. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology.

Powell, J. W. 1996. “The ATP’s Business Reporting System: A Tool for Economic Evaluation.” 

Paper presented at the Conference on Comparative Analysis of Enterprise Data, Helsinki. 

www.atp.nist.gov/eao/helsinki.htm.

Ruegg, R. 1999. Advanced Technology Program’s Approach to Technology Diffusion. NISTIR 

6385. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Ruegg, R., and I. Feller. 2003. A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment: Models, Methods, and Findings from ATP’s First Decade. NIST GCR 03-857. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Scherer, F. M. 1982. “Interindustry Technology Flows and Productivity Growth.” Review of Economics and Statistics 64(4):627–34.

——— . 1984. “Using Linked Patent and R&D Data to Measure Interindustry Technology 

Flows.” In Z. Griliches, ed., R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press, pp. 417–64.

——— . “Technology Flows Matrix Estimation Revisited.” Economic Systems Research

15(3):327–58.

Terleckyj, N. E. 1974. Effects of R&D on the Productivity Growth of Industries: An Exploratory 

Study. Washington, DC: National Planning Association.

White, W. J., and M. P. Gallaher. 2002. Benefits and Costs of ATP Investments in ComponentBased Software. NIST GCR 02-834. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology.
Page 35

Appendix

Factors Affecting 

Market and Knowledge 

Spillovers

The following factors are summarized from Jaffe (1996).

Factors making market spillovers larger or more likely: 

Market in which innovation will be used or sold is highly competitive 

Lead time and learning curves are not likely to give innovator strong market 

advantages 

Technology is infrastructural, i.e., other researchers are a significant component 

of the market for the new technology 

Output is product innovation that would be difficult to patent or copyright 

Co-specialized assets are important in the relevant markets, and project proponents do not have important assets 

Regulatory approvals are needed

Sales/service is important 

Reputation/market presence is important 

Licensing of the technology to others is likely to be important 

Multi-use innovation, where many uses are likely to be commercialized by others 





















A
Page 36 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

Process technology, proponents are small (or not) producers in relevant markets 

Capital needs for ultimate commercialization are beyond proponents’ reach 

Factors making market spillovers smaller or less likely: 

Proponents have market power in the relevant markets 

Lead time and learning curves can be expected to convey significant advantages 

on the innovator if the project is successful 

Output is product innovation that can be protected by patent or copyright 

Proponents have important co-specialized assets 

Technical success will lead to a large negative profit impact on another firm or 

firms whose technology will thereby be made obsolete 

Factors making knowledge spillovers larger or more likely: 

Multi-use technology 

Proof of concept that would point the way for other researchers to try related 

ideas in other applications 

Key component that will facilitate redesign and improvement of multiple distinct 

systems using that component 

“Path-breaking” technology: success will open an entirely new line of technological development with apparently significant economic benefits 

Subsequent technical developments require expertise in applications technologies in which proponents do not have relevant expertise (applies to both multiuse and path-breaking technologies 

Useful knowledge would be gained even if project fails to achieve its technical 

objectives 

Factors making knowledge spillovers less likely: 

Output is process innovation that can be kept secret, and project proponents 

can use it in their own production process 




























Appendix A. Factors Affecting Market and Knowledge Spillovers Page 37

Project proponents have special technical expertise that would position them to 

be the most likely developers of many of the follow-on technologies 

Factors making interacting knowledge and market spillovers likely: 

Output is “infratechnology:” technology has attributes of a standard and thereby 

generates network spillovers 

Output is a product that would be sold to other researchers 

Output is product innovation that would be difficult to patent or copyright 









Page 39

Appendix

ATP Commercialization 

Portfolio, by Sector 

B

ATP Biotechnology Commercialization Portfolio (Jan. 1999– Jan. 2004) 

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Other Vegetable (except Potato) 

and Melon Farming

Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming

1

Hog and Pig Farming Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Finfish Farming and Fish 

Hatcheries

Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries

3

Shellfish Farming Shellfish Farming 1

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing Shellfish Farming 1

Cellulosic Organic Fiber 

Manufacturing

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

4

Pharmaceutical Preparation 

Manufacturing

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

1

Medical Laboratories 1

Biological Product (except 

Diagnostic) Manufacturing

Hog and Pig Farming

2

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 6

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 4

Porcelain Electrical Supply 

Manufacturing

Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass

1
Page 40 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Biotechnology Commercialization Portfolio (Jan. 1999– Jan. 2004) 

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing

4

Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 1

Electronic Coil, Transformer, and 

Other Inductor Manufacturing

Diagnostic Imaging Centers

1

Search, Detection, Navigation, 

Guidance, Aeronautical, and 

Nautical System and Instrument 

Manufacturing

Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries

3

Analytical Laboratory Instrument 

Manufacturing

Medical Laboratories

2

Other Measuring and Controlling 

Device Manufacturing

Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

1

Other Measuring and Controlling Device 

Manufacturing 1

Laboratory Apparatus and 

Furniture Manufacturing

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

2

Surgical and Medical Instrument 

Manufacturing

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

1

Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing 2

Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 2

Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing 1

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech 

Therapists, and Audiologists 1

Blood and Organ Banks 1

Surgical Appliance and Supplies 

Manufacturing

Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing

11

Data Processing, Hosting, and 

Related Services

Diagnostic Imaging Centers

1

Offices of Notaries Offices of Notaries 3

Custom Computer Programming 

Services

Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

1

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 2

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing 3

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 3
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 41

ATP Biotechnology Commercialization Portfolio (Jan. 1999– Jan. 2004) 

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Medical Laboratories 2

Computer Systems Design 

Services

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Medical Laboratories 1

Research and Development in the 

Physical, Engineering, and Life 

Sciences

Crop Production

1

Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming 2

Dual-Purpose Cattle Ranching and Farming 1

Hog and Pig Farming 1

Turkey Production 1

Poultry Hatcheries 5

Sheep Farming 2

Shellfish Farming 1

Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating 2

Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 7

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 20

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 1

Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing 2

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing 4

Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing 12

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 27

All Other Business Support Services 1

Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 2

Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency 

Centers 1

Medical Laboratories 6

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 5

Medical Laboratories Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 2

Diagnostic Imaging Centers Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Diagnostic Imaging Centers 2

Grantmaking Foundations General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 1

Conglomerate All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product 

Manufacturing 2

Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing 1
Page 42 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Chemical and Materials Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Fabricated Metal Product 

Manufactur

Natural Gas Liquid Extraction

2

Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and 

Artificial Synthetic Fibers and 

Filaments Manufacturing

All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 

Component Manufacturing

1

Management Consulting Services Industrial Mold Manufacturing 1

Coated and Laminated Paper 

Manufacturing

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing

2

Industrial Gas Manufacturing Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component 

Manufacturing 1

Other Electric Power Generation 1

Industrial Gas Manufacturing 4

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing 1

Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing 1

Storage Battery Manufacturing 1

Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic 

Equipment Manufacturing 1

Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 1

All Other Basic Inorganic 

Chemical Manufacturing

Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing

1

Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except 

Packaging) Manufacturing 3

Cellulosic Organic Fiber 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

1

Pharmaceutical Preparation 

Manufacturing

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

2

Soap and Other Detergent 

Manufacturing

Chemical Manufacturing

4

Nonclay Refractory Manufacturing Other Electric Power Generation 1

Mineral Wool Manufacturing Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing 3

Gypsum Product Manufacturing 1

All Other Miscellaneous 

Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing

Electronic Computer Manufacturing

2

Aircraft Manufacturing 1

Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component 

Manufacturing 1

Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 1
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 43

ATP Chemical and Materials Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Game, Toy, and Children’s Vehicle Manufacturing 1

Iron and Steel Mills Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 1

Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units 

Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Manufacturing 1

Copper Rolling, Drawing, and 

Extruding

Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing

1

Nonferrous (except Aluminum) 

Die-Casting Foundries

Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing

1

Metal Coating, Engraving (except 

Jewelry and Silverware), and 

Allied Services to Manufacturers

Machine Tool (Metal Cutting Types) Manufacturing

1

Automobile Manufacturing 1

Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing 1

Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, 

Anodizing, and Coloring

Inorganic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 1

Primary Battery Manufacturing 1

Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing 1

Ball and Roller Bearing 

Manufacturing

Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing

1

Construction Machinery 

Manufacturing

Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work 

Manufacturing 1

Automobile Manufacturing 3

Semiconductor Machinery 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

1

Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing 

for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial 

Process Variables 2

Optical Instrument and Lens 

Manufacturing

Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and 

Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers 1

Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, 

and Fixture Manufacturing

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing

1

Cutting Tool and Machine Tool 

Accessory Manufacturing

Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts 

Manufacturing 1

Turbine and Turbine Generator 

Set Units Manufacturing

Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer 

Manufacturing 7

Mechanical Power Transmission 

Equipment Manufacturing

Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment 

Manufacturing 2

Industrial Process Furnace and 

Oven Manufacturing

Steel Wire Drawing

1
Page 44 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Chemical and Materials Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Primary Aluminum Production 1

Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of 

Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) 1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 1

Electronic Resistor Manufacturing 1

Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor 

Manufacturing 2

Electronic Connector Manufacturing 1

All Other Miscellaneous 

General Purpose Machinery 

Manufacturing

Natural Gas Liquid Extraction

2

Petrochemical Manufacturing 1

Computer Storage Device 

Manufacturing

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

1

Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Telephone Apparatus 

Manufacturing

Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing

1

Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing

Storage Battery Manufacturing

1

Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing

Other Electric Power Generation

2

Industrial Gas Manufacturing 1

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment Manufacturing 3

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 2

Motor and Generator Manufacturing 1

Storage Battery Manufacturing 1

Electronic Capacitor 

Manufacturing

All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 

Component Manufacturing 1

Other Electronic Component 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

3

Search, Detection, Navigation, 

Guidance, Aeronautical, and 

Nautical System and Instrument 

Manufacturing

Automobile Manufacturing

5

Other Measuring and Controlling 

Device Manufacturing

Petroleum Refineries

2

Petrochemical Manufacturing 1
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 45

ATP Chemical and Materials Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Other Measuring and Controlling Device 

Manufacturing 2

Commercial, Industrial, and 

Institutional Electric Lighting 

Fixture Manufacturing

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric 

Lighting Fixture Manufacturing

1

Power, Distribution, and Specialty 

Transformer Manufacturing

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric 

Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 1

Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing

Motor and Generator Manufacturing

4

Storage Battery Manufacturing Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden 

Equipment Manufacturing 2

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 3

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment Manufacturing 1

Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing 2

Storage Battery Manufacturing 2

Aircraft Manufacturing 3

Motion Picture and Video Production 1

Primary Battery Manufacturing Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing 2

Primary Battery Manufacturing 5

Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring 

Device Manufacturing

Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control

2

All Other Miscellaneous Electrical 

Equipment and Component 

Manufacturing

Other Electric Power Generation

1

Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units 

Manufacturing 2

Storage Battery Manufacturing 2

All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 

Component Manufacturing 1

Automobile Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components 

(except Spring) Manufacturing 1

Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component 

Manufacturing 2

Automobile Manufacturing Automobile Manufacturing 1

All Other Motor Vehicle Parts 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

1
Page 46 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Chemical and Materials Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts 

Manufacturing

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing 1

Industrial Mold Manufacturing 2

Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Manufacturing 1

Surgical Appliance and Supplies 

Manufacturing

Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing

3

Engineering Services Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 3

Computer Systems Design 

Services

Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services

1

Research and Development in the 

Physical, Engineering, and Life 

Sciences

#N/A

3

Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 1

Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries 1

Other Electric Power Generation 3

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1

Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 1

Noncellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing 2

Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 1

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 1

Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing 1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 4

Storage Battery Manufacturing 2

Primary Battery Manufacturing 2

Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing 2

All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 

Component Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing 1

Marketing Consulting Services 1

Medical Laboratories 1

Colleges, Universities, and 

Professional Schools

Iron and Steel Forging

1

Industrial Mold Manufacturing 1

Medical Laboratories 1

Business Associations Nonferrous (except Aluminum) Die-Casting Foundries 2
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 47

ATP Chemical and Materials Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

International Affairs Steel Foundries (except Investment) 1

Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units 

Manufacturing 1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 2

Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing 1

Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing 

for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial 

Process Variables 1

Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing 2

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric 

Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 2
Page 48 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Manufacturing Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Support Activities for Metal 

Mining

Industrial Mold Manufacturing

1

Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing 1

Nonferrous (except Aluminum) 

Die-Casting Foundries

Nonferrous (except Aluminum) Die-Casting Foundries

1

Prefabricated Metal Building and 

Component Manufacturing

Construction Machinery Manufacturing

1

All Other Miscellaneous 

Fabricated Metal Product 

Manufacturing

Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment 

Manufacturing

1

Construction Machinery 

Manufacturing

Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work 

Manufacturing 4

All Other Industrial Machinery 

Manufacturing

Magnetic and Optical Recording Media Manufacturing

1

Optical Instrument and Lens 

Manufacturing

Optical Instrument and Lens Manufacturing

1

Industrial Mold Manufacturing Industrial Mold Manufacturing 1

Machine Tool (Metal Cutting 

Types) Manufacturing

Machine Tool (Metal Cutting Types) Manufacturing

2

Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, 

and Fixture Manufacturing

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing

1

Cutting Tool and Machine Tool 

Accessory Manufacturing

Machine Tool (Metal Cutting Types) Manufacturing

1

Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, and Fixture 

Manufacturing 1

Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory 

Manufacturing 5

Other Technical and Trade Schools 1

Welding and Soldering 

Equipment Manufacturing

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing

2

Truck Trailer Manufacturing 1

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing 1

Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing 1

Ship Building and Repairing 1

Other Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing

Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

1

Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing

Other Electric Power Generation

1
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 49

ATP Manufacturing Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Search, Detection, Navigation, 

Guidance, Aeronautical, and 

Nautical System and Instrument 

Manufacturing

Power and Communication Line and Related 

Structures Construction

1

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing 7

Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, 

Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument 

Manufacturing 2

Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing 1

Instrument Manufacturing for 

Measuring and Testing Electricity 

and Electrical Signals

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

1

Motor and Generator 

Manufacturing

Automobile Manufacturing

2

Automobile Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 2

Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts 

Manufacturing 1

Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts 

Manufacturing

Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing

1

Software Publishers Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing 1

Engineering Services Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units 

Manufacturing 1

Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer 

Manufacturing 1

Motor and Generator Manufacturing 2

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing 1

Ship Building and Repairing 1

Testing Laboratories Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 2

Custom Computer Programming 

Services

Other Building Equipment Contractors

1

Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units 

Manufacturing 1

Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for 

Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use 1

Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing 

Electricity and Electrical Signals 1

Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing 1
Page 50 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Manufacturing Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components 

(except Spring) Manufacturing 1

Ship Building and Repairing 1

Other Scientific and Technical 

Consulting Services

Machine Tool (Metal Cutting Types) Manufacturing

1

Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping 1

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing 1

Custom Computer Programming Services 1

Research and Development in the 

Physical, Engineering, and Life 

Sciences

Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries

1

Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures 

Construction 4

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 1

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing 1

Deep Sea Freight Transportation 1

Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation 1

Colleges, Universities, and 

Professional Schools

Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing

1

Machine Tool (Metal Cutting Types) Manufacturing 3

International Affairs Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 1
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 51

ATP IT Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Motor Vehicle Parts 

Manufacturing

Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

1

Management Consulting 

Servic

Industrial Mold Manufacturing

1

Soil Preparation, Planting, and 

Cultivating

Custom Computer Programming Services

1

Optical Instrument and Lens 

Manufacturing

Optical Instrument and Lens Manufacturing

1

Other Computer Peripheral 

Equipment Manufacturing

Computer Systems Design Services

1

Police Protection 1

Aircraft Engine and Engine 

Parts Manufacturing

Custom Computer Programming Services

2

Homes for the Elderly 1

Other Aircraft Parts and 

Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing

1

Software Publishers Iron and Steel Mills 1

Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 1

Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 1

Software Publishers 2

Other Sound Recording 

Industries

Wired Telecommunications Carriers

1

Internet Publishing and 

Broadcasting

Internet Publishing and Broadcasting

3

Internet Service Providers Internet Service Providers 1

Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers 1

Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 1

Custom Computer 

Programming Services

Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

6

Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing 1

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 2

Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components 

(except Spring) Manufacturing 1

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 

Manufacturing 1

Game, Toy, and Children’s Vehicle Manufacturing 1
Page 52 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP IT Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Other Airport Operations 1

Record Production 4

Internet Publishing and Broadcasting 1

Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications 1

Internet Service Providers 1

Web Search Portals 1

Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 2

Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and 

Clearinghouse Activities 1

All Other Legal Services 22

Engineering Services 1

Industrial Design Services 3

Custom Computer Programming Services 10

Computer Systems Design Services 1

Administrative Management and General Management 

Consulting Services 1

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, 

and Life Sciences 1

Medical Laboratories 4

Diagnostic Imaging Centers 2

Computer Systems Design 

Services

Chemical Manufacturing

1

Machinery Manufacturing 1

Hospitals 2

Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component 

Manufacturing 1

Industrial Process Furnace and Oven Manufacturing 3

Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications 1

Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 1

Custom Computer Programming Services 1

Computer Systems Design Services 4

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, 

and Life Sciences 1

All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services 2

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 1

Professional and Management Development Training 2

Medical Laboratories 2

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 1
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 53

ATP IT Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Research and Development in 

the Physical, Engineering, and 

Life Sciences

Ambulatory Health Care Services

1

Repair and Maintenance 1

Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government 

Support 1

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 1

Vitreous China Plumbing Fixture and China and 

Earthenware Bathroom Accessories Manufacturing 4

Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing 1

Automobile Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 1

Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 1

Computer Systems Design Services 8

Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services 1

Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths) 1

Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 1

Security Systems Services 

(except Locksmiths)

Computer Systems Design Services

1

Colleges, Universities, and 

Professional Schools

Automobile Manufacturing

1

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 1

Computer Systems Design Services 1

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 2

Computer Training Software Reproducing 1

Game, Toy, and Children’s Vehicle Manufacturing 1

Custom Computer Programming Services 1

Computer Systems Design Services 1

Amusement Arcades 1

General Medical and Surgical 

Hospitals

Computer Systems Design Services

4

Business Associations Computer Systems Design Services 1

International Affairs Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 3
Page 54 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Electronics Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and 

Artificial Synthetic Fibers and 

Filaments Manufacturing

Computer Terminal Manufacturing

1

Polish and Other Sanitation Good 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

1

Construction Machinery 

Manufacturing

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

1

Aircraft Manufacturing 1

Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products 1

Engineering Services 2

Semiconductor Machinery 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

1

Optical Instrument and Lens 

Manufacturing

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 1

Photographic and Photocopying 

Equipment Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

4

Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications 1

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Computer Storage Device 

Manufacturing

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

5

Computer Terminal 

Manufacturing

Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

1

Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing 1

Aircraft Manufacturing 1

Sign Manufacturing 1

Video Tape and Disc Rental 2

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 1

Amusement Arcades 1

National Security 2

Other Computer Peripheral 

Equipment Manufacturing

Photographic and Photocopying Equipment 

Manufacturing 1

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 2

Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing 1

Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing 3
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 55

ATP Electronics Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Telephone Apparatus 

Manufacturing

Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing

2

Fire Protection 4

Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

3

Engineering Services 2

Fire Protection 2

Other Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing

Research and Development in the Physical, 

Engineering, and Life Sciences 2

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 2

Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing

Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing

1

Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 2

Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

2

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 2

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment Manufacturing 1

Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing 1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 14

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing 1

Computer Systems Design Services 1

Electronic Coil, Transformer, and 

Other Inductor Manufacturing

Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing

1

Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor 

Manufacturing 1

Internet Service Providers 2

Electronic Connector 

Manufacturing

Electronic Connector Manufacturing

1

Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing 4

Other Electronic Component 

Manufacturing

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

1

Electronic Connector Manufacturing 2

Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing 

Electricity and Electrical Signals 3

Electromedical and 

Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing

Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing 

for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial 

Process Variables 1
Page 56 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Electronics Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists 1

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 2

Analytical Laboratory Instrument 

Manufacturing

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing 1

Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) 

Manufacturing 1

Irradiation Apparatus 

Manufacturing

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing

2

Magnetic and Optical Recording 

Media Manufacturing

Software Reproducing

2

Power, Distribution, and Specialty 

Transformer Manufacturing

Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

2

Relay and Industrial Control 

Manufacturing

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment Manufacturing 1

Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, 

Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument 

Manufacturing 1

Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and 

Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 1

Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing 5

Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, 

Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument 

Manufacturing 4

Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing 3

Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic 

Equipment Manufacturing 1

Record Production 1

Current-Carrying Wiring Device 

Manufacturing

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing

1

Motor and Generator Manufacturing 1

Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts 

Manufacturing 2

Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing 1

Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component 

Manufacturing 1

Automobile Manufacturing Automobile Manufacturing 1

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary 

Equipment Manufacturing

Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing

7

Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing 2
Appendix B. ATP Commercialization Portfolio, by Sector Page 57

ATP Electronics Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Surgical and Medical Instrument 

Manufacturing

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools

2

Software Publishers Video Tape and Disc Rental 1

Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 1

Ambulance Services 1

Engineering Services Engineering Services 2

Industrial Design Services 2

Computer Systems Design 

Services

Computer Systems Design Services

3

Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists 1

Offices of Dentists 1

Other Computer Related Services Computer Storage Device Manufacturing 1

Display Advertising 1

Other Scientific and Technical 

Consulting Services

Computer Terminal Manufacturing

1

Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 2

Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus 

Manufacturing 1

Software Reproducing 1

Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing 1

Research and Development in the 

Physical, Engineering, and Life 

Sciences

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations

1

Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 3

Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 1

Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing 3

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment Manufacturing 4

Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing 1

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 6

Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for 

Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial 

Process Variables 1

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing 2

Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing 1

Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing 2

Automobile Manufacturing 1

Other Sound Recording Industries 1

Internet Publishing and Broadcasting 1
Page 58 Identifying Technology Flows and Spillovers through NAICS Coding of ATP Project Participants 

ATP Electronics Commercialization Portfolio (1999–)

Proposed Commercial Applications by Own-Industry and Use-Industry

NAICS Own-Industry NAICS Use-Industry

Proposed 

Commercial 

Applications

Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications 1

Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 2

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, 

and Life Sciences 3

General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 1

Colleges, Universities, and 

Professional Schools

Computer Storage Device Manufacturing

2

Grantmaking Foundations General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 1

Space Research and Technology Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing 2