MARCH 1, 2012

AUDIT REPORT

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-017-00)

OFFICE OF AUDITS

AUDIT OF NASA’S PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING 

TECHNOLOGY TO THE GOVERNMENT AND 

PRIVATE SECTOR

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

 
REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

Final report released by:

Paul K. Martin

Inspector General

Acronyms 

FY Fiscal Year

IPO Innovative Partnerships Office 

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements

NTR New Technology Report 

NTTS NASA Technology Transfer System
MARCH 1, 2012

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

OVERVIEW

AUDIT OF NASA’S PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING 

TECHNOLOGY TO THE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR

The Issue

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 directs NASA to preserve the role of 

the United States as a leader in spaceflight, aeronautical science, and technology. One 

way in which NASA seeks to meet this directive is through the development and 

demonstration of new technologies that foster novel approaches to NASA’s current and 

future missions.

1

Creating new technologies to support programs is fundamental to NASA’s mission, and 

facilitating the transfer of these technologies to other government agencies, industry, and 

international entities to generate U.S. commercial activity is one of the Agency’s strategic 

goals.

 

2

 Technology transfer promotes commerce, encourages economic growth, 

stimulates innovation, and offers benefits to the public and industry.3

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and Federal Technology 

Transfer Act of 1986 further promote the transfer of federally funded research and 

technology to state and local governments and the commercial sector.

 For example, 

aerodynamics research conducted at Dryden Flight Research Center led to a method to 

decrease the “box-shaped” aerodynamic drag of trucks by 40 percent, thereby increasing 

fuel efficiency. Truck manufacturers that have incorporated these design improvements 

are realizing 15 to 25 percent more fuel efficiency at highway speeds. Demonstrating the 

commercial value of NASA’s technologies can also lead to greater support from 

Congress and the public for Agency programs and projects. In addition, individuals who 

identify new technologies may gain name recognition, monetary awards, and patents. 

4

 

1 NASA’s definition of new technology is very broad and includes any new and useful processes, 

machines, manufacture, or compositions of matter, as well as computer programs, whether or not they 

can be copyrighted.

 More recently, in 

October 2011, the President directed Federal agencies to accelerate technology transfer 

2 NASA’s 2011 Strategic Plan is available at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516579main_NASA2011

StrategicPlan.pdf (accessed February 29, 2012).

3 For the purposes of this report, “technology transfer” refers to both transfer and commercialization and 

includes NASA’s efforts to transfer technology to other government entities and the private sector.

4 The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 requires the Federal government to ensure 

the full use of the results of the Nation’s Federal investment in research and development. The Federal 

Technology Transfer Act of 1986 amended the Stevenson-Wydler Act and allowed Government-owned, 

Government-operated laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development agreements with 

universities and the private sector. 
OVERVIEW

ii REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

efforts and support private sector commercialization of new technologies resulting from 

federally funded research.5

NASA’s Space Technology Program in the Office of the Chief Technologist is 

responsible for promoting and supporting the development of new technologies and 

administering the Agency’s technology transfer and commercialization process.

 

6

The following four subprograms play a role in this process: 

 

• The Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology 

Transfer Programs stimulate technological innovation and increase participation 

by small and disadvantaged businesses in federally funded research and 

development programs. 

• The Crosscutting Space Technology Development Program focuses on maturing 

flight readiness capabilities that advance future space missions such as the Edison 

Small Satellite Demonstration Missions designed to improve or create new small 

spacecraft capabilities for advanced satellite communication. 

• The Exploration Technology Development Program seeks to advance 

development of new technologies to enable human missions beyond low Earth 

orbit. 

• The Partnership Development and Strategic Integration Program provides funding 

for the transfer and commercialization of NASA-developed technologies, 

interagency technology coordination, and intellectual property management and 

seeks out partnership opportunities with other government agencies and industry. 

Through these four subprograms, the Office of the Chief Technologist is responsible for 

managing technology investments across NASA and for developing innovative 

technology partnerships, technology transfer, and commercialization. The Office also 

serves as the point-of-contact with other government agencies, academia, and the 

commercial aerospace community. Each NASA Center has a Center Chief Technologist 

who, together with their Center-based Innovative Partnerships Office (IPO), is expected 

to coordinate with program and project managers, foster innovative technology 

partnerships with other government agencies and commercial entities, and take the lead 

in developing technology transfer and commercialization opportunities. 

Under NASA’s process, employees and contractors who develop new technologies

(innovators) report, document, and identify the potential commercial applications of their 

 

5

 Presidential Memorandum, “Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal 

Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses,” October 28, 2011.

6 NASA’s current technology transfer policies focus on technologies in which NASA has intellectual 

property rights or those that have potential patentability.
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 iii

work by submitting New Technology Reports (NTRs).7 New Technology 

Representatives review the NTRs for completeness and enter them into the NASA 

Technology Transfer System (NTTS), an Agency-wide management information tool the 

IPO uses to oversee the NTR process. Once entered into NTTS, the IPO and Patent 

Counsel review the NTR to determine its technical merit. Based on these assessments, 

NASA may consider the new technology for patenting, publication in NASA Tech 

Briefs – a monthly magazine and website that feature reports of innovations developed by 

NASA and its industry partners – or other release to the public (e.g., software).

8,9

Since fiscal year (FY) 2004, funding for NASA’s technology transfer efforts has 

decreased by 68 percent, from $60 million in 2004 to $19.2 million in FY 2012. In 

addition, personnel resources dedicated to the technology transfer effort have similarly 

declined. For example, since FY 2003 the number of patent attorneys at the Centers has 

dropped from 29 to 19 and Headquarters IPO staff has decreased from 13 in FY 2010 to 

just 2 in FY 2012. 

 The 

IPO and Patent Counsel are involved in determining if the information in the NTR is 

suitable for release to the public. 

Because technology transfer is fundamental to NASA’s mission and strategic goals, the 

Office of Inspector General initiated this audit to examine whether NASA was effectively 

identifying and planning for the transfer of technology developed within its programs to 

outside entities. The primary locations for this audit were NASA Headquarters, Ames 

Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, and 

Johnson Space Center. Details of the audit’s scope and methodology are in Appendix A.

Results

NASA’s project managers and IPO personnel at the NASA sites we reviewed could 

improve their effectiveness in identifying and planning for the transfer and 

commercialization of technologies developed as part of Agency projects. Although 

technology transfer and commercialization does occur, we found a general lack of 

awareness of NASA policy governing the process.

10 Specifically, personnel we 

interviewed did not realize the transfer potential of some technological assets, and project 

managers did not develop and IPO personnel did not assist in the development of 

Technology Commercialization Plans (Commercialization Plans).11

 

7 NTRs may be submitted via NASA’s Technology Reporting website (e-NTR) 

 Furthermore, 

https://ntr.ndc.nasa.gov/

(accessed February 29, 2012) or using NASA Form 1679.

8 See NASA TechFinder, Software Search, at http://technology.nasa.gov/?s=software (accessed 

February 29, 2012).

9 See NASA Tech Briefs at http://www.techbriefs.com/ (accessed February 29, 2012).

10 NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7500.1, “NASA Technology Commercialization Process 

w/Change 1 (4/9/04).”

11 A Technology Commercialization Plan outlines a strategy for promptly identifying and reporting new 

technologies and innovations, developing and implementing commercial partnerships, and evaluating 

and reporting on the success of those partnerships.
OVERVIEW

iv REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

personnel lacked awareness of the New Technology Reporting process and were not 

using NTRs to identify potential technology benefits. In addition, we found that the 

NASA Chief Technologist, Center Chief Technologists, and Center IPOs have not 

effectively implemented the Agency’s Technology Commercialization Policy 

requirements and need to conduct more outreach to NASA project managers. The 

decrease in resources since FY 2004 has contributed to this condition. 

Consequently, NASA has missed opportunities to transfer technologies from its research 

and development efforts and to maximize partnerships that could provide additional 

resources, and industry and the public have not fully benefited from NASA-developed 

technologies. For example:

• Algorithms designed to enable an aircraft to fly precisely through the same 

airspace on multiple flights – a development that could have commercial 

application for improving the autopilot function of older aircraft – was not 

considered for technology transfer because project personnel were not aware of 

the various types of innovations that could be candidates for the program.12

• Project personnel failed to capitalize fully on a unique NASA facility used for 

aeronautic testing services, the Flight Loads Laboratory at Dryden, and had to 

turn down commercial requests, because they did not recognize the facility as a 

transferable technology and consequently had not developed a Commercialization 

Plan to manage growing customer demand. 

• Project personnel did not form partnerships with industry end-users who are a 

potential source of funding because they did not realize that transfer and 

commercialization planning could lead to such partnerships. As a result, 

managers of a precision landing and hazard avoidance project failed to seek 

commercial partnerships that could have provided additional funding to help the 

project mature. 

NASA Personnel Lack Awareness of the Agency’s Technology Transfer Policy

Requirements. NASA’s technology transfer policy, NPR 7500.1, states that early 

assessment and planning is crucial for creating commercial partnerships. Accordingly, 

the policy requires project personnel to develop a Commercialization Plan during a 

project’s formulation phase.13

 

12 An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that is used in mathematics and computer science. Algorithms 

use a defined number of steps for calculations, data processing, and automated reasoning.

 However, we interviewed 38 personnel (15 IPO officials, 

2 Center Chief Technologists, 21 project managers) from 4 Centers, and found that none 

of them had ever developed or assisted with the development of a Commercialization 

Plan. Moreover, none of these individuals was familiar with the NASA policy governing 

13 NASA policy notes that program and project life cycles have two phases: formulation and 

implementation. NASA defines formulation as the identification of how the program or project supports 

the Agency’s strategic needs, goals, and objectives; the assessment of feasibility, technology, concepts; 

risk assessment and acquisition strategies; and the preparation of plans, budgets, and schedules essential 

to the success of a program or project. 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 v 

technology transfer and commercialization. The Chief Technologist at NASA 

Headquarters, who is responsible for developing and overseeing the implementation of 

NASA’s technology commercialization policy, conceded that working knowledge of 

NPR 7500.1 among NASA personnel might be lacking.14

The NPR also directs the Center IPOs to assist project managers with developing 

Commercialization Plans. Developing such a plan is an important step for project 

managers because it:

• provides managers with a methodology for identifying potential commercial 

partners;

• allows managers to monitor and mature plans throughout the project’s life cycle 

with targeted end-users in mind; 

• allows NASA technological assets to reach the commercial sector at an 

accelerated pace;

• integrates the project’s technical knowledge with the marketing expertise of the 

IPO; 

• expands the opportunity for creating working and funding partnerships with 

industry for technology development and identification of end-users for the 

technology; and 

• facilitates the formation of partnerships with commercial entities that may be able 

to contribute additional funding, staffing, and expertise to help sustain project 

development during periods of reduced Federal funding. 

However, none of the 21 projects we reviewed had developed a Commercialization Plan. 

We believe this occurred, in part, because the program and project management policies

managers use throughout a project’s acquisition life cycle contain minimal references to 

technology transfer and commercialization. Specifically, NPR 7120.5D and NPR 7120.8 

do not emphasize the importance of the Commercialization Plan and only require 

managers to describe their plan for technology transfer as a subpart of the program and 

project plan.

15

 

14 The Chief Technologist we interviewed has since left NASA and a new Chief Technologist was 

appointed after our fieldwork was completed. 

 Other contributing factors are that the Agency had not allocated resources 

specifically for the planning, development, and implementation of Commercialization 

Plans and had not trained project managers concerning the technology commercialization 

15 NASA’s Chief Engineer is responsible for NPR 7120.5D, “NASA Space Flight Program and Project 

Management Requirements,” March 6, 2007, and NPR 7120.8, “NASA Research and Technology 

Program and Project Management Requirements,” February 5, 2008. NASA Memorandum 7120-81, 

“NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements,” was issued on September 22, 

2009, as an interim directive while NPR 7120.5D was being revised. Requirements of NPR 7120.5D 

discussed in this report were retained in the interim directive.
OVERVIEW

vi REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

process. Furthermore, the Presidential Memorandum’s addition of requirements to 

develop plans and establish performance goals to improve the Agency’s technology 

transfer and commercialization process will further strain the available resources

dedicated to NASA’s technology transfer efforts. 

Technological Assets Are Not Consistently Identified or Fully Understood. NASA 

policy defines a technological asset to include technologies, innovations, facilities, and 

expertise. However, NASA personnel we interviewed – including IPO representatives 

and Center Chief Technologists – were not aware of or did not have a clear understanding 

of the range of technologies that qualify as technological assets. Project managers 

focused primarily on hardware items such as lightweight fiber-optic sensors used for inflight stress monitoring of aircraft structures, while overlooking other types of assets such 

as algorithms, software, and facilities. These oversights resulted in missed opportunities 

for a wider range of technology to be transferred and commercialized.

Innovators Lack Awareness of New Technology Reporting Process. We randomly 

selected 36 NTRs out of the 2,034 submitted to NTTS over the past 3 years and 

interviewed the innovator responsible for developing the technology described in each 

NTR. We found that none of the innovators had a clear understanding of the New 

Technology Reporting process.16

We concluded that a lack of training and understanding of the value of filing an NTR

may have resulted in the underreporting of new technologies. For example, one of the 

innovators stated that he was discouraged from filing additional NTRs because he did not 

understand the process. Another innovator stated that he only filed an NTR because it 

was a contractual requirement. Consequently, NASA likely is not maximizing the full 

potential of its research and development efforts and losing the potential benefit of 

royalty income generated from patented technology. 

 Specifically, innovators did not understand at what 

point in the process they should file NTRs, what is considered reportable technology, and 

what to expect after an NTR is submitted. In addition, we found that none of the 

innovators had received training on the NTR process. 

New Technology Reports Are Inaccessible. As previously discussed, IPO personnel 

and NASA Patent Counsel review NTRs to determine whether technology should be 

considered for patenting, publication in NASA Tech Briefs, or other public release. If 

NASA decides not to pursue any of these options, the NTR remains in NTTS, which is 

restricted and thus largely inaccessible to other NASA personnel. We found that of the 

12,644 NTRs submitted by civil service and contractor personnel from FY 2004 through 

FY 2011, 6,396 (50 percent) are categorized as inactive and therefore are not easily 

accessible. Although IPO personnel stated that inactive NTRs might eventually result in 

Tech Briefs articles or software releases, they could not articulate for us the difference

between inactive NTRs that are eventually published or released and those that are not. 

 

16 Eight of the NTRs we selected had been submitted by someone other than the innovator, sometimes 

without the innovator’s knowledge. 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 vii

Although NASA officials decided not to pursue patents for or make the information in 

these NTRs publicly available, they may still contain information that could benefit other 

innovators and project managers. For example, researchers filed an NTR in February 

2010 for a solar thermoelectric power system designed to provide recyclable, non-toxic, 

on-demand solar energy that costs less than solar panels currently in use and works 

during off-peak hours without the use of storage batteries. NASA did not pursue a patent 

on this technology because the system was not fully developed or tested. Although this 

technology is not mature and may not have commercial potential in its present state, the 

NTR may contain valuable information that could encourage further technology 

development. Maintaining this information in a restricted database hinders NASA’s 

ability to build on the information in these reports.

Management Action

NASA can improve its technology transfer and commercialization efforts and better 

advance its strategic goals by ensuring that project managers, IPO personnel, and 

innovators are more aware of the Agency’s requirements regarding technology transfer. 

We recommended that the Chief Technologist implement procedures to ensure that 

project managers and IPO personnel are held accountable to the requirements detailed in 

NPR 7500.1 to conduct a commercial assessment of technologies and prepare 

Commercialization Plans. In addition, the Chief Technologist should provide periodic 

training to NASA personnel regarding the technology transfer process, including the 

types of assets that qualify and the specifics of the NTR process. Further, to help ensure 

that program and project managers can properly implement technology transfer 

requirements and meet the intent of the October 2011 Presidential Memorandum, we 

recommend that the Chief Technologist reassess the allocation of resources for 

technology transfer. In addition, the Chief Technologist should coordinate with the Chief 

Engineer to incorporate appropriate language in NPR 7120.5 and NPR 7120.8 that 

emphasizes the importance of developing Commercialization Plans. Lastly, the Chief 

Technologist should coordinate with the General Counsel to ensure that Center IPOs and 

Patent Counsel review all NTRs and make them accessible to NASA project managers 

and innovators as appropriate. 

In response to a draft of this report, the Chief Technologist concurred or partially 

concurred with all of our recommendations, stating that his office is committed to 

improving the Agency’s ability to identify, capture, and transfer technology. 

Specifically, the Chief Technologist stated that his office has begun reviewing and 

revising NPR 7500.1 to ensure that the Agency’s commercialization policy reflects the 

best practices for Federal technology transfer and will ensure that any revisions are 

included in other Agency acquisition planning and program management policies and 

processes. The Chief Technologist also stated that his office will incorporate training

requirements in the updated NPR 7500.1; develop training materials and provide periodic 

training to project managers, IPO personnel, and innovators; conduct a “zero base” 

review of personnel and the funding requirements needed to implement the updated 
OVERVIEW

viii REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

technology transfer and commercialization requirements; and work with the Office of 

General Counsel to develop strategies for modifying NTTS to allow for the segregation 

of restricted information and provide greater access to information on reported, but 

unpatented technologies. 

Lastly, in response to our recommendation to revise NPR 7120.5 and NPR 7120.8 to 

emphasize the importance of developing Commercialization Plans, the Chief 

Technologist proposed to work with the Chief Engineer to include appropriate language 

in the program and project management handbook that accompanies NPR 7120.5 to 

provide context and guidance for the development of Technology Commercialization 

Plans. We consider the Chief Technologist’s proposed actions to be responsive to our 

recommendations; therefore, the recommendations are resolved and will be closed upon 

completion and verification of these actions. Management’s full response to the draft 

report is reprinted in Appendix B. 
MARCH 1, 2012

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background _________________________________________ 1 

Objectives __________________________________________ 5

RESULTS

NASA Personnel Lack Awareness of the Agency’s Technology 

Transfer and Commercialization Requirements____________ 6

NASA Needs to Improve Its New Technology Reporting and 

Dissemination Process _____________________________ 12

APPENDIX A 

Scope and Methodology_______________________________ 21

Review of Internal Controls ____________________________ 22

Prior Coverage ______________________________________ 22

APPENDIX B 

Management Comments ______________________________ 23

APPENDIX C 

Report Distribution___________________________________ 28

MARCH 1, 2012

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 1 

INTRODUCTION

Background

NASA is the Nation’s leading Government organization for spaceflight and aeronautical 

research projects.

17

Since 1980, Federal lawmakers have legislated and expressed continued support for the 

transfer of technology resulting from federally funded research and development efforts. 

For example, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 requires that the 

Federal Government ensure the full use of the results of the Nation’s Federal investment 

in research and development. The Act also requires each Federal laboratory to establish 

an Office of Research and Technology Applications and the laboratory director to ensure 

that efforts to transfer technology are included in laboratory job descriptions, employee 

promotion policies, and evaluation of the job performance of scientists and engineers. 

The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 amended the Stevenson-Wydler Act and 

allowed Government-owned and Government-operated laboratories to enter into 

cooperative research and development agreements with universities and the private 

sector. 

 The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 charges NASA 

with preserving the role of the United States as a leader in spaceflight, aeronautical 

science, and technology and directs the Agency to provide for “the widest practicable and 

appropriate dissemination of information . . .” resulting from its activities.

More recently, on October 28, 2011, the President issued a memorandum that requires all 

Federal agencies to develop plans that establish performance goals to improve the 

timeliness and increase the number of effective technology transfer and 

commercialization activities in partnership with non-Federal entities, including private 

firms, research organizations, and non-profit entities.18

Technology Transfer from NASA’s Research and Development Projects

 The memorandum directs that the 

agencies’ plans cover the 5-year period from 2013 through 2017. 

Technology transfer promotes commercial activity, encourages economic growth, 

stimulates innovation in business and commerce, and offers environmental and social 

benefits to the public and industry.19

 

17 Projects, as defined in this audit, include spaceflight and aeronautic research and development projects 

and activities, technology demonstration projects and activities, and non–research and development 

projects and activities in engineering and science (life science and non–life science disciplines).

 Since 1976, more than 1,750 technology transfer 

18 Presidential Memorandum, “Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal 

Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses,” October 28, 2011.

19 For the purpose of this report, “technology transfer” refers to technology transfer and commercialization 

and NASA’s efforts to transfer new technology developed in its projects to other government entities and 

the private sector.
INTRODUCTION

2 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

successes have been documented in NASA’s Spinoff Magazine, including commercial 

applications in health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, 

agriculture, environmental resources, computer technology, manufacturing, and energy 

conversion and use.20 In just one example, aerodynamics aircraft research conducted at 

Dryden Flight Research Center led to a method to decrease the “box-shaped” 

aerodynamic drag of trucks by 40 percent, thereby increasing fuel efficiency. Truck 

manufacturers that have incorporated these design improvements are realizing 15 to 

25 percent more fuel efficiency at highway speeds.21

Oversight Responsibility

 Demonstrating the commercial 

value of NASA’s technologies can also lead to greater support from Congress and the 

public for Agency programs and projects. In addition, individuals who identify new 

technologies can benefit by gaining personal recognition, monetary awards, and patents. 

NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist is responsible for managing, promoting, 

coordinating, and tracking all technology investments across the Agency. The Office 

serves as the point of entry and contact with other government agencies, academia, and 

the commercial aerospace community. 

The Chief Technologist is responsible for managing the Space Technology Program, 

developing and executing innovative technology partnerships, technology transfer, and 

commercialization. The Space Technology Program comprises four subprograms that 

support the transfer of technology into and out of the Agency: 

• The Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology 

Transfer Programs stimulate technological innovation and increase participation 

by small and disadvantaged businesses in federally funded research and 

development programs. 

• The Crosscutting Space Technology Development Program focuses on maturing 

flight readiness capabilities that advance future space missions such as the Edison 

Small Satellite Demonstration Missions that are designed to improve or create 

new small spacecraft capabilities for advanced satellite communication. 

• The Exploration Technology Development Program seeks to advance 

development of new technologies to enable human missions beyond low Earth 

orbit. 

• The Partnership Development and Strategic Integration Program provides funding 

for the transfer and commercialization of NASA-developed technologies, 

 

20 Spinoff Magazine is NASA’s publication that highlights the transfer of NASA technology to the private 

sector. Available at http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/index.html (accessed February 29, 2012).

21 NASA Aerodynamic Truck Studies. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/

FS-100-DFRC.html (accessed February 29, 2012).
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 3 

interagency technology coordination, and intellectual property management and 

seeks out partnership opportunities with other government agencies and industry. 

NASA’s Partnership Development and Strategic Integration Program provides funding 

for the Innovative Partnerships Office (IPO) to foster innovative technology partnerships 

and lead technology transfer and commercialization opportunities originating from 

NASA’s programs and projects. The IPO is responsible for engaging NASA Mission 

Directorates to gain awareness of new and developing NASA technologies and for 

technology transfer and commercialization, interagency coordination and joint activities, 

intellectual property management, and partnership opportunities with other government 

entities and commercial industry. 

Each NASA Center also has an IPO and a Chief Technologist responsible for carrying 

out at the Center level the same goals and responsibilities as their Headquarters 

counterparts. 

The IPOs are responsible for the following programmatic activities:

1. Technology infusion, which provides funding and resources to commercial 

companies to develop technologies of interest to NASA. 

2. Technology transfer, which includes the commercialization, licensing, or other 

transfer of NASA-owned or -originated technology to state and local governments 

and the private sector.

3. Intellectual property management, which facilitates the protection of 

commercially valuable inventions. 

4. Implementation of NASA’s Prize Authority.22

5. Support for NASA’s initiative in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics education.

6. Support for NASA’s outreach activities by publishing and publicly promoting 

NASA technology spinoffs. 

7. Support for professional development by providing opportunities for training in 

technology transfer. 

8. Support for Agency reporting requirements and maintenance of appropriate 

metrics on innovative partnership program activities.

 

22 The National Aeronautics and Space Act, Sec. 20144 defines Prize Authority as a program to 

competitively award cash prizes to stimulate innovations.
INTRODUCTION

4 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

NASA’s Technology Commercialization Policy

NASA’s technology transfer and commercialization policy is documented in NASA 

Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7500.1, “NASA Technology Commercialization Process 

w/ Change 1 (4/9/04).” The policy requires all NASA project managers to consider 

possibilities for commercialization during the formulation phase of a project’s life cycle

and, in coordination with the IPO, develop commercialization strategies and plans.

23

• determine commercial potential and develop a Technology Commercialization 

Plan (Commercialization Plan); 

 It 

also requires the reporting of new technologies and inventions, including any invention, 

discovery, improvement, or innovation that was either conceived or first introduced into 

practice in the performance of NASA work. Specifically, program and project managers

are required to collaborate with the IPO to:

• develop and report new technologies and innovations in the NASA Technology 

Transfer System (NTTS); 

• develop and implement partnerships; and 

• identify and report success stories. 

NASA employees and contractors who develop new technologies (innovators) report, 

document, and identify the potential commercial applications of their work by submitting 

New Technology Reports (NTRs).24 New Technology Representatives review NTRs for 

completeness and enter them into NTTS, the Agency-wide management information tool 

the IPO uses to administer the NTR process. Once entered into NTTS, the IPO and 

Patent Counsel review the NTR to determine its technical merit.25 Based on these 

assessments, NASA may consider the new technology for patenting or publication in 

NASA Tech Briefs, a monthly magazine and website that features reports of innovations 

developed by NASA and its industry partners and contractors.

26

 

23 NASA policy notes that program and project life cycles have two phases: formulation and 

implementation. NASA defines formulation as the identification of how the program or project supports 

the Agency’s strategic needs, goals, and objectives; the assessment of feasibility, technology, concepts; 

risk assessment and acquisition strategies; and the preparation of plans, budgets, and schedules essential 

to the success of a program or project. 

 The IPO and Patent 

Counsel also determine if the information in the NTR should be made available to the 

public. If the IPO and Patent Counsel take no action, the process ends with the NTR 

remaining in NTTS categorized as inactive. According to IPO personnel, inactive NTRs 

may eventually result in Tech Briefs articles or software releases. However, they could 

24 NTRs may be submitted via NASA’s Technology Reporting website (e-NTR) https://ntr.ndc.nasa.gov/

(accessed February 29, 2012) or using NASA form 1679.

25 Review of NTRs submitted by small entities (small business firms, colleges, universities, and non-profit 

organizations) can be delayed for up to 2 years because small entities can elect to retain title to an 

invention within 2 years of its disclosure.

26 See NASA Tech Briefs at http://www.techbriefs.com/ (accessed February 29, 2012).
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 5 

not articulate for us the difference between inactive NTRs that are eventually published 

or released and those that are not.

Figure 1 illustrates NASA’s process for developing and reporting new technologies and

innovations.

Figure 1. NASA’s NTR Reporting and Tracking Process 

Patentable

NTR gets 

published+

NO

YES

NO NO

Notify 

innovator

File Patent

NASA

intellectual prop. 

rights

Release NTR 

to public

YES

End*

YES End

Decision 

Legend

End

Process

Innovators 

report new 

innovation 

*NTRs submitted by small entities may be held up to 2 years before a review is conducted by NASA.

+Publications may include Tech Briefs articles, conferences, or software releases as a way to explore other 

 technology transfer options.

Resources for Technology Transfer 

NASA’s technology transfer budget has decreased from $60 million in fiscal year (FY) 

2004 to $19.2 million in FY 2012. In addition, the number of patent attorneys at the 

Centers has dropped since FY 2003 from 29 to 19 and the Headquarters IPO staff has 

decreased from 13 in FY 2010 to just 2 in FY 2012. 

Objectives

Because technology transfer is fundamental to NASA’s mission and strategic goals, the 

Office of Inspector General initiated this audit to examine whether NASA is effectively 

identifying and planning for the transfer of technology developed within its programs and 

projects to outside entities. We also reviewed internal controls as they relate to the audit 

topic. The primary audit locations were the Offices of the Chief Technologists at NASA 

Headquarters, Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, Goddard Space 

Flight Center, and Johnson Space Center. See Appendix A for details of the audit’s 

scope and methodology, our review of internal controls, and a list of prior coverage.
RESULTS

6 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

NASA PERSONNEL LACK AWARENESS OF THE 

AGENCY’S TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND 

COMMERCIALIZATION REQUIREMENTS 

NASA’s project managers and IPO personnel at the NASA sites we visited could 

improve their effectiveness in identifying and planning for the transfer and 

commercialization of technologies developed as part of Agency projects. We found 

a general lack of awareness of NASA’s policy governing technology transfer and 

commercialization. We also found that project managers did not develop and IPO 

personnel did not assist with the development of Commercialization Plans. 

Moreover, project managers we interviewed did not consistently recognize the 

transfer and commercialization potential of some types of NASA assets. A 

Commercialization Plan ensures a common understanding among project personnel 

of transfer and commercialization requirements and represents a documented plan 

for identifying potential partnerships. Without such plans, NASA may miss 

opportunities to transfer Agency-developed technologies to other government 

agencies and private industry. 

Technology Commercialization Policy

NPR 7500.1 states that early technology commercialization assessment and planning is 

essential for creating commercial partnerships and identifies the types of NASA 

technological assets that may have commercial applications, including technologies, 

innovations, facilities, and expertise. The policy specifies that during a project’s 

formulation phase, project managers – with direction and assistance from the IPO – are to 

develop a detailed Commercialization Plan. These plans: 

• provide the project manager a methodology for identifying potential commercial 

partners and working with the IPO;

• allow project management to monitor and mature plans throughout the project’s 

life cycle with targeted end-users in mind; 

• permit NASA technological assets to reach the commercial sector at an 

accelerated pace;

• integrate project technical knowledge with the marketing expertise of the IPO;

• expand the opportunity for creating working and funding partnerships with 

industry for technology development and identification of end-users for the 

technology; and 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 7 

• facilitate the formation of partnerships with commercial entities that may be able 

to contribute additional funding, staffing, and expertise to help sustain project 

development during periods of reduced Government funding. 

Project Managers Are Unaware of Policy Requirements

We interviewed 38 NASA personnel (15 IPO officials, 2 Center Chief Technologists, and 

21 project managers) from Ames, Dryden, Goddard, and Johnson and found that none of 

them had ever developed or assisted in the development of a Commercialization Plan. 

Furthermore, project managers we spoke with had not conducted the required commercial 

assessments of candidate technologies and did not have a working knowledge of NASA’s 

policy governing technology transfer and commercialization. These individuals told us 

they were unaware that NASA policy required them to take these actions and that their

Center’s Chief Technologists and IPO staff had not offered assistance in this area. They 

also reported that they had been allocated no resources for planning, development, and 

implementation of Commercialization Plans and had not received training on the 

Commercialization Plan process. 

The project managers we interviewed said they were using as management guides NPR 

7120.5D for spaceflight projects and NPR 7120.8 for research and technology projects.27

Similarly, NPR 7120.8 requires that project managers develop a subplan within the 

overall project plan to identify opportunities for establishing partnerships with private 

industry, academia, or other governmental organizations. The NPR also establishes a 

standard funding structure to implement and manage technology transfer activities. 

However, unlike NPR 7120.5D, NPR 7120.8 does not identify NPR 7500.1 or require 

project managers to refer to the policy while developing their plans. The absence of an 

explicit link between NPR 7120.8 and the requirement to create a Commercialization 

Plan could partially explain the lack of understanding by project managers of this 

requirement.

 

NPR 7120.5D states that managers should identify options for partnering and 

commercialization during the project’s formulation phase and requires that the project 

manager describe how the project will access technology requirements and identify 

opportunities to leverage technology development efforts. The NPR also requires 

managers to describe how the project’s plan meets the requirements of NPR 7500.1 – 

NASA’s technology commercialization policy. Although 7120.5D references NPR 

7500.1, none of the project managers we interviewed said they had ever developed a 

Commercialization Plan. 

 

27 NASA’s Chief Engineer is responsible for NPR 7120.5D, “NASA Space Flight Program and Project 

Management Requirements,” March 6, 2007, and for NPR 7120.8, “NASA Research and Technology 

Program and Project Management Requirements,” February 5, 2008. NASA Memorandum 7120-81, 

“NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements,” was issued on September 22, 

2009, as an interim directive while NPR 7120.5D was being revised. Requirements of NPR 7120.5D 

discussed in this report were retained in the interim directive.
RESULTS

8 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

We found several 

examples of projects 

that may have missed 

opportunities to take 

advantage of outside 

sources of funding 

because project 

managers were not 

familiar with and did 

not understand the 

potential benefits of 

NASA’s technology 

commercialization 

process. For example, 

the project team for a

precision landing and 

hazard avoidance 

project (see Figure 2) 

was not aware of NASA’s technology commercialization policy and had not conducted a 

commercial assessment or developed a Commercialization Plan for the project. 

However, team members provided us with several examples from their work that could 

be considered new technologies with potential commercial application, such as 

technology to improve communication between aircraft and air traffic control that could 

be useful to the aviation community and technology to aid helicopter landings during dust 

storms, low cloud cover, fog, or other periods of low visibility that could be useful to the 

military. They also told us that they had sought additional NASA funding to mature 

these technologies but due to budget constraints had only received enough money to 

demonstrate that one of the developed technologies works. Project officials said they

have struggled to maintain sufficient funding even for this limited work, and the project

manager acknowledged that a commercial partner may have been able to address some of 

these funding shortfalls. 

NASA Personnel Did Not Fully Understand the Range of Items and 

Functions that Qualify as Technological Assets 

According to NPR 7500.1, a technological asset includes technologies, innovations, 

facilities, and expertise. However, NASA personnel, including IPO representatives and 

Center Chief Technologists we interviewed, were not aware or did not have a clear 

understanding of the range of items and functions that qualify as technological assets. 

Project managers focused primarily on hardware items such as lightweight fiber-optic 

sensors used for in-flight stress monitoring of aircraft structures, while overlooking other 

types of technological assets such as algorithms, software, and facilities, thereby missing 

opportunities for these types of technologies to be transferred and commercialized. 

Figure 2. Artist’s rendition of Precision Landing Technology for 

Lunar Surface Descent

Source: Autonomous Landing Hazardous Avoidance Technology 

Management Overview Presentation, November 9, 2010
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 9 

For example, one project team developed algorithms and software for the Gulfstream III 

aircraft that allow it to fly a synthetic aperture radar pod precisely through the same 

airspace on multiple flights (Figure 3).28,29

The software and algorithms have 

application in future science 

missions and potential 

commercial application in helping 

to modernize the autopilot 

function on older aircraft and in 

other aviation research that 

requires a precision flight path. 

However, the project team did not 

consider these algorithms as

innovations for commercialization 

because team members were not 

aware of the various types of 

innovations that could be 

candidates for technology 

transfer. 

 

In another example, project personnel from Dryden were unaware that a flight test facility

used for project testing and development could be considered a technological asset. After 

discussing the specifics of NPR 7500.1, project personnel recognized that the Flight 

Loads Laboratory at Dryden (see Figure 4) is a technological asset and a candidate for

commercialization. 

According to project personnel, they use the Flight Loads Laboratory to fulfill Agency 

and commercial customer requests to develop technologies and conduct tests such as 

analyzing the airflow over the wing of an aircraft, which can affect lift, drag, and 

ultimately fuel efficiency. However, the personnel stated that they do not have an 

adequate process in place to manage all of the customer requests for testing. The project 

personnel did not realize that they could have sought assistance from the IPO for the 

development of a Commercialization Plan that would have helped them devise a strategy 

for effectively managing the growing number of requests. The lack of resources and 

effective commercialization planning forced project personnel to turn down several 

requests from commercial medical and aviation businesses and resulted in multiple

missed opportunities for this project to capitalize on this unique NASA facility as a 

technological asset. 

 

28 The synthetic aperture radar is capable of penetrating soil and water up to approximately 2 inches below 

the surface and can detect and measure small changes in the Earth’s surface.

29 An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that is used in mathematics and computer science. Algorithms 

use a defined number of steps for calculations, data processing, and automated reasoning. 

Figure 3. Photo of a NASA Gulfstream III aircraft 

carrying a synthetic aperture radar pod. 

Source: NASA 
RESULTS

10 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

Figure 4. Project testing of airflow (left photo, black section on left wing of the 

aircraft) at the NASA Flight Loads Laboratory at Dryden (right photo).

Source: NASA 

We recognize that the transfer and commercialization of technology may occur outside of 

the process defined in NPR 7500.1, for example as with the Robonaut II project, which 

developed a robot through a commercial partnership between NASA and General Motors. 

Nevertheless, we believe that NASA is missing opportunities to transfer technology to 

outside entities because of a lack of understanding of and adherence to Agency policies 

regarding technology transfer and commercialization. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response

To increase awareness of NASA’s technology transfer requirements so that the Agency can 

better plan, promote, and accomplish the transfer and commercialization of technology 

developed within NASA projects and programs, we made the following recommendations to 

the Chief Technologist. 

Recommendation 1. Develop and implement procedures to ensure that project managers, 

IPO personnel, and Center Chief Technologists are accountable to the requirements detailed 

in NPR 7500.1. 

Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist concurred, stating that his office has 

started the process of reviewing and revising NPR 7500.1 to ensure that the Agency’s 

commercialization policy reflects the best practices for Federal technology transfer. 

Furthermore, he stated that his office will work directly with the Office of the Chief 

Engineer, the Office of Procurement, the Office of General Counsel, the NASA Mission 

Directorates, and others to ensure appropriate implementation of the updated policy. The

Chief Technologist expects to complete the revision of NPR 7500.1 by December 20, 

2012. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s proposed actions are 

responsive; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and will be closed upon 

completion and verification of the corrective actions. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 11

Recommendation 2. Coordinate with the Chief Engineer to: 

a. provide specific language in NPR 7120.5 and NPR 7120.8 that emphasizes the 

importance of Commercialization Plans; and

b. direct and ensure that project managers coordinate with the IPO regarding 

commercial assessments and development of Commercialization Plans. 

Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist partially concurred with our 

recommendation and proposed to work with the Chief Engineer to develop a section for 

the program and project management handbook that accompanies NPR 7120.5 to provide 

context and guidance for the development of Technology Commercialization Plans. The 

Chief Technologist expects to complete this action by December 20, 2012. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist’s proposed action 

meets the intent of our recommendation; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and 

will be closed upon completion and verification of the proposed corrective action. 

Recommendation 3. Provide periodic training to project managers, IPO personnel, and 

Center Chief Technologists commensurate with the employee’s position, discipline, and 

level of authority regarding NASA’s technology transfer and commercialization policies and 

requirements, including instruction on the range of items, processes, and functions that 

qualify as technological assets.

Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist concurred, stating that his office will 

work with the Office of the Chief Engineer and the NASA Office of Human Resources to 

develop training materials for periodic training to project managers, IPO personnel, and 

Center Chief Technologists by February 1, 2013. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s proposed actions are 

responsive; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and will be closed upon 

completion and verification of the corrective actions. 
RESULTS

12 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

NASA NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS NEW TECHNOLOGY 

REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS 

We interviewed 36 innovators and found that none had a good understanding of 

NASA’s New Technology Reporting process.

30

In addition, NASA is not fully utilizing the NTRs that innovators submit. Fifty

percent of all NTRs filed from FY 2004 through FY 2011 are stored in a database

that is not accessible to most NASA and contract personnel. A reduction of funding 

and personnel has hindered the ability of Patent Counsel to timely review and 

disposition NTRs. As a result, there has been a marked decrease in the number of 

patents and NASA and contract personnel cannot easily share this information or 

benefit from the technology development efforts of others. 

 Specifically, the innovators did not 

have a clear understanding of what qualifies as reportable new technology, at what 

point in the development process they should file New Technology Reports (NTRs), 

or what to expect after they submit an NTR. Moreover, they had not received 

training on the New Technology Reporting process. Taken together, these 

deficiencies result in less reporting of new technologies and missed opportunities for 

transfer and commercialization of NASA innovations. 

Personnel Lack Awareness of the New Technology Reporting 

Process

NASA’s goal for new technology is to provide the widest practicable and appropriate 

dissemination to assure early utilization, expeditious development, and continued 

availability of NASA-developed technology for the benefit of the U.S. scientific, 

industrial, and commercial communities and the public.31

Another benefit of promoting new technologies is that NASA and the employee may 

receive royalties or other payments from licensing of patented technologies. NASA 

distributes a percentage of royalties it receives to the innovator responsible for 

developing the new technology. The balance remaining is available to the Agency. 

 Many commercially valuable 

technological advances have resulted from innovations developed as a result of NASA 

projects and programs, such as fiber optics for real-time monitoring of aircraft structural 

strain during flight and software programs for monitoring shipments of hazardous or 

otherwise sensitive materials. 

 

30 While NASA innovators are predominately researchers, engineers, or designers, they can be anyone who 

creates a new technology as part of their NASA work.

31 National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Pub. L. 85-568, 72 Stat. 426 (1958). 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 13

NASA must be able to identify and monitor technologies and assert intellectual property 

rights when appropriate. Therefore, NASA policy states that each employee who makes 

an invention is required to submit a disclosure of such invention.32 Similarly, contractors

are required to make timely disclosures and identify all new technologies and innovations 

to NASA if their funding agreements contain new technology or patent rights clauses.33

NASA’s New Technology Reporting process can be divided into three steps: 

 

New technologies and innovations can be reported by filing either the web-based version 

(NASA e-NTR) or the paper version of NASA Form 1679. Contractors may also use 

their company’s invention disclosure form. 

1. Innovators complete and submit an NTR (or similar form); 

2. New Technology Representative reviews the NTR for completeness; and

3. New Technology Representative enters the NTR into the NASA Technology 

Transfer System (NTTS) database.

NTRs are important legal documents because they protect the Government’s intellectual 

property rights associated with the technology. Accordingly, an NTR should contain 

sufficient technical detail to convey a clear understanding of the nature, purpose, 

operation, and physical, chemical, biological, or electrical characteristics of the invention 

or innovation. NTRs can result in new patents, software releases, or publication in a 

technical journal. 

We randomly selected 36 NTRs submitted to NTTS since FY 2009 and interviewed the 

innovators who created the technologies described in them.34

 

32 NASA Policy Directive 2091.1B, “Inventions Made By Government Employees,” April 21, 2008.

 Of the 36 innovators we 

interviewed, none had a firm understanding of the New Technology Reporting process. 

Specifically, the innovators did not have a clear sense of what constituted reportable new 

technologies, when they should disclose new technologies, or what to expect after 

submitting an NTR. In addition, none had received training from NASA on the New 

Technology Reporting process. Table 1 summarizes the results of our interviews.

33 Contractors are required to submit NTRs within 2 months of the innovator disclosing a new technology, 

interim reports every 12 months, and a final report prior to contract closeout that documents all new 

technologies or certifies that none were created.

34 Eight of these NTRs had been submitted by someone other than the innovator, in some cases without the 

innovator’s knowledge.
RESULTS

14 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

Table 1. Results of Innovator Interviews 

Center 

Number of 

Innovators 

Interviewed

Received 

No NTR 

Training 

Saw No 

Value in

Filing an 

NTR

Unclear on 

When to 

Submit an 

NTR

Received No 

Response after 

Submitting an 

NTR

Ames 9 9 2 7 6 

Dryden 10 10 1 9 3

Goddard 8 8 0 4 4

Johnson 9 9 3 3 2

 Total 36 36 6 23 15

As noted in Table 1, none of the innovators received training in the NTR process, 6 did 

not see the value of filing an NTR, 23 were not clear when an invention should be 

disclosed, and 15 received no response after submitting their NTRs. Those innovators 

expressed concerns over a lack of feedback regarding their submissions. Some likened 

the NTR process to a “black hole” and stated that once a report is submitted it is “never 

seen again.” One of the innovators said he felt discouraged from filing additional NTRs

and another stated that he only filed an NTR because it was a contractual requirement. 

We concluded from these interviews that innovators are less likely to file NTRs if they do 

not understand the value of the NTR process. 

Lack of training and understanding of the value of filing an NTR may result in some new 

technologies not being reported. Consequently, the Agency may not be maximizing the 

full potential of its research and development efforts related to transferring technology. 

Furthermore, the Agency and innovators may be losing royalty income from licensing 

patents from NASA-funded inventions. 

New Technology Reports Are Inaccessible 

Of the 12,644 NTRs submitted by civil service and contractor personnel from FY 2004 

through FY 2011, 6,396 NTRs (50 percent) are categorized as inactive and currently 

reside in a repository in NTTS. According to IPO personnel, inactive NTRs may 

eventually result in Tech Briefs articles or software releases. However, they could not 

articulate for us the difference between inactive NTRs that were published or released 

and those that were not. Based on summary data for all NTRs submitted since 1959, 

15,092 out of the 52,393 NTRs submitted (29 percent) did not result in patents, Tech 

Briefs articles, or software and technology releases in NASA TechFinder.

35

 

35 NASA TechFinder is a website (

 These NTRs

remain in NTTS, and only IPO personnel and Patent Counsel have access to them. 

http://technology.nasa.gov/) that enables the public to search for 

information on technology and licensing opportunities of NASA technologies (accessed February 29, 

2012).
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 15

However, these NTRs could still contain information beneficial to other program and 

project managers and innovators. 

The NTR provides the IPO and Patent Counsel an opportunity to determine the 

appropriate owner(s) of the reported technology and determine whether it is necessary to 

protect it as NASA intellectual property. What qualifies as new technologies and 

innovations is very broad and includes any new and useful processes, machines, 

manufacture, or compositions of matter. It also includes computer programs, whether or 

not they are copyrightable. However, based on the commercial and market readiness 

level, some of the new technologies might not be feasible for patent application. The 

current practice of NTR review focuses on technologies that have NASA intellectual

property rights and potential patentability. 

In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 3710d, Employee Activities, if NASA has determined 

that the Government has insufficient interest in obtaining patent protection or in 

otherwise promoting the commercialization of an invention, NASA shall provide the 

innovator an opportunity to obtain or retain title to the invention. If the innovator decides 

not to retain ownership, then NASA can make the information in the NTR available to 

the public, including other NASA and contractor employees. Releasing the information 

publicly requires both the IPO and Patent Counsel’s concurrence. If NASA does not 

make the information in the NTR available, then it remains largely inaccessible in NTTS. 

As shown in Table 2, innovators submitted 1,631 NTRs in FY 2011. During this same 

period, NASA filed 82 patent applications, 99 patents were issued, and 1,061 NTRs were 

reviewed and categorized as inactive.36

 

36 The disparity in yearly totals is due to NTR reviews and patent applications crossing over from year to 

year. 

 Inactive status indicates that the technology did 

not result in a patent. We are concerned about the relatively high number of inactive 

NTRs because they may contain valuable information that could be of benefit to other 

NASA innovators and project managers. 
RESULTS

16 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

Table 2. NASA NTR and Patent Filing Summary 

Fiscal

Year

 NTRs Patents 

Submitted Inactive Filed Issued

2004 1,666 602 131 109

2005 1,720 500 135 78 

2006 1,739 864 127 73

2007 1,533 762 109 66

2008 1,343 1,171 117 73 

2009 1,395 878 115 86

2010 1,617 558 98 87 

2011 1,631 1,061 82 99

For example, an NTR was filed in February 2010 for a solar thermoelectric power system 

for renewable power generation. The technology described a way to generate recyclable, 

non-toxic, on-demand solar energy that was lower in cost than solar panels currently in 

use and worked during off-peak hours without the use of batteries. NASA did not pursue 

a patent on this technology because the system was never fully developed or tested. 

Although this technology was not mature and may not have commercial potential in its 

present state, the NTR may still contain valuable information that could encourage 

further technology development and advancement. At the time of our review, the NTR’s 

status was inactive and it was not available to the public. Retaining this information in an 

underutilized and largely inaccessible repository hinders NASA’s ability to disseminate 

or utilize information from these reports.

We also found that NASA’s process for deciding how to disposition an NTR, which 

requires coordination between the Center IPOs and Patent Counsel, suffers from a lack of 

resources. Specifically, the number of patent attorneys has decreased from 29 to 19 over 

the last 9 years. This reduction hinders Counsel’s ability to review and disposition the 

NTR for public release or filing for patent applications. 

In addition, as Table 3 shows, funding for technology transfer has decreased 66 percent

from $60 million in FY 2004 to $20.5 million in FY 2011. Funding further decreased to 

$19.2 million in FY 2012. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 17

Table 3. NASA NTR and Patent Filing Status at the End of Each Fiscal Year

and Fiscal Year Technology Transfer Funding Levels

Fiscal Year

Cumulative 

NTRs under 

Evaluation

Cumulative 

NTRs Awaiting/

Preparing 

Patent 

 Application 

Patent 

Application 

under 

Prosecution

Patent 

Filed

Technology 

Transfer 

Funding 

 (million) 

2004 585 6 20 131 $60.00

2005 654 6 28 135 $45.30

2006 725 7 41 127 $38.25

2007 844 11 81 109 $26.60

2008 1,017 14 140 117 $38.10

2009 1,493 26 322 115 $23.60

2010 1,504 30 296 98 $20.54

2011 1,878 34 372 82 $20.54

Over the same period, the number of NASA patents filed decreased by 37 percent, from 

131 to 82, and the number of NTRs waiting to be evaluated increased 221 percent, from 

585 to 1,878. Insufficient resources and inaccessible information in inactive NTRs

jeopardizes NASA’s ability to meet its technology transfer and commercialization goals 

and maximize the dissemination and use of technology funded and developed by NASA. 

Conclusion

Although NASA has established a New Technology Reporting process to track NASA 

innovations and inventions, a lack of training and understanding of the value of NTRs

may have resulted in new technologies not being reported. In addition, a reduction of 

resources has resulted in an inability to timely review NTRs, resulting in a large number 

remaining categorized as inactive and consequently rendering this information largely 

inaccessible to other NASA personnel. Therefore, the Agency may not be realizing the 

full potential of its research and development efforts related to transferring and 

commercializing technology. It is important that innovators know, protect, and exercise 

their rights relating to inventions, discoveries, improvements, and innovations made in 

the performance of their Federal work. Ensuring that innovators have a working 

knowledge of NASA’s New Technology Reporting process increases the likelihood that

newly developed innovations and inventions will be made available to the public, which 

could foster commercial use of these technologies. 
RESULTS

18 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response

For NASA to maximize the potential of its research and development efforts related to 

transferring technology and meet the requirements of the October 2011 Presidential 

Memorandum, we made the following recommendations to the Chief Technologist. 

Recommendation 4. Reassess the fiscal and personnel resources available for supporting 

the technology transfer and commercialization process and provide sufficient resources to

meet requirements. 

Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist concurred, stating that his office will 

conduct a “zero base” review of the personnel and funding requirements needed to 

implement the updated technology transfer and commercialization requirements and will 

assess whether fiscal and personnel resources are aligned with and adequate to meet the 

updated requirements. He expects to complete this action by October 1, 2012. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s proposed actions are 

responsive; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and will be closed upon 

completion and verification of the corrective actions. 

Recommendation 5. Provide periodic training to project managers and innovators about 

the New Technology Reporting process. The training should cover the value of filing an 

NTR, the proper time to disclose an NTR, what happens after an NTR is submitted, and the 

possible outcomes of an NTR. 

Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist concurred, stating that his office will 

incorporate training on the New Technology Reporting process into the requirements of 

an updated NPR 7500.1 and develop training materials by July 1, 2012, with 

implementation planned across all Centers by October 1, 2012. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s proposed actions are 

responsive; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and will be closed upon 

completion and verification of the corrective actions. 

Recommendation 6. Coordinate with the General Counsel to have the Center IPOs and 

Patent Counsel expeditiously review all NTRs, including those that do not result in patents 

or NASA publication articles, so that they can be made easily accessible to NASA 

employees and contractors as appropriate.

Management’s Response. The Chief Technologist concurred, stating that his office will 

work with the Office of General Counsel to determine whether, within the limitations of 

current budget constraints, existing legal impediments to the release of such information 

can be adequately addressed and modifications of NTTS to permit the segregation of 

restricted information can be accomplished. Collaboratively, they will also strive to 

improve the accessibility of reported, but unpatented technologies. The Chief 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 19

Technologist will include these considerations as part of his overall review of available 

fiscal and personnel resources as described under Recommendation 4 and expects the 

action to be completed by July 20, 2012. 

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s proposed actions are 

responsive; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and will be closed upon 

completion and verification of the corrective actions. 

APPENDIXES

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 21

APPENDIX A 

Scope and Methodology

We performed this audit from March 2011 through February 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

We performed our fieldwork at NASA Headquarters, Ames Research Center, Dryden 

Flight Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Johnson Space Center. We 

conducted interviews with the NASA Chief Technologist, Headquarters IPO Director, the 

Centers’ Chief Technologists, and Centers’ IPO officials to obtain an understanding of 

the Space Technology Program. We obtained a list of spaceflight and aeronautic research 

and development projects, technology demonstration projects, and non–research and 

development projects in engineering and science. We judgmentally selected 21 of the 

164 projects based on research areas and project phases. We interviewed project 

managers to determine if Commercialization Plans had been developed and, if so, were 

they monitored and updated during the life cycle of the project.

In addition, we obtained access to NTTS and performed a comparative analysis of each 

Center’s New Technology Reporting history. We obtained a list of all NTRs from the 

past 3 years and randomly selected a sample of 36 NTRs from the 2,034 that had been 

submitted (using WinSTAT, a statistics “add-in” program in Microsoft Excel) to 

determine if NASA had provided sufficient oversight and resources to promote and report 

inventions. We also interviewed the 36 innovators responsible for developing the 

technologies described in those NTRs. 

To accomplish our objective, we also reviewed the following: 

• 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq., Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96-480) 

• NASA Policy Directive 2091.1B, “Inventions Made By Government Employees,” 

April 21, 2008 

• NASA Policy Directive 7500.2B, “NASA Innovative Partnerships Program,” 

July 17, 2009 

• NPR 7120.5D, “NASA Program and Project Management Processes and 

Requirements,” March 6, 2007 
APPENDIX A 

22 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

• NPR 7120.8, “NASA Research and Technology Program and Project 

Management Requirements,” February 5, 2008 

• NPR 7500.1, “NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/ Change 1 

(4/9/04)” 

Use of Computer-Processed Data. We used data from NTTS to perform this audit. 

Although we did not test the general or application controls of NTTS, we did compare the 

information in the key data fields with our sample of NTRs and supporting documents for 

the data and determined that the data was valid and reliable to support our objectives and 

conclusions. 

Review of Internal Controls 

We reviewed internal controls for NASA’s identification of and planning for technology 

transfer and commercialization processes. The control weaknesses we identified are 

discussed in this report. Our recommendations, if implemented, will correct the 

identified control weaknesses. 

Prior Coverage

During the last 5 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued one 

report of particular relevance to the subject of this report: “Clearer Priorities and Greater 

Use of Innovative Approaches Could Increase the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer 

at Department of Energy Laboratories” (GAO-09-548, June 2009). Unrestricted GAO 

reports can be accessed over the Internet at http://www.gao.gov. 
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 23

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
APPENDIX B

24 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 25
APPENDIX B

26 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-12-013 27
APPENDIX C 

28 REPORT NO. IG-12-013 

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Administrator

Deputy Administrator

General Counsel

Chief Engineer 

Chief Technologist 

Manager, Innovation and Strategic Partnerships 

NASA Advisory Council’s Audit, Finance, and Analysis Committee 

Director, Ames Research Center 

Director, Dryden Flight Research Center

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Director, Johnson Space Center

Non-NASA Organizations and Individuals

Office of Management and Budget

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch

Government Accountability Office 

Director, NASA Financial Management, Office of Financial Management and 

Assurance 

Director, NASA Issues, Office of Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and 

Ranking Member

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Subcommittee on Science and Space

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial Management

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
REPORT NO. IG-12-013 29

Major Contributors to the Report: 

Raymond Tolomeo, Director, Science and Aeronautics Research Directorate

Ronald M. Yarbrough, Project Manager

Jiang Yun Lu, Team Lead

Simon Chan, Management Analyst

Noreen Khan-Mayberry, Ph.D., Technical Evaluator
MARCH 1, 2012

REPORT No. IG-12-013 

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ADDITIONAL COPIES

Visit http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY12/ to obtain additional copies of this report, or contact the 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits at 202-358-1232. 

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

In order to help us improve the quality of our products, if you wish to comment on the quality or 

usefulness of this report, please send your comments to Mr. Laurence Hawkins, Audit Operations and 

Quality Assurance Director, at Laurence.B.Hawkins@nasa.gov or call 202-358-1543. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AUDITS

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Audits. 

Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

NASA HOTLINE

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, contact the NASA OIG Hotline at 800-424-9183 or 

800-535-8134 (TDD). You may also write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant 

Plaza Station, Washington, DC 20026, or use http://oig.nasa.gov/hotline.html#form. The identity of 

each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent permitted by law.