| The research
for this study was conducted under the auspices of the National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The NBER is a private, non-profit,
non-partisan organization engaged in quantitative analysis of the
American economy. This study has not undergone the review accorded
official NBER publications; in particular, it has not been submitted
for approval by the Board of Directors. The views expressed in the
study are those of the authors. |
Table
of Contents
View
PDF version of report.
Abstract
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
2 Analysis
of the Data
- The Population
of ATP-Funded Projects
- Selection of
a Sample of ATP-Funded Projects
- Analysis of
Terminated Projects in the Population
- Estimation
of the Probability of Response to the Sample Survey
3 Role
of Universities in ATP-Funded Projects
- Role of Universities:
Reason for Inclusion in Projects
- Role of Universities:
Effect on Research Efficiency
- Role of Universities:
Effect on Acceleration and Commercialization of Technology
4 Concluding
Observations
- Universities
Create Research Awareness in ATP-Funded Projects
- Research Funding
Influences the Scope of the Research
5 References
Appendix
A: Additional Results Supporting Findings in the Study A-1
Appendix
B: Survey Instruments B-1
Tables
- Table
1. Distribution of ATP-Funded Projects by Type of University
Involvement
- Table
2. Simulation of Probability of Termination of ATP Information
Technology Project Begun in 1991
- Table
3. Predicted Probability of Survey Response
- Table
4. Determinants of Difficulty Acquiring Basic Knowledge
- Table
5. Determinants of the Problems in the Project: Ordered Probit
Estimates
- Table
6. Percentage of Unproductive Research Time and Cost: Sample
Selection Estimates
- Table
7. Performance Determinants: Ordered Probit Estimates with Correction
for Response Probability
Appendix
A Tables
- Table
A1. Determinants of the Probability of Early Termination: Probit
Estimates
- Table
A2. Probit Estimates for the Probability of Survey Response
- Table
A3. Overall Determinants of Sampling Probability: Probit Estimates
- Table
A4. Difficulties Acquiring and Assimilating Basic Knowledge
- Table
A5. Conceptual Research Problems Versus Expectations
- Table
A6. Equipment-Related Research Problems Versus Expectations
- Table
A7. Personnel-Related Research Problems Versus Expectations
- Table
A8. Percent Unproductive Research Time on Project
- Table
A9. Percent Unproductive Financial Resources for Project
- Table
A10. Potential New Applications of the Technology Have Been
Recognized
- Table
A11. Technology to be Commercialized Sooner than Expected
Appendix
B Survey Instruments
- B1.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with no university
- B2.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with university involvement
as a subcontractor
- B3.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with university involvement
as a research partner
- B4.
Survey instrument for joint ventures with university involvement
- B5.
Survey instrument for single applicants with no university involvement
- B6.
Survey instrument for single applicants with university involvement
as subcontractors
ABOUT
THE AUTHORS
Abstract
Universities
are a key institution in the U.S. innovation system, and an important
aspect of university involvement is the role universities play in private-public
partnering activities. This study seeks to gain a better understanding
of the performance of university-industry research partnerships by using
a survey of a sample of pre-commercial research projects funded by the
U.S. Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Although results must be interpreted
cautiously because of the small sample size, the study finds that projects
with university involvement tend to be in areas involving “new”
science and therefore the projects may experience more difficulty and
delay but also are more likely to end successfully. This finding implies
that universities are contributing to basic research awareness and insight
among the partners in ATP-funded projects.
Acknowledgments
We
are grateful for comments on an earlier version of this paper from Lee
Baldwin, Adam Jaffe, Don Siegel, and participants at the ASSA 2000 meetings
in Boston and the Wake Forest University economics workshop. Also, we
appreciate the suggestions and guidance during the data collection stage
of Rosalie Ruegg, former Director of the Economic Assessment Office
of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and now retired from government
and Managing Director of TIA Consulting, and Jeanne Powell, Senior Economist,
ATP. We extend our thanks for editorial comments and suggestions to
Barbara Cuthill, project
manager, ATP; Robert Fireovid,
Group Leader, Chemistry & Materials Group, ATP; Connie
Chang, Senior Economist, ATP; and Stephanie
Shipp, Director, Economic Assessment Office, ATP.
Return
to Contents or go to next
section.
Date
created: October 18, 2002
Last updated:
March 13, 2004
