The SBIR Partnership Public-Private Partnerships Powering Entrepreneurs and Innovators The Wilson Center Washington, DC October 31, 2013 Sujai Shivakumar, Ph.D. Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy The National Academies 1
The National Academies National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Academy of Engineering (NAE Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Research Council (NRC) 2
The National Academies Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) is an Internationally Recognized Center of Expertise on Innovation Policy For over 20 years, STEP studies have identified the means of: Accelerating innovation Advancing competitiveness and Improving our understanding of the nation s economic performance and of other nations policies and practices. 3
STEP Work on Partnerships Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies Chaired by Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus, Intel An Assessment of the SBIR Program Chaired by Jacques Gansler, University of Maryland 21st Century Manufacturing: The Role of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Chaired by Phillip Shapira, Georgia Tech and the University of Manchester 4
What are Public-Private-Partnerships? Partnerships refer to cooperative relationships involving: Government Industry Laboratories Universities Definitions are not tight Tend to be ad hoc arrangements to achieve common goals Some debate definitions; other create partnerships 5
Characteristics of Successful Partnerships Although partnerships vary in scale, mission, and scope, successful partnerships appear to share some similar broad characteristics: Industry based Leadership Clear Goals, Metrics & Roadmaps Shared Commitments & Costs Regular Internal & External Assessment 6
Partnerships for Innovation Innovation Partnerships play a key role in encouraging the Collaboration needed to Develop and Market New Ideas Proven Partnership Mechanisms Include: Innovation Awards Industry-University Cooperation Science and Technology Parks Research Consortia 7
The Role of Innovation Awards Competitive innovation awards can help small firms drive their innovations to the market 8
The Myth of Perfect Markets Strong U.S. Myth: If it is a good idea, the market will fund it. Reality: Potential Investors have less than perfect knowledge, especially about innovative new ideas Asymmetric Information leads to suboptimal investments George Akerlof, Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz received the Nobel Prize in 2001, "for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information 9
The Myth of Perfect Venture Capital Markets Myth: U.S. VC Markets are broad & deep, and are the major source of funding for innovative start-ups Reality: Venture Capitalists have Limited information on new firms Prone to herding tendencies VC investments have moved towards later, less risky stages of technology development Limited (and declining) investments in the seed stage of investment 10
Venture Capital by Stage in 2012 Seed Stage: $725 Million; 274 Deals Later Stage: $8.6 Billion 830 Deals Later 32% Seed 3% Early Stage: $7.8 Billion 1,638 Deals Early 29% Total of $26.5 billion invested in 3,698 deals Expansion 36% Expansion: $9.4 Billion 956 Deals Source: Jan 2013, PWC-Money Tree 11
A Major Hurdle for Innovators The Valley of Death Federally Funded Research Creates New Ideas New Ideas are new ; often they cannot attract support What s needed? Capital to Transform Ideas into Innovations No Capital Dead Ideas Innovation, Product Development and Growth 12
How can Innovative Small Firms Cross the Valley of Death? One Proven Path is the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
$148 billion The SBIR Open Innovation Model R&D Investment $150K Social and Government Needs PHASE I Feasibility Research Federal Investment $1M PHASE II Research towards Prototype Private Sector Investment Non-SBIR Government Investment Tax Revenue PHASE III Product Development for Gov t or Commercial Market 14
SBIR s Best Practice Features Focus on Valley of Death: Funds Proof of Concept and Prototype: The first money is the hardest Decentralized & Flexible: Each Government Department or Agency uses its funds to support research by small companies to meet its unique mission needs Competitive: 20% success rate No Program Capture: One-third of participants are new to the program every year 15
After nearly 20 years of operation, The Congress asked the National Academies: How well is SBIR Working Overall? 16
Academies Research Reveals SBIR Impact on Firm Formation and Growth Company Creation: 20% of responding companies said they were founded as a result of a prospective SBIR award (25% at Defense) Research Initiation: SBIR awards played a key role in the decision to pursue a research project (70% claimed as cause) Company Growth: Significant part of firm growth resulted from award Partnering: SBIR funding is often used to bring in Academic Consultants & to partner with other firms 17
SBIR Helps Attract Additional Investments & Encourage Competition Award is a Certification of Quality Angel Investors: 37 percent of NRC survey respondents attracted additional investment from Angels and other sources Venture Funding: SBIR is a signal of research quality and commercial potential. Over $1.5 billion in added VC investments between 1992 and 2005 Acquisition: e.g., Philips acquisition of Optiva for $1 billion Provides Greater Choice: Provide New Options and Competition for Public Procurement, especially important at DOD 18
SBIR Generates New Knowledge SBIR Generates Knowledge Patents: About 30 percent of NRC survey respondents were awarded patents related to their SBIR research. About two-thirds of projects submitted at least one patent application Publications: Slightly more than half of NRC survey respondents had published at least one related peer-reviewed scientific paper SBIR Broadens Scope & Speed of Research Helps firms initiate new high-risk research Helps broaden the scope of existing research 19
SBIR links the University with Industry and helps create new Spin-outs SBIR Innovation Awards Directly Cause Researchers to create New Firms Low Risk: Faculty do not have to give up University post Low Overhead: Don t need to have a company to apply 15 to 20% success rates comparable to other grants New firms help grow the region and provide returns on R&D investments 20
SBIR Success takes Many Forms Employment Success SBIR helps new Start-ups grow, creating the high quality jobs of the future Innovation Success New products, patents, licenses, and publications Government Mission Success Acquisition and Procurement NASA uses SBIR-funded Lithium-ion batteries to power the Mars Rover DOD uses SBIR developed armor to shield against IEDs NASDAQ Success SBIR investments contributed to the success of companies like Qualcomm, ATMI, Martek, Luna 21
In Sum, SBIR is Sound in Concept and Effective in Practice It is a proven policy tool for accelerating innovation in the United States 22
National Academies SBIR Reports An Assessment of the SBIR Program at NSF An Assessment of the SBIR program at NASA An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program (Overview Report) SBIR Program Diversity and Assessment Challenges An Assessment of the SBIR Program at DOE An Assessment of the SBIR Program at NIH An Assessment of the SBIR Program at DoD SBIR and the Phase III Challenge of Commercialization Venture Funding and the NIH SBIR Program Revisiting the DoD SBIR Fast Track Initiative 23
The NRC Review has Mainstreamed the SBIR Program Fundamental impact of the NRC study has been to Mainstream the Program in the policy dialogue SBIR seen less as a Set-Aside or Tax and more as an Enabler of Innovation Endorsement by Primes Much greater focus and understanding of the challenges of Early Stage Finance and the need for appropriate policy support The NRC review has substantially improved policymakers understanding of the innovation system and the role of SBIR in that system 24
Impact on Reauthorization Legislation Many contributions to the 2012 Reauthorization of the SBIR Program including Extension of the program for a long period until 2017 Increase in award size: $150,000 for Phase I and $1 million for Phase II. Strong affirmation of the need for program flexibility for program managers 25 Charles W. Wessner PhD.
Thank You Sujai Shivakumar, PhD Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy The National Academies Washington, D.C. 202 334 1337 sshivaku@nas.edu 26