ERC Program-Level Evaluations

1
ERC Program-Level Evaluations

• Studies Completed (www.erc-assoc.org/topics/6-nsf/
  policies.html)
• Designing the Next Generation of NSF Engineering
  Research Centers Insights from Worldwide
  Practice 2007 (Science Technology Policy
  Institute)
• Innovations ERC-Generated Commercialized
  Products, Processes, and Startups 2007
  (SciTech Communications)
• Strategic Planning in NSF-Funded ERCs 2007 (S.
  Currall et al.)
• Undergraduate and Graduate Education Activities
  of Current ERCs 2006 (Win Aung with ERC
  Education Assessment Dissemination Task Group)
• Impact on Industry of Interaction with ERCs,
  Repeat Study 2004, original 1996 (SRI
  International)
• Economic Impacts on Georgia of Georgia Techs
  Packaging Research Center 2004 (SRI
  International for Georgia Research Alliance)
• Impact of ERCs on Institutional and Cultural
  Change in Participating Institutions 2001 (SRI
  International)
• Post-Graduation Status of ERC Education Programs
  2002 (A. Donnelly et al.)
• Documenting Center Graduation Paths 2000 (SRI
  International)
• Studies Underway
• National and Regional Economic Impact of
  Mature/Graduated ERCs (SRI Intl)
• Post-Graduation Status of NSF ERCs (SciTech
  Communications)

2
Designing the Next Generation of NSF Engineering
Research Centers Insights from Worldwide
Practice - 2007

• Aim Identify practices at centers worldwide
  relevant to design of the Gen-4 ERCs. 50
  sites in 7 countries were visited.
• Recommendations
• Program should clarify relative importance of
  various ERC missions
• Consider a more flexible system of both funding
  and life span
• Direct some solicitations at strategic
  problem-focused research areas selected using
  diverse expert input, including industry
• Consider awarding ERCs to institutions that are
  not university-based
• Develop more flexible Intellectual Property
  Rights policies
• Use creative practices and incentives to
  encourage commercialization
• Support development of mutually beneficial
  partnerships and networks (true collaborative
  research) between ERCs and foreign institutions
• Consider ERCs addressing topics of global
  importance (warming, energy, clean water,
  terrorism)

3
Innovations ERC-Generated Commercialized
Products, Processes, and Startups - 2007

• Surveyed current graduated ERCs 27 responded.
  Total market value of products to date (reported
  and estimated) is in 10s of billions. As of
  mid-2007
• ERCs have disclosed 1,430 inventions, had 524
  patents awarded, granted 1,886 licenses
• Since 1985, ERCs have produced 113 spinoff firms
  with over 1,300 employees
• Example CMU Data Storage Systems Center
  invention of NiAl underlayer made possible small,
  hi-capacity hard drives for laptops MP3 players
  (Market 100Bs worldwide)
• Example Duke Emerging Cardiovascular
  Technologies invention of biphasic waveforms
  made possible portable improved defibrillators
  (Market gt10B)
• Example Va Tech Center for Power Electronics
  Systems invented multiphase voltage regulator
  now in every computer with Intel processor (US
  leads multi-B industry)
• Example USC Biomimetic MicroElectronic Systems
  ERC retinal prosthesis now in clinical testing
  will let blind see (World market will be in
  10Bs)

4
Innovations ERC-Generated Commercialized
Products, Processes, and Startups - 2007

• Spinoff/startup companies
• Examples
• PerSeptive Biosystems (MIT BPEC, 1987)
  perfusion chromatography - 100M/yr sales, sold
  in 98 for 360M
• DigitalPersona (Caltech CNSE, 1996) fingerprint
  ID/ password management - 20M/yr sales, 30M
  users worldwide
• RF Solutions (Georgia Tech PRC, 1998) wireless
  LAN power amplifiers for notebooks - gt100M units
  shipped
• Audyssey Labs (USC IMSC, 2002) audio signal
  processing optimization gt1M products shipped
• Discera (U Michigan WIMS, 2001) CMOS MEMS
  resonator-based timing devices will dominate
  3.5B market
• Healionics (U Washington UWEB) Biomaterials to
  enhance implanted device biocompatibility
  projected sales gt100M by 2012

5
Strategic Planning in NSF-Funded ERCs 2007

• Through site visits, interviews, and surveys,
  studied use of the 3-plane diagram in strategic
  planning by 22 ERCs and the effect of strategic
  planning on research publication and technology
  commercialization
• Conclusions
• The 3-plane framework and formal strategic
  planning are vital tools for organizing ERC
  research
• Most important determinant of success is
  comprehensiveness of the plan rather than
  commitment to one planning tool or process
• The planning process is beneficial only for
  organizational goals that are explicitly
  discussed and prioritized in planning
• Important attitudinal factors are commitment to
  the ERC, acceptance of planning as useful, and
  knowledge of planning
• The planning process should be customized in a
  way that maximizes the quality of the strategic
  plan for each ERC

6
Impact on Industry of Interaction with ERCs,
Repeat Study 2004 (original 1996)

• Surveyed industry members of 8 Gen-2 ERCs to
  assess ERC-industry interactions, benefits and
  value thereof to industry, and to compare these
  impacts with findings from the earlier 1996 study
• Conclusions (also see following charts)
• Basic patterns of benefits and impacts did not
  change greatly
• Access to ideas, know-how, and graduates are the
  most valued
• Licensing ERC software and technologies is the
  least valued
• More Gen-2 ERCs reported seeing benefits in
  new/improved products processes
• No basic changes in ERC program policies
  warranted, but continued flexibility for ERCs in
  adjusting to conditions is good
• In future ERCs, relationships with small
  businesses, esp. start-ups, will become
  increasingly important

7
ERCs Provide Significant Benefit to Their Member
Firms
Percentage of ERC member firms reporting
significant benefits from membership in ERCs
(SRI International, Impact on Industry of
Interactions with Engineering Research Centers,
Dec 2004)
8
Performance of ERC Graduates With Non-ERC Hires
Comparisons by Member Firms
Percentage of industrial supervisors rating the
former ERC students/graduates hired by their
firms as Better Than or Much Better Than
equivalent hires without ERC experience. (Source
SRI, 2004)
9
Undergraduate and Graduate Education Activities
of Current ERCs 2006

• Internal EEC study aimed at documenting and
  categorizing ERC education innovations, and
  assessing the relative educational achievements
  of various technology clusters of ERCs
• Findings
• Most notable is high output of new and modified
  courses
• ERCs are highly successful in introducing systems
  focus and multidisciplinary content (gt60 of new
  courses have both)
• Microelectronics/IT cluster (36 of total ERCs)
  produced 60 of new courses and 35 of modified
  courses
• Activity within clusters is highly variable
  across centers
• Multi-university ERCs clearly outproduce
  single-institution centers in new and modified
  courses

10
Economic Impacts on Georgia of Georgia Techs
Packaging Research Center 2004

• Conducted by SRI International for Georgia
  Research Alliance
• Findings
• From 1994 to 2004, Georgia invested 32.5M in the
  PRC
• Direct benefits to the Georgia economy totaled
  nearly 192M (jobs created, license fees
  royalties, sponsored research, consulting income,
  workshop short course fees)
• Indirect ripple effect economic benefits
  totaled an addl 159M
• Thus, total quantifiable return to Georgia
  economy was 351M, more than 101
• NSF/ERC program invested 32.7M in same period
  (also 101)
• PRCs industrial members collectively contributed
  60.7M
• Several PRC spinoff companies were located
  outside Georgia
• Overall, substantial leveraging of NSF investment

11
Impact of ERCs on Institutional and Cultural
Change in Their Home Institutions

• Study of 17 ERCs operating for at least ten years
  in 2000, Class of 1985 through Class of 1990
• Findings
• Systems approach was embraced by the ERCs but had
  little broader impact on their Colleges of
  Engineering
• Demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale
  collaborative, interdisciplinary research and
  education
• Stimulated host institutions to promote
  interdisciplinary research at 16 of the 17 host
  institutions
• Few ERC participants failed to attain tenure in
  many cases, ERC participation was perceived as an
  advantage

12
Post-Graduation Status of NSF Engineering
Research Center Education Programs 2002

• Working group of NRCEN surveyed 16 existing
  graduated ERCs regarding the status of their
  education programs
• Findings Conclusions
• 70 of respondents reported that education
  programs continued, but nearly all reported much
  smaller scope budget
• Those requiring direct Center funding were the
  first to go
• Precollege, outreach undergraduate programs are
  most at risk
• Industry funding for education is generally small
  and unreliable
• Key factor is continuation of a dedicated
  education staff person
• Also key is obtaining institutional
  (College-wide) support
• Must secure education program funding from
  diverse sources government (incl. State),
  industry, university, foundations, etc.

13
Documenting Center Graduation Paths 2000

• 16 ERCs nearing graduation or recently graduated
  were studied to describe their transition to
  self-sufficiency, their success in achieving it,
  and the impact on their ERC-ness
• Findings
• Most centers survive financially post-NSF, but on
  a smaller scale and without many of the ERC
  culture features
• 2006 follow-up found funding ranging from 0.5M
  to 26.9M
• Part of all of the core, fundamental research
  focus is lost in a shift to shorter-term,
  applications-oriented research
• The education program shrinks, esp. for outreach
  undergrads
• Sustainability as an ERC post-graduation is not
  realistic for most
• Factors favoring ERC-like survival are strong
  institutional support, motivated faculty, and
  commitment to ERC principles
• Strong industrial support runs counter to
  ERC-like survival
• For most centers, continued ERC-ness requires
  continued NSF support in some fashion (see next
  slide for suggested options)

14
Documenting Center Graduation Paths 2000

• Suggested options for providing continued NSF
  support to graduated ERCs, to aid in maintaining
  ERC characteristics
• Let ERCs recompete without having to reinvent
  themselves
• Continue fully funding the strongest ERCs as
  national assets post-graduation, without
  recompetition
• Support the vulnerable core research and
  infrastructure at viable graduated ERCs as long
  as review justifies it
• Provide small annual funding for all graduated
  ERCs to continue inputs into ERC database and
  attendance at annual meetings
• Provide recognition and some support to grad ERCs
  to maintain their self-identity as an ERC and the
  NSF imprimatur
• From 2006 follow-up survey (by V. Mujumdar)
  Suggested policies to yield more
  long-term-survivable ERCs
• More industrially relevant research
• Less emphasis on publishing for academics
• Allow more flexibility in strategic planning
• Provide baseline support to active graduated
  centers
• Fewer mandatory programs