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 Tech’s 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 Int’l)– Post-Graduation Status of NSF ERCs (SciTech Communications)

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)

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: $100B’s worldwide)

Example: Duke Emerging Cardiovascular Technologies – invention of biphasic waveforms made possible portable & improved defibrillators (Market: >$10B)

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 $10B’s)

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

Spinoff/startup companiesExamples: 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 - >100M units shipped Audyssey Labs (USC IMSC, 2002) – audio signal processing &

optimization – >1M 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 >$100M by 2012

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

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

ERCs Provide Significant Benefit to Their Member Firms

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

Obtained Access to New Ideas and Know-How

Focus of ERC Matched Firm’s Interests

Access to ERC Technology

Access to ERC Faculty and Students

Opportunity for Joint Projects

Impacted Competitiveness

R&D Agenda Influenced

Engineered Systems GoalsPerformanceDimension

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)

Performance of ERC Graduates With Non-ERC Hires: Comparisons by Member Firms

Overall Preparedness to Work in Industry

Breadth of Technical Knowledge

Ability to Work in InterdisciplinaryTeams

Contribution to Firm's Technical Work

Depth of Technical Knowledge

Ability to Integrate Knowledge and Technology to Solve Problems

Ability to Develop Technology

65 70 75 80 85 90

PerformanceDimension

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)

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 (>60% 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

Economic Impacts on Georgia of Georgia Tech’s 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 add’l $159M Thus, total quantifiable return to Georgia economy was $351M,

more than 10:1 NSF/ERC program invested $32.7M in same period (also 10:1) PRC’s industrial members collectively contributed $60.7M Several PRC spinoff companies were located outside Georgia Overall, substantial leveraging of NSF investment

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

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.

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)

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 imprimaturFrom 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