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 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)

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: $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)

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 - >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

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 withsmall businesses, esp. start-ups, will become increasingly important

7. Performance Engineered Systems Goals Dimension R&D Agenda Influenced Impacted Competitiveness Opportunity for Joint Projects Access to ERC Faculty and Students Access to ERC Technology Focus of ERC Matched Firm’s Interests Obtained Access to New Ideas and Know-How 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% 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 Ability to Develop Technology Dimension Ability to Integrate Knowledge and Technology to Solve Problems Depth of Technical Knowledge Contribution to Firm's Technical Work Ability to Work in Interdisciplinary Teams Breadth of Technical Knowledge Overall Preparedness to Work in Industry 65 70 75 80 85 90 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 (>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

10. 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

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