Copyright State Science & Technology Institute 2002. Information in this issue of the SSTI Weekly Digest was prepared under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. Redistribution to all others interested in tech-based economic development is strongly encouraged — please cite the State Science & Technology Institute whenever portions are reproduced or redirected. Any opinions expressed in the Digest do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Subscription to the SSTI Weekly Digest is free. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue and would like to receive your own copy each week directly, please subscribe at: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digform.htm Requests to unsubscribe should be sent to sstiwd@ssti.org

In the October 23, 1998 Issue:

NASA SELECTS SBIR PROPOSALS

NASA has selected 345 research proposals for negotiation of Phase I contract awards for its 1998 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The combined award total is expected to be approximately $24 million. NASA selected the 345 recipients from 2,335 proposals (14.8 percent of the total) submitted by small, high-technology businesses from across the United States.

The selected firms will be awarded fixed-price contracts valued up to $70,000 each to perform a six-month Phase I feasibility study.  Companies that successfully complete the Phase I activities are eligible to compete for Phase II selection the following year. The Phase II award allows for a two-year, fixed-price contract up to $600,000.

The following lists by state the number of companies that   received SBIR Phase I Awards:

Alabama–7
Arizona –12
Arkansas–2
California–62
Colorado–34
Connecticut–8
Delaware–1
Florida– 5
Georgia–1
Hawaii –1
Idaho– 2
Illinois– 1
Indiana– 2
Iowa–1
Louisiana–1
Maryland– 16
Massachusetts – 56
Michigan– 4
Minnesota– 5
Missouri– 1
Mississippi– 3
North Carolina– 3
New Hampshire– 10
New Jersey– 6
New Mexico– 7
New York–15
Ohio– 7
Oregon– 5
Pennsylvania– 6
Tennessee– 4
Texas– 13
Utah– 2
Virginia– 18
Vermont–2
Washington–5
Wisconsin–7

MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PROGRAM CITES ACCOMPLISHMENTS, LOOKS TO FUTURE

Nearly 70,000 manufacturers received services from the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) from July 1995 through December 1997, according to a new report released by MEP.

Client reported impacts for projects closed from June 1996 to May 1997 increased for the short-term competitiveness indicators compiled by the program. These indicators include: sales ($187 million); labor savings ($8.9 million), material savings ($7.3 million), inventory savings ($25 million), client investment in modernization ($135 million); jobs created (2,095); and jobs retained (3,011).

The most recent data, covering the period of July-December 1997, shows that the top four industries served by the MEP are: industrial machinery (16%); fabricated metals (15%); electronics (9%); and rubber and plastics (8%). Technical assistance continues to be the primary activity offered by the program (61%); however, the training and education component has increased significantly (25%). The other major activity is conducting assessments (14%).

Centers are continuing to make progress to the MEP target of resources split equally between MEP, state and local governments, and fees for service. As of December 31, 1997, 41 percent of the program’s funding came from MEP, 32 percent from state and local organizations, 16 percent from fee for services, and 11 percent from in-kind contributions.

MEP has also released the findings of a report generated by a U.S. Innovation Partnership (USIP) working group. "The Future of the State-Federal Partnership in Manufacturing Extension: A Report of the Next Generation MEP Working Group" presents the conclusions of  senior technology advisors and executives of several state technology development organizations.

The working group’s chief recommendations include the following:

For more information on the working group’s report, contact Tom Unruh of the National Governor’s Association at 202/624-5300.

OKLAHOMA VOTERS TO DECIDE TECH TRANSFER ACTIVITIES

Two of the state-wide issues Oklahomans will decide on November 3 would allow major changes in the way the state conducts technology transfer activities. The purpose of the initiatives is to promote the commercialization of university research and support university innovation.

Under current Oklahoma law, public property can only be used for public purposes. Passage of State Question 680 would make an exception for use of public property for certain projects that involve research and development of a technology. A state college or university would be able to let a business use its property to work on technology projects, especially those linked to the institution.

State Question 681 would allow state colleges and universities, as well as their employees, to own technology and equity in private businesses. The companies would have to make a product or invent a process or other idea using help from the institutions or their employers. No appropriated tax dollars could be used to invest in the business venture.

Both issues are part of a legislative package that was signed into law in May, subject to voter approval. Other provisions that have already taken effect established technology transfer offices at the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University, and allowed the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST) to establish a technology business financing program.

State Science & Technology Institute
5015 Pine Creek Drive
Westerville, OH 43081
Phone: (614) 901-1690
Fax: (614) 901-1696
Email: ssti@ssti.org

  © 2002 State Science and Technology Institute. All rights reserved.