tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-770579694794072792.post9121851849609326755..comments2023-02-26T02:43:39.013-06:00Comments on The SBIR Coach's Playbook ®: SBIR Reauthorization – What are the issues?- Fred Patterson -http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611001882358615220noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-770579694794072792.post-62987383288684087512009-05-07T06:42:00.000-05:002009-05-07T06:42:00.000-05:00"We all want the best science and technology ..."We all want the best science and technology to prevail! Ensuring that federal R&D dollars are available to support the earliest and highest risk stages of innovation is what it's all about."<br /><br />Although Jonathan makes a good generic point about the purpose of federal R&D funding, that's not enough to justify a specific program like SBIR. Any diversion (micromanagement) of federal R&D should have some purpose that would not be achieved if the federal agencies were left alone to direct their R&D investments. And SBIR has never proved that required marginal benefit. When it comes to "best science," for example, small business has no competitive advantage over large entities like universities. <br /><br />SBIR could, however, have a useful purpose if it exploits the competitive advantage that small business does have - agility in getting advances into marketplaces. But letting the federal agencies fund whatever they want will NOT exploit that advantage. To get something useful out of SBIR which would not have happened anyway with the federal extra-mural dollars, we need a program that targets innovations with a market future. And VCs are one agent for identifying that companies and ideas with a market future IF THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS. <br /><br />Somehow Congress has to invent a program that steers any directed diversion to the highest potential early stage ideas and companies. Otherwise, continuing the present program merely pushes money into vague promises of progress by too many companies unable or unwilling to deliver any real innovation. <br /><br />Arguments that SBIR is good for America because it funds "innovation" in small companies are mere fluff.Carl Nelsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-770579694794072792.post-19891833259604756212009-05-04T16:01:00.000-05:002009-05-04T16:01:00.000-05:00Here's the full article that actually appeared in ...Here's the full article that actually appeared in the Washington Business Journal:<br />http://www.bizjournals.com/extraedge/washingtonbureau/archive/2009/05/04/bureau1.html?market=washington<br /><br />I guess the ABJ reporter decided not to do her own version and they just reprinted the DC version.- Fred Patterson -https://www.blogger.com/profile/11611001882358615220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-770579694794072792.post-40907824322816687052009-05-04T15:38:00.000-05:002009-05-04T15:38:00.000-05:00Here's an Austin Business Journal note on SBIR pu...Here's an Austin Business Journal <A HREF="http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/05/04/story10.html" REL="nofollow">note on SBIR</A> published May 1. It's short, and mostly accurate. (But then, maybe there aren't any truly small VCs out there to qualify as small businesses in their own right.) Too bad they didn't delve more into the matter. As you point out, there are several important issues to be addressed.<br /><br />Frankly, as long as we maintain Phase I for feasibility studies, avoid raising the awards too high (being sure to increase allocated percentages to prevent any decrease in the number of awards overall), better yet increase the number of awards, and rule out Phase I bypass, most of the concern over VCs is eliminated.<br /><br />We all want the best science and technology to prevail! Ensuring that federal R&D dollars are available to support the earliest and highest risk stages of innovation is what it's all about. The best and easiest solution would be if VCs simply agreed to hold no more than a minority stake in SBIR firms. Then they could play as well, and we could focus on the other issues.<br /><br />Let's not forget that 75% of all small businesses employ fewer than 20. Allowing 500 is overly generous. And, lest anyone think these small businesses are small fries in terms of their job creation, think of this: If your average small business added one employee this year, they'd be increasing their workforce by 5% annually. How many companies can say that?JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334554920865685561noreply@blogger.com