![]() ![]() Ilya Pozin, INC Magazine January 19, 2016
|
Anchored in what is arguably the most comprehensive overview of the entirity thatis the SBIR community that the idi systems provide us, we would suggest that, at its most effective
involvement that rewards come primarily to those whose
Business Plans are anchored in collaborative effort
- not only were small firms capable of often sophisticated and important technology-based endeavor
- but that many would successfully partner with Major and Mid-sized Corporations to the mutual advantage of both parties,

By careful design, from the outset SBIR was never about enabling small firms to take on the type of basic, longer term investigatory research judged primarily to be the province of academic and non-profit research institutions. Instead, through a highly competitive process, within the scope and widely differening interests of each participating agency, the primary SBIR focus was on small firms undertaking projects judged by each agency as addressing a felt, unmet need
- Their own practical concerns in mission agencies and
- in civilian agencies, those of the communities whom they serve
![]() |
![]() |
as it was about supporting development of the technology.
With small firms at that time effectively locked out of federal procurement, the working SBIR premise was effectively one of leverage. The judgment was that using Federal funds - totaling only $36M across all agencies in FY83 -
- to support the early-stage, high-risk work -- the "R" and the "D" -- that few other funding sources would take on
- and to tackle that risk in short-duration stages: Phases I and II
c/would enable progress towards 'de-risking' such project(s). Projects showing promise c/would draw the attention - and access to the relevant resources -- of the Mission Agency(ies) and interested larger Corporations to move from the SBIR Phase II "D" (development) to the second "D" (demonstration) (not SBIR funded) and -- for some - into actual use-condition.
In effect, SBIR was to be less about funding science
as it was about supporting the development of technology
It is striking - and worth noting directly - that Venture Capital
From that premise - and even then not until the Phase II consideration process - Reviewers looked for indication of the rights types of Capital Access, Business and Industry connection by applicants: did they understand what it would take to move the technology to use-condition; did they have the wherewithal to make that happen.
Expressed interest by Financial sources to include (but not exclusively) by Venture Capital; Letters of Support from those with relevant market presence; Evidence of external partnering; any form of in-use presence serve(d), in effect, to validate that the small firm involved might have what it would take, that the work undertaken was passing muster among those whom one might assume should (or might) know.
The Recipient of the federal SBIR Dollar - set to increase in FY15 to 2.9% of extramural R&D budgets of participating agencies - by definition is a Small Firm. Consistent with the intent of those who crafted SBIR, over the life of the program (1983- ) large numbers of Awardees - many with names that are now well-known - have successfully moved their SBIR funded projects from
Phase I through Phase II: funded by SBIR dollars
to some form of 'use-condition' at "Phase III": where SBIR dollars explicitly may not be used.
With rare exception. they have done this through various forms of Third Party Engagement.
![]() |
What the data shows is now very different is that - in part at least due to changed program management decisions - that engagement is occurring far earlier in the SBIR application process. |
|
Unintended consequences? | Third party validation always a factor: now an early requirement |
|
An early focus in the SBIR Proposal Review process on the Small Firm's Business Plan - in some sources now as early as Phase I - addressing how they are thinking about th 'commercialization' process is changing/has changed the dynamics of the application and award process.
|
By careful design, SBIR was never intended to be another Research funding endeavor. Instead, within the scope and interests of each participating agency, the focus was primarily to be on supporting projects judged by that agency as addressing a felt need - their own in mission agencies; in civilian agencies, by the communities they serve. Using Federal Funds to support early-stage, high-risk work - the "R" and the "D" - that few other funding sources would take on, the working premise was that, by going some way towards de-risking the project, other sources of follow-on funding - Venture Capital, Large Corporations etc would pick up the baton perhaps during Phase II or certainly subsequently. Selected projects would move from the "D" of development to the second "D" of demonstration and -- for some - into actual use-condition. SBIR was to be less about funding science as it was
From that premise - and even then not until the Phase II consideration process - Reviewers looked for indication of the rights types of Capital Access, Business and Industry connection by applicants: did they understand what it would take to move the technology to use-condition; did they have the wherewithal to make that happen.about supporting the development of technology Expressed interest by Financial sources to include (but not exclusively) by Venture Capital; Letters of Support from those with relevant market presence; Evidence of external partnering; any form of in-use presence serve(d), in effect, to validate that the small firm involved might have what it would take, that the work undertaken was passing muster among those whom one might assume should (or might) know. |
============================
![]() |
Though their SBIR-STTR interests and forms of program engagement may be quite distinctly different, given the extent of important connectedness between them, it is useful to think of the players that are variously involved in the SBIR space as a Community. With Awardees the common element, others which make up this community include
- SBIR Awardees: Current, former and applicant
- Participating Federal Agencies: Program Management personnel and others
- State SBIR Support organizations
- Tech Seekers: large and mid-sized firms
- and the range of Professional Service Providers
In this part of the inknowvation.com site the effort is
To identify with some specificity those who make up each one of these groupings. How we are (probably uniquely) able to do that is discussed below
- To varying degrees of detail, to permit those who are Site Registered -- No-Cost as well as Full System Users -- to Search and Sort within that grouping
- AND - potentially very useful and maybe even game-changing - to provide the context, the tools and resources that support and build out on the notion of Community; to allow those having common interests across institutional lines as well a within any grouping, to find and to interact with each other.
|
In the very earliest days after having achieved passage of the original SBIR enabling legislation in 1982, to maintain the integrity of the implementation of what was a highly controversial program effort, we began systematically to keep the SBIR record in a single database. Intially focused primarly on following-the-money - which small firms in what state got how many dollars from which agency for what purpose - as database technologies and tools evolved and sources of information opened up, just as systematically we expended the effort also
- to track a range of related information about awardees
- and, by extension, to compile considerable data and to make the connections to these other players who make up the SBIR Community.
This effort - and the powerful analytical systems it has made possible
More recently, use of the systems has broadened pro-actively to support
- making the right connections between those in Large and Mid-Sized firms with outreach responsibility to find appropriately skilled Partners from among the SBIR community. Designated ASSETs, this is in fact the primary business of the Innovation Development Institute and has already enabled more than $250M of transactions to date
- interested Agency personnel and State SBIR Support better to understand - and make use of -
- the extent and form of SBIR involvement in other agencies of their current awardees
- and more fully to profile the background and present business condition of the same
Using these data now to enable more effective draw-down of some of the SBIR value created by focusing on documenting the overall achievement of SBIR as a Community is the next logical next step. Also making possible the development of what could be an interesting and potentially useful a social/business networking capability is a major bonus