IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/uncgec/2022_007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Assessment of the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program: A Study of Project Failure

Author

Listed:
  • Albert Link

    (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)

  • Christopher Swann

    (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)

  • Martijn van Hasselt

    (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)

Abstract

In 2000 and again in 2012, the U.S. Congress charged the National Research Council (NRC) within the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study how the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program has stimulated technological innovation and used small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs, and to make recommendations for improvements in the SBIR program. Using project data collected by the NRC, we assert that an important assessment metric not previously considered by the NRC in its reports to Congress relates to the failure rate of funded Phase II research projects. Our paper identifies a number of covariates associated with project failure, and we make a recommendation that program managers might decrease the likelihood of project failure if funded firms can be given relevant information about how to contact angel investors, venture capitalists, and private investors, and how to present to them a proposal to obtain additional research investment dollars.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert Link & Christopher Swann & Martijn van Hasselt, 2022. "An Assessment of the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program: A Study of Project Failure," UNCG Economics Working Papers 22-7, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2022_007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bryan.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/22-07-An-Assesment-of-the-US-Small-Business.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin S. Andersen & Jeremy W. Bray & Albert N. Link, 2017. "On the failure of scientific research: an analysis of SBIR projects funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 431-442, July.
    2. Jeremy W. Bray & Albert N. Link, 2017. "Dynamic entrepreneurship: On the performance of U.S. research joint ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 785-797, December.
    3. Link, Albert N., 2015. "Capturing Knowledge: Private Gains and Public Gains from University Research Partnerships," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 11(3), pages 139-206, November.
    4. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199729685, Decembrie.
    5. Irwin Feller, 2022. "Assessing the societal impact of publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 632-650, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nelson, John, 2025. "How do science and technology help to address societal problems? A practical typology of contributions," SocArXiv 35mec_v1, Center for Open Science.
    2. David B. Audretsch & Maksim Belitski & Farzana Chowdhury, 2024. "Knowledge investment and search for innovation: evidence from the UK firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1387-1410, August.
    3. Sergio Salles-Filho & Bruno Fischer & Yohanna Juk & Paulo Feitosa & Fernando A. B. Colugnati, 2023. "Acknowledging diversity in knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: assessing the Brazilian small business innovation research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1446-1465, August.
    4. David B. Audretsch & Maksim Belitski & Rosa Caiazza & Farzana Chowdhury & Matthias Menter, 2023. "Entrepreneurial growth, value creation and new technologies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 1535-1551, October.
    5. Sara Nienow & Olena Leonchuk & Alan C O’Connor & Albert N Link, 2024. "Bringing technology to market: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute SBIR Phase IIB projects," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 144-148.
    6. Audretsch, David B. & Belitski, Maksim, 2024. "Knowledge collaboration, firm productivity and innovation: A critical assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David B. Audretsch & Albert N. Link, 2019. "Embracing an entrepreneurial ecosystem: an analysis of the governance of research joint ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 429-436, February.
    2. Michael J. Hall & Albert N. Link & Matthew Schaffer, 2022. "An economic analysis of standard reference materials," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1847-1860, December.
    3. Alan C. O'Connor & Albert N. Link & Brandon M. Downs & Laura M. Hillier, 2015. "The impact of public investment in medical imaging technology: an interagency collaboration in evaluation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 510-531, July.
    4. Stuart D. Allen & Stephen K. Layson & Albert N. Link, 2013. "Public gains from entrepreneurial research: Inferences about the economic value of public support of the Small Business Innovation Research program," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 6, pages 105-112, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Albert Link, 2022. "An Assessment and Evaluation of the U.S. Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program," UNCG Economics Working Papers 22-8, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    6. Martin S. Andersen & Jeremy W. Bray & Albert N. Link, 2017. "On the failure of scientific research: an analysis of SBIR projects funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 431-442, July.
    7. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2012. "On the social value of quality: An economic evaluation of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(5), pages 680-689, July.
    8. Sara Nienow & Olena Leonchuk & Alan C O’Connor & Albert N Link, 2024. "Bringing technology to market: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute SBIR Phase IIB projects," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 144-148.
    9. Albert Link & John Scott, 2017. "Toward an Assessment of the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program at the National Institutes of Health," UNCG Economics Working Papers 17-6, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    10. Albert N. Link & Martijn van Hasselt, 2022. "The use of intellectual property protection mechanisms by publicly supported firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1-2), pages 111-121, February.
    11. Albert N. Link & Martijn Hasselt, 2020. "Exploring the impact of R&D on patenting activity in small women-owned and minority-owned entrepreneurial firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1061-1066, April.
    12. Daniel Nepelski & Giuseppe Piroli, 2018. "Organizational diversity and innovation potential of EU-funded research projects," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 615-639, June.
    13. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2019. "The economic benefits of technology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1416-1426, October.
    14. Chuchu Chen & Albert N. Link & Zachary T. Oliver, 2018. "U.S. federal laboratories and their research partners: a quantitative case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 501-517, April.
    15. John Scott, 2009. "Cost-benefit analysis for global public–private partnerships: an evaluation of the desirability of intergovernmental organizations entering into public–private partnerships," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 525-559, December.
    16. Albert Link & John Scott, 2020. "Invention Disclosures and the Slowdown of Scientific Knowledge," UNCG Economics Working Papers 20-6, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    17. Jeremy W. Bray & Albert N. Link, 2017. "Dynamic entrepreneurship: On the performance of U.S. research joint ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 785-797, December.
    18. Bertha Vallejo & Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Nicholas Ozor & Maurice Bolo, 2019. "Open Innovation and Innovation Intermediaries in Sub-Saharan Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Valérie François & Pascal Philippart, 2019. "A university spin-off launch failure: explanation by the legitimation process," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1188-1215, August.
    20. Albert Link, 2018. "The Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," UNCG Economics Working Papers 18-3, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR); project failure; R&D; program assessment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2022_007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Albert Link (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edncgus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.