1. INDUSTRY PROBE WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION John D. Hewes, Ph.D. Office of Chemical and Biomedical Technologies Advanced Technology Program National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD March 24, 1998 COMBINATORIAL APPROACHES TO CHEMISTRY RESEARCH

2. Purpose To collect data and stimulate input on industry need for an ATP Focused Program in combinatorial/high through-put approaches to R&D in chemicals and materials.

3. Agenda

4. Code of Conduct No proprietary information No info on current open competitions US industry vs. company: take a long-term view All ideas valid--no critiques No speeches, please One meeting Stay focused……stay on time Use parking lot, talk off-line

5. Expectations Who: Brief personal biography What: Thumbnail sketch of company Why: Expectation of meeting

6. Roles Lead: J. Hewes Process/Policy Monitor: L. Schilling Scribe: J. Hewes Timekeeper: S. Schiller Recorder: D. King

7. Idea submission flowchart

8. Idea submission Where does industry want to go ? When does industry want to arrive ? Convergence Capital Payback High Risk/RewardWhat is the killer application ? Is there a narrow window of opportunity ? Why ATP and not other Federal agencies ? Why does industry need ATP ? What is the economic/national benefit ?

9. Adjacent Markets Upgrades Service Product Information Processes Services Product Fund methodology development program directed toward emerging platform Fund single application area with technology diffusion from emergence of individual components. Possible ATP Approaches

10. What is the opportunity - Why is this an important problem? - What is the market? Why ATP ? - What is the nature of the market failure? - Why is timing critical? - What is the size of the technical problem being addressed Major technical barriers - Potential innovative approaches or solutions - Technical risk Impact: - Contribution to US economic competitiveness or growth Industry structure: Discuss the industry structure and appropriate value chain(s). Competitive position - Domestic and ROW A new paradigm for developing focused programs at ATP Program Recommendation

11. Market vs Technology Matrix Define potential markets Define enabling technologies Associate markets and technologies Develop market synergies Develop technology synergies Excel file from ATP web site

12. What is ATP Looking For? Advanced Technology Program National Institute of Standards and Technology Technology Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Linda Beth Schilling, Director Chemical & Biomedical Technology Office Focused Program Selection Criteria

13. STRATEGY: Catalyze Future Investment ATP Project Spending Profile Post Project Spending Profile $M

14. Focused Program Selection Strategy l Where does industry need to go? l When does industry need to arrive? l Why does industry need ATP? l Why should the nation care?

15. ATP Program Definition Process Program Ideas from U.S. Industry Program Idea 1 Program Idea 2 Program Idea 3 Program Idea 4 Program Idea 5 Program Idea... ATP Selection Criteria { U.S. Economic Benefit Technical Strength Industry Commitment Pivotal Role for ATP Filter Focus Integrate

16. Focused Program Selection Criteria Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Credibility of proposed pathways to economic growth Sectors affected and extent of change Probability of subsequent commercialization Technical Strength Strong Industry Commitment Pivotal Role for ATP

17. U.S. Economic Growth Business Strategy R&D Strategy Implement with Workforce Private Plus Spillover Benefits Resource Allocation Plan Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Credibility of Proposed Pathway to Economic Growth

18. Market Knowledge Network Spillovers Spillovers Spillovers ++ Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Credibility of proposed pathways to economic growth

19. Size of sector Degree of change Opportunities for economic spillovers Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Sectors affected and extent of change

20. Probable effects of the Focused Program Would it happen at all without ATP? Will it accelerate R&D and commercialization? Will it increase/broaden opportunities for new products and processes? Are collaboration efficiencies/synergisms likely? Other Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Sectors affected and extent of change

21. Opportunities for economic spillovers Enabling technologies Impacts upstream and/or downstream New industry creation and/or leap-forward in existing industry Competitive structure Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Sectors affected and extent of change

22. Pathbreaking Technologies -- open up new possibilities/revolutionary Infrastructural Technologies -- support R&D, production, and the business or entire industries Multi-use Technologies -- have many distinct applications OLD NEW + OLD + = Enabling Technologies can generate "Large Spillovers"

23. Commitment from industry to make it happen Critical non-technical barriers (e.g., regulatory issues) are addressed Strong differential advantage of technology Global market perspective--threats and opportunities Potential U.S. Economic Benefit Probability of subsequent commercialization

24. Technical Strength What is the core technical challenge... which can change industry. Characterize “The Challenge”  What is high risk?  Is it ripe for investment?  Is cross project synergy needed?  Are good ideas ready? Link Challenge to “The Change”  Is it a step change?  Is it new underpinnings?  Is it a new industry?

25. High Technical Risk Technical challenges which display significant recognized uncertainty of success Success will dramatically change the future direction of technology and its market impact Risk may be high in developing single innovations, or integrating technologies or BOTH

26. Strong Industry Commitment $ Industry Segment D ATPProgram Breadth of interest? Depth of interest? Ready to partner? Adequate vertical and horizontal linkages? Willing to cost share? Industry Segment B $ Industry Segment C $ Industry Segment A $

27. Pivotal Role for ATP What is the Challenge Play?  What part of the problem fits ATP?  What is the High Payoff?  Why not industry alone?  Is there a window of opportunity?

28. Pivotal Role for ATP What is the Investment Play?  Where is other Federal money being invested?  Where is industry money being invested?  Why a Focused Program vs General Competition?  Will the ATP investment make serious impact?

29. Program Scope  What’s in?  What’s out?  Does this fit the investment?  What might proposals look like? Technology Economic Impact ATP Role Commitment

30. What We Do l Buy down R&D risk l Expand R&D scope to accomplish enabling things

31. Programs vs. Projects Focused Program Funded Project Funded Projects Advanced Technology Program n Program B Program A Program Competition A 1 Program Competition A 2 Program Competition A n General Competitions Specific research project Proposed in response to solicitation $1-3 million per year $2-10 million over 1-5 years Proprietary information Formal cooperative agreement required Major research effort High payoff to U.S. economy Ideas from industry and others 1-3 solicitations as warranted Planned with industry Non-proprietary ideas No funds transferred

32. Project Proposal Eligibility Single Company Proposals No more than 3 years Up to $2M total NIST funds NIST pays only direct costs Large companies cost share at least 60% of project cost No direct funding to universities, government labs or non-profit independent research organizations Joint Venture Proposals No more than 5 years No limit on award amount NIST share less than 50% Must involve two or more for-profit companies, both doing research, and both contributing to the cost share JV admin. may be industry or independent research organization

33. Criteria for ATP Project Selection THE ECONOMIC/BUSINESS PLAN Potential broad-based economic benefits (20%) Adequacy of plans for eventual commercialization (20%) Level of commitment and organizational structure (20%) Experience and qualifications (5%) THE TECHNICAL PLAN Scientific and technical merit (30%) quality & innovation technical risk and feasibility coherency of technical plan and objectives team approach technology impact Experience and qualifications (5%)