u.s. national laboratory perspective on energy technology innovation and performance ... ·...

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORYU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

U.S. National Laboratory Perspective on Energy Technology Innovation and Performance AssessmentMarilyn A. Brown, Ph.D., CEMDirector, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ProgramOak Ridge National Laboratory

International Conference on Innovation in Energy Technologies

Washington, DCSeptember 29-30, 2003


• These laboratories are the principal knowledge-producing “factories” of the larger and more complex U.S. national innovation system.

• Many laboratories are hybrids.• The best known example of a hybrid is the DOE multi-

program “GOCO” labs: government-owned, contractor-operated.

Laboratories in the U.S. are complex, dynamic, and diverse

Industry ≈ 14,000

University ≈ 1,270

Government ≈ 730

*Source: Michael Crow and Barry Bozeman. 1998. Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System (New York: Columbia University Press).

• There are three types of R&D labs in the U.S.*


Federal Laboratories represent the single largest deployment of organized research in the U.S.

• More than one-third of all federal R&D funding is expended at Federal Laboratories (≈ $25 billion)

• Federal labs employ more than 60,000 scientists and engineers, a significant fraction of the U.S. scientific and technical human capital.


The Mission of U.S. R&D Labs Has Evolved

• Cooperative agricultural extension labs built on land-grant colleges brought scientific and technological know-how to agriculture.

• U.S. Geological Survey, begun in 1869, provided services to extractive industries and industries dependent upon natural minerals.

• National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute for Standards and Technology), established in 1901, developed industry-wide standards for testing and purification of substances.

• World War II saw mobilization of many private resources for publicpurposes with public funds.– Universities saw their faculties contracted by the military for creation of

fundamental scientific work– Corporate R&D capabilities were mobilized for similar purposes

– The Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) organized virtually all R&D activity in the nation, civilian and military.


The Mission of U.S. R&D Labs Has Evolved (Continued)

• Postwar climate offered rationale for continued support and expansion of the national weapons labs.

• The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created to develop nuclear power for civilian uses and govern the use of radioactive material.

• The AEC maintained and expanded many of the weapons labs:

Argonne

Brookhaven

Idaho National Engineering Lab

Lawrence Berkeley

Lawrence Livermore

Los Alamos

Oak Ridge

Pacific Northwest

Sandia

Each of these are among the largest scientific facilities in the world.


The Mission of U.S. R&D Labs Has Evolved (Continued)

• The astounding growth of the National Institutes of Health began in the 1940s, funding both intramural and extramural research, largely at universities.

• The 1950s and 1960s further expanded the use of organized laboratory R&D in many areas (nuclear energy, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, electrification, communications, and chemicals).

• The launch of Sputnik in 1957 focused U.S. attention on the relative state of our defense technology base.

• The energy crisis called for the reorganization of federal R&D assets to deal with the nation’s energy needs. The Department of Energy was established to consolidate national institutions dealing with energy questions.


Legislation in the 1980s Expanded Government Tech Transfer Options

• 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Act– Made tech transfer a mission of national labs

• 1980 Bayh-Dole Act– permitted contractors of federally funded research, including

small businesses, nonprofits, and universities, to file for patents and license inventions

• 1986 Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986– enabled federal labs to transfer technologies through Cooperative

Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs)• 1989 DOE National Lab Cooperative Research and Technology

Competitiveness Act– Authorized GOCOs to enter into CRADAs

The dictum “if it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one” began to take hold.


DOE Technology Transfer History• In 1989, Congress Directed DOE to Establish Tech Transfer as “Lab

Mission”

– DOE Decided to Support Lab Tech Transfer with $$ (Staff and Administration)

– Budget Line Items for Tech Transfer at Defense and Civilian Labs• In 1990, DOE Created Dedicated Tech Transfer Office

• 1990 - 1995 Private Industry Discovered DOE Labs

– CRADAs Boomed!

– Expectations exceeded DOE resources• In 1996, 104th Congress Eliminated the DOE Tech Transfer Office• In 2001, DOE Issued Order 482.1 on Tech Partnering

– Established DOE Roles and Responsibilities– Created “Virtual” Tech Transfer Organization, Under DOE’s R&D

Council


National Lab Energy R&D Has Waxed and Waned In Lock Step with the U.S. Investment*

*Source: J. J. Dooley. 2001. U.S. National Investment in Energy R&D: 1974-1999, Battelle Memorial Institute, PNWD-3108.


The President’s Management Agenda Emphasizes Performance Assessment• “Government should be results-oriented –

guided not by process but guided by performance. There comes a time when every program must be judged either a success or a failure.”

Governor George W. Bush

Philadelphia, June 9, 2000

• Two items in the PMA address performance:

One of the five Government-wide Initiatives is to integrate performance and the budgetOne of the nine Program Initiatives is to create better R&D investment criteria


Measuring Tech Transfer Effectiveness: The Simpler Approaches have Dominated*

• “Out-the-Door” Model– transfer itself equates with success

• Market Impact Model– assesses effectiveness according to the commercial

success of transferred technology or information• The Political Model

– appearance of active and aggressive pursuit of technology transfer and commercial success

• The Opportunity Cost Model– Comparison of the value of technology transfer to other

possible uses of the resources

*Source: Michael Crow and Barry Bozeman. 1998. Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System (New York: Columbia University Press).

Incr

easi

ng C

ompl

exity


Tech Transfer Activities Have Been Increasing (Based on 12 DOE Labs)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Year

Tec

h Tr

ansf

er A

ctiv

itie

s

CRADAS

Tech Assistance forSmall Businesses

WFOs

Tech Licenses

User Facilities

*Source: Several Factors Have Led to a Decline in Partnerships at DOE Labs (GAO Report to Senate Energy and Nat. Resources, April 2002)

However, CRADAs and technical assistance projects with small businesses are decreasing.


Industry Perspectives on Commercial Interactions with Federal Laboratories*

• Based on survey of 219 industry partners involved in 229 collaborations with 27 federal laboratories (e.g., cooperative R&D, technical assistance, technology licensing, personnel exchange).

• Results indicate a high level of general satisfaction:– 89% indicate the project was a good use of their company’s resources– nearly 1/3 report net costs exceed net benefits, but with an average net

benefit of more than $1 million and a few projects reporting net benefits of $10 million

– monetary benefits of projects, on average, exceed costs about 3 to 1– job creation value is modest – 90% creating no net jobs, average 1.5 jobs

created• Overall, the projects exhibit a high commercialization rate with 22% of the

interactions having already led to marketed products and with 38% having new products under development.

*Source: Barry Bozeman, Maria Papadakis, and Karen Coker. 1995. Report to the National Science Foundation, Research on Science & Technology Program.


Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research at DOE has Produced Economic Net Benefits*

• Total net realized economic benefits associated with selected energy efficiency programs were approximately $30 billion, substantially exceeding the roughly $7 billion in total energy efficiency RD&D investment.

• The realized economic benefits of fossil energy programs instituted from 1986 to 2000, $7.4 billion, exceeded the estimated $4.5 billion cost of the programs during that period.

• Additional environmental and security benefits also resulted, and there were significant options and knowledge benefits.

* Source: The National Academies. 2001. Energy Research at DOE, Was it Worth It?


A Majority of the Realized Economic Benefits Involved R&D at DOE Labs

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 20080

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1800

2000

1600

ProjectedActual(Shipment

Weighted Average)

Year

Ele

ctri

city

Use

(K

Wh

/yea

r)

1991 “Best”

Golden Carrot Target

“Fridge of the Future”

1990 U.S. Standard

1993 U.S. Standard

2001 U.S. Standard

An example: The Household Refrigerator

•DOE investment of $1.6M from 1977–82 enabled improvements that saved consumers $7B in the 1980s

•ORNL roles:−Modeling and analysis−Technical support to major manufacturer for improved compressor−Component development (motors, insulation, controls)−Testing and input to national standards

Electricity consumed by refrigerators: 1972 to 2001


Spinoff benefits From Energy R&D are Hard to Quantify and Often Ignored*

• It is important to consider not only the value of the R&D investment in its intended fields of use, but also to consider opportunities and benefits in unanticipated areas.

• R&D investments can be made more efficient if spinoff opportunities are systematically exploited.– Spinoffs have traditionally occurred in a serendipitous fashion– Identifying and exploiting potential spinoffs may require (1) the

development of internal market analysis capabilities or (2) partnerships with outside organizations

• Without proper consideration of spinoffs, program evaluators may undervalue R&D investments.– Quantifying spinoff impacts necessitates periodic monitoring,

sometimes over extended time frames– Spinoffs need to be traced across organizational boundaries, raising

issues of “linkage” to the original R&D investment

* M. A. Brown and C. R. Wilson. 1993. “R&D Spinoffs: Serendipity vs. a Managed Process”Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 18 (3&4): 5-15.


Market Application Spinoffs of Energy R&D are Numerous

New/Unrelated Technology

New/Related Technology

Major Enhancement

Unchanged or Minor Improvement

Tec

hn

olo

gy

New

nes

s

B

A

C

D

Other spinoffs of the core technology.

DOE funding for a specific application.

Existing Customers

New Market Niche

New Market Segment

New Market

Newness of Market Application

From a thin conductive paint for radiant heating in buildings to military decoys for heat-seeking missiles.


Market Feedback Often Leads to Next-Generation Technologies



Major Enhancement


Tec

hn

olo

gy

New

nes

s

B

A

Significant improvements to the core technology.

DOE funding for the core technology.

Existing Customers

New Market Niche

New Market Segment

New Market


C

Stored vs. disposable thermal ice caps.


Assessing Linkage to Original R&D Requires Understanding of the Core Technology



Major Enhancement


Tec

hn

olo

gy

New

nes

s

B

A

C

DSignificant change to the core technology; new markets addressed.

DOE funding for a core technology.

Existing Customers

New Market Niche

New Market Segment

New Market


Technology is directed to new market segment with only minor technical changes.

Aluminum detection system first expanded to iron and municipal waste, and then to metal impurities in silicon wafers.

“Perhaps the most difficult analytic problem is assigning to DOE a proportion of the overall benefit of an R&D program that properly reflects DOE’s contribution to it.” --NAS, 2001


ORNL is DOE’s premier energy laboratory• Energy infrastructure assurance

• Energy-efficient technologies

• Hydrogen and fuel cells• Nuclear technology and safety

• Fusion energy prototypes

• Fossil fuels

• Distributed generation

• Biomass

• Carbon sequestration

• Environmental consequences of energy production


ORNL is DOE’s premierenergy laboratory (cont.)• Most diverse energyportfolio among

the DOE labs• Largest share of DOE energy funding• Peer recognition: leadership, R&D

100 awards, etc.• Strong history in nuclear, energy

efficiency, fossil, electricity T&D, materials science, and chemical separations

• Oversight for about $400M ofORNL’s budget with almost 1200 employees


PatentsIncome (royalties

and equity

Research anddevelopment

CompanyMaturation

ORNL’s Technology Commercialization Approach

EquilibriumCompaniesStartups

Nondisclosureagreements

Inventiondisclosures

Licenses

CRADAsand WFOs

DOE projectsand programs


ORNL Highlights• Won 4 out of 22 National FLC Awards (maximum

allowed)• In FY 2002: 117 active CRADAs; $6.7M of CRADA

funds-in; 156 invention disclosures; 62 patents issued; active licenses for 121 patents; $1.7M in licensing income

• First-level market analysis incorporated into decision to elect inventions

• Intellectual property module for Group Leader training• Established relationships with venture capitalists, angels,

and other funding sources (e.g., Battelle Ventures)• Established requirement for locally based licensees to

become members of mentoring/incubation programs• Building orderly exit strategies and contingency plans

prior to execution of licenses


Bipolar Plates Must•Be low cost•Not corrode•Have high electrical conductivity•Have sufficient strength•Prevent gas leakage

An ORNL Tech Transfer Success: Carbon Composite Bipolar Plates for Automotive PEM Fuel Cells

Bipolar Plate is•Cell electrode•Sealing surface•Flow field for gas

PEM Fuel Cell

•Continuous or semi-batch process•Low corrosion rate•Low cost (less than $2/plate)•High electrical conductivity•Impermeable•Thin (2.5 mm)/lightweight•Built in flow field

Advantages of Approach

Sealed Surface

Porous Volume

Cross-Section ofBipolar Plate

Technology Transfer•Licensed to Porvair Fuel Cell Tech.•Being evaluated by:

•International Fuel Cells•Honeywell•PlugPower

HFCHFC--1 041 04--0606--0303


ORNL’s Assessment Approach

Inventiondis-closures Nondisclosure

agreements Patents Licenses

CRADAs& WFOs

Incomeroyalties& equity

Companystartups

Companymaturation

ABCD

A. A holistic approach is fully implemented and integrated as a part of the organization B.The process is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gapsC. Innovative solutions are evident as a key management toolD.Benchmarking/trending is actively tracked and analyzed as a management tool

OutstandingExcellent

GoodMarginal

SCORING: = Sum ≥ 3.1= 3.1>Sum ≥ 2.1

= 2.1 > Sum ≥ 1.1= Sum < 1.1

Assessment of each operation against the following four criteria

XXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXX

X

XXX

X

X

X

XXX

XXX

X


ORNL Highlights (monitoring & evaluation)

• Customer feedback forms being used by Sponsored Research Managers

• Tracking and managing against income projections for each executed license

• Working closely with licensees to ensure successful commercialization

• Monitoring small businesses maturation from creation through commercial success


Conclusions• National Labs are Aggressively Pursuing Technology

Partnerships to:– Transfer Promising Technology and Impact Mission Accomplishment– Infuse or Enhance Special Skills and Competencies at Lab– Commercialize M&O Contractor-Owned IP– Spur Local Economic Development in Technology Fields

• National Labs have Implemented many Innovative Tech Transfer Practices:– Adopting Business Mgmt/Marketing Approaches – Prioritizing Customers (Where is the Payoff?) – Showcasing Facilities to Attract Industry Partners – Establishing relationships with venture capitalists, angels, and other funding

sources

• Lack of Dedicated DOE Funding for CRADAs and Small Business Partnerships is a Barrier to Success


Conclusions (cont.)

• Evaluating the effectiveness of tech transfer activities and energy R&D is complex.

• Use of consistent methodologies and frameworks will help (e.g., the NAS benefits matrix).

• Multiple method approaches to evaluation are preferable (spinoffs, options, and knowledge benefits need to be quantified).

u.s. national laboratory perspective on energy technology innovation and performance ... ·...

Documents