|
|
|
Welcome to WT & Associates!
|
|
|
Success Measures for Academic Research Centers
It is difficult to define a center or research outcome as successful, since many outcomes are incalculable in advance. But most are-even in basic research areas-as based on quantitative metrics and peer judgments. Based on an earlier internet survey of research centers-the researcher noted that one third didn't even have success goals, let alone criteria for measurement---, although formal objectives are essential for planning and evaluation. Our earlier evaluation of 250 research centers indicated however that client satisfaction, quality of research, technology transfer, graduate education, and grant funding and favorable award to proposal ratios were important success outcomes leading to various kinds of benefits. Our pilot review of centers ten to fifteen years later indicated that continuity of management and research teams were strongly associated with success useful measures. In fact, the longer the center was in existence, the more likely it would be successful.
One success measure suggested by the NSF comprehensive science and engineering program is the ability of the center to survive with diminished or no federal NSF funding-it eventually should be completely free from federal funding-in independent orbit. NSF planners believed that their funding would be reduced overtime and industrial and other private and university funding would fill the vacuum. I believe such speculation is simplistic and vacuous at best, since successful centers go for all types of support, especially federal, always will, and should not be viewed as more successful for shunning the biggest funder of all, and the incubator of creation-NSF itself- .
|
: |
 |
 |
|
| NSF Expenditures on Nanotechnology R and D (FY 2007)
|
Nanotechnology by Directorates
|
Millions of Dollars
|
|
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
|
156.4
|
|
Engineering
|
137.0
|
|
Biological sciences
|
52.5
|
|
Computer and Information Sciences
|
12.8
|
|
Geosciences
|
9.65
|
|
Social, Behavioral and Engineering
|
1.67
|
I believe the recently funded University consortium in multidisciplinary medical research resources program at the University of Michigan is a good example. It includes over twenty partners of all types and plans to be part of a network of 120 institutions including federal labs and agencies by 2002. It already has $55 million in its government supported consortia coffers. It would be naive to think it would say goodbye to the NSF share. Success, to me, is to increase the NSF contribution along with all other sources-the goal is to do more with more, not more with less-if that is possible.
Other variables predictive of success include basic research as well as translational research, extent of real interdisciplinary research, size of center--although on the Cohen’s Florida and Goes earlier study, it was suggested that mid size centers were the most innovative and successful.
Characteristics of a Successful Nanotechnology Initiative
1. Maintains a planning agency that sets goals and objectives for economic development, as well as strategies to overcome obstacles. The planning agency establishes and manages a Nanotechnology Institute as part of the region’s economic development plan.
2. Involves a major anchor company, startup firms and coordination among profit-making economic institutions and universities.
3. Emphasizes technology transfer at university, federal and private labs. It includes science parks, clean rooms and fabrication facilities in its plans.
4. Builds a highly trained work force capable of supporting nanotechnology manufacturing. Keeps PhDs within the region after graduation and attracts new ones.
5. Builds on strengths of at least two major research universities.
6. Coordinates closely with at least one national laboratory.
Other success measures include the ability of the center to merge into consortia configurations, adaptability to take on new research areas, and modify goals, as substituting Nanomedicine for a traditional approach. Successful academic centers-unlike the federal laboratories and industry containment facilities also prepare the scientific workforce of the future. Success variables ultimately should also consider developing better qualified faculty as measured by peer reviewed publications, citations, grants, overhead recovery, interdisciplinary teaching, direct funding ratios, proposal to award success, patent to license ratios. Good luck- continue to be successful.
NSF FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress link
|
 |
 |
|
| What are you Odds?
Don’t waste your time bidding on proposals you can’t win.
WT & Associates provides you a free proposal/initiative ranking based on selected variables such as amount and quality of funded research, publications, citations, grant awards, proposal to award ratios by researchers at lead university, extent of technology transfer, patents, acknowledgement of peers and national organizations, patent-license ratios and spin offs at identified university, dollar amount of licenses, regional strengths and weaknesses as: place to do business, quality of life, health, environment, median educational level, availability of venture capital, economic development, risk taking. WT and Associates uses such sources as AUTM, Chronicle of Higher Education, NSF Caspar, NCHS-Hanes, Economic indicators, Nanoforum, Milken Institute, Pew Foundation, and clearinghouses as NTIS and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Get your free ranking here!
Our Services:
The following services and publications are provided by the WT and Associates team, headed by William Tash, former Vice Provost for Research, Temple University, federal proposal review panel member, director of Planning and Evaluation office, Health Services administration, and president of a Maryland-based consulting firm with twenty years experience in consulting to agencies including the NIH and NSF. He maintains offices in the northern Virginia area and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
|
|
The services include:
⇒ Center and regional initiative reviewing the odds of winning for center and initiative proposals submitted for federal awards.
⇒ Washington and industry representation on proposal bidder’s conferences, and other meetings.
⇒ Consulting on and review of proposals in health, nanotechnology, consortia formation fields.
⇒ Consensus building and staff training sessions for center and initiative staff, committees and boards.
⇒ Partner building with other regions and centers for joint activities.
⇒ Styling reports for marketing of government and industry audiences.
⇒ Technical assistance for authors leading to client partnering and sales.
|
We Accept:  |
 |
 |
Powered by CityMaker.com
|
|