It would appear that most of the exemplars had one or a small number of SBIRs in a relatively short period of time (<10 years); those would not appear to me to be "SBIR mills" in the colloquial sense of a company who repeatedly wins contracts over long periods of time (decades in some cases) and yet who transitions few if any efforts. The examples may be exceptions rather than the norm -- and might provide clues as to what makes a "useful" SBIR candidate for the department.
I guess my problem with the article is that it only mentioned the need for reform in passing, rather than highlighting some concrete actions that could be taken to make SBIR pass fiscal muster if you will. There's a great deal of discussion in other venues about SBIR, and if we aren't careful the simple binary options will become the path forward -- either continue as we are or completely stop. Need discussion to focus (I believe) on how these successes were successes; ideally some metrics (though my instinct is it will be more about leaders with vision and drive than process).
We certainly believe reforms are incredibly important for the program. David (my co author) has written extensively on the subject as well as testified in the senate. We felt that the reasons for reform had already been covered well elsewhere (which we linked to), and for us our unique contribution is this series of stories that show what can be possible if we implement reform
At this moment as well, the SBIR program has entirely lapsed. Ultimately we’d prefer the program be re authorized without reform rather than die altogether.
Given then impending congressional discussion and vote on this subject we felt it was important just to get more stories out on this subject
My (cynical) take is that Congress will default to leaving it as is, because that is a) the easiest solution and b) their corporate sponsors will reward them with campaign donations.
I do believe that DOD/DOW could probably influence change without statutory changes by just changing processes a bit and inducing "bureaucratic sand in the gears" if the senior leaders and middle managers really wanted change. My experience on the government side in both an Engineering Center and Laboratory was that managing the SBIR program(s) became full time jobs for people, and there was no incentive to really drive material results. Just my thoughts.
It would appear that most of the exemplars had one or a small number of SBIRs in a relatively short period of time (<10 years); those would not appear to me to be "SBIR mills" in the colloquial sense of a company who repeatedly wins contracts over long periods of time (decades in some cases) and yet who transitions few if any efforts. The examples may be exceptions rather than the norm -- and might provide clues as to what makes a "useful" SBIR candidate for the department.
That was the point of the piece! To show what can be achieved when SBIRs are used the right way by “non-mills”. Thanks for taking the time to read
I guess my problem with the article is that it only mentioned the need for reform in passing, rather than highlighting some concrete actions that could be taken to make SBIR pass fiscal muster if you will. There's a great deal of discussion in other venues about SBIR, and if we aren't careful the simple binary options will become the path forward -- either continue as we are or completely stop. Need discussion to focus (I believe) on how these successes were successes; ideally some metrics (though my instinct is it will be more about leaders with vision and drive than process).
We certainly believe reforms are incredibly important for the program. David (my co author) has written extensively on the subject as well as testified in the senate. We felt that the reasons for reform had already been covered well elsewhere (which we linked to), and for us our unique contribution is this series of stories that show what can be possible if we implement reform
At this moment as well, the SBIR program has entirely lapsed. Ultimately we’d prefer the program be re authorized without reform rather than die altogether.
Given then impending congressional discussion and vote on this subject we felt it was important just to get more stories out on this subject
My (cynical) take is that Congress will default to leaving it as is, because that is a) the easiest solution and b) their corporate sponsors will reward them with campaign donations.
I do believe that DOD/DOW could probably influence change without statutory changes by just changing processes a bit and inducing "bureaucratic sand in the gears" if the senior leaders and middle managers really wanted change. My experience on the government side in both an Engineering Center and Laboratory was that managing the SBIR program(s) became full time jobs for people, and there was no incentive to really drive material results. Just my thoughts.