SBIR Programs and Product Commercialization: Kinetic Art & Technology - An Example
AbstractThe SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program provides a way to assist entrepreneurs in commercializing their technology, and it provides government access to new technology. There are many issues facing technology start-ups. Some of the issues and possible responses are discussed. Kinetic Art & Technology (KAT) is an SBIR success story. With almost four million dollars in federal grant funds, the company developed and is commercializing new electric motor technology. The issues they faced and the decisions they made are key components of their success.
Baron, J.N. and Hannan, M.T. (2002). Organizational blueprints for success in high-tech start-ups: Lessons form the Stanford Project on Emerging Companies. California Management Review, 44 (3), 8-35.
Berry, W. L., Hill, T. and Klompmaker, J. E. (1999). Aligning marketing and manufacturing strategies with market. International Journal of Production Research, 37 (16), 3599-619.
Brown, G. E., Jr. and Turner, J. (1999). Reworking the federal role in small business research. Issues in Science & Technology, 6(4), 51-59.
Cooper, R. S. (2003). Standing on the shoulders of midgets: the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). Small Business Economics, 20 (2), 29-136.
Gans, J. S. and Stern, S. (2003). When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit?: Evidence from the SBIR Program. Economic Innovation and New Technology, 12 (4), 361-384.
IRLP: Industrial Research Liaison Program. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 2001.
Kaulio, M. A. (2003). Initial conditions or process of development? Critical incidents in the early stages of new ventures. R&D Management, 33 (2), 165-175.
Kelly, M. J., Schaan, J., and Joncas, H. (2002). Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges in the early stages of collaboration. R&D Management, 32 (1), 11-22.
Kessinger, Personal interviews. May 2002.
LaPlante, A. (1997). Formula for success: equal parts pain, vision, money, luck, and timing. Computerworld, 31(39), S2-3.
Leonard, D. and Swap, W. (2000). Gurus in the garage. Harvard Business Review, November-December 2000, 71-82.
Lerner, J. (2000). The problematic venture capitalist. Science, 287 (5455), 977-79.
McCaffrey, K. (2003). Steady hand for startups. Management, September 2003, 68-69.
Mervis, J. (1992). Pentagon keeps its fruits to itself. Nature, 356 (6354), 4.
Nelton, S. (1998). Innovative spark from Uncle Sam. Nation's Business, 86 (12)50-51.
Nicolau, N. and Birley, S. (2003). Social Networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49(12), 1702-1725.
Piper, W. S (2002). Push and pull strategies in the marketing of government technology. Proceedings of the 2002 Atlantic Marketing Association, Savannah, GA, vol. XVIII, 80-84
Preston, J. T. (2003). Building success into a high-tech start-up. The Industrial Physicist, June/July 2003, 16-18.
Small Business Innovation Research Grant Program. Small Business Administration. 16 May 2002.
Spencer, J., Murtha, T. P., and Lenway, S. A. (2005). How do governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30 (2), 321-337.
Stewart, A. and Giagtzis, G. (2001). Helping high-tech start-ups achieve success. America's Network, 105 (9), 120-122.
Surveying the SBIR program. Science, 288 (5467), 809-11.
Wessner, C. W. (2002). Government-Industries Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies, National Research Council. National Academies Press: Washington http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085 020/html/23.html#pagetop.
Wu, Chunchi and Young, A (2001). Critical operating problems and survival rates in small firms: A look at Small Business Institute clients. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7 (1), 1-23.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.