An Analysis of the Domestic and International Impact of NASA Technology Transfers

Abstract

Founded in 1958 in response to national fears posed by Soviet space activities, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was originally focused on space exploration and national security. However, as the utility of NASA space technology in the public and private sector became increasingly evident, the organization transformed its goals to become a contributor to research and development and technological innovation - leaving future generations in need of a new U.S. space policy. Yet, the overall impact of NASA’s technological contributions domestically and internationally has not been adequately assessed by previous research. This report will utilize a technology transfer model to assess the overall efficacy of NASA technology transfers to domestic and international public and private entities. This analysis will reveal strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that NASA must address as it continues to lead in introducing technological innovations globally.

An Analysis of the Domestic and International Impact of NASA Technology Transfers

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established by the United States Congress in 1958 in response to the Soviet launching of the Sputnik I satellite. Though the organization was initially focused on national security concerns, it became a key force in technological innovation in the United States and internationally. The relationship between government agencies and public and private organizations in fostering technological innovations can be understood through the technology transfer model. In order to assess the efficacy of NASA technology transfers to government entities and private businesses, the technology transfer model will be utilized as a framework to examine the impacts of NASA technological contributions. While NASA has contributed significantly to economic and technological development in the United States, it will be established that weaknesses in the implementation and maintenance stages of the technology transfer model limit NASA’s ability to adopt enduring innovations domestically and abroad.

Scope

This report will assess the impact of NASA technology transfers in the United States and internationally. The objective of this project is to describe the technological and economic impact of NASA’s research and development initiatives. Further, this research will utilize the technology transfer model to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s current technology transfer initiatives.

Methodology

This report will conduct a review of literature in order to assess the impact of NASA technology transfer initiatives. Publications, reports, and peer review journal articles will be utilized to assess the technology transfer initiatives through a qualitative analysis. Further, this report will utilize the technology transfer model as a theoretical framework in order to further assess NASA technology transfer initiatives.

Analysis

The technology transfer model will be utilized in order to assess the efficacy of NASA technological contributions, both domestically and internationally. Saad (2000) defined technology as “a whole range of knowledge, skills, ideas, equipment, and facilities that organizations need to produce goods and services” (p. 53). Further, he expanded that technology has four components: 1) hardware, 2) software, 3) “brainware,” and 4) a support net (Saad, 2000, p. 53). Hardware includes the physical equipment and structural component that is necessary for technology to be developed, software includes the knowledge that is needed to accomplish tasks utilizing the hardware, brainware includes the knowledge and understanding that is needed to apply the technology to targeted conditions, and support net references the network that is needed to manage the technology (Saad, 2000, p. 53). In order to successfully transfer technology, the receiving organization must possess both the hardware and the knowledge that is needed to sustain and apply the technology. This understanding of technology informs the different stages that are involved in the technology transfer model.

The stages of technology transfer are intended to describe how technology emerges from the stage of conception to the stage of implementation. Bar-zakay (1971) identifies four primary stages of technology transfer: 1) the search stage, 2) adaptation, 3) implementation, and 4) maintenance (p. 324). During the search stage, organizations recognize a need for transfer, during the adaptation stage, organizations formulate a technology transfer project and determine how the project can be adapted to a stated application, during the implementation stage organizations obtain resources, such as infrastructure or capital, that is needed to maintain the change, and during the maintenance stage organizations transfer authority over the project to the recipients of the transfer (1971, p. 324). As Ravn & Vidal (1986) noted, the technology model was originally established during the 1960s and 1970s as a strategy for economic development, particularly in developing countries (p. 207). Further, it focused the process through which military and multinational corporations could transfer technology to critical areas of development (1971, p. 324). However, this framework will be applied broadly to assess the general transfer of technologies from government organizations to public or private entities.

Domestic Technology Transfers

In order to understand the focus of NASA technologies, it is important to review the history of the organization. According to Kay (2005), space funding became a priority in the United States after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world’s first satellite, on October 14, 1957 (p. 41). In the subsequent year, the Soviet Union launched Luna I, a satellite that arrived in close proximity to the moon (2005, p. 41). Following Congressional and public pressures, President Dwight D. Eisenhower supported the space program and approved the establishment of NASA in 1958 (2005, p. 44). Since the establishment of NASA, space-related programs have received over $1 trillion dollars in funding, which has had a wide impact on commerce and the technology industry (2005, p. 3). However, the connection between NASA and research and development for private industry objectives was not immediately realized.

NASA did expand beyond its original focus of space exploration and national security until the 1960s and 1970s. According to McQuaid (2006), NASA initially received decreased public support because its operations were isolated from the concerns of the general population (p. 129). The competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was the primary motive of the organization’s research (2006, p. 129). Initially, half of NASA’s staff was employed by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, which contributed to a militaristic organizational culture (2006, p. 130). Further, the organization supported research and development of air and spacecraft vehicles in order to secure U.S. dominance in aero technology (2006, p. 129). While the organization served an important public function by enhancing national security, it also neglected opportunities to apply its research to meet broader social needs.

However, in response to declining public support and recommendation from social scientists, the organization shifted its research goals. During the 1960s, NASA was approached by the Weather Service to partner in an endeavor to launch the world’s first weather satellite (2006, p. 131). Following their partnership with the Weather Service, NASA contributed its data to federal organizations to aid in weather and environmental monitoring initiatives (2006, p. 131). In 1966, Congress authorized the Technology Utilization Program, which enabled NASA to partner with universities in order to prepare and distribute technical briefs and reports that shared NASA research findings with private industry (Olken, 1966, p. 17;19). Further, following the oil embargo, Congress expanded its funding to universities to participate in research and development initiatives (Powers, 2004, p. 2). These acts expanded the partnership between NASA, private industry, and academic institutions.

Established during the 1980s, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program represents one of the most prominent efforts of NASA to systemically transfer of technology to private industry. SBIR was enacted in 1982 under the Small Business Research and Development Act and has undergone a series of extensions that are set to expire in 2017 (SBIR). Through SBIR, several federal agencies, in addition to NASA, award research and development grants to private organizations in order to promote the commercialization of government-developed technologies (SBIR). SBIR consists of three grant stages: 1) during Phase I a business can receive up to $150K for a period of 6 months to conduct a feasibility study on a proposed technology, 2) during Phase II a business can receive up to $1 million dollars for 2 years to further develop the scientific and technical merits of their Phase I results, and 3) during Phase III a business is eligible to receive assistance in obtaining third-party funding in order to prepare the technology for acquisition of for the market (SBIR). As of 2009, SBIR has rewarded $26.9 billion in grant aid to over 112,500 organizations (SBIR). The program has played a significant role in fostering economic development and innovation in the domestic economy.

As one of the eleven participating federal organizations, NASA’s SBIR program has many documented successes. According to the Committee for Capitalizing on Science (2009), NASA is the fourth largest SBIR contributor and has awarded $103 million in annual grants as of 2005 (p. 20). NASA awards $100K for Phase I and $600K for Phase II projects that receive approval (2009, p. 20). Further, the Committee found that approximately 46 percent of NASA-funded Phase II projects reach the market and generate profits while 17.7 percent of Phase II products generated revenue above $1 million (2009, p. 27). Additionally, a NASA Commercial Metrics Survey revealed that NASA-funded SBIR projects generated over $2.3 billion in revenues for the private sector between 1983 and 1996 (2009, p. 27). Attending to the quality of the innovations uncovered, a survey revealed that one-fourth of Phase II survey respondents reported filing at least one patent following their research (2009, p. 29). Through SBIR, NASA has contributed to fostering technological innovation in the private sector and has aided in stimulating economic growth.

However, there are several drawbacks to the SBIR program to be considered. First, Link and Scott (2012), established through statistical analysis that the effects of SBIR on reducing unemployment in the economy are insignificant (p. 284). However, because increasing employment is not the primary goal of SBIR, they assert that this does not entirely undermine the efficacy of the program (p. 284). Second, NASA shifted its focus in 2006 towards government applications rather than commercial applications of technology to address dissatisfaction with its outcomes (Committee for Capitalizing on Science (2009, p. 20). A 2002 report revealed that while Phase II grant recipients demonstrated success, only 6 percent of Phase II awards were successful in continuing to Phase III (2009, p. 20). The inefficacy in promoting grant recipients to the next level of development limits the returns on NASA’s investments. Finally, researchers established that many “alumni” companies failed to receive continued technical support and assistance after the end of their contract with NASA (2009, p. 318). Discontinued support could hinder the ability of private sector industries to properly undergo the final stage of transfer.

International Technology Transfers

Though NASA was originally focused on United States security concerns, the organization has introduced technology that holds global applications. NASA satellites provide public entities internationally the opportunity to monitor health outcomes and weather phenomena in their states. For example, in 1996, NASA instructed researchers and officials from developing countries on landscape epidemiology, which utilized satellite technology to detect changes in the habitats of disease-carrying animals (Nadis, 1996, p. 474). This technology was significant from a public health standpoint because it enabled public officials to reduce the risk of infectious diseases in their states.

Further, the NASA Applied Sciences program provides technological innovations that have global applications. Developed in 2001, the Applied Sciences Program focuses on technological applications that can be used by governments to serve the public interest (National Research Council, 2007, p. 12). For example, the Famine Early Warning System, which is operated by the U.S. Agency for International Development in partnership with African, south Asian, and Latin American countries, utilizes NASA data to monitor the risk of famine in sub-Saharan African countries (2007, p. 12). However, while program technologies hold promise in transferring critical technologies to developing countries, the National Research Council advises that metrics used to assess the outcomes of these programs are inconsistent and often incomplete (2007, p. 39). NASA must standardize its metrics in order for the full impact of its program initiatives to be assessed.

There are key limitations in the international transfer of NASA technology that must be considered. First, the capabilities of many developing countries creates a barrier to cooperation between NASA and state officials. As Handoko (2009) noted, the primary barriers to technology transfer in the developing world include: 1) inadequate infrastructure, 2) inadequate human resources, and 3) a lack of scientific support (p. 332). Further, inefficiencies can hinder cooperation between and developed countries. For example, Whitney & Leshner (2004) highlighted that a “valley of lost opportunities” exists due to NASA’s inability to merge its development priorities with the needs of the public and private sector (p. 212). By failing to connect research projects with wider societal needs, the organization misses out on the opportunity to adapt its research to beneficial applications. Further, the researchers cite the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, a jointly operated research satellite between the United States and Japan, that has experienced delays in implementation because of the conflicting methods of lightning measurements that developed between NASA and other government agencies (2004, p. 210). Even entities that possess adequate resources can misapply a technology transfer if the process is conducted in an ineffective manner.

Recommendation and Conclusion

As the analysis revealed, NASA contributes extensively to the development of technologies to be applied to the public and private sectors. However, despite the organization’s monetary commitments to technological innovation, there are several areas of improvement that must be adopted to increase the efficacy of its technology transfer initiatives. First, NASA should adopt uniform metrics to assess the impact of its programs. The lack of uniform data poses a barrier to analysts who wish to assess the impact of NASA’s research and development initiatives. Second, the organization must address inefficiencies in its cooperation with international and national agencies. By establishing standard protocols for inter-agency partnerships, the organization can take reduce the time that it takes to complete the stages of technology transfer. Finally, the organization must follow-through with partner organizations in its research and development projects after the development process has been completed in order to ensure that the organizations are successfully implementing technology. By adopting these recommendations, NASA can strengthen its implementation of the steps outlined in the technology transfer model and improve the results of its technology transfer initiatives both domestically and internationally.

References

Bar-Zakay, S.N. (1971). Technology transfer model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(3-4), 321-337. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Committee for Capitalizing on Science. (2009). Assessment of the small business innovation research program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Hertzfeld, H.R. (2002). Measuring the economic returns from successful NASA life sciences technology transfers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(4), 311. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203633220?accountid=14068

Handoko, L. T. (2009). A new approach for scientific data dissemination in developing countries: A case of Indonesia. Earth, Moon, and Planets, 104(1-4), 331-336. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11038-008-9283-6

Kay, W.D. (2005). Defining NASA: The historical debate over the agency’s mission. Ithaca, NY: State University of New York Press.

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). Employment growth from the small business innovation research program. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 265-287. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9303-6

McQuaid, K. (2006). Selling the space age: NASA and Earth’s environment, 1958-1990. Environment and History, 12(2), 127-163. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20723571

Nadis, S. (1996). NASA to teach ‘epidemiology by satellite.’ Nature, 380(6574), 474-474. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/204476876?accountid=14068

National Research Council, Committee on Extending Observations and Research Results to Practical Applications. (2007). Assessment of the NASA applied sciences program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Olken, H. (1966). Spin-offs: A business pay-off. California Management Review, 9(2), 17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1301271926?accountid=14068

Powers, J. (2004). R&D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-23. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40197284

Ravn, H.F., & Vidal, R.V.V. (1986). Operational research for developing countries – A case of transfer of technology. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 37(2), 205-210. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2582714

Saad, M. (2000). Development through technology transfer: Creating new cultural understanding. Bristol: Intellectual Ltd.

SBIR. (n.d.). Small Business Innovation Research, Small Business Technology Transfer. Retrieved from http://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir

Whitney, P.L., & Leshner, R.B. (2004). The transition from research to operations in Earth observation: The case of NASA and NOAA in the US. Space Policy, 20, 207-215. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2004.06.004