(re)inventing government-industry r&d collaborationmln/ltrs-pdfs/nasa-96-tm110271.pdf · this...

(Re)inventing Government-Industry

R&D Collaboration

Bruce J. Holmes

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Reinventing government has spawned some unexpected surprises.In the NASA Aeronautics Advanced Subsonic Technology Program(AST), new enterprise charters and government businessinstruments enabled capabilities to reach for goals that would havenot have been attainable with traditional government business tools.For the public and private sector partners in a new aeronauticstechnology development effort, doors were opened to new ways ofthinking about revolutionary capabilities for the nation’s intermodaltransportation system. The strategic nature and importance of theseadvanced transportation capabilities necessitated imaginativethinking about the political, legal, and economic relationshipsbetween government and industry.

As the Administration and Congress press federal agencies to domore with less, perhaps they realize that breakthroughs ingovernment capabilities might occur. Whatever the underlyingmotivations, the pressures of government contraction has forced “outof the box” thinking by NASA and its aviation industry partners.This thinking led to the establishment of the Advanced GeneralAviation Transport Experiments (AGATE) element of the ASTprogram as a unique, public/private joint venture.

The AGATE Consortium is one of NASA’s major experiments in newways to do business. The experimental phase of AGATE reachescompletion at the end of the 1996 fiscal year. This article describeslessons learned during creation and operation of one of the newestkind of government-industry-university partnerships for jointresearch and technology development. All three of these partnergroups had to learn new ways of thinking and doing business for thepartnership to succeed. These lessons serve as guidance in thedevelopment of future public/private joint R&D collaboration. Theyillustrate new, more effective relationships that are possible betweengovernment and industry.

Past paradigms for public/private sector relationships are based onlaw and policies as well as perceptions. For U.S. public/private R&Dcollaboration to succeed, partners in both sectors must leave certainperceptions, myths, and misconceptions behind. Thesemisconceptions include:

• The government has set rules and procedures that cannot bealtered.

• Government funding for industry research is “corporate pork,” orindustry welfare.

• Government-industry collaboration represents national industrialpolicy.

• Government-organized collaboration with industry is anti-competitive.

• The government (or the industry) loses control in collaboration.

• A government-industry alliance is focused on the near term at theexpense of the far term.

Through past law and policy, federal agencies had three means forstrategic management. The advent of strategic alliances adds a new,fourth means for a government R&D agency such as NASA to buildstrength and capabilities. The previous three are through internalinstitution and programs (research personnel, facilities, and R&T baseprograms and MOUs), arm’s-length transactions for research(contracts and grants), and restructuring of agency charter andmission (rarely used). The strategic alliance adds the means topursue strategic goals that are beyond the practical limits of agovernment agency with the previous three means. In an era ofcontracting government, the strategic alliance becomes a vital tool tostrengthen government capabilities.

AGATE

NASA, the FAA, the U.S. general aviation industry, and universitiesformed the AGATE Consortium in 1994 in response to both threatsand opportunities. The motivating threat behind the formation ofAGATE was a decade-long decline in small aircraft deliveries, generalaviation fleet size, flight hours, public use airports, pilot population,and student pilot new starts. The motivating opportunities lay inemerging technologies in cockpit systems, propulsion systems, andairframe design and manufacturing. AGATE development was

guided by the priorities agreed to by the leaders of the U.S. generalaviation industry and the NASA Administrator, Daniel S. Goldin.These priorities were published in the 1993 report of the NASAAeronautics Advisory Committee, General Aviation Task Force.

AGATE’s goal is to create the technical and operational bases andinfrastructure for a small aircraft transportation system. Thissystem will improve the availability of light aircraft for personal andbusiness transportation. Improved availability means making thistransportation choice available to more people, in more parts of thecountry, in more weather conditions. The partners’ motivationsinclude revitalization of the U.S. general aviation industry, increasedcapacity of the National Airspace System, and quality of life for thosewho are served by the general aviation infrastructure. A safe andaffordable small aircraft transportation system infrastructure bringsthe mainstream of business, commerce, trade, tourism, health care,and education opportunities to small communities and rural areasthat can benefit from a point-to-point, on demand, personal airtransportation system that is competitive in cost and safety withalternative modes.

To undertake this far-reaching endeavor, NASA and the FAA(through various programs), industry, and universities have poolednearly $300 million in combined resources among more than 30 cost-sharing partners. More than 30 other partners have joined the effortas non-cost-sharing, supporting members of the AGATE Consortium,for a total of over 60 members (see Table 1). AGATE Principalmembers match government resources one-for-one with cash or in-kind resources. In matching the government resources from theirown internal R&D budgets, the industry brings corporatecommitment and motivations to the partnership that would bedifficult to engage using traditional federal R&D contracts. Theresulting R&D plans for the partnership’s projects are sharply andefficiently focused on the shortest critical path to completion.

AGATE was formed and operates under the 1958 U.S. Space andAeronautics Act (as amended) as a Joint Sponsored ResearchAgreement (JSRA). The AGATE JSRA establishes the Terms andConditions for governance of the partnership. AGATE members electan Executive Council that serves as a board of directors for technicaland business philosophy, policy, and strategy. The Executive Councilimplements consortium operations through the AGATE Business

Operating Handbook (BOH). Day-to-day business operations aresupported for the partners by the AGATE Alliance Association, Inc.(AAAI), a 501 (c)6 member services not-for-profit corporation inVirginia. Partnership methods development is supported byAmerican Technology Initiative (AmTech), Inc., a 501 (c)3 not-for-profit corporation for research on public-private sector R&Dcollaboration in Menlo Park, California.

Collaboration in America

Consortia in the U.S. counter a century of 1884 Sherman Anti-TrustLaw-based governmental and legal policy and a long standingbusiness tradition of unfettered competition. In fact, these traditionsare the institutions and values long associated with our nation'seconomic strength and vitality. Success in collaboration in Americarequires compelling vision and motivation to move us out from ouranti-collaborative heritage. Government and industry must vieweach other as strategic partners who mutually advance each others’strategic position, share higher risks for higher rewards, andleverage financial and human resources for these gains.

The emerging paradox in modern U.S. economic development is thatto compete effectively in the international marketplace, U.S.corporations must collaborate with their domestic competitors. Theparadox is that this cooperation enhances and increasescompetitiveness, both internationally and domestically. Theincreased competitiveness results from increased quality in industrystandards that provides bases for competition at higher levels ofproduct quality, price, and performance. Collaboration creates win-win situations for the government and industry collaborators andtheir customers.

For U.S. companies, collaboration with competitors is a relatively newstrategic business tool. U.S. companies and government R&Dorganizations increasingly find themselves partnering in orcompeting against partnerships. Japan established laws enablingpublic-private collaboration in the 1960’s, Europe did the same in the1970’s. In the U.S., the foundations for reinventing government andalliance building were laid in 1994 with Vice President Al Gore’smandates for Federal Lab Reviews and other examinations of theroles and missions for the nation’s more than 700 government labs.The U.S. law permitting industry collaboration was enacted as theNational Cooperative Research Act in 1984. This law permits U.S.

companies to collaborate in precompetitive R&D without the threat oftreble damages under anti-trust law. In the emerging globalmarketplace, alliances are becoming a major source of competitivestrength for U.S. industries.

NASA’s response to the challenge to reinvent government includedresearch on the management and development of alliances. Twoprominent business mechanisms, the Space Act Joint SponsoredResearch Agreement (JSRA) and the Chiles’ Act CooperativeAgreement with for-profit corporations, were established out ofthese efforts. These new instruments responded to the recentlychanging nature of the relationships between NASA and theirindustry and university partners in technology development.

These economic, political, and legislative activities established theenvironment for change. That environment fostered opportunitiesfor paradigm-shifting thinking about both new ways of doingbusiness as well as new applications of technologies to solveproblems that challenge our quality of life on this planet. This newenvironment lays the foundations for government R&D agencies tocollaborate in ways that meet the challenge for government thatcosts less and does more than ever before.

Alliance Structures and Classes

Government and industry partners have four basic structures foralliance operations: a) a formal corporation-supported alliance, b) aformal government-supported alliance, a hybrid of a) and b), or aformal agreement (such as an MOU or Space Act Agreement (forNASA)). Consortia may be organized and coordinated by eithergovernment or industry, or the government may sponsor competitionto establish the partnership. The most appropriate path to followwill be determined by the objectives and products of the alliance.For NASA, three broad purposes for alliances exist including vehiclesystems class alliances, technical discipline class alliances, andresearch institution class alliances. AGATE is a vehicle systems classalliance implemented as a hybrid corporation- and government-supported joint venture. Table 2 compares and contrasts the variousbusiness instruments available to NASA for working with industry.

The limits to which alliances of the three classes above can fulfill afederal laboratory’s mission are not yet well defined. Several of the“focused” programs that constitute NASA’s Office of Aeronautics

Enterprise have been crafted as alliances. The questions are how tobalance externally focused alliance-based collaborative efforts withindependent core-competency-based in-house research and how andwhether to use technical discipline class and research institutionalliances for in-house core competency-based research.

NASA’s traditional aeronautics R&D strength is founded on the talent,skills, and expertise of in-house researchers along with their world-class facilities. At the same time, the value to the nation of NASA’saeronautics programs is based on the transfer of technology from in-house to the outside world. The management challenge is inbalancing the Aeronautics Enterprise portfolio to include anappropriate mix of externally focused alliance-based withindependent in-house efforts. The existing NASA AeronauticsEnterprise alliances are externally focused. NASA has not yetventured into alliance-based core-competency research. As NASAshrinks in the coming years to meet federal budget constraints,alliances will be a vital tool for both.

The New Business Instruments

The process to design and implement the business side of the AGATEConsortium governance and business operations required about 24months by a team of about six core individuals in government andindustry. The integrated product team that crafted the AGATE jointventure included technical, legal, procurement, industry, andorganizational development facilitator representatives. Replication ofthese steps could be accomplished for a new government-industryjoint R&D venture in 6 to12 months depending on size andcomplexity of the partnership.

Development and operation of AGATE under the Space Act versusunder the Federal Acquisition Regulations provided speed andflexibility to implement optimal design solutions unconstrained bytraditional contracting practices. Optimal design solutions werenegotiated between the public and private sector partners coveringfinancial management, auditing, flight safety assurance, andintellectual property rights. Such negotiation processes are notreadily accessible or even barred under the Federal AcquisitionRegulations. Partnering under the Space Act provides additionalfeatures for building strong alliances.

Under the Space Act, the deliverables or products of the partnershipare exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for 5 yearsfollowing completion. For decades, NASA-industry partnerships havebeen hobbled by the requirement that R&D results from public fundsbe disseminated as widely as possible. This dissemination hasresulted in a litany of NASA-developed aeronautics technologies thathave been first taken to market by foreign competitors before U.S.industry. The Space Act FOIA exemption substantially eliminates therisk to industry members in partnering with the government underthe AGATE JSRA. The public’s interests are ultimately served boththrough public dissemination after 5 years and the resulting leadtimes for U.S. industry to reach the market first with innovationsfrom national R&D investments.

Alliances under the Space Act can significantly enhance motivationfor government partners to collaborate. Motivation for governmentfacility managers to partner with industry can be weak using certainpast practices. In the past, to protect the results of the work frompublic dissemination, companies sometimes purchased time in NASAfacilities as “fee jobs.” The funds paid by industry for fee jobs go tothe U.S. Treasury, not to the facility used. Using a JSRA or CAN, theseindustry funds can be pooled with government resources for use byboth parties. Such partnering practices can improve the motivationfor partnering by government facility managers.

Space Act partnerships provide additional business operationsbenefits to the industry partners. Under the terms and conditions ofthe AGATE JSRA, for example, the industry partners may useGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) instead of FAR Part31 Costing and Accounting Principles. This practice reduces partners’accounting expenses. For small businesses unaccustomed togovernment contracts and accounting, this feature can be a decidingfactor in whether to collaborate in a government joint venture. Thegovernment is well served to rely on industry business practiceswhere feasible. It is duplicative and expensive to require industrypartners in a collaboration to submit their own investments to thescrutiny reserved for traditional contracted R&D. In deciding toinvest corporate R&D resources in a joint venture with thegovernment, industry first must pass their decisions throughcorporate decisionmaking boards.

For an alliance to benefit from their partners’ prior organizationaldecisions, checks, and balances, the alliance must establish crediblemeans for self-governance. That self-governance must includeappropriate financial management and auditing practices. Use ofGAAP for a partnership under the Space Act can provide importantsimplification for a joint venture. Currently the FOIA exemption anduse of GAAP are only available to joint ventures under the Space Act.CRADAs and other business instruments do not provide thesefeatures.

Collaboration Entry Criteria

What kinds of challenges, programs, and problems are candidates forthe collaborative model? Collaboration in a strategic alliancestrengthens all partners capabilities. A series of questions can aid indetermining whether a proposed collaboration is a candidate for astrategic alliance. The applicability of the collaborative solution isassessed by asking the following questions:

• Is the vision beyond the corporate charter or business scope ofany one or two of the partners? If the answer is yes, thencollaboration between diverse partners is likely the mostdesirable approach. This is especially true if the products of thepartnership must be planned and developed with users,technology developers, producers, certifiers, and regulatorsworking together. If the answer is no, then simple contractsunder the FARs, Chiles’ Act Cooperative Agreements, or CRADAsmay be logical. For AGATE, the users are the nation’s generalaviation pilots, airport operators, and air traffic controllers; thetechnology developers include NASA, the FAA, industry, anduniversities; the producers are industry; and the certifiers andregulators are represented by the FAA partners.

• Does sufficient common ground exist in competitors’ businessplans to collaborate on pre-competitive objectives? If the answeris yes, then both the legal bases and business motivations exist forcollaboration to succeed. A “no” answer to this question is a deal-breaker; that is, the basis for collaboration does not exist. Thepre-competitive objectives for AGATE include development ofindustry design tools and guidelines, systems standards, andFederal Aviation Administration certification methods (GS&Cs).These GS&Cs allow industry to bring new technologies to themarketplace more rapidly for flight systems, propulsion controls,

airframe structures, materials, and crashworthiness, ice protectionsystems, pilot training systems, and airspace and airport systemsinfrastructure.

• Is industry the customer for the result? If the answer is that theindustry partners have a primary stake in commercialization ofresults of the effort, then collaboration is likely most appropriate.If the government is the customer for the result, then a FARresearch and development contract is more appropriate.

• Do the partners share common levels of risk tolerance andlearning capacity for new technology development? If theiranswer is yes, then the collaboration has a sufficiently levelplaying field for collaboration to proceed. If the answer is no,then either some means must be found to level the playing fieldbetween competitors for the purposes of collaboration, or thebases for teaming do not exist. In the AGATE Consortium, theleveling of the playing field between larger and smaller businesspartners was established by three categories of partnership,Principal, Associate, and Supporting Members.

• Do the partners share a common level of sense of urgency for theresult? If the answer is yes, then the teams will have sufficientmotivation to invest the hard work and energy required to makea partnership work. If the answer is no, then one of theimportant constituents of the “glue” to hold the partnershiptogether is missing. For the members of AGATE, this sense ofurgency is driven by the decade-long decline in the generalaviation industry and their shared need for revitalization.

• Do the partners share sufficiently homogeneous business andpersonal interests to work together toward the vision? If theanswer is yes, then one of the key ingredients exists for the “glue”that will hold a partnership together. If the answer is no, then theenergy required to hold the partnership together may be toogreat. Within AGATE, teams with common interests weredeveloped around industry sectors (cockpit systems, propulsionsystems, airframe systems, and so on) to strengthen the businessinterest ties between partners. In addition, the AGATEConsortium members, beyond their common business interests,share in what might be euphemistically called the brotherhoodand sisterhood of aviation and aviators.

If the answer to each of these questions is yes, then the bases existfor establishing a joint public-private sector R&D collaboration. Amore complete set of entry criteria questions and conditions is foundin The Practical Guide to Joint Ventures & Corporate Alliances byLynch.

In some situations, the bases for collaboration on pre-competitivetechnologies may not exist, but a streamlined government-industrycollaboration may still be desired. An alternative to the FARcontracting business instrument does exist for such cases. Acooperative agreement with for-profit companies under the Chile’sAct is a new valuable tool for sharing resources between governmentand industry. The process of implementing a program using theseagreements is called a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN). TheCAN process is useful where the government wishes to stimulateindustry competition to produce technological advancements. TheCAN process offers some of the collaborative benefits of the JSRA andis appropriate for technology competitions.

NASA and other government agencies bring significant, uniquevalues to strategic alliances with industry and universities.Researchers, organizational leaders, and program managers in NASAare internationally respected for skills and knowledge of vitalimportance to joint ventures with industry and universities. NASAhas the ability to make R&D investments over a time scale and with alonger term ROI than typical industry partners. NASA can commitworld-class research facilities to joint ventures. NASA has wellproven skills and tools in management and systems engineering forcomplex, large-scale technical programs. In many cases, these skillsand tools are not readily available in any one company. The valuesavailable from NASA and other government agencies for jointventures are national assets. Joint public/private collaboration offersa means of leveraging these assets for even greater national gain thathas been possible under past government practices.

Candidate Joint Ventures

Various national programs currently underway or in planning couldbe candidates for a joint public/private R&D collaboration. Someexamples include the following:

• As satellite communications technology moves into the nextmillennium, numerous challenges face industry and government.

These challenges include radio-frequency allocation strategies,industry system standards and protocols, methods for compliancewith regulatory requirements, database standards, andmanufacturing technologies. Many of these challenges can best bemet through joint ventures.

• The National Airspace System faces challenges in capacity andsafety as the number of people traveling by air nearly doublesover the coming decade. The FAA and NASA have already begunplanning for the future air traffic management capabilities called“free-flight.” Development of these capabilities requirescollaboration between partners from the user community, thetechnology developers in government, industry, and universities,the manufacturers, and the government certifiers and regulators.The user community includes general aviation pilots, airline pilotsand operators, air traffic controllers, and state and local publicservice aviation organizations. The FAA brings vitalrepresentation of the certifiers and regulators of airtransportation vehicles, users, and operating infrastructure. Analliance of these partners can produce the greatest advancementsin the least time for the least resources.

• The U.S. aerospace industry faces a critical need for advanced,domestic wind-tunnel testing capability to regain and maintaininternational competitive strength. Current U.S. wind tunnels donot meet requirements for measurement capabilities andproductivity required for U.S. companies to achieve desiredproduct development cycle time goals and technologicaladvancements. The resource requirements for R&D, design,construction, and operation of these capabilities is beyond reach ofeither government or industry independent economic means. Analliance of the government (civil and military), industry, anduniversity partners for such an endeavor is an essentialingredient for success of such a venture.

Alliance Lessons Learned

The lessons learned in the AGATE experience potentially apply asdesign parameters for a broad range of public-private R&Dpartnerships. These lessons apply to the creation and operation, aswell as development and training of the individuals and teams ofpeople required for a public-private joint venture. The AGATE

lessons learned are reinvention of old lessons as well as discovery ofnew ones.

Government-industry alliances lack traditional bureaucracies ofbosses and workers, buildings and shops, payroll and stock value ofclassical corporate organizational structures. While the consortiummust create the collaborative versions of some of thesebureaucracies, it is their very absence that gives the consortium itsgreatest strength--flexibility. This flexibility permits faster speed,lower cost, and higher risk payoff endeavors by joint ventures. Theboundaries of risk and time scale are expanded in a joint venturebeyond the practical limits for an individual private-sector company.

The lessons learned provide parameters for designing and operatinga new collaborative effort. In applying these lessons to new ideas forgovernment-industry-university collaboration, keep in mind thatsuch collaboration requires significant change and that change is notfor the timid. Change requires sponsors, champions, and changeagents with vision, zeal, and vast energy.

Below are the lessons learned from AGATE and other alliances:

• Establish a compelling vision . Establish a vision based on mutualbenefits and shared values that responds to a common threatand/or opportunity. The more bold, compelling, yet achievablethe vision, and the stronger the sense of threat, the stronger theties that bind the partnership together. The vision and goals mustcreate a win-win situation for all partners from government,industry, and universities. The threat of survival and theopportunities for revitalization provide the compelling vision andmotivations for AGATE.

• Every alliance is unique . Every alliance has a unique mix ofgovernment-industry motivations, products, time-scale,intellectual property concerns, leadership candidates, fundingsources, and organizational structure. A vital strength of theSpace Act Joint Sponsored Research Agreement process is itsflexibility to allow all of these factors to be negotiated in the bestmutual interests of all parties across traditional public/privatesector boundaries. The AGATE JSRA, BOH, Executive Councilgovernance, and supporting non-profits structures are uniquelydesigned for one consortium.

• Incorporate life-cycle planning . Plan the collaboration to includeall appropriate phases in the life cycle of a technologydevelopment effort. The consortium must organize its efforts inintegrated product teams that incorporate considerations from themarketing to the production to the sales and service for theproducts to be derived from the efforts. Use the “ Third Generation R&D ” (Roussel, et al.) as a model for strategicorganization of the partnership. This model contemplatesintegrated product teams that pool the resources required for fulllife-cycle R&D. This R&D model integrates marketing organizationguidance into the R&D plan. This step alone is very challengingfor both government or industry organizations. Government R&Dorganizations view traditional industry marketing functions asinsufficiently far term in scope to contribute to longer range R&Dplanning. Industry marketing organizations view R&D as beyondtheir usual sanctioned purview. Success in implementation of athird-generation alliance requires that this gap be bridged.Industry marketing organizations will be extremely cautiousabout discussing marketing information for fear of raising JusticeDepartment flags regarding price signaling between joint venturepartners who may also be competitors. The Practical Guide to Joint Ventures & Corporate Alliances by Lynch offers furthersdiscussion on this matter. However, the presence of a governmentpartner in a joint venture appears to provide for additionalprotection from this concern in ways not available in strictlyprivate-sector joint ventures. This is one example of theboundaries for additional research in public/private jointventures. The AGATE Consortium formed a team of industrymarketing organizations with government leadership to poolmarket analysis efforts. These pooled market analyses providedvital marketing guidance to the technical teams in the consortium.

• Balance the portfolio . Alliances operated as consortia mustprovide return on investments in both the near- and far-term.Productive consortia have successfully balanced their programplans between near-term objectives and products that buildtoward those in the far term. These lessons from past consortiaare well elucidated in R&D Collaboration on Trial (Gibson &Rogers). The portfolio in a public/private joint venture brings thestrength and longer term view of the government partners into abalanced plan with the shorter term strategies of the private

sector. AGATE deliverables include technologies for both theretrofit aircraft market and the new small aircraft transportationsystem.

• Use a facilitator . Engage an independent third party facilitator fordevelopment of the business side of the collaboration. The rolesfor the facilitator include research on best business practicesappropriate to the uniqueness of each partnership, auditing ofmembers, dispute resolution, training advisor, and legal counselfor the industry members of the partnership. These roles areinappropriate for the government member of collaboration toundertake. AGATE was developed using American TechnologyInitiative, Inc. (AmTech) as the facilitator.

• Implement sound systems assurance processes . With an allianceof diverse membership, wide variance in systems engineeringresources and skills will exist. Systems assurance supports theprogram office in management of the technical requirementsdocuments, the master schedule, and specialty studies required bythe technical teams. A successful systems assurance processrequires leadership by a member with the requisite capabilities.The government partner may be the logical member to lead theoverall systems assurance process. In AGATE, the systemsassurance team is lead by NASA and composed of industrysystems engineers assigned from all of the technical teams in thepartnership.

• Communicate, communicate, communicate . Plan communicationswith members and the public as though the life of the consortiumdepended on it, because it does. Establish a public affairsstrategy, including a newsletter and video products to share thevision, and an electronic file server with a home page. Plan for asmuch trade and public exposure for the effort as is warranted bythe nature of the public role (as users for example) and budgetconstraints. Until collaboration becomes commonplace in the U.S.,the champions who lead the partnership will be called upon to beextraordinary communicators with the members. The decision bya company to collaborate with competitors is made at the seniorcorporate levels. As those senior leaders and their managerschange, renewed communications must be undertaken withcurrent members to support continued clarity of focus,commitment, and education on these new (unfamiliar and even

counterintuitive) ways of doing business. The principalcommunication instrument for the AGATE vision is an interactivecomputer animation that can be demonstrated from a laptopcomputer, video tape, or accessed from the consortium’s WorldWide Web home page (http://agate.larc.nasa.gov/). Without sucha communications tool, it is unlikely that the AGATE vision couldhave been communicated with sufficient clarity to establish thepartnership.

• Train, train, train . Train to prepare government and industrymembers for operation as high performance teams. Consortia areIntegrated Product Teams (IPT). IPT training establishes clarityin roles and empowerment boundaries for leadership teams,management teams, and technical teams. It is vital that the theseteams develop shared ground rules to achieve high levels ofperformance. Clearly, such team building is valuable in anyorganization. For a consortium, however, with teams composed ofmembers of diverse organizations, team building creates the vitalrelationships required for success. Include both the industry andgovernment partners in joint training. Use such guides as The Skilled Facilitator (Roger M. Schwartz) to train teams in groupprocesses. Though training for alliance leaders is not readilyavailable, The Practical Guide to Joint Ventures & Corporate Alliances (Robert Porter Lynch) is an excellent guide. AGATE hasundertaken Integrated Product Development Systems (IPDS)training with its FAA partners to develop clarity in integratedproduct teams’ (IPT) roles, responsibilities, empowermentboundaries, and inter-relationships. Consortia can be thought ofas large-scale IPTs.

• Establish ground rules for groups . Take the time to establishprocess improvement mechanisms for teams and groups. Whileprocess improvement is important in any organization, it is no lessthan vital in a partnership. Participants from diverse companies,universities, and government organizations bring a wide varietyof organizational cultures, skills, and operating practices. Teamleaders must create opportunities for groups to create effectiveworking relationships, built on trust that is based on predictabilityof partners. The most rapid means for teams to accomplish thisgoal is to take the time to establish and follow ground rules.Expect that as long as 1 year may be required for groups of

participants from diverse organizations to become highperformance teams. The Skilled Facilitator , (Schwartz), providesexcellent guidance toward process improvement for teams. TheAGATE members maintain the BOH as a guide for team operations.

• Expect resistance . Alliances offer a means to trade traditionalcontrol for more valuable influence. On the government side ofthe partnership, it is difficult for a civil service contracting officerand the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) torelinquish control associated with contracts. Civil servants areimbued with their responsibilities as stewards of public funds.Control by management chains of command in traditional R&Dorganizations is difficult to relinquish. On the industry side, manycompanies do not have a partnering mentality and may viewcollaboration very skeptically. However, once the government andindustry parties to a collaboration share the value of thepartnership’s goals, then it will be more acceptable to relinquishtraditional control mechanisms. This realization occurs when theparties understand that they are trading the controllingmechanisms appropriate to contracted R&D for the ability toinfluence each other for purposes that are not achievable usingtraditional means. Remember that for every person with a visionfor the future, there are one thousand guarding the past.Resistance to these new ways of doing business will begin to fadeonly once the lessons of AGATE and other public-private joint R&Dventures are well communicated and understood at programmanagement levels.

• Anticipate culture shock . The nature of consortium operationrequires establishment of an integrated product team withrepresentation from marketing, legal, procurement, research,production, maintenance, and product operations by the usercommunity. In most government R&D organizations, such breadthof scope in projects is often not part of a researcher’s or researchmanager’s experience. R&T consortium leaders face a greatchallenge. That challenge is to strike the proper balance betweenflexibility that supports spontaneous creativity and controlrequired to effectively manage projects. Conducting research to fitschedules in an IPT is anathema to research engineers at worst,challenging at best. All participants in a joint R&D venture mustprepare for the culture shock that will affect their research

organizations. This is as true for industry members as for those ingovernment. Training and continuous open communicationsthroughout the consortium and the organization within which itoperates are keys to managing culture shock. The level of effortin a joint venture is greater than many traditional researchactivities. The conflicts will be greater and the challenges to learnnew skills in teaming and negotiation greater. In the end, thechoice to participate in a joint venture requires a personalcommitment by each participant. For some individuals, traditionalways of doing business may be more rewarding and appropriate.For those choosing collaboration, the rewards will include thesatisfaction of contributing to advancements that would nototherwise be possible. The experiences of the MCC Consortiumprovide additional useful background ( R&D Collaboration on Trial ,Gibson & Rogers) on cultural challenges. The government andindustry members in AGATE have transitioned through changes inpersonnel that could be described in some cases as culture-shockbased. NASA managers for AGATE endeavored to make theexperimental nature of AGATE clear to both government andindustry partnering organizations. This provided an environmentfor individuals and organizations to explore their abilities toparticipate in the manner required for collaboration. As theexperimental phase of AGATE draws to a close in 1996,government and industry staffing has stabilized.

• Organize for change . Establish clear roles in the organizationalchange being undertaken to establish a collaborative structure.Successful change requires clear understanding of who thesponsor, champion, and change agents are. This clarity isespecially important in the government organizations undertakingthe change required to implement collaborative alliances. Thesponsor is the senior manager with budget and personnel controlto serve as “patron” for the champions and change agents. Thechampion is the person responsible for developing the vision,partnership, and organization of the collaboration. The changeagents are those who will be asked to make the joint ventureoperate and do the work of the partnership. AGATE benefitedfrom the sponsorship for change by a visionary NASAAdministrator, from enthusiastic champions for change in bothgovernment and industry at the program management level, andfrom dedicated agents for change at the technical team level.

• Manage outside-in . Traditional government organizations manageinside-out. This means that their dominant communications,decisionmaking, and management paths are internally focused.As a partner in an alliance, much greater attention by thegovernment partners on the industry partners (and visa versa) isrequired than is typical of contracted R&D relationships. Alliancescreate new external communications, decisionmaking, andmanagement paths that may duplicate or possibly conflict withtraditional internal systems. These new relationships challengetraditional internally focused management systems to establisheffective means of operations that fulfill both parties internalresponsibilities for sound program management.

• Segregate the change organization . Protect champions and changeagents from traditional line organization pressures andprocedures. This step can minimize the conflict between thechanges sought in the new ways of doing business with thetraditional practices. Establish expectations from senior agencyleaders (change sponsors) that resources will be provided todocument lessons learned. The flip side of this lesson suggests anopposite approach. In other words, it can be valuable to integratethe change-group into a line organization. This approach canfacilitate transfer of the new alliance operating capabilities toestablished line organizations. The success of either approachrelies on the management styles, attitudes, and support of theorganization’s leaders and managers. AGATE operates as a largelyindependent element of the NASA AST Program. This relationshiphas provided important opportunities for collaboration betweenAGATE and other AST elements.

• Clarify alliance career paths . An individual’s participation in analliance may be will outside the traditional career paths in mostgovernment and industry organizations. This is specially true forgovernment R&D organizations that reward researchers fortraditional research products and publications. In the privatesector, companies can compensate by providing shares in profitsderived from the joint venture. Government organizations facegreater challenges in re-engineering reward, recognition, andcompensation for participants in a joint venture. NASA and othergovernment agencies must meet these challenges if alliances are

to become a primary mode for implementation of moregovernment programs.

• Avoid mixing old with new business practices . It will be temptingfor government leaders and managers to take “short cuts” toimplement certain functions in a joint venture by using traditionalpractices. For example, if certain program support, systemsengineering, systems analysis, market research, or othercontractors are conveniently accessible, it may appear that thestartup can be accelerated using these old mechanisms. The shortterm gains will not likely carry over to the buy-in andcommitment of the principal consortium members in the longterm. It is best to operate all functions in the joint venture ascomplete partnerships with co-planning, co-funding, and co-execution. AGATE was initially implemented with a mix ofcollaborative and contracted efforts. These different modescaused complexities in consortium operations. The solution was torealign the mis-aligned efforts in the collaborative mode.

• Streamline oversight management . Alliance developers shouldavoid duplicating external program oversight functions that arebuilt into the alliance itself. Government agencies make extensiveuse of both ad hoc and formal, Congressionally approved advisorygroups. NASA operates the Space Advisory Council under whichthe Aeronautics Advisory Committee (AAC) conducts programreviews for the agency. The AAC in turn establishes AeronauticsResearch & Technology Subcommittees (ARTS). The AAC andARTS review NASA programs to provide industry and universityoversight. The purpose of this oversight has historically been toadvise NASA on relevance and priorities for agency programs.Alliances can build these oversight functions the partnershipthrough the business plan alignment and alliance governanceprocesses. Therefore, use of traditional oversight functions canbecome duplicative in an alliance.

• Anticipate operational support requirements . A large-scalecollaboration may involve 10 or more partners with numeroustechnical tasks per partner and multiple teams and subteams.Such an organization requires support for meeting planning (andthe unavoidable replanning) and operations, communications,legal consulting, consortium property ownership (intellectual aswell as physical property), and data and documentation archiving

and control. In an era of contracting government, it is impracticalto support from the government partners’ workforce. Thepractical solution employed by AGATE was to establish a memberservices non-profit corporation (501(c)6) to provide the supportrequired by the alliance members. The non-profit operations arefunded by both government and industry partners.

• Celebrate progress . Establish the means for recognition ofprogress in the alliance. This is important because conduct of thealliance business takes place apart from the participants’ homecompanies and agencies. Recognition and rewards for allianceprogress may not typically be in the mainstream of those homeorganizations. Celebration through press releases, newsletters,awards, and recognition provides vital visibility of allianceprogress to the alliance members themselves.

• Prepare for management technology transfer . Transfer and applyalliance management technology lessons through the “tennisshoes” approach. That is, success in transferring these newmanagement technologies requires the active participation ofthose who have lived and worked in these new ways of doingbusiness. Prepare to transfer alliance management technology byassigning personnel to work in existing joint ventures or assignexisting alliance personnel to develop new alliances. The culturaldifferences, organizational understanding, and negotiation skillsfor alliance development are not readily learned throughacademic approaches. Those in government with allianceexperience and who have the trust and credibility with industrypartners are top candidates to lead alliance development.

These lessons are based on experience, observations, and self-studyfrom the government leaders’ perspective in the AGATE Consortium.Some of the lessons can be described as “We got lucky in figuringthat out early,” others as “I sure wish we’d thought of that sooner,”and a few as “We should have fought harder with management forthis one.” The AGATE lessons learned apply to certain endeavors andnot to others (not all alliances are alike). Simpler conventionalmethods of one-on-one/two or three collaboration betweengovernment, industry, and university partners exist. However, eventhese partnerships should start down their path questioning thesuitability of traditional contracts or grants for their purposes.

Alliance Design and Implementation

Four steps describe the design and implementation of an alliance.These steps follow background planning, advocacy, and publicannouncement of intent by the government to form the candidatealliance. To be responsive to the government’s obligation to fairness,the intent to establish an alliance is announced in the CommerceBusiness Daily. The four steps may be accomplished in workshopsettings separated by sufficient time for preparations. Use of aprofessional, knowledgeable facilitator can speed and smooth thesesteps. The steps include:

1 . Establish commitment by industry and government partners toshared vision and goals. This step must engage those individualsfrom the government, industry, and university partners withauthority to commit their organization to the collaboration. Forindustry and government, these individuals typically come fromsenior management.

2 . Negotiate specific objectives. This step may benefit from use ofsurvey instruments. The candidate partners can be surveyed bythe government member or the facilitator to assess those strategicobjectives of common interest that will lead to the partnershipgoals. The survey instrument measures partners’ technologydevelopment priorities on scales of risk, time, payoff, andwillingness to commit specific resources.

3 . Negotiate specific tasks, resources, and performing organizations.This step is the one most distinct from FAR contracted R&D. Theindustry partners are requested to define the tasks (statements ofwork) required to accomplish the partnership objectives. Theyare asked to allocate resources to these tasks and to recommendperforming organizations to the government partners.

4 . Sign agreements and establish governance. Partners negotiateand finalize intellectual property rights and execute theirpartnership legal documents (e.g., JSRA Terms and Conditions).This step commits their organizations to the matching resourcesfor their assigned tasks. The partnership then establishes theirgovernance representatives (for AGATE, the partners elect theirrepresentatives to the Executive Council).

In FAR-based R&D contracts, steps 2 and 3 are governmentresponsibilities and cannot be conducted with the benefit of opendialogue between partners. In FAR contracts and CAN competitions,the government employees are sequestered and prohibited fromdiscussions with industry during the competition. The ability tomaintain open dialogue is one of the important flexibilities of thejoint venture approach under the Space Act. As a result, these foursteps can be accomplished with high levels of quality in as little as 6months. In comparison, even a simple R&D contract under the FARcan require 12 to 36 months, depending on the nature of the bidcompetition and the potential resulting dispute resolution process.

University Roles

Universities in the U.S. face challenges similar to government andindustry as organizations clarify core competencies and undertakedownsizing and contraction. Alliances involving universities bringthe unique expertise, facilities, and longer term strategies to bear onthe goals. In AGATE, universities are in the Principal, Associate, andSupporting Member categories. These are institutions whosecharters and missions are aligned with those of the general aviationcommunity and AGATE.

Universities with “products” in the marketplace related to pilottraining services and with related research capabilities have joinedAGATE as cost-matching Principal Members. Those withcommercialization interests through university-affiliated spin-outcompanies have joined as resource-sharing Associate Members.Others with interests in supporting AGATE R&D as fundedperforming organizations have joined as Supporting Members. A fewuniversities have been unable to work with the restrictions on datadissemination, members dues requirements, or cost-sharing andhave chosen not to participate in AGATE.

University participation in AGATE research and in a national designcompetition brings an important dimension to revitalization of theU.S. general aviation industry. Beginning in 1995, NASA, the FAA,and the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) instituted theNational General Aviation Design Competition. This competitionengages the university academic community in the nationalrevitalization efforts. These university roles in AGATE help positionthe general aviation workforce for revitalization. The economic andtechnological health of this industry sector from the mid-1980’s to

the present has declined precipitously. This decline has created asituation making it extremely difficult to attract the best andbrightest graduates to the general aviation community. Universitiesparticipating in AGATE generate excitement and commitment to thegeneral aviation community among their best and brightest students.The results of their efforts bode well for the level of talent thisindustry will attract to its workforce in the future.

Small Businesses

The developers of the AGATE Consortium faced an early challenge toinclude small businesses as members. The challenge was how tointegrate innovative small businesses who have higher levels of risktolerance, and flexibility, but who did not have established productsin the marketplace. To complicate matters, established businesses inany consortium shun partnering with companies of lesser strengthsin research, engineering, certification, manufacturing, sales, andservice.

The solution for AGATE was to establish the Associate Membershipcategory. This category provided access to certain membershiprights and privileges for small businesses that had won either SmallBusiness Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business TechnologyTransfer (STTR) contracts. The small business and the AGATE teammembers negotiate on an exchange of technical results of value toboth parties. If successful, then the small business is invited to joinas an Associate Member.

The NASA small business programs leaders recognized theopportunity offered by AGATE to small businesses. Those leadersestablished general aviation focused subtopics in the SBIR and STTRprograms. NASA aligned the objectives of the subtopic solicitationswith the technology strategies in AGATE and other government andindustry programs in support of industry revitalization. The result isstrengthened quality and pace of innovations reaching themarketplace from small general aviation businesses. These resultsbenefit NASA through higher return on small business investments.These results also benefit large companies whose vendors are thosesmall businesses. The strategic integration of small businessprograms in a government-industry alliance can bring significantbenefits in this win-win situation.

AGATE Successes

Early AGATE success stories illustrate the power and benefits of jointgovernment-industry R&D collaboration in strategic alliances.Members of AGATE have very rapidly converged on standards fordatabus systems, composite materials properties, electronic enginecontrol system architectures, andcommunications/navigation/surveillance (CNS) system design andoperational specifications. In some of these cases, the generalaviation industry has struggled for years to accomplish such industryconsensus. The AGATE successes can be attributed to thecollaborative process, the consortium’s technical teams’ leadership,and to the emergence of lower-cost technologies that motivate thepartners to rapidly reach consensus.

The 1996 Olympic Summer Games in Atlanta provided the backdropfor one of these early success stories. In partnership with theAtlanta Vertical Flight Association, Helicopter AssociationInternational, and Georgia Tech Research Institute, eight AGATEmember companies developed the world’s first free-flight system foruse in Atlanta. Working together as Project HeliStar, the teamcreated a “highways in the sky” capability. The effort wasaccomplished in less than 7 months with a joint government-industry investment of less than $2 million. Satellite-basednavigation, digital radio datalink communications, and advanced flatpanel displays technologies were integrated to produce a CNS systemproviding pilots and controllers with graphical traffic, weather,moving maps, and Olympic venue status information in real time.The Atlanta Olympics project sets the stage and accelerates the pacefor modernization of the nation’s emerging air traffic managementfree-flight system.

This “highway in the sky” system was installed in 50 aircraft andoperated during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. An additional 60 unitswere produced at the request of the White House to meetrequirements for special security forces. Using this system, the pilotsees the “highways in the sky,” the traffic on those highways, real-time weather affecting the highways, and the color-coded restrictionstatus of each Olympic venue. The system provides pilots ofcommercial cargo, security, emergency services, and law enforcementaircraft with free-flight access to the restricted airspace during theOlympics.

The commercial cargo operators estimate that over $20 million willbe generated in revenues that would have been lost without theAGATE technology. Government partners estimated that such anendeavor would have required more than 3 years (vs. 7 months) andmuch greater funding to accomplish under the FARs. Furthermore,had the project been funded under a traditional FAR R&D contract,there would have been little “buy-in” by the users and producers ofthe system hardware, software, and operating procedures. TheAtlanta Olympics provide a shining example of the benefits of thecollaborative approach to R&D in a strategic alliance.

B e n e f i t s

The benefits of a successful collaboration can be summarized forgovernment, industry, and university partners as follows:

• Improved competition . Increased industrial competition resultsfrom collaboration that is focused on industry-wide bases intechnologies, standards, design guidelines, tools, and certification.This increased competition results from the ability of the industryto compete domestically and internationally at a higher level ofproduct performance, price, and quality. Most importantly forindustry, increased sales of consortium-derived products resultsthrough the strength of coordinated R&D leading to productstandards.

• Cost savings . Cost sharing multiplies the return on R&Dinvestments with each partner sharing the results of collaborativeprojects. This sharing supports higher-risk and higher-cost R&Dand reduces the cost of "failures" in high-risk endeavors.

• Shortened product development cycles . Speed and efficiency ofR&D result from more consortium flexibility and reducedduplication of efforts. Product development cycle times arereduced by developing standards, guidelines, protocols,certification bases and methods concurrently with technology.This benefit results by teaming with the certifiers and regulatorsat the front end of the technology development cycle.

• Rapid technology transfer . Companies can more rapidly adjust toemerging technologies through sharing of technical and marketresearch information. Collaborative efforts substantially reduce oreliminate the Not Invented Here (NIH) effect that permeatesindependent R&D efforts. Alliances virtually automate technologytransfer for government R&D labs. This efficiency results from

the strategic alignment of industry and government businessplans toward common goals.

• Increased relevance of government and university labs . Mostimportantly for government agencies today, the role ofgovernment labs can become more substantially integrated intothe business plans of U.S. industry. Universities simplify thechallenge to be relevant to industry through partnering in analliance.

• Reduced in-house support staffing requirements . A consortium-based program has the potential to shift administration andstaffing requirements from traditional government procurementtoward legal counsel organizations. This shift can substantiallyreduce the procurement workforce and associated calendar timerequired to administer major programs. However, to obtain fulladvantage of these potential gains, the industry partners must bewilling to support a member-services nonprofit (or similar)organization to move certain of these functions into the privatesector. A limited amount of increased legal counsel staffing mustbe planned for; however, the overall effect is reduced in-housesupport requirements.

The joint venture partners have much more access to these benefitsin a skillfully managed joint venture than they could hope to achieveindependently or through other traditional means (contractedresearch for example).

S u m m a r y

Federal R&D investments can be significantly leveraged for greaternational benefit through strategic alliances with industry anduniversity partners. AGATE is a large-scale collaboration withlessons applicable to various public/private joint venture candidates.As of the end of 1995, AGATE was the largest member consortium inthe U.S. Only because of the 1984 NCRA, the recent governmentreinvention initiatives, and the JSRA Space Act mechanism, could anendeavor with the boldness of the AGATE vision have beenundertaken. The benefits of AGATE will be felt in every one of thecommunities, counties, and states served by this nation’s vastinfrastructure of over 18,000 general aviation landing facilities.AGATE’s small aircraft transportation system goal is one example of asurprising result of reinventing government.

The AGATE Consortium offers many lessons for future public/privatejoint R&D collaboration. These lessons counter past myths andmisconceptions.

• Myth: The government has set rules and procedures that cannotbe altered.

Fact: New rules and procedures are highly flexible. The JSRA andother new (non-FAR) business instruments provide highly flexiblemeans to negotiate the terms and conditions required for asuccessful government-industry partnership.

• Myth: Government funding for industry research is “corporatepork,” or industry welfare.

Fact : Strategic alliances turn federal labs into strategic partnerswith industry. In joint R&D collaboration, government, industry,and university partners share in the resource commitments.Industry commits resources from within their strategic R&Dinvestment plans. This process aligns investment planning usingfederal and private sector resources (personnel, facilities, andfunds) toward goals of national strategic importance. To labelsuch investments as “corporate pork” is to seriouslyunderestimate the value to the nation of technology strategy andfederal labs as strategic partners.

• Myth: Government-industry collaboration represents nationalindustrial policy.

Fact: Technology strategy is not industrial policy. Joint public-private R&D collaboration such as in the AGATE Consortiumstrengthen the nation’s technology strategies. The timescales forsuch collaboration stretch beyond typical ROI timescales forindustry R&D investments. The private sector partners assumefull responsibility for the technology strategy undertaken in thepartnership. To label such collaboration as industrial policy is tomiscomprehend the long-term timescales required for successfultechnology strategy.

• Myth: Government-organized collaboration with industry is anti-competitive.

Fact: Collaboration increases competitiveness. The focus of anyR&D collaboration in the U.S. must by law be on precompetitivedeliverables. The industry competitors who collaborate in the

joint venture must have common interests in achievement ofthose deliverables. Finally, the efforts to achieve thosedeliverables must require resources beyond the means ofindividual companies or government agencies. The result ofcollaboration raises the tide of industrial competition to higherplanes of quality, performance, and price competitiveness.

• Myth: The government (or the industry) loses control incollaboration.

Fact: Partners in collaboration increase their influence. Astrategic alliance provides a tool that offers both partnersinfluence over each other to achieve strategic goals. In fact, eachpartner gives up traditional control over resources and effortstoward those goals. Clearly, the goals must be of sufficient(strategic) value to both parties to merit such a decision.

• Myth: A government-industry alliance is focused on the nearterm at the expense of the far term.

Fact: Strategic alliances are for the long term. U.S. industryalliances have spanned more than 20 years, and R&D Consortia inthe U.S. have operated over 10 years. Strategic alliances, by theirvery nature, tend to set far-term goals. Success in an alliancerequires coordination of far-term and short-term objectives. Atthe same time, shorter term objectives are essential to providestrong participation by industry, but they must all contribute tothe farther term goals.

The advent of strategic alliances adds a new means for a governmentR&D agency such as NASA to build strength and capabilities. In anera of contracting government, the strategic alliance becomes a vitaltool to strengthen government capabilities and relevance for nationalbenefits.

TABLE 1. AGATE Consortium Members (July 1996)PRINCIPAL MEMBERS

1 . Aircraft Modular Products, Inc.2 . AlliedSignal Aerospace3 . ARINC4. ARNAV Systems Corporation5 . AvroTec6 . Cox and Company7 . BFGoodrich Corporation8 . Cessna Aircraft Company9 . Cirrus Design Corporation10 . Digital Equipment Corporation11 . Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University12 . Global Aircraft13 . Florida Institute of Technology14 . Harris Corp.15 . Hartzell Propeller Company16 . Honeywell, Inc.17 . Impact Dynamics18 . Innovative Dynamics Incorporated19 . Jeppesen Sanderson20 . Kestrel Aircraft Corp.21 . Lancair22 . Lockheed Martin23 . NavRadio24 . Ohio State University25 . Pan Am Systems26 . Raytheon Aircraft-Beech Hawker27 . Raytheon E-Systems, Montek Division28 . Rockwell Collins Avionics29 . Ross Engineering30 . Sensenich Propeller Company31 . Simula Corporation32 . Stoddard Hamilton Aircraft, Inc.33 . Teledyne Continental Motors34 . Terra Corporation35 . Textron Lycoming Engines36 . Trimble Navigation

TABLE 1. AGATE Consortium Members (July 1996)

-Continued- 37 . University of North Dakota38 . United Technologies -- Hamilton Standard39 . Unison

SUPPORTING MEMBERS

40 . Advanced Creations, Inc.41 . Airsport Corporation42 . Allison Engine Company43 . Airplane Owners and Pilots Association -- Air Safety Foundation44 . Birhle Applied Research45 . General Aviation Manufacturers Association46 . Mississippi State University -- Raspet Flight Research Center47 . Mitre Corporation48 . ModWorks49 . Mooney Aircraft Corporation50 . National Air Transportation Association51 . National Business Aircraft Association52 . Research Triangle Institute53 . Seagull Technologies54 . Seemann Composites55 . Small Aircraft Manufacturers Corporation56 . Technology Systems Incorporated57 . The New Piper Aircraft Corporation58 . University of Central Florida59 . University of Illinois60 . University of Kansas61 . University of Tennessee Space Institute62 . University Corporation for Atmospheric Research63 . Williams International

TABLE 1. AGATE Consortium Members (July 1996)

-Concluded-

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

64 . Systran Corporation65 . Wichita State University -- National Institute for Aviation

Research

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS

66 . National Aeronautics & Space Administration- Ames Research Center- Langley Research Center- Lewis Research Center

67 . Federal Aviation Administration- General Aviation & Vertical Flight- Civil Aero-Medical Institute (CAMI)- Small Aircraft Certification Directorate

68 . U.S. Air Force Wright Labs

TABLE 2a) Business Instruments Compared and Contrasted

PROCESS F. A. R.CONTRACTED

R&D

JSRAJOI NT R&D VENTURE

CANCOOPERATI VE

AGREEMENT NOTI CEPurpose Government acquires

goods & servicesGovernment & industrypartners collaborate in pre-competitive, industry-wideadvancements

Government sponsorscompetitive selection of R&Trelevant to Agency missionrequirements

Businessinstrument

Federal AcquisitionContract

• Federal Partnership“Contract” (Gvt.Consortium Agreements)

• Customized agreements• Meet JSRA P.I.P.

requirements• Not subject to F.A.R. or

NASA Coop Agmts Hndbk

• Chiles’ Act CooperativeAgreement (single“contract” to team)

• Meet Gvt. ResearchGrant & CooperativeAgreements Handbook(5800.1c) requirements(F.A.R.-based)

Participants &roles

Contractorsdeliver goods &services

• Partners• Gvt. stimulates industry,

has significant technicalrole

• Partners• Gvt. stimulates industry,

has significant technicalrole

Early planningprocess(Goals &Objectives)

Government &Industry share pre-solicitationinformation

• Gvt. sets broad goals• Industry establishes

specific R&T objectives anddetermines R&T Taskplans

• Gvt. sets broad goals• Industry establishes

specific R&T objectivesand determines R&T Taskplans

RFPpreparation

Gvt. prepares RFP;communications aresequestered

Government & industrycollaborate in JSRA R&T Taskdefinition, resource allocations

Industry develops technicalplan response to Gvt.-developed CAN;sequestered communic’n’s

Qualificationof participants

Government qualifiesbidders

Government establishesmembership criteria, industrypartners concur

Industry develops teams andproposals; Gvt. qualifiesproposals

TABLE 2b) Business Instruments Compared and Contrasted


R&D


CANCOOPERATI VE

AGREEMENT NOTI CEStatement ofWork

Government writeswork statements

Government & Industrycollaborate on workstatements

Industry writes workstatements

Performingorganizationselection

Sequesteredgovernment SourceEvaluation Board(SEB) selectscontractor

Industry leads in consensusselection of performingorganizations; Gvt.approves.

Sequestered governmentSource Evaluation Board(SEB) selects team.

Financialreportingrequirements

FAR-based, non-negotiablerequirements

GAAP-based, negotiated;Government audit option;Consortium self-audit

FAR-31-based; Governmentdetermines schedule & auditoptions

Technicalreporting

Government-established contractrequirements

Government-industrynegotiated communicationsplan

Proposed by industry team

Programredirection

Government &Industry collaborate;government decides

Government & industry jointly,rapidly establish requirementsfor redirection andimplementation

Program redirection directedby Gvt.

Taskredirection

Contractmodificationsrecommended bygovernment &industry participants,negotiated byprocurement

JSRA Task redirection jointlyrecommended and negotiatedby government and industrymembers; implemented withNCA modifications

Task redirection managedby industry team members;Gvt. technical supportredirection negotiated withGvt. performingorganizations

TABLE 2c) Business Instruments Compared and Contrasted


R&D


CANCOOPERATI VE

AGREEMENT NOTI CETechnologytransfercontrols

By controlleddistribution (LERD,etc.)

All results and deliverables 5year exemption from FOIA bylegislation; shared bymembers only

Chiles’ Act promotes widedissemination of results; 2 to5 year delay in disseminationnegotiable

Technologytransfer &IntellectualPropertyrights

To contracted partyinitially, then to otherindustry participantsin program

NegotiableTo all members as agreed toin JSRA Terms and Conditionspartnership

Through Articles ofCollaboration

Programresponsive-ness toindustry

Constrained by FARpractices to ‘clockspeeds’ ofprocurement system

• Provides immediacy oftasking of partners at ‘clockspeeds’ of technologicalinnovation

• Reduces lag for insertion ofrapidly emergingtechnologies

• Provides immediacy oftasking of partners at‘clock speeds’ oftechnological innovation

• Reduces lag for insertionof rapidly emergingtechnologies

Resourcecommitments

Governmentresources ascontracted (FixedPrice, Cost Plus, etc.)

Cost equitably borne bygovernment and non-government partners; typically50/50

Cost equitably borne bygovernment and non-government partners;typically 50/50

In-KindAllowables

Not applicable IR&D allowableIn-kind as defined in JSRAProgram Information Package(Substantially identical to OMBCircular 110)

IR&D allowableNon-cash contributions asdefined in OMB Circular 110;also see 14CFR Part 1274

Bib l iography

Gibson, David V.; and Rogers, Everett M.: R&D Collaboration on Trial .Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

Lewis, Jordan D.: Partnerships for Profit--Structuring and Managing Strategic Alliances . The Free Press, 1990.

Lynch, Robert Porter: The Practical Guide to Joint Ventures and Corporate Alliances . John Wiley & Sons, 1990.

Roussel, Philip A.; Saad, Kamal N.; and Erickson, Tamara J. (Arthur D.Little, Inc.): Third Generation R&D . Harvard Business School Press,1991.

Schwartz, Roger M.: The Skilled Facilitator--Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups . Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.

(re)inventing government-industry r&d collaborationmln/ltrs-pdfs/nasa-96-tm110271.pdf · this...

Documents