We are processing your request. Please be patient.

Across almost every industry segments and all technology arenas, these days it is a rare large or mid-sized firms that has not instituted some form of External Technology Seeking function - usually organized as a form of Open Innovation effort.  Often at - and/or reporting to - senior management levels, those charged with this responsibility are tasked explicitly to look outside the firm for complementary capabilities and skill-sets relevant to addressing current problems and anticipated future needs.

• A range of intelligence gathering techniques may be employed -- from literature review and online searches to event participation and cultivating professional connection.
• The forms of relationship to those external sources may range from small-scale technical collaboration at the operational level through quite substantial funded R&D; from (cross-) licensing transactions through equity participation to important, longer-term business collaborations and strategc alliances
  

More recently, a key focus of these efforts has become that of trying to keep a finger on the pulse of development of new and potentially disruptive technologies. These are developments which will likely impact existing market conditions at some level and/or are those which could well represent new market opportunities.

Shortened product life cycles Globalization of competition Increased specialization of skills and capabilities, particularly in knowledge- and research-based fields Many Corporate R&D facilities - often seen previously as the crown-jewel of company endeavor - have been downsized with primary emphasis instead shifted towards support current and near-term concerns. The more limited R&D capability of many mid-sized firms continues to be almost entirely similarly focused. Problem? Stock price in part reflects perception of the market of capability to sustain longer term growth. Essential to growth-oriented firms are New (disruptive) Technologies which Facilitate entry into new market opportunities Enable new products or enhanced product features Expand lines of business	Our extensive Tracking of all aspects of the SBIR Awardee business condition shows that External Sourcing in its various forms among these now almost 21,500 firms has involved almost 2500 Large and Mid-sized corporations in the role of Tech Seeker and an estimated 30%-35% of all SBIR awardees As partners and collaborators like any other, Quicker time-to-market for new products Cost effective leverage on and supplement to internal capabilities Additional competitive advantage from unique capabilities Reduced product-development costs Potential for previously unplanned products or features
xxxx

 

Following the talent: who the technically trained now work for
In the past, these types of external access arrangements have primarily engaged the universities, non-profit R&D facilities, the federal labs and, on occasion, other corporations. However, changes in the labor markets find far more of the technical trained now employed by smaller firms.

That critical shift has profoundly changed the dynamics of the tech transfer process. Of necessity the Tech Seeker must also now confront the fairly serious challenge of following that talent - an often daunting task, given not only the numbers of firms involved but the fact that so many of the firms involved are very small and early-stage and not thereby always readily discernible on the 'usual' radar screens.
        In this context, a number of companies and organizations have evolved to support the Tech Seeker function in various ways. For many Tech Seekers the funneling and sifting device that is the federal SBIR-STTR program has become a particularly useful resource. Involving an important cross-section of the technology-based, small business community, Over the life of the program, SBIR Awardees now total now almost 21,000 firms - some being now well-known firms which are themselves now reaching back into the SBIR community. SBIR program participation serves well

 

• to list companies involved, flagging their areas of activity
• while also enabling some level of competency validation.

       There is also considerable value in the fact that the SBIR-involved firm brings to the table an access to resources in their own right -- federal funding of the high-risk R&D effort and, in many cases, access to downstream contract opportunity. These benefits can serve well to leverage on the internal resources of the Tech Seeker, underwriting some of the risk of working in that space and defraying part of that cost.

- See more at: http://www.inknowvation.com/sbir-community/tech-seekers#sthash.ztHLAVYo.dpuf iP³: Tech Seekers
To date, some 50-60 major and mid-sized corporations from a range of industry segments are now working with idi using some part of the ASSET system systematically to engage the talent that is SBIR-verified to address their out-sourced technology development needs. Those Tech Seekers - as we define them - interested in using this Proposal-Based component of the ASSET System have TWO ways to get the process started and to have their Topic(s) listed.

1. Those serious about engaging SBIR talent on a systematic basis can establish a reasonably priced one-year Corporate Retainer Account.. Having an Account obviously includes full use of the other parts of the ASSET System. For iP³ purposes, the Corporation being an Account Holder allows use of any/all of the three components which make up that system; SBIRConnect; FutureThinking and SBIRChallenge.
       Account status also includes ONE no-cost iP³ Topic insertion with all others at deeply discounted rates - a cost-saving that actually factors to more than the annual Account Set-Up Fee.
2. Those new to the space and/or anticipating only a now-and-again engagement of SBIR talent may opt for the pay-as-we-go approach.  For these Users, iP³involvement is limited to SBIRChallenge. However, all aspects of how the project(s) are handled is the same as for those with full Retainer Account status.
       Note: those opting for conversion to Account status within 90 days of submitting an iP³ Topic at full price will be eligible for a 50 percent discount on that enrollment fee.

Getting to what you want: In any RFP/Proposal submission system, there is substantial evidence of a strong correlation between

• the clarity and effectiveness of the Requesting document
• and the quality of submissions received.

In other words, the content focus and type of proposals received, as well as a closeness of match to what the Requesting Source expected as outcome is primarily a function of the effectiveness of the initiating Request Document.     As the graphic on this page is intended to underscore, before even putting pen-to-paper re. the Topic Details, time spend even preliminarily thinking though the process from concept to conclusion, will be time well spent.

• why the project is being proffered at all
• type of resource commitment will be required/ can be made
• whose job will all this be along with whom else will expect to be (kept) in the loop
• what will be the criteria of selection and how will success be defined etc
  
  Preparing RFP in your ASSETs Office To support the work required to get the actual Topic Description prepared, the Request Template Format provided in the Tech Seeker Office is modular. Each section includes useful guidelines with indicators of not only what you might want to say in that piece of the document - but also, based on now 30 years of SBIR solicitation honing - what is likely to attract the attention of an SBIR experienced small firms such they would be more likely to respond.     For example, almost by definition, quality firms - the ones with whom you likely want to work - have heavy demands on their time and often have other choices. They rarely go on exploratory fishing expeditions. Whether or not to be involved organizes primarily around their judgment of their chances of being selected and how useful that might be in other ways. These factors might include
  • Topic scope: Too broad a base of topic definition gives them no target at which to aim. Too narrow - and/or telling them too precisely how you think the problem should be tackled: why do you need them?
  • Whom else is likely responding? Many explain their relative lack of interest/involvement in existing Open Innovation platforms, in some part, to their having no way of judging what/who might be the competition.
  • Who is making the request? Most accept the anonymity some Tech Seekers require upfront but they do factor the extent to which they will be able to get useful impact and feedback as the process proceeds - real (and timely) responses to their clarifying questions; have opportunity pre- full Proposal Submission for some sort of working session; that mutually relevant CDA/NDA are in place precede any serious work commitment on their part is undertaken.
  Also of consequence are practical business development issues like
  • The dollar commitment (for time required). To some extent SBIR awardees have been 'spoiled' by the fact that the monies at stake for Phase I are not large - many argue that not a lot can be tackled for $100K-250K - but the prospect for the more substantial effort of Phase II is implicit in the system. Certainly, projects that are very small money - <$20K - offer limited appeal
  • ...and prospects for ongoing business opportunity. Assuming a job well done, previous SBIR agency involvement does tend to improve the likelihood of serious consideration subsequently by that agency and others, while in the mission agencies, the siren song of follow-on contracts and/or product purchases is compelling.