research and development 1

Nintendo Research & Development 1

• View history

Nintendo Research & Development 1 , shortened: Nintendo R&D1 , is Nintendo 's oldest development studio. Originally known simply as Nintendo Nintendo Research & Development (shortened Nintendo R&D ), the names was changed when Nintendo R&D2 and Nintendo R&D3 were formed.

R&D1 was originally headed by Gunpei Yokoi . In the early days, it was in charge of arcade games and the LCD Game & Watch series. The team included Shigeru Miyamoto until he earned his own team by creating Donkey Kong .

R&D1 was originally Nintendo's biggest development group, so most Nintendo games for the NES were developed by them. Some of the more popular games by R&D1 include Metroid , Kid Icarus , Excitebike , Duck Hunt , and Mach Rider . While R&D1 was responsible for many of Nintendo's heavy hitters, development on the Mario series and The Legend of Zelda series was not handled by them during the NES era.

Within R&D1, a group named Team Shikamaru emerged. Made up of Yoshio Sakamoto , Hitoshi Yamagami , and Toru Osawa , they were in charge of scripts and scenrios for R&D1. The group had written scripts for Metroid 2 , Super Metroid , Detective Club , Detective Club 2 , Card Hero , and For the Frog the Bell Tolls .

When the Super Nintendo was released, R&D1 was asked to develop titles for the Game Boy . Because of this, they were sometimes referred to as R&D Game Boy or EAD Game Boy .

Along with continuing with their own franchises, R&D1 also got to work with the Mario series by creating the Super Mario Land games. Eventually, they got to do their own take on it: Wario Land .

After the disastrous Virtual Boy , Gunpei Yokoi left Nintendo to form Koto Laboratory . Takehiro Izushi was appointed the new head of R&D1.

When the Game Boy Advance was released, R&D1 was once again the main group creating games for it. They created new Metroid and Wario Land games as well as the all-new WarioWare series.

In 2005, in order to consolidate all the game developers, president Satoru Iwata merged R&D1 with Nintendo Software Planning & Development .

• 1.2 Famicom Disk System
• 1.4 Nintendo 64
• 1.6 Gamecube
• 1.8 Game Boy
• 1.9 Game Boy Color
• 1.10 Game Boy Advance
• 1.11 Nintendo DS
• 1.12 Game & Watch
• 1.13 Arcade
• 2 External links
• Balloon Fight
• Clu Clu Land
• Devil World
• Donkey Kong
• Donkey Kong 3
• Donkey Kong Jr.
• Hogan's Alley
• Ice Climber
• Mario Bros.
• Urban Champion

Famicom Disk System [ ]

• 3D Hot Rally: Famicom Grand Prix II
• Famicom Club Part I: Keita Koukeisha
• Famicom Club Part II: Ushiro ni Tatsu Shoujo
• Battle Clash
• Mario Paint
• Metal Combat: Falcon's Revenge
• Super Metroid
• Super Play Action Football
• Super Scope 6
• Wrecking Crew '98

Nintendo 64 [ ]

• Sin and Punishment: Successor to Earth

Gamecube [ ]

• WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Party Game$!
• Baseball ( Virtual Console )
• Urban Champion ( Virtual Console )

Game Boy [ ]

• Balloon Kid
• For the Frog the Bell Tolls
• Game & Watch Gallery
• Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters
• Kirby's Block Ball
• Metroid II: Return of Samus
• Radar Mission
• Solar Striker
• Super Mario Land
• Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
• Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3
• Wario Land II

Game Boy Color [ ]

• Game & Watch Gallery 2
• Game & Watch Gallery 3
• Wario Land 3

Game Boy Advance [ ]

• F-Zero: GP Legend
• F-Zero: Maximum Velocity
• Metroid Fusion
• Metroid: Zero Mission
• Wario Land 4
• WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!
• WarioWare Twisted!

Nintendo DS [ ]

• WarioWare Touched!

Game & Watch [ ]

• Bomb Sweeper
• Donkey Kong Hockey
• Donkey Kong II
• Fire Attack
• Green House
• Mario the Juggler
• Mario's Bombs Away
• Mario's Cement Factory
• Mickey & Donald
• Mickey Mouse
• Punch-Out!!
• Rain Shower
• Spitball Sparky
• Super Mario Bros.
• Tropical Fish
• Turtle Bridge
• 3D Hot Rally
• Space Firebird
• Vs. Urban Champion

External links [ ]

• Nintendo Research & Development 1 at Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia
• 1 List of Pokémon games
• 2 List of Mario games
• 3 List of Nintendo systems

Advisory boards aren’t only for executives. Join the LogRocket Content Advisory Board today →

• Product Management
• Solve User-Reported Issues
• Find Issues Faster
• Optimize Conversion and Adoption

Research and development (R&D) and the product lifecycle

Imagine a young boy searching through the December edition of Intertoys , the Dutch version of the Toys-R-Us magazine. The magazine has over 150 toys, including molding clay, step bikes, board games, M.A.S.K and G.I Joe action figures, Transformers, ThunderCats, and tons more.

His eyes are focused on the pages dedicated to LEGO. The boy finds himself overcome with joy, thinking about all the possibilities to expand his LEGO city. Will he ask for the police station, the gas station, or maybe the medieval castle? He tries to imagine how each enhances his city and the additional stories they can bring.

This young boy was me back in 1986.

LEGO delivered on its mission to inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow. How do I know that to be true? Well, here I am as a product leader who is curious and enjoys experimenting and trying new ways to devise, innovate, and to meet and exceed customer needs.

LEGO is a prime example of a company that recognizes the value of being customer-obsessed, researching, observing, experimenting, and trying over and over again to build what excites and inspires generations to come. It truly harnesses the power of research and development (R&D).

In this guide, we’ll explore what R&D is, the different types of R&D, and how it can inform product development. We’ll also show you how research and development influence go-to-market and help determine whether a launch is successful.

What is research and development (R&D)?

Research and development (R&D) refers to activities and investments directed toward creating new products, improving existing products, streamlining processes, and pursuing knowledge.

The main purpose of R&D is to promote innovation and, in doing so, drive growth and increase competitiveness. Additionally, by improving processes and finding efficiency gains, R&D can lead to cost savings.

In some industries, R&D is necessary for regulatory compliance and to maintain or improve product quality.

R&D example

For an example of how R&D can impact a company’s growth, let’s look a LEGO’s research and development process.

Over 200k developers and product managers use LogRocket to create better digital experiences

LEGO works to create new building block shapes and designs and endeavors to improve their performance and safety on an ongoing basis. One of LEGO’s primary R&D efforts aims at developing sustainable production methods.

In 2015, the company invested nearly $150 million into sustainable materials R&D . It’s important to its mission to leave a positive impact on the planet for future generations to inherit.

We’ll refer to the LEGO examples throughout this guide to show what research and development efforts look like in the real world.

Research and development (R&D) vs. product development

It’s tempting to say that R&D and product development are one and the same, but while they overlap, not all product development is R&D.

To qualify as true, authentic, and real R&D, an activity must meet specific criteria that make it SUPA (yes, I just created that acronym).

SUPA stands for:

• Systematic — R&D must follow a systematic approach to solving problems or creating new products
• Advancement — R&D must involve either the creation of new knowledge, a significant improvement to existing knowledge, or a significant advancement in overall understanding
• Purpose — R&D must have the primary purpose of creating new knowledge, improving existing products radically, or creating new ones
• Uncertainty — There must be an element of uncertainty or risk involved in the work. This means you can’t always anticipate the outcome with confidence

As a product manager, most of the above should be familiar. As Marvin Gaye would have said, R&D and product management work together just like music .

R&D and the product development lifecycle

Research provides you with the necessary information and insights to inform and guide your product design. Development helps you bring ideas to life, validate them and then build and commercialize them.

The product development lifecycle is as follows:

• Ideation and concept development
• Design and prototyping
• Development
• Launch and commercialization

Let’s zoom in on each stage to see how R&D plays a role in every aspect of product development.

1. Research

The research phase involves systematically gathering market data, understanding the competitive landscape, and assessing customers in their current use of your product and their unmet needs. R&D helps you find the next big thing or game changer that gains you more market share.

2. Ideation and concept development

This step focuses on generating new ideas and concepts that push the boundaries of what you know. It requires looking at new ideas at a high-level and evaluating their potential feasibility.

3. Design and prototyping

Dip your toes further into the development waters — but make sure not to step on a LEGO while doing so.

The design and prototyping stage is where you create your hypothesis, conduct experiments, create designs, and prototype solutions to validate the assumptions made.

4. Development

During the development stage, any prototypes that fail to deliver advancements are abandoned. Those passing the validation are ready for development consideration.

5. Launch and commercialization

The activities described above will aid in making informed decisions about the product launch , pricing , and go-to-market strategy .

Example: How does R&D influence go-to-market?

Let’s refer back to our example:

LEGO was hugely successful through R&D when bringing the LEGO Mindstorms line to market.

This line empowers users to build and program robots using LEGO bricks and a microcomputer. The creation of the product line involved a multidisciplinary approach. It combined expertise in product design, software engineering, and electronics.

The R&D process started with research that identified the need for a product that allowed users to experiment with and learn about robotics.

LEGO then went through intensive ideation iterations and decided to work with experts in the field to design a system that would be easy to use and accessible to people of all ages and skill levels.

The design and prototypes were thoroughly tested and proved to validate assumptions .

The resulting product was a great success.

3 types of R&D

There are several types of research and development that you can pursue. Each type requires different approaches, resources, expertise, and generates different outcomes.

You can choose to focus on one or more R&D types, depending on your strategic objectives, resources, and capabilities.

Let’s have a look at the three major types of R&D:

Basic research

Applied research, experimental development.

Basic research aims to increase knowledge and understanding of a particular subject, with no immediate application in mind.

LEGO continuously explores new methods for connecting building blocks to each other. This research could involve looking into new materials or design principles that could improve the strength and stability of the connections between the blocks.

Applied research focuses on solving specific practical problems and developing new or improved processes, services, or products.

To reduce its carbon footprint, LEGO is researching a new plant-based plastic for its building blocks. This new material, made from sugarcane, replaces traditional petroleum-based plastic.

Experiment research involves designing, building, and testing a prototype to evaluate the feasibility and potential of new processes, services, or products.

LEGO is developing building sets that incorporate augmented reality (AR) technology. The R&D effort combines applied research with experimental development, as the company seeks to create a new product that utilizes AR to enhance the building and play experience.

How to incorporate R&D into the product development process

So you want to incorporate R&D into your product development process. Kudos to you!

Practice makes perfect. Before looking at a few ways to do this, it is important to remember that incorporating R&D into your product development process is a continuous endeavor and requires adjustments along the way.

The following strategies will help you incorporate R&D:

Prioritize R&D

Foster a culture of innovation.

• Embrace experimentation

Build user-centered

Collaborate with external partners.

The obvious one here is to ensure that R&D is a priority within your company and resources are freed up. This could include dedicating a portion of the budget, allocating capacity, or setting aside dedicated R&D time.

Encourage a culture in your company that values and supports innovation, experimentation, and risk-taking. It could include encouraging employees to pursue their own interests and providing them with the resources to do so.

Embrace experimentation, prototyping, and testing

R&D-ers love experimenting and testing their assumptions through building hypotheses, prototyping, and testing. It allows you to validate ideas, refine designs, identify and address any issues or limitations before bringing a product to market. As a product manager, you probably already have incorporated some of these practices. If not, I highly encourage you to do so.

To find an opportunity you will need to discover and unravel a need. User-centered building helps ensure that products and services are designed with the end-user in mind, leading to better, more effective problem-solving, and solutions to meet the needs of the people who will be using them.

Consider partnering with external organizations, such as universities, research institutes, or other companies, to help drive R&D. This can provide access to additional resources, expertise, and perspectives.

Example: How does R&D influence product development?

Referring back back to our example:

LEGO places a strong emphasis on user-centered design. It conducts user research to understand their needs, preferences, and behaviors and incorporate those findings into product design and development.

LEGO also collaborates with a variety of external partners, including universities, research institutions, and other companies, to drive innovation and R&D. For example, it has worked with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on several projects.

LEGO uses rapid prototyping and testing to iterate and improve its products and encourage employees to be creative and innovative. It does this through the LEGO IDEAS program, which provides a platform for employees to submit and vote on new product ideas.

How to analyze and interpret the results of R&D

It goes without saying that analyzing and interpreting the results of research and development is crucial. How else will you validate or disprove hypotheses, determine the success or failure, and inform future R&D decisions?

Here are some steps that will help you out:

• Define the objectives and hypothesis
• Gather and organize data
• Analyze the data
• Interpret the results
• Validate the results
• Communicate the results
• Use the results to inform future R&D decisions

1. Define the objectives and hypothesis

When you want to analyze results, it’s crucial to have a clear understanding of what you set out to achieve and what you expected to see.

2. Gather and organize data

Collect all relevant data and organize it in a way that allows for easy analysis and interpretation.

3. Analyze the data

Use appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data, such as hypothesis testing, regression analysis, or analysis of variance (ANOVA).

4. Interpret the results

Based on the analysis, interpret the results and draw meaningful conclusions. This may involve identifying patterns, correlations, or relationships between variables.

5. Validate the results

Validate the results by checking for consistency, accuracy, and reliability. It may also be necessary to perform additional tests or experiments to confirm or refute the results.

6. Communicate the results

Communicate the results of the R&D project to stakeholders, including management, investors, customers, and employees. This may involve presenting data, charts, graphs, or other visual representations of the results.

7. Use the results to inform future R&D decisions

Use the results of the R&D project to inform future R&D decisions, including what to research next, what to improve, and what to commercialize.

Proper analysis and interpretation of R&D results are crucial to make informed decisions and drive innovation and growth.

There are various strategies you can implement in your product process. It is key to define your objective and expected results and have a structured process to validate R&D success.

Featured image source: IconScout

LogRocket generates product insights that lead to meaningful action

Get your teams on the same page — try LogRocket today.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• #market analysis

Stop guessing about your digital experience with LogRocket

Recent posts:.

Leader Spotlight: The nuances of quality localization, with Drew Wrangles

Drew Wrangles, Head of Product & Design at Taskrabbit, shares his experiences leading product localization.

Techniques for gaining insights from customers

A deep understanding of your customers helps you prioritize problems, define solutions, and adjust communications.

Leader Spotlight: Becoming a true data laboratory, with Levent Bas

Levent Bas discusses Found’s focus on leveraging individual insights to create a comprehensive health profile of each member.

Strategies for identifying your target market

The process of identifying your target market is an ongoing effort that evolves with your product and the marketplace.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Building an R&D strategy for modern times

The global investment in research and development (R&D) is staggering. In 2019 alone, organizations around the world spent $2.3 trillion on R&D—the equivalent of roughly 2 percent of global GDP—about half of which came from industry and the remainder from governments and academic institutions. What’s more, that annual investment has been growing at approximately 4 percent per year over the past decade. 1 2.3 trillion on purchasing-power-parity basis; 2019 global R&D funding forecast , Supplement, R&D Magazine, March 2019, rdworldonline.com.

While the pharmaceutical sector garners much attention due to its high R&D spending as a percentage of revenues, a comparison based on industry profits shows that several industries, ranging from high tech to automotive to consumer, are putting more than 20 percent of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) back into innovation research (Exhibit 1).

What do organizations expect to get in return? At the core, they hope their R&D investments yield the critical technology from which they can develop new products, services, and business models. But for R&D to deliver genuine value, its role must be woven centrally into the organization’s mission. R&D should help to both deliver and shape corporate strategy, so that it develops differentiated offerings for the company’s priority markets and reveals strategic options, highlighting promising ways to reposition the business through new platforms and disruptive breakthroughs.

Yet many enterprises lack an R&D strategy that has the necessary clarity, agility, and conviction to realize the organization’s aspirations. Instead of serving as the company’s innovation engine, R&D ends up isolated from corporate priorities, disconnected from market developments, and out of sync with the speed of business. Amid a growing gap in performance  between those that innovate successfully and those that do not, companies wishing to get ahead and stay ahead of competitors need a robust R&D strategy that makes the most of their innovation investments. Building such a strategy takes three steps: understanding the challenges that often work as barriers to R&D success, choosing the right ingredients for your strategy, and then pressure testing it before enacting it.

Overcoming the barriers to successful R&D

The first step to building an R&D strategy is to understand the four main challenges that modern R&D organizations face:

Innovation cycles are accelerating. The growing reliance on software and the availability of simulation and automation technologies have caused the cost of experimentation to plummet while raising R&D throughput. The pace of corporate innovation is further spurred by the increasing emergence of broadly applicable technologies, such as digital and biotech, from outside the walls of leading industry players.

But incumbent corporations are only one part of the equation. The trillion dollars a year that companies spend on R&D is matched by the public sector. Well-funded start-ups, meanwhile, are developing and rapidly scaling innovations that often threaten to upset established business models or steer industry growth into new areas. Add increasing investor scrutiny of research spending, and the result is rising pressure on R&D leaders to quickly show results for their efforts.

R&D lacks connection to the customer. The R&D group tends to be isolated from the rest of the organization. The complexity of its activities and its specialized lexicon make it difficult for others to understand what the R&D function really does. That sense of working inside a “black box” often exists even within the R&D organization. During a meeting of one large company’s R&D leaders, a significant portion of the discussion focused on simply getting everyone up to speed on what the various divisions were doing, let alone connecting those efforts to the company’s broader goals.

Given the challenges R&D faces in collaborating with other functions, going one step further and connecting with customers becomes all the more difficult. While many organizations pay lip service to customer-centric development, their R&D groups rarely get the opportunity to test products directly with end users. This frequently results in market-back product development that relies on a game of telephone via many intermediaries about what the customers want and need.

Projects have few accountability metrics. R&D groups in most sectors lack effective mechanisms to measure and communicate progress; the pharmaceutical industry, with its standard pipeline for new therapeutics that provides well-understood metrics of progress and valuation implications, is the exception, not the rule. When failure is explained away as experimentation and success is described in terms of patents, rather than profits, corporate leaders find it hard to quantify R&D’s contribution.

Yet proven metrics exist  to effectively measure progress and outcomes. A common challenge we observe at R&D organizations, ranging from automotive to chemical companies, is how to value the contribution of a single component that is a building block of multiple products. One specialty-chemicals company faced this challenge in determining the value of an ingredient it used in its complex formulations. It created categorizations to help develop initial business cases and enable long-term tracking. This allowed pragmatic investment decisions at the start of projects and helped determine the value created after their completion.

Even with outcomes clearly measured, the often-lengthy period between initial investment and finished product can obscure the R&D organization’s performance. Yet, this too can be effectively managed by tracking the overall value and development progress of the pipeline so that the organization can react and, potentially, promptly reorient both the portfolio and individual projects within it.

Incremental projects get priority. Our research indicates that incremental projects account for more than half of an average company’s R&D investment, even though bold bets and aggressive reallocation  of the innovation portfolio deliver higher rates of success. Organizations tend to favor “safe” projects with near-term returns—such as those emerging out of customer requests—that in many cases do little more than maintain existing market share. One consumer-goods company, for example, divided the R&D budget among its business units, whose leaders then used the money to meet their short-term targets rather than the company’s longer-term differentiation and growth objectives.

Focusing innovation solely around the core business may enable a company to coast for a while—until the industry suddenly passes it by. A mindset that views risk as something to be avoided rather than managed can be unwittingly reinforced by how the business case is measured. Transformational projects at one company faced a higher internal-rate-of-return hurdle than incremental R&D, even after the probability of success had been factored into their valuation, reducing their chances of securing funding and tilting the pipeline toward initiatives close to the core.

As organizations mature, innovation-driven growth becomes increasingly important, as their traditional means of organic growth, such as geographic expansion and entry into untapped market segments, diminish. To succeed, they need to develop R&D strategies equipped for the modern era that treat R&D not as a cost center but as the growth engine it can become.

Would you like to learn more about our Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice ?

Choosing the ingredients of a winning r&d strategy.

Given R&D’s role as the innovation driver that advances the corporate agenda, its guiding strategy needs to link board-level priorities with the technologies that are the organization’s focus (Exhibit 2). The R&D strategy must provide clarity and commitment to three central elements: what we want to deliver, what we need to deliver it, and how we will deliver it.

What we want to deliver. To understand what a company wants to and can deliver, the R&D, commercial, and corporate-strategy functions need to collaborate closely, with commercial and corporate-strategy teams anchoring the R&D team on the company’s priorities and the R&D team revealing what is possible. The R&D strategy and the corporate strategy must be in sync while answering questions such as the following: At the highest level, what are the company’s goals? Which of these will require R&D in order to be realized? In short, what is the R&D organization’s purpose?

Bringing the two strategies into alignment is not as easy as it may seem. In some companies, what passes for corporate strategy is merely a five-year business plan. In others, the corporate strategy is detailed but covers only three to five years—too short a time horizon to guide R&D, especially in industries such as pharma or semiconductors where the product-development cycle is much longer than that. To get this first step right, corporate-strategy leaders should actively engage with R&D. That means providing clarity where it is lacking and incorporating R&D feedback that may illuminate opportunities, such as new technologies that unlock growth adjacencies for the company or enable completely new business models.

Secondly, the R&D and commercial functions need to align on core battlegrounds and solutions. Chief technology officers want to be close to and shape the market by delivering innovative solutions that define new levels of customer expectations. Aligning R&D strategy provides a powerful forum for identifying those opportunities by forcing conversations about customer needs and possible solutions that, in many companies, occur only rarely. Just as with the corporate strategy alignment, the commercial and R&D teams need to clearly articulate their aspirations by asking questions such as the following: Which markets will make or break us as a company? What does a winning product or service look like for customers?

When defining these essential battlegrounds, companies should not feel bound by conventional market definitions based on product groups, geographies, or customer segments. One agricultural player instead defined its markets by the challenges customers faced that its solutions could address. For example, drought resistance was a key battleground no matter where in the world it occurred. That framing clarified the R&D–commercial strategy link: if an R&D project could improve drought resistance, it was aligned to the strategy.

The dialogue between the R&D, commercial, and strategy functions cannot stop once the R&D strategy is set. Over time, leaders of all three groups should reexamine the strategic direction and continuously refine target product profiles as customer needs and the competitive landscape evolve.

What we need to deliver it. This part of the R&D strategy determines what capabilities and technologies the R&D organization must have in place to bring the desired solutions to market. The distinction between the two is subtle but important. Simply put, R&D capabilities are the technical abilities to discover, develop, or scale marketable solutions. Capabilities are unlocked by a combination of technologies and assets, and focus on the outcomes. Technologies, however, focus on the inputs—for example, CRISPR is a technology that enables the genome-editing capability.

This delineation protects against the common pitfall of the R&D organization fixating on components of a capability instead of the capability itself—potentially missing the fact that the capability itself has evolved. Consider the dawn of the digital age: in many engineering fields, a historical reliance on talent (human number crunchers) was suddenly replaced by the need for assets (computers). Those who focused on hiring the fastest mathematicians were soon overtaken by rivals who recognized the capability provided by emerging technologies.

The simplest way to identify the needed capabilities is to go through the development processes of priority solutions step by step—what will it take to produce a new product or feature? Being exhaustive is not the point; the goal is to identify high-priority capabilities, not to log standard operating procedures.

Prioritizing capabilities is a critical but often contentious aspect of developing an R&D strategy. For some capabilities, being good is sufficient. For others, being best in class is vital because it enables a faster path to market or the development of a better product than those of competitors. Take computer-aided design (CAD), which is used to design and prototype engineering components in numerous industries, such as aerospace or automotive. While companies in those sectors need that capability, it is unlikely that being the best at it will deliver a meaningful advantage. Furthermore, organizations should strive to anticipate which capabilities will be most important in the future, not what has mattered most to the business historically.

Once capabilities are prioritized, the R&D organization needs to define what being “good” and “the best” at them will mean over the course of the strategy. The bar rises rapidly in many fields. Between 2009 and 2019, the cost of sequencing a genome dropped 150-fold, for example. 2 Kris A. Wetterstrand, “DNA sequencing costs: Data,” NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP), August 25, 2020, genome.gov. Next, the organization needs to determine how to develop, acquire, or access the needed capabilities. The decision of whether to look internally or externally is crucial. An automatic “we can build it better” mindset diminishes the benefits of specialization and dilutes focus. Additionally, the bias to building everything in-house can cut off or delay access to the best the world has to offer—something that may be essential for high-priority capabilities. At Procter & Gamble, it famously took the clearly articulated aspiration of former CEO A. G. Lafley to break the company’s focus on in-house R&D and set targets for sourcing innovation externally. As R&D organizations increasingly source capabilities externally, finding partners and collaborating with them effectively is becoming a critical capability in its own right.

How we will do it. The choices of operating model and organizational design will ultimately determine how well the R&D strategy is executed. During the strategy’s development, however, the focus should be on enablers that represent cross-cutting skills and ways of working. A strategy for attracting, developing, and retaining talent is one common example.

Another is digital enablement, which today touches nearly every aspect of what the R&D function does. Artificial intelligence can be used at the discovery phase to identify emerging market needs or new uses of existing technology. Automation and advanced analytics approaches to experimentation can enable high throughput screening at a small scale and distinguish the signal from the noise. Digital (“in silico”) simulations are particularly valuable when physical experiments are expensive or dangerous. Collaboration tools are addressing the connectivity challenges common among geographically dispersed project teams. They have become indispensable in bringing together existing collaborators, but the next horizon is to generate the serendipity of chance encounters that are the hallmark of so many innovations.

Testing your R&D strategy

Developing a strategy for the R&D organization entails some unique challenges that other functions do not face. For one, scientists and engineers have to weigh considerations beyond their core expertise, such as customer, market, and economic factors. Stakeholders outside R&D labs, meanwhile, need to understand complex technologies and development processes and think along much longer time horizons than those to which they are accustomed.

For an R&D strategy to be robust and comprehensive enough to serve as a blueprint to guide the organization, it needs to involve stakeholders both inside and outside the R&D group, from leading scientists to chief commercial officers. What’s more, its definition of capabilities, technologies, talent, and assets should become progressively more granular as the strategy is brought to life at deeper levels of the R&D organization. So how can an organization tell if its new strategy passes muster? In our experience, McKinsey’s ten timeless tests of strategy  apply just as well to R&D strategy as to corporate and business-unit strategies. The following two tests are the most important in the R&D context:

• Does the organization’s strategy tap the true source of advantage? Too often, R&D organizations conflate technical necessity (what is needed to develop a solution) with strategic importance (distinctive capabilities that allow an organization to develop a meaningfully better solution than those of their competitors). It is also vital for organizations to regularly review their answers to this question, as capabilities that once provided differentiation can become commoditized and no longer serve as sources of advantage.
• Does the organization’s strategy balance commitment-rich choices with flexibility and learning? R&D strategies may have relatively long time horizons but that does not mean they should be insulated from changes in the outside world and never revisited. Companies should establish technical, regulatory, or other milestones that serve as clear decision points for shifting resources to or away from certain research areas. Such milestones can also help mark progress and gauge whether strategy execution is on track.

Additionally, the R&D strategy should be simply and clearly communicated to other functions within the company and to external stakeholders. To boost its clarity, organizations might try this exercise: distill the strategy into a set of fill-in-the-blank components that define, first, how the world will evolve and how the company plans to refocus accordingly (for example, industry trends that may lead the organization to pursue new target markets or segments); next, the choices the R&D function will make in order to support the company’s new focus (which capabilities will be prioritized and which de-emphasized); and finally, how the R&D team will execute the strategy in terms of concrete actions and milestones. If a company cannot fit the exercise on a single page, it has not sufficiently synthesized the strategy—as the famed physicist Richard Feynman observed, the ultimate test of comprehension is the ability to convey something to others in a simple manner.

Cascading the strategy down through the R&D organization will further reinforce its impact. For example, asking managers to communicate the strategy to their subordinates will deepen their own understanding. A useful corollary is that those hearing the strategy for the first time are introduced to it by their immediate supervisors rather than more distant R&D leaders. One R&D group demonstrated the broad benefits of this communication model: involving employees in developing and communicating the R&D strategy helped it double its Organizational Health Index  strategic clarity score, which measures one of the four “power practices”  highly connected to organizational performance.

R&D represents a massive innovation investment, but as companies confront globalized competition, rapidly changing customer needs, and technological shifts coming from an ever-wider range of fields, they are struggling to deliver on R&D’s full potential. A clearly articulated R&D strategy that supports and informs the corporate strategy is necessary to maximize the innovation investment and long-term company value.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The innovation commitment

The eight essentials of innovation

The Committed Innovator: An interview with Salesforce’s Simon Mulcahy

Higher Education in the Arab World: Research and Development pp 13–37 Cite as

An Overview of Research and Development in Academia

• Elias Baydoun 4 ,
• Joelle Mesmar 4 ,
• Abdul Rahman Beydoun 5 &
• John R. Hillman 6  
• First Online: 03 February 2022

293 Accesses

This overview chapter encompasses the main underpinning themes of research and development (R&D) of universities around the world. Our observations and opinions apply equally to public-sector university-linked research institutes that conduct mainly original research as opposed to policy research. After an Introduction that includes defining the terms used in the chapter and scoping the topic, the main 13 sections of the chapter cover (a) R&D as a fundamental feature of human development reflecting the inherent curiosity of humans and their ability to learn and implement their knowledge. (b) The rationale for modern governments to invest in R&D, referring to the New Growth Theory and meeting the needs of modern societies. (c) The rationale for private-sector organisations to invest in R&D to ensure their long-term sustainability and competitiveness. (d) The various definitions and concepts of R&D. and Research & Experimental Development. (e) The roles and implications of the rapidly expanding number of transformative technologies that are not only profoundly transforming virtually all R&D but also the operation of modern societies including universities. (f) The need for specialist facilities, staffing, and learned societies for R&D to thrive. (g) The importance of international collaboration. (h) Funding sources for R&D. (i) The actuality of academic R&D, including both good practice and deleterious effects of poor management. (j) The pivotal wide-ranging roles of governments. (k) Impediments to successful R&D in both the public and private sectors. (l) Geopolitical aspects of R&D, and (m) Future of R&D. The Conclusions Section considers recommendations on R&D policies for the Arab world as well as for developing economies based on our global analysis of R&D.

• Basic research
• Applied research
• Scientific research
• Humanities research
• Artistic research
• Development
• New Growth Theory
• Concepts of R&D
• Transformative technologies
• Research geopolitics
• Future of R&D

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020) Concepts and definitions for identifying R&D. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015/concepts-and-definitions-for-identifying-r-amp-d_9789264239012-4-en

National Science Foundation (2018) Definitions of research and development: an annotated compilation of official sources. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/rd-definitions.pdf

BusinessDictionary.com (2020) Research. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/research.html

BusinessDictionary.com (2020) Research methodology. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/research-methodology.html

Wikipedia (2020) Research and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_development

Holstein WK, McLeod TS (2020) Research and development. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/research-and-development

Hillman JR, Baydoun E (2018) The future of universities in the Arab Region: a review. In: Badran A et al (eds) Universities in Arab countries: an urgent need for change. Springer, Cham, pp 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73111-7_1

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hillman JR, Baydoun E (2019) Quality assurance and relevance in academia: a review. In: Badran et al (eds) Major challenges facing higher education in the Arab world: quality assurance and relevance. Springer, Cham, pp 13–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03774-1_2

Hillman JR, Baydoun E (2020) Innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship in academia: a review. In: Badran A et al. (eds.) Higher education in the Arab world: building a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham, 13–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37834-9_2

Hillman JR, Baydoun E (2020) Review of the roles of governments and universities and their interrelationships: an urgent need for governance reform in the Arab world. In: Badran et al (eds) Higher education in the Arab world: government and governance. Springer, Cham, pp 1–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58153-4 . (ISBN: 978-3-030-58152-7)

Hillman JR, Baydoun E (2020) An overview of innovation and entrepreneurship to address climate change. In: Badran A et al (eds) Higher education in the Arab world: building a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham, pp 141–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37834-9_6 . (ISBN: 978-3-030-37834-9)

The World Bank (2020) World development indicators. DataBank. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

Tutor2u (2020) Measuring development – key indicators. Study notes. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/measuring-development-key-indicators

Tutor2u (2020) Key gap indicators of development. Study notes. https://www.tutor2u.net/geography/reference/the-8-key-gap-indicators-of-development

Google Scholar  

University of Cambridge, Research Operations Office (2020) Frascati definition of research. https://www.research-operations.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies/frascati-definition-research

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020) Frascati Manual 2015. Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. https://www.oecd.org/publications/frascati-manual-2015-9789264239012-en.htm

Wikipedia (2020) Christopher Freeman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Freeman

Wikipedia (2020) Frascati Manual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frascati_Manual

Burnewicz J, Bak M (2017) Classification of scientific research (for discussion) https://www.slideshare.net/JANBUR/2017-02-classification-of-the-scientific-research-by-jan-burnewicz-amp-monika-bak-university-of-gdansk

International Network for Natural Sciences (2020) Types of scientific research. https://innspub.net/types-of-scientific-research/

Schwab K (2015) The fourth industrial revolution. What it means and how to respond. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-12-12/fourth-industrial-revolution

Wikipedia (2020) Fourth industrial revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution

World Economic Forum (2016) The future of jobs. Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

World Economic Forum (2018) The future of jobs report. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2018

World Economic Forum (2020) Jobs of tomorrow: mapping opportunity in the new economy. https://www.weforum.org/reports/jobs-of-tomorrow-mapping-opportunity-in-the-new-economy

Fadel C (2008) 21st Century Skills: how can you prepare students for the new Global Economy? Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Centre for Research and Innovation. https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40756908.pdf

Heney P, Studt T (2020) Global R&D funding forecast – special mid-year update part 1. R&D World. https://www.rdworldonline.com/global-rd-funding-forecast-special-mid-year-update-part-1/

Taylor & Francis Online (2019) 2020 R&D trends forecast. Results from the innovation research interchange’s annual survey. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08956308.2019.1686287?journalCode=urtm20

Statista (2020) Distribution of research and development (R&D) spending worldwide from 2017 to 2020, by country/region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/732224/worldwide-research-and-development-distribution-of-investment/

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics (2020) How much does your country invest in R&D? http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Data (2020) Gross domestic spending on R&D. https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm

World Factbook, Central Intelligence (2020) Agency country comparison: military expenditure. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

P Wikipedia (2020) Precautionary principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005) The Precautionary Principle. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). https://www.eubios.info/UNESCO/precprin.pdf

Zabalawi I, Floden IT (2019) The diploma supplement as a tool for quality assurance and relevance. In: Badran A et al (eds) Major challenges facing higher education in the Arab world: quality assurance and relevance. Springer, Cham, pp 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03774-1_12

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (2020) Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/centre-for-data-ethics-and-innovation

The Council for Awards of Royal Agricultural Societies (2020). https://royalagriculturalsocietiesawards.org/

Parry M (2020) Science and technology parks and universities – facing the next industrial revolution. In: Badran A et al (eds) Higher education in the Arab world: building a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham, pp 109–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37834-9_5

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Elias Baydoun & Joelle Mesmar

Department of Business Administration, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon

Abdul Rahman Beydoun

James Hutton Institute, Dundee, UK

John R. Hillman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias Baydoun .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Chancellor Office, University of Petra, Amman, Jordan

Adnan Badran

Elias Baydoun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Baydoun, E., Mesmar, J., Beydoun, A.R., Hillman, J.R. (2022). An Overview of Research and Development in Academia. In: Badran, A., Baydoun, E., Hillman, J.R. (eds) Higher Education in the Arab World: Research and Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80122-9_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80122-9_2

Published : 03 February 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-80121-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-80122-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13.1: An Introduction to Research and Development (R&D)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 16730

Learning Objectives

• Know what constitutes research and development (R&D).
• Understand the importance of R&D to corporations.
• Recognize the role government plays in R&D.

Research and development (R&D) refers to two intertwined processes of research (to identify new knowledge and ideas) and development (turning the ideas into tangible products or processes). Companies undertake R&D in order to develop new products, services, or procedures that will help them grow and expand their operations. Corporate R&D began in the United States with Thomas Edison and the Edison General Electric Company he founded in 1890 (which is today’s GE). Edison is credited with 1,093 patents, but it’s actually his invention of the corporate R&D lab that made all those other inventions possible.Andrea Meyer, “High-Value Innovation: Innovating the Management of Innovation,” Working Knowledge (blog), August 20, 2009, accessed February 22, 2011, http://workingknowledge.com/blog/?p=594 . Edison was the first to bring management discipline to R&D, which enabled a much more powerful method of invention by systematically harnessing the talent of many individuals. Edison’s 1,093 patents had less to do with individual genius and more to do with management genius: creating and managing an R&D lab that could efficiently and effectively crank out new inventions. For fifty years following the early twentieth century, GE was awarded more patents than any other firm in America.Gary Hamel, “The Why, What and How of Management Innovation,” Harvard Business Review , February 2006, accessed February 24, 2011, http://hbr.org/2006/02/the-why-what-and-how-of-management-innovation/ar/1 .

Edison is known as an inventor, but he was also a great innovator. Here’s the difference: an invention brings an idea into tangible reality by embodying it as a product or system. An innovation converts a new idea into revenues and profits. Inventors can get patents on original ideas, but those inventions may not make money. For an invention to become an innovation, people must be willing to buy it in high enough numbers that the firm benefits from making it.A. G. Lafley and Ram Charan, The Game-Changer (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008), 21.

Edison wanted his lab to be a commercial success. “Anything that won’t sell, I don’t want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility and utility is success,”A. G. Lafley and Ram Charan, The Game-Changer (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008), 25. Edison said. Edison’s lab in Menlo Park, New Jersey, was an applied research lab, which is a lab that develops and commercializes its research findings. As defined by the National Science Foundation, applied research is “systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.”National Science Foundation, “Definitions of Research and Development,” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, accessed March 5, 2011, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/fedgov.cfm . In contrast, basic research advances the knowledge of science without an explicit, anticipated commercial outcome.

History and Importance

From Edison’s lab onward, companies learned that a systematic approach to research could provide big competitive advantages. Companies could not only invent new products, but they could also turn those inventions into innovations that launched whole new industries. For example, the radio, wireless communications, and television industry grew out of early-twentieth-century research by General Electric and American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T, which founded Bell Labs).

The heyday of American R&D labs came in the 1950s and early 1960s, with corporate institutions like Bell Labs, RCA labs, IBM’s research centers, and government institutions such as NASA and DARPA. These labs funded both basic and applied research, giving birth to the transistor, long-distance TV transmission, photovoltaic solar cells, the UNIX operating system, and cellular telephony, each of which led to the creation of not just hundreds of products but whole industries and millions of jobs.Adrian Slywotzky, “How Science Can Create Millions of New Jobs,” BusinessWeek , September 7, 2009, accessed May 11, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036678131.htm . DARPA’s creation of the Internet (known at its inception as ARPAnet) and Xerox PARC’s Ethernet and graphical-user interface (GUI) laid the foundations for the PC revolution.Adrian Slywotzky, “How Science Can Create Millions of New Jobs,” BusinessWeek , September 7, 2009, accessed May 11, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036678131.htm .

Companies invest in R&D to gain a pipeline of new products. For a high-tech company like Apple, it means coming up with new types of products (e.g., the iPad) as well as newer and better versions of its existing computers and iPhones. For a pharmaceutical company, it means coming out with new drugs to treat diseases. Different parts of the world have different diseases or different forms of known diseases. For example, diabetes in China has a different molecular structure than diabetes elsewhere in the world, and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly’s new R&D center in Shanghai will focus on this disease variant.“2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast,” R&D Magazine , December 2010, accessed February 27, 2011, www.battelle.org/aboutus/rd/2011.pdf . Even companies that sell only services benefit from innovation and developing new services. For example, MasterCard Global Service started providing customers with emergency cash advances, directions to nearby ATMs, and emergency card replacements.Lance Bettencourt, Service Innovation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 99.

Innovation also includes new product and service combinations. For example, heavy-equipment manufacturer John Deere created a product and service combination by equipping a GPS into one of its tractors. The GPS keeps the tractor on a parallel path, even under hands-free operation, and keeps the tractor with only a two-centimeter overlap of those parallel lines. This innovation helps a farmer increase the yield of the field and complete passes over the field in the tractor more quickly. The innovation also helps reduce fuel, seed, and chemical costs because there is little overlap and waste of the successive parallel passes.Lance Bettencourt, Service Innovation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 110.

Did You Know?

Appliance maker Whirlpool has made innovation a strategic priority in order to stay competitive. Whirlpool has an innovation pipeline that currently numbers close to 1,000 new products. On average, Whirlpool introduces one hundred new products to the market each year. “Every month we report pipeline size measured by estimated sales, and our goal this year is $4 billion,” said Moises Norena, director of global innovation at Whirlpool. With Whirlpool’s 2008 revenue totaling $18.9 billion, that means roughly 20 percent of sales would be from new products.Jessie Scanlon, “How Whirlpool Puts New Ideas through the Wringer,” BusinessWeek , August 3, 2009, accessed January 17, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2009/id2009083_452757.htm .

Not only do companies benefit from investing in R&D, but the nation’s economy benefits as well, as Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor Robert Solow discovered. Solow showed mathematically that, in the long run, growth in gross national product per worker is due more to technological progress than to mere capital investment. Solow won a Nobel Prize for his research, and investment in corporate R&D labs grew.

Although R&D has its roots in national interests, it has become globalized. Most US and European Fortune 1000 companies have R&D centers in Asia.“2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast,” R&D Magazine , December 2010, accessed February 27, 2011, www.battelle.org/aboutus/rd/2011.pdf . You’ll see the reasons for the globalization of R&D in Section 13.3 .

The Role of Government

Governments have played a large role in the inception of R&D, mainly to fund research for military applications for war efforts. Today, governments still play a big role in innovation because of their ability to fund R&D. A government can fund R&D directly, by offering grants to universities and research centers or by offering contracts to corporations for performing research in a specific area.

Governments can also provide tax incentives for companies that invest in R&D. Countries vary in the tax incentives that they give to corporations that invest in R&D. By giving corporations a tax credit when they invest in R&D, governments encourage corporations to invest in R&D in their countries. For example, Australia gave a 125 percent tax deduction for R&D expenses. The Australian government’s website noted, “It’s little surprise then, that many companies from around the world are choosing to locate their R&D facilities in Australia.” The government also pointed out that “50 percent of the most innovative companies in Australia are foreign-based.”Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (U.S.), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.), Rising Above the Gathering Storm (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007), 195.

Finally, governments can promote innovation through investments in infrastructure that will support new technology and by committing to buy the new technology. China is doing this in a big way, and it is thus influencing the course of many companies around the world. Since 2000, China has had a policy in place “to encourage tech transfer from abroad and to force foreign companies to transfer their R&D operations to China in exchange for access to China’s large volume markets,” reported R&D Magazine in its 2010 review of global R&D.“2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast,” R&D Magazine , December 2010, accessed February 27, 2011, www.battelle.org/aboutus/rd/2011.pdf . For example, any automobile manufacturer that wants to sell cars in China must enter into a partnership with a Chinese company. As a result, General Motors (GM), Daimler, Hyundai, Volkswagen (VW), and Toyota have all formed joint ventures with Chinese companies. General Motors and Volkswagen, for example, have both formed joint ventures with the Chinese company Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), even though SAIC also sells cars under its own brand.Brian Dumaine, “China Charges into Electric Cars,” Fortune , November 1, 2010, 140. The Chinese government made another strategic decision influencing innovation in the automobile industry. Because no Chinese company is a leader in internal combustion engines, the government decided to leapfrog the technology and focus on becoming a leader in electric cars.Bill Russo, Tao Ke, Edward Tse, and Bill Peng, China’s Next Revolution: Transforming The Global Auto Industry , Booz & Company report, 2010, accessed February 27, 2011, www.booz.com/media/file/China’s_Next_Revolution_en.pdf . “Beijing has pledged that it will do whatever it takes to help the Chinese car industry take the lead in electric vehicles,” notes industry watcher Brian Dumaine. Brian Dumaine, “China Charges into Electric Cars,” Fortune , November 1, 2010, 140. That includes allocating $8 billion in R&D funds as well as another $10 billion in infrastructure (e.g., installing charging stations).Gordon Orr, “Unleashing Innovation in China,” McKinsey Quarterly , January 2011, accessed January 2, 2011, www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Innovation/Unleashing_innovation_in_China_2725 . The government will also subsidize the purchase of electric cars by consumers and has committed to buying electric cars for government fleets, thus guaranteeing that there will be buyers for the new electric vehicles that companies invent and develop.

Another role of government is to set high targets that require innovation. In the 1960s, the US Apollo space program launched by President John F. Kennedy inspired US corporations to work toward putting a man on the moon. The government’s investments in the Apollo program sped up the development of computer and communications technology and also led to innovations in fuel cells, water purification, freeze-drying food, and digital image processing now used in medical products for CAT scans and MRIs.Adrian Slywotzky, “How Science Can Create Millions of New Jobs,” BusinessWeek , September 7, 2009, accessed May 11, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036678131.htm . Today, government policies coming from the European Union mandate ambitious environmental targets, such as carbon-neutral fuels and energy, which are driving global R&D to achieve environmental goals the way the Apollo program drove R&D in the 1960s.Martin Grueber and Tim Studt, “A Battelle Perspective on Investing in International R&D,” R&D Magazine , December 22, 2009, http://www.rdmag.com/Featured-Articles/2009/12/Global-Funding-Forecast-A-Battelle-Perspective-International-R-D .

After the 1990s, US investment in R&D declined, especially in basic research. Governments in other countries, however, continue to invest. New government-corporate partnerships are developing around the world. IBM, which for years closely guarded its R&D labs (even IBM employees were required to have special badges to enter the R&D area), is now setting up “collaboratories” around the world. These collaboratories are partnerships between IBM researchers and outside experts from government, universities, and even other companies. “The world is our lab now,” says John E. Kelly III, director of IBM Research.Steve Hamm, “How Big Blue Is Forging Cutting-edge Partnerships around the World,” BusinessWeek , August 27, 2009, accessed January 2, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_36/b4145040683083.htm . IBM has deals for six future collaboratories in China, Ireland, Taiwan, Switzerland, India, and Saudi Arabia.

The reason for the collaboratory strategy is to share R&D costs—IBM’s partners must share 50 percent of the funding costs, which means that together the partners can participate in a large-scale effort that they’d be hard pressed to fund on their own. An example is IBM’s research partnership with the state-funded Swiss university ETH Zurich. The two are building a $70 million semiconductor lab for nanotech research with the goal of identifying a replacement for the current semiconductor-switch technology.Steve Hamm, “How Big Blue Is Forging Cutting-Edge Partnerships around the World,” BusinessWeek , August 27, 2009, accessed January 2, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_36/b4145040683083.htm . Such a breakthrough could harken the creation of a whole new industry.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States remains the largest investor in R&D. One-third of all spending on R&D comes from the United States. Just one government agency—the Department of Defense—provides more funding than all the nations of the world except China and Japan. Nonetheless, other countries are increasing the amounts of money they spend on R&D. Their governments are funding R&D at higher levels and are giving more attractive tax incentives to firms that spend on R&D.

Governments can also play a big role in the protection of intellectual property rights, as you’ll see in Section 13.2 .

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• R&D refers to two intertwined processes of research (to identify new facts and ideas) and development (turning the ideas into tangible products and services.) Companies undertake R&D to get a pipeline of new products. Breakthrough innovations can create whole new industries, which can provide thousands of jobs.
• Invention is the creation of a new idea embodied in a product or process, while innovation takes that new idea and commercializes it in a way that enables a company to generate revenue from it.
• Government support of R&D plays a significant role in innovation. It has been generally accepted that it’s desirable to encourage R&D for reasons of economic growth as well as national security. This has resulted in massive support from public funds for many sorts of laboratories. Governments influence R&D not only by providing direct funding but also by providing tax incentives to companies that invest in R&D. Governments also stimulate innovation through supporting institutions such as education and providing reliable infrastructure.

(AACSB: Reflective Thinking, Analytical Skills)

• What benefits does a company get by investing in R&D?
• Why do organizations make a distinction between basic research and applied research?
• Describe three ways in which government can influence R&D.

Research, Society and Development

About the journal.

The Research, Society and Development journal (whose abbreviated title is Res., Soc. Dev.) is a multidisciplinary scientific publication focused on promoting the social, scientific and technological development through the publication of the findings that have occurred in different areas. This is a monthly journal, which publishes various types of manuscript, such as scientific articles, reviews and case teaching in diversified areas of knowledge. The journal receives many contributions in Portuguese, or English or Spanish, (or other language on request) from researchers in the area of Teaching, which allows to evaluate and publish also educational objects.

Ad hoc revisors 2023

We thank all of the more than 325 “ad hoc” reviewers who contributed to this Journal (double-blind peer review) during the year 2023.

Reviewers 2023     

Current Issue

JOURNAL METRICS

Índice H5 (Google Metrics): 28 (2023)

Score CiteFactor: 1.78 (2020-21)

• Español (España)
• Português (Brasil)

Make a Submission

Base de Dados e Indexadores: Base , Diadorim , Sumarios.org , DOI Crossref , Dialnet , Scholar Google , Redib , Latindex

Research, Society and Development - ISSN 2525-3409

CDRR Editors. Avenida Sulim Abramovitc, 100 - Centro, Vargem Grande Paulista - SP, 06730-000 E-mail: [email protected] | 

Articles on Research and development (R&D)

Displaying 1 - 20 of 114 articles.

High drug prices in Canada are just one side of a bad equation

Sandra Sirrs , University of British Columbia and Joel Lexchin , York University, Canada

Bailout, Band-Aid or back to basics? 3 questions NZ’s university funding review must ask

Nicola Gaston , University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Starved of funds and vision, struggling universities put NZ’s entire research strategy at risk

Kenya’s budget doesn’t allocate funds for new education initiatives – this will stall innovation in the country

Moses Ngware , African Population and Health Research Center

Amid a STEM crisis, here’s what the 2023 budget promises for Australian science and innovation

Kylie Walker , Australian National University

Pharma’s expensive gaming of the drug patent system is successfully countered by the Medicines Patent Pool, which increases global access and rewards innovation

Lucy Xiaolu Wang , UMass Amherst

What it would take to set up an African drug discovery ecosystem

Ozlem Tastan Bishop , Rhodes University ; Adrienne Edkins , Rhodes University ; Edwin Murungi , Kisii University ; Fabrice Boyom , Université de Yaounde 1 , and Heinrich Hoppe , Rhodes University

Australia’s future depends on science. Here’s what our next government needs to do about it

John Shine , Garvan Institute

The push for ‘researcher entrepreneurs’ could be a step backward for gender equity

Caroline Schuster , Australian National University

Will the government’s $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture

Jared Mondschein , University of Sydney and Rajat Roy , Bond University

Three pillars to strengthening health systems in African countries

Charles Shey Wiysonge , South African Medical Research Council and Daniel Bausch , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Latest government bid to dictate research directions builds on a decade of failure

Ksenia Sawczak , University of Sydney

Every dollar invested in research and development creates $3.50 in benefits for Australia, says new CSIRO analysis

Katherine Wynn , CSIRO ; Jasmine Cohen , CSIRO , and Mingji Liu , CSIRO

How can Australia get cracking on emissions? The know-how we need is in our universities

Kim Rasmussen , University of Sydney and Ben Thornber , University of Sydney

Why Chinese companies are investing in French wine and German robots

Louise Curran , TBS Education

Why can’t Australia make mRNA vaccines? Because we don’t make enough ‘deep technology’ companies

Julian Waters-Lynch , RMIT University

These 3 energy storage technologies can help solve the challenge of moving to 100% renewable electricity

Kerry Rippy , National Renewable Energy Laboratory

COVID vaccines offer the pharma industry a once-in - a-generation opportunity to reset its reputation. But it’s after decades of big profits and scandals

Ray Moynihan , Bond University

Research and development are key to resilient food systems in Africa

Lulama Ndibongo Traub , Stellenbosch University ; Thomas Jayne , Michigan State University , and Wandile Sihlobo , University of the Witwatersrand

Australia’s government gives more support to fossil fuel research than is apparent

Will McDowall , UCL

Related Topics

• Climate change
• Higher education
• Research funding
• Science funding
• South Africa

Top contributors

Co-Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Emeritus Professor & UTS innovation adviser, University of Technology Sydney

Director, Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology

Associate Professor, Bond Business School, Bond University

Director of programmes, African Academy of Sciences

Senior Research Scientist, African Population and Health Research Center

Professor of Public Policy, ADFA Canberra, UNSW Sydney

Visiting Professor, Imperial College Business School, and Emeritus Professor, School of Business, The University of Queensland

Honorary Professor, TU Wien

Professor of Research Policy, University of Sheffield

Previous Vice President of the Academy of Science of South Africa and DSI-NRF SARChI chair in Fungal Genomics, Professor in Genetics, University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria

Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

John Curtin Distinguished Professor (Radio Astronomy), Curtin University

Professor in Innovation and Associate Dean (Research), The University of Queensland

Director Monash Energy Institute, Monash University

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Research and Development Scientist and Engineer 1

🔍 dean of research, stanford, california, united states.

POSITION SUMMARY:  The Stanford Nano Shared Facilities (SNSF) is seeking a Lab Operations Engineer to support highly specialized technical research operations within the SNSF’s Nanopatterning and Flexible Cleanrooms. A successful candidate will manage day-to-day operations, maintenance of a number of fabrication and characterization instruments within the cleanroom, and foster a sense of community between users from various technical backgrounds. S(he) will provide training and support to researchers, develop and implement advanced techniques, and also be involved in planning for upgrades and new equipment.

SCHOOL/UNIT DESCRIPTION: The goal of the shared facilities at Stanford University is to provide open, cost-effective access to state-of-the-art nanofabrication and characterization facilities for scientists and engineers from academia, small and large companies, and government laboratories. SNSF offers a comprehensive array of advanced nanofabrication and nanocharacterization tools.  Over 1,200 researchers make use of the shared facilities each year to further their research programs.   For more information about SNSF, visit http://snsf.stanford.edu .

CORE DUTIES:

• Utilize and support complex and specialized equipment, instruments, or systems; coordinate detailed phases of work in support of the nanofabrication needs of the community.
• Develop technical and methodological solutions to complex engineering/scientific problems requiring independent analytical thinking and advanced knowledge. 
• Develop creative new or improved equipment, materials, technologies, processes, methods, or software important to the advancement of the field. 
• Contribute technical expertise, and perform basic research and development in support of nanofabrication programs/projects; act as advisor/consultant in area of specialty. 
• Contribute to portions of published articles or presentations; prepare and write reports; draft and prepare scientific papers. 
• Provide technical direction to other research staff, engineering associates, technicians, and/or students, as needed.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: Education & Experience: Bachelor's degree in related scientific field and three years of relevant work experience, or equivalent combination of education and relevant. Advanced degree and ten or more years of experience with nanofabrication and nanocharacterization preferred.

Knowledge, Skills and Abilities

• Demonstrated experience and knowledge in the field of nanofabrication, including but not limited to direct-write photolithography, physical vapor deposition, wet chemical processing, ion milling and reactive ion etching, and optical and scanning electron microscopy.
• Experience with operation and maintenance of high vacuum systems.
• Experience troubleshooting and developing both instrumentation hardware and fabrication processes.
• Basic mechanical aptitude and understanding of mechanical and electrical design.
• Thorough knowledge of the principles of engineering and related natural sciences.
• Willingness to produce dedicated online and in-person teaching material on various aspects of nanofabrication.
• Strong desire to work with varying scientific backgrounds and demonstrated ability to collaborate and communicate across disciplines.
• Experience overseeing the planning, design, and implementation of major scientific or engineering initiatives and ensuring project objectives are met.
• Demonstrated ability to review research proposals, evaluate research capabilities, and make recommendations.
• Demonstrated ability to establish, communicate, and enforce compliance with health and safety policies and procedures.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS*:

• Frequently grasp lightly/fine manipulation, perform desk-based computer tasks, lift/carry/push/pull objects that weigh up to 10 pounds. 
• Occasionally stand/walk, sit, twist/bend/stoop/squat, grasp forcefully. 
• Rarely kneel/crawl, climb (ladders, scaffolds, or other), reach/work above shoulders, use a telephone, writing by hand, sort/file paperwork or parts, operate foot and/or hand controls, lift/carry/push/pull objects that weigh <40 pounds.

Consistent with its obligations under the law, the University will provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities. Applicants requiring a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application or hiring process should contact Stanford University Human Resources at [email protected] . For all other inquiries, please submit a contact form .

WORKING CONDITIONS:

• May be exposed to high voltage electricity, radiation or electromagnetic fields, lasers, noise > 80dB TWA, Allergens/Biohazards/Chemicals /Asbestos, confined spaces, working at heights ≥10 feet, temperature extremes, and heavy metals.
• Employee must perform tasks that require the use of personal protective equipment, such as safety glasses, protective clothing and gloves, and possibly a respirator. 
• May require extended or unusual work hours based on research requirements and business needs.
• May require travel.

WORK STANDARDS:

• Interpersonal Skills: Demonstrates the ability to work well with Stanford colleagues and clients and with external organizations.
• Promote Culture of Safety: Demonstrates commitment to personal responsibility and value for safety; communicates safety concerns; uses and promotes safe behaviors based on training and lessons learned.
• Subject to and expected to comply with all applicable University policies and procedures, including but not limited to the personnel policies and other policies found in the University’s Administrative Guide, http://adminguide.stanford.edu .

The expected pay range for this position is $107,000 - $129,218 per annum. Stanford University provides pay ranges representing its good faith estimate of what the university reasonably expects to pay for a position. The pay offered to a selected candidate will be determined based on factors such as (but not limited to) the scope and responsibilities of the position, the qualifications of the selected candidate, departmental budget availability, internal equity, geographic location and external market pay for comparable jobs.

Why Stanford is for You Imagine a world without search engines or social platforms. Consider lives saved through first-ever organ transplants and research to cure illnesses. Stanford University has revolutionized the way we live and enrich the world. Supporting this mission is our diverse and dedicated 17,000 staff. We seek talent driven to impact the future of our legacy. Our culture and unique perks empower you with:

• Freedom to grow. We offer career development programs, tuition reimbursement, or audit a course. Join a TedTalk, film screening, or listen to a renowned author or global leader speak.
• A caring culture. We provide superb retirement plans, generous time-off, and family care resources.
• A healthier you. Climb our rock wall, or choose from hundreds of health or fitness classes at our world-class exercise facilities. We also provide excellent health care benefits.
• Discovery and fun. Stroll through historic sculptures, trails, and museums.
• Enviable resources. Enjoy free commuter programs, ridesharing incentives, discounts and more!

Our VPDoR Diversity Journey:

• We create a hub of innovation through the power of diversity of disciplines and people. 
• We provide equitable access and opportunity to all members of the community in order to do their best work, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.
• We listen to and value all colleagues who bring diverse perspectives to the advancement and development of a respectful community. 
• We promote a culture of belonging, equity, and safety.
• We embed these values in excellence of education, research, and operation.

The job duties listed are typical examples of work performed by positions in this job classification and are not designed to contain or be interpreted as a comprehensive inventory of all duties, tasks, and responsibilities. Specific duties and responsibilities may vary depending on department or program needs without changing the general nature and scope of the job or level of responsibility. Employees may also perform other duties as assigned. Stanford is an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.

• Schedule: Full-time
• Job Code: 4981
• Employee Status: Regular
• Requisition ID: 102542
• Work Arrangement : Hybrid Eligible

My Submissions

Track your opportunities.

Similar Listings

 Dean of Research, Stanford, California, United States

📁 Research

Post Date: Mar 08, 2024

Post Date: 3 days ago

Post Date: Mar 15, 2024

Global Impact We believe in having a global impact

Climate and sustainability.

Stanford's deep commitment to sustainability practices has earned us a Platinum rating and inspired a new school aimed at tackling climate change.

Medical Innovations

Stanford's Innovative Medicines Accelerator is currently focused entirely on helping faculty generate and test new medicines that can slow the spread of COVID-19.

From Google and PayPal to Netflix and Snapchat, Stanford has housed some of the most celebrated innovations in Silicon Valley.

Advancing Education

Through rigorous research, model training programs and partnerships with educators worldwide, Stanford is pursuing equitable, accessible and effective learning for all.

Working Here We believe you matter as much as the work

I love that Stanford is supportive of learning, and as an education institution, that pursuit of knowledge extends to staff members through professional development, wellness, financial planning and staff affinity groups.

School of Engineering

I get to apply my real-world experiences in a setting that welcomes diversity in thinking and offers support in applying new methods. In my short time at Stanford, I've been able to streamline processes that provide better and faster information to our students.

Phillip Cheng

Office of the Vice Provost for Student Affairs

Besides its contributions to science, health, and medicine, Stanford is also the home of pioneers across disciplines. Joining Stanford has been a great way to contribute to our society by supporting emerging leaders.

Denisha Clark

School of Medicine

I like working in a place where ideas matter. Working at Stanford means being part of a vibrant, international culture in addition to getting to do meaningful work.

Office of the President and Provost

Getting Started We believe that you can love your job

Join Stanford in shaping a better tomorrow for your community, humanity and the planet we call home.

• 4.2 Review Ratings
• 81% Recommend to a Friend

View All Jobs

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Business Essentials

Research and Development (R&D) Expenses: Definition and Example

Yarilet Perez is an experienced multimedia journalist and fact-checker with a Master of Science in Journalism. She has worked in multiple cities covering breaking news, politics, education, and more. Her expertise is in personal finance and investing, and real estate.

Investopedia / Julie Bang

What Are Research and Development (R&D) Expenses?

Research and development ( R&D ) expenses are associated directly with the research and development of a company's goods or services and any intellectual property generated in the process. A company generally incurs R&D expenses in the process of finding and creating new products or services.

As a common type of operating expense , a company may deduct R&D expenses on its tax return.

Key Takeaways

• Research and development (R&D) expenses are direct expenditures relating to a company's efforts to develop, design, and enhance its products, services, technologies, or processes.
• The industrial, technological, health care, and pharmaceutical sectors typically incur the highest degree of R&D expenses.
• The IRS offers tax breaks for R&D expenses, and these may also be deducted on corporate tax returns.

Understanding Research and Development Expenses

Research and development is a systematic activity that combines basic and applied research to discover solutions to new or existing problems or to create or update goods and services. When a company conducts its own R&D, it often results in the ownership of intellectual property in the form of patents or copyrights that result from discoveries or inventions.

An essential component of a company's research and development arm is its direct R&D expenses, which can range on a spectrum from relatively minor costs to several billions of dollars for large research-focused corporations. Companies in the industrial, technological, health care, and pharmaceutical sectors usually have the highest levels of R&D expenses. Some companies—for example, those in technology—reinvest a significant portion of their profits back into research and development as an investment in their continued growth.

Large companies have also been able to conduct R&D through acquisition by investing in or subsidizing some of those smaller companies' costs or acquiring them outright.

Real World Example of R&D Expenses

Tech companies rely heavily on their research and development capabilities, so they have relatively outsized R&D expenses. In a constantly changing environment, it's important for such a company to remain on the bleeding edge of innovation. For example, Meta ( META ), formerly Facebook, invests heavily in the research and development of products such as virtual reality and predictive AI chatbots . These endeavors allow Meta to diversify its business and find new growth opportunities as technology continues to evolve.

Meta's 2014 acquisition of Oculus Rift is an example of R&D expenses through acquisition. Meta already had the internal resources necessary to build out a virtual reality division, but by acquiring an existing virtual reality company, it was able to expedite the time it took them to develop this capability.

Reasons to Conduct R&D

Businesses conduct R&D for many reasons, the first and foremost being new product research and development. Before any new product is released into the marketplace, it goes through significant research and development phases, which include a product's market opportunity, cost, and production timeline. After adequate research, a new product enters the development phase, where a company creates the product or service using the concept laid out during the research phase.

Some companies use R&D to update existing products or conduct quality checks in which a business evaluates a product to ensure that it is still adequate and discusses any improvements. If the improvements are cost-effective, they will be implemented during the development phase.

Internal Revenue Service. " IRS Sets Forth Required Information for a Valid Research Credit Claim for Refund ."

Internal Revenue Service. " Instructions for Form 6765 ."

Meta Research. " Research Areas ."

Meta. " Facebook to Acquire Oculus ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

FAC Number: 2024-03 Effective Date: 02/23/2024

Part 35 - Research and Development Contracting

35.000 scope of part., 35.001 definitions., 35.002 general., 35.003 policy., 35.004 publicizing requirements and expanding research and development sources., 35.005 work statement., 35.006 contracting methods and contract type., 35.007 solicitations., 35.008 evaluation for award., 35.009 subcontracting research and development effort., 35.010 scientific and technical reports., 35.011 data., 35.012 patent rights., 35.013 insurance., 35.014 government property and title., 35.015 contracts for research with educational institutions and nonprofit organizations., 35.016 broad agency announcement., 35.017 federally funded research and development centers., 35.017-1 sponsoring agreements., 35.017-2 establishing or changing an ffrdc., 35.017-3 using an ffrdc., 35.017-4 reviewing ffrdc’s., 35.017-5 terminating an ffrdc., 35.017-6 master list of ffrdc’s., 35.017-7 limitation on the creation of new ffrdc’s..

(a) This part prescribes policies and procedures of special application to research and development (R&D) contracting .

(b) R&D integral to acquisition of major systems is covered in part  34 . Independent research and development (IR&D) is covered at 31.205-18 .

Applied research means the effort that (a) normally follows basic research , but may not be severable from the related basic research ; (b) attempts to determine and exploit the potential of scientific discoveries or improvements in technology, materials, processes, methods, devices, or techniques; and (c) attempts to advance the state of the art. When being used by contractors in cost principle applications, this term does not include efforts whose principal aim is the design, development , or testing of specific items or services to be considered for sale; these efforts are within the definition of " development ," given below.

Development , as used in this part, means the systematic use of scientific and technical knowledge in the design, development , testing, or evaluation of a potential new product or service (or of an improvement in an existing product or service) to meet specific performance requirements or objectives. It includes the functions of design engineering, prototyping, and engineering testing; it excludes subcontracted technical effort that is for the sole purpose of developing an additional source for an existing product.

Recoupment , as used in this part, means the recovery by the Government of Government-funded nonrecurring costs from contractors that sell, lease, or license the resulting products or technology to buyers other than the Federal Government.

The primary purpose of contracted R&D programs is to advance scientific and technical knowledge and apply that knowledge to the extent necessary to achieve agency and national goals. Unlike contracts for supplies and services, most R&D contracts are directed toward objectives for which the work or methods cannot be precisely described in advance. It is difficult to judge the probabilities of success or required effort for technical approaches, some of which offer little or no early assurance of full success. The contracting process shall be used to encourage the best sources from the scientific and industrial community to become involved in the program and must provide an environment in which the work can be pursued with reasonable flexibility and minimum administrative burden.

(a) Use of contracts. Contracts shall be used only when the principal purpose is the acquisition of supplies or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government. Grants or cooperative agreements should be used when the principal purpose of the transaction is to stimulate or support research and development for another public purpose.

(b) Cost sharing . Cost sharing policies (which are not otherwise required by law) under Government contracts shall be in accordance with 16.303 , 42.707 (a) and agency procedures.

(c) Recoupment . Recoupment not otherwise required by law shall be in accordance with agency procedures.

(a) In order to obtain a broad base of the best contractor sources from the scientific and industrial community, agencies must , in addition to following the requirements of part  5 , continually search for and develop information on sources (including small business concerns) competent to perform R&D work. These efforts should include-

(1) Early identification and publication of agency R&D needs and requirements, including publicizing through the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE ) (see part  5 );

(2) Cooperation among technical personnel, contracting officers , and Government small business personnel early in the acquisition process; and

(3) Providing agency R&D points of contact for potential sources.

(b) See subpart  9.7 for information regarding R&D pools and subpart  9.6 for teaming arrangements.

(a) A clear and complete work statement concerning the area of exploration (for basic research ) or the end objectives (for development and applied research ) is essential. The work statement should allow contractors freedom to exercise innovation and creativity. Work statements must be individually tailored by technical and contracting personnel to attain the desired degree of flexibility for contractor creativity and the objectives of the R&D.

(b) In basic research the emphasis is on achieving specified objectives and knowledge rather than on achieving predetermined end results prescribed in a statement of specific performance characteristics. This emphasis applies particularly during the early or conceptual phases of the R&D effort.

(c) In reviewing work statements, contracting officers should ensure that language suitable for a level-of-effort approach, which requires the furnishing of technical effort and a report on the results, is not intermingled with language suitable for a task-completion approach, which often requires the development of a tangible end item designed to achieve specific performance characteristics. The wording of the work statement should also be consistent with the type and form of contract to be negotiated (see 16.207 and 16.306 (d)). For example, the work statement for a cost-reimbursement contract promising the contractor’s best efforts for a fixed term would be phrased differently than a work statement for a cost-reimbursement completion contract promising the contractor’s best efforts for a defined task. Differences between work statements for fixed-price contracts and cost-reimbursement contracts should be even clearer.

(d) In preparing work statements, technical and contracting personnel shall consider and, as appropriate, provide in the solicitation -

(1) A statement of the area of exploration, tasks to be performed, and objectives of the research or development effort;

(2) Background information helpful to a clear understanding of the objective or requirement ( e.g., any known phenomena, techniques, methodology, or results of related work);

(3) Information on factors such as personnel, environment, and interfaces that may constrain the results of the effort;

(4) Reporting requirements and information on any additional items that the contractor is required to furnish (at specified intervals) as the work progresses;

(5) The type and form of contract contemplated by the Government and, for level-of-effort work statements, an estimate of applicable professional and technical effort involved; and

(6) Any other considerations peculiar to the work to be performed; for example, any design-to-cost requirements.

(a) In R&D acquisitions , the precise specifications necessary for sealed bidding are generally not available, thus making negotiation necessary. However, the use of negotiation in R&D contracting does not change the obligation to comply with part  6 .

(b) Selecting the appropriate contract type is the responsibility of the contracting officer . However, because of the importance of technical considerations in R&D, the choice of contract type should be made after obtaining the recommendations of technical personnel. Although the Government ordinarily prefers fixed-price arrangements in contracting , this preference applies in R&D contracting only to the extent that goals, objectives, specifications, and cost estimates are sufficient to permit such a preference. The precision with which the goals, performance objectives, and specifications for the work can be defined will largely determine the type of contract employed. The contract type must be selected to fit the work required.

(c) Because the absence of precise specifications and difficulties in estimating costs with accuracy (resulting in a lack of confidence in cost estimates) normally precludes using fixed-price contracting for R&D, the use of cost-reimbursement contracts is usually appropriate (see subpart  16.3 ). The nature of development work often requires a cost-reimbursement completion arrangement (see 16.306 (d)). When the use of cost and performance incentives is desirable and practicable, fixed-price incentive and cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts should be considered in that order of preference.

(d) When levels of effort can be specified in advance, a short-duration fixed-price contract may be useful for developing system design concepts, resolving potential problems, and reducing Government risks. Fixed-price contracting may also be used in minor projects when the objectives of the research are well defined and there is sufficient confidence in the cost estimate for price negotiations. (See 16.207 .)

(e) Projects having production requirements as a follow-on to R&D efforts normally should progress from cost-reimbursement contracts to fixed-price contracts as designs become more firmly established, risks are reduced, and production tooling, equipment, and processes are developed and proven. When possible, a final commitment to undertake specific product development and testing should be avoided until-

(1) Preliminary exploration and studies have indicated a high degree of probability that development is feasible and

(2) The Government has determined both its minimum requirements and desired objectives for product performance and schedule completion.

(a) The submission and subsequent evaluation of an inordinate number of R&D proposals from sources lacking appropriate qualifications is costly and time-consuming to both industry and the Government. Therefore, contracting officers should initially distribute solicitations only to sources technically qualified to perform research or development in the specific field of science or technology involved. Cognizant technical personnel should recommend potential sources that appear qualified, as a result of-

(1) Present and past performance of similar work;

(2) Professional stature and reputation;

(3) Relative position in a particular field of endeavor;

(4) Ability to acquire and retain the professional and technical capability, including facilities, required to perform the work; and

(5) Other relevant factors.

(b) Proposals generally shall be solicited from technically qualified sources, including sources that become known as a result of synopses or other means of publicizing requirements. If it is not practicable to initially solicit all apparently qualified sources, only a reasonable number need be solicited. In the interest of competition, contracting officers shall furnish copies of the solicitation to other apparently qualified sources.

(c) Solicitations shall require offerors to describe their technical and management approach, identify technical uncertainties, and make specific proposals for the resolution of any uncertainties. The solicitation should require offerors to include in the proposal any planned subcontracting of scientific or technical work (see 35.009 ).

(d) Solicitations may require that proposals be organized so that the technical portions can be efficiently evaluated by technical personnel (see 15.204-5 (b)). Solicitation and evaluation of proposals should be planned to minimize offerors ’ and Government expense.

(e) R&D solicitations should contain evaluation factors to be used to determine the most technically competent (see 15.304 ), such as-

(1) The offeror ’s understanding of the scope of the work;

(2) The approach proposed to accomplish the scientific and technical objectives of the contract or the merit of the ideas or concepts proposed;

(3) The availability and competence of experienced engineering, scientific, or other technical personnel;

(4) The offeror ’s experience;

(5) Pertinent novel ideas in the specific branch of science and technology involved; and

(6) The availability, from any source, of necessary research, test, laboratory, or shop facilities.

(f) In addition to evaluation factors for technical competence, the contracting officer shall consider, as appropriate, management capability (including cost management techniques), experience and past performance , subcontracting practices, and any other significant evaluation criteria ( e.g., unrealistically low cost estimates in proposals for cost-reimbursement or fixed-price incentive contracts). Although cost or price is not normally the controlling factor in selecting a contractor to perform R&D, it should not be disregarded in arriving at a selection that best satisfies the Government’s requirement at a fair and reasonable cost.

(g) The contracting officer should ensure that potential offerors fully understand the details of the work, especially the Government interpretation of the work statement. If the effort is complex, the contracting officer should provide potential offerors an opportunity to comment on the details of the requirements as contained in the work statement, the contract Schedule, and any related specifications. This may be done at a preproposal conference (see 15.201 ).

(h) If it is appropriate to do so, solicitations should permit offerors to propose an alternative contract type (see 16.103 ).

(i) In circumstances when a concern has a new idea or product to discuss that incorporates the results of independent R&D work funded by the concern in the private sector and is of interest to the Government, there should be no hesitancy to discuss it; however, the concern should be warned that the Government will not be obligated by the discussion. Under such circumstances, it may be appropriate to negotiate directly with the concern without competition. Also, see subpart  15.6 concerning unsolicited proposals .

(j) The Government may issue an exploratory request to determine the existence of ideas or prior work in a specific field of research. Any such request shall clearly state that it does not impose any obligation on the Government or signify a firm intention to enter into a contract.

(a) Generally, an R&D contract should be awarded to that organization, including any educational institution, that proposes the best ideas or concepts and has the highest competence in the specific field of science or technology involved. However, an award should not be made to obtain capabilities that exceed those needed for successful performance of the work.

(b) In R&D contracting , precise specifications are ordinarily not available. The contracting officer should therefore take special care in reviewing the solicitation evaluation factors to assure that they are properly presented and consistent with the solicitation .

(c) When a small business concern would otherwise be selected for award but is considered not responsible, the SBA Certificate of Competency procedure shall be followed (see subpart  19.6 ).

(d) The contracting officer should use the procedures in subpart  15.5 to notify and debrief offerors .

(e) It is important to evaluate a proposed contractor’s cost or price estimate, not only to determine whether the estimate is reasonable but also to provide valuable insight into the offeror ’s understanding of the project, perception of risks, and ability to organize and perform the work. Cost or price analysis, as appropriate (see 15.404-1 (c)), is a useful tool.

Since the selection of R&D contractors is substantially based on the best scientific and technological sources, it is important that the contractor not subcontract technical or scientific work without the contracting officer ’s advance knowledge. During the negotiation of a cost-reimbursement R&D contract, the contracting officer shall obtain complete information concerning the contractor’s plans for subcontracting any portion of the experimental, research, or development effort (see also 35.007 (c)). Also, when negotiating a fixed-price contract, the contracting officer should evaluate this information and may obtain an agreement that protects the Government’s interests. The clause at 52.244-2 , Subcontracts, prescribed for certain types of contracts at 44.204 (a), requires the contracting officer ’s prior approval for the placement of certain subcontracts.

(a) R&D contracts shall require contractors to furnish scientific and technical reports, consistent with the objectives of the effort involved, as a permanent record of the work accomplished under the contract.

(b) Agencies should make R&D contract results available to other Government activities and the private sector. Contracting officers shall follow agency regulations regarding such matters as national security, protection of data, and new-technology dissemination policy. Reports should be sent to the-

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161.

When agencies require that completed reports be covered by a report documentation page, Standard Form (SF) 298 , Report Documentation Page, the contractor should submit a copy with the report.

(a) R&D contracts shall specify the technical data to be delivered under the contract, since the data clauses required by part  27 do not require the delivery of any such data.

(b) In planning a developmental program when subsequent production contracts are contemplated, consideration should be given to the need and time required to obtain a technical package (plans, drawings, specifications, and other descriptive information) that can be used to achieve competition in production contracts. In some situations, the developmental contractor may be in the best position to produce such a technical package.

For a discussion of patent rights, see agency regulations and part  27 .

Nonprofit, educational, or State institutions performing cost-reimbursement contracts often do not carry insurance . They may claim immunity from liability for torts, or, as State institutions, they may be prohibited by State law from expending funds for insurance . When this is the case, see 28.311 for appropriate clause coverage.

(a) The requirements in part  45 for establishing and maintaining control over Government property apply to all R&D contracts.

(b) In implementing 31 U.S.C.6306 , and unless an agency head provides otherwise, the policies in paragraphs (1) through (4) following, regarding title to equipment (and other tangible personal property ) purchased by the contractor using Government funds provided for the conduct of basic or applied scientific research, apply to contracts with nonprofit institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research:

(1) If the contractor obtains the contracting officer ’s advance approval, the contractor shall automatically acquire and retain title to any item of equipment costing less than $5,000 (or a lesser amount established by agency regulations) acquired on a reimbursable basis.

(2) If purchased equipment costs $5,000 (or a lesser amount established by agency regulations) or more, and as the parties specifically agree in the contract, title may -

(i) Vest in the contractor upon acquisition without further obligation to the Government;

(ii) Vest in the contractor, subject to the Government’s right to direct transfer of the title to the Government or to a third party within 12 months after the contract’s completion or termination (transfer of title to the Government or third party shall not be the basis for any claim by the contractor); or

(iii) Vest in the Government, if the contracting officer determines that vesting of title in the contractor would not further the objectives of the agency’s research program.

(3) If title to equipment is vested in the contractor, depreciation , amortization, or use charges are not allowable with respect to that equipment under any existing or future Government contract or subcontract.

(4) If the contract is performed at a Government installation and there is a continuing need for the equipment following contract completion, title need not be transferred to the contractor.

(c) The absence of an agreement covering title to equipment acquired by the contractor with Government funds that cost $1,000 or more does not limit an agency’s right to act to vest title in a contractor as authorized by 31 U.S.C.6306 .

(1) Vesting title under paragraph (b) of this section is subject to civil rights legislation, 42 U.S.C.2000d . Before title is vested, the contractor must agree that-

No person in the United States or its outlying areas shall , on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under this contemplated financial assistance ( title to equipment ).

(2) By signing the contract, the contractor accepts and agrees to comply with this requirement.

(e) The policies in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) and paragraph (d) of this section are implemented in the Government Property clauses.

(a) General.

(1) When the R&D work is not defined precisely and the contract states only a period during which work is conducted (that is, a specific time for achievement of results is not required), research contracts with educational institutions and nonprofit organizations shall -

(i) State that the contractor bears primary responsibility for the research;

(A) The name of the principal investigator (or project leader), if the decision to contract is based on that particular individual’s research effort and management capabilities; and

(B) The contractor’s estimate of the amount of time that individual will devote to the work;

(iii) Provide that the named individual shall be closely involved and continuously responsible for the conduct of the work;

(iv) Provide that the contractor must obtain the contracting officer ’s approval to change the principal investigator (or project leader);

(v) Require that the contractor advise the contracting officer if the principal investigator (or project leader) will, or plans to, devote substantially less effort to the work than anticipated; and

(vi) Require that the contractor obtain the contracting officer ’s approval to change the phenomenon under study, the stated objectives of the research, or the methodology.

(2) If a research contract does provide precise objectives or a specific date for achievement of results, the contracting officer may include in the contract the requirements set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if it is necessary for the Government to exercise oversight and approval over the avenues of approach, methods, or schedule of work.

(b) Basic agreements.

(1) A basic agreement should be negotiated if the number of contracts warrants such an agreement (see 16.702 ). Basic agreements should be reviewed and updated at least annually.

(2) To promote uniformity and consistency in dealing with educational institutions and nonprofit organizations, agencies are encouraged to use basic agreements of other agencies.

(a) General. This paragraph prescribes procedures for the use of the broad agency announcement (BAA) with Peer or Scientific Review (see 6.102 (d)(2)) for the acquisition of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement . BAA’s may be used by agencies to fulfill their requirements for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing the state-of-the-art or increasing knowledge or understanding rather than focusing on a specific system or hardware solution. The BAA technique shall only be used when meaningful proposals with varying technical/scientific approaches can be reasonably anticipated.

(b) The BAA, together with any supporting documents, shall -

(1) Describe the agency’s research interest, either for an individual program requirement or for broadly defined areas of interest covering the full range of the agency’s requirements;

(2) Describe the criteria for selecting the proposals, their relative importance, and the method of evaluation;

(3) Specify the period of time during which proposals submitted in response to the BAA will be accepted; and

(4) Contain instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals.

(c) The availability of the BAA must be publicized through the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE ) and, if authorized pursuant to subpart  5.5 , may also be published in noted scientific, technical, or engineering periodicals. The notice must be published no less frequently than annually.

(d) Proposals received as a result of the BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified therein through a peer or scientific review process. Written evaluation reports on individual proposals will be necessary but proposals need not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement.

(e) The primary basis for selecting proposals for acceptance shall be technical, importance to agency programs, and fund availability. Cost realism and reasonableness shall also be considered to the extent appropriate.

(f) Synopsis under subpart  5.2 , Synopses of Proposed Contract Actions, of individual contract actions based upon proposals received under the BAA is not required. The notice published pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section fulfills the synopsis requirement.

(a) Policy.

(1) This section sets forth Federal policy regarding the establishment, use, review, and termination of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC’s ) and related sponsoring agreements.

(2) An FFRDC meets some special long-term research or development need which cannot be met as effectively by existing in-house or contractor resources. FFRDC’s enable agencies to use private sector resources to accomplish tasks that are integral to the mission and operation of the sponsoring agency. An FFRDC, in order to discharge its responsibilities to the sponsoring agency, has access, beyond that which is common to the normal contractual relationship, to Government and supplier data, including sensitive and proprietary data, and to employees and installations equipment and real property. The FFRDC is required to conduct its business in a manner befitting its special relationship with the Government, to operate in the public interest with objectivity and independence, to be free from organizational conflicts of interest, and to have full disclosure of its affairs to the sponsoring agency. It is not the Government’s intent that an FFRDC use its privileged information or access to installations equipment and real property to compete with the private sector. However, an FFRDC may perform work for other than the sponsoring agency under the Economy Act, or other applicable legislation, when the work is not otherwise available from the private sector.

(3) FFRDC’s are operated, managed, and/or administered by either a university or consortium of universities, other not-for-profit or nonprofit organization, or an industrial firm, as an autonomous organization or as an identifiable separate operating unit of a parent organization.

(4) Long-term relationships between the Government and FFRDC’s are encouraged in order to provide the continuity that will attract high-quality personnel to the FFRDC. This relationship should be of a type to encourage the FFRDC to maintain currency in its field(s) of expertise, maintain its objectivity and independence, preserve its familiarity with the needs of its sponsor (s), and provide a quick response capability.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section-

Nonsponsor means any other organization, in or outside of the Federal Government, which funds specific work to be performed by the FFRDC and is not a party to the sponsoring agreement.

Primary sponsor means the lead agency responsible for managing, administering, or monitoring overall use of the FFRDC under a multiple sponsorship agreement.

Sponsor means the executive agency which manages, administers, monitors, funds, and is responsible for the overall use of an FFRDC. Multiple agency sponsorship is possible as long as one agency agrees to act as the " primary sponsor ." In the event of multiple sponsors , " sponsor " refers to the primary sponsor .

(a) In order to facilitate a long-term relationship between the Government and an FFRDC, establish the FFRDC’s mission, and ensure a periodic reevaluation of the FFRDC, a written agreement of sponsorship between the Government and the FFRDC shall be prepared when the FFRDC is established. The sponsoring agreement may take various forms; it may be included in a contract between the Government and the FFRDC, or in another legal instrument under which an FFRDC accomplishes effort, or it may be in a separate written agreement. Notwithstanding its form, the sponsoring agreement shall be clearly designated as such by the sponsor .

(b) While the specific content of any sponsoring agreement will vary depending on the situation, the agreement shall contain, as a minimum, the requirements of paragraph (c) of this subsection. The requirements for, and the contents of, sponsoring agreements may be as further specified in sponsoring agencies’ policies and procedures.

(c) As a minimum, the following requirements must be addressed in either a sponsoring agreement or sponsoring agencies’ policies and procedures:

(1) A statement of the purpose and mission of the FFRDC.

(2) Provisions for the orderly termination or nonrenewal of the agreement, disposal of assets, and settlement of liabilities. The responsibility for capitalization of an FFRDC must be defined in such a manner that ownership of assets may be readily and equitably determined upon termination of the FFRDC’s relationship with its sponsor (s).

(3) A provision for the identification of retained earnings (reserves) and the development of a plan for their use and disposition.

(4) A prohibition against the FFRDC competing with any non-FFRDC concern in response to a Federal agency request for proposal for other than the operation of an FFRDC. This prohibition is not required to be applied to any parent organization or other subsidiary of the parent organization in its non-FFRDC operations. Requests for information, qualifications or capabilities can be answered unless otherwise restricted by the sponsor .

(5) A delineation of whether or not the FFRDC may accept work from other than the sponsor (s). If nonsponsor work can be accepted, a delineation of the procedures to be followed, along with any limitations as to the nonsponsors from which work can be accepted (other Federal agencies , State or local governments, nonprofit or profit organizations, etc.).

(d) The sponsoring agreement or sponsoring agencies’ policies and procedures may also contain, as appropriate, other provisions, such as identification of-

(1) Any cost elements which will require advance agreement if cost-type contracts are used; and

(2) Considerations which will affect negotiation of fees where payment of fees is determined by the sponsor (s) to be appropriate.

(e) The term of the agreement will not exceed 5 years, but can be renewed, as a result of periodic review, in increments not to exceed 5 years.

To establish an FFRDC, or change its basic purpose and mission, the sponsor shall ensure the following:

(a) Existing alternative sources for satisfying agency requirements cannot effectively meet the special research or development needs.

(b) The notices required for publication (see 5.205 (b)) are placed as required.

(c) There is sufficient Government expertise available to adequately and objectively evaluate the work to be performed by the FFRDC.

(d) The Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC 20506, is notified.

(e) Controls are established to ensure that the costs of the services being provided to the Government are reasonable.

(f) The basic purpose and mission of the FFRDC is stated clearly enough to enable differentiation between work which should be performed by the FFRDC and that which should be performed by non-FFRDC’s.

(g) A reasonable continuity in the level of support to the FFRDC is maintained, consistent with the agency’s need for the FFRDC and the terms of the sponsoring agreement.

(h) The FFRDC is operated, managed, or administered by an autonomous organization or as an identifiably separate operating unit of a parent organization, and is required to operate in the public interest, free from organizational conflict of interest , and to disclose its affairs (as an FFRDC) to the primary sponsor .

(i) Quantity production or manufacturing is not performed unless authorized by legislation.

(j) Approval is received from the head of the sponsoring agency.

(a) All work placed with the FFRDC must be within the purpose, mission, general scope of effort, or special competency of the FFRDC.

(b) Where the use of the FFRDC by a nonsponsor is permitted by the sponsor , the sponsor shall be responsible for compliance with paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(1) The nonsponsoring agency shall provide the documentation required by 17.503 (e) to the sponsoring agency.

(2) When a D&F is required pursuant to 17.502-2 (c), the nonsponsoring agency shall prepare the D&F and provide the documentation required by 17.503 (e) to the sponsoring agency.

(3) When permitted by the sponsor , a Federal agency may contract directly with the FFRDC, in which case that Federal agency is responsible for compliance with part 6 .

(a) The sponsor , prior to extending the contract or agreement with an FFRDC, shall conduct a comprehensive review of the use and need for the FFRDC. The review will be coordinated with any co- sponsors and may be performed in conjunction with the budget process. If the sponsor determines that its sponsorship is no longer appropriate, it shall apprise other agencies which use the FFRDC of the determination and afford them an opportunity to assume sponsorship.

(b) Approval to continue or terminate the sponsorship shall rest with the head of the sponsoring agency. This determination shall be based upon the results of the review conducted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this subsection.

(c) An FFRDC review should include the following:

(1) An examination of the sponsor ’s special technical needs and mission requirements that are performed by the FFRDC to determine if and at what level they continue to exist.

(2) Consideration of alternative sources to meet the sponsor ’s needs.

(3) An assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the FFRDC in meeting the sponsor ’s needs, including the FFRDC’s ability to maintain its objectivity, independence, quick response capability, currency in its field(s) of expertise, and familiarity with the needs of its sponsor .

(4) An assessment of the adequacy of the FFRDC management in ensuring a cost-effective operation.

(5) A determination that the criteria for establishing the FFRDC continue to be satisfied and that the sponsoring agreement is in compliance with 35.017-1 .

When a sponsor ’s need for the FFRDC no longer exists, the sponsorship may be transferred to one or more Government agencies, if appropriately justified. If the FFRDC is not transferred to another Government agency, it shall be phased out.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) maintains a master Government list of FFRDC’s. Primary sponsors will provide information on each FFRDC, including sponsoring agreements, mission statements, funding data, and type of R&D being performed, to the NSF upon its request for such information.

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4126 , the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may not obligate or expend amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense for purposes of operating an FFRDC that was not in existence before June 2, 1986, until—

(a) The head of the agency submits to Congress a report with respect to such center that describes the purpose, mission, and general scope of effort of the center; and

(b) A period of 60 days, beginning on the date such report is received by Congress, has elapsed.

Definitions

FAC Changes

Style Formatter

• Data Initiatives
• Regulations
• Smart Matrix
• Regulations Search
• Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
• Large Agencies
• Small Agencies
• CAOC History
• CAOC Charter
• Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
• Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
• Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)

ACQUISITION.GOV

An official website of the General Services Administration

15 U.S. Code § 638 - Research and development

Research and development are major factors in the growth and progress of industry and the national economy. The expense of carrying on research and development programs is beyond the means of many small-business concerns, and such concerns are handicapped in obtaining the benefits of research and development programs conducted at Government expense. These small-business concerns are thereby placed at a competitive disadvantage. This weakens the competitive free enterprise system and prevents the orderly development of the national economy. It is the policy of the Congress that assistance be given to small-business concerns to enable them to undertake and to obtain the benefits of research and development in order to maintain and strengthen the competitive free enterprise system and the national economy.

The Administration is authorized to consult and cooperate with all Government agencies and to make studies and recommendations to such agencies, and such agencies are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Administration in order to carry out and to accomplish the purposes of this section.

Funding agreements with small business concerns for research or research and development which result from competitive or single source selections other than an SBIR program shall not be considered to meet any portion of the percentage requirements of paragraph (1).

Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit a Federal agency from expending with small business concerns an amount of the extramural budget for research or research and development of the agency that exceeds the amount required under paragraph (1).

In addition to the requirements of subsection (f), each Federal agency which has a budget for research or research and development in excess of $20,000,000 for any fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 1983 or subsequent fiscal year shall establish goals specifically for funding agreements for research or research and development to small business concerns, and no goal established under this subsection shall be less than the percentage of the agency’s research or research and development budget expended under funding agreements with small business concerns in the immediately preceding fiscal year.

Each Federal agency required by this section to have an SBIR program or to establish goals shall report annually to the Small Business Administration the number of awards (including awards under subsection (y)) pursuant to grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements over $10,000 in amount and the dollar value of all such awards, identifying SBIR awards and comparing the number and amount of such awards with awards to other than small business concerns.

Not later than 4 months after the date of the enactment of each appropriations Act for a Federal agency required by this section to have an SBIR program, the Federal agency shall submit to the Administrator a report, which shall include a description of the methodology used for calculating the amount of the extramural budget of that Federal agency.

The Administrator shall include an analysis of the methodology received from each Federal agency referred to in subparagraph (A) in the report required by subsection (b)(7).

Upon the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall modify the policy directives issued pursuant to this subsection to require procurement center representatives (as described in section 644(l) of this title ) to consult with the appropriate personnel from the relevant Federal agency, to assist small business concerns participating in the SBIR program, particularly in Phase III.

A small business concern applying for a Phase II award under this section shall be required to update information in the database established under this subsection for any prior Phase II award received by that small business concern. In complying with this paragraph, a small business concern may apportion sales or additional investment information relating to more than one Phase II award among those awards, if it notes the apportionment for each award.

Not later than 60 days after the date established by a Federal agency for submitting applications or proposals for a Phase I or Phase II award under the SBIR program or STTR program, the head of the Federal agency shall submit to the Administrator the data required under paragraph (2) with respect to each small business concern that applies or submits a proposal for the Phase I or Phase II award.

Information provided under paragraph (2) shall be considered privileged and confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to section 552 of title 5 .

Inclusion of information in the database under this subsection shall not be considered to be publication for purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of section 102 of title 35 .

If a Federal agency required to establish an SBIR program under subsection (f) makes an award with respect to an SBIR solicitation topic or subtopic for which the agency received only 1 proposal, the agency shall provide written justification for making the award in its next quarterly report to the Administration and in the agency’s next annual report required under subsection (g)(8).

An agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall include in its next annual report required under subsection (g)(8) an accounting of the awards the agency has made for Phase I of an SBIR program during the reporting period to entities that have received more than 15 awards for Phase II of an SBIR program during the preceding 5 fiscal years.

An agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall include in its next annual report required under subsection (g)(8), an accounting of the number of awards it has made to critical technology topics, as defined in subsection (g)(3), including an identification of the specific critical technologies topics, and the percentage by number and dollar amount of the agency’s total SBIR awards to such critical technology topics.

The authorization to carry out the Small Business Innovation Research Program established under this section shall terminate on September 30, 2025 .

With respect to each fiscal year through fiscal year 2025, each Federal agency that has an extramural budget for research, or research and development , in excess of $1,000,000,000 for that fiscal year, shall expend with small business concerns not less than the percentage of that extramural budget specified in subparagraph (B), specifically in connection with STTR programs that meet the requirements of this section and any policy directives and regulations issued under this section.

Funding agreements with small business concerns for research or research and development which result from competitive or single source selections other than an STTR program shall not be considered to meet any portion of the percentage requirements of paragraph (1).

Not later than 120 days after October 15, 2001 , the Administrator shall modify the policy directive issued pursuant to this subsection to clarify that the rights provided for under paragraph (2)(B)(v) apply to all Federal funding awards under this section, including Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III.

Each agency may select 1 or more vendors from which small business concerns may obtain assistance in meeting the goals listed in paragraph (1) for a term not to exceed 5 years. Such selection shall be competitive and shall utilize merit-based criteria.

A small business concern may, by contract or otherwise, select 1 or more vendors to assist the small business concern in meeting the goals listed in paragraph (1).

In carrying out subparagraphs (A) and (B), each Federal agency shall provide the allowable amounts to a recipient that meets the eligibility requirements under the applicable subparagraph, if the recipient requests to seek technical or business assistance from an individual or entity other than a vendor selected under paragraph (2)(A) by the Federal agency . Business-related services aimed at improving the commercialization success of a small business concern may be obtained from an entity, such as a public or private organization or an agency of or other entity established or funded by a State that facilitates or accelerates the commercialization of technologies or assists in the creation and growth of private enterprises that are commercializing technology.

The Administrator shall establish a limit on the amount of technical and business assistance services that may be received or purchased under subparagraph (B) by a small business concern that has received multiple Phase II SBIR or STTR awards for a fiscal year.

A small business concern that receives technical or business assistance from a vendor under this subsection during a fiscal year shall submit to the Federal agency contracting with the vendor a description of the technical or business assistance provided and the benefits and results of the technical or business assistance provided.

The information required under subparagraph (A) shall be collected by a Federal agency as part of a report required to be submitted by small business concerns engaged in SBIR or STTR projects of the Federal agency for which the requirement was in effect on August 13, 2018 .

In the case of a small business concern that is awarded a funding agreement for Phase II of an SBIR or STTR program, a Federal agency may enter into a Phase III agreement with that business concern for additional work to be performed during or after the Phase II period. The Phase II funding agreement with the small business concern may, at the discretion of the agency awarding the agreement, set out the procedures applicable to Phase III agreements with that agency or any other agency.

In this subsection, the term “ Phase III agreement ” means a follow-on, non -SBIR or non -STTR funded contract as described in paragraph (4)(C) or paragraph (6)(C) of subsection (e).

Each funding agreement under an SBIR or STTR program shall include provisions setting forth the respective rights of the United States and the small business concern with respect to intellectual property rights and with respect to any right to carry out follow-on research.

All funds awarded, appropriated, or otherwise made available in accordance with subsection (f) or (n) must be awarded pursuant to competitive and merit-based selection procedures.

Program information relating to the SBIR and STTR programs shall be included by each Federal agency in any update or revision required of the Federal agency under section 306(b) of title 5 .

A State referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B)(ii) of paragraph (2) is a State in which the total value of contracts awarded to small business concerns under all SBIR programs is less than the total value of contracts awarded to small business concerns in a majority of other States, as determined by the Administrator in biennial fiscal years, beginning with fiscal year 2000, based on the most recent statistics compiled by the Administrator.

The Administrator shall work with the Federal agencies required by this section to have an SBIR or STTR program to standardize reporting requirements for the collection of data from SBIR or STTR applicants and awardees, including data for inclusion in the database under subsection (k), taking into consideration the unique needs of each agency, and to the extent possible, permitting the updating of previously reported information by electronic means. Such requirements shall be designed to minimize the burden on small businesses.

Not later than 1 year after December 31, 2011 , and after a period of public comment, the Administrator shall issue regulations or guidelines, taking into consideration the unique needs of each Federal agency, to ensure that each Federal agency required to carry out an SBIR program or STTR program simplifies and standardizes the program proposal, selection, contracting, compliance, and audit procedures for the SBIR program or STTR program of the Federal agency (including procedures relating to overhead rates for applicants and documentation requirements) to reduce the paperwork and regulatory compliance burden on small business concerns applying to and participating in the SBIR program or STTR program.

The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing a single model agreement for use in the STTR program that allocates between small business concerns and research institutions intellectual property rights and rights, if any, to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization.

In promulgating regulations under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall provide to affected agencies, small business concerns , research institutions , and other interested parties the opportunity to submit written comments.

In carrying out subsection (g), the Secretary of Defense shall, not less often than once every 4 years, revise and update the criteria and procedures utilized to identify areas of the research and development efforts of the Department of Defense which are suitable for the provision of funds under the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program.

The criteria and procedures described in paragraph (1) shall include input in the identification of areas of research and development efforts described in that paragraph from Department of Defense program managers (PMs) and program executive officers (PEOs).

The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department is authorized to create and administer a “Commercialization Readiness Program” to accelerate the transition of technologies, products, and services developed under the Small Business Innovation Research Program or Small Business Technology Transfer Program to Phase III, including the acquisition process. The authority to create and administer a Commercialization Readiness Program under this subsection may not be construed to eliminate or replace any other SBIR program or STTR program that enhances the insertion or transition of SBIR or STTR technologies, including any such program in effect on January 6, 2006 .

In carrying out the Commercialization Readiness Program, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department shall identify research programs of the Small Business Innovation Research Program or Small Business Technology Transfer Program that have the potential for rapid transitioning to Phase III and into the acquisition process.

No research program may be identified under paragraph (2) unless the Secretary of the military department concerned certifies in writing that the successful transition of the program to Phase III and into the acquisition process is expected to meet high priority military requirements of such military department.

The Secretary of Defense and each Secretary of a military department may use not more than an amount equal to 1 percent of the funds available to the Department of Defense or the military department pursuant to the Small Business Innovation Research Program for payment of expenses incurred to administer the Commercialization Readiness Program under this subsection.

The Administrator shall consult with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies in determining whether priority has been given to small business concerns that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development projects, as required by this subsection.

The Administrator shall, as soon as is practicable after December 19, 2007 , issue guidelines and directives to assist Federal agencies in meeting the requirements of this subsection.

No Federal agency may issue an award under the SBIR program or the STTR program if the size of the award exceeds the award guidelines established under this section by more than 50 percent.

The Administrator shall include the information described in paragraph (2) in the annual report of the Administrator to Congress .

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent a Federal agency from supplementing an award under the SBIR program or the STTR program using funds of the Federal agency that are not part of the SBIR program or the STTR program of the Federal agency .

A small business concern that received a Phase I award from a Federal agency under this section shall be eligible to receive a subsequent Phase II award from another Federal agency , if the head of each relevant Federal agency or the relevant component of the Federal agency makes a written determination that the topics of the relevant awards are the same and both agencies report the awards to the Administrator for inclusion in the public database under subsection (k).

A small business concern that received a Phase I award under this section under the SBIR program or the STTR program may receive a subsequent Phase II award in either the SBIR program or the STTR program and the participating agency or agencies shall report the awards to the Administrator for inclusion in the public database under subsection (k).

The head of a Federal agency shall verify that any activity to be performed with respect to a project with a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award has not been funded under the SBIR program or STTR program of another Federal agency .

During fiscal years 2012 through 2025, the National Institutes of Health , the Department of Defense , and the Department of Education may each provide to a small business concern an award under Phase II of the SBIR program with respect to a project, without regard to whether the small business concern was provided an award under Phase I of an SBIR program with respect to such project, if the head of the applicable agency determines that the small business concern has completed the determinations described in subsection (e)(4)(A) with respect to such project despite not having been provided a Phase I award.

The head of a Federal agency that makes an award under this subsection during a fiscal year shall collect and submit to the Administrator data relating to the number and dollar amount of Phase I awards, Phase II awards, and any other category of awards by the Federal agency under the SBIR program during that fiscal year.

The Administrator shall include as part of each annual report by the Administration under subsection (b)(7) any data submitted under subparagraph (A) and a discussion of the compliance of each Federal agency that makes an award under this subsection during the fiscal year with the maximum percentages under paragraph (1).

If a Federal agency awards more than the percent of the funds allocated for the SBIR program of the Federal agency authorized under paragraph (1) for a purpose described in paragraph (1), the head of the Federal agency shall transfer an amount equal to the amount awarded in excess of the amount authorized under paragraph (1) to the funds for general SBIR programs from the non -SBIR and non -STTR research and development funds of the Federal agency not later than 180 days after the date on which the Federal agency made the award that caused the total awarded under paragraph (1) to be more than the amount authorized under paragraph (1) for a purpose described in paragraph (1).

A Federal agency may not use investment of venture capital or investment from hedge funds or private equity firms as a criterion for the award of contracts under the SBIR program or STTR program.

If a small business concern receiving an award under this section enters into an agreement with a Federal laboratory or federally funded research and development center for portions of the activities to be performed under that award, the Federal laboratory or federally funded research and development center may not require advance payment from the small business concern in an amount greater than the amount necessary to pay for 30 days of such activities.

A small business concern that receives a Phase II SBIR award or a Phase II STTR award for a project remains eligible to receive 1 additional Phase II SBIR award or Phase II STTR award for continued work on that project.

A covered Federal agency may not establish a pilot program unless the covered Federal agency makes a written application to the Administrator, not later than 90 days before the first day of the fiscal year in which the pilot program is to be established, that describes a compelling reason that additional investment in SBIR or STTR technologies is necessary, including unusually high regulatory, systems integration, or other costs relating to development or manufacturing of identifiable, highly promising small business technologies or a class of such technologies expected to substantially advance the mission of the agency.

The head of a covered Federal agency may not make an award under a pilot program in excess of 3 times the dollar amounts generally established for Phase II awards under subsection (j)(2)(D) or (p)(2)(B)(ix).

Any applicant that receives an award under a pilot program shall register with the Administrator in a registry that is available to the public.

When making an award under this section, the head of a covered Federal agency shall give consideration to whether the technology to be supported by the award is likely to be manufactured in the United States.

The head of each covered Federal agency shall include in the annual report of the covered Federal agency to the Administrator an analysis of the various activities considered for inclusion in the pilot program of the covered Federal agency and a statement of the reasons why each activity considered was included or not included, as the case may be.

The authority to establish a pilot program under this section expires at the end of fiscal year 2025.

Federal agencies participating in the SBIR program or STTR program shall, to the extent possible, shorten the amount of time between the provision of notice of an award under the SBIR program or STTR program and the subsequent release of funding with respect to the award.

In carrying out the pilot program under subparagraph (A), the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy of the Department of Defense shall consult with the Director of the Office of Small Business Programs of the Department of Defense .

The pilot program under subparagraph (A) shall terminate on September 30, 2025 .

Federal agencies participating in the SBIR program or STTR program shall provide to the Administrator, for the annual report on the SBIR and STTR program under subsection (b)(7), the average amount of time the agency takes to make a final decision on proposals submitted under such programs, the average amount of time the agency takes to release funding with respect to an award under such programs, and the goals established to reduce such amounts.

The Director of the National Institutes of Health may use $5,000,000 of the funds allocated under subsection (n)(1) for a Proof of Concept Partnership pilot program to accelerate the creation of small businesses and the commercialization of research innovations from qualifying institutions. To implement this program, the Director shall award, through a competitive, merit-based process, grants to qualifying institutions. These grants shall only be used to administer Proof of Concept Partnership awards in conformity with this subsection.

A Proof of Concept Partnership shall be set up by a qualifying institution to award grants to individual researchers. These grants should provide researchers with the initial investment and the resources to support the proof of concept work and commercialization mentoring needed to translate promising research projects and technologies into a viable company. This work may include technical validations, market research, clarifying intellectual property rights position and strategy, and investigating commercial or business opportunities.

The administrator of a Proof of Concept Partnership program shall make educational resources and guidance available to researchers attempting to commercialize their innovations.

The Director may make awards to a qualifying institution for up to $1,000,000 per year for up to 4 years.

The pilot program under this subsection shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2025.

The Administrator shall establish rules to implement this subsection. The rules shall include a requirement that a Federal agency include in the SBIR and STTR application a provision through which the applicant can indicate consent for purposes of paragraph (1).

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a Federal agency participating in the program under this subsection shall use a portion of the funds authorized for uses under paragraph (1) to carry out the policy directive required under subsection (j)(2)(F) and to increase the participation of States with respect to which a low level of SBIR awards have historically been awarded.

A Federal agency may request the Administrator to waive the requirement contained in subparagraph (A). Such request shall include an explanation of why the waiver is necessary. The Administrator may grant the waiver based on a determination that the agency has demonstrated a sufficient need for the waiver, that the outreach objectives of the agency are being met, and that there is increased participation by States with respect to which a low level of SBIR awards have historically been awarded.

A Federal agency may not use funds as authorized under paragraph (1) until after the effective date of performance criteria, which the Administrator shall establish, to measure any benefits of using funds as authorized under paragraph (1) and to assess continuation of the authority under paragraph (1).

Not later than 180 days after December 31, 2011 , the Administrator shall issue rules to carry out this subsection.

Each Federal agency shall coordinate the activities funded under subparagraph (E), (F), or (G) of paragraph (1) with their respective Inspectors General, when appropriate, and each Federal agency that allocates more than $50,000,000 to the SBIR program of the Federal agency for a fiscal year may share such funding with its Inspector General when the Inspector General performs such activities.

The Administrator shall collect data and provide to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on the use of funds under this subsection, including funds used to achieve the objectives of paragraph (2)(A) and any use of the waiver authority under paragraph (2)(B).

The head of each Federal agency described in paragraph (1) shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress and the Administrator an annual report describing in detail the results of an evaluation conducted under paragraph (2).

The head of each Federal agency described in paragraph (1) shall make each report submitted under subparagraph (A) available to the public online.

The Administrator may only carry out a covered pilot program that is in operation on December 31, 2011 , during the 3-year period beginning on such date.

If the head of a Federal agency determines that a small business concern that received a Phase I SBIR or STTR award from the agency is not meeting the minimum performance standard established under subparagraph (A)(ii), such concern may not participate in Phase I (or Phase II if under the authority of subsection (cc)) of the SBIR or STTR program of that agency during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which such determination is made.

With respect to a small business concern that received or receives more than 50 Phase I awards during a covered period , each minimum performance standard established under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be doubled for such covered period .

If the head of a Federal agency determines that a small business concern that received a Phase I award from the Federal agency is not meeting an applicable increased minimum performance standard modified under clause (i), the small business concern may not receive more than 20 total Phase I awards and Phase II awards under subsection (cc) from each Federal agency during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which such determination is made.

In this subparagraph, the term “ covered period ” means a consecutive period of 5 fiscal years preceding the most recent fiscal year.

If the head of a Federal agency determines that a small business concern that received a Phase I award from the agency is not meeting an applicable increased minimum performance standard modified under clause (i), the small business concern may not receive more than 20 total Phase I awards and Phase II awards under subsection (cc) from each agency during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which such determination is made.

A small business concern that is subject to an increased minimum performance standard described in clause (i) shall submit to the Administrator supporting documentation evidencing that all covered sales of the small business concern were properly used to meet the increased minimum performance standard .

In this subparagraph, the term “ covered period ” means a consecutive period of 10 fiscal years preceding the most recent 2 fiscal years.

A small business concern with respect to which an increased minimum performance standard under subparagraph (B) applies may not meet the increased minimum performance standard by obtaining patents.

Subparagraphs (A) through (C) shall take effect on April 1, 2023 .

If the Administration grants a waiver with respect to a topic for the SBIR or STTR program of a Federal agency , subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii) shall not prohibit any covered small business concern from receiving an SBIR or STTR award under such topic.

Not later than 15 days before the release of a solicitation including a topic for which a senior official of a Federal agency is requesting a waiver under clause (i), the senior official shall submit to the Administrator, the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives , and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate a request for the waiver.

Not later than 15 days after receiving a request for a waiver under clause (i), the Administrator shall make a determination with respect to the request and notify the senior official at the Federal agency that made the request, the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives , and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate of the determination.

The term “ covered small business concern ” means a small business concern that is subject to the consequences under subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B)(ii) pursuant to a determination by the head of a Federal agency that such small business concern did not meet an increased minimum performance standard that was applicable to such small business concern.

The term “ senior official ” means an individual appointed to a position in a Federal agency that is classified above GS–15 pursuant section 5108 of title 5 , or any equivalent position, as determined by the Administrator.

Each list submitted under clause (i) shall identify each small business concern that received an SBIR or STTR award pursuant to a waiver granted under subparagraph (E) by the Administrator during the period covered by the list.

Each list submitted under clause (i) shall be confidential and exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5 (commonly known as the “ Freedom of Information Act ”).

Not later than April 1, 2023 , the Administration shall implement the increased minimum performance standards under this paragraph.

This paragraph shall terminate on September 30, 2025 .

Each system and minimum performance standard established under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) shall be submitted by the head of the applicable Federal agency to the Administrator and shall be subject to the approval of the Administrator. In making a determination with respect to approval, the Administrator shall ensure that the minimum performance standard exceeds a de minimis level. The Administrator shall publish on the Internet Web site of the Administration the systems and minimum performance standards approved.

The head of each covered Federal agency shall submit to the Administrator the results of each evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2).

Each system and minimum performance standard established under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) and each approval provided by the Administrator under paragraph (4)(A), at least 60 days before becoming effective, shall be preceded by the provision of notice of and an opportunity for public comment on such system, standard, or approval.

In this subsection, the term “ increased minimum performance standard ” means a minimum performance standard established under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (2)(A)(ii) as modified under subparagraph (A) or (B), respectively, of paragraph (3) with respect to a small business concern.

In order to increase the number of small businesses receiving awards under the SBIR or STTR programs of participating agencies, and to simplify the application process for such awards, the Administrator shall establish and maintain a public Internet Web site on which the Administrator shall publish such information relating to notice of and application for awards under the SBIR program and STTR program of each participating Federal agency as the Administrator determines appropriate.

Not later than December 31, 2018 , the head of each agency that is responsible for carrying out a provision described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) shall submit to the Administrator any information that is necessary for the Administrator to carry out the responsibilities of the Administrator under that paragraph.

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than one year after August 13, 2018 , a covered agency shall implement a commercialization assistance pilot program, under which an eligible entity may receive a subsequent Phase II SBIR award.

If the Administrator determines that a covered agency has a program that is sufficiently similar to the commercialization assistance pilot program established under this subsection, such covered agency shall not be required to implement a commercialization assistance pilot program under this subsection.

The head of each covered agency may allocate not more than 5 percent of the funds allocated to the SBIR program of the covered agency for the purpose of making a subsequent Phase II SBIR award under the commercialization assistance pilot program.

A commercialization assistance pilot program established under this subsection shall terminate on September 30, 2025 .

The Administrator shall require, as a condition of any subsequent Phase II SBIR award made to an eligible entity under this subsection, that a matching amount (excluding any fees collected by the eligible entity receiving such award) equal to the amount of such award be provided from an eligible third-party investor.

An eligible entity may not use funding from ineligible sources to meet the matching requirement of subparagraph (A).

The funds awarded to an eligible entity under this subsection may only be used for research and development activities that build on eligible entity’ s Phase II program and ensure the research funded under such Phase II is rapidly progressing towards commercialization.

The term “ covered agency ” means a Federal agency required to have an SBIR program.

The term “ eligible entity ” means a small business concern that has received a Phase II award under an SBIR program and an additional Phase II SBIR award under subsection (ff) from the covered agency to which such small business concern is applying for a subsequent Phase II SBIR award .

The term “ eligible third-party investor ” means a small business concern other than an eligible entity, a venture capital firm, an individual investor, a non -SBIR Federal, State or local government, or any combination thereof.

The term “ subsequent Phase II SBIR award ” means an award granted to an eligible entity under this subsection to carry out further commercialization activities for research conducted pursuant to an SBIR program.

The head of each Federal agency required to establish an SBIR or STTR program, in coordination with the Administrator, shall establish and implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award .

In addition to the amount allocated under subsection (mm)(1), each Federal agency required to establish an SBIR program may allocate not more than 2 percent of the funds allocated to the SBIR program of the Federal agency for the cost of establishing the due diligence program required under this subsection.

The Administrator shall include the information submitted by head of a Federal agency under clause (i) in the next annual report submitted under subsection (b)(7) after the Administrator receives such information.

In this subparagraph, the term “ covered year ” means, with respect to the information required under clause (i), the year covered by the annual report submitted under subsection (b)(7) in which the Administrator is required to include such information by clause (ii).

The Secretary of Defense shall conduct not less than 1 open topic announcement at each component of the Department of Defense per fiscal year.

A Federal agency required to establish an SBIR or STTR program shall implement a multi-level review and approval process within the Federal agency for solicitation topics to ensure adequate competition and that no private individual or entity is shaping the requirements for eligibility for the solicitation topic after the selection of the solicitation topic, except that the Federal agency may amend the requirements to clarify the solicitation topic.

A Federal agency that does not comply with paragraph (1) shall be referred to the Inspector General of the Administration for further investigation.

Executive Order 13329 , referred to in subsecs. (b)(8), (g)(11), (o)(15), and (ss)(2), is set out as a note under this section.

The Federal Trade Commission Act , referred to in subsec. (d)(3), is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717 , which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 41 et seq.) of chapter 2 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.

Executive Order 12333 , referred to in subsec. (e)(2), is set out as a note under section 3001 of Title 50 , War and National Defense.

Section 3703(5) of this title , referred to in subsec. (e)(8), was redesignated section 3703(3) by Pub. L. 110–69, title III, § 3002(c)(3) , Aug. 9, 2007 , 121 Stat. 586 .

Section 6683 of title 42 , referred to in subsecs. (g)(3)(A), (j)(2)(E)(i), and (o)(3)(A), was omitted from the Code.

Section 2522 of title 10 , referred to in subsecs. (g)(3)(B), (j)(2)(E)(ii), and (o)(3)(B), which related to annual defense critical technology plan, was repealed, and section 2518 (relating to Defense Advanced Manufacturing Technology Partnerships) was redesignated as section 2522, by Pub. L. 102–484, div. D, title XLII , §§ 4202(a), 4232(a), Oct. 23, 1992 , 106 Stat. 2659 , 2687, and subsequently repealed.

Section 105 of the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992 , referred to in subsec. (j)(2)(I), is section 105 of Pub. L. 102–564 , which is set out below.

The enactment of this paragraph, referred to in subsec. (j)(4), means the enactment of subsec. (j)(4) by Pub. L. 116–92 , which was approved Dec. 20, 2019 .

Section 270 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 ( Public Law 104–201 ; 10 U.S.C. 2501 note), referred to in subsec. (x)(2)(A), was formerly set out as a note under section 2501 of Title 10 , Armed Forces, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title II, § 241 , Oct 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2237 .

The year in which this subparagraph is enacted, referred to in subsec. (vv)(3)(B)(i), is the year of enactment of Pub. L. 117–183 , which was approved in 2022.

In subsec. (e)(8), “ section 1303(a)(1) of title 41 ” substituted for “section 35(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act ”, which probably should have been a reference to “section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act ” because that Act does not contain a section 35 and section 25(c) of that Act relates to issuance of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, on authority of Pub. L. 111–350, § 6(c) , Jan. 4, 2011 , 124 Stat. 3854 , which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.

In subsec. (n)(2)(A), “ section 1303(a)(1) of title 41 ” substituted for “section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act ” on authority of Pub. L. 111–350, § 6(c) , Jan. 4, 2011 , 124 Stat. 3854 , which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.

Section 209 of act July 30, 1953, ch. 282, title II, 67 Stat. 237 , was previously classified to this section. See section 645 of this title and Codification note set out under section 631 of this title .

2022— Pub. L. 117–183, § 3 , substituted “2025” for “2022” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (b)(7)(I), (J). Pub. L. 117–183, § 7(a)(1) , added subpars. (I) and (J).

Subsec. (b)(7)(K), (L). Pub. L. 117–183, § 8(1) , added subpars. (K) and (L).

Subsec. (e)(15) to (19). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(a) , added pars. (15) to (19).

Subsec. (g)(13). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(c)(1) , added par. (13).

Subsec. (g)(13)(D). Pub. L. 117–263 struck out “of concern” after “another foreign country”.

Subsec. (g)(14). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(c)(1)(C) , added par. (14).

Subsec. (g)(15). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(d)(1) , added par. (15).

Subsec. (g)(16), (17). Pub. L. 117–183, § 5(a) , added pars. (16) and (17).

Subsec. (o)(17), (18). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(c)(2) , added pars. (17) and (18).

Subsec. (o)(19). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(d)(2) , added par. (19).

Subsec. (o)(20), (21). Pub. L. 117–183, § 5(b) , added pars. (20) and (21).

Subsec. (qq)(3), (4). Pub. L. 117–183, § 8(2)(A) , (B), added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4). Former par. (4) redesignated (5).

Subsec. (qq)(5). Pub. L. 117–183, § 8(2)(A) , (C), redesignated par. (4) as (5) and substituted “paragraph (4)(A)” for “paragraph (3)(A)”.

Subsec. (qq)(6), (7). Pub. L. 117–183, § 8(2)(D) , added pars. (6) and (7).

Subsec. (vv). Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(b)(1) , added subsec. (vv).

Subsec. (ww). Pub. L. 117–183, § 7(a)(2) , added subsec. (ww).

Subsec. (xx). Pub. L. 117–183, § 9(a) , added subsec. (xx).

2021—Subsec. (b)(7)(H). Pub. L. 116–283, § 865(1) , added subpar. (H).

Subsec. (g)(10). Pub. L. 116–283, § 865(2) , inserted ‘, which section shall describe whether or not the Federal agency complied with the requirements of subsection (f) for the year covered by that plan and include a justification for failure to comply (if applicable),” after “a section on its SBIR program”.

Subsec. (o)(8). Pub. L. 116–283, § 865(3) , inserted “, which section shall describe whether or not the Federal agency complied with the requirements of subsection (n) for the year covered by that plan and include a justification for failure to comply (if applicable),” after “a section on its STTR program”.

Subsec. (r)(4)(A). Pub. L. 117–81 substituted “sections 3201 through 3205” for “section 2304”.

2019—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 116–92, § 880(b)(2) , struck out “and” at end.

Subsec. (b)(10). Pub. L. 116–92, § 880(b)(1) , added par. (10).

Subsec. (e)(14). Pub. L. 116–92, § 880(a) , added par. (14).

Subsec. (j)(4). Pub. L. 116–92, § 880(c)(1) , added par. (4).

Subsec. (p)(2)(G). Pub. L. 116–92, § 880(c)(2) , added subpar. (G).

2018—Subsec. (q). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(A) , inserted “and business” after “technical” in heading.

Subsec. (q)(1). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(B)(i) , in introductory provisions, substituted “1 or more vendors selected under paragraph (2)(A)” for “a vendor selected under paragraph (2)” and inserted “and business” before “assistance services” and “assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, market research, market validation, and development of regulatory plans and manufacturing plans,” after “technologies,”.

Subsec. (q)(1)(D). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(B)(ii) , inserted “, including intellectual property protections” before period at end.

Subsec. (q)(2). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(C) , designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), inserted heading, substituted “Each agency may select 1 or more vendors from which small business concerns may obtain assistance in meeting” for “Each agency may select a vendor to assist small business concerns to meet”, and added subpar. (B).

Subsec. (q)(3). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(i) , inserted “(A)” after “paragraph (2)” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (q)(3)(A). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(ii) , substituted “$6,500 per year” for “$5,000 per year” in two places.

Subsec. (q)(3)(B)(i). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(iii)(I) , substituted “$50,000 per project” for “$5,000 per year”.

Subsec. (q)(3)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(iii) , substituted “$50,000 per project, which may, as determined appropriate by the head of the Federal agency, be included as part of the recipient’s award or be in addition to the amount of the recipient’s award” for “$5,000 per year, which shall be in addition to the amount of the recipient’s award”.

Subsec. (q)(3)(C). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(iv) , inserted “or business” after “technical”, substituted “a vendor” for “the vendor”, and inserted at end “Business-related services aimed at improving the commercialization success of a small business concern may be obtained from an entity, such as a public or private organization or an agency of or other entity established or funded by a State that facilitates or accelerates the commercialization of technologies or assists in the creation and growth of private enterprises that are commercializing technology.”

Subsec. (q)(3)(D). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(v)(I) , inserted “or business” after “technical” in two places.

Subsec. (q)(3)(D)(i). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(v)(II) , substituted “1 or more vendors” for “the vendor”.

Subsec. (q)(3)(E). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(D)(vi) , added subpar. (E).

Subsec. (q)(4). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(c)(1)(E) , added par. (4).

Subsec. (cc). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(1) , substituted “2022” for “2017”.

Subsec. (gg)(7). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(2) , substituted “2022” for “2017”.

Subsec. (hh). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(b)(1) , designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted heading, struck out “attempt to” before “shorten”, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (ii). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(b)(2) , designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted heading, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (jj)(4)(A). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(3)(A) , substituted “4” for “3”.

Subsec. (jj)(7). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(3)(B) , substituted “2022” for “2017”.

Subsec. (mm)(1). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(4)(A)(i) , substituted “2022” for “2017” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (mm)(1)(K). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(4)(A)(ii) –(iv), added subpar. (K).

Subsec. (tt). Pub. L. 115–232, § 854(a)(5) , added subsec. (tt).

Subsec. (uu). Pub. L. 115–232, § 860 , added subsec. (uu).

2017—Subsec. (r). Pub. L. 115–91, § 1709(b)(1)(A) , inserted “, competitive procedures, and justification for awards” after “agreements” in heading.

Subsec. (r)(4). Pub. L. 115–91, § 1709(a) , (b)(1)(B), substituted “Competitive procedures and justification for awards” for “Phase III awards” in heading and “shall—

“(A) consider an award under the SBIR program or the STTR program to satisfy the requirements under section 2304 of title 10 and any other applicable competition requirements; and

“(B) issue, without further justification, Phase III awards”

for “shall issue Phase III awards” in text.

2016—Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 114–328, § 1834(a) , substituted “ September 30, 2022 ” for “ September 30, 2017 ”.

Subsec. (n)(1)(A). Pub. L. 114–328, § 1834(b) , substituted “fiscal year 2022” for “fiscal year 2017”.

2015—Subsec. (mm)(1). Pub. L. 114–92 substituted “and until September 30, 2017 ,” for “, for the 3 fiscal years beginning after December 31, 2011 ,” in introductory provisions.

2013—Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1076(a)(20)(A) , repealed Pub. L. 112–81, § 1067(a)(1) . See 2011 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (y)(4). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1615(b) , made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(3)(B) . See 2011 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 112–239, § 1615(a)(2) , added par. (4). Former par. (4) redesignated (5).

Subsec. (y)(5). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1615(a)(1) , redesignated par. (4) as (5). Former par. (5) redesignated (6).

Pub. L. 112–239, § 1076(a)(20)(A) , repealed Pub. L. 112–81, § 1067(a)(2) . See 2011 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (y)(6). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1615(a)(1) , redesignated par. (5) as (6).

2011—Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5131(1)(B) , substituted “(g)(8) and (o)(9);” for “(g)(10), (o)(9), and (o)(15) of this section, the number of proposals received from, and the number and total amount of awards to, HUBZone small business concerns under each of the SBIR and STTR programs, and a description” in subpar. (A), added subpars. (B) to (F), and inserted “(G) a description” before “of the extent to which Federal agencies”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5131(1)(A) , substituted “STTR programs, including—” for “STTR programs, including”, and inserted subpar. (A) designation before “the data on output”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 1067(a)(1) , which inserted “and including an accounting of funds, initiatives, and outcomes under the Commercialization Pilot Program” after “and (o)(15) of this section,”, was repealed by Pub. L. 112–239, § 1076(a)(20)(A) .

Subsec. (b)(9). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5131(1)(C) , (2), (3), added par. (9).

Subsec. (e)(4)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5105(1) , substituted “which shall not include any invitation, pre-screening, or pre-selection process for eligibility for Phase II, that will further” for “to further”.

Subsec. (e)(4)(C). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(a)(1) , inserted “for work that derives from, extends, or completes efforts made under prior funding agreements under the SBIR program” after “phase” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (e)(4)(C)(ii). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(1)(A) , substituted “merit-based selection procedures” for “scientific review criteria”.

Subsec. (e)(6)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5105(2) , substituted “which shall not include any invitation, pre-screening, or pre-selection process for eligibility for Phase II, that will further develop proposals that” for “to further develop proposed ideas to”.

Subsec. (e)(6)(C). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(a)(2) , inserted “for work that derives from, extends, or completes efforts made under prior funding agreements under the STTR program” after “phase” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (e)(9). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(1)(B) , substituted “Phase II or Phase III” for “the second or the third phase”.

Subsec. (e)(10). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(a)(3) –(5), added par. (10).

Subsec. (e)(11) to (13). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(1)(C) , added pars. (11) to (13).

Subsec. (f)(1). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5102(a)(1) , substituted “Except as provided in paragraph (2)(B), each” for “Each” in introductory provisions, added subpars. (C) to (I), and struck out former subpar. (C) which read as follows: “not less than 2.5 percent of such budget in each fiscal year thereafter,”.

Subsec. (f)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(3)(A) , substituted “shall not—

“(A) use any of its SBIR budget established pursuant to paragraph (1) for the purpose of funding administrative costs of the program, including costs associated with salaries and expenses; or

“(B) make available for the purpose”

for “shall not make available for the purpose”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(1)(A) , substituted “shall not make available for the purpose” for “shall not—

“(B) make available for the purpose”.

Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5102(a)(2) , added par. (4).

Subsec. (g)(4). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5126(a)(1) , designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

Subsec. (g)(8) to (10). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5132 , added par. (8), redesignated former pars. (8) and (9) as (9) and (10), respectively, and struck out former par. (10) which read as follows: “collect, and maintain in a common format in accordance with subsection (v) of this section, such information from awardees as is necessary to assess the SBIR program, including information necessary to maintain the database described in subsection (k) of this section;”.

Subsec. (g)(12). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5110(a) , added par. (12).

Subsec. (i)(1). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(b) , inserted “(including awards under subsection (y))” after “the number of awards”.

Subsec. (j)(1)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(A) , substituted “Phase II” for “phase two”.

Subsec. (j)(2)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(B)(i) , substituted “Phase III” for “the third phase” in two places and “Phase II” for “the second phase”.

Subsec. (j)(2)(D). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(B)(ii) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase” and “ ‘Phase II” for “the second phase”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5103(c)(1) , substituted “every year for inflation” for “once every 5 years to reflect economic adjustments and programmatic considerations”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5103(a) , substituted “$150,000” for “$100,000” and “$1,000,000” for “$750,000”.

Subsec. (j)(2)(F). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(B)(iii) , substituted “Phase III” for “the third phase”.

Subsec. (j)(2)(G). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(B)(iv) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase” and “Phase II” for “the second phase”.

Subsec. (j)(2)(H). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(B)(v) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase”, “Phase II” for “second phase” in two places, and “Phase III” for “third phase”.

Subsec. (j)(3)(A). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(C)(i) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase (as described in subsection (e)(4)(A) of this section)”, “Phase II” for “(as described in subsection (e)(4)(B) of this section)”, and “Phase III” for “the third phase (as described in subsection (e)(4)(C) of this section)”.

Subsec. (j)(3)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(2)(C)(ii) , substituted “Phase II” for “second phase”.

Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(3) , substituted “Phase I” for “first phase” and “Phase II” for “second phase” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (k)(1)(F). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5134 , added subpar. (F).

Subsec. (k)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5135(1) , in introductory provisions, substituted “Not later than 90 days after December 31, 2011 ” for “Not later than 180 days after December 21, 2000 ”, added subpars. (A), (D), and (G), redesignated former subpars. (A), (B), (D), and (E) as (B), (C), (E), and (F), respectively, and struck out former subpar. (C) which read as follows: “includes for each applicant for a Phase I or Phase II award that does not receive such an award—

“(i) the name, size, and location, and an identifying number assigned by the Administration ;

“(ii) an abstract of the project; and

“(iii) the Federal agency to which the application was made;”.

Subsec. (k)(3)(C). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5135(2) , added subpar. (C).

Subsec. (l)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(4) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase” and “Phase II” for “the second phase”.

Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5101(a) , substituted “2017” for “2011”.

Pub. L. 112–17, § 3(a) , struck out par. (1) designation and heading, substituted “The authorization” for “Except as provided in paragraph (2), the authorization” and “2011” for “2008”, and struck out par. (2). Text of par. (2) read as follows: “The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department are authorized to carry out the Small Business Innovation Research Program of the Department of Defense until September 30, 2010 ”.

Subsec. (m)(2). Pub. L. 111–383 substituted “are authorized” for “is authorized”.

Subsec. (n)(1)(A). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5101(b) , substituted “2017” for “2011”.

Pub. L. 112–17, § 3(b) , struck out cl. (i) designation and heading, substituted “With respect” for “Except as provided in clause (ii), with respect” and “2011” for “2009”, and struck out cl. (ii). Text of cl. (ii) read as follows: “The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department shall carry out clause (i) with respect to each fiscal year through fiscal year 2010.”

Subsec. (n)(1)(B)(ii) to (v). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5102(b) , added cls. (ii) to (v) and struck out former cl. (ii) which read as follows: “0.3 percent for fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter.”

Subsec. (o)(4). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5126(a)(2) , designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

Subsec. (o)(9). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5133 , added par. (9) and struck out former par. (9) which read as follows: “collect such data from awardees as is necessary to assess STTR program outputs and outcomes;”.

Subsec. (o)(13)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(5)(A) , substituted “Phase II” for “second phase”.

Subsec. (o)(13)(C). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(5)(B) , substituted “Phase III” for “third phase”.

Subsec. (o)(15), (16). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5110(b) , added par. (16), redesignated former par. (16) as (15) and struck out former par. (15) which read as follows: “collect, and maintain in a common format in accordance with subsection (v) of this section, such information from awardees as is necessary to assess the STTR program, including information necessary to maintain the database described in subsection (k) of this section; and”.

Subsec. (p)(2)(B)(vi). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(6)(A)(i) , substituted “Phase II” for “the second phase” and “Phase III” for “the third phase”.

Subsec. (p)(2)(B)(ix). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(6)(A)(ii) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase” and “Phase II” for “the second phase”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5103(c)(2) , inserted “(each of which the Administrator shall adjust for inflation annually)” after “$1,000,000,”.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5103(b) , substituted “$150,000” for “$100,000” and “$1,000,000” for “$750,000”.

Subsec. (p)(3). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(6)(B) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase (as described in subsection (e)(6)(A) of this section)”, “Phase II” for “the second phase (as described in subsection (e)(6)(B) of this section)”, and “Phase III” for “the third phase (as described in subsection (e)(6)(C) of this section)”.

Subsec. (q)(1). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5121(1) , inserted “or STTR program” after “SBIR program” and substituted “SBIR or STTR projects” for “SBIR projects” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (q)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5121(2) , substituted “5 years” for “3 years”.

Subsec. (q)(3). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5121(3) , added subpars. (A) to (D) and struck out former subpars. (A) and (B) which read as follows:

“(A) First phase

“Each agency referred to in paragraph (1) may provide services described in paragraph (1) to first phase SBIR award recipients in an amount equal to not more than $4,000, which shall be in addition to the amount of the recipient’s award.

“(B) Second phase

“Each agency referred to in paragraph (1) may authorize any second phase SBIR award recipient to purchase, with funds available from their SBIR awards, services described in paragraph (1), in an amount equal to not more than $4,000 per year.”

Subsec. (r). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(7)(A) , substituted “Phase III” for “Third phase” in heading.

Subsec. (r)(1). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(7)(B) , substituted, in first sentence, “for Phase II” for “for the second phase”, “Phase III” for “third phase”, and “Phase II period” for “second phase period”, and, in second sentence, “Phase II” for “second phase” and “Phase III” for “third phase”.

Subsec. (r)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(7)(C) , substituted “Phase III” for “third phase”.

Subsec. (r)(4). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5108 , added par. (4).

Subsec. (s). Pub. L. 112–17, § 4 , added subsec. (s).

Subsec. (u)(2)(B). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5125(b)(8) , substituted “Phase I” for “the first phase” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (v). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5144 , substituted “Reducing paperwork and compliance burden” for “Simplified reporting requirements” in heading, designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted heading, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (y). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(a)(1) , (2), substituted “Readiness” for “Pilot” wherever appearing in heading and text.

Subsec. (y)(1). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(a)(3) , inserted “or Small Business Technology Transfer Program” after “Small Business Innovation Research Program” and inserted at end “The authority to create and administer a Commercialization Readiness Program under this subsection may not be construed to eliminate or replace any other SBIR program or STTR program that enhances the insertion or transition of SBIR or STTR technologies, including any such program in effect on January 6, 2006 .”

Subsec. (y)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(a)(4) , inserted “or Small Business Technology Transfer Program” after “Small Business Innovation Research Program” .

Subsec. (y)(4). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(3)(B) , as amended by Pub. L. 112–239, § 1615(b) , amended par. (4) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “For payment of expenses incurred to administer the Commercialization Readiness Program under this subsection, the Secretary of Defense and each Secretary of a military department is authorized to use not more than an amount equal to 1 percent of the funds available to the Department of Defense or the military department pursuant to the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Such funds shall not be used to make Phase III awards.”

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(1)(B) , redesignated par. (5) as (4) and struck out former par. (4), which related to funding of expenses incurred to administer the Commercialization Readiness Program.

Subsec. (y)(5). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(1)(B)(ii) , redesignated par. (6) as (5). Former par. (5) redesignated (4).

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(a)(7) , added par. (5).

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(a)(5) , struck out par. (5) which required the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual evaluative report regarding activities under the Commercialization Pilot Program.

Pub. L. 112–81, § 1067(a)(2) , which struck out par. (5), requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual evaluative report regarding activities under the Commercialization Pilot Program, was repealed by Pub. L. 112–239, § 1076(a)(20)(A) .

Subsec. (y)(6). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(b)(1)(B)(ii) , redesignated par. (6) as (5).

Pub. L. 112–81, § 5122(a)(6) , (7), added par. (6) and struck out former par. (6), which provided that pilot program would terminate at the end of fiscal year 2011.

Pub. L. 112–17, § 3(c) , substituted “2011” for “2010”.

Subsec. (aa). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5103(d) , added subsec. (aa).

Subsec. (bb). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5104 , added subsec. (bb).

Subsec. (cc). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5106 , added subsec. (cc).

Subsec. (dd). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5107(a) , added subsec. (dd).

Subsec. (ee). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5109 , added subsec. (ee).

Subsec. (ff). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5111 , added subsec. (ff).

Subsec. (gg). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5123 , added subsec. (gg).

Subsecs. (hh), (ii). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5126(b) , added subsecs. (hh) and (ii).

Subsec. (jj). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5127 , added subsec. (jj).

Subsec. (kk). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5138 , added subsec. (kk).

Subsec. (ll). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5140 , added subsec. (ll).

Subsec. (mm). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5141(a) , added subsec. (mm).

Subsec. (nn). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5161 , added subsec. (nn).

Subsec. (oo). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5162 , added subsec. (oo).

Subsec. (pp). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5164 , added subsec. (pp).

Subsec. (qq). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5165 , added subsec. (qq).

Subsec. (rr). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5166 , added subsec. (rr).

Subsec. (ss). Pub. L. 112–81, § 5167 , added subsec. (ss).

2009—Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 111–84, § 847(a) , designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted par. (1) heading, substituted “Except as provided in paragraph (2), the authorization” for “The authorization”, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (n)(1)(A). Pub. L. 111–84, § 847(b) , designated existing provisions as cl. (i), inserted cl. (i) heading, substituted “Except as provided in clause (ii), with respect” for “With respect”, and added cl. (ii).

Subsec. (y)(6). Pub. L. 111–84, § 848 , substituted “2010” for “2009”.

2007—Subsec. (z). Pub. L. 110–140 added subsec. (z).

2006—Subsec. (b)(8). Pub. L. 109–163, § 252(b)(1) , added par. (8).

Subsec. (e)(9). Pub. L. 109–163, § 252(c) , added par. (9).

Subsec. (g)(11). Pub. L. 109–163, § 252(b)(2) , added par. (11).

Subsec. (o)(16). Pub. L. 109–163, § 252(b)(3) , added par. (16).

Subsecs. (x), (y). Pub. L. 109–163, § 252(a) , added subsecs. (x) and (y).

2004—Subsec. (j)(2)(I). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted “ Government Accountability Office ” for “General Accounting Office”.

2001—Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 107–50, § 2(b) , struck out “pilot” before “programs;”.

Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(d) , substituted “, (o)(9), and (o)(15) of this section, the number of proposals received from, and the number and total amount of awards to, HUBZone small business concerns under each of the SBIR and STTR programs,” for “and (o)(9) of this section,”.

Subsec. (e)(6). Pub. L. 107–50, § 2(b) , struck out “pilot” before “program” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (k)(1). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(b)(1) , inserted “or STTR” after “SBIR” in subpars. (A) to (C) and added subpar. (E).

Subsec. (k)(2). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(b)(2)(A) , (B), in introductory provisions, inserted “or an STTR program pursuant to subsection (n)(1)” after “(f)(1)” and substituted “exclusively for SBIR and STTR” for “solely for SBIR” .

Subsec. (k)(2)(A)(iii). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(b)(2)(C) , inserted “and STTR” after “SBIR” .

Subsec. (k)(2)(D). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(b)(2)(D) , inserted “or STTR” after “SBIR” .

Subsec. (n)(1). Pub. L. 107–50, § 2(a) , amended heading and text of par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “With respect to fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, each Federal agency that has an extramural budget for research, or research and development, in excess of $1,000,000,000 for that fiscal year, is authorized to expend with small business concerns not less than 0.15 percent of that extramural budget specifically in connection with STTR programs that meet the requirements of this section and any policy directives and regulations issued under this section.”

Subsec. (o)(11). Pub. L. 107–50, § 7(b) , substituted “adopt the agreement developed by the Administrator under subsection (w) as the agency’s model agreement” for “develop a model agreement not later than July 31, 1993 , to be approved by the Administration, ”.

Subsec. (o)(14). Pub. L. 107–50, § 4 , added par. (14).

Subsec. (o)(15). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(a) , added par. (15).

Subsec. (p)(2)(B)(ix). Pub. L. 107–50, § 3 , substituted “$750,000” for “$500,000” and inserted “, and shorter or longer periods of time to be approved at the discretion of the awarding agency where appropriate for a particular project” before the semicolon at the end.

Subsec. (p)(3). Pub. L. 107–50, § 5 , added par. (3).

Subsec. (v). Pub. L. 107–50, § 6(c) , inserted “or STTR” after “SBIR” in two places.

Subsec. (w). Pub. L. 107–50, § 7(a) , added subsec. (w).

2000—Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 107(b)] , inserted before period at end “, including the data on output and outcomes collected pursuant to subsections (g)(10) and (o)(9) of this section, and a description of the extent to which Federal agencies are providing in a timely manner information needed to maintain the database described in subsection (k)”.

Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 104] , substituted “, and to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives ,” for “and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives ”.

Subsec. (e)(4)(C)(i). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 105] , substituted “; or” for “; and” at end.

Subsec. (g)(9). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 106] , added par. (9).

Subsec. (g)(10). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 107(a)] , added par. (10).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 109] , inserted subsec. heading, designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted par. heading, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (j)(3). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 110] , added par. (3).

Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 107(c)] , amended subsec. (k) generally, substituting present provisions for provisions which read “(k) [Reserved]”.

Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 103] , amended heading and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The authorization to carry out the Small Business Innovation Research Program under this section shall terminate on October 1, 2000 .”

Subsec. (s)(2). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 114(b)] , substituted “for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2005,” for “for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001”.

Subsec. (u). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 111(c)] , added subsec. (u).

Subsec. (v). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 113] , added subsec. (v).

1999—Subsec. (p)(1)(B). Pub. L. 106–113 amended subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (B) read as follows: “the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; and”.

1997—Subsec. (e)(4)(A). Pub. L. 105–135, § 501(b)(1)(B) , substituted “subparagraph (B)” for “subparagraph (B)(ii)”.

Subsec. (n)(1). Pub. L. 105–135, § 501(a) , added par. (1) and struck out heading and text of former par. (1). Text read as follows: “Each Federal agency which has an extramural budget for research or research and development in excess of $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1994, 1995, or 1996, is authorized to expend with small business concerns—

“(A) not less than 0.05 percent of such budget in fiscal year 1994;

“(B) not less than 0.1 percent of such budget in fiscal year 1995; and

“(C) not less than 0.15 percent of such budget in fiscal years 1996 and 1997,

specifically in connection with STTR programs which meet the requirements of this section, policy directives, and regulations issued under this section.”

Subsec. (o)(8) to (13). Pub. L. 105–135, § 501(b)(1)(A) , added pars. (8) and (9) and redesignated former pars. (8) to (11) as (10) to (13), respectively.

Subsec. (s). Pub. L. 105–135, § 501(b)(2) , struck out subsec. (s), which related to outreach, including provisions defining eligible State and relating to program authority, amount of assistance, and use of assistance.

Pub. L. 105–135, § 501(b)(1)(C) , added subsec. (s).

Subsec. (t). Pub. L. 105–135, § 501(b)(1)(C) , added subsec. (t).

1996—Subsec. (n)(1)(C). Pub. L. 104–208 substituted “fiscal years 1996 and 1997” for “fiscal year 1996”.

1994—Subsec. (q)(2). Pub. L. 103–403 amended heading and text of par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Annually, each agency may select a vendor for purposes of this subsection using competitive, merit-based criteria, to assist small business concerns to meet the goals listed in paragraph (1).”

1992—Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 102–564, § 202(a)(1) , inserted before semicolon at end “and small business technology transfer pilot programs” .

Subsec. (b)(5) to (7). Pub. L. 102–564, § 202(a)(2) , inserted “and STTR” after “SBIR” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(c) , substituted “for the Department of Energy it shall not include amounts obligated for atomic energy defense programs solely for weapons activities or for naval reactor programs” for “for the Department of Defense it shall not include amounts obligated solely for operational systems development”.

Pub. L. 102–484, § 4237(d)(1) , (2)(A), (h)(2), temporarily amended par. (1) by striking out “except that for the Department of Defense it shall not include amounts obligated solely for operational systems development, and” after “Government-operated facilities,” and substituting “, and except that for the Department of Energy it shall not include amounts obligated for atomic energy defense programs for weapons and weapons-related activities or for naval reactor programs;” for semicolon at end. See section 4237(h)(2) of Pub. L. 102–484 set out in a Small Business Innovation Research Program in Department of Defense note below.

Subsec. (e)(4)(A). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(a)(1) , inserted “that appear to have commercial potential, as described in subparagraph (B)(ii),” after “ideas”.

Subsec. (e)(4)(B). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(a)(2) , added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “a second phase to further develop the proposed ideas to meet the particular program needs, the awarding of which shall take into consideration the scientific and technical merit and feasibility evidenced by the first phase and, where two or more proposals are evaluated as being of approximately equal scientific and technical merit and feasibility, special consideration shall be given to those proposals that have demonstrated third phase, non-Federal capital commitments; and”.

Subsec. (e)(4)(C). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(a)(2) , added subpar. (C) and struck out former subpar. (C) which read as follows: “where appropriate, a third phase in which non-Federal capital pursues commercial applications of the research or research and development and which may also involve follow-on non -SBIR funded production contracts with a Federal agency for products or processes intended for use by the United States Government; and”.

Subsec. (e)(6) to (8). Pub. L. 102–564, § 202(b) , added pars. (6) to (8).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(b) , amended subsec. (f) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (f) consisted of pars. (1) and (2) relating to Federal agency extramural budget expenditures for fiscal years 1982 and thereafter for small business concerns in connection with small business innovation research programs meeting the requirements of the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 .

Subsec. (f)(2). Pub. L. 102–484, § 4237(d)(2)(B) , (h)(2), temporarily struck out par. (2) which read “Amounts appropriated for atomic energy defense programs of the Department of Energy shall for the purposes of paragraph (1) be excluded from the amount of the research or research and development budget of that Department.” See section 4237(h)(2) of Pub. L. 102–484 set out in a Small Business Innovation Research Program in Department of Defense note below.

Subsec. (g)(3), (4). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(d) , added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4). Former par. (4) redesignated (5).

Subsec. (g)(5). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(d)(1) , (h)(2), (i), redesignated par. (4) as (5) and inserted “subject to subsection (l),” before “unilaterally” and “and inform each awardee under such an agreement, to the extent possible, of the expenses of the awardee that will be allowable under the funding agreement” before semicolon at end. Former par. (5) redesignated (6).

Subsec. (g)(6). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(d)(1) , redesignated par. (5) as (6). Former par. (6) redesignated (7).

Subsec. (g)(7). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(d)(1) , (e), redesignated par. (6) as (7) and inserted before semicolon at end “and, in all cases, make payment to recipients under such agreements in full, subject to audit, on or before the last day of the 12-month period beginning on the date of completion of such requirements”. Former par. (7) redesignated (8).

Subsec. (g)(8). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(d)(1) , redesignated par. (7) as (8).

Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(f) , designated existing provisions as par. (1) and inserted heading, redesignated former pars. (1) and (2) as subpars. (A) and (B), respectively, of par. (1), former subpars. (A) to (H) of former par. (2) as cls. (i) to (viii), respectively, of subpar. (B) of par. (1), and former pars. (3) to (7) as subpars. (C) to (G), respectively, of par. (1), and added par. (2).

Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(g) , amended subsec. (k) generally, substituting “(k) [Reserved]” for prior provisions of subsec. (k) which read as follows: “The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy , in consultation with the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Research, shall, in addition to such other responsibilities imposed upon him by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 —

“(1) independently survey and monitor all phases of the implementation and operation of SBIR programs within agencies required to establish an SBIR program, including compliance with the expenditures of funds according to the requirements of subsection (f) of this section; and

“(2) report not less than annually, and at such other times as the Director may deem appropriate, to the Committees on Small Business of the Senate and the House of Representatives on all phases of the implementation and operation of SBIR programs within agencies required to establish an SBIR program, together with such recommendations as the Director may deem appropriate.”

Subsec. (l). Pub. L. 102–564, § 103(h)(1) , added subsec. (l).

Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 102–564, § 104(b) , added subsec. (m).

Subsecs. (n) to (p). Pub. L. 102–564, § 202(c) , added subsecs. (n) to (p).

Subsec. (q). Pub. L. 102–564, § 301(a) , added subsec. (q).

Subsec. (r). Pub. L. 102–564, § 305 , added subsec. (r).

1988—Subsec. (j)(6), (7). Pub. L. 100–590 added pars. (6) and (7).

1986—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 99–443, § 1 , inserted provision that for the Department of Defense , the extramural budget shall not include amounts obligated solely for operational systems development.

1982—Subsec. (b)(4) to (7). Pub. L. 97–219, § 3 , added pars. (4) to (7).

Subsecs. (e) to (k). Pub. L. 97–219, § 4 , added subsecs. (e) to (k).

Committee on Small Business of Senate changed to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of Senate . See Senate Resolution No. 123, One Hundred Seventh Congress , June 29, 2001 .

Committee on Science of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress , Jan. 5, 2007 . Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress , Jan. 5, 2011 .

Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1076(a) , Jan. 2, 2013 , 126 Stat. 1947 , provided that the amendment made by section 1076(a)(20)(A) is effective Dec. 31, 2011 , and as if included in Pub. L. 112–81 as enacted.

Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title XVI, § 1615(c) , Jan. 2, 2013 , 126 Stat. 2067 , provided that:

Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5141(b)(3) , Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1854 , provided in part that the amendments made by section 5141(b)(3) of Pub. L. 112–81 (amending this section) were effective on the first day of the fourth full fiscal year following Dec. 31, 2011 .

Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title VIII, § 847(c) , Oct. 28, 2009 , 123 Stat. 2421 , provided that:

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–140 effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007 , see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140 , set out as an Effective Date note under section 1824 of Title 2 , The Congress .

Pub. L. 107–50, § 3(b) , Oct. 15, 2001 , 115 Stat. 263 , provided that:

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999 , see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113 , set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35 , Patents.

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–135 effective Oct. 1, 1997 , see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–135 , set out as a note under section 631 of this title .

Pub. L. 105–135, title V, § 501(b)(2) , Dec. 2, 1997 , 111 Stat. 2622 , as amended by Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 114(a)] , Dec. 21, 2000 , 114 Stat. 2763 , 2763A–681, provided that:

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–208 effective Oct. 1, 1996 , see section 3 of Pub. L. 104–208 , set out as a note under section 633 of this title .

For effective and termination dates of amendment by Pub. L. 102–484 , see section 4237(g) and (h) of Pub. L. 102–484 , set out in a Small Business Innovation Research Program in Department of Defense note below.

Pub. L. 97–219, § 5 , July 22, 1982 , 96 Stat. 221 , as amended by Pub. L. 99–443, § 2 , Oct. 6, 1986 , 100 Stat. 1120 ; Pub. L. 102–484, div. D, title XLII, § 4237(a) , Oct. 23, 1992 , 106 Stat. 2691 , which provided that effective Oct. 1, 1993 , subsecs. (b)(4) through (7) and (e) through (k) of this section were to be repealed, was repealed by Pub. L. 102–564, title I, § 104(a) , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4254 .

Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(b)(5) , Sept. 30, 2022 , 136 Stat. 2183 , provided that:

[For definitions of “ Federal agency ”, “SBIR” , and “STTR” as used in section 4(b)(5) of Pub. L. 117–183 , set out above, see section 2 of Pub. L. 117–183 , set out as a note below.]

Pub. L. 117–263, div. A, title VIII, § 872(b) , Dec. 23, 2022 , 136 Stat. 2739 , provided that:

Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(b)(2) , Sept. 30, 2022 , 136 Stat. 2182 , provided that:

[For definitions of “ Federal agency ”, “SBIR” , and “STTR” as used in section 4(b)(2) of Pub. L. 117–183 , set out above, see section 2 of Pub. L. 117–183 , set out as a note below.]

Pub. L. 117–183, § 5(c) , Sept. 30, 2022 , 136 Stat. 2187 , provided that:

Pub. L. 117–183, § 4(b)(3) , Sept. 30, 2022 , 136 Stat. 2182 , provided that:

[For definitions of terms used in section 4(b)(3) of Pub. L. 117–183 , set out above, see section 2 of Pub. L. 117–183 , set out as a note below.]

Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VIII, § 881 , Dec. 20, 2019 , 133 Stat. 1533 , provided that:

Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VIII, § 884 , Dec. 20, 2019 , 133 Stat. 1534 , as amended by Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, § 1702(e)(4) , Dec. 27, 2021 , 135 Stat. 2157 , provided that:

Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5107(c) , (d), Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1829 , 1832, provided that:

[For definitions used in section 5107(c), (d) of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out above, see section 5002 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out as a note under section 638b of this title .]

Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5136 , Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1849 , provided that:

[For definitions used in section 5136 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out above, see section 5002 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out as a note under section 638b of this title .]

Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5141(b)(2) , Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1853 , provided that:

Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5151 , Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1857 , provided that:

[For definitions used in section 5151 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out above, see section 5002 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out as a note under section 638b of this title .]

Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5168 , Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1862 , provided that:

[For definitions used in section 5168 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out above, see section 5002 of Pub. L. 112–81 , set out as a note under section 638b of this title .]

Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(4) [div. B, title I, § 149] , Dec. 21, 2000 , 114 Stat. 2763 , 2763A–251, provided that:

Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 102] , Dec. 21, 2000 , 114 Stat. 2763 , 2763A–668, provided that:

Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(9) [title I, § 108] , Dec. 21, 2000 , 114 Stat. 2763 , 2763A–671, as amended by Pub. L. 112–81, div. E, title LI, § 5137 , Dec. 31, 2011 , 125 Stat. 1850 , provided that:

Pub. L. 102–564, title I, § 102 , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4249 , provided that:

Pub. L. 102–564, title I, § 106 , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4256 , required the Secretary of Defense , by Mar. 31, 1996 , to submit a recommendation to Congress addressing whether there was a demonstrable reduction in the quality of research performed under the Small Business Innovation Research Program since the beginning of fiscal year 1993, such that increasing the percentage in fiscal years after 1996 under former 15 U.S.C. 638(f)(1)(C) would adversely affect the performance of the research programs of the Department of Defense .

Pub. L. 102–564, title II, § 202(d) , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4260 , provided that:

Pub. L. 102–564, title III, § 306 , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4263 , provided that:

Pub. L. 102–484, div. D, title XLII, § 4237 , Oct. 23, 1992 , 106 Stat. 2691 , provided that:

[Amended section 5 of Pub. L. 97–219 , formerly set out as a note above.]

[Amended this section.]

Pub. L. 99–500, § 101(a) [title VI, § 630] , Oct. 18, 1986 , 100 Stat. 1783 , 1783–30, and Pub. L. 99–591, § 101(a) [title VI, § 630] , Oct. 30, 1986 , 100 Stat. 3341 , 3341–30, provided that:

Pub. L. 97–219, § 2 , July 22, 1982 , 96 Stat. 217 , provided that:

Pub. L. 102–564, title I, § 105 , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4254 , required the Comptroller General to submit to Congress an interim report, by Mar. 31, 1995 , concerning the quality of research performed under Small Business Innovation Research Program funding agreements entered into during fiscal year 1993 and thereafter and a final report, no later than 5 years after Oct. 28, 1992 , concerning various aspects of the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

Pub. L. 102–564, title II, § 202(e) , Oct. 28, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4260 , required the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress and the head of each agency required to make expenditures under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program setting forth the Comptroller General’s assessment of various aspects of the program and with the agencies’ compliance with procedural requirements.

Pub. L. 97–219, § 6 , July 22, 1982 , 96 Stat. 221 , as amended by Pub. L. 99–443, § 3 , Oct. 6, 1986 , 100 Stat. 1120 ; Pub. L. 100–418, title VIII, § 8008 , Aug. 23, 1988 , 102 Stat. 1561 ; Pub. L. 100–647, title IX, § 9003 , Nov. 10, 1988 , 102 Stat. 3808 , required the Comptroller General, by Dec. 31, 1988 , to transmit a report to appropriate Congressional committees evaluating the effectiveness of the initial phases of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, by Dec. 31, 1991 , to transmit to such committees an update of the earlier report, and by July 1, 1989 , to transmit to such committees recommendations as to the advisability of certain amendments to the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

Pub. L. 117–183, § 2 , Sept. 30, 2022 , 136 Stat. 2180 , provided that:

Ex. Ord. No. 13329 , Feb. 24, 2004 , 69 F.R. 9181 , provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Small Business Act , as amended ( 15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.), and to help ensure that Federal agencies properly and effectively assist the private sector in its manufacturing innovation efforts, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Continued technological innovation is critical to a strong manufacturing sector in the United States economy. The Federal Government has an important role, including through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, in helping to advance innovation, including innovation in manufacturing, through small businesses.

Sec . 2. Duties of Department and Agency Heads. The head of each executive branch department or agency with one or more SBIR programs or one or more STTR programs shall:

(a) to the extent permitted by law and in a manner consistent with the mission of that department or agency, give high priority within such programs to manufacturing-related research and development to advance the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(b) submit reports annually to the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy concerning the efforts of such department or agency to implement subsection 2(a) of this order.

Sec . 3. Duties of Administrator of the Small Business Administration . The Administrator of the Small Business Administration :

(a) shall establish, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy , formats and schedules for submission of reports by the heads of departments and agencies under subsection 2(b) of this order; and

(b) is authorized to issue to departments and agencies guidelines and directives (in addition to the formats and schedules under subsection 3(a)) as the Administrator determines from time to time are necessary to implement subsection 2(a) of this order, after such guidelines and directives are submitted to the President, through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy , for approval and are approved by the President.

Sec . 4. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) “Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program” means a program to which section 9(e)(4) of the Small Business Act ( 15 U.S.C. 638(e)(4) ) refers;

(b) “Small Business Technology Transfer ( STTR ) program” means a program to which section 9(e)(6) of the Small Business Act ( 15 U.S.C. 638(e)(6) ) refers;

(c) “ research and development ” means an activity set forth in section 9(e)(5) of the Small Business Act ( 15 U.S.C. 638(e)(5) ); and

(d) “manufacturing-related” means relating to: (i) manufacturing processes, equipment and systems; or (ii) manufacturing workforce skills and protection.

Sec . 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with respect to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to require disclosure of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or by Executive Order, including [former] Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995 , as amended.

(c) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States , its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

Key Insights From The Feature Management And Experimentation Solutions Landscape, Q1 2024

Christopher Condo , Principal Analyst

Lauren Alexander, Research Associate

Most developers are familiar with binary feature toggles. In fact, many may be using a home-grown solution right now. But like most home-grown technologies, the capabilities are often basic, and maintaining them creates a tax on developer time that could potentially be better spent delivering features to customers.

Feature management and experimentation (FM&E) solutions are commercial offerings that elevate the basic feature toggle from a binary on/off switch to a complete system for managing features, feature properties, target populations, and progressive delivery. For teams that are product-oriented, they provide the ability to test hypothesis with real customers using A/B, multivariate, and multiarmed bandit testing.

The FM&E market is rapidly evolving as these tools advance and become crucial for teams adopting a product-centric approach. With a diverse array of solutions ranging from small open-source to more established vendors (even some experience optimization vendors are throwing their hats in the ring), choosing one can be difficult.

Over the course of late 2023 and early 2024, we conducted a Forrester Landscape report on the available feature management and experimentation solutions in the marketplace. We compared vendors across geography, industry, use case, and size to help you understand the benefits you can expect from FM&E and decide which solution is right for your company.

Takeaways From The Feature Management And Experimentation Solutions Landscape, Q1 2024

• Use case matters. We found that use cases across FM&E solutions encompass a range of scenarios, including feature launch, testing in production, A/B testing, canary release, and multivariate testing. Vendor offerings can vary widely across use cases. Organizations should carefully evaluate the available use cases and select vendors that align with their business requirements.
• Teams are demanding integrated solutions — and vendors are listening. As product centricity takes over, the divide between product-centric teams and dev-centric teams is shrinking. Because of this, many vendors now have integrated offerings.
• AI is disrupting the FM&E market. AI-powered assistants (TuringBots) are set to take over the marketplace and transform FM&E feedback offerings on a massive scale, but investment in AI capabilities varies across vendors. Consider investment in AI and other emerging technologies when choosing vendors.

Included in the landscape are a breakdown of core and extended use cases, a matrix of key functionalities, and a comprehensive analysis of the FM&E market, as well as forward-looking analysis in this market to help decision-makers move forward with their adoption strategy.

Want to talk more about which FM&E solution is right for you? Schedule an inquiry to explore further.

Related Forrester Content

• The Feature Management And Experimentation Solutions Landscape, Q1 2024
• Application Development & Delivery
• development & operations (DevOps)

Thanks for signing up.

Stay tuned for updates from the Forrester blogs.

Honor Your Tech Excellence With The Prestige Of A 2024 Forrester Award

We’re accepting nominations for our global 2024 technology strategy impact and enterprise architecture awards. deadlines are approaching. check out our award requirements and submit your nomination today., how g-research used turingbots to transform software development, introducing the forrester wave™: application modernization and migration services, q1 2024, get the insights at work newsletter, help us improve.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.