CONSORTIUM PLANS Earlier sections indicate plans which strengthen various aspects of technology transfer directly and through infrastructure development. Priority emphasis will be in five areas: STRENGTHENING REGIONAL OPERATIONS Critical to the success of the Consortium are strong Regional Operations. Beginning in 1988, funds were available for regional efforts. Strengthening the FLC presence in the regions will continue. Plans include improvements of entry points to the FLC Clearinghouse locator function for handling requests, increased laboratory involvement in the region, and mechanisms for a broader range of contacts with small businesses. Administrative support will be provided to the Regional Coordinator to facilitate these plans. The activities are expected to provide a broader understanding of the regional laboratory expertise and the regional users. Cooperative efforts with the regional laboratories, county, State and local technology groups are expected to increase. TRAINING A primary function and high priority for the FLC has been to provide training for its member laboratories. These efforts will continue and focus on new member training, electronic mail use and other mechanisms to strengthen the FLC network, marketing of laboratory technologies, and communications and presentation skills. Future training activities include the development of guides describing the FLC, managing the transfer process, and establishing cooperative research and development agreements. Case studies are also being written describing spin-off companies created through successful transfer of laboratory technologies. The case studies are being prepared following sound instructional design principles and will be used for training purposes. ENVIRONMENT FOR TRANSFER FLC experience and university studies confirm that the most effective technology transfers occur when the potential user identifies a need and gets together with the providers of a technology that could meet that need. An important contribution the FLC has made is to create opportunities for that contact or linkage to occur. Thus, the Consortium will increase the availability of such opportunities through linkages with other networks and cooperation with key professional societies and other organizations. Special transfer support programs will be created such as workshops focused on needs identified by industry and seminars directed at State extension services and small businesses. The IRI hazardous materials workshop and VOTECH relationship described earlier are examples of this approach. While the IRI effort is only recently underway, the VOTECH success has provided valuable experience for the Consortium and State extension agents. This experience is forming a base for small and medium sized business interactions described under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. The Electric Power Research Institute is another example of efforts which focus on previously identified needs. That relationship combined with the effort described in the Center for the New West cooperation is expected to form the base for a general utility initiative. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Team efforts of the laboratories and Agencies in concert with the FLC continue to contribute to the effectiveness of each organization's transfer effort in meeting the national challenge. In order to provide effective support, coordination, and leadership, plans are underway to strengthen the Regional Coordination and Standing Committee structure. These will continue through efforts such as the establishment of a Program Subcommittee, formation of a speakers bureau, and steps to strengthen the representative network as a clearinghouse for requests for technical assistance and expertise. Specifically a consistent message which accurately explains what the FLC is and is not and how to access its service will be widely delivered to user groups. Also, mechanisms will be implemented to make agency level policy makers and laboratory directors more aware of the FLC and to encourage their input and support. The public awareness and credibility of the FLC is expected to increase along with the organization's continuing ability to meet the legislative mandate of the Consortium and its member laboratories and agencies. COOPERATION WITH NIST Beginning in 1987, the Consortium and the NBS maintained a dialog on how to cooperate under the proposed new NIST responsibilities under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. Close interaction began immediately after enactment, leading to early program planning and a detailed agreement draft on formal cooperation under the State Technology Extension Program. These cooperative efforts directly relate to and support the approved FLC 1987-92 Strategic Plan and our current operations plan. Four specific areas of joint effort are anticipated: ●Partnership in sponsoring workshops and seminars for State officials and technology extension agents, aimed both at developing the state-level infrastructure to support technology transfer and at targeting specific technology areas of local interest; •Providing State technology extension programs with training in accessing the FLC Clearinghouse function; ●Participation in projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of transfer methods developed under the Cooperative Agreements thrusts of NIST's State Technology Extension Program; and Cooperation in providing advice and assistance to the states establishing technology extension programs. As examples of early cooperation, NIST participated in the FLC's program in Oklahoma (described earlier under Small Business), and the FLC participated in an NIST workshop for State agents from Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. ISSUES Evaluation: Within the next few years, it will be valuable to have the Consortium's program, as well as Federal technology transfer programs in general, evaluated to assess program impact and recommend changes where indicated. This is anticipated to be a challenging process because of the multiple nonquantitative objectives in the range of activities under the umbrella of "technology transfer”. New Cooperation Models: In certain cases, the use of Federal funds by a private party could be a prerequisite for industry-laboratory collaboration. Consideration might be given to authorizing a new form of Agreement that would allow use of Federal funds. Extension of Cooperative R&D Agreement Authority: At present, only Federallyoperated technical organizations may enter into Cooperative R&D Agreements. Extension of this authority to include explicitly Government-Owned Contractor-Operated facilities, as well as Federal Contract Research Centers, would broaden the value of this mechanism to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act: The Act exempts from disclosure information that is critical to a company's competitive commercial position. This provision does provide some comfort to companies entering into Cooperative R&D Agreements with Federal laboratories, but it would be valuable to have further guidance on the practical application of this exemption. Software: These is a growing perception that the inability of the government to copyright computer software written by its employees is providing foreign industry with an opportunity to commercialize this software. Some attention to this issue would assist measurably in completing an intellectual property policy basis for industry-laboratory cooperation. Foreign Industry: Although the government's intent on technology transfer is clear - to strengthen the U.S. economy and its international competitive positions - there remain some policy ambiguities. The greater issue is the definition of an American company; for example, should a laboratory prefer to work with a US-based company that would use laboratory technology for foreign manufacture, or a foreign-based company that will clearly do its development and manufacturing in the US? Technology Export Controls: The Consortium wishes to make explicit its understanding of the dual requirements of domestic technology transfer and respect for controls on availability of technology or information to foreign entities. Indeed, a presentation on this topic is a major element in the "FLC Fundamentals" training for new technology transfer personnel; it is felt that training individuals from non-Defense organizations as well as from Defense laboratories strengthens the infrastructure of necessary controls. DOMESTIC TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER APPENDIX I The FLC NEWS FEDERAL LABORATORY CONSORTIUM FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER JUNE 1988 VOL.4 NO.S FLC AWARDS RECIPIENTS HONORED!! Itor: Dr. William Marcuse, Dr. Robert A. Ramey, Margaret M. McNamara and Dr. Eugene E. Stark at the 1988 FLC Awards Banquet. HAROLD METCALF AWARD: This award recognizes the sustained significant service to This DR. EUGENE E. STARK, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY For improving, through executive excellence, the national climate for technology transfer from Federal laboratories. The FLC Awards for Excellence In Technology Transfer were announced May 17 in Washington, D.C. Nominations for the award are solicited annually from more than 350 FLC member labs. Winners are evaluated by a panel of experts in Tech. Transfer, including reps. from government, academia and labs. FLC Vice-Chair Margaret M. McNamara, who chairs the Award Committee and administers the awards programs presented the awards. The three "Awards of Appreciation" follow with others honored listed on pages 3 and 4. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE YEAR: This award recognizes the individual FLC Representative who has made the most significant contribution to the FLC program in the past year. The award is for service in the past year. This year, we are happy to present this award to: DR.WILLIAM MARCUSE, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB. For raising national awareness of new integrated circuit technologies and promoting industrial cooperation with Federal laboratories. AWARD OF APPRECIATION: This award recognizes individuals, who are not FLC DR. ROBERT A. RAMEY, For his commitment to increasing cooperative efforts be- |