Center for Science, Technology, and Economic Development (CSTED) > Selected Reports

Study Objectives and Approach

to conduct a systematic examination of the antecedent discoveries, events, people, interactions, and conditions that lead to the evolution of the 12 most significant engineering innovations to have emerged in the preceding decade to: (1) document NSF's involvement in bringing about the innovations; and (2) evaluate the significance of NSF's role in the broader context of the innovations' development.

The three innovations studied in the first year were:

• Reaction injection molding
• Magnetic resonance imaging
• The Internet.

Problems of case selection bias were addressed by using an independent Technical Review Panel, jointly with SRI, to select innovations, and by choosing innovations with relatively recent impact. It was appropriate to select innovations known to have some relevance to fields supported by NSF, because the purpose of the study was not to compare NSF's contribution with that of some other source of support, or to generalize to some population. It was also appropriate to choose technically complex (but researchable) innovations so that opportunities for potential NSF influence of different types and timing would be maximized.[1]

Once the first three innovations were selected, library work was undertaken to identify the major players, timeline, technological changes, and other features of each innovation. SRI then interviewed NSF staff and SRI scientists and engineers to obtain more detail about individual and institutional contributors, milestones, patents or copyrights, and related advances. NSF award data files were available to identify Principal Investigators, award institutions, doctoral grants, travel awards, workshops, and other types of awards associated with particular innovations from the beginning of NSF through FY 1995. SRI conducted interviews with key individuals involved in the research, development, and introduction of the innovation into the marketplace, using interview protocols based on a model of the innovation process that incorporates current understanding of its complexities and feedback elements. Once the major contributing streams of knowledge and technology were identified via personal interviews and associated site visits, a variety of explorations filled out the innovation's history, including alternative paths avoided and dead ends. Throughout the tracing of the innovation's history, the type and influence of NSF support and other sources of support were identified. The first three cases were viewed as pilot tests of the SRI approach and of the value of bibliometric methods as a complement to interviews and more traditional archival data.

The following section summarizes our major conclusions. With only three cases completed, it is premature to draw conclusions about the role of NSF in supporting engineering innovations. Nonetheless, some observations can be made about how innovations evolve and, particularly, how government, industry, and universities interact as innovations evolve; about the role of intellectual property rights; about the relative contributions and timing of fundamental research and technology development; and about the types of NSF support that were important in each case. The remainder of the Executive Summary is devoted to summaries of the three cases, each organized around these four topics.

Conclusions

For NSF, modes of support in addition to direct research were important, yet often subtle or indirect. Assigning relative influence to each mode will be a difficult process requiring data from additional cases, as well as careful validation of the analysis. However, the following table presents a possible structure in which such support might be analyzed and described after more cases have been completed. With more experience studying the results of additional cases, it may be possible to complete the table with ratings of the relative importance of each mode of support in each of the first three cases.

The cases were more diverse than we had anticipated. As a consequence, the kinds of data that proved most useful and reliable varied widely. This variety necessitated very different approaches to the three cases, and sometimes required shifts in strategy later in the study process than was desirable. In future cases, we cannot expect several different sources of data to be comparably available, relevant, and reliable. Early, careful examination of future cases will be necessary to anticipate the strengths and weaknesses of each type of data, perhaps leading to revision of each case study strategy. Our Technical Review Panel acted wisely when they advised us to consider the first three cases as pilot studies. The experience of this first year will greatly enhance our ability to approach future cases in ways that will yield the kinds of results we all seek.

Reaction Injection Molding

Reaction injection molding (RIM) involves the high-speed mixing of two or more reactive chemicals, such as prepolymers, as an integral part of injecting them into a mold. The mixture flows into the mold at relatively low temperature, pressure, and viscosity. Curing occurs in the mold, again at relatively low temperature and pressure. The entire process, from mixing to demolding, typically takes less than a minute. Not only is it much faster than casting, it also requires much less energy. Different types of RIM are characterized by different ways in which reinforcement can be introduced into the final product. In reinforced reaction injection molding (RRIM), reinforcing materials such as chopped glass or glass flakes are introduced with one of the prepolymers; the reinforcing material and the prepolymers are then mixed and injected into the mold. Structural RIM (SRIM) refers to a process in which a fiber reinforcing mat is placed in the mold and the reacting polymers are injected through and around it.

Government, Industry, University Roles and Relationships. RIM and, to a lesser extent, RRIM and SRIM owe their development in the 1970s and early 1980s to actions by the U.S. Congress. In the absence of automobile crash-resistance and fuel-efficiency legislation, it is unlikely that RIM would have developed as rapidly as it did or that there would have been such considerable demand for RIM products. In addition to bringing substantial cost savings to auto owners through reduced repair and insurance costs, additional savings were achieved from reduced fuel consumption. Public benefits accrued from reduced air pollution as well.

The Defense Department (DOD) and NASA have supported considerable research on polymer chemistry, composites, and reinforced polymers. DOD's network of university-based Materials Research Laboratories was transferred to NSF in the 1970s. No doubt, research supported by these agencies contributed to greater understanding of polymer chemistry and composites, producing knowledge that benefited both the RIM industry and aerospace/defense firms. Yet our interviews revealed little evidence of interchange of knowledge between these industrial sectors; materials suppliers to RIM had problems to solve different from those of aerospace firms building high-performance polymer composites. To some extent, academic research brought the disparate fields of application together, upstream, in fundamental studies of polymer chemistry.

The RIM-related research we identified, supported by NSF and conducted by individual investigators as well as in centers, appears to be strongly tied to industry. Christopher Macosko, a Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Minnesota, was at the core of this work in the 1980s, and his research was shaped considerably by industry interests (Union Carbide first supported his RIM research). Macosko has coauthored numerous works with industrial researchers; his students have worked in industry while doing doctoral study, and many have joined industry after receiving their degrees; a considerable amount of his research was conducted in collaboration with RIM firms. Given NSF's support of a variety of centers conducting polymer-processing research, there continue to be strong industry-university ties in the field. This view is supported by evidence from citations in RIM patents, which show much greater-than-average frequency of referrals to scholarly research.

Intellectual Property Rights. RIM is characterized by extensive patenting of key process components: premix materials, mold release agents, and mixheads. There is no evidence that this patenting has hampered development or diffusion of the technology, nor is there evidence of extensive cross-licensing, at least in materials. Apparently, in polymer chemistry, slightly different components can have similar applications but sufficiently different compositions (and, presumably, performance) to lead to extensive patenting that does not result in market dominance by one or a small number of firms. Key RIM patents-indeed, nearly all the industrially important patents-are held by large firms, mostly materials suppliers. Bayer, already a major player in chemicals, introduced RIM and patented a mixhead design very early, but this did not lead to market dominance. Bayer had one key patent on a urea-urethane mix, and Dow had a key patent on mold release agents, and the two traded licenses. Texaco patented an all-urea mix but could not lock up the market, and sold licenses to Bayer and others.

Each supplier appears to have developed proprietary formulations that are different enough from those of their competitors for each to enjoy satisfactory market share. One explanation may be the diversity of RIM applications, each calling for somewhat different performance requirements and tradeoffs between materials costs and processing costs. Process equipment, on the other hand, is very difficult to protect. There was a highly focused market in automobile bumpers that is now declining. Patents in this narrow field were weak in that they were primarily mechanical rather than chemical formulations.

Relationships between Fundamental Research and Technology Development. As recently as 1990, industrial RIM users were fine-tuning their systems by trial and error. A process that began with industrial practice is continuing to be led by experimental data, rather than predictive theory. RIM has peaked; both industrial and related scholarly research efforts are focusing on reinforced RIM and structural RIM. As demand for lighter replacements for structural steel increases, the contributions that research makes to applications in RRIM and, especially, SRIM may increase accordingly.

There was incomplete, even contradictory, evidence about research-technology relationships in RIM. On the one hand, industry representatives whom we interviewed could not say much one way or the other about the impact of fundamental or academic research on RIM development. Books on RIM by industrial researchers and engineers refer infrequently to scholarly research. Yet industry representatives also concluded that fundamental knowledge of RIM and RIM chemistry was needed but lacking. They supported, and continue to support, academic research with their own funds, while encouraging public support of research as well. Evidence from patent databases shows stronger-than-average ties between academic research and industry in RIM. Macosko and his students interacted closely with industry, reflecting the close ties that academic chemistry and chemical engineering traditionally have had with industry.

NSF Role. Interview respondents offered limited information on the question of the influence of academic research on RIM development. Our impression from bibliometric and patent citations is that NSF's role was significant. RIM research supported by NSF was closely tied to industry, beginning with Macosko's 1980 award and continuing subsequently with substantial awards to several NSF-sponsored centers. Industry benefited by hiring students already familiar with the process, and software based on Macosko's NSF-supported work is now proving commercially successful.