From a research standpoint, the impact of an ERC is measured through its industrial interaction and knowledge/technology transfer successes, along with traditional academic measures such as published papers, patents, software products published, students graduated, etc. Thus, some yardsticks are more tangible and objective than others are.

The particular metrics used by ERCs vary, but they include the following, as excerpted from the responses by ERC Directors and research managers to a questionnaire.

• We tabulate the number of goals reached based on six-month reviews and an internal report card. Research success is measured in the number of publications and an assessment of whether new and relevant knowledge has been created. Research success can also be recognized by success in obtaining additional research funding from other sources.
• In addition to the usual publication and patent counting metrics, we consider the health of our industrial interaction in general and technology transfer specifically. Involvement of undergraduate students in the research and student research visits to industry both are useful metrics for the integration of education and research.
• The ultimate metric is the application by the industry of knowledge or technology developed by the Center. Progress toward the goals of the strategic plan comes about through deliverables that go into use. We try to measure output, success, and impact by what influence we have on how engineering is accomplished within the industry.

The emergence of a center as a recognized national resource in its field is a strong indicator of its impact. A number of ERCs have become firmly established as national resources. For example, as a result of its established excellence in the field, the Carnegie-Mellon DSSC was able to organize the National Storage Industries Consortium; some 34 companies (and 25 universities) are members of the consortium.

Although technology development has not traditionally been a route to academic recognition for excellence, that is changing -- at least in engineering. To a significant extent it is the ERCs that have wrought this change. As a result, another contributor to acceptance of the ERC concept as an important academic research strategy are the numerous developments that have helped ERC member companies to commercialize advances, which they claim would not have been possible without their participation in the ERC. The widespread application of center technology in standards is another reliable indicator of the center's impact.

Start-up companies often are spun off by ERCs, based on center-developed technologies and usually with ERC graduates and faculty members as principals. Research accomplishments of the ERCs have resulted in the formation of nearly 300 new companies based on ERC technology -- further evidence that they are valuable national resources.

Positive impact is apparent if center faculty often are invited to present papers at major professional symposia in their fields. The formation of large industrial consortia around the ERC, the operation of unique testbeds and testing/simulation facilities which are heavily used by industry, and the hosting of well-attended international conferences all provide tangible indications of this status.

At the beginning of the ERC Program, in the mid-1980s, the academic community was largely skeptical about the relative merits of multiple-investigator, industry-oriented, cross-disciplinary research centers. Among the less tangible but most important impacts of ERCs has been the change of culture in many fields and ERC host universities from single-investigator, single discipline, narrowly focused work to cross-disciplinary team research attacking larger problems using a systems approach. In addition, ERCs have pioneered new models for education and for academic administration and management that are being widely adopted throughout their host universities.

Perhaps the greatest measurement of success, however, is articulating an original vision far ahead of the university community or the industrial sector in specific areas of research, to which the rest of the community is gradually converted as the accuracy of that vision is demonstrated over time. The case study gives an example.

CASE STUDY:
The Center for Biofilm Engineering, at Montana State University, is developing novel techniques for the control and mitigation of biofilms, the slimy coatings that adhere to surfaces wherever microbes can establish a foothold. Recent work at this ERC has led to a revolution in the prevailing idea of how biofilms organize themselves. The novel perception was that biofilms form tower-like "slime skyscrapers," structures that are much better organized than biofilms were previously thought to be. For example, they have a primitive circulatory system. Due to the ERC's research, the accepted paradigm regarding biofilms shifted over a period of three years from random, unstructured systems to a sophisticated, structured system.

The key to this breakthrough was the identification of a mechanism for communication between bacteria of different species that would allow the bacteria to avoid filling in the spaces in the structure and thereby shutting off circulation of liquid. "Quorum sensing" among floating bacteria was the key to identifying this mechanism for cell-cell communication in biofilms.

As an immediate practical application of this discovery, the ERC was able to identify the bacterial signaling gene and "knock it out," preventing the bacteria from building towers. Consequently, these bacteria no longer adhere to the surface and do not form biofilms. This knowledge of the bacterial signaling language will enable engineers to manipulate biofilms, using real or "counterfeit" signal molecules, and eventually to control both the formation and the detachment of biofilms from surfaces. Already the ERC has found a synthetic analog of a blocking compound that eliminates slime fouling in a type of kelp; the synthetic compound can be used in many applications.

This project is a powerful example of the ways that an ERC can produce useful innovations. The center was focusing on biofilms because of the industrial problems they produce. However, says Center Director William Costerton, the center's industrial partners were "not at all interested in the center's work on understanding why biofilms form. They wanted, instead, to know how much toxin to flood biofilms with." The center had to press for resources to work on the underlying mechanisms. In the end, their persistence paid off in the form of unexpected and very useful breakthroughs. "Interdisciplinary work is precious," Costerton says, because the different disciplines perceive a problem from different angles; putting the various perceptions together can stimulate novel approaches.
 

If you have specific comments and questions on the contents of this site and/or its use, please contact webmaster@erc-assoc.org. To report technical problems, contact techhelp@erc-assoc.org.