The need to attract new members continues long beyond the start-up phase, as all centers experience turnover in membership due to shifts in corporate strategies and fiscal constraints. Many centers have formal criteria, often developed with the Industrial Advisory Board, for identifying those companies that may belong to the center. These criteria deal with issues such as foreign firms and multinationals, whether consulting firms may belong, and whether company size or location limits membership. (It is noteworthy that, while some centers have a geographically concentrated membership, no center limits membership based on location, and many have all of their members at long distance.) This section addresses successful strategies for recruiting appropriate members.

5.3.1.1 Strategic Plan for Recruitment

The Industrial Liaison Officer manages this activity. Centers vary significantly in the formality of their strategic plan for recruiting member companies. A few centers function only in response to inquiry, without active recruiting (not a wise approach). Most of the centers focus on identified industry groups (sometimes with IAB input) and establish membership goals, do market research to further identify appropriate company prospects, and tailor recruitment strategies for each prospect. This approach is recommended.

5.3.1.2 Marketing the Center

Every center uses its Director, staff, faculty members, and sometimes students in its marketing efforts, actively or responsively. At least one center uses a part-time consultant to contact potential sponsors to identify and explore areas of mutual interest. It is the high quality of research (and graduates) that is always most valuable to companies. Carefully identifying the companies that might benefit from the research in the center-that is, finding the right partners-is important in successful marketing. Presenting information about the center's respected faculty members must be accompanied by clearly defining the value of center participation from the company's perspective. This is particularly difficult in industries with a poor track record for R&D funding. Marketing techniques include literature, newsletters, and brochures; visits to industry by directors and faculty; visits to the center by industry representatives; booths and exhibits at trade association meetings; participation at technical society conferences; publication of technical papers; participation in industry research consortia; a center website; informational videotapes; letters to potential industrial sponsors identified through contacts; and topical workshops.

Consider that it may also be in the members' best interests to join in the recruitment process. If so, it is important to arm member "recruiters" with information about the center and its industry partner program. Additionally, the center's recruitment of industry support may align with and add to university or school development program goals. If so, leveraging the assistance of institutional development officers may help in identifying prospective members.

Centers disagree on the value of various printed materials in marketing, but most believe that personal contact (at professional and trade meetings or other "natural" venues) and visits are very effective. Particularly valuable, it is thought, are visits to companies by teams composed of center faculty, Director, and Industrial Liaison Officer. These visits not only introduce the center to a broad audience of company personnel; but also help the ERC understand the company's products, business climate, and issues so that the value of ERC membership can be specifically defined. In arranging such a meeting, the Industrial Liaison Officer should gather in-depth information on the company, brief the Director and faculty, and set objectives for the meeting in advance.

The Internet may be an increasingly productive source of low-cost "passive" leads. One center found that several industrial contacts had resulted from companies referring to the center's website. Special sections of the site geared to industry can be valuable; some ERCs have established password-accessible pages for members.

5.3.1.3 Industrial Consortia and Governmental Groups

Several centers have worked with external industrial consortia and/or with state and local governments-particularly those agencies involved in economic development. Besides meeting specific consortium or agency goals, such interactions need to pass the test of leveraging the center's activities, augmenting the benefit to member companies, and contributing to student and faculty development. Several centers collaborate with state agencies in programs with small companies-from directed research projects with undergraduate students to state-assisted start-up companies based on center research. One ERC is active in the industry's trade association and serves on national councils and task forces. The Center for Biofilm Engineering and others have developed flexible consortia around specific testbeds. Other centers, such as the Data Storage System Center, have been the nuclei of large, formal consortia in their areas of research (as explained in the following case study).

CASE STUDY: The Data Storage Systems Center (DSSC) at Carnegie Mellon University, owing to its prominence in the field and its robust systems infrastructure, was able to provide leadership in forming and developing the National Storage Industry Consortium (NSIC). DSSC has worked successfully with NSIC members to develop several cooperative university/industry research thrusts in data storage systems technology. NSIC-a joint-venture consortium of 26 U.S. industrial companies, 27 universities, and several national labs and agencies formed to promote and support collaborative research with academic, industrial, and governmental participants-has helped the United States maintain world competitiveness in this area by organizing cooperative research projects and effective technology transfer among member organizations. Incorporated in 1991, the DSSC continues to be a key contributor to both the strategic direction and the research output of the NSIC program. The founding Director of NSIC said that NSIC would not have been able to establish its magnetic and optical recording programs without the leadership of the DSSC.

NSIC has launched a number of cooperative university/industry research projects in ultrahigh-density recording, funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce (through the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]) and the U.S. Department of Defense (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA]). The DSSC is a key research participant in nearly all of these projects and was instrumental in the success of the proposal process for each of them. In fact, a DARPA-funded NSIC project in ultrahigh-density recording was the result of a DARPA contact initiated by DSSC personnel, who demonstrated the need for support for cooperative industrial and university research in the data storage industry. The Center also worked with NSIC to convince NIST to select digital data storage as a focus area for the Advanced Technology Program.

NSIC's research program in Extremely High Density Recording for hard disk drive (HDD) technology was begun in 1996 with four industrial sponsors and expanded in 1998 with the addition of NSF sponsorship and funding, administered by the DSSC, under the NSF Frontiers of Magnetic Recording Program. In 1999-2000, the program had grown to 8 industrial sponsors and had a $1.9M budget, supporting nearly 40 graduate students.

5.3.1.4 Start-up and Small Companies

Identifying mutually beneficial relationships with start-up firms and small companies is challenging for most centers. These companies' small R&D staffs and immediate product concerns often hinder them from participating actively in center research projects and activities. When approached, their initial reaction often is that they may need immediate consulting assistance or they want to hire students, but could not benefit from full membership in a center. Nevertheless, in high-risk research areas such firms may represent an important mode of technology transfer. Most centers have developed special ways of working with small companies to make joining possible (such as reduced-rate memberships or short-term project teams of undergraduate students with faculty and industry researchers). Marketing the center to such firms can emphasize benefits such as access to prospective product buyers from large companies at meetings; a window on the future directions of the technology; access to prospective employees; and any special programs developed. Teaming with small firms on proposals to other agencies also is an effective way to establish a partnership.

Most states have programs to support the development and commercialization of technology by small companies. They may provide business incubators, help in applying for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, matching funds for federal grants, or even direct equity investments through venture or seed capital funds. A useful source of information is the State Science and Technology Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization that tracks such state programs and monitors the state-federal relationship in science and technology. It can be found on the Internet at <http://ssti.org>.

The following case study describes a mechanism one center developed, with assistance from the state government, to encourage small companies to participate in the center.

CASE STUDY: The Center for Biofilm Engineering is in Montana, a lightly populated state with limited industry. Most companies in the state employ fewer than 50 people. The center made a strategic decision to help such companies. A key part of that decision was to allow small Montana companies to participate as members at no cost. The state provides the center with $200K per year-a grant from the Montana Science and Technology Alliance-and with that support, larger member companies were persuaded that small state companies could have a combined membership, with one collective vote on the advisory committee. The result is a recently developed consortium of Montana-based small businesses, the Montana Biofilm Research Consortium (MBRC), which can benefit from interaction with Center researchers and industrial members. The MBRC has 11 members from a range of industries, including biomedical research, sterilization technology, mining, wastewater treatment system manufacturing, and regulatory enforcement. Requirements for MBRC membership include a Montana-based operation, under $2 million in annual sales, and the potential for beneficial interaction with the ERC. The Consortium's goal is to transfer center-developed technology to Montana small businesses, and a key component of the program is working closely with these companies in writing collaborative proposals. In the first year of this program, the Center received eight grants, totaling more than $300,000, for collaborative R&D efforts with six of these companies.

Section 5.4.3.2 provides further discussion of small-company issues from the standpoint of intellectual property rights.

5.3.1.5 Foreign Firms

NSF recognizes that an ERC may have a global dimension, since many research and education challenges and opportunities require overseas collaboration to bring the best resources to bear on a problem. NSF policy permits foreign firms to be involved in an ERC if they agree to operate on a quid pro quo basis, exchanging personnel, sharing support, risks, benefits, information, and their own facilities to the same degree as all other participating U.S. firms do.

In 1999-2000, about 10% of all ERC industrial partners were foreign firms.

5.3.2 Involving Industrial Members

Key to a center's impact through relevant research and potential student hires is the depth of commitment and active participation of industrial researchers in center programs. Exploration by centers of the best ways to achieve a sense of "seamless community" with their partners attests to the creativity and flexibility of center personnel. This section summarizes centers' experiences in encouraging involvement by industrial members.

5.3.2.1 Industrial Input into Strategic Planning

Strategic planning for the center's research, education, and industrial collaboration and technology transfer programs is a vital segment of the activities of all ERCs. Their charter with NSF requires that ERCs periodically identify goals in each area of operation, establish paths to their objectives within an identified time, outline how resources will be organized to achieve objectives, make assumptions about the state-of-the-art and future expectations, and evaluate their progress toward their goals.

Most centers rely heavily on their sponsors and industrial advisory groups for input into their strategic planning. There are several vehicles for doing this, some formal and others informal. Some advisory boards and technical advisory groups hold special strategic planning sessions; some consortia engage in road-mapping activities. Several centers survey members to gather initial information for planning discussions, including recommendations for and evaluation of new projects. One-on-one interviews are also employed. The experience of the University of Washington Engineered Biomaterials ERC, or UWEB, illustrates how some centers go about this process (described in the following case study).

CASE STUDY: At its annual Sponsors Meeting, the University of Washington Engineered Biomaterials ERC (UWEB) spends about half a day with participants broken into about a half-dozen "focus groups". Each group discusses a major research topic area at the ERC. One faculty and one industrial person co-chair each session and these sessions are held at the very end of the meeting, so all new information is also on the table for discussion.

The goal for each group is to identify scientific barriers that impede or even prevent the companies from manufacturing and marketing the products they want or know they need. UWEB also tries to include clinicians, scientists, and students in each discussion group.

The very last session of the annual meeting is for the entire group to meet and listen to the co-chairs summarizing the focus group results. The focus group summaries from one year are documented and reintroduced the next year for comparison.

The objective overall is to incorporate industrial input into UWEB's research. In this way, UWEB research is kept relevant and up-to date, so that the scientific barriers confronting the industry can be surmounted.

5.3.2.2 Mechanisms to Enhance Interactions

Of all the approaches used to expand and deepen industry involvement in centers, nearly all centers agree that the most effective are personnel exchanges and joint research activities, both of which foster one-on-one interaction. Successful collaboration must benefit both the collaborating individuals and the cooperating organizations sufficiently that obstacles (and there are many) will be overcome. One center Industrial Liaison Officer uses the "health club analogy" with industrialists (the more you participate, the more you benefit).

Most centers attempt to broaden their interaction with member companies and provide a variety of ways in which companies can interact. Frequently used mechanisms that have been found to be effective include:

• Student internships at company sites
  
• Student mentoring by industry
  
• Industry participation on thesis committees
  
• Faculty sabbaticals
  
• Extended visits by industrial researchers
  
• Technical review meetings (review and topical)
  
• Industrial Advisory Board meetings
  
• Visits (of varying lengths) by industry to the center and by the center to industry
  
• Collaborative research projects
  
• Contract research projects
  
• Consortium meetings
  
• IP licensing
  
• Hosting center tours for members and their clients/prospects
  
• Tours of member facilities by visiting colleagues
  
• Short courses.

It is important to develop one or more champions within each company. Usually these will be firms' representatives to the IAB, but there may also be an additional strong supporter of the center within the company's top research management or general management. These people go to bat for the center when continued membership is an issue. They may be proactive in disseminating center products and information within the company; and they look for joint research opportunities. An enthusiastic and forceful champion-preferably in a senior executive position at the company-makes the difference between a strong corporate member and a pro forma, uncommitted one. In one company, the center's champion died and the center subsequently lost the support of the company. If the industrial representative must step down, due to transfer, promotion, or other cause, it is crucial to enlist his or her help in identifying a suitable replacement champion.

5.3.2.3 Industry/University Collaborative Research Teams

ERCs have found that close, personal liaison and one-to-one collaborations with industrial sponsors are very effective methods of technology transfer. Most centers have established cooperative projects where center personnel and industry partners have specific responsibilities and meet regularly to review progress and determine directions. In some cases industrial researchers provide leadership on project teams.

Faculty members join ERCs because of their interests in industrial problems and in systems-oriented, interdisciplinary research. Centers encourage this inclination by making funding available for research done cooperatively with industry. In some cases, specific projects or contract work are equally as effective in promoting industrial collaboration. Faculty members learn about industrial interests (and those of academic colleagues) through participation in center reviews, visits by and to companies, and serving on thesis committees with industrialists. Some centers provide released time and salary support for faculty; others do not.

In some centers, research collaborations have extended to groups of companies, consortia, and other universities. (The NSIC case study presented in Section 5.3.1.3 is an excellent example.) Successful research collaboration between faculty and industrial researchers then becomes part of the culture of a center. Graduate students trained in this environment assume that it is a normal and effective way to pursue industry-relevant research. They take that orientation with them as they go into careers in academe and industry.

CASE STUDY: A good example of collaborative research teams was seen in the Industrial Fellows Program of the University of Minnesota's now-graduated Center for Interfacial Engineering. The explicit goal of the program was to build personal bridges between the company and the university and Center culture while accomplishing relevant research. Industrial researchers spent up to a year on campus working with faculty on jointly defined precompetitive research projects. The center provided office space, laboratory facilities, and normal faculty perks; the company provided salary and expenses (receiving in return a $50,000 rebate on full membership fees). During the life of the program, nearly 100 individuals from some 25 companies were Center Industrial Fellows. Flexibility was critical to the program-the schedule for the fellowship was completely open to whatever worked best for the individuals and the project. Some companies used teams of fellows; others linked one fellow with teams of faculty members and students. Companies that integrated the program into their long-term R&D strategy benefited significantly. For example, one firm sent an Industrial Fellow focused on a specific project; the next year they generalized the project with another Fellow. Graduate students spent time in the company's laboratory. This single long-term project involved five Industrial Fellows, four center faculty members, three undergraduates, five graduate students, and three post-doctoral researchers. The work contributed to five Ph.D. theses, numerous publications, and two important U.S. patent awards for the company, which were commercialized. Two of the Industrial Fellows received the company's prestigious Technical Achievement Award for research begun in the center. Another Fellow's project resulted in the development of a substitute for a catalyst used in the manufacture of fluorocarbons.

5.3.2.4 Information Exchange with Companies

One problem identified by centers is how to share information broadly within member companies when active participation often is limited to a few individuals within each company. This is a two-way problem, with faculty members needing to know more about the company's interests and industrial representatives needing a fuller understanding of how they might benefit from the center. Most centers try to distribute written materials as widely as possible within member companies. Publications distributed by most centers include newsletters, technical reviews and annual reports, reprints of research articles, information on intellectual property, and summaries of meetings of advisory groups. Assessment of the effectiveness of these materials varies; each center must determine what works in its own industrial environment. Many are using extensive center websites and companies' internal electronic mail systems to share information. Others are trying electronic forums and video-conferencing as ways to broaden awareness.

As much as possible, communication should be individualized to the corporate culture of each particular company, to facilitate communication and increase awareness of the center-within large companies particularly. One experienced Industrial Liaison Officer notes that, "it is healthier to communicate some with a lot of people within a company, than to communicate a lot with only a few."

In contrast to the mass distribution of written information, all centers hold formal research review meetings and engage in discussions both during visits and informally, one-on-one. These sessions allow highly effective two-way personal interaction (see Section 5.3.2.2). Agendas for these meetings need to include significant time for industrial participants to interact with the material and its presenters. The traditional academic one-hour presentation-with an introduction, methods, results, summary, and conclusions-involves one-way communication that may be inappropriate for an industrial audience. One center uses 20-minute presentations with the conclusions up front, a brief description of methods and results, and a repeat of the conclusions at the end, followed by 20 minutes for discussion. Others use shorter, 10-minute, presentations with 5-minute discussion periods. Other centers use their own variations. The point is to meet the audience halfway by making the sessions interesting from their perspectives and leaving time for listening and interacting. No matter what format is used in research review meetings, it's important to plan and manage the presentations to ensure that they are aimed at the industrial audiences' interests and needs. The industrial audience wants to know the industrial relevance and application up front, while academic presentations typically start with a strong focus on the "science" and pay little attention to applications, except as an afterthought. It is important to keep cultural differences like this in mind whenever the ERC presents its results to industry, to clearly demonstrate the value that industry sponsors are getting for their investment in the ERC.

Research review meetings include all researchers (faculty, students, and industry); in some centers they are open to all interested companies and in others are for members only. A few centers with closed meetings allow prospective members to attend one session as a marketing tool. Some centers mix a public meeting/dinner on one day with a closed member meeting on the second day, thus giving prospective members the opportunity to interact with current members without being part of the exclusive group. Some of the centers charge company representatives for attending meetings; others include the costs in membership fees. Some centers use hotel meeting facilities, while others hold the meetings at university sites. In either case, proximity to ERC facilities allows tours and laboratory visits to be included, either formally or informally.

Agendas of research reviews vary from center to center. Typically such a review is held during a 1½- to 2½-day meeting, which may include a plenary session overview of activities; consecutive or simultaneous technical sessions covering major research areas; roundtable discussions (sometimes including an outside perspective, e.g., clinicians for biotechnology); poster sessions (at several centers combined with lunch or a buffet supper); and industry feedback sessions. Some centers use the "raw" feedback from such whole-group sessions for guidance; others have representative technical advisory committees that meet in formal session to codify input. Experience suggests that these committee meetings are more effective with a clear agenda (ideally prepared with industry input), minutes, and action items, and seating around a table rather than classroom style.

Another typical formal center meeting type is a topical workshop, often with topics recommended by industrial participants. These are often one-day sessions led by an academic or industrial organizer (or team). Presentations or panel discussions are arranged with sufficient time for discussion. Such meetings are an effective way to explore possible new research directions for a center.

Centers' (usually annual) meetings with Industrial Advisory Board members vary considerably, but many are 3-6 hours long. Some are chaired by elected industry representatives who set the agenda; others are chaired (preferably with a light hand) by center directors. It is important for the entire leadership team of the ERC (Director, Deputy Director, Thrust Leaders, ILO, and Administrative Manager) to participate in this meeting. Industry participants should be made to clearly understand that this is their best opportunity to guide the ERC and therefore they should not be inhibited in their discussions for any reason. Distribution of the agenda and pre-meeting materials 1-2 months in advance facilitates the meeting. Including the last Board meeting minutes as part of the package is found to be extremely useful in conducting Board business. The ERC needs to include time during the meeting for their NSF ERC Program Director to brief industry on ERCs and also for industry to conduct their Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats analysis of the center. See Section 5.2.4 regarding Board responsibilities.

Informal interaction with IAB members between meetings is common. Visits by companies to the center or by center faculty to companies are often informal interactions facilitated by center staff and/or faculty. The purpose of the visit determines which faculty members, students, and administrators are included. Tours of center laboratories may be appropriate for prospective members or new visitors from member companies. It is helpful for all participants to know the purpose, the participants, and the agenda. Briefing materials for a visit should be digestible during a one-hour plane trip. It is often the responsibility of the Industrial Liaison Officer to determine and track follow-up action items from the session.

Informal communication among faculty, students, and company researchers is usually face-to-face or via telephone, fax, or e-mail. E-mail is a very effective means of communication, as it is time-efficient and flexible as to reception and response. Most ERC faculty by now use e-mail routinely to communicate with other faculty, students, and their industrial researcher counterparts. Any senior faculty members who are not comfortable with the use of email should have a secretarial interface to email.

Finally, it's critical to note that one of the most important roles played by the Industrial Liaison Officer in communicating between the ERC and industrial sponsors is that of ombudsman or the "voice of the customer" in the ERC. The ILO typically has more direct experience in industry and everyday industry contacts than anyone else in the Center and he or she must be seen as an impartial advocate for the interests of the industrial sponsors-in essence, their internal advocate. Undertaking this role makes the ILO an invaluable resource to sponsors and serves the purpose of the ERC in fostering closer industrial collaborations.

5.3.3 Issues Regarding Industrial Involvement

5.3.3.1 Balancing Long- and Short-Term Research

Despite industry's perennial need for short-term (typically less than a year) problem-solving, several centers reported few problems in matching long-term university research with industry's need for longer-term R&D. The continued participation of companies in centers, based on corporate assessment of the value of the investment, provides centers with a clear measure of the relevance of their longer time-horizon research efforts.

Centers that work with small companies or have contract work in their operation tend to have more short-term research in their portfolio. Examples of some of the balancing strategies used are involving undergraduate and/or postdoctoral research associates on short-term research projects, separation of general center research (long term) and contract research (short term), and obtaining additional direct funding of short-term projects.

5.3.3.2 Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

NSF policy limits the involvement of ERC faculty and staff members in positions of responsibility in member companies or, conversely, involvement of ERC member company personnel in decision-making roles in ERCs. The following is the National Science Foundation's "Engineering Research Centers Program Statement on Conflict of Interest in Technology Transfer on the Dual Role of Center Faculty in an Industrial Capacity":

NSF policy with regard to ERC spin-off companies, if they are members of the ERC, is the same. For nonmember spin-offs, the conflict-of-interest concern applies only to principals of the ERC (Director or Deputy Director, member of the center's Executive Committee, or Thrust Area Leader). Essentially, anyone in decision-making authority over resource allocation within the ERC cannot be a principal of a spin-off company. Again, it is vital to guard against even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

5.3.3.3 Other Federally Funded Joint Ventures

Several centers are participants in other federal programs (e.g., those of DARPA and NIST, such as the Advanced Technology Projects [ATP] program). On balance, most centers see such participation as beneficial. Benefits include the industrial relevance of the work, strong commitment and involvement by industry, and willingness of other universities to work together collaboratively. However, not every center finds these large programs beneficial. Disadvantages include "wicked timetables," volatility of funding (causing dislocation in the amount of technical effort in a given project area), and the negative impact that industrial cost-sharing can have on the direct sponsorship of university research by the same companies, given a fixed company budget for support of university research. (See also Section 5.5.1.4.)

5.3.3.4 Industrial Involvement in Education Programs

Industrialists are involved in center education programs as both receivers and contributors. Several centers have industrially focused short courses, workshops, and seminars and industrial degree programs that are offered on campus, at professional meetings, or at company sites. As contributors to center education programs, industrialists lecture, teach entire courses (sometimes as team teachers with faculty), serve on thesis committees, work with students on project teams, act as mentors, and support students financially and with internships. The following case study from Clemson University shows the value of industrial involvement in the educational process. (See Chapter 4 of the Best Practices Manual for a more extensive discussion of industrial involvement in ERC education programs.)

CASE STUDY: The Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films at Clemson University has made effective use of the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program as a means of increasing industrial involvement in the center's education programs. REU projects are developed jointly by faculty members and the center's industrial partners. Industrial researchers co-advise the students on the project. Since meeting the demands of an industry audience is an important part of the program's communications component, the industry advisors provide feedback on the students' research proposals, progress reports, and posters. As part of the project, the students and the academic advisors visit the industrial location to tour the laboratories and meet industrial research scientists.

5.3.3.5 Measuring Program Effectiveness

Metrics used to assess the effectiveness of the industrial collaboration/technology transfer program vary among the different centers. Some metrics are required by NSF in the ERC's annual report. Others will be useful in reporting to the center's Industrial Advisory Board. Still others may be used only internally, for program management and improvement. All centers should keep track of the impacts of their work on companies-what was adopted, how it was used, the impact on the company, on the industry, and other indicators. Data quantifying the impact are especially powerful. In all cases, good "nuggets" describing the impact on industry are useful in explaining the center's accomplishments and should be preserved to expand on the numerical listings. In addition to the center's own use, this information is used by NSF for a variety of purposes.

Metrics used in existing centers include: number of joint research projects with industry; number and names of students hired by member companies; number and titles of publications; number of patents/licenses; company funding figures; in-kind corporate contributions; number and names of companies attending center meetings; number and names of industrial collaborators on projects; number of faculty visits to companies; etc. Some centers have found it useful to individualize the data by company to support center industrial representatives in their justification of membership renewal, if requested.

In assessing its performance, each ERC is required to assess its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in a specified, structured manner. This SWOT analysis is a vital tool for the center in its efforts toward continuous improvement. It is also among NSF's most important measures of the centers' performance

Each ERC's industrial members perform a SWOT analysis in conjunction with the NSF site visit. Its purpose is to:

• Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the ERC's vision, strategic plan, research, education, industrial collaboration, leadership and team, and management system.
  
• Identify any opportunities missed by the ERC.
  
• Determine if any weaknesses are serious threats to the ERC's ability to fulfill its vision.

They summarize the results of the analysis in bulleted slide presentations, for the use of the NSF annual review team and the ERC.

This exercise provides an integrative forum for industry members to focus on center goals; builds more cohesive industry support; provides focused input to the ERC and to the NSF site visitors to help strengthen the ERC; and strengthens the investment partnership between NSF and industry by clarifying industry's priorities and concerns. The center's NSF Program Director also participates in the meeting, briefing industry on the overall ERC Program and the SWOT analysis process.

Each center's students perform a second, parallel SWOT analysis. Members of the ERC's Student Leadership Council gather and synthesize input from participating students (as both workers in and customers of the ERC). Students use the same criteria and techniques as those of the industry members' SWOT analyses, analyzing the strengths of the ERC in fulfilling its vision; determining weaknesses; identifying any opportunities missed by the ERC; and determining whether any of the weaknesses are serious threats to the ERC's ability to fulfill its vision. Like their industrial counterparts, they communicate the analysis to the NSF site review team and the ERC's leadership for the purpose of continuous improvement

A final note on technology utilization metrics: Licenses are an easily measured record of success. Perhaps a more significant cumulative impact, however, is gained from the little ideas and bits of information that spark an inspiration for someone, and when they take it back to their company it becomes an unmeasurable (but important) piece of some large system. One way to measure this is through testimony by working engineers within the company who have benefited from the interaction. Thus, perhaps another metric should be, "Has the center established an effective forum for intellectual exchange within its technology focus area?"

5.3.3.6 Benefits to the Center of Industrial Involvement

In addition to the funding, strategic guidance, and personnel-exchange benefits discussed earlier in this section, centers report nearly unanimously that industry also brings an understanding of what research is relevant. An understanding of the technical direction and needs of the industry is an essential element of systems?oriented, interdisciplinary research and helps provide students with an engineering systems perspective. ERCs develop an awareness of which research is relevant through a variety of means, including Industrial Advisory Board meetings, people exchanges, visits to and by industry, one?on?one research collaborations, technical conferences and reviews, and ongoing technical interactions.

Benefits of industrial participation also include student mentoring through formal and informal research collaborations, student internships, and membership on student education committees. In addition, industry provides input on curricula, so that the education offered reflects industry needs; quality student employment opportunities, both full-time and part-time; research equipment, devices, and materials; help with equipment operating problems; access to industrial facilities for specialized testing; management experience and advice; assistance in obtaining funding from federal programs; and support in site visits with the NSF. Among the benefits are faster commercialization and the ability to do research in areas in which member companies do not have technical strengths.

Interaction with the leading companies in the industry increases the center's credibility and prominence in the field, and can be very instrumental in attracting other companies to become members. This advantage is even stronger when existing members are willing to network actively with the center and prospective member companies.

For ERCs involved in emerging technology areas, the critical mass represented by the industrial members actually nucleates and creates new industries as companies, by incorporating the technologies, give them higher visibility. The center thus grows along with the industry and becomes centrally associated with it.

For a discussion of the benefits to industry, see Section 5.5.1.

5.3.4 Lessons Learned: Building the Constituency

• Company recruitment strategies should be tailored to each prospect; prospective members can be "seduced" into partnership with the center only when an appropriate confluence of interests exists.
  
• Bad research cannot be sold with public relations. Even world-class research with aggressive technical goals must be relevant to industrial needs or it will not attract the attention of industry.
  
• Recruiting nontraditional partners (government laboratories, state agencies, small start-up firms, and consortia) requires that the center understand clearly how all parties can benefit from the collaboration and clearly communicate those benefits.
  
• You cannot have too many contacts or contact them too often; personal contacts and visits are very effective.
  
• Industry's presence has changed education-universities and industry now share a responsibility to create effective engineering leaders for the future.
  
• Industry's short-term needs must be addressed without disrupting the educational process.
  
• Industrial researchers enjoy interacting with students.
  
• It is important to have champions for the center's program in each company. They do the internal persuasion and make the connections that keep the center well anchored with its members.
  
• Academic and industrial cultures are very different, especially in time scales, attitudes toward deliverables, and perceptions of problems. This is true even in the oldest ERCs, after 11 years of partnership.
  
• Mechanisms that foster one-on-one interaction (such as personnel exchanges and joint research) are the most effective way to enhance industrial interactions.
  
• Many faculty members enjoy, and most benefit from, the synergy of collaborative research with industry.
  
• Networking of ERC faculty with industry professionals via professional society activities, consulting, invited seminars, and other means is valuable.
  
• To gain the confidence of the industry, centers must be able to prove concepts and provide solutions, rather than simply produce technical papers.
  
• Strong industry critiques of the centers' research and education programs-and even their management-are useful; industry may even have formal channels for input into centers' strategic planning and the SWOT analysis required by NSF.
  
• Routine mailings need to be automated and delegated for maximum cost-effectiveness and minimum impact on management workloads.
  
• As a center matures, it undergoes a transition from informal to more formal interactions with industry; communications and meetings need to reflect that shift when it occurs.
  
• Metrics for assessing the effectiveness of the industrial collaboration and technology transfer program are vital and have many uses.

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.