Federal Research: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Technology Access
Program (Letter Report, 09/18/95, GAO/RCED-95-212).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Pilot Technology
Access Program (TAPP), focusing on the: (1) program's effectiveness and
impact on improving small business productivity and innovation; and (2)
experiences and the lessons learned by the TAPP centers during the pilot
program.

GAO found that: (1) Congress has decided not to fund TAPP beyond fiscal
year (FY) 1995; (2) one TAPP center has operated independently on a
reduced scale since FY 1993 and the remaining five centers plan to
continue operations beyond FY 1995, but they are not sure of their
organization, services, and funding; (3) the five centers serviced 1,840
businesses in FY 1994, of which 59 percent were manufacturers and 66
percent were businesses just getting started; (4) TAPP services included
technical and nontechnical information, and technical, patent, and
marketing assistance; (5) although the program's impact could not be
determined, TAPP clients were generally satisfied with the centers'
operations and services; (6) center officials were generally pleased
with their programs' development and believed that certain individual
projects produced favorable results; and (7) lessons learned from TAPP
that should be considered in designing future programs include adding
more specificity to program goals and objectives, determining whether a
separate and distinct federal program is necessary, determining the
organizational type best suited to manage such a program, and deciding
program funding options.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-212
     TITLE:  Federal Research: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Technology 
             Access Program
      DATE:  09/18/95
   SUBJECT:  Small business assistance
             Technical assistance
             Information dissemination operations
             Appropriated funds
             Information centers
             Reference service operations
             Sunset legislation
             Project monitoring
IDENTIFIER:  NIST Pilot Technology Access Program
             Minnesota Project Outreach
             SBA Small Business Development Center Program
             NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

September 1995

FEDERAL RESEARCH - LESSONS LEARNED
FROM THE PILOT TECHNOLOGY ACCESS
PROGRAM

GAO/RCED-95-212

Pilot Technology Access Program

(307724)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BIAS - Pennsylvania Business Intelligence Access System
  BIC - Business Information Center
  BFTC - Ben Franklin Technology Center
  CLIS - College of Library and Information Services
  GAO - U.S.  General Accounting Office
  MEP - Manufacturing Extension Partnership
  MOTAP - Missouri Technology Access Program
  MTC - Manufacturing Technology Center
  NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology
  OIC - Oregon Innovation Center
  PENNTAP - Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
  SBA - Small Business Administration
  SBDC - Small Business Development Center
  TAP/Texas - Texas Technology Access Program
  TAPP - Pilot Technology Access Program
  Teltech - Teltech Resource Network Corporation
  TEN - Technology Expert Network
  TENIS - Technology Expert Network Information System
  TPDC - Texas Product Development Center
  WisTAP - Wisconsin Technology Access Program

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261505

September 18, 1995

Congressional Committees

Public Law 102-140 required the U.S.  General Accounting Office (GAO)
to issue two reports on the Pilot Technology Access Program (TAPP),
which was to establish special technology assistance centers to
deliver counseling, training, and research assistance to small
businesses.  Our first report,\1 issued in March 1994, discussed the
program's implementation and progress after the first 2 years. 
Shortly after the issuance of our first report, the Congress decided
not to fund TAPP beyond fiscal year 1995, its fourth year. 

This second and final report on TAPP discusses the status of the TAPP
centers in the fourth and final year of federal funding as well as
our observations on lessons learned during the pilot.  We believe
these observations could be beneficial if the Congress reconsiders
such a program in the future.  Details on our objectives, scope, and
methodology; a summary of federal funding for TAPP; a discussion of
evaluation concerns raised in our interim report; and detailed
descriptions of each of the TAPP centers are included as appendixes
to this report. 


--------------------
\1 Federal Research:  Interim Report on the Pilot Technology Access
Program (GAO/RCED-94-75, Mar.  7, 1994). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The Pilot Technology Access Program is in its final year of federal
funding and five of the six original centers remain in the program. 
The sixth has continued on its own, although on a reduced scale,
since the program's second year.  While each of the centers planned
to continue its program beyond fiscal year 1995, each was not sure
how it would be organized, what levels of services it would provide,
or how it would be funded. 

In 1994, the five centers still in the pilot program served 1,840
"client" companies, of which 59 percent were manufacturers and 66
percent were businesses just getting started.  The services provided
to these companies were evenly divided between technical and
nontechnical information and included such assistance as patent
searches, literature searches, assistance in identifying potential
markets, and counseling by experts in specific technical areas. 
While the impact of the pilot program is unknown, clients responding
to "satisfaction surveys" in the program's final year appeared to be
pleased with both the operations of the centers and the services
provided.  Similarly, officials within the centers were pleased with
the way their programs had developed and provided examples of
individual projects they believed had produced favorable results. 
Federal funding for the TAPP centers totaled $3,537,000 for the 4
years the program was in existence. 

Because the pilot program is not being funded past fiscal year 1995,
we identified no issues that need resolving currently.  However, we
have made some observations on issues, or "lessons learned," that may
be useful if the Congress decides to pursue such a program in the
future.  These observations include (1) adding more specificity to
the goals and objectives of the program; (2) determining whether a
separate and distinct federal program is even necessary and, if so,
what type of organization is best suited to manage it; and (3)
deciding how the program should be funded, including a look at
whether it could operate at least partially on a fee-for-service
basis. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

TAPP was established originally by section 232 of the Small Business
Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1990 (P.L. 
101-574).  In October 1991, Congress repealed the earlier
authorization in section 609 of Public Law 102-140 and replaced it
with the current program.  Intended from the start to be a pilot
program, the law authorized funding for 4 years, not to exceed $5
million a year.  In mid-1994, the Congress decided that it would not
reauthorize TAPP beyond fiscal year 1995. 

TAPP was modeled after Minnesota Project Outreach, a state program
that provided small businesses with access to computerized databases
and technical experts.  Services for Project Outreach were provided
under contract by Teltech Resource Network Corporation (Teltech), a
Minnesota-based, national supplier of technical and business
knowledge.  The Minnesota program was regarded as a success in
providing user-friendly services to small businesses that would not
otherwise have the means or the ability to obtain needed technical
information.  Its success provided the stimulus for the TAPP
legislation. 

The law made three agencies responsible for administering TAPP.  The
Small Business Administration (SBA) was authorized to make grants to
competing Small Business Development Centers (SBDC), which had to
obtain matching contributions at least equal to the awards.  SBA was
to coordinate with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the National Technical Information Service in establishing
and managing the program.  According to NIST officials, only SBA and
NIST took an active role in program administration because the
National Technical Information Service is an agency whose primary
role is to collect and disseminate scientific, technical,
engineering, and business-related information generated by other
federal agencies and foreign sources.  In early 1991, NIST and SBA
signed a memorandum of understanding that resulted in NIST's
implementing TAPP on behalf of and in close cooperation with SBA. 

SBA administers TAPP through its Office of Small Business Development
Centers, which is responsible for setting policies, developing new
approaches, monitoring compliance, and improving operations for the
SBDCs.  NIST manages and monitors TAPP through its Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP), a network of organizations to help
American manufacturers increase their competitiveness nationally and
internationally through ongoing technological deployment. 

The SBDCs, which provide counseling and training to existing and
prospective small businesses, were chosen as the local level through
which TAPP services would be provided.  As of July 1994, there were
SBDCs and subcenters at 750 geographically dispersed locations
nationwide, as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 
Counselors at the SBDCs are knowledgeable in the needs of small
businesses and are experienced in working with them. 

The first TAPP grants were made for fiscal year 1992 and went to
SBDCs in Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Wisconsin.  Oregon dropped out of TAPP after fiscal year 1993 when it
was not able to obtain matching funds; however, it has continued to
operate without federal funding on a reduced scale.  The remaining
five centers continued to receive TAPP funds through fiscal year
1995.  As shown in appendix II, federal grants to the six TAPP
centers for the 4 years of the program totaled $3,537,000. 

While the centers have differed somewhat in the way they chose to
deliver services, the basic model for each center is the same. 
First, the center offers its clients access to a variety of on-line
databases.  These databases cover technical areas such as product
development, patents, and manufacturing processes as well as
nontechnical areas, such as market research and vendor listings. 
Secondly, the center links the clients with experts who can provide
specific assistance.  Typically, services are provided for free or at
a nominal charge and may be augmented by other SBDC programs and
services.  Appendixes IV through IX describe each of the current and
former TAPP centers. 

In our first report on TAPP, we raised concerns about the evaluation
methodology for measuring the program's impact.  Although NIST
subsequently identified a strategy to address these concerns, this
issue is now moot because the program will not be funded past fiscal
year 1995.  (See app.  III.)


   ALTHOUGH FULLY OPERATIONAL IN
   ITS FOURTH AND FINAL YEAR,
   TAPP'S IMPACT IS UNKNOWN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In our first report, we noted that TAPP had started slowly and that
some of the centers, while making progress, were not operating in
accordance with the statements of work in their proposals.  This is
no longer the case.  In the program's fourth and final year, each of
the five centers still in the program is fully operational.  While
the centers differ in some important respects, in many ways they have
become more nearly alike in the types of services offered and the
methods of delivering them. 

SBA and NIST have not evaluated the impact on small business
productivity and innovation either nationwide or within the
individual states where TAPP centers were located.  According to the
limited responses to client satisfaction surveys, however, the
businesses that used TAPP services were pleased with the services
they received.  Also, TAPP center officials were pleased with the way
their individual programs had developed and provided examples of
projects that had been successful. 

At the time of our review, each of the TAPP centers planned to
continue its program beyond fiscal year 1995.  However, most
officials within the centers were uncertain about how they would be
organized, what services they would provide, or where they would
obtain funding. 


      MOST CLIENTS ARE
      MANUFACTURERS, WHILE
      SERVICES ARE A MIX OF
      TECHNICAL AND NONTECHNICAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Currently, the TAPP centers primarily serve clients with a need for
new technology, many of whom are just getting started in business. 
Overall, the five TAPP centers still in the pilot program served
approximately 1,840 clients in fiscal year 1994, ranging from 230 in
Missouri to 445 in Wisconsin.  According to Nexus Associates, a NIST
consultant, 59 percent were manufacturers, 21 percent were service
companies, 14 percent were wholesale and retail companies, and 7
percent represented other segments of the small business community. 
Forty percent of the clients had not yet established a business, and
another 26 percent were involved in new ventures.  While there were
some "repeat" clients, 89 percent undertook only one project during
the period. 

The five centers responded to 2,843 information requests during
fiscal year 1994, ranging from 283 in Missouri to 847 in
Pennsylvania.  According to Nexus Associates and as shown in table 1,
these projects were evenly divided between technical and nontechnical
information, although there were differences among the centers.\2 A
more detailed breakdown of the services showed an emphasis on product
or process information and market research. 



                                Table 1
                
                Comparison of Technical and Nontechnical
                 Projects by Five TAPP Centers, Fiscal
                               Year 1994

                                                                Percen
Type of service                                                      t
--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Technical
Product and/or process                                              33
Patent and/or regulatory                                            13
Other                                                                4
======================================================================
Subtotal                                                            50
Nontechnical
Market research                                                     32
Management and/or vendor                                            10
Trademark and/or copyright                                           7
Other                                                                1
======================================================================
Subtotal                                                            50
======================================================================
Total                                                              100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Nexus Associates. 

Database searches, rather than the use of technical experts,
represent the primary type of service provided by the TAPP centers. 
As shown in table 2, for example, 65 percent of the projects in
fiscal year 1994 were for literature searches.  Only 9 percent of the
projects were for expert and/or technical counseling. 



                                Table 2
                
                   Comparison of Projects by Type of
                 Service Provided by Five TAPP Centers,
                            Fiscal Year 1994

                                                                Percen
Type of service\a                                                    t
--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Literature search                                                   65
Intellectual property search                                        13
Expert and/or technical counseling                                   9
Vendor search                                                        6
Expert search                                                        4
Other services                                                       1
======================================================================
Total\b                                                             98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A significant number of projects in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
were not categorized according to the type of service provided. 

\b Does not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  Nexus Associates. 


--------------------
\2 Nexus aggregated data may vary slightly from data on individual
centers in appendixes.  The data in the appendixes were obtained
directly from the centers and their reports to NIST, while some Nexus
data were drawn directly from the centers' automated systems at a
later date. 


      THOSE CLIENTS RESPONDING TO
      SURVEYS APPEAR SATISFIED
      WITH BOTH CENTERS AND
      SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The impact TAPP has had on business productivity and innovation
cannot be measured because there are no substantive data.  Moreover,
because NIST cancelled its plans for evaluating the program's impact
after funding was discontinued, no such determination will likely be
made.  NIST continues to collect data on client satisfaction;
however, the surveys are of limited value because of the low response
rate.  For example, in fiscal year 1994 the response rate of the
clients surveyed ranged from a low of 9 percent in Pennsylvania to a
high of 46 percent in Wisconsin. 

According to an analysis by Nexus Associates, those clients that did
respond to the satisfaction survey for fiscal year 1994 indicated a
high degree of satisfaction with TAPP services.  The vast majority of
those responding ranked the services they received as "good" to
"excellent" and would recommend TAPP to other companies.  Similarly,
more than 90 percent of the respondents said that their requests for
assistance received prompt attention.  More than 80 percent said that
the representatives who assisted them possessed the necessary skills. 
The overwhelming majority of the clients rated as "good" to
"excellent" the helpfulness of the representatives and the relevance,
currentness, and conciseness of the information received. 

The estimated value of the services provided varied widely among the
centers and their clients.  The median value, according to the
clients' estimates in their survey responses, ranged from $101 to
$150 among the centers; however, 19 percent of the clients responding
to the survey placed a value of more than $500 on the services they
received.  Those clients valuing the services at more than $500
tended to (1) be new businesses, (2) focus on expert searches rather
than vendor searches, and (3) request market research information
rather than management or vendor information. 

Two-thirds of the clients responding said that they were unlikely to
have been able to obtain the information they received without TAPP. 
However, the level of satisfaction depended on the type of
information requested.  For example, while the majority of companies
receiving patent information believed they could have received the
information elsewhere, the majority of companies receiving management
or vendor information believed it was unlikely they could have found
this information elsewhere. 


      TAPP CENTER OFFICIALS ARE
      PLEASED WITH THEIR PROGRESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Officials at the five centers still participating in TAPP told us
they were satisfied with the programs they had developed and believed
that they were providing valuable services to their client
businesses.  While they could provide no statistics on the overall
impact, they did provide examples of projects perceived as
successful, such as the following: 

  An environmental services company in Missouri feared it was
     infringing on an existing U.S.  patent for monitoring gasoline
     contamination of groundwater around service stations and storage
     tanks.  As part of an overall action plan, the TAPP center
     conducted a search of the technology that predated the patent. 
     The company resolved the issue and was able to continue to
     market its services to test for leaks from storage tanks.  TAPP
     center personnel also referred the company to other SBDC
     personnel who were able to assist it in preparing three Small
     Business Innovation Research project proposals to SBA. 

  A Wisconsin manufacturer risked losing a major customer because the
     liquid crystal displays it was making were breaking too easily. 
     Through a literature search by the TAPP center, the manufacturer
     identified a number of new databases and obtained information
     that it subsequently incorporated into its product improvement
     process.  The company believes that the information helped it
     save an account worth approximately $2 million over a 2-year
     period. 

  A Maryland software company specializing in adaptive network
     systems wanted to expand into markets beyond the airline
     industry it originally had targeted.  The TAPP center performed
     a literature search for firms that were purchasing or producing
     financial yield predictive software.  The company was then able
     to identify and begin to market its products to two financial
     services companies that had advertised in trade journals their
     need to obtain revenue management tools. 

According to TAPP center officials, there was a learning curve
associated with developing their individual programs.  They provided
the following examples of some of the factors with which they had to
deal: 

  Technology must be "pulled by" rather than "pushed upon" the
     clients.  Unlike large corporations, small business owners
     typically have limited budgets, time, and expertise.  Technology
     is of little benefit to them in the abstract and must have
     practical applications that can be adapted to the marketplace. 
     Thus, technology is best integrated when a center can provide
     assistance throughout the various stages of a product's
     development or delivery. 

  Promotion is essential because small business owners may not know
     that they need or can use the technology available.  The centers
     must promote their services through such methods as
     advertisements in trade publications and seminars. 

  A center's services must be integrated into those of the SBDC.  One
     of the challenges facing the TAPP centers has been internal
     promotion (i.e., getting other SBDC staff--whose focus has been
     toward business planning--to see the advantages of TAPP's
     technical assistance services so that they can encourage small
     business owners to use them). 

Because officials at each of the five TAPP centers still in the
program believed their services were a valuable addition to the types
of assistance the SBDCs provide, they said they planned to continue
them after federal funding ends in fiscal year 1995.  Because they
did not know whether or how they would replace the federal funds,
however, they were not certain how their programs would be organized
or whether they would be able to provide the same level of services. 


   LESSONS LEARNED UNDER TAPP
   COULD BE USEFUL IN DESIGNING
   FUTURE PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

While federal funding for TAPP will be discontinued after fiscal year
1995, the interest in programs providing technical assistance to
small businesses continues.  Thus, it is possible that the Congress
may reconsider the need for similar types of federal programs in the
future.  If so, the lessons learned under the pilot program could be
useful.  From analyzing 4 years of TAPP funding and operations, we
believe the following questions need to be considered prior to
funding any future program: 

  What are the program's specific objectives? 

  Is a separate and distinct federal program necessary to achieve
     these objectives? 

  How should the program be financed? 


      OBJECTIVES NEED TO BE CLEAR
      AND SPECIFIC
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

While the authorizing legislation stated an ultimate goal for
TAPP--increasing the innovativeness and competitiveness of small
businesses through improved technology--it did not specify what level
of increase was desired or how results could be measured.  The law
did say that the purpose of the program was "increasing access by
small businesses to on-line databases that provide technical and
business information, and access to technical experts, in a wide
range of technologies..." However, it did not define these terms nor
did it specify which, if any, segments of the small business
community were to be targeted. 

From the beginning, NIST and the SBDCs differed on the objectives and
scope of TAPP.  As noted in our earlier report, NIST was concerned
that the services provided had too much of a marketing, rather than a
technical, orientation and that many TAPP clients were small, local,
retail businesses rather than technical or manufacturing concerns. 
NIST officials had hoped that, while there was no such requirement in
the law, eventually 50 percent of the information provided by TAPP
centers would be technical in nature. 

Taking a broader view of technology in the context of TAPP, SBDC
officials said that an underlying objective always must be the
continued viability of the firms seeking assistance.  These officials
maintain that it is important not just to disseminate pure technology
but also to encourage all businesses to take advantage of whatever
technical information is available.  This may mean using TAPP
databases to obtain marketing information heretofore unavailable to
them. 

The issue seems to have resolved itself within the current program. 
Projects during fiscal year 1994 were evenly divided between
technical and nontechnical information, according to Nexus
Associates.  NIST officials said they were pleased with the progress
the centers had made toward giving TAPP a more technical focus. 


      A SEPARATE FEDERAL PROGRAM
      MAY NOT BE NECESSARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

TAPP was not a new idea; technology assistance programs for small
businesses have been available for some time.  For example, both the
Missouri and Pennsylvania SBDCs already had limited programs that
were similar to TAPP in place when they received TAPP grants.  Other
states, such as New Mexico and North Carolina, have developed
"technical" SBDCs on their own to promote and enhance technology
transfer.  Minnesota's Project Outreach, which was the model for
TAPP, has never received federal funding.  Teltech is a private
company that has provided technical services under contract to other
organizations--including Project Outreach and TAPP centers--on a
fee-for-service basis. 

Generally, the SBDCs appear to agree that they should offer technical
assistance to their clients and have begun to establish programs.  In
a 1991 survey of 56 state SBDC directors conducted by the Association
of Small Business Development Centers, 42 directors (75 percent) said
they were providing "client-assisted access to databases." About 60
percent of the SBDCs were providing this service themselves, while
the rest were referring their clients to some other organization on
an informal or contractual relationship. 

Eighty-eight percent of the SBDC directors responding to the survey
said they were assisting clients in identifying experts who could
respond to technical questions.  However, only 23 percent of the
SBDCs were providing this service on their own; the remainder
referred clients to other organizations on an informal or contractual
relationship. 

The survey respondents also noted that they had made a long-term
commitment to technical assistance programs.  Thirty-three states or
areas planned to expand their technology transfer and/or development
services, including enhanced access to technical databases. 
Thirty-six states made capital available for research and
development, new product development, and access to technology. 

Technology assistance is also being provided to small businesses
under federally sponsored programs other than those administered by
the SBDCs.  One example is the Manufacturing Technology Centers (MTC)
NIST helped establish as a part of its MEP network.  MTCs are
regionally located and managed centers for transferring manufacturing
technology to small and midsized manufacturing companies.  MTCs use a
wide variety of technology sources, including commercial firms,
federal research and development laboratories, universities, and
other research-oriented organizations.  MTCs differ from the current
TAPP centers in that they are regional in nature, focus solely on
pure technology, serve only manufacturers, and work with the same
clients on an ongoing basis.  However, an MTC can provide the same
services to a manufacturing client that a TAPP center can provide. 
In fact, Minnesota's Project Outreach, which was the model for TAPP,
is now a part of an MTC in the state. 


      FUNDING OPTIONS MAY BE
      AVAILABLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Federal appropriations for the TAPP program over its 4 years totaled
$3.5 million--far less than the $20 million authorized.  As shown in
appendix II, none of the centers received more than $200,000 in any
one year.  Actual budgets were larger, of course, because the law
required matching funds. 

SBDC officials agreed with our observation that the TAPP funding
allowed them to create and operate dedicated technology-assistance
programs that might not have been possible otherwise.  One advantage
was that the funding covered the start-up costs of the centers. 
During the first 2 years of the program, there was a considerable
learning curve as the centers established their programs, developed a
service mix, and promoted themselves to potential users.  Another
advantage was that the funding allowed the centers to provide
services at little or no cost to prospective clients.  The SBDC
officials believed that this gave the centers the capability to offer
a wider range of services and to serve more businesses. 

The TAPP law envisioned technology-assistance centers within the
SBDCs that eventually would be at least partially self-sustaining. 
For example, the law gave as one of the selection criteria "the
ability of the applicant to continue providing technology access
after the termination of this pilot program." The law also encouraged
the TAPP centers to try to obtain funds from other federal and
nonfederal sources.  In practice, most of the support came from the
TAPP funding itself, the SBDCs, the states, or the educational
institutions with which the centers were affiliated. 

One option for funding a technology-assistance program is for the
program to charge businesses a fee for the services they use.  This
is one reason the Oregon center has been able to operate after TAPP
funding ended.  During the program's first 2 years, the Oregon center
received a total of $325,000 in TAPP funds plus matching state funds. 
Since the end of fiscal year 1993, however, the center has relied on
donations and client fees to operate.  Currently, clients are charged
$30 an hour plus on-line expenses.  According to Oregon center
officials, clients pay an average of approximately $114 per search. 
During the TAPP years, client fees averaged about $10 per search. 

In 1994, fees totaled about $7,500, or 19 percent, of the Oregon
center's budget of $40,000.  Its director believed that, in some
ways, the center improved after it began to be self-supporting
because clients took them more seriously and were more cautious about
the services they requested when they had to pay for them.  At the
same time, the Oregon center has had to scale down its operations now
that it no longer receives federal grants and matching state funds. 

While Minnesota's Project Outreach receives the bulk of its funding
from state appropriations, it also charges a fee for services.  For
example, "client companies," which can access services directly, must
pay an annual fee based on sales as well as a fee for certain
services.  An expert consultation, literature search, or vendor
search costs a client company $35 per use.  There is no annual fee
for "public access users," who can obtain services through remote
terminals across the state.  However, there is a higher charge for
services, such as $50 for a consultation, an interactive literature
search, or a vendor search.  In some cases, such as gaining access to
certain information on the University of Minnesota's databases, there
is no charge to either type of user. 

The five TAPP centers still receiving federal grants in fiscal year
1995 had not generated any significant revenues by charging fees for
services.  Generally, the services were either offered to clients for
free or for a fee well below what they would have cost if purchased
from a private vendor.  This was intentional because the centers used
their free and low-cost services to attract clients who might benefit
from their technical assistance.  While some centers were considering
fee-for-service arrangements as one possibility for funding services
after the end of TAPP funding, they had not yet finalized any plans. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In its fourth and final year of funding, TAPP is fully operational in
the five states still participating in the program.  Each of the five
states as well as Oregon--which dropped out of the program after
fiscal year 1993--plan to continue on some level.  However, the
states are not certain how the centers will be organized, what
services will be provided, or where funding will be obtained. 

NIST officials are no longer concerned that the TAPP centers are
focusing on marketing rather than technical services.  Data from
fiscal year 1994 indicate that about half the services being provided
were of a technical nature, which is the ratio NIST envisioned at the
program's inception.  Moreover, 59 percent of the users were
manufacturing companies.  Generally, both the users and the SBDCs
were pleased with the services being provided and the results
achieved. 

Because the Congress has decided not to extend TAPP funding past
fiscal year 1995, we identified no issues that need to be addressed
on the current program.  If the Congress decides to fund a program
similar to TAPP in the future, it may wish to consider some of the
lessons learned, or issues that emerged during the pilot program. 
These include (1) adding more specificity to the objectives and goals
of the program; (2) determining whether a separate and distinct
federal program is needed and, if so, what type of organization is
best suited to manage it; and (3) deciding how the program should be
funded, including charging user fees for the services provided. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

A draft of this report was sent to both SBA and the Department of
Commerce for comment.  In its written comments, SBA generally
concurred with the findings and conclusions in our draft report. 
(See app.  X.) Commerce, whose comments are included in appendix XI,
said that the report (1) contained information which incorrectly
characterized TAPP, MEP, and the role of NIST in implementing TAPP
and (2) did not provide an adequate context from which to determine
the lessons learned from TAPP and how those lessons fit into an
overall concept of technical assistance.  Specific issues related to
Commerce's two concerns are discussed below. 

Commerce disagreed first with our characterization of the emphasis
NIST placed on the technical orientation of the TAPP centers.  For
example, Commerce disagreed with our use of the term "scientific
information" in describing the types of services NIST wanted to
emphasize under TAPP and asked that we use the broader description
"technology and technical information." Commerce also said that NIST
officials had never set a 50-percent goal for such services but
rather had sought a "balance" in technical and nontechnical services
compared to marketing services. 

We agree with Commerce's clarification that NIST wanted a technical,
and not just scientific, orientation for TAPP and have revised our
report accordingly.  We disagree, however, that NIST did not set a
50-percent goal for such services, as NIST and TAPP center officials
discussed this goal with us during our work on both the interim and
current reports. 

Secondly, Commerce believed the report mischaracterized NIST's
evaluation efforts regarding TAPP.  For example, Commerce disagreed
that NIST had "cancelled" its evaluation plans, as we had noted in
our report.  Instead, Commerce asserted that NIST had revised its
evaluation methodology.  Commerce also said the report improperly
characterized Nexus Associates as a NIST consultant on TAPP when
Nexus actually was a subcontractor to the University of Houston's
SBDC. 

Commerce also believed that the report did not elaborate sufficiently
on the problems associated with evaluating TAPP.  Commerce pointed
out that there are no models that could be used to establish a clear
correlation between the information provided by a TAPP center and
increased productivity and innovation as well as other positive
economic indicators.  According to Commerce, the key determinant is
not the information provided but what is done with that information. 
Developing proper models would require follow-up over a period of
years with clients who are willing to share continuing and
potentially sensitive feedback on how the information is being used
and what changes it has generated in the clients' operations. 
Furthermore, Commerce said that we had previously agreed to fund and
develop a survey that met our impact evaluation needs, as well as
those of NIST and the TAPP centers. 

We disagree with Commerce's assertion that NIST did not cancel its
evaluation plans for TAPP.  The discussion of this issue in our
report focused on the evaluation of program impact.  While NIST has
continued to evaluate the program by collecting data from client
surveys, we do not believe that these surveys address program impact. 
We have clarified this issue in our report.  We also disagree that we
mischaracterized the role of Nexus Associates.  While Nexus was
funded through the University of Houston's SBDC, it performed
analyses of programwide information, was referred to as a TAPP
evaluation consultant by NIST officials, and presented its analyses
to NIST. 

We agree with Commerce's comments on the problems inherent in
evaluating TAPP.  We made this point in the interim report when we
stated that "the data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program are not yet available and may not be available for some
time." We also stressed this point in November 1994 correspondence
with the congressional committees when we agreed that the focus of
this report should be on the lessons learned from TAPP.  Contrary to
Commerce's comments, we did not agree to fund and develop the survey
instrument. 

As a third concern, Commerce said that the report needed to provide a
better context for how the lessons learned under TAPP fit into the
overall concept of technical assistance.  Commerce believed that the
most important question that we raised in considering future needs is
whether a separate and distinct federal program, such as TAPP, is
necessary.  Commerce said that the types of services provided by TAPP
are not "stand-alone" services and that they must be considered
within the broader context of services available under MEP.  While we
agree with Commerce on this point, such an analysis was beyond the
scope of this report. 

Finally Commerce questioned the report's characterization of MEP. 
Commerce noted that MEP supports American manufacturers nationally
and internationally through ongoing technological deployment, not
through technological development as stated in the report. 
Similarly, Commerce believed the report did not go far enough when it
said that an MTC can provide the same types of services to
manufacturers that a TAPP center could provide to SBDC clients. 
Commerce said that MEP's manufacturing extension center
organizations, of which the MTC is one type, actually can provide
more such services. 

We agree with Commerce's comments on the role of MEP and revised the
report to say that MEP supports manufacturers through technological
deployment.  Also, we do not question that MEP may be able to provide
more services to its clients than a TAPP center.  We made no
revisions to the report, however, as our point was to show that there
are other organizations providing the same types of services as TAPP,
rather than to compare the quality or quantity of the services
provided. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We conducted our work between August 1994 and June 1995 in accordance
with generally accepted governmental auditing standards.  We are
sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional


committees; the Secretary of Commerce; the Administrator of SBA; and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget.  Major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix XII.  Please contact me at (202)
512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. 

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy and
 Science Issues


List of Committees

The Honorable Christopher S.  Bond
Chairman
The Honorable Dale L.  Bumpers
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Small Business
United States Senate

The Honorable Larry Pressler
Chairman
The Honorable Ernest F.  Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce, Science,
 and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable Jan Meyers
Chair
The Honorable John J.  LaFalce
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Small Business
House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert S.  Walker
Chairman
The Honorable George E.  Brown, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Science
House of Representatives


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

Public Law 102-140, enacted October 28, 1991, required GAO to issue
two reports on the Pilot Technology Access Program (TAPP).  The
first, or interim, report was to discuss the program's implementation
and progress.  We issued our first report on March 7, 1994.  The
second report was to determine the program's effectiveness and impact
on improving small business productivity and innovation. 

Prior to our beginning work on the second report, we learned that the
Congress did not intend to fund TAPP beyond fiscal year 1995. 
Therefore, we met with the authorizing committees to determine what
work was needed to meet the legislative mandate and to provide the
Congress with information it might be able to use on similar programs
in the future.  We agreed to report on the experiences of and lessons
learned by the TAPP centers during the pilot program. 

To carry out our objectives, we first met with the federal officials
responsible for the management and the oversight of the program. 
These consisted of officials within (1) the Office of Small Business
Development Centers (SBDC) in the Small Business Administration (SBA)
and (2) the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  We reviewed pertinent
documents maintained by these agencies, including reports filed by
the individual TAPP centers.  We also reviewed materials prepared by
a NIST contractor, Nexus Associates. 

We visited each of the five TAPP centers still in the program in
fiscal years 1994 and 1995.  These centers were located in SBDCs in
Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.  We also
visited the center in Oregon, which dropped out of TAPP after fiscal
year 1993.  At each location, we reviewed budgets, reports, and other
materials and talked with key officials within the TAPP center and
the SBDC.  We also met with clients to obtain their perspectives on
the TAPP services they had received. 

For comparison purposes, we visited Project Outreach in Minnesota,
which was the model for TAPP; a technical SBDC in North Carolina; and
a Manufacturing Technology Center in South Carolina.  At each of
these locations, we obtained an overview of the organization and
services, met with key officials, and reviewed background
documentation.  We also talked with other persons who had background
information on the technology needs of small businesses.  These
included the Association of Small Business Development Centers and
two national associations that deal with small business issues. 

We asked both SBA and the Department of Commerce to provide comments
on a draft of this report.  SBA's written comments are included in
appendix X, and Commerce's written comments are included in appendix
XI.  We incorporated their comments where appropriate.  Also, we
discussed the information included in the appendixes about each TAPP
center with appropriate center officials. 


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL TAPP FUNDING
========================================================== Appendix II


State                           1992    1993    1994    1995     Total
--------------------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  ========
Maryland                     $50,400  $50,00  $170,0  $140,0  $410,400
                                           0      00      00
Missouri                     200,000  190,40  170,00  140,00   700,400
                                           0       0       0
Pennsylvania                 200,000  190,40  170,00  140,00   700,400
                                           0       0       0
Texas                        200,000  190,40  170,00  140,00   700,400
                                           0       0       0
Wisconsin                    200,000  190,40  170,00  140,00   700,400
                                           0       0       0
Oregon                       200,000  125,00       0       0   325,000
                                           0
======================================================================
Total                       $1,050,4  $936,6  $850,0  $700,0  $3,537,0
                                  00      00      00      00        00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  NIST. 


EVALUATION ISSUES RAISED IN
INTERIM REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

The law authorizing TAPP required GAO to issue two reports on the
program.  The first, or "interim," report was to address the
implementation and progress of the program.  A "final" report was to
evaluate the effectiveness of the program in improving small business
productivity and innovation. 

On March 7, 1994, we issued our first report on TAPP entitled Federal
Research:  Interim Report on the Pilot Technology Access Program
(GAO/RCED-94-75).  In this report, we discussed the implementation of
the six centers that had been established and concluded that it was
too early to determine their impact on small businesses within their
states.  However, we did raise concerns about the evaluation
methodology NIST had developed to measure such effects and the
difficulties inherent in trying to link the information being
provided with improving productivity. 

NIST had not attempted to develop an evaluation plan during the
program's first year, when the centers were in the process of getting
established.  In March 1993, during the second year, NIST asked the
centers to conduct a postcard survey similar to one used by the
Maryland center.  This survey asked clients using TAPP services (1)
if they had received the information they needed, (2) if they had
used the information for making business decisions, (3) what type of
information was most useful, (4) if they would use the program in the
absence of a subsidy, and (5) what prices they would consider paying
for TAPP services.  However, this attempt at evaluation had little
effect because (1) only 60 clients were surveyed in Maryland and only
47 responded; (2) only three other centers conducted surveys; and (3)
the other surveys did not ask the same questions, making comparisons
among the centers impossible. 

As a part of the fiscal year 1994 proposal process, NIST encouraged
the centers to develop a standard client evaluation methodology. 
This would include three survey questionnaires of clients.  The first
would be a questionnaire on client satisfaction that would be
distributed to clients immediately after a service was provided.  The
second questionnaire would ask about the impact of the service 6
months later.  The third would ask clients how the service had
affected the client's competitive position in the market place a year
after receiving the service. 

In our first report, we raised questions about the reliability of the
data that would be obtained through the use of these questionnaires. 
We said that the questions were not clear or precise, did not make a
connection between program impact and increased productivity, and
failed to ask basic questions regarding client satisfaction with the
program.  We concluded that we had little confidence the
questionnaires in their current form could be used to measure a
center's effectiveness, particularly considering the anticipated low
response rate. 

In response to our first report, the Secretary of Commerce informed
us in May 1994 that NIST planned to change its approach with the
evaluation questionnaires.  The changes would consist of (1)
improving the initial client-satisfaction questionnaire; (2)
eliminating the other two questionnaires to reduce the burden on TAPP
clients; (3) replacing the two questionnaires that were dropped with
a new survey instrument that better suited the requirements of GAO,
NIST, and the TAPP centers; and (4) developing an analytic report of
the data already being generated by the program.  TAPP funds would be
used to hire a consultant to develop the analytic report. 

After learning that TAPP was not going to be funded past fiscal year
1995, NIST officials decided against pursuing most of the evaluation
plans it had set out.  Instead, the TAPP centers were instructed to
use only the initial client-satisfaction questionnaire.  Also, NIST
provided the University of Houston with funding for a contract with
Nexus Associates, Inc., to develop an analytic report using data the
program generated.  Nexus Associates already has prepared a
presentation using statistics from reports the centers submitted and
the results of the client evaluation survey for fiscal year 1994.  In
adition, NIST plans to have Nexus Associates critique the other two
questionnaires originally intended to provide NIST with information
it could use to plan evaluations of future programs. 


DESCRIPTION OF TAPP CENTER IN
MARYLAND
========================================================== Appendix IV

The Maryland Technology Expert Network (TEN) is a part of the
Manufacturing and Technology SBDC located at and affiliated with the
University of Maryland in College Park.  TEN offers small business
clients both on-line and off-line services in the form of literature
searches, intellectual property searches, expert consultations, and
document delivery.  These services are used to complement other
services offered these same clients by the SBDC. 

While TEN has been a TAPP participant from the beginning, it has
evolved over the years into its current configuration.  For the first
3 years, services were provided by Teltech Resource Network
Corporation (Teltech) under an exclusive contract.  This contract was
not continued in fiscal year 1995 because SBDC officials believed
they could provide the necessary services in-house at a lesser cost
and because they were seeking ways to become self-sustaining after
the end of TAPP funding.  Instead, the SBDC has contracted with the
University of Maryland's College of Library and Information Services
(CLIS), which provides essentially the same database services at a
reduced cost.  More than 90 databases in a variety of subjects are
accessible through the university's library system.  The SBDC also
has access to experts associated with the university as well as
external contacts. 

TEN focuses on serving small manufacturing firms, technology
companies, and technology-related service companies, such as systems
integrators and environmental service companies.  TEN informs
potential clients of its services through (1) personal contact with
SBDC clients; (2) newsletters of various trade organizations and
state economic development agencies; (3) targeted mailings; and (4)
training events, seminars, workshops, and conferences. 

TEN has two key personnel that are responsible for its operations. 
The SBDC State Director provides program oversight while other SBDC
staff inform clients of TEN services through their own counseling
activities.  Clients can access the center through any one of 28
locations throughout the state. 

TEN personnel have developed the TEN Information System (TENIS), an
automated management information system to gather and report
evaluation data; process client-tracking statistics; and produce
monthly reports on clients by access site, counselor, and date. 
TENIS is also used to control client invoice information to ensure
timely collection of fees. 

TEN personnel are primarily intermediaries between the client and the
database vendor.  Upon receipt of a client's request for a database
search, the request is entered into TENIS and forwarded to the
vendor.  The vendor conducts the search and sends the results to TEN,
which delivers them to the client.  Search results are typically
given in conjunction with business consulting services. 

Maryland was not among the original states selected for TAPP in
fiscal year 1992, the program's first year.  Upon review, NIST and
SBA determined that Maryland would be a good site for the program
because of a large concentration of high-tech companies and several
government research and development locations in the state.  Maryland
was added to the program at a reduced level of federal
funding--$50,400 compared to $200,000 for each of the other centers. 
TEN subsequently received $50,000 in fiscal year 1993, $170,000 in
fiscal year 1994, and $140,000 in fiscal year 1995.  TEN has received
matching funds from the state, resulting in total state and federal
funding of $887,754 over the life of the program. 

To supplement the funds available for its services, TEN has
implemented a client fee structure.  Initial searches are free, but
the next four searches each require a $25 fee for remote literature,
patent, and vendor searches and a $50 fee for expert consultations
and literature searches.  Clients are charged the market rate for the
sixth and subsequent searches. 

As shown in table IV.1, TEN served many segments of the small
business community during fiscal year 1994.  The 336 clients served
represent an increase of 65 percent over fiscal year 1993.  The
greatest areas of concentration were in the service and manufacturing
segments, which accounted for 82 percent of the clients served. 




                               Table IV.1
                
                Maryland TEN Clients, Fiscal Years 1993
                                and 1994


Industry                                  1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Agriculture                                  0       1       0     0.3
Construction                                 2       0     1.0       0
Manufacturing                               53      90    26.0    26.8
Retail                                      39      46    19.1    13.7
Service                                    104     186    51.0    55.4
Wholesale                                    6       7     2.9     2.1
Other                                        0       6       0     1.8
======================================================================
Total\a                                    204     336   100.0   100.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  Maryland Manufacturing and Technology SBDC. 

As shown in table IV.2, TEN responded to a total of 627 requests for
database information during fiscal year 1994, an increase of 84
percent over 1993.  Forty-one percent of these requests were of a
technical nature. 




                               Table IV.2
                
                   Maryland TEN Information Requests,
                       Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994


Information requested                     1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Technical
Legal (patents and/or regulations)           7      20     2.1     3.2
Process modification                        24      67     7.1    10.7
Product modification                        42      72    12.4    11.5
Other                                       34      95    10.0    15.2
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   107     254    31.6    40.6
Nontechnical
Legal                                        1       4     0.3     0.6
Management                                  37      53    10.9     8.5
Marketing                                  177     299    52.1    47.7
Vendor                                      11       4     3.2     0.6
Other                                        7      13     2.1     2.1
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   233     373    68.6    59.5
======================================================================
Total\a                                    340     627   100.2   100.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  Maryland Manufacturing and Technology SBDC. 

TEN currently attempts to measure client satisfaction and program
impact through a survey mailed to the client after a service has been
provided.  This survey requests information on the quality of
customer service, the quality of information received, the
accessibility of information outside of TEN, the dollar value of
information received, and the type of information most critical to
the client.  The response rate for the fiscal year 1994 survey was 39
percent.  Client responses were generally positive.  In summary,
users found the information from TEN to be very helpful, relevant,
and current.  Thirty-one percent rated the value of the information
at $500 or more and 96 percent said they would recommend the services
to others. 

TEN uses client interviews as another form of data collection.  The
interviews are conducted some months after a client's use of TEN to
determine its valuation of the economic impact of TEN service. 
Although few interviews have been conducted to date, TEN plans to
begin client interviews on a larger scale in the third quarter of
1995. 

SBDC officials were pleased with the performance of TEN and planned
to continue the program after the termination of TAPP funding.  By
using services available through CLIS, TEN is transitioning to a
state-sponsored program by providing services with instate resources
and some combination of state funding, user fees, and corporate
sponsorships.  The total amount budgeted for the fiscal year 1995
CLIS contract is $63,636.  This figure includes $40,295 to cover such
fixed costs as salaries, equipment, and on-line subscriptions; and
$23,341 to cover such variable costs as supplies, telecommunications,
expert consultations, and on-line searches. 

According to SBDC officials, the new arrangement will have
limitations.  First, CLIS does not have a well-established and
extensive database of technical experts from which to pull resumes. 
Thus, while TEN can identify experts through CLIS, its database is
not as extensive as with Teltech.  With time, TEN hopes to develop
its own database of experts.  Second, interactive searches are not as
accessible by staff in the field as they were with Teltech. 
Interactive searches are now only conducted through the Manufacturing
and Technology SBDC in College Park and to a lesser extent in
Baltimore. 


DESCRIPTION OF TAPP CENTER IN
MISSOURI
=========================================================== Appendix V

The Missouri Technology Access Program (MOTAP) is a part of the
Missouri SBDC and is affiliated with the University of Missouri in
Columbia, the University of Missouri in Rolla, and Central Missouri
State University in Warrensburg.  MOTAP offers small business clients
both information services and technical assistance in the form of
literature searches, patent searches, expert consultations, and
document delivery.  These services complement other services the SBDC
offers to other clients. 

MOTAP is a coordinated effort between staff located at the three
university campuses.  The Missouri SBDC, located on the Columbia
campus, houses the marketing component of MOTAP.  The Technology
Search Center in Rolla and the Center for Small Business Technology
and Development in Warrensburg house the technical search
capabilities.  The Missouri SBDC State Director in Columbia provides
management oversight for MOTAP. 

MOTAP targets the manufacturing community.  MOTAP informs potential
clients of its services through (1) training events, (2) seminars
aimed at the manufacturing community, (3) relationships with network
partners who inform their clients about MOTAP, and (4) newsletters
and targeted mailings.  MOTAP also markets the program internally to
SBDC counselors to inform them of its services. 

The Missouri SBDC offered its clients on-line database searches and
access to technical experts prior to federal TAPP funding.  With TAPP
funding, the SBDC hired two additional persons--one to conduct
marketing database searches and one to provide technical assistance. 
TAPP funds increased the capabilities of existing SBDC functions and
added the capability to provide marketing assistance. 

Six people participate or are involved in the MOTAP marketing
information search function in Columbia.  A marketing specialist
devotes 75 percent of his time to MO TAP and is supported by two
research associates who devote 33 and 25 percent of their time to the
program respectively.  Three other persons handle programming and
administrative functions. 

Nine people perform the technical support function in Rolla and
Warrensburg.  Included are a technical project manager and a
technology transfer coordinator who devote 76 and 25 percent of their
time to the program, respectively.  The remainder of the staff
includes university faculty, a consulting engineer, and
administrative support personnel. 

Other SBDC staff also provide assistance by informing clients of
MOTAP services through their own counseling activities.  Clients may
access MOTAP through any one of 12 regional SBDC locations, 17
university extension locations, or 2 special service centers. 

The methods by which MOTAP services are provided may vary depending
on the circumstances.  Information services range from single answers
to specific questions to lengthy "information counseling" projects
that provide clients with information on a broad topic or
opportunity.  Such projects can involve multiple database searches,
extensive data processing, and compiling reports.  Technical
assistance also varies from one-time answers to in-depth analyses of
processes or problems by technical experts, student teams, field
engineers, etc. 

MOTAP staff at the three campus locations must coordinate their
efforts to provide a complete package of marketing and technical
services to their clients.  For example, if the staff in Rolla
performed database searches for market and patent information, this
could lead to follow-on services provided by the staff in Warrensburg
who provide assistance in developing prototypes, identifying
manufacturing facilities, patenting advice, licensing contacts, and
other technical services at no cost or on a cost-recovery basis. 

MOTAP has been a part of TAPP since it began in fiscal year 1992 and
has received $700,400 over the life of the program.  This includes
$200,000 in fiscal year 1992, $190,400 in fiscal year 1993, $170,000
in fiscal year 1994, and $140,000 in fiscal year 1995.  MOTAP has
received matching funds from the state for each of these years,
resulting in a total state and federal funding of $1,419,130 over the
life of the program.  MOTAP also has collected a total of $24,242 in
client fees. 

As shown in table V.1, MOTAP served many segments of the small
business community during fiscal years 1993 and 1994.  The 230
clients served represents a decrease of 9 percent from fiscal year
1993.  The greatest area of concentration was in the manufacturing
segment, which accounted for 64 percent of the clients served in
fiscal year 1994. 



                               Table V.1
                
                  MOTAP Clients, Fiscal Years 1993 and
                                  1994


Industry                                  1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Agriculture                                  5       3     2.0     1.3
Construction                                 6       5     2.4     2.2
Manufacturing                              171     147    67.6    63.9
Retail                                      21      20     8.3     8.7
Service                                     40      41    15.8    17.8
Wholesale                                   10      10     4.0     4.3
Other                                        0       4       0     1.7
======================================================================
Total\a                                    253     230   100.1    99.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  Missouri SBDC. 

As shown in table V.2, MOTAP processed a total of 283 information
requests during fiscal year 1994, a decrease of 34 percent from
fiscal year 1993.  Fifty-five percent of these requests were of a
technical nature. 



                               Table V.2
                
                MOTAP Information Requests, Fiscal Years
                             1993 and 1994


Information requested                     1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Technical
Legal (patents and/or
 regulations)                              174      68    40.6    24.0
Process development                         38      19     8.9     6.7
Product development                         70      68    16.3    24.0
Other                                        0       1       0     0.4
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   282     156    65.8    55.1
Nontechnical
Legal                                       25      26     5.8     9.2
Management                                  13       8     3.0     2.8
Marketing                                  102      91    23.8    32.2
Vendor                                       7       2     1.6     0.7
Other\                                       0       0       0       0
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   147     127    34.2    44.9
======================================================================
Total                                      429     283   100.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Missouri SBDC. 

Although unsure why the number of clients served and requests
answered declined in 1994 from the previous year, the state marketing
specialist speculated that the floods Missouri experienced during
July of 1993 reduced requests.  Following the floods, many small
businesses in Missouri may have been more concerned with repairing
flood damage and related business slow downs than with identifying
new business opportunities. 

MOTAP uses several methods to measure the effectiveness of its
services, including client surveys, seminar evaluations, and comments
received from clients following visits to its business sites.  MOTAP
applies information received from these efforts to adapt its
services, communications, and management practices. 

MOTAP sends each client a satisfaction survey the quarter following
the client's MOTAP project.  The survey asks questions concerning the
quality of MOTAP services, the perceived value of its information,
and the likelihood of obtaining similar information outside of MOTAP. 

The response rate for fiscal year 1994 was 29 percent.  Client
responses were generally positive.  In summary, users found the
information MOTAP provided to be helpful, current, concise, relevant,
and of overall good quality.  More than half of the respondents rated
the financial value of the information higher than $150.  Forty-three
percent of the respondents, however, felt their chances were at least
"somewhat likely" that they could have obtained the information
outside of MOTAP. 

MOTAP experienced difficulties in evaluating the impact of its
services because many respondents answered survey questions in a form
that could not be tabulated.  One reason is that respondents often
provided descriptions of the ways they used the TAPP information but
could not express its impact on their businesses in percentage or
monetary terms.  Another reason is the typical response rate on MOTAP
questionnaires was approximately 25 percent.  According to MOTAP
officials, a rate this low does not allow a projection of the total
program impact with any statistical confidence.  Third, respondents
often confused information obtained through the MOTAP program with
information obtained through other SBDC services--which is
understandable because MOTAP services are primarily delivered through
SBDC counselors. 

The Missouri SBDC is updating its survey techniques to minimize the
problems with evaluating its services.  For example, the Missouri
SBDC is developing an exit interview for clients so that the
interviewer may ask follow-up questions that will help interpret the
responses. 

Although planning to offer its clients MOTAP services after federal
funding ends in 1995, the Missouri SBDC is not sure how the services
will be funded or provided.  According to SBDC officials, on-line
database searching and expert services have been an integral part of
the package of services offered by the SBDC.  The SBDC will most
likely downsize the center and save only the most critical parts. 


DESCRIPTION OF TAPP CENTER IN
PENNSYLVANIA
========================================================== Appendix VI

The Pennsylvania Business Intelligence Access System (BIAS) is a part
of the Pennsylvania SBDC network and is affiliated with the
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.  BIAS offers small
business clients both on-line and off-line services in the form of
literature searches, patent searches, expert consultations, and
market analyses.  These services are used to complement other
services the SBDC offers these same clients. 

According to the Pennsylvania SBDC State Director, the primary
emphasis of the BIAS program is education, also one of the main goals
of TAPP.  He said many of the BIAS presentations to clients are not
sales presentations, but workshops with clear educational goals.  In
addition to providing on-line services, SBDC consultants explain and
often demonstrate technology to clients. 

BIAS is implemented by the Ben Franklin Technology Center (BFTC), a
small business incubator facility.  The Pennsylvania SBDC contracted
with the Business Information Center (BIC) of the BFTC to manage the
BIAS program.  The Pennsylvania SBDC State Director provides
management oversight for BIAS.  BIC is responsible for managing the
research process and training both the SBDC consultants and the
public.  BIC also administers the contract with the database
vendors--Telebase and Knowledge Express.  Other vendors BIC can
access include Batorlink, Internet, and Community of Science.  These
vendors provide access to more than 3,000 databases of business and
technical information, including resumes of university experts from
major research universities. 

BIAS is the only TAPP center that did not contract with Teltech for
the first year of the program.  Because BIAS has access to the
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP), a network of
experts, it elected not to contract with Teltech.  For the second
year of the program, BIAS decided to experiment with Teltech to
attract more of its clients to request expert searches.  However,
because demand for expert searches remained low, BIAS did not renew
the Teltech contract for the third year. 

BIAS focuses on the manufacturing and technology
sectors--particularly the advanced materials, biotechnology, and
computer hardware and software development industries.  BIAS also
targets firms adversely affected by reductions in defense
procurements, seventy percent of which are in manufacturing and
technology-based industries.  BIAS informs potential clients of its
services through (1) personal contact with SBDC clients; (2) mailings
and briefings to various trade organizations; (3) mailings to
potential clients; (4) news media and on-line networks; and (5)
seminars, workshops, and conferences attended by SBDC clients. 

Six months prior to federal TAPP funding, the BIC began providing
on-line database searches to BFTC clients at a rate of $75 an hour
plus expenses.  TAPP funding enabled the SBDC to subscribe to
services provided by the BIC and offer them to SBDC clients at a
subsidized rate.  BIAS charges its clients 70 percent of on-line
expenses exceeding $75. 

Under the management of the SBDC assistant state director, two
professional information specialists at BIC devote 50 percent of
their time to the center.  Other SBDC staff also provide assistance
by informing other clients of BIAS services through their own
consulting activities.  BIAS can be accessed through any one of the
16 university-affiliated SBDCs or 70 community outreach offices. 

In contrast to other TAPP centers, Pennsylvania SBDC consultants are
the main providers of BIAS services.  After receiving training from
the BIC's senior information specialist, these consultants perform
most of the database searches for SBDC clients.  BIC information
specialists support the SBDC consultants and provide assistance for
particularly difficult search projects.  According to SBDC officials,
this arrangement makes the service more accessible to clients,
expands the SBDC's searching capacity, and strengthens the
consultants' database searching skills. 

Clients needing expert consultations are referred to PENNTAP, an
in-state network of technical consultants.  When using PENNTAP,
clients are referred to technical experts by the PENNTAP regional
staff person.  These people identify the appropriate network expert
and facilitate the consultation.  Other experts can be identified
using electronic databases. 

BIAS has been in TAPP from the beginning and has received $700,400 in
federal funding.  This included $200,000 in fiscal year 1992,
$190,400 in fiscal year 1993, $170,000 in fiscal year 1994, and
$140,000 in fiscal year 1995.  BIAS has received matching funds from
the state for each of these years. 

As shown in table VI.1, BIAS served many segments of the small
business community during fiscal years 1993 and 1994.  The 427
clients served represent an increase of 45 percent over fiscal year
1993.  The greatest areas of concentration were in the manufacturing
and service segments, which accounted for 70 percent of the clients
served. 



                               Table VI.1
                
                Pennsylvania BIAS Clients, Fiscal Years
                             1993 and 1994


Industry                                  1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Construction                                 5       4     1.7     0.9
Manufacturing                               99     148    33.7    34.7
Retail                                      33      56    11.2    13.1
Service                                    107     150    36.4    35.1
Wholesale                                   30      37    10.2     8.7
Other                                       20      32     6.8     7.5
======================================================================
Total                                      294     427   100.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Pennsylvania SBDC. 

As shown in table VI.2, BIAS responded to a total of 847 information
requests during fiscal year 1994, an increase of 112 percent over
fiscal year 1993.  Only 18 percent of these information requests were
of a technical nature. 



                               Table VI.2
                
                Pennsylvania BIAS Information Requests,
                       Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994


Information requested                     1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Technical
Legal                                        8      35     2.0     4.1
Process development                         13      13     3.2     1.5
Product development                         32      71     8.0     8.4
Other                                       12      30     3.0     3.5
======================================================================
Subtotal                                    65     149    16.2    17.5
Nontechnical
Legal                                        5      49     1.2     5.8
Management and/or planning                  54     122    13.5    14.4
Marketing                                  198     404    49.5    47.7
Vendor                                       3      26     0.8     3.1
Other                                       75      97    18.8    11.5
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   335     698    83.8    82.5
======================================================================
Total                                      400     847   100.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Pennsylvania SBDC. 

BIAS uses a brief mail survey to measure client satisfaction.  The
survey asks how BIAS information was used in the business, the
financial value of the information, the likelihood of obtaining
similar information outside of BIAS, and which type of information
was most useful. 

Although the response rate for the fiscal year 1994 evaluations was
nine percent, the clients' responses were generally positive.  In
summary, clients found the information from BIAS to be concise and
current and would recommend that other businesses contact BIAS. 
Forty-five percent valued the information at more than $100. 
However, 49 percent indicated their chances of obtaining similar
information elsewhere was at least "somewhat likely."

Focus groups were also used to obtain input from clients and
consultants concerning needs for on-line information.  The
information gained during the focus group sessions is used to inform
BIAS staff of how to tailor the program to meet the needs of both
clients and consultants. 

The SBDC plans to offer its clients BIAS services after federal TAPP
funding ends in 1995.  According to SBDC officials, BIAS services
will be further incorporated into the SBDC's basic operations while
continuing to use BIC for many BIAS functions.  SBDC officials
believe that their arrangement with the BIC has been effective and
will need only minor modifications in the future.  Sources of funding
being investigated include the state, other federal sources, and the
private sector. 


DESCRIPTION OF TAPP CENTER IN
TEXAS
========================================================= Appendix VII

The Texas Technology Access Program (TAP/Texas) is a part of the
Texas Product Development Center (TPDC), a specialty center of the
University of Houston SBDC.  TAP/Texas offers small business clients
both on-line and off-line services in the form of literature
searches, patent searches, expert searches, and document delivery. 
TAP/Texas is managed by the Director of the TPDC with general
oversight from the SBDC Director of the Houston Region. 

The TPDC and the SBDC are two of five functional areas under the
University of Houston Institute for Enterprise Excellence.  The other
three functional areas are the Texas Manufacturing Assistance Center
Gulf Coast, the Texas Information Procurement Service, and the
International Trade Center.  These five functions coordinate efforts
to provide a full range of consulting services to small business
clients. 

Clients of any of the five functional areas have access through
TAP/Texas to more than one thousand databases through vendors like
Knowledge Express, Dialog, Teltech, and Lexis/Nexis.  Special
in-state database resources are also available.  These include the
Mid-Continent Technology Transfer Center at Texas A&M University,
TEXAS-ONE/Texas Marketplace, and the Texas Innovation Network System. 
These sources offer access to databases of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) and federal laboratories, electronic
bulletin boards containing directories of Texas companies, and access
to technical experts and research facilities in Texas. 

TAP/Texas targets small manufacturers and technology-oriented service
companies throughout Texas.  TAP/Texas informs potential clients of
its services through (1) personal contact with clients; (2) direct
mail to targeted industries and trade associations; (3) participation
in trade shows and conferences, including demonstrations of on-line
capabilities; and (4) classroom workshops. 

The TPDC Director and one consultant at the TPDC work full time in
the program while four additional staff provide support on a
part-time basis.  SBDC staff also provide assistance by informing
clients of TAP/Texas services through counseling.  TAP/Texas can be
accessed through any one of 56 SBDC locations across the state. 

The methods by which TAP/Texas services are provided may vary
depending on the situation.  For example, the information specialist
may conduct database searches independently after receiving a search
request or interactively with the client guiding the search. 
Depending on the information requirements and time frames, the SBDC
consultant and client may access databases directly from a remote
location without the assistance of the information specialist. 

TAP/Texas has been a part of TAPP since it began in fiscal year 1992
and has received federal funds totaling $720,500 over the life of the
program.  This includes TAPP funding of $200,000 in fiscal year 1992,
$190,400 in fiscal year 1993, $170,000 in fiscal year 1994, and
$140,000 in fiscal year 1995.  TAP/Texas also has received additional
funds from the state, resulting in a total state and federal funding
of $1,618,813 over the life of the program. 

To supplement funds available for on-line searches, TAP/Texas
implemented a client fee structure in fiscal year 1994.  Initial
searches are free, but additional searches require a client
co-payment.  Fees collected for 114 co-payment searches total $2,744. 

As shown in table VII.1, TAP/Texas served many segments of the small
business community during fiscal years 1993 and 1994.  The 402
clients served in fiscal year 1994 represent an increase of 76
percent over the previous fiscal year.  The greatest areas of
concentration were in the manufacturing and service segments, which
accounted for 63 percent of the clients served in fiscal year 1994. 



                              Table VII.1
                
                TAP/Texas Clients, Fiscal Years 1993 and
                                  1994


Industry                                  1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Agriculture                                  6      16     2.6     4.0
Construction                                 1       6     0.4     1.5
Manufacturing                              145     166    63.6    41.3
Retail                                       4      48     1.8    11.9
Service                                     47      87    20.6    21.6
Wholesale                                    7      26     3.1     6.5
Other                                       18      53     7.9    13.2
======================================================================
Total                                      228     402   100.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  TPDC. 

As shown in table VII.2, TAP/Texas responded to a total of 445
information requests during fiscal year 1994, an increase of 83
percent over the previous fiscal year.  Thirty-three percent of these
information requests were of a technical nature. 



                              Table VII.2
                
                 TAP/Texas Information Requests, Fiscal
                          Years 1993 and 1994


Information requested                     1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Technical
Legal (patents and/or
 regulations)                               44      63    18.1    14.2
Process modification                        41      10    16.9     2.3
Product modification                        66      39    27.2     8.8
Other                                        6      32     2.5     7.2
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   157     144    64.7    32.5
Nontechnical
Legal                                        5      86     2.1    19.3
Management                                   6      10     2.5     2.2
Marketing                                   60     130    24.7    29.2
Vendor                                      15      75     6.2    16.9
Other                                        0       0       0       0
======================================================================
Subtotal                                    86     301    35.5    67.6
======================================================================
Total\a                                    243     445   100.2   100.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  TPDC. 

To measure client satisfaction, TAP/Texas uses a brief mail survey,
which is distributed to clients immediately after the first data
search is provided.  The survey asks clients to evaluate the quality
of customer service, the quality of data received from the searches,
the accessibility of data outside of TAP/Texas, the value of the data
received, and the type of data most critical for their needs.  A
follow-up letter is sent to nonrespondents after 30 days to increase
the response rate. 

The response rate for the fiscal year 1994 client surveys was 32
percent.  Client responses were generally positive.  In summary,
clients have found the information provided by TAP/Texas to be
helpful, relevant, and of overall good quality.  Fifty percent of the
clients valued the information provided at more than $100. 
Forty-three percent of the respondents, however, felt their chances
were at least "somewhat likely" that they would have obtained the
information elsewhere. 

Focus groups are also used to obtain input from clients concerning
on-line information needs.  The information gained during the focus
group sessions is used to inform TAP/Texas staff of how to tailor the
services to meet the needs of both clients and consultants. 

The TPDC plans to offer its clients TAP/Texas services after federal
funding ends in 1995, although officials are not sure how the program
will be funded or what level of services will be available.  On-line
database searching is, and has been, an integral part of the package
of services offered by the Institute for Enterprise Excellence. 
Depending on the future level of funding, however, the TPDC may have
to reduce or even discontinue technology access services. 


DESCRIPTION OF TAPP CENTER IN
WISCONSIN
======================================================== Appendix VIII

The Wisconsin Technology Access Program (WisTAP) is a part of the
Wisconsin SBDC and is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin. 
WisTAP helps small manufacturers and technology companies solve both
technical and business management problems through technical
counseling, on-line literature searches, and patent searches.  These
services are used to complement business management services offered
these same clients by the SBDC. 

WisTAP is a decentralized program implemented through ten SBDCs
located across the state.  The central office in Whitewater
coordinates the efforts of the other SBDCs while also providing
counseling, assisting with the development of marketing plans,
coordinating all remote literature searches, monitoring the activity
level for each center, and offering support or shifting resources as
needed.  The WisTAP central office is staffed by a half-time Director
and a half-time research specialist.  The Wisconsin SBDC State
Director provides management oversight for WisTAP. 

WisTAP targets small manufacturers and technology-based businesses. 
WisTAP has developed "marketing partners," including various trade
associations, state agencies, and regional and national technology
transfer organizations, to leverage the marketing dollars available. 
Marketing partners provide mailing lists, underwrite mailings and
promotional events, and assist with publications. 

WisTAP uses information provided by the marketing partners to assist
them in targeted marketing efforts.  For example, the Wisconsin
Manufacturers and Commerce Association provided each SBDC with a
database of its members.  This database of over 8,500 manufacturers
can be sorted by geographic area, type of company, and number of
employees.  The SBDC offices are able to use this information to
reach small manufacturers in their area. 

The Wisconsin SBDC did not offer its clients technical counseling and
on-line database searches prior to federal TAPP funding.  WisTAP has
added a new dimension to an SBDC by allowing it to broaden its focus
to include technology access issues. 

Counselors at ten SBDC offices across the state and the Wisconsin
Innovation Service Center are the primary deliverers of WisTAP
services.  Rather than locate database experts in a central location,
WisTAP attempts to train all SBDC counselors at the various sites on
database access.  This organizational structure was developed in late
1993 to encourage "one stop" service delivery for WisTAP clients.  By
delivering WisTAP services through an SBDC counselor, clients may
obtain the more traditional SBDC services (e.g., market analysis and
management planning) in conjunction with technology access services. 

Teltech was the primary vendor for on-line services and access to
technical experts during the first year of the program.  Although
WisTAP has been generally satisfied with the services offered by
Teltech, the relative cost of its services has prompted WisTAP to
identify alternative sources of information.  Teltech is now a
complement to WisTAP services rather than its primary provider. 

WisTAP has collaborative arrangements with a variety of sources of
technical assistance and vendors.  Examples include
University-Industry Relations and Wisconsin Techsearch at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Office of Industrial Research
and Technology Transfer at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 
These sources, among others, provide access to technical counseling
by university faculty, database search and document delivery
services, and other consulting services. 

Like the Wisconsin SBDC, WisTAP does not charge fees for its
services.  The Wisconsin SBDC does charge fees for training; however,
none of these are credited to the WisTAP account. 

WisTAP has been a part of TAPP since it began in fiscal year 1992 and
has received $700,400 in federal funds over the life of the program. 
This includes $200,000 in fiscal year 1992, $190,400 in fiscal year
1993, $170,000 in fiscal year 1994, and $140,000 in fiscal year 1995. 
WisTAP has received matching funds from the University of
Wisconsin-Extension for each of these years, resulting in a total
state and federal funding of $1,411,100 over the life of the program. 

As shown in table VIII.1, WisTAP served many segments of the small
business community during fiscal years 1993 and 1994.  The 445
clients served represents an increase of 16 percent from fiscal year
1993.  The greatest area of concentration was in the manufacturing
segment, which accounted for 71 percent of the clients served in
fiscal year 1994. 



                              Table VIII.1
                
                 WisTAP Clients, Fiscal Years 1993 and
                                  1994


Industry                            1993      1994      1993      1994
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Agriculture                            1         9       0.3       2.0
Construction                           7        10       1.8       2.2
Manufacturing                        300       317      78.5      71.2
Retail                                14        12       3.7       2.7
Service                               51        88      13.4      19.8
Wholesale                              9         9       2.4       2.0
Other                                  0         0         0         0
======================================================================
Total\a                              382       445     100.1      99.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  WisTAP. 

As shown in table VIII.2, WisTAP processed a total of 641 information
requests during fiscal year 1994, a decrease of 39 percent from
fiscal year 1993.  Seventy-three percent of these requests were of a
technical nature. 




                              Table VIII.2
                
                  WisTAP Information Requests, Fiscal
                          Years 1993 and 1994


Information requested                     1993    1994    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Technical
Legal (patents and/or regulations)         183     108    17.5    16.8
Process development                         76      82     7.3    12.8
Product development                        280     279    26.8    43.5
Other                                        7       0     0.7       0
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   546     469    52.3    73.1
Nontechnical
Legal                                       15       6     1.4     0.9
Management                                   7       8     0.7     1.2
Marketing                                  408     158    39.1    24.6
Vendor                                      68       0     6.5       0
Other                                        0       0       0       0
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   498     172    47.7    26.7
======================================================================
Total\a\                                 1,044     641   100.0    99.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  WisTAP. 

WisTAP attributes the decline in information requests to two factors. 
First, WisTAP changed its reporting practices from 1993 to 1994.  The
1993 figures represent projects.  A solution to a project may require
several database interactions, thus having an inflationary effect on
the 1993 figures.  Secondly, a database vendor offered unlimited and
free usage for the first quarter of fiscal year 1993.  According to
WisTAP officials, WisTAP increased their use of the service for its
clients during this period. 

WisTAP uses a client satisfaction survey to measure the effectiveness
of its services.  Each quarter, WisTAP mails the survey to clients
that had received services during the previous quarter.  The survey
asks questions concerning the quality of the services, the perceived
value of the information, and the likelihood of obtaining similar
information elsewhere. 

The response rate for the fiscal year 1994 client satisfaction survey
was 46 percent.  Eighty-eight percent of the respondents rated the
overall quality of the information provided as good to excellent. 
Sixty-four percent rated their ability to access the information
without WisTAP from somewhat unlikely to extremely unlikely. 
Sixty-two percent rated the financial value of the information
received at more than $100. 

The Wisconsin SBDC plans to offer its clients WisTAP services after
federal funding ends in 1995; however, the level of service will
probably be cut in half.  To prepare for the end of federal funding
for TAPP, the Wisconsin SBDC has been focusing on developing
relationships with new and existing network partners.  For example,
WisTAP has developed relationships with the staff of several
University of Wisconsin technical and engineering departments.  SBDC
officials hope that, as more network partners gain experience working
with small businesses, technical information will be accessible
independent of WisTAP. 


DESCRIPTION OF TAPP CENTER IN
OREGON
========================================================== Appendix IX

The Oregon SBDC participated in TAPP during fiscal years 1992 and
1993.  Through a contract agreement with the Oregon Innovation Center
(OIC), the SBDC offered small business clients both on-line and
off-line services in the form of literature searches, patent
searches, expert consultations, and document location.  Because of
the loss of matching state funds for fiscal year 1994, the Oregon
SBDC dropped out of TAPP.  The OIC, however, has continued to provide
TAPP-like services in the absence of state and federal financial
support. 

The current program is managed and operated by the OIC, which assists
businesses in accessing technical information.  The OIC continues to
offer TAPP-like services to its own clients and clients referred to
them by the SBDCs, government agencies, and industry associations. 

The OIC serves primarily small manufacturers and technology-oriented
service companies.  OIC services are not limited to Oregon
businesses; however, the majority of OIC clients are located in
Oregon.  When part of TAPP, the OIC informed potential clients of its
services through SBDC marketing efforts, including seminars,
pamphlets, and media publications.  Now that the OIC is no longer
directly affiliated with the SBDC, all marketing efforts have been
eliminated because of funding constraints.  The OIC relies entirely
on word-of-mouth to attract new clients. 

One information specialist at the OIC devotes three-fourths time to
the program.  Staff of the SBDCs, state economic development
agencies, and industry associations also assist by informing clients
of OIC services through their own counseling activities.  Because the
OIC no longer participates in TAPP, it receives fewer referrals from
the SBDCs.  However, the clients that contact the OIC are more likely
to represent technology-oriented industries, according to OIC
officials. 

The OIC provides a range of business services including the
development of marketing plans and information research.  OIC clients
have access to hundreds of on-line and off-line databases, including
Dialog, Data-Star, CompuServe, Orbit, NASA, and the Federal Register. 
At the beginning of the program, OIC also provided access to Teltech. 
However, because of high costs and low demand to access Teltech
experts, the OIC did not renew Teltech's contract in July 1993. 

The OIC serves its clients primarily through remote database
searches.  Upon receipt of a request, the information specialist
conducts the search and sends the results to the client.  OIC staff
rarely meet face-to-face with the client.  Nearly all services are
provided via telephone, facsimile machine, or computer.  According to
an OIC information specialist, the OIC has also developed the ability
to conduct real-time, screen-to-screen searching.  Also, client
access is offered through a menu-driven bulletin board system. 

The OIC received $325,000 in federal funding during the 2 years it
was in the program.  This included $200,000 in fiscal year 1992 and
$125,000 in fiscal year 1993.  The OIC also received state matching
funds for each of these years, resulting in a total state and federal
funding of $650,000 over the life of the program.  The OIC has not
received any state or federal funding since the end of fiscal year
1993. 

In the spring of 1996, the OIC will occupy a new facility to be
constructed as a joint project with the Central Oregon Community
College.  This project will be funded by the OIC's state economic
development appropriation that was committed in 1992.  The OIC
currently relies on donations and client fees to operate.  According
to OIC officials, client fees averaged $114 per search during 1994. 
During the TAPP years, clients were charged only about $10 per search
although the total cost of the searches averaged $161. 

As shown in table IX.1, the OIC's client base was dominated by
manufacturing and service concerns in fiscal years 1993 and 1994.  In
1994, service and manufacturing businesses accounted for 73 percent
of the clients served overall.  Because of increased client fees and
the elimination of marketing outreach efforts, the number of clients
served declined sharply--from 191 to 33--between 1993 and 1994. 



                               Table IX.1
                
                OIC Clients, Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994


Industry                            1993    1994\a      1993      1994
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Agriculture                            5         0       2.6         0
Construction                           1         0       0.5         0
Manufacturing                         70        12      36.6      36.4
Retail                                12         1       6.3       3.0
Service                               84        12      44.0      36.4
Wholesale                              7         3       3.7       9.1
Other                                 12         5       6.3      15.2
======================================================================
Total\b                              191        33     100.0     100.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Oregon did not participate in TAPP in fiscal year 1994.  Because
of changes in record-keeping systems, the figures shown represent
calendar year 1994.  The OIC served 19 other clients during the first
quarter of fiscal year 1994. 

\b Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding. 

Source:  OIC. 

As shown in table IX.2, the OIC responded to a total of 99
information requests during fiscal year 1994--the first year in which
the OIC did not participate in TAPP.  This figure represents a
decrease of 79 percent from fiscal year 1993.  Twenty-three percent
of these projects were of a technical nature. 



                               Table IX.2
                
                 OIC Information Requests, Fiscal Years
                             1993 and 1994


Information requested                     1993  1994\a    1993    1994
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Technical
Legal (patents and/or
 regulations)                               24       5     5.2     5.1
Process improvement                         37       4     8.0     4.0
Product modification                        48      13    10.3    13.1
Other                                       10       1     2.2     1.0
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   119      23    25.6    23.2
Nontechnical
Legal                                       15       0     3.2       0
Management                                  17       5     3.7     5.1
Marketing                                  283      60    60.9    60.6
Vendor                                      22       1     4.7     1.0
Other                                        9      10     1.9    10.1
======================================================================
Subtotal                                   346      76    74.4    76.8
======================================================================
Total                                      465      99   100.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Oregon did not participate in TAPP in fiscal year 1994.  Due to
changes in record-keeping systems, the figures shown represent
calendar year 1994. 

Source:  OIC. 

During fiscal year 1993, the OIC conducted three focus group sessions
in various locations to determine the informational needs of small
businesses.  Questions were asked to determine what types of
information were the most difficult for small businesses to obtain,
what sources small businesses typically use to obtain information,
and what improvements they would suggest to provide them with
business information.  A recurring response from the participants was
that marketing information was a primary concern and difficult to
obtain.  The OIC used the focus group results to gain a better
understanding of the information needs of businesses. 

The OIC plans to continue providing TAPP-like services on a
cost-recovery basis as it has been since the end of fiscal year 1993. 
The OIC hopes to supplement its budget through corporate donations. 
MCI Telecommunications Corporation, for example, recently donated
$10,000 to the OIC.  OIC officials said that a self-sufficient
program has some advantages.  One of these is that because a client
makes a larger investment, it is more serious about its request for
assistance.  Also, the OIC has been able to provide services beyond
the small business community, which has both expanded services and
generated more funds. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix X
COMMENTS FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
========================================================== Appendix IX




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix XI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
========================================================== Appendix IX



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix XII

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

John P.  Hunt, Jr., Assistant Director
Robin M.  Nazzaro, Assistant Director
Frankie L.  Fulton, Evaluator-in-Charge
Paul W.  Rhodes, Senior Evaluator
Kenneth A.  Davis, Evaluator
Richard P.  Cheston, Adviser

