close this bookVolume 1: No. 09
View the documentNews -- Sony Mini Disc
View the documentNews -- KnowledgeWare
View the documentOpportunities -- AI/CS jobs
View the documentOpportunities -- new research labs
View the documentInformation -- research thesaurus; machine translation; Informix
View the documentWorkshops -- ICIS workshop and journal; TEI text encoding
View the documentTools -- Collate
View the documentDiscussion -- SBIR
View the documentDiscussion -- corporate funding
View the documentQuery -- peer review
View the documentDiscussion -- feudal analogies

Dan Corkill (Blackboard Technology Group, cork@cs.umass.edu) offers some additional advice based on experience. Commercial potential of proposed NSF SBIR work should be DIRECT and OBVIOUS. A proposal that emphasizes enabling technology and generally advances the state of the art, but without a direct commercial application, is unlikely to pass the reviews. (As an academic proposal, it might do well...) Researchers used to the academic review process should not think that the SBIR reviewers will support a generic advance, no matter what the potential commercial possibilities.

[The NSF brochure reads as if there were no conflict between fundamental scientific research and quick proof of commercial feasibility. Companies that want to do fundamental research sometimes support themselves on sequential Phase I grants from different agencies, with little intent to reach Phase II. They'd be in trouble if such intent were proven, though.]