Evaluation of the Benefits Attributable to Automotive Lightweight Materials Program Research and Development Projects

The purpose of this project is to identify and test methods appropriate for estimating the benefits attributable to research and development (R and D) projects funded by the Automotive Lightweight Materials (ALM) Program of the Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies (OAAT) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The program focuses on the development and validation of advanced lightweight materials technologies to significantly reduce automotive vehicle body and chassis weight without compromising other attributes such as safety, performance, recyclability, and cost. The work supports the goals of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). Up to thirty percent of the improvement required to meet the PNGV goal of tripling vehicle fuel economy and much of its cost, safety, and recyclability goal depend on the lightweight materials. Funded projects range from basic materials science research to applied research in production environments. Collaborators on these projects include national laboratories, universities, and private sector firms, such as leading automobile manufacturers and their suppliers.

[1]  Robert E. Chapman,et al.  Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration and Automation Technologies in Industrial Facilities | NIST , 2000 .

[2]  David L. Sunding,et al.  Returns to Public Investments in Agriculture with Imperfect Downstream Competition , 1998 .

[3]  Bruce Tonn,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF COST SAVINGS OF DOE'S RETURN-ON-INVESTMENT PROGRAM , 2000 .

[4]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  The practice of social research , 1969 .

[5]  Holger Ernst,et al.  Industrial research as a source of important patents , 1998 .

[6]  Robert E Chapman.  Benefits and costs of research :: a case study of cybernetic building systems , 1999 .

[7]  E. Geisler,et al.  An integrated cost-performance model of research and development evaluation , 1995 .

[8]  Marilyn A Brown,et al.  R&D spinoffs: Serendipity vs. a managed process , 1993 .

[9]  F. M. Scherer,et al.  Technology, Economic Growth and Public Policy. , 1967 .

[10]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[11]  Julia Melkers,et al.  Evaluating R&D impacts : methods and practice , 1993 .

[12]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts , 1993 .

[13]  Robert E. Chapman,et al.  Benefits and Costs of Research: Two Case Studies in Building Technology. , 1996 .

[14]  Sheila A. Martin,et al.  Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain , 1999 .

[15]  David J. Teece,et al.  Estimating the benefits from collaboration: The case of SEMATECH , 1996 .

[16]  D. Harris.  Organizational Linkages: Understanding the Productivity Paradox, , 1997 .

[17]  Duncan MacRae,et al.  Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis & Discourse , 1997 .

[18]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Sources of Industrial Leadership , 1999 .

[19]  George Kozmetsky,et al.  R&D Collaboration on Trial: The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation , 1994 .

[20]  Kenneth R. Boff,et al.  Assessing cost/benefits of research and development investments , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[21]  Michael P. Gallaher,et al.  Benefit Analysis of IGBT Power Device Simulation Modeling , 1999 .

[22]  Gordon Kingsley,et al.  The Use of Case Studies in R&D Impact Evaluations , 1993 .

[23]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Methods for Evaluating the Return on R&D Investments , 1993 .

[24]  David H. Folz.  Survey Research for Public Administration , 1996 .

[25]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach , 1979 .

[26]  J. Whittaker,et al.  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 , 1995 .

[27]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Measuring the unmeasurable: Cost-benefit analysis for new business start-ups and scientific research transfers , 1997 .

[28]  David N. Ammons.  Accountability for performance : measurement and monitoring in local government , 1995 .

[29]  A J Moskowitz,et al.  Capturing the unexpected benefits of medical research. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  B. Beattie.  Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting , 1995 .

[31]  Julia Melkers,et al.  Bibliometrics as a Tool for Analysis of R&D Impacts , 1993 .

[32]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Evaluating Public Policy , 1995 .

[33]  Beryl A. Radin,et al.  The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool? , 1998 .

[34]  T. Randall Curlee,et al.  Evaluating technology innovation programs: the use of comparison groups to identify impacts , 1995 .

[35]  Barry J. Seldon,et al.  The Economic Benefits of Forestry Research , 1992 .

[36]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Public Accountability: Evaluating Technology-Based Institutions , 1998 .

[37]  Diana I. Angelis,et al.  Capturing the Option Value of R&D , 2000 .

[38]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Innovation, technology and the economy : the selected essays of Edwin Mansfield , 1995 .

[39]  Michael P. Gallaher,et al.  Economic Impact of Standard Reference Materials for Sulfur in Fossil Fuels , 2000 .

[40]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[41]  R. Hendrick,et al.  An Information Infrastructure for Innovative Management of Government , 1994 .

[42]  Francis Dietz.  Government partnerships benefit small businesses , 1997 .

[43]  Julian M. Alston,et al.  Market distortions and the benefits from research into new uses for agricultural commodities: Ethanol from corn , 1996 .