Cross-Cutting Technology Platforms

Public-Private Partnerships

Should the government help form public-private partnerships for platform technology? If not, why not?


Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

13 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Downvoted
  2. Downvoted
  3. Downvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Upvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Downvoted
  10. Upvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Upvoted
  14. Upvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Downvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Downvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Upvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 4 ]


  1. Comment

    Yes, as mentioned in section 1.1, collaborative R&D in cross-cutting areas would help accelerate the insertion of new mfg technologies into industry. Such consortia would do industry-driven R&D using the latest equipment individual companies may not otherwise have access to, enbling new ideas to be incorporated in both design and mfr of product.

  2. Comment

    Yes, collaboratove R&D is important to move industries past incremental innovation. In tight economic times, it is difficult to justify spending money on breakthrough R&D. At the same time, difficult economic times, companies need to recognize the need to share resources and collaborate and put aside some competitive issues for the good of all. Govt cost sharing can really help leverage this.

  3. Comment

    Yes, with the proviso that the government not get locked into a "one-size-fits-all" approach when it comes to structuring these partnerships. Each industry has unique characteristics as to when where and how they are willing to collaborate. Similarly, the size and maturity of a firm affects its tolerance for risk and/or sharing. Agencies are going to need some flexibility in how they can structure the program to have the strongest impact on the industries it supports.

  4. Comment

    there are already such public-private partnerships(aerospace, military) and there needs to be many more if the u.s. is to be competitive with other nation's programs. other nations support their technological development much more vigorously and the results are telling.

  5. Comment

    I have attempted to work with the government to bring into reality technology that has been developed (and proven by our goevernment) that will produce synthetic fuels economical with the added benefit of reducing GHG.

    Very discouraging--need to streamline and work with business and industry to further enhance technology that is or has already being developed in the UNITED STATES.

  6. Comment

    Yes - but a system needs to be developed for government to get out of the way - since it is too rigid, slow, inefficient, etc.

  7. Comment

    This question provides a good opportunity to raise an important and related issue. Several years ago, the government agencies came together under the Office of Science and Technology Policy to form an Interagency Working group (IWG)on Manufacturing R&D. The group grew to 17 member agencies and adopted three key thrusts - Nano-manufacturing, manufacturing for the Hydrogen economy, and Intelligent and Integrated Manufacturing Systems. The success was probably not as great as any of the members would have liked, and the charter of that IWG is no longer active.

    There is a great opportunity to do something important about public/private partnerships - just one of the pieces of the puzzle. The IWG should be reestablished with a focus on Intelligent and Integratedd Manufacturing Systems and with a mindset of working closely with industry and being a conduit for cooperation and the success of our essential manufacturiung sector!

  8. Comment

    Yes. These types of partnerships can bond the government and industry in the pursuit of technology advances that can help us to regain our national competitive edge. Industry rarely has sufficient motivation or the discretionary resources necessary to undertake national challenges. And government only groups seldom proceed beyond communication or limited coordination. A public-private PARTNERSHIP should be an essential part of a national strategy for manufacturing. Gerry Graves

  9. Comment

    The government should aid in the formation of public-private partnerships. The priority areas should be on initiatives than can deliver in the very near term (within the next 12 months to 2 years) jobs and economic improvement to the U.S. Spending time, effort and money conducting research is good, but a return on investment will not help the U.S. economy now. We need it now.