Technology transfer from military applications to intelligent vehicle highway systems

Technology transfer from military applications to intelligent vehicle highway systems

Material Information

Technology transfer from military applications to intelligent vehicle highway systems
Polk, Amy
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
[14] leaves : ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Intelligent transportation systems ( lcsh )
Technology transfer ( lcsh )
Military research -- United States ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
General Note:
Title from cover.
Statement of Responsibility:
Amy Polk.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
029395409 ( ALEPH )
298522179 ( OCLC )
C01-00311 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.311 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200289Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029395409
005 20110921120019.0
008 090116s1993 flu b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00311
b .P65 1993
1 100
Polk, Amy.
0 245
Technology transfer from military applications to intelligent vehicle highway systems /
Amy Polk.
Tampa :
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida,
[14] leaves ;
28 cm.
Title from cover.
Includes bibliographical references.
Also issued online.
Intelligent transportation systems.
Technology transfer.
Military research
z United States.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Technology Transfer from Military Applications to Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems Amy Polk Center for Urban Ttusportation R=dl Uahoer$ity or Sout.h Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave, ENG 118 Tampa, Fl. 33620-5350 (813) 974 FAX: (813) 974-5168


ABSTRACI' Since th e conclusion o f \Vorld War 11. the U .S. governm.eDt b8s developed a massive sponsorship of scientific research activities, primarily to advance military goals This tmancial support of both private companies and national labs bas constituted a closet industrial policy whose usefulness and efficiency is now coming into question. The end of the Cold War has produced a consensus in the United States that military spending must be cut dramatically These reductions will mean loss of revenue for national l abs and for military contractors, many of whom are structurally dependent on their primary customer the Department of Defense. Different private companies will respond to t h ese challenges in different ways, but the most pr u dent will seek to convert their technological competencies into new products for new markets. lntellige nt Highway Vehicle Systems (IVHS) which. uses sensors, communications and information management to increas e the capacity of transportation systems, is one possibility for conversion. IVHS shares technological and structural similarities with advanced weapons production. In the paper, I examine seventeen private companies and four national laboratories which are both prominent r ecipients of DoD contracts and interested in IVHS For each of the private companies I examlne: o the curre-nt level of diversification in non-military products technical competency in transferrable technologies o experience in IVHS-related commercial markets I profile each of the four national laboratories and their ventures into JVHS. Finally, I give a prediction for ever political climate of technology conversion, particularly with respect to the history of feder a l Sllpport IVHS bas enjoyed in the past.


THE COLD WAR IS OVER. WHAT'S NEXT? With the demise of the Soviet Union marking the end of the Cold War, the United State. i s now left without a justifying rationale for its vast military expenditure. and the economic infrastructure built up around it. Thooe who depend on institutions of the Cold War are now groping for new justification.' for military largesse, such as the Persian Gulf War, projected "low-intensity" third world conflicts, the war on drugs. economjc espionage foreign corporations and arm sales to foreign countries. But all of these scenarios wiU prove to be inadequate. America, or not, is entering an era where national securily is based on economic prosperity not military prowess. The U.S. military budget, and the economic infrastructure which has supported it four forty years, faces imminent demise. What will replaoe this Cold War infrastructure is the question America must faoe in !he 1990's. Despite the momentary rush of the Persian Gulf War, a consensus is emerging even among Pentagon officials !hat the defense expenditures must be reduoed dramatieally. Purchases of military equipment arc expected to decline from a Reagan buildup high of $96.8 billion in 1985 to about $60 billion in 1993 Several weapons systems will be terminated, including the F-14D the Phoenix Missile, M-88A2 recovery missile, FE aircraft, Apache helicopter, Ml tank, Maverick missile and the Army Helicopter Improvement Program. These cuts mean loss of revenue for military contractors and. loss of jobs for many employees. Data Researcb, Inc/McGraw Hill estimates that about 200,000 defense-related jobs will disappear in 1992. By 1996, the number of lost jobs could approach 1 miUion. And this is only the beginning, Because weapons plants were located in new. outlying areas away from the traditional manufacturing base, whole communities. even entire citie.o;, are threatened by a decline in defense spending. Different companies within the military industrial complex are responding to these cataclysmic changes in different ways. Some, such as General Dynamics, are resisting the foroes of change, making a direct appeal for members of Congress to engage in pork-barrel politics. Some companies are relying on backlog orders to soften the impacl of the cuts over a longer period. Scmc companies, such as AEL Corporation, have simply had good luck in competing for contracls of weapons systems which have not been canceled. Due to a change in Pentagon weapons procurement process, the key to maintaining contracts with the Department of Defense in the future will be less risk and less money. The fiscal 1993 DOD budget will use an entirely new acquisition strategy which emphasizes upgrading current weapons systems instead of designing new ones, and waiting until after completion of R&D before going into produclion. Other defense contractors are looking for ways to convert their technologies into commercial applications and diversify their customer base. Scme experts in the defense industry say that technology transfer is impossible, but others maintain say that military companies have no other option for survival. An article in the July 1992 issue of Ekctronics Business entitled "A Survival Guide for Defense Contractors (l) advises "GG'inst military-to-commercial technology transfer However, the article goes on to describe successful ventures in diversification and interviews a pioneer of "dualuse", i.e. developing technologies for both the military and commercial markets. There are many reasons why diversification is difficult. When developing products for the Department of Defense, production volume is extremely low and the primary concerns are quality and performance. ln commerdal markets, production volume is extremely high and the primary concern is reducing costs In addition, tbe current weapons procurement process is a tangle of laws and regulations which force companies to develop products and production processes that are unique to military applications. Most companies whO' operate in both realms, such as Boeing, IBM and Motorola, have established redundant manufacturing facilities for military and commerdal production. Some companies, such as Intel, have concluded that Pentagon regulations are too burdensome and refuse to do business with the DoD except on a commercial basis. Jacques Gansler, a former deputy assistant secretary for defense, argues that not only does the tangle of Pentagon regulations make weapons procwement more expensive, it endangers national security as we-U. Gansler argue.s that. just as in other industries, the weapons,systems of the future must be able to respond to market needs quickly, using computer technology for flexible manufacluring. Development lead times of up to 15 years puts the United


States in danger of deploying obsolete weapon systems. The changes in the defense indUSiry following the Vietnam War were even more sudden and more severe than the downsizing trend of the 1990's is likely to bring. One million defense workers loot their jobs between 1969 and 1971. At that time, military companies made attempts at diversification, but the results were disastrous in most cases. Grumman prototypcd a minivan in the 1970s, but could not m atch Chrysler's marketing skills. Boeing tried to c.tablish itself as a manufacturer of subway cars in the early 1970' s but went into production before performing safety tests and other evOiuations. Performance of the '"'hicles was terrible, and the incident has been ao embarrassment to Boeing ever since. Over the years. howC\er other companies have been successful at their technologies to commercial applications. Raytheon, its Amana subsidiary diversified into radar range stoves. Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc. found customers for its sophisticated voice recognition equipment in automatic teller machines, computer network security systems and even childcare centers. Kavlico modified its sensor technology for use in automotive, ventilation and heating systems. La\1 Technologies is bringi.og its experience in quality-int ensive manufacturing to production of h.igh-teeh medical equipment. ONE POSSIBILITY FOR CONVERSION: MiS Another area \\ith potential for military-to-commercial technology t ransfer is advanced transportation systems. The movement for using technology to increase the capacity of the U.S. road sys tem bas been building sinoe 1990, when a group of rcprc.cntatives from government, industry and academia formed Mobility 2000 The group projected that by the end of the decade transport ation demand in the U.S. will far outpace the capacity of the road system, posjng a threat to mobility and national productivity. Advanced technologies such as sensors, communications and information systems, had the potential to jncreasc the country's capacity for transporting goods and services. Thus the field of Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) was born. Mobility 2000 evolved into a professional society for this field, called IVHS America, with a mandate to ad,1se the U.S. Department of Transportation on how to d evelo p these new technologies. Since its foundation in 1990, IVHS America bas broadened its objectives and membership, and now is trying to downplay its image as an eJ

Rockwell International TRW, Inc Allied Signal (including Bendix subsidiary) Multi-industry companies GTE International Business Machines (IBM) American Telephone & Telegraph Texas lnstruments :Motorola, Inc. Consulting Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) the MITRE Corporation o The Big Three U.S. automotive manufacturers General Motors Corporation (including Hughes Aircraft subsidiary) Ford Motor Company Chrysler o Private unive-rsity Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) WHAT IT TAKES According to Eugene Chollick of the Center for Economic Priori .ties Q), the sucoess of diversification of defense companies in the post Cold War era depends of three factors: degree of diversification in non-military products o technical competency in transferrable technologies o experience in comme-rcial markets In this paper, I will examine these factors for each of the seventeen military-related IVHS companies, and give my predictions the success (or failure) of these companies ventures into advanced transportation systems. Level of dherslncatlon Table 1 shows the dollars in nulitary contracts received by each of the seventeen companies for FY1990, followed by th eir FY 1990 gross annual sales and the percent of company revenue which comes from the DoD. Note that smaU consulting companies such as MITRE and SAIC do a substantial percentage of their business with the Pentagon. For mammoth companies such as IBM, AT&T, Motorola, GTE and the Big Three automakers, this percentage is minuscule. Companies which have a dangerously high proportion of funds coming from military contracts are Raytheon, Lockheed, Westinghouse, Rockwell, TRW and Texas Instruments. (Because MIT is a private university, its total revenue is not available.) T eclmlcal Competency Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, by definition, depend on a partnership between a moving vehicle and the road infrastructure. Communications are integral to system operations. Sensors are needed for both the road and vehicle. Sophisticated actuators arc needed to contTol the vchicl.e, in order to make it responsive to data the sensors receive. Finally, systems architecture design and information management are needed to integrate various technologies


To find out if our seventeen companies were active in developing any of the key IVHS technologies, I looked to the U.S Patent Office CD-ROM database. The databa$e contains every patent by the office f rom 1969 to 1991, and includes a classification of these patents by type of technology. Table 2 shows the number of patents ass-igned to each of th e seventeen companies and their subsidiaries for specific types of technologies needed for IVHS: sensors (basic & advanced), actuators and communication medi a. l evaluated the strengih of a company in a certain technology by the number of patents the company has been assigned Sensors Digital image processing, infrared microwave RF se-nsing and ullra sonic sensing are sensing media well -known to U.S. companies. All the but one of the large companies on the list of seventeetl have patents i.n these four types of technologies. Chrysler Corporation, plus MIT, MITRE and SAIC had deficiencies in one or more o f these area. Other types of sensors infrared holography, laser radar range-fmder, light-b ased gyroscope, acoustic holography are not as well known, and are being developed by only a handful of companies. Still other techno l ogies arc even more out of reach U.S companies \\1th military back{!l'ounds. Only General Motors (through its Hughes subsidiary) Raytheon and Allied Signal are researching bo t h acollStic and light-based gyroscopes. None of our seventeen companies have developed either a gyroscopic compass or milliwave (super high frequency or SHF") sensors Actuators Teebnical competency among these companies was similar across different types of actuators. Westinghouse, Rockwell, Allied Signal Chiysler, and Ford are have developed mechanica l fluid (pneumatic & hydraulic) and electrical actuators. A few other companies Raytheon, Lockheed, GTE and IBM are active in only one of the three areas. Communications The four communications media I studied -infrared, microwave RF digital. ultrasonic and signal processiog -are well known to all but a few of the seventeen companies. EXperience in Commercial Markets Table 3 gives a brief summary of the eomrocrciaJ ac6vilies of each of the seventeen companies in IVHS projects or products which had been pub l ishe d in the IVHS press as of August 1992. The most popular commercial application for technology developed by military companies is electronic toll collection systems, which require mobile data communications and system intcgJation capabililies. Tbe between military and commercial technology development provides an interesting undercurrent in the debate over communications protocol standards for Automothe Vehicle Identification (A V I). The Vapor Corporation, a subsidiary of Mark IV Industries, has forged partnersh i ps with two of our seventeen military related IVHS companies. Hughes and V a por have agreed to develop and market prod u cts based on the Slotted Aloha Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) a method which Hughes deve l oped for military applications AT&T and Vapor arc developing a system which will combine AT&T'S smart card !ethnology with Vapor's A VI exp<:ricnce. Competing with theAT&T-Vapor partnership for a pivotal AVI contract is the Amtech Corporation Amtech does not have history o f develop i ng milit ary technologie s but for many years has dominated the A VI market in the United States. The Amtech communica t ions protocol is based on backs c atter technology Amtech. claims that Hughes' TDMA protocol is too expensie for commerci a l applications. In Jnly 1992, the E-ZPass project, a {!I'OUp oftoll officials from New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania narrowed their selection of a \'Onde r to supply electronic toll tran sponders and readers to Amtech and the A T &TVapor partnership Amtecb had to modify is system to include read-write capability in order to be


considered for the bid. Making the competition even more heated, Amtech announced that it forming a strategic partnertihip w:it.b Motorola, a prominent red picot of military contracts and an aggressive participant in IVHS activities. The adoption of a single electronic toU.tecbnology in this tri-state region could serve to establish a tk facto standard for the A VI industry in the United States. The selection of eithe r vendor by the E-ZPass project will also have a large impact on the viability of technology transfer from military to comme.cial applications. NATIONAL LABORATORIES U.S. involvement i.o \Vord \Var II, with its code breaklog, aerial bombing and submarine activities. demanded that scientific advancement be<:ome an integrated part of the nation's war effort to a degree unparalleled in human history. After the war many scientists had participated military research activities eallcd for a permanent partnership between science and government. Responding to this call, the U.S. government embarked on a massive sponsorship of scientific innovation, primarily to advance military goals The Vietnam \Var fostered \videspread disillusionment \\1th the militMy, and consequently, in the 1970's the U.S government shifted its focus to using science to address social needs. Despite this setback and fueled by the Cold War, the U.S. government's sponsorship of scientific innovation increased to phenomenal proportions the 1980 s. sponsored military research now consumes the vast majority of scientific activity in the United States. A key clement in this national military research strategy has been the national laboratories, scanered aetoss various departments within the federal government. The Department of D efense (DoD) maintains over 700 national defense l aboratories, with labs both under its direct supervision and under the supervision of one of the military branches Navy, Army and Air Foree The Department of Energy (DoE) also maintain. over 30 research laboratories, many of which deal primarily with nuclear weapons research. There are also numerous independent federal research agencies, such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation. The end of t he Cold War and consequent reduction in federal support for nationa l defense laboratories, many labs are red irecting their expertise to assist U.S. companies in developing new technologies for commercial applications. The expli.cit goal of this R&D is to boost American industrial competitiveness. The innovation potential of these labs i s being called one of the Pentagon's "best kept secrets Previous Tedmology Transfer Polich: Technology traosfcr from the national laboratories is n ot a new idea. In 1986 Congress passed the Federal Technology Transfer Act which provided a structural framework for laboratory industry cooperation. Cooperative Research & Development Agreements (CRDAs) permit the government and industry to share wbatevec intellectual property results from joint rese arch efforts. CRDAs even permit government lab employe(:$ to collect royalties (typicaUy 15% to 20%) on their work if later patented by the private sector The Federal Lab Consortium, based on Sequim, Washington, acts as a clearinghouse for national lab technology transfer activities and maintains a database of defense laboratory projects. In February of 1992, the national labs received a strong signal.from then-Presi dent Bush eneoutaging t heir participation in technology transfer programs. The Administration launched a National Technology Initiative ordering the 700 national defense Jabs to undertake joint projects with and make their results available to commercial manufacturing 6rms. The move was a complete r eversal of policy for Bush, who during the first three years of his presidency had been eJ

organizations. Sometimes there are ego clashes between industry representatives and lab directors, who wield a great deal of power undc.r ttJ,e existing structure. In addition, some DOE scientists say that newly inMituted bureaucratic procedures threaten the innovative environment of the labs. (Secretary of Energy James Watkins had instituted the procedures in response to SC\o'Cral toxic waste dumping scandals at DoE installations.) Although the CRDA framework has beeo in place for six years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of in recent times ln 1991 alone Army labs boasted 2/J7 CRDAs and expect$ the number to climb to 387 at the end of thls year. Many of tbe earlier CRDAs bave been entrepreneurially minded individuals who use the agreements to create new companies which use advanced, and sometimes risky, technology. There are other ways for industry to obtain technology from the DoD labs, including responding to a Request for Proposals (RFP), submitted unsolicited proposals, and seeking help via the Small Business Innovation Research Program. However, CRDAs remain the much preferred route. The trend among national laboratories within the Department of Energy is to form stable partnershipS with big name compaoics in order to develop highly advanoed technologies. The three major DoE weapons labs Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory have formed partnerships with companies such as Motorola, General Motors, DuPont, Hewlett l'ackard and Natioual Semiconductor. Under CRDA agreements, these labs are prototyping technologies in areas such as chemieal-to-elcetricity energy conversion, nonde.$tructive testing, free electron laser (FEL), X-ray lithography and semiconductor inspection. National Labs and IVHS A handful of national laboratories are consid ering IVHS as a possibility for technology conversion. Beeause the. national labs typically deal with only extremely advanced technologies, not all areas of IVHS may be suitable. Advanced Vehicle Control Systems (A VCS), w hich is not projected for deployment until about 2010, seems the most likely candidate for the lab's participatioo. Four national laboratories are members of IVHS America. A proflle of each lab is listed in Table 4. Battelle Northwest Laboratory specializes in technology transfer from military and energy technologies to commercial applications. BNL is already involved in hazardous waste cleanup, radioactive waste management, air quality assessment and global change monitoring. Battelle's success in technology transfer is due to its project-oriented interdisciplinary approach. BNVs parent corporation, Battelle Memorial Institute, is a member of IVHS America although the laboratory itself is not. Battelle is conducting human factors research for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Along with Sandia and Los Alamos. Lawrence Livermore N ational Laboratory is one of the DoE's three major facilities for nuclear weapons rcsc arch. Lawrence Livermore is also invo1ved in weapons-related fields, such as stockpile surveillance, non-proliferation analysis and treaty verification technology. LLNL is involved in many technology transfer activities, such as nondestructive testing and image processing for medication applications, and bas named advanced tran&portation as one of its core competencies for transfer. According to Aviation Week & Space Tedmo>gy magazine LLNL i s discussing the conceptof A VCS with the California Department of Transportation. Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducts research in all types of energy sources fusion, fission, fossil, biomassplus alternative programs such as energy conservation conversjon. ORNL is operated for the DoE by a subsidiary of Martin Marietta Corporation, consistently one of the top recipients of military contracts ORNL has a historical relationship with Federal Highway Administration and will probably be selected lO review FHWA's national syst em ar chitecture design. Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the only NASA lab interested in IVHS. Although JPL's primary research intCres.t is in space exploration, JPL also has strong programs in military, biomedical and information


tcclmologics. As wcll as NASA and the Department of Defense, JPL's regular clients include the National Institute Health, Department of Transportation and other government and private agencies. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS The event with the sil!gle largest impact on of defensetechnology conversion in the 1990's happened last November with the Presidential election and change in admioistrations. On the outset, the defeat of George Bush may have been a cause for worry among proponents of IVHS judging from Bush's historical support of military spending and the IVHS indusb"y's overlapping membe.Ship with prominent defense contractors. However, Bill Clinton has turned out to be an even more enthusiastic supporter of IVHS than ,Bush. The President's economic plan released in February (5) proposes a $143 million increase IVHS funding. briJlging the total proposed funding for IVHS to $925 million for fiscal years 1994 through 1997. The economic plan classifies IVHS as a way of developing a number of defense-related technologies which have been neglected in recent years, such as artificial intelligence and machine vision. This broad classification allows the IVHS industry to participate in Clinton's proposed 4 -yea r $17 billion program to stimulate technological development. The proposed funding increases include $146 million to the national laboratories and $1 .3 billion to the Commerce Department's National institute for Standards & Technology (NIST) to promote joint ventures between private industry and government. As a component of both transportation infrastructure and defense conversion, IVHS will have many opportunities to get a large slice of a very large pic. CONCLUSION Even proponents of IVHS say that ii is no silver bullet no panacea for nation's transportation ills NeiJher is lVHS a comprehensive solution for military contractors facing a reduction in federal military spending. While IVHS shares technological and institutional similarities with advanced weapons the conversion process will be difficult. but not Tbere will be winners, losers and those who break even. The Joss wiU be more damaging to some of the losers than to others. This paper bas been a diffi cul t ooe to write, in part because of the sensitive information it contains, but also because of the rapidly changing events which make each dran of this report obsolete before it is printed. Since I completed the draft of this paper in August of 1992, s ever al more prominent recipients of military conll"actors have joined IVHS America and many other military companies have announced IVHS-related commercial successes. New eleeb"onic toU-coUeetion partnerships promise to heat up A VI standards debate. It is sti.ll difficult to predict what tbe full impact of the change in Presidential admini strat ion s will be on transportation, defense and conversion poticy There are sure to be many more changes before this paper reaches its intended audience. My personal hope is that these changes will be, on the whole, positive. My hope is that more and more companies within the military induslrial complex will make a fundamental conimitmeot to technology conversion. The military buildup of the Cold War bas had more of an impact on American soc iety than simply a few do:ren companies structurally dependent on military larges.,c. Breaking outdated and dangerous habit s will not be easy, but it can be done.


Degree of Revenue Dependence on Mlfltary Sources Company Milltuy Contracts Total Sal..- % Mnltaey FY 91 Un millions) FY 91 Un millions) General Motors (Hughes) $4,427 $124,705 3.55% Raytheon $4, 089 $9,268 44.12% Lockheed $2,666 $9,958 26 77% Westinghouse $1,811 $12,915 14.02% Rockwell (Amana) $1,707 $12,379 13.79% TRW $ 1,()92 $8,169 1337% Texas Jnstrmnenls $982 $6,567 14.95% GTE $801 $18,374 4.36% IBM $773 $69,000 1.12% Ford Motor Company (Ford Aerospace)+ $769 $8 1 ,844 0.94% A T &T $699 $32,460 2 15% Allied Signal (Bendix) $688 $12,343 5 57% Science Applications International Corp.+ $510 $1,022 49,94% Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology + $460 N/A N/A Mitre+ $412 $500 82 47% Motorola + $403 $10,885 3.70% Chrysler+ $215 $30,620 0.70% from Electronics News, Mar<:h 23, 1992 .. from Ward's Business Directory of U.S. Pri vate and Public Companies 1991 + FY90 Military Contractions, from Council on Economic l'riorities Research Report, May 1991 Table 1


Technical Competenc e in Transferr able Technolog ies: Assigned Pate nts 1969 -Fob. 1 992 u.s. PIMnt Oflice Classifications S.nsors Actuators Communications Basic Advanced IR sonic RF IP mech fluid elec. IR sonic RF d i g it. SP Company Patent Patents %1 250 367 342 382 356 250 356 367 73 251 251 251 359 367 342 375 4551 % Volume Analyzecl Patenta 336 14 104 9 347 231 4 7 505 213 11 129 109 140 350 130 General Motors 9262 3838 41% 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 6 33 0 1 0 0 8 82 2% Hughes 3451 3451 100% 71 13 108 4 7 4 1 41 2 0 0 0 1 6 112 49 27 .as 14% Raytheon 1697 1697 100% 33 45 65 6 0 1 11 1 0 1 0 0 2 22 101 38 20 314 19% Lockheed 903 903 100% 5 s 7 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 3 6 8 3 5% 11S.9 5691 48% 3429 38 16 0 0 5 3 0 15 21 9 21 14 21 37 13 253 4% Roc:kwen 1 00% 25 13 42 19 5 1 12 0 3 8 5 8 15 6 28 119 78 363 6% GTE 5878 5878 100% 11 17 1 14 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 34 9 11 113 a. 253 4 % IBM" 13278 6530 49% 15 3 1 156 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 29 0 1 126 7 327 5% TRW, Inc. 2427 2427 100% 10 10 5 2 22 0 4 7 0 4 5 4 tO 1 8 21 14 116 5% AT&T" 12211 5261 43o/o 17 11 0 34 0 0 2 1 0 0. 0 1 144 1 22 267 40 511 10% Ford 440 5 4405 100% 30 2 3 9 0 0 7 0 0 6 14 tS 7 2 10 24 27 148 3%Al ied Signal 7512 7512 100% 19 21 25 4 0 1 8 9 4 10 20 44 3 1 7 57 30 19 271 4% Texas lnst: 4940 2659 54% 27 15 1 30 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 12 22 14 130 5% SAIC 28 28 100% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7% MIT 1256 1256 100% 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 8 4 52 4 % MITRE 23 23 tOO% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 10 Motorola. 6165 3939 64% 3 1 15 5 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 23 219 223 450 It% Chrysler 1044 1044 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 1 2 0 2 0 14 1% Total: 90694 60907 67% 328 IS. 311 351 31 4 104 26 9 52 n 125 337 101 415 1086 562 3787 6% Claaalflcatlon of Patant Termo: 250: 336 Infrared (IR) Imaging 358:457 I nfrared holography 251: 213 mechanical actuators 367: 14-139 ultrasonic acoustic wave 250: 231 .12 = light-based gyroscope 251: 11 63.6 pnuematic & hydrautlc actuators 342: 104-164 microwave RF 356: 4-5 laser radar r ange finder 251 : 1 29. electric actuators 382: 9-57 Imag e processing 367: 7 1 = acoustic holography 359: 109-195 Infrared communi cat ions 75: 505 acoustic 387: 140 199 ullra sonlc communications 342: 350-458 microwav e RF communications 375 dlglal convramicati!Jns 455: 130-355. signal processing Patents n!Cords from 198 1 only +Not total; some patent n!cords are cross-listed. Table 2


Experience in IVRS rel ated Comm ercial Marl

U.S. National Laboratori e s I nvolved in IVHS Name Location F ounded Opera ted by Operated for Research Total staff Primary reseatth areas [goV>!rnment staff agency) Battelle Northwest Richmod, WA 1%5 Battelle Doll 1,000 2,800 Specializes in technology transfer; Laboratory (BNL) Memorial commercial applications inc l ude hazardous Institute waste cleanup, radioactive waste m a nagement, air quality and global change e.t Propulsion Pasadena, CA 1944 Cal tech NASA 3,052 5,591 Primary research i n space exploration, plus Laboratory (JPL) University strong programs in mili t ary, biomedical and information technologies . Lawrence Live Lawrence, CA 1952 University of DoE 2,580 7,1!JO R&:D in nuclear warhead design, stockpile National Laborat ory California surveillance, n on-proliferation ana l ysis and (LIM.) treaty verification . Oak Ridge National Oak Ridge, TN 1943 Marlin Marietta Doll 1,850 4,700 R&:D in all types o f e n ergy so urces: fusion, Laboratory (ORNL) fissio n fossil fuel and biomass, plus c onversion and conservati o n . . Tabl e 4


REFERENCES 1 Survival Guide for Defense Con t ractors Ekctronics Business, July 1992, pp. 24-70 2. Conroy, De clan "IVHS America see Its big stice of diminished transport p ie", Inside DOT & Transportation Week, June 12, 1992, pp. 4 -5. 3 Cholliek, Eugene, "FY '89 Top 100 Contractors: Beyond t he Cold War", Council 011 Economic PrioriJies Rtsearch Report, May, 1990, pp. 1-3. 4. Scoll, William, "U.S. Labs Increase Focus on Technology Transfers, Aviation Week & Technolcgy, February 17, 1992, pp. 38-39. 5. Technology: the Engi11t of Economic Growth, Ctiton/Gore National Campaign Headquarters, Liule Rock, Arkansas, September 21, 1992.


New Member$ of IVHS America since September 1992 (As o f March 1993) Also on list of To p 100 recipients of DoD contracts: Booz, Allen & Hamilto n Harris Corporation Johns Hopkins Univers ity Applied Physics Laboratory BDM International National '-


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.