Analysis of Federally Funded Demonstration Projects
Final Report
ResearchPublished 1976
Final Report
ResearchPublished 1976
Analyzes successful and unsuccessful aspects of 24 demonstration projects conducted to promote technological innovations for commercial use. Successful projects tend to have a technology well in hand; cost and risk sharing with local participants; project initiative from nonfederal sources; the existence of a strong industrial system for commercialization; inclusion of all target audiences in planning and operations; and absence of tight time constraints. The study's general conclusions are: demonstrations have a narrow scope for effective use; technology diffusion depends on "market pull" rather than "technology push"; demonstrations are weak tools for penetrating institutional and organizational barriers to diffusion; large projects with heavy federal funding are particularly prone to difficulty; on-site project management is generally effective; and information dissemination is not a serious problem. The study presents recommendations for the selection and conduct of future demonstrations and the dissemination of their results. (See also R-1925, R-1927.)
This publication is part of the RAND report series. The report series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993, represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.