|
|
BACKGROUND
The
CalTIP program
provides up to $250,000 in state matching funds to companies who win federal
technology awards or contracts. The program focuses on assisting companies
to commercialize innovative technologies. In 1993 the California state
Legislature created the program to help spark early state technology
companies and draw federal matching funds to the state. The Los Angeles
Regional Technology Alliance (Larta) Technical Review Committee, composed of
approximately 40 individuals from industry, is the regional decision-maker
for the CalTIP technology grant program. The Larta region consists of Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, Santa Barbara, Kern and Ventura
counties. The top scores in the consolidated statewide list win CalTIP
awards. Statewide, approximately 30 companies win awards, with each award
averaging $200,000. Jeff was a member of the Larta Technical Review
Committee for 2002.
CRITERIA
The
following criteria were used by the Technical Review Committee to judge the
submissions to the CalTIP program:
|
Technology and Product Description |
|
Project clearly identifies product,
market, and plan for penetrating into target market. |
| |
Technological innovation clearly described. |
| |
Product and relationship to technological innovation. |
| |
Specific problem or need that product addresses. |
| |
How product differs from existing products. |
| |
Stage of development. |
| |
Materials and methods of production and manufacture. |
| |
Status of intellectual property. |
|
Market Description |
|
Project describes business model and
potential customers. Describes relevant market sector and business
development strategy. Identifies potential competitors and issues
crucial to successful competition. |
| |
Market sector described, segmented and sized. |
| |
Market niche and competitive advantage. |
| |
Customers. |
| |
Business development strategy. |
| |
Business model. |
| |
Competitors. |
| |
Barriers to entry. |
|
Project Management Description |
|
Project shows credible understanding of
pertinent engineering, capitalization, and commercialization issues.
Articulates how firm will guide project through to successful
completion. Project team has experience in commercializing technology. |
| |
Project and commercialization timeline and narrative. |
| |
Project activities relationship to project budget. Cost effective
aspects highlighted. |
| |
Project team description. Organization chart. Key project personnel
identified. |
|
Regional Impact, Regional Partners |
|
Links with incubators, universities, and
federal labs to add regional value. Will credibly create and retain
jobs in the State. Delineates how plan will improve worker's skills. |
| |
Direct jobs created; near term (project budget) and longer term (post
project). |
| |
Training activities. |
| |
Economic impact in region and State. |
| |
Regional partners contribution to project. |
|
Small Business |
|
A small business or includes small
businesses in proposal. |
| |
Small business. |
|