Overview
This series distinguishes what SBIR funding establishes from what commercialization requires. It follows projects from Phase I feasibility and Phase II development through the funding and capability gap, examines CAPP as a conditional bridge and its limited reach, and compares evidence from sales, procurement, investment, patents, and sustained use. It also considers the 2026 reauthorization’s transition and data tools. The central rule is to follow a specific technology and external relationship over time, match each claim to its evidence, and stop where timing, attribution, or incomplete data leave uncertainty.
Learning outcomes
- An SBIR award funds a defined R&D stage; it does not prove commercialization.
- SBIR phases mark different funding and evidence conditions, not an automatic success score.
- Evidence strengthens from technical progress to transition signals, market contact, and durable use.
- CAPP can add transition runway and outside matching funds, but its reach and causal effect remain limited.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
What does an SBIR award prove?
An SBIR award proves that a defined R&D effort was selected and funded; it does not prove a product, customer, sale, or sustained use.
How should SBIR commercialization evidence be judged?
Judge it by matching the claim to the event—technical progress, a transition signal, market contact, or durable use—while checking timing, attribution, and data completeness.
What is CAPP, and what does it do?
CAPP provides an additional Phase II continuation for eligible firms with a commercialization plan and equal eligible third-party matching funds; it supports transition R&D but does not certify adoption.
Does a lack of reported sales show that an SBIR technology failed?
No. Missing sales may reflect a long timeline, a niche public mission, incomplete reporting, or an unfinished transition, so the record must be matched to the claim.