Evaluation of the Benefits Attributable to Automotive Lighweight Materials Program Research and Development Projects

Program Evaluation - Automotive Lightweighting Materials Program Research and Development Projects Assessment of Benefits - Case Studies No. 2

“…In general, these ratios are at the higher end than those reported by Link and Scott (1998) for five Advanced Technology Projects (ATP), which range from 4 to 85, and Martin et al (2000) for "Standard Reference Materials for Sulfur in Fossil Fuels," which was 113. However, these ratios appear to be lower than those reported by Chapman and Fuller (1996) for two National Institute of Standards and Technology programs, by Yuracko, Tonn and Morris (1999) for several pollution projects funded by DOE at the Oak Ridge Reservation, and the three earlier ALM projects evaluated (Das, Peretz and Tonn, 2001). Note that life-cycle impacts covering a relatively long forecast period of 25 years was considered for the three projects in this study.…”

“…A question still remains, however, about tracking future benefits associated with the projects because it may be premature to judge the benefits of just-completed or nearly completed projects that could have long-term benefits. Indeed, our participants suggested longterm evaluations, as they did in our previous analysis (Das, Peretz and Tonn, 2001). Here are three suggestions that seem appropriate in this context:…”

“…Lee et al, 2002, page vii. It is unclear which evaluation framework DOE will ultimately adopt to assess the benefits of its R&D efforts, be it the original NAS framework or the Lee et al revision or even the framework presented in this report. However, it is important at this point to review how the framework used in our evaluation compares with that proposed by NAS (Das, Peretz and Tonn, 2001). We capture realized, options, and knowledge benefits though we do not use those labels in measuring the short-run outputs and long-term outcomes of the ALM R&D projects.…”

“…Although initial benefits of this project have been demonstrated in the open cargo areas of pickup trucks, it is very likely that the benefit will extend to semi-structural components (e.g., body sides) of passenger cars as well. It is assumed here that this project would contribute only a fraction of the overall market penetration of this technology in this specific commercial application of glass-reinforced polymer composites, which is based on the assumptions made for the manufacturing of composite automotive structures market forecast made in a previous study (Das, Peretz and Tonn, 2001). It is unlikely that the maximum penetration rate could be any higher than the assumed 50% because of competition from advancements in steel and aluminum.…”

“…Moreover, methodologies for evaluating R&D benefits for DOE specifically are evolving. Since the publication of our first report on ALM (Das, Peretz and Tonn, 2001), two additional methodological frameworks have been proposed (National Academy of Sciences(NAS), 2001a; Lee et al, 2002).…”