No Slide Title
Download
Report
Transcript No Slide Title
Feasibility Study:
Establishment of an
Intellectual
Property &Technology
Transfer Service
Overview
Originated from discussions with Universities
Ireland/C.H.I.U.
Commissioned by InterTradeIreland
Project Steering Group (6 months duration)
Consultations with universities; stakeholders’
practitioners
Recommendations & Action Plan on
collaboration
Definitions
Licensing
Joint ventures
Company creation
IP Protection & management
Consultancy
Definitions
Contract management
Marketing/Market research
Science park management
New company formation/support
Licensing
Business Development
Intellectual Property Management
Strategic Alliances/Joint Ventures
All Change/No Change?
Situation is in flux across the island
Change is rapid and confusing
Knowledge Transfer = a moving target
Complex Environment
Universities
Strategy
Implementation
Influence & power of stakeholders
Excess of stakeholders
Are these aligned?
Complex Environment
Practitioners
Understanding of role in University strategy
Individual Skills and knowledge levels
University Expectations
Stakeholder Expectations
Are all of these aligned?
Reported Costs
No clarity of source or allocation
R&D and I = approx 40 million euros
__________________________________________
Scotland:
England:
KT:
16.6M euros
research:
288M euros
KT :
83M euros
research :
1668M euros
Both against performance and strategic plan
Reported Outcomes
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
No of new license deals established
12
13
18
License Income (€/£)
420K
605K
840K
No of spin out Companies formed using
institutional IP
15
23
4
No of patents applied for
88
110
126
No of patents granted
12
24
16
No of patents used in commercialisation
deal (licensing/spin-out)
9
13
16
No of new collaborative research contracts
with industry
171
208
79
No of new consultancy/knowledge transfer
activities
307
344
14
Trends
Research investment is showing results
More patents filed = more disclosures
License income is rising
Patent Applications V Patents Applied =
Average rate of return
BUT
Why data is not held and used ?
The Questions
Where is there alignment?
Where is there congruence and where is there
dissonance?
Because
Dissonance = inefficiency in the process
Congruence = potential for growth
Your Answers
Alignment is essential
across agencies
in south
and in north
within the university
Your Answers
Collaboration is possible:
Technical areas
Technology assessment/evaluation
Marketing technology
Seed funding for campus companies
Patent costs – but EI provide these, don’t they?
•
People
•
•
Sharing expertise
Meeting & working in concert on issues
Your Answers
Project Steering Group:
technology bundling,
joint marketing
shared access to services
shared appointments
“the presentation of a joint front “
Collaboration Exists
Atlantic University Alliance
AURIL- Ireland
Campus Company Development Programme
Panel
Enterprise Ireland programmes
Others less formal – driver is often academic
collaboration
But it does exist!
Stakeholders’ Survey
Antonia White
Stakeholders
Those who exert either power or influence
over the KT process
Policy and operation level
Selected by Project Steering Group
Supplemented by Heads of Offices/TTOs
Who is being Consulted
IBEC/CBI
Chief Science Advisor
IDA
Science Foundation Ireland
Forfás
Enterprise Ireland
Health Research Board
Higher Education Authority
Invest NI
DETE
DEL
Initial Comments
Many different players with different
objectives
See benefits in all Island collaboration where
there is real benefit
Resourcing not seen as an issue
Process in flux but maturing
Goals and metrics being developed
Realisation that KT is a long term process
Stakeholders – issues in KT
Universities need to give KT high priority
Need motivation and building up of track record
Rewards and incentives should reflect this
Staff skills (KT and academic) are key
Universities need to be able to market their offerings effectively
to industry and must be aware of industry requirements
(push/pull)
Need clear goals and targets
Processes need to be clear
Short termism should not be seen as an issue
Ability of smaller institutions to have all necessary expertise in
house
Practitioners’ Survey
Initial Analysis of
Results
Antonia White
Methodology
Electronic survey
All practitioners
Identification of:
Age profile
Experience
Qualifications
Generic and specific role requirements
Generic and specific training requirements
Responses received = 25
Types of Post
21%
47%
Permanent
Fixed Term
Seconded
32%
Age Profile of KT Staff
0%
4%
16%
0%
36%
<25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
56+
44%
Length of Involvement in KT/TT
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0-3 months
4-11 months
1-3 years
4-9 years
10 years +
•most staff are relatively inexperienced
• low level of practical industry experience – is this important?
•Role of mentors for new staff?
Formal Education
First degree – 96%
Masters degree – 64%
PhD – 44%
Mainly science disciplines
Some business related qualifications
Specific KT Training
Mainly seminars/short courses
Appears ad-hoc rather than formalised
Training Requirements reviewed?
Availability of courses?
Generic skills/training
Very important skills and further training very
important
Oral & written communication skills
Negotiation skills
Listening skills
Business development and selling
Networking
Project Management
Business Planning
Secondary priorities
Risk assessment and management
Importance = 3/5
Further training required = 4/5
Problem-solving and decision making
Importance = 4/5
Further raining required = 5/5
Conflict Resolution
Importance = 5/5
Further training required = 4/5
Specific Skills/Training
Very important function/training
Business Networking
Commercialisation techniques
Finding and engaging business
IP Protection and Management
KT Management
Licensing
Technology/Knowledge exploitation
Valuation of technologies/businesses/IP
Other areas – surprises?
Deals & decision making
Importance = 4/5
Further training required = 4/5
Spin out creation
Importance = 3/5
Further training required spilt 2/5 or 4/5
Post creation support to spin outs
Importance = 4/5
Further training required = 4/5
Brokerage
Importance = 4/5
Further training required = 3/5
KT Law
Importance = 3/5
Further training required = 3/5
Critical Success Factors
Top level support: strategy, priorities, direction,
coordination, culture
Process: clear, simple, flexible, consistent across
Institution, budget issues
Staff: resources, clear roles, training (academic &
KT), communication & networking
Engaging with industry: marketing, promotion,
identification/matching industry needs,
networking, selling
Research: strong base, Centres of Excellence,
trained/informed academics, shared & contract
research
What’s possible
Potential Collaboration
Marketing
Training
Sharing good practice
Sharing resource?
Joint bids for support
Shared new and existing resource
Developing shared resources
“Money is not a problem”
Practical Action
AURIL-Ireland
Collaboration on Training
Practitioners
Academics
Postgraduate students
Political Action
• Agree Clear Objectives for action
• Develop case studies in support
• Agree Clear Messages
• Seize the agenda
•
Deliver what you promise
Models of collaboration
elsewhere
Mike Cox
Gillian McFadzean
Achievable Models
• Marketing to Industry
• Training – everyone
• Shared resource
• Meeting
Marketing
• University-Technology.com
• SME Gateway
• Medicon Valley
Training
• Midlands Medici
• Scottish Institute for Enterprise
• Royal Society Enterprise Fellows
• ProTon
Shared resources
• TLB
•SET squared
• REDValor
Meeting
• AURIL
• Scottish Directors
• Yorkshire & Humberside