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