Transcript Folie 1 - FITT for Innovation

Evaluation of Transfer Projects
FITT
(Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
The context
46% of resources are allocated to the conception, development
and launch of products which will never reach the market or fail
after the release.
Robert G. Cooper, 2000, Ivey Business Journal
How to reduce the risk of spending time, money and
efforts of the technology transfer officers on nonvaluable projects?
2 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Need
 Need for a first assessment of the disclosed
inventions on:
 the interest of the research organisation to
allocate resources to the transfer.
 Necessity to be quick and simple.
Usually followed by a more in-depth analysis later.
 Always performed internally whereas further investigation for
protection/exploitation of the invention can be outsourced (patent attorney,
marketing studies...)
3 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Credit: Microsoft Office
 technical & commercial potential
Objectives
 In the context of public R&D, this first-level assessment has the following
objectives:
 To provide a first view on the possibility of transferring the research results,
making the best use of all kind of transfer
 With a “return on research” i.e. financial returns that will reinforce the
research capacity
 Responsibility to ensure the dissemination of the research results in order to
optimize their socio-economic impact (including employment creation) aside
from a strictly financial, return-on-investment perspective
 Given the transversal nature of ICT, commitment to a broad perspective and
to consider all possible fields of application in order to ensure the widest
possible dissemination.
4 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Elements of the process
Methodology
Stakeholders
Outcome of the assessment
5 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Practices available in the toolbox
DETECTION of technology transfer opportunities
AWARENESS
CREATION
MONITORING OF
ACTIVITIES
 ‘Quick assessment
tool for business
ideas’
EVALUATION
 ‘Evaluation criteria’
 ‘Technology
transfer follow-up
committee’
6 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Quick assessment tool for business ideas:
‘NABC’
 Easy method to quickly analyse and develop value propositions for projects
N
A
B
C
Customer/Market Needs
Compelling Approach
Customer Benefits/cost
Worldwide Competition
 Useful for researchers :
 Guides them to write down a compelling, pitchy Value Proposition showing their distinctive
advantage
 Makes them aware that the greatest technology is not enough, but needs to be combined
with great positioning and a great team
 Useful for technology transfer officers
 Good fit in organisations with large deal flow of ‘wild’ business ideas, emanating from people
with few entrepreneurial skills
 Easy framework for dissemination/awareness creation
7 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Evaluation criteria
 Review of evaluation criteria used in research organisations for technology
transfer
Early-stage eval
Research
Development
Preincubation entry
eval
Incubation entry eval
Proof-of-concept
Market
 Focus on Digiteo’s set of criteria for maturation projects & their condition of use
8 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Technology transfer follow-up committee (1)
 Focus on INRIA’s committee in charge of:
 Startup creation projects
 Industrial partnerships with transfer of assets (license or assignment)
 Industrial partnerships with transfer of competences (expertise)
 Participation to standardisation actions within a transfer action
 An open source diffusion of an important code base
3 internal persons (including representative from TTO)
3 senior private experts
 When: one meeting every two months
9 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Credit: Microsoft Office
 Composition:
Technology transfer follow-up committee (2)
 Committee is advisory for the INRIA Transfer department. It gives
recommendations on:
 go/no go (TT initialisation and follow-up)
 transfer strategy adoption
 asking for an opportunity/feasibility study
 means allocation for maturation if needed
 Process:
 Template description of the project built by the researcher, TT officer and Sectorial
TT Associate
 Submission sent a few days before the meeting (no late submission)
 A collaborative tool allows the follow-up by all the staff concerned
10 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Pros & Cons
PROs
CONs
 Early analysis allowing the adoption of
transfer strategy.
 Increased formalisation of the process,
leading to the diminution of oral tradition.
 More visibility for the projects that go
 Difficult to choose the experts, who must
be legitimate to “kill” the projects.
 Risk of excessive formalisation of the
process. Some flexibility should remain, to
support great, “out of scope” projects.
through the first-level assessment. Even if
the result of the assessment is negative,
the TT officers/ experts of the jury are
aware of it, leading to possible
developments in the future.
11 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects
Suggested Readings
 Link to code book
Invention
inventor
Invention disclosure
Opportunity assessment
Proof of concept
Technology development maturation
Technology transfer
Valuation
Value proposition
 Link to relevant websites
 http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch09/
12 | 26.03.2010
Evaluation of technology transfer projects