|
A University should be as generous as it can afford to be
|
The introduction of Impact as a measure of university research excellence in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) has changed the way universities in the UK think and talk about Technology Transfer. There is now far more emphasis on the impact of university activities on the outside world, and less on the potential income to the university and others from these activities.
To many people involved in technology transfer this is not a change; we have known for decades that technology transfer is not the answer to a university’s finances; and our priorities for decades have been to transfer technology first, and to make money second.
However, this is a change in the thinking of senior university administrators. REF Impact has emboldened them to praise the non-financial aspects of Technology Transfer and allowed them to ease the pressure placed on technology transfer offices to generate a profit.
The change is recent, and incomplete. Discussions continue on the consequences, which raise important practical questions for a university to address.
The next REF exercise is due in 2021, with plans to increase the Impact weighting from 20% to 25% of the total points available, with potentially significant direct financial consequences.
This article discusses a number of questions, and concludes by encouraging a university to be as generous as it can afford to be in matters of technology transfer ....
To many people involved in technology transfer this is not a change; we have known for decades that technology transfer is not the answer to a university’s finances; and our priorities for decades have been to transfer technology first, and to make money second.
However, this is a change in the thinking of senior university administrators. REF Impact has emboldened them to praise the non-financial aspects of Technology Transfer and allowed them to ease the pressure placed on technology transfer offices to generate a profit.
The change is recent, and incomplete. Discussions continue on the consequences, which raise important practical questions for a university to address.
The next REF exercise is due in 2021, with plans to increase the Impact weighting from 20% to 25% of the total points available, with potentially significant direct financial consequences.
This article discusses a number of questions, and concludes by encouraging a university to be as generous as it can afford to be in matters of technology transfer ....
|
"Network Soup"
|
I first published this piece in February 2017; this updated version includes new entries KTI, IACHEI and UIIN. Thank you for telling me about these. Are there any others missing?
The university technology transfer community is well served by membership associations and organisations, at the national and international level.
AESIS-AILO-ARMA-ASTP-ATTP-AURIL-AUTM-EARMA-EuKTS-IKT-KCA-KTI-LES-NCUB-
PraxisUNICO-PROTON-RedOTRI-RedTransfer-SARIMA-SATT-SNITTS-STEM-SUPA-
SWITT- TechnologieAllianz-UDIL-UIIN-UNICO-UNITT-USIMP
I have enjoyed being involved with many of these over the years and found them extremely helpful.
My earliest experience of all these networks was UDIL, at a meeting in Warwick University (I think), back in 1994. At the time UDIL was merging with another UK nationwide network AILO, to form AURIL.
AURIL still exists, but has recently announced that it will merge with PraxisUNICO. PraxisUNICO was formed in 2009 when UNICO (started 1994) merged with Praxis (started 2003). I was Chairman of UNICO in 2003-04 as it celebrated its tenth anniversary. These are all UK organisations, with UNICO also extending membership and meetings into Ireland. How exciting it will be ....
The university technology transfer community is well served by membership associations and organisations, at the national and international level.
AESIS-AILO-ARMA-ASTP-ATTP-AURIL-AUTM-EARMA-EuKTS-IKT-KCA-KTI-LES-NCUB-
PraxisUNICO-PROTON-RedOTRI-RedTransfer-SARIMA-SATT-SNITTS-STEM-SUPA-
SWITT- TechnologieAllianz-UDIL-UIIN-UNICO-UNITT-USIMP
I have enjoyed being involved with many of these over the years and found them extremely helpful.
My earliest experience of all these networks was UDIL, at a meeting in Warwick University (I think), back in 1994. At the time UDIL was merging with another UK nationwide network AILO, to form AURIL.
AURIL still exists, but has recently announced that it will merge with PraxisUNICO. PraxisUNICO was formed in 2009 when UNICO (started 1994) merged with Praxis (started 2003). I was Chairman of UNICO in 2003-04 as it celebrated its tenth anniversary. These are all UK organisations, with UNICO also extending membership and meetings into Ireland. How exciting it will be ....
|
Researchers – they are not all the same
|
Isis Innovation was built on the foundation “Isis helps researchers who want help to commercialise the results of their research” (Isis Innovation was renamed Oxford University Innovation in 2016). This approach was in place well before I started working there in 2000; I came to see it as the touchstone for the organisation, and central to a successful university technology transfer programme. It was all about helping researchers do something they wanted to do; they chose, there was no compulsion for researchers to become involved; and crucially they got to decide the definition of ‘help’, not us.
We didn’t spend much time thinking about the reasons behind why the researchers got in touch with us. We had come to accept it was a combination of motivations: seeing their results put into practice, a sense of obligation, make some money, move with the times, keep up with the neighbours etc.
In November 2016 I visited a number of UK universities, all in the Russell Group, and all active in technology commercialisation. My visits included the University of Cambridge, a world famous university in the east of England, and its technology transfer company Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. It is a thinking kind of place and I heard from the CEO, Dr Tony Raven, about how they have identified three categories of researchers, grouped in terms of the researchers’ motivations to engage with ...
We didn’t spend much time thinking about the reasons behind why the researchers got in touch with us. We had come to accept it was a combination of motivations: seeing their results put into practice, a sense of obligation, make some money, move with the times, keep up with the neighbours etc.
In November 2016 I visited a number of UK universities, all in the Russell Group, and all active in technology commercialisation. My visits included the University of Cambridge, a world famous university in the east of England, and its technology transfer company Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. It is a thinking kind of place and I heard from the CEO, Dr Tony Raven, about how they have identified three categories of researchers, grouped in terms of the researchers’ motivations to engage with ...
|
3 Big Numbers
|
Cambridge is very good at broadcasting the dominance of the Cambridge Cluster. The community of people who make up the cluster have come together to collaborate on a number of initiatives.
One great example is the highly impressive Cambridge Cluster Map, showing overall and company specific data for all the companies in the cluster: www.camclustermap.com .
Another example is the use of three, large, memorable, numbers to convey the scale and success of the Cambridge Cluster ...
One great example is the highly impressive Cambridge Cluster Map, showing overall and company specific data for all the companies in the cluster: www.camclustermap.com .
Another example is the use of three, large, memorable, numbers to convey the scale and success of the Cambridge Cluster ...
|
The one about David Bowie and the Patent Attorney
|
David Bowie was a great innovator, in music, fashion, intellectual property financing, and in other areas. He once played the role of a man who relied on patents to save his family and planet.
In the film ‘The Man Who Fell to Earth’ released in 1976, David Bowie plays the role of Mr Newton, the man who fell to Earth. Mr Newton’s objective is to make enough money on Earth to travel back to his homeland and save his family and planet from drought. He never makes it back. He embarks on a plan to commercialise a number of patentable inventions, is hugely successful, but is ultimately floored by the mysterious forces of government and incumbent industry players; he is held for many years without charge nor trial and his captors encourage him to become addicted to alcohol.
At the start of the film, shortly upon arrival on Earth, Mr Newton seeks out Mr Oliver Farnsworth, a patent attorney. Mr Farnsworth is too busy to ....
In the film ‘The Man Who Fell to Earth’ released in 1976, David Bowie plays the role of Mr Newton, the man who fell to Earth. Mr Newton’s objective is to make enough money on Earth to travel back to his homeland and save his family and planet from drought. He never makes it back. He embarks on a plan to commercialise a number of patentable inventions, is hugely successful, but is ultimately floored by the mysterious forces of government and incumbent industry players; he is held for many years without charge nor trial and his captors encourage him to become addicted to alcohol.
At the start of the film, shortly upon arrival on Earth, Mr Newton seeks out Mr Oliver Farnsworth, a patent attorney. Mr Farnsworth is too busy to ....
|
Things that begin with ‘P’ – And why they matter in University Technology Transfer
|
Many years ago I identified four words beginning with P that accurately sum up the resources a university needs to have in its Technology Transfer Office (TTO). These resources allow the TTO to function adequately, successfully, at all! These 'Four Ps' then formed part of the conversations we had with other TTO’s who visited us at Isis Innovation, the University of Oxford’s TTO where I worked at the time.
The first four P’s were: People, Patent budget, Policies, and Proof-of-Concept funds. Proof-of-concept funds was the most recent arrival, although since 2000 in the UK it has been clear that these have changed from being a ‘nice-to-have’ to being a requirement. Indeed these days most universities have access to one or more, either within their institution or from partners in the innovation community.
A couple of years ago I added a fifth P: Promotion. It was becoming clear ...
The first four P’s were: People, Patent budget, Policies, and Proof-of-Concept funds. Proof-of-concept funds was the most recent arrival, although since 2000 in the UK it has been clear that these have changed from being a ‘nice-to-have’ to being a requirement. Indeed these days most universities have access to one or more, either within their institution or from partners in the innovation community.
A couple of years ago I added a fifth P: Promotion. It was becoming clear ...
|
What is the currency of University Technology Transfer?
|
I am interested in the idea of different currencies, how they are transferred and how they are exchanged and converted from one to another. Money is one of these currencies, and we all know how this is transferred, traded and exchanged. What is interesting I think are the non-monetary currencies of learning, contacts, friendship, networks, impact, reputation, publicity. This is all particularly relevant in the case of university technology transfer these days with so much uncertainty about metrics and impact; and also in life more generally. I am grateful to my comrades in the field ....
|
University Technology Transfer - Share Equity Dilution, or "When 50 = 5"
|
I hope that governments and other commentators will come to understand about dilution and anti-dilution of shares in university spin-out companies. Or, to put it another way: when does 50% = 5%?
A number of universities in the UK take the approach of having the same number of shares as the founding researchers have in a new spin-out company ...
A number of universities in the UK take the approach of having the same number of shares as the founding researchers have in a new spin-out company ...
|
University Technology Transfer - Understanding the Label
|
I hope that business, governments and other commentators will come to learn and understand the difference between university research support activity which includes helping researchers win research funding contracts and collaborations with industry on the one hand, and university technology transfer activities on the other hand which help researchers transfer technologies that belong to the university along the commercial route of technology licensing and spin-out company formation ...
|
When Football echoes Technology Transfer ...
|
|
Spin-out versus Licence.
|
Introduction
A frequently asked question by visitors at Isis is how do you decide whether to licence a technology to an existing company or set up a new spin-out company to develop the technology? There are many issues to consider in identifying the best route to market for an early stage technology, and many points of view to take into account.
This paper discusses some of the factors involved, some of the conventionally held views and then discusses how there may be more similarities than differences. .....
A frequently asked question by visitors at Isis is how do you decide whether to licence a technology to an existing company or set up a new spin-out company to develop the technology? There are many issues to consider in identifying the best route to market for an early stage technology, and many points of view to take into account.
This paper discusses some of the factors involved, some of the conventionally held views and then discusses how there may be more similarities than differences. .....
|
Phases Of Growth In University Technology Transfer
|
Introduction
This paper describes phases that university technology transfer activities have passed through up to the present day, and suggests possible future developments. One of the conclusions is that some technology transfer offices may close, but only in universities that do not appreciate the non-commercial benefits that come from pursuing the commercial route for transferring technologies from a university.
This article first appeared in LES NOUVELLES, December 2013, p275.
This paper describes phases that university technology transfer activities have passed through up to the present day, and suggests possible future developments. One of the conclusions is that some technology transfer offices may close, but only in universities that do not appreciate the non-commercial benefits that come from pursuing the commercial route for transferring technologies from a university.
This article first appeared in LES NOUVELLES, December 2013, p275.
|
What is the best structure for a University Technology Transfer Office?
|
Introduction
Universities face a choice in deciding whether their Technology Transfer Office (TTO) should be part of the University’s administration, or a separate company. There are then subsequent choices to be made in terms of possible strategic alliances with partners and selling shares in a TTO if it is a company.
There are three general points to make. Good people can make any system work and bad people can make any system fail. Nevertheless, some systems are better than others. The structure a university decides upon will be as much a reflection of what suits that university at that time, based upon the personal experiences of the decision makers involved. Whichever system is adopted the TTO must always remember its role within the University ...
Universities face a choice in deciding whether their Technology Transfer Office (TTO) should be part of the University’s administration, or a separate company. There are then subsequent choices to be made in terms of possible strategic alliances with partners and selling shares in a TTO if it is a company.
There are three general points to make. Good people can make any system work and bad people can make any system fail. Nevertheless, some systems are better than others. The structure a university decides upon will be as much a reflection of what suits that university at that time, based upon the personal experiences of the decision makers involved. Whichever system is adopted the TTO must always remember its role within the University ...
