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 Rob Poynton (Pause. For thought) and Hilary Gallo (Power of Soft) for introducing me to the benefits of thinking about the currencies of life.
Reputation
At Isis innovation Ltd, the University of Oxford’s wholly owned technology transfer company (where I worked up to March 2016), we did not have a share price in the sense of a single number that fluctuated to reflect the value of the business. I always saw our ‘share price’ as being measured in terms of what the researchers in the university thought of us (our reputation in other words); impossible to know in such a diverse institution, but possible to sense, and survey.
Reputation is clearly very important to a university Technology Transfer Office (TTO), especially within its university, and also in the local innovation community. There is much work on corporate reputation available (including the excellent work at the Centre for Corporate Reputation at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford) and TTO’s would do well to concentrate on managing their reputation actively. Customer satisfaction surveys are unlikely to be well received in a university on the face of it, but if structured carefully and sensitively the TTO can gather much useful information on how researchers and other commentators in the university view them; and then of course adjust its activities and attitudes accordingly.
Some Shakespeare may help to highlight the value of reputation; as Iago says in the play ‘Othello’:
“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands: but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.”
Impact & Income
As well as reputation, another key issue for TTO’s is the ‘impact / income’ debate. To what extent is the TTO motivated, incentivised, instructed to operate in the currency of money, generating income and delivering financial returns to the university on the one hand, or generating other types of impact for the university on the other (social, political, cultural). Are TTOs assessed on the amount of money they make, which can of course be traded by the university to purchase things that further their broader objectives? Are TTOs assessed on the amount of impact they can generate, which can of course be traded into public awareness and reputation, and now in the UK into government cash through the Research Excellence Framework? Are they assessed really on the extent to which they enhance the reputation of the university as perceived by senior university decision makers? What do TTO’s generate in terms of different currencies, and how can these be traded to further the interests of the institution?
The ‘impact / income’ debate has two fundamental problems. First we are trying to balance potential income and potential impact, as we have no idea what will come of a technology opportunity until many years down the line. Second, income is impact, in that a technology that is generating income to the TTO and university will be having an impact, given how that income is generated through product development and sales. Royalties are the result of product sales based on use of the university technology, hence having an impact. There is a third problem as well. Such is the fervour of the ‘it’s not about the money’ lobby that generating cash can see you painted in a negative, primitive light. Every time you mention that you may make money, or indeed have indeed made money, some attention-seeker says ah yes but its not about the money is it, its about impact, and everyone who doesn’t have to worry about how any of this is paid for nods agreeably. So it becomes about money and impact, which for those who see it as trade-off between the two, money or impact, is a difficulty.
Publicity & Networks
It is increasingly important for TTO’s to understand and communicate how their activities promote the institution in a wide range of currencies. Publicity and networks are two of the strongest areas. The activities of the TTO provide great stories which media like to pick up: inventions, exciting new technologies which may make it through to life changing products, new companies which have raised money; winners of business plan competitions, new companies opening up premises on science and business parks, international technology deals, and on it goes. The TTO and the university press office should be best friends. Effective TTO’s have very good networks in local national and international business communities. At the local level, the TTO’s networks of investors, accountants, bankers, and lawyers are often the way many in the local community know the university. Nationally TTO links into industry and government can be very extensive, and on the international scale the TTO may be the best source of contacts if researchers want to connect with certain companies.
If a TTO can demonstrate and communicate to the university how it is promoting the university in ways no other part of the university can, it will be trading in a strong and valuable currency.
Metrics
As well as reputation, the income/impact debate, publicity and networks, a fourth area where consideration of currencies is helpful to TTO’s is Metrics. How are TTO’s measured? How is knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, technology transfer measured? There is no clear answer on metrics. A useful reminder is that you ‘can only measure the measureable’. Measuring disclosures, patent/applications, and deals is very important for the internal operations of the TTO. It is relatively straightforward, although there can be much variation in interpretation of what is a disclosure, patent and which deals to include; clear definitions can overcome the problem. However, more broadly it is of no interest whatsoever and in many ways does technology transfer a disservice. It may be of interest to other TTOs and to anyone looking to knock out a quick league table, but this is a distraction. These numbers have become metrics because they are easily measureable. They reflect in no way the excitement, benefits and contribution that TTO’s deliver for their university and to society.
One exception may be deals. If there is one number that shows real engagement between a university and the worlds of business and industry it is the number of deals done; both parties have considered it worthwhile to enter into an agreement to do things, take on obligations and in many cases pay money one to the other. This reflects real engagement and a real transfer of expertise, knowledge or technology. The number of deals can be amplified by some measure of financial value and some measure of duration; the point being that a deal for £5m over 5 years is probably worth more to the institution than one of £1m over 1 year.
In 2009 I published an article on ‘The Value of Technology Transfer’ which included the following: “There is as yet no established framework or research paradigm for measuring the full impact of transferring research outputs, the value and benefits come in economic, social and policy terms. Technology Transfer is a long-term activity, where the returns are only visible and measureable many years after the work of the TTO is done, if at all. In almost all cases it is impossible to predict the downstream impact of technology transfer deals, and in most cases retrospective assessment can be exceptionally complex.”
The UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 came a long way to overcoming many of these challenges, using a subjective analysis of narrative case studies assessed by panels of experts from academia with some non-academic input as well. The case studies are all available on the excellent HEFCE website www.ref.ac.uk and provide a truly fantastic set of stories on the huge impact university research has on society. TTO’s are involved in some but by no means all of the case studies selected. The submissions to the REF Impact assessment are a fabulous resource. Collecting and presenting these was extremely expensive to the universities involved.
The challenges of metrics in university technology transfer are set to run and run.
Conclusions
There are three useful conclusions I would like to draw at this stage. (1) The TTO should be very wary of being drawn into an argument about prioritising potential impact over potential income unless the university has been very clear in setting the budget for the TTO, for at least the next few years. “It's not about the money, money, money” sings Jessie J in Price Tag. Well, yes it is actually, if the university wants to have a technology transfer resource to help it do the things it wants to do. (2) The wise TTO will put a large amount of effort into helping the university understand how the TTO brings substantial value to the university in many different ways, and how the TTO activities strengthen the university brand. (3) As you wander and stride in the fields of your life, think about the currencies you are trading in and if you are earning in the currencies you care about.
Tom Hockaday, May 2016
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 Rob Poynton (Pause. For thought) and Hilary Gallo (Power of Soft) for introducing me to the benefits of thinking about the currencies of life.
Reputation
At Isis innovation Ltd, the University of Oxford’s wholly owned technology transfer company (where I worked up to March 2016), we did not have a share price in the sense of a single number that fluctuated to reflect the value of the business. I always saw our ‘share price’ as being measured in terms of what the researchers in the university thought of us (our reputation in other words); impossible to know in such a diverse institution, but possible to sense, and survey.
Reputation is clearly very important to a university Technology Transfer Office (TTO), especially within its university, and also in the local innovation community. There is much work on corporate reputation available (including the excellent work at the Centre for Corporate Reputation at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford) and TTO’s would do well to concentrate on managing their reputation actively. Customer satisfaction surveys are unlikely to be well received in a university on the face of it, but if structured carefully and sensitively the TTO can gather much useful information on how researchers and other commentators in the university view them; and then of course adjust its activities and attitudes accordingly.
Some Shakespeare may help to highlight the value of reputation; as Iago says in the play ‘Othello’:
“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands: but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.”
Impact & Income
As well as reputation, another key issue for TTO’s is the ‘impact / income’ debate. To what extent is the TTO motivated, incentivised, instructed to operate in the currency of money, generating income and delivering financial returns to the university on the one hand, or generating other types of impact for the university on the other (social, political, cultural). Are TTOs assessed on the amount of money they make, which can of course be traded by the university to purchase things that further their broader objectives? Are TTOs assessed on the amount of impact they can generate, which can of course be traded into public awareness and reputation, and now in the UK into government cash through the Research Excellence Framework? Are they assessed really on the extent to which they enhance the reputation of the university as perceived by senior university decision makers? What do TTO’s generate in terms of different currencies, and how can these be traded to further the interests of the institution?
The ‘impact / income’ debate has two fundamental problems. First we are trying to balance potential income and potential impact, as we have no idea what will come of a technology opportunity until many years down the line. Second, income is impact, in that a technology that is generating income to the TTO and university will be having an impact, given how that income is generated through product development and sales. Royalties are the result of product sales based on use of the university technology, hence having an impact. There is a third problem as well. Such is the fervour of the ‘it’s not about the money’ lobby that generating cash can see you painted in a negative, primitive light. Every time you mention that you may make money, or indeed have indeed made money, some attention-seeker says ah yes but its not about the money is it, its about impact, and everyone who doesn’t have to worry about how any of this is paid for nods agreeably. So it becomes about money and impact, which for those who see it as trade-off between the two, money or impact, is a difficulty.
Publicity & Networks
It is increasingly important for TTO’s to understand and communicate how their activities promote the institution in a wide range of currencies. Publicity and networks are two of the strongest areas. The activities of the TTO provide great stories which media like to pick up: inventions, exciting new technologies which may make it through to life changing products, new companies which have raised money; winners of business plan competitions, new companies opening up premises on science and business parks, international technology deals, and on it goes. The TTO and the university press office should be best friends. Effective TTO’s have very good networks in local national and international business communities. At the local level, the TTO’s networks of investors, accountants, bankers, and lawyers are often the way many in the local community know the university. Nationally TTO links into industry and government can be very extensive, and on the international scale the TTO may be the best source of contacts if researchers want to connect with certain companies.
If a TTO can demonstrate and communicate to the university how it is promoting the university in ways no other part of the university can, it will be trading in a strong and valuable currency.
Metrics
As well as reputation, the income/impact debate, publicity and networks, a fourth area where consideration of currencies is helpful to TTO’s is Metrics. How are TTO’s measured? How is knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, technology transfer measured? There is no clear answer on metrics. A useful reminder is that you ‘can only measure the measureable’. Measuring disclosures, patent/applications, and deals is very important for the internal operations of the TTO. It is relatively straightforward, although there can be much variation in interpretation of what is a disclosure, patent and which deals to include; clear definitions can overcome the problem. However, more broadly it is of no interest whatsoever and in many ways does technology transfer a disservice. It may be of interest to other TTOs and to anyone looking to knock out a quick league table, but this is a distraction. These numbers have become metrics because they are easily measureable. They reflect in no way the excitement, benefits and contribution that TTO’s deliver for their university and to society.
One exception may be deals. If there is one number that shows real engagement between a university and the worlds of business and industry it is the number of deals done; both parties have considered it worthwhile to enter into an agreement to do things, take on obligations and in many cases pay money one to the other. This reflects real engagement and a real transfer of expertise, knowledge or technology. The number of deals can be amplified by some measure of financial value and some measure of duration; the point being that a deal for £5m over 5 years is probably worth more to the institution than one of £1m over 1 year.
In 2009 I published an article on ‘The Value of Technology Transfer’ which included the following: “There is as yet no established framework or research paradigm for measuring the full impact of transferring research outputs, the value and benefits come in economic, social and policy terms. Technology Transfer is a long-term activity, where the returns are only visible and measureable many years after the work of the TTO is done, if at all. In almost all cases it is impossible to predict the downstream impact of technology transfer deals, and in most cases retrospective assessment can be exceptionally complex.”
The UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 came a long way to overcoming many of these challenges, using a subjective analysis of narrative case studies assessed by panels of experts from academia with some non-academic input as well. The case studies are all available on the excellent HEFCE website www.ref.ac.uk and provide a truly fantastic set of stories on the huge impact university research has on society. TTO’s are involved in some but by no means all of the case studies selected. The submissions to the REF Impact assessment are a fabulous resource. Collecting and presenting these was extremely expensive to the universities involved.
The challenges of metrics in university technology transfer are set to run and run.
Conclusions
There are three useful conclusions I would like to draw at this stage. (1) The TTO should be very wary of being drawn into an argument about prioritising potential impact over potential income unless the university has been very clear in setting the budget for the TTO, for at least the next few years. “It's not about the money, money, money” sings Jessie J in Price Tag. Well, yes it is actually, if the university wants to have a technology transfer resource to help it do the things it wants to do. (2) The wise TTO will put a large amount of effort into helping the university understand how the TTO brings substantial value to the university in many different ways, and how the TTO activities strengthen the university brand. (3) As you wander and stride in the fields of your life, think about the currencies you are trading in and if you are earning in the currencies you care about.
Tom Hockaday, May 2016