Universities,
Technology Transfer &
Economic Development
Paris
10 July 2007
Dr Kevin Cullen
Director
Research & Enterprise
University of Glasgow
Technology/Knowledge Transfer
There is an increasing expectation on Universities to contribute
to the national economy through Technology/Knowledge
Transfer.
This is a worldwide phenomenon.
It has been described as the 3rd Mission
We need to be clear on what we want the Universities to do if
we are to get the best from them.
Technology/Knowledge Transfer
Why the emphasis on TT/KT by politicians/funders/policy-makers?
- Technology Transfer to companies viewed as important source
of competitive advantage
- Intellectual component of products/services increasingly
important element of product value
- Technology and Knowledge are seen as the basis for
economic growth
Development of the Knowledge Economy
A Knowledge Economy requires…
Knowledge creation
Knowledge development and innovation
Highly-skilled workforce
… The Universities are key
So what is the role of the University?
We need to be clear on whether and how this development affects University’s
and their core mission.
If the Universities are a source of economic growth, does it change what they do
or how they should do it?
With the increasing financial value of knowledge, Universities can be asked to
exploit the knowledge in order to realise the financial value.
Is this right?
Is this proper?
Is this dangerous?
To answer these questions we must look at the University Mission
University Mission
Create Knowledge
AND
Disseminate Knowledge, by
- Publication to Science base
- Teaching to Students
- Knowledge Transfer
to Society, Community, Business & the Economy
Knowledge Transfer
Disseminating University Knowledge to Society & the Economic Base
- sometimes for profit
- sometimes for Public Good
NOT at the same time on the same project -
It depends on THE OBJECTIVES of the project or activity.
Objectives for Knowledge Transfer
Public Good
Revenue/Profit
Student
yes
no
placements
Economic
yes
no
Development
SME networks
yes
no
Contract
no
yes
research
Licences
no
yes
Spin-outs
no
yes
Define by Objectives of the Activity…..NOT
by the activity itself
The objectives for the University lie across a spectrum:
At the Centre – the University creates knowledge. Once created,
the University can choose:
outreach. The University engages in the activity in order to deliver
public good. The University is not a direct financial beneficiary, OR
outcome. The University engages in the activity in with a view to
making an economic return. The University is a financial beneficiary
of success.
Outcome
Research
Outreach
¥
$£
In my view, it’s a coherent spectrum:
We create knowledge in the middle of the spectrum
We then decide whether to swing to the left or swing
to the right (
any similarity to any political ideology is purely
coincidental)
Dissemination Knowledge
Dissemination
Public good
Creation
Profit/return
The role of the University changes across
this spectrum
Outreach-oriented
Outcome-oriented
Objectives
Socio-Economic
Economic - making money
University as agent of
Nature
University as ‘venturer’
Economic Development
IP protection, legal,
Costs
People, events, travel
business-planning
Funding
EcDev Agencies
Risk capital
Financial returns
None - seek to cover costs
Can be significant
Interactions with
Slow, iterative, open
Fast, targeted, confidential
industry
SME Support
Spin-out companies,
Examples
Student Enterprise
major licences
Research &
Outreach Activities
Technology Dev.
Licensing
Venturing
Contract Research
Public good,
Knowledge creation,
Financial returns
Financial
economic
IP creation
returns
development, profile.
IP protection,
Reasons for
Research, tech dev, IP
marketing & legal costs
IP protection,
doing & costs
People, events,
costs
marketing &
Travel
legal costs
Equity gains,
Funding for research &
Licence income, up
dividends,
Financial
None – covers costs
tech dev, overhead
front payments
royalties
Returns
at most
recovery (cost-plus)
- can be significant
- should be
signif.
Financial Risks
Negligible
Low/Modest
Modest/Signif.
Significant
Spin-out
Student placements,
Charity or company
Licences with
companies,
Examples
SME networks etc.
funded research
companies
Start-up
companies
The cost profile changes across this spectrum too
Return to University of Glasgow
£
Knowledge
Public good
Creation
Profit/return
Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms
Economic Development
networking
student placements/enterprise
research with industry
consultancy
licensing
spin-outs
… but focussing on IP management
IP Policy and Management
All IP belongs to the University
Academics are encouraged to protect and ‘exploit’ their IP
University covers the costs of IP protection (£100k budget, £300k spend)
All income from IP is shared with the researcher
- Licensing: 1/3rd Researcher(s)/2/3rds Dept
- Spin-out: 50% Researcher(s)/50% University
- Consultancy: 100% - 80% to Researcher
We do special deals designed for Local SMEs
We help students but don’t take stock or licence
The objective is always to get the Knowledge/IP out there…..
We subscribe to ‘the 9 Points’
The AUTM Board of Trustees has endorsed the Nine Points to
Consider in Licensing University Technology and invites all
institutions to do the same.
These Nine Points were carefully crafted by leadership at 12 institutions
from across the U.S. They illustrate suggested practices to be utilized
across university technology transfer activities.
The 9 Points to Consider
1. Universities should reserve the right to practice licensed inventions, and to
allow other nonprofit and governmental organizations to do so.
2. Exclusive licenses should be structured in a manner that encourages
technology development and use.
3. Strive to minimize the licensing of “future improvements.“
4. Universities should anticipate and help to manage technology transfer
related conflicts of interest.
5. Ensure broad access to research tools.
6. Enforcement action should be carefully considered.
7. Be mindful of export regulations.
8. Be mindful of the implications of working with patent aggregators.
9. Consider including provisions that address unmet needs, such as those of
neglected patient populations or geographic areas, giving particular
attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and agricultural
technologies for the developing world.
So, we are always considering….
The ‘value’ of the knowledge (market need evaluation)
The best way to get the knowledge out there to be used
(University Mission)
The best channel for the knowledge (public good/profit)
The best ways of incentivising academics to engage (revenue
sharing)
The 9 Points, to ensure we avoid conflict/criticism
..a hugely complex set of consideration, most important first step is...
… be clear on the role the University is playing
• Agent of Economic Development
• Knowledge creator
• Venturer
- The University Must Manage a Portfolio Across this Spectrum.
- Expect us to behave differently dependent on the role we are playing
• In supporting the regional economy, we act like an
Economic Development Agency- we help others to
make money.
• In making money out of our IP, we act like an
entrepreneur – we try to make money.
Our problem arises when we try to do both at the
same time!
Think about it …
Do Economic development Agencies try to make money?
– no, they try to improve the regional economy.
Do entrepreneurs try to improve the regional economy?
– no, they try to make money.
We try to do both – which is fine – but when we try to do both
at the same time, we’re stuffed!
….so what does success look like?
Example 1
Opto-electronic device manufacture
£8m VC investment for £14m valuation
University retains 25% equity
3% Royalty stream
Company setting up in Singapore
Acquiring two Scottish consultancies to build Singapore
research base
Is this success?
Example 2
Interactive web-design consultancy
Two RAs working from incubator
Applying for SMART Award (£45k)
Help with marketing/networks/workspace
University has no equity or licence position
Winner of young design entrepreneur award
Invited to speak at schools enterprise workshop
Is this success?
Example 3
University develops new technology which accelerates tree
growth (and therefore carbon capture) whilst enhancing timber
strength.
–
Interest from environmental lobby – reverse deforestation
–
Interest from timber industry – product source
Who should we speak to and what about?
In Conclusion
To get the best from Universities:
-
Understand what they are trying to do and why they are doing it
-
Ensure the policy environment supports and enables the
spectrum of activities
- You DO NOT WANT Universities that do Knowledge Transfer with
a purely financial motive – you lose the Public Good Driver
- YOU DO NOT WANT Universities that have no interest in the
financial value of Knowledge Transfer – you lose the Economic
Driver
- YOU DO WANT a balance of the two
I hope this has been useful
Dr Kevin Cullen
Director of Research & Enterprise
University of Glasgow, Scotland
UNICO
VP- Membership, AUTM
[email address]
