AUTM & METRICS
Dr Kevin Cullen
Brussels, Tuesday 9 September 2008
AUTM Licensing survey
- was launched in 1993 (collecting data from
1990 onwards)
- has for many years been the gold standard
- current survey (’07 data) being crunched now
AUTM Licensing survey
- Typically around 200 respondents
- covers >98% of US Govt Research Funding
- covers
- Research expenditure
- disclosures
- patents
- licences
- start-ups
Licensing survey
- Has been useful too!
- demonstrating activity levels
- benchmarking
- basis for almost ll academic study of
TT
- Latest development is STATT
- $45 billion R&D expenditures were received
by US academic centers
- 697 new products introduced into the market
in 2006 – 4,350 introduced from FY1998
though FY2006
- 553 new start-up companies launched in 2006
- 12,672 licenses and options were managed, yielding
active income (each single license represents a one
on-one relationship between a company and a
university, hospital or research institution that earns
income on products that benefit our communities)
- 5,724 new spin-outs from FY1980 through FY2006
Executive Summit in 2003
- agreed licensing survey necessary, but not
sufficient
- concerns over use of survey data
- agreed need to provide context
- BWR was born
Better World Report
-
annual publication
-
25 case studies
-
100 vignettes
-
Very wide distribution of report
-
appreciated locally
-
Lacks quantitative aspect
New Metrics
- Board level working group (Jones, Bostrom,
Borman, Cullen) set up in July 2006
- Collaboration with Unico (UK) and ACCT
(Canada)
- Objective to explore how much better to
measure TT activity
New Metrics
•
Focussed on the metrics needed by;
a) Administrators or academic personnel to
whom our members report
b) Governmental agencies and councils
supporting research
c) Regional and national political groupings or
representatives controlling funding to our
institutions
New Metrics
In each instance the information we wish to
know, with regards to knowledge transfer
activity of their organisation, includes:
a) What information do these groups need, why do they perceive this
need and on what schedule (annual, decade, etc) do they require
it?
b) What would they do with the information?
c) What information do they use now, and how do they get it?
d) What is the most critical piece of information they could have, that
they lack now?
e) What formats help them most – stories, hard numbers,
comparisons, benchmarks, etc.?
f) What other information/training/other needs do they perceive
AUTM could help in providing?
g) How does technology transfer information relate to other measures
associated with the institutions our professionals serve?
New Metrics - Activities
- Surveyed members on their needs
- Focus Group meetings with Government
agencies, and funders and senior research
officers
- Senior research officers
New Metrics - Outcomes
Modifying The Licensing Survey
-
Technology types included
-
Disclosure portfolio examined
-
More information on start-ups gathered
Still looking at
-
Royalty Sales issue
-
Co-ordination with BWR
………….. Improvement of the instrument
Creating New Surveys
Objectives, Structure & Scope Survey
- To identify ‘shape’ of TT at the institutional
level
- Done in partnership with Maryann Feldman
(UNC)
- In field now
Objectives, Structure & Scope Survey
- Assess reporting lines
- Assess TT policies
- Assess authority levels
- Assess staffing levels
- Assess centralised vs decentralised
resource
- Assess emphasis of licensing spin-out/Ec
Dev
Objectives, Structure & Scope Survey
Will give AUTM data on the ‘shape’ of Tech
transfer at the Institutional level
- Show where responsibility lies
- Show policy trends
- Show resource deployment patterns
-
data due before Christmas
Creating New Surveys
The Transactions Survey
- To understand scope and volume of TT
activities
- To understand relative priorities
- To understand how TTO time is used
The Transactions Survey
Agreements (Range of 8)
- Rank by priority
- Collect info on volume
- Collect info on time
- Collect info on responsibility
- Collect info on staff expertise
The Transactions Survey
• Functions
- Collect info on activities ‘around’ TT
-
marketing
-
student enterprise
-
Grants for TT/KT
-
teaching
-
Economic Development
-etc
Functions
- Collect info on
-
priority
-
volume
-
staff time spent
-
staff expertise
-
responsibility
The Transactions Survey
Funding
- Collect info on funding received as
-
Institutional budgets
-
TT support grants
-
Investment capital
-
Patent re-imbursements
etc
The Transactions Survey
Will give AUTM data on the ‘shape’ of Tech
Transfer activity at the office level
- Show where time is spent
- Highlight operational priorities
- Show funding profile
- Identify the ‘problem areas’
Other Survey Work
- Salary Survey (in the field)
- MTA Survey
- International comparisons (Ashley)
- Scholar interactions (competition)
- Start-ups (with National Council of
Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer (NCET2.org)
- Establish Focus Groups
Other Survey Work
And working with others
- Part of AAU Metrics Group
- Invited to participate in NSF metrics
development
- Work closely with ASTP, ACCT, UNICO and
others developing common standards and
instruments
In summary
•
Annual Licensing Activity Survey still vital
-
will continue to evolve it
•
Focus now on also gaining data on the ‘shape’ of it
-
responsibilities
-
roles
-
objectives
-
volumes
•
This will help fill the gap between
-
revenue data in ALAR
-
case studies in BWR
In summary
- AUTM keen to work with partners in doing
this
- We hope there is scope to work with this
group
Thank you
[email address]
