Microsoft PowerPoint - Copenmind Sept 08 final.ppt

How well we are doing at Tech Transfer…
and how do we know?
Copenmind
September 08
Dr Kevin Cullen
Director
Research & Enterprise
The University of Glasgow

Metrics and Indicators
• Everyone wants to measure us – including us.
• There are a wide range of views on what
should be measured and what can be
measured.
• Today I will talk about
- what we currently measure
- what we should be measuring
- what we can measure

What we currently Measure
• KT/Licensing Survey
– AUTM started it a long time ago
– As commercialisation has developed, other
people around the world developed similar
things (disclosures, patents, licences, start-
ups).
– We developed the ASTP survey

ASTP Survey for Fiscal Year 2007
Draft August 2008
by
Anthony Arundel, Catalina Bordoy and Minna Kanerva

We do not yet have the historical analysis or
comparisons versus AUTM data – but they are
coming.
Survey looked at
•
R&D agreements.
•
Invention disclosures.
•
Patent applications and grants
•
Technically unique patent grants.
•
License or option agreements.
•
Start-ups established.
…some points worth noting:

Licensing revenues
Distribution of license revenue (million PPP$) for universities
70.0
66.7
60.0
52.7
Non-member Universities
50.0
ASTP member Universities
Total universities
s
43.2
t
i
e
si 40.0
i
ver
n
f
u
t
o
30.0
27.3
cen
Per
23.0
20.0
16.7
15.9
14.9
13.3
13.6
9.5
10.0
3.3
0.0
Zero
1 to 0.25
0.25 to 2
Over 2
license income
• Most universities make less than $2m per annum
• 2/3 make less than $0.25m
• If you make anything at all, you’re doing ok

Share of Portfolio Licenced
Licensed share of patent portfolio
14
13
13
Universities (ASTP)
12
11
Other public research
10
institutions (ASTP)
10
s
Universities (non-ASTP)
8
Other public research
r
of TTO
6
6
6
institutions (non-ASTP)
e
6
b
5
m
4
4
u
4
N
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
Percentage patent portfolio
•
The vast majority licence less than half of their patents.
•
That so many manage to licence between a quarter and
half of all patents is quite an achievement.

Who we licence to
Table 3.4 Licenses and option agreements granted to start-ups and to firms with less than
1
or more than 250 employees (2007)
Distribution of licenses
Total
Start
Other firms
Firms with
licences
ups
< 250
> 250
employees
employees
Universities
Other TTOs
243
20%
38%
42%
100%
ASTP members
483
24%
38%
38%
100%
Total
726
22%
38%
39%
100%
•Almost a quarter of licences are to start-ups
•Less than a half are to big companies
•Almost 40% to SMEs - we are doing what policy-makers want to see.

Efficency Measures?
Table 4.2 Unit outcome costs in million PPP$ of research expenditure, 2007
Universities
ASTP members
Other TTOs
Total
Invention disclosures
3.3
2.1
3
Patent applications
9.1
4.6
7.6
Patent grants
23.4
15.3
21
USPTO patent grants
54
107.1
61
License agreements
10.8
9
10.4
2
License income
76.0 m PPP$
122.2 m PPP$
82.9 m PPP$
Start-ups established
34.9
32.2
34.4
Research agreements
0.5
0.2
0.8
• Are these efficiency measures???
• This is where mischief can occur – a causal link is assumed.
• Double my research income and all my numbers get worse

ASTP Survey
• So we see lots of activity on patenting and
licensing and that is all good.
•
the survey tells us what is happening in
terms of commercialising IP.
Is that enough?

• NO!
• Almost everyone would agree that
licensing activity data, whilst useful, does
not tell the whole story.
• It does not capture many of the benefits
that derive from University Knowledge
Transfer.
….but why is that?

….but why is that?
•
Because it is “not all about the money”!
•
So what is it about then?
•
Unless we know what it is all about and what we
are actually trying to do, we’re not really going to
be able to say whether or not we’re doing it
well…..are we?
•
This is the big metrics conundrum. Everyone
wants to measure how successful we are, but no
one is really sure what success is.
•
I work for a University, so, if I want to measure how
well I’m performing, I need to know what I’m trying
to achieve….right?

So, what is the university trying to
achieve
Well, the University exists to:
• Create knowledge
• Disseminate knowledge

Knowledge Dissemination
•
Publication - dissemination to academic peers
•
Teaching – dissemination to students
•
Knowledge Transfer – dissemination to industry/society/economy
so…Knowledge transfer can be viewed simply as the 3rd Dissemination
channel, alongside publication and teaching. It fits comfortably
within the university mission.

•
KT Fits in the University mission, but what does success look
like?
•
If we are disseminating knowledge successfully, what results
from it?
•
From our point of view success results in EITHER
-
A public good being delivered OR
-
The University makes money from it
-
Both of these are successes, but they are very different in their
nature (and the way we manage them).
Examples

Public Good
Academic reasons
Revenue/Profit
Student
yes
-
no
Placements
Licences
no
-
yes
Contract Research
no
-
yes
Spin-outs
no
-
yes
SME Networks
yes
-
no
Student enterprise
yes
-
no

• In our model we decide, on a project by
project basis, whether the PRIMARY
objective is to make money or to deliver a
public good.
• It is very important to decide, because
failing to decide will cause problems later
on…and I’ll come back to that.
In our model….

In our Model:
Disseminate
Create
Disseminate
For
For
Knowledge
Public
Profit
Good
Research

Outreach
Research
Outcome
SME support/
Collab/
Licensing
Student
Contract
Spin-outs
support
Research

A coherent spectrum of objectives, activities and beneficiaries
Outreach
Research
Outcome
Objectives
Public Good
Create Knowledge
Profit
Investors,
Partners
EDA’s, Government
Research Funders
entrepreneurs
Financial returns
None
Cover costs
Can be significant
Students, Small Co’s,
Beneficiaries
Knowledge Base
University
Society, Economy
The financial profile changes across the spectrum….

Financial Profile Across the Spectrum
Return to University
£/$
Outreach
Research
Outcome

• At the left we are behaving like agents of
economic development.
• At the right we are behaving like
venturers/entrepreneurs.
• Both are legitimate, but they look and feel
different – and have different types of
success.
….examples to think about.

Examples to think about
Example 1
Opto-electronic device manufacture
•
£8m VC investment for £14m valuation
•
University retains 25% equity
•
3% Royalty stream
•
Company setting up in Far East
•
Acquiring two Scottish consultancies to build
Far East 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?

Note that:
- economic development done well will result in people
making money
-
people making money will result in economic
development
BUT
-
economic developers are not measured on how much
money they make and
-
businesses are not measured on how much economic
development they do.
We must not fall into the trap of saying we can make
money and do economic development at the same
time….there will always be a choice to make.

• So, as we move across this spectrum, we
need measures for these different types of
activities.
• At the money-making end, commercial
measures make sense.
• At the other end it becomes more tricky.
• In all cases though we would like to
measure…

• Volume of Activity
• Quality
• Impact

Outreach
Outcome
Research &
Outreach Activities
Technology Dev.,
Contract Research
Licensing
Venturing
No. of:
No. of:
No. of:
No. of:
• SMEs worked with
• Research Awards
• Disclosures
• Business Plans
Activity
• Student placements
• Consultancy
• Patent Applications
• Joint Ventures
• Companies created
• CPD
• Patents Granted
• Companies
• Networking events
• Proof of Concept
• Options Granted
leveraging in external
investments
Income in support of
Income:
Income from
Value of equity
Quality
activities and
• Research (HESA)
licensing, cash or
realisation
• Consultancy
equity value upon
feedback
• Etc.
realisation
Longitudinal and
No. of jobs created in
Export income, no. of
No of jobs created,
Impact
difficult to track
HEIs
jobs created in HEIs
turnover and
realisation of equity

Metrics
•
Volume is pretty easy - counting stuff
•
Quality is tricky - measuring quality always is
•
Impact – the most important, but long term and difficult to track.
The best metrics systems I have seen tend to end up based on
income/revenues (not profit), because income gives some sort
of proxy for volume x quality.
….but what about impact?!

Impact
•
Most people would agree that impact measures
would be the best.
•
Why has no-one come up with reasonable impact
measures for Univ KT?
•
Surely it can’t be that difficult?

• Again, let’s go back to basics and look at the
system/ecosystem that we operate within.
• From that we may see what the measures
should be.

The Innovation Ecosystem
• The University is a key actor in the
innovation ecosystem.
BUT
• The University is only part of the system.

The University is only part of the system
University
Research
Innovation
System

The University is only part of the system
University
University
Teaching
Research
Innovation
System

The University is only part of the system
University
University
Teaching
Research
University TT
Innovation
System

The University is only part of the system
University
University
Teaching
Research
University TT
Service
Providers
Innovation
System

The University is only part of the system
University
University
Teaching
Research
University TT
Service
Providers
Innovation
System
Capital
Providers

The University is only part of the system
University
University
Teaching
Research
University TT
Service
Providers
Innovation
System
Capital
Providers
RDAs
Local
‘Culture’

The University is only part of the system
University
University
Teaching
Research
University TT
Service
Providers
Innovation
Government
System
Policy
Capital
Providers
Company
Innovation
RDAs
Entrepreneurial
Local
Activity
‘Culture’

The University is only part of a system
University
University
Teaching
Research
University TT
Research
Funding
Service
Providers
Innovation
Government
System
Policy
Capital
Providers
Company
Innovation
RDAs
Entrepreneurial
Local
Activity
‘Culture’

The role of the University
•The University is a part of the ecosystem, but ONLY a part.
•We need partners and other stakeholders to take responsibility for the other parts
•We will take responsibility for what the University can contribute.
….we need to be clear on what University research contributes

The Contribution of University research
New
Knowledge
Research
Researchers

Publications
Processes
New
Knowledge
Materials
Technology
Research
Know-how
Innovation
Researchers
Skills

Teaching
Networking/
Publications
Events
Processes
Consultancy
New
Knowledge
Materials
CPD
Technology
Collaborative
Research
Research
Know-how
Contract
Research
Innovation
Researchers
Licensing
Skills
Company
Creation

Teaching
Networking/
Publications
Events
Processes
Consultancy
New
Knowledge
Materials
CPD
Knowledge
Technology
Collaborative
Research
Research
£
Know-how
$
Contract
Research
Innovation
Researchers
Licensing
Skills
Company
Creation

Teaching
Networking/
Publications
Events
Start-up
Processes
Consultancy
New
Spin-out
Knowledge
Materials
CPD
Knowledge
Society
Technology
Govt
Collaborative
Research
Research
£
Policy-
makers
Know-how
$
Contract
Research
Small Co’s
Innovation
Researchers
Licensing
Big Co’s
Skills
Company
Creation

ALL SORTS OF
OTHER FACTORS
Teaching
Networking/
Publications
Events
Start-up
Processes
Consultancy
New
Spin-out
Knowledge
Materials
CPD
Knowledge
Society
Technology
Govt
Collaborative
Research
Research
£
Policy-
makers
Know-how
$
Contract
Research
Small Co’s
Innovation
Researchers
Licensing
Big Co’s
Skills
Company
Creation
ALL SORTS OF
OTHER FACTORS

ALL SORTS OF
OTHER FACTORS
Teaching
Networking/
Publications
Events
Start-up
Processes
Consultancy
New
Spin-out
• Jobs
Knowledge
• New Products
Materials
CPD
Knowledge
Society
• New services
• Turnover
Technology
Govt
Collaborative
• Profit
Research
Research
£
Policy-
makers
• R&D expenditure
Know-how
$
• % turnover from
Contract
Research
Small Co’s
new products/
services
Innovation
Researchers
Licensing
Big Co’s
Skills
Company
Creation
ALL SORTS OF
OTHER FACTORS

• Shows link between research and
economic impact, but it is neither direct
nor unidirectional.
• System is chaotic
• Timescales can be decades
• Easy to look back through the system
(case studies), but impossible to predict
from the input end

Economic Impact
•
Economic impact can be viewed (at the policy
level) as the ultimate objective.
•
It is clear that if we successfully transfer
knowledge, it will help those others to create
economic impact BUT
•
We do not create direct economic impact
- we help other people to do so.
- They are hugely influenced by other, external
factors and actors
•
So when it comes to economic impact we cannot
take all the credit, but we can’t take all the blame.

• We can be held responsible for the KT
activities.
• We must develop the measures for those
KT activities (quantitative and qualitative)

Therefore…..
•
We should concentrate on outputs (rather than
impacts).
•
We can demonstrate the volume and quality of what we
do and that should be our focus.
•
Since we are only a contributor to the final impact, we
can’t use that as a reasonable measure of us.
•
It’s more than measuring licensing income, but it’s less
than measuring economic impact.

So I hope we have:
•
A good understanding of why we do KT and what
we hope to achieve
•
Developed a model that explains the different
types of KT and why they need different measures
(profit is not a good measure of public good)
•
Explained what our role is within the wider system
•
Made a good start on defining the right measures
for our role.

Thank you for listening
[email address]