Four Michigan public universities, collaborating with private sector for-profit companies and state government agencies supporting technology commercialization and innovation, have successfully implemented methods for building and sustaining entrepreneurship, technology development and commercialization at emerging research institutions: distributing the cost, promoting best practices and affecting the cultural changes within institutions necessary for sustaining these activities. This program, led by Michigan Technological University has produced a model, termed U-TEAMED (Multi-University Technological and Expertise Assets Management for Enterprise Development). The emergent model offers guidance for identifying and capturing the important features of sustainable, faculty-led early-stage technology innovation and entrepreneurship education programs at emerging research institutions. Lessons include methods for securing revenue, sustaining faculty enthusiasm, anticipating IP and commercialization barriers derived from faculty-student collaborations, and creating an academic environment supportive of embedding technology innovation and entrepreneurship in academic curricula.

1. 1

2. Randy Hansen
Co-director, U-TEAMED Technology Asset Knowledge Management
Infrastructure
Innovation Emporium, Inc.
Jim Baker
Director, Technology and Economic Development
U-TEAMED Project Director
Michigan Technological University
2

3.  Discuss :
◦ Connections between conventional technology
transfer with entrepreneurship initiatives toward
fulfilling economic engagement.
◦ Challenges faced by emerging research universities
in taking full advantage of these connections.
◦ Present experience from a pilot collaborative
program in the state of Michigan that may be
helpful in overcoming these challenges.
3

4.  Integrated with educational and research
missions
◦ Educational opportunity in applied entrepreneurship
◦ Tremendous opportunity for mutual benefit between
educational, research, and licensing practitioner
domains
 More than just patent licensing
◦ Knowledge Transfer
◦ Consulting
◦ Sponsored and Unsponsored Research
4

5.  Transfer important research results to the public.
 Service to faculty and inventors in dealing with industry
arrangements and technology transfer issues;
 Facilitate and encourage industrial research support;
 Source of unrestricted funds for additional research;
 Source of expertise in licensing and industrial contract
negotiations;
 A method by which the institution can comply with the
requirements of laws such as the Bayh-Dole Act
 A marketing tool to attract students, faculty, and external
research funding.
Adapted from Carlsson, B. and A. Fridh, “Technology transfer in United
States universities – a survey and statistical analysis”, Journal of
Evolutionary Economics (2002) 12: pp. 199-232.
5

6.  Research niches struggle to obtain critical
mass
 High classroom teaching loads
 Modest financial and support staff resources
 Successes tend to be isolated and discrete
and don’t attract significant attention
6

7.  Pool resources
 Leverage mutual and respective success for
collective ‘buzz’
 Aggregate resources to increase net mass
◦ www.michiganlink.org
 Share technical expertise and business best
practices
7

8. Technology Transfer and Sponsored Research
Development Partnership
Original Partners:
Michigan Technological University (lead)
Eastern Michigan University
Central Michigan University
Oakland University
Additional Partners Recently Added
Lake Superior State University
Ferris State University

9. • Initial discussions in 1997
• First proposal seeking underwriting funding
submitted in early 2002 – not funded
– Michigan Tech, Eastern, Central, Western, Oakland
• Pilot collaboration program sponsored under
State grant in early 2003
– Michigan Tech, Oakland, Western
• Full implementation of U-TEAMED sponsored
under follow-on grant in Fall 2004
– Michigan Tech, Central, Eastern, Oakland
• Partnership expanded under foundation funding
in Fall of 2008
- Ferris State and Lake Superior State

10. 10

11.  Objective: Establish a technology transfer function
at each of the partner institutions.
◦ Outcome: Of the three partners without formal technology
transfer functions prior to the pilot:
 all have reviewed policies and procedures related to
technology transfer functions
 all have established and published procedures for
submission of invention disclosures
 all have reviewed procedures for specifying the IP
provisions of research grants and contracts
 one has established a program with dedicated staff
 one has implemented a program but is evaluating cost
effective staffing options
 one has partnered with a campus technology incubator
and has incorporated technology transfer objectives into
its sponsored research office.
11

12.  Objective: Increase research collaborations
between individual researchers at each of the
partner schools and with private industry.
◦ Outcomes:
 Participants from all four partners have collaborated on
the submission of proposals for innovation acceleration
to NSF and other prospective sponsors
 Faculty from all four partners have participated in an
multi-university research conference, sponsored by the
partners
 Faculty from all four partners have initiated plans for
inter-university research collaborations
 Research asset information for the partners has been
accessed on more than 25,000 visits to MichiganLink
 To date, the collaboration has attracted the participation
of at two additional public universities
12

13.  Objective: Increase sponsored research at
each partner university
Goal Actual
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
13

14.  Advance innovation and technology
entrepreneurship interests on each of the
campuses.
◦ Outcomes: Of the three partners without formal technology
transfer functions prior to the pilot:
 all have achieved greater institutional visibility for
innovation and technology transfer
 all have conducted training and instructional sessions to
enhance faculty interest in advancing innovation and
technology entrepreneurship
 all are actively participating in innovation and
technology-transfer processes at the state level
◦ All four partners have established innovation initiatives
focused on advancing university-based technology start
-ups and university-industry technology development.
14

15.  Technology Transfer presence helped draw
out innovators.
 Leveraging experience lowered barriers to
moving forward with third parties and
accelerated transaction execution.
◦ Contextual experience/empathy is important
in addressing the challenges emerging
institutions face in moving things forward
 High course loads
 Limited budgets
 Minimal staff

16.  On-site personnel are necessary to maintain
momentum through regular contact.
 Asset promotion databases are useful but require
resources to populate and maintain.
 Faculty workloads limit time available for
commercialization activities.
 Consistent executive leadership and communication
of technology transfer as a priority is essential to
broad participation.
◦ Researchers respond to institutional priorities.
◦ Well thought out structures with executive buy-in are
essential.
◦ Trust is necessary to work together and develop
reasonable and productive structures.

17.  Technology Transfer is part of the institution’s
research and knowledge transfer portfolio not
a stand-alone revenue generator
 Broad spectrum metrics are important in
addition to conventional things like royalties.
 Process transparency, incentive equity, and
thoughtful metrics are critical.
 Be mindful of the institutional cultural state
◦ Risk aversion
◦ Revenue expectations
◦ Reward structures
17

18.  Michigan Technology Tri-Corridor
 Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund
 Michigan Universities Commercialization
Initiative
 Michigan Initiative for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
18
18