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.
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
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