3. Patents are a narrow band of a university’s
total innovation capacity
Talent Inventions Knowledge Ideas
Tacit and Codified
Patents
a.k.a. “research commercialization”
Technology Transfer Offices
4. Patent-centric “Gatekeeper” Tech Transfer Model
License
Invention “Commercialization”
Research Evaluate Patent
Disclosures
Spin-off
Innovation-centric “Enabler” Model
Innovation Pathways Social and Economic
• Collaborative R&D Development Outcomes
• Publish/Disseminate • technology/knowledge transfer
Enabler to local SMEs
Education Talent • Open Source
Knowledge • start-ups
Research • Internships (internal/external)
Ideas • new university-industry
Community • Patent/licensing partnerships
Inventions
Enabler
• Networks (global) • students with enhanced skills
• Entrepreneurship (talent)
• Faculty consulting • Expansion of networks
• Competitions • More entrepreneurs
• Proof-of-Principle • More donors
5. • Deshpande Center at MIT ($20M)
• von Liebig Center at UCSD ($10M)
• USC Stevens ($22M)
Innovation
Student Community
Development
Internships Engagement
Fund “PoP”
The Foundry is a “community” motivated to make innovation happen
6. A Progressive and Open Model
Add value to the community by contributing to economic
development and social vitality
Culture of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship
Aligned and integrated with academic programs and
strategic research priorities
Ties to community networks essential
Outstanding and unique student experience (internships)
7. Diversifying Funding Sources
Internal Budgets
• Internships (aligned with strategic priorities of the university)
• Matching from faculties and other administrative units
External Sources and Programs
• Donors and Sponsors (competitions, projects)
• Non-technology transfer programs (Federal and provincial)
8. quot;You never change things by fighting the
existing reality.
To change something, build a new
model that makes the existing model
obsolete.quot;
Buckminster Fuller
Editor's Notes
As quoted in Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/1997/34/b354187.htmA story how tech transfer screwed up ... Big time
University of Illinois at U-C (Left) .... Minimal royalties on licensed browser (but they have a plaque!)Vs.Stanford University (right) ... Significant donations from Netscape co-foundersMarc Andreesen/spouse - $27M Stanford U Medical CentreJim Clark, former faculty, and founder SGI and Netscape - $150M to Bio-X, Clark Centre at Stanford (shown on right)
Adopt a broader mandate that the traditional tech transfer focus on invention-patent-licensing;Key is to align and integrate activities with other groups on and off campus with complementary interests
Reference to Kauffman Foundation work in this area (concerns in US on TT effectiveness)/focus on revenue maximization vsAdopting multiple Innovation pathways and non-traditional TT metricsMore integrated role of TT in core mission activities of the university
Flagship innovation program “Foundry” – US models successful in raising major donations
Volunteer Ottawa – OS VCS + OCRI Talent Bridge; OttawaTechCommunity WikiCompetitions (TVC, SIC and EIC)TIM + TFN; 4th Yr Engineering Projects Volunteer reviewers (Foundry); EIRs; local event networking (CodeFactory) Internal and external opportunities; local start-ups
Diversify from base budget allocations and non-existent commercialization-related revenueInternal: >$100K for internships; matching for specific projects and activitiesExternal: donor development + projects and program support; particularly if led by faculty