Open 2013:  Innovation Commercialization and Licensing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Open 2013: Innovation Commercialization and Licensing

on

  • 428 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
428
Views on SlideShare
426
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://bumc-devhpp.ad.bu.edu 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Open 2013:  Innovation Commercialization and Licensing Open 2013: Innovation Commercialization and Licensing Presentation Transcript

  • Innovation Commercializationand Licensing in Entrepreneurial Business Education March 23, 2013 NCIIA 17th Annual Conference Darian Unger Associate Professor Howard University School of Business dwunger@howard.edu 202- 806-1656
  • But after presentations like “Can You Milk a Rhino?”“Spreading the Fire,” and “Purple Dragon”….let’s try:
  • But after presentations like “Can You Milk a Rhino?”“Spreading the Fire,” and “Purple Dragon”….let’s try: Innovation Commercialization: Unicorns in flames!
  • Innovation Commercializationand Licensing in Entrepreneurial Business Education March 23, 2013 NCIIA 17th Annual Conference Darian Unger Associate Professor Howard University School of Business dwunger@howard.edu 202- 806-1656
  • Research Topic• Purpose • To test the utility of incorporating university innovation commercialization projects into graduate coursework• Methodology • Application of innovation lessons to university-owned intellectual property • Tracking commercialization results • Feedback from inventors, professors, and innovation-oriented MBA students
  • Research Topic• Literature Review • Tech transfer efforts enhanced by key variables (Friedman and Silberman, 2003) • Location, compensation, tech transfer experience • Cultural barriers between universities and firms (Siegel, et. al., 2003) • Industrial responsiveness to university innovations (Breznitz, 2011)
  • Research Drivers• Wealth of university inventions and intellectual property• Lack of a Technology Licensing Office (TLO) or Technology Transfer Office (TTO)
  • Research Drivers• Meanwhile, we’ve got classes of students studying innovation and entrepreneurship • Seeking actual examples and case studies
  • Key Course Skills:Commercializing Innovation• Creating value through innovation• Technology and market S-curves• Delivering value through new product design and development• Appropriating value through • Patents • Standards and dominant design • Time to market • Licensing
  • Application• Work applied with graduate students from a mid-size (5,000-10,000 students) university• Students were in-person students rather than EMBA students• Students self-selected from a menu of university-owned intellectual property • Patents already applied for or granted
  • Results and discussion• Each class resulted in multiple commercialization plans • Classes were not identical in size • Groups of two students per invention
  • Results and discussion• Each class resulted in multiple commercialization plans • Classes were not identical in size • Groups of two students per invention
  • Results and discussionConsider both • Academic (student and pedagogical) outcomes • Institutional (commercialization) outcomesof student teamwork dedicatedperforming tasks normally performed byTTOs/TLOs
  • Results and discussion• Student and pedagogical results included assessments of • Business planning • Market surveys • Prototyping • Patent value assessments• Practical project grade variance was significantly greater than conceptual exam variance, and served to better distinguish
  • Results and discussion• Innovation commercialization results • Student work had created value • Reduced administrative workload • Improved expected time to market in 40% of cases, as evaluated by technology transfer contract staff • Some groups recommended patent exploitation while others advocate time to market as more important
  • Guarded Observations• Future research will measure the efficacy of the revised teaching methods • Requires additional years and greater sample sizes • Still useful as a baseline• Common metrics also occur on time scales much longer than the courses themselves • Number of patents • Level of licensing revenue
  • Final thoughts• Demonstrates that introduction of these projects can spur a dual benefit: • Educating students with practical examples • Aiding the commercialization of commercialization of university-associated IP• Prospect of symbiosis between innovation-oriented educational programs and university technology transfer and licensing efforts
  • Questions?