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

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Open 2013: Innovation Commercialization and Licensing

257
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
257
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. But after presentations like “Can You Milk a Rhino?”“Spreading the Fire,” and “Purple Dragon”….let’s try:
  • 3. But after presentations like “Can You Milk a Rhino?”“Spreading the Fire,” and “Purple Dragon”….let’s try: Innovation Commercialization: Unicorns in flames!
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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
  • 6. 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)
  • 7. Research Drivers• Wealth of university inventions and intellectual property• Lack of a Technology Licensing Office (TLO) or Technology Transfer Office (TTO)
  • 8. Research Drivers• Meanwhile, we’ve got classes of students studying innovation and entrepreneurship • Seeking actual examples and case studies
  • 9. 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
  • 10. 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
  • 11. Results and discussion• Each class resulted in multiple commercialization plans • Classes were not identical in size • Groups of two students per invention
  • 12. Results and discussion• Each class resulted in multiple commercialization plans • Classes were not identical in size • Groups of two students per invention
  • 13. Results and discussionConsider both • Academic (student and pedagogical) outcomes • Institutional (commercialization) outcomesof student teamwork dedicatedperforming tasks normally performed byTTOs/TLOs
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. 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
  • 17. 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
  • 18. Questions?

×