Marina Dabic Managing University Resources - Presentation Transcript
Managing University Resources: Increasing and Diversifying Financial Resources and Developing Public Private Partnerships
Marina Dabic
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Economics and Business
[email_address]
Overview of the presentation
University Funding Case of Croatia
Initial Findings: A Study in Diversity
Implementing change in the face of diversity: No common starting points in countries that we took in consideration
Facing the cost of change: Differing levels of support
Requirements for change
Working groups aims
THE EMERGING HIGER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT STUDENTS * ENLIGHENED & DEMANDING * NEW DIMENSION OF KNOWLEDGE SATISFACTION SUPPLIERS TEHNOLOGY * RAPID ADVANCEMENT *SHORTENED LIFECYCLES MARKET * GLOBALISATION * TURBULENCE EXISTING COMPETITORS NEW COMPETITORS UNIVERSITIES UNDER GROWING PRESSURE * TIME - TO - MARKET PRESSURE * PRICING PRESSURE * GLOBAL QUALITY STANDARDS * VARIETY & CUSTOMISATION
Our objectives is to find answers to listed questions
What’s right
What’s wrong
What is important
Are we going forward or backward
What’s needed to be done
A new approach
What ‘we’ need to see
A perfect match to declared objectives
Opportunity for positive association
The level of the posibiliy of goal achievement
A demonstrable awareness of what we are all about
It is what we asked for
• A clear problem
• A fresh approach
• Something no-one has done before
• Something that will make a difference
• Something that will transfer
Contribute to the funding debate from an institutional
Perspective
Provide examples of good practice in financial resources and full public private partnership
Identify the relationship between funding/costing and
autonomy, governance and accountability . Further develop initial findings through integration of external presentations and experience from participating experts
D rivers of Change
Shifts emphasis –fr om funding to resource and activities
Global monitoring of university resources
Innovative creation of solution concepts to exploit technology
Funding of technology creation only in very special cases or that should be applicable to all
Integrated Research Programmes for Scale of Impact Increase probability of impact by alignment behind common goals: • Stakeholders, Funding, People, skills/capabilities, disciplines • Weight of effort and skills spectrum to match problem • Clarity of direction for all stakeholders towards exploitation • Spin-off disruptive technologies within relevance envelope • Greater potential for the scale of impact
University Funding: Approaching a crossroads University Competence set Model of Financing Matching performance management systems
GROUP WORK TASK
Duration 30 minutes
Analyse the chosen universities from your respective countries by applying four elements of SWOT analysis.
Please write down the results on a piece of paper. Choose a group representative to present results of their SWOT analysis to the audience.
Finally, let us compare the results of each group and identify common charachteristics of the results.
Assessment Review Process An Interactive Discussion during Workshop
Start At The Highest Level
Defining Success (SWOT)
What is it?
How it is measured?
What Have you Done To-Date (IP, Research Tool & funding,key budget issues )
Competitiveness of faculty and staff salaries, etc.
What Is Needed to Pursue (Work Plans)
Innovation Management
IP Warehouse/Tools, etc.
Student Faculty ratio
Research Networks
What Do We Need To Continue Growing & Expanding?
SWOT Analysis
Strength
What areas have produced success to-date?
SWOT Analysis
Weaknesses
What are we missing today that will be critical to have in place and operating effectively in order to achieve the goals we set (Financial & Otherwise)?
SWOT Analysis
Opportunities
What situations exist that will enable us to maintain and improve our success and find new levels of performance and results?
SWOT Analysis
Threats
What issues are out there that can or will challenge our ability to meet your development targets?
Task 2 Internal / External Assessment
Where Do You Stand Compared to Other Universities:
In Your Country
In Europe
Worldwide
Give the mark from 1(lowest)-5 (highest)
Put the marks on the pieece of the paer without naming university.
Discussion
What we like
What could be improved
What is valued
What worked well in the financing
Credibility
The Future
The H E Roadmap Three Questions #1 What are today’s most pressing scientific challenges? #2 What are the road blocks to progress and finacial growth ? #3 What efforts bridge H E as a whole?
Three Major T opics # # 1 Enrollment growth and graduate enrollment “ Networks and pathways” #2 Research teams of the future “ Interdisciplinary” “ Public private partnerships” #3 Re-engineering the university's financial sources “ University's Research networks“ “ Community research”
Wh ich universities have produced success to-date?
What Are Your Universities Primary Needs Regarding The Universites Resources ?
In Addition To Financial Targets, What Other Metrics Might You Consider?
Non profit or profit making institutions 1 5 3 2 4 The Legislative framework 1 5 3 2 4 -Science and Research 1 5 3 2 4 1 5 3 2 4 On Track Warning Off Track On target Excellent Innovation Public Perception 1 5 3 2 4 Trend 01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4 Financing from the National Budget and own revenue 1 5 3 2 4
How does the co-operation work?
Matching business needs with applied research potential of the University
Applying for additional resources to finance joint projects
Coordinating the protection and marketing of University's intellectual property
Informing on innovation and entrepreneurship
Do you have r egulations of the University on the protection of intellectual property rights and the handling of intellectual property ?
Current Environment
Lack of consistent administrative rules and clear national legislation regarding ownership rights to IP created at academic institutions throughout the CEE hurt both the inventors and the institutions .
Lack of clear ownership of IP leads to delays in licensing processes (at a minimum) and at worst makes IP impossible to license at all.
The academic institutions in the CEE must work at the national level, if necessary, to ensure that the ownership rights in the academic field are clearly defined.
Institutions may lose financial opportunities because they may not provide sufficient administrative support and incentive for researchers to entrust the administration with their IP.
University Innovation Fund Exploitation of University IP (20% to UF, 50-80% to inventor) I N C O M E S C O S T S University Central Budget (=???) Fees of IP Protection Running expenses of Patents Other costs
Learning from best
“ Taking inspiration from the United States, nearly all other OECD countries have reformed research funding regulations or employment laws to allow research institutions to file, own and license the IP generated with public research funds.” Prominent among these are Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Japan and Korea .
See: OECD report “Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations 2003”
Benefits of partnership in the US
450 new companies were formed in 2002 based on University research. Since 1980 - 4,320 companies have been formed
2,076 new products have been created by university researchers
Universities and their scientists received $ 1.3 billion in 2002 from technology transfer activities (3.6% of total funding)
260,000 new high paying jobs created (1999 Survey)
40 Billion added to US economy (1999 Survey)
Observations:
Patent Activity Accelerates
9-Year Trend Of Steady
Growth
An increase of 244%
in ten years
Source: AUTM, 2000 Survey
Observations:
9-Years Of Consistent
Growth
An increase of 66%
in ten years
Source: AUTM, 2000 Survey
Patent Office Statistics
Each week, the Patent Office issues approximately 3,500 new patents.
1998: 240,090 applications filed
2002: 335,418 applications filed
An increment of 40% in 4 years
Biotechnology-related patent applications increased 154% from 1996 to 2002, from 18,695 applications to 47,473.
Exploitation of University IP National and EU Funds Industrial finance Collaborators Material Transfer Agreements Secrecy Declarations „ Only” publication University Ownership of the IP Common Ownership of the IP Used IP Who owns the IP? Service patent? Employee’s patent? Inventor’s patent? Who has the right of exploitation? Who has the right to buy a license? 1. Inventor 2. Inventor … n. Inventor Industrial partner owns the IP Royalty to the University? No more question. To be decided Outputs Stakeholders University
Levels of Technology Transfer Service type functions Managing industrial partners Building up an IP portfolio (patents etc.) IP marketing (lisence stb.) Spin-off companies Business type functions „ Pre-seed” financing Complexity
IP-legal advise and support
Material Transfer Agreements
Secrecy Declarations
Consultancy
Changing the attitude towards patenting Incubator, science park Level 1 University patent office (~” l ocal IP manager”) Level 2 Full function TTO – incubator („business-development”)
Patent Warehousing Is This A Strategy to Be Pursued?
What is it?
Independent Non-profits managing patents and have the authority to grant licenses
Warehouse provides holders with a minimum income based on % generated by the warehouse
Primary Purpose of Patent Warehousing
Promote scientific progress & technology development by providing incentives for inventors and entrepreneurs
How Established Is This Strategy?
Inventions 151* 669
Licenses 49* 130
Total US Patent Applications 238* 902
Issued US Patents 31* 89
Start-up Companies 4* 14
License Income Millions Received) $2.0 $9.4
Associated R&D (Millions Committed) $2.7 * $9.6
(~60% of R&D commitments already received)
Technology Transfer Summary John Hopkins University Performance Metric 2004 5-Yr Total * Denotes all time high
Evaluates an organizations ability to carry out a defined task(s) or produce a particular set of results
Areas for readiness include:
Adequate staffing (Staff coverage / training)
Policies & procedures
Facilities & equipment
General experience
Discuss
financial success is linked to academic success and that the process of generating non-government funding is likely in the longer term to increase the differentiation between universities and particularly between the 'successful' and the less 'successful' institutions.
demonstrable excellence in Learning & Teaching
Evidence of:
Student impact
Impact on colleagues
Impact on community
‘ Ambassador’ for University
Task 4. Learning from Best Practice resourcing from excellence
Activity
Circulate and discuss
Decide amongst yo u which university should be awarded and why.
You have 10 minutes for discussion and to give Financial Time Award!
Define criteria to evaluate practice
Purpose
Context & Content
Process
Feedback
What areas of Strategic/Business Development Do You Think Should Be Pursued?
Summary -Key messages
• The path to benefit is unclear
Raise public awarnase the academic base -step changes towards Solution Concepts
0 comments
Post a comment