TTF Convocation HI 4 Presentation

836 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
836
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
70
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

TTF Convocation HI 4 Presentation

  1. 1. HI 4 – Background <ul><li>International tech transfer throughput is extremely low </li></ul><ul><li>Some technology transfers are not flowing because of natural barriers and lack of feasibility </li></ul><ul><li>We are trying to address the missed opportunities i.e., technology transfers that offer a return for both Part I and II entities </li></ul><ul><li>No Enabling Platform for International Tech Transfer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Addressing the problem is based on solutions that have found to be “functional” </li></ul>NO OVERARCHING ENABLING MECHANISM FOR GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
  2. 2. HI 4 – Key Challenges <ul><li>There are key hurdles to cross-border transfers today including: </li></ul><ul><li>Shortage of Resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Companies and Universities do not have the resources to scour the world for possible licensing deals. Also complicated by the number of potential technologies that they are dealing with and their inability to provide IP solutions as a single point. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Gap in Developmental / Upstream Capabilities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Part II countries can typically only handle “ready-to-go / last mile” technologies and often the technology available needs some “translation” to make it work within their regions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Also capability gaps in technology transfer, contracts, IP, protection, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public sector engagement in Product development and delivery in Part II countries. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of Trust and Communication: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficult to establish trust between Part I and II stakeholders with regards to IP protection </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No Platform to Enable Tech Transfer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No trusted third party platform, either educational, developmental, or commercial to address the hurdles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Tech transfers are uncommon and often by accident… corporations and universities in Part I don’t understand how to do business with Part I, let alone Part II organizations” </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. HI 4 – Some Observed Key Enablers to Success COMPETENT IN-COUNTRY PARTNER <ul><ul><li>Local partner who understands tech transfer, the needs and interests of universities and corporations, has specific industry/domain expertise, and can identify legitimate local enterprises </li></ul></ul>TRUST BASED CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS <ul><ul><li>Leveraging a trusted partner to serve as a “Hub” for the region </li></ul></ul>PUBLIC BENEFIT AND COMMERCIALIZATION <ul><ul><li>Especially true for Part I universities to serve a need to achieve wide dissemination and greater good as well as royalty revenue e.g., royalty-free for the public sector </li></ul></ul>COST EFFICIENCY <ul><li>Lower cost commercialization option in Part II drives Part I organizations to the region, promotes cross-border exchange of technologies and know-how, and enhances potential commercialization potential </li></ul><ul><li>Not all Part II countries are the same. Some are at Mezzanine level. </li></ul>
  4. 4. HI 4 –An International Commercialization Platform <ul><li>Universities </li></ul><ul><li>Public Research Institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Corporations </li></ul>LARGE ENT. SME UNIVERSITIES GOVT. LABS SME Funds VC Local Banks <ul><ul><li>Pooling of IP & know how </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Listing fees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subscriptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revenue share of royalty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fee for services e.g., consulting, training, capacity building, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PART II </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PART I </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inflow / Outflow of IP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revenue </li></ul></ul>Regional brokers (E.g., India, Turkey) Direct to client Investors & funders <ul><li>IFC (30%) </li></ul><ul><li>Multilaterals/ bilaterals </li></ul><ul><li>Foundations </li></ul><ul><li>Corporations </li></ul>Board of Directors <ul><li>Start up capital </li></ul>COMMERCIALIZATION PLATFORM US Parent with Regional Satellites CLEARING HOUSE CONSULTING & LEGAL SERVICES CONVENING TRAINING CAPACITY BUILDING
  5. 5. HI 4 – Proposed organizational model Organizational structure – initial lean team supported by outsourced functions Regional Hub U.S. based parent Regional Hub Regional Hub <ul><ul><li>Start up model: 8 FTEs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CEO, veteran with deep IP and licensing experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Senior technology developer to develop/manage database </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 IP and business development professionals (~1 in the US, 1 in UK, 1 in EU, 1 in Hong Kong) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administration: 1 accountant, 1 general admin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outsourced functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal regulatory / IP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HR, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Start up model: 1 FTEs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 Regional BD lead (sales side) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultants to support specific transactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Start up model: 1 FTEs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 Regional BD lead (sales side) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultants to support specific transactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Start up model: 1 FTEs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 Regional BD lead (sales side) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultants to support specific transactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Option: create a side-by-side non profit entity facility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Receive funds for capacity building/TA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operate development oriented programs (E.g., training for countries with lower capacity) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Why should IFC be involved in this? <ul><li>IFC brand brings the required credibility to created the trusted third party </li></ul><ul><li>Leverages expertise that has been acquired through existing programs and operations </li></ul><ul><li>Potential to serve as a deal origination platform for IFC investment </li></ul><ul><li>Potential linkages to SME strategy </li></ul>
  7. 7. HI 4 – Back up: Details on the concept elements <ul><li>Concept elements: “Develop an Institutional Commercialization Platform to Serve as a “Clearing House” for Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Serve as a “Capacity Enabler” and “Market Maker” </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on Early/Embryonic Stage as well as Proven Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Customers include Universities, Corporations and Development-focused Investors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enabler for I-II and II-II transfers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Role: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Validation of technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Getting people and ideas together / face to face “match making” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Actively match needs and solutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enabling bundling and pooling of technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Providing the platform for the transformational customization required between Part I and II </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology searching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serve as a low cost technology validation medium for Part I countries which can then enable Part II countries to also be exposed to the technology </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. HI 4 – Back up details on the model IINSTITUTIONAL COMMERCIALIZATION PLATFORM Organizational Model Revenue Model Resources & Skills required <ul><ul><li>Separate legal entity, for profit parent in Part I, satellite offices/subsidiaries that are also for profit, possible side entities that can handle non-profit activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear business line / technology area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regional “Hubs” serving neighboring countries, some central coordination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage InfoDev infrastructure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funded up to 30% by IFC and other co-investors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Investors decisions can be driven by structuring around their areas of interest </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Manager(s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private Industry Members (for different platforms) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National research Agency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Licensing, IP and Tech Transfer, Technology Management, Translational Management, Domain Experts, Business Development, Contracts and Legal, Negotiations, Local Knowledge and Networks, Government Management, Marketing and Pricing, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self sustaining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not an investment fund </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fee for service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Listing fee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Licensing fee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Milestone payments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consulting services such as technology searches, market reports </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attract development oriented investors and possibly VCs </li></ul></ul>Eco-System of Partners <ul><ul><ul><li>Potential funders: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IFC (up to 30%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Donors/Foundations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Potential providers of in-kind support or linkages </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Universities (TTOs) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National Innovation Funding / Research Organizations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>InfoDev </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Private sector Corporations’ Research Labs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Industrial and Trade Associations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>International Research Organization </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. HI 4 – Qualitative and Quantitative Metrics <ul><li>Move Mezzanine level Part II countries to Part I framework </li></ul><ul><li>Move Part II countries to Mezzanine level ability </li></ul><ul><li>Accelerate global technology transfer through a two-way process </li></ul><ul><li>Accomplish public good and private sector delivery success </li></ul>
  10. 10. HI 4 – Key Assumptions to be Validated <ul><li>Value proposition to Part 1 universities / public research institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Is there an adequate supply of IP? </li></ul><ul><li>Will universities and public research institutions trust the platform and share their critical technologies? </li></ul><ul><li>Value proposition to Part 2 companies </li></ul><ul><li>Is there a large enough market opportunity in Part II countries? </li></ul><ul><li>Would companies/SMEs use this platform? </li></ul><ul><li>Financial sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Would royalty shares from IP that flow from innovations create sufficient revenue share? </li></ul><ul><li>Would there be willingness to pay for services (Part 1 Universities, Part 2 companies/licensees)? </li></ul><ul><li>If the model does not break even, are there donors who would be willing to subsidize costs? </li></ul><ul><li>Would donors be willing to fund the start up costs? </li></ul><ul><li>Does striving for financial sustainability have implications for the degree of social impact / address critical global issues that are inline with IFC’s mission? </li></ul>

×