This document discusses evaluation criteria for assessing technology transfer projects at early stages. It presents criteria in areas like the innovation's originality, scientific relevance, market opportunities, intellectual property, and the project team. Evaluation may involve multiple stages from initial assessment to incubation. The approach aims to provide transparency and fairness in evaluating projects' commercialization potential and allocating resources.
Assessing the commercialization potential of research-grounded technology projects is necessitated by the high failure rate and resulting in high cost of technologies either prior to reaching the market or once in the market. As a result, technology transfer offices (TTO) resort to preliminary assessments to get a first idea of the technologies’ commercial potential and select the most promising ones in case of limited resources. A set of criteria to perform such evaluations is provided here, which can be used by the TTO either in a continuous manner or through punctual calls for proposal.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
This presentation gives a thorough overview of the certified quality auditor (CQA) exam offered by the American Society for Quality (ASQ). The overview covers content of the exam, hints for passing the exam, tips for exam preparation, and a resource for exam preparation.
This is a slide set with some information about programmer testing. It includes test doubles, mockit and junit.
Visit http://jpereira.eu/2011/12/03/programming-testing/ for more information. If you want to download these slides, please contact me (find my contacts on my blog)
QUALIFICATION & VALIDATION.Validation is an essential part of GMP, and an element of QA.Critical steps in the process need to be validated.Need for confidence that the product will consistently meet predetermined specifications and attributes.
Material & Information Flow Mapping
Free Webinar
June 22, 2009
In this webinar we taught about material and information flow mapping as it was taught to Michael E. Parker while working with lean experts in Japan, using the original lean technique! Learn how to grasp the current condition of your workplace and how to incorporate lean metrics to improve your processes.
When the deal flow from the laboratories to the technology transfer office (TTO) is optimal, technology transfer officers are susceptible to receive many inventions with commercial interest. A lot of early-stage inventions require substantial human and financial resources to be developed into marketable products. In order to establish whether or not the resources of the TTO should be spent to seek a commercial exploitation, a first-stage evaluation is often performed shortly after an invention has been identified. The complex decision process that technology transfer officers go through in this regard is introduced below.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
Isabel Evans - Working Ourselves out of a Job: A Passion For Improvement - Eu...TEST Huddle
EuroSTAR Software Testing Conference 2010 presentation on Working Ourselves out of a Job: A Passion For Improvement by Isabel Evans.
See more at: http://conference.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/past-presentations/
Prof. Thomas Baaken:Science-to-Business Marketing - A new Model in Knowledge ...FITT
This presentation was held by Prof. Thomas Baaken during the FITT conference „ICT Innovations: Research > Business > Society“ on 10 May 2011 in Brussels.
www.fitt-for-innovation.eu
Mario Cameron: Turning Science into Business: From Research to Market – the E...FITT
This presentation was held by Dr. Mario T. Cameron during the FITT conference „ICT Innovations: Research > Business > Society“ on 10 May 2011 in Brussels.
www.fitt-for-innovation.eu
Clustering and networking activities are relationship-based activities that support sharing and developing of competences, knowledge and methods. The documents within the toolbox have a clear focus on activities in the area of technology transfer. Networking and clustering activities are critical leverages for all transfer activities presented in this toolbox, namely: opportunities identification, IP management, Human resources and focused value proposition.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
The presented Network Scorecard suite is a method aimed at supporting the strategic and operational management processes of networks. It relies on three principles: It is a participatory approach, where the networks key actors jointly define a shared vision of their networks performance. Moreover, its integrated approach covers the management cycle of the network including the definition of a strategy, a plan of action and a scorecard. And finally, it structures a network performance on four dimensions: the benefits to the members, implication of the members, external context and organization. The practice presents all necessary steps to involve the key actors of the network and structure the process.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
Cluster Managers have expressed their interest in innovative tools that bundle knowledge and is continuously updated. To meet their demands, MFG has implemented an interactive Cluster Manual based on the Wiki principle. The Cluster Manual gives cluster newbies a ‘basic’ guideline and offers cluster managers an in-depth source for every aspect of cluster issues. Additionally, it documents success stories and best practice examples to build up a repository of internal generated knowledge (‘learn from the best’), gives an overview of the most important literature in the area of Cluster Management and combines all this with the knowledge of experts.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
The Balanced Scorecard methodology is used, to give mangers a tool for translating a strategy or a vision into actions and to reach the set targets. The MFG Balanced Scorecard gives cluster managers a tool for managing their cluster initiatives by defining concrete objectives based on their vision and strategy. The Balanced Scorecard methodology helps to clarify and translate vision and strategy, to communicate and link strategic objectives with actions, to plan, set and align strategic initiatives and to enhance strategic feedback and learning.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
Professional tools for cluster or network management are more important than ever as the management plays a decisive role for the success or the failure of a cluster initiative/network. Today there are no general cluster/network management methods available to optimize the management. The presented practices use the Balanced Scorecard method which gives the mangers a tool to professionalize the management and to monitor activities including measuring successes.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
FITT Toolbox: International Technology Transfer NetworksFITT
Many international networks are active in the field of technology transfer and give the opportunity to: be in touch with pairs at the international level, access to training and seminars, exchange of good practices and experiences, find partners or investors, promote an innovation and much more. The choice of the network of which you could be a member can be a challenge. The goal of this practice is to give you a quick overview of the existing organisations, and can be a guide for the choice of such a network.
The presented online cooperation platform was developed to give cluster managers and other cluster stakeholders access to current information and trends. It is set up in form of a Social Network on the topic ‘cluster management’ and offers users/members a central information tool, where knowledge is documented and exchange is fostered. Therefore it is an efficient way to foster exchange between experts, to build up a repository of knowledge including success stories and to present the topic to a broader public.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
The network support services support the networks' sustainability by providing a set of logistics and communication services. Access to these services is conditioned by an agreement between the technology transfer officer and the network and the compliance with a charter. This agreement creates the conditions for a long-term cooperation and a win win situation: the networks gain access to free logistics and communication services, while the transfer officer gains access to strategic information from the field, the opportunity to develop specific partnerships and legitimacy.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
FITT Toolbox: Technology Transfer (TT) CollaborationFITT
The chapter TT collaboration addresses the topic of networking at two levels: Firstly, the added value of participating in networks for people active in technology transfer is highlighted at an international level. Additionally, at a local level, technology transfer network with local actors reinforces their local embeddings and grants a privileged, neutral and legitimate channel for two-ways transfer between transfer officers and other stakeholders.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
The presented case study is about Siruna NV, which has developed software for real time deployment of mobile websites through a dual Open Source business model. Although this model is not widely adapted, this model can be easily copied as far as it helps to cover development costs by the help of a large and free developer community, helps to market the product, quickly, sets a reference in a rapidly evolving market and succeeds in creating value within an open source setting.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
Dr. Carolina Garcia Rizo: Commercializing Innovative Technologies: The US Per...FITT
This presentation was held by Dr. Carolina Garcia Rizo during the FITT conference „ICT Innovations: Research > Business > Society“ on 10 May 2011 in Brussels.
www.fitt-for-innovation.eu
The Business Model Design practice supports the definition of a sustainable business model, collaboratively with all its stakeholders. To Technology Transfer Officers this practice proposes reference canvas and tools easily tailored to support most business strategic decision. To researchers, this practice is in essence a way to promote a sound business culture and a set of tools to facilitate the design of a business model. Its foundation from the design science make it practical and result oriented.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
At Imperial Innovation, the decision regarding the business model is taken by the technology transfer officers. The reason is that researchers often lack market knowledge and commercial skills and are therefore not always able to see the full potential of a certain technology. To enhance the commercial skills of researchers, Imperial College London has set up the Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Design program. The program gives students and researchers the opportunity to follow an entrepreneurial journey that provide them with insights into the challenge of introducing novel products and services to market.
www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
2. Criteria for evaluation of transfer projects
The described practice is designed to assist in the preliminary
assessment of research-grounded technology projects for their
commercialization potential in the realm of technology transfer.
The process of assessing research projects is necessitated by the high
failure rate, and resulting high cost, of technologies either prior to
reaching the market or once in the market.
The covered Evaluation Criteria are intended to provide guidance for
assessing an idea, a technology or a research project, at an early-stage
of technology transfer (thus prior to product development).
2 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
3. The evaluation process
Project evaluation may take place at various stages
• Early-stage (proof-of-concept “maturation” towards technology transfer)
• Pre-incubation Incubation
Our focus is Early Stage Project Evaluation, which may appear
• In a continuous manner (or at regular intervals)
• Based on a CFP (Call For Proposal, typically once per year)
Such early stage evaluation covers :
• Evaluation criteria
• A process for the application of these criteria, including the
structure/organization of the evaluation committee
The current practice focuses on recommended Evaluation Criteria
3 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
5. Coverage/definition of evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria should cover three main aspects of a project
• Technical aspects
• Market assessment
• Team considerations
Evaluation criteria should be defined and published in advance in order to
allow the evaluated teams to adapt to the process
• Evaluation criteria will be used to establish the overall process, evaluation
documents and the selection committee
Evaluation criteria may be used by the evaluation committee to
• Allocate funds/resources to selected projects
• Provide consultancy to the project team (for example, to coach the team
on aspects considered as “weak”)
5 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
6. Evaluation criteria
Possible evaluation criteria
• Lots of possible evaluation methods/criteria are
mentioned in the literature
• Several possible groups of criteria :
Originality of the innovation Profile of the inventor Positive ROI/NPV calculations
Scientific return/opportunities for the laboratory Business opportunity Venture value
Project feasibility Market opportunities/threats Regulatory constraints
Potential users IP (protection issues, prior art) Business model
Scientific relevance of the project Lab support Financial return
Team aspects Realism of the announced plan Social & economical impact
Risk management Potential applications Production issues
6 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
7. Focus on first-stage evaluation criteria
Most important criteria for first-stage evaluation
Positive ROI/NPV calculations
Originality of the innovation Profile of the inventor
Venture value
Scientific return/opportunities Business opportunity
for the laboratory
Regulatory constraints
Project feasibility Market opportunities/threats
Business model
Potential users IP (protection issues, prior art)
Financial return
Scientific relevance of the Lab support
project
Social & economical impact
Team aspects Realism of the announced plan
Production issues
Risk management Potential applications
Deemed premature for 1st stage evaluation
7 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
8. The DIGITEO example - Global positioning
The OMTE checklist is used for maturation projects
8 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
9. Timing of the annual call for proposal
→ March : launch of call for proposal/deadline for
submissions
Long → April : preselection of 10 projects
selection
→ May: coaching by Digiteo’s marketing team
process
→ June/July : final application, oral présentation,
deliberation, final decision
→ September
Digiteo’s CFP (OMTE)
9 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
10. From proposal to selection
~ 10 proposals
Preselection classification performed by Digiteo’s scientific
committee and marketing staff
Coaching : work on the three components technology/marketing/IP
submit presentation for the final selection
Selection process :
• External experts (technology transfer specialists from : industry
cluster, incubator, Paris region, OSEO innovation fund, chamber
of commerce, etc.)
• Digiteo’s technology transfer committee
• Formal selection announced by Digiteo’s steering committee
5 projects selected (budget constraints)
10 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
13. DIGITEO – Method/criteria
Evaluation method :
• Evaluation of the applications according to the 12 criteria
• Individual evaluators may apply assessment scores from 1 to 3 (3 being
the highest)
Evaluation criteria used for the OMTE call for projects
« Product/technology » aspects
Originality/uniqueness and scientific relevance, project feasibility and opportunities
created for the laboratory.
« Market » aspects
Ongoing research contracts and IP related to the project, first applications and
users considered.
« Team » aspects
Support of the laboratories in the process, project manager identified to manage
the project, realism of the planning proposed and evaluation of the risks by the
applicants.
13 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
14. DIGITEO – « Product » criteria
1. Originality of the innovation
Originality/uniqueness in comparison with state-of-the-art ?
Definition of the future « product » ?
Positioning compared to competitors ?
2. Scientific relevance of the project
Compatibility with the research themes covered by Digiteo ?
Scientific excellence in the field?
Degree of scientific maturation ( is the technology close to a « product ») ?
3. Project Feasibility
Technical feasibility of the project?
Feasibility of the planning, with regard to a transfer?
Description of the transfer model envisaged (transfer to an industrial partner / creation of start-
up) ?
4. Scientific opportunities created for the laboratory
Consequences of the development on the scientific activities of the lab ?
Future impact of the project on the lab’s strategy ?
Impact on the external communications of the lab?
14 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
15. DIGITEO – « Market » criteria
5. Ongoing research contracts
Ongoing contracts with industrial partners?
Other contracts/ scientific activities ?
Since when? For how long?
6. Intellectual property (patents, know-how)
Background knowledge of the teams involved ?
Protection envisaged (foreground) for the new knowledge and software derivating from it;
Is an IP analysis requested by the teams (analysis of the prior art, patent landscape and
« freedom to operate ») ?
7. First potential applications
Types/examples of applications ?
Value Proposition (solution to which problem) ?
Applications realised by which kind of company (software company, service provider) ?
8. First potential users
Existing and potential actors/ partners to target for the transfer?
Example of end-user for the integrated solution ?
Draft definition of the targeted market (size, segmentation, competitors) ?
15 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
16. DIGITEO – « Team » criteria
9. Support of the laboratories
Support of the laboratories involved ?
Balance between the teams involved (complementarity, synergy) ?
Common commitment to a real transfer ?
10. Project manager in charge
Profile of the project manager and implication in the project ?
Capability of managing all aspects of the project, keeping with the transfer objective?
Motivation to handle the 3 aspects : technical, IP, marketing ?
11. Realism of the planning
Realism of the planning with regards to the 3 aspects:
Technical
IP
Marketing
12. Evaluation/ consideration of the risks
Identification and management of the risks :
Technical
IP
Marketing
16 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
17. DIGITEO - Assessment
Useful tool to be used as a checklist throughout the evaluation process
The final selection has to include the assessment of the presentation made
in front of the jury. Grade given by the jury is based for 50% on written
application and 50% on the oral presentation.
The jury should include a majority of external experts
Final selection : classification/ranking of the presented projects (top 5
selected)
Some « Digiteo specifics » not to be considered for a generic checklist
17 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
18. Pros & Cons
PROs CONs
• This practice attempts to formalize • Only a selected number of
methods that are already in use
criteria are highlighted
(most of the time on an ad hoc
basis) • Some criteria may need to
be further developed
• The methodology and associated
tools (call for proposal, criteria,
etc.) are readily available and can
be adapted to each individual case
18 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
19. Why ?
• Methodology developed by Digiteo in order to manage the incoming flow of
technology transfer proposals
• Need for a consistent set of criteria for all steps of evaluation process,
communicated transparently to all involved partners : project teams, internal
Digiteo evaluators, “technology transfer coaches” and external experts
• Without this methodology, involved parties would get the impression that
projects might be evaluated/selected based on obscure reasons. This would
leave the doors open for debate, accusations for “unfair competition” and
backstage lobbying
19 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
20. Why/impact ?
Impact : Why is it a good practice?
• The Digiteo community judges this approach transparent, fair and clearly
communicated
• We may recommend this approach based on our own experience
20 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
21. Outcome
What happened after the implementation :
• The approach turned out as expected
Final selection (with external experts) is based on relative ranking among the
presented projects
The scoring system is only used for individual evaluation purposes
• However, you also have to manage those projects that were not finally
selected
Debrief the teams that were not selected
Clearly communicate the reasons for not being selected
Focus on things to be improved (and how to improve them)
Encourage them to apply again with an enhanced proposal
21 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
22. Outcome – plans for the future
Plans for the future?
• The approach should be further developed/detailed :
Definition of terms
Explanation on how to apply each of the listed criteria (with some
examples)
22 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
23. Suggested Readings
Link to code book
• Technology development/maturation
• Proof of concept
• (Opportunity) assessment
Link to related websites
OMTE call for proposal and projects selected during previous editions:
http://www.digiteo.fr/Digiteo_OMTE
23 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria