The document discusses managing university resources and developing public-private partnerships. It outlines the emerging higher education environment with increasing pressures from students, technology, markets and competitors. Several universities were analyzed using a SWOT framework to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Key messages discussed include the need to shift emphasis from funding to resources and activities, increase innovative solutions, and foster public-private partnerships and interdisciplinary collaboration to increase impact.

1. 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]

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

10. 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

11. University Funding: Approaching a crossroads University Competence set Model of Financing Matching performance management systems

12. 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.

13. 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

14. What Do We Need To Continue Growing & Expanding?

15. SWOT Analysis Strength What areas have produced success to-date?

16. 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)?

17. SWOT Analysis Opportunities What situations exist that will enable us to maintain and improve our success and find new levels of performance and results?

18. SWOT Analysis Threats What issues are out there that can or will challenge our ability to meet your development targets?

19. 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

20. What we like What could be improved What is valued What worked well in the financing Credibility The Future

21. 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?

22. 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”

23. Wh ich universities have produced success to-date?

24. What Are Your Universities Primary Needs Regarding The Universites Resources ?

25. In Addition To Financial Targets, What Other Metrics Might You Consider?

26. 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

27. 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

28. Do you have r egulations of the University on the protection of intellectual property rights and the handling of intellectual property ?

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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”

32. 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)

33. Observations: Patent Activity Accelerates 9-Year Trend Of Steady Growth An increase of 244% in ten years Source: AUTM, 2000 Survey

34. Observations: 9-Years Of Consistent Growth An increase of 66% in ten years Source: AUTM, 2000 Survey

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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”)

38. 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?

39. 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

40. Key to success Invention Disclosers Invention Disclosers Invention Disclosers Invention Disclosers

41. Task 3. Readiness Assessment 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

42. 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.

43. demonstrable excellence in Learning & Teaching Evidence of: Student impact Impact on colleagues Impact on community ‘ Ambassador’ for University

44. 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

45. What areas of Strategic/Business Development Do You Think Should Be Pursued?

46. Summary -Key messages • The path to benefit is unclear Raise public awarnase the academic base -step changes towards Solution Concepts • More joint research / funding bodies • Share risk, share cost, create multiple exploitation routes • Step changes in t he use of the funding • New mechanisms of private public partnerships, University positioning • Management and funding cultures, choice of metrics Foster discussion and dialogue among policy makers, practitioners, researchers, professional associations,students

47. Developing A Workable Plan Next Steps Consolidate all of the input from our discussions Place it into a model in which we can fully review everything in its entirety Review current situation Assess what is really possible Prepare recommendations to be considered