Post on 26-Dec-2015
1
A Shared Path Forward forImproved Technology Transfer
Matthew Riggins
2
Why talk about improving technology transfer?
Problem vs. Opportunity– Technology transfer processes are not necessarily broken– Obstacles impeding better results
Accomplishing agency missions
New market creation, new profits
Economic impact, job creation
3
Methodology
During this research study, I interviewed 8 federal technology transfer experts from the following agencies and laboratories:
The following questions were asked:– What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?– What are you doing to improve technology transfer at your organization?– If you could be “King or Queen for a day”, what would you do to improve technology
transfer?
– NASA – DoE
– NIST – EPA
– DoD – NIH
– Navy – NIH NCI
4
5
It was apparent from the beginning of the project that T2 programs differed from agency to agency
Each agency’s mission is very different, and therefore their T2 programs are very different
The major distinction was agencies who were consumers of their own technology versus agencies who were involved in innovation but were not the eventual consumer– Example of Consumer: DoD – funds research into missile technology to improve its
own warfighting capabilities– Example of Researcher: NIH – funds research into cancer drugs for use by another
entity (i.e. pharma manufacturer)
6
Interviews uncovered barriers and issues that were widely shared among interviewees
Top shared issue areas among interviewees
Num
ber
of in
terv
iew
ees
that
rai
sed
issu
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
5
6 Shared Issues
1. Cultural roadblocks2. Finding the “right” partner3. Partner communication and
education4. Funding/personnel5. Agency support6. Definition of success 7. Legal barriers, conflicts of
interest8. Public recognition9. Commercial viability10.Collaboration and sharing
Shared Issues By Number (see key)
Further information on shared issues can be found in Appendix
7
The shared issues analysis informed two key themes
It seems that there are two types of obstacles to building more effective T2 programs that are widely shared:
•Examples: entrepreneurial mindset; agency support; public recognition; communication breakdowns
•Long lead time to change or adapt cultures
•Sustained, prolonged education and training very important
Cultural Obstacles
•Examples: licensing processes; partner relations; resources
•Less time to effect change, but difficult to achieve without buy-in from all involved parties
•Facilitation and intermediaries are effective catalysts
Process Obstacles
8
Interviews also revealed some shared solutions among interviewees
1. Improved collaboration and information sharing among agencies and partners
2. Better public outreach
3. Improved training and incentives for scientists, etc.
4. Creation of a funded ORTA position for each agency
5. Improved agency support
6. Expanded university partnerships
7. Technology maturation funding
8. Guidance on international patents and licensing
9. More visibility for smaller labs
10.Partnership intermediaries
9
What is a successful T2 process? How do we get there?
Success: Overcoming obstacles to speed integration of research into the economy and create positive benefits for society as a whole– Short-term vs. Long-term successes (small vs. large obstacles)
Collaboration is an effective way to address both the cultural and procedural obstacles– Transcend organizational limits while still focusing on own self-interest– Share best practices, knowledge, information– Optimize the system as a whole
The challenge is to scale up the degree of collaboration
10
What does a highly collaborative response look like?
CooperationCooperation CoordinationCoordination CollaborationCollaboration
Low HighIntensity of Risk, Time Needed and Opportunity
Relationships Short-term informal relationships
More formal relationships & a shared understanding of missions
More durable and pervasive relationships
Goal-setting No defined mission, structure Focus on longer-term interaction around a specific effort
Participants bring separate organizations into a new structure (network) with full commitment to shared goals and work
Communication
Limited information sharing only about the topic at hand
Open communication between organizations
Requires comprehensive planning, well-defined communication channels
Resources Each organization retains authority, resources kept separate
Resources and rewards may be shared
Resources and rewards are shared
Leadership Leaders work within existing organizational culture
Leaders may inspire followers and other leaders to higher levels of action but continue to work within the existing organizational culture
Leaders inspire followers and other leaders to higher levels of action and transform the existing organizational culture
11
Thank you!
Contact Info:
Matt Riggins
riggins_matthew@bah.com
202-557-8279 (c)
12
Appendix
13
Many interviewees pointed to cultural roadblocks – partner dynamics and funding issues also topped the list of concerns
Awareness of and education about technology transfer among scientists and researchers is lacking
Commercial potential is low priority (lack of entrepreneurial mindset)
Interviewees were asked: What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?
Companies with sufficient financial resources are difficult to identifyPotential partners are unwilling to take on investment risk
Government and private sector processes, timing, interests and cultures are very different
Private sector is unprepared or unaware of technologies available
Clear funding requirements are lacking
T2 is an unfunded mandate, requiring personnel to direct T2 efforts on top of preexisting responsibilities
Cultural Roadblocks
1
Finding the “right” partner
2
Partner communication and
education
3
Funding/Personnel
4
Agency Support
5
Support for T2 up and down agency chain of command is sporadicT2 is unaligned with agency priorities or mission
14
Interviewees also described difficulties measuring success – there were also concerns about legal barriers, publicity, viability and collaboration among agencies
Measurements for T2 are unclear or inaccurateContribution of T2 to agency mission is unclear
Statutory mandates for agency personnel and partner involvement are too strict
Legal clarity around funding requirements is lacking
Definition of Success
6
Legal Barriers, Conflicts of Interest
7
Public Recognition
8
Public benefits from federal labs are not well understoodLack of public support results in lack of Congressional support
Commercial potential of technology unknown or unclearMaturity level of technology is unattractive to investors
Process standardization among agencies is lackingOverlaps in research and technology development abound
Commercial Viability
9
Collaboration and sharing
10
Interviewees were asked: What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?