JohnsHopkinsUniversity

Academic-CorporateRelationsataResearchUniversity:OptionsforEngagementPracticesandOrganization

ACapstonePaperSubmittedtotheKriegerSchoolofArtsandSciencesAdvancedAcademicPrograms

inPartialFulfillmentoftheDegreeof

MasterofScienceinResearchAdministrationby

RobertC.Garber

Baltimore,MarylandMay2017

ii

Abstract

Universities engage with corporations to pursue their missions in research,

teaching, and public service. In recent years, corporations have evolved their

expectations for university relations fromprimarily philanthropic in nature to seeking

engagementswithacademicinstitutionswillenhanceshareholdervaluebycontributing

tobusinessgoals. Thequestionaddressedbythisprojectwaswhethertherearebest

practicesinuniversity-corporaterelationsthatcouldbeappliedtothecircumstancesof

NewYorkUniversity,amajorprivateresearchuniversity.Thetopicwaschosenbecause

universities have chosen a number of differentmodels for organizing and resourcing

their corporate engagement offices, and administrators at New York University were

interestedinunderstandingthechoicesmadebypeerinstitutions.

The researchmethodused in this projectwas to interview corporate relations

professionals at a variety of research universities in theUnited States, compare their

organizations and strategies for corporate engagement with that of New York

University, in thecontextofbestpractices recommendedbyorganizationsdevotedto

university-industryrelations.

The project found that New York University’s corporate relations organization

andstrategydiffersfromindustrybestpracticesinanumberofways.Variancesinclude

the lack of a centralized database of engagement activities, the absence of an office

dedicated to coordinating corporate engagements across a large and relatively

iii

decentralizeduniversity,andanapproachtopartnershipsthatissometimesshort-term

andtransactionalratherthanlong-termandstrategic.

TheresultsoftheprojectsuggestedanumberofspecificopportunitiesforNew

York University to consider that could better align their corporate engagement

enterprisewith thoseof other researchuniversities. By adopting successful practices

used by other institutions,New YorkUniversity can expect to see improvements in a

numberofcorporateengagementmetricsrangingfromthenumberandsizeofresearch

collaborations to philanthropic gifts, alumni recruitment, student internships and

scholarships,andfacultyconsultingandsabbaticalopportunities.

iv

Contents

Figures..................................................................................................................vTables...................................................................................................................vGlossary...............................................................................................................viChapter1:Introduction.........................................................................................1Background.................................................................................................................1StatementoftheProblem..........................................................................................3ResearchQuestions....................................................................................................4Objectives...................................................................................................................4Significance.................................................................................................................5ExclusionsandLimitations........................................................................................................................6Chapter2:LiteratureReview................................................................................7University-CorporateRelations..................................................................................7RelationshipManagement.......................................................................................12Chapter3:MethodologyandResults..................................................................15Methodology............................................................................................................15ResultsandDiscussion..............................................................................................16Chapter4:RecommendationsandConclusion....................................................31Introduction..............................................................................................................31Recommendations....................................................................................................34Conclusion................................................................................................................48Appendix1:NewYorkUniversityInterviews.......................................................50Appendix2:ExternalUniversityInterviews.........................................................51Appendix3:JohnsHopkinsUniversityInstitutionalReviewBoardApproval.......52

WorksCited........................................................................................................53

v

Figures

Figure1.Model1forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................17Figure2.Model2forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................18Figure3.Model3forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................18Figure4.Model4forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................19Figure5.Model5forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................19Figure6.Implementationroadmapforacorporateengagementstrategy..........................47

Tables

Table1.Systemforscoringacorporation'sengagementwithauniversity.........................24Table2.Stagesofuniversity-corporateengagement,withsamplemetrics.........................26Table3.Rankingofcorporatemetricsusedatuniversities........................................................27

vi

Glossary

Thefollowingdefinitionsareusedinthispaper:

Corporaterelations. Thecompletesetof interactionsbetweenuniversitiesand

corporations.Usedinterchangeablyinthispaperwithcorporateengagement,although

corporate relations sometimes carries the connotation of outward-directed

communications or “public relations”, while corporate engagement implies the

intentiontoactivelysustainadialogueorsetofinteractions.Alsousedinterchangeably

inthispaperwithuniversity-industryrelations.

Relationshipmanagement. The strategy ofmaintaining a ‘continuous level of

engagement between an organization and its audience’ (Investopedia, no date).

Relationshipmanagementrequiresongoingcommunication,bothtoachievegoalsand

to avoid unexpected problems, and usually implies a strategic focus on building trust

andidentifyingnewopportunities,ratherthananemphasisonindividualtransactions.

NewYorkUniversity(NYU).TheprivateeducationalinstitutioninNewYorkCity1,

including more than a dozen schools, centers and institutes. For purposes of this

project, the university includes the NYU School of Medicine and Tandon School of

Engineering,butdoesnotincludetheNYUcampusesinAbuDhabiandShanghai.

1www.nyu.edu

1

Chapter1

Introduction

Background

Universities have long sought to achieve a balance between independence, as

institutions dedicated to the ideals of unfettered scholarship and teaching, and

engagement,tofulfilltheirmissionofservice.Activeengagementwithcorporationshas

nothistoricallybeenaprioritizedinstitutionalendeavoratmanyuniversities.Academic

institutionsreliedonindividualdonorsandfoundationsforphilanthropicsupport.After

themodelforthecomprehensiveuniversityspreadfromWesternEuropetotheUnited

States in the mid-late 19th century, the role of government in support of academic

researchwasdeveloped,driven initiallyby theMorrillActof1862 (Committeeon the

Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the LandGrant University System, 1995) and

subsequentlybystatesupportofpublicuniversities.

TherapidexpansionoffederalsupportforresearchunderthedemandsofWorld

War II and the leadershipofVannevarBush and theOfficeof Scientific Research and

Developmenthasbeenextensivelydocumented(Kevles,1979;Stewart,1948;Zachary,

1999).TheinfluenceofBush’smodelfortheresearchenterprisehasendured,butthe

preponderance of investment in research and development in the United States has

alwaysbeen—andcontinues tobe—from industrial sources (Boroush,2016). Internal

corporate investment in basic research, applied research, and the development of

products and services proceeded in parallel with the growth of university-based

2

research,highlightedformanyyearsbythestronglyresourcedandproductivein-house

laboratoriesofBellTelephoneandanumberofotherindustrialentities(Gertner,2013;

Jackson, 1990). With the notable exceptions of the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (Vest, 2007) and a few other universities, direct corporate funding of

academic institutions through either research or philanthropywas relatively limited--

indeed, the natural focus of corporations on investing in the development of

competitiveproductsandservices thatgeneratedreturns toownerswas longseenas

differentfrom,ifnotantitheticalto,theidealsofbasicresearchandopenscholarship.

Anumberofintersectinginfluences—fromthebudgetpressuresoftheVietnamWarto

theinnovativecreationoftheEngineeringResearchCenterandScienceandTechnology

ResearchCenterconceptbytheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)—pusheduniversities

andcorporationstotakeanotherlookatcollaborating.TheBayh-Doleactof19802and

theenactmentofSBIR (SmallBusiness InnovationResearch)andSTTR (SmallBusiness

Technology Transfer) legislation 3 provided incentives for cooperative research

agreements between universities and industry to create and exploit discoveries.

However, according to themost recent available data on Research andDevelopment

expendituresatUS researchuniversities, these institutions self-reportonaverage just

5.8% of their R&D spending coming from ‘business’ sources. This percentage is

comparable to funding fromstateand localgovernmentsand fromnonprofit sources,

andanorderofmagnitudesmallerthanfederalgovernmentsupport(NationalScience

Foundation,2016).ItshouldbenotedthatNSFdataonHigherEducationResearchand2P.L.96-517,PatentandTrademarkActAmendmentsof1980;35U.S.C.§200-212315U.S.C.§638

3

Development expenditures understates the extent of university-industry engagement,

because flow-through of grants made by federal agencies to corporations and

subcontractedtouniversitiesisreportedasfederal,notcorporateresearchfunding4.As

aconsequenceoftherelativestagnationofnon-AmericanRecoveryandReinvestment

Actfederalresearchsupportsince2004(Anonymous,2014;Britt,2016)andthesharp

declines in the supportprovided topublicuniversitiesbymany states (Mitchell et al.,

2016), a number of institutions have explored greater corporate engagement as a

diversificationstrategyforresearchsupport,andtoexpandtheirfundingportfolio.

StatementoftheProblem

Universitiesandcorporationswanttotakeadvantageofeachother’sdistinctive

resources to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Pursuing the benefits of corporate

engagementrequirestheacademicpartnertomakedecisionsabouthowitscorporate

relations operation is organized and placed in its administrative structure, as well as

howit isstaffedandhowitpursuesitsmission. Identifyingthepeople,thedatatools

andresources,andengagementstrategiesthatareappropriateforaspecificuniversity

requiresunderstandingthe institution’sdistinctivecharacteristicsandcomparingthem

tootherresearchuniversitiesthathavechosendifferentapproaches.Thisprojectwas

designed to provide an analysis and a set of options for consideration by New York

University, a comprehensive researchuniversitywith campuses inNewYorkCity,Abu

Dhabi and Shanghai. Interest in evaluating options for organizing its corporate

4DonMothersbaugh,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,interviewwithauthor.March31,2017.

4

engagementeffortscamefromNYU’sOfficeoftheSeniorViceProvostforResearchand

theUniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelationsandwasthebasisforthisproject.

ResearchQuestions

New York University reported $22.8 million in research and development

expenditures from business sources in FY2015 (National Science Foundation, 2016).

This represented 3.8% of NYU’s $602 million expenditures on research and

development.WhatshouldNYU’sgoalsforcorporateengagementbe,bothinfinancial

termsandbyothermeasures?Whatmetricsareusedbyotherresearchinstitutionsto

evaluate corporate engagement? How does NYU’s current corporate relations

organizationdifferfromthatatotherinstitutions?Whatarebestpracticesinuniversity-

corporate relations andhowdo they apply toNYU?What steps shouldNYU consider

takingtomovetowarditscorporateengagementgoals,andhowmuchtimewouldbe

requiredtoimplementthem?

Objectives

The first objective of this project was to develop an understanding of how

corporate engagement is practiced at NYU, which is a relatively decentralized

institution, and to compare the organization and processes that support corporate

engagementatNewYorkUniversitytothoseatotherresearchuniversities.Thesecond

objective was to prepare a set of recommendations for consideration by senior

administratorsatNewYorkUniversity,theimplementationofwhichcouldsupportthe

5

institution’s desire to raise the profile and effectiveness of corporate engagement.

These options include organization and reporting structure,metrics and performance

indicatorsforassessingprogresstowardsgoals,andaroadmapforimplementation.

Significance

Corporaterelationshipsimpactmanypartsofauniversity.Privateindustryisby

far the largest category of employer in the United States, accounting for nearly five

times as many jobs as all levels of government combined (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2017). Corporations gave colleges and universities nearly $6 billion in

philanthropic gifts in 2015, representing 14.3% of all voluntary support of higher

education (Council for Aid to Education, 2016). Patent licensing by corporations

accountedforanadditional$2.5billioninuniversityrevenue(AssociationofUniversity

Technology Managers, 2015). Universities are significant customers of many

corporations’ products and services, procuring everything from office supplies and

foodservice to computers and telecommunication services. Yet a number of studies

have reported that corporations and universities often find each other frustrating to

workwith:differencesincultureandperceivedurgencyhavebeenrepeatedlycitedas

limitations to engagement (Bruneel et al., 2010; Perkmann and Salter, 2012). If a

university can identify and implement improvements in its policies and practices for

corporateengagement,thepayoffswillbesubstantialandmeasureable(Daniels,2016):

recruitmentopportunitiesandregionaleconomicdevelopment,philanthropicgiftsand

research contracts, technology licensing and startup investments, representation on

6

universityboardsoftrusteesandcorporateboardsofdirectors,bidirectionalsabbatical

opportunities,andmore.

ExclusionsandLimitations

This project did not attempt to specifically explore the practice of university

fundraising, also called “development” or “advancement”. Although most university

staffwhoworkinofficestypicallycalledCorporateandFoundationRelationsareactive

inthesolicitationofgifts,thegoalofthisprojectwastounderstandthebroadspectrum

of engagement opportunities and how they could be organized to best advance the

strategicprioritiesof theuniversityasawhole. Therefore thisprojectdidnot lookat

best practices specifically for fundraising. Similarly, it did not investigate grant

applicationpractices. Another limitationwastheabsenceof inputfromthecorporate

side of the relationship. The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers has

surveyedcorporatemembersandreportedontheirpreferences,anda2010article in

theMIT SloanManagement Review collected the perspective of corporations in nine

industriesonuniversity-industrycollaborations(seeLiteratureSurvey).

7

Chapter2

LiteratureReview

Two types of literature relevant to corporate engagement practices were

examined: (1) documents from professional organizations that are dedicated to the

relationship between universities and corporations, and (2) literature associatedwith

thepracticeofrelationshipmanagement.

University-CorporateRelations

Two nonprofit organizations have sponsored research into the relationships

betweenuniversitiesandcorporations: theNetworkofAcademicCorporateRelations

Officers (NACRO) 5 and the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIDP) 6 .

NACROisanorganizationwithapproximately500individualmembershipsrepresenting

more than 120 institutions. NACRO promotes professional development, networking

and advocacy by and on behalf of its members. Perhaps its greatest influence in

corporate relations thinking has come from three white papers written by NACRO

members: Five Essential Elements of a Successful Twenty-first Century University

Corporate Relations Program (NACRO Writing Team and Benchmarking Committee,

2011), Metrics for a Successful Twenty-first Century University Corporate Relations

Program (NACRO Benchmarking Committee, 2012) and Engagement of Academic

Corporate Relations Officers in University-Industry Centers of Research Excellence. A5www.nacrocon.org6www.uidp.org

8

fourth NACRO document, Elevating Corporate Relations through Institutional

Commitment, released in2016,was labeledapositionpaper. Collectively,theNACRO

paperswereknowntomostofthedevelopmentandcorporaterelationsprofessionals

interviewedforthisproject,atNYUandelsewhere.TheFiveEssentialElementspaperis

perhaps the best known. It describes a gradual but pronounced shift in corporate

attitudestowardsuniversityrelationsfromadhocandprimarilyphilanthropictomore

strategicinnature,andachangeinmind-setfrom“donor”to“investor”.Thebenefits

or“resources”providedtouniversities,accordingtothepaper,included“gifts,research

grants, royaltypayments,executiveeducationtuition, [and]gifts-in-kind”. Thecentral

message of the paper is that universities need to acknowledge this change and align

their corporate relations strategy accordingly by pursuing long-term, “holistic”

engagements. Theword “holistic” has come tobe a shorthand term for theNACRO-

advocated approach to university-corporate relationships, describing a strategy that

acknowledges thevalueofmutuallybeneficial interactions thatarenotpredicatedon

philanthropy.“Holisticengagement”wastheexpressionusedinapresentationmadein

2006 by the Hewlett-Packard executive Wayne Johnson at the National Academy of

Sciences,whicharticulateda“crisis”inuniversity-industryrelationsdrivenbydiscordant

approaches to negotiations over rights to intellectual property (Johnson, 2006).

Johnson’schartwasinturnbasedona2003paperthatpresentedHewlett-Packardasa

pioneer in university-corporate relationships (Johnson, 2003). Johnson described a

continuum of university-industry engagement that ranged from Awareness through

Involvement,Support,andSponsorship,culminatinginStrategicPartner[ship].Thechart

9

suggests that progress along the continuum should be directional, with engagement

growing through trust as well as results, and encompassing increasingly ambitious

interactions and a greater number of touch points. Johnson’s chart has beenwidely

usedtorepresentthe idealviewofuniversity-corporateengagement. Itwasfeatured

prominently in the NACRO “Five Elements” paper, and also appears in university

corporaterelationsdocumentsandwebsites7.TheNACROFiveElementspaperfurther

asserts that “the amount of truly philanthropic support a university receives from a

company will depend in part on the number and quality of non-philanthropic

engagements.” As examples of non-philanthropic interactions that benefit both

partners,thepaperidentifiedjobs,internshipsandfellowshipsforstudents(corporation

gets recruiting opportunities), executive education (company gets employee training),

research collaborations (company gets the results of research), patent licensing

(companygetsexploitationrights),useofon-campusfacilities(companygetsaccessto

specialized equipment without purchasing it) and event sponsorship (company gets

publicity). Mutuality of benefits is one of five “essential elements” identified in the

paper, the other four being institutional support (emphasizing endorsement and

tangibleencouragementfromseniorleadership);acentral“one-stopshopping”rolefor

theuniversity’scorporaterelationsoffice,alsoknownas“conciergeservices”,intended

to simplify interactions and minimize redundant or conflicting requests by different

university staff; an integrated approach to research development whereby the office

responsiblefornegotiatingsponsoredresearchagreementscoordinatesitseffortswith

7Examples:http://ilo.osu.edu/files/2016/07/The-Partnership-Continuum.pdf;https://www.k-state.edu/president/initiatives/cec/White_Paper_on_Corporate_Engagement.pdf.

10

corporaterelationsofficers;andcampuscoordination,whichacknowledgesthedistinct

roles that academic leadership, development professionals, and the offices of

technology transfer, research administration, and the career center can each play in

supporting corporate engagement efforts. The NACRO Five Elements paper included

data from a 2010 survey of corporate relations staff at 45 research universities that

found a number of institutions had already recognized and acted on the changing

environmentofuniversity-industryrelations,notablybyhavingthecorporaterelations

officereporttoanofficeotherthanthedevelopmentoffice.Thepaperconcludedthat

traditional metrics for evaluating performance in a corporate relations organization

were too short-term and too focused on “incremental revenue”, and recommended

newmeasuresbasedonthecollaborativenatureofholisticengagement.

Thesemetricsweredescribed in thesecondNACROwhitepaper,Metrics fora

SuccessfulTwenty-FirstCenturyAcademicCorporateRelationsProgram.Thisdocument

presents two frameworks for measuring “progress and success” in a university

corporaterelationsorganization,andtiesthemtothreebestpractices.

The first framework (see Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers

Benchmarking Committee, 2012, Figure 1) describes a cyclic process of corporate

engagement:

1. Buildingawarenessatcorporationsofauniversity’sstrengthsandassets2. Creatingandqualifyingengagementleads3. Identifyingbestopportunitiesformutually-beneficialengagement4. Creatingthestagesandmechanismsfordevelopingapartnership5. Closingdeals6. Nurturingexistingrelationships7. Creatingafeedbackmechanismtoevaluateandimprovetheengagementprocess

11

Foreachstep,potentialmetricswereidentified,withthecaveatthatnotallwill

applytoanygiveninstitution,andthatit’seasytotrytomeasuretoomanythings.

Thesecondframeworkaddressestheextentandfrequencyofinternalreporting

oncorporateengagementmetrics.Reportingisconceptualizedasastakeholderpyramid

with themost frequent and detailed reporting at the level of the corporate relations

organization itself (typically weekly or monthly activity reports). The next level of

stakeholders consists of “organizational peers” (for example, members of the

technologytransferofficeorthesponsoredprogramsoffice),whosecollaborationwith

corporate relations is important but who receive less frequent and less detailed

reportingoncorporate interactions thatarerelevant to their functions. At the topof

the pyramid are senior administrators who receive quarterly or annual reports on

higher-level activities such as gift and sponsored research totals, CEO visits, etc. The

reportconcludeswiththreebestpracticerecommendations:

1. Establishacontinuumofengagementlevels,oftendescribedas“tiers”.Thisisidenticalto the concept developed by Wayne Johnson at Hewlett-Packard and previouslydescribed.

2. Establish a set of criteria or “gauges” that assign a score to each selected corporatepartner and serve to prioritize the most important ones for action and resourceallocation.

3. Create stewardship reports for each important corporate partner, summarizing theextent of the partnership, activity and results over the past year, and plans for thefuture.

TheUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnership(UIDP)differsfromNACROin

severalrespects.Insteadofusingabusinessmodelofindividualmemberships,UIDPhas

institutional memberships. Its roster of members is roughly 2/3 universities and 1/3

corporations.Insteadoffosteringcorporaterelationsasaprofession,UIDPemphasizes

12

understanding how university-industry engagement practices actually work. It has

developedguidelinesontopicssuchascontractterms,creatinginnovationcenters,and

best practices for bringing companies onto campus. Like NACRO, UIDP publications

support the holistic, tiered engagement approach to corporate relations, which it

describes as a “partnership continuum” that can evolve from transaction (defined as

sharedtactics)tocollaboration(definedassharedideas)toalliance(definedasshared

aspirations), as the number of engagement touchpoints increase.UIDP’s brochure on

university-industry partnerships enumerates dozens of examples of engagement

opportunities, categorizing them as student-focused, researcher-focused, providing

access to institutional resources, involving centers of excellence, and supporting

economicdevelopment(Southertonetal.,2012).UIDPalsocreatedaguidebookaimed

at encouraging university-industry research collaborations (University-Industry

Demonstration Partnership Researcher Guidebook Working Group, 2012). The

Researcher’s Guidebook specifically targeted differences between academic and

corporateresearchers,providing languageandrecommendationstobridgedifferences

interminologyandperspective.Theguidebookofferedpracticaltipsonidentifyingand

establishing contacts, preparing research proposals, and dealing with intellectual

property,exportcontrol,andpublicationissues.

RelationshipManagement

There is a sprawling collection of material in the business/management

literatureontheeffectiveconductofrelationshipstoachievedesiredoutcomes.Some

13

of the literature is in conventional refereed journals,butmuchof it appearsaswhite

papers,advertisingmaterial, slidedecks,andother informalmedia.For thisproject,a

subsetofmanagementliteratureonthetopicknownas“relationshipmanagement”was

reviewed,toexploretheideathatuniversitiescanimprovetheproductivityandmutual

satisfactionof their relationshipswithcorporationsbyadoptingsomeof the language

andhabitsofbusinesses.“Relationshipmanagement”isdefinedas“astrategyinwhich

a continuous level of engagement is maintained between an organization and its

audience” (Investopedia, no date). Customer relationship management, well known

becauseofSalesforceandothersoftwareplatformsthatweredevelopedtomanageit,

is a subset of relationship management. The essential concept driving relationship

managementisthetheorythatongoing,targetedcontactbetweenanorganizationand

its audience is the best way to build trust, familiarity, and sales or other forms of

successfulengagement.Inherenttothetheoryofrelationshipmanagementistheidea

built into the name—that relationships require, and benefit from, deliberate

management. Relationshipmanagement is often conflatedwith public relations, but

public relations has a traditional component of outwardly-projected communications

thatisnotinherenttorelationshipmanagement.AsarticulatedbyLedingham,Bruning

and colleagues, recognizing that the cultivation anddevelopmentof relationships is a

managementactivitymoveditintothesphereofinfluenceofmanagementtheoryand

practice, with implications for training and professionalization of its practitioners

(Ledingham, 2003). At the same time, grounding relationship management in the

literature of relationships invoked the dimensions of trust, openness, involvement,

14

investment,andcommitment.BusinessRelationshipManagement(BRM)isatermthat

emergedfromtherelationshipbetween InformationTechnology (IT)departmentsand

the largerenterprisesthattheyserve. BRMemphasizesthe interactionsbetweenany

shared service department (human resources, finance, etc.) and their “business

partners”. The idea that these interactions can be optimized (their “business value

realized”) has been championed by the Business RelationshipManagement Institute,

Inc.anditsnonprofitmembershipcommunity,whichseekstoprofessionalizetheroleof

the business relationship manager. In this project and paper, the advantages to

universities of treating their diverse interactions with corporations as relationship

managementopportunitiesareposited.By invokingthe languageofmanagementand

the activities that are routine in business environments—strategic planning, value

realization,goal-setting,projectexecution,accountability,andevaluation—auniversity

ismorelikelytoberecognizedbycorporationsasathoughtful,competentpartnerthat

operates in a familiar manner, seeking to collaborate in the exchange products and

servicesofcomparablevalue.

15

Chapter3

MethodologyandResults

Methodology

Theprojectconsistedofaseriesofface-to-faceandphoneinterviewswithNYU

staffwhowereidentifiedasstakeholdersinthecorporaterelationsprocess,aswellas

with corporate relations professionals at external universities. Sixteen NYU

stakeholders (Appendix 1) were interviewed based on their roles at the university,

including inmost cases participation in a “stakeholders council” convened to discuss

corporate relations issues. More than a dozen corporate relations staff at external

universities(Appendix2)wereselectedforinterviewsbasedon(1)characteristicsofthe

university (usuallyprivate, largestudentpopulation,R&Dexpendituresamongthetop

100ofAmericanresearchuniversities);(2)activeparticipationinNACRO;or(3)previous

corporaterelationsdiscussionswithNYU.Interviewswereopen-ended,butstructured

to encompass a consistent set of topics. Those topics included organization of the

corporate relationsenterprise at theuniversity; backgroundand skillsetsof corporate

relations staff; strategies for identifying and pursuing relationshipswith corporations;

metrics forassessing results; software systemsanddatabasesused to trackcorporate

engagement; and facilitators of (or impediments to) success. Meeting notes were

assembledandcomparedtopublishedandwhitepaperliteratureonuniversity-industry

relations. Options and recommendations tailored to New York University were

16

prepared for with NYU senior administrators and corporate relations staff, but the

contentsofthispaperwerenotreviewedorvettedbyNYU.

ResultsandDiscussion

Findings were divided into five categories: organization and resourcing;

strategiesandmetrics;skillsandbackground;andcoordinationandcommunication;and

predictorsofsuccess.

OrganizationandResourcing.Thedatathatemergedfrominternalandexternal

interviews supported the observation in the corporate engagement literature that

academic institutions have organized their corporate relations functions in several

different ways, and that where this entity (or entities) is placed organizationally and

how it is staffed reflects a university’s priorities about how it practices corporate

relations.Inmostmajorresearchuniversities,thereisacentralofficeofcorporateand

foundation relations that is supplementedby individuals or teamswhoare located in

decentralizedunits—aschool,collegeorresearchcenter.Thesizeofthedecentralized

officedependedonthesizeandtosomeextenttheidentityoftheunit.Forexample,a

school of law or a college of the artsmight perceive less opportunity for productive

corporateengagement thana collegeof engineering,medicineorbusiness. Thusan

artscollege’sdevelopmentofficemightcombinecorporateandfoundationrelationsina

single position, whereas a college of engineering might have dedicated specialists in

each area of activity. The school or college development officers generally report to

17

thatunit’ssenioradministrator—typicallyadean—sometimeswithadottedlinereport

tothecentralcorporaterelationsoffice.

Five types ormodelswere identified that collectively show the range ofways

thatresearchuniversitieshavepositionedthecorporateengagementresponsibilitiesin

theiradministrativestructure.Variantsexistofeachtype.Inselectingone,auniversity

ismakingadecisionabouthow itwantstopursuecorporateengagement,andhow it

wantstostaffthecorporaterelationsteam.

Figure1.Model1forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.Corporate relations is combinedwith foundation relations, and is part of anOffice of

Development. Example: New York University. Development officers in the corporate andfoundationrelationsofficemayhaveresponsibilityforbothtypesofengagement.

Central Schools/Units

OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment

TechTransfer

Entrepreneurship/Innova=on

ResearchAdministra=on

CorporateandFounda=onRela=ons

Model1:Corporaterela=onscombinedwithfounda=onrela=ons;botharepartoftheDevelopmentOffice.Example:NewYorkUniversity

Dean

DevelopmentOfficers

18

Figure2.Model2forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.

Corporaterelationsisseparatefromfoundationrelations,butbothunitsarestillpartofthe development office. Example: Northwestern University. InModel 2, corporate relationsofficersoftenhave industrybackgroundsandmanyhaveadvanceddegreesthatmayfacilitatedevelopingresearchcollaborations.

Figure3.Model3forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.

Corporate relations is separate from foundation relations and is part of the researchoffice. Example:UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis.Theseparationofcorporateand foundationrelations in this model emphasizes the importance of research collaborations in corporateengagement. Philanthropic and other types of non-research corporate engagement arecoordinatedwiththedevelopmentoffice.OftenstaffedbyPh.Ds.

Central Schools/Units

Compliance

TechTransfer/NewVentures

SponsoredResearch

CorporateRela=ons

Founda=onRela=ons

Model2:Corporaterela=onsseparatefromfounda=onrela=ons,botharepartoftheDevelopmentOffice.Example:NorthwesternUniversity

Dean

DevelopmentOfficers

OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment

Central Schools/Units

Founda=onRela=ons

AlumniRela=onsTechTransfer

Innova=on

SponsoredPrograms

Dean

DevelopmentOfficersTechnologyManagement/

CorporateRela=ons

CorporateRela=ons

DonorRela=ons

Model3:Corporaterela=onsseparatefromfounda=onrela=ons;corporaterela=onsispartoftheOfficeofResearch.Example:UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis

OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment

19

Figure4.Model4forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.

An office of industrial liaison or industrial partnerships, focusing on researchcollaborations, is part of theOfficeofResearch. Corporate and FoundationRelationsarepartoftheOfficeofDevelopment.Example:PennsylvaniaStateUniversity.

Figure5.Model5forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.

Corporaterelations isseparatefromfoundationrelationsand isformallyconnectedtoboth research and development offices. Example: University of Michigan, whose BusinessEngagementCenterhasbeenfundedbybothofficessinceitsfounding.

IndustrialRela=onsCoordinators

DevelopmentOfficers

Central Schools/Units

AlumniRela=ons

UniversityDevelopment

TechnologyManagement

Defense-RelatedResearchUnits

SponsoredPrograms

DeanorCenterDirector

IndustrialPartnerships

ResearchProtec=ons

CorporateandFounda=onRela=ons

Model4:Officeofindustrialliaisonorpartnerships,focusingonresearchcollabora=ons,ispartoftheOfficeofResearch.CorporateandFounda=onRela=onsareintheOfficeofDevelopment.Example:PennsylvaniaStateUniversity

OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopmentandAlumniRela=ons

Central Schools/Units

Technology

Transfer

Compliance

BizOpera=onsincl

SponsPrograms

Founda=on

Rela=ons

AlumniRela=ons

DonorRela=ons

CorporateRela=ons

(“BusinessEngagementCenter”)

Model4:Corporaterela=onsseparatefromfounda=onrela=ons;corporate

rela=onssharedbetweenOfficesofResearchandDevelopment.Example:

UniversityofMichigan

Dean

Development

Officers

OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment

20

The combination of corporate with foundation relation responsibilities, in a

singleofficeandoften ina singleposition, is still commonand tends toalignwithan

office’s focus on philanthropy, despite NACRO’s observation that corporations have

movedawayfromunrestrictedgivingastheirmainvehicleforuniversityrelations.The

mostrecent(2016)NACROmembersurveyfoundthatslightlymorethanhalfofthe168

responding institutions placed their corporate relations office in the advancement or

developmentorganization.Lessthan15%ofuniversitiesreportedthattheircorporate

relationsofficesarepartoftheofficeofresearch.TheUniversityofMichiganmodelfor

centralized corporate relations, with joint funding by the offices of research and of

development,hasbeenwidelynotedbutnotoftenduplicated.AtMichigan,therearea

number of development officers in the university’s major schools, but the Business

EngagementCenterisamajordriverofactivityacrosstheentireinstitution.Adifferent

kindofhybridmodel ispracticedat theUniversityofSouthernCalifornia (USC),which

hasaCentralDevelopmentofficethatincludesaSeniorExecutiveDirectorofCorporate

and Foundation Relations8serving a coordination function, as well as a much larger

corporate relations staff (nearly30FTEs)embedded inUSC’s several colleges. AtThe

OhioStateUniversity,PurdueUniversity,andPennsylvaniaStateUniversity,anIndustry

LiaisonOfficeorOfficeofIndustrialPartnershipsispartoftheOfficeofResearchandis

separate from the Corporate Relations office. Among the research universitieswhose

administratorswereinterviewedforthisproject,mosthavemovedtowardaseparation

8http://www.usc.edu/directories/dept/univ_adv.html

21

betweenwhoisresponsibleforraisingphilanthropicfundsfromcorporationsandwho

isresponsibleformanagingtheinitiationanddevelopmentofresearchcollaborations.

An exceptionally clear presentation of one institution’s approach to corporate

relations is that of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Illinois). On their

websiteandintheirannualreports, IllinoispresentstheOfficeofCorporateRelations,

whichreportstotheViceChancellorforResearchthroughanAssociateViceChancellor

forCorporateRelationsandEconomicDevelopment9,asthehubor“gateway”toaset

of “stakeholders” that are arranged in six categories (University of Illinois Office of

CorporateRelations,2015):

1. Researchandtargetedsolutions,whichincludessponsoredprograms,technologymanagement,corporatecontactsin“units”,andinterdisciplinaryresearchcenters

2. Studentengagement,whichincludescareerservicesandthealumniassociation3. Economicdevelopmentandresearchpark,whichincludesasmallbusinessincubator,

thestateDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicOpportunity,andresearchdeans4. Brandingandsponsorships,whichincludesadvancementandtheUniversityofIllinois

Foundation5. Professionaldevelopmentandeducation,whichlinkstoacademicdeansbutnottoa

centralizedprogramforexecutiveeducation6. Innovationandtechnicaltransfer,whichincludessponsoredprogramsandtheOfficeof

TechnologyManagementfortechtransferactivities

The Illinois schema exemplifies the NACRO vision of university corporate

relations as a coordinating activity thatmay ormay not prioritize raisingmoney as a

primarymeasureofitssuccess(seeStrategiesandmetrics).

Purdue University (Purdue), whose strength in engineering has driven a

longstanding tradition of corporate research collaborations, created an Office of

CorporateandGlobalPartnerships(OCGP)in2014withamissionoffocusingon20-40

9https://illinois.edu/assets/docs/adminorgchart.pdf

22

major corporate relationships10. The OCGP is part of the Office of Research and

Partnerships, and is thereforeanexampleofModel4. Purdue’spresidenthas stated

publiclythathebelievesthefederalgovernment“willnotbeareliablesourceofdollars

for the research growth towhichwe aspire” (Daniels, 2016). He also observed that

research universities merely “pay lip service to the expansion of non-traditional

partnerships,” and pointed to rapid growth in awards from industry and foundation

sources as evidence of the success of Purdue’s model. Purdue’s OCGP team works

closely with two university entities that serve as consulting services to business and

manufacturing enterprises in Indiana: the Technical Assistance Program and the

ManufacturingExtensionPartnership.OCGPhasPurduefacultymembersinleadership

and advisory positions, and actively cultivates close faculty relationships to stay

informed about research interests and facilitate new collaboration opportunitieswith

industry.

New York University has a hybrid structure for its corporate relations

professionals, reflectingthedecentralizednatureofthe institution. NYUhasacentral

office of University Development and Alumni Relations (UDAR), which is part of the

university’s advancement structure and reports to the Senior Vice President for

UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations.ManyofNYU’sschools,andsomeofits

research centers, have their own corporate and/or foundation specialists, who are

consideredpartofUDARbutwhoalsohavedottedlinereportingresponsibilitiestotheir

10DavidMcKinnis,PurdueUniversity,interviewwiththeauthor.April6,2017.

23

respectiveunitadministrations.Aseparateteamisresponsiblefordevelopmentandfor

corporaterelationsatNYU’smedicalschool.Researchcollaborationswithcorporations

are executed by the Office of Sponsored programs, which is part of the Office of

Research.NYUdoesnothaveaseparateofficethatfocusesoncoordinatingcorporate

relationshipsacrosstheuniversity.

Strategies and Metrics. Several institutions reported that they create and

maintain bespoke strategies for each of the corporations with which they have, or

aspiretohave,substantialrelationships.Responsibilityfordevelopingandmaintaining

thesestrategiesresideseitherwithacentralorganization(e.g.theBusinessEngagement

CenterattheUniversityofMichiganortheCorporateEngagementOfficeatOhioState

University)orwiththeschoolordepartmentthathasthemostsubstantialinvolvement

with a given company. Representatives of some institutions stated that the effort to

maintaincustomizedstrategiesacrossthedozensofcorporationsthattheyengagewith

madeitimpractical.Otherscreatestrategiesforagiventierofengagement,fine-tuning

asnecessaryforaspecificcompany.

Asmallnumberof institutionssaidthattheyuseanalgorithmtoobjectivelyor

semi-objectively score their relationships with corporate partners, and thereby

determinewhichcorporationstofocuson.Anexampleofascoringsystemappears in

NACRO’sMetricswhitepaper.Itassignsweightstosixcategories.

24

Table1.Systemforscoringacorporation'sengagementwithauniversityCategory Subcategory Weight

PriorFiscalYearGiving 10%PhilanthropicGiving

Prior3-yearAverageGiving 10%LifetimeGiving 10%

PriorFiscalYearResearch 10%SponsoredPrograms Prior3-yearAverageResearch 10% LifetimeResearch 10% TotalAlumni 5%Recruiting VPandHigherAlumni 5% HiresandCo-ops 10%

EvaluationfromLeadership

Prospectmanagerand/orleadershipfromkeystakeholders.Thismaytakeintoaccountgeography,pastpartnering,orotherfactorsnotalreadyincluded.

10%

MasterResearchAgreement(MRA) Signed/active 5%NationalRanking Forbes500List(revenues) 5%Total 100%Source:DatafromNACROBenchmarkingCommittee,2012.

Note that this algorithm assigns 60% of the total score to gift and research

dollars received, 20% to the number of alumni at the corporation, and the rest to a

varietyoffactors,oneofwhichissubjective.Toconvertsuchaweightingsystemtoan

actualalgorithm,eachsubcategorywould requirenormalizing tosomestandard (such

asanaverageofallothercompaniesthattheuniversityengageswith)inordertoassign

ascore.

Arelateddocumentisacorporateprofile.Severalinstitutionswhosecorporate

relations officers were interviewed for this project maintain profiles for important

corporatepartners.Thesizeofthelistofprofiledcompaniestendstobeintherangeof

20-30,andtheprofile isusedtosummarizethescaleandbreadthof therelationship.

Universities consider profiles to be confidential documents, but corporate relations

25

officersdescribed them in interviewsconducted for thisprojectas includingelements

suchas:

• Dollars provided by category (philanthropy, sponsored research, royalties or otherlicensing,gifts-in-kind,sponsorships,fellowships)

• Executiveeducationorworkforcedevelopment• Recruitingevents• Hiringofgraduatesorpostdocs• Vendorrelationships• Alumniinseniorpositions• Keycontacts• Relationshipswithfaculty

Severalcorporaterelationsofficersnotedtheeffortrequiredtoassembleprofile

datafromdifferentsourcesandmaintainit.PurdueUniversityhasdevelopedasystem

that consolidates data from several institutional databases (Hirleman, 2015, slide 15)

andpresentsitincustomizabledashboardscreatedinTableauvisualizationsoftware11.

Metrics for evaluating corporate relations offices are the subject of perennial

interestanddebate.Mostcorporaterelationsprofessionalsinterviewedforthisproject

said thatmetricswere tracked in theiroffice,andwereused toevaluate individualas

wellasorganizationalperformance.Developmentandadvancementstaffsarefamiliar

withperformancetargets,whichinatleastsomecasesdriveeligibilityforbonuses.The

NACROpaper onmetrics recommended instituting a broad-based set of performance

measurements reflecting a longer-term, holistic spirit of engagement that alignswith

perceivedcorporateengagementpreferences.Thepaperrecommendedconsideration

ofmorethan30possiblemetrics,insixcategoriesbasedonthe“stage”ofengagement.

11MatthewTrampski,PurdueUniversity,interviewwiththeauthor.April6,2017.

26

Table2.Stagesofuniversity-corporateengagement,withsamplemetricsEngagementstage Exampleofsuggestedmetric

Buildawarenessofacademicprogramsandofferings Numberofon-campusevents

Generateandqualifynewleads NumberofleadsadvancingtonextstageIdentifymutualneedsandengagementopportunities Significantcampusvisits

Developandstructurecollaborationsandpartnerships Complexityanddurationofdeals

Closedeals ValueofdealsStewardandgrowexistingrelationships TrendsinnumberoftouchpointsAssessandimprove Feedbackfromcompanies

Source:DatafromNACROBenchmarkingCommittee,2012.

Anexampleofauniversitythathasposteditscorporaterelationsmetricsisthe

University of Illinois, whose 2016-2017 strategic plan appears at the university’s

website. A page called “Goals and Metrics: Corporate Relations”12 lays out four

overarching goals (increasing overall corporate engagement, supporting unit-level

corporate engagement, increasing efficiency, and increasing Illinois’ engagement

recognition),15initiativestoachievethosegoals,andatotalof17metrics.TheIllinois

metrics for corporate relations exemplify the broadening of engagement goals from

incomingdollarstoincludetargetsthatarenon-financial,butstillmeasurable.

NACROhassurveyeditsmembersonthetopicofmetricsthatare“mostusedto

evaluate Corporate Relations Officers” at their institutions. The 2016 survey data

showed that deals and dollars are the most common, but a variety of non-financial

metricsarealsoinplace:

12http://strategicplan.illinois.edu/units/corporate-relations.html

27

Table3.Rankingofcorporatemetricsusedatuniversities

MetricSelectedasoneoffive“mostused”

metricsGiftdollarscommittedperFY 98Number,typeandvalueofdealsand/orproposalssubmitted 82Numberofdealsand/orproposalsclosed 79Numberofsignificantvisitstocompanies 69Numberorqualityofengagementandstewardshipactivities 66Numberofsignificanton-campusvisits 62SponsoreddollarscommittedperFY 61Valueoryieldofnewengagements 42Levelofcompanyleadershipinvolvement 37Numberofleadsadvancingtonextstage 33Feedbackfromcompanies 27Numberofexternalandon-campusevents 26Feedbackfrominternalstakeholders 26Levelofuniversityleadershipinvolvement 17Other 13Numberofleads 9Eventattendance 6Numberofreferrals 5Source:NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question17

Skills and Background. The origin of most university corporate relations

programsindevelopmentofficeshasmeantthatfundraisingskillsandexperiencehave

often been prioritized. Many corporate relations professionals have built careers

moving from university to university, or from universities to non-profit organizations

and back again. However, industry experience and subject matter expertise is

increasingly valued, particularly for corporate relations jobs that are tied to a specific

universityunit.Forexample,theUniversityofWashingtonhastwoDirectorsofIndustry

Relations, both with Ph.D.s and years of industry experience13. The director of the

UniversityofMichigan’sBusinessEngagementCenterreportsthatmostoftheCenter’s

13https://www.engr.washington.edu/industry,https://www.linkedin.com/in/toddcleland/,https://www.linkedin.com/in/terry-grant-1193961/

28

staff have backgrounds in business or industry, not academia14. Note that “industry

background”doesnotnecessarilymeantechnicalexpertise; itcanalsomeanbusiness

developmentorrelationshipsalesexperience. Oneoftheauthorsofthe2011NACRO

paper on corporate relations strategiesmeasures its influence by the frequencywith

whichshesees theprioritiesdescribed in thatpaperappearing in jobdescriptions for

universitycorporaterelationsjobs15.

Coordination and Communication. Corporate engagement can be initiated (or

respondedto)byanumberofuniversityofficesorentities,rangingfromfacultytothe

office of technology transfer, to the office of sponsored programs, to procurement

officers,tocorporaterelationsprofessionals.Internalcoordinationisdesirableformany

reasons, including (1) minimizing duplicative or conflicting communication, and (2)

maximizing the opportunity to pursuemultiple lines of engagement or to “cross-sell”

theinstitution.Aclassicconsequenceofpoorinternalcoordinationisthecomplaintby

a corporate partner that it receives repeated requests for money from different

university offices that don’t seem to know what the others are doing. A database

systemthat logscorporatecontacts isroutineatmostresearchuniversities—the2016

NACROmember survey identifiedmore than a dozen customer relationmanagement

systemsusedbytheir institutions16,ofwhichAdvance(31%),Raiser’sEdge(27%),and

14SheilaWixom,UniversityofMichigan,interviewwiththeauthor.February21,2017.15AlexandraPatel,DartmouthCollege,interviewwiththeauthor.March16,2017.16NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question19.

29

Salesforce (26%) 17 were the most frequently cited. Several corporate relations

professionalsinterviewedforthisprojectcitedinternalcommunicationaboutthegoals

and strategies of corporate engagement as their biggest challenge. Despite repeated

efforts to educate faculty, including presentations at departmental meetings, they

reported that corporate relations continues to be poorly understood at their

institutions. Faculty contacts with research peers at corporations can be among the

mostproductiveavenuesforinitiatingrelationshipsthatcanbenurturedtogobeyond

sponsored research, but faculty are often perceived to be uninterested in supporting

suchefforts.Buildingrelationshipsthroughdeansanddepartmentchairswascitedasa

productiveapproachtogainingtheattentionoffaculty.

Predictors of Success. In response to inquiries about how corporate relations

officers felt about the relative success of their efforts, two broad patterns emerged.

Onewasthatcorporateengagementwassignificantandgrowing. Theotherwasthat

corporate relations activity was minor compared to other sources of institutional

funding, was difficult to grow, and was relatively unimportant when compared

specificallytosecuringsupportfromfoundations. Thesepatternstendedtoalignwith

whether the institutionhadcreatedan“industry liaison”positionorunitdedicatedto

fosteringresearchcollaborations.Suchinstitutionsreportedthattheyreceivenumerous

inquiriesfromcorporationslookingforengagement. Theseuniversitiesalsotendedto

have strong science and engineering faculties, so the supporting role of an industrial

17“Blackbaud”and“RazorsEdge”[sic]werelistedseparately;Raiser’sEdgeisthedonormanagementsoftwareofBlackbaud,sotheirusagenumbersfromthesurveywerecombined.

30

liaison teamwasanatural correlate. PurdueUniversity, forexample, reporteda36%

increase inyear-over-yearresearchawardscomingfromnon-governmental (corporate

andfoundation)sources(Daniels,2016).

Severalcorporaterelationsofficers interviewedforthisprojectemphasizedthe

importance of expanding themeasures of success to include non-financialmeasures.

When NACROmembers were asked to rate the relative importance of 12 university

individualsorentitiesfortheirimpactonthesuccessofcorporaterelationsefforts,they

identified faculty and deans/department chairs as the most important, followed by

senior academic leadership (chancellor, president or provost), the leadership of the

developmentoffice,andthecareercenter18.Thesamesurveyfoundthatamajorityof

institutions had added corporate relations staff in the past three years, whereas less

than10%reportedalossofcorporaterelationsstaff19.

18NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question23.19NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question9.

31

Chapter4

RecommendationsandConclusion

Introduction

Universities and corporationspursue relationshipswithoneanother to fulfill a

varietyofobjectives.Onthecorporateside,theseincludeoutsourcingresearchforcost

reasonsor to gain access to expertiseor equipmentnot available in-house; achieving

corporatesocialresponsibilitygoals;gainingaccesstograduatesasasourceoftalentin

a competitive marketplace or to retain valued staff who are alumni; and for staff

development or executive education purposes. These are not new objectives; more

than30yearsago,HerbertFusfieldofNewYorkUniversityobservedthat“[t]heprimary

objectiveofindustryinestablishinguniversityrelationshipsistoobtaincompetentand

adequatepersonnel”(Fusfield,1983).

Universities have objectives in corporate partnerships that in many cases are

complementary to those of corporations: universities have faculty, postdocs and

studentswithexpertiseandresearchintereststhatmayalignwiththoseofcorporations

butwhichneedexternalfundingtofueltheenterprise;universitiesgenerategraduates

seeking employment; universities have instructional capacity; and many universities

includejobcreationoreconomicdevelopmentintheirmissionstatements.

Traditionally, most universities focused their corporate outreach on

“advancement”—oftendrivenbygeographicproximity to company facilitiesorby the

32

alumni status of senior corporate officials. In recent years, a number of universities

have instituted changes in their corporate relations strategies, organization, or both.

These changesweredriven in part by theNACROwhitepapers andbybest practices

recommendations from theUniversity-IndustryDemonstration Partnership. Examples

of best practices include simplification of terms for intellectual property licensing;

managing expectations of both partners, particularly regardingmissions and urgency;

and establishing clear outcome goals at the beginning of a collaboration. The two

organizations polled academic and corporate members, and concluded that the

longstanding willingness of corporations to emphasize open-ended philanthropy in

university relationshad largelycometoanend. Instead,corporationswereseekinga

more nuanced relationship that delivered measurable return on investment. This

changecoincidedwithrecognitionbyuniversitiesthatfundingfromstateandespecially

federalgovernmentsourceswasunlikelytogrowoverthelongterm,andinmanycases

was in decline. Influenced by the findings of NACRO and UIDP studies, academic

institutions have explored opportunities to pursue more robust corporate/industrial

partnerships. Factors influencing the ability and willingness of universities to pivot

towards increased corporate engagement include skillsets of frontline fundraisers,

alignment of faculty research expertise with needs of potential corporate partners,

culturaldifferencesbetweenthetwoworlds,anddifferentattitudestowardintellectual

propertyownershipandopennesstopublicationofresearchfindings.

NewYorkUniversity’scorporaterelationsorganizationcurrentlyhaselementsof

both the traditional, philanthropically focused approach and the NACRO-driven

33

“holistic”approach.NYUhasacentralcorporateandfoundationrelationsoffice(UDAR)

that reports to the senior development officer of the university, aswell as dedicated

specialists in several of the university’s professional schools, who report to their

respectiveDeansbutareconsideredpartofthecentraldevelopmentteam.Officersin

thecentraldevelopmentofficehavebothcorporateandfoundationresponsibilities,and

indicated in interviews that foundations consistently yieldmorephilanthropicawards.

UDAR’sperformancemetricsplaceapremiumonthenumberandsizeofphilanthropic

dollars, and UDAR’s mission statement says that it is “dedicated to soliciting private

funding necessary to support the strategic goals of New York University regarding

teaching,learningandresearch”20.Contractsthatauthorizecorporateengagementsare

carefully parsed to determine whether the incoming funds are treated as sponsored

programs grants, or as gifts. The university tracks corporate contacts through an

Advancedatabase,butthereisnooverarchingsystemthatconnectsalloftheelements

relevant to corporate engagement (alumni employment, sponsored research,

philanthropy, procurement, licensing royalties, executive education/workforce

development,campusrecruiting,internship/mentorship,andboardmembership).NYU

has also not implemented a central concierge-style position or office whose primary

function is to serve as air traffic controller, fielding incoming inquiries and directing

themtoappropriatefacultymembersoradministrativeofficesaswellasidentifyingand

targetingcorporationswhoseproductsandservicesalignwithuniversitystrengths.

20http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration/office-of-the-president/university-developmentandalumnirelations/university-development-and-alumni-relations----contact-list.html

34

Recommendations

NewYorkUniversityhasahighlyproductivedevelopmentoperation: in2016 it

reportedraising$461million,13th-highestamongAmericanuniversities(CouncilforAid

to Education, 2017). NYU has steadily improved its competitiveness as a research

institution over the past decade, rising to rank among the top 30 in research and

development expenditures, with more than $600 million spent on R&D activities in

2016. By reviewing its corporate engagement practices, NYU has the opportunity to

compareitsorganizationandresourcingforcorporateengagementwiththoseofother

institutionsthathavemadechanges inrecentyearsandreportedpositiveresults.The

mutualbenefitsthataccruetoarobust,multifacetedrelationshipbetweenuniversities

andcorporationsaremany,including

• Aflowofgraduateswhoarereadytoenterintoproductivecareers.Suchgraduatesarevitaltothecompetitivenessofacorporation,andunderstandingtheneedsofemployerscan inform curriculumdevelopment and improve a university’s ability to compete forstrongstudents.

• Corporationsarethemostimportantlicensorsofuniversitypatents.NYUhasranked#1in licensing income over the past decade, in large part due to royalties on theautoimmunedrugRemicade.21

• Research collaborations drive cross-fertilization of ideas, leveraging of facilities andequipment,andidentificationoftalent.

A primary finding of this project is that while NYU practices the individual

elements of productive corporate engagement, it does not do so in an optimally

21https://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/research/documents/RCR/collaborationswithindustryconflictofinterestdatasharingandownership05_24_2011.pdf;Huggett,Brady.“TopUSuniversities,institutesforlifesciencesin2014.”NatureBiotechnology22Oct2015,doi:10.1038/bioe.2015.11.Accessed19March2017.http://www.nature.com/bioent/2015/151001/fig_tab/bioe.2015.11_F2.html.

35

integrated, coordinated and strategic fashion across the university. The many

impressive examples of successful corporate gifts or research agreements are just

that—individual successes. Therefore, a central recommendation is thatNYUconsider

taking several steps tomove it deliberately and incrementally towards an integrated

corporateengagementstrategy.Theseactionsmaybecategorizedas

• Organization• Collaborativeinstitutionalcultureandsupport• MetricsandPerformanceIndicators• Portfoliomanagement• Evaluationofinstitutionalassetsandstrengths• Roadmap

Organization. A number of universities have created a role that serves as a

campus-widecoordinatorofcoordinatorofcorporaterelations.Thispositionhasbeen

described as “air traffic controller”, “traffic cop”, or “concierge”. The essential

responsibility is facilitation of knowledge sharing, both within the university and

betweentheuniversityandpotentialorestablishedcorporatepartners.Therationale

for investing in this role is that corporations—unlike individual donors, most

foundations, and government agencies—can have so many touch points across the

institution that it’s easy for internal communication to get lost or scrambled.

Furthermore,coherentengagementstrategiesrequiresomeonetomonitorandreport

on progress towards goals. The coordinator does not “own” the relationship in the

senseofexclusivityorcontrol,butaccountabilityforthestatusandhealthofimportant

partnershipscanbeamajorjobresponsibility.

36

AtNYU,ifacoordinatingpositioniscreateditcouldreportjointlytotheoffices

oftheSeniorVicePresidentforDevelopmentandtheSeniorViceProvostforResearch,

to acknowledge the importance of both philanthropy and sponsored research in

corporateengagement,orprimarilytotheOfficeofResearchwithadottedlinetothe

OfficeofDevelopmentinrecognitionthatthebulkofcorporatefundingislikelytocome

fromsponsoredresearchcollaborations.

Responsibilitiesofthecoordinatingpositionwouldinclude

• Developingandmaintainingalistofcorporationsdeemedtobekeypartnersortargets,alongwithspecificstrategiesfordevelopingeachrelationship.Theseplanscouldincludegoals,responsibilities,andactionplans.

• Chairingandsettingtheagendaforthecorporaterelationsstakeholders’council,whichwould be charged with evaluating and approving strategic plans for corporateengagement.

• Overseeingthepreparationandupdatingofcorporateprofiles,whichholddataabouthistoricandcurrentpartnershipactivities,aswellasaconcisesummaryofthestrategicplanforthecompany.

• Preparinganddistributingstewardshipreportsforkeycorporatepartners.• Preparing and delivering briefings and talking points for senior university officials

meetingwithcorporateofficers.• ServingastheknowledgehubforincomingcorporateinquiriesaboutwheretofindNYU

expertise or other assets, and for internal inquiries about potential corporateengagement,particularlyforresearchsupportorcollaborations.

• Developing and reporting onmetrics that treat corporate relationships as a businessportfolio, to bemanaged the way a business development specialist would handle aprospectlist.

Ifthecoordinatingfunctioniscreatedasasingleposition,thepersonservingas

coordinator will have to rely for support on existing offices such as University

Development and Alumni Relations, the Office of Industrial Liaison, the Office of

SponsoredPrograms,andschool-specificdevelopmentofficers.Creatingacoordinating

positionwouldaddresstwoofthefive ‘essentialelements’ofthe2011NACROpaper:

one-stop shopping and campus coordination. It is preferable that this position not

37

include revenue targets in the performancemeasures, to (1) emphasize the range of

activitiesthatcontributestrategicallytotheuniversity’sgoalsincorporateengagement;

and(2)eliminatepotentialconflictswithNYUstaffwhodohavefundraisingtargets.

A secondorganizational recommendation is to consider establishingdiscipline-

specific corporate engagement specialists with subject matter expertise, either as a

central “industrial liaison”unitor in schoolsor researchcenters. One suchoperation

alreadyinexistenceistheOfficeofTherapeuticsAlliancesattheNYULangoneMedical

Center, staffed by five life science Ph.D.s Another example is at the University of

Washington, which has three Ph.D.s responsible for Industry Relations: one in

engineering, one in health sciences, and one for university-wide initiatives. At the

UniversityofNotreDame,theSeniorDirectorforCorporateRelationsnotedthatasthe

university works to aggressively build its research base, it has hired “relationship

people” with “academic or industry backgrounds”. A third example is Pennsylvania

StateUniversity,whichhasbothacentralOfficeofIndustrialPartnershipsthatreports

totheVicePresidentforResearch,and“embedded”industryspecialistsintheColleges

ofEngineeringandAgricultureaswellastheMaterialsResearchInstitute.22

A third organizational recommendation is to consider assigning corporate and

foundation responsibilities separately among the central development staff of UDAR,

rather than assigning both corporate and foundation roles. A general observation at

most of the universities whose corporate relations officers were interviewed for this

project is that corporate engagement is quite different than foundation work.

22DonMothersbaugh,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,interviewwiththeauthor.March30,2017.

38

Corporate engagement is more about relationship management and less focused on

preparingcompellingfundingproposals.

CollaborativeInstitutionalCultureandSupport.Supportfromsenioracademic

officers was widely acknowledged as important among the corporate relations

professionals who were interviewed, but it bears emphasizing because support can

range from sporadic and superficial to active and essential. The director of the

UniversityofMichigan’sBusinessEngagementCenter,whichwascitedinseveralofmy

interviews as a model for superior corporate relations, noted that the BEC was

established at the specific direction of a former President of the University, and has

sustainedstrongsupportfromthemostseniormembersofboththeresearchandthe

development offices of that institution. Opportunities for actively demonstrating

support include participating in meetings with senior corporate officers or board

members, lending the prestige of their office to stewardship reports, publicly

acknowledging new partnerships and research successes, and supporting the

investmentinpositionsdedicatedtocorporateengagement.

Institutionalculture ideallyconsistsofcreatingasharedsenseofownership(in

the sense of accountability, not exclusivity) and commitment to the success of the

corporate engagement enterprise. An important component of NACRO’s holistic

approach is the large number of university functions and offices that have roles in

corporateengagement,beyondthedevelopmentandresearchorganizations:executive

education/workforcedevelopment, regionaleconomicdevelopment,procurementand

39

vendormanagement,andstudentcareerdevelopment/recruitmentshouldallfeelthat

theyhaveastake in thecorporaterelationsenterprise. ChristopherGroffofFairleigh

Dickinson University has proposed creating a matrix to identify touch points for

corporate engagement, with partners or prospects along one axis, and internal

universityunitsalonganother(Fusch,2011).Populatingthegrididentifiesopportunities

and responsibilities. Emphasizing the range of opportunities for partnershipsmoves

thefocusawayfromitstraditionalfundraisingemphasisandtowardabroadersenseof

engagement. Several people interviewed for this project noted the importance of

cultivatingpartnerships,sometimesforyears,beforemovingto“theask”.Committing

to an honest self-appraisal of university strengths and deficiencies, particularly in the

context of competitive or peer institutions, was noted by several corporate relations

professionals(seeAssetsandStrengths,below).

Anotherelementofacollaborativeinstitutionalcultureisinformationsharing,to

avoidconflictingorexcessivecommunicationswithcorporatepartnersandtoadvance

agreed-upon strategies. All institutions whose corporate relations officers were

interviewed for thisprojectusea systemthat trackscontacts. Asnotedearlier,most

(75%)ofNACROmemberswhoweresurveyedreportedthattheirinstitutionshadsuch

adatabasesystem;ofthose,morethanhalfuseeitherAdvanceorRaiser’sEdge,bothof

whicharemarketedas fundraising software. Oneperson interviewed for thisproject

noted that Advance’s focus on individuals made it less useful for working with

corporations,andfoundSalesforcetobeamoreflexiblesolutionforcorporaterelations

purposes. NYU already deals with a diverse collection of database systems and

40

interfaces—ifitmovestowardsadedicatedcorporaterelationsteam,itshouldevaluate

theavailableoptionsforrelationshipmanagementsoftwareandconsiderasystemthat

bestsuitstheneedsofcorporateengagementratherthanassumingthatAdvanceisthe

defaultsolution.

Metrics and Performance Indicators. Measuring the performance of

organizationsandindividualsisatopicofperennialinterestanddiscussionincorporate

relations. The2012NACROMetrics paper identifiedmore than30possiblemeasures

for consideration by corporate relations offices. In NACRO’s 2016 member survey,

sevenmetricswererankedas“mostusedtoevaluateCorporateRelationsOfficers”at

their institutions: thetopthreewerevariousversionsof“dealsanddollars”,followed

by threemeasures of visits or engagement, followed by sponsored [research] dollars

committed.AnotherrecommendationisthatNYUestablishnomorethan5-7measures

or performance indicators to help guide and evaluate progress towards its corporate

relationsgoals.Bestpracticesinmanagementliteratureonperformanceindicatorsare

(1) divide them roughly equally between lagging (backward looking) and leading

(predictive) indicators; (2) use independent or competing indicators; and (3) avoid

dependent indicators. Anexampleof competing indicators frommarketingwouldbe

cost per lead (desirable to minimize) vs. qualification rate (desirable to maximize).

Another recommendation is that NYU adopt a set of performance indicators for

corporaterelationsthatcanbeappliedtobothcentralandunit-basedoffices,andthat

41

are meaningful for gift-focused, sponsored research-focused, and other relevant

activities.Thesemetricscouldinclude:

1. Dollars: Total valueof corporate financial support toNYU (forunit staff, to theirunit)overpast5years(laggingindicator)

2. Dollars: Total value of corporate financial support to NYU/unit over past 12 months(laggingindicator)

3. Contacts:Numberofcorporatevisitsorconferencecalls/videoconferencesbyNYUstafftocompanyorbycompanyrepresentativestoNYUoverpastyear,comparedtoaverageofpast3years(leadingindicator)

4. Engagement:Numberofproposalssubmittedtocorporationsplusnumberofcontractscompleted,comparedtoaverageofprior3years(laggingindicator)

5. Touch points: Number of companies that moved up one tier of engagement, minusnumberthatmoveddown(leadingindicator)

Two additional performance indicators that could help benchmark NYU’s

corporateengagementagainstotherresearchinstitutionsare:

6. RankingofNYUinNSFHERDdataforR&Dexpenditures,comparedtoprioryear(laggingindicator)

7. Ranking of NYU in the Council for Aid to Education’s Voluntary Support of Educationdata,comparedtoprioryear(laggingindicator)

Datafromthemedicalschoolshouldbeexcludedfromthesemetrics,becauseof

thedistortingimpactofclinicaltrialcontracts.

Discussionsofmetricsinevitablyconnectwithissuesofperformanceevaluation

and compensation, and--in university development offices--to incentive eligibility. At

some institutions, corporate relations professionals are eligible for bonuses, and in

otherinstitutionstheyarenot.Thepatternappearstobeconsistentwithwhetherthe

focusofanofficeoranindividualisonphilanthropyoronsponsoredresearch.IfNYU

adopts a portfolio management approach to corporate engagement, the first five

performance indicatorswould apply to individuals aswell as offices, if each person’s

portfolioissubstitutedfortheoveralllistofmanagedrelationships.

42

Portfolio Management. NYU should consider implementing a Portfolio

Management approach to the cultivation of corporate relationships. Currently,

corporate engagement is driven largely by the current perceivedneedsof schools, as

articulated by deans, department chairs, center directors, or faculty. A structured

process is recommended that uses agreed-upon factors to develop and maintain a

portfolio of current and aspirational corporate partners while allowing flexibility to

expand or modify the list and strategies, as circumstances dictate. A simple but

quantitativeorsemi-quantitativesetofcriteriashouldguidedevelopmentofthelistof

prioritizedcorporatepartners,including:

1. Scaleormagnitudeofrecentrelationship(totalfinancialsupportforlast3-5years,normalizedtoa1-5scale)

2. Strengthofcompanyasaprospectivepartner(averageof2a-2c)a. NumberofNYUalumniatcompany(perLinkedInprofilesoralumnidatabase,as

apercentageoftotalemployeescomparedtotheaverageofallcompaniesunderconsideration,ona1-5scale)

b. NumberofemployeesinNewYorkCitymetropolitanarea(fromLinkedInorCrain’s-styledataonNewYorkemployers,comparedtoallcompaniesunderconsideration,ona1-5scale)

c. Revenueormarketcapitalization(frompublicfinancialdata,comparedtoallcompaniesunderconsideration,ona1-5scale)

3. AlignmentofcompanywithNYUassets/strengths(subjective,basedonnumberofcurrenttouchpointsorNYUstakeholdercouncil’sfamiliaritywithcorporategoals,needsandstrategies,ona1-5scale)

Thesumofthenumbersassignedforcriteria1-3isacompany’s“score”,outofa

possible total of 15points. Thehighest-scoring companieswill beassigned tooneof

five tiers based on the criteria inWayne Johnson’sUniversity Relationsmodel,which

emphasizesthenumberofengagementtouchpoints.Itisgenerallydesirabletomovea

company in the direction ofmore touch points or elements of engagement, but that

maynotalwaysbefeasible.

43

Asecondlistofcorporatepartnersshouldbeconsidered,basedonbusinessor

industry sector. Thiswouldprovide anadditionalway to identifypotential partners,

becausetheremaybeimportantrelationshipsthatwouldnotscorehighenoughunder

criteria 1-3 to make a “top 20” list, but which might represent the most important

potentialpartnershipinagivensector.Suggestedsectorsare:

• Healthcare,includingpharmaceuticals,biotechnology,medicaldevices,hospitals• Manufacturing,includingfashion• Engineering,includingaerospace,electrical,biomedical,construction• Informationtechnology• Financialservices,includingbanking,realestate,insurance• Media,includingpublishing,entertainment,broadcast• Telecommunications,includingcable,wireless,internetservice• Hospitality,includinghotels,restaurant/foodservice,travel• Retail

The portfolio management approach for the centralized coordination of

corporateengagementatNYUcanbedevelopedbyassigningcompaniestoappropriate

peopleformanagementandaccountability. “Appropriate”mightmeansomeonewith

subjectmatterexpertise,ortothepersonmanagingcorporaterelationsintheNYUunit

that already enjoys a relationshipwith the company. The number of companies in a

person’sportfoliovariedconsiderably;5-10isatypicalrangeforcompaniesthatjustify

intensiveengagementstrategies,andupto50wheremanyofthecompanieshavelow

levels of engagement and are not targeted for advancement through a tier system.

Insteadoftryingtocreatebespokestrategiesfora largenumberofcompanies,useof

theNACRO-styletiersystemisrecommended,creatingstrategiesforeachtierthatcan

becustomizedasneededforasinglecompany.Tierstrategiesbasicallyconsistofadding

points of engagement and increasing the dollar value of existing relationships.

Executiononthetieredapproachtocorporateengagementrequiressteadilyincreasing

44

knowledge ofwhat a companywants to achieve and how the university’s assets can

furtherthosegoals,aswellastheconverse:identifyingresearchandfundraisingneeds

at the university, then finding and cultivating corporations that can support those

needs.

Maintainingcurrentknowledgeofexistingor targetedcorporatepartners isan

importantelementofportfoliomanagement. Profilesofcorporationssummarizethe

extentofcurrentandpastengagement,thenumberofalumniemployedandalumniin

senior positions, and recent contacts or planned interactions. They are the basis for

briefingsinanticipationofmeetingsbetweenseniorrepresentativesfromtheuniversity

and the company, and generally serve to university staff about plans, contacts, and

activity at selected corporations. A challenge in preparing andmaintaining corporate

profilesatNYU is thedisparate locationsofdataonalumni, grantandgiftactivity,as

wellastheneedtoupdatechanges.Investingtheefforttoprepareatemplatethatcan

be populated as much as possible by direct data downloads is recommended,

populating it for all companies in the top two or three tiers. Profiles should be

refreshed every 6-12months to retain their value. Note that some institutions have

consideredbutnotimplementedaprofilesystem,concludingthattheefforttomaintain

themwasnot justifiedby their relatively infrequentuse. Theseuniversities tolerated

theoccasionalneed fora firedrill topull togetherdata inanticipationof ahigh-level

meetingorvisit.

45

EvaluationofInstitutionalAssetsandStrengths.Corporateengagementefforts

at NYU should be grounded in a candid self-evaluation of institutional strengths and

gaps, including an audit of facilities and of major equipment that the university can

bringtoaresearchcollaboration.Theinternalreviewshouldbeginwiththeuniversity’s

strategic plan, to ground it in institutional priorities. It should include a realistic

comparison of NYU’s competitive position when compared to other local institutions

and peer universities nationally. It should identify faculty who have nationally- and

internationally-knownprograms,andshouldincludedevelopmentofathoughtfulvalue

propositionthatcanbesharedwithcorporations.Thevaluepropositioncanincludethe

goalsandvaluesoftheentireuniversity,supplementedwithspecificinformationabout

schools, centers,departments,and individual researchprograms that lend themselves

to external funding and collaboration. This audit process should be transparent and

conducted in collaboration with representatives of all academic and administrative

units. The outcome should be a concise summary of the university’s strengths and

assets,togetherwithtabulardescriptionsofmajorfacilitiesandequipmentthatcanbe

shared with interested corporate partners. A separate, non-public document can

provide comparisons with competitive and peer institutions for use by corporate

engagementstaff.

Accessto informationontheresearch interestsofuniversity faculty isvaluable

for developing collaborations, particularly across disciplines where potential

collaboratorsare less likelytoknowwhohasexpertise inanother fieldat theirown—

much less another—institution. A research engagement officer seeking to connect

46

corporationswiththerightresearchersattheir institutionisarecurringuserofsucha

database.Researcherdatabasesandtoolsfordiscoveryarepartofaclassofsoftware

called “research networking” and “research profiling” systems. Several dozen are

characterized in Wikipedia, including many that were homegrown and several from

commercial sources (InfoEd, Elsevier, Proquest) (Wikipedia, 2016). NYU has licensed

PurefromElsevierandhasbrandedthelocalimplementationas“NYUScholars”.23NYU

Scholars is in the process of being populated for selected schools and departments.

Some of its data can be pulled fromuniversity or public and private databases (Pure

extractskeywordsas“Fingerprints”fromthetitlesandtextofpublications,buteffective

usewillrequireindividualstoidentifykeywordsthatdescribefacultyinterests—someof

whichmightnotbereflectedinkeywordspulledalgorithmicallyfrompublishedresearch

or grant applications. A coordinated effort is recommended, to increase the pace of

populatingNYUScholarsforallschoolsanddepartmentswherecorporatecollaboration

and funding is a possibility. As of March 2017, NYU Scholars had fewer than 500

profiles from tenure-track faculty in science and technology departments. NYU has

approximately 1,600 tenure-track faculty.24Many are not in science or technology

departments,but itappears that faculty representation inNYUScholars is incomplete

even for those programs, and few profiles show evidence of customized entry of

keywords.TheautomatedFingerprintingSystemhaslimitationsintheusefulnessofits

output—it often produces excessively broad keywords like “genes”, “DNA”, or

23https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu24http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/new-york-university/academic-life/faculty-composition/

47

“proteins”. Faculty members or their designees should augment or replace the

automatedtermswithkeywordsaccuratelyreflectingtheirworkandinterests.

Roadmap.TheframeworkforreviewingNYU’scorporateengagementpractices

and organization and implementing new practices should be executed systematically,

with an agreed-upon timeline, assigned responsibilities, and deliverables. Figure 6

presentsahigh-levelschematicofanimplementationroadmap.

Figure6.Implementationroadmapforacorporateengagementstrategy.

Managing the process would be a core responsibility of a corporate relations

coordinator.Anumberofactionswithdeliverablesshouldbescheduledinanintensive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Year1 Year2

Leadershipcharter

Keypartnerlist

Createanaly@cscapability

CRMevalua@on&implementa@on

Auditofassets

3yearstrategicplan

Stakeholdermee@ngs

CEworkinggroupmee@ngs

School/deptoutreach&educa@on

Benchmarkingvisits

Corporateoutreach

Metricdevelopment

Reviewprogressauer12months

Implementa@onRoadmap

48

periodof sixmonthsor so, becauseanticipated improvements in theeffectivenessof

corporate engagement depends on having clear strategies with a charter or

endorsementfromsenioruniversityleadership,aswellasalistofcorporatepartners,a

set ofmetrics, andmarketingmaterials including the audit of assets (equipment and

facilities, key laboratories). Site visits to other universities with effective corporate

relationsprogramsshouldbemadeduringtheprocessofreviewingNYU’spractices,to

testassumptionsbymakingobservationsandaskingquestions.Amajordecisioninthe

first sixmonthswill bewhether to implement a different contact systemor CRM; its

implementationwouldprobablytakeayearifinterfacesarebuilttoexistingsystems.A

reviewafter 12monthswill compareprogress toplan.An important elementof a 12

monthreviewwillbeadecisionaboutwhetheradditionalresourcingisjustified,suchas

the addition of school-specific corporate relations specialists with subject matter

expertise.

Conclusion

This research project found that New York University’s approach to corporate

relationsdoesnotconformtoanumberofthebestpracticesarticulatedbytheNetwork

of Academic Corporate Relations Officers and implemented over the past decade by

manyresearchuniversities.Variancesincludetheabsenceofseparatecorporateversus

foundationresponsibilities inthe jobresponsibilitiesofmostcentralandunit-assigned

University Development and Alumni Relations staff, and relatively few corporate

relations staffwith subjectmatter expertise. Corporate engagement atNYUhas also

49

tendedtobetransactionalratherthanstrategic.Therearenotableexceptionstothese

generalizations, and NYU’s impressive track record with research collaborations and

fundraisingdemonstratethattheuniversityisabletocreatesuccessfulpartnershipsand

delivercompellingresults.NYUhasanopportunitytotakeitscorporateengagementto

another levelbysystematicallyworkingthroughaprocessthatwill result inaclarified

and revitalized corporate engagement mission that can leverage the university’s

powerful assemblage of talent and resources. The lessons learned from other

universities suggest that assigning industry-facing roles in corporate relations to

professionalswithsubjectmatterknowledgeandbusinessexperiencebuildsconfidence

incorporatepartnersthattheirneedsandgoalsarewellunderstoodintheuniversity.

Creating a team that includes both business development specialists and fundraising

professionalswillstrengthenNYU’sabilitytoidentifyandpersuadecorporationsofthe

benefitsof investing inpartnershipswithNYU. Creatingaclearbut flexiblesystemof

engagement tiers will establish a framework for building a collaborative institutional

culture, where numerous stakeholders will be able to advance their interests and

responsibilities.Thetiersystemwillalsomakeitpossibletorationallyassignresources

to activities intended tomove a given relationship towardsmore touch points and a

higherlevelofengagement,ratherthantreatingallpotentialcorporaterelationshipsas

identical.Theresult,overtime,willbeanelevationofcorporatepartnershipsatNYUin

dollarvalue,inresearchresults,insatisfactiononbothsides,andinvisibility.

50

Appendix1

NewYorkUniversityInterviews

Title OfficeExecutiveDirector,CorporateandFoundationRelations

UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations

AssociateVP,GlobalPublicHealth,Science&Technology

UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations

AssociateVPforAlumniRelations UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations

SeniorViceProvostofResearch OfficeoftheProvostAssociateViceProvost,ResearchComplianceandAdministrator

OfficeoftheSeniorViceProvostforResearch

Director,OfficeofSponsoredPrograms ContractOfficeandOfficeofSponsoredPrograms

ExecutiveDirector,OfficeofIndustrialLiaison SchoolofMedicine,Dean'sOfficeVPforFinancialOperationsandTreasurer Procurement

AssistantVP,CampusServices OfficeoftheEVPforFinanceandInformationTechnology

AssistantVP,StudentAffairs WassermanCenterforCareerDevelopment

ExecutiveDirector,InnovationVentureFundandEntrepreneurshipProgram EntrepreneurialInstitute

DirectorofDevelopment,CUSP CenterforUrbanScienceandProgressandUDAR

AssociateDeanofDevelopment TandonSchoolofEngineeringandUDAR

AssociateDean,CorporateRelations,CareerServices&LeadershipDevelopment SternSchoolofBusiness

Director,CorporateandFoundationRelations SternSchoolofBusinessSeniorDevelopmentDivisionDirectorforScience,CorporationandFoundationRelations NYULangoneMedicalCenter

Director,CorporatePartnerships NYULangoneMedicalCenterAssociateGeneralCounsel OfficeoftheGeneralCounsel

51

Appendix2

ExternalUniversityInterviews

University TitleUniversityofNotreDame SeniorDirector,CorporateRelationsUniversityofMichigan ExecutiveDirector,BusinessEngagementCenterBostonUniversity AssociateDirector,CorporateRelations

TempleUniversity ExecutiveDirector,TempleindustryPartnersProgram

DukeUniversity AssociateDirector,CorporateRelations

UniversityofSouthernCaliforniaDevelopmentalDirector-Specialist,DornsifeCollege;SeniorExecutiveDirector,CorporateandFoundationRelations

PurdueUniversitySpecialAdviser,CorporateandGlobalPartnerships;DirectorofPartnershipAnalytics,CorporateandGlobalPartnerships

UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside DirectorofCorporateandStrategicPartnerships

PennsylvaniaStateUniversity AssistantDirector,OfficeofIndustrialPartnerships

DartmouthCollege SeniorManagingDirector,DartmouthCorporateRelations

UniversityofWashington DirectorofIndustryRelationsOhioStateUniversity AssociateVicePresident,IndustryLiaisonOffice

CarnegieMellonUniversity ExecutiveDirectorofCorporateandInstitutionalPartnerships

NorthwesternUniversity Director,OfficeofCorporateEngagementUniversityofCalifornia,Davis Manager,OfficeofCorporateRelations

52

Appendix3

JohnsHopkinsUniversityInstitutionalReviewBoardApproval

JOHNS HOPKINSU N I V E R S I T Y

Homewood Institutional Review Board3400 N. Charles StreetBaltimore MD 21218-2685410-516-6580hHp://web.jhu.edu/Homewood-IRB/

Michael McCloskey, PhDChair

Date: February 9, 2017

PI Name: Marianne WoodsStudy #: HIRB00005467 Study Name: Improving Corporate Engagement Processes at a Research University

Date of Review: 2/9/2017Date of Approval: 2/9/2017

The Homewood IRB reviewed the information provided for the above-mentioned project and hasdetermined that this research does not qualify as federally-regulated human subjects research, andtherefore does not require IRB approval. This determination has been made with the understandingthat the proposed research either (a) does not involve a systematic research investigation designedto develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge, or (b) does not collect identifiable private dataabout a human participant.

You may proceed with the study at any time. No further communications with the HIRB arenecessary unless the procedures in your project are changed in such a manner that would requireIRB review or approval.

Please keep this message in your files for future reference. Thank you for contacting the HomewoodIRB about this research and for providing the requested information to make this determination.Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Study Team Members:Robert Garber

APPROVAL IS GRANTED UNDER THE TERMS OF FWA00005834 FEDERAL-WIDE ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DHHSREGULATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTS

53

WorksCitedAnonymous.2014.“Nomoney,noresearch.”Naturemethods11:1077(October30,2014);DOI:10.1038/nmeth.3171.AccessedApril7,2017.AssociationofUniversityTechnologyManagers.2015.HighlightsofAUTM’sU.S.LicensingActivitySurveyFY2015.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://www.autm.net/AUTMMain/media/SurveyReportsPDF/AUTM_FY2015_Highlights_US_no_appendix_FINAL.pdfBoroush,Mark.2016.“U.S.R&Dincreasedbymorethan$20billioninboth2013and2014,withsimilarincreaseestimatedfor2015.”NSFInfoBrief16-316(September15,2016).AccessedMarch22,2017.https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16316/Britt,Ronda.2016.“UniversitiesreportfourthstraightyearofdecliningfederalR&DfundinginFY2015.”NSFInfoBrief17-303(November17,2016).AccessedApril7,2017.https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17303/Bruneel,Johan,PabloD’EsteandAmmonSalter.2010.“Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversity-industrycollaboration.”ResearchPolicy(May11,2010);DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.AccessedMarch20,2017.https://feb.kuleuven.be/public/n14100/Literature%20Exam/1-s2.0-S0048733310001034-main.pdfBruning,StephenD.andJohnALedingham.1998.“Organization-publicrelationshipsandconsumersatisfaction:Theroleofrelationshipsinthesatisfactionmix.”CommunicationResearchReports15(2):198-208;DOI:10.1080/08824099809362114.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08824099809362114BusinessRelationshipManagementInstitute.Nodate.“AboutBusinessRelationshipManagement.”AccessedMarch22,2017.https://brm.institute/about-business-relationship-management/CommitteeontheFutureoftheCollegesofAgricultureintheLandGrantUniversitySystem.1995.CollegesofAgricultureattheLandGrantUniversities:aProfile.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress.CouncilforAidtoEducation.2016.“Collegesanduniversitiesraiserecord$40.30billionin2015”.Pressrelease,January27,2016.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE_2015_Press_Release.pdf

54

CouncilforAidtoEducation.2017.“Collegesanduniversitiesraise$41billionin2016”.Pressrelease,February7,2017.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE-2016-Press-Release.pdfDaniels,Mitch.2016.“AnnualopenlettertothepeopleofIndianafromMitchDaniels.”January2016.AccessedApril7,2017.https://www.purdue.edu/president/messages/1601-med-openletter.htmlFusch,Daniel.2011.“AnEngagement-CenteredApproachtoCorporateRelations.”HigherEdImpact(November3,2011).AccessedFebruary10,2017.https://www.academicimpressions.com/news/engagement-centered-approach-corporate-relations#topFusfield,Herbert.1983.“OverviewofUniversity-IndustryResearchInteractions.InPartnersintheResearchEnterprise:University-CorporateRelationsinScienceandTechnology,editedbyThomasW.Langfitt,SheldonHackney,AlfredP.FishmanandAlbertV.Glowasky,10-19.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Gertner,Jon.2013.TheIdeaFactory:BellLabsandtheGreatAgeofAmericanInnovation.NewYork:PenguinBooks.Hirleman,Daniel.2015.“TheImportanceofCorporatePartnershipsandhowtoFortifythem.”Slides3-17inDevelopingCorporatePartnershipsforResearchandCommercialization.Webinarpresentation.AccessedApril7,2017.https://www.lesusacanada.org/resource/collection/.../purduecreatingcorporate.pdf Huggett,Brady.2015.“TopUSuniversities,institutesforlifesciencesin2014.”NatureBiotechnology(October22,2015),DOI:10.1038/bioe.2015.11.Investopedia.Nodate.“RelationshipManagement.”AccessedMarch22,2017.http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/customer.aspJackson,Janet.1990.“AT&TBellLaboratories.”InTheFroehlich/KentEncyclopediaofTelecommunications,editedbyFritzE.FroehlichandAllenKent.Vol.1,397-406.NewYork:MarcelDekker.Johnson,WayneC.2003.“UniversityRelations:TheHPModel”.IndustryandHigherEducation(December1,2003)17(6).Johnson,WayneC.2006.“TheCollaborationImperative:UniversitiesandIndustryasPartnersinthe21stCenturyKnowledgeEconomy.”AccessedFebruary10,2017.http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_051414.pdf

55

Kevles,DanielJ.1979.ThePhysicists:theHistoryofaScientificCommunityinModernAmerica.NewYork:VintageBooks.Ledingham,JohnA.2003.“ExplicatingRelationshipManagementasaGeneralTheoryofPublicRelations.JPublicRelationsResearch15(2):181-198.Mitchell,Michael,MichaelLeachman,andKathleenMasterson.2016.“Fundingdown,tuitionup.Statecutstohighereducationthreatenqualityandaffordabilityatpubliccolleges.”CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities,August15,2016.AccessedApril7,2017.http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-upNationalScienceFoundation.2016.“HigherEducationResearchandDevelopmentSurvey.FiscalYear2015”.Table17.AccessedMarch22,2017.https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2015/html/HERD2015_DST_17.htmlNetworkofAcademicCorporateRelationsOfficersBenchmarkingCommittee2012.MetricsforaSuccessfulTwenty-FirstCenturyAcademicCorporateRelationsProgram.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://nacrocon.org/resourcesNetworkofAcademicCorporateRelationsOfficersWritingTeamandBenchmarkingCommittee.2011.FiveEssentialElementsofaSuccessfulTwenty-FirstCenturyUniversityCorporateRelationsProgram.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://nacrocon.org/resourcesPerkmann,MarkusandAmmonSalter.2012.“Howtocreateproductivepartnershipswithuniversities.”MITSloanManagementReview(June18,2012).AccessedMarch29,2017.http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-create-productive-partnerships-with-universities/Southerton,Jeff,GeanieUmberger,GoranMatijasevic,ScottSteeleandWayneJohnson.2012.PartnershipContinuum.UnderstandingandDevelopingthePathwaysforBeneficialUniversity-IndustryEngagement.GeorgiaTechResearchCorporationonbehalfoftheUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnership.Stewart,IrvinG.1948.OrganizingScientificResearchforWar:theAdministrativeHistoryofOSRD.Boston:Little,Brown.UnitedStatesBureauofLaborStatistics.2017.“AllEmployees:TotalPrivateIndustries[USPRIV]”.AccessedMarch28,2017.https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIVUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnershipResearcherGuidebookWorkingGroup.2012.ResearcherGuidebook:AGuideforSuccessfulInstitutional-Industrial

56

Collaborations.GeorgiaTechResearchCorporationonbehalfoftheUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnership.UniversityofIllinoisOfficeofCorporateRelations.2015.AnnualReport2015.AccessedMarch28,2017.http://corporaterelations.illinois.edu/resources/downloads/OCRAnnualReport2015.pdfVest,CharlesM.2007.TheAmericanResearchUniversityfromWorldWarIItotheWorldWideWeb:Government,thePrivateSector,andtheEmergingMeta-University.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Wikipedia.2016.“Comparisonofresearchnetworkingtoolsandresearchprofilingsystems.”LastmodifiedNovember13,2016.AccessedMarch1,2017.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_research_networking_tools_and_research_profiling_systemsZachary,G.Pascal.1999.EndlessFrontier:VannevarBush,EngineeroftheAmericanCentury.Cambridge:MITPress.