Summary of Findings

Summary of FindingsBest Practices and Benchmarking

For commercialization structure

Office of Technology TransferMcGill University

byJean-Michel Lavoie, B.Pharm., MBA

February 17, 2009

MandateIndependent evaluation of modelsAnswer 3 questions1. Should the administration of the research

grants and industrial contracts be combined under one office or kept separate?

2. Should the IP management be kept in house or be externalized outside the university?

3. What level of decentralization (in each faculty) is optimal for the management of grants, contracts and commercialization of technology?

Methodology• Primary research

– McGill– Interview questionnaire– Phone interviews (20 to 40 min. each):

Harvard, MIT, PARTEQ/Queen’s, Stanford, UBC, TIG/U of Toronto, Yale

• Secondary research– Websites– Literature search: articles and thesis

Key Findings

Complete report provides detailed structural elements, trends and

best practices found among major NA universities. 4 most important components:

• Mandate and reporting criteria of offices; strong support from senior management

• Information sharing among stakeholders• Skill-based work assignment

(cross functional team + single p-of-c)• Research services perceived as service

provider for McGill community

Global Trends

• Grants increase in complexityConvergence of agreements

• Synchronization of actions– Mainly with finance: pricing, billing

• Empowerment of compliance office• Capitalized on alumni relations• Integration of IT system• Organizational culture alignment

– University and Research: environment, support– Reporting criteria

Global Trends

Skill-based job assignment• Level-1:

Administration, bulk and batch, processing of standardized documents

• Level-2: Basic contract administration, understand and develop contracts, minimum technical understanding

• Level-3: Business and content skills, full IP understanding, business negotiation and business development

Comparative Overviewbased on interview questionnaire

Actions Skills

Pure Grants •Processing•Batch & Bulk•No science

1

Govt Contracts

•Contract skills 2

Industry / Govt Levgd

•Contract skills•Basic scientific content (terms)

2Industry Contracts

IP mgmt •IP knowledge 3

Licensing Commerczt

•Business skills•Negotiation

3

Business Developmt

•Business Development 3

Compliance Post-Award

•Conformity•Processing 1

UBCResearchServices

UILO

online

UofTResearch Services

TIG

McGill

OTT

Queen’s

ResearchServices

PARTEQ

RGO

Finance

CanadaResearch administrationreporting to VP research

CommercializationFaculty / Lab / Investigator

University administrationCompliance Office

OV

PR

IRO

VP

RIR

Consult

Consult

Pu

re

IP

Development/Alumni Office

DA

R

Research administrationreporting to finance

Commercialization

Faculty / Lab / InvestigatorUniversity administrationCompliance OfficeDevelopment/Alumni Office

USA

Harvard

SponsoredProgram

OTD

Yale

Grant &ContractAdmin.

OCR

Stanford

OTL

MIT

SponsoredProgram

TLO

SponsoredResearch

OV

PR

IR

Pu

re

IP

Licensing

Simple govt

Research administrationreporting to VP research

Actions Skills

Pure Grants •Processing•Batch & Bulk•No science

1

Govt Contracts

•Standardprocessing 1

Industry / Govt Levgd

•Contract skills•Basic scientific content (terms)

2Industry Contracts

IP mgmt •IP knowledge 3

Licensing Commerczt

•Business skills•Negotiation

3

Business Developmt

•Business Development 3

Compliance Post-Award

•Conformity•Processing 1

Now

PI

Ethic

Financead hoc pricing

Ad hoc Background IPEx: research network

Grantadministration

OTT officerIPContract

Industry leveragedgrant

Vision

PI

Point-of-contactContent understanding (L-3/L-2)

Compliance•Pre-award•Post-award•Ethic•Conflict of interest

Finance•Pre-award•Post-award

Admin Assist•Transactionprocessing•Internal adminpaper•Grant

ContractAdministrator•Legal support

Officer L-3•Background IP

•Forward IP•Business terms

IT system

EX: Yale, UBC, UofT, Harvard

Cross functional team

Industry leveragedgrant

Answer to questions

1. Government grants and industry contracts?

Integration seems to provide higher effectivenessAdvantages: response time, less duplication of effort and communication flow

Alternatively: • Sharing offices• Regular meetings• Common IT system

2. IP spin-off?

Reason: flexibility for salaries, taking more business risk

Conditions for success:• Align interest with university

• Change in mind-set

• Financial resources from fees

• Successful models: Queen’s, in Europe and in Israel

Answer to questions

3. Decentralization of officers?

Advantage of pooled officers is greater than benefit of proximity to investigatorsRelationship with researchers is crucial:

• Communication• Relationship• Opportunity to meet

Answer to questions

Thank you

Best practicesLessons learnedWisdom from literatureService offering

Best Practices• Compliance office

– Strong compliance in US (MIT, Stanford)– Independent office (UofT)– Online and real time application (UBC)

• Skill-based structure– Possibility to have junior/senior officers (UBC)

• Project base structure (Harvard, UBC, Yale)– Allow cross-functional team– Single p-of-contact for clients

• Organizational culture– Environment for research (Harvard, MIT, Yale)

• alignment with upper management (strong message of support)– Reporting criteria aligned w. strategy

• visibility - vs - revenue (Harvard, Yale)• Alumni relations

– MIT mentoring program, Yale Institute• Entrepreneurial environment

– Links between research campus and entrepreneurs (MIT, Yale, in development in Canada)

Lessons to be learned• Regrets that PARTEQ and RS are not in the same building (Queen’s)

• Lack of communication between offices is single most frequent comment of dissatisfaction; but some universities excel(UBC, Yale)

• Change in revenue sharing model greatly impacted on performance (UofT)

• Some department are hot spots while some are dormant: uniformity of culture

• Only reason to spin-off IP is for increased flexibility

• Relationship and culture > proximity or structure

• McGill is the only university with an international office (others: integrated to activities)

Wisdom from literature• Investigator involvement in all phases• Connections to business development institutions (research park, tech

incubator) influences TT performance– Entrepreneurship center: no impact on TT effectiveness

• Rewards for faculty involvement in TT– Promotion, tenure, royalty

• Staff at TTO– Compensation– Scientists and entrepreneurs/businessmen mix (vs lawyers)– Role = reduce barriers between researchers and firms

• Higher royalty to researcher enhance TT• Address ethical concerns about academic capitalism (life sciences

particularly)• TTO with strong commercial orientation• University policies encouraging TT

– Aimed at individual faculty member (vs the research unit)– Ex: incentives, autonomy, ownership, and responsibility

TTO: Tech Transfer Office4 articles, 4 thesis; 1999-2007

Type of agreement ActivitiesSkills Needed

(level)

Pre-Award

•Preparing application (jointly with PI)

•External communication: marketing & sales (partnership development and promotion), business development

•Internal communication: funding opportunities

•Business and content skills, IP issues (level-3)•Business and content skills, IP issues (level-3)

•Administration (level-1)

Award

Grants:•Processing (from proposal submission to award notice)

•Administration (level-1)

Contracts:•Negotiation and closing •Business and content skills, IP

issues (level-3)

Licensing & Spin-offs: •IP management, business development and commercialization

•Business and content skills, IP issues (level-3)

Compliance &Post-Award

vigilance

•Processing

•Follow-up on contractual obligations

•Administration (level-1)

•Administration (level-1)

Service Offering