Download ppt - TTN – WP3 report

TTN – WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3

CERN MS TT Network

TTN – WP3 report

TTN meeting,

June 24, 2009


CERN MS TT NetworkAgenda

• WP3 story: members, goals, work already done, questionnaire origin

• Questionnaire and accompanying documents• Preliminary analysis of the questionnaire• Work plan for the next 6 months• Questions


CERN MS TT NetworkWP3 members (final list)

Name Institution Comment

Caccia Massimo INFN

Clerc Gabriel EPFL

Dargent Pascal IN2P3

Paolucci Lorenza INFN

Rück Dorothee GSI

Rudolph Robert PSI

Sirage Emir CERN

Soberman Marcel IN2P3 convenor

Wurr Karsten DESY

Stres Spela IJS New entrant!


CERN MS TT Network Objectives

• To investigate, define and classify a set of criteria for TT activities measurement in PP

• How? To build a set of indicators and metrics– overview of the situation in our institutions– elements of comparison between us, and us vs overseas– guidance for newcomers– performance improvement measurement

How to select those indicators?– bibliography– adjustment to our research profile– testing using a questionnaire– define the final ones


CERN MS TT NetworkWork done

• Bibliography:– a lot of literature on patents, but not focused on results from

academic research and RIs– interesting questionnaires and surveys: APRU (Association

of Pacific Rim Universities), ASTP/MERIT (EU), AURIL (UK), AUTP (US), CREST Report (EU), PROTON (EU), SWITT (Swiss)…

• Preparation of a first questionnaire sent to a subset of MS CERN institutions, and to overseas HEP PROs

• Result analysis (in progress) from 12 MS CERN and 5 overseas PROs


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire scope: selecting domain & PROs

CERN MS PRO (Public Research Organism)

Institute 1 Institute 2

Part devoted mainlyto PP, NP or AP

Institute 3

1 HEP sub-domains: PP, NP, AP for the core, but also transversal applications originated from our TT

2 Which PROs or subsets are in the scope? Up to each to define its own scope, to be able to give most relevant figures on HEP activity


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire: how to adjust to the right level?

• if too low: non relevant information, inadequate coverage

• if too complex: no answer from a large part of institutions

a lot of discussions, and a selection of questions with– a glossary– a letter to explain our objectives, the process, and

that a blank answer is also significant


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire building: headings


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire first analysis

• Today status on the analysis made by Massimo Caccia from completed questionnaires: 12 from CERN MS, but only 1 from overseas rather complete feedback (BNL)

• For the moment, only:– Invention disclosures– Patent applications– Patent grants– License agreements– Research agreements

• Assuming as basic figures the Executive Summary indicators of the 2006 ASTP survey for fiscal year 2006

• Normalized to 1 year and per 1000 FTE’s


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire first analysis: summary table

labs Natl. Inst. BNL EPFLAST

P UNI.

ASTP PRO

ASTP mean

<x>W <x> x

<x>W

<x> x

disclosures 7 9 9.8 2.3 1.3 1.3 33 24 15.6 20.4 16.6

Patent applications

4.4 4.1 5.5 1.7 0.9 1.0 13 12 5.5 9.2 6.3

Patent grants 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 9 6 2.6 7.8 3.2

License agreements

0.3 1.1 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 3 8 4.8 11.6 6.3

IP agreements 1.0 3.2 5.1 0.6 1.0 1.4 3 9 NA NA NA

Research Agreements

48.5 122 185 16.2 6.7 1.5 92 119 111 95.8 108.8

Patent families 27.5 32.0 25.1 12.2 8.6 4.5 120 78 NA NA NA

Overall Licensed patents

10.1 10.9 12.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 88 38 NA NA NA


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire first analysis:

• The spread among the different institutions is terrifying : there’s a solid rock motivation for the TTN

• Patent number is not the most significant indicator• Licensed patents are more interesting• But too few patents in HEP vs other scientific domains• KE towards other disciplines and Research agreements with

other scientific community has definitely to be pursued


CERN MS TT NetworkQuestionnaire analysis continuation

• Our PROs are too different and the sample too small to get general statistics

• However, we will continue this analysis on the other questions to define our future indicators

• Objectives are also to provide :– a multidimensional diagram for

a global view– a tool for each PRO to help in

improving by using PDCA process (Plan Do Check Act)

Radar on indicators (example)

0

1

2

3

4LEVEL OF MATURITY

TT - PATENTS &LICENSING

COLLABORATIVERESEARCH

SERVICES

FACILITIES


CERN MS TT NetworkSome comments & suggestions (June, 23)

• Check WP1 impact • Learning process on good and bad indicators• Work again to have a comparison with non European

institutions• Some members wanted answers to some questions

will remain confidential• Incredibility useful for us, but we have to think on how

to communicate on these results!• how to go further in measuring all impacts on

enterprises, on the society?• …


CERN MS TT NetworkWork plan for the next 6 months

• New completed questionnaires are expected• Questionnaires analysis continuation and exploitation• Communication of results in September• Booklet of results• Resulting indicators and target values, including WP1 impact• Adding an indicator about TTN helping in TT • Defining processes for indicators and metrics

implementation• Report on this work next TTN board (December)• After: a long way…


CERN MS TT Network Questions?