An Coiste Feabhais Riarachán agus Seirbhísí
The Committee on Administration and Services Quality Improvement
The Administration and Services Quality Assurance Programme 2009 – 10
Review of the
Technology Transfer Office
FINAL REPORT
15th December 2009
1. Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a review group to the Technology Transfer Office, NUI
Galway on the 6th to the 9th of October 2009. The Technology Transfer Office had
previously prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other
documentation, was made available to the review team in advance of the visit.
The Review Group consisted of: Mr. Paul Dillon, Director, Technology Transfer Office,
UL (Chair); Mr. Thomas O’Toole, President, Global Biotechnology Solutions; Dr. Jim
Ryan, CIRCA Group Europe Ltd.; Dr. James Cunningham, Director, Centre for
Innovation and Structural Change, NUI Galway, and Ms. Monica Crump, Head of
Information Access and Learning Services, Library, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
 Aims and Objectives
 Organisation and Management (structured around the assessment criteria specified in
the Guidelines for Administration and Services Quality Programme 2009-2010)
 Summary and Concluding Remarks
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process:
Review Visit
The Review Group were very impressed during the visit with the staff of the Technology
Transfer Office and found them to be dedicated, hard-working and very committed to the
service. It was evident to the Review Panel that the commitment of the TTO staff and the
trust that they have engendered with the research community, in addition to the support
received from the University and Enterprise Ireland has enabled the rapid growth of TTO
since its establishment in 2005. The TTO staff were very forthcoming and greatly
facilitated our review of their activities through their honesty and openness. Excellent
feedback was also provided by staff throughout NUI Galway.
While the visit was of necessity extraordinarily intense, the ability to be immersed in the
activities of the TTO for the duration of the visit greatly facilitated the process of Review.
Self-Assessment Report
The Review Group did not feel that the content of material received conformed to the
Guidelines for Administration and Services Quality Programme 2009-2010. We got the
impression that an internal process of self-assessment involving all staff had not been
carried out, or perhaps that the process had been misunderstood. The assessment criteria
outlined in the Guidelines were not directly addressed and no benchmarking activity was
documented. As a result, the Review Group are of the opinion that the TTO has not
reaped the benefits of the self-evaluation process as much as they could have. This was a
wasted opportunity as the process could have been a valuable learning experience.
2
It would perhaps benefit the process of Quality Assurance in NUI Galway, were greater
direction or guidance given to units during the self-assessment stage of the review
process.
2. Aims and Objectives
The Self-Assessment Report presented the mission statement of the Technology Transfer
Office and a set of Aims and Objectives. However, the activities of the office are very
diverse and seem to spread well beyond the stated Mission, Aims and Objectives of the
office. They are also far wider than those in TT offices in comparable institutions (this is
further detailed in Section 12). It is difficult to find evidence of any single clear vision
for the TTO. This was also evident from the testament of the members of the University
community, who saw functions and roles for the TTO that did not reflect the aims and
objectives expressed in the Self-Assessment Report. The staff of the TTO also expressed
a need for a clearer vision of what the TTO was trying to achieve and a better match
between their day-to-day activities and the core purpose of the Office.
Recommendation 1: – There needs to be a clearer statement of core TTO purpose that is
more closely aligned to the overall Strategic plan of the University.
Recommendation 2: – Arising from this mission or statement of purpose, clearer aims
and objectives should be set and clearly communicated to the staff of the TTO and the
wider University community.
Recommendation 3: - All activities of the TTO should be closely considered in relation
to their relevance to the agreed mission, aims and objectives of the office; less or no
emphasis should be placed on non-core activities.
3. Organisation and Management
The Review Group analysed the organisation and management of the TTO using the
Assessment Criteria recommended in the Guidelines for Administration and Services
Quality Programme 2009-2010. This section is structured around those criteria.
However, a number of strong themes emerged during the Review, which we consider
very significant and therefore have addressed outside the Assessment Criteria.
Development of the TTO
The Technology Transfer Office was established in late 2005 following a major review of
the Industrial Liaison Office and management of IP in NUI Galway. Over the four years,
the TTO team has grown significantly and has had a change of leadership as recently as
2008. The TTO has done a good job in developing IP inventory and in creating a cohort
of IP-aware researchers who are actively disclosing opportunities. They now need to
3
extend their customer focus to the business entities that will license the IP inventory, and
direct TTO resources to this endeavour.
There is a clear need for guidance and leadership to direct the staff through the current
stage of TTO program development. This will require an evaluation of staff duties and
an alignment of activities to focus on licensing activities (including spin-outs) and
industry customers. This is not to suggest abandonment of the process of cultivating
disclosures and patenting technology when appropriate. But, the TTO needs more effort
in the licensing area. Employee development activities need to be addressed to help with
the licensing and marketing program components.
Recommendation 4: - Evaluation of staff duties and an alignment of activities to focus
on licensing activities (including spin-outs) and on industry customers.
Non-core Activities
The TTO is currently handling many activities that are not core to their mission. These
are legacy activities relating to contracts management that have remained with the TTO
following its creation from the Industrial Liaison Office. A lot of frustration is expressed
by staff at being tied up with non-core activities and not having sufficient time for their
core mission. There is also a question of whether those staff are qualified or competent
to deal with the legal, financial and risk management issues related to contracts review.
Staff have been recruited for their technical and IP knowledge and competence, but are
being asked to make legal, financial and risk management decisions. This is causing both
a motivational and a structural problem and is exposing the University to unnecessary
risk.
Recommendation 5: – The University needs to consider one of two choices relating to
contracts management – (i) staff the TTO with personnel with the appropriate skill set to
carry out contracts management, or (ii) take these functions away from the TTO and
integrate them into a contract and procurement setting.
Recommendation 6: – Accelerate the integration of the Research Office, the TTO and
Research Accounts so as to leave the TTO free to meet its core objectives.
Intellectual Property Management Process
The Review Group noted a ratio of disclosures made to patents filed which is
significantly higher than international norms. This could warrant a benchmarking
exercise. While the group are impressed with the quality of the TT staff, this statistic
could raise concerns about the quality of the patents filed. . As future patent funding is
not guaranteed and the research activity of NUI Galway is increasing, difficult decisions
will have to be made in the future with regard to the filing of patents on disclosures made,
and also about abandonment of existing patent applications. It is essential that a
transparent policy be developed and agreed by stakeholders if the TT office is to be
4
effective. This policy would, amongst other things, define the criteria for when to patent
and when to abandon a patent.
The issue of non-core activity activities is also relevant to this function. If the office was
freed from these activities, they could be more proactive in promotion and licensing
activities, and therefore reduce the need for costly patent maintenance (see
Recommendation 4 above).
Recommendation 7: - In light of increasing research activity and decreasing funding for
patent application, the TTO needs to significantly enhance processes to ensure that there
is transparent decision-making and stage-gate processes for filing and abandoning
patents.
Quality Programme Assessment Criteria
1. Are the management structures and systems of the TTO suited to the successful
accomplishment of its aims and objectives?
The management structure of the TTO as outlined in the Self-Assessment Report did not
seem to be reflected by actual practice on the ground.
Recommendation 8: – The management structure of the TTO needs to be clearly defined
and communicated to staff.
The Review Group identified that there is a need for more coherent management of
engagement with industry, both within the TTO and across the different offices of the
University.
While there are several staff involved in the process, their roles and
interaction are confusing to those within the college and, it can be reasonably presumed,
even more confusing to the target companies outside the college. Within the TTO it also
became apparent that existing IT systems in place could be better exploited for this
purpose.
Recommendation 9: – A more systematic University-wide approach to engagement
with industry is needed, with clarification of the specific TTO role within this approach.
Processes need to be formalised. Procedures are not documented and it is not clearly
documented or published what industry or researchers can expect from the Technology
Transfer Office.
Recommendation 10: – Formalise processes and procedures and document both for
staff, for industry and for the researcher community.
2. Are the duties and responsibilities of each member of staff defined and agreed?
5
Duties and responsibilities as outlined in the Self-Assessment Report are clearly defined,
however custom and practice of individual staff roles means that they are being taken
away from these to carry out other duties, e.g. contract management, VAT deliberation
and debt collection. The job descriptions and actual activities of the staff are not clearly
aligned, and in some cases completely unaligned. In the opinion of the Review Group
these additional activities are not traditional, best practice TTO-related activities.
Recommendation: see Recommendations 5 and 6 above.
3. Is there a strategic plan for the TTO that is in accord with the University
strategic plan?
The strategic plan presented in the Self-Assessment report was in fact a Business Plan
submitted to the Enterprise Ireland Technology Transfer Strengthening Initiative in
November 2006. As such it does not reflect many other activities within the current
TTO. In light of the University’s new strategic plan, there is an outstanding opportunity
for the TTO to reconsider their strategic plan and align accordingly. This gives them the
opportunity to ensure their mission statement, roles and responsibilities will contribute
effectively to the new NUI Galway Strategic Plan 2009-2014.
Recommendation 11: - The TTO should develop a Strategic Plan that is in alignment
with the NUI Galway Strategic Plan 2009-2014.
4. Have basic metrics and key performance criteria been identified and are they
monitored routinely to provide inputs to management decisions and planning?
While metrics have been defined for the core tasks of the office, there are several issues
which require attention:
 The core metrics (no. of patents, IDFs etc.) have been defined by Enterprise Ireland
and do not particularly address the NUI Galway strategic objectives. There is
therefore a mismatch between the indicators for TTO performance and the mission of
NUI Galway, particularly relating to regional economic impact.
 There are no clear metrics for the performance of the Business Development Team,
although all of these staff are employed on externally funded projects which have
specified objectives. Because of the nature of these projects, there are overlaps in the
activities of this team and other TTO staff which results in confusion for customers.
It is also dispiriting for the staff involved who are unclear of their role within the
office.
 The Review group saw no evidence of metrics feeding in to management decisions
and planning.
Recommendation 12: - Current metrics should be reviewed in terms of their relevance to
NUI Galway strategic objectives. In addition to hard metrics the TTO should consider
developing softer measures, e.g. company visits, attendances at TTO seminars, inbound
6
business visits, social impacts of TT activities, and other relevant metrics identified
during benchmarking activities.
5. Do the communication systems within the TTO ensure efficient communication
with all its staff and stakeholders?
There was evidence of excellent communication to some stake-holders and a great degree
of trust in the staff of the TTO, and this should continue. The outcomes and impact of the
TTO activities are not however being systematically communicated to the University
community by the TTO (see Criteria 7 and 8 below).
Communication internal to the TTO appears to be informal. The Review Group would
recommend that more formal communication processes be put in place. Staff expressed
strong views about the possible future directions and opportunities for the TTO.
However, mechanisms do not seem to be in place for these to be expressed and
considered internally.
Recommendation 13: - Formal review meetings should be held where more strategic
issues are discussed and planned.
6. Are there service level agreements in place for all relevant services provided and
received?
SLAs may not be appropriate for the TTO. However, as the Review Group saw evidence
of varying expectations of service up to and including immediate response requests, the
TTO would benefit from more clearly informing their customers of the services they
offer and likely delivery times. In order to manage expectations and reduce workload
stress the TTO needs to review how it handles enquiries/requests and how it can best
manage the expectations of the customers/stakeholders both internal and external.
Recommendation 14: – Agree and document service delivery timetables and publish to
customers.
7. Does the TTO communicate effectively with its customers?
8. Does the TTO develop and maintain relationships with its customers?
The review panel believes that the TTO has two ‘customer groups’ – researchers and
industry. There would appear to be very good communication and service provision to
research centres and to major academic groups. This is based on strong personal contacts
between TTO staff and these centres. The feedback from the researchers was
overwhelming positive and the TTO was reported as having the fastest turnaround time
of any office on campus.
7
Wider communication to the entire academic research community seems less effective.
Researchers who are not affiliated with formal centres seem not to have as much formal
contact with the office and have less understanding of its role. There is a need for
improved formal, systematic and routine communications to stakeholders. It struck the
review group that there was some lack of clarity as to who their stakeholders are.
Contact with industry customers is not yet fully developed but this may be a feature of
the relatively new nature of the office. As the program matures and becomes more
involved in licensing with industry customers, it must create a wider industry customer
base, and this will require effective communication systems.
Communications regarding enterprise support measures do not seem to be as effective as
they could be out to the wider University community. Other formal systems for
communication, such as the website and use of NUI Galway press office seem not to be
optimally used.
Recommendation 15: - A coherent internal and external communications plan and
processes need to be put in place, to increase awareness of the TTO’s core mission and
purpose and its activities and services.
9. Are systems in place (and used) to collect and evaluate customer responses to
how their current requirements are met by the TTO?
A survey of customers in the researcher customer group was carried out and reported in
the Self-Assessment Report, however the response level appears low. There was no
evidence within the report of how that feedback was used to ensure continuous
improvement, and surveying customers does not appear to be a regular activity.
Recommendation 16: – a more detailed survey should be considered for eliciting
feedback. This survey should include industry customers.
10. Does the TTO determine emerging needs and expectations, and engage in
planning?
While not specifically stated in the aims, objectives and planning section of the Self
Assessment Report, it is mentioned that the TTO was involved in the new NUI Galway
strategy for Research and Innovation (2009-2014). There was also a broad statement that
the TTO “is in a constant state of review and improvement”. The review team would
have liked to see more specific detail in this area. For example, the survey conducted by
the TTO and reported in the Self-Assessment Report was limited to researchers. This is a
very narrow description of clients. The review team would like to see this survey
expanded to include the 400 companies in the TTO database. This industry input is
critical if the TTO is to understand the emerging needs within the complex area in which
they deliver services.
8
Recommendation: - See Recommendation 16 above.
The review team would like to see more detailed analysis and regular benchmarking of
the TTO metrics. For example, it is very impressive to see both the number and
percentage increase in the number of disclosures. This is a good indication that the TTO
is becoming a well established part of the overall NUI Galway research program.
However, the ratio of patents from disclosures has been very high by international
standards and, while it is understood that this pattern may have arisen due to the
availability of Enterprise Ireland funding on a per disclosure/patent application basis, this
is a cause of some concern. It is well known that the patent part of technology transfer is
very expensive. It is very important that the patent process be managed in a prudent
fashion. In particular, licensing opportunities should be more proactively sought so as to
convert the high cost of patenting into an income generating opportunity.
Recommendation – See recommendations 4 and 7 above.
11. Has the TTO identified other entities for the purpose of benchmarking and
carried out related exercises?
While benchmarking has been mentioned several times, no evidence was presented that it
has actually been conducted to date. One potential benchmarking site was mentioned and
the review group would encourage the TTO to carry through on this.
Recommendation 17: – Carry out benchmarking against similar technology transfer
offices and document findings.
12. Are the University’s management structures and systems suited to the
successful accomplishment of the aims and objectives associated with the TTO?
The issue of contracts management arose in our discussions with many of the staff of
both the TTO and other offices of the University. As research activity on campus is
growing, more and more of the TTO staff time is being spent on reviewing and signing
off on contracts. Current staff do not have the legal background or skills to be competent
in the management and review of legal contracts (other than relating to IP), but are
currently required to review all research contracts entered into by the University
regardless of whether there is an IP element to the contract or not. They also do not have
the financial background and skills required to make VAT determinations and to set up
research accounts. Nevertheless, they are currently engaged in this activity despite the
availability of qualified accountants in other offices of the University who appear to be
able to identify errors made by the TTO staff. These activities, for which the TTO staff
are ill-equipped, are currently taking up a considerable portion of their time and
detracting from their ability to carry out their core function of technology transfer and
commercialisation.
9
There is an inefficiency of service as a result of the current situation. A continuation of
this will impede the TTO’s ability to act on our recommendations regarding more time
being allocated to business facing activities. We understand a proposal has been prepared
that deals with the integration of the research support functions and contract management
and would recommend its close consideration by the University. Models for management
of funded research contracts exist in other institutions and should be considered.
Recommendations 5 and 6 above are considered of sufficient urgency by the Review
Team to warrant repetition here:
Recommendation 5: – The University needs to consider one of two choices relating to
contracts management – (i) staff the TTO with personnel with the appropriate skill set to
carry out contracts management, or (ii) take these functions away from the TTO and
integrate them into a contract and procurement setting.
Recommendation 6: – Accelerate the integration of the Research Office, the TTO and
Research Accounts so as to leave the TTO free to meet its core objectives.
Management and Staff Development:
Recommendation 18: - Consideration needs to be given to developing the licensing and
marketing skills which are required for this phase of TTO program development. For
example, the LSE licensing qualification certificate, international exchange, attendance at
international technology events/conferences.
Recommendation 19: – The Director and senior staff of the TTO should attend
professional development events, i.e. AUTM, LES, AURIL, Proton. This would help
further develop the TTO leadership and TTO related strategic planning activities.
4. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Technology Transfer Office provides a core and vital role in fulfilling the
University’s strategic priorities relating to research and regional development:
“A commitment to knowledge transfer and innovation, which is underpinned by an
intensification of knowledge dissemination and a particular focus on technology transfer
and commercialisation to support the development of the knowledge and innovation
economy.” (NUI Galway Strategic Plan 2009-2014)
Over the coming years the TTO will have an increasingly central role in delivering on the
University’s core strategic priorities. The University research income has increased from
€26m in 2002 to €52m in 2008, and the University has responded to the technology
10
transfer and commercialisation mandate by establishing the TTO following a major
strategic review in 2005. The establishment of this office has facilitated and responded to
stakeholders who wish to avail of its services in this arena.
The future of TTO in an Irish context will become more challenging due to increasing
stakeholder expectations and minimum resources to service the requirements of both
internal and external customers. The economic imperative for TTO to enable economic
activity through supporting spin-outs, licensing, and collaborative research will increase
as the growth in University research incomes moderate. TTOs in an Irish context are a
relatively new dedicated unit within Universities and have gone through a period of
bedding down within University infrastructure.
The technology transfer programme is usually built in a step by step process. The
program has done a good job in step 1, i.e. in obtaining researcher buy-in and generating
disclosures. Step 2, the patenting process has been well supported. Now the program has
matured to step 3, the licensing phase. As a result, TTO is taking on new clients, and its
staff has to focus on employing a new skillset. Step 3 is often considered the most
demanding, and it requires a great deal of shoe leather (i.e. getting in front of prospective
clients).
If TTO is to succeed in phase 3, the University and TTO senior management will have to
find ways of freeing staff from activities that prevent them from conducting core
activities. If this does not occur, the patent portfolio owned by the University will
continue to expand in both size and more importantly cost. The cost of maintaining the
current IP progression could easily approach in excess of €2 million per year. Thus, it is
paramount that TTO begin to increase its licensing activities and reduce the cost of their
patent portfolio.
The review team would like to thank the Technology Transfer Office and the Quality
Office for the opportunity to conduct this review for NUI Galway Technology Transfer
Office. We appreciate the honest discussions and trust of all staff who participated in this
review. As a result of this trust and honesty, we feel that the following recommendations
represent a broad and diverse view of what is in the highest and best interest of NUI
Galway and the Technology Transfer Office:
1: – There needs to be a clearer statement of core TTO purpose that is more closely
aligned to the overall Strategic plan of the University.
2: – Arising from this mission or statement of purpose, clearer aims and objectives
should be set and clearly communicated to the staff of the TTO and the wider University
community.
3: - All activities of the TTO should be closely considered in relation to their relevance to
the agreed mission, aims and objectives of the office; less or no emphasis should be
placed on non-core activities.
11
4: - Evaluation of staff duties and an alignment of activities to focus on licensing
activities (including spin-outs) and on industry customers.
5: – The University needs to consider one of two choices relating to contracts
management – (i) staff the TTO with personnel with the appropriate skill set to carry out
contracts management, or (ii) take these functions away from the TTO and integrate them
into a contract and procurement setting.
6: – Accelerate the integration of the Research Office, the TTO and Research Accounts
so as to leave the TTO free to meet its core objectives.
7: - In light of increasing research activity and decreasing funding for patent application,
the TTO needs to significantly enhance processes to ensure that there is transparent
decision-making and stage-gate processes for filing and abandoning patents.
8: – The management structure of the TTO needs to be clearly defined and
communicated to staff.
9: – A more systematic University-wide approach to engagement with industry is
needed, with clarification of the specific TTO role within this approach.
10: – Formalise processes and procedures and document both for staff, for industry and
for the researcher community.
11: - The TTO should develop a Strategic Plan that is in alignment with the NUI Galway
Strategic Plan 2009-2014.
12: - Current metrics should be reviewed in terms of their relevance to NUI Galway
strategic objectives. In addition to hard metrics the TTO should consider developing
softer measures, e.g. company visits, attendances at TTO seminars, inbound business
visits, social impacts of TT activities, and other relevant metrics identified during
benchmarking activities.
13: - Formal review meetings should be held where more strategic issues are discussed
and planned.
14: – Agree and document service delivery timetables and publish to customers.
15: - A coherent internal and external communications plan and processes need to be put
in place, to increase awareness of the TTO’s core mission and purpose and its activities
and services.
16: – a more detailed survey should be considered for eliciting feedback. This survey
should include industry customers.
12
17: – Carry out benchmarking against similar technology transfer offices and document
findings.
18: - Consideration needs to be given to developing the licensing and marketing skills
which are required for this phase of TTO program development. For example, the LSE
licensing qualification certificate, international exchange, attendance at international
technology events/conferences.
19: – The Director and senior staff of the TTO should attend professional development
events, i.e. AUTM, LES, AURIL, Proton. This would help further develop the TTO
leadership and TTO related strategic planning activities.
Mr. Paul Dillon (Chair)
Mr. Thomas O’Toole
Dr. Jim Ryan
Dr. James Cunningham
Ms. Monica Crump (Rapporteur)
15th December 2009
13