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