Summary of Findings
Best Practices and Benchmarking
For commercialization structure
Office of Technology Transfer
McGill University
by
Jean-Michel Lavoie, B.Pharm., MBA
February 17, 2009
Mandate
Independent evaluation of models
Answer 3 questions
1. 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 complexity
Convergence 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 Overview
based on interview questionnaire
Research administration
reporting to VP research
Commercialization
Faculty / Lab / Investigator
Actions
Skills
Pure Grants
•Processing
•Batch & Bulk
•No science
Govt
Contracts
•Contract
skills
Industry /
Govt Levgd
•Contract
skills
•Basic
scientific
content
(terms)
Industry
Contracts
IP mgmt
•IP
knowledge
University administration
Compliance Office
Development/Alumni Office
1
Canada
UBC
UofT
Research
Services
Research
Services
Queen’s
McGill
RGO
Research
Services
2
Consult
2
Consult
UILO
3
•Business
skills
•Negotiation
Business
Developmt
•Business
Development
3
Compliance
Post-Award
•Conformity
•Processing
1
OTT
Pure IP
Licensing
Commerczt
TIG
3
PARTEQ
OVPRIR
DAR
OVPRIR
Finance
online
Research administration
reporting to finance
Research administration
reporting to VP research
Faculty / Lab / Investigator
University administration
Compliance Office
Development/Alumni Office
USA
Commercialization
Actions
Skills
Pure Grants
•Processing
•Batch & Bulk
•No science
Govt
Contracts
•Standard
processing
Industry /
Govt Levgd
•Contract
skills
•Basic
scientific
content
(terms)
Industry
Contracts
IP mgmt
•IP
knowledge
Harvard
Yale
Sponsored
Program
Grant &
Contract
Admin.
1
1
Stanford
MIT
Simple govt
Sponsored
Research
Sponsored
Program
2
3
OTD
OTL
Pure IP
OCR
Licensing
Commerczt
•Business
skills
•Negotiation
Business
Developmt
•Business
Development
3
Compliance
Post-Award
•Conformity
•Processing
1
3
TLO
Licensing
OVPRIR
Industry leveraged
grant
Now
Ethic
Finance
Grant
administration
ad hoc pricing
PI
OTT officer
IP
Contract
Ad hoc Background IP
Ex: research network
Industry leveraged
grant
Vision
EX: Yale, UBC,
UofT, Harvard
PI
Point-of-contact
Content understanding (L-3/L-2)
Compliance
Finance
•Pre-award
•Post-award
•Ethic
•Conflict of interest
•Pre-award
•Post-award
Admin Assist
•Transaction
processing
•Internal admin
paper
•Grant
Cross functional team
IT system
Contract
Administrator
•Legal support
Officer L-3
•Background IP
•Forward IP
•Business terms
Answer to questions
1. Government grants and industry contracts?
Integration seems to provide higher
effectiveness
Advantages: response time, less duplication
of effort and communication flow
Alternatively:
•
•
•
Sharing offices
Regular meetings
Common IT system
Answer to questions
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 investigators
Relationship with researchers is crucial:
•
•
•
Communication
Relationship
Opportunity to meet
Thank you
Best practices
Lessons learned
Wisdom from literature
Service 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
4 articles, 4 thesis; 1999-2007
TTO: Tech Transfer Office
Service Offering
Type of agreement
Activities
•Preparing application (jointly with PI)
Pre-Award
Award
Compliance &
Post-Award
vigilance
•External communication: marketing & sales
(partnership development and promotion),
business development
Skills Needed
(level)
•Business and content skills, IP
issues (level-3)
•Business and content skills, IP
issues (level-3)
•Internal communication: funding opportunities
•Administration (level-1)
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)
•Processing
•Administration (level-1)
•Follow-up on contractual obligations
•Administration (level-1)