Professional Documents
Culture Documents
November 2010 Leuven (Flemish Brabant), Belgium, & Montral (Qubec), Canada
Table of Contents
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Technology transfer .............................................................................................................................. 5 Overview of organizations being studied ................................................................................................. 5 Univalor ................................................................................................................................................. 5 LRD ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Roots of success: Key differentiators regarding LRD .................................................................................... 7 Technology transfer: Low barrier of entry ................................................................................................ 7 Technology transfer: Setting up the Return on Investment ..................................................................... 8 Easy access and proper tools: A mix for success .................................................................................... 10 New outcomes to measure ..................................................................................................................... 10 Conclusions: Technology transfer, a holistic approach .............................................................................. 12 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 12 1-Lower the barrier of entry for faculty to benefit from technology transfer ................................... 12 2-Tools to facilitate IP valorisation for the actors involved in technology transfer ........................... 12 3-New outcomes indicating economic development ......................................................................... 12 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 13 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare two different technology transfer units, Univalor from Montral (Canada) and Leuven Research & Development (LRD) from Leuven (Belgium), with the goal of determining what can be recommended to improve the efficacy of technology transfer in Canada. The rationale behind this approach is to learn from LRD, which has a long and successful history in the field of valorization. Although there are a few differences between both units (structurally, environmentally or functionally), the focus turned to the main points which facilitate and improve the efficiency and experience of technology transfer. The points being having an internal VC fund to facilitate spin-off creation, a patent fund to allow timely IP protection, a low barrier of entry into technology transfer for researchers, and measuring new outcomes for technology transfer efficiency. Following discovery of the main points of difference which permit an improved technology transfer ability, three recommendations are put forward: 1) to lower the barrier of entry, for researchers, to technology transfer, 2) to put in place tools, for the technology transfer professionals, to facilitate IP valorisation, and 3) to use outcomes which are a better indicator of (or effect on) economic development.
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to do a comparison between two technology transfer entities, Univalor in Montral (Qubec, Canada) and K.U.Leuven Research & Development (LRD) in Leuven (Flemish Brabant, Belgium). The goal is to determine what can be recommended to improve the efficacy of technology transfer in Canada by learning from LRD, which has a long and successful history in the field of valorization. The data and information collected to make this report are from the various actors and documentation within LRD and Univalor, as well as within K.U.Leuven and Universit de Montral, as well as from my own in-the-field experience, working as a technology transfer professional at both units (at the time of the writing of this report: 6 months at LRD and 12 months at Univalor). Some work has been done in regards to comparing different technology transfer systems, albeit at a conceptual level. The masters thesis of David Melviez (1), published in 2008, was a case study regarding technology transfer in Canada and Belgium. The thesis provides very good background information on both Univalor and LRD, as well as the context in which they operate. Although the thesis does provide to be an interesting case study at an academic level, it does not delve into the application and consequences of the various processes found in technology transfer. This report will focus on more practical observations and applications in regards to technology transfer in Canada and Belgium, from the perspective of a technology transfer professional who has worked in both systems.
Background
Technology transfer A general description can be found in Wikipedia(2), which states: Technology transfer is the process of sharing of skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing and facilities among governments and other institutions to ensure that scientific and technological developments are accessible to a wider range of users who can then further develop and exploit the technology into new products, processes, applications, materials or services. Within the context of this report, technology transfer is the sharing of technological developments from academia with industry or through the creation of spin-offs, for the purpose of commercialization.
IP Ownership and Policy The IP initially belongs to the researcher or the university, but in any case the researcher has to assign the IP to the university and at the same time, the IP must be assigned to its limited partnership which is managed by the technology transfer firm (in this case, Univalor) for valorization and commercialization to proceed. (1). LRD K.U.Leuven Research & Development (LRD) is the technology transfer office (TTO) of K.U.Leuven. Since 1972 a multidisciplinary team of experts guides researchers in their interaction with industry and society, and the valorisation of their research results (5). LRD is a separate unit within the university that aims to promote and support the transfer of knowledge and technology, between on one hand the university and on the other industry and society. In order to do this, LRD offers professional advice about legal, technical as well as business-related issues. In addition, LRD is financial independent and self-sufficient (5). LRD is also the recipient of the 2008 IPTEC Tech Transfer Award, in recognition of an outstanding record in technology transfer(5). Organizational structure LRD has a flat management structure (Figure 2). Within this structure, close interaction & collaboration between the different units is promoted and all the units involved in scouting for new projects.
IP Ownership and Policy IP belongs to the university and LRD is part of the university structure; therefore there is a simplified legal procedure due to being part of the university. In addition, the commercialization is not dependent of a process of assigning the IP from the researcher to the university.
It is important to note that researchers are free to conduct their research as they see fit, and researchers can always rely on governmental grants (either completely or in part) to pursue their work. Another benefit of this type of arrangement is having a de facto internal technology transfer public relations system: success that researchers have when valorizing their discoveries are more easily communicated to the rest of the faculty, which has the beneficial effect of promoting technology transfer without requiring any additional effort from LRD itself. This increases the awareness, within the university, of the technology transfer office and what they do.
There are two other benefits in having an internal VC fund: 1) the development of expertise and 2) the development of a financial network. The internal VC fund allowed LRD to begin a closer relationship with the finance sector, which in turn brought a better understanding in what was needed, in preparation and information, when requesting funding for a start-up. On the other end, the financial partners were able to observe how committed the university was in ensuring technologies succeeded when spun-off. Furthermore, having the relationship with the financial partners of the fund allowed more doors to be opened to more external funding, due to the credibility conferred by having a pre-existing relationship with the financial sector. In regards to the patent fund, the goal was to facilitate IP protection by negating the need to go outside the university. All of this was done in addition to any programs or grants offered by the various governmental levels. The biggest advantages conferred by the patent fund were 1) the ability not to rely solely on external funding deadlines (e.g. government grants) and 2) not be limited by a researchers financial situation (e.g. lack of funds) in regards to IP protection. Therefore this fund gives the technology transfer professionals of LRD the flexibility and speed needed when it comes to IP protection. The combination of these steps facilitates the protection and commercialisation of IP at LRD, whether via licensing or via spin-offs. Combined with the Flemish decree (that made any IP, created within the university, belong to it) and by having a clear view of the incentives of IP exploitation, this provides a low barrier of entry for the researchers to get their technology from the bench to the market. Page | 9 Dr. Cliff Pavlovic
Of course this is not the sole outcome to measure, but it is a better indicator of how tech transfer from universities can be an economic engine, to be used in conjunction with currently used outcomes. This is very important, especially to increase general awareness of what technology transfer can accomplish, whether it be at a municipal, provincial or national level. Moreover, this also helps increase general awareness with the public, which is important since a great number are not aware of what technology transfer is and what it can accomplish. Another outcome that can be measured is the indirect job creation due to technology transfer. Especially with spin-offs, you have creation of high level (i.e. high education) jobs, but simply focusing on this is only part of the story. The creation of jobs mean that there are now more people with disposable income and needs in a given area, which means other facets of society can benefit such as, for example, the service sector (e.g. banking, insurance), the support sector (e.g. plumbing, car repair, cleaning) as well as the restaurant sector (e.g. pubs, bistros, coffee shop). This in turn can lead to the creation and sustainability of secondary employment, which is very beneficial to any economic region, to support these new high level jobs and the companies that created them. It is important to note that there are many other outcomes that could be used and some may already be used internally at the different technology transfer units, in Belgium or Canada. The goal is to use them more openly, to showcase to the public (and stakeholders) the beneficial effects of technology transfer.
Recommendations
Following the analysis and discovery of points of difference which can provide an improved technology transfer ability, three main recommendations are put forward: 1- Lower the barrier of entry for faculty to benefit from technology transfer 2- Put in place tools to facilitate IP valorisation for the actors involved in technology transfer 3- Using outcomes which show economic development 1-Lower the barrier of entry for faculty to benefit from technology transfer Having a lower the barrier of entry for faculty, allows them to benefit from technology transfer and allows easier collaboration between them and the TTO/firm. To do so, a structure needs to be created which allows the accumulation of funds for the purpose of IP protection and valorisation, the reinvestment for further research, and provides a link to the TTO and the technology transfer professional. 2-Tools to facilitate IP valorisation for the actors involved in technology transfer A patent fund to protect IP and an internal VC to fund spin-off projects allow the technology transfer professional to be flexible in valorizing academic IP by being independent of temporal (e.g. govt. funding schedules) and financial factors (such as the researchers lack of funds for the purpose of IP protection). 3-New outcomes indicating economic development Use outcomes that show economic development, such as the amount invested in spin-offs in comparison to amount invested by 3rd parties in spin-offs, over the same period of time. Another could Page | 12 Dr. Cliff Pavlovic
be the effect of high skill jobs in creating secondary employment. These types of outcomes would serve to highlight the importance and the impact that tech transfer has on the economy, as well to increase the awareness within the general public. Now if outcomes indicating tangible economic effects have been used internally (within tech transfer offices), then they should be given more importance publicly.
Acknowledgements
This report was possible with the assistance of Univalor and LRD, in providing the time and the information required. Thank you to all the staff in both organizations for making this report possible. Financial help was provided by Univalor, LRD and the MDEIE.
Works Cited
1. Melviez, David. La valorisation, Une etude de cas internationale. Montreal : Universite de Montreal, 2008. 2. Technolgy Transfer. Wikipedia. [Online] [Cited: October 23, 2010.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_transfer. 3. Gestion Univalor. Presentation. Univalor. [Online] [Cited: 10 10, 2010.] http://www.univalor.ca. 4. . Univalor by numbers. Univalor. [Online] [Cited: 10 10, 2010.] http://www.univalor.ca. 5. Leuven Research and Development. LRD Homepage. [En ligne] [Citation : 10 10 2010.] http://lrd.kuleuven.be.