Benchmarking of Economic Development Efforts at Select Research Universities

A study conducted by the Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement at Penn State University

by Penn State Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement: Timothy Franklin Meredith Aronson Maria Kirby Eleanor Schiff James Woodell

2

Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................5 Methods ....................................................................................................................................5 Common Elements/ Key Themes ............................................................................................6 Arizona State University ........................................................................................................ 10 Georgia Tech .......................................................................................................................... 12 Michigan State University ..................................................................................................... 15 North Carolina State University ............................................................................................ 17 Purdue University ................................................................................................................... 20 University of Illinois ............................................................................................................... 22 University of Kentucky........................................................................................................... 24 University of Michigan........................................................................................................... 27 University of Minnesota ........................................................................................................ 29 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill .............................................................................. 33 University of Wisconsin (Madison and Extension)............................................................... 35 Virginia Tech .......................................................................................................................... 38 Washington State University ................................................................................................ 40 Appendix A: List of Questions and Interviewees................................................................. 42 Appendix B: Institutions and Contacts................................................................................ 43

3

4

Introduction
Economic development is an activity that all universities either do intentionally or by default because they are fixed assets within a community that attract and anchor talent, produce technologies and innovations, and generate community amenities attractive to highly valued workers. They also provide many jobs and direct inputs into the local economy. Some universities land-grants and others work actively in the arena of economic development either because it is part of their mission or it is a value that the university feels is core to its fabric. As a way to understand how other universities approach and organize their economic development efforts, staff from the Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement (OPPE) at Penn State (Meredith Aronson, Maria Kirby, Eleanor Schiff, and James Woodell) surveyed 13 universities across the country. Gleaning how various institutions approached economic development (to the extent that we were able to) and comparing it to our own experience at Penn State is the purpose of this paper. A common challenge emerged in each of the programs we investigated. On one hand, technology transfer and research programs create a system of high-risk, high-innovation where the return to the regional economy is slow, with high returns for a relative few. On the other hand, programs that provide support services to companies and communities create a system of low risk, limited innovation with the potential to provide incremental benefit to a large population of people. The funding for the second case is often public dollars, and the organizations to support this work are often disconnected from the research side of the university (e.g., outreach, extension, civic programs through the faculty). This separation between the research engine that targets innovation and the service orientation of community programs has implications as a barrier to university program impact by serving as a drag on the scale and speed of impact to regional economies. One consideration for organizational strategies for the future is how to better integrate the two sides to increase the impact of universities as central players in regional economic systems. This research and report were initially developed as a tool for internal planning at Penn State. As such, information about Penn State University economic development efforts are not included. We intend to re-visit the report, and will include Penn State efforts in a future version.

Methods
Over a two week period, we interviewed public research university officials typically at the level of Vice President, in research, economic development, and/or outreach and engagement roles. Participant institutions were selected to develop a diverse set of cases against which to benchmark. Institutions were selected that were peers of Penn State in some respect. Each institution was a public research university with some combination of the following: membership in the Big Ten, Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and/or a notable reputation for economic development activity. We developed a list of ten questions (Appendix A) to guide the discussion in an effort to understand the scale and scope of the economic development efforts across the full institution. Through the study, we sought to gain a general understanding of how other major universities across the country structure their economic development efforts.

5

The interviews yielded helpful information. When additional time and resources are available, we hope to confirm some of what we learned by triangulating data collected in these interviews ideally, additional interviews would be conducted with representatives of other aspects of economic engagement at each institution. However, given the investment appropriate to a preliminary effort, we are satisfied that the interviewees responded from an institutional perspective to the degree they had knowledge. Interviews were recorded in handwritten or typed notes. Notes were turned into individual case descriptions, with key lessons from each interview being highlighted in each case. Organizational charts for each institution were created based on interview notes and checked against institutions web sites. Finally, each interview participant was sent a draft of their case description and asked to verify and modify if necessary. It is important to note that the definition of economic development was not consistent across universities. Many universities viewed economic development in the context of technology transfer, entrepreneurship and business development; other universities were more closely tied to engagement efforts; other universities tried to work closely at the policy level within state government; and many universities viewed the definition as a combination of all these activities. While this lack of consistency presents a potential weakness in our data and analysis, it also represents an important finding that there is not yet a common rubric for what constitutes economic development or economic engagement at public research universities.

Common Elements/ Key Themes
Cases were reviewed to look for key trends and common themes across all cases. While each institution has a unique approach to economic development tailored to their specific circumstances, there are common elements among them. Institutions that had active programs seemed to: y y Have a commitment to economic development efforts from leadership at the highest levels of the university, Embrace economic development as a core activity of the university supported because its role is to strengthen academic and scholarly goals and/or to justify new or existing public funding, Cultivate a productive relationship with state government, Establish clear, single points of contact for the business community and representatives of state government, Secure stable funding streams either from core university monies or the state, Integrate and coordinate economic development activities across the research, teaching, and outreach missions of the university and respective functional areas (research and graduate studies, academic affairs, and outreach),

y y y y

6

y y y y

Insure collaboration and partnership across these missions and functions either formally or informally through an office or council that serves the coordination function, Establish executive or top management positions with a specific focus on economic development, Have highly engaged programs experiencing significant new public and other investments, often diversifying the institution s funding sources, and Have found that some kind of central coordination helps to promote institutional capacity to integrate responses to address larger societal problems.

7

Table 1: Institutional Data
Approximate percent of operating budget from state** 40% 22% 31% 46% 12% 33% 20% 16% 7% 19% 32% 19% 23% 24%

Institution

Number of Students**

Number of Faculty**

Research Expenditures (millions)*

Licensing Revenue (millions)*

Patents Issued*

New Business Starts* 4 9 5 5 3 8 8 10 7 4 0 6 2 0

Landgrant (Y/N)** No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Arizona State University 67,000 3,095 $219 $3.3 15 Georgia Tech 20,000 912 $490 $1.9 58 Michigan State 47,278 4,985 $361 $5.5 35 NC State 31,130 2,040 $332 n/a 38 Penn State University Park 44,118 5,495 $665 $1.8 34 Purdue University 39,697 6,614 $473 $5.1 33 University of Illinois 42,500 3,081 $816 $8.1 50 University of Kentucky 27,209 2,165 $190 $1.8 21 University of Michigan 41,647 6,238 $823 $12.7 87 University of Minnesota 50,883 3,191 $548 $63.3 44 UNC, Chapel Hill 28,916 3,500 $589 $2.1 31 University of Wisconsin, Madison 42,030 2,054 $1,000 $46.7 124 Virginia Tech 30,739 1,371 $181 $2.0 33 Washington State University 25,352 1,304 $135 $1.0 13 * Data from the Association of University Technology Managers FY2007 Survey and university web sites **Data from respective universities' websites/ interviews

Table 2: Institutional Performance

Licensing Revenue (thousands) by Number of Faculty 1.07 2.08 1.10 0.33 0.77 2.63 0.83 2.04 19.84 0.60 22.74 1.46 0.77 per $1M in Research Funding 15.07 3.88 15.24 2.71 10.78 9.93 9.47 15.43 115.51 3.57 46.70 11.05 7.41

Patents Issued by Number of Faculty .0048 .0636 .0070 .0186 .0062 .0050 .0162 .0097 .0139 .0138 .0089 .0604 .0241 .0100 per $1M in Research Funding .07 .12 .10 .11 .05 .07 .06 .11 .11 .08 .05 .12 .18 .10

New Business Starts by Number of Faculty .0013 .0099 .0010 .0025 .0005 .0012 .0026 .0046 .0011 .0013 .0000 .0029 .0015 .0000 per $1M in Research Funding .0183 .0184 .0139 .0151 .0045 .0169 .0098 .0526 .0085 .0073 .0000 .0060 .0110 .0000

Institution Arizona State University Georgia Tech Michigan State NC State Penn State University Park Purdue University University of Illinois University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Minnesota UNC, Chapel Hill University of Wisconsin, Madison Virginia Tech Washington State University

9

Arizona State University
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 67,000 3,095 $219M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: No

40%

The Arizona State University s economic development efforts are housed under a Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs. Approximately 40 people work directly for the VP for Research and Economic Affairs on economic development efforts though there are employees in other parts of the university (e.g. at the business school, labs, etc.) who also work on economic development projects. The mission of their efforts is, primarily, to bring in more sponsored research money though they are a trusted partner and resource for the state. Much of the emphasis at ASU is focused on three key areas: corporate engagement, economic development policy, and economic development. Corporate engagement involves recruiting companies to work directly with ASU for sponsored research activity and connecting companies to the university for workforce training. ASU also works to promote entrepreneurship and innovation through its technology transfer efforts and its business incubation center, SkySong. Staff from this office also represents ASU on several business boards across the state focusing on economic development efforts and forming collaborative strategies on how to grow the Arizona economy. Programs and Initiatives: y Discovery Triangle (see below) y Skysong y Technopolis y Edson Student Entrepreneur Initiative There are several examples of successful economic development projects that employ expertise at ASU for the benefit of the state. Discovery Triangle, for instance, is a project that involves three local governments where ASU owns land that bounds each of the municipalities. In the 20 square miles of underdeveloped land ASU is one of five principal players (with local and state government) to develop the land using smart urban growth strategies to fighting sprawl. Additionally, the state engages with the university to help frame important policy issues such as providing analytical models of water use issues. Tapping into the expertise at the university helps state and local government with policy decisions they are expected to manage effectively for public benefit. Another example of ASU working with the governor s office on policy issues is the Arizona Smart Growth initiative. ASU is working in a consultative role for the state on how to deploy solar energy across the state and the implications for the electric grid. ASU is viewed as a critical and credible partner to work with the state on important public policy issues.

10

Vice President

Deputy Vice President Research Strategy

Associate Vice President, Economic Affairs

Corporate Initiatives

Economic Development

Economic Policy

Keys to Success: Funding for economic development is a mixture of state appropriations (40% of ASU s operating budget is from state appropriations), joint venture and private money. Success in economic development efforts have been attributed to the new president, Michael Crow, whose leadership and vision has focused on interdisciplinary projects and working across silos which has started to change the culture at ASU. Key Lessons from Arizona State University: y ASU has a productive relationship with state government and an expectation to work collaboratively with the state. y ASU is a trusted and valued partner for critical policy decision affecting the state. y Focus on building external relationships with business and bridging internal silos.

11

Georgia Tech
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 20,000 912 $219M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: No

22%

In the past 30 years, Georgia Tech has migrated from a teaching university to an institute of technology, focused primarily on engineering and technology. While having an academic outreach program, Georgia Tech s $19M budget for economic development activity is focused on economic impact, largely through the combination of economic development and business assistance programs that wrap implementation and commercialization together.

12

Programs and Initiatives: y Enterprise Innovation Institute (EI2) (see below) y ATDC technology incubator y Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership As is clear in the organization chart above, the Enterprise Innovation Institute (EI2) integrates entrepreneurial, industry, commercialization and community/regional services together into a single operation with 140 employees, all within an administrative unit focused on research and innovation. The EI2 unit s value is two-fold, 1) as an output valve for university research leading to economic impact through either services or through licensing, and 2) for the university as a customer of the Enterprise Innovation Institute first through increased competitiveness in offering solutions for demonstrate impact requirements for large engineering grants, and second as a portal for business development issues, providing a single point of contact to the university at large. Funding comes through a combination of the following: y State allocations through a) economic development path, b) university, and c) Georgia Research Alliance, a private group that allocates state funds to the universities in GA and funds EI2 commercialization and spinoffs, Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), and Competitive research grants (EI2 offers implementation part), organized through Senior Vice Provost.

y y

Specifically, with an overall EI2 budget of $8.5M, programs are mixes of state, federal, fees, and sponsored funds. All programs have 40% or greater funding from the state. Programs include 1) industry services, 2) entrepreneurial services, 3) commercialization services, 4) community policy and research services, and 5) strategic partners. Cluster or regional work exists through field offices with industrial services, allowing tailored solutions to regional needs. Unique elements of the Georgia Tech program include leveraging GA Research Alliance funds to support a culture change among faculty, providing seed funding for faculty (up to $400k undiluted financing) to get projects off the ground. The strategy of the Georgia Tech tech transfer office has been to go after doubles and triples rather than home runs, taking small, but non-zero equity in companies, but largely letting them go, and instead working to have development deliver returns once companies are successful. In addition they have lightened up on IP constraints to better support movement of IP, getting state government to see them as leaders in economic development. Provosts are looking for evidence of impact in addition to scholarship, allowing faculty to define impact, but ensuring that this is a part of the tenure process. Keys to Success: Programmatically, success of the EI2 enterprise is founded on the ability to coordinate services to the full spectrum of enterprise development from commercialization, start-up incubation, and existing industry, to directly help communities for technology-based economic development, and to draw on a culture of support for technology start-ups and for existing Georgia industry.

13

Key Lessons from Georgia Tech: y Georgia Tech s integration of economic development services (entrepreneurial, industry, commercialization, and community) under one institute returns value to state economic impact. y The strategic partners program creates a forum for organizing an engagement response for large research grants (value add to faculty research) as well as a mechanism for business development. y Institutional flexibility on IP to support increased movement of IP on doubles and triples has yielded results.

14

Michigan State University
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 47,278 4,985 $361M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

31%

President

Provost and VP for Academic Affairs

VP for Research and Graduate Studies

Vice President for Global Engagement and Strategic Projects

Associate Provost for University Outreach and Engagement

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

MSU Technologies (Technology Transfer Office)

Center for Community Economic Development

MSU Extension

University Corporate Research Park

Agricultural Experiment Station

Economic development activities are distributed across the university. The University Corporate Research Park and MSU Technologies (tech transfer) report to the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. The university s Associate Provost for University Outreach and Engagement coordinates a number of economic development efforts, including a Center for Community Economic Development. The university s Land Policy Institute, which engages in a number of economic development initiatives, reports to MSU Extension but also works closely with the Associate Provost for University Outreach and Engagement on such activities as entrepreneurial support. Programs and Initiatives: y Forest Biomass Innovation Center (see below) y Other Innovation Centers y MSU Business Connect (see below) y Power of We Consortium (see below) The university works to coordinate across economic development efforts to help streamline activities and maximize impact. MSU has created a number of innovation centers to aid in technology and knowledge transfer to the Michigan economy. The Forest Biomass Innovation Center is one example, and this center is part of the university s outreach and engagement function

15

(which employs research faculty) through the "Greening Michigan: Leveraging Natural and Human Assets for Prosperity Institute in a restructured Cooperative Extension Service. The university s business school has launched MSU Business Connect, aimed at making the entire university more agile and able to respond to opportunities for business and community partnership. MSU Business Connect works closely with translational science initiatives at the university to try and help get MSU s intellectual capital out into the community more quickly and in a responsive manner. MSU s regional and state focus is expressed through a number of programs and initiatives. The Power of We Consortium has brought together over 100 community agencies, linked them with foundations, and affected transformational change in Lansing s health delivery systems, schools, its software sector, and in its arts and culture community all central components of the region s economy. Partnerships between Lansing Area Economic Partnership (LEAP), Information Technology Empowerment Center (iTEC), and Prima Civitas Foundation link faculty with regional economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurial centers and MSU Community Builder Fellows. MSU has also formed a research partnership with the University of Michigan and Wayne State University to focus on the transformation of transportation in the state. In general, the university is oriented toward engagement, an orientation that has paid off for the university the College of Engineering was able to substantially increase extramural funding when they adopted an engaged scholarship and interdisciplinary model, as one example. Keys to Success: Hiram Fitzgerald, the university s Associate Provost for University Outreach and Engagement, reports that the successes the university has had in economic engagement are due to strong leadership by the university s president Lou Anna K. Simon, who is committed to community and economic development despite an often difficult relationship with state policy makers. In addition to this commitment, according to Hi, central leadership at the university has challenged decision makers to be risk-takers who may fail occasionally, but who are much better able to address the intractable problems that society faces. Key Lessons from Michigan State University: y Creation of the MSU Business Connect unit is a response to demands from the business community that there be a single point of entry for accessing university resources, and someone to facilitate the process to keep it from getting bogged down. y At MSU, the OVPR regulates distribution of indirect costs, providing the office with more leverage to undertake new initiatives. y There is a very clear, focused regional strategy at MSU, particularly focused on Mid, Southeast, and West Michigan. This strategy helps units across the institution align their economic engagement efforts. y MSU s emphasis on engagement has increased public support as has its reorganized Cooperative Extension Service with its emphasis on regional economic development. y MSU emphasis on engagement and its risk orientation supports large scale projects that address intractable problems and offer faculty and students with rich scholarship and learning opportunities.

16

North Carolina State University
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 31,130 2,040 $332M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

46%

North Carolina State University s Office of Extension, Engagement & Economic Development (EEED) has a comprehensive and integrated approach to engagement that supports programs in a variety of areas, including innovation, entrepreneurship, and community and business development.

Chancellor

VP for Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development

Finance and Business

Research and Graduate Studies

Economic Development Partnership

Centennial Campus Partnerships

Technology Transfer

McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Education

Centennial Campus Development

Centers, Institutes, and Laboratories

Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services

Campus Enterprises

Shelton Leadership Center

Small Business and Technology Development Center

17

Programs and Initiatives: The office is led by the Vice Chancellor for Extension, and reporting is to NC State s Chancellor. Multiple units are housed within the Office of EEED, including: y y y y y y Cooperative Extension Service Economic Development Partnership Henry Hugh Shelton Initiative for Leadership Development Industrial Extension Services McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Education Small Business and Technology Development Center

NC State makes up one point of the well-known Research Triangle, which one of the largest science parks in North America and is strategically located between North Carolina State, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Duke University. NC State also owns and operates the Centennial Campus industrial park, which encompasses 1,334 acres developed with state, federal and private funds and host to mixed-use facilities and leverages proximity to the University to create mutuallybeneficial university/industry partnerships. The Office of EEED and its units are home to more than a dozen major programs, the vast majority of which represent a partnership between the university and either industry or government partners, including: Business and Economic Development: y Entrepreneurship, Global Training, and Space Initiatives y Industrial and Textiles Extension Service y Natural Resource Economic Development Outreach Program: Forestry, Tourism, Wood Products y Sea Grant y Technology Incubator y Small Business and Technology Development Center: Boating Industry Services, Business Consulting, Export Financing Services, International Business, Management Education Services, Technology Commercialization y Upper Coastal Plain Learning Council Industry and Technology: y Center for Innovation Management Studies y William R. Kenan, Jr. Institute for Engineering, Technology and Science Community Development: y College of Design Research and Engagement Programs y Cooperative Extension y Language and Life Program y Recreation Resources Service y Institutes for Emerging Issues and Transportation Research and Education y Center for Urban Affairs & Community Services

18

Keys to Success: The relationship with the state is very good, and considerable funding is provided by the North Carolina Department of Commerce. The Office of EEED s most recent annual report lists its funding at about $140 million dollars, which constitutes approximately 11% of the University s total budget. Nearly 1,200 faculty and staff have full or partial reporting relationships to the Office of EEED, about half of whom are located in the field. Vice Chancellor Jim Zuiches credits the success of the EEED to NC State s integration and emphasis on engagement into its research and scholarship. Faculty tenure is clearly and meaningfully tied to engagement goals, which stimulates faculty efforts and grows university capacity and impact. More information on the Office of EEED can be found in its Benchmarking Economic Development Impacts reports, which detail the logic models of all outreach programs and outline the EEED s experiences with pilot initiatives. Key Lessons from North Carolina State University: y Tying engagement work to tenure and promotion motivates faculty to seek their own funding and support for this work, which greatly increases the University s capacity for impact. y Proximity to university resources serves as a leverage point in attracting new businesses and engaging in university/industry partnerships . y Engagement efforts make up a significant portion of the University s total budget.

19

Purdue University
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 39,697 6,614 $473M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

33%

Purdue s Office of Engagement, created in 2002, creates organizational focus for the university to use its resources to address issues affecting the state's prosperity and quality of life. Under a Vice Provost for Engagement, regional development, extension, technical assistance and a university incubator are aligned within a single organization. Areas of focus include economic development, P12 education, community service and lifelong learning and scholarship of engagement.

With over $40 million in active grants, the specific engagement programs at Purdue include a technical assistance program, a NIH-funded healthcare engineering program (I-STEM), continuing education, Science Bound, the Center for Regional Engagement, and site-based Offices of Engagement. The Office of Engagement receives $2M/year from the general fund, which serves to support proposal development for research faculty, along with the overall program. Programs and Initiatives: y Purdue Research Foundation (see below) y Discovery Park (see below) y Purdue Angel Investment Network (see below) y Purdue Center for Regional Development y Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship Purdue s technology transfer and commercialization activities are organized through the Purdue Research Foundation, outside of Purdue. With over $50 million in investment from Lilly Foundation which was then leveraged manyfold, it has been possible to build a dynamic core of 11

20

research and learning centers named Discovery Park at Purdue, including focus on nanotechnology, bioscience, energy, healthcare, environment, cyber-science, oncological science, entrepreneurship, advanced manufacturing, and STEM learning. Additionally, Purdue has a network of four research parks that provide technology incubator services along with a Purdue Angel Investment Network for early investment. Keys to Success: Purdue has developed a strong relationship with state organizations from the governor s office through to agencies, often taking the role of convener to gather extended groups of institutions. The Office of Engagement has built a reputation as a place to go get stuff done at a scale that is unique for Indiana, consistent with the Purdue culture of being willing to take on issues that are important to people in the state and being able to deliver . The Center for Regional Engagement operates under two conditions: 1) they do not work within geopolitical boundaries, and 2) they do not bring money to the table in their engagements. This allows them to work regionally and in industry clusters. New directions for future include international engagement, specifically opening foreign markets for regional companies, along with K-12 education. Key Lessons from Purdue University: y The land grant mission and history creates activity in engagement under the Provost, and organizes regional development, extension, technical services, and an incubator in a single group. y Alignment with the state and influencing policy can be a positive outcome of this focus.

21

University of Illinois
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 42,500 3,081 $816M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

20%

System: President

Urbana Champagne: Chancellor and Provost

System: Vice President of Technology and Economic Development

Vice Chancellor for Research

Vice Chancellor for Engagement

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Research Parks

Coporate Relations

College of Agriculture

Technology Transfer

Extension

Illinois Ventures

Vice Chancellor for Engagement Steve Sonka reports that while the university is highly decentralized, and proud of it, such an organization is becoming less well positioned to address many of the problems of society, including economic development. Steve notes that coordination among the university s disparate economic engagement efforts is needed, and such coordination frequently comes from his office in particular from the Office of Corporate Relations. In collaboration with the Office of the Vice President for Economic Development at the system level, extensive connections between the research and engagement missions of the university at the Urbana Champaign campus are led from Public Engagement. Programs and Initiatives: y Office of Corporate Relations (see below) y Illinois Ventures (see below) y Research Park (see below) y Illinois Resource Network (see below) y Business and Industry Services y Sustainability Advisory Council (see below)

22

Public Engagement s Office of Corporate Relations plays a pivotal role in connecting businesses and the community with the appropriate economic engagement resources at the university, from student interns to research facilities to technology transfer. According to Sonka, the Corporate Relations gateway role resulted from demands on the part of local and global businesses working with the university to have a liaison to whom they could express needs and opportunities and then be matched to the appropriate institutional resources. In addition to the Office of Corporate Relations, there is at the university a corporate engagement council comprised of the Vice Chancellors, Deans, and others the group meets regularly to discuss firm involvement and opportunities that cut across the university, an attempt to mitigate the effects of institutional silos. Keys to Success: Critical successes in economic engagement at the university include the Research Park and the Illinois Resource Network program, which connects local governments and non-profits to funding sources. Both of these efforts have benefitted from coordination across university areas and facilitation through Public Engagement. As Sonka points out, university-engaged economic development works best when it is built on the capabilities of faculty, staff and students at the university, and then facilitated so that the right connections to these capabilities can be made. Another example of how coordination is paying off is in the university s efforts aimed at sustainability a Sustainability Advisory Council, working with a university Office of Sustainability, makes connections across the university s research and engagement efforts. While just a couple of years ago it was a challenge to connect faculty, staff, and students interested in sustainability, the coordination around the issue has created larger-scale opportunities in terms of funding and collaboration. Key Lessons from the University of Illinois: y The economic development story at Illinois is closely tied to the university s research agenda. y While economic development efforts are very much driven by the research and teaching missions of the university, the university s public engagement function provides needed facilitation and coordination between society s problems and the university s departments.

23

University of Kentucky
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 27,209 2,165 $190M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

16%

Programs and Initiatives: y UK Commonwealth Collaboratives (see below) y Office for Commercialization and Economic Development (see below) y Coldstream Research Campus (see below) y Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation y Lexington Innovation & Commercialization Center y Von Allmen Center for Entrepreneurship Commercialization The UK research and commercialization effort is under Vice President for Research James W. Tracy. Within the Office of Commercialization and Economic Development there are a number of programs that provide support for commercialization: 1) Commercialization & Economic Development, 2) Angel Investment & VC Networking 3) ASTeCC/AgTeCC Campus Incubators, 4) Business Development, 5) Coldstream Research Campus, 6) IP Development, 7) KY SBDC, 8) Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation, 9) Lexington Innovation & Commercialization Center, 9) Von Allmen Center for Entrepreneurship Commercialization

24

Critical elements of the commercialization program include the organizational and spatial integration of the resources needed to make deals. This includes organizations such as the Blue Grass Partnership, where the UK President, Lexington Mayor, and President of the Chamber of Commerce collaborate directly to respond to opportunities, bringing the resources of the university, city, and businesses to bear on growing the economy. The goal of these deals is a 45-day turn-around time. Creating on-campus incubators that feed Coldstream, a University of Kentucky industrial park has resulted in a healthy population of 56 companies. Relevant clusters of industry activity in Kentucky that are supported at Coldstream include: equine, pharma, and date centers. In 2006, the University of Kentucky, under President Lee Todd, launched the commercialization program to grow Kentucky s economy through the commercialization of UK research, universityindustry partnerships, the development of new and existing businesses and the creation of jobs. In its 3 years in operation, the UK Office for Commercialization and Economic Development reflects the vision and leadership of a university president who has an MIT PhD, has owned his own companies, and clearly understands the mechanisms for technology-based commercialization of university IP. By reorganizing the organization around deal flow to drive process, there is a tight relationship between service organizations that drive commercialization and the investment necessary to support this. The OCED integrates the Angel, VC, and incubator operations tightly, resulting in 88 companies created in Lexington, KY in 3 year, with $200 million invested in this same period. Overall, the organization minus the SBDC is approximately 15 people, with $9M in revenue. For UK, carefully engaging alumni to consider supporting economic development of the commonwealth through venture fund targeting university commercialization has proven to be very successful by aligning development activity through the President s office. After 3 years, the CED has invested in 10 companies, and had 2 liquidation events, with a strong future ahead for a more typical 5-6 year horizon for investors. The University of Kentucky s Office for University Engagement is led by an Associate Provost who reports directly to the University s Provost. The staff of approximately eleven full-time and twenty part-time is divided between three foci: y y y internal focus of encouraging and developing a culture of engagement within university faculty external focus including the maintenance and development of relationships and engagement opportunities in the community Japanese education through the Central Kentucky Japanese School and the Japanese Programs office

Major goals of the office include: y supporting the research, teaching and service work of the university y tracking and documenting the impact the University s work has on its constituents. Funding for the office is provided at approximately $870,000 annually and there is currently no system in place to track revenues.

25

UK Commonwealth Collaboratives is a series of 47 initiatives designed to leverage University resources in addressing long-entrenched problems in the state s economic and cultural development. Grants of $10,000 are awarded to faculty and staff engaged in areas important to both the community and funding providers. From 2006 to 2008, the Office made awards totaling $360,000, leveraging in return upwards of $45,000,000 in external research and engagement funding. In 2010 another $110,000 was invested. The number of initiatives and amount of external funding generated continue to grow. Keys to Success: Philip Greasley, who heads the Office for University Engagement, cites the importance of growing the culture of engagement generally throughout the university, and specifically with research faculty, as a key to the success of the Office s efforts. Work is ongoing to shift faculty tenure and promotion requirements to provide greater rewards for engaged scholarship. While progress is being made, Greasley still does not consider the University to be fully integrated around engagement. In early 2009 the faculty senate was not overly receptive of a recent proposal to formally endorse the new guidelines for tenure. That effort continues. Key Lessons from the University of Kentucky: y The Office of Engagement has a small staff, about half of whom are a) dedicated to encouraging UK faculty to pursue engagement opportunities and b) to tracking and documenting UK s impact. y Strong presidential leadership. y Associate Provost for Engagement Phil Greasley is trying to influence University administrators to change the engagement culture and promotion guidelines to encourage more faculty engagement, but to date, these efforts have not been fully accepted by the faculty senate. Efforts there continue. y Streamlining the commercialization activities around deal flow allows for strong alignment between operational groups. y Incorporation of funds directly into the commercialization process has yielded strong results. y Commercialization and Economic Development dominates the activity in the engagement landscape at the University of Kentucky.

26

University of Michigan
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 41,647 6,238 $823M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: No

7%

Over the last decade, the University of Michigan has systematically positioned itself to transform the state economy. Given the decline of the auto industry and the recognition that new technology areas will be needed that are based in the knowledge economy, economic development became a strategic opportunity. With institutional leadership at the highest levels who either were involved in commercialization ventures or who support the direction, in addition to key sympathetic players who have been in place for long periods of time, the University of Michigan has transformed a fragmented economic development system into a series of integrated innovation economy organizations reporting through the Vice President of Research.

Programs and Initiatives: y Business Engagement Center (see below) y Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy (see below) y Center for Advancing Research and Solutions for Society y Distinguished University Innovator Award At the core of the University of Michigan research enterprise are four programs with over $10 million budgeted and over 50 full-time equivalents: the Business Engagement Center, Technology Transfer, the Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy, and Sponsored Projects. Related programs include entrepreneurship programs in the engineering and business colleges, a medical innovation center, and the life sciences Innovation Partnership. The Business Engagement Center, supported with tech transfer licensing fees, provides a 1-stop shop for business and community members; the Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy balances contracts with general funds to provide both research and active service support to communities and companies affected by economic forces. In addition, collaborative projects like the Michigan Initiative for Innovation and Entrepreneurship leverages foundation funds to provide gap funding for transfer of university IP;

27

the Michigan Venture Center provides support for business development with a sequence of programs including business development for new ventures, gap funding, networking, and mentors. Keys to Success: Mechanisms for growing the capacity in innovation and economic development have included highlevel faculty and staff committees charged with advancing innovation at the university, along with focusing activity through lenses like 1) an innovation economy website with the Business Engagement Center directly behind it, 2) public-private partnerships with the university, local government, the Chamber of Commerce, banks and venture capitalists where the university is a partner in regional economic growth, or 3) instant innovation sessions that intentionally convene faculty and business partners to brainstorm solutions to strategic challenges. The ongoing stream of licensing revenues from the Tech Transfer program, along with university general funds and some state funding have created a consistent investment stream for these programs. Given that the State of Michigan budget is $8 billion/year, and the University of Michigan budget is $6 billion/year, the state is not seen as a significant source for investment. Metrics for performance of innovation support functions target increases in revenue to university programs due to their existence. Key Lessons from the University of Michigan: y Incremental work that includes faculty and staff, to craft a strategy for supporting an innovation economy has led to a well integrated economic development system. y Institutional leadership over a sustained period of time with a commitment to economic development has created an environment for success. y A consistent investment stream that includes licensing revenues has created a mechanism for funding new programs.

28

University of Minnesota
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 50,883 3,191 $548M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

19%

At the University of Minnesota, there are robust economic development efforts happening within the office of the Vice President for Research as well as through initiatives sponsored and facilitated by the Office for Public Engagement, the Office of International Programs, and the University of Minnesota Extension. The economic development efforts across these offices include local community-focused programs, regional and state-wide initiatives, national efforts, and international and multinational collaborative partnerships. The Vice President for Research Tim Mulcahy leads the university s efforts to connect research activities with business, industry, and the state legislature to bring UMN discoveries to bear on the economy. The Office of the Vice President for Research engages in partnerships with economic development organizations to enhance economic opportunities that can derive from science and technology-based entrepreneurship. The university hosts nearly 300 research centers and

29

institutes that provide opportunities to link the institution with issues concerning the economy. For example, the Office for Technology Commercialization, comprised of a licensing center and a venture center, provides a critical connection to research assets at the university and works to establish entrepreneurial efforts around university discovery. Dr. Mulcahy himself interacts frequently with members of the state legislature to strategically plan policy efforts to support the engagement of research in state economic development. Other examples include the university s participation in the Bio Business Alliance of Minnesota, and partnerships between the Hormel Institute and Mayo Clinic. The Office of Business Relations was established to serve as the Front Door for business to the University s innovations and resources hiring students, finding continuing education, seminars and workshops, faculty expertise, facilities, equipment, and more. The staff of the office fields questions from the business community regarding how to connect with various resources and initiatives at the University. The University of Minnesota supports economic development through the advancement of community-engaged research, teaching, and outreach initiatives facilitated by the Office for Public Engagement. The office is led by Associate Vice President for Public Engagement, Dr. Andrew Furco, who reports to Dr. Robert Jones, the Senior Vice President for System Academic Administration. The Office for Public Engagement works to strengthen the University s culture of engagement through a series of initiatives designed to infuse community engagement more fully into the research and teaching activities of the five campuses of the University. In 2008, the Office for Public Engagement set in motion a Ten-Point Plan for Advancing and Institutionalizing Public Engagement at the University of Minnesota, which details goals and benchmarks for the University s community engagement efforts. Over the last two years the University has undertaken considerable work in establishing a baseline of engagement activity and economic impact. As part of this work, the University s Public Engagement Assessment and Accounting Task Force completed a report that considers various approaches and systems for capturing the scale and scope of the University s engagement work, and the impact of this work on students, faculty, the institution, the community, and the economy. Efforts are underway to integrate community engagement measures into several of the University s existing data collection systems, including faculty activity reports, student surveys, and research proposal submission forms. A broad range of economic development and community engagement activities (from local to global) are housed throughout the University in more than 200 different offices and units (including Extension, Office of International Programs, Urban Research Outreach/Engagement Center, Office for Business and Community Economic Development, among others). Each engagement office and unit uses a different method to track the impacts of the various community engagement efforts. The Office for Business and Community Economic Development (BCED) is one of the University s engagement units, and is one office in which efforts at engagement in the local economy are quite evident. Under the leadership of Craig Taylor, the office focuses on supporting traditionally underserved populations and, according to Taylor, works to apply the resources of the university to improving the economic conditions and quality of life for members of the community. The University s Extension unit has had a long tradition community engagement, working throughout the state of Minnesota on a variety of education, research, and outreach activities that 30

address broad range of agricultural, environmental, and health-focused issues that have contributed substantially to the economic vitality of the state. Another engagement unit is the Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center (UROC), which provides a physical presence for the university in the heart of North Minneapolis, one of the most diverse, economically challenged communities surrounding the University. Focusing on advancing the University s urban engagement agenda, UROC brings together under one roof academics and outreach and engagement professionals working on urban-focused initiatives in North Minneapolis. UROC houses diverse programs from business technical assistance to community health education. The success of the University in securing the funding and community support for UROC is attribute to the university s visionary and committed leadership, namely University President, Bob Bruininks and Sr. Vice President Robert Jones. UROC provides an example of working directly with the community on complex and important urban issues. The University s international engagement agenda is facilitated by the Office of International Programs (OIP), which serves as the central coordinating office for the University s international programs. With a goal of preparing global citizens, the OIP promotes the internationalization of the teaching, research, and outreach missions of the University. Under the leadership of Associate Vice President and Dean, Meredith McQuaid, OIP provides international services to faculty across the University s five campuses, funding information for graduate study and research abroad, administration of several scholarships, system-wide international policies and initiatives, and a significant program designed to increase the international scholarly initiatives of faculty, colleges, and graduate students. Other units, research centers, and institutes, located within and across collegiate units, address a broad range of societal and economic issues through various partnerships with community. Programs and Initiatives: y Research Centers and Institutes y Office for Public Engagement y Office for Business and Community Economic Development y Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center y Office of International Programs y Office of Business Relations Keys to Success: Overall, one of the keys to success noted by the Office for Public Engagement has been the university-wide culture that embraces the infusion of public engagement into the tripartite mission of research, education and service in both theory and practice. Dr. Furco reflects that all facets of the mission benefit from the university s engagement focus. Such sentiments are echoed by Dr. Mulcahy, Vice President for Research. Dr. Mulcahy emphasizes the proactive policy development work of his office as critical to the positive relationship the university has with the state, and at the same time cautions against universities positioning themselves as a sole source of economic vitality, noting that the University of Minnesota presents itself as one aspect of an important mix of economic players in the state.

31

Key Lessons from the University of Minnesota: y Engagement benefits all areas of the tripartite mission research, teaching and service. y Engagement can represent an institutional strategy to advance overarching goals, such as internationalizing the curriculum, enhancing disciplinary work, building cross-culture awareness, etc. y The university responds to increasing pressure from the state to leverage its resources for the direct benefit of constituents by partnering with other important economic players. y Presidential leadership and encouragement are critical to significant engagement efforts.

32

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 28,916 3,500 $589M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: No

32%

President The University of North Carolina

Chancellor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development

Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

Small Grants Programs

Office of Economic and Business Development

Kenan-Flagler Business School

School of Dentistry

School of Medicine

School of Public Health

Community Economic Development Research Grants Program

Working Group on Economic Development

Appalachian Community Colleges E.D. Partnership

Economic development efforts at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, are numerous, varied, and decentralized. The reporting structure for many programs runs through Dr. Anthony (Tony) Waldrop, the Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development, who reports directly to the university chancellor, but also though other programs in the business school and the school of public health who report through their own deans to the provost. For this reason, it is hard to quantify the scale and scope of all of the economic development efforts at the university though it is an area that the university administration currently and historically has emphasized. Within Dr. Waldrop s purview, approximately 10 FTEs work on economic development efforts, and he has also begun a small scale grant program available to faculty encouraging work on projects across UNC. The term engagement is a better descriptor for how many of the university programs relate to the public and view their mission. In fact, the Office of Economic and Business Development, which university administrators began with $500K in core funding and no specific state allocation, works to bridge, highlight and support faculty and programs across the campus. The office, run by a very experienced and respected economic development practitioner with strong credibility in the community, works across the university and runs monthly seminars/ workshops (with an outside community partner) to share activities that are occurring in the community with UNC support. In fact, one recent seminar highlighted UNC faculty work in rural housing issues. This, along with their Kauffman-funded entrepreneurship center, is a very successful program.

33

Programs and Initiatives: y Student Teams Achieving Results (STAR) (see below) y Community and Economic Development Program y Small Grants Programs y Office of Economic and Business Development y UNC Working Group on Economic Development y Appalachian Colleges Community Economic Development Partnership While efforts in economic development occur at several levels and different schools (e.g. business, medicine, dentistry, public health) these decentralized efforts impact the state enormously through this spectrum of efforts. Tech transfer efforts report through and work with economic development programs and across campus at UNC s business school. Student Teams Achieving Results (STAR) offers North Carolina businesses free consulting in exchange for hands-on learning. This program has enabled local businesses to increase exports to other parts of the U.S. and has caused real economic impact. Another example of engagement at the university is the enormous impact of the health science schools. UNC physicians fly across the state to deliver care to the underserved. Additionally, the Community and Economic Development Program housed in UNC s school of government helps provide training to public officials about job creation, how to expand the tax base and help communities execute strategies for community and economic development. Most economic development programs are funded through a combination of state base funding, university support, contracts and grants though no state funds are specifically earmarked for economic development at UNC. UNC has historically had a good relationship with the state s policy makers. It is viewed as a trusted advisor to several state departments and a resource on a variety of topics including entrepreneurship, economic development models, and new approaches to intractable problems. Key Lessons from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: y UNC works closely with community organizations to highlight effective collaborations. y Decentralization with a central coordinating body has worked well at UNC. y Research, tech transfer and economic development activities all report to the same VP leadership in these areas coordinate and interact with each other regularly.

34

University of Wisconsin (Madison and Extension)
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 42,030 2,054 $1,000M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

19%

The University of Wisconsin system is comprised of 13 four-year institutions, 13 two-year institutions (known as UW Colleges), and Extension (which is part of the same administrative structure as the Colleges). Our investigation focused on the UW Madison campus, and also the University of Wisconsin Extension.
President, UW System

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

WiSys Technology Foundation

Chancellor, UW Colleges and UW Extension Provost and Vice Chancellor, UW Extension Entrepreneurship and Economic Development

Chancellor, UW Madison

Vice Chancellor for University Relations Office of Corporate Relations

Cooperative Extension

Community and Economic Development

Small Business Development Centers Wisconsin Entrepreneur's Network

Programs and Initiatives: y Division of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (see below) y Center for Community and Economic Development (see below) y Wisconsin Small Business Development Centers (see below) y Wisconsin Entrepreneurs Network (see below) y Office of Corporate Relations (see below) y WiSys Technology Foundation, Inc. (see below) y Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (see below) y University Research Park (see below) y Center for Cooperatives y Wiscontrepreneur (see below)

35

UW Extension was created to coordinate and facilitate a single doorway to the University of Wisconsin s 26 campuses. With applied research faculty and resources for connecting with communities, this program targets a public service mission of the university, and is a distinct entity from the centralized research and technology transfer programs at the university. UW Extension has two programs tied most directly into economic development cooperative extension and the Division of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (DEED). Overall, 33% is state funded, 44% from program revenues (fees), 12% from federal, 9% county. The Community and Economic Development program within Cooperative Extension creates, applies, and transfers multidisciplinary knowledge to help people understand community change and identify opportunities through programming in applied research, facilitation and technical assistance, and education. DEED supports and coordinates entrepreneurship and economic development activities that occur at University of Wisconsin campuses. DEED also manages several programs that impact Wisconsin businesses including the Wisconsin Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) network and the Wisconsin Entrepreneurs Network (WEN). At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Office of Corporate Relations (OCR) was formed in 2003 to serve as the front door to UW-Madison for business and industry, helping companies, organizations and entrepreneurs access resources in areas such as student internships and placement, executive education and professional development, access to faculty and staff expertise, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship. Charlie Hoslet, who leads OCR, makes connections between and among the varied economic development activities on the UW-Madison campus, as well as building connections with other campuses and economic development organizations in the state. Support for entrepreneurship, including the Wiscontrepreneur program hosted by OCR, is a key element of the economic development efforts of the university. Those organizations include the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), and independent non-profit organization which provides the technology transfer function for UW Madison, and WiSys, another foundation, affiliated with WARF, which serves the other UW campuses, including Extension and two-year colleges. These programs infuse $45 million annually into the UW research community as margin of excellence funding. OCR also connects with two dozen separate industrial consortia at the university and their member companies. University Research Park, as a physical manifestation of technology transfer and entrepreneurship, has proven to be a key success in economic development. Partly, this is because URP serves entrepreneurial faculty and supports in various ways the university culture that encourages entrepreneurship among faculty, staff and students. The URP also supports the need for the regional economy to grow our own build business and industry from the ground up rather than relying on smokestack chasing. Keys to Success: y The university encourages a wide variety of economic development and entrepreneurial activity, across the research, extension, and university relations functions. y The institution creates and supports a culture of entrepreneurship. y UW maintains pays attention to state and regional economic development needs in addition to the global impact that UW discoveries have.

36

Key Lessons the University of Wisconsin, Madison and UW Extension: y Extension and the economic development efforts it coordinates provide an important facilitative role for UW campuses statewide. y The Office of Corporate Relations at UW-Madison also plays a critical role in connecting economic development activities across the campus and connecting them to other entities. y An institutional culture that encourages and supports faculty, staff, and student entrepreneurship is essential. y Innovative mechanisms for technology transfer such as WiSys and WARF create cash flow for the research community and provide support to startup and spinoff companies emanating from university technology.

37

Virginia Tech
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 30,739 1,371 $181M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

23%

President

Senior Vice President and Provost

Vice President for Research

Vice President for Outreach and International Affairs

Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties

Outreach Program Development

Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center

Economic Development

As with all the institutions we spoke with, Virginia Tech has a wide array of economic development activity that spans across the research, outreach, and other functions of the institution. Primarily, however, these activities fall within the research and outreach functions of the institution, and specifically within Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties, under the Vice President for Research and the offices of Outreach Program Development and Economic Development, both under the Vice President for Outreach and International Affairs. Virginia Tech is a mission-driven university and its most recent strategic plan indicates that engagement will cut across and be embedded in all missions, with all disciplines expected to participate. Programs and Initiatives: y Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center (see below) y The Office of Economic Development (see below) y Continuing and Professional Education (see below) y Center for Organizational and Technological Advancement (see below) y Institute for Advanced Learning and Research y The Economic Development Studio @ Virginia Tech

38

Within Outreach and International Affairs, the Office of Economic Development works to make connections between economic development activities across the university. Ted Settle, who directs this office, reports that the primary way these connections happen is through an Economic Development Leadership team that he coordinates. The team is comprised of five of the institution s vice presidents, academic deans, and the intellectual property and technology transfer office (which reports up the Vice President for Research). Ted reports that the team meets monthly and also presents a talk by an invited speaker once a month. The team s activities keep economic development on the agenda of Virginia Tech s senior leadership, and keep academic programs, researchers, tech transfer, and others in touch with regard to what each is doing in this arena. Among those with whom Ted works at the institution is the leadership of the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center, part of the institution s technology transfer operation. Ted also works to make connections with faculty, but makes it clear that his agenda isn t necessarily an outreachfocused one. Instead, he notes that the economic development partnerships he facilitates are important to increasing Virginia Tech s research program. In fact, outreach programming efforts are linked directly to the university s strategic research areas of excellence: energy materials and environment, social and individual transformation, health, food and nutrition and innovative technologies. Other offices within Outreach participate in economic development activities, including Continuing and Professional Education. This office provides custom education and logistical support for a globalized curricula, and works in collaboration with continuing education centers around the world. Technology-based development is a focus of the office, which operates Virginia Tech s Center for Organizational and Technological Advancement. Virginia Tech s orientation toward economic engagement has resulted in some key successes for the state as well as the institution. Rolls Royce recently decided to open a manufacturing plant in the state, thanks in part to efforts by the university. The university has been a key partner in planning economic development activities funded by Virginia s share of the Master Tobacco Settlement. The university s Northern Virginia Center is opening a new research center in the national capital region. Keys to Success: A recognized key to the success of Virginia Tech s Outreach programs is the culture of the University. In the words of Jeri Childers, Director of Outreach Programs, Virginia Tech lives and breathes engagement , and is therefore highly effective in converting the goodwill from the state and community into programming that is highly-correlated with faculty research. Ted Settle echoes these sentiments, noting that the DNA here has people willing to work with the external community. Key Lessons from Virginia Tech: y The university is very mission-driven and is successful in converting the resulting goodwill into programming that is highly-correlated with faculty research y There is a global focus to outreach efforts, including work with centers around the world y Virginia Tech has a very positive relationship with the state and its engagement and outreach programs received net new dollars in the last funding cycle, despite the economic recession

39

Washington State University
Number of Students: Number of Faculty: Sponsored Research: 25,352 1,304 $135M Land Grant (Y/N): Approximate % of operating budget from state appropriations: Yes

24%

Washington State University has four campuses statewide in Pullman, Spokane, Tri-Cities, and Vancouver and the flagship location of Pullman has the distinction of being the smallest town in the nation to host a major state university. WSU and the University of Washington are in a unique position in the state since there not any private research universities with whom to compete for funding, faculty or students. This leads to a competitive yet very collaborative relationship with the University of Washington. WSU s president, Elson Floyd, assumed leadership at the university in 2007 and reorganized the economic development efforts. WSU has a Vice President for Economic Development who reports directly to President Floyd. Uniquely, however, WSU has located its VP for Economic Development and Global Engagement in Seattle (the business epicenter of the state) instead of Pullman. Placing the operational nerve center for economic development in Seattle enabled WSU easy access to the business, foundation, and NGO community. This enables WSU to maximize its return on investment for economic development dollars and the technology groups in Seattle host an angels forum for WSU and UW every year. Programs and Initiatives: y Research Units y Economic Development and Global Engagement (see below) y Small Business Development Centers y WSU Research Foundation

40

WSU works very hard to have a single point of entry into the university for economic development, and it is through its VP for Economic Development and Global Engagement. The office is comprised of 4 FTEs though the VP oversees 120 FTEs when counting the technology transfer, small business, and entrepreneurship activities and has an approximately budget of $20 million. One of the biggest successes programmatically, along with the initiatives with the state, has been the Washington Global Health Alliance. It is a program with WSU s vet school and foundations to highlight the importance of animal health in global development. Also, WSU has begun a pilot micro-loan and entrepreneurship training program to populations within the state that traditionally rely on the agriculture sector for employment. Keys to Success: WSU has cultivated a strong relationship with state government and sees itself as a very horizontally integrated institution. Their unofficial mantra for economic development is that every state legislator is OUR state legislator since extension and economic development programs are in every county in the state. Their stated mission is to lead in relevant local, national, and global engagement. The economic development function at WSU is very externally focused facilitating relationships and opportunities with entities outside the university. The technology transfer office reports to the VP for Economic Development because of the business relationships the office is expected to cultivate and sustain. Additionally, economic development is responsible for business incubation, small business development and entrepreneurship. By contrast, the OVPR is internally focused on faculty research. The Governor has worked very closely with WSU and in working with President Floyd has reinvigorated a Commission on Economic Development to work with the research universities in the state. With this collaborative working relationship three key initiatives have begun: a STARS program to recruit star researchers to UW/ WSU; and entrepreneur-inresidence program; and a $40 million grant program and shared state strategy around clean energy. Key Lessons from Washington State University: y WSU has moved its economic development office to Seattle where almost all of the outside money (foundations) is. y WSU works very closely with the state and views every state legislator as an advocate for the university because of its economic development and extension programs. y WSU works to cultivate business relationships and views this as key to its success. y The VP for Research office is internally focused on growing faculty research and the VP for Economic Development and Global Engagement office is externally focused on facilitating relationships and opportunities outside the university.

41

Appendix A: List of Questions and Interviewees
Charge: Develop a straightforward paper cataloging how other major universities structure their economic and workforce development efforts. Descriptors Institution Level: Research, Engagement, Extension 1. Organizational Structure: Where does the economic development function report (OVPR, Outreach/ Engagement: Other?) How many staff/ FTEs are dedicated to economic development activities? At what levels? 2. Mission: What is the stated purpose of the economic development function? 3. Budget: What is the size of the budget for the economic development function? 4. Funders and Partners: With whom does the University work to fund and implement economic development programs? What (and how much) are university funds (and source)? What about external sources? Notable or Major Programs for Economic Development at the University 5. Number and Types of Programs and Initiatives: What are the notable major programs at the university? What are their focal areas (e.g. entrepreneurship, commercialization, community development). What is their reporting structure and primary function? What are their missions, audience, budget, funders, and staff? Where are they located? General 6. What are the biggest successes the institution has had in economic development? What have been the keys to success? 7. To what extent are different units integrated (e.g. Outreach, Extension, Tech-transfer, etc.)? 8. Does the university have an integrated cluster-based/ regional-based strategy? 9. What is the university s relationship with the state (funding level as % of budget, strategy)? 10. Anything else of note?

42

Appendix B: Institutions and Contacts
Institution Arizona State University Contact Person Todd Hardy Associate VP for Economic Affairs Mark Allen Senior Vice Provost for Research and Innovation Hi Fitzgerald Associate Provost, University Outreach and Engagement Jim Zuiches Vice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development Steve Sonka Interim Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement Philip Greasley Associate Vice President-Engagement Leonard Heller Vice President, Commercialization & Economic Development University of Michigan Marvin Parnes Associate Vice President, Research Andrew Furco Associate Vice President for Engagement Timothy Mulcahy Vice President for Research Craig Taylor Director, Business and Community Economic Development University of North Carolina Tony Waldrop Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development Jesse White Director, Office of Economic and Business Development

Georgia Tech

Michigan State

NC State

University of Illinois

University of Kentucky

University of Minnesota

43

University of Wisconsin

Charles Hoslet Managing Director, UW-Madison Office of Corporate Relations Christine Quinn Provost & Vice Chancellor UW Extension

Virginia Tech

Ted Settle Director, Office of Economic Development Jeri Childers Director, Outreach Program Development

Washington State University Purdue University

John Gardner Vice President, Economic Development and Extension Vic Lechtenberg VP for Engagement

44

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful