Chapter- 4: Within Case-Analysis Formatted: Centered

The results are presentedchapter presents a case study concerning the production of low fat Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

halwa in two sections. Oman. The first sectionchapter further explores (1) the formal institutions Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

governing the relationships between the involved actors within the case; Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
While the second section examines (2) and the actions taken by actors involved in the processes Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
of Knowledge Production, Appropriation and Exploitation, in relation to the influence of the
Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines
formal institutions explained in the first section. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

4.1 Case AStudy: Low fat Halwa Project: Academically Driven and Commercial User Funded
with the support of Public Fund

Background of the project: Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic

This project was drivencompelled by academics and the practical production of knowledge was Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

funded by the Commercial User Public Fund of IIAP- Industrial Innovation Assistance Program, Formatted: No underline

(IIAP), provided by The Research Council and operated by the IIC-Industrial Innovation Centre
(IIC) under the management of the PEIE at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The project
was about a research initiated internally in 2008 by academics and an overseas PhD student from
Department of Food and Nutrition Science, in CAMS College of Agriculture and Marine Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Sciences. The collaboration with the factory, as will be described later, was initiated by
academics after the research outcome (new recipe) was generated scientifically by the
academics.

Research Idea’s Initiation:

The research was abouton the subject of ‘characterizing low fat Omani Halwa’. Though Omani
halwa is famous at home and abroad as a symbol of traditional Omani hospitality, considering
the type and amount of fat and sugar content, halwa may be categorized as an unhealthy food,
especially if consumed in high quantities. This is the factor that promotedencouraged the Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight

1
academics to develop a healthier variety of Omani halwa, an idea which is likely to be welcomed
by the local sweet industry. According to the academics, healthy halwa could be developed with
reduced input of fat and sugar and addition of other functional compounds beneficial to health.
Hence, they decided as a team to develop (produce and market) a healthy (low calorie) Omani
halwa product with low fat and sugar content that promotes health and is suitable to bothall types
of consumers at the local market.

To do so, they started to produce the recipeThe production of the productthis halwa initiated
scientifically through two stages. In the first stage they used structuresstructured survey to study
consumer preferences, while in the second stage they visited some factories to classify different
types of halwa available in the market throughby studying the physiochemical sensory and
textural characteristics. The outcomes of these two aspects were published by the university in Formatted: Font: Not Bold

internal and ranking journals in 2011.

4.1.1. Governance Structure: Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight

Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines

This section explains the formal governance structures of the institutions governingthat govern
the relationships between the actors involved within the case. As will be explained
subsequentlyInitially, the relationships between actors were governed by the rules of the
Commercial User Public Fund (IIAP), which are found to be incompatible with the university’s Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Auto

rules and regulations.

These relationships were governed by the developed terms and conditions of two formal
contractual agreements.

4.1.1 University Rules

URR-RCAF-F9: Research Contract Agreement Form

The academics and commercial user signed the ‘research contract agreement form’ through the Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
section ofa consultancy and contracted the research under the Research Department. This is
becauseAs the university considers the projects coming from IIC as consultancy services, where
the research is deriveddriven by the industry (commercial users) asking and paying for academic

2
experts’requesting the academics’ advice and solutions for their problems from the university
and ultimately paying them for the services.

The form states clearly the responsibilityresponsibilities of both parties. The academics are
responsible tofor knowledge production as per the user requirements, while the user is
responsible to fund the knowledge generation. The form also states clearlymentions that all
rights and titles to intellectual propertyIntellectual Property (IP) arising from thisa project shall
vest (i.e. come into the possession/ownership of) in the University. Such intellectual property
shallIP will include copyright of anythe reports, documents and computer software prepared by
the University under this Projectthe project, as well as any new development of products or
processes and any improvements to publicly known products or processes. The Sponsor shall
have a non-exclusive and non-assignable license to use such intellectual property.1

URR-IP- Disclosure Rule

In this veinAccording to the disclosure rule, the university requires/demands academics to

disclose IPthe intellectual properties through the element of compulsion. According to the Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline

university developed IP rulesAlso, if academics researchesthe academic research (basic or

applied) outcomes containoutcome contains IP which is considered by the university to be of
substantial commercial value (from licensing royalties) no invention disclosure for a third party
should be taken before assessing the option of seeking IP protection through the university’s
Innovation Affairs Department (SQU Research Regulations, 2014, Article 12:3, pg. 24). Commented [a1]: Is it necessary to mention the entire thing?
Only the source and year of publication must be included. However,
if this format is preferred, can footnotes be added for such
references?

The text mentioned in red can be omitted.

URR-PI & IAsD Responsibilities
Formatted: Highlight

Rules governing the actions of the university’s innovation affairs department aim to maximize
patent generation. ‘Building patent profile’ is stipulated as one of the department’s main Formatted: Font color: Auto

responsibilities in coordinating the IP protection (through patent registration) and maintaining

up-to-date database for all university generated patents (ibid, Article 6:9.2, pg.16). Additionally, Formatted: Highlight

1
https://www.squ.edu.om./Researh-Department/Application-Forms

3
and to ensure the ability of the department of patentspatent generation, they state it clearly as one
of the PI-Principle Investigator’s (PI) responsibility within the university research rules and
regulations. The PI is responsible to ‘ensure the report of any intellectual property arising from
research projects to the Deanship of research and particularly to the Department of Innovation
Affairs’ to assess its patentability (ibid, Article 6:1, pg.13) Formatted: Highlight

4.1.2 Industrial Innovation Center Rules:

IICR-PRC-F2: Proposal Research Contract

The academics and the factory signed a proposal research contract (Form-2, IIC), which is based Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

on a consultancy model. According to this model the idea (or the problem to be solved) must be
initiated by the user (SMEsa Subject Matter Expert (SME) first. These ideas are initiatedpursued
further with the help of the consultants and client manager, who are responsible to visit the
industry first to come up with an idea through brainstorming and then communicate with
researchers through the Technology Transfer Agent in their university. According to one of the Formatted: Font: Not Italic

IIC consultants:

‘’the“The idea is should be started by the enterprises and not by academics. We (consultants
and client manager) visit them to find out what they are doing and we ask them questions … and
find ideas with them, perhaps you know, you can think about how may be to do it differently;
….and what we come up with is a research idea. We forward the idea to the TTA. TTAs are
responsible for nominating researchers, so the researcher than contact me (consultant). I review
them to make sure we have the right person for the job.’’.” (PFO2: Ln?,? IIC) Commented [a2]: The number of quotations are more. Kindly
reconsider.

In this model also, the fund is considered as if it is issued from enterprises and the academics
should be considered as subcontractors. Therefore, the academics are responsible for knowledge
and its production, testing and application with the help from the factory as well through the
usage of university’s chemical labs and technicians. They are considered as research experts
(consultants) who help enterprises in generating outcomes that can be transformed into tangible
products. While the enterprises are considered as the main funder and responsible for supporting
the academics in transforming/bringing the scientific outcomes (recipe, in this case) into a

4
tangible product through the provision of the required resources (such as HR, tools, ingredients
and space) to achieve the product’s commercial viability.

IICR-IPR-F2-Sc10: IPRs Rules

Additionally, within the section-10 of the same form-2, the two parties have to decide about the Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

ownership of any expected invention. A mutual agreement has to be reached with regards how
the outcome from the project is going to be protected. In this case, the IIC (IIAP) rules
encourage enterprises to retain all rights to the intellectual component (IP) for any
technology/knowledge developed by the supported project, and be responsible for protecting the
any IP through patents, copyrights, industrial designs, trademarks, plant breeders’ rights, trade
secrets, or any other available means (Terms & Condition-Form-6, Article 19, IIC). To do so, Formatted: Highlight

the center assists the enterprises in getting IP by filling a patent application through the Ministry
of Commerce and Industry IP office, where the enterprises have to pay a registration fee of 200
OMR.

IICR-UTCF-User Terms & Conditions:

Incentive of in-kind Contribution

Moreover, the relationships between actors were governed by the IIC developed financial Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: No underline
incentives. In this regardsregard, the IIC encourages enterprises to collaborate in R&D with
academics in terms of incentivisation. The enterprise involved in the project can concurrently
make its own R&D contribution/investment by paying only 25% of the knowledge production
cost with 75% coming from IIC (through IIAP). Additionally, this contribution can be either in
cash or in-kind through providing the raw materials and resources (i.e. HR) required by
academics for production. As stated by the IIC Client Manager:, Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’We“We made some changes in form-6. I mean some terms and conditions. Before the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

percentage that the factory supposed to contribute in the project was 50%, we increased our
contribution to be 75% so the factory will pay only 25% and this 25% is not a condition to be in Formatted: Font: Not Bold

5
cash, it can be in-kind anything that is non-financial that provided by the company related to the
project and this counted according to its value.’’.” (PFO4: Ln 87-91, IIC)

4.1.3 Patent Rules (PR) ): Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Auto, Not Highlight
Formatted: Font color: Auto, Not Highlight
IICR-PaIn-Patenting incentive vs. URR-PaIn-University Patenting incentive Formatted: Normal, Justified

FurthermoreBesides, the relationships among actors were governed by the underlying Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic, Font color: Auto

contradiction between the IIC developed (existent/present) and the university’s underdeveloped
(nonexistent/absent) incentive of patenting for academics IP disclosure. The IIC encourage
academics to disclose their IP to enterprises in terms of incentivisation. In this regards, and
while the enterprises have the right to own, use, manufacture, apply and commercialize the
knowledge generated; the academics and their university are still holding the right as the
expected patent developers. From the IIC’s perspective, this helps in raising the academics
profile as industrial R&D specialists, which consequently will in their academic promotion. It
also helps in enhancing the university’s contribution in developing industrial patents for the
benefit of the country’s economy. According to one of the IIC consultants: Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic, Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’What“What I say to the researchers is the patent is registered to the enterprise but the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

researchers and the institute are named as the patent developers. Now that way the researchers
are happy, because when they try to climb the ladder in the universities and they are going to
their professorship they have to prove and justify why they want a professorship and if they can
say that they have developed a patent and that’s will help them to get promotion and the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

university can say it contribute to the development of the patent development of industry which is
good for improving country’s economy.’’ (.”(PFO2: Ln 205-212, IIC)

On the other hand, the university encourages academics to disclose their IP through the element
of compulsion. This is as per the university’suniversities’ underdeveloped (absent) financial Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic, Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic, Not Highlight
incentive of patenting. The development of IP is still not included in the criteria of academic
promotion. A proposal is drafted by the Innovation Affairs Department to the university’s higher
level, but is not approved yet. The only criterion of the academic promotion is publication in
internal and internationalinternationally high ranked or referred journals. Recently, the

6
development of IP is incentivized through management recognition only as a way to encourage
academics to disclose their research outcomes with potential patents. The academics efforts are
recognized by means of non-financial incentives such as rewarding a certificate of appreciation.
As argued by the University’s Innovation Director: Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic

‘’the“The university is encouraging now because there are innovations, industrial

collaborations, patenting and IP… but the incentive for patented innovation is still not there and Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
we are looking at it in promotion. We proposed this to the higher level but it is not approved yet.
But we do recognize this through awarding them a certificate as an appreciation for their
efforts.".” (UO2: Ln 260-263, SQU)

4.1.2 Knowledge Production Action Process: Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight

This section concerns the actions/activities taken by the involved actors in the process of Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

knowledge production. These actions include: (1) collaborations Establishment and the actors’
reasons/motives for involvement in such collaborations; (2) The formal and informal institutions Formatted: Font color: Auto

enabling/supporting the process of collaboration . Formatted: Font color: Auto

4.1.2.1 Academic Initiated Collaborations: Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight

Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight

I. Collaboration with a factory: Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic
I can say in the background that the focus will be on the decisions made by actors within this
collaboration (as Nura)… better to bring this in earlier,; I mean the motive of collaboration…. And then Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

how the rules governing this collaboration effect on the knowledge production and appropriation
processes…. Commented [a3]: Unclear as to who has quoted this!

The outcomes of the first and second stages, described in the background, helped the academics
to identify the ingredients that help to improve the health aspect and quality of the original recipe
of halwa. This made them to decide to go through a third stage, which involved developing and
formulating low fat halwa tangibly by substituting fat-mimic natural ingredients that resulted
from the second stage. They needed to apply and do trial in one of the factories at the same time
do chemical testing by using their university’s labs. Hence, the reason for collaboration was
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
driven by academics for the motive of academic’sthe academics’ curiosity of research Formatted: Font: Not Bold

7
outcomesoutcome application. They were curioscurious to learn how to transform their Formatted: Font: Not Bold

scientific research outcomes into tangible healthy product that was evidently useful to consumers
and factories in the local market. This motivation was in line with their department and college
objective, and as per their scientific background, of serving the community through finding
solutions to issues through research with the goal of improving the health quality of life.
According to the Principle Investigator: Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
“see halwaHalwa may be categorized as an unhealthy food because of the type
and amount of fat and sugar it contains. So we as food scientists need to make it
healthy for people.. the collaboration with halwa factory helped us to learn from
them in the real world how they are doing it and also transforming science
knowledge through their products to improve products health quality.’’.” (Ac1:
Ln 39-42, SQU)

To do so and in order to achieve their goal of transforming their research outcomes into a
tangible product, the academics needed to get collaboration with one of the factories to provide
them with the raw materials (ingredients), tools, halwa makers as well as space to generate the
recipe of the final product. Therefore, they started to communicate directly and informally with Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the factories they networked/interacted with in the second stage of their research. After some
timecertain amount of search, they could convince one of the most popular halwa factories in
Oman. The GM was found to be cooperative as it wasn’tthe factory did not incur any financial Formatted: Font: Not Bold

cost except providing academics with the required information and materials to apply their
science and produce their scientific recipe into tangible product. As argued by the Principle Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Investigator:

‘’we“We contacted many factories that we communicated with in the second

phase of our research. We could get a response from one famous factory.
Actually the GM was motivated since he didn’t need to pay any penny. All what
we needed were to provide us with resources. So he liked the idea and he allowed
us to use all his piloted plans and facilities and we are taking all the ingredients
and other things.’’.” (Ac1: Ln 14-18, SQU)

8
II. Collaboration with the Industrial Innovation Center (IIC): Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic

The academics’ collaboration with the factory coincided with the birth of the Industrial Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

Innovation Center. IIC. They wanted to seize the opportunity to get use of the IIC fund through
gaining/securing additional income for themselves and their university/college/department. This Formatted: Font: Not Bold

is as per the IIC rules, where the academics were treated as subcontractors (see (IICR-PRC-F2 Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
above)) who were granted a consultancy fee. Additionally, and according to the university rules,
a high percentage (60%) of the fee is allocated for academics while the remaining 40% are
allocated as followfollows: university 20%, College 10% and Department 10%. Evidence of this Formatted: Font: Not Italic

argument is the statement given by the Co-investigator:

‘’One“One aspect that motivates me to collaborate in IIC project is purely

financial and when you have a contract with them you can claim some of your
time as money, you can have them pay for your time…so for us it is beneficial to
get such collaboration to gain money for us and our university… 60% of the IIC
fund comes to our own benefit. The rest is going to the university and our college
and department.’’.” (AC2: Ln 214-218, SQU)

Thus, they communicated with one of the IIC consultants. However the consultant pointed out
the difficulty of accepting their project as this was inconsistent with the center’s followed Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
direction of research. According to its the center’s model, the problem to be solved by a research
must be initiated by the user (SMEs) first. Therefore, shethe SME suggested to them to discuss
the matter be discussed with the center’s client manager as hewho is responsible for maintaining
clients portfolio to help maximize and effectiveness of available assistance and reach clients
most in need. The client manager was supportive and accepted their application as the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

collaboration was already initiated and the factoryfactory’s willingness to adopt their research Formatted: Font: Not Bold

outcomes was reached. Therefore, heThe client manager allowed the academics to involve in the
center’s program and asked them to file a formal application to grant them the fund. As argued Formatted: Font: Not Italic

by the IIC’s Client Manager:

“Yes our direction is from industry to academia and that’s what makes us Formatted: Font: Not Bold

different. We work in favor of the industry. We try our best to protect them and Formatted: Font: Not Bold

smooth the process for them. But there are some cases approached directly from Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Highlight

9
 academia to (such as the halwa project). . We accepted these and took them Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Highlight
further and discuss with the concerned factory. We didn’t face any difficulty
because we found the factory was willing to participate. This was because they
(academics) approached them before.’’ (PFO4: Ln 101-106, IIC)

The Client Manager’s ability to change the direction in indirect way is linked to the nature of the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

IIAP-Industrial Innovation Assistant Program as an experimental trial with a five years Formatted: Font: Not Bold

termyear experiment. This is because the IIC needs to learn how to achieve their main goal of
encouraging local SMEs to participate in R&D and adopt researches from academics to embed
the importance of knowledge innovation within their businesses. This can be done through
showing themby depicting the benefitbenefits and beauty of R&D to their businesses. According Formatted: Font: Not Italic

to him:

‘’It“It doesn’t matter the direction of the research; the most important thing is Formatted: Font: Not Bold

that we could convince enterprises to do R&D and implant the knowledge of

innovation within the industrial sector here. We want just to show them the way,
we won’t be always there for them to fund. They need to try and see the beauty of
it and see the benefit. We are just an experimental program provided by TRC. It
is temporarily program.’.” (PFO4: Ln 137-141, IIC)

The change of the direction of the research is also supported by the action taken by the center’s
CEO in shifting the center’s policy towards assisting academics in their applied researches
whenever there is an opportunity of getting use ofmaking the most of good ideas or outcomes
initiated by academia for the benefit of local SMEs. This shift is related to his need of making
changes each time they are gaining benefits for their clients (SMEs) in order to achieve their goal
of injecting innovation within them. Evidence to support this argument is seen in a statement Formatted: Font: Not Italic

made by the Center’s Chief Executive Officer himself:

‘’I“I built a policy where we should be as much aid to anybody…originally we Formatted: Font: Not Bold

used to turn down researchers when they bring their projects; I told them no ‘no
go awayaway’; then we gave them the chance, to see what type of ideas they
have; to see what they can do for the factories, unless we get benefit from them, so

10
 our policy, whenever we get benefit and achieve our goals, we need to make
changes’’changes” (PFO1: Ln 293-297, IIC)

Factory’s reasons for collaborating with academics and IIC:

In addition to the aforementioned reasonreasons of non-financial liability, the factory’s decision Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

of participating in such project (or in producing the new recipe) was influenced by different
factors. These factors are influenced by the incentive developed by IIC and emerged from the
factory’s individual reasons and benefits.

1. The first factor is related to the IIC in-kind contribution incentive and particularly the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
non-financial cost of involvement. This is affected by the developed funding incentives
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
done by IIC (the fund operator), where the factory contributed only 25% of the Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
production cost with 75% coming from IIC. In addition, IIC gave the factory thea chance Formatted: Font: Not Bold

to cover the rest 25% through contributing in-kind instead of in-cash, where they could
contribute in form of providing the required materials and resources for academics.
Therefore, the factory wanted to utilize the opportunity of getting consultancy services
with less cost. As argued by the factory’s General Manager: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’It“It was funded by the innovation Centre and they had to pay certain fees to the
university and we only gave the materials and time as an investment.. So this is
also how they are funding the project….we are getting service and the IIC gave
money to the university not us.. for. For us it was in-kind investment by time and
providing the materials, tools, space and so on.’’.” (CU1: Ln 165-168, SMEs)

2. The second factor is related to the nature of the research outcomes generated by the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
academics. The GM of the factory found the outcomes having a significant commercial Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
potential. There is a similarity between the nature of the outcomes (generated recipe) and
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
the nature of products that hewere used to produce, sell and market. Additionally, there
is a potential profit as the generated formulation of the recipe can produce the same profit Formatted: Font: Not Bold

with less production cost and expenses since the materials (the natural low fat-mimic

11
 ingredients) to be used are less in cost in comparison to the traditional/original one.
According to the factory’s GM: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

“weWe are producing similar product. So there was no loss as I said we just gave Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
the resources which are we are already using and available, in addition of using
low fat materials which were less in cost.’’ (.”(CU1: Ln 192-194, SMEs)

The recipe was also expected to provide similar taste as the original high fat halwa.
Furthermore, a potential profit will be gained as there is an expectation of achieving local market Formatted: Font: Not Bold

demand successfully. This is resulted from the academics previous action of ensuring market
feasibility through studying the consumer preferences during the process of generating the
recipe. As argued by the University’s Principle Investigator: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’the“The natural fat-mimic ingredients are expected to provide similar mouth

feel as high fat halwa… You know he can make more profit from this with less Formatted: Not Highlight

cost. Also demand will be there because when we studied the consumer
preferences in the second stage we found people having positive response. They
liked it same as the original one’’ (Ac1: Ln 39-42, SQU)

3. The third factor is related to the short time expected to produce the product tangibly and Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
launch it in the market since the recipe was already generated and required to be Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
developed by academics. This is related to the factory’s attribute of preferring short-
term, focused projects that yield quick return. In this respect, the factory found it time
savingefficient as they were able to avoid going throughoutthrough the long process of
academic R&D. This is with reference to its unwillingness to participate in R&D.
Evidence of this argument is the statement by the Co-investigator: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’What“What motivated the factory, I would say there is a short-term view such Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
as having a problem and it needs to be solved next week very soon. That was the
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Halwa project for instance it was a very good idea, very focused one and took
little time to apply. You know they don’t want to waste their time in research…the
research was done by us before we approached them.'' (Ac2: Ln 233-236, SQU)

12
4.3 Knowledge Appropriation: Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight

This section concerns the actions/activities taken by the involved actors in the process of Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines
knowledge appropriation. These actions were enabled and constrained by the formal institutions
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
related to transferring knowledge through IPR.‫؟؟؟؟؟‬. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

4.3.1 IP Disclosure Theme: The Academic Choice of disclosing their expected IP to the Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines

factory & the university inability to appropriate the research outcomes:

As per the IIC process, and because of the flexibility given by IIC Client manager, the factory Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

submitted an application as if it is the one who initiated the project with the acceptance from the
academics. Accordingly, the academics submitted their completed proposal through their
college IIC TTA-Technology Transfer Agent. (TTA). The relationship between academics and
the factory was governed mainly by two formal contractual agreements (as mentioned in the
governance structure above). . From the university side, they signed the URR-RCAF-F9:
Research Contract Agreement FormResearch contract agreement form under the consultancy
section in Research Department, while from the IIC side, they signed IICR-PRC-F2: Proposal
Research Contractthe proposal research contract under the supervision of a consultant to ensure Formatted: Font: Not Italic, No underline

the agreement on the responsibilities and IP matters by both parties.

In case of a potential invention, and in accordance to IICR-IPR-F2-Sc10: IPRs Rulesthe IPR

rules of the research proposal contract, a mutual agreement by both academics and the factory
regarding how the outcome from the project is going to be patented was ensured by the
consultant. This was done for the purpose of preventing any future conflict regarding patenting
as the involved parties will become committed to fulfill the formal agreement. As argued by one Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
of the IIC’s Consultants:

‘’it“It is my role to ensure that an agreement is reached jointly between the participated
enterprise and the academics.. You know research proposal is a commitment and everybody
have to cooperate and if we don’t agree in patent there will be no project and will not be any
continuation for that conversation. See I am quite straight forward about that because otherwise
there will be definitely conflicts in the future.’’.” (PFO2: Ln 297-301, IIC)

13
After negotiation the academics decided to disclose the expected IP to the factory.
Consequently a conflict had resulted between the university’s innovation director and the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

academics. Although they were familiar with the university’s IP disclosure rules, the academics,
especially the PI, didn’tdid not discuss and report the expected IP (or potential patented
outcomes) to the Innovation Director before disclosing it to the factory through the IIC. This
action found to be inconsistent with the university’s IP disclosure rules which is also stated as Formatted: Font: Not Bold

one of the principle investigator’s main responsibilities (as mentioned above). This hindered the
university’s appropriation through protecting it as a patent. According to the University’s Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Innovation Director:

‘’It“It is important to not disclose the invention to a third party in order to protect it…. Our
department should be in the picture in negotiating with researchers about IP. What is
happening is that they are not negotiating and contacting directly. It shouldn’t come from IIC
and it should come from the researchers. They have to appreciate that there is a value in their Formatted: Font: Not Bold

negotiation with the factory, but they are not coming to us’’us” (UO2: Ln 386-390, SQU)

Academics reasons/motives for disclosing their expected IP to the factory more willingly than
to the university’s Innovation Affairs Department:

The academic decision of disclosing their expected IP to the factory was influenced by many
reasons. These reasons were emerged from the existent rules (incentives) and regulations
followed by the IIC and the absent/underdeveloped IP rules (incentives) of the university.

From the academics perspective, the main reason for their action is related mostly to the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

underlying contradiction between the IIC developed (existent/present) and the university’s
underdeveloped (nonexistent/absent) incentive of patenting for academics IP disclosure, as
mentioned in the governance structure (see Patent Rules (PR) above). .

In this respect, the academics found it more beneficial to disclose IP to the factory than to their Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
university’s Innovation Affairs Department. From the IIC side, they wanted to get use/benefit of
the patenting incentive provided by the IIC. As mentioned above even if the IP was disclosed to Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the factory, the academics and their university will still be considered as the patent developers. Formatted: Font: Not Bold

This was in addition to the other two aforementioned benefits/reasons (i.e. getting
salaries/consultancy fees and transforming their outcomes into tangible product). . This incentive
14
was found to be consistent with the Principle Investigator’s motive of ‘individual academic Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
development’ through getting the credit for IP development which has more weight than
publications. Therefore, the incentive gave him and the other involved academics the motive to
become more persistent in developing their generated research outcomes further to make it novel
in order to patent it. According to himone of the academics: Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’patenting“Patenting is important for the researchers to get the credit that they have innovative
ideas…Patent is different way of innovation than publication. It gives more weight for us within Formatted: Font: Not Bold

not only our career but also within the industry.’’.” (Ac1, Ln 130-132, SQU)

On the other hand, they found it costly to disclose their IP to their university as there was lack of Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the tangible return, especially the lack of ‘patenting incentive’. There is an absence of patenting Formatted: Font: Not Bold

in the criteria of the academic promotion. This is because of the university’s underdeveloped IP
incentive (as mentioned above). . As per the university system, the promotion is based only on
the number of publications. Therefore, the academics found it more beneficial to disclose IP to
the factory, as it allowed them to become the patent developer, in addition to the other
aforementioned benefits/reasons mentioned above (i.e. getting salaries/consultancy fees and
transforming their outcomes into tangible product). said benefits/reasons. Thus, the benefits of
disclosing it to the factory maximized the cost of not disclosing it to the university. According to Formatted: Font: Not Italic

the Co-Investigator:

‘’Here“Here (in SQU) for us the promotion is based on only publications, publications, Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
publications whether we have patents or not it doesn’t really matter or whether we have a two
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
million contracts with a company it doesn’t count at all; But if we have five papers out of that Formatted: Font: Not Bold

contract that carries more weight in promotion.’’.” (Ac2, Ln 436-439, SQU)

Moreover, there were two other reasons which influenced the academics’ decision. These were Formatted: Font: Not Bold

emerged from the IIC developed IP rules. The first reason was that the academics were worried Formatted: Font: Not Bold

as there was a possibility of rejecting their application, which consequently hinders them from
achieving their goal of transforming their outcomes into a tangible product, which was the
essence of this collaboration. This is related to the enforcement action taken by the IIC Formatted: Font: Not Bold

15
consultant, as per the IIC rules (IICR-IPR-F2-Sc10: IPRs Rules) where the consultant is Formatted: Font: Not Bold

responsible to guarantee that the ownership of any expected IP must be disclosed to IIC to be
owned by the participated factory. This is related to the nature of the IIC model as a consultancy
based, where the fund is considered as if it is issued from factory. Subsequently the ownership
of the research outcomes, even if an invention was discovered, is excluded for the factory. It is
also related to achieving fairness to the participated factory as it contributed in the cost of the
knowledge production. The other reason is that the IIC found that the factory was driven in
participating in their system by means of IP so as to be able to get the exclusive right of
manufacturing, using and commercializing the generated product in the future. According to one
of the IIC consultants:

‘’if“if the industry (user) contributes towards the cost of the project, product development and
the remaining of the cost come from the innovation center and researchers are acting as
subcontractors to do the research, then it is in my opinion, the patent should belong to the
factory… let us face it, if they are not driven towards IP then they will not see the need to go
through the system from the beginning. So they have the right to be able to produce and market
the product.’’ (PFO3: Ln 342-347, IIC)

The second reason, and in addition to their motives of securing an additional income as Formatted: Font: Not Bold

aforementioned, was that the academics found the disclosure of their expected IP to the factory
yielding more goodbetter benefit. Although they are against the formal publication of the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
research outcome, the IIC and factory were found to be receptivenessreceptive with regards to
public disclosure. They allowed the academics to disclose the general aspect of their research
outcomes to public in media (national and international newspapers). This is consistent with the
academics motive of awareness creation and their purpose of educating people about their
healthy product. This is in relation to their background as Nutrition Scientists (role of discipline
in improving the health and quality of the community life). This can be evidenced in the Formatted: Font: Not Italic

following statement given by the Principle Investigator:

‘’we“We can publish (disclose) it to public. They (IIC and factory) don’t have any problem in Formatted: Font: Not Bold

publishing (disclosing) the Omani Halwa and it comes in the media. We could publish in many Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold

16
newspapers…. we are in nutrition because we want people to be aware. The awareness for us is Formatted: Font: Not Bold

essential and so we want people to be aware.’’.” (Ac1, Ln 21-24 , SQU)

2Academics4.3.2 Academics and the factory failure to patent/appropriate the generated

knowledge (inventive recipe):)

After the two parties agreed about the IP and their responsibilities, the consultant submitted the Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

signed proposal contract to the IIC board of directors for approval. The fund was granted
successfully and the academics got a payment of 7,424 OMR as a ‘consultancy fee’. The
payment was given in installments after achieving each decided stage in the project.

The project made a significant progress in the form of prototype completion and market viability
testing. The academics and the user worked collectively to make sure that the generated recipe
were close to be patentable and commercially exploitable by the factory in the market. To
ensure safeguarding the ownership right for the factory, the IIC consultant, selected the project as
one of the best showcases at the IIC INFOM exhibition in 2011. InDuring the exhibition, the
generated knowledge (new recipe) was disclosed to public, but at the same time was registered
with the local IP Office at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The IP application was filled
by the concerned academics according to their formal agreement in disclosing IP to factory.

However, the patent application was rejected by the MoCI-Ministry of Commerce and Industry Formatted: Font: Not Bold

(MoCI) and particularly by its IP Director. The main reason for rejection was that the generated
new recipe was found to be inconsistent with the ministerial decree number 2004/104 which Formatted: Font: Not Bold

developed by the ministry for the concern of protecting the local standards/criterions of making
the Omani halwa. The issuance of special specifications for the Omani Halwa derived from
special Omani descriptive measurements. This is because Halwa is considered as an Omani
traditional local product that was stipulated to Oman. The reason for protecting the original
recipe is also emphasized by the House of the Omani Heritage as different halwa producers
would prepare the product with different results (taste) and that more than otherwise the
specifications for production will keep secret and would pass from generation to generation.
Thus, there is no relation of the international IP rules/principles (such as IPRs) as there is a need

17
to be protected as it reflects the identity of the Omani local industry. Evidence to support this Formatted: Font: Not Italic

argument is seen in a statement made by the MoCI IP Director himself:

‘’Ministerial“Ministerial decisions are organizational matters and there is no IP right for any
party. And the decision is about the way of making halwa. This is because halwa is an Omani
traditional product which specifically represents Oman, so there is no need for international
rules to be applied here.’’.” (Government Officer, Ln 21-25, MoCI) Formatted: Not Highlight

The decree was intended for considering the Omani measured criterion number 2004/1635
concerning the specifications of the Omani Halwa for protecting this industry from any
intervening additions in order to increase its quality. In this regards, certain criterions
(ingredients or components) to be compulsory applied by all local halwa making factories. Each
factory is responsible to ensure the production of halwa to be complied with these defined
criterionscriteria to bear the name of ‘Omani halwa’; otherwise they will be subject to legal
liability. As argued by the MoCI IP Director:

‘’The“The factories have to follow the standard measurements. They can change the cooking
tools and equipment, but should not change the protected recipe such as using new ingredients
or components/elements. For example, using vegetable oil than natural ghee and others;
otherwise they will be subject to legal liability. For the halwa to be called as an Omani halwa it
has to be under the decided measured standards.’’ (.”(Government Officer, Ln 76-80, MoCI) Formatted: Not Highlight

Thus, and as the academics with the factory replaced the defined ingredients into fat-mimic
which altered the defined certain specifications, the main issue of rejection was in producing the
same name as an Omani Halwa. Consequently, the director asked the factory and the academics
to not patent it even elsewhere or publish unless they change the name of the product. As stated Formatted: Font: Not Italic

by the Principle Investigator:

‘’the“The issue is in producing the same name of the product, producing it as an Omani halwa is Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the issue; we should give a different name such as sweet halwa or totally different name.
Because they said the new recipe changed the original one which is against the rule.” (Ac1, Ln
23-25, SQU)

18
Absence of exposing the information and rules of the original recipe for academics OR4.3.3 Formatted: Font: Bold, No underline

Academics unfamiliarity vs. factory familiarity of the original recipe rule Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

The academics didn’t expect that the application will be rejected. They were bound to fulfill the Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

agreement (IIC Research Contract Proposal) signed with the factory. They were not aware
about the rules (ministerial decree) at the national level. This rule was found to be unexposed to Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the public electronically. They are known within the ministry by the officers and the concerned
users (such as Halwa Factories), who are entrusted with the original formula in order to obtain
economical advantage. Thus, the protection must be sought by the MoCI, where the factory is
not allowed to change the recipe and own it by itself.

4.3.4 User’s Lack of patent knowledge and IIAP absence of patent awareness creation Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

The factory’s action of not informing the academics about the rule of the original recipe as a Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

trade secret was taken naively. The factory’s GM lacks of patent knowledge and the complicated Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
process of patenting. He didn’t and did not have any past experience in patenting. This was
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
histhe first experiment which yet again was initiated by IIC as a way to encourage himthe GM to
involve in the system as a way to protect his factory’s ownership right. Therefore, the GM was
unable to realize the importance and benefits of patenting. He and took itthis matter for granted
as he was driven mainly by his motive of commercializing the generated knowledge after
transforming it into a real commercial product. As argued by the University’s Innovation Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Director:

‘’they“They are not aware of patenting. They don’t know how to process it and don’t know how Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the process is complicated…and it is normal that they will take things for granted. They are in
commercializing rather than patenting.’’ (UO2, Ln 336-338, SQU)

His lacksThe lack of patent knowledge can be related to the gaps within the IIAP process. The
IIC is not responsible to create awareness about patenting among enterprises. As per the IIC IP
rules, that the protection of IP through patenting is the responsibility of the factory. The IIC
consultant is only assisting him in getting IP by asking academics to file a patent application

19
through the MoCI IP Office, as they have better knowledge about patenting process. They were
the one who produced the knowledge scientifically and have the full description of the generated
knowledge. According to the IIC’s CEO:

‘’We“We are noticing that local industries are not that much relying on patenting, that is why
we encourage them to patent. Of course we are there to guide them but it is their responsibility
to file an application with the help of academics through the ministry of commerce and
industry.’’ (PFO1, Ln 216-28, IIC)

3The4.3.5 The factory’s refusal to change the name of the generated recipe to patent it:

As the main reason for the MoCI rejection was the name of the product, a chance was given to Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

the academics and factory by the ministry’s IP director to change the name of the generated
recipe to totally a different one in order to patent it. However, and since they disclosed the IP to
the factory, the academics didn’tdid not have the authority to make any changes unless they got
the permission from the factory. Therefore, the decision was left to the factory, who found to be
reluctant to change the name. According to the Principle Investigator: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’the“The ministry people asked us to change the name to go for patenting... We had the
intention that we will work with the factory and the factory will be producing and give different
aspect (different name), but we didn’t receive any response from the factory.’’ (Ac2, Ln 133-135,
SQU)

Factory’s motive of commercialization in opposition to patenting:

The factory’s GM, and as the generated recipe yield good benefits for the factory, was concerned
about commercializing the product. He was persistent in convincing the MoCI to allow him to at Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
least produce and market the generated product with the same name and without filing a new
patenting application. However, the ministry refused and the commercialization was
discouraged by the higher authority, especially the Royal Court. The MoCI instructed the GM to

20
not produce and market the product unless he changes the name to be in compliance with the
national rule. As argued by the Co-Investigator: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

‘’As“As far as I know the GM discussed many times with the ministry to permit him to
commercialize it in the same name and without going through patenting. But the ministry
refused and the GM was disappointed. You know because changing the name breached the
national rule of halwa. It is a trade secret. So he had to make changes.’’.” (Ac2, Ln?,? SQU)

The reason for the GM’s determination towards commercialization was because he found it Formatted: Not Highlight

costly to change the name to totally a different one and bearing the expense of patenting Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
registration fees. From his perspective, changing the name will not add any financial value to its
business, which is entirely about the production of halwa under the traditional name of the
‘Omani Halwa’ that well-known/recognized by consumers in the local market. So, there is
possibility of facing risk of local market’s lack of demand. This was also influenced by the
factory’s attribute of ‘resistance to change’ and in taking a new path where success was not Formatted: Font: Not Bold

guaranteed. It resisted changing something that use to work for many years and yield reasonable
profit. Therefore, the factory was concerned mainly about commercializing the generated
product to gain profit (as aforementioned reasons for collaborating with academics and
especially the commercial benefit of the generated outcome rather than allowing the academics Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic

to file another patenting application with different name. As argued by the Principle Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Investigator:

‘’They “They were happy with the status quo. They resist change. And why they should change
something if it uses to work for the last 100 years. They would need significant increase in profit
or potential benefits to suddenly change the question of patenting and this cannot happen… They
would say why we bother ourselves to go through patenting process. So what is the benefit of
patenting to them? Nothing! I mean they got profit so why should they spend money in patenting
and changing the name. There is no commercial return from their point.’’ (Ac1, Ln 355-360,
SQU)

21
4The4.3.6 The factory’ refusal to allow the academics to patent the generated recipe Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines

through their university: unwillingness to cooperate

Because of the factory’s reluctance to change the name, the academics (and particularly the
principle investigator) decided to get use of the situation. He decided to take another direction
for their researches where they can change the name of the generated knowledge. He was
persistent in enforcing and achieving his motive of patenting. Therefore, he decided to get Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
support from the Innovation Affairs Department at his university. This is in line with the
department’s responsibility in coordinating the IP protection process (with the help of the US law Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Auto

company) through the fund provided by the university for the purpose of protecting and
registering the expected patentable research outcomes. However, the academics couldn’t go
through the process as the factory (who had the ultimate authority as the owner of the generated
recipe) was reluctant to give the academics the chance to change the name and patent it through
their university. The factory refusal was for two reasonable reasons.

The first reason is that it will be more costly if the university patents the generated knowledge Formatted: Font: Not Bold

because there is a possibility that the university after patenting it will sell it in a high price. It
will not be able to commercially manufacture, use and sell the generated product without getting
a license from the university. Thus it prefers to do things in lower cost rather than bearing the
expense of licensing. As argued by the University’s Innovation Director: Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic

‘’we“We are facing problem with patenting as they want things with less cost than going for Formatted: Font: Not Bold

high expenses, so patent will raise a price. They don’t go for the university to patent the Formatted: Font: Not Bold

invention, because they know that it will be in a high price.’’.” (UO2, Ln 257-259 , SQU) Formatted: Font: Not Bold

The second reason is that there is a potential risk as the university will probably sell or license Formatted: Font: Not Bold

the protected patent to its competitors in the local market. It is one of about 10,000 factories in
Oman producing halwa commercially. Therefore, they found it costly to be taken by their
competitor as they already contributed in the cost of the knowledge generation. Evidence of this
argument is the statement given by one of the IIC Consultants:

22
‘’they“They (university) may sell it to competitors. So there is a potential risk … they are Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
contributing to the cost, don’t want the competitors take their ideas, so it makes sense that the
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
industry to be the patent holder.’’ (PFO3, Ln 200-202, IIC).

Table 4.1 Highlights of the knowledge transfer development for the case study
Knowledge
transfer
Highlights
development for
the case study
 All rights and titles to Intellectual Property arising from a project
will come into the possession/ownership of the University. The
Sponsor shall have a non-exclusive and non-assignable license to
use such intellectual property.
 ‘Building patent profile’ is specified as one of the innovation affairs
department’s main responsibilities in coordinating the IP protection
The university
rules through patent registration and maintaining up-to-date database for
all university generated patents.
 The PI is responsible to ensure the report of any intellectual
property arising from research projects to the Deanship of research
and particularly to the Department of Innovation Affairs to assess its
patentability
 The research idea must be first initiated by a Subject Matter Expert.
 These ideas must be carried out for further enhancement by the
consultants and client managers through the Technology Transfer
Agent who nominates researchers.

IIC rules  Academics are responsible for production, testing and application.
 Decision of the ownership of the resultant must be taken and a
mutual agreement is formed.
 The industry makes a R&D investment by paying only 25% of the
knowledge production cost with 75% coming from IIC.

23
  The IIC encourage academics to disclose their IP to enterprises in
terms of incentivisation while the university encourages academics
to disclose their IP through the element of compulsion.

Patent  The academics efforts are recognized by means of non-financial

incentives such as rewarding a certificate of appreciation.
 The only issue of the academic promotion is publication in internal
and internationally high ranked or referred journals.
 The scientific background of the factories is serving the community
through finding solutions to issues through research with the goal of
Collaboration improving the health quality of life.
with the factory  The academics needed to get collaboration with one of the factories
to provide them with the raw materials (ingredients), tools,
resources as well as space to generate the recipe of the final product.
 A high percentage (60%) of the fee is allocated for academics while
the remaining 40% are allocated as follows: university 20%,
College 10% and Department 10%.
 The main goal is encouraging local SMEs to participate in R&D and
adopt researches from academics to embed the importance of
Collaboration knowledge innovation within their businesses.
with IIC
 The center’s CEO shifts the center’s policy towards assisting
academics in their applied researches whenever there is an
opportunity of making the most of good ideas or outcomes initiated
by academia for the benefit of local SMEs.

 From the university side, the Research contract agreement form was
signed while from the IIC side, the proposal research contract was
signed under the supervision of a consultant to ensure the agreement
on the responsibilities and IP matters by both parties.
Disclosure
 For preventing any future conflict regarding patenting in case of a
potential invention, a mutual agreement by both academics and the
factory regarding how the outcome from the project is going to be
patented was ensured by the consultant.

24
  Disclosure was done by the academics to the factory.
 Due to the underlying contradiction between the IIC developed and
the university’s underdeveloped incentive of patenting for
academics IP disclosure; it was costly to disclose their IP to their
university; a possibility of rejecting their application; the disclosure
to the factory yielded better benefit.
 The fund was granted successfully and the academics got a payment
of 7,424 OMR as a ‘consultancy fee’. The payment was given in
installments after achieving each decided stage in the project.
 The project made a significant progress in the form of prototype
completion and market viability testing. The academics and the user
worked collectively to make sure that the generated recipe were
close to be patentable and commercially exploitable by the factory
in the market.
 The IIC consultant selected the project as one of the best showcases
at the IIC INFOM exhibition in 2011.
 The patent application was rejected by the Ministry of Commerce
and Industry and particularly by its IP Director.
Failure to patent
 The generated new recipe was found to be inconsistent with the
ministerial decree number 2004/104 which developed by the
ministry for the concern of protecting the local standards/criterions
of making the Omani halwa.
 Each factory is responsible to ensure the production of halwa to be
complied with these defined criteria to bear the name of ‘Omani
halwa’; otherwise they will be subject to legal liability.
 The IP director asked the factory and the academics to not patent it
or publish unless they change the name of the product.
 The lack of patent knowledge can be related to the gaps within the
IIAP process. The IIC is not responsible to create awareness about
patenting among enterprises.

25
 The factory did not change the name and the academics sought the
department of innovation affairs’ help. Yet the pursuit was
unsuccessful as it was expensive to patent via the university and a
potential risk of the university selling or licensing the protected
patent to its competitors in the local market.

26