0 A Shared Path Forward for Improved Technology Transfer Matthew Riggins

1 Why talk about improving technology transfer?  Problem vs. Opportunity –Technology transfer processes are not necessarily broken –Obstacles impeding better results  Accomplishing agency missions  New market creation, new profits  Economic impact, job creation

2 Methodology  During this research study, I interviewed 8 federal technology transfer experts from the following agencies and laboratories:  The following questions were asked: –What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization? –What are you doing to improve technology transfer at your organization? –If you could be “King or Queen for a day”, what would you do to improve technology transfer? –NASA–DoE –NIST–EPA –DoD–NIH –Navy–NIH NCI

3

4 It was apparent from the beginning of the project that T2 programs differed from agency to agency  Each agency’s mission is very different, and therefore their T2 programs are very different  The major distinction was agencies who were consumers of their own technology versus agencies who were involved in innovation but were not the eventual consumer –Example of Consumer: DoD – funds research into missile technology to improve its own warfighting capabilities –Example of Researcher: NIH – funds research into cancer drugs for use by another entity (i.e. pharma manufacturer)

5 Interviews uncovered barriers and issues that were widely shared among interviewees Top shared issue areas among interviewees Number of interviewees that raised issue Shared Issues 1.Cultural roadblocks 2.Finding the “right” partner 3.Partner communication and education 4.Funding/personnel 5.Agency support 6.Definition of success 7.Legal barriers, conflicts of interest 8.Public recognition 9.Commercial viability 10.Collaboration and sharing Shared Issues By Number (see key) Further information on shared issues can be found in Appendix

6 The shared issues analysis informed two key themes  It seems that there are two types of obstacles to building more effective T2 programs that are widely shared: Examples: entrepreneurial mindset; agency support; public recognition; communication breakdowns Long lead time to change or adapt cultures Sustained, prolonged education and training very important Cultural Obstacles Examples: licensing processes; partner relations; resources Less time to effect change, but difficult to achieve without buy-in from all involved parties Facilitation and intermediaries are effective catalysts Process Obstacles

7 Interviews also revealed some shared solutions among interviewees 1.Improved collaboration and information sharing among agencies and partners 2.Better public outreach 3.Improved training and incentives for scientists, etc. 4.Creation of a funded ORTA position for each agency 5.Improved agency support 6.Expanded university partnerships 7.Technology maturation funding 8.Guidance on international patents and licensing 9.More visibility for smaller labs 10.Partnership intermediaries

8 What is a successful T2 process? How do we get there?  Success: Overcoming obstacles to speed integration of research into the economy and create positive benefits for society as a whole –Short-term vs. Long-term successes (small vs. large obstacles)  Collaboration is an effective way to address both the cultural and procedural obstacles –Transcend organizational limits while still focusing on own self-interest –Share best practices, knowledge, information –Optimize the system as a whole The challenge is to scale up the degree of collaboration

9 What does a highly collaborative response look like? Cooperation Coordination Collaboration LowHigh Intensity of Risk, Time Needed and Opportunity Relationships Short-term informal relationships More formal relationships & a shared understanding of missions More durable and pervasive relationships Goal-setting No defined mission, structureFocus on longer-term interaction around a specific effort Participants bring separate organizations into a new structure (network) with full commitment to shared goals and work Communication Limited information sharing only about the topic at hand Open communication between organizations Requires comprehensive planning, well-defined communication channels Resources Each organization retains authority, resources kept separate Resources and rewards may be shared Resources and rewards are shared Leadership Leaders work within existing organizational culture Leaders may inspire followers and other leaders to higher levels of action but continue to work within the existing organizational culture Leaders inspire followers and other leaders to higher levels of action and transform the existing organizational culture

10 Thank you! Contact Info: Matt Riggins (c)

11 Appendix

12 Many interviewees pointed to cultural roadblocks – partner dynamics and funding issues also topped the list of concerns  Awareness of and education about technology transfer among scientists and researchers is lacking  Commercial potential is low priority (lack of entrepreneurial mindset) Interviewees were asked: What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?  Companies with sufficient financial resources are difficult to identify  Potential partners are unwilling to take on investment risk  Government and private sector processes, timing, interests and cultures are very different  Private sector is unprepared or unaware of technologies available  Clear funding requirements are lacking  T2 is an unfunded mandate, requiring personnel to direct T2 efforts on top of preexisting responsibilities Cultural Roadblocks 1 Finding the “right” partner 2 Partner communication and education 3 Funding/Personnel 4 Agency Support 5  Support for T2 up and down agency chain of command is sporadic  T2 is unaligned with agency priorities or mission

13 Interviewees also described difficulties measuring success – there were also concerns about legal barriers, publicity, viability and collaboration among agencies  Measurements for T2 are unclear or inaccurate  Contribution of T2 to agency mission is unclear  Statutory mandates for agency personnel and partner involvement are too strict  Legal clarity around funding requirements is lacking Definition of Success 6 Legal Barriers, Conflicts of Interest 7 Public Recognition 8  Public benefits from federal labs are not well understood  Lack of public support results in lack of Congressional support  Commercial potential of technology unknown or unclear  Maturity level of technology is unattractive to investors  Process standardization among agencies is lacking  Overlaps in research and technology development abound Commercial Viability 9 Collaboration and sharing 10 Interviewees were asked: What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?