1. Working with Industry
Esther Eagan, Associate Director, Technology Transfer, University at Buffalo
Lisa Gilroy, Assistant Vice President, Sponsored Programs, Binghamton University
Jennifer Mandina, Contracts Manager, University at Buffalo
Matt Mroz, Director, Enterprise Technology Transfer
Jeff Schieder, Director of Pre-Award, University at Buffalo
Scott Shurtleff, Director of Sponsored Programs Services, RF Central

2. UB’s Approach to Industry Agreements
Esther Eagan,
Jennifer Mandina,
Jeffrey Schieder,

3. UB Technology Transfer
University technology promoted/commercialized for the public good
Until 2010, UB used revenue-based metrics to determine success in technology promotion
Change in focus at UB TTO
Move to impact-based metrics:
Economic Development
Industry Engagement
Experiential Learning
Restructure
Because of clear alignment with impact-based metrics added industry sponsored research agreements to responsibilities.
Now that we’ve discussed the industry sponsored research landscape within this decade, we will narrow in UB’s practices.
This may sound a little tangential, but this history is what enabled the landscape that was open to a SWIFT option. The TTO at UB, like every TTO, is focused on promoting university technologies for the benefit of the public.
UB, like many TTOS, used revenue-based metrics as a method of quantifying the TTOs success. It seems obvious that if you license a technology and then you net positive on that license, the TTO has done its job. However, not all licenses will lead to positive gains, even if successfully marketed (ex – small market to sell product in; drug candidate is ultimately unsuccessful) and sometimes, even the best marketing efforts do not result in a license (ex – technology is too far ahead of the market to be a viable option for companies).
Because of this and in order to better correlate the TTO’s level of effort with the positive effects to UB and the NYS ecosystem, the UB TTO chose to realign its focus to impact-based metrics.
From , the Industry Engagement portion of the metrics was largely focused on licensing, including provision of materials to potentially interested partners through MTAs. Our sponsored programs group was tasked with the gargantuan task of navigating all research agreements with the TTO advising on IP terms for any industry agreement. By 2014, it was evident that industry sponsored research and governmental funded were two separate animals and TTO was receiving a greater number of requests for IP review from Sponsored Programs. Due to this and TTO having more opportunities to work with industry through its licensing activity, industry sponsored research agreements was moved to TTO. This restructuring created my position at UB.

4. Impact-Based Metrics
Are we improving our local and state economy through job and start- up creation? (Economic Development);
Are we creating successful partnerships with Industry? Do they feel invested in the success of UB? (Industry Engagement);
Are we providing valuable experiences for our students that will better enable them to work in industry upon graduation? (Experiential Learning); and
Are we providing industry with an opportunity to see the value our students can create? (Experiential Learning).

5. Division of Responsibilities for Industry Agreements
Principal Investigator
Sponsored Projects Services
Technology Transfer
Engage with industry
Main point of contact for all budget-related questions
Main point of contact for industry and PI during contract negotiations.
Complete a statement of work
Confer with PI to draft budget
Draft/negotiate contracts
Request agreements and budgets through Click
Provide fully-burdened budget
Provide licensing terms (including SWIFT), when necessary
Provide fully executed agreement to PI and SPS

6. Areas of Cooperation Division of labor is not the same as a silo
Agreement Type – determined by SOW, but has effects on IDC and IP treatment
Terms
Sponsor wishes to change payment terms (work with SPS)
Sponsor wishes to modify SOW (work with PI)

7. UB Sponsored Award Negotiations Units
TTO
SPS
CRO
*All contracts, MTAs, CDAs, etc.
*All grants and cooperative agreements
2013
Today
*industry contracts (non- CTAs)
*MTAs, CDAs
*fed, state, and nonprofit contracts
*Addgene MTAs
*non-federal clinical trial contracts

8. Ways to Increase IDC Yield
TDC base for nonfederal sponsors
Say “NO” to IDC waivers
Use fully-burdened budgets

9. Fully-burdened Budget Examples—Less is More
Personnel
Effort (Months)
Rate (/hour)
Total
$ 162,430
Dr. John Dorian 1 $
$ ,776
Dr. Christopher Turk
0.1 $
$ ,640
Dr. Perry Cox
0.5 $
$ ,484
Graduate Student 12 $
$ ,044
OTPS
Travel
$ ,925
Supplies
$ ,533
Publications
$ ,190
Particpant Survey Costs
Tuition
$ ,648
Total Budget
$ ,430

10. Binghamton Industry Engagement
History
Long record of working with industry
Reputation of being collaborative; mutually beneficial projects
Expenditures higher than national average

11. Binghamton Industry Engagement
Recent Trend

12. Changing Mindset/Changing Culture
Institutional Level
Relationship Building
Not just a funding source
Previous engagement
Better understanding: funding cycles/research problems
Opportunities
Student internships/Faculty Sabbaticals
Facility use
Streamline project onboarding
Master Agreements

13. Changing Mindset/Changing Culture
Institutional Partnerships/Broad Awareness
Strong communication within the University
Dean/VP awareness of engagement
Strong Communication with the Industry Partner
Deeper understanding of needs/concerns
Introduction to leadership
Look Towards Expansion
Expand and extend
Build multiple contacts

14. Changing Culture/Changing Mindset
Faculty Level
Diversify Portfolio
Too dependent on federal $
Various funding sources to fully support a lab – students, equipment, travel
Difference between working with industry and govt…not so much hypothesis driven work. Cant assume you are getting no cost extensions..different culture.

15. Changing Culture/Changing Mindset
Proposal Development
Acknowledge the difference
Keep it short
Clearly defined deliverables
Don’t overpromise
Communication
More than just a paper at the end
FULL COSTS

16. Break Out Activity Instructions:
Find your name/cohort on the slide
As a cohort, you will have 15 minutes to discuss your assigned questions and chart your ideas.
When time is called, each cohort will have 5 mins to share/discuss with the rest of the room.

17. Cohort A: Matt Mroz (Central Office)
David Schoenhaut (Downstate Medical)
Stefan Brooks (University at Albany)
Scott Bateman (SUNY Poly)
Barry Gell (Cobleskill) Paul Benson (Fredonia) Ashley Carbino University at Albany) Michael Jacobson (Binghamton University) Suzanna Rubright (Geneseo) Rebecca Keefe (University at Albany) Kathleen Tooley (University at Buffalo)
Cohort B: Lisa Gilroy (Binghamton University)
Lisa Kelly (Central Office) Christine Barberio (Oneonta) Susan Gasparo(Stony Brook)
Paula Kaloyeros (SUNY Poly)
Olga Petrova (Binghamton University) Julia Marte (Oswego) Doria Ramond (University at Albany) Robert Lawrence (Binghamton University) Rick Gutelman (Downstate Medical) Coleen Cremo (SUNY Poly)
Cohort C: Scott Shurtleff (CO) Per Stronhaug (Binghamton University) Alexandra Dudman (Downstate)
Jack MccGuire (Potsdam) Theresa Walker (University at Albany) Amy Breski (Binghamton University)
Lauren Donovan (Stony Brook) Jeff Horowtiz (University at Albany) Susan Maertz (Buffalo State College)
Tanya Waite (Central Office)
Carolyn Hunt (Empire State College)
Cohort D:
Esther Eagan (University at Buffalo)
Amy Herstek (University at Buffalo)
Jennifer Flanagan (Binghamton University) Catherine Ham(SUNY Poly)
Wei Shen (University at Buffalo) Holly Chanatry (Upstate Medical) Stephanie Gruarin (Buffalo State)
Linda Galvin (Stony Brook)
Jessie Beauharnois (University at Albany) Jenna Lehr (Central Office) Peter Gonzlik (University at Albany)
Conor Flynn (University at Buffalo)
Cohort E: Jennifer Mandina (University at Buffalo)
Scott Moser (Binghamton University) Molly Worden (Central Office) Kim Pietkiewicz (SUNY Poly) Caroline Golach (University at Buffalo)
Chris Wade (Central Office) Carmel Priore-Garlock (Empire State College) Meghan Burgoyne (University at Albany) Pen Bodner (Central Office) Julio Olaizola (System Admin – UCAWD) Cynthia Purce (Upstate Medical)
Cohort F: Jeff Schieder (University at Buffalo) Tanja DeMauro (Binghamton University) Emily Kunchala (Central Office)
Paul Kelly (SUNY Poly) Jerry Gauriloff (University at Albany) Anna Addonosio (Cortland) Tracie Sandell (SUNY Poly) Aimee Gibney (University at Buffalo)
Tracy Parker (Central Office) Tom Wendt (University at Buffalo)
Nick Schul (University at Buffalo)

18. Break Out Activity Questions
Cohort A:
How can you help faculty in writing clear directives in SOW?
What tips or tricks do you have to share with others?
Cohort B:
What are some of the challenges you face with writing clear directives in SOW?
What ideas do you have to help overcome these challenges?
Cohort C:
What are your best practices for budgeting with industry?
How can you enable a PI to be better at assisting those who make the budget?
Cohort D:
What are the most common questions you get related to budgeting for industry?
What are your best explanations that you give to your industry partners?
Cohort E:
How do you overcome budget concerns and questions from industry partners?
How can we leverage current partners to expand collaboration?
Cohort F:
How do we equip PI’s to engage better with industry?