1. www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu Researchers’ Consulting Activities FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)

2. 2 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Researchers’ Consulting Activities in general  Researchers have competences in some domain, which allows them to perform consulting activities on demand of industrial companies  This can be an additional source of revenue for researcher and of scientific expertise for the company  These activities can generate intellectual property, which risk to stay out of control of a TT office  They can also give birth to interesting projects and partnerships for the research organisation which employs the researcher

3. 3 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Researchers’ Consulting Activities in practice Internal definition Purely intellectual activity Not more than 20% of working time, not on a continuous basis Expertise, analysis, evaluation, technology intelligence Does not include any development or transfer of assets Not a research activity inside a private company Authorised by the director No hierarchical relation between the researcher and any person from the company

4. 4 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Evidence report Consultancy contract signed between a company and a researcher This relation doesn’t involve INRIA Activities carried out by researchers may in fact involve software development, technology and know-how transfer, or potentially generate conflict of interests between the company and the researcher Some measures of guidance and control are needed Contract signed between a company and INRIA This contract is subsequently followed up by INRIA The scope of activities and conditions of IPR protection set up in the contract are clear and coherent with INRIA’s IP policy

5. 5 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Measures taken by INRIA  Researchers being civil servants, they ask authorisation to perform extra activity  They fill in a form which gives details about consulting agreement negotiated with a company  Researcher’s responsible give opinion on:  compatibility of this extra activity with main activities of the PRO (research director)  researcher’s engagement in consulting being only his secondary activity (human resources)  risk of conflict of interests (TT officer)  opinion of regional centre director, optionally opinion of Transfer and Innovation Department  final authorisation is given by INRIA’s CEO

6. 6 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Involvement of TT officer in every request for authorisation of consulting allows to: Measures taken by INRIA do not concern purely intellectual activity the content goes above the existing elements and state-of-the- art can be considered as a technology or know-how transfer re-qualify the contracts if they: first for researcher, private consulting activity second for INRIA research team, technology transfer or research collaboration or two INRIA contracts: 1- technology transfer to the company, 2- expertise related to this transfer, provided by researcher negotiate two contracts if transfer activity is detected:

7. 7 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities When?  Timing  The new legislation on civil servants extra activity (giving some precise regulation of working time and salary) appeared in July 2007  The question was raised in INRIA in September 2008  The new procedure was put in place in October 2008

8. 8 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Who?  Stakeholders  INRIA headquarters, in particular Transfer and Innovation Department – set up the new policy, follow-up some part of requests  INRIA regional centres: TT officers, research and administrative directors, human resources – evaluate researcher’s requests, try to detect transfer potential or possible risks behind this activity

9. 9 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Pros & Cons PRO’s  Building researchers awareness of IP protection issues and of the consequences they have for their work as consultants  Clear rules are set up concerning researcher’s financial benefits, amount of time dedicated to consulting and potential use of INRIA software and other IP (guidelines for researchers)  Possibility to have a view on researchers’ contacts with companies; TT officers stay in the loop  Researchers can still provide private consultancy, which brings them financial benefits and meets the needs of SMEs CON’s  The necessity to make this new process understandable for researchers, who can have the impression that “everything is becoming bureaucratic”  The validation procedure should not be too long and complicated, which would discourage researchers (in INRIA: 15 days to give an answer)

10. 10 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Why ?  Rationale: Researchers at PROs are an important source of expertise for the private sector; INRIA’s mission includes sharing these competencies, SMEs being the privileged partners  Some cases showed that: Consulting may involve transfer, which is not taken into account by researchers when they negotiate contract on their own Researchers’ personal contacts with industry can be interesting for INRIA TT office, if only there is an information flow Consulting services are sometimes an occasion to bring the company closer to INRIA and to initiate a collaboration  There was a need for a procedure which allows to manage all those aspects of consulting

11. 11 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Why ?  Impact:  The number and the nature of actors involved in authorisation procedure guarantee a thorough examination of each case  Researchers become more conscious of limits and opportunities of the activity they engage in and pay more attention to INRIA IPR; if a problem arise it can be solved together with TT office  A way to avoid the situation when an effective transfer is done by researcher as a consultant and the TT office, as well as the management, learn about it post factum  TT office gets a mean to seize the opportunities of partnerships that arise from contacts with companies  The benefits of all the parties (researcher, company, INRIA) should be preserved in an optimal way

12. 12 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Outcome  The process has been formalised and implemented in INRIA activities; every contract concerning researcher’s consulting services for company or other organisation passes through TTO and is examined before being signed  Effective follow-up  No negative feedback from researchers

13. 13 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Lessons Learned  Looking back now, what would you … ... do different? – The practice seems to be on the right track ... improve? – There is an ongoing reflection towards facilitating the consulting activities, especially for SMEs, usage of a specific structure, know-how transfer contract with INRIA and other mechanisms in addition to the consultancy provided by researchers  … recommend to others? – Setting up a process to follow-up consulting activities is worth some efforts, as it increases both researchers awareness and opportunities detection

14. 14 | 03.2010 Researchers’ Consulting Activities Suggested Readings  Link to bibliography  Links to code book Consultancy Know-how Confidential information Confidentiality Intellectual property Intellectual property protection  Link to relevant websites www.inria.fr