Corporate Engagement benchmarking study

Barbara Barnhart

Amy Lavallee

Jean O’Donnell

University of Pittsburgh

April 2015

PARTNERING FOR IMPACT:

A BENCHMARKING STUDY ON

CORPORATE ENGAGEMENT

Prepared for:

Dr. Mark Redfern, Vice Provost for Research, University of Pittsburgh

Dr. Marc Malandro, Associate Vice Chancellor for Technology Management and

Commercialization and Founding Director of the University of Pittsburgh Innovation Institute

Under the supervision of:

B. Jean Ferketish, PhD

Kathleen Kyle

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the following individuals and the schools they represent for

participating in this study:

Carnegie Mellon University Lorena McLaren

Duke University Thomas Healy

Georgia Institute of Technology Caroline Wood

University of Florida David Norton

University of Michigan Stella Wixom

University of Minnesota Steven Corkery

University of Washington Joanna Glickler

Washington University St. Louis Theresa Menk

We would also like to thank all those who helped schedule the phone interviews and

Ms. Linda SantaCasa for compiling copies of the report.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose of Study 1

Issue Overview 1

Trends 2

Engagement 4

METHOLDOLOGY 6

PARTICIPANT OVERVIEW MATRIX 7

CASE STUDIES 8

Carnegie Mellon University 9

Duke University 11

Georgia Institute of Technology 13

University of Florida 15

University of Michigan 17

University of Minnesota Twin Cities 19

University of Washington 21

Washington University St. Louis 23

COMPARISON MATRIX 26

KEY FINDINGS 27

REFERENCES 29

APPENDICES 32

Appendix A: Survey Questions 33

Appendix B: Phone Interview Questions 36

Appendix C: Graphic Interpretations of Key Findings 37

Appendix D: Contact Information for Participating Schools 41

1

Introduction

Purpose of Study

This benchmarking study was prepared for the University of Pittsburgh Office of Research. The

purpose of this study is to identify corporate engagement structures and practices at universities

identified as having successful industry partnerships. For this study, corporate engagement is

defined as the “partnership of university knowledge and resources with those of the public and

private sectors to enrich scholarship, research and creative activity” (CIC, 2005, p. 2).

The University of Pittsburgh is a public, state-related institution with an urban main campus and

four regional campuses. Total undergraduate enrollment at the University is 25,074 with an

additional 9,860 graduate and professional students (University of Pittsburgh, 2015). The

corporate engagement structure at the University of Pittsburgh is decentralized across areas.

Corporate sponsored research, one facet of corporate engagement, may have oversight from the

Office of Research, Institutional Advancement, or an individual department or school, depending

on the specific needs of the relationship. Organizationally, corporate sponsored research sits

within Institutional Advancement. The University currently engages with corporations primarily

through its faculty in the Schools of Engineering, Medicine and Pharmacy. In response to a

number of trends described below, as well as internal changes, the University is exploring

opportunities for restructuring its corporate engagement model to expand relationships with

industry and ease the process of partnering for all participants.

This report will present an overview of current issues related to university and corporate

engagement. Case studies and a comparison matrix on the identified universities’ organizational

structures are presented and focus on the structure of those relationships that best support the

generation and translation of research.

Issue Overview

There is a long history of university, government and industry relationships in the U.S. related to

research and economic development. Federal funding remains the largest source of research

dollars among major research universities, but industry funding is on the rise to help fill the

resource base being lost by flat or decreasing federal money (Basken, 2015). These university-

corporate relationships provide both partners with opportunities that may not otherwise be

available to either partner alone. Opportunities include, among others, the ability to generate and

translate research that impacts society, a secure research funding base, engaging students in local

and global initiatives, and preparing a competent and innovative workforce. Recent trends at the

local, national, and global level make structuring such relationships for mutual benefit critically

important.

2

Trends

Trends at the local, national, and global level have affected both university and industry research

efforts and contribute to the need to develop alternative approaches to sustain U.S. research and

development efforts—approaches that include new collaborative relationships between

universities and industry. These trends include: decreased federal research funding to

universities; decreased state support; changes in corporate research structures; an increased need

for an educated and innovative workforce; expectations that universities will help drive the

economy; and greater global competition (Internal communication, 2014). Major issues related

to these trends are described.

Decreased Federal Funding for Research. The late 1990’s and early 2000’s marked a

period of rapid growth in federal research dollars, particularly through National Institute of

Health (NIH) funding (Science/Business Innovation Board AISBL, 2012). Universities

responded by expanding research facilities, expecting the funding to continue or increase (Harris

& Benancasa, NPR, 2014). When the economy stalled, the “NIH cliff” occurred, with years of

flat or decreased funding. Similarly, Department of Defense support declined as the U.S.

engaged in various military conflicts around the world, and NASA shifted resources from

research to development (Cohen, 2011). The result has been that many researchers are unable to

renew existing grants or generate new funding through the government, making it difficult to

maintain facilities and resources to the same extent as previously (Cohen, 2011).

Overall federal funding is not expected to return to early levels and universities cannot expect to

see dramatic increases in federal research and development funds (Howard and Laird, 2013).

Although the Obama administration called for a 1.2% increase in funding for scientific research

for the 2015 budget, that rate does not keep up with inflation (Deng, 2014). Although federal

dollars will remain a major source of funding for university research (currently accounting for

three-fifths of university spending), these trends point to the increasing importance of developing

relationships with foundations, agencies, donors, and corporations (Basken, 2015; Howard &

Laird, 2013).

Decreased State Support to Institutions. Deep cuts to public higher education in

Pennsylvania since 2010 exacerbated the already comparatively low state support for these

institutions, which includes the University of Pittsburgh, one of the four state-related institutions.

Added to that is the fact that Pennsylvania has both the third-highest student debt and tuition for

public institutions in the U.S. (Hertzenberg, Price, & Wood, 2014). Similar trends are seen across

the country (Hertzenberg, Price, & Wood, 2014). Although there is indication of some turn-

around, it is anticipated that it will take years to return to pre-recession levels (Mitchell, Palacios,

& Leachman, 2014). Low levels of state funding and high tuition impact a university’s ability to

attract the best and brightest of students to be the next generation of researchers.

3

Changes in Corporate Research Structures. Corporations are looking at ways to

maximize research and development dollars, and cutbacks to their internal structures have

provided incentives to look for collaborative opportunities outside industry (Howard & Laird,

2013). Currently, total external corporate spending is 1-3%, with only a portion of that going to

universities (Internal communication, 2014). Support for basic science research by industry has

been sporadic while federal dollars may be invested in research that would have occurred by

industry without government intervention (National Science Board, 2008). Additionally,

corporations and universities are dealing with “patent cliffs” and resultant drops in revenue as

patents expire (Blumenstyk, 2011). Universities can provide partnership opportunities through

their faculty and student resource pool that can translate into benefit for both parties that could

not be achieved by either alone. These “win-win” opportunities can be seen as businesses tap

into the human resources at the university, and university researchers gain insight into the needs

of business and the translation of research to products that impact the economy and society

(Howard & Laird, 2013). Dealing with the different culture of a university is an issue that needs

to be addressed, particularly in terms of deadlines and expectations, if such partnerships are to

endure (Howard & Laird, 2013).

Increased Need for an Innovative and Educated Workforce. The history of the U.S.

indicates that research and technological innovation by an educated workforce has fueled

economic growth and created continuing advances to our quality of life (Cohen, 2011). There is

a strong link between an educated workforce and economic development and opportunity

(Lilienthal, 2013). Corporations are seeking opportunities for partnering with universities who

can provide access to qualified employees who can contribute to further development and who

possess the skills needed to work collaboratively (Internal communication, 2014). As noted, low

levels of state funding and soaring tuition may impact the ability of universities to attract some of

these students.

Expectations that Universities Will Help Drive the Economy. Much of the economic

growth over the last century has been the result of innovations in research and technology

(Cohen, 2011). Universities are instrumental in continuing to advance these innovations which

drive the economy through their ability to educate the workforce, engage in research, and partner

with industry. As such, and with the decrease in federal research funding, they are attractive

partners to industries who are dealing with changing structures to their research and development

efforts. Currently, industry support of research is only about 5-10% of a university’s research and

development portfolio (Basken, 2015; Internal communication, 2014). Concerns about conflict

of interest, intellectual property rights, and different laws and regulations are but some of the

issues that need to be addressed for partnerships with industry to be effective.

Greater Competition Globally. Global investment in research and innovation is

growing. China and Korea, in particular, have grown their investment by 10% the past few years

(Cohen, 2011). Added to that are reports that U.S. firms are shifting research and development

initiatives outside the country (Plumer, 2013). The percentage of patents and publications by the

4

U.S., while needing to be taken in context, has declined as other nations have increased their

contributions (National Science Board, 2008).

Engagement

The recent literature on community engagement suggests a departure from the traditional

relationship between universities and corporations. Until the late 1980s, it was customary for

companies to provide financial gifts or donations in exchange for preferential access to

recruitment of students (NACRO, 2011). However, companies began moving away from

providing philanthropic gifts that had no clear return on investment. Instead, corporations began

to see themselves as long-term investors rather than casual donors, and their expectations of the

relationship broadened to include sponsored research, new technologies, scientific consulting,

and employee training (NACRO, 2011). The idea shifted from one of community engagement to

one of corporate engagement. Therefore, it became increasingly important for universities to

develop functional corporate relations models that produced measurable outcomes of mutual

benefit.

Corporate Engagement Defined. As corporate expectations have evolved, so have

university missions. As Nelles and Vorley (2009) observe, “Over the past two decades a “Third

Mission” for universities has been articulated, alongside teaching and research; and this third

mission is understood as commercial engagement” (p. 161). This put a new emphasis on

entrepreneurship and prompted universities to more clearly define corporate engagement. The

Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a consortium of the Big Ten universities plus the

University of Chicago, defines engagement as “the partnership of university knowledge and

resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative

activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens;

strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and

contribute to the public good” (CIC, 2005, p. 2). These outcomes are often achieved through

internships, co-ops, curriculum development, consulting, and philanthropy. While the majority of

the literature provides ample information on desirable outcomes of corporate engagement, there

is far less in terms of implementation. According to the research thus far, many universities are

still developing structural models for corporate engagement that provide sustainable mutual

benefits. As NACRO (2011) recognizes, “no two universities will have identical corporate

relations programs: public or private, size of faculty and student populations, the size and quality

of its business, engineering, and medical schools, importance to the local economy and unique

campus cultures will all shape the opportunities and dynamics of each university’s program” (p.

2). Among all of these factors, campus culture arguably has the biggest influence on the success

of corporate engagement as it sets the tone for how the institution will be perceived by the

corporation.

5

University Models of Corporate Engagement. Although corporate engagement models

at universities are still evolving, three models for corporate relations at research universities as

described by NACRO recur in the literature. NACRO (as cited in the Kansas State University

Foundation report, 2010) identifies these three as:

1) Philanthropic. Typically managed through a development office, this model focuses on

transactions that increase gifts to the university. While the development office may be able to

assist with referring corporations to other areas in the university, including student recruitment or

research and development, this is not the primary focus of this model.

2) Decentralized-Holistic. This model consists of various, unit-level offices that assist with

specific functions between the corporation and the university. In this model, the development

office may assist with philanthropic efforts while a technology/licensing office would be the

entry point for those related needs.

3) Industrial Focus-Holistic. This model reflects a centralized group that serves as the “front

door” for industry. This model is relationship-focused rather than transaction-focused and serves

to facilitate and expedite corporate-university activities. In this model, philanthropy is not the

central objective of this group and targeted giving is still managed by the development office.

This third model, with the idea of a single point of entry into the institution for corporations—a

“concierge” model—is one that is gaining increasing interest. In this model, institutions have a

central corporate relations office that assists corporations in navigating the often complex

university structure. This corporate relations office is also responsible for facilitating

relationships between the corporation and other university departments. For this model to be

successful, it is critical for central university administration to support and define the mutual

benefits to be obtained from the partnership that coincide with each partner’s mission and to

establish a holistic, industry-focused approach (Kansas State University Foundation Report,

2010). In a 2010 review of best practices in research universities using this model, the Kansas

State University Foundation Office of Research and Sponsored Programs found that the six

universities they examined indicated that corporations were more satisfied with this approach,

leading to more sustainable partnerships (p. 3).

When it comes to sustainable partnerships, NACRO (2012) identified tiers of corporate

engagement to create a spectrum that allows corporate relations officers to develop management

plans that will move corporations along the spectrum. Tier 1, Strategic Partnership, is a

relationship that has evolved to include significant, ongoing, financial contributions (sponsored

research, gifts) meriting central coordination. Tier 2, Broad-Based Engagement, is when the

company is engaged across multiple units in a variety of ways, with company leadership

participation. Tier 3, Tailored Partnership, is when the company works closely with the

university to find value-added opportunities for a deeper relationship; company prefers “one-stop

shopping.” Tier 4, Managed Relationship, only has a few points of interest requiring

6

coordination. Tier 5, Single Point of Engagement, is when the company is involved in a limited

capacity. The identification of tiers of corporate engagement along with corporate engagement

processes (see NACRO Metrics White Paper for additional information) allows key metrics for

assessment to move away from purely philanthropic measures to ones that look at the complexity

of engagement relationships and the movement of those relationships through the continuum.

It is apparent from the literature that there is no one model that fits all research universities and

their corporate partners. A model that maximizes realization of the identified mission and goals

of each partner can provide sustainable benefits to both.

Methodology

The 62 public and private institutions that comprise the Association of American Universities

(AAU) were initially reviewed for inclusion in this study. The list was narrowed to twenty-three

by choosing universities that had schools of medicine and engineering and considering their total

research and development expenditures. Two additional universities without medical schools

were added to the list after consulting with the Executive Director of the University-Industry

Demonstration Partnership (UIDP). From that list, eleven universities were chosen to participate

from among those identified as leaders in successful engagement with industry. These

institutions were selected with input from the University of Pittsburgh Vice Provost for Research

and the University of Pittsburgh Associate Vice Chancellor for Technology Management and

Commercialization. An email introducing the benchmarking survey and a request for

participation in the survey and a follow-up telephone interview was sent to the eleven

institutions. A link to the 10-question survey using the Qualtrics, LLC software adopted by the

University of Pittsburgh was provided in the email. Participants were asked to provide contact

information for a 30-40 minute follow-up telephone interview (Appendices, Survey and

Interview Questions). A follow-up email requesting participation was sent by the study authors

and the Vice Provost for Research.

Eight universities responded to the survey and agreed to participate in the telephone interviews.

Individual results are provided in the case studies on pages 9 – 24 and in the chart on page 27.

Telephone interviews followed the format described in the Appendices but were tailored to

explore the individual responses to the online survey. All participants were offered a copy of the

final benchmarking findings.

7

PARTICIPANT OVERVIEW MATRIX

*Source: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES 2013)

Ca

rne

gie

M

ello

n

Un

ive

rsity

Du

ke

U

niv

ers

ity

Ge

org

ia

Ins

titute

of

Te

ch

no

log

y

Un

ive

rsity

of

Flo

rida

Un

ive

rsity

of

Mic

hig

an

Un

ive

rsity

of

Min

ne

so

ta

Tw

in C

ities

Un

ive

rsity

of

Wa

sh

ing

ton

Wa

sh

ing

ton

U

niv

ers

ity

St. L

ou

is

Institution Type

Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private

Urban/ Suburban/

Rural Urban Suburban Urban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Suburban

# of Under-graduates

6,237 6,648 14,558 32,008 28,283 32,300 31,099 7,334

# of Graduate/

Professional

6,918 8,819 6,913 16,272 15,427 16,700 14,114 6,959

Medical School

N/A School of Medicine

N/A College of Medicine

Michigan Medical

University of

Minnesota Medical School

School of Medicine

School of Medicine

Engineering School

College of Engineering

Pratt School of

Engineering



Michigan Engineering

College of Science &

Engineering


School of Engineering &

Applied Sciences

Annual R&D Expenditures*

271 million

992 million

730 million

695 million

1.3 billion 858

million 1.1 billion 684 million

8

CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED

AAU SCHOOLS

Carnegie Mellon University

9

Corporate Engagement at Carnegie Mellon University

NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate & Institutional Partnerships

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Lorena McLaren

Corporate Engagement Structure

At Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), industry relationships are managed through the Office of

Corporate & Institutional Partnerships, the central office for industry contact. This office is

housed in University Advancement along with Alumni Relations & Annual Giving, Donor

Relations, Foundation Relations, Development, Advancement Information Systems and

Organizational Development. While two individuals staff this centralized office, there are four

other staff members housed within the schools and colleges of the University who are considered

to be fundraisers.

The research arm of CMU’s relationships with industry is primarily handled through the Office

of the Vice President for Research, which also manages the Office of Sponsored Programs. The

Office of Sponsored Programs assists in proposals, contract negotiations and award compliance.

The Office of Sponsored Programs utilizes an integrated system, the Sponsored Programs and

Research Compliance System (SPARCS), to manage interactions with research administration

and compliance staff. The College of Engineering and the School of Computer Science are the

schools most actively engaged in corporate-sponsored research. There are opportunities for

corporate-sponsored research in the humanities and social sciences, depending on the company’s

needs and where the department falls within the university structure.

The Office of Corporate & Institutional Partnerships has a dotted line relationship with the

Office of the Vice President for Research. Staff meetings occur every three weeks for direct and

dotted line individuals to forecast potential relationships and to identify the companies that are

visiting campus in the next few weeks. This allows time to invite appropriate individuals from

within the University to present CMU projects to the companies. While the majority of the

companies that partner with CMU tend to do so with the Schools of Engineering and Computer

Science, these meetings allow for other schools or departments to suggest ways in which they

can interact with a company to help solve company challenges.

The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) has described three models

for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the model for CMU could be classified as

• Founded in 1900

• Private, urban campus

• Over $271 million in R&D expenditures annually (NCSES 2013)

• 6,237 Undergraduate students

• 6,918 Graduate/Professional students

10

falling between the Philanthropic Focus and Industrial Focus-Holistic models. The job of the

Office of Corporate & Institutional Partnerships staff is to listen to a company’s needs and lay

out the pros and cons of the various avenues available for developing a holistic relationship.

Since the Corporate & Institutional Partnership office reports to University Advancement,

Corporate & Institutional Partnership needs to track all resources coming into the University in

the form of philanthropic dollars, endowed professorships, scholarships or fellowships, executive

education, recruiting, or sponsored research. The Office of Corporate & Institutional Partnership

manages the holistic engagement of their corporate partners to meet all of the corporation’s

needs. University Advancement tracks corporate relationships and makes contact reports through

Ellucian Advance software. Although described as “not perfect,” the system is able to generate

sufficient supplemental reports.

Strategies and Metrics of Success

CMU has strategic partnerships with a number of corporations. CMU stated several advantages

for having a corporate engagement model with this mix. Of great advantage is that University

Advancement is able to market the University, having a broad view of the entire University

rather than just the silos or divisions that happen within departments. The office also has a

communications group that not only promotes communication internally but also externally

through annual reports and invitations to key players to campus events, all of which lead to the

next point of stewardship. University Advancement believes they are able to meet most

companies’ needs and help each individual company “feel like a VIP.” And, tracking of

corporate engagement through Ellucian Advance software allows them to generate annual

reports for the top companies. There are some disadvantages of having Corporate & Institutional

Partnerships located outside OVPR—it creates some distance between them and the faculty and

their influence in the University system is less than OVPR. However, having the office in

Advancement allows them to consider the holistic relationship throughout the entire life cycle of

the partnership.

For CMU, the key to establishing and nurturing these relationships is the ability to listen and

understand corporate needs—being “industry friendly.” This requires leveraging established

faculty to make corporation visits while attending conferences in other states to help establish

new relationships. It also requires having competent corporate relations staff at the University

who are able to listen, strategically plan pathways and points of contact, and then nourish the

relationship from the background.

A key measure of success is the number of strategic partners the University establishes. The

breadth and depth of the relationship with the “right” partner is important—the corporation’s

needs must match the University’s needs and mission. The “right” partner may be a large global

corporation or a small company located in the same community as the University. Since

Corporate & Institutional Partnerships is housed in University Advancement, total dollars

received is an important second key measure of success.

Intellectual Property

Carnegie Mellon’s Office of Sponsored Research handles intellectual property. Intellectual

property tends to be owned by both the University and the corporation and can be negotiated.

Corporate & Institutional Partnerships assists by connecting the various people involved in the

negotiation and may intervene if negotiation comes to a standstill.

11

Duke University

Corporate Engagement at Duke University

NAME OF OFFICE: Duke University Corporate Relations

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thomas Healy


At Duke University (Duke), Corporate Relations is the central office for industry contact. Two

individuals staff this office, the director and associate director. Although this is a central office,

their function is distributed across all schools, institutes and initiatives and is integrated

collectively. The number of Corporate Relations staff in each school, institute and initiative

depends on the size of each. Overall, Duke Corporate Relations functions as a holistic

community where there is centralized coordination with a distributive nature to each school,

institute and initiative. The Office takes a holistic approach to create value between the

corporation and the University. Corporate Relations contacts within each school, institute and

initiative meet every other month to share upcoming opportunities, contacts and best practices.

The Office of the Vice Provost for Research, which also manages Corporate Relations and the

Office of Research Support, oversees sponsored research. The Office of Research Support assists

with proposals, grants, contracts and compliance. The Pratt School of Engineering, The School

of Medicine and The Fuqua School of Business are the schools most actively engaged in

corporate-sponsored research. Duke has a Social Sciences Research Institute that has an

interdisciplinary approach in holistic problem solving of corporation concerns. While

corporations may begin their relationship with one of the three schools, Duke’s interdisciplinary

nature provides opportunities for other schools, institutes and initiatives to be involved in

corporate-sponsored research.


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, Duke aligns with the Industrial Focus-

Holistic model. Duke Corporate Relations works with corporations to connect them to the

appropriate people and to listen to the problems and concerns of the corporation, identifying best

solutions through an interdisciplinary approach. Duke is then able to tackle large problems by

looking at them from various angles.

Duke Corporate Relations previously was within the Office of Development, which coordinates

philanthropy. It was moved to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research when corporations

• Founded in 1838

• Private, suburban campus




12

became less philanthropic and more investment-oriented. While they may provide philanthropic

gifts, most corporations are looking for a return on investment. Duke feels that regardless of

where it sits in the University structure, corporate relations needs to be holistic. This is

challenging, as corporate relations offices need to understand research funding and intellectual

property licensing, making it advantageous to be within the Office of Research. However, they

are also involved in executive education, event sponsorships, philanthropic gifts, matching gift

programs and recruitment, all of which have advantages to being within the Office of

Development. The Corporate Relations office must be able to work in both domains in order to

provide excellent service to corporations.

Part of that service is the ability to track how companies are engaged with Duke. Duke Corporate

Relations uses the Duke Alumni Development Database (DADD) for tracking. It is SAP based

software, with the intended ability to increase communication by allowing all relevant

individuals access to the same information. The system does work to track corporate

relationships with the University, but this system, like others, is only as good as the information

entered. Most important is that the people who work in Corporate Relations remain connected

with each other and work collaboratively to share contacts and best practices.


Duke has broad-based partnerships with a number of corporations and takes an interdisciplinary

approach to solving corporate problems in order to be perceived as effective in many areas. The

University’s structure of schools, institutes and initiatives makes interdisciplinary work flow

well. While structure is important, so are Duke’s alumni. Alumni are leveraged to aid in

navigating and understanding the needs of the corporation that they are working for.

The key to establishing and nurturing these relationships is stewardship. Once a relationship is

established, Duke Corporate Relations looks at how to expand that relationship by listening to

and understanding the issues and concerns of the corporation. Duke has found that corporations

appreciate the ability to maximize their return on investment by having one university satisfy

multiple objectives. One metric of success is the number of broad-based partners the University

has with corporations. These partners need to be a good fit for the University; to achieve that,

Duke remains intellectually honest and does not aspire to be something that it is not.

Another metric is where corporate engagement falls on the value chain. Value for a company

would be increased competitiveness, innovation, global reach, visibility in the marketplace and a

pipeline of talent. Value to the University could be in dollars and in-kind donations (i.e.,

hardware, software, consultants). Measuring success via a value chain requires considering the

progression of the relationship with the corporation. As noted, Duke believes that relationships

must be established and cultivated through excellent stewardship.


Intellectual property has always been a challenging issue and a definitive answer could not be

given as to how intellectual property is handled. The University may maintain intellectual

property or it may be shared; IP can be negotiated. The Office of Research Support manages

intellectual property and refers to compliance guidelines from University-Industry

Demonstration Partnership (UIDP) regarding intellectual property. Duke, however, does not

relinquish its right to publish.

13

• Founded in 1885

• Public, urban university

• Total R & D expenditures over $730 million (NCSES 2013)


• 6,913 Graduate students

Georgia Institute of Technology

Corporate Engagement at the Georgia Institute of Technology

NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate Relations Office

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Caroline Wood


At the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), the Corporate Relations Office is housed

in the development office. The Corporate Relations Office is primarily responsible for

philanthropic giving but also has close ties to the offices that deal with sponsored research, the

Office of Industry Collaboration and the Office of Industry Engagement. The Senior Director of

the Corporate Relations Office reports to the Vice President for Development. Corporate

Relations sits at the table with Office of Industry Engagement during contract negotiations and is

involved with the Office of Industry Collaboration in dealings that involve mutual corporate

relationships. Corporate Relations also works closely with other University offices such as career

services to help match corporations with specific schools depending on their individual needs for

co-ops, internships, or hiring. This internal communication among offices is considered essential

for meeting the diverse needs of their corporate clients.

Sponsored research is primarily managed through the Office of Industry Collaboration. The vice

president of this office reports to the Executive Vice President for Research. The Office of

Industry Engagement, which negotiates all contracts for sponsored research activities, works

through the Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC). The Office of Industry Engagement

Executive Director reports to the Vice President of GTRC, who ultimately reports to the

Executive Vice President for Research.

Georgia Tech establishes relationships with corporations through five major areas of interest to

corporations: recruitment, research, economic development, professional education, and vending.

The University is currently looking at a more centralized online portal of entry for corporations

that would allow the Offices of Industry Engagement, Industry Collaboration and Corporate

Relations to be notified when a corporation has expressed interest in order to best identify the

most appropriate next person for contacting the corporation. Currently, the College of

Engineering is the school most involved in corporate-sponsored research, although each of the

colleges has some level of corporate engagement.

14


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, Georgia Tech aligns most closely with the

Decentralized-Holistic model.


Georgia Tech has broad-based relationships with a number of corporations. Key to establishing

and nurturing these relationships is identifying ways to make working with the University a

seamless and efficient process. Georgia Tech strives to be an institution where corporations find

them easy to work with and who can provide answers to questions in a timely manner—to be a

corporation’s first choice for engagement. To this end, the Corporate Relations Office seeks to

identify from corporations ways in which they are meeting their needs and avenues for

improvement. As noted, Georgia Tech is also exploring opportunities for a more centralized

portal as the first point of contact. Communication between Corporate Relations and the offices

of Industry Engagement and Industry Collaboration allows for adaptation to individual corporate

needs when issues arise that cross official office boundaries.

Corporate Relations adapts to the needs of the individual corporation to maintain and nurture the

relationship. For some, this may involve weekly contact while for others, quarterly or annual

meetings suffice. The goal is to meet the individual needs of the corporation.

Measures of success differ across offices. For Corporate Relations, they include the total amount

of philanthropic dollars received from corporations and the number of contacts it has with

industry. For the Office of Industry Engagement, metrics include the number of contracts

negotiated, and for the Office of Industry Collaboration, the research dollars resulting from the

various collaborations.


Georgia Tech, through the Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC), asserts a right of

ownership to intellectual property (IP) developed by an employee of the University or from

significant use of Georgia Tech resources (Industry Engagement, 2012). The GTRC has

identified four contract mechanisms, however, that provide a continuum of opportunities with IP

for companies engaging in collaborative research (Industry Engagement, 2012).

15

University of Florida

Corporate Engagement at the University of Florida

NAME OF OFFICE: Office of Research

VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH: David Norton


At the University of Florida, sponsored research activities are primarily coordinated through the

Office of Research which, among other functions, manages technology transfer, negotiates all

University-corporate research agreements, and oversees the centers and institutes that support the

research mission of the University. Individual schools within the University also have college-

specific research contacts that foster relationships with industry for research purposes. The

College of Engineering and the College of Medicine are the schools currently most actively

engaged in corporate-sponsored research. Although there is no central or integrated database for

recording corporate-sponsored research activities across the University, the Office of Research is

aware of all relationships by virtue of their role in negotiating all agreements.

Philanthropic relationships with corporations are managed through the University of Florida

Foundation, the fundraising and gift fund arm of the University. The Office of Research is

currently exploring opportunities to provide a more central, visible presence for industry, but is

not interested in controlling all facets of corporate engagement in its broadest sense.


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the University of Florida most closely aligns

with the Decentralized-Holistic model.


The University of Florida has tailored, long-term relationships with corporations and establishes

and nurtures these relationships in a variety of ways; they also continually seek opportunities to

improve in order to avoid the notion among industry that a university can be difficult to work

with. Gainesville, Florida, where the University campus is located, does not have major industry

within the city and so needs to look beyond the region for opportunities. Their status as a major

research university provides an initial level of visibility of interest to corporations seeking

• Founded in 1853

• Public, land-grant university




16

partnerships. The University looks to engage faculty with the technical staff of corporations with

similar research interests to form partnerships. Engaging with alumni in key positions in

corporations has been a valuable strategy to initiate relationships. Promoting their students as

potential future employees can also start a conversation that leads to a relationship. As noted, the

University is also exploring opportunities to have a more visible, central portal for corporate

engagement on their web site.

The Office of Research recognizes that listening to their corporate partners to identify where they

are succeeding and where they may be falling short is key to both establishing new and nurturing

existing long-term relationships with industry. They believe that corporate engagement is a

“contact sport”—that in-person contact is essential for the relationship and that even the best-

designed online resource cannot replace the trust that develops from personal contact. These

relationships help the Office to advance the University’s mission to translate knowledge that has

an impact on society while educating a prepared workforce and developing opportunities for

philanthropic engagement.

The total amount of revenue from sponsored research is the primary metric used by the Office of

Research. Technology transfer and commercialization are other measures important to the

University. The Office of Research is currently exploring additional metrics to improve their

assessment of corporate-sponsored research activities.


Intellectual property (IP) at the University of Florida belongs to the institution. The Office of

Research is exploring whether or not a variation of some recent IP models implemented at other

schools would be an option that would provide benefit to the University. In the University’s

experience to date, there has been little reason not to maintain IP since few industry-sponsored

research activities result in licenses that then result in royalties, particularly when compared with

federally sponsored research.

17

University of Michigan

Corporate Engagement at the University of Michigan

NAME OF OFFICE: Business Engagement Center

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Stella Wixom


At the University of Michigan, corporate engagement encompasses all industries regardless of

size or geography and includes those who reach out to the institution or are proactively sought

after. The Business Engagement Center handles the majority of corporate relations. Established

in 2007, the Center is sponsored jointly by the Office of Research and the Office of University

Development. This holistic approach provides opportunities for corporations to engage in all

facets of the University—including philanthropy, research, student recruiting, and program

involvement. The development office in the School of Engineering was the first to successfully

adopt a holistic model for engagement. From this success, it became clear that corporations were

most comfortable engaging with a central contact.

Although the Business Engagement Center handles the majority of company relations, the

business, engineering, and medical schools can manage their corporate relationships internally

once engaged. However, if the company has interests beyond that school or unit, the initial

contact will get them in touch with the appropriate department or direct them back to the

Business Engagement Center. While having a single point of contact is important, the goal is

also to work collaboratively to nurture the relationship with the company. Within the Business

Engagement Center, a dual reporting structure exists. The Executive Director reports to the Vice

Provost as well as the Vice Provost for Research. To ensure that all departments are fulfilling

their commitments to external constituents, monthly strategy meetings are held to keep the

Business Engagement Center apprised of both current and potential relationships.

The Business Engagement Center is continuously evolving as it incorporates best practices. This

involves implementing new strategies while considering what would make them a better

corporate partner. The Center considers best practices to include development strategies,

prospect management, communication, honest brokering, and customer service. The Center also

seeks to employ people who have industrial experience in sales or business development.

• Founded in 1817

• Public, urban campus

• Over $1.3 billion in R&D expenditures annually (NCSES 2013)



18


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the University of Michigan most closely

aligns with the Industrial Focus-Holistic model they describe.


The University of Michigan has strategic partnerships with a number of corporations. The

Business Engagement Center has grown each year despite the economic downturn in 2007. The

Center tracks corporate revenue, corporate expenditures on research, number of site visits to

corporations and number of site visits corporations make to campus as measures of success.

Since a primary reason corporations seek university partnerships is to hire talented students, the

Center has a significant and long-standing relationship with the campus career office. Faculty

research is another primary reason for engagement and the Center acts as a steward to ensure

corporations get the most out of the partnership.

The University of Michigan places an emphasis on the importance of finding win-win

partnerships where there are mutual benefits for the corporation and the University. The Business

Engagement Center staff is proactive about corporate accounts—from identifying top companies

and working on their relationships to finding things on campus that might appeal to the company.

Bringing progressive ideas to the company adds value to the relationship. To remain connected

with corporations, the Center releases a quarterly newsletter that highlights company success,

program involvement and philanthropy efforts. Part of the strategy behind the newsletter is to

congratulate companies while rousing curiosity from competitors.

A main priority of the Center is to make it easier for companies to connect. Therefore, it is the

staff’s responsibility to be the company’s “feet on the street” and maximize their presence on

campus. If the process is difficult and cumbersome, companies will not engage. In addition to

making engagement easier for the company, the Center tries to drive and grow the partnership; if

companies have success, they will come back. Part of this success stems from the Center’s

ability to truly represent the whole portfolio of the campus to the corporation. This encompasses

everything from literature to social work as companies are encouraged to explore their options.

The Business Engagement Center considers it their responsibility to educate faculty and staff on

why corporate engagement is important. Because Michigan receives the most federally funded

dollars of any public university, it is often hard to get faculty interested in engagement; the

office, however, is making good progress. The Business Engagement Center has a close

relationship with the technology transfer and research administration offices. At Michigan,

effective internal communication is a top priority. In a holistic engagement model, the support of

a wide range of departments as well as University leadership is crucial for getting faculty and

staff on-board.


At the University of Michigan, intellectual property (IP) belongs to both the institution and the

corporation. If a corporation is doing a one-time project, there are standard terms and conditions.

However, if there is a potential for long-term engagement, IP becomes negotiable. For the

University of Michigan, being flexible with IP terms and executing contracts in a timely fashion

are important to successful engagement.

19

• Founded in 1851





University of Minnesota – Twin Cities

Corporate Engagement at University of Minnesota—Twin Cities

NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate and Foundation Relations

SENIOR DIRECTOR: Steven Corkery


At the University of Minnesota (Minnesota), corporate engagement is primarily the

responsibility of the Corporate and Foundation Relations office. Individual collegiate units,

however, also have development staff responsible for engagement; with the frequency of their

corporate interactions, the business and engineering schools each have corporate relations

officers. Departmental corporate relations officers report to the Dean and also have a dotted-line

reporting structure to the Senior Director of the Corporate and Foundation Relations office. The

complicated design of the current model, along with feedback from companies, has prompted

Minnesota to move toward a more holistic approach in recent years. For example, when a

company contacts the University about research, the appointed corporate relations officer

matches them with the associated department and suggests possibilities for recruiting and

sponsored events. In an effort to learn more about a company’s interests, the corporate relations

officer will inquire about continuing education needs, opportunities to involve the company in

advisory boards and may suggest volunteer opportunities. However, this move toward central

management is still considered to be informal.

Because much of Minnesota’s corporate engagement activity is highly decentralized, it is a

challenge to coordinate priorities among different units. However, the Corporate and Foundation

Relations office is working with corporate relations officers in other departments to ensure that a

consistent definition for corporate engagement exists. This is achieved through monthly training,

planning, and coordination meetings. The Corporate and Foundation Relations office is also

partnering more closely with the Vice President for Research to align department strategies. Out

of this relationship came a Corporate Engagement Workgroup consisting of representatives from

career services, the alumni association, the Provost’s office, research personnel, and foundation

relations; the Duluth campus also participates in the Workgroup. The purpose of the Workgroup

is to gather input from the deans and examine companies that have invested the most in the

University over the years, whether through philanthropy or sponsored research. After

approximately 25 companies are identified and agreed upon, the Workgroup assumes central

20

management. Along with the Corporate and Foundation Relations office and the VPR, these

representatives work as a team to develop and execute strategies for those companies who

engage the most at the University. Minnesota is still in the process of formalizing its centralized

model, but the Workgroup has been very successful in helping companies navigate the

University and form new connections.


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, at this time Minnesota most closely aligns

with the Decentralized-Holistic model described.


Minnesota has developed tailored partnerships with corporations. Success in corporate

engagement is largely measured by how much new net revenue is coming into the University.

However, the Corporate and Foundation Relations office considers other metrics as well. The

office looks at the number of CEOs of top companies actively engaged with the University,

student recruitment numbers and company job postings within the University. These “softer”

metrics reveal more about the culture of corporate engagement at Minnesota than dollar amounts

alone.

When trying to initially engage corporations, Minnesota leverages existing alumni and faculty

relationships as well as proactively reaching out to new corporations. Typically, a corporation’s

first entrance into the University is linked to student recruiting, which is why career services is a

powerful ally in engagement. Relationships that began in career services have resulted in funding

for scholarships, event sponsoring and partnerships with student organizations. Minnesota is

fortunate to have a number of existing relationships due, in part, to having 19 Fortune 500

companies within 50 miles of campus. However, they continue to look for ways to grow these

partnerships as well as to pursue other relationships outside the region.


Prior benchmarking studies concluded that Minnesota was difficult to work with in terms of

technology transfer and contract turnaround time. This led to a new program introduced by the

President and VPR called the Minnesota Innovation Partnership (MN-IP). At the time, the

University had unused technology “sitting on the shelf” that did not reach the marketplace. With

this program, the idea was to not overvalue the technology, but to make it easier for companies

to access and use. As a result, a friendlier licensing policy emerged that was well received.

Minnesota also introduced “Try and Buy” as part of their MN-IP program, where companies can

try a new technology before deciding whether or not to invest.

21

University of Washington

Corporate Engagement at the University of Washington

NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate and Foundation Relations

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Joanna Glickler


At the University of Washington, corporate relations and foundation relations work as one

central team. Operating under the Office of Advancement, the Corporate and Foundation

Relations office staff maintains a close relationship with the offices of Technology Transfer and

Sponsored Programs. Referred to as a “coordinated centralized-decentralized” model, individual

schools and departments also have functions in place to manage corporate partnerships. This

allows the central office to focus on University-wide corporate engagement and work to improve

and sustain existing partnerships.

The University of Washington’s philosophy toward corporate engagement is to find companies

that want to engage with the University—monetarily or otherwise. The University strives to be a

place where companies come to connect without financial obligation and with an emphasis on

fostering relationships so companies continue to want to be involved. It is a priority to ensure a

beneficial partnership for both parties, and the University of Washington works to provide the

necessary infrastructure to support corporations. The support of leadership is key; deans, for

example, often act as fundraisers to support institutional goals concerning advancement and

engagement.

Corporations are perceived as being natural partners to the University, which does prospecting

through company-to-company relations, outreach, “cold-calling,” and reactive strategies. For

example, when a company comes to the University seeking engagement opportunities, the

Corporate and Foundation Relations office works with them to find the right fit. Currently, the

office is developing new ways to engage with companies with which they do not already have an

established relationship. This includes start-up companies and companies new to the Seattle area.

Furthermore, the office is considering organizing companies into tiers according to their capacity

for engagement in order to help with strategizing.

While several offices, schools, and departments have a hand in corporate engagement, the walls

between units are permeable, ensuring the best possible experience for corporations.

• Founded in 1861


• Over $1.1 billion in R&D expenditures annually (NCSES 2013)



22


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the University of Washington aligns most

closely with the Industrial Focus-Holistic model they describe.


The University of Washington has developed tailored partnerships with corporations. In an effort

to be a ready partner that is not difficult to engage with, the University of Washington measures

success in a number of ways. Because their philosophy is based on building meaningful contacts

and relationships, success is evaluated based on substance instead of monetary outcomes. For

example, fundraisers do not have dollar goals and staff is evaluated based on the number of

contacts they make. This includes anything from making a phone call to arranging a site visit.

While there are individual unit fundraising goals, the absence of dollar goals works well for the

central office where the intent is always to form long-term relationships. This relationship-

building philosophy offers a more personal approach that many corporations appreciate.

At the University of Washington, Boeing is an example of an interdisciplinary corporate

relationship. They support research in engineering, fund scholarships for students across

departments, and hire and recruit students for internships. Boeing is also a company that is

centrally managed and provides significant support across different units. Connecting leadership

in the central office to strategically important companies ensures proper attention is paid to a

company’s values and expectations. Ultimately, the central office strives to make the University

easy to navigate so companies feel more inclined to engage.

The Indirect Cost (IDC) rate at the University of Washington is a challenge when it comes to

negotiating corporate relations. Often, it becomes a sticking point because it is not a commonly

used industry term. The Corporate and Foundation Relations team is currently working on how

they market IDCs to reassure companies of no “hidden” costs.


The University of Washington owns intellectual property (IP), but companies can license the

technology in different ways. Recently, the University implemented a pre-packaged IP option for

corporations. If companies select one of these options, they will pay a predetermined amount for

IP up-front rather than face an unknown cost at the end. This is expected to stimulate more

engagement with companies, as other institutions have found that offering this option resulted in

a notable rise in sponsored research.

23

Washington University in St. Louis

Corporate Engagement at Washington University in St. Louis

NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate Relations (Danforth)

DIRECTOR: Theresa Menk


The Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) comprises several campuses surrounding St.

Louis. The Danforth campus is home to the majority of undergraduate, graduate and professional

students. Corporate Relations at Danforth has a central office for industry contact, although

corporations may go to individual departments for corporate sponsored research as long as

philanthropy is not involved; the School of Medicine has a separate corporate and foundations

office. Corporate Relations at Danforth is housed in Alumni & Development and is staffed by

five people, including a prospect researcher. By structurally being located in Alumni &

Development, these individuals are considered fundraisers. Corporate Relations at Danforth

works closely with corporate relations at the School of Medicine, but there is not a direct or

dotted line relationship. Corporate Relations at Danforth coordinates with the Office of the Vice

Chancellor for Research to help nourish partnerships. While there are no direct and/or dotted line

relationships between these offices, Corporate Relations at Danforth tends to serve as a

centralized coordinator for their more involved partners to create a more holistic relationship.

Sponsored research is primarily managed through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for

Research, which among other things manages the Office of Sponsored Research Services for

both the Danforth campus and the medical school. The Office of Sponsored Research Services is

divided into offices that aid in all aspects of research administration, including contract

negotiations and compliance. The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the School of

Medicine and the Olin Business School are most actively engaged in corporate-sponsored

research. The Brown School of Social Work, however, is endowed by the Brown Shoe Company

where interdisciplinary projects have engaged departmental entities.

The current director of Corporate Relations moved into this position less than a year ago;

although Corporate Relations was internally organized more toward service to the University

administration, it has altered its position to become a central office of contact for customer

• Founded in 1853

• Private, suburban campus




24

service with the corporation. Top corporate partners are now assigned one contact person within

Corporate Relations as their primary contact to tend to the needs of the corporation—whether

those needs involve research, internships, recruiting, or executive education.

One challenge of moving to a new model has been outdated databases. WUSTL built their

database for individual philanthropy and not corporate engagement. Because of the current

distributive nature of engagement, each school has its own tracking system without integration.

Currently, each school creates a separate annual report that Corporate Relations files to track

holistic relationships.

Another challenge has been the University structure itself. Corporate Relations is housed in

Alumni & Development and is focused on philanthropy rather than total engagement. The Office

of Sponsored Research Services is housed in the Office of Vice Chancellor for Research, while

the Office of Technology Management is housed in the office of the Provost & Executive Vice

Chancellor of Academic Affairs. This structure makes it difficult to navigate the many facets of

corporate engagement. Since Corporate Relations needs to cross many domains, and recognizing

that there may not be a perfect University structural fit, they believe it is essential to have strong

administrative support for the internal relationships that must develop.


for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, WUSTL lies between the Philanthropic

Focus and Decentralized-Holistic model.


WUSTL has broad-based partnerships with a number of corporations and wants to be perceived

as having great customer service that provides honest information. WUSTL assigns Corporate

Relations staff to serve as the concierge to their top engaged corporations. To identify these

corporations, a flow chart was used to categorize engagement levels. WUSTL also placed

corporations into quadrats to determine which St. Louis based companies were highly engaged

and highly giving. Through understanding where companies are along the spectrum, Corporate

Relations can plan how to best move companies forward along that spectrum.

Being located in the Office of Alumni & Development provides WUSTL with access to

resources for special events for their top broad-based partners; events have included balloon

drops and TED-styled talks. Corporation executives are invited to these events along with the

students and faculty that benefit from the partnership. Having access to alumni records allows

the Office to leverage alumni to grow the corporate prospect pool and expand corporate

engagement nationally and internationally.

Stewardship is a key factor in nurturing corporate relationships. Stewardship books are well

received by top strategic corporate partners and are also useful for the University to see the

holistic picture of the relationship in the broader context. However, stewardship books take

tremendous amounts of staff time in light of outdated databases and thus tend to be discouraged

by administrators with limited budgets.

Performance metrics in the past focused on the amount of philanthropic dollars raised. In the

current model shift, the number of strategic partners and where companies fall on the

engagement spectrum will be higher on the assessment matrix than overall dollars received.

25


In 2005, WUSTL’s intellectual property policy was revised in order to maintain intellectual

property (IP) “if significant University resources were used or if it is created pursuant to a

research project funded through corporate, federal or other external sponsors administered by

Washington University” (WUSTL, 2015). However, WUSTL is now starting to negotiate master

research agreements to be more generous with IP rights in order to engage more corporations.

These master agreements tend to be five-year contracts that cover the entire project. Lost

opportunities for University-corporate relationships occurred in the past due to inflexible IP

rights.

26

COMPARISON MATRIX

Carn

eg

ie

Mello

n

Un

ivers

ity

Du

ke

Un

ivers

ity

Geo

rgia

In

stitu

te o

f T

ech

no

log

y

Un

ivers

ity o

f F

lorid

a

Un

ivers

ity o

f M

ich

igan

Un

ivers

ity o

f M

inn

eso

ta –

T

win

Citie

s

Un

ivers

ity o

f W

ash

ing

ton

Wash

ing

ton

U

niv

ers

ity in

S

t. Lo

uis

NACRO Model of Engagement

Philanthropic & Industrial

Focus-Holistic

Industrial Focus-Holistic

Decentralized-Holistic





Philanthropic & Industrial

Focus-Holistic

Name of Office

Corporate & Institutional Partnerships

Office of Corporate Relations

Corporate Relations

Office

Office of Research

Business Engagement

Center

Corporate & Foundation Relations

Corporate & Foundation Relations

Office of Corporate Relations

Reporting Structure

University Advancement

Office of Research

Office of Development

VP for Research reports to President

Dual: Office of Research & Office of

Development

VP for Research

University Advancement

Alumni & Development

Staffing 2 centrally and 4 in satellites

2 centrally and others

within schools, institutes

and initiatives

7 for CRO, 19 for OIE, 6 for OIC

2 members of central

staff


staff

10 members of central staff


staff

5 for Danforth,

3 for Medical School

Majority of Engagement

(NACRO tiers)

Strategic Partnership

Broad-Based Engagement


Tailored Partnership





Office for corporate sponsored research

Office of Research

Office of Research, University

Development and Individual

Schools

Office of Industry

Collaboration (OIC), Office of Industry

Engagement (OIE)

Office of Research

Office of Research &

Office of Development

Office of Research

Office of Research, Industry

Relations Team

Office of Research

Integrated System for recording

engagement

Advance DADD N/A N/A Blackbaud N/A Advance N/A

Who owns intellectual

property

Both Institution

and Corporation

Institution OR

Institution and

Corporation

Institution; may be

negotiable Institution

Both Institution

and Corporation

Both Institution

and Corporation

Institution

Both Institution

and Corporation

27

Key Findings

Corporate financing of research accounts for a small portion of overall university R&D

expenditures; however, it is the area of most growth with a national increase of about 61.0%

(Basken, 2015). In a challenging fiscal environment where federal and state funding has declined

or remained flat, universities are reexamining internal structures, policies and procedures

regarding corporate engagement. The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers

(NACRO) began meeting in 2006 to discuss best practices when engaging the corporate sector

and their work resulted in two white papers in 2011 and 2012 that discussed recommendations

for successful corporate engagement (NACRO, 2011; NACRO, 2012). Understanding how

institutions1 that have successful industry partnerships are structured helps to understand how

best practices can be effectively implemented for corporate engagement. Some key findings from

this study are:

• Housed in University Advancement and Development. Of the eight institutions studied,

four Corporate Relations Offices were housed in University Advancement and Development.

At the University of Michigan, the Corporate Relations Office is sponsored jointly by the

Office of Research and the Office of University Development. Close contact with alumni,

particularly those in key positions in corporations, was important for engaging companies in

the various facets comprising corporate engagement.

• Internal Communication. Regardless of where Corporate Relations sits in the university

structure, interviewees emphasized the importance of effective internal communication

among relevant offices.

o Many had corporate relations satellite staff housed within individual schools that are

highly involved in corporate engagement. Medical, engineering and computer science

schools tended to have more than one of these satellite staff.

o For those universities housed in University Advancement and Development, most

have dotted line relationships with the Office of Research.

o All had regular meetings between relevant academic individuals. Of the schools

surveyed, some institutions have meetings weekly while others have them every other

week, monthly or every other month. Having satellite staff in individual schools and

dotted line relationships between offices promoted the need for regular meetings

between all schools within the institution. Regular meetings allowed for the

discussion of upcoming corporate visits and strategic planning of best practices.

1 The institutions and/or their corporate relations officer selected for this study included those

involved in writing the NACRO white papers as well as those that were not involved

28

• Business Friendly. The institutions studied all emphasized the need to be perceived as

“business friendly.”

o Corporations prefer an easy, organized pathway into the university. For Michigan,

corporations enter through the central portal of their Business Engagement Center.

For others, it was through their corporate relations office, which could be a central

location or a satellite within a school. Others were exploring ways to improve that

first portal of entry.

o Regardless of the method of entrance, corporate relations points of contact were

competent, outgoing and able to listen to corporate problems and create a holistic plan

involving the appropriate university faculty and staff across the institution.

o Corporations prefer a central contact once a partnership was proposed. Some of the

universities surveyed had corporation relations’ staff that sat in on negotiation

meetings or made phone calls to help resolve standstills. They nurtured the

relationship through stewardship that included frequent contact, invitations to

university events and quarterly or annual reports for top performing corporate

partners.

o Balancing efficiency in Intellectual Property (IP) negotiations with protecting the

University was a challenge. Some institutions developed a “menu” of predetermined

options for corporations to streamline the process and appeal to businesses.

29

References

About › University of Michigan. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.umich.edu/about/

About Us | University of Minnesota Twin Cities. (2015). Retrieved from http://twin-cities.umn.edu/about-us

About | University of Pittsburgh. (2015). Retrieved from http://pitt.edu/about

Basken, P. (2015). Team science. The Trends Report, The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Blumenstyk, G. (2011). Universities continue to increase start-ups and commercialization of research. The Chronicle

of Higher Education.

Cohen, S. (2011). The danger of cutting federal science funding. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/the-danger-of-cutting-fed_b_819439.html

Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Committee on Engagement. (2005). Resource guide and

recommendations for defining and benchmarking engagement. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from

http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/groups/CommitteeOnEngagement/archive/documents/EngagementReportREV2-

22-05.pdf

Corporate Engagement: Recommendations for a holistic, single portal approach for Kansas State University

Corporate Relations. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.k-state.edu/president/initiatives/cec/

Deng, B. (2014). Congress is terrible at science—And this should make us worried. Slate. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/07/the_first_bill_is_terrible_for_american_science_and_declin

ing_research_funds.html

Fast Facts - Carnegie Mellon University | CMU. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/about/fastfacts.shtml

Facts | About | Washington University in St. Louis. (2015). Retrieved from http://wustl.edu/about/facts/

Facts and Rankings - University of Florida. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ufl.edu/about-uf/facts-and-rankings/

GT | Research at Tech - About Research At Tech. (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.research.gatech.edu/

Harris, R., and Benancasa, R. (2014). U.S. science suffering from booms and busts in funding. National Public

Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/09/09/340716091/u-s-science-suffering-from-

booms-and-busts-in-funding

Hertzenberg, S., Price, M., and Wood, M. (2014). A must-have for Pennsylvania, part 2: Investment in higher

education for growth and opportunity. Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved from

http://pennbpc.org/category/issue-tags/education/higher-education

30

Howard, D.J., and Laird, F.N. (2013). The new normal in funding university science. Issues in Science and

Technology. Retrieved from http://issues.org/30-1/the-new-normal-in-funding-university-science/

Industry Engagement | Supporting Industry Collaboration & Commercialization. (2012). Retrieved from

http://industry.gatech.edu/

Lilienthal, C. (2013). Investing in education will build a stronger PA economy. Pennsylvania Budget and Policy

Center. Retrieved from http://pennbpc.org/release-investing-education-will-build-stronger-pa-economy

Mitchell, M., Palacios, V. & Leachman, M. (2014). States are still funding higher education below pre-recession

levels. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdf

NACRO Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers. (2011.) Five essential elements of a

successful twenty-first century university corporate relations program. [White paper].

Retrieved from:

http://www.nacroonline.org/assets/docs/essential%20elements_white_paper_final.pdf

NACRO Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers. (2012). Metrics for a successful twenty-

first century academic corporate relations program. [White paper]. Retrieved from:

http://www.nacroonline.org/assets/metrics%20whitepaper%202012%20final.pdf

National Science Board. (2008). Research and development: Essential foundation for U.S. competitiveness in a

global economy. Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm?CFID=18038398&CFTOKEN=72631398&jsessionid=f03

06af4123d55ba79eb342d63674715f6e7

Nelles, J., & Vorley, T. (2010). Constructing an entrepreneurial architecture: An emergent framework for studying

the contemporary university beyond the entrepreneurial turn. Innovative Higher Education, 35, 161-176.

doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9130-3

nsf.gov - NCSES - US National Science Foundation (NSF). (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/index.cfm

Plumer, B. (2013). The coming R&D crash. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/the-coming-rd-crash/

Public Profiles | Office of Planning & Budgeting. (2015). Retrieved from http://opb.washington.edu/content/public-

profiles

Quick Facts About Duke | Office of News and Communications. (2015). Retrieved from

http://newsoffice.duke.edu/all-about-duke/quick-facts-about-duke

Science/Business Innovation Board AISBL (2012) Making industry-university partnerships work: Lessons from

successful collaborations. [Report] Retrieved from:

31

http://www.sciencebusiness.net/OurReports/ReportDetail.aspx?ReportId=33

Washington University in St. Louis. (2015). Retrieved April 12, 2015, from

http://wustl.edu/policies/intelpropfaq.html

32

APPENDICES

33

Appendix A: Survey Questions

Corporate Engagement

The purpose of this survey is to identify models and best practices surrounding corporate

engagement. For this survey, corporate engagement is defined as the partnership of university

knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship,

research and creative activity. Please consider this definition when answering the following

questions, particularly in relation to corporate-sponsored research.

Q1 Models for managing corporate engagement may be centralized (a "concierge" model) or

distributed among many offices and/or colleges across the institution. Would you describe your

institution's model as primarily:

� Distributed

� Centralized

� Other ____________________

Answer If Models for managing corporate engagement may be centralized (a "concierge"

model) or distributed... Centralized Is Selected

Q2 What is the name of the office at your institution that handles corporate engagement?

Q3 For each of the following areas under the umbrella of corporate engagement, please

indicate which office at your institution has some responsibility and oversight (check all that

apply):

Offic

e o

f

Re

se

arc

h (1

)

Offic

e o

f

De

ve

lop

me

nt

(2)

Offic

e o

f

Co

rpo

rate

Re

latio

ns (3

)

Offic

e o

f

Un

ive

rsity

Re

latio

ns (4

)

Offic

e o

f

Te

chn

olo

gy

Ma

nag

em

en

t

(5)

Alu

mni O

ffice

(6)

Ind

ivid

ua

l

Sch

ool o

r

De

pa

rtme

nt

(7)

Oth

er (8

)

Corporate-

sponsored

research (1)

� � � � � � � �

Internships (2) � � � � � � � �

Co-ops (3) � � � � � � � �

Curriculum

and education

(4)

� � � � � � � �

Technology

transfer (5) � � � � � � � �

34

Philanthropy

(6) � � � � � � � �

Other

services to

the institution

(7)

� � � � � � � �

Q4 Where does the office that deals with corporate-sponsored research "sit" in the

organizational chart within your institution's structure?

Q5 What is the title of the person that leads this office?

Q6 Who does the person leading this office report to?

Q7 How many people staff this office?

Q8 In what year was this office formed?

Q9 The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) benchmarking committee

describes levels of engagement in terms of tiers. Please rank the following statements in order

of which best describes engagement with corporations at your institution (1 = this statement is

the most true at my institution):

______ STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP: The relationship has evolved to include significant,

ongoing, financial contributions (sponsored research, gifts) meriting central coordination.

______ BROAD-BASED ENGAGEMENT: The company is engaged across multiple units in a

variety of ways, with company leadership participation.

______ TAILORED PARTNERSHIP: The company works closely with the university to find

value-added opportunities for a deeper relationship; company prefers "one-stop

shopping."

______ MANAGED RELATIONSHIP: Only a few points of interest requiring coordination.

______ SINGLE POINT OF ENGAGEMENT: The company is involved in a limited capacity.

35

Q10 Do you have an integrated system for recording engagement related to corporate-

sponsored research across your institution? If YES, which system do you use?

� Yes ____________________

� No

Q11 In terms of corporate-sponsored research, does intellectual property belong to the

institution, the corporation or some combination?

� Institution

� Corporation

� Combination

Q13 We will be conducting follow-up interviews in the next few weeks regarding the answers

provided on the survey. Please supply the following information:

Q14 Name of contact person for interview.

Q15 Contact person's e-mail address.

Q16 Phone number for phone interview.

Q17 Best day and/or time for phone interview between March 20th and March 31st.

Q18 Thank you for agreeing to participate in this benchmarking project. As a token of our

appreciation for your participation in this important effort, you will receive our benchmarking

report upon completion.

36

Appendix B: Phone Interview Questions1

1. How does your institution define corporate engagement? Is this definition aligned across departments?

2. If you have a centralized model of corporate engagement, how did you arrive at that point? Did you

encounter resistance, and if so, what type and from whom? How did you overcome it?

3. If you have moved from a centralized model, what were the reasons?

4. Would you describe your model as successful? What metrics do you use to measure “success”?

5. How do you get corporations in the door? How do you retain them? Are there policies and procedures

to facilitate corporate engagement, particularly corporate-sponsored research?

6. How do you want corporations to perceive your institution?

7. Do you have long-term partnerships with corporations? If so, how have you nourished those

partnerships? (refer to answer from survey)

8. Have you had success with finding partners for the entire scope of corporate engagement activities we

described? If so, were there certain strategies you used to identify and retain such partners?

9. What departments at your institution interface with corporations most frequently, particularly with

corporate-sponsored research?

10. Do you have corporate interactions with the social sciences and humanities at your institution? If so,

can you describe their scope?

11. What benefits have you seen from establishing corporate partnerships?

12. How do you handle intellectual property ownership when interacting with companies?

13. What barriers or challenges to corporate engagement have you encountered? How have you overcome

them?

14. What do you consider best practices in corporate engagement, particularly in regard to corporate-

sponsored research?

15. Are you planning to do anything different at your institution regarding corporate engagement,

particularly with corporate-sponsored research? Is there anything you hope to improve?

16. Is the location of the office(s) that manage corporate relations ideal in its placement within the

organizational structure?

If not, please indicate where a better location might be. ___________________________

1 Interview questions were modified as needed depending on survey responses.

37

Appendix C: Graphic Interpretations of Key Findings

Figure 1. Where corporate Relations are housed within the Institution.

*At the University of Florida, Corporate and Foundation Relations is housed under the University of Florida Foundation, Inc.

OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT

Carnegie Mellon

Georgia Tech

Univ of Washington

Washingon Univ -

St. Louis

OFFICE OF RESEARCH

Duke University

Univ of Florida*

Univ of Minnesota -

Twin Cities

Un

ive

rsity o

f Mich

iga

n

38

Figure 2. NACRO models of engagement used by participating Institutions.


Duke University

University of Michigan

University of Washington

Decentralized Holistic

GA Tech

University of Florida

University of

Minnesota - Twin

Cities

Philanthropic

39

Figure 3. Ownership of Intellectual Property.

• University of Florida

• University of WashingtonInstitution

• Carnegie Mellon Univerity

• University of Michigan

• University of Minnesota - Twin Cities

• Washington University in St. Louis

Both Corporation

& Institution

• Duke University

• Georgia Institute of Technology

Institution OR

both Corporation

& Institution

40

Figure 4. majority of the type of engagement with corporate partners based on NACRO tiers.

Single Point of

Engagement

Manged Relationship


• University of Florida

• University of Minnesota -

Twin Cities

• University of Washington

Broad-based

Engagement

• Duke University

• Georgia Institute of

Technology

• Washington University in

St. Louis


• Carnegie Mellon

University

• University of Michigan

41

Appendix D: Contact Information for Participating Schools

Carnegie Mellon University Lorena McLaren [email protected]

Duke University Thomas Healy [email protected]

Georgia Institute of Technology Caroline Wood [email protected]

University of Florida David Norton [email protected]

University of Michigan Stella Wixom [email protected]

University of Minnesota Steven Corkery [email protected]

University of Washington Joanna Glickler [email protected]

Washington University St. Louis Theresa Menk [email protected]

Date post:	12-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amy-lavallee
View:	821 times
Download:	0 times

Corporate Engagement benchmarking study

Documents