Date post: | 23-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rodney-thornton |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Technology Commercialisation Practical Lessons from other Countries
Dr Alistair M. Brett
Senior ConsultantOxford Innovation Ltd
Oxford, UK
Opinions expressed are those of the presenter
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Numbers Trends Opportunities
Information sources:
The Industrial Research InstituteEuropean Industrial Research Management AssociationCentre for Research on Innovation and CompetitionInstitute of Innovation ResearchManchester UniversityNottingham University Business SchoolAssociation of University Technology Managers
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
A few numbers (2001)
UK USA
Total university spending on research
$2.8 109 $31 109
Income from licenses $24 million $1.07 109
Average income per license $150,000 $168,000
Spin-out companies 175 494
Patents 276 3,721
Commercialisation successes initiated by personal contacts
** 70%
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Russian Academy of Sciences: R&DCCs
Pilot Research & Development Commercialisation Centre (R&DCC) at Chernoglovka Science Centre, Moscow Region 2001 –2004
Work supported by the British Council and UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Based on previous work since 1994 (USAID, Tacis, BC, Eurasia Foundation)
R&DCC accepted as model for Russian Academy of Sciences research institutes
Problems: Structure, Financing
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Lessons learned
Be patient
Make and maintain personal contacts with companies – large and small
Set up open communications
Don’t fall in love with the technology
Offer solutions not technologies
Work on multiple projects simultaneously
Keep new projects in the “pipeline”
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Lessons learned (2)
Ownership rules for IP must be clear
Government funding of research is important
Industry-directed research at universities does not damage scholarship
Plan for commercialisation early
manage risk
One success is better than years of plans
Monitor costs, including indirect costs
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Trends
Motorola“We are moving more and more of our research off shore because of unavailability of the top researchers that we needed in growing our research efforts”
Survey (2003) of 104 large US/European companies, 90% said “innovation is integral to our current strategic goals”
Nokia “We have 18,000 engineers at 69 sites worldwide”
Infineum (Exxon-Shell)“We want access to networks of scientists”
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Trends
R&D, products, becoming more complex, more embedded knowledge
Reputation and track record in managing projects are more important than cost
Build long-term strategic partnerships with networks of specialists across borders
Stimulate methods development
Access to specialized resources rather than finished technologies
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Role of Innovation in firms
Industrial Research Institute (IRI) “Biggest Problems” Facing Technology Leaders in 2003
Growing the business through innovation (acquisition and co-development)
41 %
Accelerating innovation 12 %
Balancing long-term/short-term R&D objectives and focus
12 %
Measuring and improving R&D productivity and effectiveness
5 %
New business ventures 3 %
Improving knowledge management 2 %
Management of global R&D 1 %
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Opportunities for Latvia
Take advantage of the trend towards distributed R&D
Reduce bureaucracy compared to other countries
Establish clear point of contact for industry at each university
Support exchanges of scientists between universities and industry
Work with existing Latvian organizations
Advertise Latvian successes to gain new industry customers
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Mis-match of supply and demand
UK/USA Other
Supply Demand Supply Demand
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Positioning strategies
Feasibility studies Few long-termPrototype development benefits
Internal investment in both More long-term “R” and “D” to progress benefitsbeyond prototypes
IndustryExternal Investment
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
“Management of intellectual property inpublicly-funded research organisations:
Towards European Guidelines”
Open Science model - PROs do not retain any intellectual property rights (IPR)
Licensing Model - PROs retain, protect and commercialise inventions through licensing the IPR to industry and to start-up companies
Innovation Model – PROs have active policy of collaborative research with industry and a pro-active involvement in the creation of spinout companies.
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Importance of technology transfer factors
N= 150 1 2 3 4 5 6
Person to person contact
User “pull” for technology
Product champion at user
Cooperative activities between user/developer
Sense of common purpose
Developer understanding of user environment
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
What drives market opportunities?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
changes incustomer
needs
changes intechnology
new geographicmarkets
changes inregulations
Survey of 1000 European firms
% effect
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Why Latvia?
Why should a company look to Latvia to access research expertise or outsource R&D?
Is Latvian research of any value, is it innovative?
How can we overcome barriers of language, culture, distance?
Will the cooperative R&D be carried out efficiently?
Will our company’s IPR be protected?
How can investors make a return on investment?
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
What do Investors want from universities and research institutes?
“Show me” -- don’t tell me
Promote successful ventures
Recent cases of successful contracts or alliances Is there a market for the technology? What is the size of the market? How should the market be entered? What are your industrial contacts? Finished technology or expertise? How will the investor make money? Risks? How much money is needed?
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Issues
1. Feasibility of conducting technology audits at Latvian universities and institutes, or –
2. Accessing and promoting expertise at Latvian universities and institutes, previously identified and evaluated by the institute
3. Promoting technologies, expertise, and resources from Latvian universities and institutes to foreign companies.
Industrial Liaison Office model Web Portal
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Issues
4. Promoting success stories5. Analyse existing contracts with Western
companies for attractiveness to investors 6. Selecting a small number of companies who can
act as "bridges" between universities/institutes and foreign companies
7. Strategies for Latvian Government investment in technology commercialisation
8. Incentives for innovation, and retention of young scientists
9. The "Why Latvia?" question. What is Latvia's competitive advantage?
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Strategic drivers of R&D outsourcing
New markets New technologies Access to IP Access to new specialist expertise Filling capability gaps Resources flexibility Management of risk Time to market Focus on core activities Build on core strategic assets
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Fuzzy front end New product development
Traditional Stage Gate™ Process
Technology Stage Gate™ Process
Overall New Product Development process
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Gate Stage
New Product Development Stage Gate™ Process
Market/customerinput
Preliminaryassessment
Full productlaunch
Testing &validation
DevelopmentBusinesscase
Initialscreen
Nextscreens
Decision onbusinesscase
Post-developmentreview
Post-commercialanalysis
Post-implementationreview
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
ProjectCharter
Six Elements of the Stage Gate™ Process
TR1 TR2 TR3 ……
Technology Development Team
Technology Review Committee
Planning
ProcessOwner
Technology Review Process
New Member joins
Current member leaves
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Gate 2 Stage 2Gate 1 Stage 1
Tech Stage Gate™ Process
Technology Review 1
Technology Review 2
Stage 1 Activities
Technical literature searchPatent and IP searchCompetitive alternativesResource gapsPlan for feasibility assessmentExperimental workAnalysis and interpretationDevelop action plan for Stage 2
Deliverables
Understanding of IP situationDemonstrate feasibilityResults of experiments
Stage 2 Activities
Perform technical workAnalyse and report resultsCompetitive assessmentEnvironmental assessmentCommercial product possibilitiesPreliminary market assessmentPreliminary manufacturing assessmentDevelop action plan for Stage 2
Deliverables
Results of feasibility experimental workResults of commercial application assessmentForward planning
Technology
Review N
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
2 3 4 5Preliminaryinvestigation1
Technology audits
Otherideas
Seedprojects
Detailedinvestigation
Development Validation Commerciallaunch
Exploratory Research BA Development
Research C
RESEARCH TRACK
COMMERCIALTRACK
Outsideideas
Bio-fuels Stage Gate™ Process
Reduced risk Increased costs
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
Development$ D
Commercialise$ C
$ ECV
Pts
Technical failure
$ ECV = [($ PV * Pcs - $ C) * Pts - $ D]
Pcs
$ PV
Commercial failure
$ ECV = Expected Commercial Value of the project
Pts = Probability of technical success
Pcs = Probability of commercial success
$ D = Development costs remaining in the project
$ C = Commercialisation costs
$ PV = Present value of project’s future earnings (discounted to today)
Expected Commercial Value (ECV)
Oxford Innovation Ltd 2003
High
Low
$10M 8 6 4 2 0 NPV
Pts
Risk-Reward Bubble Diagram