+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Success Factors in Technology Transfer Oxford Case Study Tim Cook Director, Isis Innovation,...

Success Factors in Technology Transfer Oxford Case Study Tim Cook Director, Isis Innovation,...

Date post: 11-Dec-2015
Category:
Upload: jairo-ellin
View: 221 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
36
Success Factors in Technology Transfer Oxford Case Study Tim Cook Director, Isis Innovation, University of Oxford Visiting Professor in Science Entrepreneurship, Said Business School
Transcript

Success Factors in Technology Transfer

Oxford Case Study

Tim Cook Director, Isis Innovation, University of Oxford

Visiting Professor in Science Entrepreneurship, Said Business School

Tim Cook

> BA Physics, DPhil Cryogenics - Oxford University> HNC Mechanical Engineering - Oxford Polytechnic> Diploma Accounting & Finance - Institute of Certified Accountants

> Managing Director of tech based companies (1983 – 90) 7 yrs> Oxford Analytical Instruments> Microsystem Design Limited > Micrelec plc

> Private Investor (1990 – 97) 7 yrs > Founding Managing Director Oxford Semiconductor > Founding Managing Director Oxford Asymmetry

> University Technology Transfer (1997 – 2007) 10 yrs > Director Isis Innovation, Oxford University (1997-2007)

> Visiting Professor in Science Entrepreneurship, Oxford University (2006)

Contents

Universities

Academics and Industrialists

Investors and Three Dimensions

Oxford Results and Tricks

Universities in a Commercial Environment

Speakers message

> Knowledge transfer is stimulating communication between very different cultures

> The cultures will not in general spontaneously understand each other> But there has always been the occasional multi linguist!

> Therefore intermediaries are required > at least to start with

> It only works if the intermediaries have a real understanding of both cultures

> There is not a single recipe that always works> But there are some underlying principles

What are Universities for?

> Research & Teaching> The creation and transmission of knowledge

> These both have a major economic impact> Creative thinkers (in science, arts and humanities)> A workforce trained in some useful areas

> But not all useful areas!

University Innovations

> Range from inventions & new processes to new philosophies & political thought

> Most of this talk is about the former but let’s not forget the others They may well have a more profound long-term impact on our lives

Why is it difficult 1 - Academics

> Universities have developed a self consistent set of values and behaviours which have enabled some of them to survive and prosper for a long time (Darwinian)

> This ethos can be summarised as:> The pursuit, preservation, development and dissemination of

knowledge

> Many of the most successful practitioners in universities are independent individuals who really see themselves as self-employed

Why is it difficult 2 - Industrialists

> The commercial world has also developed a self consistent set of values and behaviours. These can be summarised under two headings

> Internal coherence> All members of the company must have the same version of

the master plan and work to it

> Management accountability> The company is accountable to the shareholders and the

employees to the company

> These are not the same as university values

The Challenge

Researcher> Self directed> Next step defined by

yesterday’s results> Free exchange of ideas

Commerce> Driven by external needs> Clear goals with

shareholder commitments> Commercial confidentiality

So we can expect it will be challenging to build a mutually trusting relationship

“Academics never deliver” “Industry is out to cheat us”

Orthogonal Value Sets

Academic axis€ ->Research

2D Intermediary

Research -> Products

Commercial axis

Licence or consultancy

An additional challenge

> If we are talking about spinout companies, rather than consultancy or licensing there is a third axis

> In addition to academia and industry there are investors

> Investors are not the same as industrialists

Why is it difficult 3 - Investors

> Investors have yet a third set of values and behaviours, which again are self-consistent but differ from both industry and academia

> They evaluate an opportunity, invest, if it doesn’t perform they get out and try somewhere else > and what happens to the firm is not their responsibility

> These are not the same as university or industrial values

The third axis

Academic axis€ ->Research

€ -> €€€Investor axis

2D Intermediary

3D Intermediary

Spin-out

Research -> Products

Commercial axis

Licence

To summarise

If it’s not working get out

If it’s not working fix it

If it’s not working find a workaround

• Evaluate • Invest• Monitor

• Coordinated plan• Coherent activity

• Route is undefined at the start

Lots of concurrent activities

One companyOne major interest

OutsiderInsiderInsider

InvestorIndustrial ManagerAcademic

How it goes wrong

> A company signs a licence with a university> The company asks for a commitment that

> no-one in the University will work on anything that will devalue the company’s licence and

> the university will offer the company any improvements that any of its staff make to the original invention

> A year later a new academic joins the University who is a greater expert in the field than the original inventor

> Can the University tell him that all his future work in the field is restricted for the benefit of the company?

The clash

> This simple case exemplifies the issue:

> The Academic does not see himself as a “bound employee” he feels he is essentially an “independent trader”

> On the other hand the company has paid the University and can reasonably expect that the University will not devalue the product that it has sold

The common currency

> The only real common values between these different civilisations are personal relationships

> What about money?> Certainly they all deal in cash but the returns come in

multiple currencies with undefined exchange rates> Academic return> Personal cash return> Personal feel-good return

I would like to spend a bit if time expanding on this because I believe it is the most important point I have to make

Academics

> Academics are our shareholders> Isis Innovation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford

University> Which is owned by the academics

> Academics are our customers> We only get to transfer knowledge from the ones who choose

to come to us

> Academics are our suppliers> Our raw materials are their inventions

> So they have big impact on our future prospects

Initiation by researchers

> All Isis Projects start with an approach from an academic

> Of course we devote much effort to internal marketing to researchers

> We make them welcome and they participate in all decisions but

> They have to decide to start any new project

A = fn (S, C)A = Attractiveness of project

S = Strength of science

C = Commercialisability of academic

Least attractive

Most attractive

Dr Quiet

Attracting Inventions

All the inventions in the University

0% 100%

The Beeson Gregory Project

> Oxford needed a new Chemistry building costing €90m> The Department had raised €15m> If the University matched it government offered €45m> So the University needed €30m

> Beeson-Gregory offered €30m for 50% of the University’s interest in Chemistry spinouts and licences for 15 years

> Was this a good deal for Oxford?

Requirements for intermediaries

> Must understand both value systems> Ideally should have lived in both

> Must be fluent in both vocabularies > And able to translate

> Must be trusted by both sides> So the academics will risk “being cheated”> And the industrialists will risk “having their time wasted”

Sources of intermediaries

> University technology transfer offices> As long as they employ bilingual staff

> Diplomatically adept property owners> Science parks, private developers

> Public sector (government officers)> If they really do understand both values systems

> The Professionals > Accountants, lawyers, consultants, investors, etc.> As long as they can suspend their self-interest long enough for

the creative interactions to start> Divisive advisors inhibit the process> Protect their client and kill the deal

Results in Oxford 1997-2007

36

330

280

55

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year to March 31st

Lic

en

ces, C

on

su

ltan

cie

s

0

15

30

45

60

Sta

ff, S

pin

ou

ts

Staff in Tech TransferCompany

Cumulative licences

Cumulative consulting

Cumulative new cos

Spinout Managers - The Rowing Boat

Spinout Managers - The Rowing Boat

Cashflow profiles

b

a

c

Time ->

Cumulative Net cash in

d

The difficulty

> In the long term it is in everybody’s interest

But

> In the short term the costs are from a single party

Culture Change

> All three must proceed together but the University must lead the change because..

> The ideas are in the University> If University provides TT resource,change will happen faster> Oxford pre-Isis 1 spin-out every 4 years, post Isis 8 per year

> If the University doesn’t lead, the University may not receive its share of the benefits

University entrepreneur culture

University & its technology transfer

resource

Local professional environment

Executive(policies)

Other academics

Gene pool Commercially

active scientists

The University

Tech transfer

office

StudentsBrokers

Itinerant managers Consultants

Sub-culture in a barter economy

VC’s Lawyers

Headhunters

PR agents

Realestate

LeasingBanks

Accountants

Specialist suppliers

Otherstart-ups

Message for Government

> We have some great universities> If you fund research you get more and better research> If you fund knowledge transfer you get more and better

knowledge transfer> This gives a better commercial return on the research

spend > and the return is disproportionately high

> because you are investing in an under-utilised asset (research results)

PS badly managed research, or badly managed knowledge transfer is a waste of money

but does not devalue properly managed research or knowledge transfer

Success Factors

Do> Expect it to be difficult> Work hard to understand the different civilisations> Invest in the interface> Use only intermediaries fluent in both value sets> Focus on building trust (particularly with researchers)

Don’t> Tell them to understand each other (they won’t!)> Think you will ever get it all right> Despair

“Managing” your relationship with a university

Walk along with the elephant> In whichever direction it chooses to go> Until it gets used to you

Start to pull gently on your rubber band If you pull too hard or too suddenly

> You will break your rubber band and> Have no further influence over the elephant

The UniversityYou

Like leading an elephant with a thin rubber band

But

> Don’t think you will ever have complete control

Cartoon by Stoney, Ravette Publishing +44 1403 711443 Tony Lopez (Copyright)

Contacts

Isis Innovation LtdEwert HouseEwert PlaceSummertown Oxford OX2 7SG

T 01865 340314E [email protected] www.isis-innovation.com


Recommended