1

A Shared Path Forward forImproved Technology Transfer

Matthew Riggins

2

Why talk about improving technology transfer?

Problem vs. Opportunity– Technology transfer processes are not necessarily broken– Obstacles impeding better results

Accomplishing agency missions

New market creation, new profits

Economic impact, job creation

3

Methodology

During this research study, I interviewed 8 federal technology transfer experts from the following agencies and laboratories:

The following questions were asked:– What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?– What are you doing to improve technology transfer at your organization?– If you could be “King or Queen for a day”, what would you do to improve technology

transfer?

– NASA – DoE

– NIST – EPA

– DoD – NIH

– Navy – NIH NCI

4

5

It was apparent from the beginning of the project that T2 programs differed from agency to agency

Each agency’s mission is very different, and therefore their T2 programs are very different

The major distinction was agencies who were consumers of their own technology versus agencies who were involved in innovation but were not the eventual consumer– Example of Consumer: DoD – funds research into missile technology to improve its

own warfighting capabilities– Example of Researcher: NIH – funds research into cancer drugs for use by another

entity (i.e. pharma manufacturer)

6

Interviews uncovered barriers and issues that were widely shared among interviewees

Top shared issue areas among interviewees

Num

ber

of in

terv

iew

ees

that

rai

sed

issu

e

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6 Shared Issues

1. Cultural roadblocks2. Finding the “right” partner3. Partner communication and

education4. Funding/personnel5. Agency support6. Definition of success 7. Legal barriers, conflicts of

interest8. Public recognition9. Commercial viability10.Collaboration and sharing

Shared Issues By Number (see key)

Further information on shared issues can be found in Appendix

7

The shared issues analysis informed two key themes

It seems that there are two types of obstacles to building more effective T2 programs that are widely shared:

•Examples: entrepreneurial mindset; agency support; public recognition; communication breakdowns

•Long lead time to change or adapt cultures

•Sustained, prolonged education and training very important

Cultural Obstacles

•Examples: licensing processes; partner relations; resources

•Less time to effect change, but difficult to achieve without buy-in from all involved parties

•Facilitation and intermediaries are effective catalysts

Process Obstacles

8

Interviews also revealed some shared solutions among interviewees

1. Improved collaboration and information sharing among agencies and partners

2. Better public outreach

3. Improved training and incentives for scientists, etc.

4. Creation of a funded ORTA position for each agency

5. Improved agency support

6. Expanded university partnerships

7. Technology maturation funding

8. Guidance on international patents and licensing

9. More visibility for smaller labs

10.Partnership intermediaries

9

What is a successful T2 process? How do we get there?

Success: Overcoming obstacles to speed integration of research into the economy and create positive benefits for society as a whole– Short-term vs. Long-term successes (small vs. large obstacles)

Collaboration is an effective way to address both the cultural and procedural obstacles– Transcend organizational limits while still focusing on own self-interest– Share best practices, knowledge, information– Optimize the system as a whole

The challenge is to scale up the degree of collaboration

10

What does a highly collaborative response look like?

CooperationCooperation CoordinationCoordination CollaborationCollaboration

Low HighIntensity of Risk, Time Needed and Opportunity

Relationships Short-term informal relationships

More formal relationships & a shared understanding of missions

More durable and pervasive relationships

Goal-setting No defined mission, structure Focus on longer-term interaction around a specific effort

Participants bring separate organizations into a new structure (network) with full commitment to shared goals and work

Communication

Limited information sharing only about the topic at hand

Open communication between organizations

Requires comprehensive planning, well-defined communication channels

Resources Each organization retains authority, resources kept separate

Resources and rewards may be shared

Resources and rewards are shared

Leadership Leaders work within existing organizational culture

Leaders may inspire followers and other leaders to higher levels of action but continue to work within the existing organizational culture

Leaders inspire followers and other leaders to higher levels of action and transform the existing organizational culture

11

Thank you!

Contact Info:

Matt Riggins

riggins_matthew@bah.com

202-557-8279 (c)

12

Appendix

13

Many interviewees pointed to cultural roadblocks – partner dynamics and funding issues also topped the list of concerns

Awareness of and education about technology transfer among scientists and researchers is lacking

Commercial potential is low priority (lack of entrepreneurial mindset)

Interviewees were asked: What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?

Companies with sufficient financial resources are difficult to identifyPotential partners are unwilling to take on investment risk

Government and private sector processes, timing, interests and cultures are very different

Private sector is unprepared or unaware of technologies available

Clear funding requirements are lacking

T2 is an unfunded mandate, requiring personnel to direct T2 efforts on top of preexisting responsibilities

Cultural Roadblocks

1

Finding the “right” partner

2

Partner communication and

education

3

Funding/Personnel

4

Agency Support

5

Support for T2 up and down agency chain of command is sporadicT2 is unaligned with agency priorities or mission

14

Interviewees also described difficulties measuring success – there were also concerns about legal barriers, publicity, viability and collaboration among agencies

Measurements for T2 are unclear or inaccurateContribution of T2 to agency mission is unclear

Statutory mandates for agency personnel and partner involvement are too strict

Legal clarity around funding requirements is lacking

Definition of Success

6

Legal Barriers, Conflicts of Interest

7

Public Recognition

8

Public benefits from federal labs are not well understoodLack of public support results in lack of Congressional support

Commercial potential of technology unknown or unclearMaturity level of technology is unattractive to investors

Process standardization among agencies is lackingOverlaps in research and technology development abound

Commercial Viability

9

Collaboration and sharing

10

Interviewees were asked: What are the major obstacles to improved technology commercialization?