Performance Measurement Report 2005/06
Performance Measurement Report 2005/06
Executive Summary This report is intended to provide Springboard Atlantic members, university research departments and financial supporters with an overview of current commercialization activities at Atlantic universities and with some analysis and recommendations for future actions. This report is the baseline survey for Springboard. Section I provides an introduction to the Springboard network’s objective of bringing vital research out of university labs into the private sector where it can be further developed. Section II summarizes the Performance Measurement Model developed in concert with a consultant to guide the information-gathering process. This will result in consistent, measurable data comparable year over year. Section III outlines the results of the Performance Measurement Survey completed by 11 of Springboard’s 14 members. The data shows that technology transfer offices are receiving disclosures within the Canadian average but are low with respect to new licenses and income-generating licenses and options. This can be attributed to the fact that, for most members, the first year represented an important building and foundation year. It also shows that Springboard needs to continue to make industry liaison and private sector networking a priority. Section IV provides results from other key performance indicators such as networking sessions and training. Springboard members have been attending educational and networking sessions in addition to providing technology assessments, collecting market research, and attending industry liaison events as they build a solid foundation for commercialization in the region. Network members are growing more accustomed to working together on active files as well as promotional and educational events. Section V outlines the results of a goal setting session held with the Springboard network. The members are collectively focused on the overall goal of increasing commercialization of academic research. They appreciate that, to be successful, public awareness and education initiatives are important to establishing the Springboard brand and improving the attitude about research commercialization, both on and off campus. Section VI outlines activities for the future. It is expected that Springboard’s second year of operation will bring an increasing number of disclosures, more deal-making and a general increase in the skill levels of network members. Springboard’s next Performance Measurement Report will be distributed in fall 2007.
Performance Report 2005/06
Table of Contents I Introduction
3
II The Performance Measurement Model
3
III Benchmarking & Performance Measurement Survey (2005) 4 Key Results
5
Data Analysis
9
IV Other 2005/06 Performance Indicators V Planning for the Future
10 13
Short and Long-Term Goals 13 Key Learnings VI Conclusion/Next Steps
©2006 Springboard Atlantic Inc.
14 14
I. Introduction This Performance Measurement Report provides information on the first year progress of Springboard, the Atlantic Canadian universities’ network that promotes and supports the commercialization of research and development. Since its inception in November 2004, there have been many new technology transfer individuals put in place at the member universities. The network has met regularly to share best practices in technology and knowledge transfer and, just as importantly, to share resources to aid the commercialization of research in the Atlantic region. The program is coordinated by a central Springboard office. The impetus for the Springboard project was the relatively low rate of transfer of academic knowledge and technology to the region’s private sector, despite the fact that the Atlantic region is rich with universities and academic research opportunities. When the fourteen Atlantic university Springboard network members combine their technology transfer resources, the result is a technology transfer “office” similar in size to that of a large research institution and the ability to share resources, exchange expertise and establish critical mass. In combination with extensive technology transfer training and strong network building with the university researchers and the private sector, this critical mass should enable the Atlantic Provinces to increase the level of university research commercialization over the long term. In order to measure Springboard’s progress over the next three to five years, Springboard’s leadership conducted a number of benchmarking/performance measurement initiatives in 2005/06. The result of this work is presented in the sections that follow. Springboard would like to acknowledge and thank the agencies that have added resources to those existing at the universities to help us to build the Springboard network. Those agencies are: ACOA, NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC, and the Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development.
II. The Performance Measurement Model Leading up to the administration of a benchmark performance measurement survey, Springboard worked with Performance Management Network Inc. (PMN) to develop a “logic” model for the Springboard project. This project also involved getting input from network members through a focus group. The model demonstrates how the inputs and activities of the Springboard network lead to the desired outcomes for AIF projects, namely, increased commercialization and generation of intellectual property. The key performance indicators from the model can be summarized as follows: ¶ Information on the activities undertaken by the Springboard leadership and the Technology Transfer Offices – it is the responsibility of each member to track the number and type of activities undertaken by their office in the context of the Springboard network. ¶ Information on inputs (or resources available) – this should include information on the use of AIF resources (dollars), the use of Springboard service days, and the staff in the TTOs. ¶ Information on the reach of Springboard or the TTOs – this includes the number attending network or TTO events, the number of users of the services/tools provided by the TTOs, contribution to newsletters, and the number of industry partners on projects.
“ Springboard leadership” is the small central office staff of Springboard, ie. Springboard’s Executive Director, Training & Business Development Manager and Office Manager
Performance Report 2005/06
¶ Information on results related to agreements/contracts – this includes the number of collaborative research agreements/contracts, license agreements, material transfer agreements, non-disclosure agreements, ¶ Information on results related to investments, revenues, grants and other financial impacts – this includes private sector investments in research/projects, dollars in venture capital, dollars in funding from other sources, number of grants, revenues generated, user fees. ¶ Information on progress made towards commercialization – this includes the number of patents (filed and issued), proof-of-concepts, disclosures, licenses, trade secrets, trade marks, copyrights, spin-offs/ start-ups. ¶ Other quantitative information on results – this includes number and type of new policies and the number of other (non-Springboard) inter-institutional events. ¶ Other qualitative information on results – this includes anecdotal assessments of private sector management interest in ventures, feedback on the usefulness of tools, interest from other provinces, countries or departments in Springboard, media mentions. The Springboard office is responsible for gathering the performance information from all institutions. Springboard’s leadership then adds its own information and compiles the data from all sources into an overall project progress report.
III. Benchmarking & Performance Measurement Survey (2005) In order to measure Springboard’s impact over the long term, it is important to establish benchmark information against which future commercialization activity can be assessed. To that end, the Springboard leadership conducted a “Performance Measurement Survey” to determine commercialization activities in the 2005 calendar year – Springboard’s first full year of operation. The survey questions were derived from three different sources: • A subset of questions from the Statistics Canada “Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector 2004”, • A subset of questions from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Licensing Survey 2004, www.autm.net, and • Questions developed by the Springboard network in an attempt to capture something of the qualitative nature of the members’ work. The survey was distributed to members in March 2006 and specifically requested data from the 2005 calendar year. However, there were varying degrees of access to financial data for that time period by each university. Thus, the financial data provided in this report is from 2004/05 and the numerical data about patents, disclosures, etc. refers to the 2005 calendar year or the 2005/06 fiscal year, depending on how each office tracks its numbers. However, discussion with Springboard members confirmed that the difference in numbers between the calendar year and fiscal year is minimal. Therefore, the results are provided with confidence of their integrity. To ensure that this won’t be an issue in the future, next year’s follow-up survey will be distributed in September 2007 and will request data from the 2006/07 fiscal year.
Performance Report 2005/06
One of the survey’s limitations was its ability to put a value on the non-commercial aspects of the network such as level of interaction with, responsiveness to, and contribution to changing university cultures that are unaware of and often do not welcome commercialization activities. This is particularly important for the smaller universities with new technology transfer offices. In universities where the level of awareness among faculty about issues of intellectual property is very low, measuring success by only counting “deals made” would be a sure way to discourage technology transfer staff. It must be recognized that educational events and industry liaison work are important precursors to commercialization activity.
Key Results Eleven of 14 Springboard members participated in the Performance Measurement Survey: Acadia University, Dalhousie University, Memorial University (MUN), Mount Allison University, Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU), Nova Scotia Agricultural College (NSAC), St. Francis Xavier University (St FX), Saint Mary’s University (SMU), Université de Moncton, University of New Brunswick (UNB) and University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI). Survey responses were collected primarily through use of an online survey tool called “Survey Monkey”; two were received in hard copy. Members were asked to provide data from the 2005 calendar year, but due to different financial reporting timelines, there is a mix of responses from 2004-05, 2005, and 200506. Research expenditures for all members totaled $249,215,729 with $151,541,248 (61%) coming from federal government sources. This percentage is an average across all reporting institutions and is not the same for every member. There were just over 18 full-time equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to intellectual property management reported, although some respondents noted that there are others in their office who do administrative or industry liaison work that are not included in this total. Dalhousie, MUN, and UNB noted that the FTEs they reported were in place before their offices received AIF funding through Springboard. Fifty-seven disclosures were received in the reference year, the majority (32) at Dalhousie and UNB. These disclosures led to 43 technology assessments, 31 of which resulted in some kind of protection activity. Twenty-seven of these involved a patent (nine US provisional, 11 US full, seven Canadian). Springboard members currently hold 57 patents (47 US; 11 Canadian). Four institutions filed patents, two registered copyrights, nine executed confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements, and seven participated in drafting and executing material transfer agreements. Five license agreements were executed in the reference year, for a total of 30 active licenses or options across the network at the end of the period, nine of which were generating income. The total licensing revenue returned to three network members (Dalhousie, UNB, MUN) was $225,973. The following figures depict the survey results graphically:
Performance Report 2005/06
Total research expenditures 100 90
Total Research Expenditures Federal Govt Sources
80 millions $
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Acadia
Dal
NSAC
St.FX
UNB
MUN
UPEI
SMU
Mt.A
Number of FTEs dedicated to intellectual property management ‘FTE’ is an estimate of the number of person-years
UdeM | 1.5
MSVU | 0.3 Dal | 3.5
Mt.A | .9
SMU | 1.5 Acadia | 1 UPEI | 1 NSAC | 1
St.FX | 1.5 MUN | 4 UNB | 2.25
Performance Report 2005/06
UdeM
Number of disclosures 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Dal Acadia NSAC St.FX UNB MUN UPEI SMU Mt.A UdeM
Number of full technology assessments 25
20
15
10
5
0 Acadia NSAC UNB MUN SMU Mt.A
Performance Report 2005/06
Number of patents filed by members 7
US Provisional
6
US Full
5
Canadian
4 3 2 1 0 Acadia
NSAC
UNB
MUN
SMU
Mt.A
Number of licenses/options executed
UdeM
Number of licenses/options yielding licensing income
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 Acadia
Dal
Acadia
UNB
Revenue generated by licensing income Dalhousie
UNB
Memorial
$148,459
$52,514 $25,000
Performance Report 2005/06
Total $225,973
Dal
UNB
MUN
Data Analysis In this report, efforts have been taken to provide information that is comparable on both a national and a North American level. One of the primary success indicators is the correlation between a university’s total research expenditures and its new disclosures, new licenses and income yielded. This is consistent with AUTM and Statistics Canada data measurements. Table 1 is provided for comparison purposes and shows the established benchmarks in relation to results reported from Springboard members for the 2005 year. The AUTM numbers reported are from their 2004 Licensing Survey as the results from the 2005 Licensing Survey have not yet been distributed.
Table 1: Comparison of Commercialization Data Total Research New Expenditures Disclosures
New Licenses Executed
Licenses & Options Yielding Income
All Institutions Reporting to AUTM
$37 billion
15,002
4,087
9,543
Canadian Institutions Reporting to AUTM
$4 billion
1,307
544
997
AUTM 61 Can: 49
AUTM: 16.7 Can: 20.5
AUTM: 39 Can: 37.6
Expectations based on Sector Benchmarks Springboard 2005 Reported
$151 million
57
5
9
Springboard’s percentage of the Canadian totals reported to AUTM
4%
4%
1%
1%
(on target)
(below target)
(below target)
These statistics show that Springboard members are receiving disclosures at a rate well within the established benchmarks; however there is a much lower rate of “deals made”. This is likely due to the fact that many Springboard members have new technology transfer offices and are working to integrate themselves into the university culture. However, it is expected that these numbers will increase steadily over the next several years.
Performance Report 2005/06
IV. Other 2005/06 Performance Indicators In 2006, the Springboard leadership focused its efforts in four areas that were identified by members as providing the most value-added to the work of the member offices. • Building the network through regular meetings, both physical and virtual to maintain strong membership interaction. • Pulling university research expertise into industry to solve business problems. • Providing professional development for network members. This extends well into the university core operations as network members work to improve the level of acceptance of commercialization at their institution and raise awareness of their skills and services. • Providing resources to push existing projects farther along the commercialization pathway.
Table 2: Key Springboard Activities "PUMP" Training and Education
‚ Increase Level of Commercialization from Atlantic Canadian Universities
‚
"PULL" Industry Liasion
‚
"PUSH" Identify and Develop Existing Projects
The following provides a progress overview on activities related to these four focus areas:
Building the Network Communication Tools: Springboard’s leadership has developed several communication tools to keep members informed and connected. These include an e-mail list, monthly newsletter, and public and members-only web sites. Growing use of these tools demonstrates increasing interaction between members as they share experiences, knowledge, events, and template documents. Springboard’s public web site averages about 4,000 hits per month. The members-only web space is hosted by Saint Mary’s University and accessible by network members. It uses software called SharePoint. Member feedback indicates that this is a useful tool and it receives 200-400 hits per month. This is up from 60 per month when the system was first implemented in fall 2005. Service Days: In accordance with the AIF contract, some of the larger universities are expected to lend their expertise to some of the universities with less critical mass. Service days report forms collected by the Springboard office show limited use of this service (approx. 40 days in 2005/06), but members confirm that they are growing much more accustomed to contacting other network members for informal assistance on a daily basis. Although there does not appear to be as high a demand for formal assistance as may have been expected when the network was formed, casual interaction is rising and appears to be of the most use to members at this time. 10 Performance Report 2005/06
Identify & Develop Existing Projects Atlantic Canada Flintbox Channel Partner: Flintbox is an online platform that provides access to early stage research for dissemination, download and license. The Flintbox technology was developed at the University of British Columbia and now provides a national & international forum for commercialization and online distribution of various technologies. In 2006, Springboard became Flintbox’s Atlantic Canada Channel Partner. To date, there have been 14 postings from Springboard members on the Flintbox platform, which have been viewed approximately 2,800 times. Springboard offers training, posting assistance and technical support to its members, eliminating the need to continually “import” expertise from across the country. Through the channel partnership, two community colleges – College of the North Atlantic and Nova Scotia Community College – have joined the Flintbox network. Springboard Fund Awards: Springboard distributed 10 Proof-of-Concept and 12 Patent and Legal Fund Awards in 2005. Fourteen of these technologies were further assessed through a partnership with NRC-IRAP. There is clear agreement from Springboard’s members that the awards make a significant difference in helping these projects proceed with commercialization.
Table 3: 2005 Proof-of-Concept Fund Awards (10) Institution
Researcher
Title of Invention
Amount Awarded
Acadia University
Craig Bennett
Process for Commercial Fabrication of Improved Ni-Mn-Ga Magnetic Shape Memory Alloys
$20,000
Acadia University
John Murimboh
A novel microscale in situ sampling device for monitoring trace metals in natural waters
$20,000
Dalhousie University
Dr. Biman Das
Ergonomic Wheelchair Design
$20,000
Dalhousie University
Dr. Geoffrey Maksym
Forced Oscillation Device for Airway Function Assessment
$20,000
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Dr. Ya-Gang Xie
A Method for the Detection of Risk Factors Associated with Myocardial Infarctioni
$20,000
St. Francis Xavier University
Michael Steinitz
Oil Pipeline Leakage Sensor
$20,000
Université de Moncton
Habib Hamam
Machine and Internet Access through Movements
$20,000
Université de Moncton
Jamel Ghouili
Optimization of an electric traction system using fuel cells and supercapacitors
$19,985.07
University of New Brunswick
Dr. Ghislain Deslongchamps
Development of Chemistry Flashware Products
$20,000
University of New Brunswick
Dr. Paul Arsenault
Backscatter Computed Tomography
$19,935
Total:
$199,920
Performance Report 2005/06 11
Table 4: 2005 Patent and Legal Fund Awards (12) Institution
Researcher
Title of Invention
Amount Awarded
Dalhousie University
Dr. Biman Das
Ergonomic Wheelchair Design
$10,000
Dalhousie University
Drs. Chris Taggart & Barry Ruddick
Use of Magnetically Attracted Particles & Magnetic Particle Collectors
$10,000
Dalhousie University
Dr. Geoffrey Maksym
Forced Oscillation Device for Airway Function Assessment
$10,000
Mount Allison University
Douglas Campbell
Peptide Sequence Tags and Method of Using Same
$10,000
Mount Allison University
S.A. Westcott
Method and Preparing Main Group Boryl Compounds
$10,000
Memorial University of Newfoundland
A Method for the Detection of Risk Factors Associated with Myocardial Infarction
$10,000
Dr. Ya-Gang Xie
Nova Scotia Agricultural College
Genes and proteins in potato and their relationship to potato after-cooking darkening (ACD)
$8,000
Gefu Wang-Pruski
Nova Scotia Agricultural College
Gefu Wang-Pruski
Cinnamic acid-4-hydroxylase (C4h)
St. Francis Xavier University
David Risk, et al.
Roller-type laboratory sample mill and homogenizer
$10,000
Université de Moncton
Priscille Massé
CB6Pro: a formula for prevention and treatment of osteopenia as an alternative to pharmaceuticals
$10,000
University of New Brunswick
Paul Arsenault
Backscatter Computed Tomography
$9,138.42
University of New Brunswick
Travis Maxwell
Supervised/Trained Segmentation for Object-Oriented Classification
$10,000
Total:
$8,000
$115,138
Industry Liaison Networking Events: Fifty-two networking events were arranged by technology transfer staff to assist researchers in meeting industry players. Springboard arranged two industry meetings open to all member offices at the request of companies interested in partnering with universities on research projects.
Training & Education Creating Highly Qualified Personnel: Attendance at network events is tracked by the Springboard office. Funding provided by NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR’s IPM program for Interns in Innovation enabled small groups to attend third-party training provided outside the Atlantic region. In 2005, groups attended WestLink’s Boot Camp (9 members), ACCT’s Basic Licensing (8) and the AUTM Graduate Course (4). Two network members attended an AUTM course in June 2006 on Software & Digital Media and eight individuals will attend Basic Licensing in the latter part of 2006. The Interns funding also enabled top quality presenters to speak at four two-day regional workshops in January (11), April (14), May (20), and October (25). 12 Performance Report 2005/06
Training topics for regional workshops and shorter sessions offered throughout the year included priority management, negotiation, technology assessment, marketing technologies effectively, intellectual property, online patent searching and Flintbox. Researcher Networking: Educational and networking events play a significant role in the activities of Springboard members. Fourteen networking events for researchers to meet technology transfer staff in their institution were held in 2005. Twenty educational events were held for researchers at various member institutions, featuring intellectual property issues, the lab to market process, and a variety of other subjects.
V. Planning for the Future At its June 2006 members’ meeting in Newfoundland, Springboard retained a management consultant to facilitate a short and long-term goal setting process. The intended outcome was to bring a more focused approach to the network’s operations and identify any strategic gaps that require attention.
Short and Long-Term Goals During Springboard’s June planning session and in a follow-up survey, members provided feedback in four key areas: 1. The Meaning of Success; 2. Short-term Goals; 3. Long-term Goals; and, 4. How Springboard Can Help. The resulting information will guide Springboard’s leadership in setting its own priorities for the up-coming year(s). 1. “The Meaning of Success” There were six key points (with both tangible and intangible outputs) which constituted success for the members, including: • Becoming known as “one-stop shops” that are efficient, innovative and knowledgeable about business. • Being recognized as a valuable part of the university, with commercialization work being understood and accepted by the academic community. • Being busier with more visitors, more calls, more inquiries. • Completing more disclosures, patents, license agreements, etc… • Bringing money to the university as a result of license agreements. • Securing increased government funding and industry sponsorship. 2. “Short-Term Goals” In the short term, the goals were primarily operational and focused on increasing numbers: • Bringing money to their university as a result of license agreements. • Increasing staff complement and overall technology transfer numbers (patents, disclosures, licenses, etc…). • Increasing awareness of the offices and their successes. 3. “Long-Term Goals” For the long term, the goals were focused on establishing a permanent presence: • Having the idea of “commercialization” integrated into the university culture, the strategic planning process, etc… • Securing permanent funding for the technology transfer offices. • Establishing major commercial research partnerships.
Performance Report 2005/06 13
4. “How Springboard Can Help” The responses provided some solid information with respect to which Springboard activities are perceived as most valuable to our members. Respondents explicitly see the Springboard leadership as persuasive messengers to the most senior university staff such as Presidents and VPs. They also view the Springboard office as generating economies of scale for all the members with regard to communication/awareness activities and jointly-used resources. • Acting as the “eyes and ears” for the network, identifying opportunities. • Producing “joint” promotional and technology transfer materials and offering “joint” resources such as Flintbox, IP management software, etc… • Creating a “market studies fund” to help evaluate opportunities. • Building and promoting the Springboard brand internally and externally. • Maintaining the regional coordinating role. • Continuing the education/training sessions. • Administering the Proof-of-Concept and Patent and Legal Awards.
Key Learnings The members view the role of the Springboard leadership as one of regional coordination, awareness building and private sector outreach. The leadership is not thought to have a direct role in the operations of the technology transfer offices nor with the researchers – that is considered the responsibility of the member offices. Springboard members are collectively focused on the overall goal of increasing commercialization of academic research. They appreciate that, to be successful, public awareness and education initiatives are important to establishing the Springboard brand and positively affecting the attitude about research commercialization, both on and off campus.
VI. Conclusion/Next Steps Springboard’s first performance measurement report shows that the network’s first year was focused on establishing offices, hiring staff and becoming knowledgeable about the issues involved in technology transfer and commercialization. It is expected that the second full year of Springboard’s operation will bring an increasing number of disclosures, more deal-making and a general increase in the skill levels of network members. Communications beyond the network has been identified as something to be enhanced and several initiatives will be implemented to improve these matters. Having access to experts in technology transfer across Canada and in the United States is a great help, as many of these challenges have been faced by other professionals in the field who are very willing to share their expertise. The next survey will be conducted in September 2007, with a report to be released before the end of the calendar year. Contact Information: Springboard Atlantic Inc., 1721 Lower Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1S5 Tel: 902.421.5678 Fax: 902.421.2733 E-mail: [email protected] www.springboardatlantic.ca 14 Performance Report 2005/06
Springboard Atlantic Members
Performance Report 2005/06 15
Executive Summary This report is intended to provide Springboard Atlantic members, university research departments and financial supporters with an overview of current commercialization activities at Atlantic universities and with some analysis and recommendations for future actions. This report is the baseline survey for Springboard. Section I provides an introduction to the Springboard network’s objective of bringing vital research out of university labs into the private sector where it can be further developed. Section II summarizes the Performance Measurement Model developed in concert with a consultant to guide the information-gathering process. This will result in consistent, measurable data comparable year over year. Section III outlines the results of the Performance Measurement Survey completed by 11 of Springboard’s 14 members. The data shows that technology transfer offices are receiving disclosures within the Canadian average but are low with respect to new licenses and income-generating licenses and options. This can be attributed to the fact that, for most members, the first year represented an important building and foundation year. It also shows that Springboard needs to continue to make industry liaison and private sector networking a priority. Section IV provides results from other key performance indicators such as networking sessions and training. Springboard members have been attending educational and networking sessions in addition to providing technology assessments, collecting market research, and attending industry liaison events as they build a solid foundation for commercialization in the region. Network members are growing more accustomed to working together on active files as well as promotional and educational events. Section V outlines the results of a goal setting session held with the Springboard network. The members are collectively focused on the overall goal of increasing commercialization of academic research. They appreciate that, to be successful, public awareness and education initiatives are important to establishing the Springboard brand and improving the attitude about research commercialization, both on and off campus. Section VI outlines activities for the future. It is expected that Springboard’s second year of operation will bring an increasing number of disclosures, more deal-making and a general increase in the skill levels of network members. Springboard’s next Performance Measurement Report will be distributed in fall 2007.
Performance Report 2005/06
Table of Contents I Introduction
3
II The Performance Measurement Model
3
III Benchmarking & Performance Measurement Survey (2005) 4 Key Results
5
Data Analysis
9
IV Other 2005/06 Performance Indicators V Planning for the Future
10 13
Short and Long-Term Goals 13 Key Learnings VI Conclusion/Next Steps
©2006 Springboard Atlantic Inc.
14 14
I. Introduction This Performance Measurement Report provides information on the first year progress of Springboard, the Atlantic Canadian universities’ network that promotes and supports the commercialization of research and development. Since its inception in November 2004, there have been many new technology transfer individuals put in place at the member universities. The network has met regularly to share best practices in technology and knowledge transfer and, just as importantly, to share resources to aid the commercialization of research in the Atlantic region. The program is coordinated by a central Springboard office. The impetus for the Springboard project was the relatively low rate of transfer of academic knowledge and technology to the region’s private sector, despite the fact that the Atlantic region is rich with universities and academic research opportunities. When the fourteen Atlantic university Springboard network members combine their technology transfer resources, the result is a technology transfer “office” similar in size to that of a large research institution and the ability to share resources, exchange expertise and establish critical mass. In combination with extensive technology transfer training and strong network building with the university researchers and the private sector, this critical mass should enable the Atlantic Provinces to increase the level of university research commercialization over the long term. In order to measure Springboard’s progress over the next three to five years, Springboard’s leadership conducted a number of benchmarking/performance measurement initiatives in 2005/06. The result of this work is presented in the sections that follow. Springboard would like to acknowledge and thank the agencies that have added resources to those existing at the universities to help us to build the Springboard network. Those agencies are: ACOA, NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC, and the Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development.
II. The Performance Measurement Model Leading up to the administration of a benchmark performance measurement survey, Springboard worked with Performance Management Network Inc. (PMN) to develop a “logic” model for the Springboard project. This project also involved getting input from network members through a focus group. The model demonstrates how the inputs and activities of the Springboard network lead to the desired outcomes for AIF projects, namely, increased commercialization and generation of intellectual property. The key performance indicators from the model can be summarized as follows: ¶ Information on the activities undertaken by the Springboard leadership and the Technology Transfer Offices – it is the responsibility of each member to track the number and type of activities undertaken by their office in the context of the Springboard network. ¶ Information on inputs (or resources available) – this should include information on the use of AIF resources (dollars), the use of Springboard service days, and the staff in the TTOs. ¶ Information on the reach of Springboard or the TTOs – this includes the number attending network or TTO events, the number of users of the services/tools provided by the TTOs, contribution to newsletters, and the number of industry partners on projects.
“ Springboard leadership” is the small central office staff of Springboard, ie. Springboard’s Executive Director, Training & Business Development Manager and Office Manager
Performance Report 2005/06
¶ Information on results related to agreements/contracts – this includes the number of collaborative research agreements/contracts, license agreements, material transfer agreements, non-disclosure agreements, ¶ Information on results related to investments, revenues, grants and other financial impacts – this includes private sector investments in research/projects, dollars in venture capital, dollars in funding from other sources, number of grants, revenues generated, user fees. ¶ Information on progress made towards commercialization – this includes the number of patents (filed and issued), proof-of-concepts, disclosures, licenses, trade secrets, trade marks, copyrights, spin-offs/ start-ups. ¶ Other quantitative information on results – this includes number and type of new policies and the number of other (non-Springboard) inter-institutional events. ¶ Other qualitative information on results – this includes anecdotal assessments of private sector management interest in ventures, feedback on the usefulness of tools, interest from other provinces, countries or departments in Springboard, media mentions. The Springboard office is responsible for gathering the performance information from all institutions. Springboard’s leadership then adds its own information and compiles the data from all sources into an overall project progress report.
III. Benchmarking & Performance Measurement Survey (2005) In order to measure Springboard’s impact over the long term, it is important to establish benchmark information against which future commercialization activity can be assessed. To that end, the Springboard leadership conducted a “Performance Measurement Survey” to determine commercialization activities in the 2005 calendar year – Springboard’s first full year of operation. The survey questions were derived from three different sources: • A subset of questions from the Statistics Canada “Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector 2004”, • A subset of questions from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Licensing Survey 2004, www.autm.net, and • Questions developed by the Springboard network in an attempt to capture something of the qualitative nature of the members’ work. The survey was distributed to members in March 2006 and specifically requested data from the 2005 calendar year. However, there were varying degrees of access to financial data for that time period by each university. Thus, the financial data provided in this report is from 2004/05 and the numerical data about patents, disclosures, etc. refers to the 2005 calendar year or the 2005/06 fiscal year, depending on how each office tracks its numbers. However, discussion with Springboard members confirmed that the difference in numbers between the calendar year and fiscal year is minimal. Therefore, the results are provided with confidence of their integrity. To ensure that this won’t be an issue in the future, next year’s follow-up survey will be distributed in September 2007 and will request data from the 2006/07 fiscal year.
Performance Report 2005/06
One of the survey’s limitations was its ability to put a value on the non-commercial aspects of the network such as level of interaction with, responsiveness to, and contribution to changing university cultures that are unaware of and often do not welcome commercialization activities. This is particularly important for the smaller universities with new technology transfer offices. In universities where the level of awareness among faculty about issues of intellectual property is very low, measuring success by only counting “deals made” would be a sure way to discourage technology transfer staff. It must be recognized that educational events and industry liaison work are important precursors to commercialization activity.
Key Results Eleven of 14 Springboard members participated in the Performance Measurement Survey: Acadia University, Dalhousie University, Memorial University (MUN), Mount Allison University, Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU), Nova Scotia Agricultural College (NSAC), St. Francis Xavier University (St FX), Saint Mary’s University (SMU), Université de Moncton, University of New Brunswick (UNB) and University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI). Survey responses were collected primarily through use of an online survey tool called “Survey Monkey”; two were received in hard copy. Members were asked to provide data from the 2005 calendar year, but due to different financial reporting timelines, there is a mix of responses from 2004-05, 2005, and 200506. Research expenditures for all members totaled $249,215,729 with $151,541,248 (61%) coming from federal government sources. This percentage is an average across all reporting institutions and is not the same for every member. There were just over 18 full-time equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to intellectual property management reported, although some respondents noted that there are others in their office who do administrative or industry liaison work that are not included in this total. Dalhousie, MUN, and UNB noted that the FTEs they reported were in place before their offices received AIF funding through Springboard. Fifty-seven disclosures were received in the reference year, the majority (32) at Dalhousie and UNB. These disclosures led to 43 technology assessments, 31 of which resulted in some kind of protection activity. Twenty-seven of these involved a patent (nine US provisional, 11 US full, seven Canadian). Springboard members currently hold 57 patents (47 US; 11 Canadian). Four institutions filed patents, two registered copyrights, nine executed confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements, and seven participated in drafting and executing material transfer agreements. Five license agreements were executed in the reference year, for a total of 30 active licenses or options across the network at the end of the period, nine of which were generating income. The total licensing revenue returned to three network members (Dalhousie, UNB, MUN) was $225,973. The following figures depict the survey results graphically:
Performance Report 2005/06
Total research expenditures 100 90
Total Research Expenditures Federal Govt Sources
80 millions $
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Acadia
Dal
NSAC
St.FX
UNB
MUN
UPEI
SMU
Mt.A
Number of FTEs dedicated to intellectual property management ‘FTE’ is an estimate of the number of person-years
UdeM | 1.5
MSVU | 0.3 Dal | 3.5
Mt.A | .9
SMU | 1.5 Acadia | 1 UPEI | 1 NSAC | 1
St.FX | 1.5 MUN | 4 UNB | 2.25
Performance Report 2005/06
UdeM
Number of disclosures 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Dal Acadia NSAC St.FX UNB MUN UPEI SMU Mt.A UdeM
Number of full technology assessments 25
20
15
10
5
0 Acadia NSAC UNB MUN SMU Mt.A
Performance Report 2005/06
Number of patents filed by members 7
US Provisional
6
US Full
5
Canadian
4 3 2 1 0 Acadia
NSAC
UNB
MUN
SMU
Mt.A
Number of licenses/options executed
UdeM
Number of licenses/options yielding licensing income
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 Acadia
Dal
Acadia
UNB
Revenue generated by licensing income Dalhousie
UNB
Memorial
$148,459
$52,514 $25,000
Performance Report 2005/06
Total $225,973
Dal
UNB
MUN
Data Analysis In this report, efforts have been taken to provide information that is comparable on both a national and a North American level. One of the primary success indicators is the correlation between a university’s total research expenditures and its new disclosures, new licenses and income yielded. This is consistent with AUTM and Statistics Canada data measurements. Table 1 is provided for comparison purposes and shows the established benchmarks in relation to results reported from Springboard members for the 2005 year. The AUTM numbers reported are from their 2004 Licensing Survey as the results from the 2005 Licensing Survey have not yet been distributed.
Table 1: Comparison of Commercialization Data Total Research New Expenditures Disclosures
New Licenses Executed
Licenses & Options Yielding Income
All Institutions Reporting to AUTM
$37 billion
15,002
4,087
9,543
Canadian Institutions Reporting to AUTM
$4 billion
1,307
544
997
AUTM 61 Can: 49
AUTM: 16.7 Can: 20.5
AUTM: 39 Can: 37.6
Expectations based on Sector Benchmarks Springboard 2005 Reported
$151 million
57
5
9
Springboard’s percentage of the Canadian totals reported to AUTM
4%
4%
1%
1%
(on target)
(below target)
(below target)
These statistics show that Springboard members are receiving disclosures at a rate well within the established benchmarks; however there is a much lower rate of “deals made”. This is likely due to the fact that many Springboard members have new technology transfer offices and are working to integrate themselves into the university culture. However, it is expected that these numbers will increase steadily over the next several years.
Performance Report 2005/06
IV. Other 2005/06 Performance Indicators In 2006, the Springboard leadership focused its efforts in four areas that were identified by members as providing the most value-added to the work of the member offices. • Building the network through regular meetings, both physical and virtual to maintain strong membership interaction. • Pulling university research expertise into industry to solve business problems. • Providing professional development for network members. This extends well into the university core operations as network members work to improve the level of acceptance of commercialization at their institution and raise awareness of their skills and services. • Providing resources to push existing projects farther along the commercialization pathway.
Table 2: Key Springboard Activities "PUMP" Training and Education
‚ Increase Level of Commercialization from Atlantic Canadian Universities
‚
"PULL" Industry Liasion
‚
"PUSH" Identify and Develop Existing Projects
The following provides a progress overview on activities related to these four focus areas:
Building the Network Communication Tools: Springboard’s leadership has developed several communication tools to keep members informed and connected. These include an e-mail list, monthly newsletter, and public and members-only web sites. Growing use of these tools demonstrates increasing interaction between members as they share experiences, knowledge, events, and template documents. Springboard’s public web site averages about 4,000 hits per month. The members-only web space is hosted by Saint Mary’s University and accessible by network members. It uses software called SharePoint. Member feedback indicates that this is a useful tool and it receives 200-400 hits per month. This is up from 60 per month when the system was first implemented in fall 2005. Service Days: In accordance with the AIF contract, some of the larger universities are expected to lend their expertise to some of the universities with less critical mass. Service days report forms collected by the Springboard office show limited use of this service (approx. 40 days in 2005/06), but members confirm that they are growing much more accustomed to contacting other network members for informal assistance on a daily basis. Although there does not appear to be as high a demand for formal assistance as may have been expected when the network was formed, casual interaction is rising and appears to be of the most use to members at this time. 10 Performance Report 2005/06
Identify & Develop Existing Projects Atlantic Canada Flintbox Channel Partner: Flintbox is an online platform that provides access to early stage research for dissemination, download and license. The Flintbox technology was developed at the University of British Columbia and now provides a national & international forum for commercialization and online distribution of various technologies. In 2006, Springboard became Flintbox’s Atlantic Canada Channel Partner. To date, there have been 14 postings from Springboard members on the Flintbox platform, which have been viewed approximately 2,800 times. Springboard offers training, posting assistance and technical support to its members, eliminating the need to continually “import” expertise from across the country. Through the channel partnership, two community colleges – College of the North Atlantic and Nova Scotia Community College – have joined the Flintbox network. Springboard Fund Awards: Springboard distributed 10 Proof-of-Concept and 12 Patent and Legal Fund Awards in 2005. Fourteen of these technologies were further assessed through a partnership with NRC-IRAP. There is clear agreement from Springboard’s members that the awards make a significant difference in helping these projects proceed with commercialization.
Table 3: 2005 Proof-of-Concept Fund Awards (10) Institution
Researcher
Title of Invention
Amount Awarded
Acadia University
Craig Bennett
Process for Commercial Fabrication of Improved Ni-Mn-Ga Magnetic Shape Memory Alloys
$20,000
Acadia University
John Murimboh
A novel microscale in situ sampling device for monitoring trace metals in natural waters
$20,000
Dalhousie University
Dr. Biman Das
Ergonomic Wheelchair Design
$20,000
Dalhousie University
Dr. Geoffrey Maksym
Forced Oscillation Device for Airway Function Assessment
$20,000
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Dr. Ya-Gang Xie
A Method for the Detection of Risk Factors Associated with Myocardial Infarctioni
$20,000
St. Francis Xavier University
Michael Steinitz
Oil Pipeline Leakage Sensor
$20,000
Université de Moncton
Habib Hamam
Machine and Internet Access through Movements
$20,000
Université de Moncton
Jamel Ghouili
Optimization of an electric traction system using fuel cells and supercapacitors
$19,985.07
University of New Brunswick
Dr. Ghislain Deslongchamps
Development of Chemistry Flashware Products
$20,000
University of New Brunswick
Dr. Paul Arsenault
Backscatter Computed Tomography
$19,935
Total:
$199,920
Performance Report 2005/06 11
Table 4: 2005 Patent and Legal Fund Awards (12) Institution
Researcher
Title of Invention
Amount Awarded
Dalhousie University
Dr. Biman Das
Ergonomic Wheelchair Design
$10,000
Dalhousie University
Drs. Chris Taggart & Barry Ruddick
Use of Magnetically Attracted Particles & Magnetic Particle Collectors
$10,000
Dalhousie University
Dr. Geoffrey Maksym
Forced Oscillation Device for Airway Function Assessment
$10,000
Mount Allison University
Douglas Campbell
Peptide Sequence Tags and Method of Using Same
$10,000
Mount Allison University
S.A. Westcott
Method and Preparing Main Group Boryl Compounds
$10,000
Memorial University of Newfoundland
A Method for the Detection of Risk Factors Associated with Myocardial Infarction
$10,000
Dr. Ya-Gang Xie
Nova Scotia Agricultural College
Genes and proteins in potato and their relationship to potato after-cooking darkening (ACD)
$8,000
Gefu Wang-Pruski
Nova Scotia Agricultural College
Gefu Wang-Pruski
Cinnamic acid-4-hydroxylase (C4h)
St. Francis Xavier University
David Risk, et al.
Roller-type laboratory sample mill and homogenizer
$10,000
Université de Moncton
Priscille Massé
CB6Pro: a formula for prevention and treatment of osteopenia as an alternative to pharmaceuticals
$10,000
University of New Brunswick
Paul Arsenault
Backscatter Computed Tomography
$9,138.42
University of New Brunswick
Travis Maxwell
Supervised/Trained Segmentation for Object-Oriented Classification
$10,000
Total:
$8,000
$115,138
Industry Liaison Networking Events: Fifty-two networking events were arranged by technology transfer staff to assist researchers in meeting industry players. Springboard arranged two industry meetings open to all member offices at the request of companies interested in partnering with universities on research projects.
Training & Education Creating Highly Qualified Personnel: Attendance at network events is tracked by the Springboard office. Funding provided by NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR’s IPM program for Interns in Innovation enabled small groups to attend third-party training provided outside the Atlantic region. In 2005, groups attended WestLink’s Boot Camp (9 members), ACCT’s Basic Licensing (8) and the AUTM Graduate Course (4). Two network members attended an AUTM course in June 2006 on Software & Digital Media and eight individuals will attend Basic Licensing in the latter part of 2006. The Interns funding also enabled top quality presenters to speak at four two-day regional workshops in January (11), April (14), May (20), and October (25). 12 Performance Report 2005/06
Training topics for regional workshops and shorter sessions offered throughout the year included priority management, negotiation, technology assessment, marketing technologies effectively, intellectual property, online patent searching and Flintbox. Researcher Networking: Educational and networking events play a significant role in the activities of Springboard members. Fourteen networking events for researchers to meet technology transfer staff in their institution were held in 2005. Twenty educational events were held for researchers at various member institutions, featuring intellectual property issues, the lab to market process, and a variety of other subjects.
V. Planning for the Future At its June 2006 members’ meeting in Newfoundland, Springboard retained a management consultant to facilitate a short and long-term goal setting process. The intended outcome was to bring a more focused approach to the network’s operations and identify any strategic gaps that require attention.
Short and Long-Term Goals During Springboard’s June planning session and in a follow-up survey, members provided feedback in four key areas: 1. The Meaning of Success; 2. Short-term Goals; 3. Long-term Goals; and, 4. How Springboard Can Help. The resulting information will guide Springboard’s leadership in setting its own priorities for the up-coming year(s). 1. “The Meaning of Success” There were six key points (with both tangible and intangible outputs) which constituted success for the members, including: • Becoming known as “one-stop shops” that are efficient, innovative and knowledgeable about business. • Being recognized as a valuable part of the university, with commercialization work being understood and accepted by the academic community. • Being busier with more visitors, more calls, more inquiries. • Completing more disclosures, patents, license agreements, etc… • Bringing money to the university as a result of license agreements. • Securing increased government funding and industry sponsorship. 2. “Short-Term Goals” In the short term, the goals were primarily operational and focused on increasing numbers: • Bringing money to their university as a result of license agreements. • Increasing staff complement and overall technology transfer numbers (patents, disclosures, licenses, etc…). • Increasing awareness of the offices and their successes. 3. “Long-Term Goals” For the long term, the goals were focused on establishing a permanent presence: • Having the idea of “commercialization” integrated into the university culture, the strategic planning process, etc… • Securing permanent funding for the technology transfer offices. • Establishing major commercial research partnerships.
Performance Report 2005/06 13
4. “How Springboard Can Help” The responses provided some solid information with respect to which Springboard activities are perceived as most valuable to our members. Respondents explicitly see the Springboard leadership as persuasive messengers to the most senior university staff such as Presidents and VPs. They also view the Springboard office as generating economies of scale for all the members with regard to communication/awareness activities and jointly-used resources. • Acting as the “eyes and ears” for the network, identifying opportunities. • Producing “joint” promotional and technology transfer materials and offering “joint” resources such as Flintbox, IP management software, etc… • Creating a “market studies fund” to help evaluate opportunities. • Building and promoting the Springboard brand internally and externally. • Maintaining the regional coordinating role. • Continuing the education/training sessions. • Administering the Proof-of-Concept and Patent and Legal Awards.
Key Learnings The members view the role of the Springboard leadership as one of regional coordination, awareness building and private sector outreach. The leadership is not thought to have a direct role in the operations of the technology transfer offices nor with the researchers – that is considered the responsibility of the member offices. Springboard members are collectively focused on the overall goal of increasing commercialization of academic research. They appreciate that, to be successful, public awareness and education initiatives are important to establishing the Springboard brand and positively affecting the attitude about research commercialization, both on and off campus.
VI. Conclusion/Next Steps Springboard’s first performance measurement report shows that the network’s first year was focused on establishing offices, hiring staff and becoming knowledgeable about the issues involved in technology transfer and commercialization. It is expected that the second full year of Springboard’s operation will bring an increasing number of disclosures, more deal-making and a general increase in the skill levels of network members. Communications beyond the network has been identified as something to be enhanced and several initiatives will be implemented to improve these matters. Having access to experts in technology transfer across Canada and in the United States is a great help, as many of these challenges have been faced by other professionals in the field who are very willing to share their expertise. The next survey will be conducted in September 2007, with a report to be released before the end of the calendar year. Contact Information: Springboard Atlantic Inc., 1721 Lower Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1S5 Tel: 902.421.5678 Fax: 902.421.2733 E-mail: [email protected] www.springboardatlantic.ca 14 Performance Report 2005/06
Springboard Atlantic Members
Performance Report 2005/06 15
