1 / 11

Myths and Realities in University-Industry Partnerships

Myths and Realities in University-Industry Partnerships. Peter Munsche Assistant Vice-President, Technology Transfer University of Toronto PAGSE Symposium 2000 October 24, 2000 Ottawa, Ontario. Our favourite myth. “We’re not very good at technology transfer, are we?”. Some facts.

damian
Download Presentation

Myths and Realities in University-Industry Partnerships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Myths and Realities inUniversity-Industry Partnerships Peter Munsche Assistant Vice-President, Technology Transfer University of Toronto PAGSE Symposium 2000 October 24, 2000 Ottawa, Ontario

  2. Our favourite myth • “We’re not very good at technology transfer, are we?”

  3. Some facts • between 1991-97 U.S.Canada Licensing revenues +271% +242% Industrial funding +103% +348% Source: AUTM Licensing Survey

  4. International comparison • share of university R&D funded by industry 1991 1997 Canada 6.3% 11.8% Germany 7.8% 7.5% U.K. 7.6% 6.2% U.S.A. 4.7% 5.5% Source: Statistics Canada

  5. We’re good at something? Why? • government policies • tax credits • matching grants • changing industry attitudes • need for value added • knowledge-based industries • Canadian universities, eh?

  6. What do Canadian universities do? • have lots of research expertise • know how to use matching grant programs • are flexible about IP rights • psst! no Bayh-Dole Act • build relationships

  7. Example: Bell University Labs • initiated 1998 • total company investment: $35 million over 3 years • multi-university participation • NCM2 in Quebec • Waterloo • Toronto

  8. BUL at Toronto • collaborative investment • $13.5 million from Bell • $11.8 million from Ontario R&D Challenge Fund • $3 million from University (plus in-kind) • spent on • 4 endowed Chairs (plus 4 junior positions) • $4.3 million in research funding • lab enhancements, start-up funding, technical staff

  9. That’s big, but why is it special? - I • it’s a strategic investment • has the commitment of senior management at both University and Bell • focus is not technical • research involves sociology, law, medicine, education, psychology, as well as computer science and engineering

  10. That’s big, but why it is special? - II • management is collaborative • research investments decided by a Joint Committee • both University and Bell have assigned staff to make it work • emphasis on communication • company “champions” required for projects • BUL Seminar Series • short courses for Bell employees

  11. Any conclusions? • technology transfer is more than royalties and spin-off companies • Canada is better at this than it thinks • we need to move beyond projects to long-term programatic relationships • it can be done

More Related