Technology Transfer: The Importance of Networks and Capacity Building in Technology Transfer and Commercialization (cont.)

The Foundation is seeking solutions on several fronts. We’re working with universities and others to identify current replicable best practices in technology transfer; there is little systematic knowledge in several key areas. We’re also exploring how to improve technology transfer at universities with small- to medium-sized budgets and very limited resources.

In addition, we’re piloting a new system designed to maximize innovation and deal flow, rather than merely maximize dollar flow per licensing deal, as is the case with the current system. Our goal is to enable the technology transfer offices to automate much of their transaction work so that they can spend more time developing opportunity recognition and marketing skills. We believe a part of this is opening up the system and creating a two-way thoroughfare: one in which faculty have the time and are trained to look outwardly at the possibilities, and at the same time private-sector parties who may be interested in faculty’s work are able to look inside the universities and mine the multitude of latent ideas and discoveries – one of which just may be the missing link needed for an emerging technology.

It’s interesting to note that, for the most part, among the champions, there are no conclusive patterns that would be telling of the reasons for their success. However, there seems to be a common thread among the half dozen or so schools that do it well. Those university faculty located in a “cluster” of commercialization engage in a high level of industry consulting and collaboration. Because of their propinquity to a vast network of friends and colleagues who are entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and other experts, their opportunity recognition skills are more keenly developed. That, coupled with a technology transfer office that is appropriately resourced to manage the incoming traffic, has good analytical skills, and fosters collaborative external relationships, provides a positive stream of commercialization for the university. Schools that are isolated from industry tend to have fewer industry relationships and, therefore, provide less robust input to the tech transfer office, causing it to be inwardly rather than outwardly focused.

What this tells us is, not only are industry-university relationships positive for innovation, but collaborations with other experts bode well for the process, too. For those who do not have the necessary established social networks, we must help create them.

It is said that there are really several types of knowledge. For example, “know-what,” or mere knowledge of facts, has today become far less relevant and useful. “Know-how” refers to skills and the ability to do things on a practical level. Perhaps of most significance is “know-who,” which refers to the world of social relations or networks and is knowledge of “who knows what” and “who can do what.” Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, Notre Dame physicist and the nation’s expert in the science of networks, believes that the power of networks, including social ones, governs our ability to succeed in virtually every aspect of science, business, and beyond.

Knowing key people may, indeed, be of greater importance to innovation than knowing scientific principles.

VCs are the first to recognize the human capital factor in the value and expertise they bring to entrepreneurs in advancing their enterprises. Similarly, successful entrepreneurs who understand relationships and proven methodologies have valuable skills they can bring to bear on the process.

« Page 2 | Page 4 »