A clear intention behind IP ownership is a prerequisite for effective tech transfer and economic benefit from commercialization of publicly funded research
Great post Kyle, and very informative. As part of the reflection, did you look at colleges and policies for IP ownership at that level? The research funding is of course miniscule compared to universities, but I think there could be some interesting models for technology transfer and commercialization, especially if better integrated with the university research environment. Your thoughts on that would be very interesting to learn about.
I've seen the model of a few specific colleges in the case of college-industry research partnerships, but not looked into it in detail in the general case of IP created at the colleges independent of an industry partner. If you have any resources I could look into on that point, I would appreciate a link.
The experience I do have with research partnerships suggests that colleges are hands-off on IP and just assign it to partner companies, and they have mechanisms to get research funding in support of early-stage industry without going through the hoops that universities have to. The difference I have seen is that (at least a few) colleges, notable La Cité Collégiale here in Ottawa, have embraced the ethos that they want to benefit from tech transfer is not income, but rather it is to be the center of an innovation ecosystem build around them. I think this is something that universities should aspire to in general.
Yes, I was thinking more about the hands-off model in collaboration with an industry partner as well, thinking it could be worth to look into in further detail. I've come across examples like what you mention with La Cité, but have also heard chatter about institutions that look to how they can fit into an innovation ecosystem that includes universities (I think CCNB in New Brunswick could be an example of that). At this point, I have more questions than good resources, but I'd be happy to share if I find anything useful!
- Have you explored what fraction of the Waterloo ecosystem is based on IP generated at the university? I would expect that the vast majority of the companies are based on bright and ambitious entrepreneurs looking to build solutions to rich market opportunities, and that few can trace their businesses back to IP created at the university. This moves the focus from IP to intentionality of economic impact.
- While I was at NSERC, our thinking about IP ownership and exploitation evolved. Recognizing that:
1) most academic IP is low-TRL,
2) the expertise and tacit knowledge of research teams is often more valuable than the IP,
3) the final solution developed by successful entrepreneurs often is far from the initial concept,
4) collaborative work between companies and academic research teams is often more valuable than license revenues
... we worked to decrease the emphasis on formal IP, and developed Engage grants that expected foreground IP to be assigned to the company. This worked well.
- Universities are challenged to realize value from formal IP by the wide variety of IP generated, and its low TRL. Over the decades, approaches that have been tried that to build scale and/or focus (CECRs and TTO hubs) and move IP commercialization efforts out of the universities.
You're correct that certainly not all the IP in the Waterloo ecosystem originated there. I do not have numbers, but I would not be surprised to learn the majority did not originate with Waterloo. But these are second order effects - those companies only exist in the ecosystem because the ecosystem exists. Waterloo successfully catalyzed a virtuous cycle of innovation that is now self-sustaining. This is what I want to see replicated across Canada.
The approach you mention at NSERC is well thought out, and recognition of the 4 points you mention is important for any policy framework that seeks to support the early stages as well. My response to the challenges faced at the TTO level is to say that we need public policy to lead from the top down and to provide both a mandate to commercialize and the tools to implement that mandate.
Great post Kyle, and very informative. As part of the reflection, did you look at colleges and policies for IP ownership at that level? The research funding is of course miniscule compared to universities, but I think there could be some interesting models for technology transfer and commercialization, especially if better integrated with the university research environment. Your thoughts on that would be very interesting to learn about.
I've seen the model of a few specific colleges in the case of college-industry research partnerships, but not looked into it in detail in the general case of IP created at the colleges independent of an industry partner. If you have any resources I could look into on that point, I would appreciate a link.
The experience I do have with research partnerships suggests that colleges are hands-off on IP and just assign it to partner companies, and they have mechanisms to get research funding in support of early-stage industry without going through the hoops that universities have to. The difference I have seen is that (at least a few) colleges, notable La Cité Collégiale here in Ottawa, have embraced the ethos that they want to benefit from tech transfer is not income, but rather it is to be the center of an innovation ecosystem build around them. I think this is something that universities should aspire to in general.
Yes, I was thinking more about the hands-off model in collaboration with an industry partner as well, thinking it could be worth to look into in further detail. I've come across examples like what you mention with La Cité, but have also heard chatter about institutions that look to how they can fit into an innovation ecosystem that includes universities (I think CCNB in New Brunswick could be an example of that). At this point, I have more questions than good resources, but I'd be happy to share if I find anything useful!
Please do!
Thanks for this. A few thoughts:
- Have you explored what fraction of the Waterloo ecosystem is based on IP generated at the university? I would expect that the vast majority of the companies are based on bright and ambitious entrepreneurs looking to build solutions to rich market opportunities, and that few can trace their businesses back to IP created at the university. This moves the focus from IP to intentionality of economic impact.
- While I was at NSERC, our thinking about IP ownership and exploitation evolved. Recognizing that:
1) most academic IP is low-TRL,
2) the expertise and tacit knowledge of research teams is often more valuable than the IP,
3) the final solution developed by successful entrepreneurs often is far from the initial concept,
4) collaborative work between companies and academic research teams is often more valuable than license revenues
... we worked to decrease the emphasis on formal IP, and developed Engage grants that expected foreground IP to be assigned to the company. This worked well.
- Universities are challenged to realize value from formal IP by the wide variety of IP generated, and its low TRL. Over the decades, approaches that have been tried that to build scale and/or focus (CECRs and TTO hubs) and move IP commercialization efforts out of the universities.
You're correct that certainly not all the IP in the Waterloo ecosystem originated there. I do not have numbers, but I would not be surprised to learn the majority did not originate with Waterloo. But these are second order effects - those companies only exist in the ecosystem because the ecosystem exists. Waterloo successfully catalyzed a virtuous cycle of innovation that is now self-sustaining. This is what I want to see replicated across Canada.
The approach you mention at NSERC is well thought out, and recognition of the 4 points you mention is important for any policy framework that seeks to support the early stages as well. My response to the challenges faced at the TTO level is to say that we need public policy to lead from the top down and to provide both a mandate to commercialize and the tools to implement that mandate.