Home > Topics > Establishing and Operating Technology Transfer Offices > Ten Things Heads of Institutions Should Know about Setting Up a Technology Transfer Office > Editor's Summary, Implications and Best Practices

Technology transfer is the process of converting scientific findings into useful products for society. A complex endeavor, it takes place in the broader context of innovation, a context that requires the sound management of intellectual property. This chapter provides advice about some of the most important economic and implementation considerations that go into setting up a technology transfer office (TTO). These are summarized in a list of ten key things:

1. Technology transfer will not make any university rich. A successful program will make a small profit but will not support a university to any significant degree. It will, however, provide many other benefits to the institution and the community.
2. Building a robust technology transfer program takes sustained financial investments. Investments are required to develop a patent portfolio, attract expert talent, and train office professionals.
3. It will likely take eight to ten years before a new technology transfer program stops losing money—and it may never generate substantial revenues. It takes time to build an IP portfolio, establish contacts, and develop skills in technology transfer. Following the set up, the TTO may begin to make money.
4. It may take two decades or more before a university technology transfer program (including entrepreneurial spinouts) substantially affects the local economy. Impact in regional economic development takes 20 to 30 years. Expecting substantial returns in a few years leads to underinvestment and disappointment.
5. The ultimate impact may be very large—both economically and culturally—for the university, its graduates, and the community.
6. Sustained effort requires visible support—fiscal and otherwise—from senior administration. Senior management should not only lead the way, but also sustain the effort to change the culture of research and investment.
7. Only senior administration can set the mission, policies, and priorities for the program. Clear mandates will help technology transfer professionals choose among competing priorities and the ever-present trade-offs between business and academic values. These policies will ultimately help to define the university. They need to be clearly stated, and supported from the top, so that technology transfer professionals can make the best decisions and withstand pressure from competing interests.
8. Clear policies on IP ownership, the roles of researchers in interactions with industry, and other ground rules should be set up before the program begins. Working out such policies in the middle of making deals leads to confusion and bureaucratic lethargy, slows down the learning process, and hurts a university’s reputation for being able to consummate deals.
9. Conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, are inevitable. Clear policies and a well-understood review and appeal process need to be put in place early. Much can be learned from the experience of others in the technology transfer field. Again, support from senior administration is critical.
10. Technology transfer is a talent-based business. It is difficult to find people who can speak the two languages of academia and industry and who also have the creativity to craft agreements that meet the needs of both sides. One should not underestimate the combination and level of skills required. These skills and experiences are very different from those needed to conduct research.

Any country or institution can undertake health or agricultural innovation to varying degrees; however, some developing countries that are more scientifically advanced are starting to reap the benefits of decades of investments in education, health research infrastructure, manufacturing/production capacity, and regulatory institutions. Increasingly referred to as innovative developing countries, they are characterized by sustained government support for research, the availability of venture capital, and their ability to partner with local and foreign public and private research organizations. All of this requires sound IP management, which makes such partnerships more effective and allows technologies to be transferred, not just in one direction, but also in more complex, useful, and valuable ways to benefit more parties and more people.

Technology transfer is thus a rewarding process for research-based institutions and the people who make it happen. It leads to new products, services, and jobs. But it is also a multifaceted process with important policy, economic, and managerial ramifications. Discussing these aspects in detail, Lita Nelsen of M. I. T. ’s Technology Licensing Office offers practical, timely advice in this chapter about some of the most important policy and strategy imperatives for any institution contemplating a technology transfer office or intending to strengthen their current endeavors in this area.

Viable strategies to set up and operate a TTO should be firmly grounded in realistic economic expectations. Technology transfer will not make your university or research institution instantly rich, as building a robust technology transfer program will take sustained financial investment. It takes time (8-10 years) to build an IP portfolio, establish contacts, and develop skills in technology transfer. And it may take up to two decades or more before a university technology transfer program (including entrepreneurial spinouts) substantially affects the local economy. The ultimate impact, however, may be very large—both economically and culturally—for the university, its graduates, and the wider community.

Successfully implementing these plans will require visible and sustained support—fiscally and otherwise—from senior administration. Only they can set the program’s mission, policies, and priorities. Clear mandates will help technology transfer professionals choose among competing priorities and the ever-present trade-offs between business and academic values. Policies on IP ownership, the roles of researchers in interactions with industry, and other ground rules should be set up before the program begins, because conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, are inevitable. For the same reason, clear policies and a well-understood review and appeal process need to be put in place early. Finally, technology transfer is a talent-based business. It is difficult to find people who can speak the two languages of academia and industry and who also have the creativity to craft agreements that meet the needs of both sides.

The chapter’s conclusion discusses some technology transfer pitfalls caused by unrealistic expectations. It emphasizes the role of senior management in culture change (which has to begin with the top level administration), the need for transparent conflict of interest policies, and the importance of sufficient autonomy and infrastructure support for technology transfer officers. A TTO can create many benefits for the university, industry, and the surrounding community, but it requires carefully planned and consistent long-term financial and administrative support. Above all, it requires TTO officers able—and willing—to take risks, and university Presidents to back them.

Key Implications and Best Practices

Given that IP management is heavily context specific, these Key Implications and Best Practices are intended as starting points to be adapted to specific needs and circumstances.

For Government Policymakers

• Technology transfer is a rewarding endeavor for scientists, institutions, and countries. Its benefits extend beyond income to include better quality research, motivated faculty, an enhanced educational environment, and broad socio-economic benefits.
• Government policies and laws regarding technology transfer should be flexible so that each institution can shape its approach according to its own culture, mission, and context.
• National institutions should be encouraged, and preferably funded, to develop IP policies (conflict of interest management, allocation of revenues, etc.) that respect the institution’s mission.

For Senior Management (university president, R&D manager, etc)

• Technology transfer is unlikely to be a major source of revenue for most research institutions. It is a long-term endeavor that requires sustained investments in time and funds to generate benefits.
• Setting up a technology transfer program requires changing the research culture. This requires strong leadership.
• The success of a technology transfer office (TTO) depends upon clear institutional leadership, especially when it comes to conflicting priorities (business goals vs. academic objectives, humanitarian and social benefits vs. direct economic returns, etc.)
• A transparent conflict of interest policy and simple, streamlined administrative procedures are critical for encouraging scientists to work with industry and the TTO.
• Success requires dialogue between scientists, technology transfer officers, and you.

For Scientists

• Your involvement in technology transfer from beginning to end is important.
• Your power to shape institutional policy should not be underestimated, especially in the ways that the fruits of your research will benefit humanity and increase economic development.
• Know your institutional conflict of interest policy. Most conflict of interest issues arise when procedures are not properly followed.

For Technology Transfer Officers

• Competing demands on time, in pursuit of economic imperatives and broader institutional goals, should be balanced. Licensing income should not be the primary measure of performance.
• Be prepared to take risks. Remember that failing to act—or acting too late—can itself be risky. Clearly communicate to your institute head the main risks you are proposing, making sure that he/she understands the trade-offs.