View on the Commercialisation Process

Due to the existence of multiple definitions of research commercialisation, technology transfer managers often have different views on the research commercialisation process.

When definition 1 (IP-based) was adopted, the majority of the respondents viewed research commercialisation as a transactional process where IP resulting from public sector research could be packaged and sold to industry. Their underlying assumption was that there is some objective monetary value associated with university IP if it is packaged and marketed properly. In illustrating this view, a university TTO director said:

We pursue a model where those innovations that we — not just disclosures, we work them up and we really package the information in terms of what the market is — whether there’s protectable intellectual property, whether there’s competitors out there for that type of thing, whether there is a market need for the opportunity. . .

The technology transfer managers who used definition 1 (IP-based) were also inclined to view research commercialisation as a one-way process where the TTO played a critical role. When I asked the question whether scientists/inventors were involved in the negotiation of IP, the most common response I received from the technology transfer managers was “no”. Moreover, these technology transfer managers thought they should be in control of the research commercialisation process. One university technology transfer manager phrased this view as follows:

We use the researchers as a way of helping us present the scientific and technical aspects of the technology. They certainly help us sell the product in the broader sense, but they are certainly not involved in structuring the deal or completing any of the commercial negotiations. . . We have to make that assessment ourselves. So we assess the technology for research commercialisation. We are probably assessing three things: the intellectual property position, the technology itself and its market and commercial potential; and we are looking carefully at the researchers who are often multiple and really making sure they are going to come along on the ride with us and they are not going to cause a problem and that will be actually complementary to the whole process, rather than obstructionist or whatever.

On the other hand, when definition 2 (technology transfer-based) was employed, the respondents tended to view research commercialisation as a dynamic process which is far more than a simple financial transaction. They perceived their role was to align different interests to ensure the university inventions or discoveries got transferred and eventually used by the industry. For example, a university technology transfer manager said:

If you are going to be in a Technology Transfer Office, you need to get more personal with the technology and work with the personalities to get it over the line. So it’s a lot more than a simple financial transaction. . . In this role here you have to be able to manage the scientists. You have to understand their needs and where they are at, and their funding position, and you have to understand what the companies want. You have to try and align that over a five or six year timeframe because that’s how long it is going to take.

Contrary to the first type of technology transfer managers (IP-based), the respondents who adopted definition 2 (technology transfer-based) considered scientists critically important in the research commercialisation process. They thought scientists were the primary driving force behind the technology and should be kept involved. In explaining this view, a university technology transfer manager stated:

So part of this office, my role in this office is to get out to the scientists and to remind them in a positive way to use this office. I have to be careful because they bring in the work. It is through them — through their capabilities, through their lab’s capability that the work comes in the first place.

5.3.4 Motivation

The motivation of a technology transfer manager has rarely been examined in literature. This study found that regardless of the definition of research commercialisation one

adopted, the majority of technology transfer managers interviewed were driven by an intrinsic, and sometimes altruistic, desire to help their orgnisations to commercialise scientific discoveries. A typical response from a technology transfer manager was:

So the question was, who else in Australia does interesting science around inventions and ideas? And I realised university commercialisation arms and academics were doing this all the time, playing at the cutting edge of science. But I also realised that they didn’t really know how to turn that into valuable stuff. And that’s where my experience was. My experience was innovation and exploring in a sense from a commercial point of view, so it was at that point I said, let’s go back into academia. I hadn’t taught at that stage. It was just simply to help commercialise ideas.

Most respondents of this study had PhD and MBA qualifications as well as many years of scientific research and business experience. They sincerely believed that their offices had all the necessary knowledge and skills to help academic scientists to commercialise their research findings. In illustrating this point, a technology transfer manager said:

The help is out there. There are people who have done this before. There are entrepreneurs out there who have done it and they are more than happy to help universities do stuff. And our commercialisation arms are full of people who are business development managers who have been entrepreneurs. We’ve got a whole bunch here who have done it. They have set up businesses themselves, globally. We have people here in IT and solar, biotech, and they keep coming back to universities to help others do it — to learn from their mistakes if you like.

In summary, this study shows that research commercialisation is understood differently by different technology transfer managers. The majority of them adopted an IP-based perspective in their definition and they were primarily concerned with the protection, packaging and sale of university IP to industry. This prevailing definition in turn

shaped the objectives of their office. On one hand, their office was focused on the generation of financial returns from licensing and spin-offs activities; but on the other hand, it was also concerned with facilitating the transfer of university IP to industry.

Only a very small number of technology transfer managers interviewed took a broad technology transfer perspective in their definition of research commercialisation. They perceived that the transfer of public research findings to industry could happen through a variety of channels. Their objective was not about maximising revenues, but to assist the university to get its research findings transferred and used by industry.

Despite the existence of multiple definitions, all respondents from the technology transfer manager group genuinely believed that they were there to facilitate the research commercialisation process.