CNTT meeting, Roma11/4/2012 Indicatori per il Trasferimento Tecnologico Maria Giuseppina Bisogni INFN Pisa e UNIPI On behalf of GLV Gruppo di lavoro - TT M.G B., Luca Tomassetti, Marco Costa

Outline INFN Knowledge & Technology Transfer (KTT) 1Motivazioni 2Background 3Proposta

Motivazioni 1

Gruppo Lavoro Valutazione: Come nasce e cosa fa? Sin dalla VTR l’INFN si è dotato di un gruppo di lavoro. Compiti principali (annuali): – Preparare il rapporto per il Comitato Internazionale di Valutazione (CVI) – Raccogliere informazioni per il PT Ovviamente c’è un vasto overlap tra queste due parti Di tanto in tanto «documenti» per il Ministero – Nel impegnati con la VQR Prima nel difendere/preparare documenti per l’INFN Poi nel raccogliere l’informazione necessaria – In questa fase braccio operativo dell’Ente 4

Chi sono i membri del GLV I membri del GLV sono: – Tre persone per ogni CSN – I Presidenti delle CSN (ex office) – I membri di Giunta (ex office) – Il coordinatore nazionale (nominato dal Direttivo) I membri sono: – CSN1: Clara Troncon, Marco Costa, Monica Pepe – CSN2: Laura Patrizii, Francesco Arneodo, Rossella Caruso – CSN3: Paolo Pedroni, Adriana Nannini, Vito Lenti – CNS4: Luciano Canton, Vittorio Lubicz, Dario Zappalà – CSN5: Giusy Bisogni, Alessandro Montanari, Luca Tomassetti

Gruppo Lavoro Valutazione La VQR è stata un’occasione di crescita per l’INFN – Valutazione non solo bibliometrica La VQR è stato anche un momento in cui abbiamo raccolto informazioni su vari aspetti della vita dell’Ente cui spesso non prestiamo la dovuta attenzione: – Alta Formazione (dottorati, laureati) » scuole – Attività non direttamente di ricerca » Lezioni (istituzionalizzate e/o in scuole di AF) – Trasferimento Tecnologico – Fondi esterni Il GLV si muove su due piani: Tenere d’occhio indicatori cari al MIUR Valutare attività dell’Ente in una prospettiva europea 6

Effective actions in advancing technology transfer within INFN need to be based on clear goals and a long term vision. This cannot be seen only as a complementary activity whose goal is generating research funding or providing job placement for PhD’s. We believe that a special effort is needed to state the goals and to develop quantitative measures that will allow objective measurement of progress as the new technology transfer programs mature within INFN. INFN very receptive to encouragement from the Ministry to share knowledge and technology more broadly for benefits of society. Growing awareness of the value of the technological assets developed inside INFN and of the importance of encouraging better technology transfer between INFN and industry. This is currently done mostly through the involvement of suppliers in the development of technologies. INFN CVI 2012 Report

2 Background Metrics used to assess and track TT performances

Trends in TT Metrics Need to clarify defined goals: – Establish metrics in support of achieving those goals Need for definition – To avoid misinterpretation and invalid comparison Need for normalization – Meaningful comparison, year-over year performance within the TT or across organization Need for qualitative measures – Augment quantitative reporting with highlights and success stories

Trends by sector Public research (and academic) institutions place emphasis on – Public benefits to be gained from their research – TT is a mean of serving the public – Licensing revenue is important but is not the primary issue Corporate research is profit motivated and product focused – Patent used used for defensive purposes (monopoly) – License out to settle infringement suits – Revenues are not a major business component

First, understanding the program’s goals, then define metrics as support to achieve those goals The purpose of performance metrics is to measure how well a given program meets its goals Clear mapping of the metrics to the goals

Sample TT Program Goals ImpactHumanitarian and economics benefit Leverage Technology for humanitarian and economic benefits Financial management Spend taxpayer funds responsibly Strategic benefitTechnology Leveraging Organize technology to increase return on R&D investments Minimize cost of innovation Find cost effective solutions; make-vs - buy decisions; reduce financial burden Enhance Recognition and prestige Improve rankings, leading to more funds Innovation ManagementInnovation spirit Foster it to maximize innovation IP Protection Capture and protect IP innovations

Quality of the parameters Normalized – Ex: normalize the volume of invention disclosures against research expenditures Appropriately timed – Consistent and clearly defined time period; examinations over a long period Consistent – Same metrics year to year Captured and reported automatically – Implement processes to capture data needed to drive metrics and automatic reporting capability – Integrated with other databases for tracking progress through TT pipeline

Frequently Used Metrics Public Research Institutions Academic Institutions Commercial entities

Licensing Full Time Equivalent Research expenditure of the institution – Number of invention is roughly proportional to money spent Licenses and options executed – Broken out by exclusivity and licensee type/size (startup, small business, large company) Spin-off/Start-up companies formed License income – Running royalties – Cashed-in equity from start-ups – One-time payment Products released by licensees New research funding derived from licenses

Invention disclosure received Invention disclosure disposition – How many are dealt with by licensing or closure Patents issued Patent applications filed Legal fees expended and reimbursed – Institution success in managing its patent portfolio – Ratio of income from license fees, royalties, reimbursed legal fees and license related research funding to expenditures on legal fees, FTEs and other TT office expenses.

Collaborative relationships for R&D executed – Include Cooperative Research And Development Agreements (CRADAs) and other collab. arrangements Invention disclosures received Patent applications filed Patents issued Licenses – Include active l., newly executed l., income-bearing l. Earned royalty income and r. statistics Disposition of royalty income Licenses terminated for causes

Annual Survey from AUTM® Data collected yearly by sending a comprehensive questionnaire that includes a concise definition of every metric used in the survey Medical school at institution – Improves relevance of institution since med schools are likely to have higher licensing royalties than other institutions ISS, CNAO, CATANA, University associated Qualitative measures – AUTM survey includes a section entitled “Technology transfer Success Stories” in which respondents highlight specific technology breakthrough – AUTM publishes annual Better World report with a list of success stories Uff. Comunicazione, ASIMMETRIE

3 Proposed metrics Structure New Technology and Scientific work product Scientific Collaborations –Public Private partnership for R&D Professional valorization Outreach

New Technology and Scientific work product Intellectual Property – Traditional output metrics – Number of license granted to SMEs, startup/spin-off created – Number of patents granted categorized by selected technology area Scientific articles and publications – Most research results are transferred through scientific papers and other publications – Patent protection for all is prohibitive and may slow TT – By monitoring the volume of S&T articles, the amount of Knowledge transfer to society can be monitored – In addition, citations of the S&T articles in patents selected by field, author and institution

Scientific Collaborations –Public/Private partnership for R&D CRADAs and Other collaborations – Total # CRADAs – New CRADAS in Fiscal year – Other collaborative agreements active in fiscal year (NDA, research contracts, informal contacts) – Partnership in competitive calls – Anecdotal information on Coll. Agreements Private sector engagement – conferences – exhibitions – tech seminars – Sponsorships Technology networks and clusters

Professional Valorization Third-party activity Equipment and facility services Consultancy Continuing Professional Developments Secondments

Metrics Toolbox for TT

Outlook Interazione con CNTT Individuazione Obiettivi Definizione di una metrica condivisa Raccolta informazioni Analisi Report Tempi di attuazione: marzo-settembre 2013

Bibliography OTT, National Institute of Health, The Interagency Workgroup on Technology Transfer, Revised Technology Transfer Metrics in Response to the October 28, 2011 Presidential Memorandum, Fuentek White Paper On Technology Transfer Metrics Practices, How’d We Do?: Establishing Useful Technology Transfer Metrics, paper_ pdfhttp:// paper_ pdf Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), US licensing Activity Survey, FY 2008 Green Paper, Fostering and Measuring ´Third Mission’ in Higher Education Institutions, Project supported from the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number: / ESF, Science in Society: a Challenging Frontier for Science Policy, Conceptual Framework for Third Mission Indicator Definition, Grant Agreement Number: / 001 – 001 The ProTon Europe Ninth Annual Survey Report (fiscal year 2011), Report produced by Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna for ProTon Europe CERN/SPC/956, CERN-Council-S/068, Increasing The Efficiency Of Technology Transfer In Member States, Report On The Activities Of The Technology Transfer Network Within The Framework Of The European Strategy For Particle Physics, 7 September 2010 Netval, ASTP, Association of European Science & Technology Transfer professionals,