1. Presented by Kathleen Hanek Sr. Product Manager, SP Ableware
Incorporating the Stages of Development into a Successful Researcher/Industry Partnership
Presented by Kathleen Hanek
Sr. Product Manager, SP Ableware
July 12, 2016

2. Topics to be Covered
Manufacturer’s Partnership Mindset
Identifying the Right Partner
Pre-Application and Application Stage
First Stage – Proof of Concept
Second Stage – Proof of Product
Third Stage Proof Adoption
Additional Information

3. Manufacturer’s Mindset: Qualities of a Successful Partnership, 1
Cooperation:
The process is most successful when it is collaborative
Flexibility:
Ideas/Concepts often have to be tweaked or modified in order to increase their change of success

4. Manufacturer’s Mindset: Qualities of a Successful Partnership, 2
Patience:
Patience is critical because doing a good job can take time
Respect
Each party brings a skill set to the table
Playing off of each other’s strength increases the chances for success

5. Identifying the Right Industry Partner, 1
Product Line Focus
Manufacturers may have many product lines, family/product categories
Typically they will have dedicated focus – inquire about what that focus is
Inquire both short term and long term - these can be vastly different
Are they risk adverse, are they looking to expand

6. Identifying the Right Industry Partner, 2
Build the Relationship
Understand the focus and objectives
Learn their needs as an organization, can you fill a void?
Identify the skills each partner brings to the table.
Supply practical useful information, but do not over supply information

7. Collaborating During the Pre-Application and Application Stages, 1
Opportunities
Early buy-in will strengthen the partnership
Focus areas can more readily be identified
Industry partner can help identify market voids
Utilization of both parties skills sets from the start optimizes results
Both parties can ideate and collaborate during the application process
Manufacturers sometimes work directly with university investigators to write development projects in the grant application. Can you talk about this?
In my experience, successful industry university partnerships often start with strong trusting relationships started years before the grant proposal is written. How do manufacturers and investigators meet each other? How do they cultivate these strong positive relationships?
see notes

8. Collaborating During the Pre-Application and Application Stages, 2
Challenges
Many companies do not have advanced development or R&D resources
Resources to dive deep may not be available
Time to market (when a company can see a profit) is long – the partnering company (or person within the company) needs to be visionary

9. Collaborating During the First Stage – Proof of Concept, 1
Opportunities
True joint collaboration begins
Researcher provides feedback from studies and verifies project requirements and key concepts etc.
Industry partner offers additional domain expertise and can translate participant feedback/requirements into realizable features/benefits of a product
Font change from slide 8 to 9
If slide 9 is labelled as “challenges” should slide 8 be labelled “opportunities”?
Research provides feedback from “studies” rather than “study participants”? Many studies or study components (e.g. bench testing of an “electronic subsystem”) will not involve consumers.
see notes

10. Collaborating During the First Stage – Proof of Concept, 2
Challenges
Flexibility is key
Concept must match broadest possible market appeal
Expectations of the researcher and the industry partner should be known and discussed
Time resources from industry partner may still be limited in this phase. Time to market is still lengthy.

11. Collaborating During the Second Stage – Proof of Product, 1
Opportunities
Manufacturer can aid in real world parameters.
Manufacturing Capabilities
Manufacturing Feasibility
Material Selection
Cost Control
Market Conditions: Demand, Features/Benefits, Pricing
Label “Opportunities”?

12. Collaborating During the Second Stage – Proof of Product, 2
Reduces the risk of major design change
Time to market becomes shorter and in house resources become more readily available
Industry partner can aid in prototyping and other resource allocation
In house engineering capabilities can be utilized

13. Collaborating During the Second Stage – Proof of Product, 3
Proper contracts are a key to a continuing relationship. This can include:
Non-Disclosure Form
Licensing/Royalty
Product Derivatives
Assignment
Understanding ownership of Intellectual Property
This is dictated by law not by either partner
I will be giving a separate presentation o n IP handling within the university context that you might refer to.
Licensing will normally take place around SoD Stage 2 (end of). Could this slide be moved there?
Maddak’s use of confidentiality agreements to assure revenue streams to inventors following patenting of derivative inventions may or may not be common. However can you briefly talk about royalty and license agreements a bit more? I loved this discussion at ATI and think the RERC directors (and my colleagues) will also find fascinating.
Please note that for many RERC development products (devices with niche markets, most software applications) the university will chose not to retain title to the invention. The invention is by normal default waived to the federal agency and then on to the inventor. Can the manufacturer work with the inventor through non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements under this circumstance? Think so. Can you discuss this circumstance?
see notes

14. Collaborating During the Second Stage – Proof of Product, 4
Challenges
This is the most collaborative phase and produces the least challenges
Industry partner may push for a faster timeline than anticipated
Flexibility required if design modifications are needed

15. Collaborating During the Third Stage – Proof of Adoption, 1
Opportunities
Efficacy Studies
Industry partners often do not have the time and/or resources to conduct such studies
Can provide customers/end user who are willing to be participant
Industry partner can provide real-world data

16. Collaborating During the Third Stage – Proof of Adoption, 2
Awareness, Persuasion, Decision, Use, Retention
Efficacy Studies – Industry may or may not have the funding and resources
Industry can provide
Sales data (or Sales Trend Data)
Customer base
Customer Feedback
Could you work on Stage 3 (adoption, current slide 15 & 16) a bit?
Grantees are required to assess of market response (e.g. to commercial product; easy for things like software “products” releases through the google app store) or likely market response (e.g. to pre-commercial prototype; probably typical of most device “products” which require more time to reach market).
Grantees can also take an active role to work with the manufacturer to facilitate adoption or potential adoption of products.
The SoD uses Diffusion of Innovation language to describe innovation (including product) adoption.
1. Awareness – facilitators (strategies/actions to make market aware of product), barriers (factors preventing or delaying market from becoming aware of product)
2. Persuasion – facilitators (strategies/actions to convince market of product worth [), barriers (factors preventing or delaying market from becoming convinced of product worth)
3. Decision – facilitators (strategies/actions that increase likelihood that market will obtain product [e.g. good product reviews, independent studies demonstrating efficacy, product demonstrations, etc.]), barriers (factors preventing or delaying market from to trying [often obtaining] product)
4. Use – facilitators (strategies/actions that increase likelihood that market will use the product [e.g. effectiveness, ease of use, durability, low consumables costs, etc.]), barriers (factors preventing or delaying market from to using product)
5. Retention - facilitators (strategies/actions that increase likelihood market will continue to use the product [e.g. good warranties, technical support, service contracts, regular “software” updates]), barriers (factors preventing or delaying market from to using product)
Your ”methods to prove adoption” are (I think) primarily actions that the grantee might take to increase awareness of the product. As suggested by the 5 steps preceding, they can do much more. For example, the manufacturer might ask the grantee to conduct an efficacy study. Assuming good results, the efficacy study could then be published by the grantee, presented by the grantee at conferences, and integrated into the companies marketing literature. These actions are likely to have a positive impact on awareness, persuasion, and decision.
In addition, since grantees must assess adoption or likely adoption, how can the grantee work with industry to assess innovation diffusion across the five steps? What information will manufacturers be willing to share or not share? Its notable that any release of positive findings related to the product will facilitate adoption.
Can you use DOI concepts in the discussion of adoption?
see notes

17. Collaborating During the Third Stage – Proof of Adoption, 3
Publications/Presentations
Industry can provide
Public Relations dissemination
Social Media dissemination
Funding
Influencer education
Tech Transfer Office PR
Social Media

18. Collaborating During the Third Stage – Proof of Adoption, 4
Challenges
Adapting feedback into product modifications/improvement
Does the industry partner have a budget to do this?
What is the timeframe for modification

19. Additional Information
What the Manufacturer is really concerned about…….Return on Investment (ROI)
What can affect ROI:
Market Size
Product Cost vs. Market Price
Distribution Method: Direct to Consumer vs. Business to Business
Prototyping Tooling investments

20. Thank you!