Impacto Social.

1. Agreed upon timetables - An agreed upon timetable with fair and balanced priorities was a consistent quality of successful interactions between academia and industry. Corporate managers frequently reported that there was the perception that universities

operated on extended time lines and had little regard to the urgent deadlines of the corporate world (Liyange & Mitchell, 1994, 644).

Partnerships that found mechanisms to exploit the complementarities between basic and applied research were the most effective ones. The most sought-after academic scientists were those with the great capacity for transforming basic scientific knowledge into applied academic solutions for resolving industry’s problems and academia’s knowledge as a basis for future theory (Debackere & Veugelers, 2004, 327-329; Business Higher Education Forum, 2001, 42). The shift from industry sponsorship to industry partnership is a move toward the recognition of this notion that promotes joint problem-solving for empirical, pragmatic knowledge as well as conjectural, a priori knowledge.

2. Decentralized tech transfer offices - The decentralization of technology transfer offices within the universities appeared to be an effective means of insuring a successful partnership in establishing a sufficient level of autonomy to develop relations with industry in various sectors, albeit this is currently not a common practice in many of the United States’ large research universities. The

decentralization effort also seems to be instrumental in terms of providing a buffer between the potential conflicts which might arise between the commercialization process and the research and teaching activities (Debackere & Veugelers, 2004, 329).

Effective technology officers serve as the “gate keeper” and provide the bridge between academic and industry partners. Based on interviews at five major research universities, Siegel et al. (2003, 40) identified several critical organizational

factors for technology transfer offices, including adequate faculty tenure, promotion policies, adequate royalty and equity distribution systems, as well as characteristics of the staffing practices within these offices, including a proper mix of scientists,

lawyers and managers acting within a highly professional environment (Debackere & Veugelers, 2004, 327-340; Washburn, 2006, 1). They also maintain that the structure of technology transfer offices must be complemented with the necessary processes at the interface level. There must be a well-balanced process to manage and monitor contract research, working alongside the necessary know-how and process for legal, financial and human resources management issues. The central tech transfer office must be able to support and coordinate the research process, provide assistance on management policy, be able to access additional seed funding if needed and provide necessary opportunities for networking among entrepreneurs and academics alike.

Thorp and Goldstein (2010, 35) write: “Research universities should worry less about the revenue their tech transfer offices produce and more about how those offices can be used as an instrument for faculty recruitment and retention. By making it easier for faculty to obtain patents and negotiate license deals and spin out

companies, the university keeps faculty engaged and connected and therefore less likely to leave.” They postulate that streamlining the commercialization process by deemphasizing concerns about financial returns and adopting a more uniform faculty- friendly approach will result in the creation of more companies in a timely manner and will increase the likelihood of commercial success.

The “Guiding Principles” of the National Council of University Research Administrators (2006, 13) recommends that academics and industry partners find

ways to harmonize goals and strategies between licensing technology transfer and sponsored research operations. Because sponsored research brings in over two times the industry funding as licensing revenues, it is important not to inadvertently damage the former while pursuing the latter. “Measuring technology transfer success by licensing activity alone dooms it to failure” (13).

3. Licensing strategies encourage openness as well as adequate reward structures - The success of the licensing strategies can be achieved by structuring agreements to encourage rather than suppress the widespread use of technologies while also

providing just rewards to the industry partner. Companies are being advised to focus less on forcing their collaborators to adopt restrictive terms that will adversely affect the collaboration and more on terms that will allow all parties to achieve their goals. By working together to define mutually acceptable objectives and expectations early in the negotiations, companies and academic researchers can help to ensure that the process and the end product better meet the expectations of both parties (Melese et al., 2009, 504).

Stanford University and the University of California licensed their

recombinant DNA technology on terms that included a small upfront payment and reasonable royalties, allowing the biotechnology industry to develop this technology in its early years, producing numerous life-saving contributions and eventually

growing into a multi-billion dollar business (Blaug et al., 2004, 763). A study by Link et al. (2007, 653) suggests that universities should consider shifting the royalty

distribution formula in favor of faculty members in order to elicit more invention disclosures and participation in formal university technology transfer. The article also

suggests that universities that have a high degree of technology transfer find some way to incorporate appropriate reward systems into promotion and tenure decisions (Siegel et al., 2003, 40). Using data on 113 U.S. technology transfer offices, the authors found that universities allocating a higher percentage of royalty payments tend to be more efficient in technology transfer activities.

4. A shift from policy-based negotiations to principle-based negotiations - Casey comments that the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIPD) advocates a “paradigm shift” from a policy-based contract negotiation to a principle-based paradigm, one that is characterized by the partners determining the parameters that should be considered in selecting appropriate contract terms and conditions

(Fitzgerald, 2008, 344). One of the most significant findings from the UIPD is that there are no simple template-derived or “one-size-fits-all” solutions for these partnerships.

Contract negotiators need to fully understand:

- Who originated the idea for the project

- Who contributed background technology and background - The type and importance of non-financial contributions

- The type and importance of non-labor contributions from the university - The nature of the research, whether fundamental or applied

- The scientific disciplines involved

- The likelihood and expectation of inventions resulting from the proposed project (Fitzgerald, 2008, 345)

They also need to know more about the proposed projects than just a written statement of work. For examples, contract negotiators need to understand:

- Why researchers want to work together

- Who framed the problem that led to the proposed project - Who made the creative contributions to the statement of work

- Who has background IP that could have an impact on the proposed project - Who has key information or materials or prior research results needed for the

project (Fitzgerald, 2008, 344)

Contracts must be written in a way that reflects the project parameters and is viewed as a process, rather than a definitive solution. They must be interactive, encouraging discussion and input from all of the key stakeholders. They are also constructive and suggests terms that are fair and reasonable, which will result in less time for negotiation. The contract should seek to foster mission compatibility with the desired outcome of spurring future collaboration.

A study by Hall et al. (2001, 93) made several interesting conclusions

regarding university technology transfer function. The study found that difficulties in the negotiation of IP were positively associated with the level of share in the project as well as the lead participants’ prior experience with university partnership and negatively with the length of the project. It also observed that as the percentage of project costs that is funded by the academic partner increases, the probability that IP issues will create insurmountable barriers that inhibit the university from entering into a partnership also increases.

5. Disclosure of ownership rights - Transparent and unambiguous disclosure regarding property rights and ownership titles and an appropriate mix of incentive mechanisms was found to be a near prerequisite to a collaborative agreement (Debackere & Veugelers, 2004, 329). Balancing the need for university researchers to share their findings and the need for companies to protect the value of their investments through confidentiality agreements was also an important element for success. Well

orchestrated negotiations need to assure that the value proposition for intellectual property rights is equitable, that all parties receive a return on their investment, and that the collaborators receive equity rewards that are consistent with their

contributions.

6. Differentiating proprietary and non-proprietary research - Melese et al. (2009, 506) recommends researchers classify information into proprietary and nonproprietary categories and educate all parties as to the distinction between the two, enabling companies to share nonproprietary information with academic research partners without fear of jeopardizing future revenue and thereby increase the potential for innovation. New business strategies that promote value through open innovation research networks are more effective than traditional business strategies that promote the development of barriers to competition. New “open strategy” is being utilized which “balances the tenets of traditional business strategy with the promise of open innovation” (Melese et al., 2009, 506).