Nail It at the Design/Business Competition: Advice for Undergrad Engineering Students

Nail It at the Design/Business Competition: Advice for Undergrad Engineering Students

Nail It at the Design/Business Competition: Advice for Undergrad Engineering Students

LAatNCSU-screen_2015Editor’s note: The following are excerpts from Laura Schoppe’s guest lecture to undergraduate students in the Senior Design Project course in the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) program at North Carolina State University (NCSU). The course ends with business plan competition–style presentations by all of the students to local business managers as the judges.

Click on the slide graphics below to view larger versions.

Why Communication Is Important

Keep in mind that many of the judges are shopping for employees. This is your chance to impress them. You might get a job out of it.

Plus, the skills we’re talking about today are relevant for the rest of your life: getting a job or your next slug of funding, pitching projects internally, negotiating for salary/promotion. Even if you become a professor, you’ll be selling all the time as you try to get lab equipment or funding. Like it or not, you will constantly be selling for the rest of your professional life in order to advance your career.

 

Put It in Context for the Judges

Slide1I’ve been volunteering as a judge for the Senior Design Project for a few years. One year, there were two completely different displays in the students’ booths — one had a golf cart and one had a door. But when I asked them to describe their project, they both said something along the lines of, “I came up with the circuitry, I did some programming”… and that’s it.

It turned out that the golf cart was related to passively charging an electric car as it drove over a roadway. The other was to help a deaf person know when someone was at their door. These projects were two completely different things, but the students described them the exact same way.

You have to be able to engage the judges and get us to understand your project from the start. You need to focus not on what you are doing but why you are doing it.

 

Find the Market Fit

slide2Basic research seems okay now because you’re undergrads, but in the long term the focus is on applied research. Federal agencies are focused on solving a problem. This is even more the case at corporations, where you have to justify the investment and know how much is needed. Because it’s gotta make more than it’s gonna cost, you have to understand the market.

This may be beyond the scope of what you’re doing for this project, but you should be thinking about it. Why? Because it all fits into the business plan — either for the product or for the business itself if you’re talking about a startup.

And now it’s so easy. We used to have to buy market research reports. It has gotten to the point where you can find a whole lot of this data on the Internet. So as you’re starting your project and you’re wondering how you’d compare, do an online search. Does someone out there already offer a technology to alert a deaf person when someone is at their door? If so, how much does it cost and how easy is it to install? You’d be amazed at what you can find online.

And if you think you don’t have any competition… Even if your idea is entirely brand new, you still have competition. Instead of a product, your competition is the market doing nothing. They are surviving today without your technology. That’s still competition.

It’s never too early to think about the market and competition for your idea.

slide3Editor’s note: Laura also included a discussion about her AMMO concept for communication — learn more about the AMMO here.

 

Constructing Your Message: Focus on Benefits and Applications

Focus on what it is you have to offer, explaining what it is, its benefits, and its potential applications. Why and how are you different? Are you better, faster, cheaper? If you are more expensive and you do what already exists, you are dead in the water. If you’re much, much better, then people might pay a premium, especially for safety in certain industries, like aerospace.

Providing examples of possible applications helps the judges connect the dots between what you’ve designed and how it can be used. It makes them care about what you’ve done. Also, the panel of judges are from different industries, so you’re more likely to connect with them if you make it easier for them to see it as part of a final product. Think broadly about how what you’ve developed can be used.

 

7 Important Reminders

1. Write down your technology overview. Take 5 minutes to jot down your pitch, and then keep it as a living document that you modify as you talk to people.

2. Immediately get their mind where you need it to be. You don’t want them wondering what the heck the golf cart has to do with what you’re talking about. Your first sentence should lay out what problem you’ve solved.

3. You don’t have to get everything out right away. To begin with, you’re just trying to capture their interest. If the judge from Cisco or wherever likes what they hear from you and how you present yourself, they’ll come back to learn more.

4. You’re not educating them about how it works. Again, they’ll ask more questions if they’re interested. Plus you don’t want to ruin your ability to get a patent on your technology, so don’t disclose too much.

5. Don’t use any jargon. Your judges might not be technical. Some of them may be your professors, but many are from industry with varying backgrounds. Even the engineers among them may not be EE, and some are business-minded people. You have to connect with all of them.

6. Be presentable and dress appropriately. That doesn’t mean a suit, but not shorts and a ripped t-shirt. Taking pride in your work will impress the judges. (Here’s more advice if you’re a woman.)

7. Relax and be confident. Chances are good that you know more about what you’re presenting than they do, so relax. (Consider these 6 Ways to Reduce the Stress of Presenting from Harvard Business Review.)

Good luck!

Post Yourself at the Researcher Revolving Door: Advice for Technology Transfer

Post Yourself at the Researcher Revolving Door: Advice for Technology Transfer

Post Yourself at the Researcher Revolving Door: Advice for Technology Transfer

RevolvingDoor_iStock_000007542909Technology Transfer Tactics ran an in-depth article on best practices for handling departing faculty researchers, post-docs, visiting researchers, and the like. As one of the sources quoted, I was pleased to see the thorough treatment this topic received, because bad things can happen if you don’t stay in front of intellectual property (IP) issues when it comes to transitioning faculty:

  • Inventions that are not properly disclosed may “walk off” to the new institution or a startup.
  • Active licenses may include obligations for the researcher to provide consulting support, which may be impacted by the researcher’s departure.
  • Newly transitioned faculty who are not well versed about IP may pursue research and commercialization activities at the new institution without considering what is/isn’t appropriate.
  • It could lead to unpleasant legal battles, such as the case in California I discussed here and that prompted the TT Tactics article.

There was a lot of great advice in the TT Tactics article. Here’s my take on a few key recommendations.

Document, Document, Document

I can’t stress this enough, so I’m putting it at the top of my list. 🙂 Documentation allows you to draw a clear line in the sand about what IP (reported or pending) existed before the transition so that you can take steps to manage any anticipated issues and best handle any issues that actually arise over the long term. It also avoids a “he said–she said” type of situation. Plus if you can demonstrate that you did your due diligence to identify the issues and inform/educate the researcher and the other institution, you have a better defense in a lawsuit if things take a turn for the worse.

To get you started, Fuentek has developed forms that can serve as the structure of a checklist for outgoing faculty and for incoming faculty. (To see other useful materials from Fuentek, check out our In-Depth Insights page.)

Be Proactive

To ensure the TTO stays ahead of the IP issues, take an active role in getting the information you need. All of the best practices we’re talking about are important routine activities. Fortunately, in most cases, they should not be very time consuming for the TTO. In fact, many of these tasks can be done by administrative staff, particularly if you provide the support person with a form to fill out.

Find Out Who’s Coming and Going

Maintain close, ongoing connections with your institution’s human resources department, the office(s) in charge of sponsored research, the deans/chairs of research departments, etc. so you know whom you need to follow up with in a timely fashion.

Before Faculty Leave, Do Your Homework

When you learn of researchers’ impending departure, set up a time to have an exit interview a month or two (or even three) before they leave. Before that meeting, check the records to be clear about:

  • The inventions they already disclosed, so you have a starting point to determine if there’s anything they haven’t yet reported
  • A list of their research grants and contracts to determine if any invention disclosures are due before they depart
  • Any needed signatures, particularly for assignments on patent applications
  • Whether any established or pending licenses for the researcher’s IP include obligations to consult

Meet with Incoming Researchers

In addition to participating in new faculty orientation, I recommend having an intake meeting with them, especially if they are already established in their career and have conducted research prior to coming to your institution. This is also a great opportunity to make sure your TTO is on their radar screen and they know when and how to interact with you. The main questions for that meeting are:

  • Do they have any invention disclosures or pending/active patents or licenses owned by the prior institution?
  • If so, how will the research they will be pursuing at your institution likely relate to that commercialization activity?

Depending on the answers, ask the researcher for the tracking numbers and other key details for the relevant disclosures and patents. Then reach out to the researcher’s previous institution to identify next steps (see below).

Flag Disclosures for Newly Arrived Faculty

Kelly Sexton at N.C. State University rightly pointed out that overlap in invention disclosures filed at two different institutions can be an issue. So I recommend establishing an alert system for invention disclosures from the new faculty to help ensure that the technology evaluation appropriately considers any sticky IP situations. The more automated this can be, the better. For example, as longtime users of Wellspring’s Sophia system, we know you can easily set up an alert so the system sends an email to a TTO staff member when a particular inventor submits an invention disclosure. You can even date gate the alert so that it stops after a certain period of time.

Pay Special Attention to Startups

Faculty members are typically obligated to notify the university of their relationships with startup companies, but that notification may not routinely reach your office. So this is something for you to check on. If an incoming or outgoing faculty member is associated with a startup (as an officer, employee, equity holder etc.), your TTO will need to be kept updated to be able to flag any potential conflicts of interest as they arise when assessing commercialization options. For example, researchers may be disincentivized to notify you of other companies that may be interested in licensing their research if they have a vested interest in a startup company that is also a potential licensee. Another aspect to monitor when it comes to startups relates to the SBIR/STTR* program. Faculty startups commonly subcontract with the university for a portion of their SBIR/STTR research. This is generally favorable for all involved, including the public, but it may require careful and proactive management of any potential conflicts of interest.

Start Your Relationship with the Other TTO

Whether the faculty member has just departed for or arrived from another institution, that institution’s TTO is now part of your life. In fact, you might eventually be partners, since joint marketing and licensing might be productive/appropriate for some IP. So I recommend making a courtesy call (or at least sending a boilerplate email) to introduce yourself to the other TTO and let them know you’ve documented the IP situation at the time of the transition and ask them to contact you in the event any questions arise in the future. This will make it easier to establish one (or more) of the following agreements if it becomes appropriate:

  • Non-disclosure agreement: It may be necessary to put an NDA in place to determine whether other agreements are needed. For instance, if research will be continuing in an area where you have confidential information, you’d need an NDA if the institutions want to discuss joint marketing of technology that is not co-owned.
  • Research license: When researchers plan to continue to use IP owned by their former institution in their new role, it is prudent to put a research license in place between the two institutions to protect both of their rights. Many times a fairly simple letter agreement will suffice.
  • Inter-institutional agreement: IIAs can be time consuming to put in place, yet they might be essential to maximize the chance of commercializing technology by bundling it to enhance its attractiveness to industry. This is particularly true concerning improvements on prior IP.

Taking a proactive approach in this type of situation is Fuentek’s specialty. If your institution needs assistance in developing and implementing the strategy, processes, and/or procedures to achieve effective management of faculty transitions, contact us today. *Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (http://www.sbir.gov)

NASA Unveils New Materials and Coatings Technology Portfolio at CAMX 2015

NASA Unveils New Materials and Coatings Technology Portfolio at CAMX 2015

NASA Unveils New Materials and Coatings Technology Portfolio at CAMX 2015

Materials-pieThe Composites and Advanced Materials Expo (CAMX) is going on this week in Dallas. More than 7,000 attendees and 550 exhibitors are connecting to learn about innovative manufacturing techniques and new materials that can help solve problems and create new products. In addition to an enormous exhibit hall filled with equipment and product demonstrations, there are education sessions, technical discussion panels, and keynote presentations.

Fuentek’s Jaffer Hussein is there representing NASA and its portfolio of materials and coatings technologies. This portfolio of breakthrough innovations will benefit industrial, commercial, and residential uses and is organized on a website to make it even easier for prospective licensees to explore and locate relevant inventions. The portfolio offers key technologies in smart, high-temperature, insulation, composite, tribological, and nanomaterials. Stop by Booth ZA128 to talk to Jaffer about the NASA technologies:

  • Smart Materials: With benefits for aerospace, medical, textile, construction, and electronics industries, smart materials improve efficiency and save resources by responding to corrosion, pH changes, water content, temperature, mechanical forces, and much more
  • Nanomaterials: With unique optical, electronic, or mechanical properties, nanomaterials will revolutionize the design of future products and systems.
  • Advanced Composites: Characterized by ultra-high-strength fibers, these state-of-the-art composites include numerous polymer, nanoparticle, and polymer-fiber blends.
  • Insulation Materials: The flexible, lightweight, and thermal properties of these breakthrough materials will conserve energy, reduce repair costs, and save lives.
  • High-Temperature Materials: These polyimides, metal alloys, and carbon-polymer composites resist damage, increase product lifetimes, and save energy.
  • Tribological Materials: These advanced alloys and composites represent a major advancement for the field of bearings and related mechanisms and are designed to function in extreme conditions.

NASA has a long history of finding new, inventive uses for its space and aeronautics technologies. From materials that improve industrial and household products to coatings and insulations that protect satellites, machinery, and firefighters, these technologies offer smart solutions for modern challenges. Explore the new materials and coatings portfolio to see for yourself how NASA technologies can solve real-world problems.

Finding the Fit in Industry-University Collaborations: Advice for Companies

Finding the Fit in Industry-University Collaborations: Advice for Companies

Finding the Fit in Industry-University Collaborations: Advice for Companies

Richard W. Chylla

Richard W. Chylla

Editor’s note: Today’s post was co-authored by Fuentek president Laura Schoppe and Richard W. Chylla, Ph.D., executive director of MSU Technologies, the technology transfer and commercialization office for Michigan State University. Schoppe and Chylla also co-authored a paper published in Research–Technology Management and presented a free webinar based on that paper.  

Collaboration between well-matched partners is a synergistic way for a company to enter a clearly defined, adjacent market based on breakthrough technology to achieve higher growth. University and government labs across the United States collectively represent a potentially useful partner, given that they have capabilities, expertise, and intellectual property (IP) portfolios that support commercial products. And because many of them are keen to partner with industry, they have been simplifying their policies and offering new programs to facilitate collaboration.

Today’s blog post summarizes one such university program, and we provide specific advice for entering into discussions with potential collaborators… and knowing when it’s time to move on.

MSU Business-CONNECT and Master Agreements

The MSU Business-CONNECT office is staffed with business development specialists who act as a concierge service for companies that wish to engage with the university, be it for research, finding interns, looking for new technology, or hiring recent graduates. These specialists, who have spent large parts of their careers in industry, also negotiate the contracts with companies for service or sponsored research agreements (SRAs).

MSU has found the Master Agreement approach to collaboration especially effective. Such “blanket” agreements allow sponsors to provide funding over several years while allowing for IP treatment to vary in the individual projects. When a Master Agreement is in place:

  • Both the university and the company have a shared interest in the success of the partnership over multiple projects and several years.
  • Each side becomes familiar with the working processes of the other.
  • Relationships are built between the company representative(s) and the university’s business development specialist.
  • Both sides are more attentive to the needs of each other than they are under a single-project SRA.

In a recent example, faculty at MSU worked on a project for a major utility company under a Master Agreement. During the execution of the project, external changes in the marketplace made it imperative that the project timeline be accelerated. Because of the strong relationship that was developed over prior years between the company and the university:

  • MSU understood that timing changes were frequently necessary in projects for this company.
  • Faculty were informed of the potential for such changes when the project work plan was originally being developed.

Therefore, the project at MSU was able to be reshuffled and completed early to meet the company’s need.

This example demonstrates how a long-term relationship between a university and a company promotes greater understanding and leads to increased flexibility in both parties, improving the R&D process.

Discussions with Potential Collaborators

If your research reveals a specific faculty member conducting relevant research, begin by contacting that individual, preferably by telephone as well as email. However, if you are uncertain about whom to contact—or if the faculty researcher is being unresponsive—contact the institution’s office or department responsible for establishing collaborations with industry. This might be the Technology Transfer Office, the Industry Relations Office, the Office of Sponsored Research, etc. The staff in these offices may be helpful in identifying the relevant researcher(s) and helping faculty recognize the importance of industry collaborations, increasing their responsiveness.

The following preparations will help your initial conversations be productive:

  • Express your technical need or area of interest where the institution’s expertise is sought. This includes describing the challenge using terminology that will be understood by a university/government researcher (i.e., avoid company- or industry-specific jargon).
  • Be aware of any technical requirements or specifications that need to be addressed in the collaborative R&D (e.g., speed, precision, accuracy, functionality).
  • Articulate the potential benefits of partnership, particularly the expertise, capabilities, and/or finances your company will be able to provide to the institution.

Your company can provide reassurances that the agreement is fair and reasonable by showing the value of the benefits offered to the university or government partner, such as:

  • Access to company equipment
  • Favorable publicity
  • Positive economic impact through business expansion and/or hiring

This is particularly helpful at universities, where the balance between “be industry friendly” and “don’t sell out cheap” can be difficult to strike.

Questions to ask of the prospective university or government collaborator include:

  • What are some of the key capabilities or technologies within your area of expertise that you feel overlap with our need? Can you provide relevant papers or other materials?
  • What could you offer to the engagement if we were to enter into a partnership?
  • Are there funding opportunities that you will be applying for where a partnership with a company might be beneficial?
  • Do you need any information from us in order to determine your potential for working under an R&D partnership?

Signs That It Is Time to Move On

Successfully pursuing collaborations requires balancing tenacity/patience with a willingness to abandon a particular prospect in favor of another one, particularly if any of the following is happening.

Unwillingness to Discuss IP Rights

Although greater flexibility has been observed at many institutions, some universities are still reluctant to explore various possibilities. If the topic of IP rights seems to be creating an impasse, consider looking at other, more flexible institutions.

Inability to Align Schedules

If the timeframe that the company requires conflicts with the availability of the researcher, the collaboration likely should be abandoned.

Unresponsive or Indifferent Researchers

Other priorities might redirect a researcher’s interest away from collaboration. If the faculty member’s early enthusiasm in a partnership begins to wane, another researcher and/or another institution might be a better match for the company.

Limitations of “A-List” Players

Leading faculty and institutions are highly sought after and, therefore, are very selective about the work they do. Rather than struggle to get the attention of the top-tier players, who can afford to be choosy, companies may do better to seek out other researchers/institutions with sufficient qualifications.

 

We hope you find the insights offered here will help your company approach academic and federal institutions efficiently and effectively. These insights can be extrapolated into the licensing of technologies developed at these organizations. For more information, feel free to contact Laura Schoppe through the Fuentek website.

Consolidating Multi-Campus Tech Transfer: The Foundation Option

Consolidating Multi-Campus Tech Transfer: The Foundation Option

Consolidating Multi-Campus Tech Transfer: The Foundation Option

ConnectedTwo weeks ago Tech Transfer Central’s eNews Blog featured a new effort by the Purdue Research Foundation to pool its resources with several related organizations — including other research centers and an entrepreneurial incubator — to increase innovation, research grant awards, and tech transfer throughout Indiana. According to the original news release, this collaboration will be managed by a board of advisers composed of local and state stakeholders as well as educational and economic partners.

This struck me as a great example of the value provided by foundations that reside outside of the state university structure and own/manage the institution’s intellectual property (IP). Several state universities have implemented foundations to manage their technology transfer programs, entrepreneurship support, and more. These foundations can take advantage of greater flexibility in deal structure, reduced bureaucracy, more autonomy, and a broadening of services.

For example, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) offers an Accelerator Program to speed commercialization of IP emerging from the UW–Madison. Looking beyond basic research or exploratory science, the program is designed to identify discoveries with potentially high commercial value, providing targeted funding and expert advice from “Catalysts” (i.e., seasoned business mentors). WARF Accelerator grants, which typically have ranged from $75,000 to $125,000, help inventions achieve technical milestones and advance to the marketplace.

Another example is the MSU Innovation Center (Michigan State University), which offers several grants as well as tech transfer services via MSU Technologies, entrepreneurial assistance through Spartan Innovations, and business development under MSU Business CONNECT.

Indeed, the number of examples goes on:

All of these organizations are tied to a single campus. But as I discussed in a past blog post and white paper, certain elements of a multi-campus university system’s technology transfer program could be consolidated into a single organization. Although not everything can be consolidated — because on-campus tech transfer offices are absolutely essential — some duplication of effort and other inefficiencies could be avoided via a separate, non-university, not-for-profit entity that was the assignee for the entire university system’s IP portfolio.

In other words, a centralized foundation that serves multiple campuses of a public university system.

A foundation that centralizes/consolidates some activities offers several advantages over fully distributing all responsibilities across multiple campuses:

  • The infrastructure costs (e.g., building, staff, IT systems) are reduced.
  • Commercialization decisions are more likely to be based on market factors rather than internal, campus-specific pressures.
  • Consolidating IP portfolios across campuses makes it easier for businesses to find the technologies or research expertise they need.
  • Consistent and standardized processes and policies make deal-making easier for businesses.
  • A greater diversity in skill sets can be obtained from fewer staff overall.
  • Smaller universities can obtain the same quality service as larger research institutions.

In fact, the foundation could expand to also serve the state’s community college system, which has low invention disclosure rates and almost no tech transfer infrastructure. A centralized foundation could provide that infrastructure for the few inventions that do emerge.

The foundation could also consolidate resources for entrepreneurs — keeping the best-in-class programs going while repurposing the funding that was supporting duplicative and/or less effective programs.

Of course, for such a foundation to be successful, it must be structured carefully. In particular, the IP emerging from individual campuses must be automatically assigned to the foundation. This is crucial because if the IP is still owned by each individual school, it will be too easy for the big campuses (or even a smaller campus that hits the royalty revenue jackpot) to pull out and keep all of their royalty revenue rather than leverage it via the foundation to support services for all the campuses.

One option in establishing such a foundation is to leverage an existing organization that is focused on entrepreneurial business innovation and economic advancement, either broadly or in a specific industry area. It might be faster and easier to use an existing organization as the owner/manager, although its current structure and charter likely would have to be significantly modified to accommodate a centralized foundation.

BTW, a few months ago I posed a question on LinkedIn about distributing and/or centralizing tech transfer functions across large, multi-campus/lab organizations. An interesting conversation developed in the GAIN group — check it out here.

Of course, establishing such a foundation requires significant strategic planning and consensus building via effective communication — two skills that are a core part of what we do. If your university system is contemplating such an endeavor, feel free to contact me to discuss how Fuentek can provide value-added support.