Here are key takeaways from our webinar with Tech Transfer Central on incorporating innovation and entrepreneurship activities into promotion and tenure decisions. We highlight recent developments of the university coalition guiding this effort and outline key tips for individuals leading conversations on this subject on their campuses.
The notion of incorporating innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) into promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions is by no means new. But making the concept a reality has been a struggle for many universities. Now, a diverse coalition of universities will be gathering for a September 16-18, 2020 P&T summit, thanks to funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the leadership of Professor Rich Carter from Oregon State University. Below is my conversation with Rich as we were preparing for a P&T session at AUTM 2020.
In October I was honored to moderate a session at AUTM’s Eastern Region Meeting in Raleigh, NC, delving into the wide range of initiatives that universities are undertaking to consider tech transfer activities in tenure and promotion reviews. Our panelists support the inclusion of commercialization activities in faculty advancement decisions and offered specific examples from their own experience for the field to consider moving forward.
I had the pleasure to recently co-host an Innovation Roundtable on ‘Managing Corporate Innovation Across Sites’ with Wellspring Worldwide. Attended by a diverse cross-section of innovation leaders from industries including finance, high tech, and manufacturing, this interactive forum provided a unique opportunity to exchange best practices, ideas, and challenges in driving innovation.
As research universities are placing an increased emphasis on economic development, we agree that it’s entirely appropriate—even essential—that faculty advancement decisions include activities in tech transfer, innovation, and entrepreneurship, just as they include published research papers in these decisions. We are excited to delve into this topic at a session we’re moderating this fall at AUTM’s Eastern Region Meeting in Raleigh, NC.
Broader marketing efforts—those that demonstrate your tech transfer know-how—can elevate the profile of your technology transfer office (TTO). It can also cultivate productive relationships with your organization’s researchers, management, and potential partners/licensees. To help TTOs be successful with these efforts, this post shares the best practices that Fuentek has found to be effective time and again with our clients.
Summer is a great time of year to be in Minneapolis. (I used to row under that bridge!) And it’s particularly nice when I also get to participate in a session at the AUTM Central Region Meeting. The session—Ownership in the University Setting: Do You Own What You Think You Own?—will discuss the often complex intellectual property (IP) issues that occur in the university setting.
At a growing number of universities, technology transfer offices (TTOs) are being asked to educate students about protecting IP, evaluating a technology’s market potential, licensing, and so forth. Making classroom connections has several benefits for the TTO. Read about AUTM panelists’ efforts as well as university training offerings for current and future tech transfer professionals.
Fuentek has two webinars you won’t want to miss. Both focus on how to enhance the relationship between the researchers developing intellectual property (IP) and the technology transfer office (TTO) professionals tasked with protecting and commercializing it. Because by doing so, both departments can be more successful. The live webinars from summer 2017 were recorded and are available now.
What makes an invention disclosure a high-quality invention disclosure? This is an interesting question that has nothing to do with the quality of the technology. Fundamentally, a high-quality disclosure includes enough detail for a patent attorney to identify novel aspects for patentability. It also includes the inventor’s perspective on the technology’s commercialization value. This helps the TTO to better evaluate the invention’s market potential and commercialization options. Unfortunately, many invention disclosure submissions come up short. The possible reasons for this vary. But mostly it seems to boil down to a lack of researcher understanding of the importance and role of the invention disclosure.
