1

Managing University Resources: Increasing and Diversifying Financial Resources and Developing

Public Private Partnerships

Marina DabicUniversity of Zagreb

Faculty of Economics and Businessmdabic@efzg.hr

2

3

Overview of the presentation University Funding Case of Croatia Initial Findings: A Study in Diversity Implementing change in the face of diversity: No

common starting points in countries that we took in consideration

Facing the cost of change: Differing levels of support

Requirements for change Working groups aims

4

THE EMERGING HIGER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

STUDENTS* ENLIGHENED & DEMANDING

* NEW DIMENSION OF KNOWLEDGESATISFACTION

SUPPLIERS

TEHNOLOGY* RAPID ADVANCEMENT

*SHORTENED LIFECYCLES

MARKET* GLOBALISATION

* TURBULENCE

EXISTINGCOMPETITORS

NEWCOMPETITORS

UNIVERSITIES UNDER

GROWING PRESSURE

* TIME - TO - MARKET PRESSURE

* PRICING PRESSURE

* GLOBAL QUALITY STANDARDS

* VARIETY & CUSTOMISATION

5

Our objectives is to find answers to listed questions What’s right What’s wrong What is important Are we going forward or backward What’s needed to be done

A new approach

6

What ‘we’ need to see A perfect match to declared objectives Opportunity for positive association The level of the posibiliy of goal achievement A demonstrable awareness of what we are all

about

7

It is what we asked for • A clear problem • A fresh approach • Something no-one has done before • Something that will make a difference • Something that will transfer Contribute to the funding debate from an institutional Perspective Provide examples of good practice in financial resources

and full public private partnership Identify the relationship between funding/costing and autonomy, governance and accountability. Further

develop initial findings through integration of external presentations and experience from participating experts

8

Drivers of Change

Shifts emphasis –from funding to resource and activities

Global monitoring of university resources Innovative creation of solution concepts to

exploit technology Funding of technology creation only in very

special cases or that should be applicable to all

9

10

Integrated Research Programmes for Scale of Impact

Increase probability of impact by alignment behind common goals:•Stakeholders, Funding, People, skills/capabilities, disciplines•Weight of effort and skills spectrum to match problem•Clarity of direction for all stakeholders towards exploitation•Spin-off disruptive technologies within relevance envelope•Greater potential for the scale of impact

11

University Funding: Approaching a crossroads

University

Competence set

Model of Financing

Matching performance management

systems

12

GROUP WORK TASK Duration 30 minutes Analyse the chosen universities from your respective

countries by applying four elements of SWOT analysis. Please write down the results on a piece of paper.

Choose a group representative to present results of their SWOT analysis to the audience.

Finally, let us compare the results of each group and identify common charachteristics of the results.

13

Assessment Review ProcessAn Interactive Discussion during Workshop

Start At The Highest Level– Defining Success (SWOT)

• What is it?• How it is measured?

– What Have you Done To-Date (IP, Research Tool & funding,key budget issues )

• Competitiveness of faculty and staff salaries, etc.

– What Is Needed to Pursue (Work Plans) • Innovation Management• IP Warehouse/Tools, etc.• Student Faculty ratio• Research Networks

14

What Do We Need To Continue Growing & Expanding?

15

SWOT AnalysisStrength

What areas have produced success to-date?

16

SWOT Analysis

WeaknessesWhat are we missing today that will be critical

to have in place and operating effectively in order to achieve the goals we set (Financial

& Otherwise)?

17

SWOT AnalysisOpportunities

What situations exist that will enable us to maintain and improve our success

and find new levels of performance and results?

18

SWOT Analysis

ThreatsWhat issues are out there that can or will

challenge our ability to meet your development targets?

19

Task 2Internal / External Assessment

Where Do You Stand Compared to Other Universities:

In Your Country In Europe Worldwide

Give the mark from 1(lowest)-5 (highest) Put the marks on the pieece of the paer without

naming university. Discussion

20

What we like What could be improved What is valued What worked well in the financing Credibility The Future

The HE Roadmap

Three Questions

#1 What are today’s most pressing scientific challenges?

#2 What are the road blocks to progress and finacial growth?

#3 What efforts bridge HE as a whole?

Three Major Topics# #1 Enrollment growth and graduate

enrollment “Networks and pathways”

#2 Research teams of the future“Interdisciplinary”“Public private partnerships”

#3 Re-engineering the university's financial sources

“University's Research networks““Community research”

23

Which universities have produced success to-date?

24

What Are Your Universities Primary Needs Regarding The Universites

Resources?

25

In Addition To Financial Targets, What Other Metrics Might You

Consider?

26

1 5

32 4

The Legislative framework

1 5

32 4

-Science and Research

1 5

32 4

1 5

32 4

On Track

Warning

Off Track

On target

Excellent

Innovation

Public Perception

1 5

32 4

Trend

01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4

Trend

01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4

Trend

01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4

Trend

01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4

Financing from the National Budget and own revenue

1 5

32 4

Trend

01Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4

Non profit or profit making institutions

27

How does the co-operation work?

Matching business needs with applied research potential of the University

Applying for additional resources to finance joint projects

Coordinating the protection and marketing of University's intellectual property

Informing on innovation and entrepreneurship

28

Do you have regulations of the University on the protection of intellectual property rights and the handling of intellectual property?

29

Current Environment

Lack of consistent administrative rules and clear national legislation regarding ownership rights to IP created at academic institutions

throughout the CEE hurt both the inventors and the institutions.– Lack of clear ownership of IP leads to delays in licensing processes (at

a minimum) and at worst makes IP impossible to license at all.

– The academic institutions in the CEE must work at the national level, if necessary, to ensure that the ownership rights in the academic field are clearly defined.

Institutions may lose financial opportunities because they may not provide sufficient administrative support and incentive for researchers to entrust the administration with their IP.

30

UniversityInnovation Fund

Exploitation of University IP(20% to UF, 50-80% to inventor)

INCOMES

COSTS

UniversityCentral Budget

(=???)

Fees ofIP Protection Running expenses of

Patents

Other costs

31

Learning from best

“Taking inspiration from the United States, nearly all other OECD countries have reformed research funding regulations or employment laws to allow research institutions to file, own and license the IP generated with public research funds.” Prominent among these are Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Japan and Korea.See: OECD report “Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations 2003”

32

Benefits of partnership in the US

450 new companies were formed in 2002 based on University research. Since 1980 - 4,320 companies have been formed

2,076 new products have been created by university researchers

Universities and their scientists received $ 1.3 billion in 2002 from technology transfer activities (3.6% of total funding)

260,000 new high paying jobs created (1999 Survey)

40 Billion added to US economy (1999 Survey)

33

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

U.S. Patents Filed on behalf of Universities

Patents Filed

Observations:• Patent Activity Accelerates• 9-Year Trend Of Steady Growth• An increase of 244% in ten years

Source: AUTM, 2000 Survey

34

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

U.S. Invention Disclosures at Universities

InventionDisclosures

Observations:• 9-Years Of Consistent Growth• An increase of 66% in ten years

Source: AUTM, 2000 Survey

35

Patent Office Statistics

Each week, the Patent Office issues approximately 3,500 new patents.

– 1998: 240,090 applications filed

– 2002: 335,418 applications filed

– An increment of 40% in 4 years

Biotechnology-related patent applications increased 154% from 1996 to 2002, from 18,695 applications to 47,473.

36

Exploitation of University IP

National and EU Funds

Industrial finance

Collaborators

Material Transfer Agreements

Secrecy Declarations

„Only” publication„Only” publication University Ownership of the

IP

University Ownership of the

IP

Common Ownership of the IP

Common Ownership of the IP

Used IPWho owns the IP?Who owns the IP?

Service patent?

Employee’s patent?

Inventor’s patent?

Who has the right of exploitation?

Who has the right to buy a license?

1. Inventor 2. Inventor … n. Inventor

Industrial partner owns the IP

Industrial partner owns the IP

Royalty to the University?

No more question.

To be decidedTo be

decided

OutputsOutputs

StakeholdersStakeholdersUniversity

37

Levels of Technology Transfer

Service type functions

Managing industrial partners

Building up an IP portfolio (patents etc.)

IP marketing (lisence stb.)

Spin-off companies

Business type functions

„Pre-seed” financing

Complexity

IP-legal advise and support

• Material Transfer Agreements• Secrecy Declarations• Consultancy

Changing the attitude towards patenting

Incubator, science park

Level 1University patent office(~”local IP manager”)

Level 2Full function TTO – incubator(„business-development”)

38

Patent WarehousingIs This A Strategy to Be Pursued?

What is it?– Independent Non-profits managing patents and

have the authority to grant licenses– Warehouse provides holders with a minimum

income based on % generated by the warehouse– Primary Purpose of Patent Warehousing– Promote scientific progress & technology

development by providing incentives for inventors and entrepreneurs

– How Established Is This Strategy?

39

• Inventions 151* 669• Licenses 49* 130• Total US Patent Applications 238* 902• Issued US Patents 31* 89• Start-up Companies 4* 14• License Income Millions Received) $2.0 $9.4

• Associated R&D (Millions Committed) $2.7 * $9.6

(~60% of R&D commitments already received)

Performance Metric 2004 5-Yr Total

* Denotes all time high

Technology Transfer Summary John Hopkins University

Key to success

Invention Disclosers

Invention Disclosers

Invention Disclosers

Invention Disclosers

41

Task 3. Readiness Assessment

–Evaluates an organizations ability to carry out a defined task(s) or produce a particular set of results

Areas for readiness include:–Adequate staffing (Staff coverage / training)–Policies & procedures –Facilities & equipment –General experience

42

Discuss financial success is linked to academic success

and that the process of generating non-government funding is likely in the longer term to increase the differentiation between universities and particularly between the 'successful' and the less 'successful' institutions.

43

demonstrable excellence in Learning & Teaching

Evidence of: Student impact Impact on colleagues Impact on community ‘Ambassador’ for University

44

Task 4. Learning from Best Practiceresourcing from excellence

Activity Circulate and discuss Decide amongst you which university should be awarded and why. You have 10 minutes for discussion and to give Financial Time

Award! Define criteria to evaluate practice Purpose Context & Content Process Feedback

45

What areas of Strategic/Business Development Do You Think Should

Be Pursued?

46

Summary -Key messages

•The path to benefit is unclear Raise public awarnase the academic base -step changes towards

Solution Concepts •More joint research / funding bodies •Share risk, share cost, create multiple exploitation routes •Step changes in the use of the funding •New mechanisms of private public partnerships, University positioning •Management and funding cultures, choice of metrics Foster discussion and dialogue among policy makers, practitioners, researchers, professional associations,students

47

Developing A Workable PlanNext Steps

Consolidate all of the input from our discussions Place it into a model in which we can fully review

everything in its entirety Review current situation Assess what is really possible Prepare recommendations to be considered