Master Thesis
International Financial Management
Critical success factors in the valorization of life science research.
A cross-case study analysis of the University of Groningen,
Uppsala University and Jagiellonian University.
Author:
Michał Ryś (s1942859)
Supervisor: Dr Hein Vrolijk
Co-assessor: Dr Wim Westerman
ABSTRACT
The main goal of this thesis is to develop an upgraded list of critical success factors in the valorization of life science research.
The research takes form of a cross-case study analysis and use of the methodological triangulation which combined both qualitative and quantitative methods: literature review, interviews, and the online questionnaire. The research was conducted in three locations: Groningen, Uppsala and Krakow, with focus on the main universities from these cities.
The upgraded list consists of 14 critical success factors. Moreover, this research identified 5 types of organizations that are fundamental for each life science research valorization system at university.
The findings of this research seem to be applicable by each university that is active or would like to be active in life science research valorization.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This master thesis is dedicated to my grandmother Teresa. She was with me, when my research started, but could not see me graduate, because she passed away due to cancer. I believe, that drugs for all types of cancer can be discovered and life science research at university will be one of the sources of these discoveries.
This thesis would not have been possible if not for the support of many people.
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Hein Vrolijk, for all the efforts he made and all the time he spent supporting me. I owe my deepest gratitude to him.
I am grateful to Dr Wim Westerman, co-assessor of my thesis and great teacher of Advanced Financial Management .
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my father Andrzej, who encouraged me to write my thesis about the valorization of life science research at university and gave me his support from the very beginning.
I would like to show my gratitude to all the people, that I had the pleasure of interviewing and for all the people, that responded to the online questionnaire. Especially, I would like to thank Dr Lars Jonsson from Uppsala University – this research would not be possible without his support.
For all the consults and advice, I would like to thank Dr Katarzyna Czabanowska.
I owe my loving thanks to my family, especially my mother Donata, grandmother Maria, grandfather Roman, sister Anna and brother Maciej. I could always count on their support during my research.
I would like to thank all my friends for believing, that I can successfully finish my thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION...
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 2.1. Operational definitions ... 2.2. Idea, invention, innovation ... 2.3. Venture financing cycle ... 2.4. University technology development ... 2.5. Valorization of the life science research at university – in search of critical success factors ... Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY ... 3.1. Research design ... 3.2. Research phases ... 3.3. Research methods ... 3.3.1. Literature review ... 3.3.2. Sample selection and the interviews …... 3.3.3. Sample selection and an online questionnaire …... 3.4. Selection criteria ... 3.5. Ethical considerations ...
Chapter 4. RESULTS …... 4.1. The tradition of research valorization ... 4.2. Organizations involved in the valorization …... 4.3. An online questionnaire - actual presence …... 4.4. The general importance …... 4.5. Capacities …... 4.6. Culture …... 4.7. Commitment …... 4.8. Open Innovation …... 4.9. Other PCSFs identified in literature …... 4.10. PCSFs and/or critical success factors – an overview of the results …...
Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION …... 5.1. Summary of the research results …... 5.2. Additional critical success factors …... 5.3. Critical success factors – the managerial perspective …... 5.4. The thoughts about this research …...
REFERENCES ...
Appendix A. THE OUTCOME OF THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ...
Appendix B. INTERVIEW SCHEME ...
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Innovation is an impetus of the knowledge-based economy and the modern economy, to be developed in a sufficient way, must be based on knowledge (OECD, 1996). The importance of the universities in the knowledge creation process is obvious. However, knowledge is expected to be transferred to the economy, not to stay within the walls of the university’s buildings. Nillson et al. (2006) noticed the original mission of the university, to create and disseminate knowledge by teaching and doing research. Nowadays it is completed with a mission to transfer research results to social stakeholders and the market. This transfer is called valorization.
There are plenty of fields in science where research results might be valorized, but this thesis is focused on life science, particularly human-related sciences. From the public perspective, life science is a very promising field, with huge potential benefits for Public Health and economic growth. Thus, a significant portion of Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research&Development (GERD) goes to life science research, e.g. in Sweden (Nilsson et al., 2006). From a private perspective, investing in life science is an attractive opportunity, because it could bring a high return. Both public and private sectors are expected to benefit from the new inventions that come from the life science field, therefore there is a great need for this kind of knowledge creation and its valorization.
However, knowledge about the valorization of life science research at university is very limited. There are many reasons, that could explain this situation, but there is one, which seems to be the most influential – the time factor. Firstly, the valorization of the research at university is quite a young phenomenon. In fact, many universities still perceive valorization as something unwanted or even dangerous. The first individual examples of the research valorization at university could be dated back to the 1920s (Etzkowitz, 2008), but in a wider form, this process started after the Second World War and accelerated in the 1980s (Shane, 2004).
Secondly, life science is a young field. Although, when one considers medicine and pharmacy are part of life science, it could be said, that this field has already existed for centuries. But in a modern form - which is the subject of this thesis, the beginning of life science is dated to 1953 – the discovery of the DNA structure by James D. Watson and Francis Crick. The real boost probably started in 1980, when the United States Supreme Court decided, that “a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable” (United States Supreme Court, 1980).
there is a so-called European Paradox (European Commission, 1995), which states, that although European scientific performance (e.g. measured by the number of publications) is at the highest World level, it is not transferred into the same high technological performance (e.g. measured by the number of patents). In short, European universities are behind US and Japanese universities in the results of research valorization. Thus, there was an evident need for the implementation of a more pro-innovative European policy.
In March 2000, The European Council launched the Lisbon Strategy. The main objective for the European Union (EU) was “to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion and respect for the environment”. However, as it could be said after evaluation done in 2010, the main targets: 3% of Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research&Development (GERD) 1 and a 70% employment rate for the population aged between
15-64) in the whole EU, were not reached2 (European Commission, 2010a). Thus, the new and even
more ambitious strategy (e.g. GERD remained at the same level of 3%, but the employment rate rose to a level of 75%), Europe 2020, was proposed by the European Commission in March 2010. It is also the European answer for the financial crisis (European Commission, 2010b).
In general, the EU policy is very supportive for research valorization at university (Arundel and Bordoy, 2008). Moreover, Europe 2020 brings two initiatives for innovation in the life science field: Innovation Union and Resource Efficient Europe (Giovacchini E., 2011). All of these elements show how vital the subject of the valorization of life science research at university in EU is. Thus, the aim of this thesis is to complete the knowledge about the critical success factors in the valorization of life science research, with focus on European universities. In order to achieve the results, which are not biased by one-country specificity, it was decided to do the international study and three universities were investigated: the University of Groningen (The Netherlands), Uppsala University (Sweden) and Jagiellonian University (Poland).
The structure of this thesis is organized as follows: Chapter 2 presents the literature review and theoretical background of the research conducted for this study. In Chapter 3, the methodology of the conducted research is explained and in Chapter 4, the results of this research are presented. Chapter 5 discusses the findings, concludes the whole thesis and gives thoughts about the study.
1 1% public and 2% private, target set by Barcelona European Council in 2002.
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the main concepts, which are related to the valorization of research at university, with focus on life science. Chapter 2 starts with operational definitions, then more advanced theory is presented and at the end, based on literature, the research questions are formulated.
2.1. Operational definitions
In this paragraph, the main operational definitions are introduced.
Valorization – according to The Dutch Innovation Platform, valorization is “the process of value
creation from knowledge by making it suitable and/or available for economic and/or social use by translating it into competitive products, services, processes or new commercial activities”. In short, “valorization is the transformation of knowledge into concrete new products, services and processes” (both definitions come from: Laane and Besteman, 2009). Noteworthy, in some countries the word commercialization is used instead of the word valorization, however both terms mean virtually the same.
University research valorization – to paraphrase the above definitions, university research
valorization is the transformation of the results from a university's research into concrete new products, services and processes.
Life science - the definition of life science is very broad. According to the Princeton WordNet
dictionary it is “any of the branches of natural science dealing with the structure and behavior of living organisms”. However, in this thesis, focus is put on human-related sciences. The most visible science is Biotechnology, particularly thanks to its usage in new drug development.
After introducing the main operational definitions, which are used in this thesis, relevant theories and models are presented in the next section.
2.2. Idea, invention, innovation
This paragraph gives an overview on innovation related concepts. It started from definitions, moves onto the so called sequential model of development and funding and ends with the presentation of difficulties that interrupt the valorization process.
process to the market.
It is important to notice, that innovation is not equal to Invention. Innovation has a market value, whereas invention, even the best one, may never reach the market. Nordfors at al. (2003) illustrates this difference: “Thomas Alva Edison claimed over 1000 patents. Only seven were commercially successful: the light bulb, the phonograph, the alkaline battery, acetate film, the film projector, power production and transmission, and the microphone.”
Before innovation, there is an invention, but before an invention, there is an Idea. This path from an idea to the valorization of the innovation is called technology transfer (Apax Partners, 2005), which could be seen as an essential subset of wider notion: the knowledge transfer. One of the models, which describes the evolution from basic research (ideas and concepts) to the business enterprise, is presented below (Auerswald and Branscomb, 2003).
Picture 2.1. Sequential model of development and funding
Source: Branscomb, L.M. and Auerswald, P.E. (2002), Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for Early Stage Technology Development, p. 33.
According to these authors, Stage 1 is the beginning of the research, when generally there are only concepts and ideas (so-called Basic Research), Stage 2 is an invention, that could be patented (or protected in other ways), Stage 3 is when the market value of the invention could be estimated, Stage 4 is the product development to the final version and finally Stage 5 is ready innovative business. As authors claim, Stage 3 is the critical one, because at this stage, invention is transferred into a business plan and can demonstrate a potential commercial value.
2002) coined the term “Valley of Death” to illuminate this problem. Branscomb and Auerswald (2002) suggest to use the term “Darwinian Sea”, because the space between two “shores” in not dry, but full of business and technical ideas fighting for survival. Charles Wessner goes further and claims that the “Valley of Death” and “Darwinian Sea” are not different pictures of almost the same thing, but two obstacles in the valorization process, following one by one. After passing the “Valley of Death”, innovation is hitting the competitive market and needs to “fight” to become a viable business. There are many examples in history, such as a “format war” 3 between Betamax and VHS
formats, when not the best (e.g. technologically) product, but the best promoted to the market, becomes the leader.
Although the term “Darwinian Sea” could be seen as wider and more suitable, to illustrate the financial gap between basic research and proof of concept, the term “Valley of Death” is commonly used. Thus, this term is used in this thesis.
Picture 2.2. The “Valley of Death” and “Darwinian Sea”
Source: based on Branscomb, L.M. and Auerswald, P.E. (2002).
Having the main theoretical issues explained, more practical models are presented in the following part.
2.3. Venture financing cycle
This paragraph deals with a business view on the valorization process. It is worth starting with a more industry-oriented model, because many terms used (in this model) are similar to those ones used in the case of a university's research valorization. Ruhnka and Young (1987) have made a venture capital model of the development process for new ventures, which has 5 stages:
1. Seed stage – an idea or concept only, the prototype is not developed or was not tested yet, there is no management, only technicians. The major goals identified by Ruhnka and Young are the production of the working prototype, making a market assessment and building the structure of the company. Major risks are that the concept cannot be transformed into a workable prototype, the potential market is too small, there could be delays in development,
funds could run out or the product cannot be produced at a competitive cost.
2. Start-up/first stage - at this level, the business plan and market analysis are completed, the prototype is under evaluation or the product is ready to market, however the management team is sometimes incomplete. Major goals are to have a product ready to market (if it is still a prototype), to make some initial sales and verify demand, establish manufacturing feasibility and have the full management completed. Major risks identified by authors are similar to the seed stage; however there is one new concern, that the founder cannot either manage or attract the key management.
3. Second stage – the market is receptive, there are some orders, a marketing push is needed and the management team is completed. Major goals at this stage are to achieve market penetration and sales, to reach break-even or profitability and to increase production capacity or reduce unit cost. A major risk is now related to the failure of the management team. Another risk, is that the product is not competitive on the market. The third ranked risks are related to the too high cost, not sufficient profit margin and that size and growth of the market is lower than projected one.
4. Third stage - is also an expansion phase. The company has significant sales and orders, but the existing market is still expanding, thus there is a need for the working capital to grow. However, business is profitable or almost profitable. Major goals are related to meeting the expected targets, such as sales, growth, market share, cash flow, break-even or profitability. At this stage, preparation for the Initial Public Offering (IPO), buyout or merger begins. A major risk is once again related to the management skills of the founders, which could be weak. Also the sales level or market share could be below expectation. The new risk is the appearance of unexpected competition. Generally, it could also happen at every other stage, but investors identified this risk as significant only at the third stage.
5. Mezzanine/Bridge – the company is profitable (or at break-even point), sales are increasing, the product is established, management is experienced. Ruhnka and Young point out also, that at this stage, there is a need to improve the balance sheet for IPO or for sales, thus the major goal is to achieve profitability. Another major goal is to increase the market share, which is in line with the major risk, that this goal is not achieved. The second ranked risk is that there are some problems with exit an investment. Also problems with management may be a critical risk at this stage.
strategies are strategies are IPO4 and acquisition, merger, buyback, and liquidation (Khurshed and
Abdulkadir, 2009; Cumming and Johan 2008).
Expected risk of loss decreases and expected rate of return increase on a stage by stage basis. The largest change is observed after the seed and first-stage financing phases (Ruhnka and Young, 1991).
Picture 2.3. Startup financing cycle
Source: Based on: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Startup_financing_cycle.svg/700px-Startup_financing_cycle.svg.png,, accessed 10.10.2011
Venture Capital/Private Equity funds are usually interested in investing in the more advanced stages of development, thus to overcome the “Valley of Death” and to move forward the valorization process, needed capital must be provided in another way. In some cases, Business Angels (wealthy individuals) are eager to invest their private money into projects, which are at the very initial stage of development (Acs and Audretsch (Eds.), 2003).
Because knowledge transfer is expected to be valuable for a whole society, in many cases, the government should offer its support (Ford et al. 2007) to overcome the “Valley of Death”, otherwise some innovations would never appear on the market, because no private investor would be eager to take such a high risk.
Additionally to the industry and the government, universities play a crucial role in the knowledge transfer (Geuna, 2008). The process of valorization through university (or its business-oriented entitles, such as holdings) looks quite similar to the one presented above, which is widely
used by venture capitalists. The following paragraph presents one of the models of valorization of the knowledge (~technology), that comes from the university’s research.
2.4. University technology development
The valorization of the research, which is conducted at the university, is a specific process. The common path, according to Shane (2004), of the university-based knowledge, creation and transfer to the market is presented below. It should be noticed, that in the case of universities, the term “technology” is actually equal to the “research results”. The term “transfer”, that was used earlier, means the same as “development” from the model presented below.
Picture 2.4. The process of university technology development
Source: based on Shane S. (2004).
• Use of funded research – the typical life science research requires a significant amount of
resources, which need to be financed. Generally, an individual researcher or even a group of them cannot effort all the costs e.g. a clean room or the highest standard laboratory with the newest equipment. The source of funding could be either public (e.g. grants) or private (e.g. contracted research), however the vast majority of the research is financed from public money.
• Creation and disclosure of invention – when research finds something, what seems to be a
valuable invention, she/he should disclose it to the university’s unit, which is responsible for technology transfer. The outcome should be an assessment of the novelty and expected value (economic and social) of this invention.
• Decision to seek IP protection – when an invention is really novel and valuable, the proper
form of its protection should be chosen. The most common protection is by patent, however in some cases it is better to use another form of IP protection, such as trade secret or trademark.
• Marketing the technology – a unit responsible for research valorization at university looks
• Licensing decision – an intellectual property could be either out-licensed to the already
existing company or used in a newly-established university spin-off.
Shane (2004) shows, that successful research valorization is either when a spin-off company is created and prospers well or the license on given technology is sold to the already existing company. Noteworthy, in USA only 14% of university intellectual properties are transformed into spin-off, the rest of them are out licensed.
The valorization process at university was presented. But what are the factors that make this process successful? The following paragraph will investigate this topic, with a strong focus on life science research.
2.5. Valorization of the life science research at university – in search of critical success factors
This paragraph presents the literature that identifies the element of the successful valorization of life science research at university. At the end, the research questions are formulated.
Whether the valorization is successful depends on many critical factors. Bacsich (2009) defines the critical success factor as “an element that is necessary for an organization or project to achieve its mission”. In terms of life science research at university, this definition could be converted into an element, that is necessary for a university to achieve its third mission, to interact with society by valorizing its life science research.
What are the elements, that might be seen as critical for the valorization of life science research? One of the main problems for valorization at university identified by Nilsson et al. (2006) is the lack of the seed-financing. The solution for this problem could be the university’s seed funds that are used to overcome the financial gap between basic research and proof of concept (“Valley of Death”) and this is the first identified potentially critical success factor in life science research valorization at university (PCSFs).
Siegel et al. (2007) emphasizes the importance of understanding the culture and objectives of the people working in academia and industry. To overcome this challenge in life science research valorization, there is a need for people educated in life sciences with significant business knowledge (or the other way round), who work as “the bridge” between science and business. This is the second PCSF.
Only two PCSFs were presented above. Based on the reviewed literature, it seems that there is only fragmented knowledge about the factors which contribute to the success of the valorization of life science research. The most comprehensive list of recommendations (what universities should have by 2020) can be found in a part II of chapter VIII – Valorization from a book “Partners in the Polder, a vision of the life sciences in the Netherlands and the role of public-private partnerships”5
(Laane and Besteman, 2009). These recommendations are presented below:
Culture
1. An excellent base (facilities, researchers etc.) in the life sciences.
2. Courses in business development, IPR and marketing to create an awareness of the utilization of research results as an integral part of their education/training programs.
3. An incentive system that motivates and rewards entrepreneurial researchers. 4. A culture that also values making and doing business.
Commitment
1. High commitment for the valorization of research from people at all levels (executive boards of universities and academic medical centers, faculties departments, research groups).
2. Technology Transfer Offices that fall directly under the responsibility of the Executive Board (illustrating this commitment), and striving for coherence with education and research.
3. Researchers that exploit their findings through TTOs.
Capacities
1. The capacity for scouting and screening ideas and knowledge on intellectual property.
2. Professionals who are able to develop business concepts (set up a management team, perform market analysis, write a business plan, secure funding).
3. Funds for studies to establish the feasibility of a new business concept or start-up company. 4. A network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies.
5. Professionals who are able to negotiate, secure and carry out knowledge transfer deals with new and existing companies.
6. To create a nationwide network of TTOs to exchange know-how and experiences, adopt the best practices and pool resources and results whenever appropriate.
Open Innovation (these recommendations are expanded beyond universities)
1. Cooperation between academia and industry is standard in all fields of life sciences.
2. Industry and other social stakeholders are able to articulate demand; universities are keen providers of knowledge, technologies and concepts for application by an industry.
It must be noticed, that this list has several advantages:
• recommendations are intended exactly for universities
• although the recommendations in this research are treated as universal ones, originally they are intended for Dutch universities, such as the University of Groningen, which is investigated in this research.
• recommendations are intended exactly for valorization of life science research.
• authors: Koen Wiedhaup, Chrétien Herben and Ingeborg Meijerare are well-know experts in valorization
• this list is intended to lead to the “optimal exploitation of the results of life sciences research” - it means, that recommendations presented there could be seen as PCSFs.
However, the list from “PiP” has some disadvantages that must be taken into account:
• recommendations are quite general, some of them are more like wishes than advices.
• it is not really shown in “PiP” how to implement this list in practice.
• it is not clear to what extent they are perceived as success factors or just recommended elements.
Keeping in mind both the positive and negative sides, it was decided to investigate recommendations from “PiP” in this research. However, 5 recommendations were skipped from an analysis due to their obviousness or too general scope6. The remaining 11 recommendations from
“PiP” completed with successful elements from other literature, namely: an access university’s seed funds that are used to overcome the financial gap between basic research and proof of concept and people educated in life sciences with significant business knowledge (or the other way round), who work as “the bridge” between science and business, creates the specific list of potentially critical success factors in life science research valorization at university (PCSFs). Hereby in the thesis, this
list of PCSFs will be investigated by interviews in Groningen, Uppsala and Krakow and an online questionnaire - the investigation is expected to give answers to the following research questions:
6 It was decided to skip the factors (related to the Culture section) that are obviously critical success factors in the valorization of life science research at university: an excellent base in the life sciences and a culture that also values
making and doing business. The factor, which is obviously not a critical success one, created a nationwide network of TTOs to exchange know-how and experiences, adopt best practices and pool resources and results whenever appropriate, was skipped because during the interviews, it was noticed that it is good to have a nationwide network
of TTOs, but actually it is not a critical success factor of research valorization at a specific university as such. A recommendation cooperation between academia and industry is standard in all fields of life sciences and Bioregion
• To what extent are PCSFs identified in the literature implemented at Uppsala University, the University of Groningen and Jagiellonian University?
• Whether PCSFs identified in the literature are really perceived as critical success factors in the valorization of life science research at university by the people involved in the valorization process in Uppsala, Groningen and Krakow?
Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter is intended to present the study design, phases of the study, the applied methods of data collection and the description of the instruments used.
3.1. Research design
The research was designed as a cross-case analysis (Soy, 1997; Dooley, 2002), which means that the differences and similarities between the studied universities which serve as cases (Groningen, Uppsala and Jagiellonian University) were investigated in search for patterns (Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989). According to Yin (2006), the cross-case analysis, which in this research is based on the evidence from three cases, is an effective way of generalizing the critical success factor in life science research valorization in general. Data were validated against a list of
potentially critical success factors in life science research valorization at university (PCSFs)
identified in “PiP” and other literature, which was presented in Chapter 2.
3.2. Research phases
The research was carried out in four phases.
• Phase I – comprised of an extensive literature review on valorization and strategies used at university level. Extensive literature review was carried out based on the key words: innovation, commercialization, valorization, life science, Triple Helix and university research. Search for this literature was done via the Internet (Google Scholar and Purple Search), manual search at libraries, supplemented by grey literature, documents recommended by interviewees and data from universities and cities websites, OECD and Eurostat databases.
• Phase II – was devoted to the development of the interview scheme (in Appendix B) and conducting of the qualitative interviews with university valorization experts in 3 locations: Uppsala, Krakow and Groningen. Interviews were conducted in December 2010 and January 2011.
• Phase III – an online questionnaire, developed to support and complement the data from the interviews. An online questionnaire was created, data was collected and coded and processed into a more accessible form (MS Excel file) using the Google Docs. Descriptive statistics were used in further analysis. The outcome of the online questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.
3.3. Research methods
The research employed methodological triangulation which combined both the qualitative and quantitative methods (Risjord, M.W. et al., 2002), such as: literature review, interviews, and an online questionnaire. Specifically, the literature review provides the fundaments for this research, the interviews were conducted in order to collect qualitative data, whereas an online questionnaire was intended to collect quantitative data. Content analysis (Stemler, S., 2001) was used to analyze the interview data and basic statistics were used for the analysis of data collected by means of the questionnaire.
3.3.1. Literature review
The first method used in this research was an extensive literature review on innovation and valorization concepts, model strategies and techniques, that are related to the valorization of research at university in general and specifically to the life science field. The recommendations from the strategy of valorization in the life sciences by 2020 in The Netherlands proposed in the book “Partners in the Polder, a vision of the life sciences in the Netherlands and the role of public-private partnerships” (Laane and Besteman, 2009) were assumed as the potentially critical success factors in the valorization of life science research at university (PCSFs) and used as an interview scheme. Other PCSFs that were found in the literature were included in an online questionnaire and also discussed during the interviews. The literature review is presented in Chapter 2.
3.3.2. Sample selection and the interviews
The interview scheme (presented in Appendix B) consists of 16 questions, divided into 4 categories: Culture, Commitment, Capacities and Open Innovation. It is done in the same way as was presented in Laane C., Besteman K. (Eds., 2009). All the questions were open and interviewees were asked for a description of how a given factor is realized in their city and whether they feel it is important in successful valorization of life science research. A scheme was sent in advance to the key people responsible for the life science research valorization at each university and to the entrepreneurs/companies from each city, with focus on the university role in their venture development.
Uppsala, Krakow and Groningen. The full list of people, who were interviewed, is presented below:
Groningen
• Siert Bruins – Entrepreneur, formerly working at the Stichting Business Generator Groningen (SBGG) / www.sbgg.nl
• Doede Binnema – Healthy Ageing Network Noord-Nederland (HANNN) & Technology Centre Northern Netherlands (TCNN) / Project manager / www.hannn.eu
• Edward van der Meer – Triade Group / Managing director/ www.triadegroep.nl
• Monique Schoondorp –Lector at Hanze Hogeschool. Also an entrepreneur.
• George Robillard – BioMade / Scientific director/ www.biomade.nl
• Theo Flipsen – Polyvation / Managing director / www.polyvation.com
• Jan Degenhart – Springboard / Co-founder / www.spring-board.nl
Uppsala
• Lars Jonsson – Uppsala University Innovation & Uppsala University Holding AB / Managing director / www.uuinnovation.uu.se
• Madeleine Neil – Uppsala BIO / Director of Communications / www.uppsalabio.com
• Gerald Pettersson – Forskarpatent / Patent Manager / www.fpatu.se
• Per Källblad – Beactica / Managing director / www.beactica.com
• Lars Baltzer – ModPro / Managing director / www.modpro.se
Krakow
• Pawel Blachno – Jagiellonian Centre of Innovation / Managing director / www.jci.pl
• Maciej Czarnik – Center for Innovation, Technology Transfer and University Development (CITTRU) / Innovation manager / www.cittru.uj.edu.pl
• Adam Dubin – BioCentrum, Selvita / Founder / www.biocentrum.com.pl, www.selvita.com
• Justyna Drukala – biotechnologist, who has an idea with great business potential, which could not be valorized for many years, even with the strong support from the university.
3.3.3. Sample selection and an online questionnaire
construction of the questionnaire was slightly different from the interview scheme, because two other (not from “PiP”) PCSFs from the literature were added and some recommendations were taken out, as during the interviews they were clearly not recognized as critical success factors.
The online questionnaire consists of 16 closed questions; most of them were the same questions as the ones used in the interviews. Each question asked about the extent that the success factor was 1) present, and 2) perceived as important. The Likert scale was used as a measurement tool, where 1 means that the assumed success factor is not present in their city (perceived as not very important) and 10 means that the assumed success factor is very active (perceived as very important).
At the end of the questionnaire, there was a text box for ‘comment’, that could be given by each participant. The questionnaire was posted online from January 26, 2011 until February 11, 2011. In total, there were 42 responses collected; 23 from Uppsala, 17 from Krakow and only 2 from Groningen. Because of the very specific and limited target group of the questionnaire, this number of responses seems to be satisfactory, however it is impossible to tell, what is the rate of response, because due to snowball sampling, the total number of invitations sent (by people, who were earlier interviewed) is not certain.
Due to such a low response rate, Groningen was taken out from the analysis, which was based only on the results from the online questionnaire.
Based on the combination of the literature review, the results from the interviews and the online questionnaire, it is possible to make an analysis of whether the given PCSF is the real critical success factor in the valorization of life science research and to improve the list, that was found in the literature. The decision making process is explained in the following paragraph.
3.4. Selection criteria
To conduct a proper analysis, there is the need to choose the method to judge, whether the given PCSF is a critical success factor or not. To make this choice more clear, it was decided to accept Uppsala University as the best case. This means that when the given factor is seen as the critical success factor in Uppsala, this factor is assumed as being the critical success one. However, there is one exception to this rule. The situation with the invention’s ownership is unique in Uppsala and generally, in Sweden, because of the so called “Professor Privilege” - this means that all the university researchers and staff are owners of their inventions. Thus, when a given factor is chosen as a critical success one in Groningen and in Krakow, but not in Uppsala and it seems to be caused by “Professor Privilege”, in-depth analysis, that is based on interviews and other sources of data, could lead to the decision, that this factor is a critical success one.
Interviews and the online questionnaire were conducted according to the ethical rules. The last paragraph of Chapter 3 explains this issue.
3.5. Ethical considerations
Interviews were recorded with permission given by the interviewees. They were also assured that they could stop the interview at any time if they felt that their privacy was endangered. Interviews were conducted by the researcher himself. There were no telephone interviews. If there was any confidential information disclosed by the interviewees, it was used only for analysis purposes, but was not exposed in this thesis.
The participants of the online questionnaire were asked to take part in the research based on the prior information about the purpose of the study and their anonymity.
Chapter 4. RESULTS
This chapter presents an analysis of the research results. The first paragraph gives an introduction, where the history of valorization of life science research at Uppsala, Groningen and Jagiellonian universities is showed. The latter part presents the types of the organizations that are needed for successful valorization of life science research. Next, the results of the online questionnaire are presented and the research question to what extent PCSFs identified in the literature are implemented at Uppsala University, the University of Groningen and Jagiellonian University is answered. Furthermore, the results from the online questionnaire, that show the perceived importance of PCSFs, are summarized. The main objective of paragraphs 4.6-4.10 is to show whether the PCSFs identified in the literature are really perceived as critical success factors in the valorization of life science research at university by the people involved in the valorization process in Uppsala, Groningen and Krakow. Finally, chapter IV ends with an overview of the results.
4.1. The tradition of research valorization
Which university from the sample has the longest history of valorization of life science research? It is Uppsala, where this activity could be dated to the year 19127. However, in the
modern version, the valorization system started to work about 30 years ago and is constantly developing. Groningen started later than Uppsala, but already in 1990 it was one of the leaders in life science research valorization in The Netherlands, going arm in arm with Amsterdam and Leiden. It is a great history, however nowadays, the valorization of life science research seems to stagnate in Groningen. The life science valorization system at Jagiellonian University was implemented in 2004, which means that it has the shortest history amongst the universities from the sample. Tradition and history shape the present form of the valorization of life science research and in the following paragraphs, the current situation is taken into consideration. Firstly, the types of organization involved in life science research valorization, which could be found in each location, are presented.
4.2. Organizations involved in the valorization
What types of the organizations are needed for the successful valorization of life science research? The valorization process is spread among different organizations, which share various activities depending on their mission, potential and impact. The main organizations involved in the valorization of life science research in each city are divided into categories and placed in the table below.
Table 4.1: The main organizations involved in the valorization of life science research in Uppsala, Groningen and Krakow.
TYPE GRONINGEN UPPSALA KRAKOW
University University of Groningen Uppsala University Jagiellonian University
University hospital
The University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG)
Uppsala University Hospital
The University Hospital in Krakow
University
(related) holding RuG HoldingDe Triade Groep (UMCG) UUAB Holding Jagiellonian Centre of Innovation (JCI)
Technology transfer office SBGG (life science) TLG (other fields) UU Innovation UUAB Holding Forskarpatent CITTRU
Cluster facilitator HANN Uppsala BIO JCI
It is possible to group the organizations involved in the valorization of life science research into five categories. It is a pattern, five fundamental types of organizations, that are expect to be in each valorization system. These organizations are:
University – the main institution that is investigated in this research. As it was presented in Chapter
2, the university has two core missions: to provide teaching, to do the research and one additional third mission, that is needed for the valorization process: to interact with society.
University Hospital – a hospital that is closely linked to the university.
University (related) Holding – an organization, which could invest money in the valorization of
ideas and inventions that come from the university.
Technology Transfer Office (TTO) – this is a place, where the researcher can find support in the
valorization of her/his idea or invention. It must be noticed, that in Uppsala there is no regular technology transfer office – this task is divided into more than one organization.
Cluster facilitator – an organization, which is responsible for managing the local life science
cluster - many higher education institutions, organizations and companies from the life science field placed close to each other and cooperate.
4.3. An online questionnaire - actual presence
To what extent is PCSF actually implemented in Uppsala and Krakow? Results from the online questionnaire seem to give the best answer, thus they are presented in the table below.
Table 4.3. The degree of implementation of PCSF´s in Uppsala and Krakow.
UPPSALA KRAKOW
N. PCSF Mean Rank8 Mean Rank
1) Courses in business development, IPR and marketing to create an awareness of the utilization of research results as an integral part of their
education/training programs 6,190 10 5,333 3
2) An incentive system that motivates and rewards entrepreneurial researchers 6,048 11 5,800 2 3)
High commitment for the valorization of research from people at all levels (executive boards of universities and academic medical centers, faculties
departments, research groups) 6,905 6 4,467 7
4) Technology Transfer Offices (or other similar units) that fall directly under the responsibility of the Executive Board (illustrating high commitment), and
striving for coherence with education and research 7,48 4 6,133 1
5) Researchers that exploit their findings through Technology Transfer Offices (or other similar units) 6,381 8 4,733 6 6) The capacity for scouting and screening ideas and knowledge on intellectual property 6,905 7 5,067 5 7) Professionals who are able to develop business concepts (set up a management team, perform market analysis, write a business plan, secure
funding) 7,381 3 3,800 10
8) Funds for studies to establish the feasibility of a new business concept or start-up company 6,286 9 5,133 4 9) A network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies 8,429 1 3,467 14 10) Professionals who are able to negotiate, secure and carry out knowledge transfer deals with new and existing companies 7,381 5 4,000 9 11) The industry is able to articulate demand; universities are keen providers of knowledge, technologies and concepts for application by the industry 6,000 12 3,800 10 12)
Other (than industry) social stakeholders are able to articulate demand; universities are keen providers of knowledge, technologies and concepts for
application in society 5,429 13 3,667 12
13) People educated in life sciences with significant business knowledge (or the other way round), who work as “the bridge” between science and business 7,952 2 4,200 8 14) University’s seed funds that are used to overcome the financial gap between basic research and proof of concept (“Valley of Death”) 4,952 14 3,667 13
Due to the largest difference between two locations, the most noticeable seems to be a result for the presence of a network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies. In Uppsala, this is present in the highest extent (8,429) and in Krakow, it is the lowest score (3,467). The high score in Uppsala is understandable e.g. Uppsala Innovation Centre provides only coaches, no facilities. The low score in Krakow might be explained by one of the comments from the online questionnaire. Due to a relatively short time, when research valorization is developing in Krakow (and generally, in Poland), there is a problem with access to the business experts, who are able to act as coaches, because there are only a few of them available. Thus, foreign experts could be hired; however the cost is expected to be relatively higher.
PCSF Industry is able to articulate demand; universities are keen providers of knowledge, technologies and concepts for application by an industry) is not really present at three universities. This situation raises a question. How it is possible, that Uppsala has obtained such a low (the third lowest) score in the section about the presence of this factor, even with a long tradition of cooperation between university and industry in life science? Does this mean that the industry is not able to articulate its demand? No. There are many activities arranged to match those two parties, however it is not really the focus on life science yet. As it was mentioned in the interviews, this situation will be changed in 2011 - management from Uppsala’s organizations already noticed the importance of this factor and reacted quickly. In all the cities, universities are year by year more willing to cooperate with the industry.
The mean of each PCSF represents an extent, to which this PCSF is implemented in Uppsala and Krakow. This is the answer for the first research question. Moreover, by using the weighted average of scores, given for each factor in an online questionnaire, the total score for the presence of PCSF could be calculated9 . As for the maximum score of 10, Uppsala obtained 6,733 and
Krakow obtained 4,510. The difference between these scores seems to be a proper illustration of the real situation. Uppsala University has a far better valorization system for life science research than the Jagiellonian University and actually, it is not a surprise, when one takes into account an
experience and tradition in valorization10.
4.4. The general importance
Which of the PCSFs is perceived as the most critical by the people involved in the valorization process in Uppsala, Krakow and Groningen?
According to the online questionnaire, the most critical success factor is the professionals who are able to develop business concepts. On the other side is the PCSF, researchers that exploit their findings through Technology Transfer Offices. The lowest standard deviation has a PCSF of high commitment for the valorization of research from people at all levels. Respondents were more certain about the medium importance of this factor. The highest standard deviation is for the factor of a network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies. A total mean for this PCSF is relatively low, but in Uppsala it is one of the most important factors, according to the online questionnaire and interviews.
However, in the case of general importance of the PCSFs, pure figures from the online questionnaire are not enough in order to make an analysis and select only critical success factors. Thus it was decided to combine results from the online questionnaire with data from the interviews.
9 The total score was calculated for all the questions from the online questionnaire, including those skipped from the analysis.
The selection criteria are explained in Chapter 3.
The following four paragraphs that are arranged according to the sections from “Partners in the Polder, a vision of the life sciences in the Netherlands and the role of public-private partnerships” (Laane and Besteman, 2009): Capacities, Culture, Commitment and Open Innovation. Paragraph 4.10 represents PCSFs from the other literature. The main goal of the next part of this chapter is to show which PCDFs are perceived as real critical success factors by the people involved in the valorization process in Uppsala, Groningen and Krakow.
4.5. Capacities
Which of the university's capacities from “PiP” are critical for successful life science research valorization? This paragraph starts with the two tables, the first presents how given PCSF is implemented in each location (the presentation is expanded in Appendix C) and the second shows the results of the online questionnaire, how the people involved in valorization perceive the importance of given PCSF. The same structure of the two tables at the beginning is also used in paragraphs 4.7-4.10.
Table 4.6a: The actual condition of Capacities recommendations from “PiP”.
PCSF UPPSALA GRONINGEN KRAKOW
The capacity for scouting and screening of ideas and knowledge on intellectual property
No typical scouting activity, researchers are attracted by the advertisement campaign done at university.
SBGG is responsible for scouting and screening.
CITTRU and JCI employ people who are responsible mainly for scouting and screening.
Professionals who are able to develop business concepts (set up a management team, perform market analysis, write a business plan, secure funding)
UU Innovation employs seniors who have a PhD from high quality universities and have been working in the business for many years and younger people, who are recruited directly from the schools of the
entrepreneurship.
SBGG employs/has access to people, who are able to do virtually all of the business activities.
CITTRU and JCI employs/has access to people, who are able to do virtually all of the business activities.
Funds for studies to establish the feasibility of a new business concept or start-up company
Invention feasibility (business potential) studies are done in UU Innovation. There are also other initiatives not from university.
Most of the fundamental researches are financed by subsidies for the
government.
JCI and CITTRU have resources for studies to establish the new feasibility businesses.
A network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies
Amongst others, Uppsala Innovation Centre provides coaches.
SBGG has an access to experienced coaches.
Not really present yet, however in the nearest future, JCI wants to develop a network of experienced professionals.
Professionals who are able to negotiate, secure and carry out knowledge transfer deals with new and existing companies
UU Innovation employs people with experience in negotiating license deals and setting up companies.
SBGG supports researchers in negotiation with bigger (life science) companies.
Table 4.6b: The perceived importance of Capacities recommendations from “PiP”.
PCSF MEAN MIN. MAX. ST. DEV.
The capacity for scouting and screening of ideas and knowledge on intellectual
property 8,050 4 10 1,467
Professionals who are able to develop business concepts (set up a management
team, perform market analysis, write a business plan, secure funding) 9,075 6 10 1,185
Funds for studies to establish the feasibility of a new business concept or start-up
company 8,525 6 10 1,339
A network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies 8,025 1 10 1,954
Professionals who are able to negotiate, secure and carry out knowledge transfer
deals with new and existing companies 8,400 2 10 1,736
As it was said in the interviews, researchers from the life science field are generally very willing to pass all (as much as possible) business activities to professionals, who are expected to bring given inventions to the market in a faster and more effective way. Thus, having professionals who are able to develop business concepts is the most important success factors in the valorization of life science research at university according to the online questionnaire, with a mean of 9,075 and a low standard deviation of 1,185. It scores an extremely high value of 9,429 out of 10 in Uppsala. This factor is also well established there, which is proved by the score of 7,714 from the online questionnaire and description, that was based on interviews. In the case of Krakow, the importance of this factor is seen as one of the highest; however it is present in very low extent (3,800). However, a minimum score of 1 and maximum of 10, in conjunction with a very high standard deviation of 2,704 show that either there is a lack of professionals who are able to develop business concepts or a lack of information about the accessibility of these people. Based on the interviews conducted in Krakow, it could be said that the second option is more adequate. Because it is the most critical success factors in the valorization of life science research, it needs to be quickly and constantly developing at Jagiellonian University.
An access to the funds for studies to establish the feasibility of a new business concept is expected to be a powerful tool to transfer the idea into proof of concept. The result from the online questionnaire proves that is a critical success factor in the valorization of life science research at university. The access to these kinds of funds is relatively difficult in Groningen, because many of the expenses the researcher needs to cover comes from her/his own pocket. In the case of Krakow and Uppsala, this situation looks better, the funds are more accessible.
Both the results from the interviews and the online questionnaire show, that having professionals who are able to negotiate, secure and carry out knowledge transfer deals with new and existing companies is an important success factor, especially in the case involving bigger deals. It is also critical to have access to an experienced lawyer, who is expected to take care of legal issues of deals, which is not present at the University of Groningen.
knowledge on intellectual property is a critical success factor. However, the way how to do this activity varies across universities. Uppsala has chosen a more informative approach - Uppsala University encourages its researchers to come to their innovation support system instead of searching for ideas amongst faculties. However, at the University of Groningen and Jagiellonian University, scouting and screening are organized in a more traditional way and are still quite successful. Thus, there is no best solution to how scouting and screening should be established, but the goal is clear: to reach the best ideas for university, there is one recommendation, that comes from interviews and is expected to make this capacity very effective and helps to encourage more researchers to valorize their research: people responsible for gathering ideas and inventions
from university, should come with a life science background combined with business knowledge.
A network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies is present, at least to some extent, in each location. However, the scores from the online questionnaire are extremely different between Uppsala and Krakow. It is one of the most important factors according to responses from Uppsala and the least important according to responses from Krakow. What caused this situation? The lack of experience in use of a network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies seems to be an adequate explanation. The real valorization system at Jagiellonian University existed only for several years, whereas in Uppsala it has a long tradition. It seems that people in Krakow are not yet aware of the opportunities, which give this kind of network. As it was said in the interviews, it is changing, but slowly. Thus, because of extremely different scores, it is not a good idea to look at this factor only from an online questionnaire perspective - it would suggest that the medium result is lower than one might deduce from the interview. The highest standard deviation in the research displays, that there is a high uncertainty to interpret data from the online questionnaire in the right way. Moreover, the situation in Uppsala, which was presented thanks to the interviews, clearly shows that a network of business people who are able to act as coaches for new companies and the proper use of it gives great results. Thus, it is a very critical success factor in the valorization of life science research at university.
As it was presented above, all the PCSFs analyzed in this research, that come from the section on Capacities are perceived as critical success factors, which was confirmed by interviewees and the online questionnaire. How about other sections?
4.6. Culture
Table 4.7a: The actual condition of Culture recommendations from “PiP”.
PCSF UPPSALA GRONINGEN KRAKOW
Courses in business
development, IPR and marketing to create an awareness of the utilization of research results as an integral part of their
education/training programs
A brief course of 3-4 hours for some of the PhD programs, “School of Entrepreneurship”.
The Science and Society Group courses (WETEM), some courses for PhD students
Courses not obligatory, (some text missing…) exemption: IPR course in integral part of the biotechnology program.
An incentive system that motivates and rewards entrepreneurial researchers
“Professor Privilege” - founder owns 100% of the invention – it could be said, the university innovation support system is an incentive.
“25% rule”- ¼ of earnings from the patent go to the inventor, ¼ for her/his research group (or
department), ¼ to faculty, ¼ to the university.
Invention ownership: 50% to the inventor, 25% to the University, 15% to the faculty, where the invention comes from and 10% to the special fund for the
development of intellectual properties.
Table 4.7b: The perceived importance of Culture recommendations from “PiP”.
PCSF MEAN MIN. MAX. ST. DEV.
Courses in business development, IPR and marketing to create an awareness of the
utilization of research results as an integral part of their education/training programs 7,750 3 10 1,736 An incentive system that motivates and rewards entrepreneurial researchers 8,475 5 10 1,450
Results from the online questionnaire show that an incentive system that motivates and rewards entrepreneurial researchers is the most important factor in valorization according to people from Krakow, whereas in Uppsala the people scored less than half of the results. It is also present in Krakow at almost the same extent as in Uppsala - a difference in scores is the lowest (amongst other factors) and come to just 0,248. In order to understand what causes this situation, this section begins with the presentation of the theory related to the incentives. According to the BusinessDictionary.com, incentive is the “inducement or supplemental reward that serves as a motivational device for a desired action or behavior”.
Clark and Wilson (1961) identify three types of incentives:
1. Material – tangible rewards, generally speaking tightly linked to the money, that is received, which could be in the form of a higher salary, fringe benefits or e.g. a new car. 2. Solidary – intangible rewards that are connected to being a member of a particular group,
such as congeniality, socializing or simply - enjoyment of spending time with other people. 3. Purposive – it is also linked to the benefits of being part of a given group. In this type of
incentive, achievement of the wanted (by a group) goals and satisfaction, that it gives, are (intangible) rewards.
Dollman (1996) extends the above classification for status incentives, that provide intangible rewards regarding the social status, such as recognition amongst a particular group of people (like professors) or general fame.
employees conditional on certain performance targets being met”11. For this thesis' purpose, this
definition is converted into: incentive system is the way, in which the researchers are rewarded for the valorization of their research.
The results of the incentive system are one of the most interesting outcomes from the online questionnaire, because it shows how the “Professor Privilege” influences Swedish researchers. The situation with invention’s ownership is unique in Uppsala and generally, in Sweden, because of “Professor Privilege” - this means that the university researchers and staff are owners of their inventions. Since “Professor Privilege” is part of Swedish Law, the university itself cannot use material types of incentive to reward its individual researchers. It is possible to encourage them by using status types of incentives, however it is difficult, because the inventor owns 100% of her/his invention anyway and all the honors, that are linked to this ownership. This means that only solidarity and purposive types of incentives could be used effectively. That is exactly what is done in Uppsala and works well. The conditions and services that are provided by UU Innovation and other organizations in Uppsala are incentives for entrepreneurial researchers.
According to the interviews, both in Groningen and Krakow, the system of sharing invention ownership was stated as the most encouraging reward, so material and status types of incentives are the main elements of these incentive systems. At all three universities, the opportunity of being promoted in an academic hierarchy thanks to the successful valorization was also stated as a desirable reward.
The difference in results for the incentive system as critical success factors could be caused by the common understanding of incentive system as such, which is tightly linked to tangible rewards – a material type of incentives. In Uppsala this element is not a part of the valorization system, thus it is perceive as less important than in other cities.
The construction of the incentive system might be different amongst countries or even universities from the same county, but the presence of this factor is necessary to motivate researchers to valorize their research and it must be seen as the critical success factor. The importance of the incentive system that rewards entrepreneurial researchers is well-proved by an example from Jagiellonian University. Before such a system was implemented, there were virtually no patent applications coming up. After the incentives were promised, the number of patents significantly increased and many of them were from the life science field.
Another PCSF from the section on Culture is also not confirmed by this research. According to what was said in the interviews, this factor seems to be relatively important, however it is not really implemented yet. To some extent, each university has these kinds of courses, but there is no clear
vision, whether it will be improved. In the online questionnaire, courses in business development, IPR and marketing to create an awareness of the utilization of research results as an integral part of their education/training programs are not that important in valorization as it could be expected. In order to make a concluding choice, the criterion of the minimum total mean of 8/10 in the online questionnaire was used and it was decided that the above PCSF is not a critical success factor in life science research valorization, because the total mean is 7,750.
As it was demonstrated, only one PCSF from the Culture section is perceived as the critical success factors in the valorization of life science research. The following paragraph presents an analysis of the Commitment section.
4.7. Commitment
There was only one critical success factor from the section on Culture that was identified. Are there more from the section on Commitment?
Table 4.8a: The actual condition of Commitment recommendations from “PiP”.
PCSF UPPSALA GRONINGEN KRAKOW
High commitment for the valorization of research from people at all levels (executive boards of universities and academic medical centers, faculties departments, research groups)
The attitude is changing towards more and more openness to the valorization.
Individuals with high commitment for the valorization.
The highest management of Jagiellonian University seems to be committed for the valorization, but still a traditional university structure makes the valorization process quite complicated and slow. Technology Transfer Offices (or
other similar units) that fall directly under the responsibility of the Executive Board (illustrating high commitment), and striving for coherence with education and research
In practice, Uppsala University Innovation, Uppsala University Holding and Forskarpatent (all of them could be seen as one TTO) directly under the responsibility of the highest university management.
SBGG is under the responsibility of the Executive Board.
CITTRU is under the responsibility of the Executive Board.
Researchers that exploit their findings through Technology Transfer Offices (or other similar units)
There is no obligation to use UU Innovation, Uppsala University Holding or Forskarpatent, but it is common.
Not obligatory exploit findings by SBGG, which helps them with a patent application, but it is common.
The majority of the
researchers do respect the regulations, which says that they should disclose their invention to CITTRU. Table 4.8b: The perceived importance of Commitment recommendations from “PiP”.
PCSF MEAN MIN. MAX. ST. DEV.
High commitment for the valorization of research from people at all levels (executive boards of universities and academic medical centers, faculties departments, research
groups) 8,100 6 10 0,928
Technology Transfer Offices (or other similar units) that fall directly under the responsibility of the Executive Board (illustrating high commitment), and striving for
coherence with education and research 7,900 4 10 1,661
Researchers that exploit their findings through Technology Transfer Offices (or other
