Eric Vittoz - IEEE

“Knowledge Triangle.” The proposed
“hub and spoke” model
includes a central governing body
surrounded by “Innovation Communities”
that are expected to relate
closely to their localised needs. A
key attribute in this case is the inclusion
of the business community,
which will aid the generation of
useable outcome. Whilst still in its
formative stages, the EIT promises
to be an interesting, large scale
attempt at bridging the academic
and commercial world to bring benefits
to all stakeholders.
For more information see
ec.europa.eu/eit
Academic and Commercial Drivers
When dealing with the academic
and commercial worlds, it is vital to
realise that there are fundamental
differences in the way that they are
administered, how they function,
and how goals and targets are set
and met. Typically, academic bodies
are set up to research “blue sky”
topics and any fruits of this research
are captured in the papers and
kudos generated therein. The net
contribution of such bodies is typically
at a high level and adds to the
net intellectual capital of countries
and associated communities.
In many cases, blue sky research
can spin off opportunities for more
practical or applied research with
more potential for commercial
exploitation. It is more usual for symbiosis
to manifest itself at this node
than any other. The reason is very
simple – there is opportunity for
money to be made here in many different
forms including IP licensing,
spinout company formation, and contract-based,
focused research/development.
The commercial world is driven by
very different factors. Companies are
in business to create wealth for their
shareholders. They constantly need
to stay ahead of competition through
innovation, typically enslaved to a
constantly evolving market. In the
commercial world, particularly in the
consumer market, products may have
lifetimes counted in months before
significant revisions are required. This
Demonstrating prototypes to potential investors and researchers can pay dividends
in product development.
in turn heaps more pressure on the
development cycle and inherently
more pressure on the innovation
environment. Staying one step ahead
of the game whilst maintaining margins
keeps a lot of senior executives
awake at night. It is therefore not surprising
that many companies favour
close relationships with academic
partners to help fuel the innovative
process.
Such relationships need to be
handled carefully since they can be
fraught with frustration on both
sides. Some of the more commercially
focused institutions have dedicated
groups that specialize in the
commercial interface. Commonly
known as “Technology Transfer” or
“Research and Enterprise” entities,
such bodies are tasked with translating
the needs and deliverables
between the two worlds. People in
these groups typically hail from
both sides of the fence in that they
can relate to the sometimes orthogonal
requirements.
Engagement Models
When considering how to engage
with any partner, it is fundamental
to set down the terms and expected
outcomes. Whilst this may seem
obvious, it is surprising how many
relationships can break down due
to mismatches in expectation. It is
therefore worthwhile building a
reporting and measurement mechanism
whereby progress can be
measured. This can also aid in
staged payment deals and acts as a
convenient brake if a project starts
to go off the rails. Importantly, the
extent to which this structure is put
in place heavily depends upon the
parties involved and the nature of
the programme. In some cases the
value may lie in the unbounded,
free thinking that academics can
bring into the dynamics. In other
cases closely confined, structured
research may be more applicable to
match the aspirations of the commercial
partner. Either way, whatever
is decided needs to be agreed
upfront and be manageable. It can
be easily argued that reporting and
monitoring is not a value add activity.
Indeed over-monitoring can stifle
creativity and ultimately reduce
the effectiveness of the partnership.
Large and small companies tend
to be driven towards different
engagement models. This is primarily
driven by their spending power
and their ability to mitigate the risk
of slippage or failure to deliver a
money-making result (not all
research ends in a positive answer).
Large companies tend to deal with
more left field research since they
are more easily able to offset this
against other revenue generating
continued on page 58
6 IEEE SSCS NEWS Summer 2008