So often in my travels to various Tech. Transfer offices across Canada I am confronted with one variant or another of these two questions : "Amongst the folks you know, who is going to Meeting X?" and a corollary question "With limited budgets for travel which meeting is the one that one shouldn't miss?"
I thought that I would pose this question of one of the shops I regard as very successful in the business of commercializing the technologies of the institutions it serves during my recent trip to Montreal. The Univalor folks had one unequivocal response : TECH CONNECT was the place to be seen. They have been participating in this conference for the past four years now and felt that it attracted the companies that TTOs want to be known to, namely the companies INTERESTED in early stage technologies (yes they really are out there!).
This year in an open competition ten technologies of theirs (5 Life Sciences and 5 non) were selected to be presented. Given that the total number of technologies selected from North America was something like 90 this is impressive. By comparison the other TTOs in
Canada stacked up as follows: Waterloo 1, Laval 1, and UBC 4 THAT'S IT! This year Tech Connect will be in Boston (June 3 to 5) Next year it will be in san Diego.
Who knew!!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The R in Revolution is Silent!
The other day I pondering AGAIN the much touted revolution in innovation that is supposedly taking place in Canada when a thought suddenly appeared in a blinding flash of (misguided?) insight and I wanted to share it right away. Truth is that despite the HUGE investment from all levels of government the Innovation Revolution is not delivering on the set goals in the required timeframe. The "R" is silent and we are progressing on what is really an Evolutionary course of random selection and survival of the most politically astute grant application writers.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
