Recently, we have received questions about what some believe are controversial statements from the Kauffman Foundation about its interest in expanding how universities pursue their innovation and commercialization missions. The iBridgeSM Network team thought it would be helpful to talk with Lesa Mitchell, the Foundation’s vice president of Advancing Innovation, about the Foundation’s positions. So, I, director of the iBridge Network, interviewed Lesa.
We hope the following information helps to clarify things, and we welcome your questions and observations.
Laura: Some people perceive that the Kauffman Foundation has
been negative about Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) at universities. Does the Kauffman Foundation view TTOs negatively?
Lesa: Not at all. In fact, representatives from TTOs helped shape the Foundation’s interest in university innovation when we were researching the area a few years ago and helped us identify ways in which the Kauffman Foundation could help universities, and their TTOs more specifically, do more with their research and innovations. We have worked closely with TTOs, including Kauffman Campuses, the iBridge Network, and the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), to identify opportunities for universities, TTOs, and the Foundation to forward the work of advancing university innovation to make it more efficient and have an even greater impact.
For instance, the Kauffman Foundation funded AUTM for three years to encourage projects like a strategic plan, the Better World Project, and New Metrics Project. AUTM has done a great job in all of these areas. These AUTM projects seek to shine light on and encourage broader views of the outcomes of university innovation beyond a narrow focus on licensing income. Our support of these AUTM initiatives reflects the Foundation’s interest in having university research and innovation – and TTOs for that matter – valued for more than just licensing revenue.
Laura: Doesn’t the Foundation’s interest in this expanded view of technology transfer undermine the work that TTOs are doing now?
Lesa: Actually, we hope that our efforts will enhance the work of TTOs. The vast majority of the patent-licensing offices are under-resourced and under-staffed. Most also are struggling to support faculty in more ways than the traditional patent-license model, which is the model that has been thrust upon them. In reality, there are numerous models and strategies that universities should consider to maximize the usefulness of research and innovations that also advance research, grow the U.S. economy, and advance human welfare.
If our efforts with university administrations are successful and help them think outside of traditional methods, TTOs may gain more resources and staffing. TTOs also may be able to truly focus on licensing income because distractions inherent in other strategies for advancing useful, but non-revenue potential research and innovations, will be handled in other ways. Both results might be ideal and generally better than the status quo.
Laura: In fact, didn’t the iBridge Network and Web site evolve because of feedback from TTOs who wanted alternative pathways to make their university’s research and innovations more readily accessible and available?
Lesa: Absolutely. Ultimately, we believe that the iBridge Network will enable universities to move higher volumes of innovation outside of university walls to those seeking innovation in an expedited manner. With additional resources, like the iBridge Network, TTOs can do more and be more effective.
Laura: Why does the Kauffman Foundation challenge TTOs?
Lesa: The Kauffman Foundation is not intending to criticize TTOs. As mentioned a moment ago, because TTOs are under-staffed and under-resourced, they face enormous challenges and they do well handling them. What we are critical of, however, are university policies, practices, and strategies that presume that a “one-size-fits-all” approach will work or that what worked at one institution will automatically work at another or that licensing revenue is all that matters.
The Foundation aims to raise the awareness of university boards and leaders who are responsible for decisions regarding organizational structure and practices that may or may not support the goals of broadly enabling university innovation and commercialization. Our intention is to stress the importance of having organizational structures and practices that support providing multiple resources to assist in expanding the reach of innovation and outcomes –some of which will be tied to formal IP, but most will not.
Those universities who engage in technology transfer most successfully have demonstrated these insights and taught us about them. The net result is that knowledge dissemination happens every day at these institutions, and the rest of us have to work harder from the ground up and top down to reach that degree of success.
Laura: Any last thoughts based on the Kauffman Foundation’s research?
Lesa: We have been studying the U.S. environment for advancing innovation compared to the environment abroad. In the U.S., universities have many advantages, including endowments, federal research dollars, and a high level of philanthropy that are relatively non-existent in the rest of the world. These are significant advantages that should produce a substantially higher level of innovation output. We must ensure that the U.S. uses its current innovation, commercialization and entrepreneurship advantages to maintain a high level of global competitiveness and grow our economy, which in the process also will advance human welfare.
It seems that models of open innovation are prevalent at leading universities outside of the U.S., and these institutions are aggressively pursuing university - industry collaborations. The leaders of our US universities need to understand this threat in the context of our global economy and educational environment so they can begin to focus on strategies around knowledge transfer that meet the various needs of research and industry. For instance, Michael Crow and his team at ASU are developing innovation strategies specifically with this in mind, as are the University of Washington engineering school and many others, including some of our Kauffman CampusSM universities. Of course, what I’ve just characterized as a “threat,” actually may really be an opportunity for additional outlets for innovation initiating from U.S. universities.
In the interests of disclosure, the Foundation is the primary funder
of the Kauffman Innovation Network, Inc. and its iBridge Network initiative.
The 
