Academic/Industrial Partnering
Author:
Dr. Manuel Panar
University of Delaware
103 Brown Lab
Newark DE 19716
email panar@udel.edu
The contribution of university research to American competitiveness is of increasing importance. For this contribution to be effective, the results of academic creativity must be transferred to industry, which has the role of converting ideas to products for society's use. A productive interface between academia and industry is a critical requirement for the continuing health of America's technological strength.
This discussion is directed to the situation in which an academic researcher is either looking for industrial support for a particular research goal, or has made an invention and wants to interest industry in developing it or in funding further research. The purpose of this discussion is to give the academic scientist further insight into the funding process from the industrial viewpoint. This understanding can help faculty members in their search for support, and can help facilitate productive interactions between researchers in the two environments.
This article will discuss the various issues which often create misunderstandings between academic and industrial scientists, and the role these issues play in funding decisions. Points which will be covered include a description of the difficult path from concept to commercialization, how funding is affected by budgets, and the many non-technical and personal considerations which will affect a request for funding. The reasons why the these interactions are of increasing importance to American industrial effectiveness will be surveyed.
"Creativity", as defined here, will be Creativity in
this discussion refers to the output of the laboratory.
Innovation, is, in contrast, a business activity.
"Innovation", as used here, is the transfer to
society's use of a new way of doing things. This usage has
recently become common, at least in industry. In the case of
technology, this means the transfer to commerce of a product
which leads to new activities or, more commonly, allows people to
do an activity in a new way. It can be either of far-reaching
significance to society, such as the automobile displacing the
horse, or of relatively minor importance to the greater scheme of
things, such as having compact disks replace 33 1/3 records. The
critical issue in innovation is the transfer to society. This
function requires the involvement of industry.
The academic-industrial interface is of greater importance now than it has been in the past, and this importance will continue to increase. Several developments in both society and technology have contributed to this trend. An understanding of these pressures can help faculty members manage their relationships for optimum results.
The changes in the industrial environment caused by these pressures are not merely cyclical ones. Rather, we are dealing with a fundamental change, the exact nature of which will not be clear for some years. Possibly the only constant we can expect is that change will continue. The only way that faculty members will be able to deal effectively with a changing industrial world will be to develop close personal relations with industrial researchers.
One driver of the increasing importance of academic research is industry's need to move to high-technology products to replace ones that have become commodities. In doing so industry often requires expertise in areas in which it does not have strength.
The significance of a material being a commodity is that the company no longer has the advantage in the market which it got from the uniquely high quality of its product or its patent protection. The lowest cost manufacturer may have a commanding edge, and often gets this edge by paying the lowest salary to its workers. As a result the American manufacture of materials such polyester fiber, polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene must compete with producers in countries with a lower wages and often low-cost natural resources. The only way around this situation is to sell high-technology products where the competitive edge is based on intellectual input.
This input can be in new types of products for new functions (superconductivity), better ways of doing an older job (compact disks, biodegradable packaging), or process technology to make something for sufficiently less money than even the low-wage competitor. Process technology is well illustrated by proprietary technology for making TiO2 which keeps the manufacturer in a leading position in a product which might be expected to be a commodity by this time.
In the drive to find newer products which have the economic potential that today's commodities had thirty years ago, companies are undertaking a major restructuring of their commercial interests. In many cases industry is looking for new products in areas which, in past decades, have been primarily the realm of the academic world. For example, in the area of biology, most of the expertise and creativity has traditionally been in the universities.
The need to get into new high-technology businesses puts
industry in the position of trying to excel commercially in areas
in which it lacks long-term expertise. Trying to get into a
product area without a firm knowledge base can be very risky. So
industry is coming to recognize that it must increasingly import
this depth of understanding from academia.
Industry's dependence on the academic world is also dictated by
needs other than the move into new product areas. There are many
reasons why industry may have trouble keeping on top of its
traditional businesses without academic help.
The polymer business is illustrative. Since the 1930's,
polymeric materials have found their major markets in
substituting for conventional materials in a wide range of
applications. Initially, this substitution was usually based on
economic grounds, and was often poorly planned technically. The
result was the historic implication of the word 'plastic' as
being cheap and shoddy. By the 60's substitution for metals,
glass and paper were usually based on properties as well as
economics, and the era of greatest activity began. Synthetics
replaced rubber, paper and glass in packaging, and engineering
resins replaced more and more metals. By the late 70's, the
straight-forward substitutions had been made. Polymers had taken
over applications up to the limits of their inherent properties.
At about this time, polymers ceased to be products, per se, but
became raw materials for more complex products such as blends,
composites, and combinations with inorganics and with metals.
This change took place largely by empirical development. We have
now however, just about used up our intuition. We are unable to
make the kind of advances that are necessary without a basic
understanding of how the system functions, how molecular behavior
under stress or electrical fields effects the bulk properties of
the polymer, and so on. This need is coming at a time when, for
the reasons discussed above, the industrial research resources
are being stretched by the needs of the new businesses.
Industrial research capability has not been increased in pace
with the business goals, and in many cases has fallen behind. The
major source of the knowledge required to advance the field is
the academic world. (Government labs may also play an expanded
role in the future.)
The short term focus of industry is another reason for the
enhanced importance of the academic world. Industry tends to look
at the research budget with the time frame of the financial
community. This attitude is not general across the world, for
example it may not exist in Japan, but it has certainly affected
the American scene. Industrial research is increasingly done in
an environment controlled by development schedules. Basic
knowledge research can rarely produce needed answers at this
pace. Therefore, it will not be practical to initiate a project
in the industrial lab to address a given problem. Instead, it
will become necessary to seek out an academic researcher who has
long term expertise in the particular field, and who therefore
has a good chance of finding the needed answers expeditiously.
This reference to getting the answers needed for a development
project does not imply that the academic researcher is being
asked to do applied work. Underlying most technological problems
are scientific questions fully compatible with the educational
process. Many faculty members have not had to opportunity to
discover how readily such situations can be found. They may
include some of the best basic science research opportunities
available in the coming years.
Possibly the most important need for academic input derives
from the need for environmentally benign synthesis and
processing. The discovery of such processes will often be an
absolute requirement for the ability of a plant to continue to
exist. This need presents a broad opportunity for chemistry and
chemical engineering. There are many situations in which a
company has patent protection for a product, and therefore can
afford to be less proprietary about its synthesis route. This
fact makes it easier for an academic researcher to hear about and
become familiar with the industrial needs.
New low polluting processes are particularly appealing for
industry / academic collaboration because the field needs the
highest level of creativity and novelty. Industry recognizes that
many of these are likely to be found in the academic world.
Improved processes for waste remediation also represent an
opportunity for interaction. Industry often can use technology
which is not proprietary.
To prevent possible communication problems when working with
industry on this topic, academic researchers will have to be
sensitive to the difference between a scientifically exciting
route and a commercially feasible one. This issue will be
discussed below.
The level of basic knowledge research in industry is dropping more rapidly than the published figures for total research and development imply. This fact alone predicts an increased dependence on academic research in the immediate future. Furthermore, industry's interest in supporting basic research internally is cyclical. Industry appears to alternate, with a frequency of decades, between developing technology internally and purchasing it from the outside. American industry seems to have moved in lockstep to one extreme of this cycle. Again the academic world must supply the creativity for this phase.
The points just made apply somewhat differently to various
types of industry. One is that group that puts a large amount of
its own money into research, and which has human resources
equivalent to that of many universities, and physical resources
frequently better. The second is the smaller organization which
often locates itself close to a campus and which has always had a
more immediate need for the help of the university. It is one of
the characteristics of the recent move of large companies into
new fields that they begin to take on many of the characteristics
of the smaller companies.
The ideas that industry needs to maintain its strength will come
from those environments which attract the best researchers. These
researchers will, by and large, be in the universities. As
industry cuts back on leading edge research, it will find
increasingly that the most creative students select an academic
career. The bottom line is that industry will not be able to do
sufficient basic research to keep the level of innovation high,
or to keep its development efforts efficient. The academic labs
must take up this role or American competitiveness will suffer.
So far we have been discussing the need. Every way we look at
the situation, we find that industry is less likely to be able to
function by itself in the future. The solution obviously is to
transfer academia's creativity to industry more effectively. An
analysis of how that transfer takes place is in order.
To simplify, we could probably say that the role of academia is
to come up with the creative ideas, and of industry to develop
them into commercial innovations. While that would simplify this
discussion, it certainly doesn't represent reality, and it may
not even be desirable.
Let us look more closely at how the interaction functions.
First, we accept that, especially in newer areas, much of the
creativity must come from the academic world. Most of the basic
knowledge to support industries' inventiveness must also come
from the same source. Second, we know that the knowledge or the
technology must be transferred to industry because only industry
is structured to convert the information into a form which
society can use.
These transfers will function effectively only if there is good
communication between the partners. Two way flow of information
is critical. This point may sound obvious, but it is to often not
fully understood, or certainly not fully acted upon.
Consider the model situation in which university workers supply the ideas. To have an idea which no one wants is a very frustrating situation to be in. A related somewhat touchy problem is to come up with an idea which has been conceived of years ago by industry, but not published. These very common difficulties found by academic researchers make it clear that academia needs input from industry to carry out its part of the collaboration. This input will not come through formal interactions, nor through dialog between upper level administrators on both sides. It requires dialog between the scientists and engineers involved. The industrial partner needs the output of the academic lab, but to make that output useful, the academic partner must be listening to and understanding the industrial goals. This requires, obviously, that the industrial partner is able to communicate, on an ongoing basis, which aspects of the academic research are of most value.
The information transfer can involve either knowledge (basic
science) or specific technology. In knowledge transfer academia
develops the underlying science which feeds the intuition of
industrial researchers, and facilitates development, but the
inventions come out of the industrial lab. In some areas such as
polymer science, this has been the historical norm.
Industrial labs will continue to produce most patents. However,
universities will more frequently be making the basic
discoveries. This is particularly true in newer areas such as the
biological sciences, but is increasingly the case in older areas
as well. This technology must then be transferred to industry.
The technology is often in embryonic form and requires major
development effort prior to commercialization. We will assume
that only rarely will the innovation be brought to its commercial
form in the university.
Both functions are important contributors to our country's
technological health, and both will be of increasing importance
over the coming years.
The traditional methods of transferring knowledge,
publications and presentations, work well. However, they do not
necessarily lead to the close contact with industrial researchers
which can result in research grants. Faculty members who make the
effort to follow the publications of industrial scientists in
their field, and develop peer relations with those authors, can
benefit strongly.
This suggestion does not mean that they should accept the
published work as evidence of industrial interest. Industry has
an unfortunate habit of publishing that knowledge which is
considered of lesser value to the company. The academic
researcher should use the common interest to develop a personal
relationship with the potential industrial partner. When the
industrial scientist develops confidence in the technical
competence of the faculty partner, the latter will be a natural
choice to collaborate with, and to fund, when help is needed on a
critical problem.
Basic research is a fertile field for invention, and in most fields will inevitably lead to patents if the researcher is open to recognizing them when they appear. As a result, universities have become increasingly active in patenting and marketing inventions. The potential for added income to the campus is a strong driver for this activity.
Finding an industrial home for these patents, technology transfer, raises many problems. These range from possible effects on the educational process, to the difficulties of getting industry to act on new concepts. The first has been discussed frequently and its effects passionately presented as both positive and negative by different authors. We will stay out of that argument, and will simply recognize the current interest in technology transfer, and discuss how to do it successfully.
Before talking about the pitfalls in trying to sell an idea to
industry, it is important to recognize what happens between
concept and commercialization. Many of the difficulties are not
understandable without an appreciation of the time and expense
involved in converting creativity to innovation. This is probably
the greatest source of communication problems between academia
and industry.
This process is independent of whether the discovery comes from
an academic lab or from the company's own research lab. An
understanding of the process, and of the economics of the
process, helps make it easier to work through the difficulties in
transferring technology.
We start, as always, with an idea and a lab demonstration. Ideas without the demonstration are of little value and get little attention. At this stage very little money is being spent, although in today's economy, the expense of a scientist, students and technicians may be considered anything but negligible. Nevertheless, we are talking about sums of under a hundred thousand in the academic world, and three times that in industry, given typical industrial overhead. The stage at which a good idea has been demonstrated in the lab is the point at which a true scientist is most enthusiastic. From here on, it's downhill all the way from a scientific interest point of view.
The next stage, which often requires a small group of
scientifically oriented staff, but could conceivably be done by
an individual, is to do enough work to be able to make a
preliminary evaluation of the technical potential of the idea.
Goals of this work include deciding if the initial experiment is
close enough to the optimum form of the invention: Patenting an
invention without covering the optimum form of the idea may alert
all the competition to a new concept without resulting in
protection. This work may be an exciting extension of the
original idea, or, as is often the case, a very dull, but very
necessary, effort to obtain patent examples of every form in
which the concept may work. In either case, the work must be
done.
We are talking here about an activity which is on the borders of
normal academic interest. Although it could be done by an
individual, it would probably take all his or her time for an
extended period. This is usually not something an academic
researcher wants to contemplate. It is a laboratory process, and
the costs are increased only to the extent that more technicians
or further staff are required to do the job in a realistic time
span. However, both the added staff and the time away from
looking for further new concepts may be problems in the academic
world.
Up to this point we may have been in an area which the
academic researcher could possibly take part. From here on,
however, we are in the realm of industry or an unusually highly
specialized academic activity, usually associated with a partly
independent research foundation.
It is this stage, and its related expense, with which the
academic researcher is usually least familiar. It is frequently
assumed that the value of a patent is directly related to the
potential market value of the product. This assumption ignores
the low probability of a idea surviving through development to
become commercial. It also ignores the multimillion dollar
expense and size of staff to carry it through successfully.
The next stage, commercialization can go to the hundreds of
millions of dollars if a new plant is required. This stage
represents a major commitment requiring approval at the top level
of the corporation. The investment is permanent, provided of
course that the product can be sold at a profit. Even after this
expenditure the product can fail because of marketing problems,
not necessarily technical ones, which were not seen during
development.
This brief overview only begins to give an idea of the
development and commercialization process. In industry, newly
hired synthetic chemists are usually given as many opportunities
as possible to visit manufacturing sites. The response is
predictable. No matter how much one may have read about the
capacity of the plant, seeing the contrast between the laboratory
apparatus a new polymer was made in, and the multi-story plant to
which the invention will have to be transferred does not fail to
make an impression. A failed experiment in the plant can mean
anything from several tons of waste, to shutting down the plant
for days to chisel out polymer which solidified in the wrong
vessel. We will later summarize the forces which can make it
difficult to get new ideas applied. This is one of them, but keep
in mind that one must not condemn a plant manager for being
cautious about new ideas.
Knowledge transfer is relatively straightforward. It is the classical role of the universities. The transfer takes place through the open literature and through personal collaborations. An individual scientist in industry is the recipient, and patent considerations are not involved. Membership in industrial consortia can facilitate transfer for members of the consortia. From the industrial side, the best guaranty of using the most recent academic advances is to have on its staff experts doing research in the relevant areas. Barring this, it will be difficult for an industrial lab to properly evaluate the usefulness of new results.
Technology transfer involves an academic researcher having a
potentially commercial idea and wanting an industrial lab to
support further work, or the university having patented an
invention and wanting to license or sell it. The issue here
becomes how to get someone in a corporation interested enough to
free up corporate funds to buy it.
The rest of this discussion will be directed to how to make
technology transfer work.
Most people feel that the world outside of science is far harder
to deal with than science itself. Nature is at least consistent.
When selling an idea, the problems which can prevent success are
at least as frequently non-technical as scientifically objective.
We will discuss some of them now.
It is possible to be led astray by a rational analysis of what
should happen next. This is the stage at which a large number of
factors become of critical importance. Many of them are not
technical. None of them are mysterious, and the reader probably
recognizes them all.
An understanding of the slow and expensive route an idea follows from its conception to commercialization has two lessons to teach us about transferring ideas to industry.
First it emphasizes and explains why a company may seem overly cautious in picking up one's great idea. Even though the faculty member clearly sees the commercial potential of the idea, the company will be only too aware of the pitfalls which may lie ahead. They will also have to consider the idea in the context of the many others in which they have the option of investing limited development resources.
The second point is one which industrial scientists learn early. While coming up with a great idea, it is very useful if the idea can be put into practice with existing plant equipment which happens to be under-utilized. This potential can cut many millions of dollars off of the investment necessary to get into the business. Barring that, the next best is to have the a product which can be fabricated with minimal capital investment. This leads one to consider specialty uses such as in biomaterials and electronics as fields of research.
The part of this process most commonly carried out in universities with industrial support is the first phase, the lab demonstration of a concept. An embryonic idea may be funded by industry with varying levels of commitment as to the disposition of any forthcoming inventions. These can range from a contract for sole rights, to a non-binding agreement that the funding industry will have first rights of refusal for licensing of any patents.
It is important to remember that a corporation is not a
hypothetical smooth running system. One must work with a few
individual scientists or managers who are as fully protective of
their own turf as anyone in the academic world. Unfortunately for
those of us in research, unique solutions to practical problems
are rare. A researcher may have an idea which can clearly solve a
technological problem. However, there is a strong possibility,
even a probability, that someone in the company is pushing
another solution. The industrial researcher has the advantage
that the Company already owns the patent on the ideas, and the
researcher has a personal interest in seeing the ideas become
commercial. Moreover, the industrial person is there full time to
push them on the development staff.
The "not invented here" factor can be very strong.
Unless the concept is one of the very few ones which are going to
lead society into a totally new direction, there is almost
certainly other ways of doing what the new concept accomplishes.
There may be variants of the concept which others are thinking of
which will work as well, or almost as well, but which are legally
a separate invention.
Another powerful deterrent to the use of an invention may appear to be organizational inertia. Manufacturing may look upon a new process as a potential problem. The life of the plant technical staff is going to be much more difficult and hectic for the next year if a new process is going to be installed. They must be convinced that the benefit to the company overweights the disadvantages to them.
The scientist within industry probably has a much clearer idea
of the needs of the development people than an academic scientist
can get through the limitations set by corporate confidentiality.
The problems which arise from distance from the needs of the
"customer" or "client" may be the most
difficult to deal with. The difficulties which even the corporate
laboratory of a large company can have in being certain that it
is getting answers that the manufacturing departments are able to
apply are surprisingly great.
The best way for faculty members to deal with this problem is to
convince the company that their input is so valuable that they
are hired as consultants. Close personal relations with technical
staff members is second best. These colleagues can often help
keep one's thoughts consistent with the company's needs without
infringing confidentiality.
Here is another potential trap. Many members of chemistry departments who have not worked in fields such as materials in the past are beginning to recognize their vast scientific potential. Since materials, such as polymers, are of known utility, there is a tendency to when one has some new chemistry which results in long molecules to assume that industry must be waiting, checkbook in hand, to buy patent rights. In fact, there rarely isn't some other way to get to similar polymer properties. Industry will always try to make a patent it owns do the job rather than buying a new one.
A company buys an idea because it will give them a product they can sell, but no one else can. Therefore the confidentiality of the idea, at least until it is covered by a patent, is of great importance. The following example is a real one. A researcher had a process which was as yet incompletely worked out but had the potential of commercial interest. Following the initial contact, while negotiations were going on to permit the company to follow up on the idea its own labs, the work was discussed at meetings. This gave any competitor an equal familiarity with the chemistry, and destroyed the potential for it to give the original company a commercial edge. This effectively killed interest in supporting further work, or in the company continuing it independently. There is no question that the confidentiality is a problem in any interaction.
The time frame in which the partners are working is another source of friction. The development scientist in industry needs a useful answer now. Many academic scientist think in terms of the best answer as soon as it can be found. To maintain a good relationship, the academic partner must be understanding of this issue, and willing to help short term whenever possible. The industrial partner must also recognize that the primary thrust of the academic research will advance the field over a longer time scale. Good communication, and thoughtful selection of the goals of the supported project, are necessary.
We too often hear, frequently from government officials, that
if only industry and academia could be encouraged to talk to each
other, there would be an open flow of new ideas. This idea may be
simplistic. More than talk may be required. It may be necessary
to translate between cultures.
This problem, may appear most clearly when the academic
contribution is to understanding the underlying science. Academic
scientists often complain that industry does not recognize the
importance of understanding the physics behind a process. They
have a valid objection. Often, a more complete understanding of a
process will allow operation under parameters which will offer
higher throughput and greater productivity. However, the people
in manufacturing who have responsibility for running the plant
feel they understand and have investigated all practical
operating parameters and have no interest in risking a process
line by testing unusual conditions. The problem of persuading
them of the value of understanding is one shared by industrial
researchers in their own interactions within their company.
Some academic researchers may not have experience with this
empirical point of view because they have been dealing with a
staff member in research, not manufacturing. However, it may have
a lot to do with whether the contact, who may want to support the
research, is able to get the dollars for the grant.
Basic (understanding) research has been seriously shrunken in
most industrial laboratories over recent years. This means that
the faculty researcher will be more likely to be dealing with
someone from plant technical or a development group, instead of
having a member of a central laboratory acting as intermediary.
While the central laboratory worker of past years may have been
almost academic in outlook, the new collaborator is working under
tight time constraints and will be more result oriented. The
potential for misunderstanding between the industrial and
academic partners can be greatly increased.
The faculty partner can overcome misunderstandings by learning
how to present results in a way that makes their relevance to the
technological problem obvious. Doing so often requires nothing
more than an understanding of what the 'customer' is looking for.
This understanding must be gained through a close collaborative
relationship to the industrial partner.
Another whole class of inter-cultural problems involves results which are publishable, undoubtedly scientifically correct, but have limited predictive capability. They do not lend themselves to telling industrial scientists what they should do to get the results they want. Such results often get very little attention in industry. The academic partners may be deceived because they will usually get a full and enthusiastic hearing since no one in industry wants to be accused of being scientifically unsophisticated. However, the next stage, finding money to fund further work, may just not happen.
In the field of invention there is a distinction between a
novel idea which appeals to the scientific mind, and an idea
which the market wants.
The considerations that lead to successful commercialization of
an innovation are not always clear to a scientist or engineer who
has a natural tendency to push for the best technical solution
possible. Sir Robert Watson-Watt, the British radar pioneer, said
"Give me the third best technology. The second best won't be
ready in time. The best will never be ready" This thought is
very valid and is recognized by those who make the decision to
invest in the later stages of development. However it is a source
of confusion and frustration to basic scientists in industry as
well as in the academic world.
Quiana may have been the the best wash-wear fiber ever
manufactured, but polyester has all the market. Quiana was a
commercial failure, not because it couldn't be commercialized,
but because it offered properties that insufficient people wanted
to pay for. It is important not to infer from this that industry
doesn't want new ideas. There is one cynical attitude that goes
"industry is interested in new ideas - but not too
new". Certainly, in practice, an idea that is not too new is
more readily transformed into a product. The really novel idea is
welcomed. However, it is welcomed for its commercial potential,
not its scientific appeal. And commercial potential involves
considerations which scientists rarely are familiar with.
The conclusion is to keep one's thinking flexible, and try to
understand the world of the manufacturing staff. This can go a
long ways in selecting what to try to sell, and how to package it
for sale.
We will now discuss how to improve the situation. The ideal
for an academic researcher is to spend a year with a company.
Barring that, cultivate a good friend in the company who can be a
guide.
However, learning what a business center needs is not a trivial
issue that can be reduced to a list of important problems. Good
judgment on this issue is the hardest talent for a new scientist
in industry to learn. It is a matter of intuition and familiarity
which is difficult or impossible to communicate in any brief
format. To wind one's way successfully through all these pitfalls
requires an interested contact in the company who can help guide
the idea through corporate politics.
This is a difficult issue to deal with, because the answer
probably varies with each company and with each section of a
given company. We will discuss separately two aspects. One is the
attempt to sell a specific idea or patent and the other is the
search for funds to launch a research program in an area of
importance to industry. This may be either a major
interdisciplinary grant or a grant to an individual to support
one student or post-doc.
We will deal with the sale of an existing invention first.
Like in any other marketing effort, the better you know your
customer, the better off you are. Here is where the value of
having developed a long-term personal relationship with an
organization becomes apparent. Often the best point of contact is
a senior-level scientist who can give the invention the
appropriate internal credibility. There is no way this person can
be found without knowing the organization.
Without such a person, the proposal is best made to an
appropriate middle-level manager.
In order to get proper consideration and get developed, a
discovery needs a champion within the company. That is, someone
who develops sufficient personal interest in the idea to invest a
lot of time in pushing it internally. This person should be from
the manufacturing side. If he or she is from the corporate
research lab, there must be an equally enthusiastic counterpart
from the manufacturing division.
A champion is also necessary for ideas which develop within a
company. To repeat a concept refered to above, an industrial
organization is not a rational smooth running creature. Like all
organizations, it is a group of individuals. Things happen
because an individual wants them to. Top management will, of
course, have to be sold on the idea if it is to be developed.
However, someone on the technical side, or at least lower
management, has to push the idea to the point at which it can be
evaluated commercially.
The need for a champion is all the more important if the idea is
not sufficiently worked out to evaluate commercially. Anything
from an academic lab probably fits this category.
Incidentally, taking an idea directly to the top may, in some
situations, be an efficient route to have everyone else in the
organization marshall all of the reasons they can conceive of as
to why the concept is not applicable.
Let us move to the problem of getting research funds. There
are two aspects to this subject. For the million dollars to
support a major new initiative, of course, go right to the top.
The individual grant, however, is another issue. Here we come
back to interesting an individual scientist, or lower-level
manager, in the value of the academic work. Grants are initiated
bottom-up. An industrial scientist must be convinced that he or
she can get the solution to a problem less expensively or more
rapidly by spending budget dollars in the academic laboratory
rather than in-house. The argument for this must be strong enough
to also convince management.
Even when such support is initiated by an approach to upper
management, it will continue only to the extent that trust and
confidence is developed between the working partners over the
first years of the funding. This trust must be based on mutual
understanding which requires a knowledge of each other's goals,
and is not simply a matter of good will. In fact, good will,
usually easily achieved, can mask underlying communication
problems.
Most funds are given on a "here's the money, you do the
work" basis. However, the best and most stable
relationships, ie., the grants most likely to be renewed, are
ones which have a strong collaborative interaction between two
scientists. Developing this type of interaction requires time and
effort, but can pay off in a close, long-lasting relationship.
It is useful to understand how dollars for academic support
look like on an industrial budget. It is too easy to think of a
large industrial organization as having unlimited resources. The
problem is that one is not always dealing with the
"Corporation". The contact may be with one small part
of the company which has a budget to meet. The dollars for
academic support often come out of the discretionary funds left
after the permanent staff's salary and research expenses are paid
for. These dollars may be in direct competition for the funds
used for staff travel to meetings, and for purchase of additional
laboratory supplies.
The potential industrial partners will be looking closely at
their own budgets and inevitably looking at a potential overrun.
A forecast of a small, i.e. 3%, budget overrun will represent a
very high percentage of the discretionary funds. The resulting
pressure on academic support can be intense. To overcome these
pressures the academic research must of clear potential value to
the industrial partner.
The academic researcher's credibility will depend, to a large
extent, on being able to discuss the proposed research in a way
meaningful to the industrial partner. This requires some
understanding of the goals of the industrial organization.
Any situation will, without doubt, be unique. So discussions like
this can be only of general use. However, some insight, from the
other side of the fence, into what's going on in the industrial
partner's mind when discussing research support may give the
faculty person more patience with the industrial position. It
will help in recognizing the difference between enthusiasm for
the science and technological interest. The understanding gained
can give the academic partner a better chance of developing a
relation which is both scientifically and financially
advantageous.
Academic Industrial Topics
Table of Contents
© Manuel Panar 1996