A tool for subjective analysis of TTOs

A TOOL FOR SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF TTOs DAVID N. RESENDE

GOVCOPP Research Unit, University of Aveiro, Campus Univ. de Santiago, Aveiro,3800, Portugal, e-mail: [email protected]

DAVID GIBSON

IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Austin, 2815 San Gabriel, Austin, Texas 78705, USA e-mail: [email protected]

JAMES JARRET

IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Austin, 2815 San Gabriel, Austin, Texas 78705, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Technology Transfer, University-Enterprise Relationship, Open Innovation, Technology Valorisation, Facilitators, Diffusion of Innovation.

Abstract

The objective of this article is to present a proposal (working paper) for a quantitative analysis tool to help technology transfer offices (TTOs) improve their structures, processes and procedures.

Our research started from the study of internal practices and structures that facilitate the interaction between R&D institutions, their TTOs and regional surroundings.

We wanted to identify “bottlenecks” in those processes, procedures, and structures. We mapped the bottlenecks in a set of “facilitators” collected from observed best practices in select European and North American R&D institutions.

One of the most important aspects of our research is the use of facilitators and rules integrated in a management framework called “Master Plan to Transfer Technology”. This is a compilation of 271 rules referring to 43 facilitators distributed in seven groups that explain the actual best practices inside (and around) a TTO. The facilitators and rules are the output of the coding process step in grounded theory, NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT _where facilitators are the categories and rules are their properties.

The BTP (Best Transfer Practices) output is the Analysis and Recommendations Report. It shows the possible necessary process reengineering and other recommendations capable of optimizing/improving the most important processes, procedures and structures.

The scientific domain of this research is the management of innovation, knowledge and technology transfer. The central subject is the relationships between companies and the innovation agents concerned with technology transfer. We developed a quantitative tool to assess and study those agents as knowledge disseminators. We recommend ways to maximize effectiveness when trying to take care of the company objectives, such as technology transfer and valorisation of knowledge. The BTP tool is based on a teamwork approach and system automation.

The research methodology is based on document analysis, participative observation and interviews with key actors from 29 TTOs in the US NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT _{and five}

NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT The expression "grounded theory" refers to theory that is developed inductively from a data collection [STR90] [GLA67].

NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT City University of New York, Dartmouth College, Drexel University, Mississippi State University, Northern Illinois University, Purdue University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rice University, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University System, University of Alabama in Huntsville, University of California at Riverside, University of Georgia, University of Maryland, University of Minnesota, University of Texas at Arlington,

in Portugal NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT _{. All of these collected data gave us the possibility} to lead research on grounded theory, aiming a theoretical framework we call Master Plan to TT and one assessment tool based on it.

The BTP tool resulted from a tested analysis tool for ICT systems in hospitals (Best Hospital Practices - BHP), which resulted from the Best Enterprise Practices – BES [BHP10]. Thirty-five small and medium enterprises (SMEs) empirically tested and validated the BES and five hospitals empirically tested and validated the BHP. The results provided a basis to implement in TT management.

Our set of facilitators (that is based on the best actual practices in TT) came from a previous study carried out in Portugal and the US. The study included validation [RES09] from 28 interviews and a survey with 24 actors in TT processes in Portugal and 18 interviews and a survey with 34 actors in TT processes in the US.

Introduction

With the high rate of technological change imposed by competition, companies are forced to focus attention on the technological aspects of their activities.

In this scope, companies can cooperate with institutions that are concerned about knowledge dissemination and find answers to their problems. Research and development (R&D) institutions, both university-related and others concerned about technology transfer (TT) as an engine that increases industry competitiveness, are fundamental in conjunction with governmental decision makers and authorities at national, regional, and local levels. Therefore, it’s important to know if these institutions are prepared to participate in a process as complex as the transference of knowledge and technology for the companies.

In this context, it is valid to question how much its TTO is efficient in those tasks to spread knowledge and transfer technology. Moreover, how effective was it in the execution of these tasks.

The various forms and the various strategies that characterize the efforts to run processes to transfer technology are difficult to configure, to follow, and to control. It is difficult to evaluate qualitative performance (based on the strategic objectives). This characterizes the problem we intended to study: the lack of a systematic tool to analyze and diagnose bottlenecks in the TT processes driven by TTOs.

How to maximize TTO efficiency and effectiveness in relationships between host institutions and the involved business environment? Could we point to weakly implemented critical processes and mechanisms? Related to a specific scenario, is it possible to point to a set of TT facilitators - that is, a collection of rules (for these facilitators) which lead in the direction of the actual best practices?

The importance of the theme

It is perfectly recognized that today’s quality of life depends on science and technology advances. An increase in economic and cultural progress is only possible if improvement of human resources is a high priority. Technology transfer and TTOs are central in these

University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Brownsville, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Texas at El Paso, University of Texas at Pan American, University of Texas at Permian Basin, University of Texas at San Antonio, University of Texas at Tyler, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, University of Utah , Utah State University and Wayne State University

NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Universidade de Aveiro, Universidade do Minho – TecMinho, Universidade do Porto, Universidade de Coimbra and Instituto Pedro Nunes.

problems. The cooperation between R&D institutions and enterprises from involved environments is one of the most important instruments to govern the process [NOV91].

There is not a standard way to verify systematically whether performance of an institution with its TTO is adequate, if it can be improved, or where one can intervene to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This verification is very important in enhancement processes. In those institutions, the knowledge of this type of information can aim accelerations in processes of improvement, as well as instruct regional and national programs in national incentives and grants, so that it can stimulate the most effective initiatives.

Problem characterization

Due to the fast and continuous processes of technological innovation, the cooperation between universities and R&D institutions with the business environment appear as one of the most important arrangements to promote and keep the competitiveness of those companies. However, there are countless examples from those kinds of institutions that are still far from the reality of the market; from attainment of success in R&D partnership; from companies that, in spite of awareness of the importance of innovation, don’t know the ways and means to achieve it [ETZ00].

The various forms, means, strategies and places that characterize the efforts to put in practice knowledge and/or technology transfer processes are difficult to configure, follow up and control at the level of performance.

How to systematically analyse and recognise processes, procedures and structures in a R&D institution, when it is transferring technology?

How to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of a TTO when managing the relations between its institution and the business environment? Can we find processes and critical mechanisms that are weakly implemented?

To the above questions, there is a huge collection of variables conditioning the TT relationship. Is it possible to characterize processes, procedures, and structures in all aspects and iteration types with its external partner, and to identify the ideal practical implementation?

Is it possible to point out TT facilitators to an institution in a given scenario, which direct to the actual best practices according to (comparing with) a collection of rules of actual best practices?

At the global level, there are many research works related with the question of TT relationships (both cases in open innovation [CHE06][CAR09] as driven by the triple helix [ETZ00][FEL03]) . However, not all could indiscriminately be applied to the various scenarios and regions due to social, economic, and cultural specificities. A deepening in these studies allows us to aim, in conjunction with solutions already developed, answers with great effectiveness in the search of behaviour excellence in the environment where the institutions and their TTOs act. Thus, a tool that points to critical facilitators, poorly implemented or not existing in a R&D institution, in a given scenario and institutional strategic objectives, could be able to help to analyze and choose actions of improvement that increase the performance of the institution and its TTO into transfer technology.

The proposed work

The scientific domain of this research is the management of innovation and knowledge and technology transfer. Its central subject is the relationships between companies and the innovation agents that make technology transfer one of its activities. For that, it is important

to characterize an adequate analysis tool to study those agents, while knowledge disseminators, and aim ways to maximize its actuation when trying to take care of the necessities of the companies and value its intellectual property helped by its TTO.

The specific goals are:

 Using grounded theory methodology [STR90],[GLA67], find a management framework (the Master Plan to TT) from coding actual best practices that promote interaction in various phases of the process and their transversal practices (the TTO and its institution’s internal processes, procedures, and structures ) [RES10];

 To suggest a tool that, using the previous knowledge, makes it possible to identify process "bottlenecks" and aims a conceptual solution to eliminate them without damaging other activities of the R&D institution/university.

A reference for the development of the BTP is an approach developed for the improvement of business processes and the introduction of supporting ICT systems in manufacturing companies. The approach is tailored to SME needs [BHP10]. This BEP methodology developed for and successfully applied to manufacturing process improvement is based on the “best enterprise practice” (BEP) approach. It includes elaborated concepts that imply organisational and technical solutions for quality and production control problems. This BEP methodology for business process re-engineering and exploitation of ICT tools enables efficient generation of key implementation plans to overcome identified bottlenecks in companies in different industrial sectors. In several CEC (Commission of the European Communities) funded projects, and many industrial projects, BEP successfully improved manufacturing processes in about 35 SMEs and larger companies in different European regions. In our scope, the objective is to transfer this successfully applied approach, applied also in the improvement of business processes in hospitals by IEETA NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT _{(with the BHP [BHP10]), to the improvement of TT} processes driven by TTOs in their R&D institutions.

Methodology

We propose an analysis tool prototype that, besides identifying critical “facilitators” (in the sense of to be the most important) for that scenario, in what it touches to the relationship with Companies, also can describe a concept of solution based on processes reengineering and introduction and use of new improved concepts for structures, processes and procedures in the host institution and its TTO.

For this, we will use a collection of actual best practices as rules. Grouped in facilitators of TT, they will reflect the state of the art in the management of technology transfer. They will help to internally characterize any R&D institution/university with its TTO in the sense of its relationship with the business environment. Grounded theory is the methodology used to code these facilitators and, as its properties, the rules of actual best practices.

The methodology to collect data consisted of documental analysis, surveys and interviews (so that we could verify the state of the art in the Management of Technology transfer), and participative observations in IEETA4 _{research unit and IC}2 institute NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT _.

This research is limited to actions in North American and European R&D institutions (although other references are present) with special attention on U.S. Department of Defense

NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT IEETA - Institute of Electronics and Telematics Engineering of Aveiro is a research institute at the University of Aveiro, Portugal.

NOTEREF _Ref271122173 \h \* MERGEFORMAT IC2 _{institute is an interdisciplinary research unit of The}

(DOD laboratories), 29 universities in the US, one in Singapore, one in Australia, and eight in Europe, 22 TTOs in Portugal, and 29 in the US). It is a cross-cultural analysis.1

A Proposal of a Qualitative Analysis Tool The Facilitators and their Rules

This study started with presupposing the existence of practices and structures that facilitate the management (by a TTO) of the interaction between R&D institutions and companies. It is validated by the coding performed in the grounded theory methodology [STR90],[GLA67]. From our study of actual best practices [RES09], we collected (coded) a set of facilitators, with their rules – the properties, mapped from observed standard processes and structures, to create a “TTO Master Plan” (figure 1).

The Triple Helix of university-enterprise-government [ETZ00] can be viewed in figure 1 through the bottom interface bar that is the open door to the partners and enables the open innovation [CHE06].

The groups of facilitators

The figure 1, created with the aim to join all the interest points of discussion around what it was defined as group of facilitators and its rules of actual best practices, shows the Master Plan, the main actors within the R&D institution and, inside the institution, the six stages with the image of the actors level of responsibility for each stage (in each stage, who is more responsible).

The six stages, in the Master Plan, drive the study of the TT facilitators. The practices in these stages plus the TTO practices in the institution induce the increase or decrease in efficiency and/or effectiveness of TT projects. Hence, we defined them as “facilitators” for each stage and for the institution/TTO. We named them “Group of Facilitators” (GFs).

The rules associated with each facilitator are defined in accordance with capability to improve characteristics of the corresponding facilitator. We compiled the set of rules and verified them with eight previous studies. The documental analysis of the current practices in institutions with TT as part of their missions bore the set of rules [RES09] [RES10].

The “Group of Facilitators” (GFs) are: GF in the TTO institution, GF in the strategy, GF in the vigilance, GF in the promotion, GF in the vehicle identification, GF in the transference and GF in the management of documents and results.

Many facilitators from our collection are not mandatorily visible and/or important to all institutions. In other words, we have facilitators that are not necessary, others without an application in a given scenario, and some that are critical to an institution (regardless of presence). An illustrative example is the TT mechanism “extension/specialization training courses” that could not be used because it is not important in a given R&D institution. As a facilitator to transfer technology, it’s not part of the set of facilitators that characterize this institution and it is not a relevant facilitator that helps characterize this institution. At the same time, in another scenario, with another institution, this mechanism could be the most important one to transfer technology, characterizing the corresponding facilitator as relevant in our Master Plan. In this case, its rules are important for the characterization of its level of implementation.

1 (footnote 2, footnote 3,[ABE04], [AIA09], [AIR01], [AIR02], [FEU04], [FLC04], [GIBS94], [GOD08], [GRU03], [IAP09], [INP09], [INPI09], [IPN09], [ISI09], [LOU10], [MON10], [NBI10], [NUS09], [ONR04], [OTR09], [OXF95], [OXF09], [RES09], [RES10], [SIN09], [STW09], [TEC09] and [TWE10])

The structure of the tool

We can look at an R&D institution and its TT management office (TTO) from the point of view of its capacity to transfer technology from its internal research groups by observing its facilitators and corresponding rules. The more well-implemented facilitators it has, the more prepared it is to transfer technology. A facilitator is implemented if its rules are well-implemented.

We divided our 271 rules that refer to 43 facilitators into seven groups as follows:  GF to the institution TTO with 6 facilitators and 36 rules;

 GF to the strategy with 6 facilitators and 32 rules;  GF to the vigilance with 5 facilitators and 34 rules;  GF to the promotion with 5 facilitators and 28 rules;

 GF to the vehicle identification with 5 facilitators and 35 rules;  GF to the transference with 12 facilitators and 80 rules; and

 GF to the management of documents and results with 4 facilitators and 26 rules.

The above paragraphs characterize that which our tool is supposed to measure. In other words, the institutional analysis will be made with the measurement of the implementation levels of its relevant facilitators (looking at the implementation of its rules).

It is important to mention at this point that the proposed tool is supported by a set of (non-structured) open interviews and documental analysis. The most important aspect is to perceive real understanding of the main internal actors. Some assumptions define prerequisites to guarantee effectiveness. Briefly:

 It performs strategic decision making and is a tool for top management;

 The “taskforce” that applies the methodology consists mainly of internal actors (appointed by top management) whose roles in the TT process are extremely important; and

 Respondents are chosen by that team and should reflect most of the TT structures and processes at all levels (operational, tactical, and strategic levels).

Relevant Facilitators and critical Facilitators

It’s important to define relevant facilitators, for an institution in a given scenario, as that ones related to the most relevant structures and processes according the strategic objectives to TT observed in the analysis of the institution. They are the most important facilitators for transferring technology from the perspective of the institution’s internal actors and TTO [RES10]. It does not mean that they are well-implemented.

From the above discussion, we get an important conclusion about this tool: The relevant facilitators are the most important ones to a given institution. As well-implemented as these are, the corresponding processes and structures are more adequate. When we identify the relevant facilitator, we also characterize the institution with its TTO and its key points for TT, according to the master plan. The question to ask is how does one identify these facilitators?

Another question: How does one identify weakly implemented relevant facilitators – called critical facilitators? We are looking for bottlenecks (in structures and processes) for every weakly implemented relevant facilitator.

Basic principles

The proposed tool needs to follow a systematic plan so that it can be efficient. A systematic approach is important in the analysis process so that it can help identify relevant

facilitators (mapping of the TT structures and processes of the institution and its TTO in the facilitators of the master plan). When a TTO in an institution asks for an analysis of its performance in TT, this clearly shows its appetence for changes that cause performance improvement. First, we need to identify TT strategic objectives. Processing this information will help achieve the most relevant facilitators.

With the strategic objectives defined, the next step is to analyse TT structures and processes, with the intention of mapping them, with those objectives, in the master plan set of facilitators, so that we can find the relevant ones (present or not, well implemented or not).

Now, it’s necessary to measure the level of relevance to all facilitators discovered in the last step. We define the relevant facilitators as the set discovered from the master plan that are most relevant to the institution’s strategic objective.

From this point, the focus is on the most relevant facilitators only. It’s time to evaluate the TT structures and processes to determine the implementation level of the relevant facilitators. The non-relevant or less relevant facilitators don’t need evaluation because they don’t relate to strategic objectives. We recognize the critical ones, the absent or less-implemented facilitators. This is done by measuring the level of implementation of the rules as in figure 4.

Afterwards, the critical rules will be studied and remapped into the TTO processes and structures of the institution to discover bottlenecks responsible for weak implementations.

After identifying critical facilitators, we begin the analysis of their rules. The identification of a bottleneck means that a very important facilitator (to the objectives of the institution and the TTO) does not have well-implemented rules.

Dynamic tables and graphics allow visualization of the associations and interdependencies between facilitators and the influence that the environment could have upon them. In other words, we will attempt to disclose which critical facilitators are influenced by others. This information allows us to identify whether there are any critical facilitators that, when modified (improved by a solution design), could influence other existing critical facilitators. In this case, that critical facilitator will be the first one to be analyzed with the objective to introduce improvements in the corresponding bottlenecks.

The next step is the improvement solution planning to the most important weak points, identified in the bottlenecks, in the form of a progressive improvement plan, looking at the TT structures, processes and TTO procedures to identify the problems and its causes.

Procedures of Analysis

The proposed tool enables the identification and subsequent solution proposal for the bottlenecks related to TT management procedures, processes, and structures. This is based on the following essential questions:

 Which structures should be optimized to achieve strategic objectives as a TT promoter?  Which processes and procedures should be optimized to achieve the same objectives?  Where does one start?

To answer these questions, we need to identify and hierarchically arrange the problems found in the study that follows the interviews and documental analysis, then, in the remapping phase, where these problems are remapped into the processes, structures and TTO procedures, identify the corresponding bottlenecks, detaching the most prioritized (big concern) and those with simple and sustainable solutions.

The suggested solutions should ease the identified bottlenecks and improve the related prioritized processes, procedures, and structures.

The steps

Figure 2 shows a proposal for the sequence of steps (activity diagram) we consider appropriate to the prosecution of the necessary activities.

The documental analysis, not present in figure 2, is very important as a huge source of institutional information. It is one of the most important sources. The conjugation of that information with the knowledge and information that we obtain with interviews is the “database” for the analysis procedures in this tool.

Define key actors

The analysis tool, as mentioned above, is based on interviews and documental analysis. For a panoramic view, we should obtain knowledge and information from institutional actors, including technicians and administrators, at all decision levels – from operational to strategic.

The information to be collected at strategic levels is almost always of vital importance to definition of TT strategic objectives. The information to be collected at operational levels is important for detecting problems in structures, procedures, and processes.

Key actor identification should concern the most relevant employees, actives, and composing nodes in the internal institutional TT network. We could point to others as the representatives in functional areas crossed transversely by the TT processes - some senior investigators active in the TT processes of their local groups; experts of internal rules and procedures; and others pointed out by colleagues and partners.

Interviews

The analysis interviews are crucial to compilation of necessary information to identify the strategic objectives and find evidence of bottlenecks.

In the interviews, key actors highlight points of interest in the discussion of their TT activities and help to clearly identify the main day-to-day problems. At the strategic management level, key actors show a clear idea about TT strategic objectives and the problems with evolving integration of their institutions’global strategies and missions.

The interviews elicit necessary knowledge about the institution and its TT processes and structures. This is required for identification and posterior mapping into the master plan TT facilitators.

Enunciate the strategic objectives

The TT-concerned strategic objectives could not be formally enunciated. We must find and formulate them because they are essential to identification of relevant facilitators and, later, to select actions to eliminate or attenuate the most critical bottlenecks.

Mapping the facilitators

Mapping is the way to relate the master plan’s facilitators with the TTO procedures and institution processes and structures identified during interviews and documental analysis. This step is a short review of the facilitators that are important to the strategic objectives, in spite of whether they are implemented in the institution.

In this phase, it is possible to identify other facilitators implemented in the institution that aren’t aligned with the strategic objectives and could be eliminated.

At the end of this phase, there is information about the facilitators present in the problem’s domain and the solution’s domain. There is not information about the level of relevance or implementation.

This step’s output could form a table with 3 columns. The first column could include the 54 facilitators from the master plan; the second could display presence in the institution (yes or no); and the third could verify the process or structure. For example, the facilitator “local strategic plan” could be present because one could observe it in many local groups’ documents.

In the last example, presence does not indicate relevance to strategic objectives. It does not imply successful implementation, either. Its rules, from the master plan, are not verified or analysed. Information about the level of implementation is not available yet.

Identify relevant facilitators

The identification of the relevant facilitators takes place after the end of the interviews and documental analysis, when the detailed sight over the institution allows knowing what identified facilitators are important to achieve the strategic objectives, from the identified TT structures and processes and from the mapped facilitators with those objectives.

This tool utilizes a graphical form to show facilitator relevance. It uses the Likert scale with three levels: 1 means less relevant, 3 means relevant, and 5 means very relevant (to amplify the relative distances in the graph). Figure 3 shows how to graphically identify the relevant facilitators. The degree of relevance is related with its rules and needs to be discussed with the key actors to know if the facilitator is really necessary and important to keep in further studies.

To facilitate and simplify the process, we suggest considering relevant only the facilitators with a degree of maximum relevance (5 in Likert scale, corresponding to 100% in the graph). This simplification does not affect the results because the proposed tool is constructed with a focus on the most important bottlenecks listed first in the hierarchy.

figure 2 – Proceedings of the analysis tool.

figure 1 - The Master Plan with its steps, from the institution TTO point of view, with its interfaces and partners.

figure 4 - Example of spread sheet with the calculus to a facilitator and the levels of relevance and implementation of their rules.

Facilitator relevanceFacilitator level of implementation

Rule level of implementation

Rule relevance

Rules of the facilitator

Identifying bottlenecks – The critical facilitators

This is the phase where the rules corresponding to the identified most relevant facilitators are analysed.

At this point, the specialists that apply this tool with the internal taskforce open the meeting analysis to study the institution under the master plan light. It is the phase to verify, for each identified relevant facilitator, present or not, the rules that are important, according to the strategic objectives and their levels of implementation.

In other words, this phase studies and registers each relevant facilitator’s degree of importance and level of rule implementation. For example, for the facilitator “fast reaction to the emergence of a new internal competence,” first we define (find) the degree of importance (the relevance) to each of its rules and set up a spreadsheet, as in Figure 4. The document calculates the implementation level of the facilitator as a function of the implementation level of its rules as a weighted average function.

As Figure 4 displays, the implementation degree of the facilitator “fast reaction to the

emergence of a new internal competence” is 1.5 on a zero-to-five scale (where 1 means less-implemented and 5 means fully less-implemented). The calculation formula is:

∑

∑

3×1+3×1+3×3+3×1 3+3+3+3 =1 .5

This value as a percentage is equivalent to

1.5×100

5 =30% _{, clearly low. It characterizes}

this facilitator as critical – a discovered bottleneck.

A pertinent question needs to be analysed. What should be the minimum implementation limit for a facilitator to be considered critical? In the above example, if the considered limit is 35%, the facilitator is critical. If the considered limit is 25%, the facilitator is not considered critical. It was considered 30% implemented - greater than 25%! Which implies it is discardable, from now on, in the study of critical facilitators.

As this limit is subjective, the suggestion is to utilize a value inversely proportional to the level of focus required in the study. A deeper focus implies more possible discardable critical facilitators.

From the suggested spreadsheet, it is possible to extract the relevant facilitators with their implementation degrees, as in Figure 5. It shows the information in a useful form so that the necessary knowledge can be easily extracted to the next phases.

The most important bottlenecks, considering the limit (35%), are displayed in the graph. The seven critical facilitators, in Figure 5, are the only ones important to the next phases. These critical facilitators cause the bottlenecks. They will be analysed with each other (as interdependencies) and in relation to their environmental influences.

The most important rules from these critical facilitators will receive a deeper analysis in the last phases. These are responsible for the bottlenecks.

The objective of the matrix in Figure 6 is to measure the auto correlation degrees between the critical facilitators. It also represents the external factors’ influence on them.

Initially, the row and column titles are filled with the identified critical facilitators and the most important external influencing factors.

The remainder of the table’s body is mostly filled with values reflecting the facilitators’ influences. The external factors’ influences fill other columns. As in Figure 6, for the previous example, the sum of all influences present in a row is displayed in the far-right column. It represents the dependence degree of the facilitator in that row. The sum of all influences in a column is displayed in the bottom row. It is the influence degree of the facilitator in that column.

We intend to use this information to discover the facilitators and external factors with more influence on the others. We also want to find the ones that are more influenced with the most dependents. After filling the matrix, we execute an ordering operation in the rows and columns. This formats the matrix with the most influencing facilitators and external factors in the far-right column and the most influenced facilitators in the bottom row. Although this is the same matrix, the look is more adequate. The concentration of the most important critical facilitators is in the bottom-right corner.

The most incisive procedures to improve the performance of the institution will be in those critical facilitators. The next phase is the analysis and recommendation report. The focus must be defined. The more comprehensive or general the report needs to be, the more area should be allotted to the bottom-right rectangle (shown in Figure 6). It means that the report should have more points to analyse (more critical facilitators and external influencing factors to analyse).

Figure 6 offers clarification. In it, the most influencing critical facilitators are the "net presence" and the "fast reaction to new internal competences.” This example verifies that some of its external factors must be considered as problems for reflection. They are “internal culture” and “surrounding entrepreneurism and innovation.” Looking at the side of the most “sensible” facilitators, the matrix shows “consulting,” “TT networks/…,” “information and knowledge,” and “pre-enterprises” are, in a decreasing order, the most influenced ones.

With respect to the analysis’s focus, the size reduction of the rectangle in the bottom-right corner of figure 6 means we focus attention on fewer facilitators and/or external factors.

The next step is to remap the facilitators into the TT processes, structures, and procedures. We determine the facilitators that are important to re-evaluate from an analysis of the most critical facilitators and external constraints identified in the previous study. The output will be the discovery of the bottlenecks and recommendations ordered by importance.

Analysis and recommendation report

This report presents results of the accomplished analysis of the TT processes, structures, and procedures of a R&D institution and its TTO. It shows clearly the critical facilitators and external factors with a graphical viewpoint in figures 5 and 6. It proposes recommendations based in the reengineering of processes, improvement in the procedures and infra-structures. It focus in most influencing (and influenced) critical facilitators improvement and in the most influencing external factors neutralization (or attenuation). Recommendations translate to actions that remove one or more bottlenecks. Actions should be the most economically relevant according to an ordered project plan. Analysis material consists of available documentation: interview outcomes (the implicit knowledge); reports from local visits to the most important places (observations); report meetings (mainly remapping meetings); and other explicit knowledge available in the institution.

The document should explain and explicitly shows the institution’s TTO-related TT procedures, processes, and structures, and the most critical rules derived from the remapping meetings.

figure 4 – Example of relevant facilitators graph and their implementations. From this graph we take off the critical facilitators.

figure 5 - Correlation table – influences and dependences between facilitators and external facilitators (example with some values fulfilled). Rows and columns ordered and rectangle showing less focus.

Conclusions and final notes

This study makes it clear that TTOs from universities and other R&D institutions are longstanding realities, but implemented actions are sometimes disoriented and unstructured.

There are many successful cases. Some regions of excellence include TTOs that work very easily and a lot of companies with latent capabilities to innovate.

We conclude that the necessity to organize and systemize the relations between the knowledge-generator institutions and the potential customers for this knowledge is obvious. The incipient and sporadic cases should become parts of normality. The TTO role is very important in such scenarios.

An institution that puts a well-structured plan into practice can disseminate its knowledge in a much more constant way. The plan should include well-defined systematic processes and use all available potential from organizational structures. In this way, the institution enriches the surrounding society.

The master plan does not have the pretension to be a model. The analysis tool’s necessity and importance bore it. The grounded theory methodology’s codes (reflecting the facilitator) and properties (reflecting the rules) compose the plan’s foundation [STR90] [GLA67]. The advantage in using structures and infrastructures present in the institutions that would take part in those transversal processes guided the creation of the master plan as well. In other words, data begot and fostered the need for a master plan. The data included knowledge that, to systematically analyse an institution as a knowledge disseminator, it would be necessary to map its processes in a set of actual practices. This method finds bottlenecks (less- or not-implemented critical facilitators) [RES10].

Our study started from the presupposed existence of TT internal practices and structures. These items facilitate the interaction between TT-promoting R&D institutions and nearby surroundings. We created the master plan and used it to compile facilitators, each one with its own rules. For the tool, we compiled 275 rules referring to 54 facilitators divided into seven groups of facilitators [RES09].

It is possible to see the TTO capacity to manage TT from a R&D institution with the observation of the facilitators and rules they implements. The better implemented a facilitator, the more prepared it will be to transfer technology. A facilitator is well-implemented if its rules are well-implemented.

In conclusion, the proposed tool intends to be a standard approach to systematically verify if the performance of a TTO is adequate; if it could be improved; or where an improvement in efficiency and effectiveness is urgent. This verification is very important in improvement processes. The advantage of the tool is the production of a preliminary quantitative analysis to find the most important actions that quickly improve the institution’s TT processes and structures. The analysis produces solutions focused on bottlenecks and the most important critical processes and structures, making shorter investments possible in steps. The less-implemented most critical facilitators’ knowledge helps to quickly identify problems. This single study shows every action necessary to optimize almost all of the main problems. The actions are arranged in order of importance. They should be implemented in steps.

This tool is the basis of a methodology with the objective of efficiently supporting the redesign and specification of new processes, structures, and procedures. The redesign is based on teamwork aided by the system automation approach. The approach improves interdepartmental TT processes within a TTO in a university or R&D institution. The methodology will require documentation, including guides, instruction manuals, data sheets, and questionnaires, among others. The documentation should be explicitly available to use in the validation phase. The validation should be completed with TTO partners interested in understanding their internal bottlenecks and willing to engage.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) for financial support of this work within the UTEN project. The authors would also like to thank the interviewees who generously shared their time and experience with us and acknowledge the support from all the people at the IC2 _{Institute (Austin – Texas).}

References

[ABE04] APG Aberdeen Proving Ground. 2004. Science and Technology Board – Tech Transfer Mechanisms. http://stb.apg.army.mil/mechanisms/Transfer.htm (access in 2004).

[AIA09] AIAI- Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute. http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk (acesso em 2009).

[AIR01] Air Force Research Laboratory. 2001. Air Force Technology Transfer Handbook – Patent Licenses. http://www.afrl.af.mil (access in 2001).

[AIR02] Air Force Research Laboratory. 2002. Air Force Technology Transfer Handbook. http://www.afrl.af.mil (access in 2002).

[BHP10] teamHos – IEETA Instituto de Engenharia Electrónica e Telemática de Aveiro, Universidade de Aveiro. 2010. BHP in a nutshell – A Methodology for Process Improvement in Hospitals. http://www.ieeta.pt/team-hos/cached/teamhos/home.nsf (access in 2010).

[CAR09] Carvalho, Vidal. 2009. Open Innovation: Novo paradigma de Inovação. CEISE STI – Centro de Investigação e Serviços ao Exterior em Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação. Newsletter 25, Mar.2009.

[CHE06] Chesbrough, Henry; Vanhaverbeke, Wim & West Joel. 2006. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press.

[ETZ00] Etzkowitz H.; Webster, A.; Gebhardt, C. & Terra, B. R. C. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, vol 29, p 313-330.

[FEL03] Felgueroso, Paz Fernández Alcaldesa, Presidenta del Ayuntamiento de Gijón. 2003. Nuevos mecanismos de transferencia de tecnología – Debilidades y oportunidades del Sistema Español de Transferencia de Tecnología. Encuentros Empresariales COTEC. Gijón-Spain.

[FEU04] Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto. 2004. Política da FEUP para a protecção da propriedade intelectual.

[FLC04] Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. 2004 Technology Transfer Desk Reference. http://www.federallabs.org (access in 2004).

[GIBS94] Gibson, D. V., and E. M. Rogers. 1994. R&D collaboration on trial: The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

[GLA67] Glaser, Barney G & Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.

[GOD08] Godinho, Manuel M. Silva; Luis Mira & Cartaxo, Rui. 2008. Análise da actividade das OTIC -Oficinas de Transferência de Tecnologia e de Conhecimento e dos Gabinetes de Apoio à Promoção da Propriedade Industrial (GAPI) de âmbito académico. ISEG 2008.

[GRU03] grupUNAVE & GAPI. 2003. Ciclo de Seminários – A Propriedade Industrial no Contexto Universitário, Universidade de Aveiro.

[IAP09] IAPMEI. 2009. Incentivos e Apoios. http://www.iapmei.pt/iapmei-art-01.php (access in 2009).

[INP09] INPI – Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial. 2009. Manual de Aplicação do CPI.

Versão V.06 Jul.2009. Portugal

[INPI09] INPI – Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial. 2009. Guia de Procedimentos para Direitos de Incidência Tecnológica. Versão V.03 Fev.2009. Portugal.

[IPN09] IPN – Instituto Pedro Nunes. 2009. https://www.ipn.pt/si/apresentacao (access in 2009).

[LOU10] Université catholique de Louvain. 2010. Research and Development Liaisons Office. http://www.ucl.ac.be/intro-en.html (access in 2010).

[MON10] Monash University. 2010. Science Technology Research and Innovation Precinct (STRIP). http://www.monash.edu.au/STRIP (access in 2010).

[NBI10] National Business Incubation Association. 2010. http://www.nbia.org (acess in 2010).

[NOV91] Novozhilov, Y. V. 1991. University-Industry Cooperation in Eastern Europe: The experience of some advanced Universities in the USSR. International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 6, nº 5/6.

[NUS09] National University of Singapore. INTRO – Industry & Technology Relations Office. http://www.nus.edu.sg/intro and http://www.nus.edu.sg/NUSinfo/Milestones/research.html (access in 2009).

[ONR04] Office of Naval Research, 2004. Industrial and Corporate Program – Technology Transfer Mechanisms. http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/ (access in 2004).

[OTR09] RedOTRI Universidades & CRUE. 2009. Informe de la encuesta RedOTRI 2008. Spain. [OXF95] Oxford Centre for Innovation. 1995. Best Practices in the Facilitation of Technology Transfer.

Lessons from the entry data for the 1995 Department of Trade and Industry Technology Transfer Award. Oxford, England.

[OXF09] Oxford University. 2009. Research Services. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/rso (access in 2009). [STR90] Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.

[RES09] Resende, David N.; Gibson, D.; Jarrett, J.; Diz, H. & Reis, D. 2010. A set of “Facilitators” that drive the Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) in the actual effective and efficient practices of TT. IAMOT 2010 - 19th International Conference on Management of Technology. March 8-11, 2010 Cairo, Egypt.

[RES10] Resende, David & Diz, Henrique. 2010. Transferência de Tecnologia – as práticas actuais e uma Metodologia para análise subjectiva das instituições. Tese de Doutoramento. Universidade de Aveiro – DEGEI, Aveiro-Portugal.

[SIN09] SINTEF - Stiftelsen for industriell og teknisk forskning. 2009. Annual report 2008.

http://www.sintef.no/Home/Technology-transfer/ (access in 2009).

[STW09] StW – Steinbeis Foundation for Economic Development. 2009. http:// www.stw.de/en/about-steinbeis/organization.html (access in 2009).

[TEC09] TecMinho – Universidade do Minho. 2009. http://www.tecminho.uminho.pt/ (Access in 2009).

[TWE10] University of Twente - Kennispark Twente. 2010. Annual Report 2007 & Putting Science to Work. http://www.kennispark.nl/en/About%20Kennispark%20Twente/ (access in 2010).