UMass intellectual property income soars

University of Massachusetts licensing income from its intellectual property income climbed to $73 million during Fiscal Year 2009, a record and a performance likely to vault UMass into the intellectual property income Top 10 nationwide.

"Research and discovery are crucial to the Commonwealth's innovation economy and will drive economic renewal and recovery in this state and across the nation. Having a robust research program is a great advantage for the 63,000 students of the University of Massachusetts system, who have the benefit of learning from the very people who are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge," President Jack Wilson said.

UMass generated $37 million in licensing income from its intellectual property in Fiscal Year 2008 and saw its earnings soar in Fiscal Year 2009, which ended on June 30, largely as a result of UMass Medical School receiving a $30 million upfront payment from Merck & Co. as a result of the licensing of a human monoclonal antibody combination for clostridium difficile infection - a treatment developed at the Massachusetts Biologic Laboratories.

In recent years, according to the Association of University Technology Managers annual survey, UMass has ranked among the Top 15 nationwide in intellectual property income of reporting institutions and the past year's major jump in earnings is likely to vault it into the Top 10 nationally. Universities generate intellectual property income when they protect faculty discoveries through patents and trademarks and companies license those discoveries to produce innovative products. Universities may also generate income when they receive company equity and later sell stocks as emerging companies become more successful.

Boston slips in high-tech ranking

While Massachusetts maintains the top state ranking in science and technology prowess, Boston has slipped.

In the Milken Institute’s ranking of top high-tech center areas in North America, Seattle passed Boston and became America’s second-ranking high-tech metro area. The number one spot belongs to Silicon Valley, which “continues to lead all other metropolitan regions in North America in the breadth and scope of economic activity it creates through technological innovation,” according to the study.

According to Milken Institute, the Top Ten North America high-tech centers are:

2007 Ranking (2003 Ranking) Metro Area Total High Tech Score

1 (1) San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 100.0

2 (3) Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 46.4

3 (2) Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA 45.2

4 (5) Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 41.8

5 (4) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA 40.2

6 (6) Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX 21.8
7
(7) San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 19.3

8 (11) Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA 17.7

9 (9) New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ 16.8

10 (8) San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA 16.1

The report, called “North America’s High-Tech Economy: The Geography of Knowledge-Based Industries,” was presented earlier this week at the 2009 IEDC Technology-Led Economic Development Conference.

Metro areas were ranked by “their ability to grow and sustain thriving high-tech industries.” The study compares wages and employment in the metropolitan areas, and adds a location quotient, which measures the concentration of high-tech employment or wages in the area.

Boston area still is number one among 381 metro areas in scientific research and development services, one of twenty high-tech industry segments. So, it has the potential to be number one overall if it improves its capacity to turn innovative ideas into plans, plans into operating businesses, and businesses into rapidly growing ventures. Moving research to ventures remains its major challenge. That is why programs like the Venture Development Center are important.

Persistence pays

Last week I was asked how long it took to complete the VDC project. I smiled. There are several correct answers:

• It took eight years. (From vision statement.)

• It took four years. (From space assigned.)

• It took one year. (From start of construction.)
  

The original vision for the VDC was put forward by us in February 2001 in association with planning for an environmental science and technology park on property owned by the city adjacent to the university campus. That larger plan was eventually abandoned due to delays related to land acquisition and financing.

Since one million in funds had already been appropriated by congress, UMass Boston had to develop an alternative plan. In July 2005 Chancellor Motley assigned the former 18,000 square feet cafeteria space in the Wheatley building for VDC, and the vice chancellor for administration and finance authorized planning for the demolition and renovation of the Wheatley Building space.

In September 2005, UMass Boston facilities management hired consulting engineers to draw up demolition plans and specifications. In December 2005 a contractor was selected for demolition work. The demolition was completed in May 2006.

In March 2006 Design Partnership of Cambridge, Inc. was hired for the feasibility study phase. In September 2006 Design Partnership issued the final VDC feasibility study and preliminary construction cost estimate.

In November 2006, an agreement was reached between UMass Boston and the UMass Building Authority to structure the management of the design and construction phase of the VDC project. Joslin Lesser & Associates, Inc. was hired by the UMass Building Authority for project management of the design and construction phase of the VDC.

In December 2006, the RFP was issued for architectural services for the design and construction phase of the VDC. In March 2007 Sasaki Associates Inc., was selected.

In August 2007, Chancellor Motley expressed his approval of the project plans and budget. Permission to proceed to construction documents development was given. The schedule had construction completed by June 2008.

In November 2007 construction documents and specifications delivered by Sasaki Associates to Building Authority and UMass Boston team. The bid process was begun, and in February 2008 the construction contract signed with J & J Contractors, Inc. In February 2009, the VDC project was completed.

In May 2009, after months of getting every system to work as planned, we launched in grand fashion, with 200 university, city and business leaders in attendance cheering us on.

Putting stories to work

Storytelling is a technique on the rise. Use it to better engage your audience and ensure your message sticks.

A popular proponent is Robert Frank, an economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University, and author of The Economic Naturalist.

In a talk to Google employees, he argues that the study of economics is dismally taught and dismally understood. He suggests that rather than teach all the “horrible equations and graphs,” an alternative method should be deployed– that of storytelling and narrative. He says: “The form in which ideas are conveyed is important. Perhaps because our species evolved as storytellers, the human brain is innately receptive to information in narrative form.”

Frank says: “… in light of the low bar established by traditional courses, there seems little risk in trying something different.”

Organizational dilemma of stewards and creators

In Bridging the Gap Between Stewards and Creators, MIT Sloan Management Review, authors Rob Austin (Harvard) and Dick Nolan (University of Washington) identify two personality types that are vital to successful innovation--but whose mindsets often clash. The major question addressed by Austin and Nolan is how do businesses consistently miss major innovation opportunities after pouring significant investments to create them.

After researching the movement of computing pioneers among various organizations during a period between the early 1960s and the mid-1990s, they conclude that when tensions between bottom line-oriented managers (stewards) and creative technical employees (creators) are not managed well, a company’s ability to innovate is at risk.

Stewards are usually managers; their goal is the careful allocation of the organization's resources, with an aim of achieving an optimal return on investment. Creators are often skilled, specialized employees whose have a grand vision and mission; they frequently view business concerns as secondary.

According to the authors, conflict between stewards and creators is, to some extent, inevitable. However, when such conflict is managed poorly, the organization's capacity to innovate effectively may be impaired. The authors suggest eight guidelines for managing steward-creator conflict. These guidelines include: (1) keep talented creators around, although they can be difficult to manage; (2) balance the influence of stewards and creators in the organization, so neither group always wins; (3) cultivate people who have credibility with both creators and stewards and can help resolve conflicts; (4) use peer review to more accurately evaluate creators' specialized technical work; (5) structure the innovation process so that creators produce tangible results regularly; (6) realize that there will always be some conflict between an organizations' creators and its stewards; (7) avoid overly prescriptive control mechanisms that may alienate creators; and (8) ensure that closure on projects is achieved neither too quickly nor too slowly.

A lively 28 minute discussion by the authors of the Organizational Dilemma of Stewards and Creators has been published by the Seattle Innovation Symposium.

Grand opening of the Venture Development Center

Yesterday, Harvard President Faust rode the Red Line to join 200 city, business and education leaders to cut a ribbon and mark the official opening of UMass Boston’s Venture Development Center.

“The state-of-the-art R&D facility and business incubator...signals the Dorchester extension of the innovation, research, and development that occurs along the Red Line,” Faust noted.

Also participating were Chancellor J. Keith Motley, University of Massachusetts, Boston, President Jack Wilson, University of Massachusetts, and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

President Faust's remarks, "Innovation, collaboration and renewal – lessons along the Red Line" are posted on the Harvard University Office of the President's web site.

"The Red Line...is a highly useful reminder of...where we can go … if we commit to working together to get there," she said.

View the entire event on YouTube.

Universities among top bay state patent winners in 2008

Patent awards are not a perfect barometer for an organization’s ability to innovate, but it can be one important measure of its investment in itself and its intellectual property—and its future competitiveness.

According to figures Xconomy obtained from Wilmington, DE-based IFI Patent Intelligence, here’s the top 25 list for Massachusetts:

1. EMC (IT) — 192
2. MIT (academic research) — 138
3. Analog Devices (semiconductors) — 122
4. Raytheon (defense) — 122
5. Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (electronics) — 86
6. Acushnet (sporting goods) — 78
7. Massachusetts General Hospital (medical research) — 53
8. Harvard University (academic research) — 51
9. Osram Sylvania (lighting manufacturing) — 46
10. Vertex Pharmaceuticals (biotechnology — 45
11. BBN Technologies (technology R&D) — 42
12. Millennium Pharmaceuticals (biotechnology) — 37
13. 3Com (network infrastructure) — 34
14. The MathWorks (software) — 32
15. Varian Semiconductor Equip. Associates (semiconductors) — 32
16. Teradyne (semiconductors/test equipment) — 27
17. Gillette (consumer products) — 26
18. The University of Massachusetts (academic research) — 26
19. Axcelis Technologies (semiconductors) — 24
20. PerkinElmer (healthcare/analytical sciences) — 24
21. M/A-Com (RF/microwave products) — 23
22. Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials (specialty materials) — 23
23. Children’s Hospital (medical research) — 23
24. Bose (audio equipment) — 22
25. Cabot (chemicals) — 21

Academic institutions contributed an impressive 21% of the patents.

Taking bigger—but smarter—risks

At a time when organizations should be taking bigger innovation risks, their bias is in the other direction. Avoiding risky projects altogether strangles growth. The solution is to pursue a disciplined, systematic process that will distribute innovations more evenly across the spectrum of risk.

George S. Day of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School in Philadelphia identifies tested evaluation tools in his recent article "Is It Real? Can We Win? Is It Worth Doing? Managing Risk and Reward in an Innovation Portfolio" in HBR Spring '09.

I use the R-W-W Screen, adapted to my university setting. It helps expose faulty assumptions, knowledge gaps, sources at risk, and problems suggesting termination. The screen is a series of questions designed to help evaluate the potential for success:

I. Is it real?

a. Is the market real?

i. Is there a need or desire for the product?

ii. Can the customer buy it?

iii. Is the size of the potential market adequate?

iv. Will the customer buy the product?

b. Is the product real?

c. Is there a clear concept? 

d. Can the product be made?

e. Will the final product satisfy the market?


II. Can we win?

a. Can the product be competitive?

i. Does it have a competitive advantage?

ii. Can the advantage be sustained?

iii. How will competitors respond?

b. Can our company be competitive?

i. Do we have superior resources?

ii. Do we have appropriate management?

iii. Can we understand and respond to the market?


III. Is it worth doing?

a. Will the product be profitable at an acceptable risk?

i. Are forecasted returns greater than costs?

ii. Are the risks acceptable?

b. Does launching the product make strategic sense? 

i. Does the product fit our overall growth strategy?

ii. Will top management support it?

The screen also provides a "just the facts" checklist that will help prevent personal excitement and passion from clouding decision making. To gain the most value from this tool, try putting your entire portfolio of new initiatives to the test.

Compete or cooperate?

Trying to outmaneuver an incumbent is not always the best way to succeed as a new company. A study by Scott Stern at the Kellogg School of Management and David Hsu at Wharton revealed that the return on investment tended to be higher for a cooperation strategy than a competition strategy when one or more of three conditions existed for the start-up company:

1) The firm has strong patents
2) The firm is backed by venture capitalists
3) There is a high sunk cost requirement for the firm to compete in its industry

If patent rights are valuable in your industry, strong patents increase the validity of a competitive threat against the incumbent if negotiations break down and cooperation fails.

Start-ups that enjoy venture backing increase their credibility in a negotiation by evaluating and certifying the company’s innovation.

In an industry such as biotechnology, distribution channels, brand recognition, regulatory knowledge, and production expertise make it expensive for start-ups to enter alone. This situation makes leveraging the assets and resources of an established firm a more viable option.

Cooperation may be achieved through several mechanisms, such as licensing the innovation, forming a strategic alliance, or selling the technology outright to a competitor.

Deciphering the developing mind

When you look into a child’s eyes, what do you see?

Zsuzsa Kaldy, assistant professor of psychology at UMass Boston, sees innocence and adventure, purity and mischief, helplessness and determination, anger and pride, envy and happiness, impatience and endurance, serenity and resentment.

She also hopes to see the precursors of mental disorders.

Eye movements provide critical insights to analyze human behavior. Eye tracking is used to answer an endless array of research questions in many fields, including developmental psychology. Kaldy and her colleagues at UMass Boston, Alice Carter and Erik Blaser are developing screening tools for early detection of anxiety disorders.

The team’s research project focuses on the creation of standardized behavioral assessment tools that can be used in the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in young children, ages 2-3. Its specific objectives include the identification of early neurocognitive markers of anxiety disorders and subsequent development of a new clinical test, with accompanying support materials, for use by health care professionals. The faculty team is well-positioned to claim a leading role in this largely-neglected area of study. The effort is consistent with priorities identified by the National Institute for Mental Health for pediatric mental health, and it is strongly aligned well with the campus's emphasis on developmental science. Research partnerships exist with National Institutes for Health intramural researchers and scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital.

For decades, developmental psychologists have tried to decipher the developing mind by looking at eye movements, but it has not been easy. The gaze of a yound child is infuriatingly difficult to track with any kind of speed or precision. They squirm and if they are fitted with headgear to help track their movements, they tend to reach up and pull it off.

Advances in eye tracking are beginning to solve these problemssuch as the Tobii Eye Tracker, that can track eye movements unobtrusively while keeping up with a bobbing head. A computer does in seconds what could take hours to code previously. In an effort to support innovative research and development on campus, UMass Boston’s Venture Development Center recently purchased this research tool for the Kaldy research team. Erik Blaser is developing the customized software that underlies the screening tool for early detection of anxiety disorders.

There are only ten to fifteen research labs across the nation that have invested in eye trackers for young children, according to Bob McMurray, a psychologist at the University of Iowa. Already, data from the new tools is challenging assumptions about how and when young children learn about language, people and objects in their world.

UMass Boston team’s first aim is to focus on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder which has a high heritability component and currently cannot be clinically diagnosed until early school age. Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder have persistent, upsetting thoughts (obsessions) and use rituals (compulsions) to control the anxiety these thoughts produce. Most of the time, the rituals end up controlling them. The disorder affects about 2.2 million American adults according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

The course of the disease is quite varied. Symptoms may come and go, ease over time, or get worse. If it becomes severe, it can keep a person from working or carrying out normal responsibilities at home. Those affected by the disorder may try to help themselves by avoiding situations that trigger their obsessions, or they may use alcohol or drugs to calm themselves.

Based on adult studies of the disorder, Kaldy hypothesizes that tests that the team develops can be used to detect early precursors (behaviors that may not yet reach the level of clinical symptoms) in young children.

Their second aim is to use these findings to design a cost-effective, patentable screening tool: a new clinical test with an accompanying manual for professional pediatricians and clinical psychologists. Such a test would have tremendous clinical impact.

Their third aim is to leverage their results, deepen expertise, and expand
research capacity to increase chances of procuring significant external funding.

Kaldy, Carter, and Blaser were among the recipients of the 2008 prestigious Science and Technology Initiatives award from UMass President Jack Wilson to support their research and development. The team will be presenting their first findings at the Society for Research in Child Development’s meeting in Denver in April 2009.

Identifying the university’s innovators

There are two kinds of people that make innovation initiatives successful - those who focus on building the internal platform required to develop organizational innovation capabilities; and those who turn ideas and research into new programs, products and services. The former are more strategic and tactical, the latter more operational and rare.

I try to build alliances with my colleagues in the former group in order to support the later group. How do I identify this latter group? Here are some things I look for:

• People who can make things happen rather than people who have lots of ideas.
  

• People who have created results as an individual.
  

• People who make decisions even when they feel they do not have enough information.

• People who like provocative questions versus becoming defensive and combative.
  

• People who keep a user group in mind when doing their research, and actually interact with them.
  

• Those who are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns that point to opportunity.

A great way to find potential innovators is to look at who is applying for internal development grants, from our campus as well as the university system. They have a vision and are prepared to do the hard work required to make it a reality.

Measuring innovation

How do you measure the return on investment in innovation? Recently, there was a good discussion in the Leadership+Innovation community at LinkedIn comprised of people working on the intersection of leadership and innovation in large and established organizations.

I like the way Jeff Murphy, an Executive Director at Johnson & Johnson suggests how to manage expectations:

1) Initially, focus on engagement, training and participation of individuals.

2) Then, as you begin to build a critical mass of capable individuals, the focus shifts to your innovation pipeline (e.g., flow of projects through concept, development, launch, etc.) and early wins.

3) Finally, as your initiative begins to mature, your focus shifts to the end goals - return on investment, successful new programs launched, impact from new launches, etc.

Jeff Murphy says that if an organization gets ahead of itself in the metrics area, it can lead to unrealistic expectations during the early stages. On the other hand, if it gets behind on implementing the appropriate metrics, it leads to under performance.

I couldn't agree more. Everyone it seems is itchy to get to number three but struggles because the groundwork has not be laid.

Innovation blossoms where the sectors converge

The celebration of social entrepreneurs and enterprises - reaching a zenith in 2006, when Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank—the pioneers of microfinance—won the Nobel Peace Prize, tends to obscure the mechanisms that result in positive social change—the innovation itself—according to the authors of Rediscovering Social Innovation, an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Social.

They think the advantage of examining the pursuit of positive social change through an innovation lens is that this lens is agnostic about the sources of social value. Unlike the terms social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, social innovation transcends sectors, levels of analysis, and methods to discover the processes—the strategies, tactics, and theories of change—that produce lasting impact. Social innovation will certainly require understanding and fostering the conditions that produce solutions to social problems.

The mechanisms of social innovation—the underlying sequence of interactions and events—change as a society and its institutions evolve. Nonprofits, governments, and businesses have had various roles. These social innovations during the 1930’s were driven by a more expansive and direct role of government. The devolution of public services which began in the 1980’s such as day care, nursing homes, even military services to the private and nonprofit sector continues today. Since the 1960’s, pressure on the private sector to consider the social impact of its conduct has grown tremendously.

The authors believe that we increasingly see the three sectors joining forces to tackle the social problems that affect us all based upon a better appreciation of the complexity of global problems such as climate change and poverty. They do so by exchanging ideas and values, shifting relationships, and the integrating private capital with public and philanthropic support.

An example is socially responsible investing which simultaneously considers the social, environmental, and financial consequences of investments, applying the ethos of the nonprofit sector to the most purely financial of decisions: investment.

In principle, many people accept the trend of dissolving sector boundaries; in practice, however, they continue to toil in silos.

The authors say that to support cross-sector collaborations we have to examine policies and practices that impede the flow of ideas, values, capital, and talent across sector boundaries and constrain the roles and relationships among the sectors.