Transformers pt 4

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

In 2007, Vice Chancellor Diedrich told Tech Transfer Tactics

Before Texas A&M amended its tenure criteria, there were virtually no tenure-track professors who beat a path to the technology transfer office to file patents, says Diedrich. In the last year since the new policy was instituted, there has been a noticeable stream, mainly among engineering, science and medical researchers, he says.

Let's look at the Tech transfer stats (pdf)

The policy change took effect in 2006.

Transformers pt 3

Part 1.
Part 2.

In December of 2005, the Regents promoted Guy Diedrich to the position of Vice Chancellor for Technology Commercialization, a position that had not existed before. Hitting the ground running, Diedrich prepared a revision of the System policy on intellectual property, to be considered at the January 2006 meeting of the Board of Regents. This does not appear on the minutes of that meeting (pdf)... what happened can be reconstructed from materials posted by the CPI, especially for their March 2006 meeting.

Consistent with the long-standing TAMUS practices on Shared Governance*, Diedrich prepared the new policy without input from the faculty. It would have sailed through, if not for another troublesome TAMU President working "FOR the faculty not WITH the faculty". Dean of Science Joe Newton wrote in March 2006:

..While the REC [Research Environment Council - ed.] recognizes and appreciates the timely intervention of President Gates to remove this item from the January Board of Regents meeting, there must now be significant input from the faculty during the reworking of the document...

Diedrich's changes were based on the ideas he explained to the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Texas Senate, as described in the previous post in this series. He just wanted the faculty to let the Office of Technology licensing sign off before they squandered commercialization opportunities by publishing their work. The faculty reaction is captured in a memo from Tom Vogel (Chair of Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate):

Summary of discussion on the proposed system policy on intellectual property management and commercialization: The consensus of the AAC was that we cannot support the proposal. Here are some points which we found troubling:

1. The proposal would introduce a potential for prior restraint of publication of research which describes a patentable innovation. This seems unworkable: there is an enormous amount of research being done at our university, much of which could be construed as possibly describing a patentable innovation. It seems unlikely that the OTC could evaluate all of this research in a timely manner.
2. The possibility of prior restraint of publication is abhorrent to the academic culture. The fact that this power would be concentrated in the hands of a single person is extremely troubling.
3. It provides for roles of TAMUS in equity ownership, management, and operation of for-profit enterprises which we believe to be dangerous to the University's interests.
4. The decision-making authority concerning commercialization of research would be distanced from the individual researcher. This should remain at the university level, rather than adding another layer.
5. It places unrealistic expectations upon the terms and conditions
   for license agreements concerning early-phase technology development.
6. The significant bureaucratic hurdles imposed on commercializing research will hurt efforts to recruit top-flight researchers.

By that summer, much of the reporting requirement was stricken from the document that was eventually approved (pdf). During the kerfuffle over the intellectual property rules, the guidelines on tenure and promotion were changed to increase the emphasis on patents and commercialization. By the following year, Diedrich was bragging about how TAMU was able to grant tenure to a junior faculty member who hadn't published for a year.

The new policy is already paying dividends, according to Diedrich. While the university has not yet attempted to quantify the impact the effects of the new policy, Diedrich said that it has seen “quite a number of additional disclosures” that were a direct result of younger, tenure-track faculty disclosing their research for the first time.

In addition, the university is set to award tenure to a professor for the very first time based partially on using technology commercialization as a criterion for the decision.

Thus, Diedrich was able to overcome faculty resistance by distracting them on one front while moving forward on another. He enhanced researcher communication by getting the faculty to unite against his proposed changes to the intellectual property rules. Tech transfer offices elsewhere could learn from our master strategist.

*The Chancellor at the time was Bob McTeer. McKinney became Chancellor in Nov. 2006.

Transformers pt 2

Part 1.

Vice Chancellor Diedrich explained his philosophy on intellectual property to the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Texas Senate in July 2008 (pdf)

Herein lies the critical cultural distinction between research “purists” and those that believe commercialization is part of the research process. The research purist believes in research for the sake of research – that is, all research has some value and the only necessary output is a paper that contributes to the literature. In other words, the researcher’s obligation ends with an attempt to publish. The commercialization-oriented researcher believes that there is an obligation, where appropriate, to provide a return-on-investment to the taxpayer in the form of protected intellectual property. that could one day become the building block for a new product or service that benefits society. In theory, the difference in perception between these two cultures can be vast. In simple practice, it is the difference between disclosing the invention to the commercialization office prior to publishing, thus optimizing its chance for commercial value, and not disclosing prior to publishing, thereby hindering its chance for commercialization. It is this fundamental research culture shift that must be catalyzed in order for the citizens of the State of Texas to realize the full value of research conducted among its academic centers.

Back in 2006, Diedrich tried to catalyze the culture shift.

To be continued...

Transformers

One of the members of our System team, Guy Diedrich, Vice Chancellor for Federal Relations and Commercialization, is a recognized leader in improving commercialization of research. His lectures on how to transform faculty in to allies are for sale at Technology Transfer Tactics.

as any experienced tech transfer professional knows, gaining the trust and cooperation of faculty — and educating researchers on key commercialization challenges — is critical to TTO success. It all adds up to one tough but essential truth: Regardless of the barriers, difficulties, and misconceptions, you must develop effective, creative ways of reaching out to and educating your faculty — and turn them into allies and team members in creating start-ups; disclosing, protecting, and marketing their technologies; and finding corporate partners and licensees to bring their research to the marketplace.

It’s a tough job, on top of everything else you have on your plate — BUT IT CAN AND MUST BE DONE. That’s why Technology Transfer Tactics’ Distance Learning Division has recruited Guy Diedrich, Vice Chancellor for Federal Relations and Commercialization with The Texas A&M University System, to help you overcome faculty resistance, enhance researcher communication and education, and build critically important, positive relationships with your most important resource — your inventors.

Vision 1920 is sure that Diedrich has arranged for TAMUS to get a significant cut of the $197 price of downloading his talk. In future posts, Vision 1920 will review how Diedrich transformed the faculty at Texas A&M.

To be continued...