Innovation Associates Inc. Email: [email protected] Tel: 703.925.9402

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Innovation Associates Inc. Email: Ia@Innovationassoc.Com Tel: 703.925.9402 I NNOVATION ASSOCIATES Accelerating Economic Development Through University Technology Transfer Accelerating Economic Development Through University Technology Transfer Based on: Report to the Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board of the Governor's Competitiveness Council Prepared by: Innovation Associates Inc. www.InnovationAssoc.com www.InnovationAssociates.us email: [email protected] tel: 703.925.9402 Diane Palmintera, Author Robert Hodgson, Consultant Louis Tornatzky, Consultant Echo XiaoXiang Lin, Research Assistant February 2005 Copyright pending The findings, conclusions and recommendations are solely those of the author and Innovation Associates Inc., and do not necessarily reflect those of any other individual, institution or agency. Cover design by [email protected] CONTENTS Foreword iii Preface v Acknowledgements vi Executive Summary viii Abbreviations xii I. Introduction 1 Universities as a Pipeline for Technology-Based Economic Development 2 The Role of State Government in Building a Technology-Based Infrastructure 3 Methodology 5 II. Summary of Lessons Learned 8 Lessons for Government and Business Leaders 8 Lessons for Academic Leaders 13 Cross-Cutting Lessons 19 III. Case Studies 21 Carnegie Mellon University 22 Georgia Institute of Technology 32 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 44 Purdue University 54 Stanford University 63 University of California, San Diego 71 University of Pennsylvania 80 University of Wisconsin-Madison 91 Washington University 100 Appendix ii Innovation Associates Inc. www.InnovationAssoc.com STATE OF CONNECTICUT EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 FOREWORD Connecticut's prosperity, quality of life and economic future depend upon its ability to make the most of its technology assets and ability to innovate. Connecticut has some of the finest academic and research facilities in the world, and one of the most educated and productive workforces in the nation. We are leveraging these resources to advance our technology industries, and to create new science and technology businesses and jobs. The Report to the Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board of the Governor's Competitiveness Council has far-reaching implications for job growth, economic development and education - three of my top priorities. Jobs in the 21st century will be grown, not merely filled, and the companies that create them must be nurtured, not merely attracted to our state. Yankee Ingenuity is still our ace in the hole. It has been a key to our success for 300 years. Our challenge now is to turn that ingenuity toward creating the underpinnings of a 21st century economy. Connecticut is very fortunate to have institutions such as Yale University and the University of Connecticut (UCONN) as well as 45 other universities and colleges. In 2003, Yale and UCONN together spent more than $600 million in research and development. The Yale School of Medicine, widely recognized as an international leader in life sciences research, spent more than $270 million for research and training and is one of the top recipients of funding from the National Institutes of Health. UCONN's Centers for Regenerative Biology, Global Fuel Cell Center, Institute for Materials Sciences, Center for Marine Sciences, and School of Engineering also are conducting cutting-edge research. Connecticut is home to hundreds of world-renowned corporations, many of which have their research headquarters in the state. Corporations such as Pitney Bowes, Pfizer, United Technologies, U.S. Surgical Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, General Electric and Bristol- Myers Squibb are leading research and development in their fields. In a five-year period, the top five corporations alone in Connecticut produced 1,700 patents. This rich corporate research base provides the pipeline for future innovation and jobs in industries such as pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, aerospace and defense, information technology and software, finance and insurance, and manufacturing. iii Innovation Associates Inc. www.InnovationAssoc.com Composed of CEOs from a cross-section of industries, legislative leaders, heads of key educational institutions, labor representatives, officials of industry associations and several state commissioners, the Governor's Competitiveness Council was established to oversee cluster based economic development efforts in Connecticut. In November 2003 the Council created the Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board to examine and evaluate technology transfer and commercialization processes. The Board includes prominent business, university, venture capital and public sector leaders. In early 2004, the Board sought an assessment of national and international best practices in university technology transfer and commercialization and recommendations for steps Connecticut should take. The report to the Board targets factors that help state position their universities as centers of innovation and business growth, including strong academic leadership and research capabilities, availability of early stage capital, commitment to and support of entrepreneurship programs, and the existence of infrastructure such as innovation centers, incubators and research parks. As Governor of the State of Connecticut, I am pleased to share parts of this report with other state, academic and corporate leaders across the country. These are competitive times, and the competition is increasingly global. More than ever it is important for states to work toward the common goals of strengthening the nation’s scientific and technological research and building its technological workforce. Connecticut will be doing its part to help lead the way. PREFACE In 2003-2004, the Connecticut Governor’s Competitiveness Council began forging a path toward national science and technology leadership. It formed the Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board composed of leaders from the State’s top universities, corporations, venture capital firms, and economic development organizations. As one step toward building a State agenda for science and technology leadership, the Advisory Board contracted with Innovation Associates Inc. to examine national models of university-based initiatives and provide recommendations that would leverage the State’s university resources and enhance its economic competitiveness. This report – Accelerating Economic Development Through University Technology Transfer – is excerpted from Innovation Associates’ Report to the Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board of the Governor's Competitiveness Council. It highlights models of university technology transfer and commercialization, related efforts such as entrepreneurship programs, and the infrastructure and environment needed to support commercialization efforts. The Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board generously allowed the release of major portions of the original report as a contribution to the knowledge base in university technology transfer and technology-based economic development. This report does not include the recommendations to the State of Connecticut or discussion about Connecticut institutions found in the original report. It does provide case studies of university-based technology transfer and related economic development initiatives that lay the groundwork for state, university, and corporate actions to leverage university resources. It also informs state and national policy leaders about the importance of funding research and development in universities and supporting the infrastructure – seed capital, networking, entrepreneurial development, incubation, specialized laboratories and other tools – necessary for innovation, technology transfer and commercialization to flourish. We hope that the report will promote state, university, and corporate leaders throughout the nation to collectively take action that will leverage and build upon our nation’s unparalleled research base. Diane Palmintera President, Innovation Associates Inc. v Innovation Associates Inc. www.InnovationAssoc.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Innovation Associates Inc. (IA) would like to thank the members of the Connecticut Technology Transfer and Commercialization Advisory Board of the Governor's Competitiveness Council, its expert panel, and cluster representatives for their active input to this report. This report could not have been completed without the contributions of this distinguished group of executives representing universities, business, and government. We would particularly like to thank Louis Hernandez Jr., Chairman of the Advisory Board, who provided direction and leadership. A list of the members of the Advisory Board is found in Appendix A. We also would like to recognize the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s support of this effort through a grant to the State of Connecticut. We especially appreciate William Kaufmann’s valuable input and feedback throughout the project. Alissa DeJonge, Economist, Connecticut Economic Resource Center also provided extensive assistance. IA appreciates the advice of its National Advisory Group on the selection of university models for case studies and additional advice. A list of the Group appears in Appendix B. We want to particularly acknowledge Louis Tornatzky, Select University Technologies and Paul Waugaman, Technology Commercialization Group (TCG) who provided valuable input to this report. TCG also provided
Recommended publications
  • Me07finalrevised.Pdf
    THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering 2006-2007 LETTER FROM talented and enthusiastic new faculty members, most of them at the assistant professor level. We lost some faculty to retirement, others to THE CHAIR resignations, and others were recruited to other institutions. Marc Levenston went to Stanford. Chris Lynch went to the University of This will be the last Annual Report California at Los Angeles. Bill King went to the University of Illinois. under my watch as chair of the Tom Kurfess went to Clemson. Dan Baldwin went to industry. So the Woodruff School of Mechanical new faculty not only replaced those who left, but allowed us to grow to Engineering. As most of you know, I help match our faculty size to our enrollment, which has continued to announced last November my grow. Based on enrollment, we still need additional faculty and hope to intention to retire at the end of May add them in the coming year. We also graduated a record number of 2007. In the spring, I was feted with bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral students. As you will see in the several very nice going away parties. statistics presented in this report, not only is enrollment up, but student Some of my former Ph.D. students quality continues to improve. We have a very talented group of under- came from across the country and graduate and graduate students. overseas to participate in the celebrations. I was humbled by the honors Another significant change was the loss of our long term presented to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Tech Square Birth of an Innovation District
    Tech Square Birth of an Innovation District Chris Downing, P.E. Vice President Enterprise Innovation Institute Tech Square Today A uniform mix of economic, physical and networking assets Georgia Tech Square Tech Downtown Atlanta Georgia Tech Square Tech Tech Square TECH SQUARE TODAY • 1.4 million square feet of office, research, retail, and hotel space • Scheller Business School and GT Global Learning Center • 2014 Outstanding Research Park Award winner, Association of University Research Parks • 100+ technology startups and three accelerator programs • 20 Corporate Innovation Centers including Southern Company, Panasonic, and Home Depot BIRTH OF AN INNOVATION DISTRICT In 2000, the roughly 13-acre area now known as Tech Square and anchored by Spring and Fifth streets, was little more than a collection of surface lots. The Georgia Tech Foundation invested $180 million to create campus facilities and commercial space, and partnered with The University Financing Foundation, and Gateway Development Services to create the entrepreneurial and economic hub that is Tech Square. Tech Square An innovation district where new start-up ventures, large companies, and higher education collaborate to develop new technologies and impact economic development. Tech Square BREAKTHROUGH BREAKTHROUGH BREAKTHROUGH TALENT IDEAS COMPANIES Advanced Technology Development TechSquare Labs Center (ATDC) VentureLab Flashpoint Accelerator 100+ Technology Startup Companies The Garage 20 Corporate Innovation Centers, Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference including Anthem, Panasonic, Home Center Depot, AT&T Foundry, & Delta Air Lines Global Learning Center NCR Global Headquarters (under Georgia Tech Research Institute construction) Scheller College of Business Coda (under construction) Tech Square Research Building TECH SQUARE TIMELINE 1997 GT Foundation Purchases Land 2000 President Wayne Clough announces Technology Square project.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC. Consolidated Financial Statements June 30, 2018 and 2017 (With Independent Auditors’ Report Thereon) GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC
    GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC. Consolidated Financial Statements June 30, 2018 and 2017 (With Independent Auditors’ Report Thereon) GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC. Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Auditors’ Report 1 Consolidated Financial Statements: Consolidated Statements of Financial Position 2 Consolidated Statements of Activities 3 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 4 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 5–37 KPMG LLP Suite 2000 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308-3210 Independent Auditors’ Report The Board of Trustees Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc.: We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. and its subsidiaries, which comprise the consolidated statements of financial position as of June 30, 2018 and 2017, and the related consolidated statements of activities and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements. Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors’ Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement.
    [Show full text]
  • Layout 1 (Page 1)
    Hopkins Warehouse 184 B-6 Coliseum 73 F-4 Howey Physics Building 81 D-5 Edge Intercollegiate Athletic Center 18 F-7 Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Tech Water Sports 97 C-4 A BDC E FHG (Groseclose Building and ISYE Annex) 56 C-6 Glenn Softball Field 365 D-1 Institute of Paper Science and Technology 129 C-4 Grant Field 355 F-7 KIOSK VIEW PORT Instructional Center 55 C-6 Griffin Track 342 E-4 International Affairs and Public Policy 137 C-6 Luck Building 73A F-4 365 Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts (781 Marietta St.) 137 C-6 Moore Tennis Center 80 F-4 Klaus Advanced Computing Building 153 E-5 O’Keefe Gym 33A F-4 Knight Building (Aerospace Engineering) 101 E-7 Rice Center for Sports Performance 18A F-7 LeCraw Auditorium (Management Building) 172 G-6 Rose Bowl Field 347 F-4 Library and Information Center 77 E-6 Stamps Field 348 C-5 1 1 Literature, Communication, and Culture Tennis Center (Moore Tennis Center) 80 F-4 (Skiles Building) 2 E-7 Love Manufacturing Building 144 C-5 850 Management, College of 172 G-6 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS FOU RTEENTH STREET Manufacturing Related Disciplines Complex (MRDC) 135 D-5 ID# Grid Manufacturing Research Center (MARC) 126 C-5 Baptist Student Union 339 F-6 FOURTEENTH STREET Mason Building (Civil Engineering) 111 D-5 Campus Christian Federation 332 F-6 Materials Science and Engineering 144 C-5 Catholic Center 341 F-6 Mathematics (Skiles Building) 2 E-7 Lutheran Center 343 F-5 141 Mechanical Engineering 135 D-5 Methodist Center (Wesley Foundation) 344 F-6 Mechanical Engineering Research Building
    [Show full text]
  • Ewell Barnes & Georgia Tech
    The 1977 SGF Prize has been following architects from the Pro­ awarded to Kevin Cantley for his fession: James H. Finch FAIA, high achievement in architecture. Finch Alexander Barnes This year's project was the Rothschild and Paschal Ar­ redevelopment of the Memorial chitects; Joseph Amisano FAIA, Arts Center/MARTA Station area. Toombs Amisano and Wells Ar­ Sponsored by Southern GF chitects/ Planners; Thomas W. Company, the annual competition Ventulett, III AIA, Thompson Ven­ of fifth and sixth year architectural tulett & Stainback Architects; students is held in cooperation Pershing Wong AIA, I.M. Pei & with the College of Architecture, Partners, New York. Georgia Institute of Technology The SGF Prize Advisory Board and the Atlanta Chapter, Ameri­ includes: Jerome M. Cooper can Institute of Architects. FAIA, Cooper Carry Associates; Kiyokazu Hosokawa has Joseph N. Smith FAIA, Assistant been named runner-up in the Director, College of Architecture, competition. Georgia Institute of Technology; The SGF Prize Jury consists Herbert Cohen, President, of members of the Faculty and the Southern GF Company. An apex in architecture: The SGF Prize. SOUTHERN GF COMPRNY Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Supplier to the construction industry since 1912 Alumni President's Message Bob Rice lakes Over Dear Fellow Alumni: As has been reported to you earlier, an active search has been taking place for a logical successor to Roane Beard. Roane, incidentally, will be retiring within a week after this article appears. As previously reported, our first thought in this endeavor was to seek the aid and advice of everyone with whom we could talk about the subject. After having finalized our criteria about the type person for whom we were looking, we immediately set the wheels in motion by placing an advertisement not only in TECH TOPICS, but also in THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER LEARN­ ING.
    [Show full text]
  • “Putting Innovation in Place: Georgia Tech's Innovation Neighbourhood of 'Tech Square'”
    “Putting Innovation in Place: Georgia Tech’s Innovation Neighbourhood of ‘Tech Square’” Greg Giuffrida, Jennifer J. Clark, Stephen E. Cross Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Discussions of university-based economic development practice have evolved from discrete discussions about constituent elements (ex. technology transfer, firm start-ups, etc…) to more integrated discussions about the role of the entrepreneurial university in shaping innovation districts. Policy analysts have identified “innovation ecosystems” connected to anchor institutions in Baltimore, Buffalo, Cambridge, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Diego, and “Tech Square” in Atlanta. These innovation districts share characteristics in common with the “Triple Helix” thesis combining university, industry, and government partners to build innovation neighborhoods connected to anchor institutions. Although the success of these innovation districts has been widely noted, the elements underlying that success have not been systematically identified. This study contributes to this evolving scholarship by examining the development and evolution of Technology Square in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. The “triple-helix” thesis articulated by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff argues successful innovation cultures are fostered by continuous and iterative interaction among universities, governments, and industry. The Brookings Institution’s innovation
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Mission Statement
    GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATIONANNUAL REPORT MISSION STATEMENT It is the mission of the Georgia Tech Foundation, its Board O N T H E of Trustees, officers, and staff to foster and manage gifts COVER given in support of academic excellence in the spirit and traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Foundation is honored to be entrusted with this mission and encourages every person working on its behalf to always: Promote the cause of higher education in the State Midtown Atlanta circa 2003 (near Fifth of Georgia. and Spring Streets pre-Tech Square) Receive and manage financial donations received by the Foundation for support and enhancement of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Assist the Georgia Institute of Technology in its role as a leading educational and research institution. Tech Square – 2019 The Georgia Tech Foundation is dedicated to continuing This once-blighted area in Midtown this mission, as it has since 1932, and pledges to faithfully Atlanta, today known as Tech Square, is now a transformed high-tech provide to the Georgia Institute of Technology the support neighborhood of innovators and it so richly deserves. entrepreneurs, thanks to an ambitious Georgia Tech vision — backed by the real estate development efforts of the Georgia Tech Foundation. A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR DEAR GEORGIA TECH ALUMNI AND FRIENDS: “Thank you” is the common thread that is woven into my message to you today. As outgoing chair, I can truly share that it has been my pleasure to serve and to do so with such outstanding people. From a holistic perspective, the entire two-year period was punctuated with successful accomplishments in all areas of the Foundation’s fiduciary and operational responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Book 2010
    Fact Book 2010 Office of Institutional Research and Planning Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0530 (404) 894-3311 www.irp.gatech.edu Prepared By: Julie M. Clabby, Editor Sandi Bramblett, Director Copyright 2010 Georgia Tech is an equal employment/education opportunity institution. TABLE OF CONTENTS Fast Facts................................................................................................................... 3 General Information .............................................................................................. 13 Administration and Faculty .................................................................................. 25 Admissions and Enrollment .................................................................................. 56 Academic Information............................................................................................. 82 Student Related Information.................................................................................. 101 Financial Information.............................................................................................. 122 Research.................................................................................................................... 128 Facilities..................................................................................................................... 144 Fast Facts 2010 Fact Book Fast Facts General Information................................................................................................. 5
    [Show full text]
  • Messners Launch $5 Million CEE Faculty
    THE IMPACT OF GIVING MESSNER CEE Messners Launch CHALLENGE 1.0 Q&A $5 Million CEE Faculty Endowment Challenge Jenny K. and Michael G. Messner, CE 1976, have launched Q. What are the specific goals for the challenge? or memory of others. However, the challenge funds do A. The overall goal of the challenges is to provide up not accrue to the participating donor’s personal giving a challenge grant to support the School of Civil and to $10 million in additional permanent endowment for donor recognition purposes (e.g., The Hill Society). Environmental Engineering (CEE). Through their family dedicated for support of the School of Civil and Envi- ronmental Engineering, in very short order, to enable foundation, the Messners have established a challenge fund Q. Can donors make additional gifts and commit- the School to act quickly and decisively in attracting and ments to existing faculty endowment funds to take within the Georgia Tech Foundation; this fund will provide retaining faculty at mid- and senior-career levels. In so advantage of the matching funds? dollar-for-dollar matching gifts up to $5 million. doing, the goal is to establish new chairs and professor- A. Under certain circumstances, yes. Please inquire. ships – more than doubling the current six. The School’s primary objectives are to raise a Q. What is the minimum level of Messner Faculty combination of up to ten (10) additional faculty Endowment Challenge participation? chairs and professorships through Challenge 1.0. A. The minimum level of challenge participation for establishing new endowments is $500,000 (to fund a Q.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC. Consolidated Financial Statements June 30, 2017 and 2016 (With Independent Auditors’ Report Thereon)
    GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC. Consolidated Financial Statements June 30, 2017 and 2016 (With Independent Auditors’ Report Thereon) GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION, INC. Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Auditors’ Report 1 Consolidated Financial Statements: Consolidated Statements of Financial Position 2 Consolidated Statements of Activities 3 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 4 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 5–35 KPMG LLP Suite 2000 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308-3210 Independent Auditors’ Report The Board of Trustees Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc.: We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. and its subsidiaries, which comprise the consolidated statements of financial position as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of activities and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements. Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors’ Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements.
    [Show full text]
  • FOUR CAMPUS SPACES by DAVID
    FOUR CAMPUS SPACES by DAVID MICHAEL SIMPSON (under the direction of Mark Reinberger) ABSTRACT This thesis is an examination of spaces on four college and university campuses in northern Georgia: the University of Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, and Agnes Scott College. There is an historical analysis of the design of each of the campuses, with attention paid to the varying missions of each institution, in addition to a critique of the meanings of the styles and site layout used at each. The changing priorities of the institutions and their leaderships, in particular the relative weight given to undergraduate education and college life, are addressed. The analysis concludes with recommendations for campus design, with a particular emphasis on how the design of liberal arts colleges can improve the campuses and quality of life at larger universities. INDEX WORDS: Campus Design, Campus Planning, University of Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, Agnes Scott College, History of Higher Education. FOUR CAMPUS SPACES by DAVID MICHAEL SIMPSON B.S., Georgetown University, 1985 M.A., University of Iowa, 1990 Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1999 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2004 2004 David Michael Simpson All Rights Reserved FOUR CAMPUS SPACES by DAVID MICHAEL SIMPSON Major Professor: Mark Reinberger Committee: Henry Methvin Thomas G. Dyer Maureen O’Brien Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate College The University of Georgia May 2004 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees March 13, 2020 the Board of Trustees of Georgia
    Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees March 13, 2020 The Board of Trustees of Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. met at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, March 13, 2020, in the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center, Grand Ballroom, in Atlanta, Georgia. Elected trustees present were: Frances L. Cashman, Robert L. Dixon Jr., D. Fort Flowers Jr., Lawrence P. Huang, Randall E. Poliner, Mark C. Teixeira, Janice N. Wittschiebe and Glenn T. Wright. Elected trustees attending via phone were: Michael K. Anderson, Pamela W. Arlotto, Kelly H. Barrett, Richard L. Bergmark, James R. Borders, David A. Bottoms, Paul J. Brown, Steve W. Chaddick, Stephen M. Deedy, Robert L. Dixon Jr., Walter G. Ehmer, James Etheredge, Lara O. Hodgson, Lawrence P. Huang, Richard B. Inman Jr., Andrea L. Laliberte, Wonya Y. Lucas, H. Ronald Nash Jr., Michael A. Neal, Thomas E. Noonan, Carl D. Ring, Frances G. Rogers, David P. Rowland, Ricardo Salgado, Robert N. Stargel Jr., Karen C. Thurman and John R. Wells. Ex-officio voting trustees present were: Àngel Cabrera and Christopher T. Jones. Ex-officio voting trustees attending via phone were: David A. Bottoms and Jocelyn M. Stargel. Board Officers present were: Joseph W. Evans and Thomas M. Holder Board Officers attending via phone were: John F. Brock III and Gregory J. Owens. Corporate Officers present were: Mark V. DeLorenzo and Al Trujillo. Ex-officio non-voting trustees present were: Chaouki T. Abdallah, Rafael L. Bras and Barrett H. Carson. Trustees Emeriti present were: G. Niles Bolton, Kenneth G. Byers Jr., Joel H.
    [Show full text]