Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Technology Transfer and Transfer Intermediaries

Stephen M. Bauer Jennifer L. Flagg Rehabilitation Engineering Center on Technology Transfer SUNY Buffalo

Abstract authors conclude that technology transfer from the public to private sector is a major A standard and comprehensive model is and critical economic driver. Large federal needed to evaluate and compare technology programs, which are generally established transfer systems and the stakeholders within through legislation, facilitate and structure the these systems. The principle systems technology transfer efforts of federally funded considered include federal laboratories, U.S. entities. Effective program oversight and , the rehabilitation engineering good public policy requires systematic research centers (RERCs), and large small program evaluation in reference to a standard research programs. An and complete technology transfer model. earlier model accounts for technology transfer Identifying and promoting best practices for activities, events, stakeholders, and resource technology transfer intermediaries requires providers (Lane, 1999). This model is that the technology transfer model encompass augmented to account for dynamic aspects of both the macro (systems) and micro technology transfer (transfer efficiency, (stakeholders within systems) scale. transfer latency) and scale (micro-, macro-). The critical role of technology transfer Key words: Technology Transfer, Demand intermediaries is emphasized. Examples Pull, Supply Push, Assistive Technology pertaining to the assistive technology industry Devices, Transfer Latency, Transfer are used to illustrate important concepts and Efficiency issues. The technology transfer model with extensions is applied to the four technology Technology Transfer and Technology transfer systems. Major studies pertaining to Transfer Intermediaries the technology transfer performance of: large innovation research programs, The Rehabilitation Engineering Research the federal laboratory system, the U.S. Center on Technology Transfer (T2RERC) Department of RERCs, and U.S. funded by the U.S. Department of Education, universities are reviewed. Study outcomes are National Institute on Disability and examined in terms of a uniform and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) completed comprehensive technology transfer model. its third five-year funding cycle in September Conclusions are drawn regarding the 2008. The T2RERC conducted research to evaluation of program performance. The need advance the state-of-the-art for technology for a uniform and comprehensive technology transfer while also practicing technology transfer model is demonstrated by showing transfer to facilitate technology development, inconsistencies within and between research transfer, and product commercialization study outcomes for major technology transfer benefitting elders and people with disabilities. systems. Barriers that prevent the full and optimal use of these programs by the assistive Technology transfer (TT) is an emerging field. technology industry are discussed. The As such, in both research and practice, ad hoc Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 129 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 and borrowed terminology is employed for Events, Activities, and Stakeholders: TT activities, stakeholders, and events. In Definitions and Examples 1999, a detailed TT model was published that addressed many of these shortcomings (Lane, Events and Activities 1999). In this paper we suggest how that model might be extended, and we provide a A comprehensive and extensible model and rationale for doing so. We propose language is required in order to discuss TT terminology and concepts for transfer efficiency, clearly and accurately. The model and transfer latency, transfer context, push and pull language should also provide a framework for transfer strategies, and transfer scale. To evaluation and research. Lane‘s 1999 paper illustrate terminology and concepts, examples provided an excellent model and vocabulary are presented with reference to familiar TT upon which this paper will expand. Figure 1 programs and activities. These examples captures many of the key elements of this illustrate the somewhat disjointed manner in model. For example, within the figure, which TT programs are currently evaluated. bounded areas represent activities, which include Technology Applications, Technology Readers who will benefit from this paper Research and Development (R&D), Product include TT intermediaries and resource R&D, and Product Commercialization. These providers, managers and evaluators of TT activities are carried out by various stakeholders,

Figure 1. Technology transfer model. Source: Lane, J. (1999). Understanding technology transfer. Assistive Technology, 11(1), p. 15. Used with permission. programs, members of the TT research who include Technology Producers (TP), community, and other stakeholders who Technology Consumers (TC), Product participate in TT activities. Producers (PP), and Product Consumers

(PC). Resource Providers facilitate TT activities in various ways throughout the entire TT process. Activity outputs are called Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 130 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 critical events, which include idea, proof of The reader can understand TT conceptually concept prototype, and product. These by ‗walking along‘ the midline of Figure 1 outputs serve as inputs to subsequent from left to right. Technology-related activity activities. Activities above the horizontal is on left side of the model, and product- midline are generally visible, or public, while related activity is on the right side of the activities below the midline are generally model. The technology-to-product transition hidden, or confidential and proprietary. occurs around the midpoint (prototype event). Table 1 presents the activities and critical Table 1 Technology Transfer Model: Critical Events and Activities

Event/Activity Event/Activity Description Event/Activity Exemplar Name Technology Theoretical and basic research activities Eye gaze technology was explored by the Applications leading up to conceptualized idea. U.S. Air Force as a way to enable Vietnam fighter pilots to track, point, and shoot at a target without using their hands. Idea Event Point in time when a new or novel LC founders formed the application is recognized for a new or company to develop a commercial eye novel technology. gaze product. At the time they saw value in using the product for people with disabilities, but they had no viable prototype. Technology Applied research activities leading up to All image processing and pattern Research proven concept prototype. recognition code was rewritten to enable the system to recognize eye features. When completed, the unit was two to three times more accurate and precise than before. Prototype Event Point in time when a new or novel The first unit ran on a 286 computer and application is embodied as a working sold for almost $50,000. The unit was prototype that demonstrates the proof of functional, but the price was far too high concept. for commercial success. Product Market research, design, and development Further refinement of the system focused Development activities leading up to ‗production-ready‘ on improved pointing accuracy and product that also includes other features increasing tolerance to: ambient infrared and functions wanted by customers. light, inter-user differences, and head motion. Product Event Point when a working prototype is refined; Solving many previously encountered includes other necessary features and technical problems lowered the price functions and is ready for manufacture, sufficiently to enter the marketplace. distribution, and sale. Current units sell for $7,250 to $10,500. Product Production, distribution, marketing, and The Eye Gaze Edge Commercialization sales of the product to customers. System is available through LC Technologies, Inc and a network of dealers. Refinements to the system are ongoing.

Source: D. Cleveland (personal communication, October 31, 2008)

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 131 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 events of the TT process as experienced by of overgeneralization, the following examples one company, LC Technologies, Inc. in the suggest the continuum of roles played by development and commercialization of their Resource Providers. eye gaze mouse emulator. 1. Federal agencies provide extramural Stakeholders grants to faculty to conduct basic research. Basic research usually Typical TT stakeholders are listed in Table 2. takes place under Technology Applications Citing examples of TPs and PPs and PCs is prior to the Idea event and before relatively straightforward. However Resource market demand and business Providers encompass a wide range of actors opportunities are readily apparent. whose resources may be leveraged throughout 2. Large federal agencies provide Small the entire TT process. Examples of Resource Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Providers include: (a) and private grants to small U.S. and in entities that fund research, development, 2005 these grants totaled more than production, marketing and distribution $1.85 billion (Wessner, 2008). Across activities; (b) government and private third- agencies, multi-phase SBIR grants party payers that fund product purchases and vary greatly in size. However, the create market demand; (c) TT intermediaries combined Phase I and Phase II grants that facilitate a range of activities including frequently exceed $1 million. Phase I market research, grant development, grants typically fund Technology Research brokering, and technical support; and (d) leading up to the Proof-of-Concept government entities that shape and implement Prototype Event, while Phase II grants typically fund Product Table 2 TT Model: Stakeholders

Stakeholder Group Name Members of Stakeholder Group Technology producers Universities and federal laboratories (public sector), corporate laboratories, and independent inventors (private sector) Technology consumers Manufacturers (private sector) and government agencies (public sector) Product producers Manufacturers (private sector) Product consumers Primary (end-users) and secondary consumers (individuals who buy and recommend or service providers) Resource providers Government agencies (grants, contracts, public insurance), private insurance companies (reimbursement), TT intermediaries (brokers), venture capitalists and angel investors (private investment)

TT policy. Development activities after the Proof- of-Concept Prototype event and There are many examples of resource leading up to the Proof-of-Product providers with greater or lesser relevance to Event. the four TT activities. Setting aside the risks

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 132 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

3. Angel investors (AIs) pool resources own controlling equity positions in from one to a few affluent individuals these companies, guide business plan to offer second-round funding to development, or to have input on (typically) high-growth start-up decisions regarding management companies. Company owners practices, staffing, development, and generally wish to maintain their production. VCs typically employ a ‗2 controlling equity positions but turn and 20 formula‘ whereby the VC to AIs when they have exhausted, or receives 2% of the committed capital do not wish to further pursue funding plus 20% (or more) of the company‘s from friends or family. Additionally, net profits on an annual basis. By other mechanisms such as SBIR employing this (or similar formulas), grants are not always suitable because VCs typically recover their initial of timing, risk, or funding level issues. investment over three to seven years. AIs tend to be risk-tolerant, and may VCs then generate profits through exit fund late stage Technology Research and strategies that include IPO and early Product Development activities. business acquisition. Typical AI funding ranges from 5. TT intermediaries (TTIs) are the most $250,000 to $1 million. Return on a diverse group of Resource Providers. successful investment ranges from 10 They offer various assistances to the times to 30 times the original AI stakeholders associated with Technology investment over a five- to seven-year Research, Product Development and Product period (Wiltbank & Boeker, 2007). Commercialization activities. Examples AIs recoup their investments through of TTIs include university TTOs, exit strategies such as initial public federal laboratory ORTAs, and other offerings (IPO) and business federally funded brokers such as the acquisitions. T2RERC. It is common for TTI to 4. Venture capitalists (VCs) pool draw upon the capabilities of other resources from private investors, resource providers. For example, a investment banks, and institutional university TTO might help a investors; they typically make university researcher to obtain SBIR investments of $1 million to $2 funding to support further research million. VCs are often less risk- and development. tolerant than angel investors, and they generally fund ‗later stage‘ Product Figure 2 maps Resource Providers against Development activities up to the Proof- their likely involvement within the TT model. of-Product event. VCs often prefer to Although Resource Providers are typically invest in established companies involved during portions of the process entering a phase of rapid growth. indicated by the horizontal dotted lines, there However, VC funding is also sought will occasionally be instances that fall outside by high-risk, high-reward tech of the norm. companies that do not qualify for standard bank loans. In return for Extending the TT Model taking on high-risk, VCs may ask to

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 133 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Figure 2. Technology transfer Resource Providers.

Lane‘s model, while excellent, has focused finally to a commercial product. delivering information on static TT concepts, According to the Merriam-Webster including: (a) what happens within an activity; Online Dictionary (2008), an who participates in an activity; (b) which innovation is ―2: a new idea, method Resource Providers support the activity; (c) or device.‖ Throughout the remainder what event terminates an activity; and (d) of this article, innovation will be used to what forces might initiate TT. Equally represent ideas through their important, however, are concepts and subsequent transformations to language to describe the dynamic processes of become commercial products. TT and the facilitating roles of TT 2. Context--This refers to the various intermediaries. It is also important to examine environments in which TT occurs. TT activities at different scales, recognizing Technology Applications, Technology that normative outcomes determined from Research, and Product Research activities aggregate measures are likely to obscure both that transform take place the successful and the unsuccessful practices in different contexts, including public of individual TT intermediaries. We begin our sector labs and universities, private extension of the model with terminology and sector companies, and in the domains examples of new concepts. of independent inventors. For example, an idea might result from Concepts and Terminology research conducted at a university (context) to be published in a 1. Innovation--In TT, an idea is technical journal (purpose). A proof- transformed from proof-of-concept of-concept prototype might result prototype, to proof-of-product and from research conducted in a federal

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 134 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

laboratory (context) and be patented discussed. TT intermediaries employ some to facilitate future licensing combination of push transfer strategies and opportunities (purpose). A proof-of- pull transfer strategies. These strategies product might result from production facilitate progress and transformation of an research carried out by a manufacturer innovation from idea to commercial product. (context) as a precursor to introducing a commercial product (purpose). Push Transfer Strategies 3. Transfer Mechanism--This mediates the movement of an innovation from a Push transfer strategies start by identifying source context to a destination one or more innovations (initiator) from an context. For example, a journal paper independent inventor, university, federal lab, could mediate the movement of an company outside of core industry, etc. Then a innovation from a university to a manufacturer or federal agency (destination) is manufacturer. A license agreement made aware of the innovation, associated could mediate the movement of an market need, and business opportunity, and innovation from a federal lab or the innovation is transferred (via some university to a manufacturer. transfer mechanism) from source to 4. Technology Transfer--This is the destination. movement (via a TT mechanism) of an innovation (idea, method or device) For example, the T2RERC Case study project from a source (original context and (T2RERC, n.d.b) examined 78 development purpose) to a destination (new context projects being conducted by 11 RERCs and purpose). For example, prototype previously funded by NIDRR. RERCs must software developed by university transfer their research knowledge to the researchers (context) for user-friendly private sector to facilitate the development of creation of keystroke macros is new products benefitting people with patented and licensed (movement or disabilities. RERCs have historically used push transfer mechanism) to a private transfer protocols, which is to say that basic sector manufacturer (new context) for research precedes market research, product use in a software product that allows development, and product commercialization. blind individuals to independently Each RERC proposed a certain number of create screen reader macros (new development projects, which in principle purpose). A federal lab (context) should result in prototypes. RERCs are develops technical expertise and usually university-based and TT offices capacity in the area of nanotechnology (TTOs) serve as their TT intermediaries. In fabrication (purpose); a cooperative principle, TTOs help to license RERC-based research and development agreement (sometimes embodied as prototypes) (movement or transfer mechanism) is to manufacturers who subsequently develop entered into with a private sector new or improved products based on these manufacturer (new context), to prototypes. The Transfer Achievement Index collaboratively develop a novel (TAI) of RERCs that began five-year funding refreshable Braille cell (new purpose). cycles in 1998, 1999, or 2000 was defined as the number of actual transfers divided by the Throughout the remainder of this article, we‘ll number of proposed transfers for any given often employ these terms to discuss the RERC. For the 11 RERCs that qualified for dynamic aspects of TT. In the following the study, the average TAI was 25%. TAI section the critical role of TT intermediaries is

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 135 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 scores for individual RERCs ranged from 51%), and U.S.-operated. Also, the principle 10% to 100% (Lane, 2007). investigator must be employed by the business; the business must have fewer than Although the average of the 11 RERCs 500 employees; and the business must be a showed fairly low TT efficiency, two RERCs ‗for profit‘ entity. For practical purposes, had TAI scores of 100%. These exceptional SBIR grants allow small businesses to pursue performances suggest that most of the high-risk, (often) small-market product RERCs studied were employing sub-optimal development. push transfer strategies, which could be improved to achieve a higher TAI, as SBIR programs have two funded phases. demonstrated by the top performers. SBIR Phase I completion typically results in a proof-of-concept prototype. SBIR Phase II This study is especially significant to AT completion typically results in substantial manufacturers, given that the RERC system is progress towards a proof-of-product plus the premier federally funded research program establishment of commercial viability. In this pertaining to disability and AT. A low transfer way, SBIR granting agencies are resource efficiency implies that the RERC system may providers who target funding to small not provide full and optimal benefits to the businesses for high-risk technology research AT manufacturers or the disability markets activities (Phase I awards) and product that they serve. (However, a more recent and research activities (Phase II awards). complete study is needed.) SBIR programs are all demand pull strategies of Pull Transfer Strategies two sorts; non-acquisition-based (e.g., U.S. Department of Education [USDE], National In contrast, pull transfer strategies start by Institutes of Health [NIH], National Science identifying one or more market needs Foundation [NSF]) or acquisition-based (e.g., (initiator). Then a manufacturer or federal Department of Defense [DOD], National agency (destination) is made aware of the Aeronautics and Space Administration market need and wants to fill this need; an [NASA]) programs. In non-acquisition-based innovation that addresses this need is sought programs, manufacturers identify a market need and identified (source); and the innovation is and business opportunity and compete for transferred (via some transfer mechanism) SBIR grants to support the development of from source to destination. technology solutions. In acquisition-based SBIR programs, the federal agency has a specific For example, the SBIR program was technology need and typically serves as the established under the Small Business primary market for the technology solution. Innovation Development Act of 1982 (SBIR In this case, the federal agency is often the Act; P.L. 97-219) and most recently primary ‗market‘ and knows its technological reauthorized in September 30, 2008, as the need prior to solicitation of proposals from Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 manufacturers to develop technology (P.L. 106-554). The SBIR Act requires that solutions. large federal agencies with extramural research budgets of at least $100 million designate The Department of Commerce (DOC; 2003) 2.5% of these funds for grants to small U.S. published a study (the ‗DOC study‘) of 359 businesses. Basic requirements to participate responding AT manufacturers, 98% (349 in an SBIR program stipulate the business businesses) of which were businesses eligible must be U.S.-based, U.S.-owned (at least to apply for SBIR awards. Of those

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 136 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 businesses, only 52 companies (15%) applied basis for comparison between two or more for SBIR funding. A T2RERC study evaluated TTI or between TT systems. five acquisition-based SBIR programs (NIH, NSF, USDE, Department of Transportation For example, a study published by the [DOT], U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Council (NRC; Wessner, [USDA]) for the period 1996 through 2005. 2008) evaluated the five largest SBIR Another study conducted at the T2RERC programs; they are administrated by DOD, found for the period 1996 through 2005 that NIH, Department of Energy (DOE), NASA, AT companies received 663 Phase I awards and the NSF. The NRC study employed totaling $67 million and 328 Phase II awards stratified random sampling that included 20% totaling $201 million (Bauer & Arthanat, n.d.). of Phase II recipients from each agency. Data is reported for various timeframes between Another study shows that firms obtaining the years 1983 and 2005. The typical Phase II SBIR awards are very likely to obtain culmination of a Phase I award is a proof-of- follow-on funding (e.g., angel investors, concept prototype. Phase II awards typically venture capitalists, and additional SBIR culminate in substantial progress toward awards) (Wessner, 2008). If these results proof-of-product and the establishment of generalize to AT manufacturers, it is likely commercial viability. that AT firms that regularly utilize SBIR program resources gain a significant For study respondents receiving Phase II advantage over their competitors. awards, 47% led to marketed products, 19% were expected to produce marketed products, Transfer Efficiency and Transfer Latency while 5% of projects were still in development. The remaining 29% failed to Up until this point, we have discussed the TT reach the market. In addition, 43% of Phase model, defined related terms and provided II awardees received additional non-SBIR examples of various TT strategies. Transfer investment averaging about $1.54 million; efficiency and transfer latency are useful concepts 54% received one or more related Phase I with which to consider TT outcomes. In SBIR awards; and 40% received one or more particular, the effective intervention by TT related Phase II awards (Wessner, 2008). intermediaries should increase transfer efficiency and or decrease transfer latency. High transfer efficiencies and follow-on funding opportunities should make SBIR Transfer Efficiency grants extremely attractive to AT manufacturers. For these five SBIR programs, Transfer efficiency can readily be tied to critical the NRC study suggests a transfer efficiency events such as the likelihood that an idea will of at least 49% and at most 71% when the result in a commercial product, or the small business has won both a Phase I award likelihood that a proof-of-concept prototype (for proof-of-concept prototype will result in a commercial product. Examples development) and Phase II award (for proof- of transfer efficiency include the ratio of of-product development and establishing commercial products (or technology licenses) commercial potential). Leveraging initial to patents as a measure of transfer efficiency Phase I and Phase II awards to obtain follow- for a university TTO, or federal lab Offices of on funding is undoubtedly critical to Research and Technology Applications successful product development and (ORTA). Transfer efficiency provides a useful commercialization.

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 137 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Two considerations temper the NRC study time between the issuance of a university results. Survey methodology removed award patents (proof-of-product event) and the recipients (and their awards) if: they were out resulting commercial product. Transfer of business (n=25), lacked an email address latency also provides a useful basis for (n=893), or had defunct email addresses comparison between two or more TTIs or (n=500). From the 6,408 firms in the sample, between TT systems. 4,523 firms (71%) had working email addresses, and 1,916 (42%) of the firms For example, in 2006, applications responded. It is a reasonable conjecture that were filed for more than 60% of university firms without working email addresses (which disclosures (Association of may even signify that the company is no University Technology Managers, 2007). longer in business) did not introduce There are significant latencies from invention commercial products consequent to receiving disclosure to patent application, from patent Phase II SBIR awards. It is also reasonable to application to patent issuance, and from conjecture that firms that did respond to the patent issuance to license. In fact, most survey were more likely to have introduced a patented technologies are never licensed commercial product than contacted firms who (Government Accounting Office, 1998). did not respond. If either or both of these conjectures were supported, then the excellent An old study estimated the latency from transfer efficiencies (49% minimum to 71% technology license to the introduction of a maximum) obtained for the five SBIR commercial product (when successful) to be programs would be upwardly biased. eight years (Ditzel, 1991). Survey results of university TTO and industry technology It should also be determined whether AT licensees found that licensed technologies manufacturers pursue SBIR grants from require further development (asserted by 88% acquisition-based SBIR programs (such as of TTO respondents and 84% of industry DOD, NASA, and portions of the DOE) or respondents) and that licensed technologies non-acquisition-based SBIR programs (such are no more than proof-of-concept (asserted as NIH, NSF, and portions of the DOE). by 45% of TTO respondents and 44% of Agencies with acquisition-based SBIR industry respondents). Industry respondents programs often serve as the primary market to the survey indicated that for 40% of for commercial products consequent to their technology licenses university inventors SBIR Phase II grants. As a consequence, it is assisted further development (Thursby & reasonable to conjecture that transfer Thursby, 2002). A large portion of university efficiency for acquisition-based SBIR technologies are licensed through exclusive programs will be higher than the transfer and non-exclusive agreements to start-up efficiency of non-acquisition-based SBIR companies (16.7%) or existing small programs. companies (50.7%). These results should encourage AT manufacturers who are Transfer Latency predominantly small businesses (Association of University Technology Managers, 2007). Transfer latency can also be tied to critical events such as (a) the time required for an Transfer latency for university technologies idea to result in a commercial product, or (b) has two logical phases. The first phase the time required for a proof-of-concept comprises roughly the period from prototype to result in a commercial product. technology disclosure through technology An example of transfer latency is the average licensing. University TTO activities can

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 138 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 greatly shorten or lengthen this first latency For example, many public and private entities through services to faculty and potential collect and analyze macro-level data pertaining licensees. The second phase comprises to universities, federal laboratories, and SBIR roughly the period from technology licensing programs. These entities include the U.S. to product commercialization. A university Congress‘ General Accountability Office, the TTO can support a manufacturer‘s product DOC, SBIR, the NRC, and professional development through faculty consulting, organizations such as the Association of contracted research and development, University Technology Managers (AUTM). industry and university consortia, etc. University TTOs that effectively support AUTM annually surveys its membership, product development will increase the rate of which includes TT offices of U.S. research product commercialization and shorten the universities, hospitals, and institutes. From second latency. each TT office AUTM collects information regarding the amount of funding revenues, Macro and Micro Perspectives on TT type of funding revenues (public or private). It also gathers data on the number of Thus far we have described the dynamic disclosures, patent applications filed, patents aspects of TT, push and pull transfer granted, intellectual properties licensed, equity strategies, and their impact on TT efficiency positions taken, and revenues generated. and latency. TT can and should also be Survey data provides a basis for macro viewed at large (macro) and small (micro) evaluation of relative and aggregate transfer scales. A large-scale view pertains to the efficiencies and transfer latencies for U.S. activities and performance for entire systems universities. or large portions thereof. A small-scale view takes into account the activities and The 2006 AUTM Survey found that TTOs at performance of individual actors within these research universities comprised 85% (n=161 systems. For example, a federal laboratory of 190) of survey respondents. Some system might comprise all Department of universities had two or more TT offices (e.g., Energy labs and its associated offices of at medical centers). As a consequence, the 161 research and technology applications (ORTA), TTOs are part of 116 U.S. universities, and Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) for TT these 116 universities comprise 84% of U.S. contractors, and manufacturing partners. universities receiving $20 million or more in System actors include individual labs, ORTA, research funding (Lombardi, Capaldi, & FLC contractors, and manufacturers. Abbey, 2007). In 2006, AUTM reported that 161 university TTOs executed 4,192 licenses Macro Scale or options (n=1,622 exclusive; n=2,570 non- exclusive) with startups (n=698), small In analogy to macroeconomics, TT, at a companies (n=2,127), and large companies macro-scale examines aggregate activities that (n=1,327). To refill the technology licensing are common to large TT systems. Aggregate pipeline, TTOs reviewed 18,874 technology data is used to construct system-level models, disclosures, prepared and filed 11,622 patent to identify trends, and to make forecasts. In applications, and were awarded 3,255 new terms of the TT model, aggregate activities patents. Total revenue for research was $45.4 can often be associated with critical events billion in 2006. From 1997 to 2006 industry (idea, proof-of-concept prototypes, proof-of- grants and contracts accounted for 8% of all product, commercial products). university research revenue, peaking at 10% in 1999 and tapering off to 7% for 2003 through

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 139 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

2006. Federal, state, and other sources encourage maximum participation of account for the bulk of research revenue, with small business firms in federally federal grants averaging about 65% of the supported research and development total for the period 1997 through 2006. For efforts; to promote collaboration the fiscal year 2005-2006, university licensing between commercial concerns and accounted for $1.3 billion in revenue nonprofit organizations, including generation for the universities themselves universities; to ensure that (AUTM, 2007). made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms are used in a Firms licensing university technologies often manner to promote free competition invest substantially in infrastructure and and enterprise without unduly staffing in order to carry out development encumbering future research and activities. Induced investment is especially discovery; to promote the great for start-up firms and to a somewhat commercialization and public lesser extent, pre-existing small businesses. availability of inventions made in the Firms must also pay universities for United States by United States technology use, according to the terms of industry and labor; to ensure that the their licensing agreements. An MIT study Government obtains sufficient rights estimated the ratio of induced investment to in federally supported inventions to licensing revenue to be 24:1 (Pressman et al., meet the needs of the Government 1995). and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions; and The breadth of macro-level information to minimize the costs of administering obscures that university TTOs often focus policies in this area. (Title 35, Part II, their efforts on revenue generation and the Chapter 18, § 200 Policy and transfer of ‗homerun‘ technologies. It is still a Objective) common practice for many university TTOs to patent and subsequently make available for In addition to university resources, the private licensing only those technologies they feel sector (AT manufacturers) can tap into federal likely to generate significant revenues. This laboratories through Cooperative Research narrow perspective fails to account for and Development Agreements (CRADA) or licensing‘s much greater impact (a ratio of contracted research. CRADAs were first 24:1) in the private sector, or the broad created under the Stevenson-Wydler mandate that federally sponsored research Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as should benefit society (Table 2). The Bayh- amended by the Federal TT Act of 1986 Dole Act of 1980 also encourages ―maximum (Federal Laboratory Consortium, 2006). There participation of small business firms.‖ A are two types of CRADAs. For cost-shared narrow university policy to maximize TT CRADAs the government owns the original revenue (licensing, equity buyouts) is likely to (IP) and the firm wishes be in direct conflict with this sub-objective. to co-develop commercial applications that Specifically, the Bayh-Dole Act notes: are based on this IP. For cost-in CRADAs the firm owns the original IP and wishes to co- It is the policy and objective of the develop commercial applications. In both Congress to use the patent system to cases, firms gain access to and leverage the promote the utilization of inventions federal laboratory‘s extensive technical arising from federally supported infrastructure and expertise. The firm and research or development; to government normally share joint-ownership

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 140 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 of any new IP produced under either technologies developed in the federal CRADA. The firm retains exclusive rights to laboratory system. The Federal Laboratory use the new IP for commercial applications. Consortium (FLC) Locator Service is the The federal agency has rights to use the new principle gateway to laboratory technologies. IP for internal use and cannot sub-license the In using the FLC Locator Service, firms are new IP to another commercial partner asked to provide background information and (T2RERC, 2005). to describe their technology needs. Full and detailed disclosure helps to narrow the search CRADAs generally apply when new IP is and to ensure that whatever technologies are likely to address an agency‘s mission-critical found closely match the firm‘s described needs. The firm pays for work carried out needs. The Locator Service and federal under the CRADA at a negotiated rate. From laboratory ORTA treat each firm‘s requests as a lab‘s perspective, the negotiated rate is proprietary and confidential (Federal impacted by the value of the original IP (for Laboratory Consortium, n.d.). cost-in CRADAs), the new IP developed under the CRADA (shared or cost-in) and the The FLC Locator Service is an excellent firm‘s technical contribution. Under contract resource for all manufacturers. However, research, the federal laboratory simply carries laboratory technologies generally need out research activities as specified by the firm. additional research before an application idea The firm retains ownership of any old or new can be embodied as a proof-of-concept IP and pays for all work carried out by the prototype (proof of product, commercial federal laboratory. Negotiated rates for product). The originating laboratory is likely contract research are likely to be higher than to have the expertise and capacity (including negotiated rates for CRADAs because the scientist who conducted the research) to contract research does not address mission- assist the firm. However, this assistance can critical needs, there is no joint ownership of only be obtained through CRADAs or new IP, and the lab does all of the work. contracts. The drawbacks for these mechanisms, especially for small businesses, Data is lacking, however it is likely that few have already been outlined. AT manufacturers have worked with federal laboratories through CRADAs or contract Micro Scale research (DOC, 2003). As a potential explanation, original IP owned by an AT In analogy with microeconomics, TT at the manufacturer, or new IP developed under a micro level looks at activities of individual CRADA for this manufacturer, is unlikely to actors within a TT system. Activities are address an agency‘s mission-critical needs. An considered for their impact on that actor‘s TT AT manufacturer‘s expertise in applied performance. In terms of the TT model, research for product development is unlikely individual activities often lead to intermediate to be valued by federal laboratories whose outcomes consequent to major events. For focus is basic research. As a consequence, example, prior to a technology patent being federal labs are likely to have little interest in issued a TTO might solicit technology working with AT manufacturers and disclosures, screen technologies (patent negotiated rates for CRADAs or contract searches, public benefit, commercial potential, research are likely to be high. etc.) and prepare patent applications. Examination of intermediate outcomes and In principle, technology licensing provides how they are achieved can indicate why the another avenue for firms to access

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 141 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 performances of individual TTIs are Erik Sander, then at the University of Florida, exceptional or unexceptional. wrote an excellent overview pertaining to industry and or university research centers For example, data gathered from the AUTM (Sander, 2000 September). In this overview, 2006 Annual Survey suggests that the he argues that manufacturers benefit from University of Minnesota is a leader in both participation in industry and or university research and TT outcomes. According to this partnerships through (a) their access to bright survey, in 2006 the University of Minnesota energetic students, (b) gaining early looks at ranked fifth in license royalties ($57 million), emerging research and technologies, (c) twenty-sixth in new patents issued (n=28), leveraging of industrial investments, (d) ninth in new licenses and options (n=83), and faculty mentoring, (e) access to the university fifteenth in research expenditures ($594 research infrastructure, (f) capacity building million). Given the relative success of the through industrial-academic researcher University of Minnesota, other university networks, and (g) obtaining favorable TTO might benefit from their insights intellectual property rights as a center pertaining to effective TT strategies participant. Many USDE-funded RERCs and (Association of University Technology the NSF funded Quality of Life Technology Managers, 2007). [Engineering Research] Center conduct collaborative research and development At the AUTM 2006 Annual Meeting, the activities with AT manufacturers (Quality of University of Minnesota presented their Life Technology Center, n.d.). findings on TT activities most valued by manufactures. In rank order manufacturers Industry and or university collaborations valued: (a) access to undergraduate students, allow university faculty and students to work (b) access to graduate students, (c) faculty closely with practicing engineers and scientists consulting, (d) continuing educational solving real world technical problems while opportunities, (e) university-industry exposing them to the culture and constraints consortia, (f) industry-sponsored research, and of business. Collaborations enrich the (g) technology licensing (Sommerstad, 2006). students‘ educational experience and help to prepare them for future employment in the Interestingly, undergraduate and graduate private sector. Collaborations also provide a student placements and continuing education practical education to faculty, enhance course help manufacturers to assimilate new curriculums, and serve as catalysts for future knowledge and build capacity for research and research and grants. development. Industry-university consortia, faculty consulting, and industry-sponsored University TTOs must understand and be research are demand-side strategies, which is responsive to the cultures and values of both to say that manufacturers identify market business and academe. At some risk of needs and business opportunities before overgeneralization, firms conduct applied establishing university collaborations to R&D to develop products and services; they develop technology solutions. In each case, protect knowledge through non-disclosure, intellectual property rights, licensing, non- patents, trade secrets, and copyrights; they disclosure, and delayed publication can be generate revenue through sales, service negotiated between the manufacturer and contracts, and warranties; and they operate university up front. Technology licensing, a with tightly structured management, supply-side strategy, was least valued by organization, scheduling, and timeframes. manufacturers. Firms differ in their resources, R&D capacity,

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 142 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 product portfolios and markets, (licensing, equity buyouts) and research (state, aggressiveness developing new and improved federal, and industry) revenues rather than products, interest in technologies from treating them as separate and independent. external origins, use of SBIR and other funding sources, and use of sub-contractors. During its 2003-to-2008 funding cycle, the T2RERC conducted three TT projects to Academes (a) conduct basic research to facilitate product development and develop new knowledge; (b) disclose commercialization, benefiting persons with knowledge through journal publications and disabilities and elders. A qualitative conferences; (c) acquire revenue through comparison of the Demand Pull project, the grants; (d) mentor, train, and educate students; Supply Push project and the Corporate and (e) operate within loosely structured Collaboration project is presented in Table 3. management, organization, scheduling, and timeframes. Faculty tenure and promotion is It is useful to compare these projects. Both often tied to research publications, teaching, the Demand Pull and Corporate grantsmanship, and service rather than Collaboration projects employ demand technology disclosure, patenting, licensing, or transfer strategies. Demand transfer strategies revenue. can be compared to discharging a rifle. If you chose your target well and aim carefully, you To bridge the gap in values and cultures have a high likelihood of hitting your target. between the private sector and academe, TTO activities must be responsive, transparent, The Demand Pull project has long transfer accessible, efficient, consistent, fair, and latency with somewhat lower transfer professional from the perspective of both efficiency. As explanation the Demand Pull manufacturers and academe. A university and project (typically) works with innovations its TTO might increase faculty awareness of ‗leftward‘ on the TT model with many barriers business culture and TT processes and to overcome. The (typical) small companies policies through education and training. A participating in the Demand Pull project have university and TTO may also adopt strategies limited resources with which to overcome to foster entrepreneurship, tie tenure and these barriers. In many cases, the T2RERC co- promotion to technology disclosure, developed SBIR grants with these firms to patenting, and licensing, and reward faculty help overcome these barriers. through license revenue sharing. Universities might strive to optimize their combined TT The Corporate Collaboration project works

Table 3 Comparison of T2RERC TT Projects

Project Technology Transfer Technology Technology Transfer Transfer Exemplar Status Strategy Source Destination Latency Efficiency Technologies (source) Demand Pull Technology Pull federal labs, AT small Long Mid VisiPrint print Research to universities, company (~3-4 management early Product small yrs) software, Research companies PowerCheq™ battery string equalizer Supply Push Product Push Independent AT small Mid Low Strong Arm™ Research inventors, company (~2-3 Cane, Bumpa small yrs) Coloring companies Assistive Technology Outcomes Bookand Benefits 143 Corporate late Product Pull knowledge Focusedcollaborating Issue: State Short of the ScienceHigh for TechnologyBlack Transfer & Collaboration Research transfer large (~1 yr) Decker Jar from corporation Opener T2RERC

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 with large corporations developing engaging in collaborative product innovations already very close to the development. Finally, business management marketplace and with few barriers to skills were called upon for brokering activities overcome. The collaborating corporations such as negotiations, contract development, (typically) have tremendous resources with and licensing. which to overcome barriers and commercialize products. In addition, large Primary market research (i.e., focus groups, corporations in highly competitive markets panels) was conducted in a state-of-the-art will (typically) have shorter product facility at the Western New York Independent development cycles than small companies Living (WNYIL) center. WNYIL facilitated serving less competitive AT markets. sampling and recruitment by maintaining a large database comprised of elderly people The Supply Push project used a supply and people with diverse disabilities. Several transfer strategy, which can be compared to a personnel were expert in scripting, running, shotgun approach. You aim at likely targets and and analyzing data derived from panels and fire. In terms of an analogy to a shotgun, focus groups. Primary market research was some of your shot will hit the target, but integral to customer-centered design and much of the buckshot is likely to fly astray of subsequent product validation. the target. The term likely targets is critical. TTI very familiar with their corporate Customer-centered design (CCD) is a best partners, their markets, technology needs, practice. It entails involving consumers in all product portfolios, capacities, and inclinations phases of product definition, design, will be much better at identifying likely development, evaluation, and marketing. CCD targets. Such was the case with the Supply maximizes commercial potential by helping to Push project. This project had the lowest ensure that products are well designed, transfer efficiency and intermediate transfer properly priced, and that they serve broad latency. As an explanation, the Supply Push markets. CCD reduces design iteration, saving project (typically) worked with innovations at the manufacturer time, resources, and costs a proof-of-product, or more ‗rightward,‘ stage during product development. CCD was of development. commonly used in the Supply Push and Corporate Collaboration projects. The effectiveness of the T2RERC as a TT intermediary derived from a number of The Demand Pull project transferred factors. However, the most influential of technology solutions to AT manufacturers to these factors was the project personnel‘s address critical market needs. Comprehensive broad knowledge and experience related to primary and secondary market research was development and commercialization activities. conducted to identify critical needs. That First, the team employed its marketing research was subsequently compiled into expertise to conduct primary market research industry profiles — on learning disabilities, using interviews, focus groups, and surveys. It wheeled mobility and low vision and also applied this expertise to perform blindness — and published online (T2RERC, secondary market research by analyzing n.d.c). Demand Pull project personnel also competing products, markets, demographics, co-wrote about a half-dozen funded SBIR legislation, and reimbursement. Second, the proposals with partner manufacturers. team utilized engineering skills to apply Funding from SBIR grant awards helped (and customer-centered, universal and is helping) to bring several AT products to transgenerational design principles while market.

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 144 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Project personnel were members of major Outcomes and Benefits trade and professional associations and participated in their annual conferences, This article reviews Lane‘s TT model. A case including Assistive Technology Industry study (LC Technologies Eye Gaze System) Association, MedTrade, International Seating demonstrates model concepts that include Symposium, American Academy of critical events, activities, stakeholders, and Audiology, and the Rehabilitation Engineering resource providers. TT intermediaries and and Assistive Technology Society of North resource providers play central roles as America. Membership and participation facilitators to TT processes. Examples of helped personnel to maintain awareness of TTIs (with principle activity impacted) include emerging technologies, products and markets, federal granting agencies (Technology and to build an extensive network of Applications), agencies administrating small responsive contacts. business innovation research grants (Technology Research, Product Research), angel investors Project personnel were also members of, or (Product Research), and venture capitalists (late participated in, the annual conferences of the Product Research to Product Commercialization). AUTM, FLC (national, regional), and the TT Society. Here membership and participation This model does not address the dynamic also provided an opportunity to acquire and aspects of TT, which relate to transfer to disseminate TT knowledge and practices. efficiency and transfer latency, transfer scale (micro, macro); nor does it fully develop the As a TTI, the T2RERC made micro-level role of TTI. Lane views demand pull and adaptations to address the specific needs of its supply push as forces that initiate TT transfer partners. For example, AT activities. The current paper proposes that TT manufacturers underutilize primary market intermediaries employ demand pull strategies research and CCD in product design, or supply push strategies to facilitate TT development, testing, validating, and activities. marketing. Both AT manufacturers and mainstream manufacturers lack access to Working definitions were given to common people with disabilities. In the U.S., published terminology including: innovation, context primary and secondary research pertaining to (source, destination), and transfer disability markets and industries is mechanisms. Using this terminology, TT was fragmentary and or costly to obtain. This defined as the movement of an innovation dearth of data stultifies private sector from a source context to a destination context innovation, , and via some transfer mechanism. Major concepts the ability to attract investment. AT discussed include transfer efficiency, transfer manufacturers underutilize SBIR grants to latency, push transfer and pull transfer fund product development. Mainstream strategies (employed by TTI) and micro- and manufacturers have not taken full advantage macro- scales. AT-related examples were used of transgenerational design as a strategy by to illustrate important concepts. which to broaden, deepen and retain markets. Finally, AT manufacturers underutilize Studies have been conducted to evaluate large universities and federal laboratories as and important TT systems (U.S. universities, technology sources (DOC, 2003). The three federal laboratories, small business innovation T2RERC transfer projects were conceived and development programs and RERCs). In these refined to address these gaps and needs studies, transfer efficiency was discussed for (T2RERC, n.d.a.). universities (AUTM, 2007) and SBIR

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 145 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 programs (Wessner, 2008, DOC, 2003) and examples. Universities could reduce or transfer rate was discussed for universities eliminate license royalties (and other fees and (Pressman & et al., 1995; T2RERC, n.d.d). payments) for small market technologies. Patent applications could be filed for all novel TT was also examined at different scales. (screened for due diligence) technology Discussions around the studies by AUTM, disclosures. This suggestion is not particularly NRC, MIT, and RERC all focused on macro- radical, given that more than 62% of scale issues. Discussions around the university technology disclosures currently University of Minnesota Pulse Survey of result in patent applications. A ‗timer‘ could manufacturer interests and T2RERC project be employed whereby intellectual property descriptions focused on micro-scale issues. rights are waived back to the inventor if a technology is not licensed in some reasonable Data gathered and analyzed in macro-scale period. Societal metrics could be employed to studies does not address or substitute for a justify transfer policies and practices. State clear understanding and practice pertaining to and local revenue sharing might reward micro-scale issues. The AUTM (2007) study universities for positive economic outcomes presented aggregate data on intermediate consequent to their TT activities (and fund outcomes (disclosures, patent applications), subsequent efforts). Universities could adopt the proof-of-concept event (patents granted) metrics that emphasize both total research and intermediate outcomes subsequent to revenue and industry-based research revenue. patenting (exclusive, non-exclusive licensing). Public legislation could require university TT However, it is unclear what percentage of performance be judged (at least in part) licenses result in proof-of-products or against economic impact. commercial products. Economic impacts (product sales, induced investment) are also The MIT study (Pressman et al., 1995) unclear. Data regarding the average latency discussed transfer latency in terms of the from disclosure to patent application, patent average age of MIT technology licenses. The application to patent, or patent to license are average MIT technology license was about lacking. four years old while product commercialization was expected to take about The MIT (Pressman et al., 1995) study eight years. In general, university TTOs suggested that induced investment (ratio of should adopt and be rewarded for practices private investment to licensing revenues) that both maximize transfer efficiency and consequent to university technology licensing minimize transfer latencies (pre- and post- is 24-to-1. However, the AUTM (2007) study patent). To shorten post-transfer latencies, neglects the broader economic and social universities should adopt policies and impact of transfer activities (as required under practices to support (by speeding and the Bayh-Dole Act). Instead it focuses on reducing costs of) the licensee‘s efforts to revenue generation (primarily) as a develop (new) proof of concepts and proof of consequence of licensing and equity buy-outs. products. The University of Minnesota Pulse In particular, firms serving small disability Survey and subsequent discussion of industry markets may not fully benefit from university and university research centers identified licensing activities. (exemplar) services and support sought by manufacturers. A number of strategies might be adopted to balance a university‘s narrow interests against The RERC study (T2RERC, n.d.b) showed society‘s broader interests. Here are a few that USDE-funded Rehabilitation

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 146 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Engineering Research Centers (sample of 11 Third, AT manufacturers should be partners former centers studied) have low transfer on all research and development projects efficiencies. Most RERCs are university-based whose intended outcomes are transfer and and TTOs serve as their TT intermediaries. utilization. AT manufacturers should be active RERCs typically conduct their research, and significant partners from project development, and utilization activities in a inception (during proposal development and linear and dependent sequence (a push thereafter), help to establish project transfer strategy). These activities normally objectives, collaborate on research and correspond to needs (technology, service, development activities, and serve as the diagnostic) identified for small disability primary and preferred technology licensee. markets. Fourth, RERCs should negotiate with their RERCs have a five-year funding cycle and TTOs while preparing their grant proposals. utilization activities normally take place in the The proposal should include a summary of last year or two of the cycle. With an average the negotiations, and it should specify how post-transfer latency of eight years from a intellectual property will be handled university technology license to the subsequent to the grant award. In particular, consequent commercial product, one should the IP rights and licensing terms and expect to find (and does find) little evidence conditions for partner manufacturers should for successful utilization. A TTO can be addressed. exacerbate low transfer efficiency several ways. It may fail to provide outreach or Fifth, RERCs should be required, or strongly support to their faculty; it may allow (or encouraged, to work closely and intensively cause) long pre-patent and pre-license with the Disability Rehabilitation Research latencies; its transfer strategies may be Project on Knowledge Translation for TT inflexible or too narrow; and it may (Center on KT for TT). The center embodies, demonstrate an exclusive, or predominant, and will extend, the micro-level knowledge, focus on ‗homerun‘ technologies. experience, and practices of the former and successful RERC on Technology Transfer, RERCs should be a critical knowledge which operated over two five year cycles from resource, a research and development partner 1998 to 2003 and 2003 to 2008 (T2RERC, and a technology source for AT n.d.e). manufacturers. To improve transfer efficiency and reduce transfer latency, five strategies The NRC study (Pressman & et al, 1995) might be employed. First, universities should evaluated the five largest SBIR programs not receive RERC awards until they commit (DOD, NIH, NASA, DOE, and NSF). to expedite the transfer of RERC generated Transfer efficiency was stated in terms of the intellectual property. The USDE should gain number of commercial products consequent this concession at the grant award site visit. to Phase II grants. The NRC study found a very high transfer efficiency of 49% Second, RERCs should abandon the ‗normal‘ (minimum) to 71% (maximum) for the five research, development, and utilization agencies studied. Significant follow-on sequence. Instead, utilization (market needs, funding was also consequent to receipt of a business interest) should be established prior Phase II SBIR grant. The NRC study to conducting research and development provided the status (ongoing research, activities (a pull transfer strategy). discontinued, sales expected, sales not expected, and sales) for technologies

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 147 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 developed with SBIR funding and sales terms and conditions of CRADAs and revenues generated. contracts?

The NRC study did not provide the average Most of the studies considered in this paper transfer latency from firms‘ receipt of a Phase addressed (albeit incompletely) the macro- I or II SBIR awards to the introduction of performance of large TT systems. However, commercial products. The NRC study did not TTI activities take place at a micro-scale. In classify SBIR awards by type of technology order to evaluate the impact of TTI activities being developed. Sampling biases may have on TT outcomes, it is necessary to expand the skewed transfer efficiency upward. Firms resolution of the current TT model. The new without a working email address (30%) and Disability Rehabilitation Research Project on their awards were not included in the study. KT for TT is working to address this need. Firms with working email addresses had Specifically, the DRRP is overlaying and (only) a 42% response rate. As a consequence, synchronizing the Product Development and the strong positive findings of the NRC study Management Association (PDMA) product are somewhat weakened and it is unclear development model to the TT framework. whether findings generalize to AT The Product Development and Management manufacturers and industries. Association (PDMA):

The federal laboratory system should be . . . is the premier global advocate for another important knowledge resource, product development and research and development partner, and management professionals. Our technology source for AT manufacturers. The mission is to improve the FLC locator service is an excellent means by effectiveness of individuals and which AT manufacturers can find or pursue organizations in product development development of needed technology. The and management. This is principle mechanisms available to AT accomplished by providing resources manufacturers include technology licensing, for professional development, cooperative research, and development information, collaboration and agreements and contracts. It is likely that most promotion of new product work carried out by federal laboratories with, development and management. or for, AT manufacturers will be through (PDMA, 2010, para 1) cost-in CRADAs or contracts. The PDMA Handbook of New Product Further study is needed to gauge interactions Development embodies the state of the art between AT manufacturers and the federal (Kahn, 2004). The KT for TT is formally laboratory system. Future studies may attempt mapping carriers, barriers, and best practices to answer questions such as these: From to the individual (micro-level) steps of the which federal agencies do AT manufacturers PDMA model. This work was made publicly license technologies? With which federal available in late 2009 through an online agencies do AT manufacturers enter into database (http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/) that is CRADAs (cost-in, cost-shared) and contracts? accessible to AT manufactures, TT What types of technologies are licensed or intermediaries, and other relevant developed (requires a classification system)? stakeholders. What factors (barriers, facilitators) influence AT manufacturers licensing, CRADAs, and Finally, where TT processes are concerned, contract decisions? What factors influence the TT intermediaries should be active experts

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 148 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1 and facilitators, rather than passive survey: FY 2006. Retrieved December 10, benefactors of TT outcomes. For example, 2008, from http://www.autm.net/AM/ stakeholders served by university TT offices Template.cfm?Section=Licensing_Surveys include faculty, students, the university, _AUTM&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentD businesses, the community, and society. isplay.cfm&CONTENTID=3954 However, most stakeholder interests are Bauer, S. M., & Arthanat, S. (n.d.). SBIR and grossly ignored by applying performance STTR programs for assistive technology metrics that are narrowly focused on return- development: Evaluation of impact using an ICF- on-investment from research dollars. based classification. Unpublished manuscript, Community, state, and national resources University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. have created university and federal laboratory Bayh-Dole, Patent and Trademark Act infrastructures. Scientists working in these Amendments of 1980, 35 U.S.C. § 202. institutions are the creators of intellectual Department of Commerce. (2003). Technology property and educators of future members of assessment of the U.S. assistive technology the workforce. Businesses are the consumers industry. Bureau of Industry and Security of intellectual property, creators of products, Office of Strategic Industries and employers and engines of the economy. As a Economic Security Strategic Analysis consequence, communities, states, the nation, Division. Washington, DC: Author. scientists, students, and business are all critical Ditzel, R. G. (1991). Public law 96-517 and stakeholders. TT intermediaries have a risk capital: The laboratory-market responsibility to recognize the criticality of connection. The Journal of the Association of these stakeholders and facilitate TT in manner University Technology Managers, 3, 1-23. that is maximally responsive to their interests. Federal Laboratory Consortium. (n.d.). New and re-enacted TT legislation might Technology locator. Retrieved December 15, reflect these priorities and require the use of 2008, from http://www.federallabs.org/ more appropriate metrics by universities, locator/ federal laboratories, and other covered Federal Laboratory Consortium. (2006). entities. Federal technology transfer legislation and policy. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from Acknowledgement http://www.federallabs.org/store/greenb ook/ The authors gratefully acknowledge colleagues Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, 15 who contributed to the concepts expressed U.S.C. § 3710d. herein. This is a publication of the Government Accounting Office. (1998). Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center Technology transfer: Administration of the Bayh- on TT, funded by the National Institute on Dole Act by research universities. Retrieved Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the December 12, 2008, from Department of Education under grant http://www.gao.gov/ number H133E030025. The opinions archive/1998/rc98126.pdf contained in this presentation are those of the Kahn, K. B. (Ed.). (2004). The PDMA grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of handbook of new product development, Second the Department of Education. Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. References Lane, J. P. (1999). Understanding technology transfer. Assistive Technology, 11, 5-19. Association of University Technology Lane, J. P. (2007). Delivering the D in R&D: Managers. (2007). AUTM U.S. licensing Recommendations for increasing transfer outcomes from development projects. Normal IL: Special Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 149 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer

Summer 2010, Volume 6, Number 1

Education Assistive Technology Center T2RERC. (n.d.c). Industry profiles. Retrieved and Assistive Technology Industry December 1, 2008, from Association. http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/pubs/ip/index. Lombardi, J., Capaldi, E. D., & Abbey, C. W. htm (2007). The top American research universities. T2RERC. (n.d.d). Public policy project. Retrieved Retrieved December 12, 2008, from December 1, 2008, from http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/research/public Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2008). -policy/index.htm Innovation. Retrieved December 11, 2008, T2RERC. (n.d.e). Rehabilitation Engineering from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Research Center on Technology Transfer (2003- dictionary/innovation 2008). Retrieved December 1, 2008, from Pressman L., Guterman S. K., Abrams I., http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/index.html Geist D. E., & Nelsen I. (1995). Pre- T2RERC. (2005). Cooperative research and production investment and jobs induced development agreement fact sheet. Retrieved by MIT exclusive patent licenses: A May 16, 2008, from preliminary model to measure the http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/ economic impact of university licensing. development/demandpull/fact_sheets/C Journal of the Association of University RADA%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf Technology Managers, 7, 29-49. Thursby J. G., & Thursby M. C. (2002). Who Product Development and Management is selling the ivory tower? Sources of Association. (2010). About PDMA: What is growth in university licensing. Management PDMA? Retrieved January 15, 2010, from Science, 48(1), 90-104. http://www.pdma.org/about_pdma.cfm Wessner, C. W. (Ed.). (2008). An assessment of Quality of Life Technology Center. (n.d.). the small business innovation research program. Home page. Retrieved December 1, 2008, National Research Council of the from http://www.qolt.org/ National Academies. Washington, D.C. Sander, E. (2000, September). Industrial The National Academies Press. collaboration and technology transfer through Wiltbank, R., & Boeker, W. (2007). Study industry/university research centers. Paper report: Returns to angel investors in groups. presented at Technology Transfer Society Retrieved December 10, 2008, from Annual Conference, Washington, DC. http://www.angelcapitaleducation.org/dir Small Business Innovation Development Act _resources/news_detail.aspx?id=144 of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 631. Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, 15 U.S.C. § 631 and 638. Sommerstad, R. (2006, March). Pulse survey: Business expectations in Minnesota. Paper presented at the 2006 AUTM Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, 15 U.S.C.S § 37001. T2RERC. (n.d.a). Home page. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/index.html T2RERC. (n.d.b). Case study project. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://t2rerc.buffalo.edu/research/case- studies/index.htm Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 150 Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer