The Tech Entrepreneurship Blog

where technology and entrepreneurship meet

Category Archives: Technology Transfer

The Future of Gaming

This guest post comes from Simon Cave, one of our project leaders, and one of the driving forces behind Mirametrix Gaming

Lennart Nacke on Biometrics

As part of the Mirametrix Gaming team, I recently attended the Montreal International Game Summit (MIGS) to get the pulse of what’s next in gaming. There were tons of great sessions on video game production (how to write scripts, how to make a story realistic, how to create texture and realistic faces and so on), but what I was really interested in was the future of gameplay itself. What technologies can we expect to change gaming in the next 5 to 10 years?

Attending the biofeedback talk by Lennart Nacke, assistant professor at UOIT and head of their HCI and Game Science Group, was a no brainer for me. His talk explored the potential of biofeedback (using instruments that provide feedback on physiological functions) to improve game design and, in some cases, add new forms of interaction.

The main issue with biofeedback is that it mostly measures physiological states that are not easily controllable (e.g. EEG, pulse rate).  For these things, biofeedback can give game designers valuable insight into how users respond to their game experience, but would most likely be an ineffective way to interact directly with the game itself.  And yes, most of these technologies are too invasive at this point to expect the average gamer to use (captors placed on the cheeks and between the eyebrows, for example).  But I still believe that breakthroughs in these areas may very well broaden our definition of what gameplay is at some point.

Gaze tracking is an example of a technology making the transition from an analysis tool to an interaction technology. Emotional analysis doesn’t look like it may be that far behind.  The advantage these technologies have is that people have found ways to collect and analyse this information without any form of physical contact with users.  Emotion is also already tied to what is considered an important part of the gaming experience.  As one audiophile noted, composers are paid to put emotion into games (Apologies, we can’t remember who it was!); What if games could also adjust audio or other content to your current emotional state in addition to your point in the game? It remains to be seen what kind of benefit this will have for gamers, but who knows, the analysis tools of today might turn out to be the game changers of tomorrow. It’s something worth following.

And what of today’s game changers? They seem to have taken their cue from Halting State. Ingress and Canadian based Clandestine Anomaly promise to bring gaming to the everyday.  With the growth in mobile technologies, expect more on the social gaming and augmented reality front.

How my Sales Role at TandemLaunch is Fundamentally Different from Ericsson

By Rawy Iskander

A year ago, I joined TandemLaunch Technologies to assume the business development function. Our mission is to deliver to our client base of large Consumer Electronic (CE) companies customized technology scouting and transfer across our vast global network of universities.

In this post, I reflect on the fundamental differences between the sales role with my previous employer Ericsson, where I spent more than 10 years in different sales roles, compared to TandemLaunch Technologies.

1. Customer requirements: At Ericsson, most of my customers had a pretty clear vision of their requirements. At TandemLaunch, we target organizations that have emerging demands that cannot be clearly articulated. There is no such thing called ‘established demand.’ In fact, the less our client is clear about their requirements, the higher the value TandemLaunch can deliver. At Ericsson, a sales person is primarily on a fact finding mission to identify customers’ unmet needs. We would then use this information to design a sales proposal in what was termed “solution sale”. At TandemLaunch we design our sales process to help both us and our customers “discover” their unrecognized needs.

2. Customer purchasing processes: At Ericsson, our customers had very well-defined and established purchasing processes. At TandemLaunch, our primary contacts inside these large organizations must be agile and flexible in purchasing decisions.

3. Customer Champion: At Ericsson we were trained to find an internal customer ally who was able to “coach” us through the maze of a complex organization and decision making. The bulk of the deal closing effort was ours! At TandemLaunch, such a profile cannot take us too far: our champion(s) must be able to initially challenge our proposals and help us quickly gravitate towards winning ideas. They must also be internal evangelists and go-getters. In fact we do the initial coaching but the bulk of internal persuasion must come from them!

4. Engagement timing: At Ericsson, the optimum time to engage with a customer was as soon as a need surfaced and we had identified that one of our solutions could help them. At TandemLaunch, we engage long before a need emerges since our role is to help our clients discover their future needs.

5. Sales engagement format: At Ericsson, the best engagement format was through customized well-rehearsed presentations that pitched solutions to identified customer needs. At TandemLaunch, we prefer customer workshops where we come in with many new concepts and work with our clients to discover what is useful and what is not. A well-thought-out, well-designed PPT flow prior to a meeting is quite useless. Interestingly, I realized that presentation skills are slightly less critical at TandemLaunch compared to Ericsson! This may come as a surprise to many people (including myself J) since we continuously pitch new concepts.  The fact of the matter is that it takes a long time to find a winning concept that is a good fit for a company to be fully-pitched. A longer and more critical aspect of the sales activity is to jointly discover these rare gems with our customers, so facilitation skills, thought leadership and the ability to challenge the status quo are more valuable skills with our business model.

I would love to hear your feedback, and insights on sales + business development activities. I am particularly interested in listening to your experiences on what worked and what did not…feel free to contact me!

Three Core Tech Trends

There are, in my mind, three major technology trends in this decade’s consumer electronics world: narcissism, visual realism, and naturalism in interaction.

1) Narcissism

Narcissism is less interesting to TandemLaunch, but has become a major driver of our economy.  We all want to be famous, we all want to be the greatest person on earth, and it is in many ways a biological and psychologically ingrained desire.  For the first time in human history, the internet has made that possible to the masses, or at least in the somewhat narrow view of ‘fame’ which society has defined.  Guys like Mark Zuckerberg understand this, and realize that if you provide people with perceived fame, they will freely give up all kinds of higher order desires like ‘privacy’.  It is clear that narcissism drives a major part of the economy, including social network systems, photo sharing, and anything where you can share some part of your life.  These are basically all technologies that allow you to have hundreds or even thousands of friends, be liked by tens of thousands, contribute to revolutions in far off countries, and, to put it frankly, become famous without the actual effort of having to leave your couch.  How much better can it get???

2) Realism

We are entering a world where there is a strong push in consumer electronics not just for functionality, as is the case with computing power, but actual visual, auditory, and otherwise sensory realism.  We have displays that are approaching the human eye’s perceptual limits (Apple’s Retina display for example) and we have audio systems that are approaching the limits of the human auditory system.  This is all a push towards creating technology that looks, feels, and sounds no different than the real world, and there are still opportunities left in this field worthy of technical development.

3) Natural Interaction

Naturalness of interaction for computing devices (touch or gesture recognition), as well as interaction with other human beings, is becoming more and more necessary as many of our human to human interactions are currently done through some sort of computing device.  The emergence of video conferencing, online gaming, and technologies of the like are really about a chain of interactions: interactions between a human being and a computer, that computer and another computer, and interactions between the end computer and another human being.   The goal is to make that chain as natural as a face to face interaction between one human being and another.  This is where I believe there is a lot of opportunity.  In fact, the last trend is possibly the biggest because it is by far the least tapped into.  If you do the same analysis that I just did for realism (take the set of things that human beings would like to have and subtract our current capabilities), you’re left with a laundry list of technical challenges.  This is precisely why TandemLaunch’s first investment was in Mirametrix’s eye gaze technology: an affordable, non-contact, gaze tracking solution that integrates with gesture and speech recognition for your living-room environment.

A Sustainable Startup Model for Canada

At the end of my last post on the gaps in the R,D,E chain, I talked a bit about why people with the development skill set are attractive to large companies, but ultimately don’t fit in with these companies’ emphasis on engineering (e.g. rigour, discipline, process).  Startups are by far the best at the critical development piece between research and engineering, and yet the existing model for startups has them dissolve after acquisition.

Quite often when a company buys a startup they think that they actually want the organization, but the supporting jobs start disappearing, a bit later the technical staff will drift off, and in the end the whole place just shuts down.  Canada is full of acquired entities that followed this path.

That is OK on some level, because the transition will hopefully have brought some measurable amount of money or expertise into the country. But ultimately, it also means an economics loss: the loss of a company, the associated jobs, and a skilled development team that has found ways to work together effectively and efficiently.  This is especially important for a country like Canada where there are not a lot of big companies left that do engineering on a large scale (Nortel is gone, RIM is spiralling to the bottom, etc.).

So, how is it beneficial for the development capabilities of startups to be dispersed instead of being rolled into other development projects?  Industry really doesn’t want the development skill set in the long term, and every startup is forced to waste time starting their company from scratch. Following this traditional path is both capital inefficient for the startup as well as sub-optimal for the region in terms of long term economic growth. On the flip side, any law or policy that limits the ability of a startup in a small economy to be sold to the big players in another economy is fundamentally a mistake. Doing so just lowers the competitiveness of the venture and ultimately weakens the economy.

Having witnessed an economically successful cross-border acquisition and the aftermath, I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a more effective way to build companies. This was on my mind when it was time to set up another venture in Canada: TandemLaunch Technologies was the result.

TandemLaunch is meant not only to solve the major international challenge of university-industry tech transfer, it is also meant to be a “sustainable startup” for Canada. TandemLaunch runs multiple development projects in parallel, each encapsulated in its own company to avoid cross-project distraction. Each portfolio company is structured in such a way that they are easy to acquire by industry, and allow industry to hand pick the technical resources that they need.  All other assets, including facilities and people, stay with TandemLaunch after any acquisition for assignment to new projects.

This means that the jobs created by TandemLaunch actually stay in the country of origin, grow in that country, and the money that is made on acquisitions is invested into future ventures in that country.  This maintains and creates jobs, and sustains a long term company.  All this, while transferring technologies into an organization that’s more effective at engineering, and ultimately consumer production.  The idea is to treat the invention and early prototyping steps that small economies like Canada are often very good at as the product of the larger entity. Each portfolio company has its own business model, revenue stream, and ultimately acquisition opportunities, but from the perspective of the larger entity they are revenue streams themselves.

Added side benefits are: the ability to create and maintain stronger industry connections, by the nature of multiple venture engagements; higher capital efficiency of each portfolio venture (avoiding a significant portion of ramp-up cost as the resources of past ventures are re-used where appropriate); and the fact that investment capital is maintained in the entity and thus the country (TandemLaunch is effectively an evergreen fund).

We will see how the model unfolds, but I have high hopes that it will lead both to financial success and an ongoing contribution to the local economy.

Gaps in the Research, Development, and Engineering Chain

I talk a lot about bridging the ‘technology transfer gap’, but there is more than one place where technologies fall to their doom in the development of a new product.  When you define each stage in the process (Research, Development and Engineering) you start to see that there are two clear gaps.  Between each of these stages, a risky transition occurs. It is not just a few outliers that fail to make each leap; it is the vast majority of inventions.  A big part of the reason for this is that very different environments work best for each stage of the R-D-E chain, meaning that technologies do not just need to transition between stages; they typically need to transition between organizations with different cultures and expectations.  Any “technology transfer” model needs to take both of these transitions into account. Let’s first briefly define the three stages.

The Research Stage. At the research stage, new ideas are proposed and tested, solutions to problems are sought or discovered, multiple ideas are combined, and inventions result.  The best macro-scale model that we currently have for this process is the university.  Universities provide the most open and free environments for research to occur, with by a wide margin the most financial resources ( Microsoft Research, probably the largest corporate research entity on the planet, spends about a billion dollars a year on research, which sounds like a lot, but it is still less than even a mid-sized university).

The Development Stage.  The task at the development stage is to rapidly risk-reduce an idea emerging from research (the process of innovation).  Outlier or extreme cases are considered, many of the scientific elements must be validated, and the fundamentals of how a new technology works will be tested and mapped out.  In other words, the technical risk of an invention not working are eliminated or largely brought under control.  This is what startups do best due to their focus, speed and flexibility.

The Engineering Stage. Products do not just need to have their technical risks resolved; they also need to be made.  That means designing the technology with aspects like cost reduction, manufacturing, production, shipping, and maintenance in mind.  Large companies, beyond any doubt, do this the best due to their economy of scale (at least in the case of hardware and similar scalable solutions).

With three steps in the chain there are obviously two transitions. And that’s where the trouble starts.

 Transition 1: Research to Development.  The usual problem in research to development transitions is that the open, loose form of universities (great for research) is a disaster for development.  In development you need focus, speed, agility, and risk money, none of which the university environment typically provides. Inventors, the most likely people to lead the technology’s development at a university, have far too many competing objectives and have much greater incentives and access to resources for basic research and invention then they do for development (for the most part).

At the same time, it is much more difficult to sell an undeveloped invention to a large company, precisely because their emphasis and strength is in engineering.   And that is assuming that universities, who are generalist by nature, are able to create and maintain the relationships needed with large corporate structures in specialized industries to pitch their inventions, and understand what the market need for these inventions is.

Transition 2: Development to Engineering. Development Startups face a similarly challenging cultural transition. At first glance that doesn’t seem to be the case. The skill set of startup developers is actually very attractive to big companies – at least in the early courtship days. Startup developers look dynamic, pro-active and goal-oriented. That is why big companies buy startups all the time.  After the acquisition, however, this beautiful vision starts to fracture a bit. Many of the best startup producers are hackers at heart. Product engineering on the other hand requires rigour, discipline and process – aspects that a startup will often deliberately suppress in order to progress faster, focusing on the key technical issues. Over time, “dynamic” becomes “can’t focus”, “pro-active” becomes “disruptive” and so forth.  That’s why most acquisitions ultimately fail.

 TandemLaunch Technologies’ mission is to improve the transition efficiency in the R, D, E chain in a way that is consistently beneficial to Canada (more on this in a future post).  We accomplish this by 1) identifying key researchers and inventions, 2) leading and providing the resources for the development stage of these inventions, 3) providing industry with a developed invention and the support they need for acquisition, and 4) keeping and creating jobs in Canada.

Where TTO Technology Listings Fail

By Katie Young Morris and Naoufel Testaouni

As project scouts for TandemLaunch, we are looking at University tech transfer websites on a regular basis.  When we saw Jeff Fearn’s advice for TTO’s to make more information available on their websites, we decided to take it a step further and highlight the common ways that website licensing listings fail to connect the right people to the right licensing opportunities.

1. Make your search results as user friendly as possible.  Step one is to make sure that your titles are clear.  Step two is to take advantage of the power of a one sentence summary description that appears with your title in the search results. While not always needed, this additional information makes it easier for people to get to the technologies they have interest in more quickly and efficiently, without overlooking technologies that do not immediately appear relevant.  Search providers like Google do this for exactly the same reason: titles don’t always give enough information.  You can further optimize the functionality of your searches by making sure that the text following each title gives as clear a picture of what the technology does as possible.

The University of British Columbia TTO’s site provides a great example of this in action:

2. Don’t tell us your technology is ‘new’.  Tell us why.  Don’t worry, we know your technology is unique, novel, new, fast, superior, just plain better than other solutions. The most important information individuals need to evaluate a technology are the concrete results that can be compared to similar solutions. Provide comparisons to similar technologies when possible. This specificity will make your opportunity descriptions more meaningful and attention grabbing.

If you indicate that the invention improves efficiency, indicate ‘by how much’. We have given an example from Queen’s University’s PARTEQ Innovation below.

Better yet?  Provide image, video, or audio results. Yissum Technology Transfer (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), for example, makes these kind of demonstration materials nearly the first thing that appears in their summaries.

 

The bottom line is that nothing will sell a technology better than results. For unfamiliar technologies, a brief video demonstrating how the technology functions will make a big difference in communicating what an opportunity is all about (costly video production is not required).

3. Important, but often forgotten information: Most university TTOs understand the importance of clearly labeling, categorizing, and describing their technologies, including listing potential applications, advantages and the problem solved (do all of these things).  Some specifics that are often missing and should strengthen your sales case are:

  • Patent numbers and types – These provide more detailed information on the technology and the scope of its protection.
  • Patent filing dates – These place the technology in the timeline of related technologies.
  • Publications – These provide more detailed information on a technology and future development.
  • Inventors’ names – A quick search on an inventor can help give a sense of the inventors’ availability, similar work they are doing that may be of interest, and additional relevant publications.

Companies that are going to license your technology will need this information before making a decision.  If you don’t have ready access to this information, consider revising your university’s disclosure or patent management process to ensure it is at your fingertips in the future.   The University of Rochester Center for Entrepreneurship is an example of a TTO that is doing a good job of providing this information.

Even better, use some of the extra time you saved by reducing unnecessary inquiries, and provide direct links.

4. Differentiate investment types. A technology status description is a powerful way to help the right kind of investor tune into your technology.  Some individuals and companies will be interested in early stage technologies, others will want some kind of proof of concept, and others will be interested in fully developed technologies.  UChicago Tech has one of the best methods we have seen to quickly summarize a technology’s development status.

5. Stop gatekeeping.  While TTOs need to be sensitive to what information should be kept confidential at different stages of a technology’s development, gatekeeping for any other reason is a waste of your time.  Some TTOs provide very scant information about their technologies. Our best guesses as to why are that they lack time, want to track interest in specific technologies, or want to get the opportunity to pitch certain technologies.  But if you don’t provide enough information about your technology, anyone who contacts you about it will not have a clear picture of what their interest in the technology is.  That means wasted time with people who are not going to license a technology anyway, and a distorted picture of what interest there really is in a technology. You also risk missing out on people who might be interested in an opportunity, but never discover it is available.

Look at the recurrent questions you are fielding and consider systematically answering those questions on your website .  If you can provide the information in response to a technology inquiry, there is likely no reason not to have it available online.  The minimal upfront time invested will save you the time of answering requests from people who only have a vague sense that a technology might be of interest, freeing you up to invest more time in relationships where there is concrete interest.

How to Spot Technology Trends II: Replacing ‘Impossible’ with ‘Never Before Possible’

This is part 2 of a post on spotting technology trends.  In the last post I explained that the best place to look for technology trends is my mother’s demographic (a mainstream demographic, with disposable income, that is not very technologically savvy). In this post, I describe the mindset required to do that.

My answer whenever my mother makes some unrealistic demand for realism or quality is normally to explain that what she wants technology to do is not possible (mainly for my peace of mind).  In the back of my mind though, I’m always careful to recognize that what is not currently possible, is entirely different from what is impossible.  The development history of dynamic LED TV is a perfect example of how technological development can be crippled by the confusion of these two very different ideas.

In the early days of what is now called LED TV, or local dimming TV, we knew that people love sparkly stuff.  It’s nothing new: people like diamonds, crystal chandeliers, crystal glasses, gold, silver, chrome and other shiny materials.  We even polish our motorcycles and cars.  God knows why. Maybe due to some evolutionary advantage to spotting the eyes of predators, but we are attracted to things that shine.  The problem with displays at the time was that they couldn’t show sparkly stuff.   Displays were limited to a range of brightness that made it impossible for them to show sparkles (8-bit per channel so 255 steps from black to white); they just couldn’t produce enough bright light to give the impression of a reflection. After a few decades of living with these limited displays, the bulk of the TV industry concluded:  “Making this better is hard, so 8-bit is the end of the line, and we just accept this constraint.”

 A whole community – an entire industry – convinced itself that, ‘8-bit is enough.’

A whole field of science sprang up to argue that 8 bit was all that human beings could see (often through industry sponsored research).  When you pointed out that in the real world the eye can see more (I can see shades under my desk and, simultaneously bright buildings through the window), they would just respond that my brain is fooling me, that sparkles don’t really matter, that you don’t consciously perceive it more than 8-bit, or that it’s simply not that important. The Emperor had beautiful clothes…

The consequence was that all development of display technologies that would go beyond  8-bit ground to a halt. Industry, investors, and scientists collectively simply said no to a whole realm of possible innovation. At Brightside I remember pitching to a venture capital fund who had hired an “8-bit is enough expert”. Even looking right at our display and physically seeing that 8-bit is not the limit of human vision, they would stick to the line that the technology wasn’t needed.

A much smaller camp of rebels admitted that 8-bit might not be enough, but decided to focus their energy on dealing with the problem instead of solving it (clearly, no one was encouraging them to solve the root problem).  So they developed so-called tone mapping algorithms, and other image processing techniques that basically allow you to squish the high contrast real world scene into the limited range of an 8-bit display.  At least they were acknowledging the problem, but they were unfortunately focusing all of their energy on addressing a problem based on an arbitrary technical constraint

That’s right, an arbitrary constraint. Because deep down we all know where the 8-bit magic comes from. Somebody in the early days of computing decided that 8-bit would be a nice unit for microprocessors, later CPUs, and ultimately for the operating systems that ran on those CPUs. With the advent of digital displays in the 90s it was simply convenient to use the same integrated circuits, processors and software on the display side as well. It would be an incredible coincident if the human visual system just happened to have the same constraints as an arbitrarily chosen electronics requirement driven by supply chain convenience!

It took us years at BrightSide to break through these self-created mental barriers and push dynamic LED TV as a higher contrast/bit-depth solution. Today, LED TV accounts for some 30-40% of the global display market and 8-bit displays are quickly disappearing from the market entirely.

Let’s come back to innovation. The problem in this example wasn’t that people were stupid or unwilling to listen. It was that a myth had spread to the point that it had become part of the fabric of that field. The vast majority of display researchers, engineers and marketers didn’t know enough about visual psychophysics to invalidate the myth in the mind, so they perpetuated it as gospel instead. Such people have difficulty articulating the true problem statement(s) in their field and thus have no hope of developing anything other than incremental improvements.

Major disruptive innovation comes from the recognition of a major problem. Inspiration for that is easier to find with those who imagine the world as it should be, rather than those who “know” how it is.

7 Tips for Taking your Startup Beyond Product Sale

This post comes from our VP Business Development, Rawy Iskander.  With over 10 years of experience in international business development, sales and marketing, along with corporate strategy and management, Rawy certainly has a thing or two to say about sales strategy for entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurship is really a sales job at heart!  If you want to eventually sell your company (and you should!), then you have two sales missions: 1) selling your product (or service) very well and 2) selling your company. That includes a well-defined strategic long-term vision, articulating your expertise, previous successes, execution capabilities and a solid organization + team!

Of course, to succeed you can’t sell what you don’t have (no BS!), but you must also become very good at communicating what you do have. If not, your first step is to work on your sales pitch. It takes time and conscious effort to have an effective pitch, but it’s definitely doable and well worth your while. The legendary golfer Gary Player once said, “The more I practice, the luckier I get.” The same goes for entrepreneurship and sales!

To tailor your communication effectively, you need a firm grasp on precisely who your likely acquirers are so that you can orchestrate all your company efforts to potential buyers, just as you’d design a product for specific customers.  I am not suggesting that you don’t keep your options open, but your chances for success will be much higher if you understand your most likely acquirer!

Here are my top 7 tips for taking your startup business beyond product sale, to lasting value creation.

Tip 1: Define & Manage your Exit Strategy.

Your journey towards success is much more likely to be short and effective if you define early on your exit strategy and share it with your key team members and shareholders. Taking 1-2 days every few months to review your exit strategy won’t do the trick. The activities and outcomes you define as necessary to succeed should be embedded in your operational activities and must have measurable outcomes on a monthly basis. A good check is: Have you allocated a budget for your exit activities / process?

Tip 2: Match your Exit Strategy with Suitable Financing Options.

There are two major options for a start-up exit: Revenue-based exits (e.g. IPO, late stage mergers, etc.) and value-based exits (e.g. acquisitions where the principal value is product, team or intellectual property and not necessary revenue). These options not only distinguish themselves by the timeline (the first take longer) but also by their risk profiles.

Revenue based IPOs are rare these days but usually very big when they happen. That implies a very high risk, high reward strategy. Value-based exits are more common but usually at a lower price point.

As a founder you need to decide which path is best for you, your personal wealth goals, the ambition of the company, and the scalability of your business model. Once that decision is made you can secure financing and people that match your strategy (i.e. VC’s are good partners for the high risk IPO play but generally a bad choice for value based exit strategies). Picking the wrong partners early on can completely derail your company. For example, raising a VC round of with significant liquidation preference will make a lot of value based exit scenarios impractical and push you towards a high risk IPO strategy.

Tip 3: Don’t wait to manage your Intellectual Property (IP). 

We’ve said a lot about this on our blog already, but as a technology entrepreneur your IP management can make or break the saleability of your business.  Are you actively protecting your IP? Ensure your company IP relationships with other parties are well carved out early on.

Tip 4: Master your Sales Funnel.

If you have no idea how much you can earn in the next few quarters and cannot backup your sales forecasts with a credible sales funnel, your business sale may be in jeopardy*.  Can you forecast how many sales your company will earn by allocating a specific marketing budget? Future buyers will ask about this, so make sure you have a great story!

For the few lucky start-ups with products and services achieving high revenues, invest some effort in a decent CRM system early on. Well documented sales efforts not only track historical activities, but will also support you during an acquisition negotiation to address new sales growth scenarios (geographical, new market segments, price sensitivity, etc…), potentially earning you a higher exit value.

Note (*) this, of course, does not apply to start-ups trying to sell company pre-revenue i.e. only selling IP

Tip 5: Engage in Productive Joint-Ventures and Partnerships.

A good exit strategy dictates that you are actively engaged with other market players and become part of an ecosystem. Your business typically expands not only through direct sales but also through productive joint ventures and partnering relationships (OEM, Distribution, Licensing, etc…). Who else is doing development in your area?  What opportunities are there for mutually beneficial business relationships or geographical expansions? Strong healthy relationships and dependencies are carefully firewalled from each other and from your IP ownership so that they do not become liabilities.

Tip 6: Develop a Strong Advisory Board.

A good advisory board not only gives you strong advice but also gives you more credibility in the eyes of an acquirer. Your advisory board should extend your reach into the market’s ecosystem through board member connections. Invest some effort into identifying suitable advisory members with strong market relationships and managing their relationship with your company. An advisory board should meet at least once a year, (preferably more) and be compensated, typically in equity.

Tip 7: Legal MATTERS!

A business goes beyond technology and intellectual property. It consists of people, customers, suppliers and a mesh of complex relationships. Make sure your relationships with different stakeholders are well and clearly managed. An acquirer wants to buy a running business and maximize their profit.  They do not want to buy liabilities, problems, struggling shareholders, or “potential risks and time bombs.” Scrutinize all term sheets, by-laws, and management rights documents. Are you setup correctly to provide acquirers with an easy to transfer, legally hassle-free package? Consider also the location of that asset, applicable laws, taxes and R&D government credits.

The above will also make it easier to raise future financing and scale your business, so even the entrepreneurs who just want to “build a big business” should consider executing well on the above tips!

A Final Word

Good entrepreneurship is about focusing with limited resources on the few things that matter. The ultimate sale of the company is definitely worth your, and your team’s attention. Company sale should be at the core of your efforts, not considered an extravagant extra!

Who will bridge the tech transfer gap?

The National Sciences Foundation kicked off its first round of I-CORE awards this October, with an Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for 21 groups of university inventors.  The idea is to develop a new generation of researchers who better understand how to develop and market their inventions for industry: researchers who are also skilled entrepreneurs. It will be interesting to see how the quarterly award will reshape the tech transfer landscape in the US by increasing researchers’ entrepreneurial skills. But the biggest payoff, at least in my mind, will be in terms of a cultural shift among academics (University inventors don’t have a reputation for pitching to industry). 

There is no question that numerous opportunities are lost simply because inventors are not tuned in to commercial opportunities and industry need.  With the current economic environment, people need to pay close attention to these missed opportunities flowing from invested research dollars. And technology transfer requires more than dollars; it requires skilled inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs. But I don’t believe that every inventor needs to be, or should be, an entrepreneur.  There is nothing wrong with outsourcing innovation or entrepreneurship once you have an invention, so long as the mechanisms and bodies exist to do so (much more could be done here).  There are also important steps that university technology transfer offices and industry can take to meet each other half way. 

In the words of Joe Girard, “The elevator to success is out of order.  You’ll have to use the stairs… one step at a time.”

Five Steps for University Inventors

For researchers working in technical fields, inventions are to be expected.  Unfortunately, many university inventors receive little, if any, training on what to do once they have an invention on their hands. Our team has put together a handy FAQ to help orient inventors to the world of university-industry technology transfer.  We’ve also put together a quick overview of what we see as the key steps for inventors to transform their ideas into commercial solutions. 

Step One: Understand the problem that you are solving

Few inventions are truly novel visions of the world. Usually, they are combinations of known ideas that, together, solve a new problem. Understanding the problem is often 90% of the invention battle. Understanding the problem also helps you to articulate market applications for your invention, and gives you a mechanism to compare your solution to alternatives. The latter is particularly important in the commercial context, where it really doesn’t matter *how* a problem is solved. I frequently read new project proposals that proudly promise to speed up a particular technique by 10x – only to overlook the fact that a different type of technique already solved the problem years ago. It doesn’t matter that you have the world’s fastest horse when people drive cars. If you are looking to have your idea commercialized, save yourself some time and make sure that what you are doing really is novel, and makes sense in the technology landscape.

Questions to ask: Has anyone been down this road before?  What challenges have they faced? How does your technology fit in with existing technologies and technology needs? Above all, what information or proofs do you need to be sure that this technology can actually work?

Step Two: Build a relationship with your Technology Transfer Office (TTO)

Like companies, most universities have some claim to intellectual property (IP) created by either faculty or students using their resources.  The mandate of a university TTO is to manage this IP and facilitate the technology transfer process for its inventors.  If you are unsure how to connect with your university’s TTO, the best place to start looking is the office responsible for research services (grants, contracts, etc.). 

I encourage early engagement with your TTO to make sure that you understand your university’s IP policies, and can take full advantage of their services.  An important thing to ask about in the early stages is what your TTOs disclosure policies and processes are.  Typically, disclosure to your TTO should happen prior to public disclosure (publication), as public disclosure will affect your ability to patent an invention. 

Questions to ask: What is my university’s IP Policy? Who, when, and how should I submit a research disclosure? What services does the TTO office offer?

Step Three: Have an IP strategy

The more fully developed your idea is, the easier it will be to sell (Which would you rather invest in, an idea that can theoretically work, or an idea with a working prototype behind it?).  As a university inventor you are typically looking to develop at least some patent protection before progressing to the commercialization stage for your technology. You don’t have to become a patent lawyer, but try to keep issues of IP ownership in the back of your mind, keep in touch with your TTO, and protect your ability to commercialize you resulting invention(s).  As a general rule any disclosure, even a quick story at a café, can severely limit your patenting options, so think through your engagements in advance (Read more about intellectual property and secrecy).

This isn’t a reason not to collaborate with other researchers. In fact, in my experience collaborations add tremendous value to most research initiatives and I would strongly encourage you to seek out partners. You just need to be clear about who will have a stake in the resulting IP and create some basic structure for your relationship to cover the IP aspects.   Similarly, there is no reason not to engage with potential investors and customers early.  They will give you valuable feedback, even if it hurts.  Discussing the problem you are solving without disclosing the specifics of your invention does not require a non-disclosure agreement.  Most investors never reach the depth where they need access to detailed information about your patentable invention (read more about confidentiality and investors, and customer engagement).

Questions to ask: Who are the key collaborators for the project? What legal relationships do they have with your university? Does everybody understand the difference between collaboration on publications (everybody is a co-author) and patents (only those who have made inventive contributions are inventors)?

Step Four: Protect your invention

Your research will become an invention when a definite idea has been conceived and translated into a practical application (a prototype is not required, but helpful).  Once you’ve arrived at the point of having an invention, your best bet is to contact your TTO (if you aren’t already in touch with them). 

University technology transfer typically involves the sale or licensing of patent rights.  A patent protects your ability to control who can and cannot use or profit from your invention.  If you are not interested in personally profiting from your invention, it can still be important to patent. Open disclosure works for some technologies, but is more difficult for concepts that require significant development investment before they can become a useful product. Without a patent, companies are unlikely to make that development investment, because there will generally be no potential for financial return on their investment.  The choice between public disclosure and patented commercialisation is one that should be discussed with your TTO to find the best option for your technology.

Questions to ask: Is open publication or patent protection the best course for your technology?

Step Five: Connect the dots

The idea of sales and marketing may seem foreign to a lot of university inventors, but you’ve likely been doing this all along.  Instead of convincing funders that your research will result in valuable products or outcomes, you need to convince investors that some of the value you intended to create really exists. 

Remember that research you did on the technology landscape? You can use it to identify companies or investors who may be interested in your technology. Ideally, you have even had preliminary discussions with some of them during the course of your project. You also need to evaluate your invention before approaching business partners, considering your prototype’s availability and stability, project documentation, and basic aspects of business and marketing (e.g. market assessments).  There are also a number of commercialization options to explore: seed funds, accelerator programs, Angel and Venture Capital investors.  TandemLaunch, for example, is a seed fund specializing in multi-media technologies that offers financing, industry connections, development staff and infrastructure on an equity basis.

At this point, you are ready to plunge in the next phase of commercialization. Gather a team, build a product (or licensable technology package) and hit the road. That’s a topic for another day.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 988 other followers

%d bloggers like this: