Innovation Commercialization and Licensing in Entrepreneurial

Business Education

March 23, 2013 NCIIA 17th Annual Conference

Darian Unger Associate ProfessorHoward University School of

Business dwunger@howard.edu 202-806-1656

But after presentations like “Can You Milk a Rhino?” “Spreading the Fire,” and “Purple Dragon”….let’s try:

Innovation Commercialization: Unicorns in flames!

But after presentations like “Can You Milk a Rhino?” “Spreading the Fire,” and “Purple Dragon”….let’s try:

Innovation Commercialization and Licensing in Entrepreneurial

Business Education

March 23, 2013 NCIIA 17th Annual Conference

Darian Unger Associate ProfessorHoward University School of

Business dwunger@howard.edu 202-806-1656

Research Topic• Purpose• To test the utility of incorporating

university innovation commercialization projects into graduate coursework

• Methodology• Application of innovation lessons to

university-owned intellectual property• Tracking commercialization results• Feedback from inventors, professors, and

innovation-oriented MBA students

Research Topic

• Literature Review• Tech transfer efforts enhanced by key

variables (Friedman and Silberman, 2003)• Location, compensation, tech transfer

experience• Cultural barriers between universities and

firms (Siegel, et. al., 2003)• Industrial responsiveness to university

innovations (Breznitz, 2011)

Research Drivers

• Wealth of university inventions and intellectual property

• Lack of a Technology Licensing Office (TLO) or Technology Transfer Office (TTO)

Research Drivers

• Meanwhile, we’ve got classes of students studying innovation and entrepreneurship • Seeking actual examples and case studies

Key Course Skills: Commercializing Innovation• Creating value through innovation• Technology and market S-curves• Delivering value through new product

design and development• Appropriating value through • Patents• Standards and dominant design• Time to market • Licensing

Application

• Work applied with graduate students from a mid-size (5,000-10,000 students) university

• Students were in-person students rather than EMBA students

• Students self-selected from a menu of university-owned intellectual property• Patents already applied for or granted

Results and discussion

• Each class resulted in multiple commercialization plans• Classes were not identical in size• Groups of two students per invention

Results and discussion

• Each class resulted in multiple commercialization plans• Classes were not identical in size• Groups of two students per invention

Results and discussion

Consider both• Academic (student and pedagogical) outcomes • Institutional (commercialization) outcomes

of student teamwork dedicated performing tasks normally performed by TTOs/TLOs

Results and discussion

• Student and pedagogical results included assessments of• Business planning• Market surveys• Prototyping• Patent value assessments

• Practical project grade variance was significantly greater than conceptual exam variance, and served to better distinguish

Results and discussion

• Innovation commercialization results• Student work had created value• Reduced administrative workload• Improved expected time to market in 40% of

cases, as evaluated by technology transfer contract staff

• Some groups recommended patent exploitation while others advocate time to market as more important

Guarded Observations

• Future research will measure the efficacy of the revised teaching methods• Requires additional years and greater sample

sizes• Still useful as a baseline

• Common metrics also occur on time scales much longer than the courses themselves• Number of patents• Level of licensing revenue

Final thoughts

• Demonstrates that introduction of these projects can spur a dual benefit:• Educating students with practical examples • Aiding the commercialization of

commercialization of university-associated IP

• Prospect of symbiosis between innovation-oriented educational programs and university technology transfer and licensing efforts

Questions?