Water Equipment and Policy - Nc State University15/Innovative... · Water Equipment and Policy...
Transcript of Water Equipment and Policy - Nc State University15/Innovative... · Water Equipment and Policy...
Water Equipment and Policy I/UCRC Research Center
Center Director: Dr. Junhong Chen
Marquette Site Director: Dr. Daniel Zitomer
IMD: Dave Marsh
Lead Site: University Wisconsin-Milwaukee
2nd Site Marquette University
Founded 2011
Milwaukee’s Water Cluster
Global Water Center
WEP’s mission Pursue research for commercial and non-profit members
serving the water industry to create disruptive technologies
that transform their initiatives and businesses, and to
dramatically improve water quality and the environment.
Core Research Areas
Materials Sensors & Devices Systems Water Policy
Results after two years
• 2 Invention Disclosures
• 1 Patent Application
• 1 CORBI with Temple University
• 1 Student Hired by Members
• 1 PI completed I-Corp program
• 0 New Members
How did WEP compare with other
IUCRCs during its first two years?
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short
Mixed Results
Dr. Dan Zitomer
Marquette Site Director Dr. Junhong Chen
Center Director
WEP Staff
Dr. Eric Christensen
Center Director
Dr. Mike Switzenbaum
Marquette Site Director
Dave Marsh
Program Manager
2012 Industry Members
Fell Short
IMD Goals:
1. Expand internationally with offshore sites and members
2. Add new U.S. university sites
3. Increase number of students hired by members
4. Increase technology transfer
5. Add new members
WEP embraced the IMD proposal as our
business plan to become a World-Class I/UCRC
• Leverage off-shore operations of current members
• Establish dialog and trust to build relationships
• Focus on cultures fluent in English
• Hired consultant, intimate with India – Add university sites… then industry members
– Signed MOU with India’s Karunya University
• Address member obstacles to expanding internationally
IMD Goal: Establish academic and commercial
relationships in India and China
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Fell Short
Mixed Results
Mixed Results
In discussion with several universities to become sites
• Virginia Tech
• UC-Davis
• University of Connecticut
• University of Illinois – Urbana
CORBIs with Temple and Arizona State Universities
Collaboration with University of Wisconsin - Madison
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short Met Goal
IMD Goal: Increase collaboration with other
universities and IUCRC’s and expand with new sites
IMD Goal: Increase student hires and internships • Student/ Member
networking events
• 2 student hires
• 1 student interview
• Implemented student mentoring & promotion
Met Goal
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short
• 8 licensing agreements (5 executed and 3 pending)
• 3 patent applications
• 3 invention disclosures
IMD Goal: Increase technology transfer
• 1 Partnership For Innovation Grant involving 3 WEP members
Exceeded Goal
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short
• Improved communications between WEP staff and members
• Engaged members in developing RFPs
• Recruited new, younger PIs seeking research opportunities
• Increased communication between PIs and Members
• PIs collaborated with members in creating proposals
• PIs and members began meeting monthly to review progress and collaborate on direction
Steps taken to improve WEP’s technology transfer
IMD Goal: 4 new members a year
MWRD
AUTOTE
LIC
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short Exceeded Goal
• Earned stakeholder confidence to help open prospect doors
• Focused on prospects aligned with core strengths • Real-time sensing • Waste water treatment • Materials
Steps taken to change trajectory of new member recruitment
• Refined value proposition and elevator speech
• Identified and collaborated with champions
• Increased networking, publicity, and marketing to increase awareness
WEP’s experience using the Logic Model
• Difficult Aligning and Rationalizing 5 goals
• Tool For Program Director to Evaluate & Compare IMDs
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short
Mixed Results
The IMD Grant was critical to our success.
Thank you NSF!
WEP’s Feedback on IMD Program
Exceeded Goal
Met Goal
Mixed Results
Fell Short
And Thank All of You For Listening
Innovative Ideas From Innovative Managing Directors
David Struble, Assistant Director Net-centric Cloud Software & Systems (NCSS) I/UCRC
University of North Texas
I/UCRC Annual Center Directors Meeting, Washington DC
January 8-9, 2015
About Our Center
Center currently has 4 Sites:
University of North Texas (UNT), Lead Site
University of Texas at Dallas (UTD)
Arizona State University (ASU)
Missouri University of Science and Technology (MST)
Center Vision and Mission:
Research is aimed at restructuring net-centric and cloud computing software and focuses on modeling, analysis, design, implementation, verification and validation, testing, deployment and evolution of cloud-based and net-centric software and systems.
Center History:
- Established in February 2009 and Phase 2 awarded in April 2014
Some Center Statistics (since startup):
- 82 unique projects submitted for funding consideration
- ~40 projects funded and executed through October 2014 (> $1.4M)
- 36 contributing PI’s from among 5 university partners (at peak)
- >26 industry sponsors to date
IMD Background
What was your role prior to becoming an IMD? • Raytheon Company, Senior Software Technologist (retired Nov 2012) Were you already involved in Center operations? • Raytheon was one of the founding industrial members of the NCSS I/UCRC • Served as IAB Chair during first 3 years of Center operation Were you hired from the outside specifically for the IMD position? • Volunteered to write the IMD proposal (pro bono) in response to the RFP
and then develop the IMD model if awarded What prompted your application for the IMD supplement? • Prior association with the Center • Familiarity with Center operations as IAB Chair • Interest in a continuing relationship with the universities • Availability
Effect of IMD on Center Structure
What effect, if any, has your position as IMD had on the structure of your Center? • No structural changes to date (IMD model is in development) • Current focus is on correcting operational gaps and issues that would
otherwise distract an IMD from core responsibilities (e.g., recruiting)
• IMD model development has focused on: • Improving Center operations in 3 key process areas • Unification of geographically distributed sites
• Building a “one center” mentality
• Defining and deploying common processes • Seeking to overcome siloed behavior and operation
• Strengthening credibility with current and potential members • Clearly defined core competencies • Thoughtfully constructed portfolio of relevant research projects • Objective evidence of substantive project outcomes
Innovative Ideas
Example(s) of some innovative things you have done as an IMD?
Features of the IMD model we are building… • Based on introspective Self-Assessment of Center
• Operational issues and gaps (29) identified from evaluator reports and member feedback
• Implements 3 Key Process Areas (KPAs) needed to close gaps • Components of an emerging maturity grid
• Project Evaluation, Selection and Management (ESM) • Membership, Recruiting and Marketing (MRM) • Site Cooperation (SCO)
• Center competencies and capabilities characterized based on projects executed or submitted during first 5 years of Center operation
• Supporting processes, use cases, and implementation guidance for each KPA • New Project Quality Attributes defined to objectify project selection • New Project Proposal templates developed to be responsive to project diversity
concerns and objective evaluation/selection • New Sponsor Involvement Scale defined to set expectations for project mentoring,
participation in Center activities, etc. • Center value proposition and Objective Evidence criteria defined
Outcomes
What are some outcomes (both good and/or bad) resulting from some thing(s) you have implemented as an IMD? • Good
• Site Directors are generally supportive of process piloting activities • Of IAB members expressing an opinion and participating in peer reviews, all
have supported the intent and direction of proposed process changes • Feedback from NSF has been positive on our approach and progress
• Not So Good
• Limited participation of overall membership in peer reviews • Substantive support of peer reviews and participation in process deployment
activities is too dependent on the pro bono contributions of members • Members are generally uncompensated for involvement in Center
activities • No eminent authority to help encourage adoption of desired behaviors
Logic Model
Are you following a Logic Model to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMD? • Measures of success are defined that become relevant when the model (still in
development) is deployed. If so, can you tell us about the Logic Model imposed by the addition of the IMD? • N/A
Thoughts on the Logic Model: Somewhat helpful during development of Phase 2 proposal Served as checklist for planned vs. actual tasks and progress Effort to develop the model seemed to exceed value returned Expected LM to facilitate periodic progress reviews with sponsor, but none were scheduled; served primarily as snapshot of initial plan No feedback received from stakeholders after initial submission
Closing Words of Wisdom (continued)
• NSF wants an IMD Model with these features: – Applicable to any I/UCRC
– Emphasizes member recruitment and retention and building a vibrant I/UCRC ecosystem
– Successful implementation within the developing center's organization
• Our IMD Model derives from lessons learned during Phase 1 of our Center: – I/UCRC’s have many independent thinkers that often prefer to run “process free”
– Most operational gaps and issues come from lack of unified processes and procedures
– Lack of repeatable processes and a “one Center” mentality (siloing) absolutely kills productivity and invites rework
– The Center needs to be run more like a business (at least for the parts that make sense):
• Accountability for project costs and schedule
• Collection and periodic review of metrics to quantify performance trends for stakeholders
• Consider that a team almost always does a better job when it collaborates (encourage PI’s to be proactive about this by understanding the Center’s core competencies and capabilities)
• Center Management must be vigilant for potential opportunities to connect like-minded PI’s and sponsors
• Rewards and recognition for good performance and proactive Center-wide “help” for non-performers
– An unambiguous and clear value proposition backed by high-impact objective evidence is key to successful marketing (emphasize hard vs. soft benefits)
– Industry sponsors need to periodically update academic researchers on their IR&D roadmaps to ensure that PI’s propose projects that are timely and relevant (IR&D plans are seldom static from year to year)
Innovative Ideas From Innovative Managing Directors
Linda C. Caudill, Managing Director
Wood-Based Composites I/UCRC
Virginia Tech and Oregon State University
I/UCRC Annual Center Directors Meeting, Washington DC
January 8-9, 2015
About Our Center
A 2-Site I/UCRC:
Virginia Tech (lead) & Oregon State University w/Partner Universities: Maine, British Columbia
Vision: Be the leading source for fundamental research
and education in wood-based composites
Mission: Advance the science and technology of wood-based
composite materials Other pertinent Center information: Established in 1999, became an I/UCRC in 2010
IMD Background
1. What was your role prior to becoming an IMD? Managing Director
2. Were you already involved in Center operations? Yes
3. Were you hired from the outside specifically for the IMD position? Yes, from 13-year professional career in the wbc industry
4. What prompted your application for the IMD Supplement? The need to recruit:
• Loss of members during recession • Ties to North American housing industry • Industry consolidation • Developing relationships
Effect of IMD on Center Structure
What effect, if any, has your position as IMD had on the structure of your Center?
• IAB Executive and Technical Committees
• Partner Universities
• IMD is single operations contact for both sites, all partners
• Continue to operate under three-legged stool model
MA
NA
GIN
G D
IREC
TOR
Innovative Ideas
What innovative things you have done as an IMD?
• Increased focus on diversity
• Significant increase in industry engagement
• Partner with an international conference (Wood Adhesives)
• Improve standardized data collection/operations tools
• Moved to F/T for duration of Supplement
Outcomes/Learnings
What are some outcomes (both good and/or bad) resulting from some thing(s) you have implemented as an IMD
• Relationships matter • Logic Modeling • Sometimes difficult to get invitations to visit prospective members • IAB Meetings can be your best recruiting activity • Travel is expensive and challenging • Value of IMD and Directors for recruiting
Logic Model
Are you following a Logic Model to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMD? YES If so, can you tell us about the Logic Model imposed by the addition of the IMD?
Closing Words of Wisdom
Other comments about your experiences? Any “words of wisdom” for us to take home?
• Intense recruiting effort only possible with IMD Supplement
• Don’t underestimate the value of preparing future professionals for your target industry
• Engage current members to reduce chance of losing them
• Include members, Directors and faculty in recruiting efforts
• Keep your Logic Model in your sights
• What works for one Center/IMD may not work for others
Innovative Ideas From Innovative Managing Directors
Dr. Steve Midson, Managing Director
Center for Advanced Non-Ferrous Structural Alloys (CANFSA)
Colorado School of Mines
I/UCRC Annual Center Directors Meeting, Washington DC
January 8-9, 2015
About Our Center
CANFSA currently has 2 sites:
• Lead Site – Colorado School of Mines
• Additional Site – University of North Texas
– CANFSA was formed in 2011
CANFSA’s vision:
Become the premier place for research in the area of non-ferrous structural alloys
IMD Targets
Metric Initial
Status
Targets
End of Year 1 End of Year 2 End of Year 3
Membership 9 members 12 members 16 members 22 members
Funding from
Membership $335,000 -- $650,000 $900,000
Outside Research
Funding (Grants) None
$200,000 for 3-
year project
Additional
$500,000 for 3-
year project
Additional
$500,000 for 3-
year project
Employment of
Graduating
Students by
Members
--
33% of graduating
students will be
hired by CANFSA
members
33% of graduating
students will be
hired by CANFSA
members
33% of graduating
students will be
hired by CANFSA
members
Outcome of Survey
to Quantify Value
of Center to
Members
N/A
10% improvement
in satisfaction
over baseline
survey
10% improvement
in satisfaction
over year 1 survey
10% improvement
in satisfaction
over year 2 survey
IMD Vision • Hired two researchers as co-managing directors
– Researchers have international reputations in the field of non-ferrous alloys
– Dr. Steve Midson – Managing Director
– Dr. Bob Field – Assistant Managing Director
• Managing directors are capable of holding in-depth technical discussions with potential members – Identify their research needs
– Construct research efforts that meet these needs
• Each managing director works about 33% time
Background of IMDs Dr. Steve Midson
• Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering
• More than 30 years industrial experience
• Small businesses, large corporations, trade association
• Currently runs a consulting company
Dr. Bob Field
• Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering
• More than 30 years industrial and laboratory experience
• National Lab, large corporations
• Recently retired from Los Alamos National Lab
IMD Status – After 16 Months
Metric Initial Status Target - End of
Year 1 Actual Status
Membership 9 members 12 members 13 members
(6 new members)
Funding from
Membership $335,000 --
$399,000
(20% increase)
Outside Research
Funding (Grants) None
$200,000 for 3-year
project $453,000
Employment of
Graduating Students by
Members
--
33% of graduating
students will be hired by
CANFSA members
1 of 4 graduating
students has been hired
by a CANFSA member
Outcome of Survey to
Quantify Value of Center
to Members
N/A
10% improvement in
satisfaction over
baseline survey
13% improvement in
satisfaction over baseline
survey
Managing Directors’ Focus
• Identify new members
• Retain current members
• Increase level of contact between students and members
• Improve members’ satisfaction in Center
Identify New Members • Potential members are not aware of CANFSA
• Identified a list of potential members
– Networking
• Site directors & faculty
• Managing directors
• Members
– Utilized a trade association database containing contact information of about 20,000 metallurgists
• Directly contacted at least 50 companies
– Hold videoconference sales presentations with potential members
Identification of New Members • Timing is important
– Large corporations
• Need to put funding into next years’ budget
• Be aware of budgeting schedule for target companies
– Small businesses
• Can make decision any time
– Government Labs
• Often have funds left over at end of financial year
• August/September
Retain Current Members • Increase level of involvement of members in center
activities
• In between the 6-monthly IAB face-to-face meetings
– Initially held monthly videoconferences on each project
– Students present recent results
• Found that monthly was too often
– Currently have student videoconference presentations about 3 months after IAB meetings
• Encourage people other than just IAB members to participate
Retain Current Members
– Need to perform projects of interest to members
• Initial Center projects were suggested by faculty
– Just finished a 6-month process to identify new projects
• Collected project ideas from members and faculty
• Received 31 separate ideas
– Via voting and videoconference discussion
• Reduced to 11
– Identified industrial & academic champions for each project
• Presented proposals at fall IAB meeting
– IAB voted to define priority
Top 7 projects were all suggested by members
Retain Current Members • Increase level of contact between students and
members
• Established an industrial mentor for each project
– Mentor’s role described in written instructions
• Assist faculty members in advising students
• Communicate with their students on a monthly basis
• Assist students in establishing project goals
• Help students learn program management practices
• Encouraging internships at members’ facilities
Logic Model • Establishing a logic model was an arduous
experience • Time consuming • Painstaking
BUT • Forced directors to think about how to achieve
goals • Made detailed analysis of resources & activities • Identified innovative tactics to meet objectives • Determined appropriate progression of tactics in
out-years
“Final Words of Wisdom”
• Treat I/UCRC like a business
– Sales is most important
– Once you have obtained members
• Exceed their expectations
Summary
• Managing director’s focus
– Identify new members
– Increase members’ participation and satisfaction in the Center
• Videoconferences
• Solicit ideas from members regarding improvements in the Center
• Student mentoring
• Student visits and internships
• Leveraged projects
• Hiring of students