Does the perfect marriage exist between industry and academia? It depends on who you ask.
We’ve spent significant effort discovering what both sides want and, overall, they want the same three things: 1) a way to easily find the right research partner, 2) rapid resolution of acceptable contract terms, and 3) delivery of research outcomes, on time and on budget. Some industry/academic relationships have become highly successful through reciprocal care and devotion. These relationships often thrive over the long term. Other relationships struggle because of unmet expectations, poor communication, or neglect. What has become quite clear from our discovery interviews is that good industry/academic relationships require effort from compatible partners who are able to navigate the fundamental differences between their missions of education/discovery (universities) and profit (industries).
A Better Way to Match
There is no established system for the formation of industry/academic research partnerships. Finding industry partners often falls to academic researchers themselves whereby they leverage personal contacts, attend scientific conferences, or even cold call and email a company. These approaches can yield successful research relationships but these types of interactions are often uncomfortable for researchers because they require pitching to industry individuals who may or may not be the appropriate contact. Moreover, many scientists are not particularly good at pitching the industrial relevance of their own research. Universities have created offices to assist with seeking out industry contacts by leveraging networks of alumni and benefactors. The universities that are successful in establishing these relationships can make the connection but it is left to the researcher to sell the science.
Industry personnel will frequently find university research partners through many of the same manual processes utilized by scientists: emails, phone calls, conferences, and reading journal articles. Different industries use different criteria to determine a compatible match. Some companies look for highly reputable researchers working in prestigious academic institutions. Other companies find that established researchers are not as driven to be successful with industrial research projects and therefore seek out more junior researchers who are trying to make a name for themselves. Some companies keep working with the same universities because they have had good experiences hiring graduates from established training programs and because it is easier to navigate academic bureaucracy where there is already a history of approved contracts. Despite the advantages of familiarity, industry also looks for innovative university research that may provide them a competitive edge.
We have found that the current methods of matching industry and academic partners for funded research are time consuming and expensive with few assurances of a successful outcome. Both sides want to feel confident they have identified the person (or people) who are well-suited to the research requirement and will nurture the research relationship through frequent communication and accountability.
2. Mutually Agreeable Contract Terms
Contract issues, especially pertaining to intellectual property terms, are probably the most contentious part of industry/academic relationships. Universities lean heavily into the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 that enables them to patent and commercialize inventions developed under federally funded research programs. Countless technology transfer offices have been in existence for decades and the ability to commercialize inventions has resulted in these offices becoming actively involved in patenting and licensing, activities they had historically avoided. It has also created tension between their mission of licensing intellectual property and their mission to disseminate knowledge for the public good. Industry’s mission, on the other hand, is to make money and remain competitive. A major way they do so is by protecting trade secrets, key technology, and confidential information.
We’ve discovered that getting to agreeable research contracts and IP licensing terms is one of the most challenging processes for both sides. potentially slowing the process by weeks or months. These agreements typically include terms for data ownership, publication rights, intellectual property ownership, and project accountability. There doesn’t appear to be a one size fits all approach. Private universities handle contract negotiations differently than public universities and startup businesses may handle them differently than large companies. The most successful industry/academic relationships are shown to be those that are negotiated and executed in the interest of a long-term relationship. Negotiations that acknowledge the value each party brings to the table while allowing each party to derive the benefits they seek most are the most effective for short term and long term partnerships.
3. Accountability in Research Execution
Assuming a good match is found and contracts are successfully negotiated, accountability in research execution has emerged as the third most challenging component of the research relationship. Accountability (or the lack thereof) can be problematic on both sides. The biggest component of this accountability is effective communication during the course of the project. This communication must happen regularly between the university lab and the company and it also must happen internal to the company. A paper by MIT’s Sloan Management Review (Pertuze et al., 2010) defined best practices for industry-university collaboration and illustrated the importance of measuring not only research outcomes but also impact on how the research contributes to the company’s performance. Some easy to implement recommendations were that there be a research champion in the company who can devote a suitable amount of time to the project, that research teams from both sides meet regularly, that the company shares the vision of the research in a strategic context, and that the company promote the university team interactions to different areas of the company. Another critical component desired by industry is to find university researchers who have either worked with industry in the past or who understand industry practices and company goals.
The university researcher’s best approach to effective accountability is regular communication of the research progress toward project milestones. A common pain point we have heard from industry is that university researchers who are already well-funded do not place a high priority on their industry research projects and let timelines slip or do not promote their graduate students to the company funding the research. This has caused some companies to seek out younger and hungrier investigators to fulfill their research needs.
Astound’s focus is on simplifying the task of finding and engaging the right research partner on both sides of the market. Our exhaustive customer discovery is driving development of smart matching features that lower the friction in this two-sided marketplace. Astound will deliver rapid discovery of R&D matches at academic institutions and a comprehensive listing of fundable industrial R&D opportunities.
