Transcript Executive Summary indicators of the 2006 ASTP - Indico

The TTN Questionnaire:
a first glance at the data
Massimo Caccia
INFN & Universita’ dell’Insubria
TTN mid-term workshop, CERN – June 23-24, 2009
The data sample (1/2)
 benchmark institutions:
LBL
No reply
TRIUMF
I fear they did not get the point
FNAL
Rather incomplete feedback
BNL
Rather complete feedback!*
KEK
No reply
* Possible misunderstanding: data for the full lab, not only for the HEP
division (221/982 FTE’s)
The data sample (2/2):
our statistical population ( xxx % addressed institutions)
Universities
EPFL
Good quality feedback
 small HEP community (50/3280 FTE’s)
 Use it as a second benchmark!

Bern
Incomplete (e.g. no FTE’s etc.)
Zurich
As above
ETH
As above
NCSR
As above
By the end of the day:
• 7 institutions split into 2
categories
• 1 extra benchmark
 NOT WORTH
ANYTHING TERRIBLY
SOPHISTICATED!
Natl. Institutes
FTE
FTE in
HEP
NIKHEF
200
200
IN2P3
3000
3000
CEA
3500
500
labs
CERN

ok
DESY

ok
GSI

ok
PSI

ok
CERN
DESY
GSI
PSI
FTE in HEP
FTE
Labs by size [FTE]
 an averaging procedure weighted by FTE in HEP will be dominated
by CERN
 DESY and PSI do represent a good example of labs where HEP and
no-HEP live together
(poor) analysis method
 constrained by the limited statistical population and the large spread
(standard deviation) of the data
 assume as basic figures the Executive Summary indicators of the 2006 ASTP
survey for fiscal year 2006 [excluding financial data on the income & start-up’s],
namely:
 Invention disclosures
 Patent applications
 Patent grants
 License agreements
 Research agreements
Normalized to 1 year and per 1000 FTE’s
 assume as a reference the ASTP mean data + BNL and EPFL
 compare to the mean and weighted mean values for labs & institutions
(weights defined by FTE in HEP)
DESY
CERN
PSI
licensed
granted
disclosures
GSI
applications
A closer to look to the indicators for the labs
(normalized to 1000 FTE’s, per annum) (1/3)
RATIO
licensed
families
A closer to look to the indicators for the labs
(normalized to 1000 FTE’s, integrated) (2/3)
DESY
CERN
GSI
PSI
annum
DESY
Agreement/
annum
IP transfer/
A closer to look to the indicators for the labs
(normalized to 1000 FTE’s) (3/3)
CERN
GSI


PSI
The performance indicator summary table
(per 1000 FTE’s)
labs
Natl. Inst.
BNL
EPFL
ASTP
UNI.
ASTP
PRO
ASTP
mean
<x>W
<x>
x
<x>W
<x>
x
disclosures
7
9
9.8
2.3
1.3
1.3
33
24
15.6
20.4
16.6
Patent
applications
4.4
4.1
5.5
1.7
0.9
1.0
13
12
5.5
9.2
6.3
Patent grants
1.0
1.3
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
9
6
2.6
7.8
3.2
License
agreements
0.3
1.1
1.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
3
8
4.8
11.6
6.3
IP agreements
1.0
3.2
5.1
0.6
1.0
1.4
3
9
NA
NA
NA
Research
Agreements
48.5
122
185
16.2
6.7
1.5
92
119
111
95.8
108.8
Patent families
27.5
32.0
25.1
12.2
8.6
4.5
120
78
NA
NA
NA
Overall Licensed
patents
10.1
10.9
12.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
88
38
NA
NA
NA

ASTP mean weighted by the data size in the 2 samples

Conclusions (1/3)
 a picture is worth a thousand words:
Conclusions (2/3)
 labs do it better
 German labs do it a lot better!
 the spread among the different institutions is terrifying (a
lot higher than among benchmarks, irrespective of their
intrinsic differences…)
 there’s a solid rock motivation for the TTN
 KE towards other disciplines and Research agreements
with other scientific community has definitely to be pursued
(DESY is, to me, a fairly good example!)
Conclusions (3/3)