Transcript TTN – WP3 -Report - Indico

Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
TTN – WP3
TTN meeting,
June 10-11, 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
WP3 members
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
Name
Institution
Caccia Massimo
INFN
Clerc Gabriel
EPFL
Dargent Pascal
IN2P3
Paolucci Lorenza
INFN -> CERN
Parrinello Claudio
CERN
Rüeck Dorothee
GSI
Rudolph Robert
PSI
Soberman Marcel
IN2P3
Stres Spela
IJS
Surowiec Alicja
GSI
Julie Bellingham
SFTC
Wurr Karsten
DESY
to be replaced
Le Goff Jean-Marie
CERN
TTN mngr
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
Comment
convener
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
WP3 - objectives and methodology
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
• How? To build a set of indicators and metrics
–
–
–
–
overview of the situation in our institutions
elements of comparison between us, and us vs overseas
guidance for newcomers
performance improvement measurement
•  How to select those indicators?
–
–
–
–
bibliography
adjustment to our research profile
testing using a questionnaire
define the final ones: the TT KPIs for HEP institutions
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
• To investigate, define and classify a set of criteria for TT
activities measurement in PP
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
Questionnaire – sent in April 2009
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
Questionnaire - Headings
Section 1 – Background Information
1.1
Identificati
on
1.2 Scope
of
activities
1.3 Level
of
maturity
Knowledg
e/Technol
ogy
Transfer
and in
Industry
Partnershi
p
1.4
Written
Policy
1.5
Revenue
distributio
n&
Incentives
2.1
Portfolio
of
invention
disclosure
s and
patents
2.2 IP
transfer
and/or
exploitatio
n
agreement
s
2.3 Spinoffs
(company
establishm
ents)
50 variables
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
Section 3 –
Collaborative
Research & Service
agreements
3.1
Collaborativ
e&
Contract
Research
3.2
Services &
facilities
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
Section 2 - IP matters & TT (in
HEP)
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
Schedule at end 2009
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
10-11 December 2009
Integration of TTN meeting
remarks
January 2010
WP3 meeting - preparation of 2010
actions
January 2010
Updated questionnaire sending
was March 2010
Report preparation
deadline for CERN council: July 2010
Booklet
was July 2010
CERN council
September 2010
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
TTN meeting
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
Questionnaire analysis: last TTN meeting issues
EH7
0,485
EH6
0,800
EG1
0,600
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
At the end of 2009, 19 ‘2008 questionnaires’ were received, 14 considered
as valid (not too much empty fields), splitted in subsets: EG, EH (using
FTE-HEP), EU, NG ALL vs ASTP, HEP vs a ENCHMARK=(BNL+EPFL)
• the questionnaire was designed to get answers on the HEP activity, but
responses covered a mix between HEP and non HEP
• empty cells are significant – for ex. we can show that facilities
agreements are indicated only in HEP institutions-, but calculations are
disturbed
• possible misunderstandings in the answers
• various organisations and roles for the TTO, and in general large
variance in the data
• results sensitive to the quality of data and the choice of selected
questionnaires in each subset
• not the same indicators than ASTP
 better identification of homogeneous subsets
 add other questionnaires
 other ways of calculations (mean on significant variables by reducing the
impact of empty cases…)
 consolidation of KPI choice
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
Major evolutions since previous TTN meeting
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
• WP3 meeting (22/01/10 in Paris), with main decisions:
– selection of KPIs for the analysis and for future questionnaires
– distribution in two subsets: HEP institutions and ‘BENCHmark
institutions’ (having high performance in TT)
– report and booklet structure preparation
– new schedule with the objective to add more questionnaires to be more
confident on the results:  that’s where the shoe pinches, because of
delays in the receipt of new completed questionnaires!
• Only two new completed questionnaires were received (more were
expected), classified as ‘Universities’ :
– University College London (GB)
– Politecnico Di Milano (IT)
• Reorganisation in two groups:
- HEP institutions (all facts considered only through HEP activities)
- BENCHMARK: multipurpose institutions having a part of their activity
in HEP and high performance in TT [BNL (US), EPFL (S), UCL (UK)]
• Important correction on some data (Thursday, June 10th!)
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
EG1
0,600
0,485
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
Work done - Selection of KPIs
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
• One reference:
– #FTE (*)
• Eleven KPIs (* see comments next page)
– 2.1.1 # invention disclosures/year
– 2.1.2 # priority patent applications/year
– 2.1.5 portfolio of patent families
– 2.1.6 portfolio of commercially licensed patents
– (missing in Q2008) total portfolio of licenses (including software and
know-how)
– (missing in Q2008) license revenue/year
– 2.2.1 # IP transfer or exploitation agreements/year
– 3.1.1 # R&D cooperation agreements/year
– 3.1.1.4 R&D cooperation agreements revenues/year
– (incomplete in Q2008): licenses+services+facilities revenue/year *
– 2.3.4 # startups still alive since 2000 (not really significant, but for
information)
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
Comments on these KPIs
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
•
•
EH3
Maturity of HEP institutions is an interesting KPI; it was evaluated through an
aggregate built from various answers with more ore less weighting; unfortunately, as
it is today this indicator only measures if written rules exist
Revenues related to knowledge and technology transfer activities have two sources:
– the commercialisation of IP comprising licensing, services, consultancy and
access to facilities;
– and R&D cooperation comprising collaborative and contract research
• (*) #TTO cannot be used due to discrepancies in their role
• some ratios could be added
Revenues
from KTT activities
IP commercialisation
R&D cooperation
(collaborative and contract research)
Licensing
Services,
Consultancy,
Access to facilities
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
New IP
Research
disciplines
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
Products
& GDP
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
Work done - Synthesis
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
•
•
•
•
•
EH3
21 ‘2008 questionnaires’ were received, 17 considered as valid (not too much empty
fields)
Anonymisation of questionnaires, on the request of some institutions
Splitting in a first group of two subsets:
– ALL 2006 (17 Q) mixing HEP, multipurpose institutes and Universities
– ASTP (Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals)
survey added for comparison
Splitting in a second group of two subsets:
– 10 HEP institutions having a profile pure HEP (all facts considered only through
HEP activities)
– BENCHMARK: 3 generic multipurpose institutions (existing HEP activity is not
the measure) with high performance in TT [BNL (US), EPFL (S), UCL (UK)] –
also active in TT but n
Analysis:
– Descriptive statistics
– Selection of KPIs
– Comparison on KPI means
– Research of explaining factors in each subset using multiple correlation
– Comparison ALL vs ASTP
– Comparison HEP vs BENCHMARK
– Radar graphs
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
Next steps
TTN meeting
10-11 June 2010
Integration of this TTN meeting
remarks
18 June 2010
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
1,000
EH3
WP3 meeting - preparation of second October 2010
half 2010
Report preparation
Milestone: 15 July 2010
Task force: JM Le Goff, M Soberman, M Caccia,
D Ruck, E Gazic, H Rhedin
-MS will send calculation results and
propositions of conclusions on KPIs and on other
variables
-JML will build a report skeleton with mainlines
-Exchanges using emails
–Meeting Wednesday 30/06 or Tuesday 01/07?
- Report sent for revision by TTN 15/07
Updated questionnaire sending
re-scheduled in October
Booklet
re-scheduled in October
CERN
council
TTN meeting
10-11 June 2010
2010 CNRS/IN2P3
TTN September
/WP3 Marcel Soberman
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
Results – June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
Questionnaire analysis –methodology (1)
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
EH6
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
• 1 Input raw data from questionnaires to Excel, with a
quantification of qualitative data (particularly those relative to
maturity)
• 2 Preparation of the synthesis
– Total # FTEs= FTE for general institutions and HEP FTEs for HEP
institutions
– One worksheet splitted in two sets: ALL inputs (17 institutions) vs
ASTP 2006, to have a global vision
– One worksheet splitted in two sets:
• 10 HEP European institutions( having provided HEP specific
data) vs a BENCHMARK of 3 institutions
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
Questionnaire
analysis –methodology (2)
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
• 4 Multiple correlation on aggregates: Search for explanatory factors
– NB: empty cells have been set to zero; indeed, the Excel tool cannot
work on non numeric values
• 5 Normalised aggregates: aggregates are normalised to 1000 FTE
equivalent per site, then all values are normalised between 0-1 for radar
graphics and histograms
• 6 Comparison of means between each set of selected institution
(normalised to 1000 FTS): to see where are the main differences and if HEP
institutions are specific
• 7 Graphs criteria: a radar graph comparing all institutions on a selected KPI
• 8 Graphs Institutes: a radar graph on strengths and weakness of each
institute
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
Descriptive statistics
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
Our 18 relevant institutions represent:
• 67767 FTE (73339 if we include all questionnaires), on which 8043
FTE are devoted to HEP
• 144 TT officers
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
In 2008, they have produced:
• 566 invention disclosures
• 29 new startups – with 125 still alive
• 88 IP agreements
• 823 R&D contracts
• 179 M€ revenues from R&D contracts
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
Ratio ALL selected institutions / ASTP per 1000 FTE
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
Ratio ALL/ASTP
3,50
3,00
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
r tu
ps
al
iv
e
r
St
a
es
en
u
R
ev
s
ci
lit
ie
nt
Se
r
vi
ce
&
fa
co
R
&D
/Y
ea
Ye
a
s/
nu
e
ve
re
ra
ct
ag
re
h
ea
rc
#R
es
r
r
ts
em
en
m
re
e
ag
P
#I
/Y
ea
Ye
a
s/
en
t
Li
ce
ia
lly
er
c
m
C
om
tfo
l io
Po
r
r
ed
ns
ilie
s
te
pa
tfo
l io
Po
r
y
rit
Pr
io
nt
f
p.
ap
ts
en
pa
t
ve
am
/Y
ea
r
ea
r
l/Y
nD
is
c
nt
io
#T
TO
0,00
The comparison of the figures resulting of the ALL questionnaires vs ASTP gives:
-less TTO (75%)
-quite the same invention disclosures per year
-more licensed patents (maybe due the calculation on 1000 FTE and Top ten HEP
institutes
3 ‘BENCHMARK’
institutes)
TTN meeting+
10-11
June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
In
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
Ratio HEP institutions / BENCHMARK per 1000 FTE
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
Ratio HEP/BENCHMARK
EH4
EH3
2,00
1,80
1,60
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
ce
R
&
al
iv
e
ea
r
ta
rtu
ps
S
&
D
fa
ci
lit
i
es
R
ev
en
ue
s
/Y
ea
r
re
ve
nu
es
/Y
ea
r
en
ts
/Y
co
nt
ra
ct
ag
re
em
Ye
ar
es
ea
rc
h
#I
P
ag
re
em
en
ts
/
Li
ce
ns
ed
#R
or
tfo
lio
C
om
m
er
ci
al
ly
pa
te
nt
f
am
ili
ea
r
P
or
tfo
lio
ap
p.
/Y
pa
te
nt
s
cl
/Y
ea
r
nD
is
rio
rit
y
P
es
0,00
#T
TO
S
er
vi
In this comparison, we have HEP institutions compared a benchmark set (2 EU, 1 US),
normalized to 1000 FTE in each institute:
-less TT officers per 1000 FTE in the BENCHmark (prob. due to their large size)
-a bad score in terms of licenses
-services
facilities
are specific to some
HEP
institutions
(vs no answer for the others)
TTN meeting &
10-11
June 2010
TTN /WP3
Marcel
Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
P
EH1
0,070
EH5
In
ve
nt
io
EG1
0,600
0,485
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
KPI means analysis
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
1,000
EH3
The objective is to compare KPI means of institutions [ALL, HEP, BENCH and ASTP]
The means are listed below: arithmetic means, normalised on 1000 FTE, normalised
on 1000 FTE and between 0 to 1:
Comparison on means
FTE
ALL
HEP
BENCH
ASTP
Comparison on means
with normalisation on
1000 FTE
Comparison on means
with normalisation on
1000 FTE 0-1
#TTO
3 577
813
4 809
1 000
FTE
ALL
HEP
BENCH
ASTP
ALL
HEP
BENCH
ASTP
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
•
•
EG1
0,600
0,485
InventionDi Priority
scl/Year
patents
app./Year
8
4
21
8
#TTO
4
1
5
1
FTE
#TTO
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
16
5
33
6
InventionDi Priority
scl/Year
patents
app./Year
2
5
4
8
0,74
0,17
1,00
0,21
33
10
77
17
Portfolio
patent
families
9
12
16
17
0,56
0,73
0,96
1,00
119
30
208
Portfolio
patent
families
4
6
7
6
InventionDi Priority
scl/Year
patents
app./Year
0,29
0,66
0,53
1,00
Portfolio
#IP
#Research R&D
Commercial agreements/ agreements/ contract
ly Licensed Year
Year
revenues(M
€)/Year
0,64
0,94
1,00
0,93
60
8
89
6
5
4
11
6
48
34
160
109
10,54
3,94
46,33
Portfolio
#IP
#Research R&D
Commercial agreements/ agreements/ contract
ly Licensed Year
Year
revenues(M
€)/Year
33
37
43
Portfolio
patent
families
0,77
0,85
1,00
0,00
17
10
18
6
1
5
2
6
14
41
33
109
2,95
4,84
9,63
Portfolio
#IP
#Research R&D
Commercial agreements/ agreements/ contract
ly Licensed Year
Year
revenues(M
€)/Year
0,91
0,56
1,00
0,35
0,23
0,84
0,35
1,00
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
0,12
0,38
0,31
1,00
0,31
0,50
1,00
Service &
facilities
Revenues
(M€)/Year
Startups
alive
0,46
0,78
Service &
facilities
Revenues
(M€)/Year
7
6
Startups
alive
0,13
0,96
Service &
facilities
Revenues
(M€)/Year
0,13
1,00
2
7
Startups
alive
0,30
1,00
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
KPI means analysis per 1000 FTE
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
1,000
EH3
Comparison on means
1,20
1,00
0,80
ALL
HEP
0,60
BENCH
ASTP
0,40
0,20
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
e
al
iv
St
ar
tu
ps
(M
ev
en
ue
s
R
es
liti
fa
ci
&
ce
Se
rv
i
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
€)
/Y
ea
r
ea
r
€)
/Y
ea
r
re
ve
nu
es
(M
en
ts
/Y
R&
D
co
nt
ra
ct
ag
re
em
Ye
ar
#R
es
ea
rc
h
ag
re
em
en
ts
/
Li
ce
C
om
m
er
ci
al
ly
pa
te
nt
f
Po
rtf
ol
io
#I
P
ns
ed
ilie
s
am
ea
r
Po
rtf
ol
io
ap
p.
/Y
pa
te
nt
s
Pr
io
rit
y
In
ve
nt
io
nD
is
cl/
Ye
ar
#T
TO
FT
E
0,00
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
Comparison on means
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
• Preliminary remarks:
– the normalisation of each institute on 1000 FTE improves the
results for ‘HEP institutes’, particularly for those <<1000
– the results are not for all HEP institutes but for the top ten in TT
• If the mean number of TT officers between subsets can be
compared, it’s very variable from one institute to another
• HEP invention disclosures and priority patents are satisfactory, with a
good result in patent portfolio and patent licensing (compared to
ASTP)…but for CERN, GSI and STFC
• Contracts: the number of R&D contracts is difficult to appreciate
independently of their amount, but HEP institutes have very good
results in terms of revenue, thanks to GSI
• Service and facilities revenues of some HEP institutes represent an
interesting result, and will be grouped with license revenues in next
questionnaires
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
Explaining factors
1,000
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
1,000
EH3
• Multiple correlation analysis has been used to measure the impact of
each KPI on the others
• The threshold to consider if a high correlation exists has been chosen
to 0,707 (see next figures) considering freedom=6 and confidence
p=5%
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
Explaining
WP3
factors for ALL QTTN
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
ALL
FTE
#TTO
InventionDis Priority
cl/Year
patents
app./Year
Portfolio
patent
families
EG1
0,600
0,485
Portfolio
#IP
#Research
R&D
Commercial agreements/ agreements/ contract
ly Licensed Year
Year
revenues/Ye
ar
Service &
Startups
facilities
alive
Revenues/Ye
ar
EH2
0,546
EH4
FTE
#TTO
InventionDis
cl/Year
Priority
patents
app./Year
Portfolio
patent
families
Portfolio
Commercial
ly Licensed
1,00
0,63
0,86
1,00
0,77
1,00
0,80
0,68
0,97
1,00
0,93
0,54
0,88
0,83
1,00
0,90
0,44
0,85
0,83
0,98
1,00
#IP
agreements/
Year
#Research
agreements/
Year
R&D
contract
revenues/Ye
ar
Service &
facilities
Revenues/Ye
ar
Startups
alive
-0,17
-0,04
0,14
0,18
-0,03
-0,01
1,00
-0,13
-0,10
0,14
0,23
0,06
0,05
0,59
1,00
0,00
0,23
0,34
0,36
0,14
0,09
0,53
0,86
1,00
-0,23
-0,31
-0,25
-0,30
-0,18
-0,19
0,00
-0,15
-0,20
1,00
0,71
0,34
0,59
0,60
0,73
0,78
-0,08
-0,26
-0,28
-0,22
EH1
0,070
EH5
1,000
EH3
1,00
In term of explaining factors, we have to suppress trivial correlations (patents #
vs invention disclosures is an example, but the conclusions could also be
expressed as: get incentive to have more Inv. Discl. to have more patents)
Possible links:
•TTN
#
invention
disclosures
and #TTN
off/WP3
TTOs
meeting
10-11 June
2010
Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
Explaining factors for HEP
0,800
EH7
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
EH6
0,210
EH2
0,546
Portfolio
patent
families
InventionDis Priority
patents
cl/Year
app./Year
#TTO
FTE
R&D
#Research
#IP
Portfolio
Commercial agreements/ agreements/ contract
revenues/Ye
Year
ly Licensed Year
ar
1,00
0,54
0,26
1,00
0,51
1,00
0,31
0,38
0,71
1,00
0,52
0,29
0,75
0,62
1,00
0,37
0,24
0,71
0,70
0,93
1,00
#IP
agreements/
Year
#Research
agreements/
Year
R&D
contract
revenues/Ye
ar
Service &
facilities
Revenues/Ye
ar
Startups
alive
0,02
0,50
0,54
-0,10
0,22
0,02
1,00
0,07
-0,04
0,39
0,84
0,25
0,36
-0,39
1,00
0,24
-0,19
0,42
0,69
0,72
0,82
-0,42
0,61
1,00
-0,15
-0,42
-0,19
-0,43
-0,26
-0,36
0,09
-0,21
-0,18
1,00
0,46
0,63
0,00
-0,03
0,11
0,07
0,10
-0,35
-0,20
-0,35
-In HEP, the relation between # research agreements and patents is strong; could we
say that patents are related to R&D agreements?
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
1,000
EH3
Startups
Service &
alive
facilities
Revenues/Ye
ar
FTE
#TTO
InventionDis
cl/Year
Priority
patents
app./Year
Portfolio
patent
families
Portfolio
Commercial
ly Licensed
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
HEP
EG1
0,600
0,485
1,00
Invention Discl/Year
WP3
CERN MS TT Network
EG5
1,000
Explaining factors for BENCH
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
EH6
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
BENCH
FTE
#TTO
InventionDis
cl/Year
Priority
patents
app./Year
Portfolio
patent
families
FTE
#TTO
InventionDis Priority
cl/Year
patents
app./Year
1,00
0,96
1,00
0,96
0,84
Portfolio
patent
families
Portfolio
#IP
#Research R&D
Commercial agreements/ agreements/ contract
ly Licensed Year
Year
revenues/Ye
ar
1,00
Service &
facilities
Revenues/Ye
ar
Empty
Empty
Startups
alive
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Aggregate
QTTN
BENCH
0,79
0,59
0,94
1,00
Empty
1,000
EH3
FTE
#TTO
InventionDi Priority
scl/Year
patents
app./Year
Portfolio
patent
families
Portfolio
Commercial
ly Licensed
Empty
1,00
EU1
3280
7,5
78
40
255
126
NG1
982
9
33
13
118
86
EU7
10165
45
120
45
252
54
0,68
0,43
0,68
0,45
0,87
0,99
1,00
Empty
Empty
Explanation of the high negative correlation
Portfolio
Commercial
ly Licensed
-0,67
#IP
agreements/
-0,37
Year
#Research
agreements/
-0,48
Year
R&D
contract
revenues/Ye
-0,28
ar
Service &
facilities
Revenues/Ye
Empty
Empty
ar
Startups
Empty
Empty
alive
-0,85
-0,43
-0,08
0,08
1,00
-0,61
-0,07
0,28
0,43
0,93
1,00
-0,70
-0,20
0,16
0,32
0,97
0,99
-0,53
0,02
0,37
0,52
0,90
1,00
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
1,00
Empty
Empty
0,98
1,00 Empty
Empty
empty cells
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
-Very interesting factors in BENCHMARK (high TT results) correlation between R&D contracts and patents is
confirmed ( objective for HEP institutions)
--The negative correlation between #TTO and Portfolio commercially licensed is due to phenomena on only three
questionnaire
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
Radar graphs
0,800
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
Radar graphs are used to give an easy way in comparing more than three axis
of values at a first time, and to see the evolution of the results on each axis
vs the others.
We have defined two categories of radar graphs:
• Graphs criteria: a radar graph comparing all institutions on a selected KPI;
by this way, each institution may compare its results vs the other ones
– NB: values are normalised on 1000 FTE per institution and values
between 0 to 1 to facilitate comparisons
• 8 Graphs Institutes: a radar graph on strengths and weakness of each
institute, to know where to put efforts
– NB: values are normalised on 1000 FTE per institution and values
between 0 to 1
Following figures are shown as examples. Each institution having answered the
questionnaire will received their full set.
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
Graph ‘Criteria’ for HEP institutions
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH3
InventionDiscl/Year
EG5
0,600
0,500
EG1
0,400
0,259
EH6
0,300
0,200
0,167
0,1000,000
0,026
0,000
0,000
0,112
EH5
EH4
EH1
0,037
0,291
0,534
EH2
EH3
Example of Graphs ‘Criteria’ (performance of each institution per kpi)
-Radar graphs show that each institution is specific and may have strengths &
weaknesses
-The high performance obtained by some institutions must be regarded as an objective
by others, and improved each year
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH4
EH7
EG1
0,600
0,485
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS
TT Network
Graph
‘Institute’ compared
to another institutions
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
EH2
0,546
EH4
EH3
EH5
FTE
#Research
agreements/Year
#TTO
0,280
0,167
0,004
0,005
0,558
#IP agreements/Year
Portfolio Commercially
Licensed
InventionDiscl/Year
0,112
0,084
0,168
0,233
Priority patents app./Year
Portfolio patent families
Example of Graphs ‘Institutes’ (Strengths & weakness per Institution) for two
institutions:
These graphs show where are the weakness of your institution, and where you have to
work with the institution management...for better results next year.
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
R&D contract
revenues(K€)/Year
EG1
0,600
0,485
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
0,800
EH7
TBD
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
• Other ratios (CP)
• Std deviation and weighted mean impacts, if any (MC)
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000
Invention Discl/Year
CERN MS TT Network
WP3
EG5
1,000
Report and booklet (tbd)
0,800
EH7
EH6
0,400
0,200
0,000 0,016
0,049
0,000
0,000
0,210
Distribution
•
CERN Council
•
PP institution Directors
•
Policy makers
•
TTN members
•
Other comparable networks
•
European Commission?
•
Specific distribution to questionnaire senders with added figures
TTN meeting 10-11 June 2010
TTN /WP3 Marcel Soberman CNRS/IN2P3
EH1
0,070
EH5
EH2
0,546
EH4
Booklet structure (In italic, chapters pasted from the report)
•
1 Purpose
•
2 Scope and methodology of this survey
•
3 Indicators selected (and meaning)
•
4 Analysis and results
•
5 Recommendations for improvement
•
6 Future plans
•
7 Summary of conclusions
EG1
0,600
0,485
EH3
1,000