extra - dime workshop september 29-30, 2006 1 laurent bach, nicolas carayol, patrick llerena beta-...
TRANSCRIPT
1Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
Laurent Bach, Nicolas Carayol, Patrick LlerenaBETA- L. Pasteur University of Strasbourg and CNRS (UMR 7522)*[email protected]
Assessing the performance of French University
transfert offices: preliminary results
2Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
• Presentation of the survey content
• First main results and remarks:- on research contracts and patents- Performance indicators and their interpretation
• Presentation of ongoing work: SFE estimation
OUTLINES
3Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Presentation
• Performed : 2005-2006 BETA Univ. L. Pasteur + French TTOs network CURIE
• On the behalf of university presidents (CPU) and the French Ministry of Education, Higher Education and Research (MENESR)
• survey by e-questionnaire filled out by universities' TTOs - General organisation and functionning of TTOs
(status, expend. and resources, policy, forms of contracts, personal, etc)
- Measurement of activities of TTOs
• situation as end 2004 + time-based variables 2000-2004first of a regular evaluation
sent to all universities (88, incl. INP) + 11 members of CURIE; base : 2003 Ministry data
The study on TT activities of universities
4Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
Sample and representativity :74 answers (66 univ. + 3 INP + 5 others)Rate of return : 74.7 %
78% of the universities + INPbetween 71% and 100% according to the type of universitiesbetween 8 and 10 out of the 10 Top universities (18 out of Top 20) according to Ministry data on research-oriented resources, number of teacher-researchers, industrial contracts, IPR revenuessample mean ≈ poulation mean for those criteria
Not 100% answers on 100% questions => following results on sub-sample of respondants (not detailed here)
First results of the study
5Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
Creation of TT activities : more than 50% of univ. since 1999 (law on innovation), some very old ones
Size of TTOs : 263 Full-Time Equivalent; 3.9 FTE per university; 1.2 TTOs staff for 100 teacher-researchers (exl. PROS staff of university labs)Total 2004 expenditures 9.049 million €; 148 K€ per university; 2% of 2003 research-oriented resources
Organisation :in 86% of the case TTOs = department or internal service from the university (1/5 : the 1999 born SAIC)31 universities have at least two TTOs (2nd = very often external entity)54% of the TTOs employees are civil servantsHead : engineer (57% of univ), half have experience in private business.
6Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
Research contracts and services :2000-2004 : 766.8 M€ Average per university per year : 2.6 M€ (research contracts = 10 x service contracts) / 73 contracts
Results on "outputs"
0
50 000 000
100 000 000
150 000 000
200 000 000
250 000 000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
7Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
8Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
Patent (applying – French priority/EPO) :2000-2004 : 1104 patents = 3.3 patent per university per year(≈ 20% of univ.: no patent)
Patent (ownership – French + extension)End 2004 : 464 patents = 9.9 patents per university58% fully owned - 240 are extensions (European patent or national ones)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
9Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
min : 1
max : 95
3 own more than 80 patents
50% own less than 10 patentsmean : 18.6
asymetric distribution of performance
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
10Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
Licensing 2000-2004 : 351 licenses awarded (1.1 license per year per university50% on patent and related know-how30% awarded to less than 3 years old university spin-off
Revenues from license 2000-2004 : 22.1 M€ ((90% on patent & related know-how) )average : 0.2 M€ per university per year
Other results on creation of firms, spin-off shareholding, "entrepreneurship" of civil servants, etc
End 2004 : 243 "active" licenses (5.2 per university)126 licenses are generating money (2.7 per univiversity)
11Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
STUDY ON UNIVERSITY TT : Main results
12Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
per year on 2000-2004 ("flow" data) :•number of patent claims•number of copyright on software•number of licenses awarded per year•income from licenses per year (€)•amount of industrial contracts (€)2004 ("stock data")•number of patents owned•number of current licenses•number of licenses generating incomes
TT performance indicators from the study :
13Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
•patent indicators : what about patent claim property regime ? - 1
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
Performance as effectiveness : coverage of indicators
2000-2004 : on 1091 patent claims, 79% (859 patents) full or co-ownership
ownership waived
14Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
•patent indicators : what about patent claim property regime ? - 2
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
Performance as effectiveness : coverage of indicators
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ownership co-ownership ownership waived Total
15Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
•patent indicators : what about patent claim property regime ? - 3
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
Performance as effectiveness : coverage of indicators
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
co-ownership with PROs/university co-ownership with firmsownership waived to PROs/university ownership waived to firmsclaim related to firms
16Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
•Contracting activities indicators : what about distribution according to the different sources ? - 1
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
Performance as effectiveness : coverage of indicators
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Ministry PROs Local authoritiesForeign (EC…) Associations Firms
17Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
•Contracting activities indicators : what about distribution according to the different sources ? - 2
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
Performance as effectiveness : coverage of indicators
Performance indicators : industrial contracts compared to research-oriented
resources : decreasing share ? distribution of different resources ?
Crowding out or in effects ? In terms of funding ? Of activities ?
18Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
• Towards a first measurement of a "TT chain-link "PATENT CLAIM
Patent claim before 2000
patent claim 2000-04
1104 (220,8/year)
no decision
patents owned 2000-04
patents owned 31/12/04
464
OWNERSHIP
licenses awarded 2000-04
185 (37/year)
current licenses
31/12/04158
LICENSES AWARDED
licenses generating revenues 31/12/04
66
LICENSES GENERATING REVENUES
revenues from licenses 2000-04
REVENUES
22 055 634 €(4 411 426€/year)
5 131 224 €
2004
(a)
(b)
(A)
(B)
(B)
(B)
19Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
"average university" is far behind "frontier university"
Top universities perform differently on different activities
0%
10%
20%
patents owned95
current licenses43
licenses withrevenues
18
software /year6
patent claims/year19.4
licensesawarded/year
9.8
revenues fromlicenses/year
3.137 M€
industrialcontracts/year
4.246 M€
20Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
• Two articles on TTO performance: on UK (Chapple, Locket, Siegel and Wright (R.P, 2005) and on US data (Siegel, Waldman and Link (R.P. 2003)).
• We tried to start with, an estimation using very similar technics, the SFE
• We add some new variables (more appropriate to the french case)
SFE (stochastic frontier estimation): first trials
22Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
SFE (stochastic frontier estimation): first trials
In their work, Siegel, Waldman and Link (2003) used the following model:εδδδδδδ ββββββ ++++++= −++++++= PUBLICINDOUTINDRDAGEMEDSCHu uvUBMTLEGALSTAFFINVDISCY 654210 543210 lnlnlnlnlnln SThe data we gathered allows us to build a similar model, expressed as follow:εδδδδδδδ βββββ +++++++= −+++++= RDPUBRDINTGDPAGEYAGEXMEDSCHu uvLEGALSTAFFSUBMTY 42413222110 3212110 lnlnlnlnln
Where Y is either NOLIC or LICINC.
For a better understanding, let us name this second comparison: comparison number 2.
*** In their work, Chapple, Locket, Siegel and Wright (2005) used the following model:εδδδδδ ββββ +++++= −++++= DRGDPAGEMEDSCHu uvLEGALSTAFFTRESINCY &lnlnlnln 43210 3210The data we gathered allows us to build a similar model, expressed as follow:εδδδδδδδ βββββ +++++++= −+++++= RDINTRDINTGDPAGEYAGEXMEDSCHu uvLEGALSTAFFSUBMTY 42413222110 3212110 lnlnlnlnln
Where Y is either NOLIC or LICINC.
For a better understanding, let us name this first comparison: comparison number 1.
23Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
• Number of licences: very similar results1. on production:(+) staff TTO; research income (UK-U)/subv (F)Legal exp.: (-) US/UK; (+) F : institutional particularities2. on inefficiency: (-) MedicalSchool; (-) LocPub spending, (+) internal R&D
• Lic. Income: poor results (in both cases)(+) Staff TTO more important in F.
• Number of patents + additional variables:1. on production:(+) staff TTO; legal exp. and dummy for Sc Uni. and INP2. on inefficiency: (-) LocPub spending, (+) internal R&D
• Lic. Income + additional variables: poor resultson prod: (+) Staff TTO and legal exp OR dummyon inefficiency: emergence of Agex ie the age of TT activities
SFE (stochastic frontier estimation): first trials
24Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
SFE (stochastic frontier estimation): first trials
32Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
•patent indicators : what about patent claim property regime ? - 4
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
Performance as effectiveness : coverage of indicators
LOLF ‘performance’ indicators : Are the incentives and governance structure right ?
What about the effectiveness of both ? In particular in terms of technology transfer to firms ?
33Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
The LOLF
LOLF : Loi Organique sur la Loi de FinancePublic Budgeting procedures / Parliementary levelAdopted 2001 - first implemented 2005 for 2006 budgetObjectives : control of public money /actions
multi-year strategic planning more flexibility of funds allocation
•Gvtal action : very broad missions->programmes->actions•Performance targets and related evaluation system : objectives / performance indicators•Budget year N+1 voted by Parliament depending on evaluation of success in year N (+ 5 years horizon)
34Extra - DIME workshop September 29-30, 2006
Performance indicators : some results and remarks
• Towards a first measurement of a "TT chain-link "
2000-2004, one license => 119 K€ as revenue
As for 2004one patent owned => 0.34 license 42% of the licenses are generating revenues, ie
one patent => 0.14 license generating revenues revenue : 78 K€ per license = 11 K€ per patent
owned