In July 2006, AUTM began a Board-initiated Task Force to examine the metrics AUTM and other parties use to describe and assess academic technology transfer. In November 2007, the AUTM Board accepted the Final Report from this Task Force. This document describes the progress AUTM made between the Interim Report (posted on the AUTM website in August 2007) and the completion of the major investigative efforts of the Task Force. While the Task Force has now completed its job, AUTM will now turn its attention to implementing the recommendations of the Task Force, and continuing to innovate in metrics of academic technology transfer. AUTM’s grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to support this activity ended in December 2007.

AUTM worked with ACCT and UNICO in this pilot project. ACCT and UNICO each have made progress in Canada and the United Kingdom, respectively, but their efforts are not complete. AUTM will continue to work with these parties, and others, as metrics continue to evolve.

One: July 2007 – November 2007 Outcomes

Primary activities and results during Summer 2007:

1. AUTM released a Proposal for New Metrics to members in September 2007 for comment. More than thirty members responded via a web survey. AUTM proposed a number of possible surveys, measures, and possible partners. AUTM members expressed enthusiasm for 3 new measures: a Transactional survey, which captures information about more of the non-licensing activity an academic technology transfer office engages in; a Resources / Scope / Structure survey, which describes the scope of authority a given office has, the resources available to it in order to cover its scope, and the reporting structure of the office; and a Goals survey, which describes the goals that a given office is designed to achieve. Responding members also had interest in other proposed surveys, but expressed no broad support for AUTM taking a key role in more surveys than these. These surveys are important to provide context to the existing AUTM data. Data of this kind allows data users to better identify organizations with similar characteristics.
   
   
2. The Metrics Advisory Board met in October 2007, and advised AUTM to be cautious in sharing data from new surveys. AUTM’s metrics activities are designed to illuminate the practice of academic technology transfer and provide information members need to manage their offices. AUTM must keep those goals in mind when providing results from surveys. The Metrics Advisory Board expressed a desire to continue meeting. AUTM will ask individuals able to help AUTM’s metrics activities to a meeting in February 2008 and will assess future plans for the Advisory Board after that.
   
   
3. A roundtable of parties involved in university economic development, innovation policy and Washington, D.C. politics met in October 2007. These groups remain interested and engaged in metrics, and supportive of AUTM’s efforts.
   
   
4. AUTM invited approximately thirty senior research officers to Washington, D.C. to discuss metrics for the impact of academic research and academic technology transfer. The officers, in a conversation facilitated by Kate Phillips, Immediate Past President, Council on Governmental Relations, had a robust discussion about the goals of academic technology transfer, the utility of metrics, and next steps. Senior research officers were very supportive of new metrics, and a number of these and others are likely to be involved in the American Association of Universities’ committee on new metrics.
   
   

Two: Plan for New Metrics

Given member and senior research officer response to the Proposal for New Metrics, AUTM will modify its metrics activities and add new activities as follows:

1. Modify existing Annual Licensing Activity survey. In 2008, for the 2007 survey instrument, AUTM will modify the ALA instrument to better measure technologies transferred, disclosures, start-ups and other information related to licensing. We will also examine better coordination with the Better World Project. AUTM will continue to modify the instrument in 2008.
   
   
2. Create new Transactional survey. The survey team creating this instrument will work closely with the Material Transfer Agreement survey team to provide information to members about the time-consuming and important activity academic technology transfer offices engage in, but has been hidden from the AUTM Annual Licensing Activity survey. This activity is critical to managing technology and relationships, and for the success of companies who commercialize academic technologies.
   
   
3. Create new Scope / Resources / Structure survey. The survey team creating this instrument will seek to collect information about specific offices, their structure and what resources they have to complete their work. There is little systematic data about this set of information.
   
   
4. Modify the Annual Licensing Activity survey report. Provide greater context to the report, giving comparison to other data sets. The report should continue to explain the processes and goals of academic technology transfer.
   
   
5. Continue to work with organizations focused on metrics outside of the US to integrate measures, provide context, or otherwise collaborate.
   
   
6. Work with senior research officers to continue to provide access to academic technology transfer information, and create more awareness of how senior research officers can communicate the impact of academic research as a whole, and the role that academic technology transfer plays within research. One key activity is to re-launch the Intellectual Property Management for Senior Research Officers conference, with appropriate partners, which has lapsed since Dr. Robert Miller left the University of Washington.
   
   
7. Expand STATT, the online data tool for AUTM Annual Licensing Activity survey data, and continue to release data into STATT at a later date than the report of the data. Improve access and functionality of STATT.
   
   
8. Continue to examine mechanisms AUTM can use to highlight academic technology transfer process, which leads to certain outputs, and can enable impact by licensees. Seek out groups who are working on measuring impact to partner as appropriate to illuminate data that AUTM members will benefit from having in a systematic fashion.
   
   
9. Construct focus groups – small groups of AUTM members in different groupings – who are able to answer pilot surveys or provide AUTM with feedback on particular issues. Consider piloting new surveys demonstrating relational academic technology transfer data.
   
   
10. Examine social impact of innovation. Consider applying for grants to create a systematic data set and metrics for communication and analysis of social innovation.

These actions and plans will provide AUTM with a new plan for metrics. While the new surveys are not yet scheduled, all of these changes will work together to provide greater context to AUTM Annual Licensing Activity Survey and to metrics. Once AUTM has the data from these initial new surveys, AUTM will consider new reporting mechanisms, providing combined data reports – which will illuminate the practice of academic technology transfer in ways that has not been achieved prior to now.