INSIGHTS 3: Engaging with industry - today’s influencers mentoring tomorrow’s leaders in STEM
Squizzical recently participated in a series of national discussions to help young researchers engage with industry. The Industry Mentoring Network in STEM (IMNIS) www.imnis.org.au is a prestigious initiative from the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering www.applied.org.au to help early career professionals. Wide ranging questions spanned from debunking the mystique and fear of the academic and commercial worlds to crafting an entrepreneurial mindset. Julian Clark from Squizzical had the following to offer:
Why do you think it’s important to achieve greater levels of engagement and collaboration between industry and academia?
Anybody who works internationally will notice that we are many years behind others in the relative scale and intensity of industry R&D and ability to leverage a sizeable public investment in basic research into practical outcomes for the community. We must do all we can to put our intellect and knowledge to work – it’s an issue of competitiveness and relevance and as a nation we struggle to keep up.
Where is the value for the taxpayer? We invest a lot of money in public sector research. We must put this knowledge to work to benefit society as a whole and not just maintain an intellectual elite. This can only happen through links with industry and the investment community.
We understand the need for basic research as well as applied science but the translation link in Australia is tenuous at best. This is the first valley of death – the intellectual and cultural divide that hinders turning observations, discoveries and ideas into something that is valued locally, nationally and internationally. The second valley of death is proving utility and value through seed funding to demonstrate feasibility and derisk.
Maintaining the two separate and asymmetric silos of academic research (discovery) and industry application (innovation) continues to erode our competitiveness and social and economic wellbeing. In virtually all cases investment industry is required for translation, benefit and wealth generation.
What do you think are the benefits to society and the economy as a result?
Strong linkage between industry and academia underpins a resilient economy that can withstand structural change, rapidly exploit opportunities and create a clear future through leadership not followership. For too long Australia has had a disconnect between resource and primary industries, manufacturing industries and recently service industries on the one hand and academic education and research on the other hand. There are many good organisations and people who try to get lasting synergy between the two sectors but at a national level it’s a struggle and we lag, struggling to keep up with average performance. We deserve it for our future because this synergy will improve quality of life and wealth.
What are the drivers to achieve enhanced academia / industry collaboration?
Those of us who thrive in the valleys of death will quickly come up with a smorgasbord of drivers:
Genuine understanding of the value adding intellectual flow starting with observations (most research), discoveries (infrequent), inventions, innovations, implementation and utilisation
Respect that all parts are required and no bit is more important than the other – leave status, ego and prejudice at the door
Understand the value that deep discipline knowledge brings – if it can ask the right question
Focus on addressing unmet needs – looking at the big challenges unites
Increased mobility – ideally both ways and through internships and collaboration
What are the incentives for both sectors?
At its most basic the incentive is one of survival – stay in job, stay in business, stay competitive. The real incentive is contributing to a better quality of life, for oneself and others. Peeling the onion we have:
The social incentive - a higher level incentive of doing something that is actually wanted and has a value – telling your neighbour that you have actually done something worthwhile, maybe even to them
Economic incentive – increased returns and reinvestment in the future for both sectors – taxpayers and governments see investment in research and education as being central, non-negotiable
Personal incentive – the simple bottom line is personal development through career tracks. Whether a nerd, a rampant entrepreneur or an armchair commentator we can all benefit from hybrid vigour – even the most inbred careers will be enhanced through direct experience
Should researchers be formally trained in areas such as commercialisation of IP, trademarks and the innovation pipeline - or is a high-level understanding sufficient?
Of course we should. Ignoring this training is total abdication – it is no more complex than personal hygiene and is integral to the conduct of scientific research. Do we have a right to spend someone else’s money not knowing the potential implications? It must be part of getting a license to research with someone else’s money. It helps us ask the right questions, even in basic research. The argument is that researchers are already burdened and should rely on a business development or technology transfer office. This is the sheltered workshop or research hotel mentality and underpins mediocrity. The best training is a brief exposure to the fundamentals then experiential encounters or mentoring. We have training in grant application and seminars – how about something that delivers impact?
What do you think is best practice to foster productive and successful collaborations?
Best practice is an elusive and erroneous concept because by the time you have implemented your understanding of someone else’s way of working you discover your questions, challenges and environment are completely different and changing.
Practice is highly situational and for a point in time. Learn from other’s experience – good and bad, share ideas – be prepared to experiment and quickly change if things look as though they are going awry. In my experience common themes that increase the chance of repetitive success are internships, job rotations, shared funding, and being good at what you are meant to be good at - discipline content.
What do you think are the essential elements of an engaging pitch to a potential industry partner? What do they look for in a proposal?
The best and most successful pitches are stunningly simple, expressing the problem to be addressed, the scale of the unmet need, the solution, the proprietary and competitive position, the delivery team and timeline and value inflexion points. The flow of the pitch depends on the situation but the bottom line is simple – is there an accessible market, are we good enough, can we derisk the investment and can we be trusted with your money. In essence what will be your return on investment in us?
In the research world, the term ‘Valley of Death’ signifies the place between the lab and the marketplace where many good ideas wither away and die. What tips can you offer to assist those in translational research navigate this area?
As mentioned above we have two valleys of death – the valley of perception and misunderstanding where two cultures come together and then the valley of scarcity where few resources must be applied to critical proof of concept.
Unless we have our wits about us these valleys conspire for 98% or greater failure. A successful translation journey is underpinned by shared goals and mutual respect. Selection of the first area for proof of concept must be careful and resource effective. Identify and answer the critical questions early. Prioritise proof over big bang. Derisk, derisk, derisk and let the mantra “fail early fail cheap” ring in your ears.
Nothing can be more dangerous that the overly invincible researcher or entrepreneur. Know your limitations and seek expert skills and advice as required. Create a team driven by resilience, curiosity, problem solving, intellectual mobility, and networking.
Who should instigate industry-academia interaction? Is it more likely to vary depending on the mode of collaboration whether it’s joint research, contract research or consulting?
This is an intellectual bazaar. On the one hand we need to know what is on offer and what could be created and on the other what is needed, and what is wanted. Waiting for the other party to contact you is a losing strategy. Academia must market its skills and problem-solving ability. It must profile its intellectual properties in terms of utility, proprietary positions and benefits. Industry must work at defining in more detail what is needed – translating the unmet need into broad product specifications.
All too often the academic research providers list their offerings online with little evidence of actual utility and application and wait for the queues to form. All too often industry doesn’t consider looking to academia, least of all looking for solutions online. Industry has difficulties in deciphering what is on offer. Academia is relatively homogeneous, culturally and strategically. Industry is highly diverse with cultures, strategies and attitudes to risks varying widely between start-ups, SMEs and large transnational corporations. Let alone sector specific heterogeneity. This means it is critical for academia to segment its marketing and approach. We have classic research push with little market pull.
Clearly given the asymmetry the real onus must be on academia. Australian business does little research, academia does a lot.
The first step for academia is to determine what products are on offer - consulting, services, shared risk collaborations or IP licensing? Consulting and service provision come with a high opportunity cost and are difficult to scale. Without a doubt the high value interactions are driven by close researcher/researcher links and mutual respect
If an academic researcher is not passionate about translation and outcomes then they should not bother trying to work with industry. On the other hand, a commercially literate and translation driven researcher is worth their weight in gold. Before contact with industry academic researchers must make sure they are aware of industry research in the relevant areas and the patent landscape. For industry working with an academic researcher who is not aware of the competitive landscape including patents smells risk.
Who should researchers be connecting with in industry? (BD managers, HR Managers, external networks, doing internships)?
The point of contact depends on the objective, whether a) looking for employment, b) wanting to collaborate because you are passionate about translation or c) wanting extra income through consulting or d) selling specific IP.
Understanding and connecting with industry researchers is critical if you want to work from your research credentials. Just like academia it is critical to overcome the “not invented here syndrome” by showing that there will be synergy. When they are available business development partners on both sides should be engaged and experience shows that the best outcomes occur when there is a dyad – research organisation business/research + industry organisation business/research.
Publish or perish is often the academic mantra. Profit, markets, viable products for commercialisation are key drivers for industry. Will these ever meet?
For leaders they have already met. These are not exclusive propositions and this is a completely erroneous mindset promulgated to protect the academic research guild. Publications are essential for marketing advances, particularly cutting edge or first in class. A publication in Nature or Science is the best marketing for everybody. Just look at the top global research groups in your field – most have a deadly competitive approach to disclosure and publication strategy. The best have a patenting strategy fully integrated. For the individual researcher it’s all about comprehension, training and gaining a competitive edge through publishing, patenting and performing.
Most premature disclosures are inadvertent and are the result of poor training not inconvenient timelines.