One of the first lessons that a new Director learns, as s/he begins to get involved in technology transfer, is that there is a spectrum of different forms of potential interaction between any company and any academic entity. In the most academic form, the most research-oriented of the company's employees will attend IAB meetings to hear papers and see posters in the best academic tradition, much as they would attend meetings of the learned societies to which they belong. These people and their research units are often overworked or understaffed. They will persuade their companies to seek short-term, highly focused assistance from the center for small projects, assuming that their corporate-level managers can justify the annual expenses of membership and travel. Experience indicates that there will always be a high rate of turnover of these more "academic" relationships.

The next level of relationship commonly found in ERCs begins to involve the upper-level managers who are responsible for research management and strategic planning in their companies. When they come to respect the technology transfer capabilities of the center, they often will propose joint research projects that may be funded by themselves, by a consortium of companies in that area, or by a third party (commonly a federal mission agency). These contracts are very lucrative; often they mesh well with the strategic plan of the center; and they cement the relationship between the center and the cooperative company or companies. These cooperative contracts allow the sponsoring company to see the center and its students in a very positive light and, especially if students have been specifically mentored by the company or placed in industrial internships, the company often will hire center students.

Perhaps the highest form of relationship that may develop between an ERC and a company is one in which the ERC actually becomes part of the company's strategic planning process, in what may be called a "strategic partnership." Several ERCs have developed longstanding relationships of this type. (See the case study for one example.) In a variation on this theme, many ERCs have spun off companies which have then become center partners. All the centers have transferred technologies to industry in one form or another; one has transferred 27 new technologies to its related industries. A few centers maintain the less intensive "academic interactions" type of relationship. There is perhaps no other facet of ERC organization that reflects the personal predilections of the Director more transparently than the structures that s/he has set up to accomplish technology transfer. Some excerpts from the survey of Directors may serve to illustrate this point.

"To more tightly couple industry and the university, two mechanisms have recently been implemented. First, specific faculty members have been assigned to ensure the satisfaction of specific member companies. These faculty members are encouraged to visit their assigned company often, understand the company's business and products, outline the company's technology transfer expectations, and facilitate communication with the university. Second, the Center has asked each industry sponsor to "mentor" one or more research projects. This provides a tight coupling between faculty/students and industry for the project, and facilitates technology transfer."

"We do everything we can think of to interact with industry. The most effective mechanism is cooperative research, where we and they work jointly on a project and have interdependence. Such projects rarely die, and in fact typically lead to new, related projects and more support."

"Generally, when we ask industry for recommendations, we get back the response to 'keep doing what you are doing.' We have to be very focused on the questions of interest to bring out the trade-offs. We have to create the draft and the issues ourselves with which to start the feedback process."

"Industry is the primary customer for our research and our students. There is no major problem in working with them that is worth highlighting. On the other hand, there is a myriad of small problems that must be navigated through on a daily basis, including means of handling their desire to keep information proprietary, patent rights, etc. A well-thought-out and consistent means of dealing with all these issues must be established early."

The close interactions of ERCs with their industry technical advisory committees have not only been highly effective in guiding the centers' plans and research; they also have taught the need for flexibility in interactions with industry. Industry doesn't speak with one voice; each company has different needs and priorities. It is essential that both parties have realistic expectations concerning the prospective interaction, in order to avoid disappointment. New NSF guidance requires that each ERC's IAB carry out a "SWOT" (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis each year to strengthen the ERC and provide feedback to NSF review teams. Beginning indications are that this process helps develop a more collective partnership in the ERC.

Another nearly universal finding is that personal interactions work best. For example, students spending time doing research at industry sites have fostered strong relationships with their industry hosts. Persuading industry personnel to visit an ERC even briefly (e.g., for one-day seminar visits) invariably brings surprised and highly positive reactions to what the center is accomplishing.

CASE STUDY: The Data Storage Systems Center, at Carnegie Mellon University, began as a totally industry-funded center with several million dollars in funding. Initially, the industry was so delighted to have a university involved in this area that they put almost no restrictions on how the money was used. Later, as the DSSC became more sophisticated in its research and as profit margins for the industry declined, industry attached more and more "strings" on how the money was to be used. The Center's Director became a broker for industrial research projects for Center faculty, and although the research was cross-disciplinary and all the technologies involved in data storage systems were being addressed, because each company had different objectives there was no systems-oriented focus. The ERC award was then sought and won, and with the NSF funding, long-range, systems-oriented goals were defined and pursued. Ultimately, the Center helped guide the industry into forming a National Storage Industry Consortium (NSIC), which helps to coordinate the long-term precompetitive research of all its industrial members as well as all the universities working in this area. In 1996, NSIC was involved in over $50 million in research. The DSSC has actively done everything it could to support the consortium, even though a large part of NSIC funding has gone to other universities. The NSIC has helped the industry grow and speak loudly with one voice, which in the end has produced more funding and influence for the DSSC. The Director of the DSSC has now been asked to serve as the technical manager for the main research program that NSIC sponsors.

2.6.2 Outreach To (and Alliances With) Other Institutions

Outreach to other institutions for research and education is one of the goals of the ERC Program, which hopes by this means to disseminate more rapidly and widely the "ERC culture." It is accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, including joint proposals, exchange of faculty and/or students, direct funding for specific research tasks, consulting activities, and other means. The goal is worthy, and in fact the results of these interactions have largely been worthwhile. However, some lessons have been learned in the course of pursuing them.

First, it is essential to identify concrete reasons for pursuing an outreach activity with another institution. Successful alliances can be established only when both parties benefit from the collaboration. Second, it is necessary to identify those institutions that have capabilities and facilities that are complementary to the ERC's. In this way the interaction becomes a win-win collaboration that benefits both sides. Third, discussion among the ERC thrust area leaders should identify the appropriate individual to contact at the other institution. The approach is then made and, if there is an interest, joint discussions are held to ensure that the outreach institution participant(s) have the same goals and are willing to follow the procedures used in the ERC. It is important to ensure that there is a strong intellectual match-up. Experience demonstrates that financial support alone is not a sufficient basis for a strong partnership.

It must be realized that failures can occur. Therefore, it should be made clear at the outset that, if the interaction is not successful, the alliance will be terminated.

If you have specific comments and questions on the contents of this site and/or its use, please contact webmaster@erc-assoc.org. To report technical problems, contact techhelp@erc-assoc.org.