KUALA LUMPUR, April 21 — The conversion of university research into economic growth is vital for the future of many nations including Malaysia. 

Every year, millions if not billions are invested in university research and one of the effective ways to gain returns from those investments is through technology transfer. 

What is often regarded as activities practised only by elite universities such as MIT, Stanford University, Oxford, Cambridge etc, is now very relevant to all Malaysian universities nationwide. 

Technology transfer can potentially generate revenue for universities, create research connections between academia and industry, and ultimately enhance regional economic growth and development. 

Realising these impacts, universities have taken centre stage and play a major role in bringing innovative ideas and inventions to market.

There is a large body of literature regarding university technology transfer, mostly focused on institutions that facilitate commercialisation such as technology transfer offices (TTOs) or innovation and commercialisation centre (ICC), and mechanisms that ease commercialisation such as licensing, and spinoffs formation. 

The question that remains to be answered and justified is – do we have an ideal model? A question even the most established technology transfer office anywhere in the world will find hard to answer. 

Over the years, Malaysian universities have progressed at a different pace. Few have well-established technology transfer centres, some are just starting to establish one by benchmarking various models out there while others have entirely given up and closed down the unit. 

The process of technology transfer from invention to commercialisation is often assumed to be something of a black box.

A generalisable model of technology transfer based on a linear sequence of events is available, but a model that accurately depicts the intricacies of how knowledge and technology are transferred in practice is arguably non-existent. 

This generalisable model or often known as the traditional model represents a linear flow of mechanical processes that bring one invention from idea to the market as illustrated below:

The traditional model of the technology transfer process begins with the process of invention by a university researcher. 

Inventions are typically the output of an applied research conducted which has significant social or economic benefits. 

The next step will be disclosing those inventions to the university. Once the invention is disclosed, the technology transfer office will proceed to evaluate the invention and decide if the disclosure merits any protection. 

Technology evaluation is a process to determine the commercial potential of an invention. As the protection process takes time and money, various factors need to be assessed to decide whether the invention merits protection. 

This includes techniques to manage vital information (gathering, identifying, collating and reviewing information) and overcoming common challenges in the protection process. 

Evaluation must be customer-led, customer-aligned and competitor-aware.

Once evaluation is done, the technology transfer office will decide on the type of protection, for example, whether or not to pursue acquiring a patent for the invention. 

There are different types of intellectual property available to protect an invention. Each category of invention requires a specific type of protection. 

Knowing which type will ensure maximum protection on your idea and secure your business competitiveness. Patent is the most complex form of IP protection.

However, technology transfer should not be too patent focused. Patenting is one strategy towards achieving successful technology transfer, but other forms of protection are equally valuable, such as trademark, trade secret, copyright and industrial design. 

More often than not, the traditional model of tech transfer compromises or overlooks other channels where a non-patentable invention can be monetised.

Active tech transfer activities normally start during marketing & promotion whereby the technology transfer officers actively engage external parties to expose and introduce their technology offering. 

Lack of commercial track records, without evidence of large-scale manufacturability and possibly even a single legitimate customer are the key issues in monetising an IP. 

How does a tech transfer office promote their IPs through effective marketing communication strategy is key in determining the success of any tech transfer. 

Master the ways to effectively translate product features into customer benefits and how to successfully communicate the unique selling propositions to your customers. 

Bear in mind, technology transfer officers are not marketing an end product, rather, the potential of an IP, which adds complexity to the marketing effort.

Successful marketing will then lead to commercial negotiation to seal the transfer. Technology licensing negotiations are complex because there are many key terms and for each key term, there are many possible positions that may be taken, from the most advantageous to the least advantageous. 

The technology transfer officers need to navigate ways to conduct a negotiation in order to derive maximum value in a transaction. Normally, the outcome will be a licence, a joint venture partnership or even in certain cases, IP assignment.

In reality, how many tech transfer deals are sealed based on this linear model? Is there a perfect model in technology transfer & commercialisation? 

Well, the process of technology transfer from invention to commercialisation is rather complex and far from a rigid linear path. Every technology will have a different route from disclosure to successful commercialisation. 

A rigid linear model fails to accurately illustrate the subtle differences in technology transfer across multiple disciplines. Applying or rather pushing all disclosures to follow this linear path will likely cause many inventions to slip-off in the process itself. 

Those that are unable to follow this path are often neglected. In reality, the interaction between university and industry, either formal or informal, often dictates the progress of the tech transfer process. 

Each case is unique, dependent on the formal or informal exchanges which are influenced by company strategy, types of industry, university policies, and the personal dynamics between the tech transfer officers, researchers and industry players. 

Technology transfer is definitely a dynamic contact sport rather than a mechanical strict linear path; what is more important is to reach a mutual consensus on the next course of action rather than abiding to a predetermined process.

* Dr Ng Sing Kwei is Manager-Commercialisation Specialist of PlaTCOM Ventures Sdn Bhd, the national technology commercialisation platform of Malaysia, a wholly-owned subsidiary company of Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM) formed in collaboration with SME Corp Malaysia.