1 / 16

Best Practices in University Proof of Concept Programs

Best Practices in University Proof of Concept Programs. David N. Allen Associate VP for Technology Transfer University of Colorado System david.allen@cu.edu 303-735 1688. Why are We Having this Discussion?.

keefe-rocha
Télécharger la présentation

Best Practices in University Proof of Concept Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Best Practices in University Proof of Concept Programs David N. Allen Associate VP for Technology Transfer University of Colorado System david.allen@cu.edu 303-735 1688

  2. Why are We Having this Discussion? • Seed capital - Money used for the initial investment in a start-up company, for proof-of-concept, market research, IP protection or initial product development • US venture capital investing in ‘03 – $18.2B of that $354M into start-up/seed (1.9%) v. 17% in ‘95 • SBIR funding in 2004 ~ $2B; Angels estimated to be 10 to 20X VC seed • Valleys of death exist – continued challenges due to either a lack of external support or lack of commercial viability? • The Nat’l Assoc. of Seed and Venture Capital Funds estimates that 60 universities are undertaking seed investments – from small grants to VC funds.

  3. What is Proof of Concept? A Way to Mature Technology • Basic Concept – adding significant value by reducing major risks • Adding value to what end? Preparing the technology to suitably involve the next participant in the value chain • Primary focus on platform or core technologies that are potentially disruptive products • What are the dimensions of value to be added or risks to be reduced?

  4. Dimensions of Risk Reduction • Some obvious risks to be reduced: • Unknown commercial strategy or plan • Little known about competition • Unknown market and value proposition • Unknown technology/product configuration • Will it work? • Little business expertise and entrepreneurial driver • Little or no capital to execute plan • Outcome of patent prosecution unknown • All of this and more within an environment of abundant invention opportunities and scarce resources (people, time and money).

  5. Technology Maturation • Reliable Information • A credible commercialization or business plan • Verifiable data, translatable validation & meaningful endpoints • Understanding and confidence in the IP protection • Relevant Expertise • Domain relevant serial entrepreneurs • Patient Risk Capital • Capital resources that can be leveraged • Performance • Value added from the previous stage • Good multiplier effects (ratio of internal to external funds) • Presentation • A well constructed story told by a motivated party

  6. POC Program Best Practices • Basis of best practice determination • Different approaches used by universities • Informed by private & institutional investing • Analysis broken down by process • Objectives – clarity of purpose • Application process – ease of application and clarity of criteria • Review and selection – objectivity and useful feedback • Management – ensuring return for stakeholders

  7. Program Size Continuum • Small programs ($10K to $50K grant) • Work conducted in inventor’s lab • Less emphasis on platform IP, more on licensability • Resources limit larger grants • Return captured in university IP policy allocations • Gift, government or internal tech transfer proceeds • Intermediate programs ($50K to $250K) • Characteristics are a mix of small and large programs • Equity v. grants • Often involvement from state governments and foundations • Large programs ($250K +  investment) • Approaching VC like model - ROI maximization driver • Typically university endowment involvement often with other LPs • Returns typically separate from university IP policy allocation, either to LPs or ‘evergreen’ perspective

  8. POC Program Objectives • Resource commitment and deal flow are the two main determinants of program size/scope • Stakeholder needs (objectives) • Technology development, enterprise/economic development, ROI, or all of the above? • Risk tolerance and reward patience • Demonstration of university commitment to tech transfer • Where will the returns be directed? • Horror stories abound – BU’s $90M in Seragen

  9. Application Process • Marketing solicitations • Online submission • Clear process for late applications • Prescreen prior to sending to reviewers • Avoid reviewer overload

  10. Review and Selection • Timely responses • Investor perspectives and sector specific teams • Market size, impact of money and management capacity • Non-economic criteria (e.g. economic development) • Isolation from political forces • Leverage criteria? • Revisions allowed?

  11. Management/Operations • Use of funds • University specific or broader • $ to support PI • Overhead (F&A) rates • Pricing equity v. convertible debt • Conversion rates • Non-conversion payback factors • Co-investing opportunities

  12. Background on the University of Colorado (CU) • Three campuses: Boulder, Denver/Health Sciences Center and Colorado Springs • System level TTO provides services to all three campuses. • CU’s total enrollment is 52,351 (of which 13,800 grad). • In FY 2004, CU garnered $588.4 M in research awards, 85% from federal sources with $266.3M awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services. • New Health Sciences Center campus and research park • 18 start-ups in past 3 years, targeting 12 this year; 180 disclosures in FY ‘05 • Projecting ~$20M licensing revenue this FY

  13. Dimensions of CU’s POC Program • Purpose: provide funds for technology development to establish/advance commercial viability for promising start-up companies that have licensed CU IP. • Internally funded from TTO endowment and royalty $ • $100K convertible debt investments per start-up. • Business plan, entrepreneur and at least an option needed. • Applications reviewed by two panels of VCs. • 2 application rounds: Fall & Spring – 5 awards • 15 applicants for Fall ’04 round – 2 awards • First $ in; one side by side investment to date

  14. CU POCLessons • Provide timely information as to status and outcome • Provide extensive feedback on applications • Existence of the program brings out start-up opportunity • Standardize debt placement agreement • Standardize scoring/rating system for VCs • Clear eligibility/disqualifying criteria • TTO help preparing applications and presentations • Management of stakeholder expectations

  15. Programs Reviewed • Boston University Community Technology Fund • Illinois Ventures • The Chancellor Fund (Vanderbilt) • Prologue Ventures (Missouri) • WARF • University of Washington • Los Alamos National Laboratory • (Purdue) Trask Technology Innovation Awards and Trask Pre-Seed Venture Fund

  16. Programs Reviewed con’t • Pittsburgh: Life Sciences Greenhouse Pre-Seed/Seed Fund Program, the Technology Development Fund and Innovation Works • The Big Red Venture Fund (Cornell) • Wolverine Fund (Michigan) • Ben Franklin Center in Southeastern Pennsylvania • Maryland Enterprise Fund • Commonwealth Seed Capital (Kentucky) • Yamacraw Program (Georgia) • Centennial Ventures (NCSU) • Technology Innovation Gap Fund (Tulane)

More Related