1 / 13

Managing Research Dynamics

Managing Research Dynamics. London School of Economics November 2005. MIT’s Corporate Relationships. Partnership Companies. $M. Mid level “ portfolio” investors” Major initiatives & consortium relationships. $100sK. Annual Investment. Focused research projects

quon-hubbard
Télécharger la présentation

Managing Research Dynamics

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. Managing Research Dynamics London School of Economics November 2005 Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations

  2. MIT’s Corporate Relationships Partnership Companies $M • Mid level • “portfolio” investors” • Major initiatives & • consortium relationships $100sK AnnualInvestment • Focused research projects • Consortia & center membership • ILP membership • Collegia • Executive & technical education • Enterprise Forum <$100K RelationshipCommitment (ROI) Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations

  3. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE • To review eight industrial partnerships: Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  4. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE • To identify how partnering can be more effectively implemented so its benefits are spread and any problems are minimized • To explore the extent to which the initiatives have made progress toward MIT goals and what other results have been obtained, including unintended or negative ones. Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  5. NOT ADDRESSED • The review was not to include all large corporate MIT alliances • The goals of the partners were not intended to be a focus of this committee • The charge also did not include MIT’s experience with its non-industrial partnerships, such as the Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA) and the Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI) Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  6. FINDINGS Benefits have covered many sectors at MIT, but largely focused on areas of greatest technological advancement Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  7. BENEFITS • Increase of corporate financial support, broadening the base of funding for MIT research • Enrichment of MIT’s research and educational agenda by increasing the involvement of faculty and students with industry and access to data and other resources from partner firms Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  8. BENEFITS • Support for new research initiatives • Renewal or creation of infrastructure to support teaching, curriculum development, distance education and research; gifts, endowments, fellowships, and other support • Availability of student internships and other opportunities Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  9. COSTS & RISKS • Existing research relationships might be disrupted by the new partnership if they are not reflected in the new larger agreements • Multi-sponsored programs have generally been avoided by the partnerships • Few negative effects of the partnerships Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  10. BEST PRACTICE • Adherence to standard MIT policies • Transparent governance structure that encourages faculty proposals • Match of interests of the sponsoring company and of faculty • Realistic match of expectations with deliverables Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  11. BEST PRACTICE • Dedicated company staff as well as significant participation by senior management • Committed MIT faculty and staff complemented by ILP membership • Fellowship support for graduate students and links to post doc, graduate and undergraduate students for internships and employment Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  12. RECOMMENDATIONS • Endeavor to maintain a set of active partnerships • Choose partners strategically • Ensure consistency with MIT’s mission in research and education and existing policies Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

  13. RECOMMENDATIONS • Maintain transparency • Have the research agenda driven by MIT faculty • Follow the best practice elements identified • Conduct a review of the academic institutional partnerships Karl F. Koster MIT Office of Corporate Relations MIT Committee on Industrial Partnerships

More Related