Leadership in Research & Innovation Management
SAIS / SARIMA PROGRAMME FOR THE
PROVISION OF TRAINING IN TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER AND RELATED AREAS
January 2014 – January 2015
Interim Report
August 2014
Michelle Mulder
Immediate Past President
SARIMA
[email protected]
(021) 938 0457
1. Purpose of Report
The purpose of this interim report is to summarize the outcomes and learning from the training component of
the programme and the proposed next steps. The report should be read in conjunction with the workshop
evaluation reports for the four 3-day workshops on introduction to IP and technology transfer, the four 2-day
workshops on grant management and proposal writing and the 2-day workshop on licensing and negotiation
linked to the 2014 SARIMA conference, as well as the overall workshop evaluation report.
The report also summarizes the spending to date against the original budget and the deviations therefrom.
2. Workshop Summaries
2.1 Workshops on Introduction to IP and Technology Transfer
The introductory workshop on IP and technology transfer (TT) was aimed predominantly at individuals within
research institutions with little or no prior knowledge of IP and TT. It introduced the basic concepts and
processes of TT and IP then went into more detail on each of the steps in the TT process. It finished with
details on what is required to set up a tech transfer office and developing an IP policy. A local speaker was
enlisted to present for 1 hour on day 1 on the local IP legislation, policies etc.
An important component of the workshops was the application of the learning to real life case studies with
the additional advantage of being able to provide concrete advice and suggestions to the technology owners
on how to progress the protection and commercialization of their technology. Technology case studies were
received for 3 of the 4 workshops (none were submitted for Mozambique), although for Zambia and
Botswana SARIMA had to include some additional theoretical case studies. The learning would have been
most valuable for those who submitted and worked on their own case studies during the workshops.
A key concern when developing the workshop content and designing the overall programme was whether
such a programme would be premature in countries where the research spend and intensity is still relatively
low. Dr Alphonsus Neba gave an excellent presentation at the 2014 SARIMA conference questioning
whether most African countries are ready for TTOs. With such low national investments in R&D and minimal
competitiveness of local research, there is a dire need to improve research and research support before
even thinking about setting up technology transfer services. Given the very low patenting rate on the
continent, he specifically asks “What then is the value to pursue capacity building in conventional technology
transfer (IP protection, valuation, evaluation, licensing etc.) when realistically, there’s little or no chance of
creating a sustainable pipeline of patent portfolios to drive TTOs at non research-intensive African
Universities during the professional lifetime of a tech transfer professional at these institutions?”
Despite these sentiments, which are probably quite accurate, the workshop presenters felt that at least
Zambia, Botswana and Namibia were indeed ready for this type of programme. The workshop evaluation
reports clearly demonstrated that the workshops were well received in all 4 countries, though slightly less so
in Mozambique, and that valuable lessons were learnt that could be applied in the participants’ current work
environments. The evaluation towards the end of the programme will be key to determining to what extent
this learning is being implemented.
It is probable that only 1 or 2 institutions in each of the SAIS countries are ready to establish a technology
transfer function at this point and this would likely need to include only 1 suitably trained person who could
work with the national innovation support mechanisms, e.g. the National Technology Business Centre in
Zambia, the Namibia Business Innovation Centre and the Botswana Innovation Hub, on IP protection and
commercialization. It should be noted that in each of Zambia, Botswana and Namibia there was at least one
technology that had been developed at one of the research institutions that was ready for protection and
further development and, in some cases, commercialization. This demonstrates the need for these
institutions to, at the very least, have awareness of IP and technology transfer but also to know where and
how to enlist or provide assistance with this.
Based on the participation in the workshops, there is also a clear need amongst entrepreneurs, researchers,
support organizations and some NGOs to increase their knowledge of IP and technology transfer, though, for
these individuals, the details on setting up and running a TTO would not have been as relevant.
Overall some key lessons from SARIMA’s perspective to take into account in planning future interventions of
this kind are as follows:
-
-
-
-
-
While awareness of the importance of innovation for economic development is clearly increasing at
national level in the SAIS countries, there is still an evident lack of resources for building and
supporting innovation capacity.
In the less research intensive countries, such as Mozambique, the workshop should perhaps focus
more on building and supporting research capacity but should still include an overview of what IP
protection and TT is all about, how to deal with IP in contracts, and the role of the TTO.
While the workshop gave an introductory overview of the main aspects of IP and TT and setting up
and running a TTO, individuals who will actually be setting up and running a TTO at their institutions
would benefit from more advanced training on IP management and commercialization. The licensing
and negotiation workshop would have been of benefit to such individuals. This could additionally be
achieved by attending available courses in South Africa and abroad. Alternatively, although the
demand would not likely be high enough in any one of the SADC countries (outside SA) to run such
courses, there may be enough participants for a regional workshop.
The workshop should in future be even more contextualized to the Southern African context, for
example by including more practical examples from the area and having people from TTOs or similar
in the region share experiences in IP and commercialization at their institutions.
The workshop could perhaps be extended to an additional half day to allow some of the content to
be addressed in more detail and more time for the case study exercises.
It was clear from the technology case studies submitted and the discussions at the workshops that
the types of technologies being developed / worked on in these countries are lower tech and more
grassroots and more steeped in traditional knowledge than the usual types of technologies that
TTOs at universities would be exposed to. The IP management and tech transfer content should
therefore be adapted to be of more relevance to such technologies.
A good suggestion that came from the workshop evaluations was to include a real live case study
from conception through to commercialization stating all the steps and lessons learnt.
The workshop was particularly tailored towards academic technology transfer; however, if one looks
at the final attendance lists, only a fraction of the audience were from this sector. If this was known in
advance the course could have been tailored more for entrepreneurs and SMEs. Regardless, it is
difficult to address the needs and expectations of a broad range of stakeholders and there would
always be parts of the workshop that are more or less relevant to some participants than to others as
well as areas that some participants would like to have seen covered in more or less detail.
Some additional topics that could be covered in future workshops (as recommended by the participants)
include:
• Open innovation
• Protection of Indigenous Knowledge and genetic resources and guidelines on access and benefit
sharing
• Economics of technology transfer offices
• Technology incubation
• Patent drafting
• Piracy and counterfeit product identification and awareness
• Country context analysis versus selection of TTO models
• Technology landscaping of some sectors
• Infringement of IP
• IP asset management
2.2 Pre-conference Workshop on Licensing and Negotiation
This workshop was open to participants beyond the 4 SAIS countries; however, there were 12 participants
from Botswana and Zambia. The workshop went into more detail on the primary means of commercializing
technologies, i.e. licensing, licensing terms, and agreements as well as more generally how to conduct a
negotiation. The negotiation theory was augmented by a practical negotiation exercise.
For individuals who are interested in commercialization of technologies, whether in a research environment
or as an entrepreneur or SME, this course should have provided some important information on how to go
about this. However, it should be noted that, with the current state of IP development and technology transfer
in Southern Africa, it is unlikely that many individuals in the region will be negotiating a license any time
soon. Nevertheless, we still believe this to have been a useful learning experience, particularly for those who
already have or are planning to establish a technology transfer function in the near future.
2.3 Workshops on Grant Management and Proposal Writing
The Grantwriting and Grants Management workshop aimed to provide, as a starting point, an overview of the
funding and other support that are available for research at the national level. Local speakers were sourced
by the SAIS Country Coordinators for this purpose. The workshop furthermore discussed the importance of
external grant funding and provided information on various strategies that institutions can use to increase
their external grant funding. An important component of this discussion was the nurturing of a research
culture as well as nurturing relationships with funders.
The basic principles of grantsmanship included the notion of competitiveness in the funding environment.
Common aspects of successful proposals and persuasive writing were also highlighted. Participants had to
develop a summary/abstract of a project that they are currently working on or planning and had to apply the
principles discussed. They had the opportunity to present some of the abstracts to the group who provided
feedback together with the presenters. Sessions were also dedicated to project budgeting principles,
research planning and the concept of a proposal pipeline. The grants management part of the workshop
dealt with grant processing and submission, basic principles of compliance, project implementation and
oversight, principles of financial management and project reporting and close-out. The programme made
provision for group discussion and sharing of practices.
The workshop participants were very diverse and it was challenging at times to make the content and
discussions as relevant as possible to all. Nevertheless, the workshop aimed to focus more on basic
principles that can be applied more broadly. This aspect was emphasized by the presenters and in general
all the participants could participate meaningfully in the workshop. In the feedback 100% reported that they
found the workshop useful and that they will recommend it to their colleagues. Very few participants had
experience in grantwriting. This did, however, differ from country to country and in some of the workshops
there were delegates who were experienced. They provided very useful inputs during discussions and in the
sharing of good practices.
In two days the workshop could not achieve much more than instilling principles and providing opportunity for
some practical application. If dealt with in a hands-on manner, each of the topics (grantwriting and grants
management) could easily be a three-day workshop on its own. Should there be further engagement on
these topics a follow-up workshop that has a significant hands-on component, e.g. bringing draft grant
proposals to the workshop, could be very valuable. The need for a follow-up of this nature was expressed in
the feedback.
Some additional topics that could be covered in future workshops (as recommended by the participants)
include:
• Project management.
• Risk management.
• Workshop on the logical framework.
• Research ethics management
• M&E tools
3. Next Steps
The next phase of the programme involves reinforcing the theoretical training through mentorship,
exchanges and networking, specifically with respect to technology transfer. This will involve the following:
1.) SARIMA will set up an email group of participants from each of the workshops and link this to the
groups from the other countries as well as the South African TT practitioners to form a Regional
Tech Transfer Forum. This will be used to exchange information and discuss issues and questions,
for regional peer to peer networking, virtual collaboration and mentoring.
2.) Participants who indicated that they are already involved in or are planning to set up a TT function at
their institution or a national TT function have been noted in each of the countries and are listed
below. These individuals will form part of the mentorship and exchange programmes as follows:
a. Mentorship: The programme has budgeted for travel expenses to send a TT expert from SA to
spend 2-3 days with the relevant institution(s) in each of the 4 countries to assist them with
setting up a TTO and/or reviewing what they have done so far, talking to management on the
benefits and role of a TTO etc. A mentorship visit to Mozambique at this stage may not be
necessary and it is recommended that the budget for this be reallocated to allow additional
participants from the other 3 countries in the exchange visit.
b. Exchange: The programme has budgeted for travel expenses to send 2 people from each
country to South Africa for 5 days to visit a number of TTOs and see how they operate. The
suggestion is to arrange a 5-day visit to Cape Town in which the individuals will spend a day at
each of the five TTOs (Medical Research Council, University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch
University, the University of the Western Cape and the Cape Peninsula University of
Technology) – each of these TTOs has a slightly different operating model – as well as a few
hours with the Technology Innovation Agency, an organization established to support innovation
at a national level. The TTO visits will include an overview of the TTO’s model/structure, staffing,
how it is resourced, interaction with and reporting to management, IP policy, procedures and
systems and some example technologies that it is or has dealt with and how.
The following are recommended for inclusion in the mentoring and exchange visits:
Zambia:
o Julius Banda, Copperbelt University (setting up a TTO)
o Christopher Simoloka, NISIR (institution has just started setting-up an office)
o Julius Siwale, Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (drafting an IP policy; set up a TTO)
o Bright Chalwe, NTBC (on project team of the SAIS replicable project on setting up TTOs)
Botswana:
o Dr Tshiamo Motshegwa, University of Botswana (working on the replicable SAIS sponsored
project on establishment of TTOs in Botswana, Namibia and Zambia)
o Tebo Motlhaping, Consultant (on a committee currently paving the way to set up a TTO)
o Samuel Gaborone (new TTO manager)
Namibia:
o Marius Mutorwa, Polytechnic of Namibia (involved in setting up the TTO in Namibia –
through SAIS Regional Replicable projects)
o Leonard Imene, NBIC (involved in setting up the TTO in Namibia – through SAIS Regional
Replicable projects)
o Hezekiel Johannes, NBIC/Polytechnic of Namibia (involved in setting up the TTO in Namibia
– through SAIS Regional Replicable projects)
o A representative from the University of Namibia, e.g. Matty Mwandingi (candidate attorney)
or Done Brinkman (Legal Advisor).
o Marshall Gorejena, Polytecnic of Namibia (involved in setting up an incubator at Harare
Institute of Technology)
Mozambique:
It is recommended that the budget for this be reallocated to allow additional participants from
the other 3 countries in the exchange visit.
3.) Direct technical assistance, e.g. with developing an IP policy or IP protection or commercialization
advice on particular technologies. The Regional Tech Transfer Forum will be used as a means for
individuals to post questions and seek advice virtually on various tech transfer issues. With respect
to IP policy development, SARIMA is able to enlist TT practitioners in South Africa to review and
comment on draft IP Policies.
4.) Finally, towards the end of September SARIMA will start to contact all participants from the
workshops and exchange programmes to see to what extent they have implemented what they have
learnt from the programme.
4. Interim Budget Report
4.1 Approved personnel budget against actual expenditure to August 2014
Budget
Budget Item
3-Day course content
development (amendment
and extension of existing
content)
Actual
Number
Number
Daily Rate
of Days
of Units
5
€ 480.00
1
Total Cost
€ 2 400.00
Actual Days
Used
5.59
Actual Cost
€ 2 685.00
Variance /
Savings*
-€ 285.00
2-Day subject-specific
2
€ 4 800.00
5.91
€ 2 835.00
€ 1 965.00
course content
5
€ 480.00
development
Course presentation - 3day workshop - SARIMA
3
€ 500.00
6
€ 9 000.00
15
€ 7 500.00
€ 1 500.00
presenters
Course presentation - 24
€ 4 000.00
14
€ 7 000.00
-€ 3 000.00
day workshop - SARIMA
2
€ 500.00
presenters
Course presentation - 21
€ 1 000.00
3.5
€ 1 750.00
-€ 750.00
day licensing workshop 2
€ 500.00
SARIMA presenters
Course presentation - 3day workshop - External
3
€ 1 000.00
3
€ 9 000.00
3
€ 721.65
€ 8 278.35
presenters
Course presentation - 2day workshop - External
2
€ 1 000.00
3
€ 6 000.00
2
€ 481.10
€ 5 518.90
presenters
Course presentation - 3day workshop - External
3
€ 1 000.00
2
€ 6 000.00
3
€ 3 000.00
€ 3 000.00
Portuguese presenters
Course presentation - 2day workshop - External
2
€ 1 000.00
1
€ 2 000.00
0
€0
€ 2 000.00
Portuguese presenter
Pre- and post workshop
3
€ 150.00
9
€ 4 050.00
4.125
€ 225.00
€ 3 825.00
evaluations
Mentorship and exchange
programme and network
3
€ 480.00
5
€ 7 200.00 0.0625
€ 30.00
€ 7 170.00
management
Logistics and
2
€ 150.00
1
€ 300.00
2.75
€ 412.50
-€ 112.50
arrangements
Report drafting
4
€ 150.00
1
€ 600.00
1.469
€ 220.31
€ 379.69
Total
€ 56 350.00
€ 26 640.25
€ 29 489.44
*Figures in green reflect the current surplus amounts. Additional personnel time will be spent on these items in quarters 3
and 4.
Personnel Budget Notes
• The actual expenditure includes the 2 day licensing workshop, even though it forms part of quarter 3
for which an invoice has not yet been submitted. However, it does not include time spent on the last
4 activities in the table after 30 June.
Course preparation:
• The course content development and supporting material compilation for the 3-day IP and tech
transfer workshop took slightly more time than anticipated; however, the course content
development for the 2-day workshops took far less time than anticipated. The total saving on the
personnel costs for the course content development was €1,680.00.
• Two deviations in personnel were required for the 2-day grants management and proposal writing
workshop content development in that Johann Groenewald, a consultant for SARIMA, drafted /
adapted most of the content and Emilia Fonso, the Portuguese speaking presenter from SARIMA
had to spend time translating the content.
Course presentation:
•
For the 3-day workshops, a total of 5 SARIMA presenters were used, one less than anticipated. Two
external presenters were used, one of which did not wish to charge for their time and one of which
charged only the currently accepted SARIMA rate of R3,500 per day (instead of the budgeted
€1,000). In addition, for 3 of the workshops an international presenter from Cambridge University
was used. His costs were fully supported by the UK IP Office and he did not charge for his time. As a
result the third SA presenter budgeted for was not used. Only one external international Portuguese
presenter was used (two were budgeted for). One deviation in personnel was required, i.e. the use of
Brian Mphahlehle as an external presenter for the Namibia workshop. This was necessary due to the
workshop dates being changed and none of the other presenters on the original contract being
available. The total saving on the personnel costs for the 3-day workshop delivery was €12,778.35.
•
For the 2-day workshops, a total of 7 SARIMA presenters were used, three more than anticipated.
This was due to the external presenters not being available. Thus, only one external presenter was
used (rather than the anticipated three) and this was an individual who was not included in the
original contract. Riana Coetsee was not available and Caryn McNamara was deemed to be suitably
qualified to replace her. Further, Caryn charged only the currently accepted SARIMA rate of R3,500
per day (instead of the budgeted €1,000). This together with the fact that an international Portuguese
presenter was not necessary (a Portuguese speaking presenter from SARIMA was used), resulted in
a significant savings in the anticipated external presenter costs.
•
Despite numerous attempts to contact them, no response was received from WIPO on the proposal
to jointly host the 2-day preconference workshop on licensing and negotiation. Fortunately, however,
UK IPO agreed to support the costs for a presenter from the University of Cambridge to assist. In
addition, 2 SARIMA presenters were used (one for the full 2 days and one for one and a half days).
This resulted in a slight overspend (€750.00) against the original personnel budget for the workshop.
•
The total saving on the personnel costs for the 2-day workshop delivery (grants and licensing and
negotiation) was €3,768.90.
Pre- and post-workshop evaluations:
• Although some time was used during the first and second quarters in developing, conducting and
analyzing the pre- and post-workshop evaluations, most of these evaluations and drafting of the
reports thereon took place during quarter 3 and has not yet been included in the above figures.
Logistics and arrangements:
• Logistics and arrangements were made by the SARIMA administrator as well as the SARIMA Project
Manager and members of the Executive Committee (presenters). These arrangements took longer
than the estimated time with a resulting extra cost of €112.50.
Report drafting:
• While some time was spent during quarter 2 on the report drafting (specifically the financial
reporting), most of the personnel time for this will be used towards the end of the project period for
drafting the final report to SAIS.
4.2 Travel and Accommodation Budget
A significant proportion of the travel and accommodation expenses for the workshop delivery were covered
by SAIS directly; therefore SARIMA is not in a position to report on these. However, below is provided an
estimate of the savings on the travel budget for the training workshops based on the original budget and the
costs covered by SARIMA (to be claimed from SAIS). The following should be noted in this regard:
• Since the third presenter for the 3-day workshops was covered by the UK IPO, savings should have
been made on the flights, accommodation, transfers and per diems from the original budget
estimate.
•
The original budget estimate used a per diem rate of €60; however, the SAIS rates for the 4
countries were all below this. Further, since 2 meals were covered as part of the accommodation
and workshops, the per diem rates were further reduced. The per diems claimed were calculated as
per the guidelines provided to SARIMA, i.e.
o 50% of rate if 2 meals are provided
o 35% of the rate for partial days (between 2 and 10 hours)
o 65% of the rate for partial days (between 10 and 24 hours)
•
For most of the workshops an extra night’s accommodation was required for presenters as flight
times did not allow for return directly after the workshop.
•
The original budget estimate did not provide for additional travel costs such as transfers or airport
parking in South Africa, malaria tablets, vaccinations and visa fees. These were claimed over and
above the per diems.
•
The table includes the travel costs for the licensing workshop in Botswana; however these have not
yet been invoiced as the workshop took place in quarter 3.
Estimated savings on travel budget for presenters in relation to original budget
3-Day Workshops
Zambia
1x flight from Jhb-Zambia
€ 400.00
1 night accommodation in Zambia
€ 100.00
Per diem savings for Zambia
€ 460.00
Additional travel costs for Zambia
-€ 194.84
Person replaced by Tony Raven from UK - costs covered by UK
IPO
Tony Raven's accommodation covered by UK IPO but Andrew and
Shelley had to stay 4 nights each
Reduced per diems due to meals provided and Tony being covered
by UK IPO
Vaccinations, malaria tables, airport parking in SA
Botswana
1x flight from Jhb-Botswana
€ 300.00
1 night accommodation in Botswana
€ 100.00
Per diem savings for Botswana
€ 503.40
Additional travel costs for Botswana
-€34.36
Person replaced by Tony Raven from UK - costs covered by UK
IPO
Tony Raven's accommodation covered by UK IPO but Saberi and
Doug had to stay 4 nights each
Reduced per diems due to meals provided and Tony being covered
by UK IPO
Airport parking / transfers in SA
€ 1,150.00
Rosemary replaced the second European presenter
€ 100.00
Marta only stayed 3 nights
€ 318.00
Reduced per diems due to meals provided
-€ 204.87
Airport parking / transfers in SA, malaria tablets, visa fees
Mozambique
1x flight from Europe to Maputo
changed to Jhb-Maputo
1 night accommodation in
Mozambique
Per diem savings for Mozambique
Additional travel costs for
Mozambique
Namibia
1x flight from CT-Namibia
€ 550.00
2 nights accommodation in Namibia
€ 200.00
Per diem savings for Namibia
€ 594.00
Additional travel costs for Namibia
-€71.13
Sub-total
€ 4,270.19
Person replaced by Tony Raven from UK - costs covered by UK
IPO
Tony Raven's accommodation covered by UK IPO but Shelley had
to stay 4 nights due to flight times
Reduced per diems due to meals provided and Tony being covered
by UK IPO
Airport parking and airport transfers in SA
2-Day Workshops
Namibia
Extra 2 nights accommodation in
Namibia
Per diem savings for Namibia
€ -200.00
Rob and Johann had to stay 3 nights each due to flight times
€ 216.00
Reduced per diems due to meals provided
Additional travel costs for Namibia
-€ 66.37
Airport transfers in SA
€ 152.00
Reduced per diems due to meals provided
-€ 130.58
Karin and Emilia had to stay 3 nights each due to flight times
-€ 48.11
Airport transfers in SA
Zambia
Per diem savings for Zambia
Extra 2 nights accommodation in
Zambia
Additional travel costs for Zambia
Mozambique
1x flight from Europe
€ 1,500.00
Replaced by Emilia from Mozambique
Per diem savings for Mozambique
Accommodation savings in
Mozambique
Additional travel costs for
Mozambique
Botswana
Extra 2 nights accommodation in
Botswana
Per diem savings for Botswana
€ 386.00
Emilia stayed at home
€ 148.16
Emilia stayed at home
-€ 14.00
Travel for Emilia from home
€ 200.00
Caryn and Johann had to stay 3 nights each due to flight times
€ 208.00
Reduced per diems due to meals provided
Additional travel costs for Botswana
-€ 72.16
Airport transfers in SA
Savings on flight costs
€ 221.58
Two flights but lower cost than estimated
1 return ground transport
Extra night accommodation in
Botswana
€ 40.00
Covered by institutions
-€ 49.48
Michelle went as an additional presenter
Per diem savings for Botswana
€ 114.63
Meals claimed instead of per diems due to some costs being
covered for Iain
Sub-total
Total Travel Savings for
Workshops
€ 2,605.66
Botswana - Licensing
€ 6,875.85