academic-corporate relations at a research university
TRANSCRIPT
JohnsHopkinsUniversity
Academic-CorporateRelationsataResearchUniversity:OptionsforEngagementPracticesandOrganization
ACapstonePaperSubmittedtotheKriegerSchoolofArtsandSciencesAdvancedAcademicPrograms
inPartialFulfillmentoftheDegreeof
MasterofScienceinResearchAdministrationby
RobertC.Garber
Baltimore,MarylandMay2017
ii
Abstract
Universities engage with corporations to pursue their missions in research,
teaching, and public service. In recent years, corporations have evolved their
expectations for university relations fromprimarily philanthropic in nature to seeking
engagementswithacademicinstitutionswillenhanceshareholdervaluebycontributing
tobusinessgoals. Thequestionaddressedbythisprojectwaswhethertherearebest
practicesinuniversity-corporaterelationsthatcouldbeappliedtothecircumstancesof
NewYorkUniversity,amajorprivateresearchuniversity.Thetopicwaschosenbecause
universities have chosen a number of differentmodels for organizing and resourcing
their corporate engagement offices, and administrators at New York University were
interestedinunderstandingthechoicesmadebypeerinstitutions.
The researchmethodused in this projectwas to interview corporate relations
professionals at a variety of research universities in theUnited States, compare their
organizations and strategies for corporate engagement with that of New York
University, in thecontextofbestpractices recommendedbyorganizationsdevotedto
university-industryrelations.
The project found that New York University’s corporate relations organization
andstrategydiffersfromindustrybestpracticesinanumberofways.Variancesinclude
the lack of a centralized database of engagement activities, the absence of an office
dedicated to coordinating corporate engagements across a large and relatively
iii
decentralizeduniversity,andanapproachtopartnershipsthatissometimesshort-term
andtransactionalratherthanlong-termandstrategic.
TheresultsoftheprojectsuggestedanumberofspecificopportunitiesforNew
York University to consider that could better align their corporate engagement
enterprisewith thoseof other researchuniversities. By adopting successful practices
used by other institutions,New YorkUniversity can expect to see improvements in a
numberofcorporateengagementmetricsrangingfromthenumberandsizeofresearch
collaborations to philanthropic gifts, alumni recruitment, student internships and
scholarships,andfacultyconsultingandsabbaticalopportunities.
iv
Contents
Figures..................................................................................................................vTables...................................................................................................................vGlossary...............................................................................................................viChapter1:Introduction.........................................................................................1Background.................................................................................................................1StatementoftheProblem..........................................................................................3ResearchQuestions....................................................................................................4Objectives...................................................................................................................4Significance.................................................................................................................5ExclusionsandLimitations........................................................................................................................6Chapter2:LiteratureReview................................................................................7University-CorporateRelations..................................................................................7RelationshipManagement.......................................................................................12Chapter3:MethodologyandResults..................................................................15Methodology............................................................................................................15ResultsandDiscussion..............................................................................................16Chapter4:RecommendationsandConclusion....................................................31Introduction..............................................................................................................31Recommendations....................................................................................................34Conclusion................................................................................................................48Appendix1:NewYorkUniversityInterviews.......................................................50Appendix2:ExternalUniversityInterviews.........................................................51Appendix3:JohnsHopkinsUniversityInstitutionalReviewBoardApproval.......52
WorksCited........................................................................................................53
v
Figures
Figure1.Model1forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................17Figure2.Model2forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................18Figure3.Model3forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................18Figure4.Model4forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................19Figure5.Model5forcorporaterelationsatauniversity...........................................................19Figure6.Implementationroadmapforacorporateengagementstrategy..........................47
Tables
Table1.Systemforscoringacorporation'sengagementwithauniversity.........................24Table2.Stagesofuniversity-corporateengagement,withsamplemetrics.........................26Table3.Rankingofcorporatemetricsusedatuniversities........................................................27
vi
Glossary
Thefollowingdefinitionsareusedinthispaper:
Corporaterelations. Thecompletesetof interactionsbetweenuniversitiesand
corporations.Usedinterchangeablyinthispaperwithcorporateengagement,although
corporate relations sometimes carries the connotation of outward-directed
communications or “public relations”, while corporate engagement implies the
intentiontoactivelysustainadialogueorsetofinteractions.Alsousedinterchangeably
inthispaperwithuniversity-industryrelations.
Relationshipmanagement. The strategy ofmaintaining a ‘continuous level of
engagement between an organization and its audience’ (Investopedia, no date).
Relationshipmanagementrequiresongoingcommunication,bothtoachievegoalsand
to avoid unexpected problems, and usually implies a strategic focus on building trust
andidentifyingnewopportunities,ratherthananemphasisonindividualtransactions.
NewYorkUniversity(NYU).TheprivateeducationalinstitutioninNewYorkCity1,
including more than a dozen schools, centers and institutes. For purposes of this
project, the university includes the NYU School of Medicine and Tandon School of
Engineering,butdoesnotincludetheNYUcampusesinAbuDhabiandShanghai.
1www.nyu.edu
1
Chapter1
Introduction
Background
Universities have long sought to achieve a balance between independence, as
institutions dedicated to the ideals of unfettered scholarship and teaching, and
engagement,tofulfilltheirmissionofservice.Activeengagementwithcorporationshas
nothistoricallybeenaprioritizedinstitutionalendeavoratmanyuniversities.Academic
institutionsreliedonindividualdonorsandfoundationsforphilanthropicsupport.After
themodelforthecomprehensiveuniversityspreadfromWesternEuropetotheUnited
States in the mid-late 19th century, the role of government in support of academic
researchwasdeveloped,driven initiallyby theMorrillActof1862 (Committeeon the
Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the LandGrant University System, 1995) and
subsequentlybystatesupportofpublicuniversities.
TherapidexpansionoffederalsupportforresearchunderthedemandsofWorld
War II and the leadershipofVannevarBush and theOfficeof Scientific Research and
Developmenthasbeenextensivelydocumented(Kevles,1979;Stewart,1948;Zachary,
1999).TheinfluenceofBush’smodelfortheresearchenterprisehasendured,butthe
preponderance of investment in research and development in the United States has
alwaysbeen—andcontinues tobe—from industrial sources (Boroush,2016). Internal
corporate investment in basic research, applied research, and the development of
products and services proceeded in parallel with the growth of university-based
2
research,highlightedformanyyearsbythestronglyresourcedandproductivein-house
laboratoriesofBellTelephoneandanumberofotherindustrialentities(Gertner,2013;
Jackson, 1990). With the notable exceptions of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (Vest, 2007) and a few other universities, direct corporate funding of
academic institutions through either research or philanthropywas relatively limited--
indeed, the natural focus of corporations on investing in the development of
competitiveproductsandservices thatgeneratedreturns toownerswas longseenas
differentfrom,ifnotantitheticalto,theidealsofbasicresearchandopenscholarship.
Anumberofintersectinginfluences—fromthebudgetpressuresoftheVietnamWarto
theinnovativecreationoftheEngineeringResearchCenterandScienceandTechnology
ResearchCenterconceptbytheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)—pusheduniversities
andcorporationstotakeanotherlookatcollaborating.TheBayh-Doleactof19802and
theenactmentofSBIR (SmallBusiness InnovationResearch)andSTTR (SmallBusiness
Technology Transfer) legislation 3 provided incentives for cooperative research
agreements between universities and industry to create and exploit discoveries.
However, according to themost recent available data on Research andDevelopment
expendituresatUS researchuniversities, these institutions self-reportonaverage just
5.8% of their R&D spending coming from ‘business’ sources. This percentage is
comparable to funding fromstateand localgovernmentsand fromnonprofit sources,
andanorderofmagnitudesmallerthanfederalgovernmentsupport(NationalScience
Foundation,2016).ItshouldbenotedthatNSFdataonHigherEducationResearchand2P.L.96-517,PatentandTrademarkActAmendmentsof1980;35U.S.C.§200-212315U.S.C.§638
3
Development expenditures understates the extent of university-industry engagement,
because flow-through of grants made by federal agencies to corporations and
subcontractedtouniversitiesisreportedasfederal,notcorporateresearchfunding4.As
aconsequenceoftherelativestagnationofnon-AmericanRecoveryandReinvestment
Actfederalresearchsupportsince2004(Anonymous,2014;Britt,2016)andthesharp
declines in the supportprovided topublicuniversitiesbymany states (Mitchell et al.,
2016), a number of institutions have explored greater corporate engagement as a
diversificationstrategyforresearchsupport,andtoexpandtheirfundingportfolio.
StatementoftheProblem
Universitiesandcorporationswanttotakeadvantageofeachother’sdistinctive
resources to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Pursuing the benefits of corporate
engagementrequirestheacademicpartnertomakedecisionsabouthowitscorporate
relations operation is organized and placed in its administrative structure, as well as
howit isstaffedandhowitpursuesitsmission. Identifyingthepeople,thedatatools
andresources,andengagementstrategiesthatareappropriateforaspecificuniversity
requiresunderstandingthe institution’sdistinctivecharacteristicsandcomparingthem
tootherresearchuniversitiesthathavechosendifferentapproaches.Thisprojectwas
designed to provide an analysis and a set of options for consideration by New York
University, a comprehensive researchuniversitywith campuses inNewYorkCity,Abu
Dhabi and Shanghai. Interest in evaluating options for organizing its corporate
4DonMothersbaugh,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,interviewwithauthor.March31,2017.
4
engagementeffortscamefromNYU’sOfficeoftheSeniorViceProvostforResearchand
theUniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelationsandwasthebasisforthisproject.
ResearchQuestions
New York University reported $22.8 million in research and development
expenditures from business sources in FY2015 (National Science Foundation, 2016).
This represented 3.8% of NYU’s $602 million expenditures on research and
development.WhatshouldNYU’sgoalsforcorporateengagementbe,bothinfinancial
termsandbyothermeasures?Whatmetricsareusedbyotherresearchinstitutionsto
evaluate corporate engagement? How does NYU’s current corporate relations
organizationdifferfromthatatotherinstitutions?Whatarebestpracticesinuniversity-
corporate relations andhowdo they apply toNYU?What steps shouldNYU consider
takingtomovetowarditscorporateengagementgoals,andhowmuchtimewouldbe
requiredtoimplementthem?
Objectives
The first objective of this project was to develop an understanding of how
corporate engagement is practiced at NYU, which is a relatively decentralized
institution, and to compare the organization and processes that support corporate
engagementatNewYorkUniversitytothoseatotherresearchuniversities.Thesecond
objective was to prepare a set of recommendations for consideration by senior
administratorsatNewYorkUniversity,theimplementationofwhichcouldsupportthe
5
institution’s desire to raise the profile and effectiveness of corporate engagement.
These options include organization and reporting structure,metrics and performance
indicatorsforassessingprogresstowardsgoals,andaroadmapforimplementation.
Significance
Corporaterelationshipsimpactmanypartsofauniversity.Privateindustryisby
far the largest category of employer in the United States, accounting for nearly five
times as many jobs as all levels of government combined (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2017). Corporations gave colleges and universities nearly $6 billion in
philanthropic gifts in 2015, representing 14.3% of all voluntary support of higher
education (Council for Aid to Education, 2016). Patent licensing by corporations
accountedforanadditional$2.5billioninuniversityrevenue(AssociationofUniversity
Technology Managers, 2015). Universities are significant customers of many
corporations’ products and services, procuring everything from office supplies and
foodservice to computers and telecommunication services. Yet a number of studies
have reported that corporations and universities often find each other frustrating to
workwith:differencesincultureandperceivedurgencyhavebeenrepeatedlycitedas
limitations to engagement (Bruneel et al., 2010; Perkmann and Salter, 2012). If a
university can identify and implement improvements in its policies and practices for
corporateengagement,thepayoffswillbesubstantialandmeasureable(Daniels,2016):
recruitmentopportunitiesandregionaleconomicdevelopment,philanthropicgiftsand
research contracts, technology licensing and startup investments, representation on
6
universityboardsoftrusteesandcorporateboardsofdirectors,bidirectionalsabbatical
opportunities,andmore.
ExclusionsandLimitations
This project did not attempt to specifically explore the practice of university
fundraising, also called “development” or “advancement”. Although most university
staffwhoworkinofficestypicallycalledCorporateandFoundationRelationsareactive
inthesolicitationofgifts,thegoalofthisprojectwastounderstandthebroadspectrum
of engagement opportunities and how they could be organized to best advance the
strategicprioritiesof theuniversityasawhole. Therefore thisprojectdidnot lookat
best practices specifically for fundraising. Similarly, it did not investigate grant
applicationpractices. Another limitationwastheabsenceof inputfromthecorporate
side of the relationship. The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers has
surveyedcorporatemembersandreportedontheirpreferences,anda2010article in
theMIT SloanManagement Review collected the perspective of corporations in nine
industriesonuniversity-industrycollaborations(seeLiteratureSurvey).
7
Chapter2
LiteratureReview
Two types of literature relevant to corporate engagement practices were
examined: (1) documents from professional organizations that are dedicated to the
relationship between universities and corporations, and (2) literature associatedwith
thepracticeofrelationshipmanagement.
University-CorporateRelations
Two nonprofit organizations have sponsored research into the relationships
betweenuniversitiesandcorporations: theNetworkofAcademicCorporateRelations
Officers (NACRO) 5 and the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIDP) 6 .
NACROisanorganizationwithapproximately500individualmembershipsrepresenting
more than 120 institutions. NACRO promotes professional development, networking
and advocacy by and on behalf of its members. Perhaps its greatest influence in
corporate relations thinking has come from three white papers written by NACRO
members: Five Essential Elements of a Successful Twenty-first Century University
Corporate Relations Program (NACRO Writing Team and Benchmarking Committee,
2011), Metrics for a Successful Twenty-first Century University Corporate Relations
Program (NACRO Benchmarking Committee, 2012) and Engagement of Academic
Corporate Relations Officers in University-Industry Centers of Research Excellence. A5www.nacrocon.org6www.uidp.org
8
fourth NACRO document, Elevating Corporate Relations through Institutional
Commitment, released in2016,was labeledapositionpaper. Collectively,theNACRO
paperswereknowntomostofthedevelopmentandcorporaterelationsprofessionals
interviewedforthisproject,atNYUandelsewhere.TheFiveEssentialElementspaperis
perhaps the best known. It describes a gradual but pronounced shift in corporate
attitudestowardsuniversityrelationsfromadhocandprimarilyphilanthropictomore
strategicinnature,andachangeinmind-setfrom“donor”to“investor”.Thebenefits
or“resources”providedtouniversities,accordingtothepaper,included“gifts,research
grants, royaltypayments,executiveeducationtuition, [and]gifts-in-kind”. Thecentral
message of the paper is that universities need to acknowledge this change and align
their corporate relations strategy accordingly by pursuing long-term, “holistic”
engagements. Theword “holistic” has come tobe a shorthand term for theNACRO-
advocated approach to university-corporate relationships, describing a strategy that
acknowledges thevalueofmutuallybeneficial interactions thatarenotpredicatedon
philanthropy.“Holisticengagement”wastheexpressionusedinapresentationmadein
2006 by the Hewlett-Packard executive Wayne Johnson at the National Academy of
Sciences,whicharticulateda“crisis”inuniversity-industryrelationsdrivenbydiscordant
approaches to negotiations over rights to intellectual property (Johnson, 2006).
Johnson’schartwasinturnbasedona2003paperthatpresentedHewlett-Packardasa
pioneer in university-corporate relationships (Johnson, 2003). Johnson described a
continuum of university-industry engagement that ranged from Awareness through
Involvement,Support,andSponsorship,culminatinginStrategicPartner[ship].Thechart
9
suggests that progress along the continuum should be directional, with engagement
growing through trust as well as results, and encompassing increasingly ambitious
interactions and a greater number of touch points. Johnson’s chart has beenwidely
usedtorepresentthe idealviewofuniversity-corporateengagement. Itwasfeatured
prominently in the NACRO “Five Elements” paper, and also appears in university
corporaterelationsdocumentsandwebsites7.TheNACROFiveElementspaperfurther
asserts that “the amount of truly philanthropic support a university receives from a
company will depend in part on the number and quality of non-philanthropic
engagements.” As examples of non-philanthropic interactions that benefit both
partners,thepaperidentifiedjobs,internshipsandfellowshipsforstudents(corporation
gets recruiting opportunities), executive education (company gets employee training),
research collaborations (company gets the results of research), patent licensing
(companygetsexploitationrights),useofon-campusfacilities(companygetsaccessto
specialized equipment without purchasing it) and event sponsorship (company gets
publicity). Mutuality of benefits is one of five “essential elements” identified in the
paper, the other four being institutional support (emphasizing endorsement and
tangibleencouragementfromseniorleadership);acentral“one-stopshopping”rolefor
theuniversity’scorporaterelationsoffice,alsoknownas“conciergeservices”,intended
to simplify interactions and minimize redundant or conflicting requests by different
university staff; an integrated approach to research development whereby the office
responsiblefornegotiatingsponsoredresearchagreementscoordinatesitseffortswith
7Examples:http://ilo.osu.edu/files/2016/07/The-Partnership-Continuum.pdf;https://www.k-state.edu/president/initiatives/cec/White_Paper_on_Corporate_Engagement.pdf.
10
corporaterelationsofficers;andcampuscoordination,whichacknowledgesthedistinct
roles that academic leadership, development professionals, and the offices of
technology transfer, research administration, and the career center can each play in
supporting corporate engagement efforts. The NACRO Five Elements paper included
data from a 2010 survey of corporate relations staff at 45 research universities that
found a number of institutions had already recognized and acted on the changing
environmentofuniversity-industryrelations,notablybyhavingthecorporaterelations
officereporttoanofficeotherthanthedevelopmentoffice.Thepaperconcludedthat
traditional metrics for evaluating performance in a corporate relations organization
were too short-term and too focused on “incremental revenue”, and recommended
newmeasuresbasedonthecollaborativenatureofholisticengagement.
Thesemetricsweredescribed in thesecondNACROwhitepaper,Metrics fora
SuccessfulTwenty-FirstCenturyAcademicCorporateRelationsProgram.Thisdocument
presents two frameworks for measuring “progress and success” in a university
corporaterelationsorganization,andtiesthemtothreebestpractices.
The first framework (see Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers
Benchmarking Committee, 2012, Figure 1) describes a cyclic process of corporate
engagement:
1. Buildingawarenessatcorporationsofauniversity’sstrengthsandassets2. Creatingandqualifyingengagementleads3. Identifyingbestopportunitiesformutually-beneficialengagement4. Creatingthestagesandmechanismsfordevelopingapartnership5. Closingdeals6. Nurturingexistingrelationships7. Creatingafeedbackmechanismtoevaluateandimprovetheengagementprocess
11
Foreachstep,potentialmetricswereidentified,withthecaveatthatnotallwill
applytoanygiveninstitution,andthatit’seasytotrytomeasuretoomanythings.
Thesecondframeworkaddressestheextentandfrequencyofinternalreporting
oncorporateengagementmetrics.Reportingisconceptualizedasastakeholderpyramid
with themost frequent and detailed reporting at the level of the corporate relations
organization itself (typically weekly or monthly activity reports). The next level of
stakeholders consists of “organizational peers” (for example, members of the
technologytransferofficeorthesponsoredprogramsoffice),whosecollaborationwith
corporate relations is important but who receive less frequent and less detailed
reportingoncorporate interactions thatarerelevant to their functions. At the topof
the pyramid are senior administrators who receive quarterly or annual reports on
higher-level activities such as gift and sponsored research totals, CEO visits, etc. The
reportconcludeswiththreebestpracticerecommendations:
1. Establishacontinuumofengagementlevels,oftendescribedas“tiers”.Thisisidenticalto the concept developed by Wayne Johnson at Hewlett-Packard and previouslydescribed.
2. Establish a set of criteria or “gauges” that assign a score to each selected corporatepartner and serve to prioritize the most important ones for action and resourceallocation.
3. Create stewardship reports for each important corporate partner, summarizing theextent of the partnership, activity and results over the past year, and plans for thefuture.
TheUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnership(UIDP)differsfromNACROin
severalrespects.Insteadofusingabusinessmodelofindividualmemberships,UIDPhas
institutional memberships. Its roster of members is roughly 2/3 universities and 1/3
corporations.Insteadoffosteringcorporaterelationsasaprofession,UIDPemphasizes
12
understanding how university-industry engagement practices actually work. It has
developedguidelinesontopicssuchascontractterms,creatinginnovationcenters,and
best practices for bringing companies onto campus. Like NACRO, UIDP publications
support the holistic, tiered engagement approach to corporate relations, which it
describes as a “partnership continuum” that can evolve from transaction (defined as
sharedtactics)tocollaboration(definedassharedideas)toalliance(definedasshared
aspirations), as the number of engagement touchpoints increase.UIDP’s brochure on
university-industry partnerships enumerates dozens of examples of engagement
opportunities, categorizing them as student-focused, researcher-focused, providing
access to institutional resources, involving centers of excellence, and supporting
economicdevelopment(Southertonetal.,2012).UIDPalsocreatedaguidebookaimed
at encouraging university-industry research collaborations (University-Industry
Demonstration Partnership Researcher Guidebook Working Group, 2012). The
Researcher’s Guidebook specifically targeted differences between academic and
corporateresearchers,providing languageandrecommendationstobridgedifferences
interminologyandperspective.Theguidebookofferedpracticaltipsonidentifyingand
establishing contacts, preparing research proposals, and dealing with intellectual
property,exportcontrol,andpublicationissues.
RelationshipManagement
There is a sprawling collection of material in the business/management
literatureontheeffectiveconductofrelationshipstoachievedesiredoutcomes.Some
13
of the literature is in conventional refereed journals,butmuchof it appearsaswhite
papers,advertisingmaterial, slidedecks,andother informalmedia.For thisproject,a
subsetofmanagementliteratureonthetopicknownas“relationshipmanagement”was
reviewed,toexploretheideathatuniversitiescanimprovetheproductivityandmutual
satisfactionof their relationshipswithcorporationsbyadoptingsomeof the language
andhabitsofbusinesses.“Relationshipmanagement”isdefinedas“astrategyinwhich
a continuous level of engagement is maintained between an organization and its
audience” (Investopedia, no date). Customer relationship management, well known
becauseofSalesforceandothersoftwareplatformsthatweredevelopedtomanageit,
is a subset of relationship management. The essential concept driving relationship
managementisthetheorythatongoing,targetedcontactbetweenanorganizationand
its audience is the best way to build trust, familiarity, and sales or other forms of
successfulengagement.Inherenttothetheoryofrelationshipmanagementistheidea
built into the name—that relationships require, and benefit from, deliberate
management. Relationshipmanagement is often conflatedwith public relations, but
public relations has a traditional component of outwardly-projected communications
thatisnotinherenttorelationshipmanagement.AsarticulatedbyLedingham,Bruning
and colleagues, recognizing that the cultivation anddevelopmentof relationships is a
managementactivitymoveditintothesphereofinfluenceofmanagementtheoryand
practice, with implications for training and professionalization of its practitioners
(Ledingham, 2003). At the same time, grounding relationship management in the
literature of relationships invoked the dimensions of trust, openness, involvement,
14
investment,andcommitment.BusinessRelationshipManagement(BRM)isatermthat
emergedfromtherelationshipbetween InformationTechnology (IT)departmentsand
the largerenterprisesthattheyserve. BRMemphasizesthe interactionsbetweenany
shared service department (human resources, finance, etc.) and their “business
partners”. The idea that these interactions can be optimized (their “business value
realized”) has been championed by the Business RelationshipManagement Institute,
Inc.anditsnonprofitmembershipcommunity,whichseekstoprofessionalizetheroleof
the business relationship manager. In this project and paper, the advantages to
universities of treating their diverse interactions with corporations as relationship
managementopportunitiesareposited.By invokingthe languageofmanagementand
the activities that are routine in business environments—strategic planning, value
realization,goal-setting,projectexecution,accountability,andevaluation—auniversity
ismorelikelytoberecognizedbycorporationsasathoughtful,competentpartnerthat
operates in a familiar manner, seeking to collaborate in the exchange products and
servicesofcomparablevalue.
15
Chapter3
MethodologyandResults
Methodology
Theprojectconsistedofaseriesofface-to-faceandphoneinterviewswithNYU
staffwhowereidentifiedasstakeholdersinthecorporaterelationsprocess,aswellas
with corporate relations professionals at external universities. Sixteen NYU
stakeholders (Appendix 1) were interviewed based on their roles at the university,
including inmost cases participation in a “stakeholders council” convened to discuss
corporate relations issues. More than a dozen corporate relations staff at external
universities(Appendix2)wereselectedforinterviewsbasedon(1)characteristicsofthe
university (usuallyprivate, largestudentpopulation,R&Dexpendituresamongthetop
100ofAmericanresearchuniversities);(2)activeparticipationinNACRO;or(3)previous
corporaterelationsdiscussionswithNYU.Interviewswereopen-ended,butstructured
to encompass a consistent set of topics. Those topics included organization of the
corporate relationsenterprise at theuniversity; backgroundand skillsetsof corporate
relations staff; strategies for identifying and pursuing relationshipswith corporations;
metrics forassessing results; software systemsanddatabasesused to trackcorporate
engagement; and facilitators of (or impediments to) success. Meeting notes were
assembledandcomparedtopublishedandwhitepaperliteratureonuniversity-industry
relations. Options and recommendations tailored to New York University were
16
prepared for with NYU senior administrators and corporate relations staff, but the
contentsofthispaperwerenotreviewedorvettedbyNYU.
ResultsandDiscussion
Findings were divided into five categories: organization and resourcing;
strategiesandmetrics;skillsandbackground;andcoordinationandcommunication;and
predictorsofsuccess.
OrganizationandResourcing.Thedatathatemergedfrominternalandexternal
interviews supported the observation in the corporate engagement literature that
academic institutions have organized their corporate relations functions in several
different ways, and that where this entity (or entities) is placed organizationally and
how it is staffed reflects a university’s priorities about how it practices corporate
relations.Inmostmajorresearchuniversities,thereisacentralofficeofcorporateand
foundation relations that is supplementedby individuals or teamswhoare located in
decentralizedunits—aschool,collegeorresearchcenter.Thesizeofthedecentralized
officedependedonthesizeandtosomeextenttheidentityoftheunit.Forexample,a
school of law or a college of the artsmight perceive less opportunity for productive
corporateengagement thana collegeof engineering,medicineorbusiness. Thusan
artscollege’sdevelopmentofficemightcombinecorporateandfoundationrelationsina
single position, whereas a college of engineering might have dedicated specialists in
each area of activity. The school or college development officers generally report to
17
thatunit’ssenioradministrator—typicallyadean—sometimeswithadottedlinereport
tothecentralcorporaterelationsoffice.
Five types ormodelswere identified that collectively show the range ofways
thatresearchuniversitieshavepositionedthecorporateengagementresponsibilitiesin
theiradministrativestructure.Variantsexistofeachtype.Inselectingone,auniversity
ismakingadecisionabouthow itwantstopursuecorporateengagement,andhow it
wantstostaffthecorporaterelationsteam.
Figure1.Model1forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.Corporate relations is combinedwith foundation relations, and is part of anOffice of
Development. Example: New York University. Development officers in the corporate andfoundationrelationsofficemayhaveresponsibilityforbothtypesofengagement.
Central Schools/Units
OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment
TechTransfer
Entrepreneurship/Innova=on
ResearchAdministra=on
CorporateandFounda=onRela=ons
Model1:Corporaterela=onscombinedwithfounda=onrela=ons;botharepartoftheDevelopmentOffice.Example:NewYorkUniversity
Dean
DevelopmentOfficers
18
Figure2.Model2forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.
Corporaterelationsisseparatefromfoundationrelations,butbothunitsarestillpartofthe development office. Example: Northwestern University. InModel 2, corporate relationsofficersoftenhave industrybackgroundsandmanyhaveadvanceddegreesthatmayfacilitatedevelopingresearchcollaborations.
Figure3.Model3forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.
Corporate relations is separate from foundation relations and is part of the researchoffice. Example:UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis.Theseparationofcorporateand foundationrelations in this model emphasizes the importance of research collaborations in corporateengagement. Philanthropic and other types of non-research corporate engagement arecoordinatedwiththedevelopmentoffice.OftenstaffedbyPh.Ds.
Central Schools/Units
Compliance
TechTransfer/NewVentures
SponsoredResearch
CorporateRela=ons
Founda=onRela=ons
Model2:Corporaterela=onsseparatefromfounda=onrela=ons,botharepartoftheDevelopmentOffice.Example:NorthwesternUniversity
Dean
DevelopmentOfficers
OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment
Central Schools/Units
Founda=onRela=ons
AlumniRela=onsTechTransfer
Innova=on
SponsoredPrograms
Dean
DevelopmentOfficersTechnologyManagement/
CorporateRela=ons
CorporateRela=ons
DonorRela=ons
Model3:Corporaterela=onsseparatefromfounda=onrela=ons;corporaterela=onsispartoftheOfficeofResearch.Example:UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis
OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment
19
Figure4.Model4forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.
An office of industrial liaison or industrial partnerships, focusing on researchcollaborations, is part of theOfficeofResearch. Corporate and FoundationRelationsarepartoftheOfficeofDevelopment.Example:PennsylvaniaStateUniversity.
Figure5.Model5forcorporaterelationsatauniversity.
Corporaterelations isseparatefromfoundationrelationsand isformallyconnectedtoboth research and development offices. Example: University of Michigan, whose BusinessEngagementCenterhasbeenfundedbybothofficessinceitsfounding.
IndustrialRela=onsCoordinators
DevelopmentOfficers
Central Schools/Units
AlumniRela=ons
UniversityDevelopment
TechnologyManagement
Defense-RelatedResearchUnits
SponsoredPrograms
DeanorCenterDirector
IndustrialPartnerships
ResearchProtec=ons
CorporateandFounda=onRela=ons
Model4:Officeofindustrialliaisonorpartnerships,focusingonresearchcollabora=ons,ispartoftheOfficeofResearch.CorporateandFounda=onRela=onsareintheOfficeofDevelopment.Example:PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopmentandAlumniRela=ons
Central Schools/Units
Technology
Transfer
Compliance
BizOpera=onsincl
SponsPrograms
Founda=on
Rela=ons
AlumniRela=ons
DonorRela=ons
CorporateRela=ons
(“BusinessEngagementCenter”)
Model4:Corporaterela=onsseparatefromfounda=onrela=ons;corporate
rela=onssharedbetweenOfficesofResearchandDevelopment.Example:
UniversityofMichigan
Dean
Development
Officers
OfficeofResearch OfficeofDevelopment
20
The combination of corporate with foundation relation responsibilities, in a
singleofficeandoften ina singleposition, is still commonand tends toalignwithan
office’s focus on philanthropy, despite NACRO’s observation that corporations have
movedawayfromunrestrictedgivingastheirmainvehicleforuniversityrelations.The
mostrecent(2016)NACROmembersurveyfoundthatslightlymorethanhalfofthe168
responding institutions placed their corporate relations office in the advancement or
developmentorganization.Lessthan15%ofuniversitiesreportedthattheircorporate
relationsofficesarepartoftheofficeofresearch.TheUniversityofMichiganmodelfor
centralized corporate relations, with joint funding by the offices of research and of
development,hasbeenwidelynotedbutnotoftenduplicated.AtMichigan,therearea
number of development officers in the university’s major schools, but the Business
EngagementCenterisamajordriverofactivityacrosstheentireinstitution.Adifferent
kindofhybridmodel ispracticedat theUniversityofSouthernCalifornia (USC),which
hasaCentralDevelopmentofficethatincludesaSeniorExecutiveDirectorofCorporate
and Foundation Relations8serving a coordination function, as well as a much larger
corporate relations staff (nearly30FTEs)embedded inUSC’s several colleges. AtThe
OhioStateUniversity,PurdueUniversity,andPennsylvaniaStateUniversity,anIndustry
LiaisonOfficeorOfficeofIndustrialPartnershipsispartoftheOfficeofResearchandis
separate from the Corporate Relations office. Among the research universitieswhose
administratorswereinterviewedforthisproject,mosthavemovedtowardaseparation
8http://www.usc.edu/directories/dept/univ_adv.html
21
betweenwhoisresponsibleforraisingphilanthropicfundsfromcorporationsandwho
isresponsibleformanagingtheinitiationanddevelopmentofresearchcollaborations.
An exceptionally clear presentation of one institution’s approach to corporate
relations is that of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Illinois). On their
websiteandintheirannualreports, IllinoispresentstheOfficeofCorporateRelations,
whichreportstotheViceChancellorforResearchthroughanAssociateViceChancellor
forCorporateRelationsandEconomicDevelopment9,asthehubor“gateway”toaset
of “stakeholders” that are arranged in six categories (University of Illinois Office of
CorporateRelations,2015):
1. Researchandtargetedsolutions,whichincludessponsoredprograms,technologymanagement,corporatecontactsin“units”,andinterdisciplinaryresearchcenters
2. Studentengagement,whichincludescareerservicesandthealumniassociation3. Economicdevelopmentandresearchpark,whichincludesasmallbusinessincubator,
thestateDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicOpportunity,andresearchdeans4. Brandingandsponsorships,whichincludesadvancementandtheUniversityofIllinois
Foundation5. Professionaldevelopmentandeducation,whichlinkstoacademicdeansbutnottoa
centralizedprogramforexecutiveeducation6. Innovationandtechnicaltransfer,whichincludessponsoredprogramsandtheOfficeof
TechnologyManagementfortechtransferactivities
The Illinois schema exemplifies the NACRO vision of university corporate
relations as a coordinating activity thatmay ormay not prioritize raisingmoney as a
primarymeasureofitssuccess(seeStrategiesandmetrics).
Purdue University (Purdue), whose strength in engineering has driven a
longstanding tradition of corporate research collaborations, created an Office of
CorporateandGlobalPartnerships(OCGP)in2014withamissionoffocusingon20-40
9https://illinois.edu/assets/docs/adminorgchart.pdf
22
major corporate relationships10. The OCGP is part of the Office of Research and
Partnerships, and is thereforeanexampleofModel4. Purdue’spresidenthas stated
publiclythathebelievesthefederalgovernment“willnotbeareliablesourceofdollars
for the research growth towhichwe aspire” (Daniels, 2016). He also observed that
research universities merely “pay lip service to the expansion of non-traditional
partnerships,” and pointed to rapid growth in awards from industry and foundation
sources as evidence of the success of Purdue’s model. Purdue’s OCGP team works
closely with two university entities that serve as consulting services to business and
manufacturing enterprises in Indiana: the Technical Assistance Program and the
ManufacturingExtensionPartnership.OCGPhasPurduefacultymembersinleadership
and advisory positions, and actively cultivates close faculty relationships to stay
informed about research interests and facilitate new collaboration opportunitieswith
industry.
New York University has a hybrid structure for its corporate relations
professionals, reflectingthedecentralizednatureofthe institution. NYUhasacentral
office of University Development and Alumni Relations (UDAR), which is part of the
university’s advancement structure and reports to the Senior Vice President for
UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations.ManyofNYU’sschools,andsomeofits
research centers, have their own corporate and/or foundation specialists, who are
consideredpartofUDARbutwhoalsohavedottedlinereportingresponsibilitiestotheir
10DavidMcKinnis,PurdueUniversity,interviewwiththeauthor.April6,2017.
23
respectiveunitadministrations.Aseparateteamisresponsiblefordevelopmentandfor
corporaterelationsatNYU’smedicalschool.Researchcollaborationswithcorporations
are executed by the Office of Sponsored programs, which is part of the Office of
Research.NYUdoesnothaveaseparateofficethatfocusesoncoordinatingcorporate
relationshipsacrosstheuniversity.
Strategies and Metrics. Several institutions reported that they create and
maintain bespoke strategies for each of the corporations with which they have, or
aspiretohave,substantialrelationships.Responsibilityfordevelopingandmaintaining
thesestrategiesresideseitherwithacentralorganization(e.g.theBusinessEngagement
CenterattheUniversityofMichiganortheCorporateEngagementOfficeatOhioState
University)orwiththeschoolordepartmentthathasthemostsubstantialinvolvement
with a given company. Representatives of some institutions stated that the effort to
maintaincustomizedstrategiesacrossthedozensofcorporationsthattheyengagewith
madeitimpractical.Otherscreatestrategiesforagiventierofengagement,fine-tuning
asnecessaryforaspecificcompany.
Asmallnumberof institutionssaidthattheyuseanalgorithmtoobjectivelyor
semi-objectively score their relationships with corporate partners, and thereby
determinewhichcorporationstofocuson.Anexampleofascoringsystemappears in
NACRO’sMetricswhitepaper.Itassignsweightstosixcategories.
24
Table1.Systemforscoringacorporation'sengagementwithauniversityCategory Subcategory Weight
PriorFiscalYearGiving 10%PhilanthropicGiving
Prior3-yearAverageGiving 10%LifetimeGiving 10%
PriorFiscalYearResearch 10%SponsoredPrograms Prior3-yearAverageResearch 10% LifetimeResearch 10% TotalAlumni 5%Recruiting VPandHigherAlumni 5% HiresandCo-ops 10%
EvaluationfromLeadership
Prospectmanagerand/orleadershipfromkeystakeholders.Thismaytakeintoaccountgeography,pastpartnering,orotherfactorsnotalreadyincluded.
10%
MasterResearchAgreement(MRA) Signed/active 5%NationalRanking Forbes500List(revenues) 5%Total 100%Source:DatafromNACROBenchmarkingCommittee,2012.
Note that this algorithm assigns 60% of the total score to gift and research
dollars received, 20% to the number of alumni at the corporation, and the rest to a
varietyoffactors,oneofwhichissubjective.Toconvertsuchaweightingsystemtoan
actualalgorithm,eachsubcategorywould requirenormalizing tosomestandard (such
asanaverageofallothercompaniesthattheuniversityengageswith)inordertoassign
ascore.
Arelateddocumentisacorporateprofile.Severalinstitutionswhosecorporate
relations officers were interviewed for this project maintain profiles for important
corporatepartners.Thesizeofthelistofprofiledcompaniestendstobeintherangeof
20-30,andtheprofile isusedtosummarizethescaleandbreadthof therelationship.
Universities consider profiles to be confidential documents, but corporate relations
25
officersdescribed them in interviewsconducted for thisprojectas includingelements
suchas:
• Dollars provided by category (philanthropy, sponsored research, royalties or otherlicensing,gifts-in-kind,sponsorships,fellowships)
• Executiveeducationorworkforcedevelopment• Recruitingevents• Hiringofgraduatesorpostdocs• Vendorrelationships• Alumniinseniorpositions• Keycontacts• Relationshipswithfaculty
Severalcorporaterelationsofficersnotedtheeffortrequiredtoassembleprofile
datafromdifferentsourcesandmaintainit.PurdueUniversityhasdevelopedasystem
that consolidates data from several institutional databases (Hirleman, 2015, slide 15)
andpresentsitincustomizabledashboardscreatedinTableauvisualizationsoftware11.
Metrics for evaluating corporate relations offices are the subject of perennial
interestanddebate.Mostcorporaterelationsprofessionalsinterviewedforthisproject
said thatmetricswere tracked in theiroffice,andwereused toevaluate individualas
wellasorganizationalperformance.Developmentandadvancementstaffsarefamiliar
withperformancetargets,whichinatleastsomecasesdriveeligibilityforbonuses.The
NACROpaper onmetrics recommended instituting a broad-based set of performance
measurements reflecting a longer-term, holistic spirit of engagement that alignswith
perceivedcorporateengagementpreferences.Thepaperrecommendedconsideration
ofmorethan30possiblemetrics,insixcategoriesbasedonthe“stage”ofengagement.
11MatthewTrampski,PurdueUniversity,interviewwiththeauthor.April6,2017.
26
Table2.Stagesofuniversity-corporateengagement,withsamplemetricsEngagementstage Exampleofsuggestedmetric
Buildawarenessofacademicprogramsandofferings Numberofon-campusevents
Generateandqualifynewleads NumberofleadsadvancingtonextstageIdentifymutualneedsandengagementopportunities Significantcampusvisits
Developandstructurecollaborationsandpartnerships Complexityanddurationofdeals
Closedeals ValueofdealsStewardandgrowexistingrelationships TrendsinnumberoftouchpointsAssessandimprove Feedbackfromcompanies
Source:DatafromNACROBenchmarkingCommittee,2012.
Anexampleofauniversitythathasposteditscorporaterelationsmetricsisthe
University of Illinois, whose 2016-2017 strategic plan appears at the university’s
website. A page called “Goals and Metrics: Corporate Relations”12 lays out four
overarching goals (increasing overall corporate engagement, supporting unit-level
corporate engagement, increasing efficiency, and increasing Illinois’ engagement
recognition),15initiativestoachievethosegoals,andatotalof17metrics.TheIllinois
metrics for corporate relations exemplify the broadening of engagement goals from
incomingdollarstoincludetargetsthatarenon-financial,butstillmeasurable.
NACROhassurveyeditsmembersonthetopicofmetricsthatare“mostusedto
evaluate Corporate Relations Officers” at their institutions. The 2016 survey data
showed that deals and dollars are the most common, but a variety of non-financial
metricsarealsoinplace:
12http://strategicplan.illinois.edu/units/corporate-relations.html
27
Table3.Rankingofcorporatemetricsusedatuniversities
MetricSelectedasoneoffive“mostused”
metricsGiftdollarscommittedperFY 98Number,typeandvalueofdealsand/orproposalssubmitted 82Numberofdealsand/orproposalsclosed 79Numberofsignificantvisitstocompanies 69Numberorqualityofengagementandstewardshipactivities 66Numberofsignificanton-campusvisits 62SponsoreddollarscommittedperFY 61Valueoryieldofnewengagements 42Levelofcompanyleadershipinvolvement 37Numberofleadsadvancingtonextstage 33Feedbackfromcompanies 27Numberofexternalandon-campusevents 26Feedbackfrominternalstakeholders 26Levelofuniversityleadershipinvolvement 17Other 13Numberofleads 9Eventattendance 6Numberofreferrals 5Source:NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question17
Skills and Background. The origin of most university corporate relations
programsindevelopmentofficeshasmeantthatfundraisingskillsandexperiencehave
often been prioritized. Many corporate relations professionals have built careers
moving from university to university, or from universities to non-profit organizations
and back again. However, industry experience and subject matter expertise is
increasingly valued, particularly for corporate relations jobs that are tied to a specific
universityunit.Forexample,theUniversityofWashingtonhastwoDirectorsofIndustry
Relations, both with Ph.D.s and years of industry experience13. The director of the
UniversityofMichigan’sBusinessEngagementCenterreportsthatmostoftheCenter’s
13https://www.engr.washington.edu/industry,https://www.linkedin.com/in/toddcleland/,https://www.linkedin.com/in/terry-grant-1193961/
28
staff have backgrounds in business or industry, not academia14. Note that “industry
background”doesnotnecessarilymeantechnicalexpertise; itcanalsomeanbusiness
developmentorrelationshipsalesexperience. Oneoftheauthorsofthe2011NACRO
paper on corporate relations strategiesmeasures its influence by the frequencywith
whichshesees theprioritiesdescribed in thatpaperappearing in jobdescriptions for
universitycorporaterelationsjobs15.
Coordination and Communication. Corporate engagement can be initiated (or
respondedto)byanumberofuniversityofficesorentities,rangingfromfacultytothe
office of technology transfer, to the office of sponsored programs, to procurement
officers,tocorporaterelationsprofessionals.Internalcoordinationisdesirableformany
reasons, including (1) minimizing duplicative or conflicting communication, and (2)
maximizing the opportunity to pursuemultiple lines of engagement or to “cross-sell”
theinstitution.Aclassicconsequenceofpoorinternalcoordinationisthecomplaintby
a corporate partner that it receives repeated requests for money from different
university offices that don’t seem to know what the others are doing. A database
systemthat logscorporatecontacts isroutineatmostresearchuniversities—the2016
NACROmember survey identifiedmore than a dozen customer relationmanagement
systemsusedbytheir institutions16,ofwhichAdvance(31%),Raiser’sEdge(27%),and
14SheilaWixom,UniversityofMichigan,interviewwiththeauthor.February21,2017.15AlexandraPatel,DartmouthCollege,interviewwiththeauthor.March16,2017.16NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question19.
29
Salesforce (26%) 17 were the most frequently cited. Several corporate relations
professionalsinterviewedforthisprojectcitedinternalcommunicationaboutthegoals
and strategies of corporate engagement as their biggest challenge. Despite repeated
efforts to educate faculty, including presentations at departmental meetings, they
reported that corporate relations continues to be poorly understood at their
institutions. Faculty contacts with research peers at corporations can be among the
mostproductiveavenuesforinitiatingrelationshipsthatcanbenurturedtogobeyond
sponsored research, but faculty are often perceived to be uninterested in supporting
suchefforts.Buildingrelationshipsthroughdeansanddepartmentchairswascitedasa
productiveapproachtogainingtheattentionoffaculty.
Predictors of Success. In response to inquiries about how corporate relations
officers felt about the relative success of their efforts, two broad patterns emerged.
Onewasthatcorporateengagementwassignificantandgrowing. Theotherwasthat
corporate relations activity was minor compared to other sources of institutional
funding, was difficult to grow, and was relatively unimportant when compared
specificallytosecuringsupportfromfoundations. Thesepatternstendedtoalignwith
whether the institutionhadcreatedan“industry liaison”positionorunitdedicatedto
fosteringresearchcollaborations.Suchinstitutionsreportedthattheyreceivenumerous
inquiriesfromcorporationslookingforengagement. Theseuniversitiesalsotendedto
have strong science and engineering faculties, so the supporting role of an industrial
17“Blackbaud”and“RazorsEdge”[sic]werelistedseparately;Raiser’sEdgeisthedonormanagementsoftwareofBlackbaud,sotheirusagenumbersfromthesurveywerecombined.
30
liaison teamwasanatural correlate. PurdueUniversity, forexample, reporteda36%
increase inyear-over-yearresearchawardscomingfromnon-governmental (corporate
andfoundation)sources(Daniels,2016).
Severalcorporaterelationsofficers interviewedforthisprojectemphasizedthe
importance of expanding themeasures of success to include non-financialmeasures.
When NACROmembers were asked to rate the relative importance of 12 university
individualsorentitiesfortheirimpactonthesuccessofcorporaterelationsefforts,they
identified faculty and deans/department chairs as the most important, followed by
senior academic leadership (chancellor, president or provost), the leadership of the
developmentoffice,andthecareercenter18.Thesamesurveyfoundthatamajorityof
institutions had added corporate relations staff in the past three years, whereas less
than10%reportedalossofcorporaterelationsstaff19.
18NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question23.19NACRO2016BenchmarkingSurveyResults,Question9.
31
Chapter4
RecommendationsandConclusion
Introduction
Universities and corporationspursue relationshipswithoneanother to fulfill a
varietyofobjectives.Onthecorporateside,theseincludeoutsourcingresearchforcost
reasonsor to gain access to expertiseor equipmentnot available in-house; achieving
corporatesocialresponsibilitygoals;gainingaccesstograduatesasasourceoftalentin
a competitive marketplace or to retain valued staff who are alumni; and for staff
development or executive education purposes. These are not new objectives; more
than30yearsago,HerbertFusfieldofNewYorkUniversityobservedthat“[t]heprimary
objectiveofindustryinestablishinguniversityrelationshipsistoobtaincompetentand
adequatepersonnel”(Fusfield,1983).
Universities have objectives in corporate partnerships that in many cases are
complementary to those of corporations: universities have faculty, postdocs and
studentswithexpertiseandresearchintereststhatmayalignwiththoseofcorporations
butwhichneedexternalfundingtofueltheenterprise;universitiesgenerategraduates
seeking employment; universities have instructional capacity; and many universities
includejobcreationoreconomicdevelopmentintheirmissionstatements.
Traditionally, most universities focused their corporate outreach on
“advancement”—oftendrivenbygeographicproximity to company facilitiesorby the
32
alumni status of senior corporate officials. In recent years, a number of universities
have instituted changes in their corporate relations strategies, organization, or both.
These changesweredriven in part by theNACROwhitepapers andbybest practices
recommendations from theUniversity-IndustryDemonstration Partnership. Examples
of best practices include simplification of terms for intellectual property licensing;
managing expectations of both partners, particularly regardingmissions and urgency;
and establishing clear outcome goals at the beginning of a collaboration. The two
organizations polled academic and corporate members, and concluded that the
longstanding willingness of corporations to emphasize open-ended philanthropy in
university relationshad largelycometoanend. Instead,corporationswereseekinga
more nuanced relationship that delivered measurable return on investment. This
changecoincidedwithrecognitionbyuniversitiesthatfundingfromstateandespecially
federalgovernmentsourceswasunlikelytogrowoverthelongterm,andinmanycases
was in decline. Influenced by the findings of NACRO and UIDP studies, academic
institutions have explored opportunities to pursue more robust corporate/industrial
partnerships. Factors influencing the ability and willingness of universities to pivot
towards increased corporate engagement include skillsets of frontline fundraisers,
alignment of faculty research expertise with needs of potential corporate partners,
culturaldifferencesbetweenthetwoworlds,anddifferentattitudestowardintellectual
propertyownershipandopennesstopublicationofresearchfindings.
NewYorkUniversity’scorporaterelationsorganizationcurrentlyhaselementsof
both the traditional, philanthropically focused approach and the NACRO-driven
33
“holistic”approach.NYUhasacentralcorporateandfoundationrelationsoffice(UDAR)
that reports to the senior development officer of the university, aswell as dedicated
specialists in several of the university’s professional schools, who report to their
respectiveDeansbutareconsideredpartofthecentraldevelopmentteam.Officersin
thecentraldevelopmentofficehavebothcorporateandfoundationresponsibilities,and
indicated in interviews that foundations consistently yieldmorephilanthropicawards.
UDAR’sperformancemetricsplaceapremiumonthenumberandsizeofphilanthropic
dollars, and UDAR’s mission statement says that it is “dedicated to soliciting private
funding necessary to support the strategic goals of New York University regarding
teaching,learningandresearch”20.Contractsthatauthorizecorporateengagementsare
carefully parsed to determine whether the incoming funds are treated as sponsored
programs grants, or as gifts. The university tracks corporate contacts through an
Advancedatabase,butthereisnooverarchingsystemthatconnectsalloftheelements
relevant to corporate engagement (alumni employment, sponsored research,
philanthropy, procurement, licensing royalties, executive education/workforce
development,campusrecruiting,internship/mentorship,andboardmembership).NYU
has also not implemented a central concierge-style position or office whose primary
function is to serve as air traffic controller, fielding incoming inquiries and directing
themtoappropriatefacultymembersoradministrativeofficesaswellasidentifyingand
targetingcorporationswhoseproductsandservicesalignwithuniversitystrengths.
20http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration/office-of-the-president/university-developmentandalumnirelations/university-development-and-alumni-relations----contact-list.html
34
Recommendations
NewYorkUniversityhasahighlyproductivedevelopmentoperation: in2016 it
reportedraising$461million,13th-highestamongAmericanuniversities(CouncilforAid
to Education, 2017). NYU has steadily improved its competitiveness as a research
institution over the past decade, rising to rank among the top 30 in research and
development expenditures, with more than $600 million spent on R&D activities in
2016. By reviewing its corporate engagement practices, NYU has the opportunity to
compareitsorganizationandresourcingforcorporateengagementwiththoseofother
institutionsthathavemadechanges inrecentyearsandreportedpositiveresults.The
mutualbenefitsthataccruetoarobust,multifacetedrelationshipbetweenuniversities
andcorporationsaremany,including
• Aflowofgraduateswhoarereadytoenterintoproductivecareers.Suchgraduatesarevitaltothecompetitivenessofacorporation,andunderstandingtheneedsofemployerscan inform curriculumdevelopment and improve a university’s ability to compete forstrongstudents.
• Corporationsarethemostimportantlicensorsofuniversitypatents.NYUhasranked#1in licensing income over the past decade, in large part due to royalties on theautoimmunedrugRemicade.21
• Research collaborations drive cross-fertilization of ideas, leveraging of facilities andequipment,andidentificationoftalent.
A primary finding of this project is that while NYU practices the individual
elements of productive corporate engagement, it does not do so in an optimally
21https://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/research/documents/RCR/collaborationswithindustryconflictofinterestdatasharingandownership05_24_2011.pdf;Huggett,Brady.“TopUSuniversities,institutesforlifesciencesin2014.”NatureBiotechnology22Oct2015,doi:10.1038/bioe.2015.11.Accessed19March2017.http://www.nature.com/bioent/2015/151001/fig_tab/bioe.2015.11_F2.html.
35
integrated, coordinated and strategic fashion across the university. The many
impressive examples of successful corporate gifts or research agreements are just
that—individual successes. Therefore, a central recommendation is thatNYUconsider
taking several steps tomove it deliberately and incrementally towards an integrated
corporateengagementstrategy.Theseactionsmaybecategorizedas
• Organization• Collaborativeinstitutionalcultureandsupport• MetricsandPerformanceIndicators• Portfoliomanagement• Evaluationofinstitutionalassetsandstrengths• Roadmap
Organization. A number of universities have created a role that serves as a
campus-widecoordinatorofcoordinatorofcorporaterelations.Thispositionhasbeen
described as “air traffic controller”, “traffic cop”, or “concierge”. The essential
responsibility is facilitation of knowledge sharing, both within the university and
betweentheuniversityandpotentialorestablishedcorporatepartners.Therationale
for investing in this role is that corporations—unlike individual donors, most
foundations, and government agencies—can have so many touch points across the
institution that it’s easy for internal communication to get lost or scrambled.
Furthermore,coherentengagementstrategiesrequiresomeonetomonitorandreport
on progress towards goals. The coordinator does not “own” the relationship in the
senseofexclusivityorcontrol,butaccountabilityforthestatusandhealthofimportant
partnershipscanbeamajorjobresponsibility.
36
AtNYU,ifacoordinatingpositioniscreateditcouldreportjointlytotheoffices
oftheSeniorVicePresidentforDevelopmentandtheSeniorViceProvostforResearch,
to acknowledge the importance of both philanthropy and sponsored research in
corporateengagement,orprimarilytotheOfficeofResearchwithadottedlinetothe
OfficeofDevelopmentinrecognitionthatthebulkofcorporatefundingislikelytocome
fromsponsoredresearchcollaborations.
Responsibilitiesofthecoordinatingpositionwouldinclude
• Developingandmaintainingalistofcorporationsdeemedtobekeypartnersortargets,alongwithspecificstrategiesfordevelopingeachrelationship.Theseplanscouldincludegoals,responsibilities,andactionplans.
• Chairingandsettingtheagendaforthecorporaterelationsstakeholders’council,whichwould be charged with evaluating and approving strategic plans for corporateengagement.
• Overseeingthepreparationandupdatingofcorporateprofiles,whichholddataabouthistoricandcurrentpartnershipactivities,aswellasaconcisesummaryofthestrategicplanforthecompany.
• Preparinganddistributingstewardshipreportsforkeycorporatepartners.• Preparing and delivering briefings and talking points for senior university officials
meetingwithcorporateofficers.• ServingastheknowledgehubforincomingcorporateinquiriesaboutwheretofindNYU
expertise or other assets, and for internal inquiries about potential corporateengagement,particularlyforresearchsupportorcollaborations.
• Developing and reporting onmetrics that treat corporate relationships as a businessportfolio, to bemanaged the way a business development specialist would handle aprospectlist.
Ifthecoordinatingfunctioniscreatedasasingleposition,thepersonservingas
coordinator will have to rely for support on existing offices such as University
Development and Alumni Relations, the Office of Industrial Liaison, the Office of
SponsoredPrograms,andschool-specificdevelopmentofficers.Creatingacoordinating
positionwouldaddresstwoofthefive ‘essentialelements’ofthe2011NACROpaper:
one-stop shopping and campus coordination. It is preferable that this position not
37
include revenue targets in the performancemeasures, to (1) emphasize the range of
activitiesthatcontributestrategicallytotheuniversity’sgoalsincorporateengagement;
and(2)eliminatepotentialconflictswithNYUstaffwhodohavefundraisingtargets.
A secondorganizational recommendation is to consider establishingdiscipline-
specific corporate engagement specialists with subject matter expertise, either as a
central “industrial liaison”unitor in schoolsor researchcenters. One suchoperation
alreadyinexistenceistheOfficeofTherapeuticsAlliancesattheNYULangoneMedical
Center, staffed by five life science Ph.D.s Another example is at the University of
Washington, which has three Ph.D.s responsible for Industry Relations: one in
engineering, one in health sciences, and one for university-wide initiatives. At the
UniversityofNotreDame,theSeniorDirectorforCorporateRelationsnotedthatasthe
university works to aggressively build its research base, it has hired “relationship
people” with “academic or industry backgrounds”. A third example is Pennsylvania
StateUniversity,whichhasbothacentralOfficeofIndustrialPartnershipsthatreports
totheVicePresidentforResearch,and“embedded”industryspecialistsintheColleges
ofEngineeringandAgricultureaswellastheMaterialsResearchInstitute.22
A third organizational recommendation is to consider assigning corporate and
foundation responsibilities separately among the central development staff of UDAR,
rather than assigning both corporate and foundation roles. A general observation at
most of the universities whose corporate relations officers were interviewed for this
project is that corporate engagement is quite different than foundation work.
22DonMothersbaugh,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,interviewwiththeauthor.March30,2017.
38
Corporate engagement is more about relationship management and less focused on
preparingcompellingfundingproposals.
CollaborativeInstitutionalCultureandSupport.Supportfromsenioracademic
officers was widely acknowledged as important among the corporate relations
professionals who were interviewed, but it bears emphasizing because support can
range from sporadic and superficial to active and essential. The director of the
UniversityofMichigan’sBusinessEngagementCenter,whichwascitedinseveralofmy
interviews as a model for superior corporate relations, noted that the BEC was
established at the specific direction of a former President of the University, and has
sustainedstrongsupportfromthemostseniormembersofboththeresearchandthe
development offices of that institution. Opportunities for actively demonstrating
support include participating in meetings with senior corporate officers or board
members, lending the prestige of their office to stewardship reports, publicly
acknowledging new partnerships and research successes, and supporting the
investmentinpositionsdedicatedtocorporateengagement.
Institutionalculture ideallyconsistsofcreatingasharedsenseofownership(in
the sense of accountability, not exclusivity) and commitment to the success of the
corporate engagement enterprise. An important component of NACRO’s holistic
approach is the large number of university functions and offices that have roles in
corporateengagement,beyondthedevelopmentandresearchorganizations:executive
education/workforcedevelopment, regionaleconomicdevelopment,procurementand
39
vendormanagement,andstudentcareerdevelopment/recruitmentshouldallfeelthat
theyhaveastake in thecorporaterelationsenterprise. ChristopherGroffofFairleigh
Dickinson University has proposed creating a matrix to identify touch points for
corporate engagement, with partners or prospects along one axis, and internal
universityunitsalonganother(Fusch,2011).Populatingthegrididentifiesopportunities
and responsibilities. Emphasizing the range of opportunities for partnershipsmoves
thefocusawayfromitstraditionalfundraisingemphasisandtowardabroadersenseof
engagement. Several people interviewed for this project noted the importance of
cultivatingpartnerships,sometimesforyears,beforemovingto“theask”.Committing
to an honest self-appraisal of university strengths and deficiencies, particularly in the
context of competitive or peer institutions, was noted by several corporate relations
professionals(seeAssetsandStrengths,below).
Anotherelementofacollaborativeinstitutionalcultureisinformationsharing,to
avoidconflictingorexcessivecommunicationswithcorporatepartnersandtoadvance
agreed-upon strategies. All institutions whose corporate relations officers were
interviewed for thisprojectusea systemthat trackscontacts. Asnotedearlier,most
(75%)ofNACROmemberswhoweresurveyedreportedthattheirinstitutionshadsuch
adatabasesystem;ofthose,morethanhalfuseeitherAdvanceorRaiser’sEdge,bothof
whicharemarketedas fundraising software. Oneperson interviewed for thisproject
noted that Advance’s focus on individuals made it less useful for working with
corporations,andfoundSalesforcetobeamoreflexiblesolutionforcorporaterelations
purposes. NYU already deals with a diverse collection of database systems and
40
interfaces—ifitmovestowardsadedicatedcorporaterelationsteam,itshouldevaluate
theavailableoptionsforrelationshipmanagementsoftwareandconsiderasystemthat
bestsuitstheneedsofcorporateengagementratherthanassumingthatAdvanceisthe
defaultsolution.
Metrics and Performance Indicators. Measuring the performance of
organizationsandindividualsisatopicofperennialinterestanddiscussionincorporate
relations. The2012NACROMetrics paper identifiedmore than30possiblemeasures
for consideration by corporate relations offices. In NACRO’s 2016 member survey,
sevenmetricswererankedas“mostusedtoevaluateCorporateRelationsOfficers”at
their institutions: thetopthreewerevariousversionsof“dealsanddollars”,followed
by threemeasures of visits or engagement, followed by sponsored [research] dollars
committed.AnotherrecommendationisthatNYUestablishnomorethan5-7measures
or performance indicators to help guide and evaluate progress towards its corporate
relationsgoals.Bestpracticesinmanagementliteratureonperformanceindicatorsare
(1) divide them roughly equally between lagging (backward looking) and leading
(predictive) indicators; (2) use independent or competing indicators; and (3) avoid
dependent indicators. Anexampleof competing indicators frommarketingwouldbe
cost per lead (desirable to minimize) vs. qualification rate (desirable to maximize).
Another recommendation is that NYU adopt a set of performance indicators for
corporaterelationsthatcanbeappliedtobothcentralandunit-basedoffices,andthat
41
are meaningful for gift-focused, sponsored research-focused, and other relevant
activities.Thesemetricscouldinclude:
1. Dollars: Total valueof corporate financial support toNYU (forunit staff, to theirunit)overpast5years(laggingindicator)
2. Dollars: Total value of corporate financial support to NYU/unit over past 12 months(laggingindicator)
3. Contacts:Numberofcorporatevisitsorconferencecalls/videoconferencesbyNYUstafftocompanyorbycompanyrepresentativestoNYUoverpastyear,comparedtoaverageofpast3years(leadingindicator)
4. Engagement:Numberofproposalssubmittedtocorporationsplusnumberofcontractscompleted,comparedtoaverageofprior3years(laggingindicator)
5. Touch points: Number of companies that moved up one tier of engagement, minusnumberthatmoveddown(leadingindicator)
Two additional performance indicators that could help benchmark NYU’s
corporateengagementagainstotherresearchinstitutionsare:
6. RankingofNYUinNSFHERDdataforR&Dexpenditures,comparedtoprioryear(laggingindicator)
7. Ranking of NYU in the Council for Aid to Education’s Voluntary Support of Educationdata,comparedtoprioryear(laggingindicator)
Datafromthemedicalschoolshouldbeexcludedfromthesemetrics,becauseof
thedistortingimpactofclinicaltrialcontracts.
Discussionsofmetricsinevitablyconnectwithissuesofperformanceevaluation
and compensation, and--in university development offices--to incentive eligibility. At
some institutions, corporate relations professionals are eligible for bonuses, and in
otherinstitutionstheyarenot.Thepatternappearstobeconsistentwithwhetherthe
focusofanofficeoranindividualisonphilanthropyoronsponsoredresearch.IfNYU
adopts a portfolio management approach to corporate engagement, the first five
performance indicatorswould apply to individuals aswell as offices, if each person’s
portfolioissubstitutedfortheoveralllistofmanagedrelationships.
42
Portfolio Management. NYU should consider implementing a Portfolio
Management approach to the cultivation of corporate relationships. Currently,
corporate engagement is driven largely by the current perceivedneedsof schools, as
articulated by deans, department chairs, center directors, or faculty. A structured
process is recommended that uses agreed-upon factors to develop and maintain a
portfolio of current and aspirational corporate partners while allowing flexibility to
expand or modify the list and strategies, as circumstances dictate. A simple but
quantitativeorsemi-quantitativesetofcriteriashouldguidedevelopmentofthelistof
prioritizedcorporatepartners,including:
1. Scaleormagnitudeofrecentrelationship(totalfinancialsupportforlast3-5years,normalizedtoa1-5scale)
2. Strengthofcompanyasaprospectivepartner(averageof2a-2c)a. NumberofNYUalumniatcompany(perLinkedInprofilesoralumnidatabase,as
apercentageoftotalemployeescomparedtotheaverageofallcompaniesunderconsideration,ona1-5scale)
b. NumberofemployeesinNewYorkCitymetropolitanarea(fromLinkedInorCrain’s-styledataonNewYorkemployers,comparedtoallcompaniesunderconsideration,ona1-5scale)
c. Revenueormarketcapitalization(frompublicfinancialdata,comparedtoallcompaniesunderconsideration,ona1-5scale)
3. AlignmentofcompanywithNYUassets/strengths(subjective,basedonnumberofcurrenttouchpointsorNYUstakeholdercouncil’sfamiliaritywithcorporategoals,needsandstrategies,ona1-5scale)
Thesumofthenumbersassignedforcriteria1-3isacompany’s“score”,outofa
possible total of 15points. Thehighest-scoring companieswill beassigned tooneof
five tiers based on the criteria inWayne Johnson’sUniversity Relationsmodel,which
emphasizesthenumberofengagementtouchpoints.Itisgenerallydesirabletomovea
company in the direction ofmore touch points or elements of engagement, but that
maynotalwaysbefeasible.
43
Asecondlistofcorporatepartnersshouldbeconsidered,basedonbusinessor
industry sector. Thiswouldprovide anadditionalway to identifypotential partners,
becausetheremaybeimportantrelationshipsthatwouldnotscorehighenoughunder
criteria 1-3 to make a “top 20” list, but which might represent the most important
potentialpartnershipinagivensector.Suggestedsectorsare:
• Healthcare,includingpharmaceuticals,biotechnology,medicaldevices,hospitals• Manufacturing,includingfashion• Engineering,includingaerospace,electrical,biomedical,construction• Informationtechnology• Financialservices,includingbanking,realestate,insurance• Media,includingpublishing,entertainment,broadcast• Telecommunications,includingcable,wireless,internetservice• Hospitality,includinghotels,restaurant/foodservice,travel• Retail
The portfolio management approach for the centralized coordination of
corporateengagementatNYUcanbedevelopedbyassigningcompaniestoappropriate
peopleformanagementandaccountability. “Appropriate”mightmeansomeonewith
subjectmatterexpertise,ortothepersonmanagingcorporaterelationsintheNYUunit
that already enjoys a relationshipwith the company. The number of companies in a
person’sportfoliovariedconsiderably;5-10isatypicalrangeforcompaniesthatjustify
intensiveengagementstrategies,andupto50wheremanyofthecompanieshavelow
levels of engagement and are not targeted for advancement through a tier system.
Insteadoftryingtocreatebespokestrategiesfora largenumberofcompanies,useof
theNACRO-styletiersystemisrecommended,creatingstrategiesforeachtierthatcan
becustomizedasneededforasinglecompany.Tierstrategiesbasicallyconsistofadding
points of engagement and increasing the dollar value of existing relationships.
Executiononthetieredapproachtocorporateengagementrequiressteadilyincreasing
44
knowledge ofwhat a companywants to achieve and how the university’s assets can
furtherthosegoals,aswellastheconverse:identifyingresearchandfundraisingneeds
at the university, then finding and cultivating corporations that can support those
needs.
Maintainingcurrentknowledgeofexistingor targetedcorporatepartners isan
importantelementofportfoliomanagement. Profilesofcorporationssummarizethe
extentofcurrentandpastengagement,thenumberofalumniemployedandalumniin
senior positions, and recent contacts or planned interactions. They are the basis for
briefingsinanticipationofmeetingsbetweenseniorrepresentativesfromtheuniversity
and the company, and generally serve to university staff about plans, contacts, and
activity at selected corporations. A challenge in preparing andmaintaining corporate
profilesatNYU is thedisparate locationsofdataonalumni, grantandgiftactivity,as
wellastheneedtoupdatechanges.Investingtheefforttoprepareatemplatethatcan
be populated as much as possible by direct data downloads is recommended,
populating it for all companies in the top two or three tiers. Profiles should be
refreshed every 6-12months to retain their value. Note that some institutions have
consideredbutnotimplementedaprofilesystem,concludingthattheefforttomaintain
themwasnot justifiedby their relatively infrequentuse. Theseuniversities tolerated
theoccasionalneed fora firedrill topull togetherdata inanticipationof ahigh-level
meetingorvisit.
45
EvaluationofInstitutionalAssetsandStrengths.Corporateengagementefforts
at NYU should be grounded in a candid self-evaluation of institutional strengths and
gaps, including an audit of facilities and of major equipment that the university can
bringtoaresearchcollaboration.Theinternalreviewshouldbeginwiththeuniversity’s
strategic plan, to ground it in institutional priorities. It should include a realistic
comparison of NYU’s competitive position when compared to other local institutions
and peer universities nationally. It should identify faculty who have nationally- and
internationally-knownprograms,andshouldincludedevelopmentofathoughtfulvalue
propositionthatcanbesharedwithcorporations.Thevaluepropositioncanincludethe
goalsandvaluesoftheentireuniversity,supplementedwithspecificinformationabout
schools, centers,departments,and individual researchprograms that lend themselves
to external funding and collaboration. This audit process should be transparent and
conducted in collaboration with representatives of all academic and administrative
units. The outcome should be a concise summary of the university’s strengths and
assets,togetherwithtabulardescriptionsofmajorfacilitiesandequipmentthatcanbe
shared with interested corporate partners. A separate, non-public document can
provide comparisons with competitive and peer institutions for use by corporate
engagementstaff.
Accessto informationontheresearch interestsofuniversity faculty isvaluable
for developing collaborations, particularly across disciplines where potential
collaboratorsare less likelytoknowwhohasexpertise inanother fieldat theirown—
much less another—institution. A research engagement officer seeking to connect
46
corporationswiththerightresearchersattheir institutionisarecurringuserofsucha
database.Researcherdatabasesandtoolsfordiscoveryarepartofaclassofsoftware
called “research networking” and “research profiling” systems. Several dozen are
characterized in Wikipedia, including many that were homegrown and several from
commercial sources (InfoEd, Elsevier, Proquest) (Wikipedia, 2016). NYU has licensed
PurefromElsevierandhasbrandedthelocalimplementationas“NYUScholars”.23NYU
Scholars is in the process of being populated for selected schools and departments.
Some of its data can be pulled fromuniversity or public and private databases (Pure
extractskeywordsas“Fingerprints”fromthetitlesandtextofpublications,buteffective
usewillrequireindividualstoidentifykeywordsthatdescribefacultyinterests—someof
whichmightnotbereflectedinkeywordspulledalgorithmicallyfrompublishedresearch
or grant applications. A coordinated effort is recommended, to increase the pace of
populatingNYUScholarsforallschoolsanddepartmentswherecorporatecollaboration
and funding is a possibility. As of March 2017, NYU Scholars had fewer than 500
profiles from tenure-track faculty in science and technology departments. NYU has
approximately 1,600 tenure-track faculty.24Many are not in science or technology
departments,but itappears that faculty representation inNYUScholars is incomplete
even for those programs, and few profiles show evidence of customized entry of
keywords.TheautomatedFingerprintingSystemhaslimitationsintheusefulnessofits
output—it often produces excessively broad keywords like “genes”, “DNA”, or
23https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu24http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/new-york-university/academic-life/faculty-composition/
47
“proteins”. Faculty members or their designees should augment or replace the
automatedtermswithkeywordsaccuratelyreflectingtheirworkandinterests.
Roadmap.TheframeworkforreviewingNYU’scorporateengagementpractices
and organization and implementing new practices should be executed systematically,
with an agreed-upon timeline, assigned responsibilities, and deliverables. Figure 6
presentsahigh-levelschematicofanimplementationroadmap.
Figure6.Implementationroadmapforacorporateengagementstrategy.
Managing the process would be a core responsibility of a corporate relations
coordinator.Anumberofactionswithdeliverablesshouldbescheduledinanintensive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Year1 Year2
Leadershipcharter
Keypartnerlist
Createanaly@cscapability
CRMevalua@on&implementa@on
Auditofassets
3yearstrategicplan
Stakeholdermee@ngs
CEworkinggroupmee@ngs
School/deptoutreach&educa@on
Benchmarkingvisits
Corporateoutreach
Metricdevelopment
Reviewprogressauer12months
Implementa@onRoadmap
48
periodof sixmonthsor so, becauseanticipated improvements in theeffectivenessof
corporate engagement depends on having clear strategies with a charter or
endorsementfromsenioruniversityleadership,aswellasalistofcorporatepartners,a
set ofmetrics, andmarketingmaterials including the audit of assets (equipment and
facilities, key laboratories). Site visits to other universities with effective corporate
relationsprogramsshouldbemadeduringtheprocessofreviewingNYU’spractices,to
testassumptionsbymakingobservationsandaskingquestions.Amajordecisioninthe
first sixmonthswill bewhether to implement a different contact systemor CRM; its
implementationwouldprobablytakeayearifinterfacesarebuilttoexistingsystems.A
reviewafter 12monthswill compareprogress toplan.An important elementof a 12
monthreviewwillbeadecisionaboutwhetheradditionalresourcingisjustified,suchas
the addition of school-specific corporate relations specialists with subject matter
expertise.
Conclusion
This research project found that New York University’s approach to corporate
relationsdoesnotconformtoanumberofthebestpracticesarticulatedbytheNetwork
of Academic Corporate Relations Officers and implemented over the past decade by
manyresearchuniversities.Variancesincludetheabsenceofseparatecorporateversus
foundationresponsibilities inthe jobresponsibilitiesofmostcentralandunit-assigned
University Development and Alumni Relations staff, and relatively few corporate
relations staffwith subjectmatter expertise. Corporate engagement atNYUhas also
49
tendedtobetransactionalratherthanstrategic.Therearenotableexceptionstothese
generalizations, and NYU’s impressive track record with research collaborations and
fundraisingdemonstratethattheuniversityisabletocreatesuccessfulpartnershipsand
delivercompellingresults.NYUhasanopportunitytotakeitscorporateengagementto
another levelbysystematicallyworkingthroughaprocessthatwill result inaclarified
and revitalized corporate engagement mission that can leverage the university’s
powerful assemblage of talent and resources. The lessons learned from other
universities suggest that assigning industry-facing roles in corporate relations to
professionalswithsubjectmatterknowledgeandbusinessexperiencebuildsconfidence
incorporatepartnersthattheirneedsandgoalsarewellunderstoodintheuniversity.
Creating a team that includes both business development specialists and fundraising
professionalswillstrengthenNYU’sabilitytoidentifyandpersuadecorporationsofthe
benefitsof investing inpartnershipswithNYU. Creatingaclearbut flexiblesystemof
engagement tiers will establish a framework for building a collaborative institutional
culture, where numerous stakeholders will be able to advance their interests and
responsibilities.Thetiersystemwillalsomakeitpossibletorationallyassignresources
to activities intended tomove a given relationship towardsmore touch points and a
higherlevelofengagement,ratherthantreatingallpotentialcorporaterelationshipsas
identical.Theresult,overtime,willbeanelevationofcorporatepartnershipsatNYUin
dollarvalue,inresearchresults,insatisfactiononbothsides,andinvisibility.
50
Appendix1
NewYorkUniversityInterviews
Title OfficeExecutiveDirector,CorporateandFoundationRelations
UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations
AssociateVP,GlobalPublicHealth,Science&Technology
UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations
AssociateVPforAlumniRelations UniversityDevelopmentandAlumniRelations
SeniorViceProvostofResearch OfficeoftheProvostAssociateViceProvost,ResearchComplianceandAdministrator
OfficeoftheSeniorViceProvostforResearch
Director,OfficeofSponsoredPrograms ContractOfficeandOfficeofSponsoredPrograms
ExecutiveDirector,OfficeofIndustrialLiaison SchoolofMedicine,Dean'sOfficeVPforFinancialOperationsandTreasurer Procurement
AssistantVP,CampusServices OfficeoftheEVPforFinanceandInformationTechnology
AssistantVP,StudentAffairs WassermanCenterforCareerDevelopment
ExecutiveDirector,InnovationVentureFundandEntrepreneurshipProgram EntrepreneurialInstitute
DirectorofDevelopment,CUSP CenterforUrbanScienceandProgressandUDAR
AssociateDeanofDevelopment TandonSchoolofEngineeringandUDAR
AssociateDean,CorporateRelations,CareerServices&LeadershipDevelopment SternSchoolofBusiness
Director,CorporateandFoundationRelations SternSchoolofBusinessSeniorDevelopmentDivisionDirectorforScience,CorporationandFoundationRelations NYULangoneMedicalCenter
Director,CorporatePartnerships NYULangoneMedicalCenterAssociateGeneralCounsel OfficeoftheGeneralCounsel
51
Appendix2
ExternalUniversityInterviews
University TitleUniversityofNotreDame SeniorDirector,CorporateRelationsUniversityofMichigan ExecutiveDirector,BusinessEngagementCenterBostonUniversity AssociateDirector,CorporateRelations
TempleUniversity ExecutiveDirector,TempleindustryPartnersProgram
DukeUniversity AssociateDirector,CorporateRelations
UniversityofSouthernCaliforniaDevelopmentalDirector-Specialist,DornsifeCollege;SeniorExecutiveDirector,CorporateandFoundationRelations
PurdueUniversitySpecialAdviser,CorporateandGlobalPartnerships;DirectorofPartnershipAnalytics,CorporateandGlobalPartnerships
UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside DirectorofCorporateandStrategicPartnerships
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity AssistantDirector,OfficeofIndustrialPartnerships
DartmouthCollege SeniorManagingDirector,DartmouthCorporateRelations
UniversityofWashington DirectorofIndustryRelationsOhioStateUniversity AssociateVicePresident,IndustryLiaisonOffice
CarnegieMellonUniversity ExecutiveDirectorofCorporateandInstitutionalPartnerships
NorthwesternUniversity Director,OfficeofCorporateEngagementUniversityofCalifornia,Davis Manager,OfficeofCorporateRelations
52
Appendix3
JohnsHopkinsUniversityInstitutionalReviewBoardApproval
JOHNS HOPKINSU N I V E R S I T Y
Homewood Institutional Review Board3400 N. Charles StreetBaltimore MD 21218-2685410-516-6580hHp://web.jhu.edu/Homewood-IRB/
Michael McCloskey, PhDChair
Date: February 9, 2017
PI Name: Marianne WoodsStudy #: HIRB00005467 Study Name: Improving Corporate Engagement Processes at a Research University
Date of Review: 2/9/2017Date of Approval: 2/9/2017
The Homewood IRB reviewed the information provided for the above-mentioned project and hasdetermined that this research does not qualify as federally-regulated human subjects research, andtherefore does not require IRB approval. This determination has been made with the understandingthat the proposed research either (a) does not involve a systematic research investigation designedto develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge, or (b) does not collect identifiable private dataabout a human participant.
You may proceed with the study at any time. No further communications with the HIRB arenecessary unless the procedures in your project are changed in such a manner that would requireIRB review or approval.
Please keep this message in your files for future reference. Thank you for contacting the HomewoodIRB about this research and for providing the requested information to make this determination.Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Study Team Members:Robert Garber
APPROVAL IS GRANTED UNDER THE TERMS OF FWA00005834 FEDERAL-WIDE ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DHHSREGULATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTS
53
WorksCitedAnonymous.2014.“Nomoney,noresearch.”Naturemethods11:1077(October30,2014);DOI:10.1038/nmeth.3171.AccessedApril7,2017.AssociationofUniversityTechnologyManagers.2015.HighlightsofAUTM’sU.S.LicensingActivitySurveyFY2015.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://www.autm.net/AUTMMain/media/SurveyReportsPDF/AUTM_FY2015_Highlights_US_no_appendix_FINAL.pdfBoroush,Mark.2016.“U.S.R&Dincreasedbymorethan$20billioninboth2013and2014,withsimilarincreaseestimatedfor2015.”NSFInfoBrief16-316(September15,2016).AccessedMarch22,2017.https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16316/Britt,Ronda.2016.“UniversitiesreportfourthstraightyearofdecliningfederalR&DfundinginFY2015.”NSFInfoBrief17-303(November17,2016).AccessedApril7,2017.https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17303/Bruneel,Johan,PabloD’EsteandAmmonSalter.2010.“Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversity-industrycollaboration.”ResearchPolicy(May11,2010);DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.AccessedMarch20,2017.https://feb.kuleuven.be/public/n14100/Literature%20Exam/1-s2.0-S0048733310001034-main.pdfBruning,StephenD.andJohnALedingham.1998.“Organization-publicrelationshipsandconsumersatisfaction:Theroleofrelationshipsinthesatisfactionmix.”CommunicationResearchReports15(2):198-208;DOI:10.1080/08824099809362114.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08824099809362114BusinessRelationshipManagementInstitute.Nodate.“AboutBusinessRelationshipManagement.”AccessedMarch22,2017.https://brm.institute/about-business-relationship-management/CommitteeontheFutureoftheCollegesofAgricultureintheLandGrantUniversitySystem.1995.CollegesofAgricultureattheLandGrantUniversities:aProfile.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress.CouncilforAidtoEducation.2016.“Collegesanduniversitiesraiserecord$40.30billionin2015”.Pressrelease,January27,2016.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE_2015_Press_Release.pdf
54
CouncilforAidtoEducation.2017.“Collegesanduniversitiesraise$41billionin2016”.Pressrelease,February7,2017.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE-2016-Press-Release.pdfDaniels,Mitch.2016.“AnnualopenlettertothepeopleofIndianafromMitchDaniels.”January2016.AccessedApril7,2017.https://www.purdue.edu/president/messages/1601-med-openletter.htmlFusch,Daniel.2011.“AnEngagement-CenteredApproachtoCorporateRelations.”HigherEdImpact(November3,2011).AccessedFebruary10,2017.https://www.academicimpressions.com/news/engagement-centered-approach-corporate-relations#topFusfield,Herbert.1983.“OverviewofUniversity-IndustryResearchInteractions.InPartnersintheResearchEnterprise:University-CorporateRelationsinScienceandTechnology,editedbyThomasW.Langfitt,SheldonHackney,AlfredP.FishmanandAlbertV.Glowasky,10-19.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Gertner,Jon.2013.TheIdeaFactory:BellLabsandtheGreatAgeofAmericanInnovation.NewYork:PenguinBooks.Hirleman,Daniel.2015.“TheImportanceofCorporatePartnershipsandhowtoFortifythem.”Slides3-17inDevelopingCorporatePartnershipsforResearchandCommercialization.Webinarpresentation.AccessedApril7,2017.https://www.lesusacanada.org/resource/collection/.../purduecreatingcorporate.pdf Huggett,Brady.2015.“TopUSuniversities,institutesforlifesciencesin2014.”NatureBiotechnology(October22,2015),DOI:10.1038/bioe.2015.11.Investopedia.Nodate.“RelationshipManagement.”AccessedMarch22,2017.http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/customer.aspJackson,Janet.1990.“AT&TBellLaboratories.”InTheFroehlich/KentEncyclopediaofTelecommunications,editedbyFritzE.FroehlichandAllenKent.Vol.1,397-406.NewYork:MarcelDekker.Johnson,WayneC.2003.“UniversityRelations:TheHPModel”.IndustryandHigherEducation(December1,2003)17(6).Johnson,WayneC.2006.“TheCollaborationImperative:UniversitiesandIndustryasPartnersinthe21stCenturyKnowledgeEconomy.”AccessedFebruary10,2017.http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_051414.pdf
55
Kevles,DanielJ.1979.ThePhysicists:theHistoryofaScientificCommunityinModernAmerica.NewYork:VintageBooks.Ledingham,JohnA.2003.“ExplicatingRelationshipManagementasaGeneralTheoryofPublicRelations.JPublicRelationsResearch15(2):181-198.Mitchell,Michael,MichaelLeachman,andKathleenMasterson.2016.“Fundingdown,tuitionup.Statecutstohighereducationthreatenqualityandaffordabilityatpubliccolleges.”CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities,August15,2016.AccessedApril7,2017.http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-upNationalScienceFoundation.2016.“HigherEducationResearchandDevelopmentSurvey.FiscalYear2015”.Table17.AccessedMarch22,2017.https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2015/html/HERD2015_DST_17.htmlNetworkofAcademicCorporateRelationsOfficersBenchmarkingCommittee2012.MetricsforaSuccessfulTwenty-FirstCenturyAcademicCorporateRelationsProgram.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://nacrocon.org/resourcesNetworkofAcademicCorporateRelationsOfficersWritingTeamandBenchmarkingCommittee.2011.FiveEssentialElementsofaSuccessfulTwenty-FirstCenturyUniversityCorporateRelationsProgram.AccessedMarch22,2017.http://nacrocon.org/resourcesPerkmann,MarkusandAmmonSalter.2012.“Howtocreateproductivepartnershipswithuniversities.”MITSloanManagementReview(June18,2012).AccessedMarch29,2017.http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-create-productive-partnerships-with-universities/Southerton,Jeff,GeanieUmberger,GoranMatijasevic,ScottSteeleandWayneJohnson.2012.PartnershipContinuum.UnderstandingandDevelopingthePathwaysforBeneficialUniversity-IndustryEngagement.GeorgiaTechResearchCorporationonbehalfoftheUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnership.Stewart,IrvinG.1948.OrganizingScientificResearchforWar:theAdministrativeHistoryofOSRD.Boston:Little,Brown.UnitedStatesBureauofLaborStatistics.2017.“AllEmployees:TotalPrivateIndustries[USPRIV]”.AccessedMarch28,2017.https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIVUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnershipResearcherGuidebookWorkingGroup.2012.ResearcherGuidebook:AGuideforSuccessfulInstitutional-Industrial
56
Collaborations.GeorgiaTechResearchCorporationonbehalfoftheUniversity-IndustryDemonstrationPartnership.UniversityofIllinoisOfficeofCorporateRelations.2015.AnnualReport2015.AccessedMarch28,2017.http://corporaterelations.illinois.edu/resources/downloads/OCRAnnualReport2015.pdfVest,CharlesM.2007.TheAmericanResearchUniversityfromWorldWarIItotheWorldWideWeb:Government,thePrivateSector,andtheEmergingMeta-University.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Wikipedia.2016.“Comparisonofresearchnetworkingtoolsandresearchprofilingsystems.”LastmodifiedNovember13,2016.AccessedMarch1,2017.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_research_networking_tools_and_research_profiling_systemsZachary,G.Pascal.1999.EndlessFrontier:VannevarBush,EngineeroftheAmericanCentury.Cambridge:MITPress.