Massimo Caccia

INFN & Universita’ dell’Insubria

TTN mid-term workshop, CERN – June 23-24, 2009

The TTN Questionnaire:a first glance at the data

The data sample (1/2)

benchmark institutions:

LBL No reply

TRIUMF I fear they did not get the point

FNAL Rather incomplete feedback

BNL Rather complete feedback!*

KEK No reply

* Possible misunderstanding: data for the full lab, not only for the HEP division (221/982 FTE’s)

The data sample (2/2): our statistical population ( xxx % addressed institutions)

Universities

EPFL Good quality feedback small HEP community (50/3280 FTE’s) Use it as a second benchmark!

Bern Incomplete (e.g. no FTE’s etc.)

Zurich As above

ETH As above

NCSR As above

labs

CERN ok

DESY ok

GSI ok

PSI ok

Natl. Institutes

FTEFTE in HEP

NIKHEF 200 200

IN2P3 3000 3000

CEA 3500 500

By the end of the day: • 7 institutions split into 2 categories• 1 extra benchmark

NOT WORTH ANYTHING TERRIBLY SOPHISTICATED!

Labs by size [FTE]FT

EFT

E in H

EP

CERN

DESYGSI

PSI

an averaging procedure weighted by FTE in HEP will be dominated by CERN DESY and PSI do represent a good example of labs where HEP and no-HEP live together

(poor) analysis method

constrained by the limited statistical population and the large spread (standard deviation) of the data

assume as basic figures the Executive Summary indicators of the 2006 ASTP survey for fiscal year 2006 [excluding financial data on the income & start-up’s], namely:

Invention disclosures Patent applications Patent grants License agreements Research agreements

Normalized to 1 year and per 1000 FTE’s

assume as a reference the ASTP mean data + BNL and EPFL

compare to the mean and weighted mean values for labs & institutions (weights defined by FTE in HEP)

A closer to look to the indicators for the labs (normalized to 1000 FTE’s, per annum) (1/3)

dis

closu

res

license

dap

plic

ati

ons

gra

nte

d

CERN

DESY

GSI

PSI

A closer to look to the indicators for the labs (normalized to 1000 FTE’s, integrated) (2/3)

CERNDESY GSI PSI

fam

ilies

license

dR

ATIO

A closer to look to the indicators for the labs (normalized to 1000 FTE’s) (3/3)

IP t

ransf

er/

an

num

Agre

em

ent/

an

num

CERN

DESY

GSIPSI

The performance indicator summary table(per 1000 FTE’s)

labs Natl. Inst. BNL EPFLAST

P UNI.

ASTP

PRO

ASTP mean

<x>W <x> x

<x>W

<x> x

disclosures 7 9 9.8 2.3 1.3 1.3 33 24 15.6 20.4 16.6

Patent applications

4.4 4.1 5.5 1.7 0.9 1.0 13 12 5.5 9.2 6.3

Patent grants 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 9 6 2.6 7.8 3.2

License agreements

0.3 1.1 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 3 8 4.8 11.6 6.3

IP agreements 1.0 3.2 5.1 0.6 1.0 1.4 3 9 NA NA NA

Research Agreements

48.5 122 185 16.2 6.7 1.5 92 119 111 95.8 108.8

Patent families 27.5 32.0 25.1 12.2 8.6 4.5 120 78 NA NA NA

Overall Licensed patents

10.1 10.9 12.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 88 38 NA NA NA

ASTP mean weighted by the data size in the 2 samples

Conclusions (1/3)

a picture is worth a thousand words:

labs do it better

German labs do it a lot better!

the spread among the different institutions is terrifying (a lot higher than among benchmarks, irrespective of their intrinsic differences…)

there’s a solid rock motivation for the TTN

KE towards other disciplines and Research agreements with other scientific community has definitely to be pursued (DESY is, to me, a fairly good example!)

Conclusions (2/3)

Conclusions (3/3)