INTELLECTUALPROPERTY,TECHNOLOGYTRANSFERANDCOMMERCIALIZATION

RegionalTrainingWorkshopReport

26–28June2019

AddisAbaba,EthiopiaBy

TheScinnoventCentre

TableofContents

SECTION1:BACKGROUNDANDCONTEXT:WHYTHISTRAININGANDWHYNOW?......................3

SECTION2:THEMAPUTONEEDSASSESSMENTASABASIS...........................................................5Thesuccesses…..whattheSGCshaddonewell......................................................................................5Thechallenges…whatSGCsneededhelpwith.........................................................................................5

SECTION3:FROMNEEDSASSESSMENTTOTRAININGCURRICULUM...........................................6

SECTION4:TRAININGAPPROACH-PRACTICE-BASEDLEARNING..................................................9Participants..............................................................................................................................................9Pre-trainingassessment...........................................................................................................................9Trainingmethodology..............................................................................................................................9

SECTION5:ASSESSINGTHEQUALITYOFTRAINING-WHATDIDWEACHIEVE?............................9Level1:ContentandDelivery–relevance,depth,practicability,methodology/approach....................9Level2:Learningoutcomes–changesinawareness,understandingandabilitytoapply....................11

SECTION6:WHEREDOWEGOFROMHERE?IMMEDIATE,INTER-MEDIATEANDLONG-TERMPLANS...........................................................................................................................................13

Immediateplans/support......................................................................................................................13Intermediateposttrainingsupport.......................................................................................................13Long-term(SGCI–2)support................................................................................................................13

SECTION7:SOMEREFLECTIONSGOINGFORWARD....................................................................14Diversity(gender,age,expertiseandseniority)andchoiceofattendees.............................................14StructureoftheSGCsandwhotoinclude/orwhoismorerelevant?...................................................14Towhatextentcan/shouldotherinnovationsystemactorsbeinvolved?............................................14Forpilotinganduptake/application,resourcesshouldbeallocated.....................................................15

Annex1–WorkshopProgramme................................................................................................16

Annex2:Learningoutcomes........................................................................................................18

Annex3-Groupwork:TowardsSGCIPStrategies......................................................................19

Annex4–Listofparticipants.......................................................................................................20

SECTION1:BACKGROUNDANDCONTEXT:WHYTHISTRAININGANDWHYNOW?Weakintellectualpropertyregimesundermineknowledgeandtechnologytransferbetweenuniversities

and research instituteswith theprivate sector. To address this,mostuniversities andpublic research

institutes have established institutional intellectual property (IP) policies, created technology transfer

offices(TTOs)/intellectualpropertymanagementoffices(IPMOs)/commercializationdivisionstofacilitate

knowledge/technologyexchange.WhiletheIPpoliciesexistinsomeuniversities/PRIsandnon-existentin

others,theTTOs/IPMOsaremostlyunder-resourcedandunder-staffed.ThelevelsofIPawarenessand

supporttoresearchersareequallyweak.

InaNeedsAssessmentExerciseinMaputo(November2016)andavalidation/prioritizationworkshopin

Pretoria(July2017),theSGCsprioritizedtrainingin“Commercialization/utilizationofresearchproducts”

asakeyinterventioninbuildingtheircapacitytobrokercollaborativepartnerships.

Figure1:Importanceandurgencyofcapacitystrengtheningneeds

Aspartofitsapproachtopromotepublic–privatepartnerships(PPPs)forresearchandinnovationand

supporttheSGCsintheirfacilitatingroleinpromotingknowledgeexchangewiththeprivatesector,the

SGCIofferedaspecializedtrainingtotheCouncilson“IP,TechTransferandCommercialization”during

theAnnualRegionalMeetingtobeheldinAddisAbaba,Ethiopia(June2019).

The focus of the training centred primarily on enhancing the capacity of Councils to broker/supportcollaborativepartnerships and technology transfer between the research institutionswith theprivatesector.

ThescopeaddressedpertinentissuesraisedbytheCouncilsintheNeedsAssessmentexerciseincludingbutnotlimitedto:

A. IPPoliciesandStrategies:Funding,Innovation,BenefitSharingi. Ingovernment/publiclyfundedresearchprojects,whoownsintellectualpropertyrights?Howare

thebenefitsaccessedandshared?ii. How do these IP ownership/benefit sharing arrangements align/conflict with institutional IP

policies?iii. Inmulti-institutionalpartnerships/collaborations,howshouldissuesofIP,publicationsandother

benefitsbeaccessed/shared?B. Commercialization:UpscalingandOut-scalingi. Whataretheexistingtechtransfer/commercializationpathways?Whichoneshavebeenapplied

inAfricansettingsandwhataretheoutcomes?Whatarethebestpractices?ii. Howdowefoster/encourageacademia–privatesectorpartnershipsandwhatpossiblerolesfor

SGCs?CanIPframeworkshelp?C. TechnologyTransfer:RoleofTTOs/IPMOsi. HowcanSGCssupporttheestablishment/strengtheningoftheTTOs/IPMOsinUniversitiesand

PRIs?ii. HowcanSGCssupportresearchersandinnovatorsinexploitingtheirIP?

D. DoitYourself(DIY)/Decisionsupporttools(i) Whatkindofsupporttools(manuals,templates,guidelines)doSGCsrequiretofostergreater

collaborativeresearch,innovationandcommercialization?(ii) What additional capacity strengthening initiatives are required to enhance the role of

Councilsincatalysingknowledgeandtechnologytransferwiththeprivatesector?

Thisreportprovideskeyhighlightsthetrainingworkshopandisorganizedasfollows:Theprecedingsectionprovidesthebackgroundandcontextofthetraining,itsgenesisandscope.Section2isaflashbacktotheMaputoNeedsAssessmentandprovideskeyhighlightsoftheIP-relatedcapacitystrengtheningneedsoftheCouncils.Itshowsboththesuccesses(whattheCouncilsweredoingverywell)and thechallenges (areaswhere they indicated theyneededSGCI support). Itnotonlyhelps to showwhere the specific gaps arebut alsohow thedemands/needsof theCouncils arebeing translated totargetedinterventions.Section3isanelaborationofhowtheneeds/gapsweretranslatedintoatrainingcurriculumandsection4delvesintothedeliveryofthetraininganddiscussessomeoftheapproachestoapractice-basedtrainingmethodology.Section5looksattheoutcomeofthetrainingfromtheparticipantsperspectiveandpresentsatwo-stageevaluationapproachtoassessboththequalityofthetraining(deliveryandcontent)aswellasthelearningoutcomes(changesinawareness,understandingandabilitytoapply).Section6discussesplansforthefutureincludingimmediate(developinginstitutionalIPstrategies);intermediate(countryimplementationplans) and long-term (suggestions for SGCI-2) while the concluding section 7 is a reflection of theorganizers(TheScinnoventCentre)onhowthetrainingsitswithinthebroaderSGCI1andprospectsformoredetailedworkinSGCI–2.

SECTION2:THEMAPUTONEEDSASSESSMENTASABASISThesuccesses…..whattheSGCshaddonewellConflictmanagement/resolutionKenyareportedtohavingidentifiedexpectationsofconflictsthroughSWOTanalysis;Ugandahadputinplaceagoverningboardtohelpresolveanyconflicts;whereasZambiareportedsuccesses inresolvingissuesinvolvinggrantrecipientsandtheirinstitutions.Designinginstrumentsofgoverningcollaborationse.g.consortiumagreements,contractsetcKenyahasdevelopedMOUs/MOAswithpartners to facilitatecollaborationsandpartnerships;Ugandahasputinplacegrantsmanagementandcollaborationoffices;whereasZambia’sNSTChasexperienceindesigning /operating corporation agreements – e.g. NRF (South Africa) & NSTC, NSTC & FNI(Mozambique).

Developingpolicyguidelinesondataprotection/sharing;ethics,intellectualpropertyandpublicationsBotswanahasbeencollaboratingwithWIPOonIPRandwithUNESCOonethicspolicies;Ethiopiahasdesignedthenecessaryframeworks;KenyahasdevelopedMOUswithpartnersandhasinitiatedthedraftingofitsresearchpolicy;InTanzania,institutionalIPpoliciesarepartiallyavailable;UgandahasSTIpolicyinplace;Zambiadraftspolicybriefs/advisorynotesforGIZ.FacilitatinglinkageswithotherinnovationsystemactorsKenyahasidentified/mappedoutpossibleactors/playersinfosteringthelinkages;Tanzaniahasdonewellinincubations;UgandahasputinplaceanewMinistryofSTIinplace;whileZambiaworkscloselywiththetechnologybusinesscentreandTTOsinUniversities.Source: TrainingNeeds and Research priorities of the Science Granting Councils – theMaputoNeedsAssessmentReport(2018)Thechallenges…whatSGCsneededhelpwithConflictmanagement/resolutionBotswananeededhelpinestablishingaresearchcouncil;Ethiopianeededhelpinidentifyingsourcesofconflicts;Kenyaneededhelp inpluggingthe identifiedconflict throughmanagementof interrelations;Malawineededhelpfordevelopingstandardguidelinesinconflictmanagement;Tanzanianeededhelpincapacitybuildingforconflictresolution;whileZimbabweneededhelpinmanagingconflictsofinterest.Designinginstrumentsofgoverningcollaborationse.g.consortiumagreements,contractsetcBotswananeededassistanceondesigninginstrumentse.g.contracts;IvoryCoastneededhelpindesigningmodelcontracts;Ethiopianeededhelpwithestablishmentof think tankgroup;Ghananeededhelp indesigning agreements/ contracts; Kenya needed help with development of legal frameworks forcollaborations; Malawi needed help in developing kills and knowledge in negotiating/developingagreements, contract, and reconciling each priority needs and policies on a commonproject; Zambianeededhelpindevelopinginstrumentsthatserveinterestsofvariousactorse.g.tourists,NGOs,privatesector;whereasneedshelpindesigningconsortiumagreements.Developingpolicyguidelinesondataprotection/sharing;ethics,intellectualpropertyandpublications

Ghananeededhelpinresearchethics/intellectualproperty/publications;Kenyaneededhelpincapacitybuilding on developing guidelines;Malawi needed help in reducing conflict of interest; developing anational IP policy development and guideline; Uganda needed help in developing specific guidelines;whereasZambianeededhelpwithimplementationofIPRregimesthatcaptureinterestsofprivatesector.FacilitatinglinkageswithotherinnovationsystemactorsIvoryCoastneededhelpincomingupwithmethodologyforfacilitatingthelinkages;Ethiopianeededhelpwitheffectivemechanismsofmonitoringuniversity-industrylinkages;Ghanarequiresmoretrainingonlinkagewith other innovation actors; Kenya needs help in identifying the appropriate actors;Malawineedshelpindefininganddevelopingmechanismsforlinkageswithinnovationactors;Tanzanianeedsmoreknowledgeonincubationprocesses;UgandaneedshelpinconsolidatingtheNationalInnovationsystem;whereasZambianeedshelpwithprivatesectorengagement.Facilitatingcommercialization/utilizationofresearchproducts/outputsBotswananeededhelpincreatingpoliciesandmodalitiesoncommercializationofresearchprojects;IvoryCoast needed help in strengthening its capacity on commercialization; Ethiopia needed help inestablishingasystemforresearchoutputcommercialization;Ghananeededhelpinutilizationofresearchoutputs;Kenyaneedshelpincommercializationofresearchproducts/findingsandfacilitationofacademic-industrylinkages;whereasMalawineedsskillsandknowledgeintranslationandpromotionofsystematicreviewofresearchresults.Tanzaniarequiresassistancewithdevelopmentofaccreditationpolicy;UgandaneedshelpinrealizinginnovationhubsandscienceparksandZimbabweneedsinformationonmodelsthathaveworkedelsewhere.Source: TrainingNeeds and Research priorities of the Science Granting Councils – theMaputoNeedsAssessmentReport(2018)

SECTION3:FROMNEEDSASSESSMENTTOTRAININGCURRICULUMThe capacity strengthening needs and gaps discussed above were translated to a trainingmodule/curriculum and programme providing a short description of how the training is organized,including the scope of each unit/module, learning objectives and outcomes. The Training materialsincluded power point slides, case studies/local examples, group and individual exercises etc. A keycomponentofthetrainingwasexperiencesharingandpeerlearninginfacilitatedQ&Asessions.Theseallowedmorenuanceddiscussionsonthespecificcountryexperiences,challenges,responses(coveringpolicyandpractice/admindomains).

Session1:Levellingthefield:Context,DefinitionsandStatusResearch,InnovationandIPManagement:Settingthecontext,makingtheconnections

Thissessionwasdeliveredthroughaninteractivelectureofabout30minsfollowedbyabout30minsoffacilitatedQ&A. Ithelpedset the stage for the rest of the training by ensuring thatparticipantsareofthesameunderstandingonthekeyconcepts,definitionsandterminologies.It further helped the participants understand the linkagesbetweenresearch,innovationanddevelopmentandtheroleofIPin thiswhole process. Key issues included:where are the entrypoints for IP?Howdoes it facilitate/hinder each stage/process?Whatdowemissifwedon’tpayattentiontoIPmanagementinthewholecontinuum?Considering the diversity (in formal training, roles, levels ofunderstanding of the participants, this introductory and scenesettingsessionwasveryusefulinpreparingtheparticipantsfortherestofthetraining.

Session2:PolicyandLegalIssuesforInnovation

NationalandInternationalIPFrameworks/RegimeInstitutionalIPPoliciesandStrategiesContracts,AgreementsandrelatedToolsforManagingPartnerships

Thissessionwasdeliveredthroughamixofinteractivelectures/presentations;groupworksandfacilitatedQ&Asessions.Itfocusedmainlyonthepoliciesandstrategiesandaddressedthefollowingissues:

(i) In government/publicly funded research projects, whoowns intellectual property rights? How are the benefitsaccessedandshared?

(ii) HowdotheseIPownership/benefitsharingarrangementsalign/conflictwithinstitutionalIPpolicies?

(iii) In multi-institutional partnerships/collaborations, howshould issues of IP, publications and other benefits beaccessed/shared?

Session3:FacilitatingAccesstoInnovationIPStrategies,MechanismsandToolsTechnologyTransferOffices:Theirroles,establishmentandresourcingHarmonizationofCommercializationwithPublicInterest

Thissessionfocusedonthefollowingkeyissues:

(i) HowcanSGCssupporttheestablishment/strengtheningoftheTTOs/IPMOsinUniversitiesandPRIs?

(ii) How can SGCs support researchers and innovators inexploitingtheirIP?

(iii) What kind of support tools (manuals, templates,guidelines)doSGCsrequiretofostergreatercollaborativeresearch,innovationandcommercialization?

(iv) What additional capacity strengthening initiatives are

required to enhance the role of Councils in catalysingknowledgeandtechnologytransferwiththeprivatesector

The session was delivered through presentations, group works,facilitatedQ&Aandplenaryreporting/feedback

Session4:Commercialization,UpscalingandOut-scalingTechnologyLicensingandothercommercializationpathwaysInnovationandCommercializationinfrastructureattheUniversitiesandResearchInstitutes:Spin-outs,spin-offs,incubationhubs,scienceparksetcTheroleofinnovation/commercializationintermediariesIPevaluation,marketingandtrading

Thissessionfocusedonthefollowingkeyissues:

• What are the existing tech transfer/commercializationpathways? Which ones have been applied in Africansettingsandwhatare theoutcomes?Whatare thebestpractices?

• How dowe foster/encourage academia – private sectorpartnerships and what possible roles for SGCs? Can IPframeworkshelp?

• What is the role of innovation/commercializationintermediariesandhowcanweharnesstheirpotentialforgreatersynergies?

• HowdoyoudeterminethefinancialvalueofyourIPandinwhatotherwayscanresearchers/IPholdersbenefitfromownership?

Monitoring,EnforcementandDisputeResolution:whatrolefortheScienceGrantingCouncils?

This session focused on the practical administration of IP,technology transfer and commercialization and discussed (withlotsofparticipant inputs)thenicheandspaceoftheCouncilsasfacilitators,intermediariesandarbitersinresearchandinnovation.It was a prelude to the session on implementation plandevelopment. It was delivered through a presentation andfacilitatedplenarydiscussion/Q&A

Session5:GroupWork:TowardsaninstitutionalIPStrategyKeyelementsofaneffectiveinstitutionalIPstrategy

Participantsweredividedintotwogroups.Eachgrouphadachairandrapporteur.ThegroupsweretaskedtodiscusskeyelementsofaneffectiveIPstrategyGroup1:Contentissues:ThisgroupconsideredwhattheIPstrategiesmustincludeandwhy?TheywererequiredtoalignthekeyissuesidentifiedwiththeSGCrolesandfunctions.Theywereadvisedtoconsiderbothinternal(organizational)aswellasexternal(client/stakeholder)issuesGroup2:Processissues:Thisgroupwastoconsiderthepresentationmadeintheplenary(onstrategydevelopment)andidentifytherelevantstepsfordevelopingtheinstitutionalIPstrategies.Seeannex3

SECTION4:TRAININGAPPROACH-PRACTICE-BASEDLEARNINGParticipantsThetrainingbroughttogether31participantsfrom10SGCIcountries:Kenya,Uganda,Tanzania,Ethiopia,Zambia,Mozambique,Botswana,Malawi,Ghana,SenegalandBurkinaFaso.OtherparticipantswerefromtheUnitedKingdom(SPRU)andSouthAfrica(NRFandNEPAD).Additionally,theme4ConsortiumpartnersincludingACTS,STIPROandAAUwererepresented.TheparticipantswereamixofheadsoftheCouncilsandseniorrepresentatives.Seelistofparticipantsattachedasannex4.Pre-trainingassessmentThis isusuallya short survey (oftendonevia surveymonkey) toelicit the trainingneeds, competencylevels, areas of interest/emphasis and any additional topics/themes that the participants would likecoveredinthetraining.Itishelpfulinmakingthetrainingacustomisedexperienceratherthanagenericundertaking.However,forthistrainingtheNeedsAssessmentexerciseconductedinMaputo(2016)andPretoria (2017) was deemed more relevant and sufficient. It provided an institutional and nationalperspectivetothetraining.TrainingmethodologyThedeliveryofthiscoursewaslargelythrough(i) interactivelectures/presentationsusingpower-pointslides(ii)groupworksandindividualexercises(iii)facilitatedQ&Asessions.Emphasiswasplacedonlocalexamples and case studies.Where therewere no relevant real/actual examples, facilitators designedhypothetical cases that highlighted the issues under discussion. Sharing participant and countryexperiences helped contextualize the training further and brought to the fore practical realities andchallenges of IP management, technology transfer and commercialization. The use of energizers/ice-breakers helped to keep adult learners active and engaged while facilitated Q&A sessions ensuredinteractiveengagement.Groupworks/exerciseswereapplied topromotepeer learningandsharingofexperiences. These were guided, documented and presented in plenary with additional materialsprovided to the groups.Group formationsensuredamixof experiences across thedifferent country,geographicandlinguisticdiversity.Groupleadershipwasvoluntaryandrotational.Dailyevaluationswereconductedforimmediatefeedbackandincorporationintothetraining.

SECTION5:ASSESSINGTHEQUALITYOFTRAINING-WHATDIDWEACHIEVE?Weadoptedatwo-stageevaluationapproachtoassessthequalityanddeliveryofthetrainingworkshop.Level1:ContentandDelivery–relevance,depth,practicability,methodology/approachParticipantswererequestedtoprovidefeedbackonthetrainingintermsofitsrelevancetotheirneeds,howpractical/applicabletotheirsituationsandcontextsaswellasthefacilitatorsandtheirmodespresentation.Theywereaskedtothefollowingquestions:

1. Whatworkedwell?2. Whatdidn’tworkwell?

3. Whatshouldwechange?

Participantviewsoncurriculumcontentanddelivery

Country#11. PresentationonIPwasveryclearandsimpletofollow.IgainedalotonIPRissues2. None3. Timeisnotenough

Country#21. Facilitatorwasexcellent2. Topicwellcaptured3. Limitedtimetoexhaustall

Country#31. Whatworked?Presentations-veryconcise,clearandveryinformative2. Whatdidn’t’work?None

Country#41. Whatworkedwell?IlluminatingpresentationsonIPwereaneyeopener2. Whatdidnotworkwell?Timeconstraint

Country#51. Thesessionwasveryinteractiveforme.Thepresenterwasveryclearandhasknowledgeofthe

subjectofdiscussion2. IwouldlikethefocustobeontheIPpoliciesofSGCs

Country#61. Presentationsetealahanteundehasattentesnene2. LaquntionrelativeengroupeetthisClaireanssi

Country#71. WhatIliked:Thecasestudiesusedinthepresentationsputthewholesessioninapractical

picturewhichmadeiteasytounderstand2. WhatIdidnotlike:Sessionwasover-loaded

Country81. TheTrainingisexceptionalandwelldetailed2. MoretimeneededtoexplainstoriesacrosstheSGCs

Country#91. QuiteclearcomprehensiononIPcontext,IPrights,typesofIPsandmore,Case

situations/exercisesverygood2. Tobedonebetter:

-Sharetheslides-Givemoretimefordiscussions

Country#101. -Whatworkedwell?Thepresentations,goodplace -Whatdidnotworkwell?Ican’tthinkofany

-Whattochange?Bettertowaittilltheend

Level2:Learningoutcomes–changesinawareness,understandingandabilitytoapplyThe second level of assessment askedparticipantshow their awareness, understanding andability toapplytheconceptsandtopicalissuesinIP,technologytransferandcommercializationhadchangedasaresultofthetraining.Thisfollowedthe10topics/themesinthetrainingcurriculumasintheannex2.TheresponsesareshowninthechartsbelowLearningOutcomeResults

25%

42%

33%

Thedifferentcommercializationpathwaysandwhentoapply/usethem

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

23%

54%

23%

Innovationandcommercializationinfrastructureincludingtheroleof

sciencepark,incubationcentre/hubs;startups,spinoffsetc

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

38%

54%

8%

IPaudits,evaluation,marketingandtrading

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

IAMAWARE25%

IUNDERSTAND50%

ICANAPPLY25%

Roleofinnovation/commercializationintermediaries

29%

47%

24%

RoleofSGCsinfacilitating,monitoring,enforcementanddisputeresolutionofIP

issuesinpubliclyfundedprojects

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

22%

50%

28%

Definition,keyconceptsandterminologiesofintellectualpropertyrights,technology

transferandcommercialization

IAMAWARE IUNDERSTAND ICANAPPLY

12%

53%

35%

Policyandlegalissuesoninnovationincludinginstitutionalpoliciesandstrategy

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

25%

44%

31%

DifferentIPsystem/types,tools,mechanism,agreements,contractsand

whentouse/applythem

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

SECTION6:WHEREDOWEGOFROMHERE?IMMEDIATE,INTER-MEDIATEANDLONG-TERMPLANSImmediateplans/support

Model institutional IPstrategy:Buildingonthedraft IPstrategydevelopedduringthetraining,craft a model IP strategy that Councils can customize to their contexts and specific countrysituations.

AkeyoutcomeofthetrainingwaskeyelementsofanIPstrategyforagenericIPmanagementstrategythat councils can customize. The short training time only allowed for discussion of the mainelements/components of such as strategy leading to a draft document which the facilitators andorganizers(ScinnoventCentre)willcontinuetoworkonandfinalizebasedonviews/perspectivesoftheparticipants.Thiswasderived throughgroupwork (seeannex3 forgroup instructions). Emphasiswasthereforeplacedongenerating(i)anannotatedtableofcontents-decidingonthemainframe/(whattoinclude/exclude);specificroles/functionsof/fortheCouncilsIntermediateposttrainingsupport

IP/Tech Transfer and Commercialization Toolkit: This should be viewed/designed both as a trainingmanual (forthosewhomaywanttoconductsimilarworkshops/trainings)andareferencemanual (forthosewhowanttolearnonhowtowriteimplementationplansandIPstrategiesbesidesotherDIYtools).Long-term(SGCI–2)support

(i) ImplementationplansThiswasanotherkeyoutcomeofthetraining.Participantswereguidedtocraftfollowupactionplanswithspecificactivities,timelines,responsibilitiesandanysupportrequired(technical/materialetc).

28%

43%

29%

Theroleoftechnologytransferoffices;innovationintermediariesandhowto

strengthenthem

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

23%

39%

38%

Harmonizingcommercializationwithpublicinterest

IAMAWARE

IUNDERSTAND

ICANAPPLY

TheseplansarespecifictoindividualCouncils/countries.1Ten(10)suchplanswereproducedduringthetrainingandwillguidemid-tolong-terminterventionsinthespecificSGCs.

(ii) FollowupMentorship/CoachingSupportThe implementation/action plans developed during the training require additional technicalsupport/coaching/mentorship by the Consultants/facilitators. The specifics that emerged during thetrainingincludewhatareasmightneedadditionalsupport,andwhatnatureofsupporte.g.virtual(skype,telephone,emailetc)orwoulditrequirephysical,face-to-facevisits?TheSGCsalsoidentifiedwhattheywouldrequirefromtheSGCI.Analysisison-goingandashortsynthesiswillbepreparedhighlightingareasofneedthatcouldbeincorporatedintotheSGCI–2.

SECTION7:SOMEREFLECTIONSGOINGFORWARDDiversity(gender,age,expertiseandseniority)andchoiceofattendeesParticipantswere nominated by the SGCs (presumably the HoRCS) based on a concept note/trainingcurriculumsharedwiththem.However,ofconcernisthatnearlyallthenominees(14outofapossible15)weremen.Theunder-representationofwomeniseitherareflectionofthecurrentsituationintheSGCs(genderimbalance)oraselection/nominationbias.Eitherway,therearesuggestionstopaymoreattention to gender issues in SGCI – 2 and some guidelines may be necessary to ensure equitablerepresentation/participation.

StructureoftheSGCsandwhotoinclude/orwhoismorerelevant?The structureof the SGCsdiffer across countries and this followswith the functions. For example, inKenya, Zambia and South Africa, it emerged that different organizations deal with research funding,technologytransferandcommercialization.TakingtheexampleofKenya,NRFwoulddealwithresearchfunding/resource mobilization while KENIA would be responsible for technology transfer andcommercializationwhileNACOSTIisinchargeofresearchprioritiesandqualityassurance.Insuchacase,who should attend the training? A similar situation obtains in Zambia and South Africa (where theTechnologyInnovationAgency(TIA)isinchargeoftechnologytransferandcommercialization).Itwasachallengewhenrepresentatives/nomineeswereunabletorespondtosomeoftheissuesbecausetheywere“outsidetheirmandate”and“couldn’tspeakfortheotherorganizationsordepartments”.

Towhatextentcan/shouldotherinnovationsystemactorsbeinvolved?In matters of technology transfer and commercialization, the SGCs are facilitators/intermediaries orbrokers/catalysts.Therealactionrestswiththetechnologytransferoffices(TTOs)orintellectualpropertymanagement offices (IPMOs) in the universities/public research institutes. Other key actors are thenational IP offices and the private sector. Our experience/view is that the interventions will remainincompletewithout incorporation of the representatives of these actors.While the SGCs remain theprimaryfocus,SGCI–2shouldconsideramoreintegrated/inclusiveapproach.

1Thesearecurrentlybeingdesigned/laidoutandwillbesharedseparately

Forpilotinganduptake/application,resourcesshouldbeallocatedOne key lesson fromboth the training on “communicationwith the private sector” and the “IP, techtransfer and commercialization” is that technical and financial support for follow-on activities areextremelyimportant.WhereastheSGCsgainknowledge(increasetheirunderstanding),theirabilitytoapply is usually constrained by lack of resources to implement the activities outlined in theiraction/implementationplans.WerecommendthatmodestamountsbesetasidetopilottheactivitiesinselectedSGCs.ThiswillensurethatknowledgeistranslatedintoactionandprovideencouragementforotherSGCstoemulateandadvocateformoreresourcesfromtheirgovernments.

Inconclusion,goingforwardIP,technologytransferandcommercializationremainsanareaofgreatneedand specific interventions should be considered/modelled around the implementation plans andmentorshipsupportinSGCI–2.

Annex1–WorkshopProgramme

DAY1:IPPOLICIESANDSTRATEGIES NOTES13:30–14:00

Registration Outsidemeetingroom- Workshopmaterialsprovidedtoparticipants

Session1:IntroductiontotheWorkshop:Whyarewehere?14:00–14:10

Introductiontotheworkshop

ObjectivesoftheworkshopExpectedoutcomesProgrammeandtrainingapproachPosttrainingactivities

Session2:Levellingthefield:Context,DefinitionsandStatus14:10–15:00

Research,InnovationandIPManagement:Settingthecontext,makingtheconnections

15:00–16:00Session3:PolicyandLegalIssuesforInnovation15:00–17:00

NationalandInternationalIPFrameworks/RegimeInstitutionalIPPoliciesandStrategiesContracts,AgreementsandrelatedToolsforManagingPartnerships

17:00–17:30:FeedbackandWrap-upTea/coffeebreak

DAY2:TECHNOLOGYTRANSFER Session4:FacilitatingAccesstoInnovation 08:00–8:15

RecapofDay1Volunteer/participant

Abriefoverviewofthepreviousday’skeyissues,takehomemessages.Oneparticipantwillbeencouragedtovolunteerandmakethepresentation

08.15–10.30

IPStrategies,MechanismsandToolsTechnologyTransferOffices:Theirroles,establishmentandresourcingHarmonizationofCommercializationwithPublicInterest

10:30–11:00

Tea/CoffeeBreak

Session5:GroupWork:TowardsanIPStrategy

11.00–12.30

Group1:KeyelementsofaneffectiveIPstrategyGroup2:GuidelinesforIPManagementingovernment–fundedmulti-institutionalprojectsGroup3:Guidelinesforharmonizingcommercializationwithpublicinterest

12.30–13:00

Groupreports GroupswillreporttoplenaryfollowedbyabriefQ&Asession

13:00–14:00

Lunchbreak

SESSION6:COMMERCIALIZATION,UPSCALINGANDOUTSCALING14:00–16:00

TechnologyLicensingandothercommercializationpathwaysInnovationandCommercializationinfrastructureattheUniversitiesandResearchInstitutes:Spin-outs,spin-offs,incubationhubs,scienceparksetcTheroleofinnovation/commercializationintermediaries

IPevaluation,marketingandtrading

16:00–16:30

Monitoring, Enforcement and Dispute Resolution: what role for the Science GrantingCouncils?

16:30–16:45

Reflections,feedbackandwrap-upTea/Coffeeisserved

DAY3:INTOTHEFUTURE:WHATNEXT?Session7:Implementationplansandpost-trainingsupport08:30–9:00

RecapandevaluationofDay2Participant/volunteer

Keyissues,messages,lessonsfromDay2

9:00–10:30

DevelopingImplementationPlans

Countryteamstodiscussfollowupactivitiespostthetraining.Atemplateandfurtherguidancewillbeprovided

10:30–11:00

Tea/CoffeeBreak

11:00-12:00

Group/countryreportsofimplementationplans

Countryteamspresenttoplenarytheirideasforadditionalinput/commentsbythefacilitatorsandotherparticipants

12:00–13:00

Furthergroupwork Countryteamsincorporatecomments/finalizetheimplementationplans

13:00–14:00

Lunchbreak

Session8:Evaluation,Post-trainingSupportandClosure14:00–14:30

Feedbackandwrapup Administerposttrainingevaluationsurvey;discussanyfeedback/recommendationsfromparticipantsandagreenextsteps

14:30–15:00

Tea/Coffeebreakanddeparture

Annex2:Learningoutcomes

Topic/theme Tickasappropriate(youcantickmorethanonebox)

Remarks/comments/suggestions

Iamaware

Iunderstand

Icanapply

1. Definitions,keyconceptsandterminologiesofintellectualpropertyrights,technologytransferandcommercialization

2. Policyandlegalissuesoninnovationincludinginstitutionalpoliciesandstrategies

3. DifferentIPsystems/types,tools,mechanisms,agreements,contractsandwhentouse/applythem

4. Theroleoftechnologytransferoffices;innovationintermediariesandhowtostrengthenthem

5. Harmonizingcommercialization(entrepreneurship)withpublicinterest

6. Thedifferentcommercializationpathwaysandwhentoapply/usethem

7. Innovationandcommercializationinfrastructureincludingtheroleofscienceparks,incubationcentres/hubs;start-ups,spinoffsetc

8. IPaudits,evaluation,marketingandtrading

9. Roleofinnovation/commercializationintermediaries

10. RoleofSGCsinfacilitating,monitoring,enforcementanddisputeresolutionofIPissuesinpubliclyfundedprojects

Annex3-Groupwork:TowardsSGCIPStrategiesGroup1:ContentissuesTofocusoncriticalcontentissues–thoseissuesthatCouncilsdeal/strugglewithinthecourseoftheirwork/performingtheirfunctions.Shouldalsofocusonthecriticalactors/clientsandhowtheCouncil’saddresstheirneeds.Finally,shouldfocusonresourcerequirements(financial,infrastructural,skills/capacities,relational)

Questions:Whatmustweincludeinthestrategyandwhy?–alignthekeyissuestotheSGCfunctionsWhatresourceswillweneedandwherecanwegetthissupportWhoareourkeyclientsandwhataretheirneeds?Howshould/couldtheseneedsbeaddressed?

Group2:ProcessissuesTofocusonprocessissues–thepathwaytowardsachieving/developingtheinstitutionalIPstrategies.LookattheflowdiagramfordevelopinganIPstrategypresentedandidentifytherelevantstages/stepsForeachstep/stageidentified/selected,discuss:

• Whatdoweneedtodo?• Whatresourcesdowerequire?• Whencanwedothis?• WhatkindofsupportdowerequirefromtheSGCI?

Annex4–ListofparticipantsNo Country Title FirstName SurName Sex Organization

1 Botswana Mr Ontlametse Gaothuse M MoTE2 BurkinaFaso Dr Tamboura Hamidou M FONRID3 Ghana Mr jonathan Amo-otoo M MESTI4 Kenya Mr David Ngigi M NRF5 Malawi Mr. MikeGilson Kachedwa M NCSTI6 Senegal Mr Daouda Diouf M DFRSDT

7 Tanzania Mr MashuhuriMwinyiHamisi M COSTECH

8 Uganda Mr Geofferey Sempiri M UNCST9 Zambia Mr Clement Kasaro M NSTC

10 Kenya Mr David Njuguna M KIPI11 Kenya Dr G.K Kosimbei M KU12 Kenya Dr Maurice Bolo M SC13 Kenya Mr Donelly Mwachi M SGCI14 UK Dr Chux Daniels M SPRU15 Tanzania Mrs Anne Ngoo F COSTECH16 Ethiopia Mr Aklilu Gebre M MInT17 Kenya Dr Diakalia Sanogo M IDRC18 Ethiopia Mr Abebual Molla M MInT19 Mozambique Mrs Dirce Madeira F FNI20 Kenya Dr Rebbecca Hanlin F ACTS21 Kenya Dr Aschalew Tigabu M ACTS22 Kenya Ms Winnie Khaemba F ACTS23 Kenya Ms Mary Muthoni F ACTS24 SouthAfrica Ms Dorothy Ngila F NRF-SA25 SouthAfrica Mr Lukovi Seke M NEPAD26 Tanzania Dr Gussai Sheikheldin M STIPRO27 Zambia Ms Mupande Nambala F NSTC28 Ghana Ms Ruth Dickson F AAU29 Ghana Ms Samuel Agyapong M AAU30 Ethiopia Mr Semere Gethnenos M MInT31 BurkinaFaso Mr Coulibaly Ardiouma M FONRID