single large university seeks...

Single Large University Seeks Partner:Single Large University Seeks Partner:Thoughts on Successful Research Collaborations

Javed Ally1, Shane Long1, Vahid Mostafavi2, Susan Ross3

11 - The University of Alberta 2 - The University of Calgary 3 - The University of Lethbridge

Case 1: Waterborne Bacterial Illness in southern Alberta

••Campylobacter Campylobacter is the most commonly reported foodis the most commonly reported food--borne borne bacterial pathogen in Canadabacterial pathogen in Canada••Symptoms of infection include diarrhea, fever, chill and Symptoms of infection include diarrhea, fever, chill and sweats, nausea, unease, vomiting, and/or bloody stoolssweats, nausea, unease, vomiting, and/or bloody stools••12,000 reported cases, 300,00012,000 reported cases, 300,000--600,000 under600,000 under--reported reported cases in Canada during 2000cases in Canada during 2000

The majority of human The majority of human infections are caused by:infections are caused by:

Campylobacter jejuniCampylobacter jejuni

2

Case 1: Waterborne Bacterial Illness in southern Alberta (Cont’d)•• Comparative genomic fingerprintingComparative genomic fingerprinting

C. jejuniC. jejuni NCTC 11168NCTC 111681,641,481 bp1,641,481 bp1634 ORFs1634 ORFs

Novel method of genotyping providingNovel method of genotyping providing--Rapid sample throughRapid sample through--putput--Low cost per sampleLow cost per sample--Whole genomic comparison of strainsWhole genomic comparison of strainsmaximized by focusing primarily on maximized by focusing primarily on regions of hypervariabilityregions of hypervariability--Assay can be adjusted to required Assay can be adjusted to required Level of stringency (detailed relatedness)Level of stringency (detailed relatedness)By increasing of decreasing the number By increasing of decreasing the number Of gene targets usedOf gene targets used

3

Case 1: Waterborne Bacterial Illness in southern Alberta (Cont’d)

•• Long time collaboration between Long time collaboration between University and GovernmentUniversity and Government

•• Allows access to Allows access to ‘‘cheap labourcheap labour’’ by hiring by hiring graduate and cooperative education graduate and cooperative education students to complete projects along with students to complete projects along with technicianstechnicians

•• University able to complete research that University able to complete research that would not be fundedwould not be funded

4

Case 1: Waterborne Bacterial Illness in southern Alberta (Cont’d)

•• Laboratory is located in a shared building with Laboratory is located in a shared building with shared equipmentshared equipment

•• Research is based completing missing Research is based completing missing ‘‘puzzle puzzle piecespieces’’ in the scientific basein the scientific base

•• Identification of Identification of ‘‘puzzle piecespuzzle pieces’’ used to used to understand waterborne bacterial illness in understand waterborne bacterial illness in southern Alberta, a southern Alberta, a ‘‘hot spothot spot’’ within Canadawithin Canada

•• Application of knowledge to prevention of Application of knowledge to prevention of waterborne bacterial illness in Canadawaterborne bacterial illness in Canada

5

Results of Research•• Ongoing research with several departments, Ongoing research with several departments,

agencies and universities in three provincesagencies and universities in three provinces•• Contribution to the general knowledge baseContribution to the general knowledge base•• For example during 2008 for one of several For example during 2008 for one of several

bacterial species studied:bacterial species studied:–– Three articles were published in referred scientific journalsThree articles were published in referred scientific journals–– Four presentations including many international conferences Four presentations including many international conferences

were presentedwere presented

6

Case 2: Bone CementInjectability

• Idea/application came from medical collaborator – use temperature to control consistency of bone cement

• Our lab was contacted because of our experience designing experimental apparatus. We were asked to come up with an apparatus and protocol for the experiments.

• decided to keep the experiment as true to life as possible; very important for medical people

• The results of this study ended up being presented twice, to the panel evaluating residents’ research project and at a radiology conference in the US

• No further investigation of idea 7


• Research group was already in contact with radiology department through unrelated project

• Medical researchers provided the ‘problem’, as well as materials for the experiments

• Engineering group provided guidance in designing experimental apparatus and protocol, as well as lab space

8


• Results: better understanding of the reaction rate/injectability of bone cement as a function of time and temperature

• Medical resident got his project done; authorship

• Conference presentation• Better understanding of how

engineers/doctors, respectively, do research for both parties

9

Case 3: Energy Recovery Device• Company want to design an energy recovery device for a product

that dissipates a large amount of energy; the idea was to capture some part of that and feed it back into the device to improve its efficiency

• Beyond the goal of capturing energy, the company had no ideas asto what the device should be or how it should operate

• We looked at their requirements and proposed several ideas. Themore efficient designs ended up being rejected by the company

• This was because of concerns that the designs depended too much on several installation steps being performed correctly, whereas the chosen design was one that be installed in one step

10

Case 3: Energy Recovery Device

• Numerical simulation used in the design process; company not interested in results, more interested when we came with a demo model

• Idea was shelved due to problems with sourcing standards-compliant parts; use of stock/commercially available parts was a particular concern in order to minimize costs and manufacturing complexity

• Company was in touch later saying they were willing to accept a moderate increase in design complexity that would allow for standard parts BUT they wanted to use some parts that they manufactured in the design. These would obviously (to us) not work

11

Case 3: Energy Recovery Device

• From our perspective, project was not spec’d out properly

• From the company’s perspective, we had a lot of dumb ideas

• Pursuit of product undecided

12

Case 4 – Anti-islanding Protection for Distributed Generation in Power System

• Due to the increasing concerns regarding the environment and renewable energy, distributedgeneration (DG) is more relevant in the power system.

• The detection of islanded conditions is a crucial technical barrier for DG interconnection.

• An innovative anti-islanding scheme has been proposed in the power lab of University of Alberta.

13


• Computer simulation and lab test has been carried out in UofA, but a field test is highly desired

• Utility companies are eagerly looking for a reliable and economical solution for the growing challenge

• The collaboration between UofA and utility companies was naturally established

14


• Manitoba Hydro is one of utility companies who would like to try this innovative scheme on their test sites

• Finally, a field test in Winnipeg has been carried out from last August to this Jun

• The test results have been quite promising and the proposal satisfies the requirement of anti-islanding protection

15


• It is a win-win solution • For the power lab, the performance of the

proposal has been verified; for Manitoba Hydro, they found a promising solution for anti-islanding protection

• Moreover, for graduate students who was involved in this project, it provides a good opportunity to work with industry in the real site and solve a practical problem

16


• This experience is very useful for students to understand the demands of power industry and plan the career in advance

• Last but not least, this practical experience is also helpful when looking for a job in the future

17

Case 5 – Wellbore Stability Analysis

Oil well drilling

Case 5 – Wellbore Stability AnalysisWellbore stability

High pressure Low pressure


•Wellbore stability problems are responsible for almost 10% of the total oil well drilling costs

•Collaboration between University of Stavanger, University of Calgary and two Norwegian oil companies to address the issue

•Effects of mud properties on fracture gradient are supposed to be investigated


• In the theoretical phase, 5 papers have been published

• Graduate students will carry out the experimental part in UiS

• Results of the research will be tested in the filed so that graduate students will tune their findings with field tests


• Traditional wellbore stability analysis:critical pressure levels = f (insitu stress,rock properties)

• New findings: critical pressure levels = f (insitu stress,rock properties,

mud properties)

Initiation of Collaboration• Case 1: Government initiated to protect the health of

Canadians by understanding a common pathogen and routes of transmission

• Case 2: Medical Resident initiated to improve efficiency and reduce personnel needed

• Case 3: Company initiated for maximum return of dollars by matching expertise with current problem

• Case 4: University initiated for support in conducting field tests to validate research theories

• Case 5: University initiated the program to apply the developed knowledge in more realistic conditions

25

Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer

• Case 1 – University/Government collaboration– Facility sharing between laboratories – Training of graduate students who bring new ideas

and could be recruited– Presented to general knowledge base in publications

and presentations• Case 2

– University/Medical collaboration– Knowledge intimately tied to application– Presentation of knowledge in presentations

26


• Case 3:– University/Industry collaboration– Feedback between company specifications,

practical application, efficiency of design and scientific principals/limitations

• Case 4:– University/Industry collaboration– Training of graduate students– Incorporation of fresh ideas

27


• Case 5:– University/Industry collaboration– University collaborations– International cooperation to improve

technology for practical applications

28

Common Factors

• The role of university: source of knowledge and qualified worker

• Student involved• Well-defined goal: solve a specific

problem, not for a general idea• All parties involved get benefits, even

though the outcome are different

29

Who Was Involved?

• University• Government• Industry• Graduate Student

30

The Ways in Which Knowledge Flow was Exploited to be Effective

• Outside expertise was found when deficit in primary institution

• Previous connections were contacted first• Possible partners were selected based on

perceived need/benefit from project

31

Importance of Relationship

• Trust between parties• Solid relationship is good for initiation of a

new project• Profit sharing: publish & presentation• Future collaboration• More opportunity for graduate students

32

Benefit to Partners• Presentations and Publications – 3 cases (1, 2 + 5)• Companies/Industry able to gain access to information –

3 cases (3, 4 + 5)• Graduate student training – 5 cases• Increasing the scientific knowledge base - 5 cases• Access to funding - 3 cases (1, 4 + 5)• Able to screen candidates for recruitment – 1 case (1)• Able to access knowledge required for improvement of

current techniques or improve future technology – 4 cases (2, 3, 4 and 5)

• International collaborations – 1 case (case 5)

33

Barriers to Knowledge Transfer

34

http://xkcd.com/242/


• Case 1: Bureaucracy• Case 2: Different approaches to research• Case 3: Different types of background

knowledge, uncertainty about collaboration

35

• Case 4: Relationship-building, trust• Case 5: Lack of data sets and trust to universities


• Barriers were generally not technical• Related to: focus of methodology,

common (e.g. business) practices• Ambiguity

36

Differences Between Cases

• Case 2 was an interdisciplinary collaboration medical-engineering

• Cases 1 and 5 are large-scale, long-term collaborations; also deal with more general problems than 2, 3, and 4

• Cases 4, 5 was initiated by the University, the others by the ‘client’

37

Differences Between Cases

• In cases 2 and 3, significantly different approaches to research – medical, business

• Case 1 was the only one involving government (difference?)

38

Relationships – University Perspective

weak inducement

2weak embeddedness

3strong

embeddedness

45

1

strong inducement

39Diagram adapted from Thune, 2007

Relationships – Partner’s Perspective

weak inducement

2

weak embeddedness strong

embeddedness45 3

1

strong inducement

40

Conclusions• Benefits of Collaboration between government/industry and

academia can be quantified based on the number of conference presentations and journal publications of the case studies, return on investment, or by continuation of the collaboration (tangible and intangible benefits)

• Collaborations were all initially needs-based; methods of knowledge transfer followed as appropriate

• Different approaches to research, different types of background knowledge, uncertainty about collaboration, relationship-building, bureaucracy and confidentiality issues were identified as the barriers to knowledge transfer in the studied cases

41

Conclusions

• Graduate student = low-cost, high quality labor; benefit from experience working with non-academic partners

• Besides getting too deep into the scientific aspects of research, academics need to obtain more knowledge of other considerations (e.g financial, intellectual property, etc) that are important to non-academic partners

• Partners need to be aware of the information they need to present to academic researchers (e.g. defining proprietary information, business considerations); this understanding evolves with relationship

• Once a research starts in a university, other academic groups may get involved since university researchers are aware of potentials and capabilities of other academics (Case 5 and 2). This cooperation is rare in between industrial parties due to confidentiality concerns or competitive nature of industrial practices

42

Our Many Thanks To…

• Ingenuity 601 and TheCIS• The Universities of Alberta, Calgary,

Lethbridge, and Stavanger• The Alberta Ingenuity Fund• The Canadian Food Inspection Agency

and the Public Health Agency of Canada• Manitoba Hydro• Anne, Cooper, Martha and you!

Questions?...Questions?...

single large university seeks...

Documents