Corporate Engagement benchmarking study

Barbara Barnhart
Amy Lavallee
Jean O’Donnell
University of Pittsburgh
April 2015
PARTNERING FOR IMPACT:
A BENCHMARKING STUDY ON
CORPORATE ENGAGEMENT
Prepared for:
Dr. Mark Redfern, Vice Provost for Research, University of Pittsburgh
Dr. Marc Malandro, Associate Vice Chancellor for Technology Management and
Commercialization and Founding Director of the University of Pittsburgh Innovation Institute
Under the supervision of:
B. Jean Ferketish, PhD
Kathleen Kyle

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the following individuals and the schools they represent for
participating in this study:
Carnegie Mellon University Lorena McLaren
Duke University Thomas Healy
Georgia Institute of Technology Caroline Wood
University of Florida David Norton
University of Michigan Stella Wixom
University of Minnesota Steven Corkery
University of Washington Joanna Glickler
Washington University St. Louis Theresa Menk
We would also like to thank all those who helped schedule the phone interviews and
Ms. Linda SantaCasa for compiling copies of the report.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of Study 1
Issue Overview 1
Trends 2
Engagement 4
METHOLDOLOGY 6
PARTICIPANT OVERVIEW MATRIX 7
CASE STUDIES 8
Carnegie Mellon University 9
Duke University 11
Georgia Institute of Technology 13
University of Florida 15
University of Michigan 17
University of Minnesota Twin Cities 19
University of Washington 21
Washington University St. Louis 23
COMPARISON MATRIX 26
KEY FINDINGS 27
REFERENCES 29
APPENDICES 32
Appendix A: Survey Questions 33
Appendix B: Phone Interview Questions 36
Appendix C: Graphic Interpretations of Key Findings 37
Appendix D: Contact Information for Participating Schools 41

1
Introduction
Purpose of Study
This benchmarking study was prepared for the University of Pittsburgh Office of Research. The
purpose of this study is to identify corporate engagement structures and practices at universities
identified as having successful industry partnerships. For this study, corporate engagement is
defined as the “partnership of university knowledge and resources with those of the public and
private sectors to enrich scholarship, research and creative activity” (CIC, 2005, p. 2).
The University of Pittsburgh is a public, state-related institution with an urban main campus and
four regional campuses. Total undergraduate enrollment at the University is 25,074 with an
additional 9,860 graduate and professional students (University of Pittsburgh, 2015). The
corporate engagement structure at the University of Pittsburgh is decentralized across areas.
Corporate sponsored research, one facet of corporate engagement, may have oversight from the
Office of Research, Institutional Advancement, or an individual department or school, depending
on the specific needs of the relationship. Organizationally, corporate sponsored research sits
within Institutional Advancement. The University currently engages with corporations primarily
through its faculty in the Schools of Engineering, Medicine and Pharmacy. In response to a
number of trends described below, as well as internal changes, the University is exploring
opportunities for restructuring its corporate engagement model to expand relationships with
industry and ease the process of partnering for all participants.
This report will present an overview of current issues related to university and corporate
engagement. Case studies and a comparison matrix on the identified universities’ organizational
structures are presented and focus on the structure of those relationships that best support the
generation and translation of research.
Issue Overview
There is a long history of university, government and industry relationships in the U.S. related to
research and economic development. Federal funding remains the largest source of research
dollars among major research universities, but industry funding is on the rise to help fill the
resource base being lost by flat or decreasing federal money (Basken, 2015). These university-
corporate relationships provide both partners with opportunities that may not otherwise be
available to either partner alone. Opportunities include, among others, the ability to generate and
translate research that impacts society, a secure research funding base, engaging students in local
and global initiatives, and preparing a competent and innovative workforce. Recent trends at the
local, national, and global level make structuring such relationships for mutual benefit critically
important.

2
Trends
Trends at the local, national, and global level have affected both university and industry research
efforts and contribute to the need to develop alternative approaches to sustain U.S. research and
development efforts—approaches that include new collaborative relationships between
universities and industry. These trends include: decreased federal research funding to
universities; decreased state support; changes in corporate research structures; an increased need
for an educated and innovative workforce; expectations that universities will help drive the
economy; and greater global competition (Internal communication, 2014). Major issues related
to these trends are described.
Decreased Federal Funding for Research. The late 1990’s and early 2000’s marked a
period of rapid growth in federal research dollars, particularly through National Institute of
Health (NIH) funding (Science/Business Innovation Board AISBL, 2012). Universities
responded by expanding research facilities, expecting the funding to continue or increase (Harris
& Benancasa, NPR, 2014). When the economy stalled, the “NIH cliff” occurred, with years of
flat or decreased funding. Similarly, Department of Defense support declined as the U.S.
engaged in various military conflicts around the world, and NASA shifted resources from
research to development (Cohen, 2011). The result has been that many researchers are unable to
renew existing grants or generate new funding through the government, making it difficult to
maintain facilities and resources to the same extent as previously (Cohen, 2011).
Overall federal funding is not expected to return to early levels and universities cannot expect to
see dramatic increases in federal research and development funds (Howard and Laird, 2013).
Although the Obama administration called for a 1.2% increase in funding for scientific research
for the 2015 budget, that rate does not keep up with inflation (Deng, 2014). Although federal
dollars will remain a major source of funding for university research (currently accounting for
three-fifths of university spending), these trends point to the increasing importance of developing
relationships with foundations, agencies, donors, and corporations (Basken, 2015; Howard &
Laird, 2013).
Decreased State Support to Institutions. Deep cuts to public higher education in
Pennsylvania since 2010 exacerbated the already comparatively low state support for these
institutions, which includes the University of Pittsburgh, one of the four state-related institutions.
Added to that is the fact that Pennsylvania has both the third-highest student debt and tuition for
public institutions in the U.S. (Hertzenberg, Price, & Wood, 2014). Similar trends are seen across
the country (Hertzenberg, Price, & Wood, 2014). Although there is indication of some turn-
around, it is anticipated that it will take years to return to pre-recession levels (Mitchell, Palacios,
& Leachman, 2014). Low levels of state funding and high tuition impact a university’s ability to
attract the best and brightest of students to be the next generation of researchers.

3
Changes in Corporate Research Structures. Corporations are looking at ways to
maximize research and development dollars, and cutbacks to their internal structures have
provided incentives to look for collaborative opportunities outside industry (Howard & Laird,
2013). Currently, total external corporate spending is 1-3%, with only a portion of that going to
universities (Internal communication, 2014). Support for basic science research by industry has
been sporadic while federal dollars may be invested in research that would have occurred by
industry without government intervention (National Science Board, 2008). Additionally,
corporations and universities are dealing with “patent cliffs” and resultant drops in revenue as
patents expire (Blumenstyk, 2011). Universities can provide partnership opportunities through
their faculty and student resource pool that can translate into benefit for both parties that could
not be achieved by either alone. These “win-win” opportunities can be seen as businesses tap
into the human resources at the university, and university researchers gain insight into the needs
of business and the translation of research to products that impact the economy and society
(Howard & Laird, 2013). Dealing with the different culture of a university is an issue that needs
to be addressed, particularly in terms of deadlines and expectations, if such partnerships are to
endure (Howard & Laird, 2013).
Increased Need for an Innovative and Educated Workforce. The history of the U.S.
indicates that research and technological innovation by an educated workforce has fueled
economic growth and created continuing advances to our quality of life (Cohen, 2011). There is
a strong link between an educated workforce and economic development and opportunity
(Lilienthal, 2013). Corporations are seeking opportunities for partnering with universities who
can provide access to qualified employees who can contribute to further development and who
possess the skills needed to work collaboratively (Internal communication, 2014). As noted, low
levels of state funding and soaring tuition may impact the ability of universities to attract some of
these students.
Expectations that Universities Will Help Drive the Economy. Much of the economic
growth over the last century has been the result of innovations in research and technology
(Cohen, 2011). Universities are instrumental in continuing to advance these innovations which
drive the economy through their ability to educate the workforce, engage in research, and partner
with industry. As such, and with the decrease in federal research funding, they are attractive
partners to industries who are dealing with changing structures to their research and development
efforts. Currently, industry support of research is only about 5-10% of a university’s research and
development portfolio (Basken, 2015; Internal communication, 2014). Concerns about conflict
of interest, intellectual property rights, and different laws and regulations are but some of the
issues that need to be addressed for partnerships with industry to be effective.
Greater Competition Globally. Global investment in research and innovation is
growing. China and Korea, in particular, have grown their investment by 10% the past few years
(Cohen, 2011). Added to that are reports that U.S. firms are shifting research and development
initiatives outside the country (Plumer, 2013). The percentage of patents and publications by the

4
U.S., while needing to be taken in context, has declined as other nations have increased their
contributions (National Science Board, 2008).
Engagement
The recent literature on community engagement suggests a departure from the traditional
relationship between universities and corporations. Until the late 1980s, it was customary for
companies to provide financial gifts or donations in exchange for preferential access to
recruitment of students (NACRO, 2011). However, companies began moving away from
providing philanthropic gifts that had no clear return on investment. Instead, corporations began
to see themselves as long-term investors rather than casual donors, and their expectations of the
relationship broadened to include sponsored research, new technologies, scientific consulting,
and employee training (NACRO, 2011). The idea shifted from one of community engagement to
one of corporate engagement. Therefore, it became increasingly important for universities to
develop functional corporate relations models that produced measurable outcomes of mutual
benefit.
Corporate Engagement Defined. As corporate expectations have evolved, so have
university missions. As Nelles and Vorley (2009) observe, “Over the past two decades a “Third
Mission” for universities has been articulated, alongside teaching and research; and this third
mission is understood as commercial engagement” (p. 161). This put a new emphasis on
entrepreneurship and prompted universities to more clearly define corporate engagement. The
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a consortium of the Big Ten universities plus the
University of Chicago, defines engagement as “the partnership of university knowledge and
resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative
activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens;
strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and
contribute to the public good” (CIC, 2005, p. 2). These outcomes are often achieved through
internships, co-ops, curriculum development, consulting, and philanthropy. While the majority of
the literature provides ample information on desirable outcomes of corporate engagement, there
is far less in terms of implementation. According to the research thus far, many universities are
still developing structural models for corporate engagement that provide sustainable mutual
benefits. As NACRO (2011) recognizes, “no two universities will have identical corporate
relations programs: public or private, size of faculty and student populations, the size and quality
of its business, engineering, and medical schools, importance to the local economy and unique
campus cultures will all shape the opportunities and dynamics of each university’s program” (p.
2). Among all of these factors, campus culture arguably has the biggest influence on the success
of corporate engagement as it sets the tone for how the institution will be perceived by the
corporation.

5
University Models of Corporate Engagement. Although corporate engagement models
at universities are still evolving, three models for corporate relations at research universities as
described by NACRO recur in the literature. NACRO (as cited in the Kansas State University
Foundation report, 2010) identifies these three as:
1) Philanthropic. Typically managed through a development office, this model focuses on
transactions that increase gifts to the university. While the development office may be able to
assist with referring corporations to other areas in the university, including student recruitment or
research and development, this is not the primary focus of this model.
2) Decentralized-Holistic. This model consists of various, unit-level offices that assist with
specific functions between the corporation and the university. In this model, the development
office may assist with philanthropic efforts while a technology/licensing office would be the
entry point for those related needs.
3) Industrial Focus-Holistic. This model reflects a centralized group that serves as the “front
door” for industry. This model is relationship-focused rather than transaction-focused and serves
to facilitate and expedite corporate-university activities. In this model, philanthropy is not the
central objective of this group and targeted giving is still managed by the development office.
This third model, with the idea of a single point of entry into the institution for corporations—a
“concierge” model—is one that is gaining increasing interest. In this model, institutions have a
central corporate relations office that assists corporations in navigating the often complex
university structure. This corporate relations office is also responsible for facilitating
relationships between the corporation and other university departments. For this model to be
successful, it is critical for central university administration to support and define the mutual
benefits to be obtained from the partnership that coincide with each partner’s mission and to
establish a holistic, industry-focused approach (Kansas State University Foundation Report,
2010). In a 2010 review of best practices in research universities using this model, the Kansas
State University Foundation Office of Research and Sponsored Programs found that the six
universities they examined indicated that corporations were more satisfied with this approach,
leading to more sustainable partnerships (p. 3).
When it comes to sustainable partnerships, NACRO (2012) identified tiers of corporate
engagement to create a spectrum that allows corporate relations officers to develop management
plans that will move corporations along the spectrum. Tier 1, Strategic Partnership, is a
relationship that has evolved to include significant, ongoing, financial contributions (sponsored
research, gifts) meriting central coordination. Tier 2, Broad-Based Engagement, is when the
company is engaged across multiple units in a variety of ways, with company leadership
participation. Tier 3, Tailored Partnership, is when the company works closely with the
university to find value-added opportunities for a deeper relationship; company prefers “one-stop
shopping.” Tier 4, Managed Relationship, only has a few points of interest requiring

6
coordination. Tier 5, Single Point of Engagement, is when the company is involved in a limited
capacity. The identification of tiers of corporate engagement along with corporate engagement
processes (see NACRO Metrics White Paper for additional information) allows key metrics for
assessment to move away from purely philanthropic measures to ones that look at the complexity
of engagement relationships and the movement of those relationships through the continuum.
It is apparent from the literature that there is no one model that fits all research universities and
their corporate partners. A model that maximizes realization of the identified mission and goals
of each partner can provide sustainable benefits to both.
Methodology
The 62 public and private institutions that comprise the Association of American Universities
(AAU) were initially reviewed for inclusion in this study. The list was narrowed to twenty-three
by choosing universities that had schools of medicine and engineering and considering their total
research and development expenditures. Two additional universities without medical schools
were added to the list after consulting with the Executive Director of the University-Industry
Demonstration Partnership (UIDP). From that list, eleven universities were chosen to participate
from among those identified as leaders in successful engagement with industry. These
institutions were selected with input from the University of Pittsburgh Vice Provost for Research
and the University of Pittsburgh Associate Vice Chancellor for Technology Management and
Commercialization. An email introducing the benchmarking survey and a request for
participation in the survey and a follow-up telephone interview was sent to the eleven
institutions. A link to the 10-question survey using the Qualtrics, LLC software adopted by the
University of Pittsburgh was provided in the email. Participants were asked to provide contact
information for a 30-40 minute follow-up telephone interview (Appendices, Survey and
Interview Questions). A follow-up email requesting participation was sent by the study authors
and the Vice Provost for Research.
Eight universities responded to the survey and agreed to participate in the telephone interviews.
Individual results are provided in the case studies on pages 9 – 24 and in the chart on page 27.
Telephone interviews followed the format described in the Appendices but were tailored to
explore the individual responses to the online survey. All participants were offered a copy of the
final benchmarking findings.

7
PARTICIPANT OVERVIEW MATRIX
*Source: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES 2013)
Carnegie
Mellon
University
Duke
University
Georgia
Instituteof
Technology
Universityof
Florida
Universityof
Michigan
Universityof
Minnesota
TwinCities
Universityof
Washington
Washington
University
St.Louis
Institution
Type
Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private
Urban/
Suburban/
Rural
Urban Suburban Urban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Suburban
# of Under-
graduates
6,237 6,648 14,558 32,008 28,283 32,300 31,099 7,334
# of
Graduate/
Professional
6,918 8,819 6,913 16,272 15,427 16,700 14,114 6,959
Medical
School
N/A
School of
Medicine
N/A
College of
Medicine
Michigan
Medical
University
of
Minnesota
Medical
School
School of
Medicine
School of
Medicine
Engineering
School
College of
Engineering
Pratt School
of
Engineering
College of
Engineering
College of
Engineering
Michigan
Engineering
College of
Science &
Engineering
College of
Engineering
School of
Engineering &
Applied
Sciences
Annual R&D
Expenditures*
271
million
992
million
730
million
695
million
1.3 billion
858
million
1.1 billion 684 million

8
CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED
AAU SCHOOLS

Carnegie Mellon University
9
Corporate Engagement at Carnegie Mellon University
NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate & Institutional Partnerships
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Lorena McLaren
Corporate Engagement Structure
At Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), industry relationships are managed through the Office of
Corporate & Institutional Partnerships, the central office for industry contact. This office is
housed in University Advancement along with Alumni Relations & Annual Giving, Donor
Relations, Foundation Relations, Development, Advancement Information Systems and
Organizational Development. While two individuals staff this centralized office, there are four
other staff members housed within the schools and colleges of the University who are considered
to be fundraisers.
The research arm of CMU’s relationships with industry is primarily handled through the Office
of the Vice President for Research, which also manages the Office of Sponsored Programs. The
Office of Sponsored Programs assists in proposals, contract negotiations and award compliance.
The Office of Sponsored Programs utilizes an integrated system, the Sponsored Programs and
Research Compliance System (SPARCS), to manage interactions with research administration
and compliance staff. The College of Engineering and the School of Computer Science are the
schools most actively engaged in corporate-sponsored research. There are opportunities for
corporate-sponsored research in the humanities and social sciences, depending on the company’s
needs and where the department falls within the university structure.
The Office of Corporate & Institutional Partnerships has a dotted line relationship with the
Office of the Vice President for Research. Staff meetings occur every three weeks for direct and
dotted line individuals to forecast potential relationships and to identify the companies that are
visiting campus in the next few weeks. This allows time to invite appropriate individuals from
within the University to present CMU projects to the companies. While the majority of the
companies that partner with CMU tend to do so with the Schools of Engineering and Computer
Science, these meetings allow for other schools or departments to suggest ways in which they
can interact with a company to help solve company challenges.
The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) has described three models
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the model for CMU could be classified as
• Founded in 1900
• Private, urban campus
• Over $271 million in R&D expenditures annually (NCSES 2013)
• 6,237 Undergraduate students
• 6,918 Graduate/Professional students

10
falling between the Philanthropic Focus and Industrial Focus-Holistic models. The job of the
Office of Corporate & Institutional Partnerships staff is to listen to a company’s needs and lay
out the pros and cons of the various avenues available for developing a holistic relationship.
Since the Corporate & Institutional Partnership office reports to University Advancement,
Corporate & Institutional Partnership needs to track all resources coming into the University in
the form of philanthropic dollars, endowed professorships, scholarships or fellowships, executive
education, recruiting, or sponsored research. The Office of Corporate & Institutional Partnership
manages the holistic engagement of their corporate partners to meet all of the corporation’s
needs. University Advancement tracks corporate relationships and makes contact reports through
Ellucian Advance software. Although described as “not perfect,” the system is able to generate
sufficient supplemental reports.
Strategies and Metrics of Success
CMU has strategic partnerships with a number of corporations. CMU stated several advantages
for having a corporate engagement model with this mix. Of great advantage is that University
Advancement is able to market the University, having a broad view of the entire University
rather than just the silos or divisions that happen within departments. The office also has a
communications group that not only promotes communication internally but also externally
through annual reports and invitations to key players to campus events, all of which lead to the
next point of stewardship. University Advancement believes they are able to meet most
companies’ needs and help each individual company “feel like a VIP.” And, tracking of
corporate engagement through Ellucian Advance software allows them to generate annual
reports for the top companies. There are some disadvantages of having Corporate & Institutional
Partnerships located outside OVPR—it creates some distance between them and the faculty and
their influence in the University system is less than OVPR. However, having the office in
Advancement allows them to consider the holistic relationship throughout the entire life cycle of
the partnership.
For CMU, the key to establishing and nurturing these relationships is the ability to listen and
understand corporate needs—being “industry friendly.” This requires leveraging established
faculty to make corporation visits while attending conferences in other states to help establish
new relationships. It also requires having competent corporate relations staff at the University
who are able to listen, strategically plan pathways and points of contact, and then nourish the
relationship from the background.
A key measure of success is the number of strategic partners the University establishes. The
breadth and depth of the relationship with the “right” partner is important—the corporation’s
needs must match the University’s needs and mission. The “right” partner may be a large global
corporation or a small company located in the same community as the University. Since
Corporate & Institutional Partnerships is housed in University Advancement, total dollars
received is an important second key measure of success.
Intellectual Property
Carnegie Mellon’s Office of Sponsored Research handles intellectual property. Intellectual
property tends to be owned by both the University and the corporation and can be negotiated.
Corporate & Institutional Partnerships assists by connecting the various people involved in the
negotiation and may intervene if negotiation comes to a standstill.

11
Duke University
Corporate Engagement at Duke University
NAME OF OFFICE: Duke University Corporate Relations
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thomas Healy
At Duke University (Duke), Corporate Relations is the central office for industry contact. Two
individuals staff this office, the director and associate director. Although this is a central office,
their function is distributed across all schools, institutes and initiatives and is integrated
collectively. The number of Corporate Relations staff in each school, institute and initiative
depends on the size of each. Overall, Duke Corporate Relations functions as a holistic
community where there is centralized coordination with a distributive nature to each school,
institute and initiative. The Office takes a holistic approach to create value between the
corporation and the University. Corporate Relations contacts within each school, institute and
initiative meet every other month to share upcoming opportunities, contacts and best practices.
The Office of the Vice Provost for Research, which also manages Corporate Relations and the
Office of Research Support, oversees sponsored research. The Office of Research Support assists
with proposals, grants, contracts and compliance. The Pratt School of Engineering, The School
of Medicine and The Fuqua School of Business are the schools most actively engaged in
corporate-sponsored research. Duke has a Social Sciences Research Institute that has an
interdisciplinary approach in holistic problem solving of corporation concerns. While
corporations may begin their relationship with one of the three schools, Duke’s interdisciplinary
nature provides opportunities for other schools, institutes and initiatives to be involved in
corporate-sponsored research.
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, Duke aligns with the Industrial Focus-
Holistic model. Duke Corporate Relations works with corporations to connect them to the
appropriate people and to listen to the problems and concerns of the corporation, identifying best
solutions through an interdisciplinary approach. Duke is then able to tackle large problems by
looking at them from various angles.
Duke Corporate Relations previously was within the Office of Development, which coordinates
philanthropy. It was moved to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research when corporations
• Founded in 1838
• Private, suburban campus

12
became less philanthropic and more investment-oriented. While they may provide philanthropic
gifts, most corporations are looking for a return on investment. Duke feels that regardless of
where it sits in the University structure, corporate relations needs to be holistic. This is
challenging, as corporate relations offices need to understand research funding and intellectual
property licensing, making it advantageous to be within the Office of Research. However, they
are also involved in executive education, event sponsorships, philanthropic gifts, matching gift
programs and recruitment, all of which have advantages to being within the Office of
Development. The Corporate Relations office must be able to work in both domains in order to
provide excellent service to corporations.
Part of that service is the ability to track how companies are engaged with Duke. Duke Corporate
Relations uses the Duke Alumni Development Database (DADD) for tracking. It is SAP based
software, with the intended ability to increase communication by allowing all relevant
individuals access to the same information. The system does work to track corporate
relationships with the University, but this system, like others, is only as good as the information
entered. Most important is that the people who work in Corporate Relations remain connected
with each other and work collaboratively to share contacts and best practices.
Duke has broad-based partnerships with a number of corporations and takes an interdisciplinary
approach to solving corporate problems in order to be perceived as effective in many areas. The
University’s structure of schools, institutes and initiatives makes interdisciplinary work flow
well. While structure is important, so are Duke’s alumni. Alumni are leveraged to aid in
navigating and understanding the needs of the corporation that they are working for.
The key to establishing and nurturing these relationships is stewardship. Once a relationship is
established, Duke Corporate Relations looks at how to expand that relationship by listening to
and understanding the issues and concerns of the corporation. Duke has found that corporations
appreciate the ability to maximize their return on investment by having one university satisfy
multiple objectives. One metric of success is the number of broad-based partners the University
has with corporations. These partners need to be a good fit for the University; to achieve that,
Duke remains intellectually honest and does not aspire to be something that it is not.
Another metric is where corporate engagement falls on the value chain. Value for a company
would be increased competitiveness, innovation, global reach, visibility in the marketplace and a
pipeline of talent. Value to the University could be in dollars and in-kind donations (i.e.,
hardware, software, consultants). Measuring success via a value chain requires considering the
progression of the relationship with the corporation. As noted, Duke believes that relationships
must be established and cultivated through excellent stewardship.
Intellectual property has always been a challenging issue and a definitive answer could not be
given as to how intellectual property is handled. The University may maintain intellectual
property or it may be shared; IP can be negotiated. The Office of Research Support manages
intellectual property and refers to compliance guidelines from University-Industry
Demonstration Partnership (UIDP) regarding intellectual property. Duke, however, does not
relinquish its right to publish.

13
• Founded in 1885
• Public, urban university
• Total R & D expenditures over $730 million (NCSES 2013)
• 6,913 Graduate students
Georgia Institute of Technology
Corporate Engagement at the Georgia Institute of Technology
NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate Relations Office
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Caroline Wood
At the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), the Corporate Relations Office is housed
in the development office. The Corporate Relations Office is primarily responsible for
philanthropic giving but also has close ties to the offices that deal with sponsored research, the
Office of Industry Collaboration and the Office of Industry Engagement. The Senior Director of
the Corporate Relations Office reports to the Vice President for Development. Corporate
Relations sits at the table with Office of Industry Engagement during contract negotiations and is
involved with the Office of Industry Collaboration in dealings that involve mutual corporate
relationships. Corporate Relations also works closely with other University offices such as career
services to help match corporations with specific schools depending on their individual needs for
co-ops, internships, or hiring. This internal communication among offices is considered essential
for meeting the diverse needs of their corporate clients.
Sponsored research is primarily managed through the Office of Industry Collaboration. The vice
president of this office reports to the Executive Vice President for Research. The Office of
Industry Engagement, which negotiates all contracts for sponsored research activities, works
through the Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC). The Office of Industry Engagement
Executive Director reports to the Vice President of GTRC, who ultimately reports to the
Executive Vice President for Research.
Georgia Tech establishes relationships with corporations through five major areas of interest to
corporations: recruitment, research, economic development, professional education, and vending.
The University is currently looking at a more centralized online portal of entry for corporations
that would allow the Offices of Industry Engagement, Industry Collaboration and Corporate
Relations to be notified when a corporation has expressed interest in order to best identify the
most appropriate next person for contacting the corporation. Currently, the College of
Engineering is the school most involved in corporate-sponsored research, although each of the
colleges has some level of corporate engagement.

14
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, Georgia Tech aligns most closely with the
Decentralized-Holistic model.
Georgia Tech has broad-based relationships with a number of corporations. Key to establishing
and nurturing these relationships is identifying ways to make working with the University a
seamless and efficient process. Georgia Tech strives to be an institution where corporations find
them easy to work with and who can provide answers to questions in a timely manner—to be a
corporation’s first choice for engagement. To this end, the Corporate Relations Office seeks to
identify from corporations ways in which they are meeting their needs and avenues for
improvement. As noted, Georgia Tech is also exploring opportunities for a more centralized
portal as the first point of contact. Communication between Corporate Relations and the offices
of Industry Engagement and Industry Collaboration allows for adaptation to individual corporate
needs when issues arise that cross official office boundaries.
Corporate Relations adapts to the needs of the individual corporation to maintain and nurture the
relationship. For some, this may involve weekly contact while for others, quarterly or annual
meetings suffice. The goal is to meet the individual needs of the corporation.
Measures of success differ across offices. For Corporate Relations, they include the total amount
of philanthropic dollars received from corporations and the number of contacts it has with
industry. For the Office of Industry Engagement, metrics include the number of contracts
negotiated, and for the Office of Industry Collaboration, the research dollars resulting from the
various collaborations.
Georgia Tech, through the Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC), asserts a right of
ownership to intellectual property (IP) developed by an employee of the University or from
significant use of Georgia Tech resources (Industry Engagement, 2012). The GTRC has
identified four contract mechanisms, however, that provide a continuum of opportunities with IP
for companies engaging in collaborative research (Industry Engagement, 2012).

15
University of Florida
Corporate Engagement at the University of Florida
NAME OF OFFICE: Office of Research
VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH: David Norton
At the University of Florida, sponsored research activities are primarily coordinated through the
Office of Research which, among other functions, manages technology transfer, negotiates all
University-corporate research agreements, and oversees the centers and institutes that support the
research mission of the University. Individual schools within the University also have college-
specific research contacts that foster relationships with industry for research purposes. The
College of Engineering and the College of Medicine are the schools currently most actively
engaged in corporate-sponsored research. Although there is no central or integrated database for
recording corporate-sponsored research activities across the University, the Office of Research is
aware of all relationships by virtue of their role in negotiating all agreements.
Philanthropic relationships with corporations are managed through the University of Florida
Foundation, the fundraising and gift fund arm of the University. The Office of Research is
currently exploring opportunities to provide a more central, visible presence for industry, but is
not interested in controlling all facets of corporate engagement in its broadest sense.
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the University of Florida most closely aligns
with the Decentralized-Holistic model.
The University of Florida has tailored, long-term relationships with corporations and establishes
and nurtures these relationships in a variety of ways; they also continually seek opportunities to
improve in order to avoid the notion among industry that a university can be difficult to work
with. Gainesville, Florida, where the University campus is located, does not have major industry
within the city and so needs to look beyond the region for opportunities. Their status as a major
research university provides an initial level of visibility of interest to corporations seeking
• Founded in 1853
• Public, land-grant university

16
partnerships. The University looks to engage faculty with the technical staff of corporations with
similar research interests to form partnerships. Engaging with alumni in key positions in
corporations has been a valuable strategy to initiate relationships. Promoting their students as
potential future employees can also start a conversation that leads to a relationship. As noted, the
University is also exploring opportunities to have a more visible, central portal for corporate
engagement on their web site.
The Office of Research recognizes that listening to their corporate partners to identify where they
are succeeding and where they may be falling short is key to both establishing new and nurturing
existing long-term relationships with industry. They believe that corporate engagement is a
“contact sport”—that in-person contact is essential for the relationship and that even the best-
designed online resource cannot replace the trust that develops from personal contact. These
relationships help the Office to advance the University’s mission to translate knowledge that has
an impact on society while educating a prepared workforce and developing opportunities for
philanthropic engagement.
The total amount of revenue from sponsored research is the primary metric used by the Office of
Research. Technology transfer and commercialization are other measures important to the
University. The Office of Research is currently exploring additional metrics to improve their
assessment of corporate-sponsored research activities.
Intellectual property (IP) at the University of Florida belongs to the institution. The Office of
Research is exploring whether or not a variation of some recent IP models implemented at other
schools would be an option that would provide benefit to the University. In the University’s
experience to date, there has been little reason not to maintain IP since few industry-sponsored
research activities result in licenses that then result in royalties, particularly when compared with
federally sponsored research.

17
University of Michigan
Corporate Engagement at the University of Michigan
NAME OF OFFICE: Business Engagement Center
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Stella Wixom
At the University of Michigan, corporate engagement encompasses all industries regardless of
size or geography and includes those who reach out to the institution or are proactively sought
after. The Business Engagement Center handles the majority of corporate relations. Established
in 2007, the Center is sponsored jointly by the Office of Research and the Office of University
Development. This holistic approach provides opportunities for corporations to engage in all
facets of the University—including philanthropy, research, student recruiting, and program
involvement. The development office in the School of Engineering was the first to successfully
adopt a holistic model for engagement. From this success, it became clear that corporations were
most comfortable engaging with a central contact.
Although the Business Engagement Center handles the majority of company relations, the
business, engineering, and medical schools can manage their corporate relationships internally
once engaged. However, if the company has interests beyond that school or unit, the initial
contact will get them in touch with the appropriate department or direct them back to the
Business Engagement Center. While having a single point of contact is important, the goal is
also to work collaboratively to nurture the relationship with the company. Within the Business
Engagement Center, a dual reporting structure exists. The Executive Director reports to the Vice
Provost as well as the Vice Provost for Research. To ensure that all departments are fulfilling
their commitments to external constituents, monthly strategy meetings are held to keep the
Business Engagement Center apprised of both current and potential relationships.
The Business Engagement Center is continuously evolving as it incorporates best practices. This
involves implementing new strategies while considering what would make them a better
corporate partner. The Center considers best practices to include development strategies,
prospect management, communication, honest brokering, and customer service. The Center also
seeks to employ people who have industrial experience in sales or business development.
• Founded in 1817
• Public, urban campus
• Over $1.3 billion in R&D expenditures annually (NCSES 2013)

18
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the University of Michigan most closely
aligns with the Industrial Focus-Holistic model they describe.
The University of Michigan has strategic partnerships with a number of corporations. The
Business Engagement Center has grown each year despite the economic downturn in 2007. The
Center tracks corporate revenue, corporate expenditures on research, number of site visits to
corporations and number of site visits corporations make to campus as measures of success.
Since a primary reason corporations seek university partnerships is to hire talented students, the
Center has a significant and long-standing relationship with the campus career office. Faculty
research is another primary reason for engagement and the Center acts as a steward to ensure
corporations get the most out of the partnership.
The University of Michigan places an emphasis on the importance of finding win-win
partnerships where there are mutual benefits for the corporation and the University. The Business
Engagement Center staff is proactive about corporate accounts—from identifying top companies
and working on their relationships to finding things on campus that might appeal to the company.
Bringing progressive ideas to the company adds value to the relationship. To remain connected
with corporations, the Center releases a quarterly newsletter that highlights company success,
program involvement and philanthropy efforts. Part of the strategy behind the newsletter is to
congratulate companies while rousing curiosity from competitors.
A main priority of the Center is to make it easier for companies to connect. Therefore, it is the
staff’s responsibility to be the company’s “feet on the street” and maximize their presence on
campus. If the process is difficult and cumbersome, companies will not engage. In addition to
making engagement easier for the company, the Center tries to drive and grow the partnership; if
companies have success, they will come back. Part of this success stems from the Center’s
ability to truly represent the whole portfolio of the campus to the corporation. This encompasses
everything from literature to social work as companies are encouraged to explore their options.
The Business Engagement Center considers it their responsibility to educate faculty and staff on
why corporate engagement is important. Because Michigan receives the most federally funded
dollars of any public university, it is often hard to get faculty interested in engagement; the
office, however, is making good progress. The Business Engagement Center has a close
relationship with the technology transfer and research administration offices. At Michigan,
effective internal communication is a top priority. In a holistic engagement model, the support of
a wide range of departments as well as University leadership is crucial for getting faculty and
staff on-board.
At the University of Michigan, intellectual property (IP) belongs to both the institution and the
corporation. If a corporation is doing a one-time project, there are standard terms and conditions.
However, if there is a potential for long-term engagement, IP becomes negotiable. For the
University of Michigan, being flexible with IP terms and executing contracts in a timely fashion
are important to successful engagement.

19
• Founded in 1851
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
Corporate Engagement at University of Minnesota—Twin Cities
NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate and Foundation Relations
SENIOR DIRECTOR: Steven Corkery
At the University of Minnesota (Minnesota), corporate engagement is primarily the
responsibility of the Corporate and Foundation Relations office. Individual collegiate units,
however, also have development staff responsible for engagement; with the frequency of their
corporate interactions, the business and engineering schools each have corporate relations
officers. Departmental corporate relations officers report to the Dean and also have a dotted-line
reporting structure to the Senior Director of the Corporate and Foundation Relations office. The
complicated design of the current model, along with feedback from companies, has prompted
Minnesota to move toward a more holistic approach in recent years. For example, when a
company contacts the University about research, the appointed corporate relations officer
matches them with the associated department and suggests possibilities for recruiting and
sponsored events. In an effort to learn more about a company’s interests, the corporate relations
officer will inquire about continuing education needs, opportunities to involve the company in
advisory boards and may suggest volunteer opportunities. However, this move toward central
management is still considered to be informal.
Because much of Minnesota’s corporate engagement activity is highly decentralized, it is a
challenge to coordinate priorities among different units. However, the Corporate and Foundation
Relations office is working with corporate relations officers in other departments to ensure that a
consistent definition for corporate engagement exists. This is achieved through monthly training,
planning, and coordination meetings. The Corporate and Foundation Relations office is also
partnering more closely with the Vice President for Research to align department strategies. Out
of this relationship came a Corporate Engagement Workgroup consisting of representatives from
career services, the alumni association, the Provost’s office, research personnel, and foundation
relations; the Duluth campus also participates in the Workgroup. The purpose of the Workgroup
is to gather input from the deans and examine companies that have invested the most in the
University over the years, whether through philanthropy or sponsored research. After
approximately 25 companies are identified and agreed upon, the Workgroup assumes central

20
management. Along with the Corporate and Foundation Relations office and the VPR, these
representatives work as a team to develop and execute strategies for those companies who
engage the most at the University. Minnesota is still in the process of formalizing its centralized
model, but the Workgroup has been very successful in helping companies navigate the
University and form new connections.
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, at this time Minnesota most closely aligns
with the Decentralized-Holistic model described.
Minnesota has developed tailored partnerships with corporations. Success in corporate
engagement is largely measured by how much new net revenue is coming into the University.
However, the Corporate and Foundation Relations office considers other metrics as well. The
office looks at the number of CEOs of top companies actively engaged with the University,
student recruitment numbers and company job postings within the University. These “softer”
metrics reveal more about the culture of corporate engagement at Minnesota than dollar amounts
alone.
When trying to initially engage corporations, Minnesota leverages existing alumni and faculty
relationships as well as proactively reaching out to new corporations. Typically, a corporation’s
first entrance into the University is linked to student recruiting, which is why career services is a
powerful ally in engagement. Relationships that began in career services have resulted in funding
for scholarships, event sponsoring and partnerships with student organizations. Minnesota is
fortunate to have a number of existing relationships due, in part, to having 19 Fortune 500
companies within 50 miles of campus. However, they continue to look for ways to grow these
partnerships as well as to pursue other relationships outside the region.
Prior benchmarking studies concluded that Minnesota was difficult to work with in terms of
technology transfer and contract turnaround time. This led to a new program introduced by the
President and VPR called the Minnesota Innovation Partnership (MN-IP). At the time, the
University had unused technology “sitting on the shelf” that did not reach the marketplace. With
this program, the idea was to not overvalue the technology, but to make it easier for companies
to access and use. As a result, a friendlier licensing policy emerged that was well received.
Minnesota also introduced “Try and Buy” as part of their MN-IP program, where companies can
try a new technology before deciding whether or not to invest.

21
University of Washington
Corporate Engagement at the University of Washington
NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate and Foundation Relations
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Joanna Glickler
At the University of Washington, corporate relations and foundation relations work as one
central team. Operating under the Office of Advancement, the Corporate and Foundation
Relations office staff maintains a close relationship with the offices of Technology Transfer and
Sponsored Programs. Referred to as a “coordinated centralized-decentralized” model, individual
schools and departments also have functions in place to manage corporate partnerships. This
allows the central office to focus on University-wide corporate engagement and work to improve
and sustain existing partnerships.
The University of Washington’s philosophy toward corporate engagement is to find companies
that want to engage with the University—monetarily or otherwise. The University strives to be a
place where companies come to connect without financial obligation and with an emphasis on
fostering relationships so companies continue to want to be involved. It is a priority to ensure a
beneficial partnership for both parties, and the University of Washington works to provide the
necessary infrastructure to support corporations. The support of leadership is key; deans, for
example, often act as fundraisers to support institutional goals concerning advancement and
engagement.
Corporations are perceived as being natural partners to the University, which does prospecting
through company-to-company relations, outreach, “cold-calling,” and reactive strategies. For
example, when a company comes to the University seeking engagement opportunities, the
Corporate and Foundation Relations office works with them to find the right fit. Currently, the
office is developing new ways to engage with companies with which they do not already have an
established relationship. This includes start-up companies and companies new to the Seattle area.
Furthermore, the office is considering organizing companies into tiers according to their capacity
for engagement in order to help with strategizing.
While several offices, schools, and departments have a hand in corporate engagement, the walls
between units are permeable, ensuring the best possible experience for corporations.
• Founded in 1861
• Over $1.1 billion in R&D expenditures annually (NCSES 2013)

22
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, the University of Washington aligns most
closely with the Industrial Focus-Holistic model they describe.
The University of Washington has developed tailored partnerships with corporations. In an effort
to be a ready partner that is not difficult to engage with, the University of Washington measures
success in a number of ways. Because their philosophy is based on building meaningful contacts
and relationships, success is evaluated based on substance instead of monetary outcomes. For
example, fundraisers do not have dollar goals and staff is evaluated based on the number of
contacts they make. This includes anything from making a phone call to arranging a site visit.
While there are individual unit fundraising goals, the absence of dollar goals works well for the
central office where the intent is always to form long-term relationships. This relationship-
building philosophy offers a more personal approach that many corporations appreciate.
At the University of Washington, Boeing is an example of an interdisciplinary corporate
relationship. They support research in engineering, fund scholarships for students across
departments, and hire and recruit students for internships. Boeing is also a company that is
centrally managed and provides significant support across different units. Connecting leadership
in the central office to strategically important companies ensures proper attention is paid to a
company’s values and expectations. Ultimately, the central office strives to make the University
easy to navigate so companies feel more inclined to engage.
The Indirect Cost (IDC) rate at the University of Washington is a challenge when it comes to
negotiating corporate relations. Often, it becomes a sticking point because it is not a commonly
used industry term. The Corporate and Foundation Relations team is currently working on how
they market IDCs to reassure companies of no “hidden” costs.
The University of Washington owns intellectual property (IP), but companies can license the
technology in different ways. Recently, the University implemented a pre-packaged IP option for
corporations. If companies select one of these options, they will pay a predetermined amount for
IP up-front rather than face an unknown cost at the end. This is expected to stimulate more
engagement with companies, as other institutions have found that offering this option resulted in
a notable rise in sponsored research.

23
Washington University in St. Louis
Corporate Engagement at Washington University in St. Louis
NAME OF OFFICE: Corporate Relations (Danforth)
DIRECTOR: Theresa Menk
The Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) comprises several campuses surrounding St.
Louis. The Danforth campus is home to the majority of undergraduate, graduate and professional
students. Corporate Relations at Danforth has a central office for industry contact, although
corporations may go to individual departments for corporate sponsored research as long as
philanthropy is not involved; the School of Medicine has a separate corporate and foundations
office. Corporate Relations at Danforth is housed in Alumni & Development and is staffed by
five people, including a prospect researcher. By structurally being located in Alumni &
Development, these individuals are considered fundraisers. Corporate Relations at Danforth
works closely with corporate relations at the School of Medicine, but there is not a direct or
dotted line relationship. Corporate Relations at Danforth coordinates with the Office of the Vice
Chancellor for Research to help nourish partnerships. While there are no direct and/or dotted line
relationships between these offices, Corporate Relations at Danforth tends to serve as a
centralized coordinator for their more involved partners to create a more holistic relationship.
Sponsored research is primarily managed through the Office of the Vice Chancellor for
Research, which among other things manages the Office of Sponsored Research Services for
both the Danforth campus and the medical school. The Office of Sponsored Research Services is
divided into offices that aid in all aspects of research administration, including contract
negotiations and compliance. The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the School of
Medicine and the Olin Business School are most actively engaged in corporate-sponsored
research. The Brown School of Social Work, however, is endowed by the Brown Shoe Company
where interdisciplinary projects have engaged departmental entities.
The current director of Corporate Relations moved into this position less than a year ago;
although Corporate Relations was internally organized more toward service to the University
administration, it has altered its position to become a central office of contact for customer
• Founded in 1853
• Private, suburban campus

24
service with the corporation. Top corporate partners are now assigned one contact person within
Corporate Relations as their primary contact to tend to the needs of the corporation—whether
those needs involve research, internships, recruiting, or executive education.
One challenge of moving to a new model has been outdated databases. WUSTL built their
database for individual philanthropy and not corporate engagement. Because of the current
distributive nature of engagement, each school has its own tracking system without integration.
Currently, each school creates a separate annual report that Corporate Relations files to track
holistic relationships.
Another challenge has been the University structure itself. Corporate Relations is housed in
Alumni & Development and is focused on philanthropy rather than total engagement. The Office
of Sponsored Research Services is housed in the Office of Vice Chancellor for Research, while
the Office of Technology Management is housed in the office of the Provost & Executive Vice
Chancellor of Academic Affairs. This structure makes it difficult to navigate the many facets of
corporate engagement. Since Corporate Relations needs to cross many domains, and recognizing
that there may not be a perfect University structural fit, they believe it is essential to have strong
administrative support for the internal relationships that must develop.
for corporate engagement. As defined by NACRO, WUSTL lies between the Philanthropic
Focus and Decentralized-Holistic model.
WUSTL has broad-based partnerships with a number of corporations and wants to be perceived
as having great customer service that provides honest information. WUSTL assigns Corporate
Relations staff to serve as the concierge to their top engaged corporations. To identify these
corporations, a flow chart was used to categorize engagement levels. WUSTL also placed
corporations into quadrats to determine which St. Louis based companies were highly engaged
and highly giving. Through understanding where companies are along the spectrum, Corporate
Relations can plan how to best move companies forward along that spectrum.
Being located in the Office of Alumni & Development provides WUSTL with access to
resources for special events for their top broad-based partners; events have included balloon
drops and TED-styled talks. Corporation executives are invited to these events along with the
students and faculty that benefit from the partnership. Having access to alumni records allows
the Office to leverage alumni to grow the corporate prospect pool and expand corporate
engagement nationally and internationally.
Stewardship is a key factor in nurturing corporate relationships. Stewardship books are well
received by top strategic corporate partners and are also useful for the University to see the
holistic picture of the relationship in the broader context. However, stewardship books take
tremendous amounts of staff time in light of outdated databases and thus tend to be discouraged
by administrators with limited budgets.
Performance metrics in the past focused on the amount of philanthropic dollars raised. In the
current model shift, the number of strategic partners and where companies fall on the
engagement spectrum will be higher on the assessment matrix than overall dollars received.

25
In 2005, WUSTL’s intellectual property policy was revised in order to maintain intellectual
property (IP) “if significant University resources were used or if it is created pursuant to a
research project funded through corporate, federal or other external sponsors administered by
Washington University” (WUSTL, 2015). However, WUSTL is now starting to negotiate master
research agreements to be more generous with IP rights in order to engage more corporations.
These master agreements tend to be five-year contracts that cover the entire project. Lost
opportunities for University-corporate relationships occurred in the past due to inflexible IP
rights.

26
COMPARISON MATRIX
Carnegie
Mellon
University
Duke
University
Georgia
Instituteof
Technology
Universityof
Florida
Universityof
Michigan
Universityof
Minnesota–
TwinCities
Universityof
Washington
Washington
Universityin
St.Louis
NACRO Model
of Engagement
Philanthropic
& Industrial
Focus-
Holistic
Industrial
Focus-
Holistic
Decentralized-
Holistic
Decentralized-
Holistic
Industrial
Focus-
Holistic
Decentralized-
Holistic
Industrial
Focus-
Holistic
Philanthropic
& Industrial
Focus-
Holistic
Name of
Office
Corporate &
Institutional
Partnerships
Office of
Corporate
Relations
Corporate
Relations
Office
Office of
Research
Business
Engagement
Center
Corporate &
Foundation
Relations
Corporate &
Foundation
Relations
Office of
Corporate
Relations
Reporting
Structure
University
Advancement
Office of
Research
Office of
Development
VP for
Research
reports to
President
Dual: Office
of Research
& Office of
Development
VP for
Research
University
Advancement
Alumni &
Development
Staffing
2 centrally
and 4 in
satellites
2 centrally
and others
within
schools,
institutes
and
initiatives
7 for CRO,
19 for OIE,
6 for OIC
2 members
of central
staff
12
members
of central
staff
10
members of
central staff
10
members
of central
staff
5 for
Danforth,
3 for
Medical
School
Majority of
Engagement
(NACRO tiers)
Strategic
Partnership
Broad-Based
Engagement
Broad-Based
Engagement
Tailored
Partnership
Strategic
Partnership
Tailored
Partnership
Tailored
Partnership
Broad-Based
Engagement
Office for
corporate
sponsored
research
Office of
Research
Office of
Research,
University
Development
and Individual
Schools
Office of
Industry
Collaboration
(OIC), Office
of Industry
Engagement
(OIE)
Office of
Research
Office of
Research &
Office of
Development
Office of
Research
Office of
Research,
Industry
Relations
Team
Office of
Research
Integrated
System for
recording
engagement
Advance DADD N/A N/A Blackbaud N/A Advance N/A
Who owns
intellectual
property
Both
Institution
and
Corporation
Institution
OR
Institution
and
Corporation
Institution;
may be
negotiable
Institution
Both
Institution
and
Corporation
Both
Institution
and
Corporation
Institution
Both
Institution
and
Corporation

27
Key Findings
Corporate financing of research accounts for a small portion of overall university R&D
expenditures; however, it is the area of most growth with a national increase of about 61.0%
(Basken, 2015). In a challenging fiscal environment where federal and state funding has declined
or remained flat, universities are reexamining internal structures, policies and procedures
regarding corporate engagement. The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers
(NACRO) began meeting in 2006 to discuss best practices when engaging the corporate sector
and their work resulted in two white papers in 2011 and 2012 that discussed recommendations
for successful corporate engagement (NACRO, 2011; NACRO, 2012). Understanding how
institutions1
that have successful industry partnerships are structured helps to understand how
best practices can be effectively implemented for corporate engagement. Some key findings from
this study are:
• Housed in University Advancement and Development. Of the eight institutions studied,
four Corporate Relations Offices were housed in University Advancement and Development.
At the University of Michigan, the Corporate Relations Office is sponsored jointly by the
Office of Research and the Office of University Development. Close contact with alumni,
particularly those in key positions in corporations, was important for engaging companies in
the various facets comprising corporate engagement.
• Internal Communication. Regardless of where Corporate Relations sits in the university
structure, interviewees emphasized the importance of effective internal communication
among relevant offices.
o Many had corporate relations satellite staff housed within individual schools that are
highly involved in corporate engagement. Medical, engineering and computer science
schools tended to have more than one of these satellite staff.
o For those universities housed in University Advancement and Development, most
have dotted line relationships with the Office of Research.
o All had regular meetings between relevant academic individuals. Of the schools
surveyed, some institutions have meetings weekly while others have them every other
week, monthly or every other month. Having satellite staff in individual schools and
dotted line relationships between offices promoted the need for regular meetings
between all schools within the institution. Regular meetings allowed for the
discussion of upcoming corporate visits and strategic planning of best practices.
1
The institutions and/or their corporate relations officer selected for this study included those
involved in writing the NACRO white papers as well as those that were not involved

28
• Business Friendly. The institutions studied all emphasized the need to be perceived as
“business friendly.”
o Corporations prefer an easy, organized pathway into the university. For Michigan,
corporations enter through the central portal of their Business Engagement Center.
For others, it was through their corporate relations office, which could be a central
location or a satellite within a school. Others were exploring ways to improve that
first portal of entry.
o Regardless of the method of entrance, corporate relations points of contact were
competent, outgoing and able to listen to corporate problems and create a holistic plan
involving the appropriate university faculty and staff across the institution.
o Corporations prefer a central contact once a partnership was proposed. Some of the
universities surveyed had corporation relations’ staff that sat in on negotiation
meetings or made phone calls to help resolve standstills. They nurtured the
relationship through stewardship that included frequent contact, invitations to
university events and quarterly or annual reports for top performing corporate
partners.
o Balancing efficiency in Intellectual Property (IP) negotiations with protecting the
University was a challenge. Some institutions developed a “menu” of predetermined
options for corporations to streamline the process and appeal to businesses.

29
References
About › University of Michigan. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.umich.edu/about/
About Us | University of Minnesota Twin Cities. (2015). Retrieved from http://twin-cities.umn.edu/about-us
About | University of Pittsburgh. (2015). Retrieved from http://pitt.edu/about
Basken, P. (2015). Team science. The Trends Report, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Blumenstyk, G. (2011). Universities continue to increase start-ups and commercialization of research. The Chronicle
of Higher Education.
Cohen, S. (2011). The danger of cutting federal science funding. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/the-danger-of-cutting-fed_b_819439.html
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Committee on Engagement. (2005). Resource guide and
recommendations for defining and benchmarking engagement. Retrieved on January 28, 2015, from
http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/groups/CommitteeOnEngagement/archive/documents/EngagementReportREV2-
22-05.pdf
Corporate Engagement: Recommendations for a holistic, single portal approach for Kansas State University
Corporate Relations. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.k-state.edu/president/initiatives/cec/
Deng, B. (2014). Congress is terrible at science—And this should make us worried. Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/07/the_first_bill_is_terrible_for_american_science_and_declin
ing_research_funds.html
Fast Facts - Carnegie Mellon University | CMU. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/about/fastfacts.shtml
Facts | About | Washington University in St. Louis. (2015). Retrieved from http://wustl.edu/about/facts/
Facts and Rankings - University of Florida. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ufl.edu/about-uf/facts-and-rankings/
GT | Research at Tech - About Research At Tech. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.research.gatech.edu/
Harris, R., and Benancasa, R. (2014). U.S. science suffering from booms and busts in funding. National Public
Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/09/09/340716091/u-s-science-suffering-from-
booms-and-busts-in-funding
Hertzenberg, S., Price, M., and Wood, M. (2014). A must-have for Pennsylvania, part 2: Investment in higher
education for growth and opportunity. Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://pennbpc.org/category/issue-tags/education/higher-education

30
Howard, D.J., and Laird, F.N. (2013). The new normal in funding university science. Issues in Science and
Technology. Retrieved from http://issues.org/30-1/the-new-normal-in-funding-university-science/
Industry Engagement | Supporting Industry Collaboration & Commercialization. (2012). Retrieved from
http://industry.gatech.edu/
Lilienthal, C. (2013). Investing in education will build a stronger PA economy. Pennsylvania Budget and Policy
Center. Retrieved from http://pennbpc.org/release-investing-education-will-build-stronger-pa-economy
Mitchell, M., Palacios, V. & Leachman, M. (2014). States are still funding higher education below pre-recession
levels. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdf
NACRO Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers. (2011.) Five essential elements of a
successful twenty-first century university corporate relations program. [White paper].
Retrieved from:
http://www.nacroonline.org/assets/docs/essential%20elements_white_paper_final.pdf
NACRO Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers. (2012). Metrics for a successful twenty-
first century academic corporate relations program. [White paper]. Retrieved from:
http://www.nacroonline.org/assets/metrics%20whitepaper%202012%20final.pdf
National Science Board. (2008). Research and development: Essential foundation for U.S. competitiveness in a
global economy. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm?CFID=18038398&CFTOKEN=72631398&jsessionid=f03
06af4123d55ba79eb342d63674715f6e7
Nelles, J., & Vorley, T. (2010). Constructing an entrepreneurial architecture: An emergent framework for studying
the contemporary university beyond the entrepreneurial turn. Innovative Higher Education, 35, 161-176.
doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9130-3
nsf.gov - NCSES - US National Science Foundation (NSF). (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/index.cfm
Plumer, B. (2013). The coming R&D crash. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/the-coming-rd-crash/
Public Profiles | Office of Planning & Budgeting. (2015). Retrieved from http://opb.washington.edu/content/public-
profiles
Quick Facts About Duke | Office of News and Communications. (2015). Retrieved from
http://newsoffice.duke.edu/all-about-duke/quick-facts-about-duke
Science/Business Innovation Board AISBL (2012) Making industry-university partnerships work: Lessons from
successful collaborations. [Report] Retrieved from:

31
http://www.sciencebusiness.net/OurReports/ReportDetail.aspx?ReportId=33
Washington University in St. Louis. (2015). Retrieved April 12, 2015, from
http://wustl.edu/policies/intelpropfaq.html

33
Appendix A: Survey Questions
Corporate Engagement
The purpose of this survey is to identify models and best practices surrounding corporate
engagement. For this survey, corporate engagement is defined as the partnership of university
knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship,
research and creative activity. Please consider this definition when answering the following
questions, particularly in relation to corporate-sponsored research.
Q1 Models for managing corporate engagement may be centralized (a "concierge" model) or
distributed among many offices and/or colleges across the institution. Would you describe your
institution's model as primarily:
Distributed
Centralized
Other ____________________
Answer If Models for managing corporate engagement may be centralized (a "concierge"
model) or distributed... Centralized Is Selected
Q2 What is the name of the office at your institution that handles corporate engagement?
Q3 For each of the following areas under the umbrella of corporate engagement, please
indicate which office at your institution has some responsibility and oversight (check all that
apply):
Officeof
Research(1)
Officeof
Development
(2)
Officeof
Corporate
Relations(3)
Officeof
University
Relations(4)
Officeof
Technology
Management
(5)
AlumniOffice
(6)
Individual
Schoolor
Department
(7)
Other(8)
Corporate-
sponsored
research (1)
Internships (2)
Co-ops (3)
Curriculum
and education
(4)
Technology
transfer (5)

34
Philanthropy
(6)
Other
services to
the institution
(7)
Q4 Where does the office that deals with corporate-sponsored research "sit" in the
organizational chart within your institution's structure?
Q5 What is the title of the person that leads this office?
Q6 Who does the person leading this office report to?
Q7 How many people staff this office?
Q8 In what year was this office formed?
Q9 The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) benchmarking committee
describes levels of engagement in terms of tiers. Please rank the following statements in order
of which best describes engagement with corporations at your institution (1 = this statement is
the most true at my institution):
______ STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP: The relationship has evolved to include significant,
ongoing, financial contributions (sponsored research, gifts) meriting central coordination.
______ BROAD-BASED ENGAGEMENT: The company is engaged across multiple units in a
variety of ways, with company leadership participation.
______ TAILORED PARTNERSHIP: The company works closely with the university to find
value-added opportunities for a deeper relationship; company prefers "one-stop
shopping."
______ MANAGED RELATIONSHIP: Only a few points of interest requiring coordination.
______ SINGLE POINT OF ENGAGEMENT: The company is involved in a limited capacity.

35
Q10 Do you have an integrated system for recording engagement related to corporate-
sponsored research across your institution? If YES, which system do you use?
Yes ____________________
No
Q11 In terms of corporate-sponsored research, does intellectual property belong to the
institution, the corporation or some combination?
Institution
Corporation
Combination
Q13 We will be conducting follow-up interviews in the next few weeks regarding the answers
provided on the survey. Please supply the following information:
Q14 Name of contact person for interview.
Q15 Contact person's e-mail address.
Q16 Phone number for phone interview.
Q17 Best day and/or time for phone interview between March 20th and March 31st.
Q18 Thank you for agreeing to participate in this benchmarking project. As a token of our
appreciation for your participation in this important effort, you will receive our benchmarking
report upon completion.

36
Appendix B: Phone Interview Questions1
1. How does your institution define corporate engagement? Is this definition aligned across departments?
2. If you have a centralized model of corporate engagement, how did you arrive at that point? Did you
encounter resistance, and if so, what type and from whom? How did you overcome it?
3. If you have moved from a centralized model, what were the reasons?
4. Would you describe your model as successful? What metrics do you use to measure “success”?
5. How do you get corporations in the door? How do you retain them? Are there policies and procedures
to facilitate corporate engagement, particularly corporate-sponsored research?
6. How do you want corporations to perceive your institution?
7. Do you have long-term partnerships with corporations? If so, how have you nourished those
partnerships? (refer to answer from survey)
8. Have you had success with finding partners for the entire scope of corporate engagement activities we
described? If so, were there certain strategies you used to identify and retain such partners?
9. What departments at your institution interface with corporations most frequently, particularly with
corporate-sponsored research?
10. Do you have corporate interactions with the social sciences and humanities at your institution? If so,
can you describe their scope?
11. What benefits have you seen from establishing corporate partnerships?
12. How do you handle intellectual property ownership when interacting with companies?
13. What barriers or challenges to corporate engagement have you encountered? How have you overcome
them?
14. What do you consider best practices in corporate engagement, particularly in regard to corporate-
sponsored research?
15. Are you planning to do anything different at your institution regarding corporate engagement,
particularly with corporate-sponsored research? Is there anything you hope to improve?
16. Is the location of the office(s) that manage corporate relations ideal in its placement within the
organizational structure?
If not, please indicate where a better location might be. ___________________________
1
Interview questions were modified as needed depending on survey responses.

37
Appendix C: Graphic Interpretations of Key Findings
Figure 1. Where corporate Relations are housed within the Institution.
*At the University of Florida, Corporate and Foundation Relations is housed under the University of Florida Foundation, Inc.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT
Carnegie Mellon
Georgia Tech
Univ of Washington
Washingon Univ -
St. Louis
OFFICE OF RESEARCH
Duke University
Univ of Florida*
Univ of Minnesota -
Twin Cities
UniversityofMichigan

38
Figure 2. NACRO models of engagement used by participating Institutions.
Industrial Focus-Holistic
Duke University
University of Michigan
University of Washington
Decentralized Holistic
GA Tech
University of Florida
University of
Minnesota - Twin
Cities
Philanthropic

39
Figure 3. Ownership of Intellectual Property.
• University of Florida
• University of Washington
Institution
• Carnegie Mellon Univerity
• University of Michigan
• University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
• Washington University in St. Louis
Both Corporation
& Institution
• Duke University
• Georgia Institute of Technology
Institution OR
both Corporation
& Institution

40
Figure 4. majority of the type of engagement with corporate partners based on NACRO tiers.
Single Point of
Engagement
Manged Relationship
Tailored Partnership
• University of Florida
• University of Minnesota -
Twin Cities
• University of Washington
Broad-based
Engagement
• Duke University
• Georgia Institute of
Technology
• Washington University in
St. Louis
Strategic Partnership
• Carnegie Mellon
University
• University of Michigan

41
Appendix D: Contact Information for Participating Schools
Carnegie Mellon University Lorena McLaren lmclaren@cmu.edu
Duke University Thomas Healy thomas.healy@duke.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology Caroline Wood caroline.wood@dev.gatech.edu
University of Florida David Norton dpnorton@ufl.edu
University of Michigan Stella Wixom stwixom@umich.edu
University of Minnesota Steven Corkery scorkery@umn.edu
University of Washington Joanna Glickler glickler@uw.edu
Washington University St. Louis Theresa Menk theresa_menk@wustl.edu

Corporate Engagement benchmarking study

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Corporate Engagement benchmarking study

Semelhante a Corporate Engagement benchmarking study (20)

Corporate Engagement benchmarking study