TitleSubtitleDescriptionProcess Main StagesTouchpoints & BottlenecksBenchmarking and reference to other similar initiativesSuccess Factors / BarriersConclusionDosDont'sContact 1Contact 2
Baekeland PhD mandatesInter-sectoral mobile researchers obtaining a collaborative industry-academia dual desk PhDTo support basic dual desk PhD research that – if successful – has clear industrial application and added value, and to train knowledge workers for the future, the Flemish government implemented the Baekeland PhD Mandate funding scheme. The funding scheme aims to build up scientific or technological knowledge as a basis for economic applications by supporting a mobile researcher financially to perform research to achieve a PhD. This means that the project should fit within strategic basic research with an economic finality, defined as high quality research that is innovative and provides the PhD student with ample intellectual challenges. The Baekeland PhD mandates are projects that are assigned to a ‘consortium’ involving a PhD candidate, a Flemish company and a Flemish university or another type of knowledge centre (which is then cooperating with an academic promotor affiliated to a Flemish university). The mandate holder can be an employee of the company or an employee of a university/knowledge centre. The programme is open to all candidates that can be admitted to a PhD programme at a Flemish university. Meaning that there are no additional restrictions/requirements on nationalities and or academic disciplines. A Baekeland PhD mandate provides funding for 4 years pay-roll, operating costs, equipment costs and fixed costs in relation to one specific employee (the mandate holder). The funding granted by the government depends on the size of the company and ranges from 50% to 70%. The funding can get extra support if there is a well-balanced collaboration between several independent companies. STAGE 1 – THE APPLICATION STAGE A project proposal is defined and developed in consultation with all partners: the company (companies), the knowledge centre(s) and the candidate mandate holder. The partners must sign a mutual cooperation agreement. Evaluation of the project is based on the project and an oral defense of the mandate holder. STAGE 2 – THE PROJECT STAGE The work of the project is carried out by the mandate holder. In this process the mandate holder is supervised by his academic and industrial supervisor and their environment. STAGE 3 – MIDTERM EVALUATION After 2 years progress is reported on the scientific results, the prospects for industrial application and the expenses made. STAGE 4 – CLOSING OF THE PROJECT At the end of the project a report is filled including the reached scientific progress, the execution of the innovation goal and its applications, a valorisation report and a financial report. TOUCHPOINT 1 Reaching out to the other party to identify the cross points of academic research tracks and industrial needs. This requires knowledge of the different parties their expertise and needs. Often the industry and academic parties know each other of past joint projects and can use this as trigger to get in contact. TOUCHPOINT 2 Setting up a joint project through live meetings, telephone conferences and sharing proposal versions. TOUCHPOINT 3 Meetings between the mandate holder, the industrial supervisor and the academic supervisor. This allows to assess progress according to each party’s priorities, update the work plan, confirm next period targets and solve any operational issue of joint relevance (test setups, use cases, investments, research visits, publications, IP ...). TOUCHPOINT 4 Meetings between the mandate holder and one of the supervisors to discuss specific parts of the projects, which might not be fully disclosed to the other party. Success of Baekeland projects strongly on the degree of understanding between the mandate holder, the academic supervisor and the industrial supervisor. Respecting and understanding each other timelines and IP concerns. An upfront discussed mutual agreement between the partners concerning the intellectual property rights on the project results also avoids discussion on data sharing between research groups later on in the project. Regular meetings between the mandate holder, the industrial supervisor and the academic supervisor is also known to be a success factor. This to continuously align visions on the project, and let mutual trust and understanding grow. Next to IP, a barrier can be the difference in time horizon. In academics the timespan of a PhD, 4 year, is relatively short, for companies this is already long term. There is a need of a strategic vision of both, which should also result in a balanced and harmonic proposal. Meaning that the research should be set up as both academically relevant and industrially applicable on the mid-term. The Baekeland PhD mandate programme partially supports a PhD researcher for strategic basic research with an economic finality. The programme has as goal to foster industry-academia collaboration and train knowledge workers to ensure innovation in Flanders towards the future. The programme has been running since 2009 and is positively evaluated by the Flemish government. The rate of application is increasing, indicating that both industry and academia value the programme. Respect each other’ interests, timelines and KPI’s Make clear upfront agreements concerning intellectual property and data sharing and on the arrangements for dual-desk time allocation (a critical amount of time is needed at both sites to ensure success) Have regular meetings with the two supervisors and the mandate holder to align visions and understand each other’s interest. Forget that the project is a PhD project, needing to advance the international state-of-the-art and provide the PhD student with ample intellectual properties Go for short term success; PhD research is a 4-year process, where added value cannot be expected from day one. Bert Pluymers, Industrial Research Manager, , , Belgium, bert.pluymers@kuleuven.be, +32 16 32 25 29, Herman van der Auweraer, Corporate RTD Director, , , Belgium, herman.vanderauweraer@siemens.com, +32 16 38 43 25,
Braingaze - Measuring Cognitive Processing Using Eye-tracker TechnologyFrom scientific research to a startupThe Braingaze case exemplifies a very effective way to get innovation (new technologies) to the market by creating a science-based market oriented startup. In his research, a neurobiologist discovered a technique that could potentially enable the diagnosis of ADHD using existing eye-tracking devices. He tested this new technology, named mind-tracking, and validated its effectiveness with psychiatrists (who are the potential end-users of the solution). The scientist contacted a business expert, and together they co-founded the spin-off company. The approach followed to get this new technology to the market was to create a startup. Several parties were involved in this process, including researchers, psychiatrists, investors, patent attorneys and the office of technology transfer. After 1,5 years of business feasibility analysis and tech transfer negotiations. Braingaze was formed with the aim of commercialize eye-tracking technology to health care professionals. The first commercial application of the Braingaze technology is a solution to diagnose ADHD in children. STAGE 1 - RESEARCH In the research stage, scientists discovered and developed a new technology with potential for commercialization. STAGE 2 - VALIDATION In the validation stage, scientists validated the feasibility of the commercialization of the new technology with end users (psychiatrists). STAGE 3 - KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND PATENT In the knowledge transfer stage, scientists contacted with Bosch i Gimpera Foundation to get the technology generated at the University of Barcelona to the market. Also, patent for the mind tracking technology was filed. STAGE 4 - CREATION OF THE STARTUP and DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMAL VIABLE PRODUCT (MVP) In the creation of the startup stage, both partners registered the company and proceeded to attract investors to raise funds. Braingaze went through two crowd-funding campaigns using an online platform and personal network. TOUCHPOINT 1 - CREATION OF THE COMPANY AND INITIAL FUNDING This touchpoint involved mainly scientists and investors. The interactions included face-to-face meetings, entrepreneur presentations (competitions), and an online platform for crowd-funding. It is critical to have a well-elaborate plan to attract investors. Also, this process would be more efficient if investors were more clear and transparent about their interests, investment timing preferences and revenue expectations. TOUCHPOINT 2 - TECH TRANSFER NEGOTIATION This touchpoint involved scientists, the office of technology transfer, lawyers and investors. This is a critical touchpoint because there are a lot of parties involved and no standard procedures exist which tends to drag out proposal - response cycles especially involving also lawyers on both sides. TOUCHPOINT 3 - BUSINESS-RELATED DOCUMENTS These documents (the typical pitch deck presented to potential investors) hardly ever convey all the information that the entrepreneurs would like to transmit, nor does it contains all the information that an investor needs to digest in order to shape a good opinion on the fit of the proposed investment in the strategic investment scope of the fund (or the investor itself). Possible a multi-layered and structured approach of slide decks covering various aspects of an investment opportunity could reduce the mismatch between information offered and information sought. TOUCHPOINT 4 - INTERACTION WITH POTENTIAL USERS This touchpoint involved scientists, investors and psychiatrists (potential users). This interaction was very difficult due to the limited availability of medical doctors who need to carve out time of their very busy schedules to discuss innovations. This is something that could be improved by building a network including healthcare professionals, investors, scientists and universities. SUCCESS FACTORS: A main milestone for Braingaze is the development and market-launch of its first new product: the ADHD diagnosis test for children. The success factor behind this key milestone was a clear and stringent focus on getting the first feasible application of the technology really market ready, rather than exploring a lot of different potential applications but not pushing any single one of them actually into a marketplace. Another success factor was the collaboration between the scientist and the entrepreneur due to their complementary knowledge and experience in their respective fields. BARRIERS: The main barrier in the very initial stages was the lengthy negotiation process with the office of technology transfer. The negotiations to commercially exploit scientific research are not yet fully standardized, and thus, they take a long time. This was an important issue because the negotiations needed to be done before the patent could be expanded to the quite costly phase where it goes from a single (PCT or national) application to a world patent applied for in a large amount of countries (which must be initiated and paid for within 30 months after regional patent application). At a later stage, another barrier is the tight agenda of potential customers, in this case medical doctors. Since they have very little time to participate in the development and testing of new technologies, actual deep dialogue with future clients is not easy to accomplish, something that add risk to the product development process. Regarding funding, it is worth mentioning that raising money from private investors (business angels, formal VC's or crowd-funding platforms) takes a lot of hard work. The quite innovative approach taken by Braingaze in successfully completing two crowd-funding rounds has definitely helped them to cross the typical valley of death that occurs between the lab-scale 'proof of principle' and getting into the actual market. Creating a science-oriented startup can be a very effective method to get science and technology innovation to the market. In this process, it is important to study business feasibility and market to make sure that the new technology can be successfully commercialized. It is recommended to remain in the research stage as long as possible and create the startup once there is a well-developed plan. To create the startup it is worthwhile to consider crowd-funding besides other types of funding. Crowd-funding allows potential users to invest in getting innovation to the market. To some extent, crowd-funding platforms are a tool to allow society to get involved in this process, and decide which technology/science innovations they want to see in their lives. Keep research (academia) profile as long as possible. Standardize template for technology transfer deals. Have conversations with end users early on in the process and find out whether they would be willing to pay for the technology-derived product. Explore different business scenarios thoroughly. Create a startup to soon. Wait until having created a product with what you can have leverage and get a good deal with investors. Assume that only because a new technology is adding value and/or interesting, it is going to be commercially viable and successful. Engage investors too soon.  Laszlo Bax, CEO, , Mataró , Spain, l.bax@braingaze.eu, , , , , , , ,
Dual-Desk PhD ResearchersAn open innovation approach implemented between KU Leuven and Siemens Industry SoftwareTo boost realization of Siemens Industry Software’s and KU Leuven’s complementary ambitions to advance, respectively, the industrial state-of-the-use and scientific state-of-the-art in mechanic and mechatronic system design and analysis, both organizations co-developed a concept they label ‘Dual Desk PhD’. A steering team, composed out of the corporate RTD Director of Siemens and the head of the KU Leuven Noise and Vibration research group, discuss on a regular basis cross-fertilization opportunities between the industrial product and service roadmap and the academic research roadmap. After identifying such opportunities, it is investigated if it makes sense to recruit/host a co-supervised researcher to develop the opportunity towards PhD-level scientific innovation with an industrial valorization target. Once the research objectives are defined and funding is agreed, an appropriate candidate is selected from within either organization or recruited as new researcher. The process is strongly enabled by dedicated industry-university funding schemes such as VLAIO Baekeland (Flanders) and H2020 Marie Sklodowska Curie Industrial Doctorates, but can also take the form of a bilateral PhD programme. The researcher has two desks, one at KU Leuven and one at Siemens and divides his/her time between both, hence benefitting from being submerged in an academically inspiring environment, while at the same time gaining experience on what it means to bring innovation into an industrial context. The researcher can fall back on the fundamental knowledge base of KU Leuven while he/she can at the same time be challenged by full-scale industrial application studies with end-users through the network of Siemens Industry Software. Over the past years, several such Dual Desk PhD’s have successfully defended their degree and are now continuing their career at KU Leuven, Siemens and other organizations worldwide. KU Leuven and Siemens Industry Software highly appreciate the scheme and are continuously updating and further improving it learning from do’s and don’ts experienced, expanding lessons learned to and streamlining processes in legal, financial and doctoral school administrations. The process of setting up a Dual Desk PhD follows 6 stages: STAGE 1 - IDENTIFICATION OF A RESEARCH TOPIC Identification of a suitable research topic based on roadmap cross-fertilization analysis and agreement on the corresponding funding scheme to be used. STAGE 2 - PHD CANDIDATE SELECTION Selection of a suitable PhD candidate (internal or external recruitment) STAGE 3 - BUILDING A SOCIAL NETWORK The first 3 months of the PhD are crucial as during this start-up phase, the researcher should get embedded in both the academic and industry environment and build up a social network with his / her peers. STAGE 4 - MONITORING AND STEERING RESEARCH Monitoring the progress and steering the research during the main part of the PhD research execution by the joint supervision team.  STAGE 5 - PHD DEFENSE Wrap-up of the work and defense of the PhD. During this phase, both the academic and industrial output KPI´s need to be respected.  STAGE 6 - EVALUATION After completion of the PhD, an important phase is the evaluation of the whole process by the steering group to update and improve the process based on lessons learned. TOUCHPOINT 1 - MEETINGS OF JOINT RESEARCH INTEREST Periodic roadmap exchange meetings to identify topics of joint research interest (at least yearly). Identifying where academic research tracks and industrial needs meet is the starting point for a joint endeavor. This exchange takes the form of a workshop chaired by the steering team and involving the senior researchers of both parties. TOUCHPOINT  2 - PERIODIC SYNCHRONISATION MEETINGS WITH STEERING TEAM MEMBERS Periodic synchronization meetings between the steering team members to review the global process and the set of joint projects and programs: (at least bi-monthly). This allows to assess the overall process as well as the global status of the individual research tracks. It is important to timely identify problems with any of the researchers, their supervision, the operational circumstances or practical needs, financing etc. Where needed, extra individual progress meetings can be scheduled. TOUCHPOINT 3 - PERIODIC PROGRESS MEETINGS WITH SUPERVISORS Per Dual Desk PhD hold regular progress meetings where both supervisors are present. This allows to assess progress according to each party´s priorities, update the work plan, confirm next period targets and solve any operational issue of joint relevance (test setups, use cases, investments, research visits, publications, IP...). Where identified by the synchronization meeting, additional ad-hoc progress meetings can be scheduled. Success factors driving the growing interest of both KU Leuven and Siemens Industry Software in the Dual Desk PhD scheme are a clear win-win leverage between scientific research advancement and industrial product and process innovation. The combination of academic research being pushed and inspired by industrial problem statements and industrial products and processes being fed with unique and truly revolutionary technologies yields extremely interesting and attractive PhD projects. Key requirement here is the open mindset and attitude of the members of the steering group, respecting each other’s organization DNA and KPI’s. The fact that logistically and culturally the barriers between both organizations are rather low, also contributes to the success of the scheme. Typical barriers hindering Dual Desk PhD schemes are dual in nature. First of all, ownership and access rights to results achieved are subject to often tedious discussions with legal departments, yet, based on a level of mutual trust built up and past success stories which are used as template model, a good understanding continuously grows and substantially lowers this barrier. Secondly, the alignment of formal procedures at both organization administrations takes time and needs to be monitored and iterated on the fly. Overall, KU Leuven and Siemens Industry Software are very positive about the Dual Desk PhD scheme, realizing that the success of the programme is strongly driven by the long history of joined research and cooperation, by the willingness to work together on key technologies and by the fact that the steering group members are both missionaries of the scheme within their organizations. A non-exhaustive list of do’s: Respect each other’s DNA and KPI’s. Be sufficiently transparent and open on roadmap cross-fertilization. A non-exhaustive list of don’ts: Don’t be afraid to attempt new HR and administrative routes within your organization. Don’t follow the temptation of profile dilution. Do not Forget that the project is a PhD project, needing to advance the international state-of-the-art. Forget that the project is driven also by an industrial need, requiring to assess the added value for industrial challenges. Go for short term success; PhD research is by definition a mid-term activity. Bert Pluymers, Industrial Research Manager/ Herman van der Auweraer, Corporate RTD Director, , bert.pluymers@kuleven.be, Belgium, herman.vanderauweraer@siemens.com, , , , , , , ,
EC Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action: European Industrial DoctorateAn Innovative Training Network promoting industry-academia collaboration while pursuing a PhDThe eLiQuiD project (Best Engineering Training in Electric, Lightweight and Quiet Driving) brought together early stage researchers and experienced specialists from key players in academia and industry across Europe covering Noise, Vibration & Harshness (NVH), LightWeight Design (LWD) and Electrification & Hybridisation (H/E) disciplines to form a broad range of backgrounds. The eLiQuiD consortium was formed by three organizations, combining leading education and research institutions as well as an associated partner well established in European automotive R&D to assist in the dissemination and outreach of the eLiQuiD results. Thus the fellows participate in both the scientific research work and the practical application of new methods of testing and simulation and they profit from extended international knowledge after their academic education when starting to work in the industry. eLiQuiD was funded by the EC as a Marie Curie European Industrial Doctorate under Grant Agreement 316422 in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and ran over a period of 4 years (October 2012 – September 2016). The project brought together KU Leuven as academic partner, Virtual Vehicle Research Center (ViF) as industrial research centre and the European Automotive Research Partners Association (EARPA) as associated partner and together hosted 4 researchers, drawing together skills and expertise in a range of different technical approaches. ViF and EARPA brought specific applications that embed generic difficulties associated with NVH of electrified vehicles, while KU Leuven brought a diverse range of innovative approaches and the capability of research training, provision of courses and dissemination to the wider community. Together the consortium developed and promoted research, knowledge and application of NVH analysis and design techniques within the EU industry. The main scientific outcomes of the eLiQuiD project are collected in a book which is freely available for download here (https://www.fp7-eliquid.eu/eliquid_book). The process follows the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action (MSCA) workflow (further info here: https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/how-to/apply_en). STAGE 1: PROJECT PROPOSAL A project proposal is defined and developed in consultation with the partners. An EID must be composed of at least two independent beneficiaries established in two different member states or associated country. At least one beneficiary must come from the academic sector and at least one beneficiary from the non-academic sector, primarily enterprises (including SMEs). Additional beneficiaries and partner organisations can come from any sector (source: http://ec.europa.eu). The partners must sign a mutual cooperation agreement. Evaluation of the project is based on the project proposal. STAGE 2: FIND EARLY STAGE RESEARCHER FOR THE OPEN POSITIONS Candidates should be willing to pursue a PhD, should comply with the requirements of the doctoral school of the hosting university and additionally also with the MSCA requirements in terms of mobility and experience. Candidates have an interview with all partners and agree to spend a minimum of 18 month by the industrial partner, which is located in a different country than the university. STAGE 3: PROJECT RUNNING Early stage researchers carry on their research under the supervision of both university and industry. Several bilateral meetings and trainings are organized. STAGE 4: MIDTERM EVALUATION After 2 years progress (scientific, training, dissemination, financial) is reported to the Research Executive agency (REA). STAGE 5: PROJECT CLOSURE At the end of the project the final progress (scientific, training, dissemination, financial) is reported to the Research Executive agency (REA). TOUCHPOINT 1: PROJECT MEETINGS Several meetings are organized where all partners are present (university, industry, early stage researchers). TOUCHPOINT 2: DISSEMINATION EVENTS A few workshops and conference special sessions involve all partners. TOUCHPOINT 3: EVALUATION The PhD committee involves all partners.   In comparison to standard MSCA ITNs, the EID format allows the Early Stage Researcher to be an employee of both the industrial partner and the university. This allows for a better insight on the different working philosophies and boosts the possibility of bilateral knowledge transfer. Furthermore, the supervision coming from both sides allows for a better collaboration between university and industry. The success depends on the ability of the researcher to bridge the knowledge among the partners. Barriers involve the hiring process (it is not easy to find candidates willing to change country after 18 months) and the fact that pursuing a PhD may require longer than the MSCA grant, requiring additional funding. The EC MSCA EID program supports a PhD researcher for industry relevant research. The program allows industry-academia collaboration by involving early stage researchers who switch between academia and industry (or vice-versa) throughout their PhD track. Agree on intellectual property and data sharing Have regular meetings with both supervisors from academia and industry to align visions and understand each other’s interest Forget that the project is a PhD project, that may need 4 years or longer to be brought to the finish line Matteo Kirchner, Celestijnenlaan 300 box 2420, 3001 Leuven, Belgium, matteo.kirchner@kuleuven.be, , , , , , , ,