Written evidence submitted by Maddison
Product Design (TIC 46)
HOW A
"DESIGNER-IN-RESIDENCE"
RAISES THE
VALUE OF
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROJECTS
1. With David Maddison's appointment as "Designer
in Residence" at Manchester University's Technology Transfer
Office (UMIP), we present a model that can be used to improve
the commercialisation value of IP from university research
1.1 The recent economic crisis in the UK has
focused minds on the need for new high technology businesses to
help build national prosperity and decrease economic dependency
on the financial sector.
1.2 There is no doubting the quality of the UK
research capability, but the process of commercialising this research
to achieve maximum value does not always work as well as it could.
There can be a disconnect between good research and the commercial
development that will bring technology breakthroughs successfully
to the market.
1.3 The government plan to back the introduction
of "Technology Innovation Centres" should boost opportunities
for the hundreds of technology "Start Ups" attempting
to "spin out" of University Tech Transfer companies
throughout the UK. Technology Transfer is a complex business involving
many highly developed skill sets coming together as a jigsaw to
complete the process. Our experience over the last five years
working with Oxford, Manchester and others clearly shows that
strategic design thinking in the physical sciences has been a
missing piece of that jigsaw.
1.4 Maddison is a product design company which
has been developing medical, consumer and healthcare products
for over twenty years. Possessing a blend of user insight, design
and engineering skills we bring a wealth of experience to bear
on a problem. The company has a long track record of working with
medical and high-tech spin-outs from UK universities, and this
has been crucial to the success of significant start-ups, such
as Vivacta and Zilico.
1.5 In 2006 ISIS, the technology transfer office
(TTO) of Oxford University, appointed David Maddison to mentor
three new physical science technology projects to assess the value
of strategic design input. Over that year he met regularly with
each team and helped them to refocus their efforts and develop
their ideas. Since then Geni-e Meter has successfully "spun
out" in record time and raised several million pounds in
funding. David Churchman, the ISIS project leader said of the
experience: "We've learned a lot and we have a much better
idea of how design can make a difference and generate real returns
for academia plc." The process was shadowed by the Design
Council and helped form the template for their programme "Innovate
for Universities".
1.6 Maddison already had a successful development
relationship with Manchester, helping them to develop a number
of early stage technologies through "Proof of Principle"
to a commercial stage. Encouraged by the successful experiment
at ISIS, Clive Rowland, UMIP's Chief Executive, and David Maddison
discussed how strategic design input could be incorporated into
the Technology Transfer (TT) process at Manchester. In June 2010,
David Maddison was appointed "Designer in Residence"
at Manchester University's commercialisation company, UMIP, and
at MIMIT, (Manchester Integrating Medicine and Innovative Technology).
1.7 Of the many skills that interact in the technology
commercialisation process, strategic product design input is novel.
However, experienced product designers have a surprisingly broad
knowledge of the issues affecting the translation of technology
from the research laboratory to the commercial world. This spans
not only the IP, research and development aspects but also, most
importantly, end user focus and the need to create an early technology
vision for the team and potential investors.
1.8 The "Designer in Residence" role
at Manchester is unique and still in its infancy, but we can show
that this approach is of great benefit to the TTOs working to
commercialise UK technology.
1.9 Our model is to run a regular one-day clinic
where TT managers, academics and other project team members can
introduce their project, its background, objectives and the issues
affecting its progression. This allows the designer to gain a
quick overall picture and understand development-related issues
that will affect how the project is progressed and the team's
ability to raise funding. Immediate feedback and an interplay
of ideas can lead to immediate insights and opportunities. Over
a series of regular meetings the designer can work with the team
to develop ideas and identify challenges.
1.10 Perhaps an unexpected outcome of this process
at Manchester is the value to the TT Manager of being able to
hold totally unbiased development discussions on areas that are
normally outside of the core team's skill set.
1.11 No two projects are the same and the outcomes
and actions agreed by the team vary substantially. However, through
our work we have seen how the following strategic design support
can improve the commercial outcome.
- Understanding the "end user".
- Explore barriers (or paths) to adoption.
- Check against reality.
- Create an early vision.
- Outline a development plan.
- Assess commercial viability.
2. Understand the User
2.1 Strategic product designers have a surprisingly
broad knowledge of (and empathy for) "end users", be
they patients, consumers or professionals. This is due to constant
interface with these groups during the research and the product
testing process. Often research groups need help to understand
(or even to realise that there is) a process or environment in
which the technology will need to operate. For example, a point
of care diagnostic device will need to fit into the environment
of a doctor's surgery. Where will it be stored? Can perishable
consumables be kept in a fridge? Will the disposable element need
special handling? Can we expect nurses to remember how to use
the device if they haven't used it for three months?
2.2 A common epiphany for our research groups
is to realise that the person the device or service needs to engage
with is not just the end-user. Often there is an array of stakeholders,
in particular the gatekeeper, who control the process of procurement,
be they parent, administrator or supervising clinician.
3. Barriers/Paths to Adoption
3.1 Even the most beneficial or innovative technology
can be stymied if potential barriers to adoption are not addressed.
For example, new products or pharmaceuticals in Europe face a
bewildering patchwork of use and procurement practices. Adoption
practices vary enormously from country to country. These need
to be understood and addressed if a product is to be broadly successful.
4. Reality Check
4.1 Anyone can become blinkered during intensive
development and academics/researchers can certainly miss important
checks like anyone else. With our knowledge of technology, manufacturing,
user interface, etc., designers have a good skill set to appraise
technologies and spot opportunities or identify pitfalls.
5. Visualisation
5.1 Experience at ISIS and UMIP has shown that
the research team can have differing views on the nature of the
product they are aiming for. Developing a Vision of the
technology helps the team to agree a focus, and allocate resources
and finance accordingly.
5.2 Visual communication aids are a crucial tool
for a start-up team to explain the concept and build confidence
in both the efficacy of the system and the capabilities of the
team. In our experience this exercise has the dual benefit of
focusing the ideas of the team on a "tangible" representation
of the final product, as well as creating a vehicle to communicate
the concept to external groups such as potential users and investors.
5.3 The general rule is, that the closer to the
market a technology appears, the greater the licence or "spinout"
value. So design can be used to allow a business plan to "punch
above its weight" by showcasing the technology in the most
favourable light.
6. Development Plan
6.1 The commercial product development process
is understandably poorly understood by many academics. It has
been our role to guide groups through the steps necessary to turn
a laboratory demonstrator into a commercial product. A development
proposal which demonstrates an understanding of realistic development
steps will enhance the credibility of a Business Plan and raise
confidence amongst prospective funding partners.
7. Commercial Viability
7.1 Most of a designer's work with the technology
transfer process is in some way related to the technology's commercial
viability. This might include such considerations as:
- Can the product be manufactured, and at the right
cost? Conventionally, a technology will be developed in some detail
so that components can be specified and costed. With very early
stage technology you have to get a "best estimate" before
incurring the costs of reaching product specification.
- Is it better (from the users, or market, perspective)
than the competition? Some solutions can be overly complex, almost
intended to showcase a technology, rather than solve a real problem.
7.2 It is often the case that designers can also
spot other commercial opportunities for the technology. We frequently
make connections between clients and researchers, who we feel
may have synergy.
8. Summary
8.1 Our unique opportunity to interact with tech
transfer at two leading UK universities over the past few years
convinces us that the small step of incorporating strategic design
early into the commercialisation process has exponential benefits.
9. Declaration of Interest
9.1 Through David Maddison's work with a number
of university tech transfer offices, we have proven that the UK
commercial design industry can add important value to
tech transfer. We therefore believe it is imperative that experienced
commercial product designers be included within the early stage
development of the Technology Innovation Centres. David Maddison
is uniquely qualified and available to help with this process
and can offer advice.
David Maddison
Managing Director, Maddison Limited and
Designer in Residence UMIP/MIMIT
(University of Manchester's commercialisation company and
Manchester: Integrating Medicine and Innovative Technology)
December 2010
| 
