0

REPORT

WORKSHOPS TO BOOST
IPR MANAGEMENT
IN SOUTH AFRICAN
UNIVERSITIES
11TH – 14TH AUGUST 2009

Mr. Pekka Roine, Prof. Jukka Seppälä and Mr. Teemu Seppälä
 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 2

1 BACKGROUND 4

2 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 8

2.1 PRESENTATIONS 8

2.2 PORT ELIZABETH 11th AUGUST 2009 17

2.3 STELLENBOSCH 12th AUGUST 2009 20

2.4 PRETORIA 14th AUGUST 2009 22

3 RECOMMENDATIONS 24

3.1 MR. TEEMU SEPPÄLÄ’

S RECOMMENDATIONS 24

3.2 PROF. JUKKA SEPPÄLÄ’

S RECOMMENDATIONS 25

3.3 MR. PEKKA ROINE’

S RECOMMENDATIONS 25

4 TEN POINTS TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE INNOVATION SYSTEMS

BOTH IN SOUTH AFRICA AND FINLAND 27

REFERENCES

APPENDICES
 2

FOREWORD

Our team is grateful for the great contribution that COFISA made with organizing
these workshops. Special thanks for Ms. Grace Baloyi, Ms. Dorcas Mokalapa,
Ms. Nirvashnee Seetal and Dr. Neville Comins. Also, we are very pleased with
the CSIR funding that made these workshops possible. Finally, we had great
audiences that taught us a lot: it was a pleasure to collaborate with such
advanced participants!
Mr. Pekka Roine, Prof. Jukka Seppälä & Mr. Teemu Seppälä

Mr. Pekka Roine is an international independent

business executive, a professional board member and a
venture capitalist. Pekka has functioned as a chairman in
Finland, United States, Israel, Switzerland and France.
He is currently the chairman of Venture Cup Finland, and
a director of the Foundation of Finnish Inventions. Pekka
has also acted as an entrepreneurial hinge between
Finland and Israel, and is extending this role to both
Switzerland and Estonia. Pekka is a partner of Boardman
and a member of The Finnish Association of Professional
Board Members. Pekka holds a M.Sc. degree in Physics
from the University of Helsinki. He is also a graduate of
the Stanford Executive Program.

Prof. Jukka Seppälä, Dr. Tech, is a professor of

Polymer technology and Head of the Department of
Biotechnology and Chemical Technology at Helsinki
University of Technology (TKK). He gained his
experience in the industry at Neste Corporation during
1979 – 1986. He acted as the Director of the Bio- and
Nanopolymers Research Group in Finnish Academy
 3

Center of Excellence for the years 2002 - 2007. Prof.

Seppälä is a consultant in polymer technology for several
companies. He has more than 500 publications in
different categories from his area of expertise and he
holds 41 patent and application families. He became a
member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters
in the year 2005. He received Millennium Distinction
Award and TKK New Materials Invention Awards 2009.

Mr. Teemu Seppälä works as a Development Manager

in Otaniemi International Innovation Centre (OIIC). OIIC
is a technology transfer office in Helsinki University of
Technology (TKK). Before this position Teemu has
worked almost ten years with Finnish industry as a
consultant. He has executed more than 200 R&D
projects with more than 50 companies worldwide. Teemu
has also worked for a year as a researcher at TKK.
Teemu owns a company and has had several board
memberships in new start-ups. Teemu holds a Master’
s
degree in social sciences from University of Helsinki.
 4

BACKGROUND

In 2008 COFISA decided to make some contributions to the critical innovation

challenges that Gauteng, Eastern Cape and Western Cape universities were
facing. COFISA funded a study as a basis for future collaboration actions
between South Africa (SA) and Finland technology transfer (TT) operations. The
objectives of the study were to get insight into the SA innovation environment.
Main research questions were: what are the unique characteristics of SA
universities, TT functions, and the funding institutions in SA. Special focus was
on policies, the challenges in the development processes, and the educational
needs.

Mr. Teemu Seppälä and his colleague Mr. Antti Aarnio executed an interview
survey that resulted in the report Technology Transfer and IPR-management in
SA Universities in December 2008, which is downloadable from COFISA’
s web
pages (http://www.cofisa.org.za/). The main finding was that TT is quite a new
function in South African universities, while TT skills varied greatly by institution:
some had experts with decades of experience and some were new and had
limited resources. According to the findings, the phases and essentials of the TT
process in SA universities are described in the Figure on next page. The phases
are marked by numbers (1-6) and the essentials by letters (I-IV).
 5

The interviews and the background data indicated that the patenting rate is not
as high as in the western world (see Figure on next page, source Innovation
Fund, The State of Patenting in South Africa, Special Report 2007, p. 28), and in
the past years the South African patenting curve has been edging downwards.
At the same time, foreign companies have filed more and more patents into the
SA market. Patenting, further, won’
t solve economic growth problems, as we
can state that SA is a relatively undeveloped market by patenting rate and
needs strongly international markets.
 6

However, technology licensing is not enough. SA needs new companies,

especially technology based growth companies. New companies would offer
longer-term opportunities to commercialize future inventions from the
universities. Funding is not a problem; funding for good ideas is available
relatively nicely. Instead, there is a significant lack of mentors and serial
entrepreneurs. Closer relationships with alumni could offer a solution to find
business angels, advisors and board members for new companies.

The study also showed that there is a crucial need to build up a stronger
network between the TT offices (TTO). One TTO is too small; together TTOs
would get more visibility, share TT understanding, develop best practices and
learn from each other’
s experiences. Also, it was obvious that there is a
significant lack of a commercialization-friendly culture within the universities.
TTO services should be marketed enthusiastically, by building trust and
 7

communicating success stories.

The findings gave rise to several strategic recommendations: 1) TT functions

and their role should be acknowledged as part of the SA National Innovation
policy 2) All players should be familiarized with the whole innovation chain, and
potential knot points should be smoothened out; 3) SA Universities should
benchmark innovation processes internationally; 4) Persons responsible for TT
practices should join forces and develop their own process.

An operative part of the mentioned recommendations was a working visit to

Finland including visits to all Finnish innovation chain players. Another practical
recommendation was a workshop series to be held in SA. The objective for
these workshops were to support the understanding and capacity building in SA
universities on TT and IPR management, with special attention to innovation
processes in the universities and practical arrangements concerning TTO and
IPR management. The latter recommendation was favored as a more cost
efficient way to proceed.

Mr. Teemu Seppälä started to plan the workshops with the approval of COFISA
during spring 2009. The scope for the workshops was to give an overview of
alternative ways to build-up and manage TTOs, to give practical tools to
successfully manage TTOs, and to clarify the needs of the different stakeholders
(universities, researchers, industry, VCs, society and government). The main
goal for the workshops was to give practical points to allow a roadmap planning,
which guides SA universities towards successful TTOs.

Mr. Teemu Seppälä invited an experienced scientist, inventor and entrepreneur

Prof. Jukka Seppälä to add his contribution from his point of view. Also, a
venture capitalist and serial entrepreneur Mr. Pekka Roine was invited to give
his insight into the workshops. COFISA made all the local arrangements and
invited people from Eastern Cape, Western Cape, and Gauteng universities and
other stakeholders. The workshops were held in local facilities in these areas.
 8

2 WORKSHOP EXECUTION

The workshops consisted of three different points of view: TT officer’

s point of
view (Mr. Teemu Seppälä), inventor’
s point of view (Prof. Jukka Seppälä) and
the VC point of view (Mr. Pekka Roine). The actual execution plan for the
workshops is presented in Appendix 1. Also, all the presented material is on
COFISA’
s web pages (http://www.cofisa.org.za/presentations.html).

2.1 PRESENTATIONS

Mr. Teemu Seppälä: TT operations in a changing environment

Mr. Seppälä’
s presentation consisted of an introduction to the Finnish innovation
policy, an overview concerning the changes that TKK is facing (TKK will be
combined with the Helsinki School of Economics and the University of Arts and
Design into a new innovation university Aalto University), a presentation of
TKK´s TTO Otaniemi International Innovation Centre (OIIC), some gathered
feedback from researchers and three example cases (two are still in
development stage in university, and the third is a spinout case). Next, these
presentation contents will be explained briefly.
 9

Finnish innovation policy was clarified by giving R&D figures in global

perspective, describing collaboration between universities and companies, and
by defining the changes that industries are facing. A remark from this part was
that one-third of Finnish SMEs are participating in some innovation cooperation
with the universities, partly because Tekes (The Finnish Funding Agency for
Technology and Innovation) (www.tekes.fi) is encouraging to do that by its
funding instruments. For that reason, technology is transferred mainly to existing
companies and only very few new growth companies are launched annually.

Aalto University will be a full merger of three existing universities, which are the
three leading institutions in Finland in their fields, and will have a major impact
on Finnish industry, economy and culture. The Finnish Government entered into
its Government Programme in 2007 the objective to extensively reform the
higher education in Finland. The purpose has been to increase the financial and
administrative autonomy in the universities. During the preparation process,
Aalto University has been called the Innovation University, and innovation
development will be very important part of its societal impact. Aalto University
commences on 1st January 2010.

The Otaniemi International Innovation Centre OIIC is a so called one-stop-shop

in TT. OIIC is an organic part of TKK’
s administration and has the mandate to
manage TKK’
s intellectual property rights (IPR). OIIC offers following services:
research and liaison services, contract management, copyrights, business
services and start-up training, search and evaluation of inventions, protection,
management and marketing of inventions, career services and alumni and
recruitment services. Significant difference with other TTOs, if compared
internationally, is that OIIC also has research services under the same roof.
 10

Annually, TKK has app. 250 invention disclosures or idea presentations. Out of
these, some 70-80 will be taken to further development. Most of the work will be
done by the TULI fund (in Finnish: from Research into Business). Objectives are
e.g. commercialization planning, market and user research, state of the art
evaluation, novelty and patentability research, productization, business planning,
preparation to launch a company, partnering, contracts and other legislative
expertise. Also, prototype building, as a proof of concept, is fundable. For
inventors the TULI fund is available without risk and it is a flexible, quick and
minimally bureaucratic way to proceed with business ideas and inventions.
Maximum funding per case is 55 000 € and one inventor may have many cases.
Tekes funds 60 % of the TULI funding and TKK 40 %. TKK’
s TULI is
collaborating with 6 other universities in Finland. This is spreading good
practices among other schools.

In conclusion, Mr. Seppälä presented some experiences and feedback.

Researchers expect expert feedback (both technical and business wise) from
TTO. Inventors wanted a fair evaluation for their business idea and detailed
road-map in order to see what will happen and when. A brochure, where all
necessary steps are described, is one way to make the process more tangible
 11

and to communicate TTO services. Personal involvement and impact from TT

representatives was highly appreciated among TTO customers (inventors).

Prof. Jukka Seppälä: Innovations are created at the interfaces

It is of importance to keep in mind that the societal impact of the university
research exploitation will be channeled and implemented through multiple ways:
competence of graduated people; master’
s and doctoral theses programs that
are carried out as joint programs together with industry; knowledge transfer in
joint research programs; contract research and collaborative projects and
consortiums; licensing and technology transfer of university owned IPR; start-up
company establishment.

The experience in TKK is that the two first ones are presently the most
immediate and important ones. We need to strive for that the importance and
share of the latter ones would become more significantly implemented. The
funding system and innovation mechanism at the universities should promote
and advance these multiple ways of knowledge and research results
exploitation.

The lively interface between industry and universities is a key driver in effective
innovation system. It is important to notice that this should not be just a one-way
information flow from the universities to the private sector. The lively interface
should enable mutual information exchange that sets targets, motivates and
guidelines the work of academic researchers. In Finland there is a long tradition
in this kind of dialog. The experiences are excellent. The threat of limitation of
academic freedom has not been relevant. On the contrary this kind of pre-
competitive dialog has improved significantly the relevance of academic
research and led to significant innovations in the country. It also has increased
the number of academic publications in many cases at the same time.

In today’
s technologies the complexity sets challenging demands for
collaborations. In the seminars the Finnish academic research funding systems
 12

were reviewed, presented and discussed. In Finland basic research largely is

funded through the Academy of Finland, whereas applied research public
funding is channeled through Tekes. Both of these organizations have
increasingly demanded multidisciplinary approaches in successfully granted
funding applications.

As an example, Prof. Seppälä presented the outcomes of one of the first

multidisciplinary Centers of Excellence, the “Bio and Nanopolymers Group”
Center of Excellence, that was active in the years 2002 – 2007. This Center of
Excellence funding enabled recruiting of 10 – 12 full time researchers divided
between four different laboratories. In addition other projects enabled in total
around 60 other researchers to be involved under the frames of this
multidisciplinary Center of Excellence. In the six years time the following results
was listed:

Numbers of scientific activity 2002-2007

Number of
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Publications
Journal 45 66 63 62 53 59 348
Articles (107)* (396)*
Conference 44 44 36 43 44 84 295
Papers
Doctoral 5 5 8 13 8 10 49
Theses
Licentiate 0 4 5 2 3 2 16
Theses

* Total number of publications including those that have already been submitted or
accepted for publication in 2008

This experience shows the power of multidisciplinary approaches in research.

The high level academic work in best case does not exclude the innovativeness
and start up formation!
 13

Examples of patents and patent

applications, total number > 30
• Oriented polymer films of rigid conjugated nitrogen-containing
polymers
• A method for manufacturing a fiber, and a fibrous structure
• Mouldable, biodegradable implant
• Method of processing a carbohydrate raw-material
• Novel poly(ester-anhydrides)
• A method to modify the printing surface of paper or board
• Biologically active material
• Plasticizable implant material and method for producing the same
• Antimicrobial prepreg, composite and their use
• A method for improvment of soft tissue attachment and implants
making use of said method
• A multilayer material
• Bioactive tooth implant

The academic tradition is too often based on tough competition of the limited
resources and screening of funding applications. This tradition is a certain
guarantee of quality of academic work and thus inevitable feature. However, in
small countries with limited resources good collaboration and complementary
approaches would be of benefit not only for academic success but especially to
guarantee success in innovations.

In Finland the situation has been changed a lot due to the increased demands of
collaborative approaches between different universities and also between
universities and state research organizations like VTT. This demand of
collaborative approaches has been embedded into the funding decisions of the
Academy of Finland and Tekes. This is a way to secure a critical mass in
specific and specialized research topics.
 14

An invention is not yet an innovation. Seed funding and supportive mechanisms

need to be established in better shape for both of the countries to truly enable
well functioning innovation system. Prof. Seppälä presented a graph of the life
cycle of emerging technology, according to Sitra in Finland. A key problem after
an invention has been created is how to guide inventions through the so called
“Death Valley”?
 15

Mr. Pekka Roine: The Ecosystem

The Innovation Ecosystem graph (presented at the cover of this report) clearly
documents and illustrates the essential steps in the innovation chain, from basic
research to global markets.

Mr. Roine highlighted the actual experiences and shortcomings that result of the
current Finnish policy, where entrepreneur ‘
mortality’is unnecessarily high.

Reference: TEKES Technology Review 219 / 2007

He then compared the Finnish results with those of USA and Israel. In the US,
entrepreneurship is still going strong, but companies are started by more
complete management teams of 6-8 people, as opposed to Finland, where just
1-2 inventors start the company. In Israel, the government policies in the 1990s
on technological incubators and VC have very significantly laid the framework
for successful entrepreneurship.

The VICTA report (Tekes Technology Review 219/ 2007) compares the
innovation climate and success rates in Finland, Israel and Massachusetts,
 16

three regions of similar population size and total investment size. The study
clearly illustrates the problem in Finland, where the companies receiving funding
are ten times as many, and the funding is just one-tenth. The competitive
Finnish education and invention system does not produce successful startups.

Mr. Roine then emphasized the crucial importance of an Ecosystem view of

Innovation and Entrepreneurship. It is not sufficient to try to work and improve
just one step of the Ecosystem; all steps need to be nurtured in sync.
 17

2.2 PORT ELIZABETH WORKSHOP 11TH AUGUST 2009

Eastern Cape participants concentrating on Mr. Roine’

s speech.

VENUE: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

PARTICIPANTS: See appendix 2.

Remarks from the panel discussion

A remark particularly emphasized was that Eastern Cape officials think that they
are isolated from the other SA innovation regions. That fact was made clear also
geographically, when the Finnish delegation flew from Tambo to PE and then
further to Western Cape. The Eastern Cape region universities appeared to
have only one person, who should take care of the patenting process (including
technology knowledge) and the invention development towards accelerators.

In the workshop it was clearly stated that the problem is not that much to get
invention disclosures. If a university rewards for invention disclosures, it gets
 18

increasingly those. TTO measures have to be in terms of commercialized IPR.

The problem rather is how to analyze the contents and level of the invention
claims in a professional way, especially in extremely multidisciplinary
universities.
Key points noted during presentations:

Teemu Seppälä
• TTO should have a structured programme and accessible funding. (e.g. TULI
funding at TKK)
• TTO measures are in terms of patents and commercialisation

Pekka Roine
• Finland has been less successful in generating ‘
real growth companies’
, as
found through VICTA study (Tekes Technology Review 219/2007)
o This is attributed to funding too many projects with too little money
o Entry acceptance rate for Acceletrators in Israel is just 2-3 %
• Many of the attempts at TT or commercialisation are at too early a stage in the
development of the project, with far too little attention given to the business
components
• It appears that in SA there is too large a disconnect between the incubators and
the TTOs
• For the innovation system to work, there is a need for an “Innovation
Ecosystem”, where all the elements need to be developed and not just a focus
on one aspect, such as TT

Jukka Seppälä
• The basic research needs to go further before commercialisation is funded (e.g.
in Finland by Tekes)
o There are too many “coffee table ideas”
• As a university researcher, where contracts with industry are full cost (including
overheads), the company owns the IP. The challenge of this is how to secure
the true commitment for the hard work of the inventors
 19

• Collaboration and cross disciplinary interactions can impact on the success of

many projects
• In the development of a research area, be careful of companies contracting work
and taking an exclusive patent, which prevents the research team from more
general development of the field

Important points from the Q&A:

• Mechanisms to engage with industry
o Innovation Forums
§ Clusters of businesses and researchers meeting 2-3 times per year
• Research presentations
• Discussion of business needs
o Industrial Advisory Boards
o Final year Projects (Masters level), where 50% are done in companies
o Design Factory for both students and companies, see http://aaltodesignfactory.fi/
• Foundation for Inventions
o Inventions expertise seconded to universities
o Regional people
• Comment by delegate: In SA, how we are measured does not lead to co-
operation
 20

2.3 STELLENBOSCH WORKSHOP 12TH AUGUST 2009

In Stellenbosch the panel discussion was lively also among our team.

VENUE: Wine Farm Spier at Stellenbosch.

PARTICIPANTS: See Appendix 3.

Remarks from the panel discussion

Universities in Western Cape are advanced in TT; e.g. the Stellenbosch
University had established a company with the purpose of taking care of the TT
actions and making profitable business for the university.
Both countries have renewed the legal framework of academic inventions. This
clearly sets new demands and challenges for the universities’ innovation
systems and administration. True in-depth and specialized competence is
needed in this. This really is a true and resource demanding challenge and duty
for the university organizations. Specialization, use of expert panels, use of
 21

external consultants as well as national collaboration is needed much more than

is the today’
s situation.

Additional points:
• Venture Cup Programme (www.venturecup.fi) provides an important forum for
developing projects ready for commercialisation
• Accelerators in Israel privatized and run by experienced VCs
o Finland launching the first 3 Accelerators, see
http://www.vigo.fi/www/en/index.php
 22

2.4 PRETORIA WORKSHOP 14TH AUGUST 2009

Participation reached its peak at the 3rd workshop: audience of 61 professionals.

VENUE: Department of Science and Technology in Pretoria

PARTICIPANTS: See Appendix 4.

Remarks from the panel discussion

What is the right way to proceed with inventions: what to do when a researcher
comes and asks to make a patent application? The panelists thought that the
best way is to find an industrial partner for that invention as soon as possible
and only after the apparent interest proceed with patenting. It was also stated
that different research topics differ a lot and also the roadmap for various
inventions needs alternative approaches. For example, medical inventions need
time, effort and good and long-lasting relations with all stakeholders (research
institutes, hospitals and industry).
 23

Q&A highlights
• “How do you find entrepreneurs?
o Identify researchers interested in applications of their work
§ Keep the researcher involved in the process
• What is the entrepreneurial training at the universities to the ‘
hard scientists’
?
• How do you manage risks?
o Better TULI-type funding
o Commitment of all parties to the processes
o Do not try to commercialise too early – develop competent Accelerators
• Who should change the system?
o VCs are there to make money. They balance their risk across investments, but
they can only handle a few projects at any one time.
o Real problem is ‘
ownerless’money from agencies such as Tekes (they fund 40-
60% of applications in Finland and employ some 350-500 people). In Israel, the
same work is done by the Office of the Chief Scientist, who employs outside
experts to evaluate, and only accepts 3-5% of applications, using only 35 in-
house staff.
• A challenge in SA is the extent of ‘
red tape’and trying to do everything in a TTO.
There is need to focus.
 24

3 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 MR. TEEMU SEPPÄLÄ’

S RECOMMENDATIONS

Vision & strategy for TTO: Universities should have a proper vision for TT
That vision should be reached in close co-operation with the university’
s board
and highest administration team. Also, the strategy has to be made clear: what
are the HR, finance and other resources, and how will the operations be
measured. All presidents and principals need to know what TT is, what the
benefits for the university are, and what will happen during next season.

Operations: TT actions have to be smooth, accurate and professional

The TTO has to know the research teams in their universities and the research
activities going on. Relationships with researchers should be continuous,
informal and confidential. Trust is the most important cornerstone for these
relationships. TTOs should have enough technological knowledge in order to
figure out the basics of the technological inventions and understand patenting. In
most cases, the technological points of view are overvalued in TTOs. The
transfer part of TT has to be taken care of, too. Without a deal there won’
t be
any transfer. A part of the TTO staff has to be business-minded and have good
relations with industry players. If a TTO doesn’
t have good customer relations,
the TTO should build up the appropriate network in order to execute deals.
TTOs should connect their knowledge and help others with their expertise. One
way to proceed in SA is that TTOs could establish a nationwide work group (web
based) in which TTOs cases would be shared and further operations would be
made together and with all the expertise that the network has (maybe the just
launched SAINe [http://www.saine.co.za] could be a place for that?).

Attitude
Developing new research-based businesses is a hard job and a long battle. But
you will get satisfaction when you see new businesses grow and benefits whole
society.
 25

3.2 PROFESSOR JUKKA SEPPÄLÄ’S RECOMMENDATIONS

Recognition for innovative groups

There are several high-level truly active and innovative groups, some of them I
had a pleasure to get acquainted. These top-level groups should be recognized
and supported in the universities.

Societal impact must be recognized

Awareness of the essence of societal impact of the university research should
be acknowledged in the universities in addition to just the scientific merits.

True commitment to be implemented

Mechanisms for true commitment of all the parties in the innovation chain should
be elaborated and implemented, in order to secure successful start up
generation.

Funds and skills for innovation

Funds and management skills should be collected and focused for university
innovation management for stronger start-up generation.

3.3 MR. PEKKA ROINE’

S RECOMMENDATIONS

National emphasis on the entire Ecosystem

SA is keen to advance in university TT. While the interest seems high,
concentrating on TT alone will mostly put the research results and innovations in
corporate (and international?) hands. A progressively entrepreneurial culture will
not be born without broad national emphasis in the entire ecosystem.

Inventions at all education levels

For entrepreneurship, particularly growth entrepreneurship, universities are not
the sole source, and maybe not the most important source for inventions. The
 26

ecosystem needs to collect the inventions also from lower level educational
institutions like polytechnics, and from private inventors.

Arms-length separation between TTO and university administration

Successful TT operations need to be sufficiently independent from university
administration. Instead of being university departments, arms-length
independent companies or foundations are often better homes for the
entrepreneurial individuals that NEED to be working TT.

Entrepreneurs deserve education

Entrepreneurial education deserves also thought in SA TT. Traditional business
education is not optimal for the needs of small entrepreneurial companies.

The correct public policy is crucial

In public policy for TT and entrepreneurship, the practical examples set by Israel
are VERY useful. Entrepreneurship was built there from scratch to world-class
leadership in mere 15 years. The VICTA Report can be found in the references
below.

Incubators must have entrepreneurial focus

Entrepreneurs, particularly university-based entrepreneurs need significant
development efforts and program. The creation of such programs, broadly called
incubators or accelerators, deserves counselling and guidance, because the
emphasis MUST be on stringent entrepreneurial priorities, not space or facility
considerations.

Continue cooperation between SA and Finland

In many respects, continued cooperation between South Africa and Finland can
be very fruitful for South Africa, not the least because of the open atmosphere of
sharing visible in the workshops.
 27

4 TEN POINTS TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE INNOVATION SYSTEMS

BOTH IN SOUTH AFRICA AND FINLAND

1) Better working dialogue and interfaces between academia and private

sector. Public funding mechanisms and national technology programs are in a
key role in this.

2) Research funding systems should be constructed in a way that promotes

active complementary collaboration of the partner laboratories in different
universities.

3) Measures should be taken to encourage research groups working in different

fields of sciences to collaborate in a complementary way. Innovations are
created at the interfaces!

4) Significant resources should be allocated for invention management at the

universities.

5) Dedicated experts and expert organizations should be identified and

established nationally, to evaluate in-depth inventions in different specific
fields of science and technology.

6) National collaboration of Innovation Centers and Offices should be

organized.

7) Incentives should be tailored for companies to collaborate with

universities in research and innovation activities.

8) Incentives should be tailored for inventors to collaborate with serial

entrepreneurs and other business professionals.

9) Appropriate entrepreneurial incentives should be tailored for account

 28

managers dealing with university IPR.

10) The invention evaluation and support systems, especially seed funding
should be significantly developed and improved in both of the countries. This is
a must to enable the emergence of the truly most competitive innovations.
 29

REFERENCES

VICTA Report. 2007.

https://www.tekes.fi/en/community/Publications/368/Publications/1464
 30

APPENDIX 1
 31

APPENDIX 2

Participants in Port Elizabeth workshop 11th August.

Number Title Surname Name Institution Dept. / Speciality

1 Prof. Zeelie Ben NMMU InnoVenton
2 Dr. Vorster Freddie NMMU Physics
3 Prof. van Dyk Ernest NMMU Physics
4 Erasmus Neville Seda Operations
5 Dr. Ndawuni Patrick NMMU Incubation
6 Ms. Barnett Jacqueline NMMU Innovation Support and TT
8 Mr. Horn Pitout CSIR R&D Grant Fund Manager
9 Mr. Oosthuizen Wayne SEDA Export Development and TT
10 Mr. Mkhonta Colin Chemin Incubation
11 Mr. Sotshangane Nkosinathi WSU Directorate of Research Development
12 Ms. Baloyi Grace COFISA Projects
13 Dr. Comins Neville COFISA CTA
14 Dr. Anandjiwala Rajesh CSIR
15 Ms. Holl Mikala Urban-Econ Eastern Cape
16 Ms. Philipson Dominique Urban-Econ Eastern Cape
 32

APPENDIX 3

Participants in Stellenbosch workshop 12th August

Number Title Surname Name Institution Dept. / Speciality

1 Dr. Comins Neville COFISA CTA
2 Ms. Baloyi Grace COFISA Projects

Division for Research Development: Research

3 Mr. Verhoef Gerard SUN Contracts, Legal and IP Advisor

Division for Research Development: Research

4 Mrs. Maherbe Cornelia SUN Contracts

IP Management Intern, Research Contracts and

5 Mr. Ngqondo Tumi UCT IP servicess, Dept of Research and Innovation
6 Ms. Nel Anita US

Research Commercialisation and business

7 Dr. Talor Glen University of the Free State development
8 Mr. Tshabangu Phindile InnovUS Innovus TT
Licencing Technology
9 Mr. Lategan Nicolas Network Technology Broker
10 Mr. Marais Saberi MRC Innovation Centre
11 Prof. Bunn Anthony MRC Innovation and Tech Transfer
12 Mr. Busang Rabogajanae MRC Technology Transfer
13 Mr. Skweyiya Yongama SUN Tektique

IP Manager: Research Contracts and IP

14 Dr. Bailey Andrew UCT Services, Dept. Of Research and Innovation

Director: Research Contracts and IP Services,

15 Mr. Barnard Piet UCT Dept. Research and Innovation
19 Dr. Cochrane Shaun Bioclones (Pty) Ltd
20 Mr. Jumira Oswald SUN
21 Mr. Strauss Johann DST
22 Prof. Ridge Stanley UWC
 33

APPENDIX 4
Participants in Gauteng workshop 14th August
Number Title Surname Name Institution Dept. / Speciality
1 Ms. Baloyi Grace COFISA
National Foundry Tech.
Network (NFTN) based
2 Mr. Beän Richard at the CSIR
3 Ms. Canca Anati ARC Executive Director: TT
4 Dr. Caveney Dr. Rob Wits
5 Dr. Chantson Janine Innovation Fund Research and Development Funding
Pharmacy and Pharmacology/ Druf
6 Mr. Choonara Mr. Yahya Wits Delivery
7 Mr. Coetzee Johan NWU TT and Innovation Support Office
8 Dr. Comins Neville COFISA
9 Mr. Craven Peter Mintek Business Development
10 Prof. de Beer Deon VUT Technology Transfer and Innovation
11 Dr. de Vries Andrew CSIR
Pharmacy and Pharmacology/ Druf
12 Ms. Du Toit Ms. Lisa Wits Delivery
13 Mrs. El Mohamadi Adri GTZ TSP TT and Capacity Building
Limpopo Office of the
14 Ms. Galane Florence Premier Research and Development
UKZN Innovation (Pty)
15 Govender Thamandhran Ltd Generative Enterprises
16 Mr. Grootboom Andile DST
Central University of
18 Prof. Jordaan Gerrit Technology, FS Technology Management
Mat Science and Manufacturing - Senior
19 Mr. Kalombo Lonji CSIR Engineer
20 Ms. Khonkwane Nosipho SEDA (DTI)
21 Ms. Kotze Lara CSIR MSM/ Biomedical devices
22 Ms. Lahde Kristina SAFIPA
23 Mr. Langa Phumuza CSIR R&D Outcomes
Limpopo Office of the
24 Mr. Letsoalo Phatu Premier Research and Development
Mat Science and Manufacturing - IP
25 Mr. Machethe Tebogo CSIR Officer
Limpopo Office of the
26 Mr. Malindi Ndivhuwo Premier Research and Development
27 Dr. Maluleke Mkhetwa Innovation Fund Commercialisation Office
28 Mr. Manana Sibusiso Innovation Fund Commercialisation Office
29 Dr. Marais Charles Wits
30 Mr. Marais Fanie CSIR
31 Dr. Masuku Christopher UJ Research and Innovation
32 Mr. Masara Brian SAIP
33 Prof. Modise Sekomeng VUT Institute of Chemical and Biotechnology
Seda Technology
34 Ms. Mogashoa Justine Programme
35 Ms. Morwane Jeanette The Innovation Hub Activator
36 Mr. Moshoane Sipho eGoliBio
37 Mr. Mthombeni Thabo CSIR (R&D Outcomes) Innovation Outcomes
38 Ms. Naidoo-Swettenham Ms. Thiru World Bank Institute STII for Development
39 Mr. Noma Ayanda TUT Research and Innovation
 34

Department of Sci. and

40 Mrs. Nyatlo Mavis Tech Technical Skills

Private Sectors Human Molecular Genetics; Short

41 Dr. Olkers Antonel (DNABiotec) Courses; Consultation
42 Dr. Phaho David Tshumisano Trust Techology Diffusion and Transfer
Pharmacy and Pharmacology/ Druf
43 Prof. Pillay Prof. Viness Wits Delivery
Wits Commercial
44 Ms. Pinto Cristina Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

Mintek - Council for

45 Ms. Quadling Amanda Mineral Technology Mineralogy
46 Dr. Rafapa Lesibana Univen Human and Social Sciences
Limpopo Office of the
47 Mr. Ramaru Mpho Premier Research and Development
48 Mr. Rensburg Iodien Innovation Fund Commercialisation Office
49 Sawers Jill TIH - Axess Cosulting
50 Ms. Seetal Nirvashnee COFISA
Mat Science and Manufacturing -
51 Dr. Semete Tumi CSIR Research Scientist
52 Prof. Sipamla Allworth VUT Institute of Chemical and Biotechnology
53 Ms. Sixholo Joy Innovation Fund Commercialisation Fund
54 Mr. Stoltz Rudi Denel Dynamics Business Development

Materials Science and Manufacturing -

55 Dr. Swai Hulda CSIR Research Group Leader
56 Mrs. Swanepoel Rita UP Research and Innovation Support
57 Ms. Tapper Helena Embassy of Finland
58 Mr. Thosago Phineas Innovation Fund Commercialisation Office
59 Dr. Tshavhungwe Alufelwi DST
60 Dr.ir. van Rijswijk K Aerosud Head of Advanced Composites
61 Prof. Youngleson Jonathan UP Research and Innovation Support