Texas A&M Research Park:Findings and Recommendations

Theresa A. Maldonado, Ph.D., P.E.Interim Vice President for Research

Council of Principal InvestigatorsMarch 11, 2009

Texas A&M Research Park Task Force Members

Texas A&M University System Agency

Theresa A. Maldonado, Chair

Texas A&M University

Russell Cross

Luis Cifuentes

Chuck Sippial

Terry Pankratz

H. Alan Love

Texas A&M University System

Vergel Gay

Gregory Anderson

Timothy Coffee

Jay Kimbrough

3

Contents

Mission and Goals of Task Force

Background

The Land

The Buildings

SWOT Analysis

Current Operations

“Vision” for the Future

Task Force Recommendations

4

Mission and Goals of Task Force

Research Park Task Force addressed two key

questions:

Does the University need a Research Park, or is

there another best-use of the property and facilities?

If the need is demonstrated, how should the

Research Park be structured and administered?

5

1984 Research Park Master Plan

• To utilize the resources of Texas A&M and The Texas A&M University System and its other component parts to assist in expanding and strengthening research and development capabilities of the State of Texas

• To enhance the quality and productivity of research activities at Texas A&M and other parts of the System, and to accelerate the dissemination of new knowledge and the transfer of new technologies to the public and private sectors of the state and the nation

• To establish a closer working relationship between the research capabilities of Texas A&M and selected industrial and commercial entities which themselves are engaged in research activities compatible with the purposes of Texas A&M and with other members of the System

• To facilitate the movement of recently trained graduates of Texas A&M into demanding and challenging positions in private industry and government at all levels

Basic Purposes:

6

The Land

Recorded, 1989Revised, 1990

The Land

• Research Park (new metes and bounds)

• Bush Library *

• “Expansion Area” *

* Not in Research Park

6February 2009 Survey

8

TIPS

The BuildingsTexas A&M

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (GEO)

1111 Research Parkway

Electron Beam Food Research (COALS)

Texas A&M University System

Offshore Technology Research Center (TEES)

Haynes Coastal Engineering Lab (TEES)

Gilchrist Building (TTI)

Texas Transportation Institute Headquarters (TTI)

(under construction)

CENTEQ Building (AgriLife)

Caldwell Companies

1313 Research Pkwy *

Two Research Park *

Texas A&M FoundationDonald L. Houston Building

* Ground lease (There is no ground lease required for Texas A&M or

agency buildings.)7

9

SWOT Analysis

• Strengths

– There is a significant plat of land available for development south of Raymond Stotzer Parkway

– The Park has proximity to Texas A&M University, the Texas A&M Health Science Center, and Easterwood Airport

– The Park is next to institutions with infrastructure and renowned researchers in a variety of basic and applied fields

– Exceptional one-of-a-kind facilities exist in the Park, such as the wave basin at the Offshore Technology Research Center and the Electron Beam Food Research Facility, among others

– The Park is a haven for collaborations and leveraging between Texas A&M and other members of the System

– There is growing interest in the Park from different stakeholders, such as Texas A&M, the System, industry, the community, Former Students, and developers

– There is new committed leadership at Texas A&M and the System

10

SWOT continued

• Weaknesses

– Historically, management model has not been as transparent and consistent as it could be.

– Park Director lacks needed visibility to advance Park in a strategic manner.

– Historical oversight of existing buildings inconsistent and unknown to many.

– Until the week of 9 February 2009, the metes and bounds of the Park were unclear.

– Programmatic or research vision was never formulated.

– Limited or no branding/marketing

– Tenants comprised primarily of System member offices as opposed to industry and start-ups

– Lags behind peer institutions in terms of infrastructure for applied research and technology transfer

– Leased space perceived to be too expensive

– Type of available space not appropriate for demand; e.g., no wet labs, no incubator space

11

SWOT continued

• Opportunities– Park can be redefined and reconfigured for the 21st Century

(i.e., Community of Innovation) ahead of peer institutions

– Attract start-up companies

– Attract industry partners from Houston and other parts of Texas

– Attract international partners

– Contribute in major way to knowledge-based economy in Texas

– Show state leadership the tremendous value of its educational investment

– Possibility of available R&D funds can provide new opportunities for growth

• Threats– Lack of a sense of urgency (historically)

– Non-implementation of programmatic vision (historically)

– Competing interests (due to lack of programmatic vision in the past)

– Lack of branding, market strategy, and visibility

– Current state of economy could affect market strategy

12

Current Reporting Structure

13

Highlights:

• Decision-making vested in very few people

(Park Director and Vice President for Research)

• Limited or no appeal process for decisions made

• Limited management by System Real Estate Office

• Uncertain decisions related to lease agreements and

business plan for Research Park

• Vision for Research Park and tenant

recruitment unclear or non-existent

Historical Research Park Decision-Making Flow Chart

12

Texas A&M University Proposed Research Park

Approval Process

• Guiding principles• Decision-making process• Leases• Build to suit

13

15

Proposed Oversight and Due Diligence

• Texas A&M University

– Research Park Director

– Vice President for Research

– Vice President for Finance & CFO

– Executive Vice President for Operations

– Research Park Advisory Committee (a new entity)

• Texas A&M University System

– System Real Estate Office

– Facilities, Planning, and Construction

– Office of General Counsel

– Vice Chancellor for Research

• Texas A&M University System Board of Regents

16

Vision

Early concepts for a vision by the Task Force include:

• Cluster: Create medical, engineering, and life science research and technology transfer to expand and strengthen research and product development capabilities through multi-disciplinary collaborations

• Magnet: Serve as a strong magnet for research and development and as a vehicle to transform the state and nation’s economy

• Incubation: Ignite and accelerate entrepreneurship, stimulate economic development, and extend the University’s research enterprise in order to transfer knowledge to public markets

• Partnerships for Innovation: Build productive partnerships with industry and government to bring the benefits of research and new discoveries to the state, nation, and the world through creation of new and improved products, services, and processes

Strategic Priorities

•Strengthen and leverage connections with the University and the System

•Attract companies to the Research Park that will engage with System researchers

•Foster the success of companies located in the Research Park

•Create a system to enable technology transfer of key University intellectual property

18

Task Force Recommendations

• Texas A&M University continue to have a Research Park that is revised and refocused to meet its new mission

• Management of the Research Park be the responsibility of the President of Texas A&M University

• President seek approval from the Chancellor and the Board of Regents to define the metes and bounds of the Research Park as recommended in the Task Force Report

• President be charged by the Chancellor to effectively carry out the new mission and strategic priorities of the Research Park as outlined in the Task Force Report

• Chancellor charge the President to develop metrics and timelines for the “new” Research Park over the next five years

• President initiate a search for the next Director of the Texas A&M University Research Park as soon as possible