Water Equipment and Policy I/UCRC Research Center

Center Director: Dr. Junhong Chen

Marquette Site Director: Dr. Daniel Zitomer

IMD: Dave Marsh

Lead Site: University Wisconsin-Milwaukee

2nd Site Marquette University

Founded 2011

Milwaukee’s Water Cluster

Global Water Center

WEP’s mission Pursue research for commercial and non-profit members

serving the water industry to create disruptive technologies

that transform their initiatives and businesses, and to

dramatically improve water quality and the environment.

Core Research Areas

Materials Sensors & Devices Systems Water Policy

Results after two years

• 2 Invention Disclosures

• 1 Patent Application

• 1 CORBI with Temple University

• 1 Student Hired by Members

• 1 PI completed I-Corp program

• 0 New Members

How did WEP compare with other

IUCRCs during its first two years?

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short

Mixed Results

Dr. Dan Zitomer

Marquette Site Director Dr. Junhong Chen

Center Director

WEP Staff

Dr. Eric Christensen

Center Director

Dr. Mike Switzenbaum

Marquette Site Director

Dave Marsh

Program Manager

2012 Industry Members

Fell Short

IMD Goals:

1. Expand internationally with offshore sites and members

2. Add new U.S. university sites

3. Increase number of students hired by members

4. Increase technology transfer

5. Add new members

WEP embraced the IMD proposal as our

business plan to become a World-Class I/UCRC

• Leverage off-shore operations of current members

• Establish dialog and trust to build relationships

• Focus on cultures fluent in English

• Hired consultant, intimate with India – Add university sites… then industry members

– Signed MOU with India’s Karunya University

• Address member obstacles to expanding internationally

IMD Goal: Establish academic and commercial

relationships in India and China

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Fell Short

Mixed Results

Mixed Results

In discussion with several universities to become sites

• Virginia Tech

• UC-Davis

• University of Connecticut

• University of Illinois – Urbana

CORBIs with Temple and Arizona State Universities

Collaboration with University of Wisconsin - Madison

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short Met Goal

IMD Goal: Increase collaboration with other

universities and IUCRC’s and expand with new sites

IMD Goal: Increase student hires and internships • Student/ Member

networking events

• 2 student hires

• 1 student interview

• Implemented student mentoring & promotion

Met Goal

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short

• 8 licensing agreements (5 executed and 3 pending)

• 3 patent applications

• 3 invention disclosures

IMD Goal: Increase technology transfer

• 1 Partnership For Innovation Grant involving 3 WEP members

Exceeded Goal

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short

• Improved communications between WEP staff and members

• Engaged members in developing RFPs

• Recruited new, younger PIs seeking research opportunities

• Increased communication between PIs and Members

• PIs collaborated with members in creating proposals

• PIs and members began meeting monthly to review progress and collaborate on direction

Steps taken to improve WEP’s technology transfer

IMD Goal: 4 new members a year

MWRD

AUTOTE

LIC

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short Exceeded Goal

• Earned stakeholder confidence to help open prospect doors

• Focused on prospects aligned with core strengths • Real-time sensing • Waste water treatment • Materials

Steps taken to change trajectory of new member recruitment

• Refined value proposition and elevator speech

• Identified and collaborated with champions

• Increased networking, publicity, and marketing to increase awareness

WEP’s experience using the Logic Model

• Difficult Aligning and Rationalizing 5 goals

• Tool For Program Director to Evaluate & Compare IMDs

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short

Mixed Results

The IMD Grant was critical to our success.

Thank you NSF!

WEP’s Feedback on IMD Program

Exceeded Goal

Met Goal

Mixed Results

Fell Short

And Thank All of You For Listening

Innovative Ideas From Innovative Managing Directors

David Struble, Assistant Director Net-centric Cloud Software & Systems (NCSS) I/UCRC

University of North Texas

I/UCRC Annual Center Directors Meeting, Washington DC

January 8-9, 2015

About Our Center

Center currently has 4 Sites:

University of North Texas (UNT), Lead Site

University of Texas at Dallas (UTD)

Arizona State University (ASU)

Missouri University of Science and Technology (MST)

Center Vision and Mission:

Research is aimed at restructuring net-centric and cloud computing software and focuses on modeling, analysis, design, implementation, verification and validation, testing, deployment and evolution of cloud-based and net-centric software and systems.

Center History:

- Established in February 2009 and Phase 2 awarded in April 2014

Some Center Statistics (since startup):

- 82 unique projects submitted for funding consideration

- ~40 projects funded and executed through October 2014 (> $1.4M)

- 36 contributing PI’s from among 5 university partners (at peak)

- >26 industry sponsors to date

IMD Background

What was your role prior to becoming an IMD? • Raytheon Company, Senior Software Technologist (retired Nov 2012) Were you already involved in Center operations? • Raytheon was one of the founding industrial members of the NCSS I/UCRC • Served as IAB Chair during first 3 years of Center operation Were you hired from the outside specifically for the IMD position? • Volunteered to write the IMD proposal (pro bono) in response to the RFP

and then develop the IMD model if awarded What prompted your application for the IMD supplement? • Prior association with the Center • Familiarity with Center operations as IAB Chair • Interest in a continuing relationship with the universities • Availability

Effect of IMD on Center Structure

What effect, if any, has your position as IMD had on the structure of your Center? • No structural changes to date (IMD model is in development) • Current focus is on correcting operational gaps and issues that would

otherwise distract an IMD from core responsibilities (e.g., recruiting)

• IMD model development has focused on: • Improving Center operations in 3 key process areas • Unification of geographically distributed sites

• Building a “one center” mentality

• Defining and deploying common processes • Seeking to overcome siloed behavior and operation

• Strengthening credibility with current and potential members • Clearly defined core competencies • Thoughtfully constructed portfolio of relevant research projects • Objective evidence of substantive project outcomes

Innovative Ideas

Example(s) of some innovative things you have done as an IMD?

Features of the IMD model we are building… • Based on introspective Self-Assessment of Center

• Operational issues and gaps (29) identified from evaluator reports and member feedback

• Implements 3 Key Process Areas (KPAs) needed to close gaps • Components of an emerging maturity grid

• Project Evaluation, Selection and Management (ESM) • Membership, Recruiting and Marketing (MRM) • Site Cooperation (SCO)

• Center competencies and capabilities characterized based on projects executed or submitted during first 5 years of Center operation

• Supporting processes, use cases, and implementation guidance for each KPA • New Project Quality Attributes defined to objectify project selection • New Project Proposal templates developed to be responsive to project diversity

concerns and objective evaluation/selection • New Sponsor Involvement Scale defined to set expectations for project mentoring,

participation in Center activities, etc. • Center value proposition and Objective Evidence criteria defined

Outcomes

What are some outcomes (both good and/or bad) resulting from some thing(s) you have implemented as an IMD? • Good

• Site Directors are generally supportive of process piloting activities • Of IAB members expressing an opinion and participating in peer reviews, all

have supported the intent and direction of proposed process changes • Feedback from NSF has been positive on our approach and progress

• Not So Good

• Limited participation of overall membership in peer reviews • Substantive support of peer reviews and participation in process deployment

activities is too dependent on the pro bono contributions of members • Members are generally uncompensated for involvement in Center

activities • No eminent authority to help encourage adoption of desired behaviors

Logic Model

Are you following a Logic Model to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMD? • Measures of success are defined that become relevant when the model (still in

development) is deployed. If so, can you tell us about the Logic Model imposed by the addition of the IMD? • N/A

Thoughts on the Logic Model: Somewhat helpful during development of Phase 2 proposal Served as checklist for planned vs. actual tasks and progress Effort to develop the model seemed to exceed value returned Expected LM to facilitate periodic progress reviews with sponsor, but none were scheduled; served primarily as snapshot of initial plan No feedback received from stakeholders after initial submission

Closing Words of Wisdom (continued)

• NSF wants an IMD Model with these features: – Applicable to any I/UCRC

– Emphasizes member recruitment and retention and building a vibrant I/UCRC ecosystem

– Successful implementation within the developing center's organization

• Our IMD Model derives from lessons learned during Phase 1 of our Center: – I/UCRC’s have many independent thinkers that often prefer to run “process free”

– Most operational gaps and issues come from lack of unified processes and procedures

– Lack of repeatable processes and a “one Center” mentality (siloing) absolutely kills productivity and invites rework

– The Center needs to be run more like a business (at least for the parts that make sense):

• Accountability for project costs and schedule

• Collection and periodic review of metrics to quantify performance trends for stakeholders

• Consider that a team almost always does a better job when it collaborates (encourage PI’s to be proactive about this by understanding the Center’s core competencies and capabilities)

• Center Management must be vigilant for potential opportunities to connect like-minded PI’s and sponsors

• Rewards and recognition for good performance and proactive Center-wide “help” for non-performers

– An unambiguous and clear value proposition backed by high-impact objective evidence is key to successful marketing (emphasize hard vs. soft benefits)

– Industry sponsors need to periodically update academic researchers on their IR&D roadmaps to ensure that PI’s propose projects that are timely and relevant (IR&D plans are seldom static from year to year)

Innovative Ideas From Innovative Managing Directors

Linda C. Caudill, Managing Director

Wood-Based Composites I/UCRC

Virginia Tech and Oregon State University

I/UCRC Annual Center Directors Meeting, Washington DC

January 8-9, 2015

About Our Center

A 2-Site I/UCRC:

Virginia Tech (lead) & Oregon State University w/Partner Universities: Maine, British Columbia

Vision: Be the leading source for fundamental research

and education in wood-based composites

Mission: Advance the science and technology of wood-based

composite materials Other pertinent Center information: Established in 1999, became an I/UCRC in 2010

IMD Background

1. What was your role prior to becoming an IMD? Managing Director

2. Were you already involved in Center operations? Yes

3. Were you hired from the outside specifically for the IMD position? Yes, from 13-year professional career in the wbc industry

4. What prompted your application for the IMD Supplement? The need to recruit:

• Loss of members during recession • Ties to North American housing industry • Industry consolidation • Developing relationships

Effect of IMD on Center Structure

What effect, if any, has your position as IMD had on the structure of your Center?

• IAB Executive and Technical Committees

• Partner Universities

• IMD is single operations contact for both sites, all partners

• Continue to operate under three-legged stool model

MA

NA

GIN

G D

IREC

TOR

Innovative Ideas

What innovative things you have done as an IMD?

• Increased focus on diversity

• Significant increase in industry engagement

• Partner with an international conference (Wood Adhesives)

• Improve standardized data collection/operations tools

• Moved to F/T for duration of Supplement

Outcomes/Learnings

What are some outcomes (both good and/or bad) resulting from some thing(s) you have implemented as an IMD

• Relationships matter • Logic Modeling • Sometimes difficult to get invitations to visit prospective members • IAB Meetings can be your best recruiting activity • Travel is expensive and challenging • Value of IMD and Directors for recruiting

Logic Model

Are you following a Logic Model to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMD? YES If so, can you tell us about the Logic Model imposed by the addition of the IMD?

Closing Words of Wisdom

Other comments about your experiences? Any “words of wisdom” for us to take home?

• Intense recruiting effort only possible with IMD Supplement

• Don’t underestimate the value of preparing future professionals for your target industry

• Engage current members to reduce chance of losing them

• Include members, Directors and faculty in recruiting efforts

• Keep your Logic Model in your sights

• What works for one Center/IMD may not work for others

Innovative Ideas From Innovative Managing Directors

Dr. Steve Midson, Managing Director

Center for Advanced Non-Ferrous Structural Alloys (CANFSA)

Colorado School of Mines

I/UCRC Annual Center Directors Meeting, Washington DC

January 8-9, 2015

About Our Center

CANFSA currently has 2 sites:

• Lead Site – Colorado School of Mines

• Additional Site – University of North Texas

– CANFSA was formed in 2011

CANFSA’s vision:

Become the premier place for research in the area of non-ferrous structural alloys

IMD Targets

Metric Initial

Status

Targets

End of Year 1 End of Year 2 End of Year 3

Membership 9 members 12 members 16 members 22 members

Funding from

Membership $335,000 -- $650,000 $900,000

Outside Research

Funding (Grants) None

$200,000 for 3-

year project

Additional

$500,000 for 3-

year project

Additional

$500,000 for 3-

year project

Employment of

Graduating

Students by

Members

--

33% of graduating

students will be

hired by CANFSA

members

33% of graduating

students will be

hired by CANFSA

members

33% of graduating

students will be

hired by CANFSA

members

Outcome of Survey

to Quantify Value

of Center to

Members

N/A

10% improvement

in satisfaction

over baseline

survey

10% improvement

in satisfaction

over year 1 survey

10% improvement

in satisfaction

over year 2 survey

IMD Vision • Hired two researchers as co-managing directors

– Researchers have international reputations in the field of non-ferrous alloys

– Dr. Steve Midson – Managing Director

– Dr. Bob Field – Assistant Managing Director

• Managing directors are capable of holding in-depth technical discussions with potential members – Identify their research needs

– Construct research efforts that meet these needs

• Each managing director works about 33% time

Background of IMDs Dr. Steve Midson

• Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering

• More than 30 years industrial experience

• Small businesses, large corporations, trade association

• Currently runs a consulting company

Dr. Bob Field

• Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering

• More than 30 years industrial and laboratory experience

• National Lab, large corporations

• Recently retired from Los Alamos National Lab

IMD Status – After 16 Months

Metric Initial Status Target - End of

Year 1 Actual Status

Membership 9 members 12 members 13 members

(6 new members)

Funding from

Membership $335,000 --

$399,000

(20% increase)

Outside Research

Funding (Grants) None

$200,000 for 3-year

project $453,000

Employment of

Graduating Students by

Members

--

33% of graduating

students will be hired by

CANFSA members

1 of 4 graduating

students has been hired

by a CANFSA member

Outcome of Survey to

Quantify Value of Center

to Members

N/A

10% improvement in

satisfaction over

baseline survey

13% improvement in

satisfaction over baseline

survey

Managing Directors’ Focus

• Identify new members

• Retain current members

• Increase level of contact between students and members

• Improve members’ satisfaction in Center

Identify New Members • Potential members are not aware of CANFSA

• Identified a list of potential members

– Networking

• Site directors & faculty

• Managing directors

• Members

– Utilized a trade association database containing contact information of about 20,000 metallurgists

• Directly contacted at least 50 companies

– Hold videoconference sales presentations with potential members

Identification of New Members • Timing is important

– Large corporations

• Need to put funding into next years’ budget

• Be aware of budgeting schedule for target companies

– Small businesses

• Can make decision any time

– Government Labs

• Often have funds left over at end of financial year

• August/September

Retain Current Members • Increase level of involvement of members in center

activities

• In between the 6-monthly IAB face-to-face meetings

– Initially held monthly videoconferences on each project

– Students present recent results

• Found that monthly was too often

– Currently have student videoconference presentations about 3 months after IAB meetings

• Encourage people other than just IAB members to participate

Retain Current Members

– Need to perform projects of interest to members

• Initial Center projects were suggested by faculty

– Just finished a 6-month process to identify new projects

• Collected project ideas from members and faculty

• Received 31 separate ideas

– Via voting and videoconference discussion

• Reduced to 11

– Identified industrial & academic champions for each project

• Presented proposals at fall IAB meeting

– IAB voted to define priority

Top 7 projects were all suggested by members

Retain Current Members • Increase level of contact between students and

members

• Established an industrial mentor for each project

– Mentor’s role described in written instructions

• Assist faculty members in advising students

• Communicate with their students on a monthly basis

• Assist students in establishing project goals

• Help students learn program management practices

• Encouraging internships at members’ facilities

Logic Model • Establishing a logic model was an arduous

experience • Time consuming • Painstaking

BUT • Forced directors to think about how to achieve

goals • Made detailed analysis of resources & activities • Identified innovative tactics to meet objectives • Determined appropriate progression of tactics in

out-years

“Final Words of Wisdom”

• Treat I/UCRC like a business

– Sales is most important

– Once you have obtained members

• Exceed their expectations

Summary

• Managing director’s focus

– Identify new members

– Increase members’ participation and satisfaction in the Center

• Videoconferences

• Solicit ideas from members regarding improvements in the Center

• Student mentoring

• Student visits and internships

• Leveraged projects

• Hiring of students