Case Study in Technology Transfer Training: University of Algarve
Case Study in Technology Transfer Training
Technology-Based Training
University of Algarve
Additive for Solefish Food
by
Cliff Zintgraff, Program Manager, UTEN@Austin
Alexandra Marques, Science and Technology Manager, TTO@UAlg
May 5, 2024
This is one in a series of case studies in how the University-Technology Enterprise Network (UTEN) is helping Portuguese Technology Transfer Offices develop practices that lead to globally competitive and sustainable operations. This case study is an example of how UTEN applies Technology-Based Training (use of real cases during training) to accomplish this goal.
About the University of Algarve
The University of Algarve (UAlg) is a university in the far south of Portugal. The University has three campuses in Faro and one in Portimão, both cities on Portugal’s southern Atlantic coast. UAlg is a public university with 10,000 students and 450 researchers. The university’s core areas of instruction and research are in Marine and Earth Sciences, Agro-food, Health Sciences, Economics and Management, Tourism, Engineering and Technology, Social Sciences and Humanities. UAlg is ranked 8th in Portugal, in terms of scientific production (data from 2009) in the Scopus database as indicated at SCImago Journal and Country Rank (www.scimagojr.com).
About the University of Algarve TTO - Algarve Regional Centre for Innovation (CRIA)
The UAlg Technology Transfer Office (TTO) reports to the Vice-Rector for Research and Scientific Extension. The office’s overall mission is the promotion and support of entrepreneurship, technology transfer and intellectual property. It is staffed by ten full-time employees. The office organizes itself along these functions: entrepreneurship, knowledge and technology transfer, intellectual property, incubation facilities and general studies. The TTO has 35 patented technologies, and a portfolio of 50 technologies being promoted by the university. UAlg staff has attended 6 UTEN-sponsored conferences and workshops. One staff member did a two-month U.S. internship at South Texas Technology Management (STTM) in San Antonio, TX. STTM is an 11-staff office connected primarily to the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSC-SA), and the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). It also serves the University of Texas-Pan American (UT Pan Am) and the University of Texas at Brownsville (UTB) in the Rio Grande Valley, near the Texas-Mexican border.
About Additive for Solefish Food
Additive for Solefish Food is a technology developed by the group of Professor Doctor Adelino Canário of the University of Algarve. Prof. Canário is also the Director of CCMAR, the Center of Marine Sciences (www.ccmar.ualg.pt).
In aquaculture, one of the main objectives is to achieve fast growth of fish. However, some species, due to characteristics of texture, taste or smell of food or other reasons not known, have difficulties ingesting food in the quantities required for their physiological needs and growth. Fish food manufacturers use various artificial additives to artificially stimulate growth, but these additives are not fully effective, and despite creating minimal environmental impact, create questions about food safety in the minds of consumers, and add significant cost to the price of fish food.
This technology is an additive that contains amino acids that are present in the natural prey of solefish. In minute quantities it stimulates fish to search for food and eat more of the food required for fast growth without artificial stimulants. The additive is effective for solefish but may also have similar effects in other carnivorous fish and invertebrates of cultivation such as decapod crustaceans or cephalopod molluscs. Studies have shown that the solefish in particular has a high olfactory sensitivity to a particular amino acid present in one of their preferred natural prey. Laboratory tests have shown that the additives were effective in solefish juveniles.
Training Methodology
Alexandra Marques of the University of Algarve has been performing a technology and market assessment of Additive for Solefish Food working with Cliff Zintgraff, a Program Manager from UTEN at UT Austin. Two steps have been performed. In the first, a 4-8 hour RapidScreen was performed to assess seven categories of readiness related to the technology, technology team, institution, and market. The RapidScreen identifies shortcomings in the readiness of the technology, institution, or team to move forward with the technology. Categories assessed are Inventor Support, Institution Support, Development Status, IP Status, Ownership Status, Market Relevance, and Market Opportunity. The second step, a MarketLook, is a 40 to 60 hour assessment of the market size and opportunity. The goal of this step is to uncover the “voice of the market” with respect to the technology, so that the TTO can work for/with the inventor to negotiate a license, form a spin-off, create research, development and sales collaborations, and/or address shortcomings that are barriers to market acceptance. The MarketLook process uses as its main research method primary interviews (phone calls, in-person interviews, email exchanges) with potential customers, end users, and partners in the technology’s target market/s.
Assessment Findings and Deliverables
The RapidScreen indicated a technology that has promise, but is some distance from its current state to potential commercialization. The Fish Food technology has a provisional patent filed, but no office actions returned from the patent office. Lab quantities of food additive have been created and tested, but field test quantities have not been generated. There is also a need to collect and file paperwork that documents the agreement between the institutions involved in the original research. Initial market research indicated significant interest in additives that can help fish grow faster, and an interest in partnerships. The RapidScreen results can be summarized as follows:
Highest rated: Inventor engagement, Institution staff size and commitment
Lowest rated: Development status, ownership status (could improve with clarification), IP
Other: Significant interest from market during interviews.
Note: Lower ratings highlight areas that require focus, not necessarily factors that will stop commercialization.
MarketLook: Starting with no real contacts in our network in this space, we were able to identify prospective first interviews through Internet research. Selected interviews yielded excellent results that placed us on course. In particular, a researcher from Mississippi State University was generally familiar with the field and gladly shared contacts for researchers working with flounder, a fish similar to solefish. We had four interviews that indicated that the speed and size of fish growth is a significant issue in the industry, and that additives are believed to be a possible solution to the problem, and in fact, additives are already used, but to improve diet, not to stimulate eating more food. We learned that carnivores are most expensive to feed, which makes this technology, which uses amino acids from the fish’s natural prey, more interesting.
A key goal of the MarketLook is to get to deep experts who can rapidly shed light on the technology. In this case, we discovered significantly different feedback from those one-degree removed from the deep experts, and the deep experts themselves. General experts in fish aquaculture rapidly saw the promise in the technology and offered almost immediately to collaborate, raising detailed technical questions about how the additive would be provided, the depth and length of testing required, etc. However, they referred us to fish nutritionists, who immediately began asking questions about the “amino acid profile,” talked about the complexities of creating a balanced dietary profile, and also told us about “feed grade amino acids” already available at the “local feed store.” Because the current patent is not yet published, we were not able to establish differentiation between the amino acids of this technology, and those in feed grade offerings (we suspect those differentiators do exist). We know from prior interviews that even a $5/ton increase in feed costs will be viewed as significant in the industry. Finally this effort helped crystallize in our minds the complementary but different benefits of “better diets” and “eating more of the same, good diet.” The benefit of this technology is the latter,n not the former. As is often the case, contact with the market forced us to update our technology description and sharpen our message. The MarketLook effort also highlighted for the review team the need to include fish nutritionists in the effort, and stimulated the idea of looking for nutritionists in Portugal to advise the effort. This would improve the support infrastructure for the technology, and interestingly, improve the technology’s RapidScreen score.
Training Lessons
RapidScreen
1. A good technology description and good Internet research can lead to strong initial primary interviews. Our first interview was two degrees (“hops”) from a deep expert in the field.
2. Corollary to #1 – university researchers make good first interviewees. They are willing to talk and share and can inform you about industry possibilities.
3. Complex ownership arrangements involving multiple institutions should be documented in writing and readily accessible.
4. There is a difference between the end-user technology and the underlying patent. It is more difficult to assess patents when the exact thing being patented is not yet published.
MarketLook
5. Good interviews can help you know rapidly if a market exists or not. We knew within three calls that there is no solefish industry in the U.S. However, we did learn of several producers of flounder, which the inventor told us could be affected positively by the additive.
6. Opinions can change radically with just one hop in the value chain. Aquaculture managers and fish behavior researchers immediately saw the potential value in the technology. Fish nutritionists saw the potential problems. (We believe it remains to be seen whether nutritionists are catching problems or missing the point of the opportunity – eating more, as opposed to better diet.)
7. The MarketLook process created two opportunities for collaboration, a confirmation that an assessment-oriented (as opposed to sales-oriented) process can lead to collaboration opportunities.
8. Often, the experts a team needs (in this case, the fish nutritionists) can be much closer than you think. Do not overlook the experts who are close by.
Impact on TTO Practices
As a result of this UTEN training, CRIA is implementing these procedures in their operations:
1. Technology ranking and stages: CRIA is implementing a process to rank technologies and identify their stage of development. This process will be used to set priorities and identify appropriate next steps for priority technologies.
2. Central collection of analysis data: Processes will be defined such that technology analysis results in the central collection of analysis data, for efficient execution of processes.
3. Clarify needs of research and industrial markets around UAlg technologies: UAlg will apply processes that rapidly expose the interest of markets in UAlg technologies, working to see the technology from the market’s perspective. The goal of the process is to see all options for a technology and develop alternatives that may go beyond initial researcher expectations and intent.
4. Identify specific potential collaborations: Beyond overall market understanding, processes will be defined to identify and pursue specific licensing and other opportunities for UAlg technologies.
5. Implementation of UTEN tools: The RapidScreen and MarketLook tools will be included as appropriate in TT processes, consistent with the overall needs of the office.
