Benchmarking Economic Development Efforts at Select Research Universities

8/8/2019 Benchmarking Economic Development Efforts at Select Research Universities

1/44

Benchmarking of

Economic DevelopmentEfforts at Select

Research UniversitiesA study conducted by the Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement

at Penn State University

by Penn State Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement:

Timothy FranklinMeredith Aronson

Maria Kirby

Eleanor Schiff

James Woodell


2/44


3/44

3

Contents

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................5

Methods ....................................................................................................................................5

Common Elements/ Key Themes ............................................................................................6

Arizona State University ........................................................................................................ 10

Georgia Tech .......................................................................................................................... 12

Michigan State University ..................................................................................................... 15

North Carolina State University ............................................................................................ 17

Purdue University ................................................................................................................... 20

University of Illinois ............................................................................................................... 22

University of Kentucky........................................................................................................... 24

University of Michigan ........................................................................................................... 27

University of Minnesota ........................................................................................................ 29

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill .............................................................................. 33

University of Wisconsin (Madison and Extension) ............................................................... 35

Virginia Tech .......................................................................................................................... 38

Washington State University ................................................................................................ 40

Appendix A: List of Questions and Interviewees................................................................. 42

Appendix B: Institutions and Contacts ................................................................................ 43


4/44

4


5/44

5

IntroductionEconomic development is an activity that all universities either do intentionally or by default

because they are fixed assets within a community that attract and anchor talent, produce

technologies and innovations, and generate community amenities attractive to highly valuedworkers. They also provide many jobs and direct inputs into the local economy. Some

universitiesland-grants and otherswork actively in the arena of economic development either

because it is part of their mission or it is a value that the university feels is core to its fabric.

As a way to understand how other universities approach and organize their economic development

efforts, staff from the Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement (OPPE) at Penn State (Meredith

Aronson, Maria Kirby, Eleanor Schiff, and James Woodell) surveyed 13 universities across thecountry. Gleaning how various institutions approached economic development (to the extent that

we were able to) and comparing it to our own experience at Penn State is the purpose of this paper.

A common challenge emerged in each of the programs we investigated. On one hand, technologytransfer and research programs create a system of high-risk, high-innovation where the return to

the regional economy is slow, with high returns for a relative few. On the other hand, programs that

provide support services to companies and communities create a system of low risk, limitedinnovation with the potential to provide incremental benefit to a large population of people. Thefunding for the second case is often public dollars, and the organizations to support this work are

often disconnected from the research side of the university (e.g., outreach, extension, civic

programs through the faculty).

This separation between the research engine that targets innovation and the service orientation of

community programs has implications as a barrier to university program impact by serving as a

drag on the scale and speed of impact to regional economies. One consideration for organizationalstrategies for the future is how to better integrate the two sides to increase the impact of

universities as central players in regional economic systems.

This research and report were initially developed as a tool for internal planning at Penn State. Assuch, information about Penn State University economic development efforts are not included. We

intend to re-visit the report, and will include Penn State efforts in a future version.MethodsOver a two week period, we interviewed public research university officials typically at the level of

Vice President, in research, economic development, and/or outreach and engagement roles.Participant institutions were selected to develop a diverse set of cases against which to benchmark.

Institutions were selected that were peers of Penn State in some respect. Each institution was a

public research university with some combination of the following: membership in the Big Ten,

Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and/or a

notable reputation for economic development activity.

We developed a list of ten questions (Appendix A) to guide the discussion in an effort to understand

the scale and scope of the economic development efforts across the full institution. Through thestudy, we sought to gain a general understanding of how other major universities across the

country structure their economic development efforts.


6/44

6

The interviews yielded helpful information. When additional time and resources are available, we

hope to confirm some of what we learned by triangulating data collected in these interviewsideally, additional interviews would be conducted with representatives of other aspects of

economic engagement at each institution. However, given the investment appropriate to a

preliminary effort, we are satisfied that the interviewees responded from an institutional

perspective to the degree they had knowledge.

Interviews were recorded in handwritten or typed notes. Notes were turned into individual case

descriptions, with key lessons from each interview being highlighted in each case. Organizational

charts for each institution were created based on interview notes and checked against institutionsweb sites. Finally, each interview participant was sent a draft of their case description and asked to

verify and modify if necessary.

It is important to note that the definition of economic development was not consistent acrossuniversities. Many universities viewed economic development in the context of technology transfer,

entrepreneurship and business development; other universities were more closely tied to

engagement efforts; other universities tried to work closely at the policy level within stategovernment; and many universities viewed the definition as a combination of all these activities.

While this lack of consistency presents a potential weakness in our data and analysis, it also

represents an important findingthat there is not yet a common rubric for what constitutes

economic development or economic engagement at public research universities.

Common Elements/ Key ThemesCases were reviewed to look for key trends and common themes across all cases. While eachinstitution has a unique approach to economic development tailored to their specific circumstances,

there are common elements among them. Institutions that had active programs seemed to:

y Have a commitment to economic development efforts from leadership at the highest levelsof the university,

y Embrace economic development as a core activity of the universitysupported because itsrole is to strengthen academic and scholarly goals and/or to justify new or existing public

funding,

y Cultivate a productive relationship with state government,y Establish clear, single points of contact for the business community and representatives of

state government,

y Secure stable funding streams either from core university monies or the state,y Integrate and coordinate economic development activities across the research, teaching,

and outreach missions of the university and respective functional areas (research and

graduate studies, academic affairs, and outreach),


7/44

7

y Insure collaboration and partnership across these missions and functions either formally orinformally through an office or council that serves the coordination function,

y Establish executive or top management positions with a specific focus on economicdevelopment,

y Have highly engaged programs experiencing significant new public and other investments,often diversifying the institutions funding sources, and

y Have found that some kind of central coordination helps to promote institutional capacity tointegrate responses to address larger societal problems.


8/44

Table 1: Institutional Data

Institution Number ofStudents** Number ofFaculty**

Research

Expenditures(millions)*

Licensing

Revenue(millions)*

PatentsIssued*

Arizona State University 67,000 3,095 $219 $3.3 15

Georgia Tech 20,000 912 $490 $1.9 58

Michigan State 47,278 4,985 $361 $5.5 35

NC State 31,130 2,040 $332 n/a 38

Penn StateUniversity Park 44,118 5,495 $665 $1.8 34

Purdue University 39,697 6,614 $473 $5.1 33

University of Illinois 42,500 3,081 $816 $8.1 50

University of Kentucky 27,209 2,165 $190 $1.8 21University of Michigan 41,647 6,238 $823 $12.7 87

University of Minnesota 50,883 3,191 $548 $63.3 44

UNC, Chapel Hill 28,916 3,500 $589 $2.1 31

University of Wisconsin, Madison 42,030 2,054 $1,000 $46.7 124

Virginia Tech 30,739 1,371 $181 $2.0 33

Washington State University 25,352 1,304 $135 $1.0 13

* Data from the Association of University Technology Managers FY2007 Survey and university web sites

**Data from respective universities' websites/ interviews


9/44

9

Table 2: Institutional Performance

Licensing Revenue (thousands) Patents Issued

Institutionby Number of

Faculty

per $1M in

Research

Funding

by Number of

Faculty

per $1M in

Research

Funding

b

Arizona State University 1.07 15.07 .0048 .07

Georgia Tech 2.08 3.88 .0636 .12

Michigan State 1.10 15.24 .0070 .10

NC State - - .0186 .11

Penn StateUniversity Park 0.33 2.71 .0062 .05

Purdue University 0.77 10.78 .0050 .07

University of Illinois 2.63 9.93 .0162 .06University of Kentucky 0.83 9.47 .0097 .11

University of Michigan 2.04 15.43 .0139 .11

University of Minnesota 19.84 115.51 .0138 .08

UNC, Chapel Hill 0.60 3.57 .0089 .05

University of Wisconsin, Madison 22.74 46.70 .0604 .12

Virginia Tech 1.46 11.05 .0241 .18

Washington State University 0.77 7.41 .0100 .10


10/44

10

Arizona State University

Number of Students: 67,000 Land Grant (Y/N): No

Number of Faculty: 3,095 Approximate % ofoperating budget fromstate appropriations: 40%Sponsored Research: $219M

The Arizona State Universitys economic development efforts are housed under a Vice Presidentfor Research and Economic Affairs. Approximately 40 people work directly for the VP forResearch and Economic Affairs on economic development efforts though there are employees in

other parts of the university (e.g. at the business school, labs, etc.) who also work on economic

development projects. The mission of their efforts is, primarily, to bring in more sponsoredresearch money though they are a trusted partner and resource for the state.

Much of the emphasis at ASU is focused on three key areas: corporate engagement, economicdevelopment policy, and economic development.Corporate engagement involves recruitingcompanies to work directly with ASU for sponsored research activity and connecting companies to

the university for workforce training. ASU also works to promote entrepreneurship and innovation

through its technology transfer efforts and its business incubation center, SkySong. Staff from thisoffice also represents ASU on several business boards across the state focusing on economicdevelopment efforts and forming collaborative strategies on how to grow the Arizona economy.

Programs and Initiatives:

y Discovery Triangle (see below)y Skysongy Technopolisy Edson Student Entrepreneur Initiative

There are several examples of successful economic development projects that employ expertise at

ASU for the benefit of the state.Discovery Triangle, for instance, is a project that involves threelocal governments where ASU owns land that bounds each of the municipalities. In the 20 square

miles of underdeveloped land ASU is one of five principal players (with local and state government)to develop the land using smart urban growth strategies to fighting sprawl. Additionally, the state

engages with the university to help frame important policy issues such as providing analytical

models of water use issues.

Tapping into the expertise at the university helps state and local government with policy decisions

they are expected to manage effectively for public benefit. Another example of ASU working withthe governors office on policy issues is theArizona Smart Growth initiative. ASU is working in aconsultative role for the state on how to deploy solar energy across the state and the implicationsfor the electric grid. ASU is viewed as a critical and credible partner to work with the state on

important public policy issues.


11/44

11

Keys to Success:

Funding for economic development is a mixture of state appropriations (40% of ASUs operatingbudget is from state appropriations), joint venture and private money. Success in economic

development efforts have been attributed to the new president, MichaelCrow, whose leadership

and vision has focused on interdisciplinary projects and working across siloswhich has started tochange the culture at ASU.

Key Lessons from Arizona State University:

y ASU has a productive relationship with state government and an expectation to workcollaboratively with the state.

y ASU is a trusted and valued partner for critical policy decision affecting the state.y Focus on building external relationships with business and bridging internal silos.

Vice President

DeputyVice President

Research Strategy

Associate VicePresident, Economic

Affairs

Corporate Initiatives

EconomicDevelopment

Economic Policy


12/44


13/44


14/44

14

Key Lessons from Georgia Tech:

y Georgia Techs integration of economic development services (entrepreneurial, industry,commercialization, and community) under one institute returns value to state economic

impact.

y The strategic partners program creates a forum for organizing an engagement response forlarge research grants (value add to faculty research) as well as a mechanism for businessdevelopment.

y Institutional flexibility on IP to support increased movement of IP on doubles and tripleshas yielded results.


15/44


16/44

16

(which employs research faculty) through the "Greening Michigan: Leveraging Natural and Human

Assets for Prosperity Institute in a restructuredCooperative Extension Service. The universitysbusiness school has launchedMSU Business Connect, aimed at making the entire university moreagile and able to respond to opportunities for business and community partnership. MSU Business

Connect works closely with translational science initiatives at the university to try and help get

MSUs intellectual capital out into the community more quickly and in a responsive manner.

MSUs regional and state focus is expressed through a number of programs and initiatives. The

Power of We Consortium has brought together over 100 community agencies, linked them withfoundations, and affected transformational change in Lansings health delivery systems, schools, itssoftware sector, and in its arts and culture communityall central components of the regions

economy. Partnerships between Lansing Area Economic Partnership (LEAP), Information

Technology EmpowermentCenter (iTEC), and Prima Civitas Foundation link faculty with regional

economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurial centers and MSU Community Builder Fellows.MSU has also formed a research partnership with the University of Michigan and Wayne State

University to focus on the transformation of transportation in the state. In general, the university

is oriented toward engagement, an orientation that has paid off for the universitythe College ofEngineering was able to substantially increase extramural funding when they adopted an engaged

scholarship and interdisciplinary model, as one example.

Keys to Success:Hiram Fitzgerald, the universitys Associate Provost for University Outreach and Engagement,

reports that the successes the university has had in economic engagement are due to strong

leadership by the universitys president Lou Anna K. Simon, who is committed to community and

economic development despite an often difficult relationship with state policy makers. In additionto this commitment, according to Hi, central leadership at the university has challenged decision

makers to be risk-takers who may fail occasionally, but who are much better able to address the

intractable problems that society faces.

Key Lessons fromM

ichigan State University:y Creation of the MSU Business Connect unit is a response to demands from the business

community that there be a single point of entry for accessing university resources, and

someone to facilitate the process to keep it from getting bogged down.

y At MSU, the OVPR regulates distribution of indirect costs, providing the office with moreleverage to undertake new initiatives.

y There is a very clear, focused regional strategy at MSU, particularly focused on Mid,Southeast, and West Michigan. This strategy helps units across the institution align their

economic engagement efforts.

y MSUs emphasis on engagement has increased public support as has its reorganizedCooperative Extension Service with its emphasis on regional economic development.

y MSU emphasis on engagement and its risk orientation supports large scale projects thataddress intractable problems and offer faculty and students with rich scholarship and

learning opportunities.


17/44

17

North Carolina State University

Number of Students: 31,130 Land Grant (Y/N): Yes

Number of Faculty: 2,040 Approximate % of

operating budget fromstate appropriations: 46%Sponsored Research: $332M

North Carolina State Universitys Office of Extension, Engagement & EconomicDevelopment(EEED) has a comprehensive and integrated approach to engagement that supports programs in a

variety of areas, including innovation, entrepreneurship, and community and business

development.

Chancellor

VP for Extension,Engagement, and

Economic Development

Economic DevelopmentPartnership

McKimmon Center forExtension and

Continuing Education

Center for Urban Affairsand Community

Services

Shelton LeadershipCenter

Small Business andTechnology

Development Center

Finance and Business

Centennial CampusPartnerships

Centennial CampusDevelopment

Campus Enterprises

Research and GraduateStudies

Technology Transfer

Centers, Institutes, andLaboratories


18/44

18

Programs and Initiatives:The office is led by the Vice Chancellor for Extension, and reporting is to NC States Chancellor.Multiple units are housed within the Office of EEED, including:

y Cooperative Extension Servicey Economic Development Partnershipy Henry Hugh Shelton Initiative for LeadershipDevelopmenty Industrial Extension Servicesy McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Educationy Small Business and TechnologyDevelopmentCenter

NC State makes up one point of the well-known Research Triangle, which one of the largest science

parks in North America and is strategically located between North Carolina State, University of

North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Duke University. NC State also owns and operates the CentennialCampus industrial park, which encompasses 1,334 acres developed with state, federal and privatefunds and host to mixed-use facilities and leverages proximity to the University to create mutually-

beneficial university/industry partnerships.

The Office of EEED and its units are home to more than a dozen major programs, the vast majorityof which represent a partnership between the university and either industry or governmentpartners, including:

Business and EconomicDevelopment:

y Entrepreneurship, Global Training, and Space Initiativesy Industrial and Textiles Extension Servicey Natural Resource Economic Development Outreach Program: Forestry, Tourism, Wood

Products

y Sea Granty Technology Incubatory Small Business and TechnologyDevelopmentCenter: Boating Industry Services, Business

Consulting, Export Financing Services, International Business, Management Education

Services, Technology Commercialization

y Upper Coastal Plain Learning CouncilIndustry and Technology:

y Center for Innovation Management Studiesy William R. Kenan, Jr. Institute for Engineering, Technology and Science

Community Development:

y College ofDesign Research and Engagement Programsy Cooperative Extensiony Language and Life Programy Recreation Resources Servicey Institutes for Emerging Issues and Transportation Research and Educationy Center for Urban Affairs & Community Services


19/44

19

Keys to Success:The relationship with the state is very good, and considerable funding is provided by the NorthCarolina Department ofCommerce. The Office of EEEDs most recent annual report lists its funding

at about$140 million dollars, which constitutes approximately 11% of the Universitys total budget.

Nearly 1,200 faculty and staff have full or partial reporting relationships to the Office of EEED,

about half of whom are located in the field.

Vice Chancellor Jim Zuiches credits the success of the EEED to NC States integration and emphasis

on engagement into its research and scholarship. Faculty tenure is clearly and meaningfully tied to

engagement goals, which stimulates faculty efforts and grows university capacity and impact. Moreinformation on the Office of EEED can be found in its Benchmarking EconomicDevelopment

Impacts reports, which detail the logic models of all outreach programs and outline the EEEDs

experiences with pilot initiatives.

Key Lessons from North Carolina State University:

y Tying engagement work to tenure and promotion motivates faculty to seek their ownfunding and support for this work, which greatly increases the Universitys capacity for

impact.

y Proximity to university resources serves as a leverage point in attracting new businessesand engaging in university/industry partnerships .

y Engagement efforts make up a significant portion of the Universitys total budget.


20/44

20

Purdue University




Purdues Office of Engagement, created in 2002, creates organizational focus for the university touse its resources to address issues affecting the state's prosperity and quality of life. Under a ViceProvost for Engagement, regional development, extension, technical assistance and a universityincubator are aligned within a single organization. Areas of focus include economic development, P-

12 education, community service and lifelong learning and scholarship of engagement.

With over $40 million in active grants, the specific engagement programs at Purdue include atechnical assistance program, a NIH-funded healthcare engineering program (I-STEM),continuing education, Science Bound, the Center for Regional Engagement, and site-basedOffices of Engagement. The Office of Engagement receives $2M/year from the general fund, whichserves to support proposal development for research faculty, along with the overall program.


y Purdue Research Foundation (see below)y Discovery Park(see below)y Purdue Angel Investment Network(see below)y Purdue Center for Regional Developmenty Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship

Purdues technology transfer and commercialization activities are organized through the PurdueResearch Foundation, outside of Purdue. With over $50million in investment from LillyFoundation which was then leveraged manyfold, it has been possible to build a dynamic core of11


21/44

21

research and learning centers named Discovery Parkat Purdue, including focus onnanotechnology, bioscience, energy, healthcare, environment, cyber-science, oncological science,entrepreneurship, advanced manufacturing, and STEM learning. Additionally, Purdue has a

network of four research parks that provide technology incubator services along with a PurdueAngel Investment Networkfor early investment.

Keys to Success:Purdue has developed a strong relationship with state organizations from the governors office

through to agencies, often taking the role of convener to gather extended groups of institutions.

The Office of Engagement has built a reputation as a place to go get stuff done at a scale that isunique for Indiana, consistent with the Purdue culture of being willing to take on issues that are

important to people in the state and being able to deliver.

The Center for Regional Engagement operates under two conditions: 1) they do not work withingeopolitical boundaries, and 2) they do not bring money to the table in their engagements. This

allows them to work regionally and in industry clusters.

New directions for future include international engagement, specifically opening foreign markets

for regional companies, along with K-12 education.

Key Lessons from Purdue University:

y The land grant mission and history creates activity in engagement under the Provost, andorganizes regional development, extension, technical services, and an incubator in a singlegroup.

y Alignment with the state and influencing policy can be a positive outcome of this focus.


22/44

22

University of Illinois




Vice Chancellor for EngagementSteve Sonka reports that while the university is highly de-centralized, and proud of it, such an organization is becoming less well positioned to address manyof the problems of society, including economic development. Steve notes that coordination among

the universitys disparate economic engagement efforts is needed, and such coordination frequently

comes from his officein particular from the Office ofCorporate Relations. In collaboration with

the Office of the Vice President for Economic Development at the system level, extensiveconnections between the research and engagement missions of the university at the Urbana

Champaign campus are led from Public Engagement.


y Office ofCorporate Relations (see below)y Illinois Ventures (see below)y Research Park(see below)y Illinois Resource Network (see below)y Business and Industry Servicesy Sustainability Advisory Council (see below)

System: President

Urbana Champagne:Chancellor and

Provost

Vice Chancellor forResearch

Vice Chancellor forEngagement

Coporate Relations

Provost and ViceChancellor for

Academic Affairs

College of Agriculture

Extension

System: Vice Presidentof Technologyand EconomicDevelopment

Research Parks

Technology Transfer

Illinois Ventures


23/44

23

Public Engagements Office of Corporate Relations plays a pivotal role in connecting businessesand the community with the appropriate economic engagement resources at the university, fromstudent interns to research facilities to technology transfer. According to Sonka, the Corporate

Relations gateway role resulted from demands on the part of local and global businesses working

with the university to have a liaison to whom they could express needs and opportunities and then

be matched to the appropriate institutional resources. In addition to the Office ofCorporate

Relations, there is at the university a corporate engagement council comprised of the ViceChancellors,Deans, and othersthe group meets regularly to discuss firm involvement and

opportunities that cut across the university, an attempt to mitigate the effects of institutional silos.

Keys to Success:Critical successes in economic engagement at the university include the Research Parkand theIllinois Resource Networkprogram, which connects local governments and non-profits to fundingsources. Both of these efforts have benefitted from coordination across university areas andfacilitation through Public Engagement. As Sonka points out, university-engaged economic

development works best when it is built on the capabilities of faculty, staff and students at the

university, and then facilitated so that the right connections to these capabilities can be made.Another example of how coordination is paying off is in the universitys efforts aimed at

sustainabilitya Sustainability Advisory Council, working with a university Office ofSustainability, makes connections across the universitys research and engagement efforts. Whilejust a couple of years ago it was a challenge to connect faculty, staff, and students interested insustainability, the coordination around the issue has created larger-scale opportunities in terms of

funding and collaboration.

Key Lessons from the University of Illinois:

y The economic development story at Illinois is closely tied to the universitys researchagenda.

y While economic development efforts are very much driven by the research and teachingmissions of the university, the universitys public engagement function provides needed

facilitation and coordination between societys problems and the universitys departments.


24/44

24

University of Kentucky





y UK Commonwealth Collaboratives (see below)y Office for Commercialization and EconomicDevelopment(see below)y Coldstream Research Campus (see below)y Kentucky Science and Technology Corporationy Lexington Innovation & Commercialization Centery Von Allmen Center for Entrepreneurship Commercialization

The UK research and commercialization effort is under Vice President for Research James W. Tracy.

Within the Office ofCommercialization and EconomicDevelopment there are a number of

programs that provide support for commercialization: 1) Commercialization & EconomicDevelopment, 2)Angel Investment & VC Networking 3)ASTeCC/AgTeCC Campus Incubators,4) BusinessDevelopment, 5) Coldstream Research Campus, 6) IPDevelopment, 7) KY SBDC,8) Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation, 9) Lexington Innovation &Commercialization Center, 9) Von Allmen Center for Entrepreneurship Commercialization


25/44

25

Critical elements of the commercialization program include the organizational and spatialintegration of the resources needed to make deals. This includes organizations such as the Blue

Grass Partnership, where the UK President, Lexington Mayor, and President of the Chamber of

Commerce collaborate directly to respond to opportunities, bringing the resources of the

university, city, and businesses to bear on growing the economy. The goal of these deals is a 45-day

turn-around time. Creating on-campus incubators that feed Coldstream, a University of Kentuckyindustrial park has resulted in a healthy population of56 companies. Relevant clusters of industry

activity in Kentucky that are supported atColdstream include: equine, pharma, and date centers.

In 2006, the University of Kentucky, under President Lee Todd, launched the commercialization

program to grow Kentuckys economy through the commercialization of UK research, university-

industry partnerships, the development of new and existing businesses and the creation of jobs. In

its 3 years in operation, the UK Office for Commercialization and EconomicDevelopmentreflects the vision and leadership of a university president who has an MIT PhD, has owned his own

companies, and clearly understands the mechanisms for technology-based commercialization of

university IP. By reorganizing the organization around deal flow to drive process, there is a tightrelationship between service organizations that drive commercialization and the investment

necessary to support this. The OCED integrates the Angel, VC, and incubator operations tightly,

resulting in 88 companies created in Lexington, KY in 3 year, with $200million invested in this

same period. Overall, the organization minus the SBDC is approximately 15 people, with $9M inrevenue.

For UK, carefully engaging alumni to consider supporting economic development of the

commonwealth through venture fund targeting university commercialization has proven to be verysuccessful by aligning development activity through the Presidents office. After3 years, the CED

has invested in 10 companies, and had 2 liquidation events, with a strong future ahead for a more

typical 5-6 year horizon for investors.

The University of Kentuckys Office for University Engagementis led by an Associate Provost whoreports directly to the Universitys Provost. The staff of approximately eleven full-time and twentypart-time is divided between three foci:

y internal focus of encouraging and developing a culture of engagement within universityfaculty

y external focus including the maintenance and development of relationships andengagement opportunities in the community

y Japanese education through the Central Kentucky Japanese School and the JapanesePrograms office

Major goals of the office include:y supporting the research, teaching and service work of the universityy tracking and documenting the impact the Universitys work has on its constituents.

Funding for the office is provided at approximately$870,000 annually and there is currently no

system in place to track revenues.


26/44

26

UK Commonwealth Collaboratives is a series of47 initiatives designed to leverage Universityresources in addressing long-entrenched problems in the states economic and culturaldevelopment. Grants of$10,000 are awarded to faculty and staff engaged in areas important to both

the community and funding providers. From 2006 to 2008, the Office made awards totaling

$360,000, leveraging in return upwards of$45,000,000 in external research and engagement

funding. In 2010 another $110,000 was invested. The number of initiatives and amount of external

funding generated continue to grow.

Keys to Success:Philip Greasley, who heads the Office for University Engagement, cites the importance of growingthe culture of engagement generally throughout the university, and specifically with research

faculty, as a key to the success of the Offices efforts. Work is ongoing to shift faculty tenure and

promotion requirements to provide greater rewards for engaged scholarship. While progress is

being made, Greasley still does not consider the University to be fully integrated aroundengagement. In early 2009 the faculty senate was not overly receptive of a recent proposal to

formally endorse the new guidelines for tenure. That effort continues.

Key Lessons from the University of Kentucky:

y The Office of Engagement has a small staff, about half of whom are a) dedicated toencouraging UK faculty to pursue engagement opportunities and b) to tracking and

documenting UKs impact.

y Strong presidential leadership.y Associate Provost for Engagement Phil Greasley is trying to influence University

administrators to change the engagement culture and promotion guidelines to encourage

more faculty engagement, but to date, these efforts have not been fully accepted by the

faculty senate. Efforts there continue.

y Streamlining the commercialization activities around deal flow allows for strongalignment between operational groups.

y Incorporation of funds directly into the commercialization process has yielded strongresults.

y Commercialization and Economic Development dominates the activity in the engagementlandscape at the University of Kentucky.


27/44

27

University of Michigan




Over the last decade, the University of Michigan has systematically positioned itself to transformthe state economy. Given the decline of the auto industry and the recognition that new technology

areas will be needed that are based in the knowledge economy, economic development became a

strategic opportunity. With institutional leadership at the highest levels who either were involved

in commercialization ventures or who support the direction, in addition to key sympathetic playerswho have been in place for long periods of time, the University of Michigan has transformed a

fragmented economic development system into a series of integrated innovation economyorganizations reporting through the Vice President of Research.


y Business EngagementCenter (see below)y Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy (see below)y Center for Advancing Research and Solutions for Societyy Distinguished University Innovator Award

At the core of the University of Michigan research enterprise are four programs with over $10

million budgeted and over 50 full-time equivalents: the Business Engagement Center,Technology Transfer, the Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy, and

Sponsored Projects. Related programs include entrepreneurship programs in the engineeringand business colleges, a medical innovation center, and the life sciences InnovationPartnership. The Business Engagement Center, supported with tech transfer licensing fees,provides a 1-stop shop for business and community members; the Institute for Research onLabor, Employment and the Economy balances contracts with general funds to provide bothresearch and active service support to communities and companies affected by economic forces. In

addition, collaborative projects like theMichigan Initiative for Innovation andEntrepreneurship leverages foundation funds to provide gap funding for transfer of university IP;


28/44

28

theMichigan Venture Center provides support for business development with a sequence ofprograms including business development for new ventures, gap funding, networking, and mentors.

Keys to Success:Mechanisms for growing the capacity in innovation and economic development have included high-

level faculty and staff committees charged with advancing innovation at the university, along with

focusing activity through lenses like 1) an innovation economy website with the BusinessEngagementCenter directly behind it, 2) public-private partnerships with the university, localgovernment, the Chamber ofCommerce, banks and venture capitalists where the university is a

partner in regional economic growth, or 3) instant innovation sessions that intentionallyconvene faculty and business partners to brainstorm solutions to strategic challenges. The ongoing

stream of licensing revenues from the Tech Transfer program, along with university general funds

and some state funding have created a consistent investment stream for these programs. Given that

the State of Michigan budget is $8 billion/year, and the University of Michigan budget is $6billion/year, the state is not seen as a significant source for investment. Metrics for performance of

innovation support functions target increases in revenue to university programs due to their

existence.

Key Lessons from the University ofMichigan:

y Incremental work that includes faculty and staff, to craft a strategy for supporting aninnovation economy has led to a well integrated economic development system.

y Institutional leadership over a sustained period of time with a commitment to economicdevelopment has created an environment for success.

y A consistent investment stream that includes licensing revenues has created a mechanismfor funding new programs.


29/44


30/44

30

institutes that provide opportunities to link the institution with issues concerning the economy.For example, the Office for Technology Commercialization, comprised of a licensing center and aventure center, provides a critical connection to research assets at the university and works to

establish entrepreneurial efforts around university discovery.Dr. Mulcahy himself interacts

frequently with members of the state legislature to strategically plan policy efforts to support the

engagement of research in state economic development.

Other examples include the universitys participation in the Bio Business Alliance of Minnesota, andpartnerships between the Hormel Institute and Mayo Clinic.

The Office of Business Relations was established to serve as the FrontDoor for business to theUniversitys innovations and resourceshiring students, finding continuing education, seminars

and workshops, faculty expertise, facilities, equipment, and more. The staff of the office fieldsquestions from the business community regarding how to connect with various resources and

initiatives at the University.

The University of Minnesota supports economic development through the advancement of

community-engaged research, teaching, and outreach initiatives facilitated by the Office for Public

Engagement. The office is led by Associate Vice President for Public Engagement,D

r. AndrewFurco, who reports to Dr. Robert Jones, the Senior Vice President for System AcademicAdministration. The Office for Public Engagement works to strengthen the Universitys culture ofengagement through a series of initiatives designed to infuse community engagement more fully

into the research and teaching activities of the five campuses of the University. In 2008, the Officefor Public Engagement set in motion a Ten-Point Plan for Advancing and Institutionalizing Public

Engagement at the University of Minnesota, which details goals and benchmarks for the Universitys

community engagement efforts.

Over the last two years the University has undertaken considerable work in establishing a baseline

of engagement activity and economic impact. As part of this work, the Universitys Public

Engagement Assessment and Accounting Task Force completed a report that considers various

approaches and systems for capturing the scale and scope of the Universitys engagement work,and the impact of this work on students, faculty, the institution, the community, and the economy.

Efforts are underway to integrate community engagement measures into several of the Universitys

existing data collection systems, including faculty activity reports, student surveys, and researchproposal submission forms.

A broad range of economic development and community engagement activities (from local to

global) are housed throughout the University in more than 200 different offices and units(including Extension, Office of International Programs, Urban ResearchOutreach/Engagement Center, Office for Business and Community EconomicDevelopment,among others). Each engagement office and unit uses a different method to track the impacts of the

various community engagement efforts.

The Office for Business and Community EconomicDevelopment(BCED) is one of theUniversitys engagement units, and is one office in which efforts at engagement in the localeconomy are quite evident. Under the leadership ofCraig Taylor, the office focuses on supporting

traditionally underserved populations and, according to Taylor, works to apply the resources of the

university to improving the economic conditions and quality of life for members of the community.

The Universitys Extension unit has had a long tradition community engagement, workingthroughout the state of Minnesota on a variety of education, research, and outreach activities that


31/44

31

address broad range of agricultural, environmental, and health-focused issues that have

contributed substantially to the economic vitality of the state.

Another engagement unit is the Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center (UROC),which provides a physical presence for the university in the heart of North Minneapolis, one of the

most diverse, economically challenged communities surrounding the University. Focusing on

advancing the Universitys urban engagement agenda, UROC brings together under one roofacademics and outreach and engagement professionals working on urban-focused initiatives in

North Minneapolis. UROC houses diverse programs from business technical assistance to

community health education. The success of the University in securing the funding and communitysupport for UROC is attribute to the universitys visionary and committed leadership, namely

University President, Bob Bruininks and Sr. Vice President Robert Jones. UROC provides an example

of working directly with the community on complex and important urban issues.

The Universitys international engagement agenda is facilitated by the Office of InternationalPrograms (OIP), which serves as the central coordinating office for the Universitys internationalprograms. With a goal of preparing global citizens, the OIP promotes the internationalization of theteaching, research, and outreach missions of the University. Under the leadership of Associate Vice

President and Dean, Meredith McQuaid, OIP provides international services to faculty across the

Universitys five campuses, funding information for graduate study and research abroad,

administration of several scholarships, system-wide international policies and initiatives, and asignificant program designed to increase the international scholarly initiatives of faculty, colleges,

and graduate students.

Other units, research centers, and institutes, located within and across collegiate units, address abroad range of societal and economic issues through various partnerships with community.


y ResearchCenters and Institutesy

Office for Public Engagementy Office for Business and Community Economic Developmenty Urban Research and Outreach/EngagementCentery Office of International Programsy Office of Business Relations

Keys to Success:Overall, one of the keys to success noted by the Office for Public Engagement has been theuniversity-wide culture that embraces the infusion of public engagement into the tripartite mission

of research, education and service in both theory and practice.Dr. Furco reflects that all facets of

the mission benefit from the universitys engagement focus. Such sentiments are echoed by Dr.

Mulcahy, Vice President for Research.Dr. Mulcahy emphasizes the proactive policy development

work of his office as critical to the positive relationship the university has with the state, and at thesame time cautions against universities positioning themselves as a sole source of economic

vitality, noting that the University of Minnesota presents itself as one aspect of an important mix ofeconomic players in the state.


32/44

32

Key Lessons from the University ofMinnesota:

y Engagement benefits all areas of the tripartite mission research, teaching and service.y Engagement can represent an institutional strategy to advance overarching goals, such as

internationalizing the curriculum, enhancing disciplinary work, building cross-culture

awareness, etc.

y The university responds to increasing pressure from the state to leverage its resources forthe direct benefit of constituents by partnering with other important economic players.

y Presidential leadership and encouragement are critical to significant engagement efforts.


33/44

33

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill




Economic development efforts at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, are numerous,

varied, and decentralized. The reporting structure for many programs runs throughDr. Anthony

(Tony) Waldrop, the Vice Chancellor for Research and EconomicDevelopment, who reportsdirectly to the university chancellor, but also though other programs in the business school and the

school of public health who report through their own deans to the provost. For this reason, it is

hard to quantify the scale and scope of all of the economic development efforts at the universitythough it is an area that the university administration currently and historically has emphasized.

WithinDr. Waldrops purview, approximately 10 FTEs work on economic development efforts, and

he has also begun a small scale grant program available to faculty encouraging work on projectsacross UNC.

The term engagementis a better descriptor for how many of the university programs relate to the

public and view their mission. In fact, the Office of Economic and Business Development, whichuniversity administrators began with $500K in core funding and no specific state allocation, works

to bridge, highlight and support faculty and programs across the campus. The office, run by a veryexperienced and respected economic development practitioner with strong credibility in the

community, works across the university and runs monthly seminars/ workshops (with an outsidecommunity partner) to share activities that are occurring in the community with UNC support. In

fact, one recent seminar highlighted UNC faculty work in rural housing issues. This, along with

their Kauffman-funded entrepreneurship center, is a very successful program.

PresidentThe University ofNorth Carolina

ChancellorUniversity of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill

Vice Chancellor forResearch and

EconomicDevelopment

Small GrantsPrograms

Office of Economicand BusinessDevelopment

Community EconomicDevelopment

Research GrantsProgram

Working Group onEconomic

Development

AppalachianCommunity Colleges

E.D. Partnership

Executive ViceChancellor and

Provost

Kenan-FlaglerBusiness School

School of Dent istry School of MedicineSchool of Public

Health


34/44

34


y Student Teams Achieving Results (STAR) (see below)y Community and EconomicDevelopment Programy Small Grants Programsy Office of Economic and Business Developmenty UNC Working Group on Economic Developmenty AppalachianColleges Community Economic Development Partnership

While efforts in economic development occur at several levels and different schools (e.g. business,

medicine, dentistry, public health) these decentralized efforts impact the state enormously through

this spectrum of efforts. Tech transfer efforts report through and work with economic development

programs and across campus at UNCs business school. Student Teams Achieving Results (STAR)offers North Carolina businesses free consulting in exchange for hands-on learning. This program

has enabled local businesses to increase exports to other parts of the U.S. and has caused real

economic impact. Another example of engagement at the university is the enormous impact of thehealth science schools. UNC physicians fly across the state to deliver care to the underserved.Additionally, the Community and Economic Development Program housed in UNCs school ofgovernment helps provide training to public officials about job creation, how to expand the tax base

and help communities execute strategies for community and economic development. Mosteconomic development programs are funded through a combination of state base funding,

university support, contracts and grants though no state funds are specifically earmarked for

economic development at UNC.

UNC has historically had a good relationship with the states policy makers. It is viewed as a trusted

advisor to several state departments and a resource on a variety of topics including

entrepreneurship, economic development models, and new approaches to intractable problems.

Key Lessons from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:

yUN

C

works closely with community organizations to highlight effective collaborations.y Decentralization with a central coordinating body has worked well at UNC.y Research, tech transfer and economic development activities all report to the same VP

leadership in these areas coordinate and interact with each other regularly.


35/44

35

University of Wisconsin (Madison and Extension)



operating budget fromstate appropriations: 19%Sponsored Research: $1,000M

The University of Wisconsin system is comprised of13 four-year institutions, 13 two-yearinstitutions (known as UW Colleges), and Extension (which is part of the same administrative

structure as the Colleges). Our investigation focused on the UWMadison campus, and also theUniversity of Wisconsin Extension.


y Division of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development(see below)y Center for Community and EconomicDevelopment(see below)y Wisconsin Small Business DevelopmentCenters (see below)y Wisconsin Entrepreneurs Network(see below)y Office ofCorporate Relations (see below)y WiSys Technology Foundation, Inc. (see below)y Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (see below)y University Research Park(see below)y Center for Cooperativesy Wiscontrepreneur (see below)

President, UWSystem

Chancellor, UWColleges and UW

Extension

Provost and ViceChancellor, UW

Extension

CooperativeExtension

Community andEconomic

Development

Entrepreneurshipand Economic

Development

Small BusinessDevelopment

Centers

WisconsinEntrepreneur's

Network

Chancellor, UWMadison

Vice Chancellorfor University

Relations

Office ofCorporate

Relations

Wisconsin AlumniResearch

Foundation

WiSys TechnologyFoundation


36/44

36

UW Extension was created to coordinate and facilitate a single doorway to the University ofWisconsins 26 campuses. With applied research faculty and resources for connecting withcommunities, this program targets a public service mission of the university, and is a distinct entity

from the centralized research and technology transfer programs at the university. UW Extension

has two programs tied most directly into economic developmentcooperative extension and theDivision of Entrepreneurship and EconomicDevelopment (DEED). Overall, 33% is state

funded, 44% from program revenues (fees), 12% from federal, 9% county.

The Community and Economic Developmentprogram within Cooperative Extension creates,applies, and transfers multidisciplinary knowledge to help people understand community changeand identify opportunities through programming in applied research, facilitation and technical

assistance, and education.DEED supports and coordinates entrepreneurship and economicdevelopment activities that occur at University of Wisconsin campuses.DEED also manages several

programs that impact Wisconsin businesses including the Wisconsin Small BusinessDevelopment Centers (SBDC) network and the Wisconsin Entrepreneurs Network(WEN).

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Office of Corporate Relations (OCR) was formed in2003 to serve as the front door to UW-Madison for business and industry, helping companies,

organizations and entrepreneurs access resources in areas such as student internships and

placement, executive education and professional development, access to faculty and staff expertise,

technology transfer, and entrepreneurship. Charlie Hoslet, who leads OCR, makes connectionsbetween and among the varied economic development activities on the UW-Madison campus, as

well as building connections with other campuses and economic development organizations in the

state. Support for entrepreneurship, including the Wiscontrepreneur program hosted by OCR, is akey element of the economic development efforts of the university.

Those organizations include the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), andindependent non-profit organization which provides the technology transfer function for UW

Madison, and WiSys, another foundation, affiliated with WARF, which serves the other UW

campuses, including Extension and two-year colleges. These programs infuse$45

million annuallyinto the UW research community as margin of excellence funding. OCR also connects with twodozen separate industrial consortia at the university and their member companies.

University Research Park, as a physical manifestation of technology transfer andentrepreneurship, has proven to be a key success in economic development. Partly, this is because

URP serves entrepreneurial faculty and supports in various ways the university culture thatencourages entrepreneurship among faculty, staff and students. The URP also supports the need for

the regional economy to grow our ownbuild business and industry from the ground up rather

than relying on smokestack chasing.

Keys to Success:

y The university encourages a wide variety of economic development and entrepreneurialactivity, across the research, extension, and university relations functions.y The institution creates and supports a culture of entrepreneurship.y UW maintains pays attention to state and regional economic development needs in addition

to the global impact that UW discoveries have.


37/44

37

Key Lessons the University of Wisconsin,Madison and UW Extension:

y Extension and the economic development efforts it coordinates provide an importantfacilitative role for UW campuses statewide.

y The Office ofCorporate Relations at UW-Madison also plays a critical role in connectingeconomic development activities across the campus and connecting them to other entities.

y An institutional culture that encourages and supports faculty, staff, and studententrepreneurship is essential.

y Innovative mechanisms for technology transfer such as WiSys and WARF create cash flowfor the research community and provide support to startup and spinoff companies

emanating from university technology.


38/44

38

Virginia Tech




As with all the institutions we spoke with, Virginia Tech has a wide array of economic development

activity that spans across the research, outreach, and other functions of the institution. Primarily,

however, these activities fall within the research and outreach functions of the institution, and

specifically within Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties, under the Vice President for Researchand the offices ofOutreach ProgramDevelopmentand EconomicDevelopment, both under theVice President for Outreach and International Affairs. Virginia Tech is a mission-drivenuniversity and its most recent strategic plan indicates that engagement will cut across and be

embedded in all missions, with all disciplines expected to participate.


y Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center (see below)y The Office of Economic Development(see below)y Continuing and Professional Education (see below)y Center for Organizational and Technological Advancement(see below)y Institute for Advanced Learning and Researchy The Economic Development Studio @ Virginia Tech

President

Senior VicePresident and

Provost

Vice President forResearch

Virginia TechIntellectualProperties

Virginia TechCorporate Research

Center

Vice President forOutreach and

International Affairs

Outreach ProgramDevelopment

EconomicDevelopment


39/44

39

Within Outreach and International Affairs, the Office of Economic Developmentworks to makeconnections between economic development activities across the university. Ted Settle, who directsthis office, reports that the primary way these connections happen is through an Economic

Development Leadership team that he coordinates. The team is comprised of five of the institutions

vice presidents, academic deans, and the intellectual property and technology transfer office(which reports up the Vice President for Research). Ted reports that the team meets monthly and

also presents a talk by an invited speaker once a month. The teams activities keep economicdevelopment on the agenda of Virginia Techs senior leadership, and keep academic programs,

researchers, tech transfer, and others in touch with regard to what each is doing in this arena.

Among those with whom Ted works at the institution is the leadership of the Virginia Tech

Corporate Research Center, part of the institutions technology transfer operation. Ted also worksto make connections with faculty, but makes it clear that his agenda isnt necessarily an outreach-

focused one. Instead, he notes that the economic development partnerships he facilitates areimportant to increasing Virginia Techs research program. In fact, outreach programming efforts

are linked directly to the universitys strategic research areas of excellence: energy materials and

environment, social and individual transformation, health, food and nutrition and innovativetechnologies.

Other offices within Outreach participate in economic development activities, including Continuingand Professional Education. This office provides custom education and logistical support for aglobalized curricula, and works in collaboration with continuing education centers around the

world. Technology-based development is a focus of the office, which operates Virginia Techs

Center for Organizational and Technological Advancement.

Virginia Techs orientation toward economic engagement has resulted in some key successes for

the state as well as the institution. Rolls Royce recently decided to open a manufacturing plant in

the state, thanks in part to efforts by the university. The university has been a key partner in

planning economic development activities funded by Virginias share of the Master Tobacco

Settlement. The universitys Northern VirginiaC

enter is opening a new research center in thenational capital region.

Keys to Success:A recognized key to the success of Virginia Techs Outreach programs is the culture of the

University. In the words of JeriChilders,Director of Outreach Programs, Virginia Tech lives and

breathes engagement, and is therefore highly effective in converting the goodwill from the stateand community into programming that is highly-correlated with faculty research. Ted Settle echoes

these sentiments, noting that the DNA here has people willing to work with the external

community.

Key Lessons from Virginia Tech:

y The university is very mission-driven and is successful in converting the resulting goodwillinto programming that is highly-correlated with faculty researchy There is a global focus to outreach efforts, including work with centers around the worldy Virginia Tech has a very positive relationship with the state and its engagement and

outreach programs received net new dollars in the last funding cycle, despite the economicrecession


40/44


41/44

41

WSU works very hard to have a single point of entry into the university for economic development,

and it is through its VP for Economic Development and Global Engagement. The office iscomprised of4 FTEs though the VP oversees 120 FTEs when counting the technology transfer,

small business, and entrepreneurship activities and has an approximately budget of$20 million.

One of the biggest successes programmatically, along with the initiatives with the state, has been

the Washington Global Health Alliance. It is a program with WSUs vet school and foundations to

highlight the importance of animal health in global development. Also, WSU has begun a pilotmicro-loan and entrepreneurship training program to populations within the state thattraditionally rely on the agriculture sector for employment.

Keys to Success:WSU has cultivated a strong relationship with state government and sees itself as a very

horizontally integrated institution. Their unofficial mantra for economic development is that every

state legislator is OUR state legislator since extension and economic development programs are inevery county in the state. Their stated mission is to lead in relevant local, national, and global

engagement. The economic development function at WSU is very externallyfocused facilitating

relationships and opportunities with entities outside the university. The technology transfer officereports to the VP for Economic Development because of the business relationships the office is

expected to cultivate and sustain. Additionally, economic development is responsible for business

incubation, small business development and entrepreneurship. By contrast, the OVPR is internally

focused on faculty research. The Governor has worked very closely with WSU and in working withPresident Floyd has reinvigorated a Commission on Economic Development to work with the

research universities in the state. With this collaborative working relationship three key initiatives

have begun: a STARS program to recruit star researchers to UW/ WSU; and entrepreneur-in-residence program; and a $40 million grant program and shared state strategy around cleanenergy.

Key Lessons from Washington State University:

y WSU has moved its economic development office to Seattlewhere almost all of the outsidemoney (foundations) is.

y WSU works very closely with the state and views every state legislator as an advocate forthe university because of its economic development and extension programs.

y WSU works to cultivate business relationships and views this as key to its success.y The VP for Research office is internally focused on growing faculty research and the VP for

Economic Development and Global Engagement office is externally focused on facilitating

relationships and opportunities outside the university.


42/44

42

Appendix A: List of Questions and Interviewees

Charge:Develop a straightforward paper cataloging how other major universities structure their economicand workforce development efforts.

DescriptorsInstitution Level: Research, Engagement, Extension

1. Organizational Structure: Where does the economic development function report (OVPR,Outreach/ Engagement: Other?) How many staff/ FTEs are dedicated to economic

development activities? At what levels?

2. Mission: What is the stated purpose of the economic development function?3. Budget: What is the size of the budget for the economic development function?4. Funders and Partners: With whom does the University work to fund and implement

economic development programs? What (and how much) are university funds (and

source)? What about external sources?

Notable orMajor Programs for EconomicDevelopment at the University5. Number and Types of Programs and Initiatives: What are the notable major programs at the

university? What are their focal areas (e.g. entrepreneurship, commercialization,

community development). What is their reporting structure and primary function? What

are their missions, audience, budget, funders, and staff? Where are they located?

General6. What are the biggest successes the institution has had in economic development? What

have been the keys to success?

7. To what extent are different units integrated (e.g. Outreach, Extension, Tech-transfer, etc.)?8. Does the university have an integrated cluster-based/ regional-based strategy?9. What is the universitys relationship with the state (funding level as % of budget, strategy)?10.Anything else of note?


43/44

43

Appendix B: Institutions and Contacts

Institution Contact PersonArizona State University Todd Hardy

Associate VP for Economic Affairs

Georgia Tech Mark AllenSenior Vice Provost for Research and Innovation

Michigan State Hi FitzgeraldAssociate Provost, University Outreach and Engagement

NC State Jim ZuichesVice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and Economic

Development

University of Illinois Steve SonkaInterim Vice Chancellor for Public Engagement

University of Kentucky Philip GreasleyAssociate Vice President-Engagement

Leonard HellerVice President, Commercialization & Economic

Development

University ofMichigan Marvin ParnesAssociate Vice President, Research

University ofMinnesota Andrew FurcoAssociate Vice President for Engagement

Timothy MulcahyVice President for Research

Craig TaylorDirector, Business and Community Economic Development

University of NorthCarolina

Tony WaldropVice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development

Jesse White

Director, Office of Economic and Business Development


44/44

University of Wisconsin Charles Hoslet

Managing Director, UW-Madison Office ofCorporate

Relations

Christine QuinnProvost & Vice Chancellor UW Extension

Virginia Tech Ted SettleDirector, Office of Economic Development

Jeri ChildersDirector, Outreach Program Development

Washington StateUniversity

John GardnerVice President, EconomicDevelopment and Extension

Purdue University Vic Lechtenberg

VP for Engagement

Documents

Benchmarking Economic Development Efforts at Select Research Universities