March 2022
SARIMA chats to Fred Matongo, newly-appointed Director: Innovation & Technology Transfer of CUT Innovation Services (CUTis). The Central University of Technology is in Bloemfontein, Free State South Africa.
Q: Congratulations on your appointment Fred! How long have you been at CUT, what is the size of your team and how long has the TTO been operating?
A: Thank you. I have been at CUT now for almost 4 years. In the ‘formal’ TTO function we are a staff complement of four. The TTO was established in 2011; however, it was a ‘one-man TTO’ until 2016 when the second appointment was made after receiving the NIPMO OTT Support Fund which allowed the institution to start building capacity through the creation of four TTO posts.
Q: What drew you to Technology Transfer as a profession and what were the key steps that really built your career and expertise, such as courses, exchange programmes, mentors, etc?
A: During my MSc studies I always thought about how could I ensure my research findings make an impact out there beyond the typical academic impact where it is achieved by publishing in a prestigious journal. Then I heard of a 5-day Certificate in Bioentrepreneurship course that was being offered by the University of Pretoria and I jumped onto the opportunity without hesitation. This was my first exposure to technology transfer in the higher education sector, the STI landscape, IP management principles and practices, open innovation strategies, idea to product process management principles etc. It was at this course that I heard that TIA would open a call for applications for the second cohort for the 2-year CHUMA programme. When the call was out I applied, was accepted and joined TIA in 2012. Thereafter, it was an accelerated period of learning about all the elements that make a competent practitioner in the innovation and technology transfer management space. I was seconded to Triumph Venture Capital which managed the South African Intellectual Property Fund (SAIP Fund), then had a stint at the IDC Venture Capital SBU, before leaving for Port Elizabeth to join the NMMU TTO.
In my entire journey, I was fortunate to have great mentors who were seasoned TT practitioners and VC dealmakers, and also very knowledgeable but humble, senior colleagues within the SARIMA community who were always willing to find time on their busy schedules and jump on a call with me and share their thoughts, experiences and insights on any TT matter. I am forever grateful.
What also really fast-tracked my learning and professional growth were the various professional development courses, training and the International Technology Transfer Exchange programme offered by SARIMA and the DSI; the several capacity building workshops offered by NIPMO and WIPO; and also the LES courses amongst others. In my early years, taking part at SARIMA conference panels hugely accelerated my learning from my peers.
Q: You have worked at the TTOs in three different South African institutions. Have the environments and culture been quite varied, or do you find that most TTOs operate in roughly the same mode and experience similar challenges?
A: Indeed the environments are diverse; therefore, the TTOs need to find the optimal mode which works for that environment. The three institutions have a different history, different cultures, and to a huge extent, different challenges as their TTOs are at different growth stages. However, some similarities exist particularly regarding developing, scaling and maturing the university’s IP pipeline.
For example at NMMU, being a comprehensive university, the type of IP disclosures we received varied from social sciences to life sciences to engineering. We even had a couple of great IP disclosures from the Art school with some of them leading to design registrations that ultimately became the IP portfolio of now world-renowned textile designer Laduma Ngxokolo. On-campus, there were a couple of innovation support structures including TIA funded technology stations. Though we lacked a strong investor base in the region, the strength of the surrounding ecosystem was increasingly yearly. The TTO was well established, we had a relatively large IP portfolio and one of our key challenges was therefore capacity.
Looking at UFH, being a traditional university, the environment and culture were quite different from NMMU, the TTO was at an establishment phase, so our TTO approach had to be different. UFH also did not have the technological and engineering disciplines. Therefore, we spent most of the time trying to develop the IP portfolio, through creating IP awareness amongst both students and researchers, encouraging IP disclosures, assisting with innovation funding proposals etc.
At CUT, being a UoT, the environment was even more different considering that they were previously geared to provide vocational-oriented diploma and degree programmes. Though pockets of excellence in applied research exist, I think, generally speaking, research at UoTs is still at a nascent stage as shown by their DHET research outputs. Interestingly so, lots of IP is held as technical know-how, particularly in advanced manufacturing-related projects. Since it is not registrable IP, it is often very difficult to report it internally, to TIA and NIPMO, and get equivalent recognition as patents, designs etc. I think a way should be looked at on how this form of IP can also get the recognition it fully deserves considering its huge value in for example manufacturing technologies.
Also, very important to comprehend is that different skill sets and competencies are required depending on the R&D profile of the institution, the already mentioned growth stage of the TTO, implying that different TTO performance metrics will also apply. Customise your TTO approach and offerings to your environment and find an optimal model that works for you otherwise a copy and paste from another institution might be calamitous.
Q: What are you going to be focussing on achieving or improving in your new role?
A: Beyond the typical responsibilities of a TTO director, I am looking at my new role also as a transformational role considering our current culture of research and innovation and our current IP portfolio. In the short term, from this transformational perspective, I am looking at changing the mindsets of academics to move from the typical, traditional research to solution-oriented research and during that process develop a strong, quality IP pipeline. In the medium to long term, I am looking at scaling and maturing to strengthen the university’s IP portfolio, and realizing the commercialisation opportunities in order to achieve the social and economic impact much needed in our country through the creation of new jobs by university spinouts and contribution to the GDP by both our licensees and university spinouts etc.
Q: Does your TTO have to take on responsibilities that are a bit of an ‘add on’ to what is considered the core business of a TTO and if so, what are they?
A: Yes, always. We are however fortunate to have a number of colleagues under the Innovation and Technology Transfer function. Under this function, we have a team of 3 in the formal TTO who execute the legislative TT function as per the IPR Act and other new business development related activities e.g., new business creation, pre-incubation and incubation support, financing. The TTO is always responsible for activities related to innovation ecosystem development, open innovation and collaboration. Then we have a team of 5 in the Idea Generator (i-Gym) and FabLab who provide the rest of the other innovation and entrepreneurship support services. The i-Gym promotes a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship amongst the university and the wider community. We also use this as a platform for the identification and nurturing of high-potential entrepreneurs. The FabLab offers prototyping services to enable anyone to turn their idea into reality using digital design, 3D printers, laser cutting and other advanced technological means.
Q: What do you see as challenges for your university as well as tech transfer in South Africa?
A: Firstly, due to increasing budget cuts by the government, there is already more stringent budget prioritizations within universities, and this might increase our already existing challenge to justify the operational expenditures of TTOs. Secondly, I think the pressure to achieve ‘real’ impact beyond academic impact is becoming more real each year. Also, with the IPR Act slowly becoming ageing legislation (it can no longer be regarded as new like it was five or so years ago), I am certain there are huge expectations from the government and various stakeholders to see this ‘real’ impact changing peoples’ lives and making contributions to industry and society at large. Ultimately, these expectations might have to influence our whole TTO approach going into the future.
