Tech Help, Please!

I've just made a cool relationship chart showing graphically all of the "inbredness" of USM, but I can't figure out how to show it to you guys.  I made it in MS Word, but it wouldn't cut and paste into a post.  Then, I made a PDF of it, but couldn't upload it on my website (it only accepts jpegs and gifs).  Then, I made it into a gif AND a jpeg, and tried to post it on my website, but it looked horrible.

Any advice?  I know just enough about technology to really screw myself up, usually!

Working on the relationship chart...hope to post it soon.

Oh, and it's "Atofina" not "Altofina."

Here is the official press release on Noetic Tech, Inc.  It's more fully fleshed out than the HA article, but I still want to know why Les Goff and Kelli Booth are still listed in their respective staff positions in the USM Directory, yet they are both presented here as "freshly arrived" (note that Les Goff is another USM Polymer Science grad--wonder who his dissertation director was?).  I know for a fact that Kelli Booth has been working at MPI for well over a year; I had meetings with her in that capacity back in the summer of 2003.  Read this and give me your feedback:

http://www.usm.edu/pr/prnews/may04/noetic04.htm

HATTIESBURG -- A new company formed to create opportunities for entrepreneurs at The University of Southern Mississippi will become the commercialization and marketing arm of the university's research foundation.

University officials announced today the creation of Noetic Technologies Inc., which will take the research and intellectual property created at Southern Miss from the laboratory into the commercial sector.

"There is no doubt that Southern Miss excels in education and research," Southern Miss President Shelby Thames said. "Now we have a company in place that will help take that research into the commercial marketplace."

Noetic President and CEO Les Goff said the company has two products to market: all of the intellectual property and knowledge that is original to Southern Miss, and "inorganic" property that has been donated to the university. Goff said the goal is to have the university's intellectual property packaged and ready to go to market, and then plant as many seeds as possible. "You only need a few of them to produce," he said.

The Noetic team, assembled from individuals experienced in commercial ventures, has spent the past few months getting its arms around the university's intellectual property. "We're establishing an inventory and talking to the faculty to get a feel for what we have so we can go out and market our technology," Goff said. "It is not a hard sell because the faculty are well-known in their fields. Southern Miss has a good reputation."

Goff joined Southern Miss as executive director of business development and CEO of Noetic after spending 15 years with GE Plastics. At GE, he worked in product development, held commercial duties in global marketing and led businesses and business startups. Goff has a doctoral degree in polymer science from Southern Miss.

Kelli Booth took on technical marketing for Noetic after working 10 years in the plastic additives group of Atofina Chemicals Inc., where she generated $28 million in sales. Booth graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a degree in chemical engineering.

Vance Flosenzier is the university's director of process technology and the technical director of Noetic. He has more than 16 years' experience in the specialty chemical industry, having worked in research and development, process technology and operations management. Flosenzier previously worked for Atofina Chemicals and Stephan Company. A native of Indiana, he holds degrees in chemical engineering from Purdue University and Northwestern University.

As part of its marketing strategy, Noetic is launching a Web site that describes the university's portfolio of intellectual property. The Web site will give businesses the information they need to contact university representatives with commercialization opportunities. The Web site will also provide tools for inventors who want to learn how to market their products.

"There are a couple of challenges," Goff said. "First, there is no set procedure or clear path to follow. And while some professors have commercial experience, many never have done this. That's where we come in because we all have commercial experience. We are here to connect opportunities with businesses or our external customers with intellectual property."

Entities such as Noetic and the similar Research Technology Corporation at Mississippi State University can play important roles at Mississippi's four comprehensive research universities, said Mississippi Technology Alliance (MTA) Vice President for Business Venture Development Jack Harrington. These institutions received more than $242 million dollars in federal research funding in 2001 alone.

"The largely federal funding that goes into university research is the single largest driver of research in our state," Harrington said. "In addition, in utilizing that funding, the research universities are the largest driver of any kind of innovation in Mississippi."

Harrington said that commercializing university research can give the universities a new revenue stream to make up for continually dwindling state funding.

Thames added that with the national trend moving away from fully funded, state- supported universities, companies like Noetic could create a much-needed boost.

"It's imperative that we pursue new support ventures," Thames said.

Professors with hectic teaching and research schedules have welcomed assistance from the Noetic team, and Goff said the faculty have been very receptive to the idea.

"We have six to 10 members who are excited and open to figuring out how to market their ideas. A lot of them have the contacts already, but they don't have the time to market their research."

Goff said establishing Noetic was part of the vision President Thames developed for Southern Miss. "There is a chance to create value and opportunities for Southern Miss, and we are glad to be a part of it," Goff said.

Harrington said companies like Noetic can provide the infrastructure needed to help professors launch successful ventures, and the MTA is there to assist them.

"What we do is help create the network to make that technology a successful technology company. For example, MTA can help locate risk capital, legal assistance and access to business resources.

Harrington said: "When universities commercialize research consistently over time, it creates momentum that helps you access risk capital and bring together the resources you need to build successful companies. When you concentrate that experience in one place, with each company you are better equipped to build the next one."

They keep comparing it to MSU's Research Technology Corporation.  It would interesting to see if MSU's version also has administrators who "are owners who will earn a percentage of what they sell."  Anyone know?

I noticed that Uncle Vance is now the "university's director of process technology," according to the article Truth provided above.  The online campus directory implies that he's the deparment of economic development's director of process technology.  Ah yes.  Of course.  How silly of me.  They are one in the same. 

"Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer— except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs."

Animal Farm, George Orwell

I'm afraid we're all missing the point--this is more millions of dollars (prospectively) being brought to USM by Shelby Thames.  Earlier in the week it was some other venture.  Last week it was some Spanish deal.

What all of this amounts to is Shelby telling the IHL that he'll be staying, thank you very much, and if the board ever had any thought to the contrary, they might want to look to the dollar value before voting.

We can carp all we want about the particulars, but it's carping in the graveyard. Shelby is handing us our heads once again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"I just read the interesting information on tech transfer that Former Executive posted above.  I admit that I just skimmed it, but even so, I have some questions that maybe others (Former Exec?) could help answer from the HA article: From the article: A donation of about $1 million as well as patented molecules and chemical processes from an undisclosed Fortune 500 company has resulted in a privately-owned company to help sell intellectual property and research created at the University of Southern Mississippi. Okay, so the money AND the molecules came from an "undisclosed Fortune 500 company?"  From what I read, doesn't the intellectual property (the patented molecules) usually come from the university itself (i.e. the research of faculty members?).  This seems odd, unless I'm missing something.  Also, why don't we know what Fortune 500 company gave this donation?  Can anyone find out?  Part of the company [Noetic] is owned by the university's research foundation while Goff along with the two other employees - Kelli Booth and Vance Flosenzier - are owners who will earn a percentage of what they sell. Here's where the conflict seems to be, in my opinion.  If these 3 people are University employees (staff, not faculty), then why are THEY BENEFITTING FINANCIALLY from the intellectual property of faculty members????  How can this be?  Again, someone help me out here, because I don't understand this at all.  Did they put up their own money to become part owners of this company?  How can this not be a conflict of interest?  There must be some loophole in all of this that I'm not seeing...I can't believe that they would report this so boldly unless there is. Someone help me out here..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Delta Dawn
" Today's Hattiesburg American article describing the creation of Noetic Technologies, Inc. distresses me to no end. Here is why: (1) This move, described in the American as a "first" in Mississippi, may very well promulgate a flagrant abuse of state resources. Specifically, that state property is not to be used for private gain is an undebatable fact. The American article specifies that three employees of Noetic will ". . . earn a percentage of what they sell."  (2) Science is public -- not private. University research is to be "published," -- not "marketed. Under the Noetic model as described in today's American, the institution might very well turn into a factory. (3) There is a huge difference between a "contract" and a "research grant." Contracts are, for the most part, for the benefit of the contractor. Grants, on the other hand, are for the benefit of the public. From my perspective, contracts should not carry the weight which grants carry in matters pertaining to tenure, promotion, and salary adjustments. (4) Under the Noetic model as described in today's American article, training and research centers on campus could easily turn into money-grubbing service providers where training and research take second seat. This model, and the traditional scholarly model, are from two totally different perspectives. There is nothing wrong with "consulting," and the policies of most universities, appropriately, allow for this. But not at the expense of scholarly research and training activities. Contrary to what some uninformed seem to think, academicians enter university teaching because they have a genuine love of discovery and imparting knowledge. I am not an academician, but I do know enough about academics to give this bit of advice: Any faculty member who wants to become a millionaire, by using the publically-supported resources of a university campus as a means to that end, should find a new career. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"Truth, email it to fireshelbysubmissions@yahoo.com and I'll upload it."

---

Blessing,

How can you disconnect a university president from his PR machine?

Only by removing him from office.  Or by dismantling his PR machine (which happens a lot less often than the first alternative).

A lot of what Shelby's PR machine tells the press does not help him.  And he has alienated the local press to an unprecedented degree--otherwise the Hat Am wouldn't have filed Public Records Act requests, and it wouldn't be running editorials unfavorable to him.

As for the rest, we have to keep challenging him, through every channel available to any of us.

Faculty Senate--a resolution of no confidence in Lisa Mader would draw some attention...

Robert Campbell

Romeo,

Why do you think a vote of no confidence in the Director of Public Relations will backfire?

Robert Campbell

ram,

Of course Lisa Mader is a player.  Isn't she actually more important than such members of the henchcrew as Mark Dvorak?  Suppose Shelby and his minions had to do all the talking to the media themselves--wouldn't they be in substantially worse trouble by now?

I'd go farther, and say that anyone who thinks the Director of PR doesn't matter has failed to understand how today's university presidents function.

Besides...

Some contributors to this board have been upset by every new press release that emanates from the Dome, as though it's further proof that Thames is winning the PR battle.

If Thames' PR machine is to be feared, Lisa Mader is a long way from being a nonentity.

If his PR machine is completely irrelevant, then she is a nonentity.

My own view is somewhere in between: Lisa Mader is not as effective as some people fear, but still important enough to deserve to be challenged.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"ram, Of course Lisa Mader is a player.  Isn't she actually more important than such members of the henchcrew as Mark Dvorak?  Suppose Shelby and his minions had to do all the talking to the media themselves--wouldn't they be in substantially worse trouble by now? I'd go farther, and say that anyone who thinks the Director of PR doesn't matter has failed to understand how today's university presidents function. Besides... Some contributors to this board have been upset by every new press release that emanates from the Dome, as though it's further proof that Thames is winning the PR battle. If Thames' PR machine is to be feared, Lisa Mader is a long way from being a nonentity. If his PR machine is completely irrelevant, then she is a nonentity. My own view is somewhere in between: Lisa Mader is not as effective as some people fear, but still important enough to deserve to be challenged. Robert Campbell"

---

Robt. C:

Of course she's a player in the sense that she's running the PR program defending Thames.

But she is NOT a player in the policy game, not in the chain of command. You don't vote no confidence in the people who are not your employers. 

We can vote no confidence in Shelby (I favor this idea); Tim Hudson (counterproductive if you feel that his potentital as an interim replacement makes the IHL ever so slightly more likely to dump Thames); the deans, chairs, etc., anyone between Thames and the faculty who has authority over the faculty. 

 

Romeo,

I find your comments on Lisa Mader completely ambivalent.  Is she important or not?  Is she Darth Mader?  Or is she a third-shift radio announcer?

I doubt that Lisa Mader makes policy (does anyone besides Shelby Thames make policy, in a Shelby Thames administration?) but she plays a vital role in Thames' drive to maintain and extend his power.

If Lisa Mader is a minor figure, just acting on orders, wouldn't you be in favor of keeping her on the payroll after Shelby Thames retires, or is forced out?  After all, you could argue, she had no personal investment in the Shelby regime.  She just said what Shelby told her to say, and now she'll say what the new President tells her to say.

Anyway, the rationale for a no-confidence vote on Lisa Mader isn't that she has managerial authority over faculty.   The rationale is that she claims to speak for USM.   A no-confidence vote is a way of announcing to the Board, the press, and the public, "Like hell she does."

Robert Campbell

PS. I'll bet Shelby pays her a lot better than he would pay a third-shift radio announcer.  In fact, I'll bet Darth Mader's salary exceeds that of most faculty at USM.  Does anyone have the numbers handy?

sport,

Thank you.

$77K exceeds the average for Full Professors at USM, does it not?

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Blessing
"I'm afraid we're all missing the point--this is more millions of dollars (prospectively) being brought to USM by Shelby Thames.  Earlier in the week it was some other venture.  Last week it was some Spanish deal. What all of this amounts to is Shelby telling the IHL that he'll be staying, thank you very much, and if the board ever had any thought to the contrary, they might want to look to the dollar value before voting. We can carp all we want about the particulars, but it's carping in the graveyard. Shelby is handing us our heads once again."

---

Blessing is onto something very important here, though I would not emphasize the PR aspect of the matter.  The aggressive movement of USM into the commercialization arena is, I think, the main reason Dr. Thames was selected by the BOT to lead the university in the first place, and it remains the reason it would very much like to stick with him despite all the turmoil (Dr. Dvorak is pivotal to the commercialization push, which helps to explain why the questioning of her credentials was attacked so vigorously). 

No doubt the board wishes the president showed more political/interpersonal finesse, and almost certainly it has put considerable pressure on him to clean up his act (hence Hanbury's departure, the hasty inauguration of the PUC, the letter to FS, and Roy Klumb's statement that the president must account to the board).  But there should be little doubt that the board is looking to Dr. Thames and USM to inaugurate a commercialization model that will help replace rapidly dwindling state support with an influx of new dollars. 

This is unfamiliar territory for most of us -- certainly for me -- but we should all be aware that the commercialization-of-higher-education thrust is a major national movement and not just the private vision/fantasy of Drs. Thames, Dvorak, Malone, et al. that will fade away when (sooner or later) these individuals leave USM.  It needs to be responded to as such.  Especially do faculty members need to be able to articulate to the board, to the press and to the public (not to mention to one another) the disadvantages and risks associated with commercialization as a counterbalance to the obvious attraction of new revenue streams.  Two starting points for the exploration of the issue that I am aware of include Derek Bok's "Universities in the Marketplace" and the lesser known "Silent Theft: the Private Plunder of our Common Wealth" by David Bollier. 

I believe that the AAUP has done some work on this issue.  Perhaps the USM chapter can pull together some material to help advance the discussion.

Let me preface this by saying that I have no inside information here and I have not done any research to track down what might be publicly available.  That disclaimer out of the way, I will say that I am responding because Truth4USM asked me to and because I am fairly knowledgeable about university/corporate partnerships.

Some musings:

I am interested in the Atofina Chemicals relationship where Malone, Booth, and Flosenzier (and his spouse?) all seem to have a connection.  Les Goff  (and spouse?) appear to have come from GE Plastics.  Let's consider a couple scenarios.  They became aware of an unfulfillled market niche while in their previous positions and/or because of the previous relationship that Malone and Goff had with USM, they became aware of product research ongoing at USM with potential market applications.  One course of action would have been to license that technology into their own companies.  Perhaps they didn't do that for a number of reasons including lack of interest on the part of the parent companies, lack of infrastructure in the technology transfer area at USM, not enough return/incentive for USM or the USM scientists, not enough return/incentives for the individuals above.  Another scenario, perhaps a corporate competitor to Atofina or GE Plastics was known to have an interest in the niche where USM was strong and perhaps some of these individuals brokered a deal outside of their own companies thus creating funding for the positions at USM, whereby they would later deliver on the technologies of interest.  Perhaps it is completely benign and all these related people just coincidently converged on Hattiesburg at the same time - unlikely.

I find it also bothersome that the external funding of these individuals created university positions.  The goals of the individuals and their corporate sponsors could have been served as well from consultants or the formation of a Neotic type company from the onset.  That these people have been employed by the university through the due diligence process is unusual.  Was this a way to funnel grant money through the university to "pump up" the office of VP Research and give credence to narrowly defined economic development efforts?

Finally, what continues to bother me the most is why people hired for what seems to be commercial applications positions find themselves in the thick of academic decision making.  All of these technology transfer roles fall under the control of Angie Dvorak.  If she were in an arms-length, non-academic position, which is the norm at other schools, her involvement in technology transfer would not appear so sinister.  Ken Malone was originally hired to work for her in a position that sounds like the one Les Goff now holds.  He was then moved to Chair an academic department for which he was not qualified and then moved again to the coast in an operations role where he also seems inept.  Is the whole technology transfer plan behind schedule because he couldn't get the job done initially or was there a more devious plan to gain academic control of the university through non-academics?

The President's role in all this?  Most people seem to agree that Shelby's first love is polymer science.  Let's say that he knows there is ongoing research with much commercial potential. He believes that researchers should be rewarded for their efforts. He doesn't have the infrastructure in place at USM to seek out corporate partners, develop technology transfer agreements, spin-off small companies, or even to market discovery.  He contacts a ready made marketing group with loyalty to him and brings them in en masse to the University - no time for national searches and outside the "scope" of traditional academics anyway - from his view.  With the assistance of Angie Dvorak, he funnels corporate grants through her office, pays their salaries and, within months, has his commercial arm.  From his perspective, involving the faculty in all of this would have been too d... inefficient.  If there were strong academics advising him from either inside the university or from the IHL board, perhaps he would have done it differently but if you look at where his advice came from over these past two years, it was singularly focused on economic development with no university-wide operational academic expertise in his administrative team or on the IHL.

Again, I will say that I am generally a supporter of university/corporate joint ventures but I think this one may be the result of some cut corners and poor planning.  For individuals interested in pursuing this, find out who the corporate sponsor is, who holds the patents, what %age of the technology in question was funded from state or government agencies initially, what other university accounts may be paying salaries of the principals involved, what disclosures have been made on grant applications, what the downstream return arrangements will be and who, outside, the university stands to benefit.  Good luck!