Are you galvanising your allies? Part 6: Industry

In the second installment of my interview with Prof. Mark Hutchinson, we’ll hear expert guidance on how research can effectively collaborate with industry.

May 13, 2025

Professor Mark Hutchinson of the University of Adelaide.

Welcome to part 6 of my series on how to galvanise your allies. So far, I’ve explored how to shift your mindset from communications to advocacy; how to galvanise government on a sectoral level and on an individual level; and how to turn alumni and students into advocates and allies; and how to galvanise philanthropy (with ATSE CEO Kylie Walker).

In last week’s newsletter, I published Part I of my Q&A with Mark Hutchinson, Professor of Biomedicine and lead of the Neuroimmunopharmacology laboratory (say that fast three times) at the University of Adelaide. In Part II, Mark shares more wisdom gleaned from his experience spanning industry and research, as well as some tips on how researchers can communicate better with industry. I hope you enjoy!

What are the most common mistakes you see when university leaders and researchers pitch to industry, and what frustrations does industry express?

The initial pitch from university researchers or leaders to potential industry partners is a critical juncture. I see recurring mistakes that undermine these pitches, which fuels industry frustrations. These include:

Failing to articulate a clear and compelling value proposition from the industry partner's perspective. Pitches frequently focus on technical intricacies or research features, instead of the tangible business benefits, solutions, or competitive advantages it offers. 

The use of overly technical jargon or academic language inaccessible to a business audience is another common barrier. This is strongly linked with the above error—it’s a failure to take audience into account. 

Insufficient research into the specific company, its context, strategic priorities, market challenges, and business model. This means presentations are generic and don’t resonate. 

Inability to address crucial business considerations such as realistic timelines, budget requirements, implementation pathways, potential ROI, and intellectual property arrangements. 

Inflexible IP positions early on can also deter partners, and difficulty negotiating IP agreements remains a significant and recurring hurdle.

These pitching deficiencies often reflect and exacerbate broader industry frustrations, like the perceived slow pace of university research and administrative processes. Navigating university bureaucracy is often seen as complex and cumbersome. Underlying cultural differences in objectives, timelines, and operational norms create communication challenges and can impede trust. 

I repeatedly use the "magic green bean" analogy. But actually it is more like Gollum. “We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!” We need to do better. 

What recurring questions does industry have about partnering with research?

When considering partnerships with universities, industry stakeholders typically undertake due diligence focused on assessing potential value, managing risks, and ensuring practical alignment with their commercial objectives. There are usually several recurring questions that emerge from this: 

The value proposition and potential return on investment (ROI): "What specific business problem does this research address?", "What are the quantifiable benefits and expected outcomes?", "How does this enhance our competitive advantage?", and "What is the projected ROI and timeframe?". 

Intellectual Property (IP) ownership and rights: "Who will own the foreground IP?", "What are the terms for accessing necessary background IP?", "What are the licensing arrangements for exploitation?", and "How will confidentiality be managed alongside publication needs?". 

Project execution and timelines: "What is the detailed project plan with milestones?", "How will the project be managed?", "What are the realistic timelines for commencement and completion?". 

Confidentiality and data security: "How will our proprietary information be protected?", "What data security protocols are in place?". Industry partners also scrutinise the research team and expertise: "Who are the key researchers and what is their track record?", "What is their level of commitment?", "Can we access student talent?". 

Finally, clarity on resources and costs: "What is the detailed budget, including overheads?", "What contributions (cash/in-kind) are expected from us?". 

These questions collectively reflect industry's need to justify investment, manage uncertainty, and ensure the collaboration delivers tangible business value.

How sophisticated is industry when it comes to research? How has this changed over time?

The sophistication of industry in engaging with university research varies considerably. 

At one end of the spectrum, many large multinational corporations (particularly in technology-intensive sectors) possess substantial internal R&D capabilities, dedicated open innovation strategies, and extensive experience in managing complex research partnerships globally. These firms often have established processes for technology scouting, IP negotiation, and strategic alliances. 

Mid-sized companies have variable levels of research engagement sophistication, often driven by specific project needs. At the other end, Small and Medium Enterprises, which dominate the Australian economy, generally have limited internal R&D capacity and often lack the resources, time, or expertise to easily navigate university collaboration systems. 

Over time, global trends like the rise of open innovation models have generally increased industry's receptiveness to external partnerships, including with universities. There is also a move towards more strategic, long-term alliances rather than purely transactional engagements. 

In Australia, while awareness of the importance of collaboration has undoubtedly increased, driven by sustained policy efforts and intermediary programs, the practical sophistication, particularly among SMEs, may still lag international benchmarks. Persistent cultural and structural barriers suggest that awareness has not fully translated into seamless, widespread collaboration. 

However, the increasing complexity of technological challenges (e.g., AI, Net Zero transition) is likely driving a greater need across industry for access to sophisticated external research expertise, potentially accelerating the evolution of industry engagement capabilities. People can find us easily now. So easily they don't look too hard past the first page of a good search.

What sector-wide changes or initiatives would most effectively attract industry support for research?

Attracting significantly greater industry support for university research in Australia necessitates a coordinated, ecosystem-wide approach rather than isolated measures. Key initiatives should focus on several interconnected areas: 

Ensuring stable, predictable, and adequate long-term funding for core collaborative research programs (e.g., ARC Linkage, CRCs) and national research infrastructure (NCRIS). This is fundamental for enabling strategic planning by both universities and industry. 

Strengthening industry incentives for R&D collaboration, potentially through refining the R&D Tax Incentive or implementing targeted measures like innovation vouchers for SMEs, could stimulate demand. 

Active implementation and promotion of standardised IP frameworks, coupled with fostering a culture of pragmatic negotiation, can significantly reduce transactional friction. 

Driving cultural transformation within universities is critical. This involves embedding research impact and engagement into institutional missions and, crucially, into academic reward and promotion structures. 

Enhancing ecosystem connectivity by investing in skilled intermediaries to broker partnerships (especially for SMEs); promoting greater talent mobility between sectors through programs like Industry PhDs; and supporting the development of innovation precincts to foster interaction. 

Universities must commit to reducing bureaucratic hurdles by streamlining internal administrative and contractual processes related to industry engagement.

Addressing these policy, funding, cultural, talent, and process elements concurrently offers the best prospect for creating a more attractive and effective environment for university-industry collaboration.

What are your top tips for researchers seeking to improve their pitch to industry?

Researchers must adopt an audience-focused, commercially-oriented perspective and communications style. Here are my tips to improve the effectiveness of pitches to potential industry partners: 

1. Don't become a science evangelist.

2. Thoroughly research the specific company and its context, understand their business challenges, strategic goals, market position, and the individuals you are addressing. Tailor your pitch accordingly, avoiding generic approaches. 

3. Articulate a clear, concise, and compelling value proposition focused on the benefits to the company. Translate technical features into tangible business outcomes (e.g., cost savings, new revenue streams, competitive advantage) and explicitly answer the "So what?" question. 

4. Communicate strategically: use clear, accessible language, avoid excessive jargon, structure the pitch logically (problem, solution, value, plan), and employ storytelling techniques to make it engaging and memorable. 

5. Anticipate and prepare for business-related questions concerning ROI, timelines, budget, project management, risks, and IP handling. Demonstrating commercial awareness builds credibility. 

6. View the pitch as the start of a potential relationship; focus on building trust and rapport through active listening, transparency, and professional follow-up.

7. Showcase the team's capability to execute the project effectively, highlighting relevant expertise and track record beyond academic credentials. Signal flexibility and pragmatism, particularly regarding collaboration models and initial IP discussions, to avoid creating early barriers. 

8. Leverage your university's internal support structures (e.g., TTOs) and adopt a proactive, solution-oriented mindset, demonstrating enthusiasm and a clear vision for achieving tangible impact. 

Consistent communication of value is embedded throughout this process. 

Oh, and remember that you are really in a sales business... You will need 20 failed calls to get a successful one, so cultivate your resilience. Good luck!