Rewiring tech transfer: How UTSA is building a commercialisation pipeline

In this episode, we explore what it takes to rethink technology transfer for real-world impact with Anthony Francis, Associate Vice President of Innovation, Commercialisation, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

We unpack why traditional, IP-first approaches continue to limit the flow of innovation from universities into society, how institutions can move beyond linear, patent-driven models, and what it means to build a true commercialisation pipeline. From reframing the “valley of death” to working backwards from market demand, the conversation examines how universities can shift from fragmented processes to more intentional, market-aligned systems that unlock the full value of research.

You can read a summary below, and listen to the full interview in our podcast:

Also available on:

Summary

Research universities are rich with ideas that could improve lives, strengthen economies, and create new forms of public value. Yet for many institutions, the path from research to real-world use remains slow, fragmented, and overly dependent on patents, isolated success stories, and linear processes. Anthony Francis, Associate Vice President of Innovation, Commercialisation, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Texas at San Antonio, believes the challenge is a shortage of systems designed to move invention into use.

At the heart of Anthony’s thinking is a simple but disruptive shift: universities should stop treating commercialisation as a late-stage administrative function and start building intentional pipelines around market need, researcher education, validation, and venture development. The conversation matters now because universities are under growing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond publications and grants, while new tools, including AI, are opening up ways to make commercial insight more accessible to researchers earlier in the process.

Why tech transfer still starts in the wrong place

For Anthony, the traditional model of university technology transfer has not changed enough. Too many institutions still begin with the question of whether something can be protected, rather than whether it solves a problem that anyone wants solved. That starting point shapes everything that follows: the types of projects that are prioritised, the expertise brought into the process, and the way success is measured.

In my experience, most universities still start with the IP question and not the market question.

This IP-first mindset can work for some fields, especially therapeutics, where patents, regulation and established development pathways are central to commercialisation. But Anthony argues that universities often apply that same model too broadly. Many forms of research-driven innovation do not fit a patent-led pathway, and when institutions force them into one, they risk overlooking value that could be unlocked in other ways.

The result is a narrow view of what university innovation can become. Rather than searching only for rare blockbuster patents, Anthony suggests universities should ask how a much wider range of research outputs could be turned into products, services, tools, platforms, or ventures.

Reframing the Valley of Death as a design problem

Anthony challenges one of the most familiar phrases in innovation: the Valley of Death. In his view, the gap between technical value and market value is real, but it is often misunderstood. It is not always an unknowable void. In many cases, the market is already signalling what it needs before it will engage.

The critical issue is that universities do not always add the elements that help research cross that line. Anthony identifies validation and leadership as two of the most important ingredients. Markets want evidence that a technology, product, or service has been assessed in meaningful conditions. They also want people around the opportunity who can navigate uncertainty, adapt through failure, and make commercial decisions.

This reframing changes the role of the university. Instead of seeing market failure as something external, institutions can ask what they are doing to prepare ideas for market engagement. Are they helping researchers validate assumptions? Are they bringing in experienced entrepreneurial leadership? Are they building pathways that make the opportunity easier for partners, investors, or customers to understand?

Working backwards from the market

One of Anthony’s core principles is to work backwards from the market. Researchers and inventors are often trained to improve the product, refine the technology, or deepen the technical case. Those activities matter, but they do not automatically answer the question of why someone would adopt, buy, or distribute the outcome.

When they cross the line and they look back and realise the elements they need to put in place to be successful, then they start building those things rather than necessarily the things that are marginally improving the product.

Anthony uses the example of filmmaking to explain the concept: a technically good film is not enough if distributors are looking for marketable elements such as talkability or recognisable talent. The same logic applies to university innovation. The market often has clear signals about what would make an opportunity compelling.

For universities, this requires a change in education and support. Researchers do not need to become full-time entrepreneurs, but they do need enough commercial understanding to see how their work might be received outside the university. Even a modest shift in mindset can influence which experiments they run.

Building UTSA’s commercialisation pipeline

At UTSA, Anthony is exploring how to turn these principles into a more deliberate pipeline. The aim is not simply to process disclosures or manage patents, but to create a development system that helps research move towards use. That includes giving researchers tools to think about markets earlier, using AI to support commercial framing and creating studio models that connect ideas with partners who can help shape them into testable products.

I think we’re in a new world where we have an opportunity to change things for the better if we get it right.

Anthony sees AI as a way to put some of the tools of market research and commercial translation directly into researchers’ hands. Rather than waiting for a technology transfer office to interpret an idea after the fact, researchers can begin exploring how their work might become a product, who might use it and what assumptions need to be tested.

In areas such as AI, devices and augmented reality, commercial partners can work alongside the university to prototype, validate and refine opportunities. Anthony describes this as creating a more natural environment for market pull, where researchers, partners and commercialisation teams are all motivated to move promising ideas forward.

From service provider to stakeholder

Anthony’s broader vision asks universities to shift from being service providers to becoming active stakeholders in the ventures they help create. In the traditional model, a university office often responds to researcher requests and manages transactions. In the model Anthony describes, the university becomes a developer, connector, and value-adding partner.

You get a share of the actual value of the company rather than a share of the technology value.

This shift has cultural implications. It means universities may need to prioritise projects based on market readiness, development potential, and the willingness of researchers to engage in the journey. It also means saying not yet when an idea needs more work or redirecting effort when a project is unlikely to move through a commercial pathway.

The upside is a more durable model of value creation. By helping build companies, introducing partners, supporting validation, and taking equity positions where appropriate, universities can participate in the broader value of the ventures they help enable. For Anthony, this is not just about revenue. It is about creating a cycle where research, impact and reinvestment reinforce one another.

Commercialisation is the outcome. Use is what you’re after.

Anthony Francis’s message is forward-looking but practical: universities have enormous latent potential, but unlocking it requires more than patents and process. By educating researchers, working backwards from the market, and building systems that add validation, leadership and commercial development, institutions like UTSA can create a stronger bridge between research and real-world impact.

The next phase of tech transfer may depend less on finding rare breakthrough patents and more on building repeatable pipelines that help many more ideas reach the people who need them.

Ready for more?

If Anthony Francis’s insights on building effective commercialisation pipelines resonated with you, you might also enjoy our podcast episode, How AI is reshaping technology transfer, with RocketSmart, with Dvorah Graeser, Founder and CEO of RocketSmart. This piece explores how universities can tackle commercialisation challenges using AI, from identifying market opportunities to navigating legal and ethical considerations around intellectual property and data use.

Stay tuned for the next episode on this series and don’t forget to follow us on your preferred podcast platform!