Shortly after the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush sent the renowned report "Science, The Endless Frontier" to the President of the United States. The document advocated for a linear model of innovation: the government should fund basic research in universities, and from this pure knowledge, the market would naturally reap the rewards in the form of new products and jobs. This vision paved the way for the global scientific ecosystem and, decades later, inspired technology transfer offices and universities to invest heavily in protecting their intellectual property. The problem is that in the real innovation landscape, this mechanism does not run by itself. Most of the time, our institutions accumulate patents but lack a clear path to offer them to the market, missing marketing strategies and dynamic models for prospecting real partnerships.
Over the past few years, working with ICTs and NITs, I've seen a constant repetition of this scenario: institutions with robust portfolios, qualified teams, assets with real application potential, and, at the same time, a consistent difficulty in transforming all of this into connection, interest, and opportunity.
Of course, the Brazilian context presents relevant structural challenges, such as the low R&D maturity of many companies and slow decision-making cycles. But there's a factor that often goes unnoticed and makes all the difference: our predominantly reactive stance when it comes to making the conversation happen.
The myth of the “Tech Push”
Charting the path of a technology from the lab to the marketTechnology pushis a difficult task worldwide, not just in Brazil. The bottlenecks are many: differences in expectations, timing, and language between the market and academia. But, on the ICT side, unlocking partnerships starts well before technology protection. It begins with active positioning: showing that the institution is capable of building a solid partnership, that it understands the real demands of the market, and that it will consider the timing from the company. Less tech push, more building an environment of trust.
Beyond the showcase of patents
Another point that frequently arises is the absence of an integrated narrative. Many institutions want to highlight not only their patent portfolio but also their research competencies, services, and laboratory infrastructure.
The market, most of the time, isn't looking for an isolated, static patent; it's looking for partners capable of co-developing solutions. In fact, I researched this during my master's degree. When we only focus on listing assets, communication becomes fragmented. Each technology becomes a disconnected point, and external stakeholders cannot form a clear perception of the institution's true delivery capability.
Aligning subjects
Not every topic needs to be communicated to everyone. And in most cases, it shouldn't be. When there's no clarity on which companies, sectors, or profiles are priorities for each of the institution's competencies, communication tends to become generic. And generic communication, especially in innovation contexts, usually garners little real engagement. It's like trying to start a conversation without knowing who you want to talk to.
A new look at the problem
When we add all these factors together, what we see is not a lack of promising technology, but a lack of a communication strategy capable of sustaining and bringing these fronts closer to the market. And that changes the way we look at the problem quite a bit.
If the bottleneck were only in asset generation, the solution would be to produce more. But, in practice, many institutions already have more assets than they can communicate. The challenge, therefore, is not to generate more patents, but rather to better organize what already exists, maintain an updated digital presence, and have targeted materials that support an initial business conversation.
There is a mindset shift that I consider central: understanding that communication is not an end stage, but part of the innovation strategy itself. It's not about “publicizing once it's ready.” It's necessary to build, over time, the conditions for your ICT competencies to be perceived, understood, and connected to the market.
Throughout my work with ICTs at institutions like Fiocruz, UFSC, UFMG, and Unicamp, I've seen that once this structure begins to form, the impact is clear and outward-facing. The question that managers and teams at NITs and ICTs should ask themselves is not if their institution has good technologies. Most likely, it does. The question is: how are these technologies and the technological competencies of your ICT being perceived by outsiders?
If you wish to delve deeper into this topic, we have developed a manual with a more structured view on communication and marketing in innovation, with examples and possible paths for ICTs and NITs.
| Download the free manual |
