From 9:30-11:45 in Delaware A Room, the Information Technology breakout will be taking place. Other speakers joining me include:

• Brad Warnick, Manta
• Brian Callaghan, Nationwide
• Kathy Pfeiffer, IBM
• Don Resnik, IBM
• Stephanie Souryasack, Nationwide
• Mick Say, JP Morgan Chase

These speakers will cover topics ranging from available jobs in mainframe to System z University, a mainframe apprentice program designed to help technical-minded individuals gain the tools needed to excel in mainframe. Our focus is on meeting Ohio’s needs, and, therefore, the discussion will be JAVA and .net based.

Interested in joining the conversation? Register here.

Keep in mind our previous tips and check out these tips for pitching to Fortune 500 companies from Rawy Iskander of The Tech Entrepreneurship Blog:

• Embrace your size. Turn your small size and startup spirit into an advantage. Show them the values of startups: innovation and speed of execution.
• Address their concerns. Show how you will isolate them from both legal and business risks. It is important to establish credibility early on and to never lose their trust.
• Be patient. It could take several milestones before you receive funds. Of course, it would be ideal to receive a large chunk of investment upfront, but insisting on such conditions may lower your chances of winning the contract.
• Put yourself in an investor’s shoes. Investors are focused on one thing – how your product will better life. If you manage to persuade them that it would better them personally then you will have their attention. This is where you need to focus your sales pitch preparation. Try to understand the company’s top strategic objectives and programs, and anchor tightly into one or more of those touch points.
• Utilize a cheerleader. Your project can get lost in the maze of a big organization unless you establish a strong relationship with someone who is both influential and enthusiastic about your project.
• Keep it simple. Keep your sales pitch simple and to the point, don’t bog investors down with excess information. Emphasize your most important points by incorporating some “Aha” moments and give these moments a second to truly sink in.
• Be confident. Confidence is contagious. Inspire your investors with your own enthusiasm and watch them buy in!

Following these steps and achieving the support of a Fortune 500 can prove to be priceless to your startup. Many investors will be more willing to finance your startup once you have a Fortune 500’s support.

What techniques have you noticed do and don’t work when pitching to Fortune 500 companies?

Venture capitalist Jeff Clavier has heard 10,000 pitches.

His firm receives 2,000 business plans a year. They meet with 300 of those. They work on ten companies a month. They dig deeply into five of them. And they do two deals.

“We say no 99.5 percent of the time,” Clavier told Business Insider.

So what can you do to give your best pitch?

Well, you have to get the meeting first. Do your homework on the people who are investing in both your industry and the stage of development that you’re at. Then, Clavier said, reach out to your network. Who do you know that can connect you to your desired investor? Find that person and craft an email for him or her to send to the investor.

“Of the 114 deals I’ve closed, exactly zero reached out to me in a cold email,” Clavier said.

Once you’ve got the meeting, tell the investor your story. Why are you there? Why do you believe in this idea? “Absolute persistent determination is what we want to try to feel,” he said.

Then follow up with what your persistent determination has resulted in so far. “We expect people to build the initial prototype and have initial users. It could be like 20 or 50 users. You can validate quite a few things by doing simple advertising.” While different investors look for different levels of development, cold hard facts can speak for themselves – so the more you are able to provide the better.

Yes, there is a sea of entrepreneurs out there. But understanding how to get in front of the right people, and what to say once you do, is the key to pitching your best game yet.

What has worked – or not – in your own pitches? Share below and check back for tips from others!

1. A Need for Speed – On March 16, 2013 the “first to invent” rule will be replaced by the “first to file” rule, and this prevision is expected to send applicants off to the races. It will become critical to not only file quickly but to also provide in-depth information in your application. The initial filing must support every feature of the invention that you plan to claim in the future; so file with care because any mistakes with this step could be detrimental to your application in the long run.

2. Pay to Play – A new expedited application option has been available since September 26, 2011, but it comes with a price tag. While you can happily say goodbye to an average three-year processing time, receiving a completed application within one year will cost an extra $4,800.

3. A 50/50 Chance – Feel like a pending application is detrimental to your interests? Starting on September 16, 2011 the AIA will allow third parties to submit prior art. But submit with caution – if the patent examiner is unconvinced by your argument, you run the risk of actually strengthening the pending application by supplying additional information.

In addition to the provisions of the new act, the AIA mandates a number of studies to review the patent system and guide future provisions. In an effort to develop an equal playing field for all applicants and focus on worldwide consistency, many of the studies investigate financial burdens and challenges with international filing. So while you may just be adjusting to these new provisions, stay alert! Because the AIA hints that there is even more change is to come.

Tell us how your company has transitioned to accommodate the new patent procedures!

Whether it is deciding to launch a program, embark on a new partnership, or invest in different research, the key to making a sound decision is gathering enough information to assess your market needs and expectations. Because when it comes to a tech transfer victory it is all about the market.

This approach has landed the University of Utah as the top-ranking creator of startups in the nation for a second year in a row. What does that title translate into? In 2009, the university’s startups accounted for 15,767 jobs, $755 million in personal revenue, and $76.7 million in tax revenue. Looks like sheading fear and being decisive has absolutely paid off for the University of Utah.

What’s even more remarkable? The university only invested $450 million on research in 2010. That’s one-third of MIT’s $1.4 billion budget.

So what type of decisions does the University of Utah make to drive such success? “Fail fast, fail cheap,” said Jack Brittain, Vice President of the university’s Technology Venture Development office.

To do this, the university employs small grants programs that fund proof-of-concept prototypes. A project’s funding increases as the technology pans out – and cuts off if it doesn’t. This approach allows the university to make decisions quickly and to turn those decisions into numbers that speak for themselves.

1. Investing in quality over quantity. We have always been taught to not put all our eggs in one basket, but when it comes to research one basket might just be your best bet to achieve a large return on investment. Ensuring funds are devoted to a few quality research projects can protect a university from focusing on research that only produces average results and small returns. Utah State recently launched a new program, which partners the university with businesses worldwide to “spin-in” additional research dollars. A “fewer and deeper” method, as Utah State refers to it, helps bring in greater funding by avoiding the dreaded research vacuum and making discoveries that are truly desired by society.

2. Taking risks. Try a new tactic. Create a new system. Regardless of what risk you chose, taking one ensures that your technology transfer program won’t become stagnant. Purdue University was recently ranked 6^th nationally for startup creation through tech transfer and is always looking for ways to give it’s program an edge. The university recently took a risk by adding an additional service to help researchers test, commercialize, and market mobile applications. The system ensures researchers can quickly reach the market with their offering and ideally will bring in additional dollars to the university in the long run.

3. Building relationships. While relationship building may be an obvious requirement to achieve success in technology transfer, relationships often come second to basic research and development. Don’t forget that research is only half the battle, and commercialization must follow in order to achieve any returns on investment. Vanderbilt University, under the direction of Alan Bentley, is turning to a market-driven strategy. Focusing on the market requires strong industry relationships to both guide research and support inventions. Bentley commented, “The reason why that’s so important is because there’s an entire knowledge base that industry contains that can help us more effectively and efficiently move technologies forward. We wouldn’t get (that), if we were isolated.”

These universities have started off the new year with a focus on reaching their full potential by being selective, continually expanding and changing their systems, and avoiding research isolation; how is your technology transfer office working to maximize their efforts?

A 2010 initiative from the University of Minnesota’s Vice President of Research has resulted in an updated contract for industry-sponsored research at the institution. In order to avoid prolonged negotiations and to gain greater industry funded research as government dollars dwindle, the new contract has three offerings to investors:

1. Companies are offered exclusive rights to the resulting inventions for an initial fee of $15,000 or 10% of the sponsored research agreement, whichever amount is higher

2. Companies must pay out 1% royalty on annual sales after they exceed $20 million

3. Companies must handle all patenting costs

Just a week after the University of Minnesota revised their industry contract, Penn State released their own IP changes, which give up all ownership of industry-sponsored research. Penn State feels interactions with the industry, and avoiding the “research vacuum,” are worth more than any returns on IP. The new policy works to create a stronger entrepreneurship culture among faculty and long-lasting industry partnerships.

These changes come at a time when government funding is dwindling and the potential of industry funding is on the rise. Are these university initiatives going to entice greater industry funding and continued research opportunities?

http://www.ejobdescription.com/IT_Salary_Survey.html

The University of Michigan has recently passed an initiative to invest $25 million of its endowment into start-ups at the university. The university realized the missed financial opportunity of such investments and decided to take the lead among other universities by starting it’s own investment program. The goal of the funding will be to make the start-ups more visible and to ultimately achieve a greater return on investment.

While university funding is a new opportunity, venture capital has been a core source of funding for start-ups from the start. Many companies are now aggressively funding start-ups in their industries, such as Access BridgeGap Ventures. Access BridgeGap is the life sciences venture investment arm of Access Industries, which plans to annually fund three to five early stage start-ups over the next few years. Over $75 million dollars will be donated to companies with potentially high-impact technologies in the therapy human therapeutic fields.

In order to tap into the growing funding opportunities, start-ups must be able to present not only an idea but also a sound business plan. To fill the gap for students who have a “big idea” but lack the resources to execute, the University of Texas – Austin is now offering a start-up 101 class. The class expects students to already have their ideas and works to help them with business development through building a professional network, developing ethics, protecting their IP, and mentorship from nearly 30 of the Austin community’s most successful company founders.

With the support of major companies and universities, it is clear where economic growth is expected to boom. Do you think investing in innovative and creative start-up companies may just be the “new deal” for the modern day and the key to positive economic changes for the country?

In February, President Obama introduced Startup America, an organization dedicated to training, mentoring, and funding entrepreneurs. In addition to a mixture of public and private initiatives focused on stimulating the growth and success of startups, Startup America is working to “strengthen commercialization of the about $148 billion in annual federally-funded research and development, which can generate innovative startups and entirely new industries.”

With the launch of Startup America, other government agencies announced new offerings to support the job creation goals. For example, The United States Patent and Trademark Office is offering accelerated patent approval to entrepreneurs. And, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Agreement for Commercializing Technology (ACT), which is a pilot program “under which businesses may partner with participating DOE laboratories for research and development that commercializes technology.”

In November, the White House took another step toward strengthening the technology transfer process through a Presidential Memorandum – Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth. The memo is focused on three steps to improve the transfer process:

1. Streamline the technology transfer process by accelerating licensing time, promoting grant investments, and cutting the gap between grant application and awarding.
2. Develop partnerships through local collaborations in order to spur regional innovation.
3. Develop a 5-year performance measurement plan to ensure commercialization is in fact being achieved more quickly.

As 2012 starts and these tactics are implemented, America will start to see their true potential. Do you think these government programs will enhance the technology transfer industry?