World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Patent Information

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin

An entrepreneurial, research-based university model focused on

intellectual property management for economic development in
emerging economies: The case of Bogor Agricultural University,
Indonesia
Jane G. Payumo a, *, Prema Arasu a, Anas Miftah Fauzi b, Iskandar Zulkarnaen Siregar b,
Deni Noviana b
a
Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
b
Bogor Agricultural University (Institut Pertanian Bogor, IPB), Bogor, Indonesia

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Higher education institutions in emerging regions of the world are increasingly expected (largely by their
Higher education governments and community) to promote regional economic development and national competitive-
Public university
ness. This case study on one of the prominent academic universities in Indonesia e Bogor Agricultural
Research
Entrepreneurialism
University (Institut Pertanian Bogor, IPB) e highlights its successes and lessons learned in managing
Intellectual property intellectual property as an entrepreneurial research-based university. This analysis of IPB provides
Innovation general and specic insights for university administrators, researchers, and policy makers, especially in
Technology commercialization emerging economies, on appropriate strategies and measures in promoting synergies between research,
Emerging economies entrepreneurialism and technology commercialization. The model provides strategies to maximize
Indonesia university research outputs, knowledge transfer and innovation to empower regional communities, and
promote strategic and transformational partnerships, private sector engagement and economic growth
opportunities for both the institution and the region.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction based on an entrepreneurial, research intensive model to address

This paper examines the programs of Bogor Agricultural Uni-
versity (Institut Pertanian Bogor, IPB) that support the universitys
goal of becoming an entrepreneurial, research-intensive university.
IPB is the largest agricultural university and an important player in
Indonesias innovation systems for agriculture; it serves as a good
case study of how Indonesias higher education institutions (HEIs)
are responding to regional and global challenges and opportunities.
Although the management of knowledge and innovation of Asian
universities has been featured in many noteworthy publications,
Indonesias case is of particular interest because of its current status
as an emerging and booming economy. The added missions
imposed on Indonesian universities to support sustainable growth
and economic development are of relevance to HEIs in other
emerging economies, which are increasingly expected to do the
same. Indonesias IPB has made great strides in restructuring itself
national and global challenges and opportunities.
This case study draws on primary and secondary data, analysis of
published studies, reports, and statistics, selected articles, policy
documents and patent databases over the four year time period of
2008e2012. Expert opinion was sought from public and private
sector intellectual property (IP) practitioners to analyze the current
state of IPBs IP and technology management efforts and provide
appropriate recommendations for further growth in the research
and technology commercialization sectors. Analysis on the four Ps,
people, policies, processes, and products of IP management was
modeled on the study of Payumo et al. [1]. Critiques of the impact of
IP and patents to the mission and role of public sector institutions
such as HEIs, including the suitability of policy and legislation such
as the U.S. 1980 BayheDole Act on technology transfer, as relevant to
Indonesia, are beyond the scope of this paper.

2. Higher education institutions as economic engines

* Corresponding author. International Programs, PO Box 645121, Washington
State University, Pullman, WA 99164-5121, USA. Universities have frequently been regarded as key institutions in
E-mail address: jane.payumo@wsu.edu (J.G. Payumo). processes of social and intellectual change and development. The

0172-2190/$ e see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2013.11.009
 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31
World Bank report Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril
and Promise [2] has further rationalized the existence of univer-
sities: As knowledge becomes more important, so does higher
education. The quality of knowledge generated within higher ed-
ucation institutions, and its availability to the wider economy, is
becoming increasingly critical to national competitiveness. With
the current focus on producing globally educated citizens, the
most explicit expectations of a university today regardless of social
and economic conditions and geographic location are in providing
quality education, the training of the future workforce, and the
production of high income, skilled labor [3]. Academics and grad-
uates produce cutting-edge science, new ideas, knowledge, and
university-based innovations that can be the major drivers of
economic and social development [4e7].
2.1. Research-based to entrepreneurial universities and role of
intellectual property
Modern technological developments, globalization and
increasing pressure from policy makers and funders have required
public universities to emphasize economic development as a fourth
pillar to education, research and service. Funding agencies and
donors in the U.S. and in other countries are looking for and
demanding evidence of tangible outcomes from funded research
that can improve quality of life, create business opportunities and
promote economic development. Universities are now required to
transform themselves from ivory towers of scholarly pursuit to
entrepreneurial enterprises of innovation, knowledge transfer, and
technology commercialization [8,9].
Advanced universities across North America, Europe, and
recently Asia, are increasingly shifting their traditional primary
roles in education and scholarly output to becoming entrepre-
neurial, research-intensive university models that emphasize
interdisciplinary engagement, commercialization of institutional IP,
knowledge partnerships, and active contribution to the develop-
ment of private enterprises in the local and regional economy [10].
Notable US and European institutions in these efforts include:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and UC
Berkeley in the U.S.; and University of Cambridge, University of
Oxford, and Imperial College, London in the U.K. [11]. In Asia, Sin-
gapores National University of Singapore (NUS), a strong partner of
the governments Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*
Star) is known for its synergistic public/private activities that pro-
mote the spirit of innovation and generating value from university
resources through industry engagement and entrepreneurship
[12,13]. The U.S.-based Association of University Technology Man-
agers (AUTM) recently reported that efforts of U.S. universities have
resulted in increased research expenditures, intellectual property
rights (IPR) lings, commercialization agreements, and startups
based on university inventions (initiated as well as still in active
business) [14].
The 1980 US BayheDole Act (now in its 32nd year) and similar
legislation are credited as the primary catalysts for increased aca-
demic and technological entrepreneurship in U.S. and other coun-
tries [15]. These laws have enabled universities to claim title to
inventions supported by government funding and for their scien-
tists to participate in the commercialization of university in-
ventions. Besides national legislation, some of the factors that may
have contributed to the high-prole successes of entrepreneurial,
research-intensive universities around the world include: (1) a
well-funded high quality research system that encourages re-
searchers to do more innovative research and generate technolo-
gies and products that can be used by industry; and (2) provision of
adequate incentives and support to encourage faculty participation
23
especially in disclosing, protecting, and commercializing a univer-
sity invention [16].
Creating an entrepreneurial, research-based university model
likewise requires good IP management and technology transfer
programs. The presence of IPR protection, patents for instance, for
university off-the-shelf technologies can help facilitate contrac-
tual transactions of intangible intellectual assets of universities
between the university and technology buyers/users, particularly
the private sector, and thereby accelerate technology transfer. The
primary benet of this process whether for commercial or for hu-
manitarian uses is the exploitation of research results to benet
society; other signicant benets include generation of funds from
licensing fees that can be funneled back into research, IP education,
and technology transfer activities at the university, and as addi-
tional reward to the researcher. IPR have also become more
important to universities in other respects. University researchers,
especially those working in modern biotechnology, now must un-
derstand the IPR context in which they are conducting their
research to make sure they are not infringing the IPR of other re-
searchers and institutions [1,17e19]. Understanding the potential
for university technologies has also become critical so that re-
searchers can initiate necessary institutional strategies early in the
process so as to not lose or compromise future IPR. IPR issues are
also increasingly important in establishing research partnership
with other institutions, locally and internationally, especially when
proprietary research materials (such as germplasm) are involved
[17]. Increasingly, inter-institutional agreements and sponsored
research contracts have built-in IPR provisions for ownership, ac-
cess, and commercialization of future IP; these measures require
institutions and researchers to understand the nature of contracts
and negotiable provisions, if and when needed. All these de-
velopments have required universities to implement institutional
policies that address key issues, including ownership of IPR and
benet sharing in a commercialization process; strategies for and
management of privately sponsored research, collaborative
research, conict of interest, and establishment of IP and technol-
ogy transfer ofces.
2.2. Response and implications for developing countries
Universities in developing countries such as in Asia are also
facing the same pressure to be more entrepreneurial and to have an
enhanced role in local economic and social development through
modern approaches of expanding the commercialization of
research. A number of Asian universities (e.g. Zhejiang University,
China; Haryana Agricultural University, India; and University of the
Philippines, Philippines), have taken the challenge and are now
exploring different mechanisms to replicate the widely acclaimed
successes of research-intensive, entrepreneurial universities in the
US and other advanced countries [1]. These universities have setup
and standardized their institutional IP policies and ownership in
support of their national technology transfer laws that are mostly
patterned after the US BayheDole Act [15]. They have also estab-
lished IP and technology transfer ofces to handle patent lings,
and have invested in entrepreneurial infrastructure, and services
such as business incubation spaces and research parks to support
university research and entrepreneurship. Investigating initiatives
of other universities to add to this list such as in Indonesia, and how
these universities address the opportunities and challenges in
becoming an entrepreneurial, research-based university is,
worthwhile.
This paper focuses on Indonesias public research university
Bogor Agricultural University (Institut Pertanian Bogor, IPB), and its
efforts, challenges, opportunities, and learnings in becoming an
entrepreneurial, research-based university to contribute to the
24 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31

countrys goal of promoting innovation and global competitiveness. Table 1

The data and dynamic model used by IPB are intended to promote Basis of Indonesias IPR system [21].

better strategies and decisions among universities, especially in National laws

Indonesia, with similar social and economic conditions to accel-
erate their research enterprises.
3. Overview of Indonesias economy, agricultural innovation,
and IPR landscape
Indonesia, one of the largest economies in Southeast Asia, is an
emerging global force along with Brazil, the Russian Federation,
India, and China [20]. The archipelago nation, with a population of
242 million, has a signicant gross domestic product (GDP 846.8
- Law No. 19 of July 29, 2002 on Copyright (2002)
- Law No. 14 of August 1, 2001 regarding Patents (2001)
- Law No. 15 of August 1, 2001, regarding Marks (2001)
- Law No. 30 of December 20, 2000 regarding Trade Secret (2000)
- Law No. 31 of December 20, 2000 regarding Industrial Designs (2000)
- Law No. 32 of December 20, 2000 regarding Layout Designs of Integrated
Circuits (2000)
- Laws of Republic of Indonesia No. 29 of 2000 on Plant Variety Protection
(2000)
- Government Regulation (PP) 20/2005 on Transfer of Technology of Intel-
lectual Property and Result of R&D by R&D Institutes and Universities
- PP 23/2005 on Financial Management of Public Service Agency (Badan

billion US dollars in 2011) due to strong domestic consumption and Layanan Umum, BLU).
International laws/treaties
investments exceeding the World Banks forecast (6.4 percent in - 1950 Paris Convention on Industrial Property
second quarter of 2012 versus prediction of 6.1 percent by The - 1979 WIPO Convention
World Bank). Indonesias economic activity is centered in three - 1994 Convention on Biological Diversity

major sectors: mining (especially natural gas extraction), -1997 Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works
- 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
manufacturing, and agriculture. According to the Agricultural
- 1997 Patent Cooperation Treaty
Outlook 2012e2021 report by the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the emerging partnerships
issued to prescribe the guidelines and regulatory framework for
between public and private sectors in Indonesia are resulting in
Geographical Indications, to provide protection for place or origin
higher productivity and improvement in the countrys national
where a good is produced. Indonesia is making efforts to be
agricultural innovation system. In 2008, the public sector received
removed from the U.S. Priority Watch List [22] and combat IPR vi-
approximately 0.08 percent of the nations GDP in research support
olations and IPR infringements to secure its trading partners.
[20]. The private sector accounts for one-fth of agricultural R&D,
To help the countrys research institutions and universities
partly because of the large plantation-based structure supporting
benet from IPR, Indonesias 2002 Law 18, National Systems for
the agricultural economy.
Research, Development, and Application of Technology mandated
Indonesia is a net importer of IP-intensive goods and has sought
the establishment of formal units for IP management with over-
to strengthen protection of IPR, a relatively new concept in the
sight of monetary and other benets of IP commercialization
country [15]. Over the years, the country has supported several
[23,24]. Recently, the government passed two other laws that will
international agreements that promote IP usage. It became a
further help HEIs in managing university IP: Government Regula-
member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in
tion (PP) 20/2005 on Transfer of Technology of Intellectual Prop-
1979. In 1994, it became a party to the Convention on Biological
erty and Result of R&D by R&D Institutes and Universities and PP
Diversity (CBD), which recognizes the sovereignty of countries over
23/2005 on Financial Management of Public Service Agency
their genetic resources, which can be subject to IPR. In 1995,
(Badan Layanan Umum, BLU). The rst law enabled universities to
Indonesia joined the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Intellectual
be the owners of the IP/IPR and provided more comprehensive
Property Cooperation. It also joined the World Trade Organization
roles to ofces of intellectual property and technology transfer in
in 1995 and ratied in 1996 the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellec-
facilitating protection for university IP resulting from research and
tual Property Rights (TRIPS) which sets IP standards. In 2006, it
developing commercial partnerships with industries; the second
ratied the international seed treaty, the International Treaty on
law provided guidelines on the compensation for IP and nancial
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), and
mechanisms for universities and public research institutions to
now implements the standard material transfer agreement (SMTA)
benet from the process. The World Intellectual Property Guide-
for the transfer and exchange of biological and genetic resources.
lines on Developing IP Policy for Universities and R&D Organiza-
Indonesia has promulgated several national legislation initia-
tions and the U.S. 1980 BayheDole Act (1980 University and Small
tives parallel to these international treaties and agreements
Business Patent Procedures Act) are believed to have inspired the
(Table 1 presents the summary of national IP legislation and
establishment of these laws in Indonesia.
membership of Indonesia in international IPR agreements) and
Patent applications, granted patents, and trademark applica-
updated its IPR laws on patent, utility model, industrial design,
tions for Indonesia have steadily grown through the years (1997e
copyright and related rights, and trademark. Indonesia currently
2011) with the majority coming from nonresident applicants [25].
has seven laws [21] concerning IPR, with patents, trademarks,
The Derwent World Patent Index 2013 released in September that
copyright, industrial design, and plant variety protection (PVP) as
year, however, reported that nearly 55% of the countrys total pat-
the type of IPR protection most relevant to agriculture. A pertinent
ents in 2012 were awarded to Indonesias own citizens rather than
provision of Indonesias patent legislation relates to the patent-
foreigners applying for patents locally [26].
ability of life forms, which specically excludes the patenting of all
living plant varieties, animal breeds and essentially biological
processes for the production of plants and animals but allows 4. Case study: Bogor Agricultural University - at the heart of
patenting of microorganisms, non-biological and microbiological Indonesias agricultural R&D system for nation-building
processes. In response to TRIPS, the country also enacted the 2000
Plant Variety Protection Law (Law No. 29), patterned after the In- Founded in 1963, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) located in
ternational Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants Bogor (about 60 km from the capital city, Jakarta), is the pioneer
(UPOV), which provides sui generis (of its own kind) system pro- institution for agricultural higher education in Indonesia and a
tection for plants and gives rights to breeders. Indonesia is not a major educational and scientic center in Bogor. The university
member of the UPOV. In 2007, Government Regulation No. 51 was fullls its Tri Dharma Perguruan Tinggi (Three Pillars of National
 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31
Higher Education) mission in education, research, and community
empowerment; and has played a crucial role in the development of
the countrys agriculture, the backbone of Indonesias economy
which contributes roughly 15% to the nations GDP. IPB has pro-
vided educational opportunities for Indonesians through graduates
with specialist knowledge and skills and providing refresher agri-
cultural education programs for lecturers from the nations uni-
versities and others, and local employment opportunities. The
university has also advised on national agricultural policy and plays
an important role in the development of science and technology
(S&T) policies to support economic growth. IPB is now growing into
a comprehensive, innovative institution for higher education in
natural resources-based development making it an important
player in nation building and helping increase Indonesias
competitiveness [27].
4.1. Academic autonomy and pursuit of relevance: structuring a
paradigm shift at IPB
With its autonomous status approved in 2000, through Gov-
ernment Regulation (PP No. 154/2000) and full implementation in
2005, IPB formally changed to become a public legal entity uni-
versity and adopted the market or private model approach in
higher education management. The use of the market model en-
ables universities to manage assets for academic excellence,
entrepreneurial purposes and other chosen purposes, and improve
the universitys relevance and ability to respond to market and
social needs [28]. This autonomy paved the way for improved
institutional governance, including the creation of a Board of
Trustees and an academic senate, the use of auditors, the stream-
lining of the universitys organization, including reforms, and
strategic portfolio analyses by all university units.
IPB has reorganized its organizational structure and its aca-
demic and administrative units in education, research, and com-
munity services into cross-functional units: 9 faculties/colleges
(previously 7 before autonomy status), 36 departments, and 30
research centers. The 9 faculties provide undergraduate programs,
while the graduate school, the rst in Indonesia, manage the uni-
versitys graduate and postgraduate programs. The 9 faculties
include: Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine, Marine Sciences and
Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, Forestry, Agricultural Technology,
Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Economics and Management,
and Human Ecology. Its faculty academics currently total more than
1200 (accounting for almost one-third of Indonesias researchers in
higher education [29]) with supporting staff of more than 1600.
More than 60% of IPBs faculty hold PhD degree and were trained in
advanced institutions in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Australia. In
2012, these faculties served a student population of almost 25,000
with 21% graduate students participating in some level of univer-
sity research (1201 PhD and 4067 Masters).
The status change also prompted a new vision for IPB to increase
its research performance and community services and to be a
world class research-based university with core competence in
tropical agriculture and biosciences, characterized with entrepre-
neur values. For IPB, an entrepreneurial, research-based university
signied a university with good quality academic staff representing
different disciplines, good lab equipment, facilities and ventures,
large area for farm studies, a number of research centers, well
recognized community service, close linkage with the government
and private sector, international linkages and cooperation with
other institutions of higher education locally and globally, and
many potential activities for revenue generation [27].
Institutional capacity building to support different research
disciplines is also a priority with increasing research expenditures
in the last three years (2010: Rp 8 billion; 2011: Rp 100 billion; and
25
2012: Rp 107 billion) from the Indonesian government [29] and
various sources to support research and improvements to facilities
and infrastructure (laboratories, information systems, and experi-
mental research farms). The research agenda at IPB has also
expanded in renewable-resources, bio- sciences, health, indigenous
knowledge and technology, food quality control and food safety,
genetic resources, genetic engineering and breeding, conservation
and the environment, social welfare, economic affairs and culture,
biophysics, mechanics and equipment, management information
and technology. IPBs research thrusts align well with Indonesias
medium-term national development goals for 2015e2019 [30].
These investments have resulted to improvement of IPBs IP port-
folio in many areas including agriculture, biotechnology, clean
technologies, engineering, instrumentation, and food and health.
Institutional mechanisms have also been placed to appropriately
manage research results, whether shared in the public domain or
protected, marketed, or licensed to third parties for commercial
purposes, or technology entrepreneurship.
IPB has collaborations with about 200 institutions from 32
countries focused on research partnerships and student internships
in areas such as organic agriculture farming, tropical rain forest,
food safety, quality, and nutrition, plant biotechnology, tropical
fruits and vegetables, integrated pest management, engineering
application in tropical agriculture, biofuels, and primatology.
Countries 32.
4.2. Managing innovation, partnerships, and technology
entrepreneurship e challenges and opportunities for expansion
Even before IPBs autonomous status in 2000, the University had
already established the Ofce of IPR and Publications, OIP, to
manage technologies and innovations coming out of university
research as done at its peer Indonesian institutions such as the
University of Indonesia, Bandung Institute of Technology, and
Gadjah Mada University [1]. Established in 1999, OIP is under the
Directorate of Research and Strategic Issue Studies (DRSIS), the lead
unit in formulating IPBs research agenda. OIP continues to coor-
dinate the administration of university technologies for deploy-
ment in the public domain; dissemination to the scientic
community is done via non-commercial mechanisms including
teaching, seminars, trainings, publications, and community
engagement. OIP also coordinates management of university
technology that will be protected, and manages a database of IPBs
research, IPR, and publications.
In the early years at IPB, OIP did not have the legal mandate to
manage the monetary benets resulting from technology transfer
activities. This resulted in the unit pursuing only IPR protection,
accumulating patents and signing of licensing agreements but with
no monetary benets coming back to IPB, the unit, and the faculty.
OIP also faced additional challenges including: (1) limited number
of IP management staff with requisite technology transfer and
marketing skills and professional knowledge. Limited manpower
resulted in delayed responses and coordination with internal units
(research centers, business units, and administration) and external
partners; (2) limited competency and knowledge among re-
searchers in the importance of protecting and commercializing
research results. The lack of institutional policy on IP ownership
and benet-sharing made faculty and staff less engaged on the
technology transfer process; and (3) research results that were at
the laboratory level as new, untested ndings with no prototype
information; these generally did not address industry needs and
represented high investment risk for technology buyers which
made it difcult for OIP to market university IP. IPBs technology
transfer efforts were also affected by the external environment
including lack of condence from businesses and other
26 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31
stakeholders in Indonesia, limited venture capital, weak networks
between investors, industries, intermediary institutions, as well as
poor infrastructure nancing. These challenges not unique to IPB
and are also faced by institutions in other countries as noted in
earlier studies done by various authors, including Higgins [31] and
Aiman [32].
With the designation of autonomy status and the enactment of
national laws related to IP and technology transfer for HEIs, IPB has
implemented many changes to help address these challenges and
improve the universitys performance in managing university IP
and innovation: (see Fig. 1 for IPBs timeline of IP management
activities).
4.2.1. IPBs IP guidelines
In 2004, IPB institutionalized two guidelines to further manage
intellectual property and IPR generated by its faculty and staff:
Rector Decree 136/K.13/PG/2004: Intellectual Property Rights
Guideline in Three Pillars of Higher Education Collaboration Ac-
tivities in Bogor Agricultural University; and Rector Decree 209/
K.13/PG/2004: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property
Rights Management Guideline in Bogor Agricultural University
[33,34]. The former provides guidelines on how to regulate intel-
lectual property rights of collaborative undertakings by IPB and
other institutions (public or private, local and abroad); the latter
denes guidelines to regulate IP/IPR implementation, establishing
university ownership, and assessing factors that will affect pro-
tection, commercialization and benet-sharing.
4.2.1.1. Ownership. IPBs IP policy emphasizes university owner-
ship of IP generated by its employees and students receiving full
funding by IPB and using university resources. It also asserts
ownership of IP developed by employees and students funded,
partially or fully, by outside agencies, unless stipulated in a
collaborative agreement. IPB employees and students (as the in-
ventors and creators of the IP), are thus obliged to disclose any IP
and inventions that may have potential for commercial utilization,
in which IPB has an interest, whether done through collaborative,
sponsored, consulting agreement, without any sponsor, or funding
from IPB. Employees are also obliged to assist the university in
Fig. 1. Timeline of activities, IPBs IP management and technology commercialization efforts.
obtaining patents, registering copyrights, and signing appropriate
legal assignment documents.
4.2.1.2. Protection, commercialization, and benet-sharing. The
policy also emphasizes the importance of managing public disclo-
sures or publications to ensure that the university can comply with
the requirements of IPR protection and not compromise protection
and commercialization activities. IPB employees are obliged to
notify OIP of potential publications related to the IP or invention.
Disclosure of inventions to the public is a critical element in
determining whether an invention is patentable or not. Under
Indonesian patent law, newness, non-obviousness, and industrial
application are the three requirements for an invention to be
patentable. In addition, patents and other form of IPR can be used
by IPB faculty and staff as incentives including career promotion.
To support the above steps, IPB has institutionalized a process to
determine when a researchers nding will be protected and
licensed or commercialized (see Fig. 2). The process includes an
assessment of the business feasibility of any invention before
incurring the expense of patenting. All IP not passing the rst
assessment of business feasibility is relegated to the inventor for
further development or self-commercialization. On the other hand,
ndings with market potential are rapidly promoted with the pri-
vate sector. When a commercial partner is identied, the IP is sold,
licensed, and/or used to setup a new venture, joint venture or other
entrepreneurial arrangement. IPBs employees and students
involved in the invention are entitled to share in revenues gener-
ated by successful commercialization of the IP. IPBs revenue
sharing plan regardless of estimated value is xed at 40% for the
inventor; 40% for the university; and 20% for the department or
research unit.
With the increasing participation of IPBs graduate students in
the overall framework of IPBs R&D, a separate Rector Decree 180/
K13/PG/2005 was issued in 2005 to provide for policies and pro-
cedures for research done by students. This decree, thought to be
the rst of its kind reported for a developing country, expanded
IPBs IP policy to graduate students working with IPB faculty. It
highlights the need for research notebooks and record keeping,
ownership of IP using university resources, acknowledgment of a
 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31
Fig. 2. Standard operating procedures of IPR commercialization improvement in IPB.
students rights to IP if they contributed to its development, and
their entitlement to commercialization benets.
4.2.2. Capacity building efforts
To facilitate organizational restructuring, IPB from 2006 to 2007
concentrated in training its faculty, staff and students on IPBs new
IP policy and framework. Several in-house training programs were
conducted on the basics of IPR, prior art search, patent drafting, and
conducting IP audits. With increasing focus on commercialization,
OIP in 2008 began expanding its IP management and technology
transfer program on recruiting additional personnel to prepare
patent applications and market IPBs technologies for commer-
cialization. OIPs current stafng includes an in-house patent law-
yer, and ve full time staff including a deputy director, two
coordinators (administration of IPR and publications; IPR and
database); and two technology marketing personnel supporting
IPBs IP management and technology transfer activities. OIP staff
work closely with faculty, monitor publication timelines, and
develop strategies for ling patents, studying the inventions value
versus cost, evaluating market potential and identifying licensing
partners, domestic and international. An internal survey conducted
in March 2013 revealed that IPB faculty members nd OIP to be
very effective in helping faculty members with intellectual prop-
erty, the process of IP ownership, technology transfer, patenting,
and licensing.
Various seminars and workshops were also done encouraging
faculty to identify and disclose inventions that are developed
through university funds for IPR protection, licensing, and tech-
nology commercialization. Since 2009e2010, IPB utilized IPBs
technology and agribusiness incubators to encourage technology
entrepreneurship among faculty, students, and alumni, establish
and run university spinoffs for local business development. OIP has
organized educational informational, business and technology
events and expositions to market its technologies and encourage
more faculty, staff, and students to be entrepreneurs.
All above efforts resulted in IPBs faculty members and re-
searchers receiving the Extraordinary Intellectual Property Award
for technology, plant varieties, and science categories from the
Government of Indonesia; of the 21 recipients for 2009, 9 were
27
classied as researchers, 5 as lecturers, and 7 as students and
alumni. Patent and trademark applications, with many already
awarded to the university, also showed growth increasing 12.92%
per year for the period 2008e2011 (see Fig. 3). The university IPR
have largely been in the agricultural sector and have been licensed
to several private companies or are being commercialized by uni-
versity spin-off companies (See Table 2 for examples). In 2012, IPB
also received a recognition award from the Vice President of the
Republic of Indonesia commending IPB as the university with the
most patent applications and granted patents in Indonesia for ve
consecutive years. These numbers contributed signicantly to the
increase of Indonesias own citizens applying for patents locally,
which in 2012 almost equaled foreign applications [26]. In 2012,
IPBs licensing and commercialization projects exceeded 179, rep-
resenting a ve-fold increase since 2008.
4.2.3. Networks and strategic partners
From 2010 to 2011, IPB focused on establishing strategic part-
nerships with intermediary institutions (e.g. National Innovation
Committee, Business Innovation Center-BIC, Science Techno Park-
STP, Puspiptek Serpong, and Business Technology Center-BTC).
OIP also works closely with IPBs Directorate of Business and
Partnership (DBP) under the Vice Rector for Business and
Communication, and the Research Center for Entrepreneurship and
Empowerment (RCEE) under the Institute of Research and Com-
munity Empowerment. DBP is responsible for drafting and devel-
oping resource management activities, and promoting science and
technology related projects aligned with IPBs business develop-
ment and partnerships with government, private sector, and other
groups. DBP, on behalf of the University, also formalizes the
licensing agreements with a private company (the licensee) while
OIP implements and monitors the agreement, including distribu-
tion of royalty benets to the relevant department/research unit
involved and the inventor. RCEE complements these activities by
working with micro, small and medium agricultural enterprises
and managing the universitys business incubators e.g. Incubators
Agribusiness and Agro-Industry, which collaboratively provide the
core infrastructure and integrated support for technology
commercialization at IPB (typically for three years). This tripartite
28 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31

Fig. 3. IPBs IPR portfolio. (2008e2011).

approach ensures that resources are efciently used, R&D is coor-
dinated and aligned with university priorities and the university is
on-course to achieve its goal of being a research- and
entrepreneurial-based institution.
IPB also works very closely with Indonesias Directorate General
of Intellectual Property Rights (Direktorat Jenderal Hak Kekayaan
Intelectual), which administers the Indonesias IP system and spe-
cically in talks with the Patent Ofce (Direktorat Jenderal Hak
Kekayaan Intelektual) to understand the process of securing patent
protection for university technologies abroad and possibly
expanding market reach of the university. IPB also continues to
strengthen its relationships with the private sector not only as a
partner in delivering technologies to market but also as a partner in
building the necessary infrastructure to further promote research
and agricultural development (e.g. the oil palm teaching farm with
Cargill, located in the Jonggol sub-district of Bogor). Partnerships
with foreign institutions (e.g. Washington State University) and
international donors (e.g. United States Agency for International
Development) are deliberately pursued to support IPBs interna-
tionalization agenda, strengthen the universitys network, bench-
mark its practices, and enhance its resources for institutional and
human capacity building in managing university technologies.
5. Analysis, conclusion, and recommendations
This paper presents the history, strategies and lessons learned
from IPB in its goal of becoming an entrepreneurial, research-based
university e an emerging model for higher-education institutions
in emerging economies to better interface core missions in edu-
cation and research with societal benets. Specically, this case
study focused on how IPB exploits intellectual property and crea-
tive ideas, creates new learning by partnership with internal and
external stakeholders, and how the university contributes to local
economic and social development. IPBs case further demonstrates
that pursuing the goal of becoming an entrepreneurial, research-
based university requires a national legal framework, research
budget, and backed with the right mix of: Policies, People, Pro-
cesses, and Products. IPB has made good progress in supporting
academic research and management of university technologies,
creating a professional model for emulation by other institutions.
5.1. Policies
IPBs medium and long-term development plan supports in-
vestment in research to enable the university to reach its vision of

Table 2
Example of IPBs start-ups/spin-offs. 2007e2012.

Invention Patent number Institution Remarks Mechanism of technology

transfer

Machine for dividing of wood ID P 0029402 Departement of Forestry Cooperation with Business cooperation
construction Product, Faculty of Forestry, IPB Private Company
CV. Cakra Mulya
Instant noodle from corn ID P 0028637, Southeast Asia Food and e Start up business
ID P 0032895, Agriculture Science and
P00201000633, Technology Center, IPB
P00201000634
Production of catsh our P00201000605 Department of Family and Cooperation with Start up business
Consumer Sciences, Faculty of Inotek Foundation
Human Ecology, IPB
Seed (papaya, melon, chilli, Plant variety Research Center for Tropical Spin off
mangosteen) registration Fruit Studies, IPB
Biofertilizer (Probio) Trade secret Department of Soil Science and Will be applied at Spin off
Land Resources, Faculty of national level by
Agriculture & Center for Environmental Innovation National
Research, IPB Committee
Avian inuenza vaccine Patent by PT Shigeta Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, IPB Joint Venture IPB Business cooperation
(Reverse Genetic Technology) Shigeta Enterprise
Fry counter (Seed Fish P00200300627 Faculty of Marine Sciences and Spin off
Counters with Fisheries, IPB
Speed and High Accuracy)
Extracts dignity barito P00200100385 Biopharmaca Research Center, IPB Start up business
(Ficus deltoidea)
Antitumor Efcacious
 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31
becoming a research-based, entrepreneurial university. IPB has also
set the institutional framework to allow technology commerciali-
zation of research results and link its integrated missions in educa-
tion, research, and economic and societal benets. Communicated
both inside and outside the institution, IPBs policy provides ar-
rangements for IP ownership, sharing any returns from commer-
cialization of IP, recognizes the range of IP activities of the university,
and displays a balance of engaging in IP work for reputational
benet, for positive social and economic impact, and for scal
returns. Recently, the university transitioned to a more student-
friendly policy which reects the universitys commitment to
equitable policies and its recognition that graduate students have a
voice and are IPBs partners in the research enterprise. Such
recognition provides students with favorable impressions of the
university, encourages entrepreneurialism, and provides public-
private sector experiences and connections when they join the
workforce.
5.2. People
IPB has demonstrated in-house capability of managing univer-
sity IP from handling and reviewing invention disclosures, mar-
keting, executing licensing agreements with commercial partners,
and forming spin-off companies. The overall IPB team is also
growing. The team managing the university technologies has staff
with full-time appointments and interdisciplinary expertise
including research managers and entrepreneurs. Full-time ap-
pointments enhance institutional and individual commitment and
staff productivity resulting in sustainability and credibility within
the institution and with external stakeholders [35]. Besides having
full-time appointments, IPBs technology transfer unit is manned
with experts from different technical disciplines thereby combining
a mix of technical knowledge with economic, management-
oriented, and legal knowledge to ensure smooth transition from
laboratory research products to the eld or to retail shelves. IPBs
senior administration, relevant ofces, faculty, and staff remain
committed and engaged with the growth and dynamics of the IP
property arena.
5.3. Processes
University inventions meeting the criteria of patentability
should not be encouraged without sufcient evaluation. IPB has
initiated a protocol to evaluate the marketability and commercial
value of any invention before the university invests in resources to
le and execute patents. Mandating good record keeping and
laboratory notebooks among its faculty and students further
support IPBs IP program and is being advocated throughout the
institution.
5.4. Products
The university is uncovering a niche in knowledge creation
based on indigenous and local innovations and are now beneting
Bogor and its neighboring communities. Sales of IPBs trademark-
registered natural-based, herbal and fast food products (e.g. noo-
dles) are increasing. Local consumers are increasingly patronizing
university stores and in many instances, local demand is exceeding
supply.
IPB is slowly moving down the learning curve and realizing that
supporting academic entrepreneurship and innovation can be
challenging at rst but rewarding. IPBs early successes are in-
dications of future returns, and the university may be well on the
path to harvesting the advantages of managing university intel-
lectual property toward becoming a model for emulation. IPBs
29
efforts are still relatively recent and new with several areas for
improvement and below are some suggested areas that the uni-
versity can look into.
5.5. Avoiding the patent number trap
Patenting of university inventions has been the indicator of the
involvement of universities in technology commercialization ac-
tivities, beyond the traditional role of research and teaching. The
number of patent applications and granted patents for IPB con-
tinues to increase through the years; now IPB is considering
seeking international protection in foreign markets. The increase in
patent numbers, whether for domestic or international patents,
however, does not necessarily indicate that IPBs innovation out-
puts are contributing to economic growth [36]. Patenting university
technologies is not an end in itself; university patents need li-
censees to complete the commercialization process. IPB needs to be
careful on this patent numbers trap and make sure that OIP is
proactively nding strategic ways to market and commercialize
them. Publishing patents is one of the ways of IPB faculty to gain
credits for job promotion and increased salary. The university needs
to consider providing more credits to faculty if the technology is
commercialized; this way, faculty is encouraged not only to publish
patents but to develop technologies with commercial value and
them actively participating in the technology commercialization
process.
5.6. Expansion of technology commercialization and
entrepreneurship programs
The university needs to promote its success stories on food and
herbal products and build on this platform to commercialize other
university technologies such as those produced by biotechnologies
and veterinary health science, the universitys two big areas of
research competence. Local private enterprises are emerging at a
fast pace in the country and OIP will have to strengthen industry
research connections and integrate with this group to help
commercialize university research products. It should be noted, too,
that IP management and technology commercialization should not
just be narrowly based on institutional licensing revenues but
should also be focused on resulting impacts on the economy, in-
dustryeuniversity relations, and formation of new start up com-
panies. Student entrepreneurship should also be monitored and
documented whether student-formed companies have resulted
from university technologies, and determine whether these com-
panies are contributing to IPBs entrepreneurial community and
Bogors local development. IPB can maximize existing international
research partnerships with its global university partners such as
land-grant U.S. institutions like Washington State University, which
has wide experience in managing university IP and technology
commercialization in US and in larger markets, and identify best
practices in IP protection, marketing, technology transfer and
entrepreneurship.
5.7. Continuing investments
Promoting an integrated entrepreneurial, research-based
climate within a public university is a long-term commitment. US
universities that are successful in this goal took a number of years
to institutionalize these processes into a sufcient and sustainable
level. IPB, hence, needs to continue investing in pursuing more
quality research that would result to: technologies and inventions,
research publications, industryeuniversity relations, and new
businesses. A sound IP management and technology commerciali-
zation program for an entrepreneurial university will also depend
30 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31
on continuing support from the management, faculty, staff, and
students. IPBs Ofce of Intellectual Property need to constantly
budget activities for IP education and dissemination of IPBs IP
management programs at all ranks within the institution so they
understand fully the benets and tradeoffs of these processes
needed to reach universitys vision of becoming a research-based,
entrepreneurial university. The current knowledge level of IP and
technology commercialization awareness among faculty, staff, and
students should be also assessed regularly so as to identify gaps and
training needs on up-to-date IP regime developments such as
material exchange and IP instruments (especially on conicts of
interest).
5.8. IP policy not set in stone
IP policies and programs will continue to be a key factor in
establishing research relationships especially for international
collaboration [37]. IPBs IPR policy is important in helping manage
the universitys intellectual capital and partnerships and will help
dene its position in the international order. IPB should, however,
take note that IP policies may need some exibility to address
current needs of the institution and adjust to national and inter-
national developments. This will require continuing review of its
policies and education of faculty, staff, students, and even domestic
and international collaborators.
Overall, the strategic decisions, success stories, lessons learned,
and opportunities for improvement for Bogor Agricultural Univer-
sity are a useful reference for other institutions intent on creating
similar growth trajectories in university research wedded to
entrepreneurship and technology commercialization. The approach
is also an effective mechanism for keeping higher education in-
stitutions relevant to current day national priorities, ensuring that
basic research is translated for effective use and public benet,
providing the potential for income, incentivizing staff and their
level of productivity, and furthering research output and outreach
opportunities. Research universities like IPB and other universities
need to proactively develop mechanisms to facilitate the ow of
knowledge and technologies generated by research and supported
by public funds for societal benet. The time has come for these
research universities to embrace the mandate for entrepreneurial
dimensions to leverage academic research, intellectual property
and innovation, and make entrepreneurship an important fabric of
the institution.
References
[1] Payumo J, Gang Z, Pulumbarit E, Jones K, Grimes H. Managing intellectual
property and technology commercialization: comparison and analysis of
practices, success stories and lessons learned from public research universities
in developing Asia. Innovat Manag Pol Pract J 2012;14(4):391e432.
[2] The World Bank. Higher education in developing countries: peril and promise.
Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2000.
[3] Brennan J, King R, Lebeau Y. The role of universities in the transformation of
societies: an international research report. London: Association of Common-
wealth Universities; Centre for Higher Education Research and Information;
2004.
[4] Schultz T. Investment in human capital. New York: The Free Press; 1971.
[5] Sakamota A, Powers P. Education and the dual labour market for Japanese
men. Am Sociol Rev 1995;60(2):222e46.
[6] Psacharopoulos G, Woodhall M. Education for development; an analysis of
investment choise. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
[7] Vandenbenbussche J, Aghion P, Meghir C. Growth, distance to frontiers, and
composition of human capital. London: Center for Economic Policy Research;
2005.
[8] Etzkowitz H. Research groups as Quasi-Firms. The invention of the entre-
preneurial university. Res Pol 2003;32:109e21.
[9] Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhart C, Terra B. The future of university and the
university of future: evolution of Ivory Tower to entrepreneurial paradigm.
Res Pol 2000;29(2):313e30.
[10] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national sys-
tems and Mode 2 to a triple helix of university-industry-government re-
lations. Res Pol 2000;29:109e23.
[11] Graham R. Technology innovation ecosystem benchmarking study: key nd-
ings from phase 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Skoltech Initiative; 2011.
[12] National University of Singapore. NUS enterprise: national University of
Singapore. Retrieved from National University of Singapore Web site: http://
www.nus.edu.sg/enterprise/careers/index.html; 2013, January 16.
[13] Nezu R, Chou Siaw K, Ganguli P, Nishio K, Tansinsin L, Hwa-Chom Y, et al.
Technology transfer, intellectual property, and effective university-industry
partnerships: the experience of China, India, Japan, Philippines, the Republic
of Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual
Property Organization; 2007.
[14] AUTM. FY 2010 AUTM US licensing activity survey. Deereld, IL: AUTM; 2011.
[15] Graff G. Echoes of Bayh-Dole? A survey of IP and technology transfer policies
in emerging and development economies. In: Intellectual property manage-
ment in health and agricultural innovation. Oxford, UK; Davis, USA: MIHR;
PIPRA; 2007. pp. 169e95.
[16] Heher AD. Benchmarking of technology transfer ofces and what it means for
developing countries. In: Krattiger A, Mahoney RT, Nelsen L, Thomson J,
Bennett A, Satyanarayana K, et al., editors. Intellectual property management in
health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices. Oxford, UK;
Davis, USA: MIHR; PIPRA; 2007. pp. 207e28.
[17] Payumo J. Licensing agricultural intellectual property: how should public R&D
institutions in developing countries respond? Intellect J Innov Technol Manag
2012;9(4):1250028e40.
[18] Maredia K, Erbisch F, Ives C, Fischer A. Technology transfer and licensing of agri-
cultural biotechnologies in the international arena. AgbiotechNet; 1999. pp. 1e7.
[19] Van Wijk JC, Komen J. Intellectual property rights for agricultural biotech-
nology. Options and implications for developing countries. The Hague: In-
ternational Service for National Agricultural Research; 1993.
[20] World Bank. Indonesia overview. The World Bank; 2012, August 12. Retrieved
from World Bank Web site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/
indonesia/overview.
[21] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). WIPO Lex. WIPO; 2012,
August 30. Retrieved from WIPO Web site: http://wipo.int/wipolex/en/.
[22] Ofce of United States Trade Representative, 2012, 2012 Special 301 Report,
Washington, DC: Ofce of the United States Trade Representative.
[23] United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Portal: UNESCO. Retrieved from UNESCO Web site: http://portal.unesco.org/
pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_C74B5BE23B9439279E9C04C2F80B90867DF30200/
lename/Indonesia.pdf; 2008, January 09.
[24] Centre for Research on Science and Technology, University of Stellenbosch, Institute
for Research on Development. Mapping research systems in developing countriese
country report: the science and technology system in Indonesia. South Africa;
France: UNESCO Forum for Higher Education, Research, and Knowledge; 2009.
[25] World Intellectual Property Organization. Statistical country proles. WIPO;
2013, November 3. Retrieved from WIPO Web site: http://www.wipo.int/
ipstats/en/statistics/country_prole/countries/id.html.
[26] Thomson Reuters. ). The research and innovation performance of the G20 and
its impact on decisions made by the worlds most inuential economic
leaders; 2013. pp. 1e45.
[27] Chozin M. An introduction to Bogor agricultural university. In: First international
symposium food production and environmental conservation in East Asia held
on September 13e15, 2005 at the faculty of agriculture, Niigata University.
Niigata: Niigata University; 2005. pp. 155e9. http://www.agr.niigata-u.ac.jp.
[28] Susanti D. Privatisation and marketization of higher education in Indonesia: the
challenge for equal access and academic values. Higher Educ 2011;61(2):209e18.
[29] Stads G-J, Haryono, Nurjayanti S. Agricultural R&D in Indonesia. Washington
DC; Jakarta: International Food Policy Research Institute; Indonesian Agency
for Agricultural Research and Development; 2007.
[30] Asia Pacic Economic Cooperation. Indonesias structural reform priorities:
submitted by Indonesia. Retrieved from APEC website: http://aimp.apec.org/
Documents/2011/SOM/WKSP/11_som_wksp_009.pdf; 2011, August 10e11.
[31] Higgins R. Commercialization of public sector R&D: results, opportunities, and
challenges. Tech Monitor; 2001. pp. 15e22.
[32] Dhewanto W, Umam KK. Technology commercialization in developing
country: current condition and its challenges in Indonesia. Asian J Technol
Manag 2009;2(1):1e7.
[33] Bogor Agricultural University. Guidelines arrangement of intellectual property
rights associate with Tri Dharama collaboration activities. Number 136/K13/
PG/2004. Decree of Rector of Bogor Agricultural University; 2004. pp. 1e7.
[34] Bogor Agricultural University. Intellectual property and intellectual property
rights management guideline in Bogor agricultural university. Number: 209/
K13/PG/2004. Decree of Rector of Bogor Agricultural University; 2004. pp. 1e11.
[35] Bland C, Center B, Finstad D, Risbey K, Staples J. The impact of appointment
type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and
doctoral institutions. J Higher Educ 2006:89e123.
[36] SciDevNet. SciDevNets South-East Asia and Pacic. Retrieved from SciDevNet
Web site: http://www.scidev.net/asia-pacic/innovation/news/indonesia-
excels-in-patents-from-local-scientists.html; 2013, July 10.
[37] Kok J. The internationalization of universities through the management of
their intellectual capital. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference of
the faculty of management Koper congress, Centre Bernardin, Slovenia,
November 24e26, 2005 2005.
 J.G. Payumo et al. / World Patent Information 36 (2014) 22e31 31

Dr. Jane G. Payumo is a research associate at Washington
State Universitys (WSU) Ofce of International Programs
and helps WSU increase, monitor, and measure outcome of
the universitys international collaborations. She has
technical, managerial, and policy expertise, in the area of
plant biotechnology, grant development, intellectual
property rights (IPR) management, and international
research. She has handled patent, trademark, and copy-
right cases while she was an IPR specialist at Philippine
Rice Research Institute, and licensing assistant at WSUs
Ofce of Intellectual Property Administration from 2004 to
2012. She obtained her interdisciplinary PhD from Wash-
ington State University.
Dr. Iskandar Z Siregar is a professor at IPBs Department of
Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry. Currently, he serves also as
Director for IPBs Research and Innovation, which helps IPB
manages research agenda, publication, intellectual property
rights and innovation. His research interests are population
genetics of forest trees, molecular genetics of forest Plants,
conservation and sustainable management of tropical for-
est genetic resources, forest tree improvement, forest
adaptation and genetics in silviculture. He received his PhD
from University of Gttingen, Germany.

Dr. Prema Arasu is CEO and Vice Provost at Kansas State Dr. Deni Noviana is deputy director of IPBs Directorate of
University-Olathe campus in the greater Kansas City area. Research and Innovation and associate professor at IPBs
She previously served at Washington State University as Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. He helps manage the IPBs
Vice Provost of International Programs and at North Car- intellectual property rights and help run IPBs technology
olina State University for 15 years where she held various transfer ofce. He was joined several national and inter-
positions including Professor in the Department of Molec- national IPR and technology transfer management training
ular Biomedical Sciences, Director for Global Health Initia- course. He received his PhD from the United Graduate
tives, Director for Comparative Biomedical Sciences School of Veterinary Science, Yamaguchi University, Japan.
graduate program, and Associate Vice-Provost for Interna-
tional Academics and was a founding member of the Trian-
gle Global Health Consortium. Arasu was also AAAS
Congressional Science & Technology Policy Fellow with
the U.S. Senate Subcommittee for Health from 2002 to
2003.

Prof. Dr. Anas Miftah Fauzi is the Vice Rector for Research
and Collaboration of Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)
since 2008. He oversees university partnerships in educa-
tion and research with higher education and research in-
stitutions in Indonesia and across the globe. He served as
Dean at Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology
(2003e2007) and was a lecturer in this faculty since 1985.
He received his PhD from Kent University, U.K.