Blog Viewer

Volume LVII, Number 2 |

Stella Kakeeto
Makerere University School of Public Health

Mordecai Tayebwa
Makerere University College of Health Sciences

Wasiu Afolabi
University of Cape Town 

Christine Nalwadda
Makerere University School of Public Health

Abstract

Background: We conducted a needs assessment to assess the status and level of awareness of Intellectual Property management (IPM), as well as identify gaps in intellectual property management guidelines.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between June and July 2021 among researchers and research managers at Makerere University College of Health Sciences in Uganda. Data were collected using two different online survey questionnaires. A desk review was done to review existing policies and guidelines for IPM at the Institution. Data were analyzed in Stata v.15.0.

Results: Of the 55 participants, 25 (45.4%) were not aware of the existence of the Makerere University Intellectual Property (IP) policy and only 40.5% of those aware of the IP policy knew who owned the rights of the creative works produced during research. Key areas identified as lacking IP management (IPM) guidelines and standard operating procedures included: identification and protection of IP, handling the different forms of IP, disclosure processes, confidentiality issues, and the commercialization process.

Conclusion: Awareness of IPM for research and innovations is low at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. There is a need to strengthen the capacity of researchers and research managers in IPM for better performance and to conduct curriculum review. 

Keywords: Intellectual property; MakCHS; Makerere University; Uganda; innovation

Introduction

Research and innovation output has increased significantly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in the past two decades. Between 1995 and 2004, the annual number of articles by first authors from the top ten SSA producing countries grew by 41% from 2,073 to 2,929 (Hofman et al., 2009). However, the registration of patents has not increased in similar proportion (van Uden et al., 2017) even when some of the research outputs are worthy of protection and beneficiation for socioeconomic benefits. The discrepancy between the research output and patent registration could be a result of a deficiency in Intellectual Property Management (Blakeney & Alemu, 2012). Intellectual property (IP) refers to any original creation of the human intellect such as artistic, literary, technical, or scientific creation (Saha & Bhattacharya, 2011). Intellectual Property Management (IPM) is defined as a system that helps manage intangible products such as creations of the mind and human intellect (Çela & Çela, 2013). In Uganda, enforcement of IP rights remains a significant challenge. Issues such as piracy and counterfeit goods distribution persist, hindering the full realization of IP potential (Andrew, 2020).

There is low Intellectual Property Management awareness and practice at universities (Bansi, 2012; Sart, 2014) especially in low-to-mid income countries (LMICs) yet Intellectual Property Management is key in beneficiating the IP emanating from these institutions. IP is critical for national development, competitiveness of inventors and raising research funding for groundbreaking research and development activities (Sart, 2014). A systematic IPM is needed to foster research and innovation progresses and successes in institutions (Ming, 2010; Payumo et al., 2014). An evident and sustained IPM provides the necessary protection for the discovery and development of new knowledge at the university and the transfer of such knowledge for the public benefit (Payumo et al., 2014). In addition, proper Intellectual Property Management generates revenue for the university and the creators through licensing and commercialization of the protected IP products (Sharif et al., 2018). Furthermore, through licensing and commercialization, IP may increase the value or rankings of the university as being recognized as innovative and its visibility whether globally or locally through provision of solutions to societal problems that could be monetized (Ikome, 2022; Sharif et al., 2018). Strong IPM systems help position the institution competitively. Studies reveal that proper utilization of the IP system increases the competitiveness of research and innovative ideas in universities (Ikome, 2022).  

At Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS), research activity is high, yet the awareness, protection, and utilization of research-based IP remain limited. This low uptake may reflect weak dissemination of institutional IP policies, inadequate training, and limited incentives for IP disclosure (Waruru, 2019). Prior research suggests that when researchers perceive IP processes as irrelevant, they are less likely to commercialize their innovations (Ikome, 2022; Sharif et al., 2018). Strengthening awareness, education, and institutional support mechanisms can therefore enhance IP disclosure and commercialization (Payumo et al., 2014).

Makerere University, being Uganda’s oldest and most research-intensive university, offers a representative case to understand the broader challenges of IP awareness and management in Ugandan higher education institutions. We conducted a needs assessment to understand the views and level of awareness of Intellectual Property Management among researchers and research managers at Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS), as well as understand gaps in Intellectual Property Management guidelines and standard operating procedures.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

This was a cross-sectional study conducted between June–July 2021 at Makerere University (the oldest university in Uganda), which specifically targeted the Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS). Founded in 2007, MakCHS is Makerere University’s most research-intensive college, where more than three-quarters of the institution’s research is done (Pariyo et al., 2011). The college is located at Mulago hill within Mulago National Referral and Teaching Hospital.

Study Population

The study focused on researchers (faculties) and research managers at MakCHS. While the research managers are custodians of the institution’s IP policy and are responsible for the administration of research management functions, the researchers were also subjects of this study aimed at understanding the existing level of interaction and understanding of IP and related issues among these potential inventors and creators of new knowledge

Sample Size

The total headcount for researchers and research managers at MakCHS is 148. This achieved a response rate of 37.2% which accounted for fifty-five researchers and research managers. The study aimed to capture all the researchers and research managers at MakCHS. However, the COVID-19 restrictions and working from home requirements limited the access to some of the researchers and research managers.

Study Outcomes

This study primarily sought to investigate views, awareness, and knowledge of intellectual property management outcomes among researchers and research managers at MakCHS. These indicators were assessed based on respondents’ ability to answer correctly a set of questions related to basic Intellectual Property Management for research inventions.

Data Collection Methods

Survey: Data were collected digitally through two different online, self-administered questionnaires sent out through Google forms for the different sample population. One survey was sent to Researchers and the other to the Research Managers. These survey tools were developed and approved through the office of the Deputy Director of Innovations at Makerere University. They were designed to take about 10-15 minutes to complete and were divided into 2 sections as shown in Figure 2. Respondents received an email with instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Participants were encouraged to respond based on their current awareness and understanding of the intellectual property policies. They were also advised not to review existing materials while answering the questions. After completion, survey responses were automatically assembled to the investigator’s Google form application. 

Figure 1. Data Collection Tool Sections

Data Quality Assurance 

The questionnaires were pretested among five researchers and three research managers outside MakCHS to ensure that the questions asked were well understood. The questions were adjusted accordingly to ensure they were well understood and meaningful to the respondents. 

Data Management and Analysis

Data were retrieved through the Investigator’s Google forms. The investigator reviewed the data for completeness, after which they were analyzed using Excel (2016) and Stata v.15.0. Frequencies were computed and presented using tables and figures (graphs, pie charts). Data analysis was performed even for incomplete responses and the number of those that responded was indicated. 

Desk review: A desk review of Makerere University’s existing policies and guidelines for intellectual property management was performed. The goal was to provide an objective description of the state of existing intellectual property management policies, standard operating procedures, guidelines, and templates. The desk review established which intellectual property management guidelines are in existence, and made recommendations of the guidelines that do not exist but are critical to develop for more efficient management of intellectual property at Makerere University. The desk review analyzed existing literature and intellectual property content, shaping survey questions by identifying gaps and ensuring relevance. Independently, the desk review assessed available intellectual property knowledge, providing context for the study and validating survey findings. The desk review influenced the survey by refining questions, aligning methodology, and aiding data interpretation. It served as a foundational step, aiding the study's credibility and depth.

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted as part of an institutional needs assessment and received administrative approval from the Office of the Deputy Director of Innovations, Makerere University. The desk review component relied exclusively on publicly available information obtained through routine office duties and falls within the exemption criteria outlined in the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (2014) guidelines.

Results

Demographics of the Respondents

Ultimately, 55 respondents completed the online survey: 29.1% (16/55) were researchers, 45.5% (25/55) were Ph.D. students, and 25.4% (14/55) were research managers. Just over half 56.4% (31/55) of the participants were males (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Gender distribution of the respondents

Views, level of awareness, and knowledge of Intellectual Property Management among researchers and research managers at Makerere University College of Health Sciences.

Survey results showed that 25 out of 55 (45.4%) respondents were not aware of the existence of the Makerere University Intellectual Property policy. A majority, 65.5% (36/55), of respondents reported to have previously encountered Intellectual Property Management issues, yet only 40.5% (15/37) knew who owned the rights of the creative works produced during research (only 37 out of 55 responded to this question; see Table 1). Research projects were highlighted as the most common avenue where respondents encountered Intellectual Property Management issues (18/36). This was followed by external conferences (10/36) and workshops (6/36). 

Table 1. Level of awareness and knowledge of Intellectual Property Management among researchers and research managers at Makerere University College of Health Sciences

Three-quarters of the respondents consider their principal research activities to be commercially exploitable (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. How commercially exploitable do you consider your research activities or the research activities you support to be?

All the researchers (16/16) with student teaching and supervision responsibilities reported that IPM is not currently taught to Makerere University students and all of them think it should be taught. Also, all the researchers (16/16) indicated that it is important for students to learn about IPM early (Figure 4).

Figure 4. How important do you think it is for students to learn about Intellectual Property during their time at the University? 

When asked which intellectual property subjects would be most relevant to their work in case future trainings were to be offered, respondents marked the topics in Figure 5. Online delivery 56.4% (31/55) was the most preferred mode of training. The most ideal time for delivery of sessions was morning to midmorning (28/55), followed by lunchtime (18/55).

Figure 5. Intellectual Property Management sessions most useful to the researchers and research managers

Level of confidence in performing intellectual property tasks and giving intellectual property-related advice was very low among the researchers and research managers: Over 78.6% (11/14) and 75% (12/16) of the research managers and researchers respectively reported that they were unconfident in performing tasks and providing advice on Intellectual Property Management issues (Figure 6). 

Figure 6. Level of confidence in performing Intellectual Property tasks and giving Intellectual Property-related advice

A total of 24 out of the 55 respondents had prior experience with a project which produced novel results of commercial potential involving intellectual property rights. Majority (13/24) of those with prior experience with a project which produced novel results of commercial potential involving intellectual property rights were also involved in discussions about protecting the Intellectual Property rights. Furthermore, only eight of those involved in these discussions indicated that the Makerere University Intellectual Property policy was used.

The following are some of the views from the researchers and research managers on the main obstacles to commercialization of their research inventions (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Views from researchers and research managers on main obstacles to commercialization of their research inventions

 Standard operating procedures (SOPs), policies, and guidelines for efficient management of intellectual property at Makerere University.

The team supplemented data collection from researchers and research managers with a review of Makerere University’s Intellectual Property Management policies and guidelines to establish which ones require updates and improvement. We conducted a desk review which included a thorough analysis of the existing Intellectual Property Management policies/guidelines and creating a reference list so that all documents were organized and easily accessible to the research team. Results of the desk review revealed that Makerere University has an Intellectual Property Management policy of 2008, which at the time of the desk review was undergoing review and updates in line with current intellectual property best practices and trends. The 172nd Senate meeting held on 10th August 2022 passed the revised and updated Makerere University Research and Innovation Policy, and the Intellectual Property Management Policy which is key to efficient management of intellectual property at the University. A few other university policies have IPM embedded, some of which include the Research Policy, the Grants Policy, and the Conflict-of-Interest Policy. Other than these, there are no existing step-by-step, precise, clearly written SOPs to guide and simplify compliance to University IPM processes. Based on the gaps identified above, and in consultation with the Deputy Director for Innovations, the following are the areas where Intellectual Property Management guidelines and SOPs are needed but do not exist: SOP on the procedure for identification and protection of intellectual property; guidelines on handling the different forms of IP; SOP on the procedure for disclosing IP and key IP confidentiality issues; and SOP on the commercialization process.

In the course of the review process, we also noted that the Makerere University Intellectual Property policy will benefit from having standard templates to support the University's IPM processes. At the Makerere University College of Health Sciences level, we identified the following as some of the key documents that need to be prioritized: Non-Disclosure Agreement, Invention Disclosure Form, and Materials and Data Transfer Agreement.

Discussion

Our study found that 45.4% of the respondents were not aware of the existence of the Makerere University Intellectual Property policy and only 40.5% of those aware of the Intellectual Property policy knew who owned the rights of the creative works produced during research. This demonstrates low levels of awareness and knowledge on Intellectual Property Management. However, a Turkish study found even a higher percentage (55%) of the researchers lacked “in-depth” knowledge about the university’s technology transfer and licensing policies (Sart, 2014). The low level of awareness in our study could be because of lack of dissemination of intellectual property information (Waruru, 2019) and lack of education on IPM at universities. A case study conducted at Durban University of Technology revealed a lack of awareness as a contributing factor to low intellectual property right activities at universities (Bansi, 2012). Hence, universities do not fully exploit their research outputs and innovations due to lack of awareness on the importance of protecting IP products (Ikome, 2022). 

Three-quarters of the respondents considered their principal research activities to be commercially exploitable and about 43% of the respondents had previously been involved in projects which produced novel results of commercial potential involving intellectual property rights. However, only half of those engaged in such projects were involved in discussions about protecting the intellectual property rights. Intellectual Property Management is key in the design of the commercial exploitation strategy for project results and helps researchers to prevent future conflicts amongst the working team in terms of ownership, rights, and obligations (Okonkwo, 2021; Othman, 2011). Thus, researchers and research managers in institutions need to be equipped with knowledge of Intellectual Property Management for their research activities.

Our findings also showed that Intellectual Property Management is not taught to Makerere University students and researchers suggested it should be taught as part of an existing module. Another study similarly concluded that Intellectual Property Management is a necessary subject to be taught to student scientists at the university but has always been missed (Rockman, 2020). However, other studies show that students in some universities are being taught about Intellectual Property Management (Ismail, 2018; Vairis & Petousis, 2015). We believe having students taught about Intellectual Property Management is key for their research projects. We therefore recommend that Intellectual Property Management should be incorporated into the curriculum to increase students’ Intellectual Property Management awareness, prepare them better for future research careers, and have them benefit maximally from the current research-based economy (Herrington, 2010; Patel, 1995).

Additionally, our study revealed that the levels of confidence in performing intellectual property tasks and giving intellectual property advice were very low among researchers and research managers. This is worrying as we are aware that intellectual property management is crucial in promoting research activities in an institution (Payumo et al., 2014). Without protection of research outputs, researchers are bound to miss out on the full benefits of their inventions (Ming, 2010). Therefore, there is need to increase awareness and knowledge of intellectual property management among researchers and research managers in institutions.   

The views expressed by researchers and research managers on the main obstacles to commercialization of their research activities were largely as a result of low awareness and clarity on the University intellectual property policy. Researchers and research managers need to be better informed about the University intellectual property policy on commercialization. This will promote commercialization of research outputs for the benefit of the university and the public as well as contribute to the economic development of both the institution and country (Bakibinga, 2015; Sharif et al., 2018).

Our study also revealed areas where Intellectual Property Management guidelines and SOPs are needed but do not exist, including an SOP on the procedure for identification and protection of intellectual property, guidelines on handling the different forms of Intellectual Property, SOP on the procedure for disclosing intellectual property and key intellectual property confidentiality issues, and SOP on the commercialization process. Such IPM guidelines support efficient management of intellectual property; thus, there is need to incorporate the identified critical but missing guidelines to strengthen the university’s capacity for improved Intellectual Property Management (Junghans & Levy, 2008). 

The Intellectual Property Management policy of 2008 reviewed was the main University guiding policy on intellectual property (IP). This policy was selected because it serves as the primary source of guidance for university staff regarding IP matters. By focusing on this central policy, the aim was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the foundation upon which staff base their decisions and actions related to invention disclosures and IP seeking. Insights from this policy review inform the interview/survey questions by ensuring that inquiries are aligned with the core guidelines that staff refer to, allowing for targeted and relevant queries that capture the essence of the University's IP framework.

Study limitations

The survey was limited in scope, being conducted among 55 participants at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. These results are generalizable for Makerere University College of Health Sciences but may not be fully generalizable for the whole university or for other institutions, considering the limited sample size and some unique characteristics associated with research in health. However, MakCHS represents the largest and most research-active unit within the university, providing valuable insights applicable to similar institutions in Uganda.

Conclusion

Awareness on Intellectual Property Management for efficient administration of university inventions is low at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. There is a need to strengthen the capacity of researchers and research managers in Intellectual Property Management for better management of research outputs and innovations and conducting a curriculum review at the university. Additionally, Intellectual Property Management SOPs/guidelines need to be updated as necessary to support the efficient management of research inventions at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. Future studies could extend this work to other universities in Uganda and assess the impact of IP training interventions on actual disclosure and commercialization outcomes.

Authors' Note

Acknowledgements

This work was assisted financially by the International Research & Exchanges Board, kindly supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Stella Kakeeto
Grants Administration Secretariat, Makerere University School of Public Health
Kampala, Uganda
skakeeto@musph.ac.ug

Mordecai Tayebwa
Grants Administration Secretariat, Makerere University College of Health Sciences
Kampala, Uganda
mtayebwa@chs.mak.ac.ug

Wasiu Afolabi
Research Contracts & Innovation Department, University of Cape Town
Cape Town South Africa
wasiu.afolabi@uct.ac.za 

Christine Nalwadda
Department of Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Makerere University School of Public Health
Kampala, Uganda
cnalwadda@musph.ac.ug

Corresponding Author

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stella Kakeeto, Grants Administration Secretariat, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda, skakeeto@musph.ac.ug.

References

Andrew, O. (2020). Intellectual property protection as an enabler of local content in Uganda. Institute of Petroleum Studies-Kampala.

Bakibinga, D. J. (2015, December 15). Recent developments in intellectual property law in Uganda.

Bansi, R. (2012). Intellectual property management and protection: Low intellectual property registration at universities: A case study of the Durban University of Technology [Master's thesis, Durban University of Technology]. https://doi.org/10.51415/10321/782

Blakeney, M., & Alemu, G. (2012). Intellectual property and economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa.The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 14, 238–264. https://www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2177446

Çela, M., & Çela, L. (2013). Intellectual property management and strategy in business. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(11)https://www.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p445

Herrington, T. K. (2010). Intellectual property on campus: Students' rights and responsibilities: SIU Press.

Hofman, K. J., Kanyengo, C. W., Rapp, B. A., & Kotzin, S. (2009). Mapping the health research landscape in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study of trends in biomedical publications. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(1), 41-44. 

Ikome, J. (2022). The importance of intellectual property for universities of technology in South Africa challenges faced and proposed way forward. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Law and Political Sciences, 11(3), 565-569. https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1129107

Ismail, N. (2018). Teaching intellectual property to technology management students: Challenges and learning approaches. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1).

Junghans, C., & Levy, A. (2008). Intellectual property management: A guide for scientists, engineers, financiers, and managers. John Wiley & Sons.

Ming, L. (2010). Research on intellectual property management in open innovation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management, Brazil.

Okonkwo, I. E. (2021). NFT, copyright and intellectual property commercialization. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 29(4), 296-304.

Othman, A. (2011). Intellectual property commercialization in the EU: Policy options and practical instruments. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

Pariyo, G., Serwadda, D., Sewankambo, N. K., Groves, S., Bollinger, R. C., & Peters, D. H. (2011). A grander challenge: The case of how Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) contributes to health outcomes in Africa. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 11(1), S2. https://www.doi.org/10.1186/1472-698X-11-S1-S2

Patel, S. H. (1995). Graduate students' ownership and attribution rights in intellectual property. Indiana Law Journal, 71, 481-512. https://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/71/71_2_Patel.pdf

Payumo, J. G., Arasu, P., Fauzi, A. M., Siregar, I. Z., & Noviana, D. (2014). An entrepreneurial, research-based university model focused on intellectual property management for economic development in emerging economies: The case of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. World Patent Information, 36, 22-31.

Rockman, H. B. (2020). An online course on intellectual property for undergraduate and graduate engineers and scientists. Paper presented at the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.

Saha, C. N., & Bhattacharya, S. (2011). Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 2(2), 88-93. https://www.doi.org/10.4103/2231-4040.82952

Sart, G. (2014). Effects of lack of intellectual property rights and licensing awareness on universities' opportunities. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, IV(LXVI), 1-10.

Sharif, S. M., Ahamat, A., Abdullah, M. M., Jabar, J., & Bakri, M. (2018). University intellectual property commercialization: A critical review of literature. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 8, 874-886.

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. (2014, July). National guidelines for research involving humans as research participants. Kampala-Uganda: UNCST.

Vairis, A., & Petousis, M. (2015). Intellectual property teaching as part of an engineering degree. Paper presented at the Engineering Leaders Conference 2014 on Engineering Education.

Human capital and innovation in Sub-Saharan countries: A firm-level study. Innovation, 19(2), 103-124. https://www.doi.org/ 10.1080/14479338.2016.1237303

Waruru, M. (2019, May 3). Using intellectual property to actualise universities’ potential. University World News: Africa Edition. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190430120618987