Getting Oriented: a quick tour of your portfolio

• Tell me about the last time your team missed a patent filing, license milestone, or Bayh-Dole report, what happened and who first realized it?
• How many invention disclosures and active licenses does your office track today? Options: Fewer than 50, 50–199, 200–499, 500–999, 1,000 or more, Unsure
• In a typical month, how often do you update your portfolio tracker or spreadsheets with status changes? Options: Daily, Several times a week, Weekly, Monthly, Less often
• Which tools or system categories do you currently rely on for docketing, license records, and royalty tracking? Options: Spreadsheets and email, Institutional research administration system, Dedicated patent docketing system, ERP / finance system, Custom in-house database, Paper or shared drives, Other
• Who on your team owns prosecution deadlines, and who owns license milestone and royalty oversight? Options: Licensing manager, Patent paralegal/agent, Grants administrator, Finance office, Distributed across departments, Unsure
• Which operational fact about your day-to-day setup, if it were not true, would make running a pilot impossible?

Where the current system breaks, and what it costs you

• In the last two years, what missed filing, reporting, or payment event resulted in the biggest material loss or compliance exposure?
• Walk me through the exact sequence from discovery to resolution when a deadline slips, including who is alerted and how long it typically takes to act.
• How often do you discover Bayh-Dole reporting gaps only after an audit, sponsor query, or internal review? Options: After every audit, Often, Occasionally, Rarely, Never
• Which downstream processes break when royalty collections are delayed or inventor credit is inaccurate? Options: Inventor distributions, Department allocations, Financial reconciliation, Startup equity tracking, Sponsor reporting, Other
• Which single failure in your current setup would force you to abandon it and require an external solution right away?

Who notices, who acts, and where people get stuck

• Who in leadership tends to see licensing or compliance problems only when they become crises? Options: TTO Director, Associate Director of Licensing, VP of Research, General Counsel, Finance Director, Other
• List the day-to-day users of your current system, for example licensing specialists, patent paralegals, grants staff. Options: Licensing specialists, Patent paralegals/agents, Grants administrators, Finance/accounting, Technology managers, Other
• Estimate the number of full-time staff equivalents focused on portfolio management versus staff who handle it as a secondary duty. Options: 1–2, 3–5, 6–10, 11–20, More than 20
• Which role will need administrative access to the platform and who do you expect to be the daily power user? Options: Licensing manager, Patent operations lead, Grants manager, Finance lead, Department administrator, Other
• If a pilot requires one dedicated point of contact, who must that be and could they commit around 4 hours a week? Options: Yes, assigned and available, Yes, but limited availability, No, difficult to assign, Unsure

Alternatives on the table, and what staying the same would require

• Who are you actively considering besides a new external platform, including internal builds, incumbents, or continuing with spreadsheets?
• Select which of the following alternatives you have evaluated or currently use Options: Spreadsheets and email, Internal custom build or scripts, Existing vendor platform (incumbent), Institution-wide system, Consulting or outsourced services, No formal system
• Tell me why past internal attempts at automation or custom builds did not solve the recurring deadline, reporting, or royalty problems.
• What would need to be demonstrably true about your current approach for you to keep it instead of moving to a new platform?
• Have any internal stakeholders explicitly proposed solving this without an outside vendor? Options: Yes, actively proposed, Yes, discussed but not proposed, No one has proposed that, Unsure
• If your incumbent vendor guaranteed full data migration and protected all active deadlines inside 8 weeks, what would still make you switch?

What success looks like, in measurable terms

• Which measurable change in your portfolio would get leadership to sign off within 90 days?
• Select the outcome metrics you will use to judge a pilot's success Options: Zero missed patent/filing deadlines, Timely and complete Bayh-Dole reports, Accurate royalty distribution and reconciliation, Improved time-to-license, Complete inventor attribution, Reduced manual work hours
• How much reduction in missed deadlines would be meaningful: 10 percent, 50 percent, or effectively zero missed critical events? Options: 10% reduction, 50% reduction, Near zero missed critical events, Not sure
• Describe the dashboard or report view that would convince your VP of Research the pilot is working.
• If a pilot proves the level of migration fidelity and missed-event reduction you need, who can approve purchase and what is their decision timeline?
• Would you require a quantified ROI within 12 months for budget approval, or would a documented reduction in compliance risk be sufficient? Options: Quantified ROI required, Risk reduction is sufficient, Combination of both, Undecided

Data, systems, and practical gateways we must clear

• Which single integration or data source, if unavailable, would block an effective pilot?
• Which of these systems host the records we would need to access for a pilot? Options: Patent docketing system, Institutional research administration, ERP / finance system, Cloud file shares, Local spreadsheets and drives, Other
• Who owns API or database access for each of those systems, and can they grant a sandbox account for pilot testing? Options: Yes, API owner available, No, owner unclear, Access requires formal request, Unsure
• How clean and consistent is your historical data for disclosures, patents, and licenses on a 1 to 5 scale? Options: 1 - Major cleanup needed, 2 - Significant issues, 3 - Some gaps, 4 - Mostly consistent, 5 - Clean and consistent, Unsure
• Is there any legal, sponsor, or security approval required before ingesting department records for a pilot? Options: Yes - legal review, Yes - sponsor approval, Yes - security clearance, No approvals needed, Unsure
• If approvals are required, how long do they typically take and who on your team owns getting them?

Pilot design: scope, fidelity, and acceptance

• Name the three acceptance criteria the pilot must meet within 8 weeks to prevent reverting to manual tracking.
• Choose the dataset scope you prefer for the pilot Options: Single department disclosure pipeline, Single patent family set, Active licenses for one business unit, Full departmental portfolio
• How will you measure migration fidelity, and which minimum percentage would you accept for a go decision? Options: 90%+, 95%+, 98%+, Near 100%, Other
• Which stakeholders must sign the pilot acceptance at close? Options: TTO Director, Associate Director of Licensing, VP of Research, Finance/Controller, General Counsel, Department Head
• If the pilot demonstrates the agreed fidelity and workflow fit, who has authority to green-light full rollout and within what decision window?
• Name a single condition discovered during the pilot that would require you to stop and revert to previous processes.

People, process, and adoption risks we must plan for

• Which one staff reaction to a new system—temporary chaos, missed tasks, or low adoption—are you most worried about?
• Roughly how many days of training per user would you budget to reach baseline competency? Options: Half day, 1 day, 2–3 days, More than 3 days, Variable by role
• Who will own change communications and the rollout plan, and do they have experience leading similar transitions? Options: TTO communications lead, Department admin, Central communications, No dedicated owner yet, Other
• Select the formats you prefer for onboarding and ongoing support Options: Live workshops, Train-the-trainer, Short how-to videos, Written role-based guides, Office hours, Dedicated support line
• Which one adoption problem, if it occurred, would cause leadership to pause or withdraw funding for the rollout?
• Describe how recurring royalty errors or misattributed inventor credit would affect staff morale and external relationships with departments or sponsors.

Decision triggers, procurement, and next steps

• If a tight timeline is required, which internal approval or procurement step is most likely to delay signing? Options: Budget committee, Procurement RFP, Legal contract review, IT security review, No major blocker
• Choose your target go/no-go window for committing to a full rollout after a successful pilot Options: Within 1 month, Within 3 months, Within 6 months, Within 12 months, Undecided
• Who must attend the final decision meeting and who will sign the purchase order or contract?
• If the pilot meets the agreed KPIs, is there anything remaining that would stop you from approving budget and beginning migration? Options: Yes - legal/contract issues, Yes - budget not available, Yes - technical blockers, No remaining blockers, Unsure
• What would you like the seller to deliver in the first two weeks after pilot kickoff to reassure your team?

• Solution Experience Session

• Confirm the current state and its cost
• You confirm the demonstrated workflow eliminates the manual steps that caused missed prosecution deadlines in your example.
• Deliver a proposed pilot scope and acceptance criteria document within 5 business days.
• Demonstrate deadline prevention using your scenario
• You confirm the reporting flow produces the fields and audit evidence needed for Bayh-Dole submissions and internal audits.
• Provide 6 to 12 representative invention records, associated prosecution deadlines, and active license agreements as exported CSV or spreadsheet files.
• Show the federal reporting workflow and audit evidence
• Identify the stakeholders responsible for prosecution tracking, Bayh-Dole reporting, and royalty reconciliation and provide contact details and roles.
• You agree on measurable acceptance criteria and a pilot scope to validate migration fidelity and workflow fit.
• Confirm the department to include in the pilot and a target go/no-go date for pilot completion.
• Show royalty and license workflow automation with sample records
• Confirm acceptance criteria for a pilot
• Validation checkpoint, is this what you meant?

• Solution Experience Session
• Solution Experience Deck
• Solution Brief — Portfolio Protection and Compliance

• meeting
• slides
• document

• desired_state
• current_state
• stakeholders
• gaps
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• desired_state
• decision_readiness
• current_state
• success_criteria
• gaps
• stakeholders
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• stakeholders
• gaps
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Migrate Historical Disclosure and Patent Records
• Migrate Legacy Spreadsheets and Email IP Records
• Configure Patent Prosecution Workflows and Deadlines
• Deploy Alerting, Escalation, and Deadline Notifications
• Set Up License Agreement Templates and Milestone Tracking
• Implement Royalty Accounting and Distribution Workflows
• Configure Inventor Attribution and Revenue Share Rules
• Deploy Bayh-Dole and Sponsor Reporting Automation
• Integrate with Research Administration and Finance Systems
• Configure Startup Formation and Equity Tracking
• Set Up Document Repository with Versioning and Attachments
• Enable API Connectors and Scheduled Data Exports
• Conduct End-User and Administrator Training Sessions

Migrate Historical Disclosure and Patent Records

• Do you have a single export or archive of invention disclosure records and patent docket entries to begin migration? Options: Yes, No
• How many invention disclosures and active patent docket entries require migration? Options: Less than 1,000, 1,000-5,000, 5,001-25,000, More than 25,000
• Which file formats contain your historical records (select all that apply)? Options: CSV/Excel tables, PDF bundles (scanned forms), XML or EDI export, Database dump (SQL), Email exports with attachments
• Specify the key prosecution and disclosure fields that must be preserved exactly (for example: disclosure date, inventors, priority claims, patent family ID, docket numbers).
• Who will validate migrated prosecution deadlines and docket notes in your office and what role title will provide final sign-off? Options: Named individual(s), Role-based reviewer(s) (e.g., TTO manager), External counsel review, Shared responsibility
• Do you require preservation of attorney correspondence and office-action attachments linked to docket records? Options: Yes, No
• What migration fidelity target will you accept for critical fields (e.g., matched filing dates and docket numbers expressed as a percentage)? Options: >= 99%, 95-98%, 90-94%, < 90%
• Identify any jurisdictional partitions (for example: US utility, PCT, EPO national phases) that require separate mapping rules during migration.
• Do you need mapping of historical patent counsel invoices or billing codes into the patent record? Options: Yes, No

Migrate Legacy Spreadsheets and Email IP Records

• Which home-grown spreadsheets or shared drives currently hold disclosure triage lists, license trackers, or royalty logs? Options: Network shared drive, Department Google/Shared drive, Local spreadsheets only, Multiple disparate sources
• How many spreadsheet files and mailbox exports need ingestion from those sources? Options: Fewer than 50 files, 50-250 files, 251-1,000 files, More than 1,000 files
• What email platform hosts legacy IP emails you want parsed (for example: institutional Exchange/Outlook mailboxes, Gmail archives)? Options: Exchange/Outlook, Gmail/Google Workspace, Other IMAP/POP mailboxes, No email import required
• Which spreadsheet constructs must be converted to structured records (for example: license royalty sheets, disclosure intake forms, inventor lists)?
• Are attachments embedded in spreadsheets (for example scans of assignment agreements or signed license PDFs) that must be migrated and linked to records? Options: Yes, No
• Would you accept deduplication rules that merge records based on disclosure title, lead inventor, and disclosure date? Options: Yes, No, Need custom rules
• Who will provide subject-matter guidance to resolve ambiguous spreadsheet rows or email threads during migration? Options: You provide reviewer(s), We provide migration analyst with your approval, Shared review process
• Do legacy spreadsheets include formulas or calculated royalty splits that must be reimplemented in the platform? Options: Yes, No
• How should historic data quality issues be handled (for example: flag as 'needs review', correct during migration, or leave as-is with audit flag)? Options: Flag for review, Correct in migration, Leave as-is with audit note, Hybrid approach

Configure Patent Prosecution Workflows and Deadlines

• Which prosecution lifecycle steps must be modeled (for example: disclosure review, provisional filing, PCT, national phase, non-final office action responses, maintenance fee reminders)?
• Which jurisdictions must the deadline engine support (for example: US, EP, PCT national phases, selected foreign patent offices)? Options: US only, US + EP, US + select foreign offices, Global coverage required
• How much lead time do you require for deadline alerts before a critical USPTO or foreign filing deadline (for example: 30, 60, 90 days)? Options: 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, Custom lead times
• Which docket attributes must be calculated automatically (for example: patent term adjustments, prov-to-PCT conversion windows, statutory maintenance windows)?
• Who authorizes changes to prosecution timelines and how should approval routing be configured (for example: single approver, sequential approvals)? Options: Named approver(s), Sequential approvals, Role-based approval, No approval required
• Is integration with outside prosecution counsel docketing required to sync deadlines and invoice events? Options: Yes, two-way sync, Yes, one-way import, No integration required
• Which exception or escalation thresholds should trigger legal counsel notification (for example: missed response window, fee payment failure)?
• Do you need template-based prosecution tasks tied to specific filing types (for example: PCT response template, divisional filing checklist)? Options: Yes, No

Deploy Alerting, Escalation, and Deadline Notifications

• Which notification channels should be enabled for deadline and milestone alerts (for example: institutional email, calendar sync, SMS, ticketing system)? Options: Email, Calendar sync (iCal), SMS/Text, Institutional ticketing system, Other
• What escalation chain should run when a deadline is not acknowledged (for example: tech transfer associate after 3 days, director after 7 days)?
• Will you require audit trails for all alert deliveries and acknowledgements for audit purposes (for example: Bayh-Dole audit readiness)? Options: Yes, No
• Do you want different alerting cadences by record type (for example: earlier alerts for PCT deadlines vs internal disclosure reviews)? Options: Yes, No
• Which roles should receive high-severity escalation notifications (for example: licensing director, grants office, sponsored projects office)?
• Should alerts include attachments or links back to the native patent or disclosure record? Options: Include attachments, Include links only, No attachments or links
• How should duplicate or overlapping alerts be suppressed to avoid alert fatigue (for example: consolidate daily, suppress duplicates within 48 hours)? Options: Consolidate daily, Suppress within 48 hours, No suppression, Custom rule

Set Up License Agreement Templates and Milestone Tracking

• How many active license template variants need to be created (for example: exclusive, non-exclusive, option agreements, material transfer agreements)? Options: 1-3, 4-10, 11-25, More than 25
• Which license fields must be template-driven (for example: effective date, royalty rates, milestone payment schedule, sublicensing rights)?
• Do you require milestone-triggered workflows that create tasks and payment events when license milestones are met? Options: Yes, No
• Will executed license PDFs and amendment histories need automated linking to the license record with version stamps? Options: Yes, No
• Which party signs you want captured on agreement records (for example: authorized institutional signer, inventor approvals, third-party countersignature)?
• Do templates require conditional clauses based on revenue thresholds or field-of-use restrictions? Options: Yes, No
• Who will maintain and approve changes to license templates after go-live (for example: contracts administrator, legal counsel)? Options: You maintain, We maintain with your approval, Shared maintenance
• Do you need automated milestone reminders to be sent to licensees and internal owners when a payment or report is due? Options: Yes, to both, Yes, internal only, Yes, licensee only, No

Implement Royalty Accounting and Distribution Workflows

• Which royalty revenue types must be supported (for example: upfront fees, running royalties, milestone payments, equity value events)?
• What cadence do you use for royalty accounting and disbursement (for example: monthly, quarterly, annual)? Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Annually, Ad hoc
• Which finance system or chart of accounts will royalties map into for ledger reconciliation? Options: Institutional ERP/financial system, Grants accounting system, Separate royalty ledger, Not mapped initially
• How should withholding, tax treatments, or inventor reimbursements be modeled in royalty distributions?
• Do you require royalty statements generation and distribution to licensees and inventors with configurable templates? Options: Yes, No
• Who will own monthly reconciliation of payments received versus reported royalties? Options: You (internal finance), We assist with reconciliation, Shared responsibility
• Are there minimum payout thresholds or accrual rules to apply before inventor distribution? Options: Yes, specify threshold, No minimum threshold, Variable by license

Configure Inventor Attribution and Revenue Share Rules

• How do you currently attribute inventorship and departmental revenue shares (for example: equal split by named inventors, percent per inventor, departmental allocation rules)?
• Which identifier will be used to match inventors (for example: institutional ID, ORCID, email address)? Options: Institutional ID, ORCID, Email address, Other
• Do you need configurable rules for retrospective corrections to inventor splits (for example: corrections logged with effective date and approver)? Options: Yes, No
• Will departmental recharge or cost-allocation rules apply before revenue distributions to inventors? Options: Yes, No, Varies by license
• Who will approve changes to inventor attribution after migration (for example: TTO director, departmental admin)? Options: Named approver(s), Role-based approval, External counsel approval
• Do you require export of inventor payment data to payroll or accounts payable for actual disbursal? Options: Yes, No
• Should the platform support percent-based, fixed-amount, and hybrid revenue-share rules per license? Options: Percent-based, Fixed-amount, Hybrid, All of the above

Deploy Bayh-Dole and Sponsor Reporting Automation

• Which sponsor reporting obligations must be automated (for example: invention disclosures to federal sponsor, utilization reports, invention election notifications)?
• Which sponsor agencies or reporting regimes are in scope (for example: NIH, NSF, DoD, other federal sponsors requiring Bayh-Dole compliance)? Options: NIH, NSF, DoD, Other federal sponsors, State or private sponsors
• What frequency and delivery mechanism do sponsors require for reports (for example: quarterly uploads, annual attestations, portal submissions)? Options: Quarterly, Semi-annual, Annual, Per-event submission
• Which data elements must be present in an automated sponsor report (for example: disclosure ID, PI name, filing status, licensing status, revenue summary)?
• What completeness and accuracy threshold will you accept for automated Bayh-Dole reports (for example: percent of required fields populated and match rate to sponsor records)? Options: >= 98% complete fields, 95-97% complete, 90-94% complete, <90% complete

• Subscription Agreement (Order Form)
• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW) — Implementation
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Operational Readiness & Go-Live Acceptance
• Procurement & Security Rider (public-sector conditional)
• Change Order Agreement

• Go-live Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• Acceptance Gate and Wind-down Confirmation (around day 90)
• Quarterly Operations Review (ongoing quarterly)
• Annual Success Review (12 months)

• Update the shared issues channel with the quarter's prioritized support and enhancement items.
• Publish the acceptance decision record including pass/fail outcomes and signatory notation.
• If any criterion failed, create a remediation plan with milestones and a re-test date for the failed items.
• Execute the incumbent wind-down steps, including setting legacy files to read-only, archiving data, and communicating the change to users.
• Outcomes versus Solution Scope targets
• Confirm whether the two named metrics remain within acceptable thresholds compared to Solution Scope targets.
• Reduce the count of high-priority open issues and confirm timelines for remaining items.
• Prioritized enhancement backlog items identified for the next operational quarter.
• Re-confirm success criteria and ownership
• Schedule targeted training sessions to address observed proficiency gaps.
• Publish a short status summary after the meeting showing metric trends and open-ticket progress.
• Recap of acceptance and yearly outcomes
• Validate that 12-month outcomes for the named metrics meet or exceed the Solution Scope targets, or document a remediation path where they do not.
• Capture a concise lessons learned record that informs process improvements and future rollouts.
• Agree the long-term operational review cadence and the governance for the shared issues and enhancement channel.
• Publish the annual outcomes and lessons learned report to the shared workspace.
• Document the long-term remediation plan for any metric still short of target with milestones and review dates.
• Confirm and document the ongoing operational review cadence and shared channel ownership.
• Deployment and migration counts validated for a representative sample of records.
• Open high-severity blockers identified with remediation actions and target resolution dates.
• Owners for data sources and metric owners confirmed for the first measurement review.
• Create remediation tickets for each high-severity blocker and record target resolution dates.
• Publish a short migration validation summary with sample record checks for asynchronous review.
• Schedule the First Measurement meeting within the weeks 4 to 10 window.
• Present first-data against named metrics
• Clear understanding of current values for patent filing deadline compliance rate and Bayh-Dole reporting on-time submission rate.
• Root causes for any metric shortfalls identified and corrective actions defined with target dates.
• Agreement on whether timelines to the acceptance gate need adjustment based on current trajectory.
• Produce a metric data pack showing calculations, sources, and any filters used for the two named metrics.
• Document corrective actions with milestone dates and publish to the shared issues channel.
• Flag any unresolved data integration items that could block acceptance and propose mitigation steps.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• Each acceptance criterion is evaluated and documented as pass or fail against the numeric targets recorded in Solution Scope.
• Named signatory or buying owner records the formal acceptance decision in the meeting record.
• Incumbent spreadsheet and email processes are either formally retired or documented as retained-read-only with archived data and a closed fallback plan.
• Open issues and support ticket burn-down
• Lessons learned and process changes
• Present outcome data against each criterion
• Diagnose root causes for gaps
• Deployment and migration validation
• Enhancement requests and prioritization
• Document pass/fail per criterion and capture acceptance decision
• Outstanding issues and long-term remediation
• Agree corrective actions and owners
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Confirm ongoing support model and shared channel governance
• Blockers and open issues triage
• Confirm timeline to acceptance gate
• Adoption and training needs
• Incumbent wind-down and archive confirmation
• Agree immediate remediation actions
• Remediation plan for any failed criteria