OUP Webinar Recap: Advisory Boards in Academic Innovation
Kirsten Leute / Sep. 16, 2026
Building a Board That Actually Helps
What three veteran tech transfer leaders taught us about advisory boards for academic innovation operations
On August 19, Osage University Partners (OUP) hosted a live panel on Advisory Boards for Innovation Operations at Academic Institutions. The conversation drew on decades of hands-on experience building, running, and occasionally revamping advisory boards at three major research universities:
- Kelly Sexton — Associate Vice President for Research, Innovation Partnerships & Economic Impact, University of Michigan
- Kevin Taylor — Senior Associate Vice President; leader of the Ohio State Innovation Foundation (OSIF) for seven years
- Doug Hockstad — Chief Innovation Officer & Executive Director of Tech Launch Arizona, University of Arizona
The encompassing conversation ranged from how to recruit the right people, to structuring meetings that earn their time, to turning board relationships into real strategic wins. Here are the highlights.
Mission: More Than an Advisory Function
Every board on the panel started with a clear charge, but each leader described a mission that grew richer over time. At Michigan, the National Advisory Board was hand-selected more than twenty years ago by the university’s then-president to help the office “be excellent at research, translation, and commercialization.” At Ohio State, the OSIF board evolved from a mostly local, ad hoc group into a board of national experts assembled deliberately around excellence in technology transfer and innovation.
Stanford is frequently brought up in our innovation ecosystem as being a model. We’re blessed to have people (on the board) with that pedigree — and when they say we’re doing this right, people listen.
— Kevin Taylor, Ohio State
Kelly Sexton pointed to a mission she didn’t fully appreciate when she started: helping onboard new university leadership.
I’m on my fourth Vice President for Research and Innovation in eight and a half years at Michigan. The board has been an invaluable bridge; many members have been with us for a very long time and bring an outside perspective to help new leaders get oriented.
— Kelly Sexton, University of Michigan
Doug Hockstad described a similar arc at University of Arizona’s Tech Launch Arizona (TLA): a board created to build credibility, internally and externally, that has since matured into a three-part mission of soliciting advice on strategy and operations, creating advocates for the office, and leveraging members’ relationships to open doors in ecosystems where the university has no physical presence.
Composition & Recruitment: Who Belongs on the Board
Across all three institutions, boards lean heavily on alumni and industry leaders, often people who are conversant in IP and licensing, and who are integrated across the innovation ecosystem.
They need to be subject matter experts, because we need their help and their insights. They need to be well-connected. And they also have to be service-minded — we don’t compensate our board members. They love what we do, they love universities, and they love seeing technologies make it out into the market and impacting people’s lives.
— Kevin Taylor, Ohio State
Doug Hockstad stressed the importance of recruiting people with the right experience:
You don’t want to take shortcuts and bring the wrong people on the board. Get impactful people on the board, even if it’s a small number.
— Doug Hockstad, University of Arizona
Recruitment tends to run through the board itself: members refer new candidates, and a strong board chair can help vet them. Kelly Sexton mentioned that some board members also sit on other internal university boards, and those board members can connect dots across campus.
How the Boards Operate
| Institution | Meetings | Size | Compensation |
| Michigan | 2x/year, in person, with a dinner the night before | Board chair + members; 3-year terms (often longer) | None; travel is self-funded |
| The Ohio State Innovation Foundation (OSIF) | Quarterly: 3 calls + 1 in-person meeting | ~9 members; 2-year terms | None; travel covered when visiting campus |
| Arizona (TLA) | 2x/year – mostly in-person | ~8, max of 10; no fixed term limits | None |
All three panelists stressed that good agendas are built around a question, not a report.
I challenge every person, including myself: what are we asking the board in this session? Agendas are at their worst when it’s just our team giving data and reporting out and at their best when there’s a real question or problem where we need the board to swirl on it as a group.
— Kelly Sexton, University of Michigan
Real Impact: When Board Input Changes the Outcome
The panelists provided several examples of the impact made by the boards. When Kelly Sexton’s office first pitched the board on lobbying the state legislature for venture fund support, the board pushed back on the strategy:
The board said, ‘That’s a good pitch, but your strategy is all wrong. U of M can’t do this alone — you should build a coalition.’ Three years and a lot of coalition-building later, five nonprofit evergreen funds like ours secured $60 million from the state, with just over $10 million coming to our office.
— Kelly Sexton, University of Michigan
Smaller moments matter too: when Michigan’s office was designing a new licensee-facing role, the board pushed back on the title “Licensee Compliance Specialist” and reframed it as “Licensee Engagement Specialist.”
This small change reset how the role, and the office, would be perceived by licensees. At Ohio State, board expertise has directly shaped policy on equity and share sales and informed enforcement and monetization decisions. At Arizona, board input has repeatedly sharpened TLA’s strategic plan.
Lessons Learned
- Watch the ratio. Too much presentation, not enough conversation. Kelly Sexton and Doug Hockstad both named this as an early misstep and both have since redesigned agendas around what they want from the board, not just what they want to tell it.
- Consistency compounds. Kevin Taylor pointed to years without a regular meeting cadence as a real loss of value.
- Context helps. Several panelists noted that giving the board more context on internal politics — not to steer them, but to inform their counsel — leads to sharper advice.
- Make space for candor. Kelly Sexton runs a short executive session at the end of every meeting, with the office out of the room, so the board can speak freely.
Getting Started: Advice for Institutions Building a Board
- Start small, start with alumni. Kevin Taylor: aim for 3 to 5 members to start, and lean on colleagues already engaged in innovation for referrals.
- Size for your strategy, not your staff. Doug Hockstad: size the board to your university’s ambitions for commercialization, not to your current headcount.
- Recruit top-down. Kelly Sexton: securing the university president’s involvement in invitations and meetings uses the board’s formation to elevate the whole office’s profile.
Reach out to your peers. We’re all willing to help and contribute.
— Kevin Taylor, Ohio State
Start with a great board chair, and build from there.
— Kelly Sexton, University of Michigan
The full recording, with additional audience Q&A, is available on OUP’s YouTube Channel.
This post was generated with the help of AI