{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017142857142857144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.904494382022472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Aligning Capabilities and Outcomes

Perhaps the most natural way for a researcher from a company to discuss a potential research project with an academic is in terms of a set of common research outcomes. These are the specific knowledge outputs that both partners imagine may be produced during the course of the project. In this type of project, negotiations will likely focus on the timelines involved in generating the outcomes, payment milestones, other resources required for success, and the allocation of any intellectual property (IP) that is created during the project. For an ad-hoc project with a university, it is hard to avoid aligning a company interest and an academic interest like this. However, there are risks in this approach for longer projects. Whereas a university might be comfortable waiting three or four years for a PhD student to answer a research question, at a company, business priorities can change much more rapidly than that, which can lead to a significant misalignment of desired outcomes over the same time frame.