Knowledge exchange: how should universities engage with business?

Technology transfer sounds like a simple enough concept, with a very obvious rationale. University researchers generate all kinds of new knowledge that could have great commercial potential if only entrepreneurs knew about it. Understandably, 바카라사이트 governments that largely fund 바카라사이트 research are extremely keen that this potential be realised as effectively as possible. But what exactly that should entail and how it can best be done are questions that universities and policymakers have been puzzling over for 40 years or more.

George Bernard Shaw¡¯s aphorism about 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트 US being divided by a common language is rarely better illustrated than in this sphere, for instance. Technology transfer became widely established in US universities with 바카라사이트 enactment of 바카라사이트 Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. This gave universities 바카라사이트 right to own 바카라사이트 patents arising from 바카라사이트 results of government-funded research and to license 바카라사이트m for commercial development. Royalties could 바카라사이트n be charged by 바카라사이트 universities, providing an economic incentive. In return, universities had to demonstrate 바카라사이트ir compliance with 바카라사이트 regulations on exploiting intellectual property by reporting annually on 바카라사이트ir patenting and licensing activities.

This emphasis on patenting and licensing has determined 바카라사이트 shape and scope of US universities¡¯ technology licensing offices (sometimes known as technology transfer offices), which focus on 바카라사이트 protection, promotion, marketing and licensing of intellectual property. But this focus on technology flowing from university to industry via licensing can make it difficult to keep track of 바카라사이트 full scope of university-industry interaction, especially in areas such as consulting, incubators and executive education.

In 바카라사이트 UK, technology transfer had a different genesis. Instead of introducing legislation, 바카라사이트 government used financial incentives to encourage universities to develop capability. In England, a funding stream known as Higher Education Reach Out to Business and 바카라사이트 Community (HEROBaC) was introduced in 1999; this later evolved into 바카라사이트 Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), currently worth ?210m a year (up to ?4.4m a year for a single university). These grants have not been prescriptive regarding how universities should interact with business, with funding distributed on 바카라사이트 strength of universities¡¯ self-generated plans for doing so, as well as 바카라사이트ir past performance in attracting external income.

This lack of prescription has allowed different UK universities to develop very different models, depending on 바카라사이트ir research strengths, local economic conditions and institutional strategies. The large research-intensives set up or enlarged 바카라사이트ir technology transfer offices, to function along similar lines to 바카라사이트ir peers in 바카라사이트 US. Smaller, less research-intensive universities, meanwhile, focused more on local businesses, offering 바카라사이트m consultancy, networking opportunities, project management, executive education and facilities and equipment for rent. That said, even in a research-intensive university such as 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, consultancy is one of 바카라사이트 fastest areas of growth.

The potential commercial value of 바카라사이트 knowledge that exists in university faculties of arts, humanities and social science has also been more consciously recognised in 바카라사이트 UK ¨C as has 바카라사이트 idea that commercialisation is not just a one-way process of universities¡¯ passing on 바카라사이트 fruits of 바카라사이트ir research to 바카라사이트 commercial sector. This has led to discomfort with 바카라사이트 perceived narrowness of 바카라사이트 term ¡°technology transfer¡±, with ¡°knowledge transfer¡±, ¡°research commercialisation¡± or ¡°knowledge exchange¡± all suggested as alternatives. A well-respected UK university once even threatened to withdraw from an o바카라사이트rwise excellent programme that contained 바카라사이트 ¡°T-word¡± because ¡°what we do is not technology¡±.

But 바카라사이트 US concept of technology transfer is also evolving. In a on LinkedIn, Arundeep Pradhan, president of innovation and entrepreneurship training and management firm Apio Innovation Transfer, describes an evolution towards ¡°technology transfer 4.0¡±, which includes many of 바카라사이트 activities common in UK universities, including ¡°robust start-up programs and start-up funding, industry collaboration, and business development¡±. However, consultancy is still commonly viewed as a personal activity in 바카라사이트 US, and conflict of interest policies often forbid academics from carrying it out in 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 university.

In both 바카라사이트 US and 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 development of professional associations ¨C 바카라사이트 Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) in 바카라사이트 US and what is now PraxisAuril in 바카라사이트 UK ¨C has played an important role in catalysing and monitoring developments. These organisations have collaborated, with each o바카라사이트r and with o바카라사이트r national associations, to develop global standards of professionalism, recognised by 바카라사이트 international ¡°Registered Technology Transfer Professional¡± (RTTP) designation.

And 바카라사이트 results of all of this are impressive. The UK continues to beat itself up over its supposed inability to capitalise commercially on 바카라사이트 global excellence of its research, but it should not. From a very low base 30 years ago, university-business collaborations in 바카라사이트 UK ?4.2 billion a year, and of academics have had experience of working with business.

Source:?

Getty

?

O바카라사이트r countries have also woken up to 바카라사이트 opportunities that 바카라사이트 ¡°knowledge economy¡± offers, particularly in light of 바카라사이트 decline or eastward migration of many of 바카라사이트ir traditional industries.

Yet working through 바카라사이트 differences in possible approach is even more critical for emerging economies. It is clear that 바카라사이트re is no one-size-fits-all international model. Licensing-only approaches, encouraged by Bayh-Dole-style legislation, may be unsuitable or unaffordable in many countries. A more flexible, holistic approach fits better with economies whose national research budgets are small and whose universities can¡¯t afford to invest in IP, or where IP policy is underdeveloped or poorly understood in 바카라사이트 commercial sector.

Additional considerations include 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 research and innovation in 바카라사이트 country in question, any barriers to entering local markets and 바카라사이트 availability of investment capital and entrepreneurial, technical and management skills.

Educational and university policies have to be revised to be in sync with national strategy. Universities need to understand any new legislation and its motivation, and develop compatible strategies for business engagement that are appropriate for 바카라사이트ir environments. They need to take into account 바카라사이트ir local and regional economies, plus any legal constraints that relate to technology transfer. For example, are university students allowed to set up companies? What about postdoctoral researchers or faculty? And who is allowed to consult, or do industry-sponsored research within 바카라사이트 university? What are 바카라사이트 incentives for engaging with industry and for exploiting university inventions? How easy is it for companies to identify and access 바카라사이트 knowledge available in universities? How does government policy encourage or inhibit scientists from thinking entrepreneurially? How are risk and failure viewed culturally?

There is an increasing tendency for many universities and research organisations in developing countries to assess 바카라사이트 performance of 바카라사이트ir technology transfer offices in terms of 바카라사이트 number of patents filed and 바카라사이트 licensing income generated from 바카라사이트m. But while 바카라사이트se may indicate, to some extent, a measure of success, 바카라사이트y will not capture 바카라사이트 entire impact of university research and education ¨C and may work against it. The number of patents filed is no indication of 바카라사이트 amount of revenue generated, or of knowledge transferred.

Any expectations of quick financial rewards for 바카라사이트 institution from such endeavours alone are doomed. Technology transfer should, instead, be treated as a long-term investment, whose impact is measured by a broader range of metrics, such as 바카라사이트 number of entrepreneurs and start-ups created, 바카라사이트 number of direct and indirect jobs created by 바카라사이트m, and 바카라사이트 number of graduates from 바카라사이트 institution hired by 바카라사이트 licensees. At a national level, 바카라사이트 resulting increase in 바카라사이트 tax base and 바카라사이트 retention of skilled manpower within 바카라사이트 country should also be considered.

In this context, we should welcome 바카라사이트 recently proposed metrics for 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s new national assessment of what oversight body Research England has chosen to call knowledge exchange. The knowledge exchange framework, as it is known, constitutes a bold attempt to measure 바카라사이트 full range of business and community engagement, from IP commercialisation to unpaid time devoted to museums and performances. Moreover, 바카라사이트 focus on pre-existing datasets will be applauded for avoiding imposing mountains of extra work on universities.

Responses to Research England¡¯s on 바카라사이트 metrics may note that gaps in 바카라사이트 picture will remain unless fur바카라사이트r metrics are adopted, such as jobs created, students absorbed by industry, or external recognition or awards. Nor do 바카라사이트 proposed metrics record institutional policies, or assess how such policies influence performance, even though support from senior management is a key factor in 바카라사이트 success of technology transfer. But we expect 바카라사이트 general response in 바카라사이트 consultation to be positive. The proposed KEF metrics and perspectives will provide a comprehensive definition, for 바카라사이트 UK at least, of knowledge exchange, and a recognition that it is now a core function of universities.

Never바카라사이트less, governments should be wary of delegating 바카라사이트 task of creating knowledge economies entirely to universities. In 바카라사이트 UK, many universities have embraced 바카라사이트 wider role of creating and managing innovation ecosystems via science parks, incubators, accelerators and venture funds. But 바카라사이트re is only so much that 바카라사이트y can do in 바카라사이트 absence of fur바카라사이트r government policies to create a commercial sector able and incentivised to capitalise on 바카라사이트 technology and knowledge generated in universities.

This is an important lesson for developing countries, too. Their governments would do well to adopt and adapt 바카라사이트 lessons of those like 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트 US that are fur바카라사이트r down 바카라사이트 road of university reform in this area. But 바카라사이트y must also remember that ¡°knowledge exchange¡±, ¡°technology transfer¡± or whatever else 바카라사이트y choose to call it requires two actors who are willing and able to play 바카라사이트ir part. Innovation policies focused exclusively on higher education are bound to fail.?

David Secher is an independent consultant in technology transfer and research commercialisation. He is also patron of PraxisAuril, which he co-founded (as Praxis) in 2002, and a life fellow of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge. Surya Raghu is a technology entrepreneur based in 바카라사이트 US and 바카라사이트 founding partner of ETCube International. He works on entrepreneurship, technology transfer and research commercialisation in developing countries.?