The Higher Education Funding Council for England has published its report, commissioned by the previous government, into best practices and policies for knowledge transfer in the UK.
Higher education institutions in the UK, a new report by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has found, generally do well when it comes to technology transfer and operate at world-class standards.
Led by Trevor McMillan, vice-chancellor of Keele University, the group of experts was commissioned by the UK’s then coalition government in 2014 to look into good practice, specifically around spinouts.
Although the findings exclude other routes to commercialisation, such as licensing, McMillan clarifies that focusing on the number of spinouts generated as a sole metric for measuring the success of the UK compared with other countries would be futile.
Indeed, the UK ought to focus its energy on developing entrepreneurial ecosystems rather than obsessing about its global ranking.
Beyond that caveat, the conclusions are generally positive. The report recognises, among other things, that the country’s universities are internationally competitive and that tech transfer is motivated by a desire to have an impact on society.
That impact is an important notion, since McMillan finds that effective technology transfer generally incurs a net cost for the institution.
While that is not necessarily true of every tech transfer office in the country – Alta Innovations operates without costing Birmingham University a penny – it is not a situation unique to the UK.
Lita Nelsen, then director of the technology licensing office of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told delegates at GUV Fusion 2015 that technology transfer is not a money-maker. MIT’s licensing returns, at that point, were $2.6bn for a research base of $63.7bn, a rate of only 4.1%.
While the report found that universities that conduct more research produce more spinouts, there is a curiosity – beyond this general statistic, the metrics are insufficiently detailed to identify the policies that lead to such higher performance.
McMillan and his panel noted that one-size-fits-all policies do not and would not work – individual universities differ too much in their focus and ecosystem.
Indeed, the oft-mentioned golden triangle – the set of prestigious universities located in London, Oxford and Cambridge – creates a different reality for researchers to that of a more geographically isolated institution.
Initiatives such as SetSquared have been successful at linking up universities, although the report does not name the partnership once. It does, however, recognise PraxisUnico, the country’s non-profit professional association for tech transfer staff, as an important driver of good practice, providing a link to the international community.
Finally, the report finds that a solid understanding by senior leadership at the university is a crucial factor in guaranteeing the success of a commercialisation unit. That role is often neglected by policies, meaning that tech transfer staff may be singled out for criticism. There is a distinct need here for senior management to offer clear statements about the goals and approaches of a TTO, information that should be available not only within the institution but also to government and funders.
The full report can be accessed on the HEFCE website here.
