Universities are excellent at producing explicit information (for example research papers, conference proceedings and applied research or consultancy reports) but is this form of knowledge transfer what the companies really need?
Could it be to achieve a more effective outcome the parties should concentrate on transferring tacit knowledge?
There is a real need for knowledge transfer. The commercial world is becoming increasingly aware that it can gain real competitive advantage by harnessing new knowledge. Universities know that the work they do needs to be grounded. Researchers are keen to learn from validation and Government is definitely promoting knowledge transfer activity.
Unarguably tacit knowledge is hard to transfer. Tacit knowledge is often referred to as being “within the knower” and definitions agree that is encompasses “an ability to act”; tacit knowledge is “know-how”. You know how to drive a car or hit a golf ball, but can you transfer this knowledge?
In contrast explicit knowledge is different; less involved in the doing and lacks application. Explicit knowledge is often used interchangeably with terms like information or data. Explicit knowledge is much easier to transfer, in a letter, within a report or via a presentation but is it as useful to the company if they have to add the “ability to act” themselves.
Do you believe it is possible to transfer tacit knowledge? Do you believe it is useful to transfer explicit knowledge?
I believe the success of University to Industry Knowledge Transfer lies in the transfer of tacit knowledge from one party to the other!
Research and development in the UK is well funded. Over £14 billion is spent each year by a combination of public bodies, private enterprise, the non-profit sector and international organisations. Approximately £4.5 billion of this is invested by the public sector, largely through the various UK research councils.
Collaboration has always been a natural part of academic research. However within the context of an increasingly globalised research environment the ability to build international collaborations becomes all the more important. This is especially true in order to meet the big global challenges confronting science, such as climate change and infectious disease. International collaborations are also essential to attract and retain links with the best scientific talent to ensure that the UK stays at the centre of global innovation networks.
When the UK government published its 10-year strategy for science and innovation in 2004, there was an emphasis on building new links with the other EU nations and with China and India and very little reference was made to the US. It was probably assumed that UK-US collaborations were self-sustaining.
This sort of laissez-faire strategy is dangerous to UK science since many UK-US joint ventures have resulted in breakthroughs in fields such as magnetic resonance imaging, next-generation drug development, and human embryonic stem cell research—to name just a few. The importance of UK’s strong research collaboration with the US is also evident from the fact that nearly 12% of all co-authored UK research papers has a US collaborator. More interestingly about 30% of the highest cited papers from the UK have a US co-author.
The UK research councils have realized the dangerous presumption regarding the US and in the recent few years, there has been growing formalization of collaborations between research councils in both countries. A particular UK-US effort that is closer to my expertise is in the field of materials research. A joint EPSRC -NSF panel met in 2006 to discuss a call by NSF titled “Materials World Network (MWN) : Cooperative activity in Materials research”. The US has a strategic lead in Materials related technology (for example in superconducting materials) and it is therefore imperative that the UK could potentially benefit from research links with US institutions. The UK is also becoming a strong advocate of future material technologies through the Materials Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN). The Materials KTN wants to seek global advantage in materials for energy and construction industries, which are crucial to UK’s economy.
An important research field that needs international collaborations with emerging economies like China and India is in Energy where environmental sustainability is of paramount significance. The UK supports international action on climate change at the EU, G8 and UN level, and has set itself the target of reducing the UK’s carbon emissions by at least 60% by 2050 against a 1990 baseline. It therefore needs to ensure that there is access to secure, clean and affordable energy. China has an accelerating demand for energy and derives its energy needs from a huge fossil resource. Therefore collaborative research to bridge the energy industry in the UK and China will help translate UK’s advanced energy technologies to China and influence UK policies in meeting international climate change goals. This will help build a brand name for UK’s energy research at the international level.
The Research Councils UK (RCUK) energy programme has until now funded nine very successful multi-disciplinary initiatives with Chinese partners totalling over £6 million. RCUK has made a new call titled “Collaborative research with China on cleaner fossil fuels”. Under the new call, the research councils have made available a total of £4 million in research grants.
The UK is also committed to reducing world poverty through crucial collaborations in agricultural research and water management. Food security has deteriorated since 1995 and reductions in child malnutrition are proceeding too slowly to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target for halving hunger by 2015. Three major challenges threaten to drastically complicate efforts to overcome food insecurity and malnutrition: climate change, the growing use of food crops as a source of fuel and soaring food prices.
The food security issue is closer to my heart. Other than being involved with contributing to the “Food for Education” initiative in India, I am also interested in how science can help in sustaining agricultural productivity. In the Indian context, the monsoons are particularly important. It is therefore essential to understand how climate change will influence the Monsoon season and the impact that changes in India’s water cycle will have on the country’s agriculture.
Following a Royal Society, British council and FCO sponsored climate change workshop at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune in 2006, scientists from both the countries identified research of mutual interest. The UK proposers won over £700k in grants from the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI). The program has generated Decision Support Frameworks by which scientists and policy makers can compare different climate change scenarios with alternative water and land management strategies. These frameworks will help the Indian authorities with strategic decisions related to water management. This has helped uplift UK’s
image as a major player in reducing world poverty and increasing agricultural output.
The UK has a considerable strength in science and technology. However in order to make an impact in tackling current global challenges such as stopping the spread of infectious diseases, poverty reduction and meeting soaring energy needs, UK scientists need to engage with the best minds from around the world. The US will for the foreseeable future have the best research system in the world and US counterparts will be the preferred choice for international collaborations for UK scientists. What needs to be seen is how strategic UK-US ventures on topics of major importance make an impact on emerging economies and the third world. An example of an important UK-USA collaboration which could make an impact on Africas agricultural productivity is in the field of sustainable soil management. Low soil fertility is one of the major factors responsible for depressed yields on small-scale farms across Africa and for Africa’s low agricultural productivity relative to other regions.
References:
1. International research collaboration: opportunities for the UK higher education
sector. Technopolis report, 2008.
2. International research : a strategy for the UK research councils. RCUK report.
3. International partnerships of research excellence : UK-USA academic collaboration. Report by Sir Gareth Roberts, Wolfson College, Oxford.
4. EPSRC .
5. RCUK Energy programme.
6. UK India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI).
7. Impact of climate change and bio-energy on Nutrition, Cohen et al.. IFPRI Report.
I realise that it’s that time of year when we all want to relax and chill-out in the sun and make the most of the long hot days. Well, some of us are still trying to use what brain cells we still have before we are allowed to go off and join the August downtime. And in doing so, we are making plans for when we arrive back in September. Well this time it will be slightly different as IKT (aka The Institute of Knowledge Transfer) has plans to launch a new theme or line in its development. IKT has realised that it’s going to be a three-legged (tri-ped?) organisation if it is to achieve some of its key objective of supporting the development of the intellectual underpinning of KT. IKT is committed to encouraging, supporting and disseminating academic research and to working across boundaries of academic research and practitioners to improve the positioning & understanding of the role of KT professionals. We are also interested in progressing professional practice in areas that impact on the delivery of effective KT services and the professional development of KT practitioners. This means that we will work with academics (and potential funders) to develop and supply evidence that supports and encourages interest and investment in the development of KT, to develop a body of knowledge and research by developing a network of academic relationships and the development & commissioning of underpinning and evidence-based academic research into KT. We are also looking to improve the positioning and understanding of the role of knowledge transfer professionals by working with academic researchers & practitioners together. We are also plan to develop an on-line e-journal that is peer-reviewed and practice-oriented. So to kick-start this, IKT is holding a workshop on Monday 8 September 2008 at the Institute of Physics, 76 Portland Place, London WC1 to discuss and explore potential opportunities in these areas, explore ideas and identify areas for potential research and projects, including the on-line journal. Academics and potential funders are joining us. We will be following this with a seminar later in the autumn to take forward the results from the workshop. Details for this event will follow early in September.
If you are interested in joining us or in finding out more (or know of someone who could be), then let me know.
I am looking forward to the launch of the CPD tracker, I think it will be a very useful tool, but I would just like to ask if anyone has any thoughts about what is needed for more proactive support of our careers in innovation. I have always thought that what is needed to be really effective at getting innovation into the market place is someone who may not be an expert at a detailed level in one technology, but someone who ‘understands’ a wide range of technologies in sufficient detail to be able to realise the potential of that technology and the potential of combining that technology with others to produce really innovative products. When all our thinking and training are focussed on becoming evermore expert in more and more specialised subjects, how do we develop our generalists? Would anyone like to share their toughts?
Having been a knowledge transfer professional for 6 years now, I finally got around to joining the IKT this month! Well better late than never. I thought I would use this blog to share some of my thoughts, experiences, visions and issues with you. It is unlikely that there will be much of a thread to these entries, just random thoughts as they occur to me. But I hope you will join in else I am going to have to get more and more contentious to stimulate input as I hate talking to myself.
My first blog is actually going to be about the name itself, knowledge transfer! I have to admit to preferring the term knowledge exchange as if we are going to be really effective in our roles of getting innovation into the market place, then we are going to have to engage effectively with the organisations who need the new technology, those which can develop the new technology and those which can exploit it. In my experience, nothing irritates industrial representatives more than the concept of a one-way, transferring of knowledge from researchers (usually academia) to industry, as many take this as implying that they have no, or at best limited, ‘knowledge’. This sets the relationship off on the wrong foot with the inevitable consequences.
So come on, let me know what you think, am I just being oversensitive? Go on you can tell me, I can take it!
There are a number of significant issues in the KT arena which would benefit from rigorous debate. This was underlined to me recently from attendance at the annual meeting of the Association of University Technology Managers in San Diego. Over 2,000 delegates attended from around the world embracing all continents. Debates ranged around very specific intellectual property protection issues to more strategic concerns. The resonance across different countries seems to me to be remarkably high.
One of the sessions I attended was entitled “The impact and implementation of the nine points to consider when licensing university technology.” I will not go through the nine points in detail (anyone wishing to know more should visit the AUTM website), but what was illuminating was the breadth and depth of debate and focus on simple principles in the face of increasing complexity. Too often in debates there is a focus on the fine points of detail and it is good once in a while to take a step back. This session along with some others brought the debate right back to first principles. Many national governments seem to accept the need for sustained investment in fundamental research but are, nonetheless, increasingly looking for a direct return evidenced through KT outputs but have not developed a coherent framework to aid engagement. Funding has been increased in many countries for KT activities but rarely is this in the context of changes to legislation or regulation to support a universities’ roles in such activities.
At numerous points through the conference discussion came back again and again to what universities are for, their public duty and points of detail obstructing or limiting effective engagement.
Universities are expected to publish and disseminate the outcome of their research activity. They may act in a business-like manner but what was reinforced to me throughout the conference is that they are not businesses; they are universities. Overall getting research into the minds of students and into use was far more over-riding that generating a financial return. Furthermore, that an economic return was not necessarily related to a financial return to the university.
Across the globe universities are being seen as engines of economic growth and economic development authorities are increasing their levels of financial investment and looking for increasing evidence, and one can understand why, of direct economic impact. In many instances specific public schemes (including tax planning schemes) require universities to ensure a public good and this in turn inhibits direct commercial activity. One major research university in the USA had undertaken an audit of every single building to identify which buildings were prohibited from engaging in commercial activity as a consequence of specific funding which had been received or tax planning which had been undertaken.
In the UK we have and have had similar instances with Schedule 22, corporation tax, VAT, EU State Aid and the Charities Act leading to changes to protocols, procedures and increasingly detailed audit.
I agree that one needs to be very careful that a single commercial partner does not benefit disproportionately from public funds or exert a control over research such that the objectivity and academic quality of the research is called into question.
But overall it seems to me that we are just not getting the balance right. Investigations increasingly go down to the level of individual projects rather than ensuring that universities have the best possible opportunity to enhance their public education duty with effective economic engagement.
It would be very useful to receive views and thoughts on these significant issues and also examples of where people think the balance is right, where the balance is wrong or what could be done to improve matters. We are in a highly competitive global knowledge economy and it seems to me that the countries which will succeed will get the balance right.
Son set off to do mechanical engineering full of enthusiam at a top-ranked Russell group university last year. Astounded to find nothing to do in the week - not many low level lectures, death by Powerpoint in lecture halls not designed for full cohort. Practicals that aren’t. Software that demonstrators can’t work. Final straw was making an electronic dice - but he made one in Year 9 (at 14) when it was then explained to him how and why it worked. No such explanation this time - half of the other students had never held a soldering iron before.
Completely disillusioned he will leave this summer and move on and the engineering profession has lost him for good.
The only knowledge he has gained is that all higher education is a waste of time and money. Shame…..
If this reads as though it’s going to be rant, bear with me. I’ve just marked a significant (well it is to us) family event and at the end of a very enjoyable day, it dawned on me, that we hadn’t really known how to mark the event of itself. The signposts and rituals that we had seen others use over the years for this particular event and had assumed that we would were no longer there; the markers have vanished and this event is no longer seen as the milestone or achievement that it used to be. The focus of marking passages of time is now on the “big birthdays”, when you reach a significant zero or turn a decade. Which has led me on to thinking about how do we celebrate milestones and achievements in the KT sector? Not very well, it seems. Given that there are some 12,500 people working in KT (however you define it), it is odd that we do not something regularly to celebrate how far we have come and where we are going. We have “Enterprise Week” and “Science and Engineering Week” and Google shows that many organizations hold “Innovation Week”s.
It’s not clear how and whether and how the KT sector should join the bandwagon. What form should any celebration take? What should we be looking to celebrate? How often? Do we need to develop some ‘rituals’ or ‘standing events’? Does IKT have a brokering role to play here?
There’s a debate to be had here. Any offers or suggestions?
After a long consultation, the Government published their strategy paper ‘Creative Britain – New Talents for the New Economy‘ on Friday, 22 Feb. The commitments take their inspiration from the Work Foundation’s 2007 publication ‘Staying Ahead‘.
As with many strategy documents, unpicking the actual, deliverable actions, is kind of tricky. Please feel free to add in the comments where I’ve missed something, or in particular where this joins up with (or cuts across) existing activities/plans/programmes/etc.
As outlined in the Foreword, the approach is two pronged; developing creative talents at school, and structured pathways into creative careers. And there’s at least £70.5m in backing (though of course there’s no single break down on where that number is spent and over what time frame).
More interestingly from a KT perspective, when it gets down to the Creative Economy, there’s £10m from the Technology Strategy Board for their Collaborative Research competition that recently opened. This £10m, together with £3m from NESTA are the two most frequently mentioned investments; I lost count how many times they were referenced. There’s also the long awaited Knowledge Transfer Network for the Creative Industries* due in ‘early 2008′.
One of the big discussions during CEP consultations (which I contributed to on the Technology panel) was around financial barriers to accessing innovative and cutting edge technology. This seems to have been partially answered with the £10m fund being split between three initiatives, two of them targeted at encouraging innovation within small creative industry companies. The feasibility study fund will provide grants of up to £15,000 (with a matching £5k from industry, pdf overview) and, the fast track programme up to £50,000 for small collaborative projects. Application to the third scheme that follows the ‘normal’ Collaborative Funding Competition rules is open to all UK based creative industry companies.
It will be interesting to hear from IKT members how they find the new rolling application process for these smaller TSB funds.
There’s quite a good (if well worn) description of the challenges in raising finance for innovation in the creative industries and the reluctance of the finance markets to engage with the digital industries in particular. In Bristol we’re holding some events to try and educate our creative entrepreneurial community to the economic models of the digital world (yes, there are some that are working; turns out even ‘free‘ can be profitable).
Unfortunately we have to wait until later this year for the Enterprise White Paper to find out specifically what the Government proposes to do.
The Pervasive Media Studio in Bristol, Eastside Arts Academy and Skillset Screen & Media Academy Network look to be fairly major planks in the ambition to get academia, students and industry working together. (Disclosure: In my role with Knowledge West I wrote the market assessment and HEI business case for the Pervasive Media Studio) The other five projects that get a mention are an animation ‘finishing school’ (also in Bristol), a Couture Academy, a National Skills Academy in Thurrock, a National Centre of Excellence for Computer Games in the North West and a UK Design Skills Alliance. Where these have industry backing (HP Labs, EMI and Aardman animation are variously mentioned) that might make a viable TSB large project consortium.
I’ve not had much direct contact with Apprenticeships, I’d be interested to hear thoughts on how/if they can facilitate knowledge transfer similar to Knowledge Transfer Partnerships. There’s a throw-away line that the number of KTPs is due to double, while becoming more flexible and responsive.
Again, any comments from KTP Advisers that getting a KTP with creative industry partners is getting easier (or how to go about positioning them)?
I am intrigued by the announcement of a ‘World Creative Business Conference’ in Spring 2009. Anyone have any idea what that is?
So there you have it, some good news, some business as usual, some details to be announced. As ever, the devil’s in the detail but the sentiment is encouraging.
*(advertising, architecture, art & antiques market, crafts, design, designer fashion, film, interactive leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing, software & computer services, television, and radio).
