IKT - STRETCHING THE BRAIN CELLS - LOOKING FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER

Published by Linda Baines on July 27, 2008 in Events, Knowledge Transfer and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

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.

  

Continuous Professional Development

Published by stephenbowater on June 9, 2008 in Blogging. 0 Comments

What’s in a name?

Published by stephenbowater on May 22, 2008 in Blogging. 6 Comments

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!

Too much detail?

Published by Douglas Robertson on April 18, 2008 in Best Practices and Knowledge Transfer. 0 Comments

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.

Knowledge transfer? What knowledge?

Published by hilaryhamer on April 7, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

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….. 

TO CELEBRATE OR NOT TO MARK THE DAY?

Published by Linda Baines on March 19, 2008 in Knowledge Transfer. 0 Comments

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?

Creative Britain - a KT perspective

Published by John Bradford on March 8, 2008 in Industry and Knowledge Transfer. 4 Comments

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).

Third stream, taxonomy and the value of ambiguity? Alice Frost, HEFCE

Published by Alice Frost on March 5, 2008 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments

I was speaking at an event in Cambridge yesterday and reflecting on the topic of third stream taxonomy.

When I took over from Adrian Hill as Head of Business and Community a couple of years ago, I found the lack of clarity about some nomenclature frustrating. What precisely was the ‘third stream’ – was it different or the same thing as knowledge transfer? How did technology transfer, knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange relate to each other? Were we promoting engagement for a purpose (linked with research and teaching) or engagement per se? What precisely was ‘community’ – and what more was included in the broader ‘social, community and cultural’ engagement – and how did all that relate to public engagement, and civic engagement and the like? And why was third stream funding called ‘innovation’ funding – when it also seemed to include enterprise (and what was ‘enterprise’ anyway). The precise meaning of ‘third stream’ was particularly ambiguous and hence frustrating.

Several people told me that they had had a similar experience when first encountering the third stream, and that they had failed in any attempt to come up with standard taxonomies or nomenclature. So any call to establish a taxonomy should be ducked immediately! On the other hand, other people have continued to argue that a standard taxonomy would help.

I have some background (at the former OSI) in science and technology policy, and so have re-examined the history. Technology transfer I learn has some history relating back to a US import in the 1970s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many universities sought to diversify income streams including seeking more income from business. But this ‘entrepreneurial or enterprising university’ movement related more to uncertainties across the globe in HE and public service funding, than a specific commitment of HE to contribute to the economy and society. My initial experience in HE and then science policy was during the 1980s Rothschild years, when there was great suspicion of funding anything in HE that was ‘near market’ – so publicly funded research was meant to be largely useless. But since the early 1990s and into this century, the demand for an economic and social contribution from HE has gathered pace.

Most agree that there are still three reasons for the third stream in HE:
• Development of the academic - related to Boyer’s scholarship of engagement
• Generating revenue for the HEI
• HE contributing to the economy and society

All those reasons still seem valid but different stakeholders may prioritise different rationales. Certainly, it would seem healthy for HEIs to seek win-wins in their engagement activities, contributing to the economy and society in tandem with developing their own activities and purposes (including in their core activities of teaching and research and in their specific ‘places’). In many countries, Governments have more complex agendas – encouraging HEIs to diversify income streams and be more autonomous, and at that same time to make a public good contribution to the economy and society. And many countries now perceive an overlap in these agendas: with entrepreneurial universities that own and develop their own intellectual capital and are thereby autonomous, but also, through this entrepreneurial activity, become more seamless with the world of business and enterprise.

New taxonomic challenges lie ahead – innovation, enterprise and skills, as examples. It is tempting to locate these terms simply within HE nomenclature, such as innovation = research; skills = teaching, but clearly the situation is more complex as these aspects of social and economic activity may be supported by HE in a variety of ways. So the production of graduates and their involvement in economic activity is a driver of innovation, as much as it is a contribution to the skills base of the country. No doubt the forthcoming strategic statements of Government on these topics will clarify – or bemuse!

What I have found in discussing different terminologies, is that when any individual or organisation tries to define terms, they become reductionist of the agenda. And while third stream funding has been around for many years now, one person’s or HEI’s definition of the terms can be very far from another’s. I suspect that if these agendas continue, and the knowledge-based economy and society becomes a reality rather than a rhetoric, then the relationship between HE and the ‘real world’ will become even more complex, diversified and inter-twined. Personally, then, I have come round to the view that the ‘third stream’ maybe has the merit of ambiguity for now – and that taxonomies need to be created not by national or central dictat, but by every HEI exploring and describing its own relationships in the world.

“There’s no bloody factory!”

Published by Richard Riley on February 26, 2008 in Best Practices, Industry and Knowledge Transfer. 1 Comment

“There’s no bloody factory!”

These were the final words of one of my Knowledge Transfer managers (who will remain nameless) as he left the university’s Corporate Development Centre and headed back to the private sector. Note that Mr X had had many years commercial success as a sales and business development manager.

So what did we learn as Mr X exited stage left?

He reminded us that our services and products are as complex as the demand side challenges they are addressing. He also reiterated the Knowledge Transfer skill required is brokering not selling. He didn’t get why we have to spend as much time with our supply side as we do with the customer. Is the real message that, we don’t have a demand led or customer service culture, like Mr X had experienced in the private sector?

In the 6 years since Mr X’s realisation I have refined and tested a process to support Knowledge Transfer staff in their brokerage between our many stakeholders. The resulting model is given below (Why is the triangle the default KT shape? see Oisin’s earlier blog).

triangle2.jpg

Based on extensive use of the model within a department, within a university and across regional and national collaborations we have a four stage process designed to preserve the sanity of the Knowledge Transfer professional.

Step 1 starts with the identification of the portfolio of services and products: the offer. We need to clarify the offer based on our capacity and commitment to deliver not just our capability: always do all 3Cs. Be realistic, honest and empathetic (not sympathetic) with your colleagues; start with false expectations and end in tears.

The Knowledge Transfer office must then align its service to the agreed offer. Now we all know the killer question from students, ‘Is this on the exam?’ i.e. I am only going to listen if you say yes. The equivalent for KT managers is when your academics ask, ‘Tell me again, what do you do?’ i.e. go on prove you’re not another overhead. So in step 2 we need to spell out our value add service. Remember to capture this in your objectives and performance measures.

In step 3 we manage the expectations of stakeholders. I say stakeholders to include the customers, internal and external and the partners and funders we all have. The bottom line is if you are going to exceed expectations you will need to manage them from the start to the end.

The final step 4 is to go back around to step 1. Use the feedback you have obtained through performance measures to influence the internal customers and their portfolio: continuous improvement. As there is no factory we need to work smarter to identify the levers that stimulate demand, fulfil orders and meet customer expectations.

You never know after going around the model a few times you might be able to tell your children what you do and even what your value add is! So do your own brokerage triangle and then respond to Linda’s earlier blog.

Of course I’m not saying anything new, but it helps to reflect and to capture our experiences in a process. As Basil said to Sybil Fawlty, now I can go on Mastermind with the specialist subject, ‘Stating the bleeding obvious’.

Introducing…. the Knowledge Transfer Bloggers

Published by Katie Lips on February 25, 2008 in Blogging. 0 Comments

As we’re growing the blog, the articles, interest, useful feedback and some great comments, I felt it’s important we properly introduce the bloggers. We so far have a group of around 9 Knowledge Transfer bloggers who are involved in this collaborative blog project. I thought I’d do the introductions in phases, and the first round of introductions includes Oisin MacNamara, Richard Riley, and Nigel Slaughter. Full profiles of all the Knowledge Transfer bloggers will appear on the Authors page.

Nigel Slaughter
nigelslaughter.jpg

I’m a technology strategy consultant from Optimat / Inntuition. What does that mean?! We conduct proof of concept projects for a wide range of technologies, along with technology commercialisation projects for companies and universities. Inntuition is a daughter company which trains and mentors academics in the commercialisation process. In the UK this seems to step on toes (as it’s the role of ‘experts’), but the process is logical, attractive to researchers and highly successful. Academically, I have a degree in International Business/German and an MBA which focused on Knowledge Transfer. Previous jobs include international marketing, industrial market research and sales promotion.

Dr Oisin MacNamara

oisinmacnamara.jpg

Oisin is Director of Research, Regional and European Affairs at Northumbria University, where he has responsibility for research support, knowledge transfer, external funding and strategic partnerships, including transnational European activities. His experience has been primarily in building strategic partnerships across public and private sectors (and recently with voluntary sector), especially to deliver complex and large consortium projects. He is Vice-Chair of AURIL, the national Association for University Research and Industry Links, as well as having representative roles for the University in the city and region.

Richard Riley
richardriley.jpg

Richard is the Director of the HEFCE funded AURIL CPD programme at Birmingham City University. In this role Richard oversees this professional development programme for the knowledge transfer community in liaison with the Institute of Knowledge Transfer and the Open University. Richard is also the Regional Director of the Contact Knowledge Exchange. This programme works across the 13 Higher Education Institutions in the West Midlands of England providing a range of services to support their collaborative interaction with business. Most recently Richard founded the National Centres for Knowledge Exchange Network for England, joined the JISC Business and Community Engagement advisory group, the Institute of Knowledge Transfer, the first professional body for Knowledge Transfer practitioners in Europe, the Professional Development Committee of ProTon Europe and the HEFCE KT Good Practice Steering Group. As lead on good practice in Partnerships Richard is a leading contributor of knowledge transfer ‘recipes’ and case studies.