HEIF Round 4 institutonal strategies

Higher EducationInnovation Fundround fourinstitutional strategies

Overview and commentary

October 2008/35Core funding/operationsReport and commentary

This report is for information

This document comprises: an overview by Public and Corporate EconomicConsultants of higher education institutions’strategies for round four of the HigherEducation Innovation Fund; and ourcommentary on that overview.

Oct

ober

2008

/35

Free

© HEFCE 2008

The copyright for this publication is held by theHigher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE). The material may be copied orreproduced provided that the source isacknowledged and the material, wholly or in part,is not used for commercial gain. Use of the materialfor commercial gain requires the prior writtenpermission of HEFCE.

TM

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Alternative formats This publication can be downloaded from theHEFCE web-site (www.hefce.ac.uk) underPublications. For readers without access to theinternet, we can also supply it on CD or in largeprint. Please call 0117 931 7035 for alternativeformat versions.

HEFCE 2008/35 1

Executive summary

Purpose1. This document provides an overview by Public andCorporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) of higher educationinstitutions’ (HEIs’) strategies for round four of the HigherEducation Innovation Fund (HEIF 4); and our commentary onthat overview.

Key points2. HEIF 4 is a joint initiative from HEFCE and the Departmentfor Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). It providesfunding to HEIs in England to support a broad range ofknowledge exchange activities resulting in economic and socialbenefit to the UK.

3. Under HEIF 4, all HEIs submitted an institutional strategy asthe basis to release a formula allocation for the period 2008-2011. HEFCE was supported in the assessment of strategies byPACEC, who produced this summary of the developments inknowledge exchange reflected in the strategies.

4. HEFCE’s commentary on the PACEC report highlights keypoints of progress in knowledge exchange in the highereducation sector, strategies commended for excellent practicesand areas of policy for further development. It includes a weblink to access the full strategies of 129 HEIs receiving HEIFfunding.

Action required5. No action is required in response to this document.

Higher Education Innovation Fund round four institutionalstrategies: overview and commentary

To Heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutionsOther bodies with an interest in the Higher Education Innovation Fund round four

Of interest to those responsible for Interactions between higher education and business, the publicsector and the wider community; Contract and collaborativeresearch; Continuing vocational education or professionaldevelopment; Strategic planning; Regional economicdevelopment; Knowledge transfer and exchange

Reference 2008/35

Publication date October 2008

Enquiries to Alice Frost, HEFCEtel 0117 931 7101e-mail [email protected]

HEFCE commentary

Our third-stream approach6. In January 2008 we summarised how we wouldallocate funding under the fourth round of theHigher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF 4) andasked higher education institutions (HEIs) toprovide us with institutional strategies (HEFCE2008/02). The strategies would provide us with abasis for accountability for funds, but much moreimportant to us was that knowledge of thestrategies would help us understand HEIs’ ownapproaches to the third stream.

7. Underlying our conception of the third stream isa broad view of the importance of engagement ofuniversities and colleges with our economy andsociety. That engagement may bring direct benefitsto the HEI, but will also inspire the core of HEIs intheir teaching and research. We believe there can bemutual benefits from the engagement of HEIs withbusinesses, public and voluntary organisations andother social, community and cultural bodies –whether that engagement be local, regional,national or global.

8. As a result of this broad conception, every HEIwill have its own third-stream vision and direction,reflecting its core activities, its spatial footprint andits values and principles. We reflect this in ourstrategic plan1 by saying that we aim to integratethe third stream into every HEI in a way that isappropriate to its mission.

9. We fund the third stream to help HEIs make areal contribution to society, and this means thatachieving economic and social benefit and value areat the heart of our policy. But we can only achievethat through understanding and supporting theparticular engagements of each HEI with theirpartners, stakeholders, communities and the like. Sowe expect the strategies provided by HEIs for theirthird-stream activities to be a major influence onour policies.

10. Therefore, to help us understand at a nationalpolicy level what is happening institutionally, wecommissioned an overview of all HEIF 4 strategies

from Public and Corporate Economic ConsultantsLtd (PACEC). The full PACEC report follows thiscommentary.

11. We also said in January that we wouldhighlight some excellent practices withininstitutional strategies. No money is attached to ourcommendations, but we want to highlight casestudies of some HEIs that aim to do something wesee as particularly interesting or innovative. Thesestrategies are summarised in the text that follows,and can be seen in full on the web-site of theInstitute of Knowledge Transfer (IKT),www.ikt.org.uk, under HEIF 4 institutionalstrategies. The PACEC report highlights otherinteresting examples.

The strategies12. We are impressed by the strategies provided tous by institutions for HEIF 4 funding. Each tells anauthentic and compelling story of the life of theparticular HEI, living with, benefiting from andgiving value to the ‘real world’. Strategies alsoprovide many innovative practices and projects thatmay be of interest across the higher education (HE)sector. And they have been found to be a soundbasis for us to provide funding: over 85 per cent ofstrategies were approved by us for funding on firstsubmission and the rest were approved afteramendment, which generally involved only minorrevisions.

13. All 129 individual HEIF 4 strategies arepublished in parallel with this report on the web-site of the IKT, www.ikt.org.uk, under HEIF 4institutional strategies, with various search facilities.

14. We have also published a summary of thefunding outcomes of HEIF 4 (HEFCE 2008/34).

Successes and areas of development15. In this commentary we do not examine all theaspects of strategies analysed in the overview, butpick out those that we feel are most significant interms of the achievement of our aims andobjectives.

2 HEFCE 2008/35

1 Our strategic plan can be read on the HEFCE web-site, www.hefce.ac.uk, under About us/HEFCE’s strategic plan.

Mission integration

16. We have stressed in our strategic plan that ourobjective is to build the third stream into every HEIdistinctively and appropriately with their mission. A major success, then, of the HEIF 4 strategies wereceived is that we now see much better integrationof the third stream with HEIs’ own missionsgenerally. We feel Table 2.2 of the overview reportis highly significant: in 79 per cent of HEIs,knowledge exchange (KE) is clearly integrated intomission, and in the rest it is at least looselyintegrated. Some HEIs, even where KE isestablished, are undergoing significant change toenhance their third-stream missions. The HEIF 4strategy of University College London (UCL) shows,for example, a commitment to a step-change in itsthird-stream performance.

University College London: integrating thethird stream into overall mission

We commend UCL’s HEIF 4 strategy forcommitting to a step-change in third-streamperformance through refocusing into strategicthemes; extending KE beyond science,technology, engineering and mathematicsdisciplines; and putting in place newmanagement and support structures. In addition,the university’s strategy is clearly borne out oflessons learned from past experiences. ItsTechnology Innovation Forums provide aparticularly interesting method for increasingparticipation in KE by bringing togetheracademics, established businesses, entrepreneursand investors with the aim of helping to initiateinterdisciplinary collaborations.

Diversity

17. The analysis on target sectors and organisationsfor KE given in Chapter 2 of the overview reportfits well with our stated aim of supporting diversityin the third stream. We have reflected in ourstrategic plan that we see increasing, andincreasingly diverse, demands from the economyand society for HE knowledge and expertise. HEIs

must have diverse offers to fit those needs, and ourstrategic plan specifically sets objectives to increaselocal, as well as global, engagement, to sit alongsidemore established regional and national approaches.Tables 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 in the PACEC report allreflect that HEIs themselves are reaching outdiversely. We note, then, the HEIF 4 strategy ofDurham University for the commitment it gives totaking forward local, regional, national andinternational economic and social development.

Durham University: local regeneration in anational context

We commend Durham University’s HEIF 4strategy for its commitment to taking forwardlocal and regional economic and socialregeneration, clearly linked to regional andnational policy contexts (with internationallinks). Particularly inspiring is its planned workin the Phoenix project, which aims to helparticulate the needs of local communities to theuniversity and its key partners, to help empowerthe communities, raise aspirations and providesupport for local initiatives.

Engaging small and medium-sized enterprises

18. The HE sector has clearly responded to thechallenge set out in our strategic plan and in theGovernment’s Sainsbury Review2 to focus supporton the small to medium-sized enterprise (SME)sector that may be an important source of nativewealth and job creation for the future. Table 2.6 ofthe PACEC report shows that 83 per cent of HEIssay they will target SMEs over the period of HEIF4. But this will be challenging: Table 3.1 shows thatonly 39 per cent of HEIs highlight SMEs as keycollaborative partners. Collaborations betweenHEIs (including an HEI partner that has establishedgood SME links) and work with RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) and local partnerswill be important here.

HEFCE 2008/35 3

2 Lord Sainsbury’s review of science and innovation policy, ‘The race to the top: a review of Government’s science and innovation policies’(2007), is available at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk under Independent Reviews.

Sectors

19. Table 2.5, which illustrates the sectoralbreakdown of KE activity planned by HEIs, will bevaluable as a basis for consideration and policydevelopment by demand-side partners, such as theConfederation of British Industry, TechnologyStrategy Board, RDAs, local authorities andindividual businesses, as well as the Governmentand HEFCE. We have said that we will enable HEIsto use their allocations flexibly over the HEIF 4period, and many HEIs themselves have establishedtheir own ‘challenge funding’ internally to respondto new ideas or priorities. It will be important,therefore, that discussion continues between HEIsand demand-side bodies (and Government andHEFCE) over the period to develop sharedunderstanding of emerging priorities and respond tonew ideas and opportunities.

Public and community

20. We have stressed in our strategic plan that KEis not just about the commercial sector (althoughwealth and job creation are important parts of thesocial responsibility of HEIs for their communities,and not just about income generation for theinstitution). The tables in Chapter 2 of the PACECreport reflect that KE with the public and thirdsectors is equally as important to the HE sector asthat with the business world.

21. We simplified the metrics used in HEIF 4,which meant that we did not have a specificcomponent nominally referenced to the social,community and cultural aspect of the third stream,although the scope of what could be fundedremained the same. So we are keen that both theeconomic and the social aspects of engagement andKE continue to be built into HEIF 4 strategies. Ourgeneral reading is that there continues to be vibrantsocial, community and cultural work reflected in thestrategies, but we will be analysing strategies furtheron this aspect (and an argument could be made thatall strategies should include some form ofcommunity engagement). We note in particular thestrategy from Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Musicand Dance for the holistic approach it has taken inits strategy, including KE and public engagement.

Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music andDance: taking a wide view

We commend Trinity Laban’s HEIF 4 strategyfor the holistic view of engagement it has takenin its strategy, embracing knowledge transferand public engagement; its efforts to reach outculturally to its sub-region in South-eastLondon; and for its attempts to develop animpact toolkit to evaluate benefits and outcomesfrom participation in the arts and investment incultural infrastructure, in collaboration withGoldsmiths College, University of London.

Collaboration

22. In the past, one of our rationales for providingHEIF funding through competition was to promotecollaboration. The overview report shows inChapter 3 that HEIs are taking their owncollaborations, partnerships and the like veryseriously. Table 3.1 shows that 88 per cent of HEIssay they collaborate with other HEIs and a range ofother partnerships are established for a variety ofeffective purposes.

23. We are also pleased to see, in Tables 3.4 and3.5, so many HEIs continuing existingcollaborations and projects, although we should notexpect to see all innovative partnerships continuebecause if we are taking risks, as we should, thennot all can work.

24. The HEIF 4 strategy of Coventry University isnotable for its innovative approach to managingand developing strategic partnerships.

Coventry University: new ways of partnering

We commend Coventry University’s HEIF 4strategy for its innovative approach tomanaging and developing strategic partnershipsthrough the CU Partnership Stairway Model, aswell as for its ambitious goal-setting which hasbeen developed following close consultationwith its strategic partners, has a clear rationaleand is aligned with key regional partners’strategies.

4 HEFCE 2008/35

Sharing good practice

25. We will continue to work with HEIs, includingprojects from HEIF round three, to ensure that wedisseminate innovations, good practice and lessonslearned. The HEIF 4 strategy of Imperial CollegeLondon stands out for its efforts to diffuse bestpractice in knowledge exchange.

Imperial College London: spreading the wordand listening too

We commend Imperial’s HEIF 4 strategy for itsefforts to disseminate best practice in KE, aswell as its commitment to collaboration and itsattempt to evaluate outcomes through feedbackfrom others involved, including thosedownstream of the direct engagement.

Capacity building

26. Looking at the investments made through HEIF4 funding, we feel that Chapter 7 of the PACECreport describes well the necessary capacity that hasbeen put in place through the appointment ofdedicated KE staff. There is a good account in thischapter of how dedicated KE professionals arebeing used effectively by HEIs, how they are beingdeveloped and the types of activities they undertake.

Reading the strategies, it is clear that KE staff aredeployed across the HEI, often in hub-and-spokesmodels, and often in different functionalities such ascommercialisation, academic knowledge transfersupport, enterprise and entrepreneurship supportand regional and community development, so thatthey are closer to core activities and academics.

27. As highlighted in Table 2.1 of the PACECreport, using capacity to increase activity andimpact is now higher up the agenda than developingcapacity. So the sector is well along the pathwaytoward utilising capacity for activities, then outputs,outcomes and impacts, that we described at theoutset of third-stream development in 1999 (withthe caveat that some HEIs have only relativelyrecently received HEIF funding, because HEIF wasonly universal from 2006). Figure A shows thedevelopmental pathway we set out at the outset ofthird-stream funding for culture change andcapacity building in the HE sector.

Engaging academics

28. We detect a shift in HEIF 4 in that HEIs arebeginning to focus more on the engagement ofacademic staff in KE beyond the dedicated KEprofessional. Table 5.1 of the PACEC report setsout the methods that HEIs are beginning to use to

HEFCE 2008/35 5

Sustainable strategy

Refresh, refine and review

CULTURE

CAPABILITY

CAPACITY

OUTPUT

OUTCOME

IMPACT

HEIs – and their activities – will be at different stages on this developmental pathway.

Figure A Evolution of third-stream funding

draw in and unlock the potential in staff. Theseinclude incentive schemes and incorporating KEinto recruitment, reward and promotions systems.Such developments could have considerable powerto increase third-stream performance in future, asengagement becomes embedded throughout HEIs’missions and core activities. Some strategies evenidentify targets for numbers of academic staff to beengaged, though there is a wide variety of figures(for example, some aim for 20 per cent by 2011,others for 100 per cent more rapidly). This seemsan important area of consideration in future.

29. Linked with this aspect, the key internal riskidentified in most strategies (59 per cent of them) islack of academic engagement. We single out, then,the HEIF 4 strategy from the University ofHertfordshire for the structures it has put in placeto engage academic staff.

University of Hertfordshire: academics,ambition and alumni ‘angels’

We commend Hertfordshire’s HEIF 4 strategyfor the structures it has put in place to engageacademic staff, including revisions to jobspecifications and annual appraisals, inductionworkshops and rewarding staff achievementbeyond expectation, reflecting its proactiveambition in this area. In addition, the use ofalumni expertise acting as ‘business angels’ forgraduates and alumni is particularly inspiring.The university’s commitment to evaluate theimpacts of the university on a two- to three-yearcycle is noteworthy and may well providelessons for other HEIs.

Monitoring, evaluation and outcome and valueassessment

30. The weakest area of the HEIF 4 strategies ismonitoring and evaluation. Almost all HEIs havesystems for monitoring and use key performanceindicators (KPIs). But the broader range oftechniques to assess outcomes and value (such ascustomer feedback, project evaluations and overallimpact studies) are not fully secure in the majorityof HEIs and 27 per cent of HEIs appear to have noevaluation systems in place.

31. Quantifiable, metric KPIs that can show trendsover time and can be used in benchmarking areextremely valuable. Collecting these kinds ofmetrics at national level through the HigherEducation – Business and Community Interactionsurvey (HEFCE 2008/22) helps inform us aboutdevelopments over time for the sector, and helpsHEIs compare themselves. But there is a danger thatsuch hard metrics cannot tell all the story, and HEIstherefore need to use a range of techniques to assesstheir outcomes and impacts. Outcomes assessmentsalso need to be ‘owned’ at the strategic level toinfluence not only the offer to users of knowledgebut also the overall direction of the institution.

32. Improving this area of performance could alsohelp with the handling of the primary external riskidentified in strategies – that is, lack of externaldemand (cited by 40 per cent of HEIs in Table 8.1of the PACEC report). Outcome assessments cannotfend off all the effects of economic downturns, butthey can help HEIs focus their efforts mosteffectively in difficult conditions. This is an areawhere more support may be needed to developgood practice in the sector, possibly by sharingpractice across HEIs, with the commercial sector, orby using academic expertise. This is an area onwhich HEFCE will focus further in future.

33. With regard to identifying good practice indescribing value, the HEIF 4 strategy of BrunelUniversity has a commitment to building a clear,demand-led strategy and the HEIF 4 strategy ofLondon South Bank University features acommitment to conducting economic impactanalyses to inform its strategic direction inknowledge exchange.

6 HEFCE 2008/35

Brunel University: driven by demand,learning from experience

We commend the HEIF 4 strategy of BrunelUniversity for its commitment to building aclear, demand-led strategy out of closeconsultation with its academics, throughlearning lessons of past experiences and using arange of other assessment techniques such aspilot studies and internal and external impactanalyses. In addition, we commend itscommitment to collaboration, both through theWestfocus consortium and through theengagement of the end user in its collaborativeresearch networks.

London South Bank University: measuringthe economic impact of KE

We commend London South Bank’s HEIF 4strategy for its commitment to using externalconsultants to assess the economic impact of itsKE activities; for its success in KnowledgeTransfer Partnerships and strong focus onentrepreneurial support; and for supporting andpromoting knowledge exchange as a coreactivity alongside teaching and research.

34. Going back to where we started in thiscommentary, assessments of outcomes, impacts andvalue are also, clearly, vitally important to supportthe effective integration of third-stream activity intoHEIs’ missions. We need to encourage that positivefeedback loop further in future.

The importance of HEIF

35. Finally, the overview summarises the views ofHEIs that HEIF funds are very valuable to themand that the allocation by formula makes HEIFdistinctive in helping HEIs themselves develop theirown capacity and approaches. This ensures that wehave a healthy HE sector, with different HEIsplaying to different strengths and satisfyingdifferent kinds of needs and demands. As theoverview report highlights, over-use of project ordirective funding approaches in this area can driveHEIs to mission drift, mission overlap andinefficient duplication of effort.

HEFCE 2008/35 7

8 HEFCE 2008/35

Analysis of HEIF 4institutionalstrategies A report to HEFCE by PACEC

10 HEFCE 2008/35

Analysis of HEIF 4 institutional strategies

Core Project Team

Rod Spires (Director, PACEC) Project Director

Professor Peter Townroe (Associate, PACEC) Project Adviser

Tomas Ulrichsen (Senior Consultant, PACEC) Project Manager

49–53 Regent StreetCambridge CB2 1ABTel: 01223 311 649Fax: 01223 362 913

504 Linen Hall162–168 Regent StreetLondon W1R 5TBTel: 020 7038 3571Fax: 020 7038 3570

email: [email protected]

HEFCE 2008/35 11

Contents

Executive Summary 15

1 Introduction 181.1 Introduction and background to HEIF 4 181.2 Higher Education Innovation Fund Round 4 181.3 The assessment of HEIF 4 strategies 191.4 The overview report 19

2 Knowledge Exchange Within the Higher Education Sector 212.1 Aims and integration of knowledge exchange strategies across the sector 212.2 Knowledge exchange activities undertaken by HEIs 242.3 Target sectors and organisations for knowledge exchange 272.4 Geographical focus 27

3 Collaboration, Partnerships and Networks 313.1 Key types of external partners 313.2 The role and benefits of collaboration 33

4 Monitoring and Evaluation Systems 364.1 Monitoring systems in the HE sector 364.2 Evaluation of knowledge exchange activity 37

5 Increasing Engagement and Improving Performance in Knowledge Exchange 415.1 Methods for increasing staff engagement in knowledge exchange 41

6 Knowledge Exchange Funding in the HE Sector 466.1 HEIF 4 funding allocations 466.2 Other funding sources for knowledge exchange 476.3 The distinctiveness and importance of HEIF funding for HEIs 48

7 Building Capacity and Capability to Engage with the Third Stream 517.1 The allocation of HEIF 4 funding 517.2 Supporting the implementation of knowledge exchange strategies 54

8 Key Risks and Challenges Facing Knowledge Exchange in the HE Sector 638.1 Key risks 63

9 The Counterfactual: What Would Have Happened Without HEIF Funding 65

Appendix A Assessment Methodology 66

Appendix B Major Collaborative Initiatives 74

Page

Figure 1.1 Scorecard framework 20

Table 2.1 Key aims of knowledge exchange in the HE sector 22

Table 2.2 How integrated is the knowledge exchange strategy with the HEI’s overall 23institutional mission?

Table 2.3 Evolution of strategies 24

Table 2.4 Main knowledge exchange activities 25

Table 2.5 Sectors targeted by HEIs’ knowledge exchange strategies 28

Table 2.6 Type of external organisations targeted by the HEI’s knowledge exchange strategies 29

Table 2.7 Target geographical areas for HEIs’ knowledge exchange activities 29

Table 2.8 Overall geographical focus of HEIs’ knowledge exchange strategies 30

Table 3.1 Key collaborative partners of HEIs by type of organisation 31

Table 3.2 Geographical focus of collaboration 32

Table 3.3 Continuation of partnerships 33

Table 3.4 Continuation of collaborative projects funded under previous rounds of funding 33

Table 3.5 Importance of collaboration 33

Table 3.6 Benefits of collaboration 34

Table 4.1 Monitoring systems for HEI knowledge exchange activities 36

Table 4.2 Key performance indicators 38

Table 4.3 Evaluation of knowledge exchange in the HE sector 39

Table 5.1 Methods for increasing staff engagement 41

Table 5.2 Methods for improving performance in knowledge exchange 43

Table 6.1 Average three-year HEIF 4 allocation by region, HEI type and arts/non-arts base 45

Table 6.2 Other sources of funding sought for knowledge exchange activities 47

Table 6.3 Importance of HEIF funding 48

Table 7.1 Allocation of HEIF 4 funding (£ millions) 51

Table 7.2 Allocation of HEIF 4 funding (% of total) 52

Table 7.3 Allocations in ‘Other’ category (£ thousands) 53

Table 7.4 Allocations in ‘Other pump-priming expenditure’ category (£ thousands) 54

Table 8.1 Key risks facing the knowledge exchange strategies of HEIs 63

Table B1.1 Continuation of Collaborative Projects funded through HEIF 3 74

Table B2.1 Continuation of Centres for Knowledge Exchange funded through HEIF 4 78

12 HEFCE 2008/35

List of Figures and TablesPage

Panel 2.1 A valuable social engagement project 23

Panel 2.2 Encouraging student enterprise 26

Panel 2.3 Engaging alumni in knowledge exchange 26

Panel 2.4 Encouraging engagement with SMEs 29

Panel 3.1 Developing economies of scale through collaboration 35

Panel 4.1 An innovative monitoring system using a balanced scorecard approach 37

Panel 5.1 Increasing the capability to engage with knowledge exchange 42

Panel 5.2 An innovative method for improving performance in knowledge exchange 45through healthy rivalry

Panel 7.1 Building knowledge exchange infrastructure 54

Panel 7.2 Building innovative knowledge exchange infrastructure and support services 56

Panel 7.3 Bringing partners together in open innovation models 59

Panel 7.4 An innovative knowledge exchange model for creative industries 59

Panel 7.5 An incubator targeting social enterprise 61

HEFCE 2008/35 13

List of PanelsPage

14 HEFCE 2008/35


X1 PurposeX1.1 This report presents a sector-level analysisof knowledge exchange (KE) in the English HigherEducation (HE) sector. It aims to analyse the natureof KE strategies within the HE sector and howHEIF 4 funding will support their development. Theanalysis draws upon the Higher EducationInnovation Fund (HEIF) round 4 strategiessubmitted by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)prior to the release of funding. HEFCE plans torelease £396 million over the period 2008/09 –2010/11 to support and encourage KE betweenHEIs and the users of knowledge.

X1.2 Strategies were received from 129 HEIs andwere based on a common template. The templateprovided information on a number of different KErelated issues including the nature of the HEIs’wider KE strategies such as how they planned tofurther increase staff engagement with users of HEknowledge, how they planned to use the HEIF 4funding in pursuit of their KE objectives and therisks associated with the initiatives.

X1.3 The report covers a wide range of issuesrelating to KE within the HE sector including thecurrent state of knowledge exchange, the broadaims of the latest KE strategies, the broad range ofKE activities and the sectors targeted. It alsoconsiders the nature and extent of collaboration inthe HE sector and the benefits that HEIs see asderiving from this. It examines the monitoring andevaluation systems used by HEIs and themechanisms in place to increase staff engagement inKE. The report considers the levels of HEIF fundingbeing allocated and how HEIs in England are usingthis to build capacity and capability to engage inKE. Lastly it considers the risks faced by HEIs inimplementing their KE strategies and thecounterfactual of what would have happened hadHEIF funding not existed.

X1.4 Interesting examples of how HEIs will usetheir HEIF funding in innovative ways are presentedin boxed ‘panels’ throughout the report.

X2 Key findingsKey finding: Knowledge exchange appears to beembedding itself within the fabric of the HE sector

with social and economic development animportant aim for HEIs

X2.1 Most HEIs appear to have taken KE onboard as a significant dimension of their overallportfolio of activity, extending well beyond thelong-standing areas of the commercialisation ofavailable technologies. They conduct a wide rangeof activities from entrepreneurship and enterpriseeducation, both at the staff and student level, toconsultancy, contract and collaborative research, totraining staff, business development andparticipating in networks. However, there was littlemention of exploiting the capabilities locked in thealumni base.

X2.2 One of the key aims of KE strategies in theEnglish HE sector is to contribute to social andeconomic development and increase the impact ofHEIs in these areas. Specialist arts HEIs have beenparticularly inventive in reaching out to widercommunities as have some of the larger HEIs.

Key finding: HEIF 4 funding will support theimplementation of knowledge exchange strategiesthrough a variety of ways including capacity andcapability creation, changing the strategicdirection, supporting collaboration and changingculture

X2.3 HEIF 4 funding will help HEIs implementtheir KE strategies in a number of ways. Firstly, itcan help HEIs focus their strategic thinking andprovide a ‘campaign’ around which to organisetheir KE strategies. It has led HEIs to become moredemand led, creating a much more co-ordinated,flexible and integrated delivery mechanism.Importantly, the funding has stimulated a greaterintegration of teaching, research and knowledgeexchange. It has helped HEIs further embed aculture that embraces KE as an important activity.

X2.4 Over 50 per cent of HEIF 4 funding (£207 million) will be allocated to dedicated KEstaff. Such staff play a variety of roles within theHEIs, typically relieving the administrative burdenand other support-related burdens of KEengagement. For example, they provide capabilityto help write business plans and funding proposalsand to advise on the costing and pricing of researchproposals. They are also beginning to handle the

HEFCE 2008/35 15


Executive Summary

16 HEFCE 2008/35


contract negotiations between the different partiesinvolved, an area that is becoming increasinglyimportant and complex, ensuring that the HEIcaptures a fair value for the knowledge created.They play a very important co-ordination role,ensuring that KE engagements progress smoothlyfrom inception to completion. Moreover, KE staffare increasingly becoming the medium throughwhich best practice is shared, both within the HEIand throughout the sector as a whole.

X2.5 A recent survey of academics suggests thatthe time available for them to undertake KE is oneof the major constraints to increasing engagement.Approximately £60 million is being allocated tosupport for staff engagement, which includes thebuy-out of academic time.

Key finding: HEIF funding is seen as veryimportant in most HEIs and distinct from othersources of funding

X2.6 HEIF funding is seen as extremelyimportant in 51 per cent of HEIs, where it helps tostimulate collaborations that would otherwise betoo costly to pursue, influences the strategicdirection of HEIs in favour of KE and helps tobring about culture change. In addition it hashelped HEIs lever in other sources of funding byhelping them identify opportunities that wouldotherwise have been missed or through proving thebenefits of riskier initiatives to other funders thussecuring future external funding.

X2.7 HEIF funding is seen as distinct from othersources of funding for a number of reasons. Itprovides stability and predictability, allowing HEIsto take a longer term view for strategic decisionsand allows for a more sustainable KE agenda to bedeveloped. The flexibility of funding allows HEIs torespond much more effectively to the changingdemand conditions that they face in many sectorsand, importantly, allows them to support theiroverall mission without skewing it in any particulardirection (as is the case with many other sources offunding where fairly strict objectives exist). Thering-fenced nature of funding is appreciated bymany HEIs as it prevents the funding from beingappropriated by the many other demands facingHEIs.

Key finding: Collaboration appears central tomost strategies although HEIs still find it difficultto engage with small and medium-sizedenterprises

X2.8 Approximately 88 per cent of HEIs seecollaboration as central to their KE strategies andmost will continue previous collaborations.Approximately 85 per cent of Centres forKnowledge Exchange and HEIF 3 collaborativeprojects funded through the past competitivebidding portion of the programme will continueinto HEIF 4. Worryingly, only 46 per cent of HEIsmention that they will seek out new partnershipsover the HEIF 4 period.

X2.9 An important trend in a number of HEIs isthe movement towards strategic partnerships withlarger corporations or to achieving a ‘preferredsupplier’ status particularly with public sectorbodies.

X2.10 HEIs still find it difficult to collaborate orpartner with small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs), despite SMEs being a key targetorganisation type in HEIs’ KE strategies. A numberof large HEIs claim that while their KE focus is onlarge corporations and larger institutions, theirknowledge exchange activities have an impact onSMEs through the supply chains of thesecorporations. For example, a large corporationcreating a presence on an HEI’s science park willlikely attract SMEs from its supply chain to thearea, where they will also benefit from theknowledge diffusion from HEI to the largercorporation.

X2.11 The key benefits of collaboration for HEIsinclude providing complementary capabilities,accessing other sources of funding and opening upnew markets and geographies.

Key finding: Incentive schemes, revisions torecruitment and promotions criteria, and trainingand development are all seen as importantmethods for increasing staff engagement inknowledge exchange

X2.12 HEIs are using a wide variety ofmechanisms to increase participation of staff in KEactivities. The most common mechanisms are

introducing or amending incentive schemes,including increasing the time allowed for KEengagement, and improving the financial terms ofKE engagement (e.g. in consultancy or intellectualproperty rights policies). In addition, HEIs areincreasingly incorporating KE into theirrecruitment, assessment and promotions criteria.Workshops and other forms of training and staffdevelopment are also important mechanisms forincreasing staff engagement in KE. While thesharing of best practice was not important forincreasing staff engagement in many HEIs, it was avery important mechanism for improving KEperformance. This is greatly facilitated by both thededicated KE staff funded through HEIF and theinter-HEI collaborative networks encouragedthrough HEIF and other funding sources.

Key finding: A lack of engagement by academicswas the most frequently cited internal risk while alack of demand from industry was an importantexternal risk

X2.13 The most common internal risk was a lackof academic interest in undertaking KE, with 59 percent of HEIs mentioning it in their strategies. Tominimise this risk, HEIs have taken many stepsincluding raising awareness and the profile of KEand using the mechanisms to increase staffengagement described above, such as staffdevelopment training. The lack of capacity todeliver KE is seen as another key internal risk,particularly as the profile of KE amongst potentialusers of HEI-generated knowledge increases throughboth government and HEI awareness-raisingcampaigns. It was unclear from the analysis whetherHEIs recognise where the potential bottlenecks maydevelop. Lastly, given the large planned investmentin dedicated KE staff, the successful implementationof many HEI strategies depends on the ability torecruit high-calibre KE staff. This may becomeincreasingly difficult if demand for such skills risesacross the sector without a comparable increase insupply of such individuals.

X2.14 The main external risk stems from thedemand for HEI knowledge by external users failingto materialise. There are particular concerns overSME engagement both because of a lack ofawareness in SMEs of the potential benefits of

HEI-engagement and the prohibitive cost ofengagement for many such companies.

Key finding: Some form of monitoring system isin place in most HEIs although many have no orlimited mechanisms in place to evaluateengagements in knowledge exchange

X2.15 Most HEIs have some level of monitoringsystem in place to track their performance in KEand the primary mechanism for achieving this isthrough key performance indicators (KPIs). TheseKPIs are largely based on inputs and outputs to theKE process. In addition, regular reviews by seniormanagement and the regular collection of data areused to complement KPIs. For example, 28 per centof HEIs mention collecting some form of feedback,while a similar number also conduct benchmarking.A promising development in the sector is theintroduction, by a small number of HEIs, of abalanced scorecard approach to monitoring.

X2.16 However, while the monitoring of KEperformance appears fairly robust within the sector,the majority of HEIs lack adequate evaluationsystems in terms of assessing the impacts of theiractivities. Twenty-seven per cent of HEIs appearedto have no or limited evaluation system in placeother than the monitoring of progress. Where HEIshad good systems in place, they typically soughtsystematic feedback from users, commissionedexternal assessments of their economic/social impacton a regular (e.g. five-year) basis, and conductedcase studies to understand outcomes (both positiveand negative).

HEFCE 2008/35 17


18 HEFCE 2008/35


1.1 Introduction and backgroundto HEIF 41.1.1 HEFCE ‘third stream funding’ was introducedto enhance the economic and social benefits deliveredby higher educations institutions (HEIs) in England bysupporting and encouraging knowledge exchange(KE) and transfer between the higher education (HE)sector, business, public sector bodies and third sectororganisations. The first such funding stream wasintroduced in 1999 with the Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and Community (HEROBC)initiative. This was specifically tasked withencouraging wealth creation by supporting thebuilding up of capability within HEIs to respond tothe needs of business and the wider community.

1.1.2 The HEROBC initiative was succeeded in2002 by the Higher Education Innovation Fund(HEIF). Since 2002 HEIF has been funded by HEFCEand also substantially from the Science Budget,provided by the Office of Science and Innovation(OSI) now in the Department for Innovation,Universities and Skills (DIUS). The first two roundsof this funding were awarded based on a competitivebidding process, with funding going to time-limitedprojects. The scale and collaborative nature of theprojects varied across the different rounds with anumber of these initiatives continuing today.

1.1.3 The allocation process of HEFCE thirdstream funding underwent a major change for thethird round (HEIF 3). This round saw theintroduction of a formula-based allocation offunding to all HEIs, with three-quarters of fundingbeing allocated in this manner. The remainingquarter of funding was allocated according to acompetitive bidding process. The latter proportionof the funding was targeted towards a small numberof large-scale innovative and collaborative projects.

1.2 Higher Education InnovationFund Round 4

Introduction to HEIF 41.2.1 The latest round of HEIF funding, HEIF 4,was announced in December 2007 and ‘is designedto support and develop a broad range of knowledge

exchange activities which will result in economicand social benefit to the UK’1. The strategicobjectives of HEIF 4 funding have been developedin line with the Government’s long-term Science andInnovation Investment Framework 2004–20142 andthe recommendations of the Sainsbury Review, and:

• Build on what has been achieved through earlierrounds of funding

• Further develop and release HE knowledge forthe economic and social benefit of the UK

• Support HEIs to build and extend theircapability to engage with users of knowledge inbusiness and the public service and third sectors,locally, nationally and internationally, accordingto their own diverse missions, alongside andintegrated with teaching and research.

1.2.2 The funding should be deployed to helpHEIs develop and enhance their KE performancefurther for the longer run. The funding can be used,for example, to support the infrastructure for, andcapacity-building in, enterprise education andprojects. HEIF 4 funding can also be used to fundemployer engagement initiatives by helping tosupport the development of infrastructure withinHEIs to enable them to engage with a wide range ofbusiness, public sector bodies and third sectorpartners. Following recommendations from theSainsbury Review of Science and Innovation, moreencouragement has been placed on engagement withsmall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Lastly,certain types of interactions, particularly with thenon-commercial sector and societal organisations,are unlikely to generate much income. Theseinteractions are nevertheless recognised as makingan important contribution to the delivery of publicpolicy and quality of life of the nation, which areequally important as the HE sector’s contribution tocommercial wealth creation.

1.2.3 HEIF 4 funding will make available £396 million to HEIs over the three academic years 2008–11 and will be allocated entirely by formula.This is a key departure from previous rounds ofthird stream funding, and is in line with therecommendations of the Sainsbury Review. It also

1 Introduction

1 HEFCE (2008) ‘Higher Education Innovation Fund round 4: invitation and guidance for institutionalstrategies’, HEFCE publication 2008/022 HM Treasury, DTI, DfES (2004) Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014

reflects the increasing priority given by theGovernment to KE from HE and the maturing ofthe third stream in the light of the advances madeby HEIs in adopting the KE agenda in their ownstrategies, partnerships and approaches.

1.2.4 The HEIF 4 formula3 is based on twocomponents; the first focuses on capacity-buildingand potential for an HEI to engage, looking at thenumbers of academic full time equivalent staff, whilethe second takes account of KE performance, basedon various measures of income. More detail on themethod of allocation is provided in Chapter 6.

1.2.5 To secure HEIF 4 funding, HEIs had tosubmit a 5,000 word institutional strategy to HEFCEwhich outlined three broad issues: (a) the overall KEstrategy, (b) the planned use of HEIF 4 funds and (c)the key risks facing the strategy. The purpose ofrequesting strategies was to assure HEFCE, DIUS andother stakeholders that the funding would be spent inline with the published criteria:

a Sound strategic approach: HEIs have a soundstrategic approach to knowledge exchange, inline with their individual corporate strategies,core institutional mission, key partners andlocation.

b Management systems: Management of HEIs’knowledge exchange activities includesappropriate and robust systems for performancemanagement and data collection (including thoserelating to making returns to the HigherEducation-Business and Community Interaction(HE-BCI) survey), planning, risk managementand monitoring and evaluation.

c Building capacity and capability: HEIs arecommitted to the continued improvement andfurther development of their capacity to delivereconomic and social impact, including effectiveuse of collaboration, so as to achieve value formoney in use of public funds.

d Strategic fit with HEIF objectives: HEIF 4funding will be spent in line with the overallobjectives of the programme to achievemaximum impact and to respond flexibly tochanging priorities and opportunities forinnovation.

1.3 The assessment of HEIF 4strategies1.3.1 All of the institutional strategies (129 intotal) were submitted to HEFCE in April 2008 andwere assessed using a systematic ‘scorecard’approach. This approach enabled expert subjectivejudgements to be incorporated with qualitative andquantitative evidence to provide a useable ratingthat is relatively transparent. This then allowed fora relatively rapid and efficient identification ofacceptable strategies and of those requiring furtherdevelopment.

1.3.2 The scorecard assessed the key elements of astrategy using objective tests to assess whether astrategy met the four published criteria outlinedabove. Within each of the criteria, a number ofdifferent tests were defined based on the strategytemplate questions to assess how the HEI respondedin terms of clarity and relevance. The complementof tests and a general reading of each strategy theninformed the overall expert assessment of thestrategy.

1.3.3 The approach is summarised in Figure 1.1.Further details of the approach and methodologycan be found in Appendix A.

1.3.4 The assessment drew solely on the evidenceprovided by the HEIs in response to the 14questions asked in the strategy template supplied tothem by HEFCE. It could not be expected that HEIssubmit additional information, however useful,where it was not explicitly requested by the strategytemplate.

1.4 The overview report1.4.1 The aim of this report is to conduct a sectorlevel analysis of the 129 HEIF 4 institutionalstrategies in order to inform HEFCE, DIUS, the HEsector and other interested stakeholders about boththe nature of the KE strategies in the sector andhow HEIF funding is supporting and helping deliverthese strategies. It is also envisaged that this reportwill aid HEFCE, policymakers and indeed HEIs infurther developing their KE strategies in the future.

1.4.2 The report draws primarily upon theinformation provided by the HEIs in their HEIF 4

HEFCE 2008/35 19


3 Details of the formula are provided in HEFCE 2008/02 and summarised in section 6.1.

institutional strategies. Relevant information fromeach strategy relating to key issues was codified andentered into a database, on which much of thefollowing reporting and analysis is based.

1.4.3 An important caveat must be borne in mindwhile reading this report. An omission ofinformation, for example on intellectual propertyrights policies, does not necessarily mean that anHEI does not have such a policy. This makesinterpretation of the tables harder, with the valuesprovided likely representing lower bounds. Inaddition, many HEIs did not answer all parts of thequestions exactly as they were asked, leading tomore problems relating to the above problem ofomission. Regardless, the bringing together of theinformation presented in the strategies provides anextremely valuable picture of the current state ofKE in the HE sector in England.

1.4.4 The report is divided into nine chapters. The current state of KE is provided in Chapter 2,covering the broad aims of KE strategies and theextent to which they are integrated with the overallinstitutional mission of the HEI, and the broadrange of KE activities being undertaken in thesector, along with the market sectors and types oforganisations they are targeting, and the

geographical focus of the strategies. Chapter 3 turnsto the extent of collaboration, partnerships andnetworks in the HE sector and the benefits thatHEIs see as deriving from these. Chapter 4 analysesthe monitoring and evaluation systems in place toensure both that progress against the aims andobjectives of the strategies is being maintained, andthat resources are being targeted to their mostproductive, efficient uses. Chapter 5 looks at themethods to increase staff engagement in KE and themechanisms being deployed by HEIs to improve KEperformance. Chapter 6 explores and analyses thefunding for KE in the sector including HEIF andnon-HEIF sources, as well as the particulardistinctiveness and importance that HEIs place onHEIF funding. Chapter 7 investigates how HEIs areallocating their HEIF 4 allocations to buildcapability and capacity to engage in KE. Chapter 8presents the key risks facing the sector over theHEIF 4 period before the report turns, in Chapter 9,to some anecdotal evidence presented by HEIs onthe counterfactual.

1.4.5 Throughout the report, interesting examplesof how HEIs will use their HEIF 4 funding ininnovative ways are presented in boxed ‘panels’.

20 HEFCE 2008/35


Figure 1.1 Scorecard framework

Source: PACEC

Sound strategic approach

Test Score Evidence

1234

Capacity andcapability

Test Score Evidence

1234

Performance management systems

Test Score Evidence

Overallassessment

1234

Developmentalfeedback

Strategic fit withHEIF objectives

Test Score Evidence

1234

Strategy

Recommendationto release funding

or resubmit

This chapter looks at the current state of KE in theHE sector. It begins by looking at the key aimsgiven in the KE strategies across the sector andthe extent of the integration of KE strategies withthe overall institutional missions. It then turns toexploring the types of activities undertaken andwho these activities are targeted towards, both interms of the sectors and the types oforganisations. Lastly it looks at the geographicalfocus of these strategies and groups HEIsaccording to whether they have a regional agendaor a national/global one.

2.1 Aims and integration ofknowledge exchange strategies acrossthe sector

Key aims of knowledge exchange strategies2.1.1 The key aim stated in HEIs’ KE strategies isto develop and expand their KE activities to helpincrease the transfer of knowledge from the HEIinto user communities (Table 2.1). The developmentof new activities will help unlock new KE potentialwithin the HEI. This is directly related to the othermost common aim, of focusing on the contributionof HEIs to social and economic development andincreasing the socio-economic impact of their KEactivities. HEIs are aiming to ensure that thebenefits of their research and teaching are beingtranslated into benefits for the economy and society.Achieving this aim will likely be conditional uponanother key aim: to improve the capacity andcapability of their KE delivery mechanisms, whichincludes the development of core KE infrastructureand support services. Related to this are the aims ofHEIs to diversify and increase the revenue from KE.This will be crucial to further developing othertypes of KE activities and support structures toenable greater impacts on the economy and society.

2.1.2 Building, expanding and developing externalrelationships, collaborations and other partnershipsis a key priority in 28 per cent of HEIs, withbusiness, public and third sector, and communityusers being targeted in the aims. In addition, someHEIs are also explicitly aiming to build on and todevelop partnerships with other HEIs.

2.1.3 The promotion of innovation,commercialisation and entrepreneurship is the basisof a key aim for 28 per cent of HEIs, with many ofthese aims also linking with those focusing onfurther embedding KE into the culture and fabric ofthe HEI (12 per cent). Many of these aims centre oninspiring and stimulating innovation, maximisingthe benefits from commercialising their knowledgebase and exploiting intellectual property (IP). Inaddition, many HEIs are aiming to create a moreenterprising culture within the HEI, for examplethrough entrepreneurship skills developmentprogrammes. Within this key aim, one HEI isseeking to promote a culture where the scope andbenefits of KE are understood and highly valued asa core academic activity. Related to this is the aimby 8 per cent of HEIs to further integrate the threestreams of research, teaching and knowledgeexchange much more closely, to ensure that KEbecomes more of a core activity than hitherto wasthe case.

2.1.4 Seventeen per cent of HEIs also aim tobecome a leading provider of KE in specific localand regional markets such as employer engagement,community engagement, and digital and creativeindustries. Nine per cent of HEIs also explicitly aimto raise their profile, to develop reputations forexcellence and innovation and to increase thevisibility of their research, teaching and KE offering.

2.1.5 All HEIs appear to have made attempts tointegrate their KE strategies with their overallinstitutional mission to some extent. Integration isclear and strong in 79 per cent of HEIs, while in 21 per cent of cases the integration is much looser.HEIs are increasingly viewing KE as necessary tounderpin a successful research and teaching agenda:

‘KE is a major underpinning activity whichstrengthens, supports and informs our core activitiesof research and teaching. It also provides addedvalue and focus by enabling synergies across therange of our activities to be identified anddeveloped.’

Brunel University

HEFCE 2008/35 21

2 Knowledge Exchange Within the HigherEducation Sector


22 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 2.1 Key aims of knowledge exchange in the HE sector

Key aim Number Percentage

of HEIs of total

respondents

Developing and expanding KE activity 43 34

Contributing to social and economic development and increasing socio-economic impact 43 34

Building, expanding and developing external relationships, collaborations and partnerships 35 28

Promoting innovation, commercialisation and entrepreneurship 35 28

Improving the capacity and capability to deliver KE activity 29 23

Becoming a leading HEI in KE in target markets 21 17

Diversifying and increasing revenue streams 17 14

Further embedding KE into the culture and fabric of the HEI 15 12

Raising the profile and reputation of the HEI 11 9

Developing a strong relationship between KE, research and teaching 10 8

Becoming more responsive to market changes, external opportunities and employers’ needs 9 7

Delivering higher level skills 9 7

Expanding employer engagement, KTPs and professional development programmes 7 6

Developing continuing professional development (CPD) and other courses 6 5

Improving community engagement 6 5

Enhancing staff engagement with KE 6 5

Delivering world-class scholarship, education and research 5 4

Improving graduate employability 4 3

Becoming a regional resource 4 3

Alignment to regional strategic priorities/HEFCE's strategy 3 2

Increasing user participation 2 2

Other 39 31

Number of respondents 125

‘Our Enterprise Strategy has transitioned frombeing a third leg of our institutional strategy (theother two being Research and Teaching &Learning) to being an underpinning philosophy bywhich we deliver those core activities.’

University of Reading

‘The priority aims, intended outcomes andinstitutional mission of the university will beunderpinned by the university’s Knowledge TransferStrategy.’

University of Westminster

2.1.6 The synergies between teaching, researchand KE are recognised by a number of HEIs,including:

‘The University views its research, its teaching andits continuing ability to provide excellence inknowledge transfer/innovation to be inextricablylinked and to be both mutually complementary andreinforcing.’

University of the Arts London

‘Priority aims are… to achieve effective synergybetween scholarship, research, teaching, knowledgetransfer and enterprise to benefit society andcontribute to economic prosperity.’

University of Worcester

HEFCE 2008/35 23


Panel 2.1 A valuable social engagement project

University of Leicester – Space Academy

HEIF 4 will support the East Midlands Space Academy, initiated with East Midlands Development Agency support and

building on the University’s Space School. The academy is a partnership with the National Space Centre and

Nottingham city and aims to develop young people’s interest in careers in science, technology, engineering and maths

(STEM) using space as the inspirational hook. It will:

– deliver space-related STEM education programmes to learners and their educators throughout the East

Midlands, covering Key Stages 2 through 5

– link with businesses and employers, with particular focus on high-value space and aerospace sectors

– provide educational resources and training opportunities for teachers and educators that fit the national STEM

agenda and the new STEM curricula.

The collaborative planning opportunity identified at Qs3-4 (Earth Observation Enabling Technologies) is a research-driven

initiative that is directly complementary to the Space Academy.

Integration of knowledge exchange with the overall institutional mission

Table 2.2 How integrated is the knowledge exchange strategy with the HEI’s overall institutionalmission?

Number of HEIs Percentage of total respondents

Clearly integrated 100 79

Loose integration 26 21

No integration 0 0


24 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 2.3 Evolution of strategies

Number of HEIs Percentage of

total respondents

Builds upon previous strategy 80 66

Departs from previous strategy 9 7

Maintains and builds upon existing capacity 92 75

Develops new capacity 51 42

Incorporates lessons learned 70 57


‘Recognising the increasingly important role ofresearch in both knowledge and wealth creation,[the City Research/Enterprise Unit] unites Researchsupport, Knowledge Transfer, EntrepreneurshipTeaching and Consultancy activity. Its developmentwill create an outstanding synergy of talent andprofessional knowledge to support the developmentof new research initiatives, promote academicconsultancy and further development of researchcommercialisation.’

City University

2.1.7 There are good opportunities for HEIs tocreate virtuous circles between teaching, researchand KE with each strand supporting and reinforcingthe other. For example, one potential feedback loopis the following: excellence in research will helpattract business and community users to the KEofferings of the HEI, such as their contract researchor consultancy capabilities, which will help developother strands of income. In addition, many HEIs areincreasingly using case studies and other real-lifeexamples from their KE experiences in the design oftheir courses. This can help to attract more students,which then impacts their future funding allocations.

Evolution of strategies and learning fromexperience2.1.8 Table 2.3 shows that the majority of thestrategies build on previous strategies while only asmall number depart significantly. However, many

of those that build on previous strategies haveevolved to incorporate lessons learnt, with 57 percent of HEIs stating that experiences were taken onboard when determining future strategy. In anumber of cases evidence was provided todemonstrate that the results of evaluations of KEfed systematically into future strategy. Goodstrategies also took account of the national policycontext and major reviews such as the LambertReview, Sainsbury Review, Innovation NationWhite Paper and the Leitch Review of skills. Theyalso accounted for regional economic strategies andother local policy documents.

2.1.9 Most HEIs stated that they are maintainingand building upon their existing institutional KEcapacity while 42 per cent of HEIs are also developingnew capacity over the HEIF 4 funding period.

2.2 Knowledge exchange activitiesundertaken by HEIs2.2.1 HEIs undertake a broad spectrum of KEactivities in their engagement with business andcommunity users. The main activities aresummarised in Table 2.4. However, an importantcaveat to this table is that it is believed that HEIsmay not have listed their full complement of KEactivities in their submissions. Therefore this tableprovides a guide to the types of activities engagedin, but not necessarily the definitive ranking of themost common.

HEFCE 2008/35 25


Table 2.4 Main knowledge exchange activities


Development support to CPD and other short courses 93 73

Entrepreneurship Education 73 57

Consultancy 72 57

Contract research 67 53

Placements/KTPs 53 42

Collaborative research 53 42

Other technology transfer (including spin-outs) 52 41

Licensing of IP 48 38

Staff development training 47 37

Support for staff and student enterprise 47 37

Business development 37 29

Other collaborative partnerships 36 28

Business incubation 31 24

Public/industry lectures 22 17

Participation in networks 21 17

Creation of facilities (e.g. innovation centres, KE hubs, etc.) 19 15

Informal advice on a non-commercial basis 19 15

Conferences 13 10

Joint curriculum development 11 9

Community activities (incl. performance arts, sports) 11 9

Secondments to industry 10 8

Use of facilities 8 6

Publications 7 6

Support to museums and galleries 6 5

Host visits by individuals from external organisations 5 4

Membership of advisory boards to external organisations 3 2

Participation in standard-setting forums 2 2

Alumni development 2 2

Events 2 2

Embedding KE culture and raising profile 1 1

Other 13 10


26 HEFCE 2008/35


Panel 2.3 Engaging alumni in knowledge exchange

The Surrey 100 Club (University of Surrey)

The Research and Enterprise Support Department has established a club of entrepreneurial alumni to engage as

business angels for students and staff

UH Angels (University of Hertfordshire)

UH Angels will enable UH graduates and alumni to pitch their ideas for investment finance from successful senior

alumni. Participants will pay modest entry fees and any capital will be provided by alumni. The project will work in

tandem with UH Invest to cross-feed cases. If successful in the UK, UH Angels will be rolled out to UH’s highly active

overseas alumni chapters.

Panel 2.2 Encouraging student enterprise

University of Wolverhampton – SPEED

Student Placements for Entrepreneurs in Education (SPEED), an extension of the successful collaborative HEIF 3

project, will be jointly funded by HEIF 4 and ERDF as a collaborative programme. It is being led by Wolverhampton and

has 7 Primary Partner Universities currently taking part. In addition to Wolverhampton the partners comprise: University

of Birmingham, Birmingham City University, Coventry University, Keele University, Staffordshire University and the

University of Worcester. There is still capacity to add other West Midlands HEIs.

The principle of this project is to offer a significant number of current students (in total some 250 per annum over 3

years) the opportunity to develop business skills through the development of a business idea in a supportive

environment during or as part of their degree courses. The programme will be an integral part of their university

experience and parallels the traditional opportunities that exist with work-based placements.

2.2.2 The main KE activity in the HE sectorappears to be supporting CPD and other shortcourses, with 73 per cent of HEIs having someprovision for this. The other main activities areentrepreneurship education (57 per cent of HEIs),consultancy (57 per cent) and contract research (53 per cent). Other common activities includeplacements/knowledge exchange partnerships (42 per cent), collaborative research (42 per cent)and non-licensing technology transfer (e.g. spin-outsand the commercialisation of research) (41 percent). Licensing of IP was mentioned by 38 per centof HEIs.

2.2.3 Most of the activities are outwardlyfocused. However, a few are targeted at theirinternal staff and students. For example, enterpriseeducation and the provision of support for staff andstudent enterprise are likely to be targeted towardsHEIs’ internal staff rather than the external market.In addition, staff development training mentioned

by 47 HEIs and the initiatives to embed KE cultureundertaken by one HEI are clearly internallyfocused.

2.2.4 Some KE activities undertaken in the HEsector include the alumni base as a specific targetuser as well as general external organisations.However, there was little evidence to suggest thatHEIs are maximising the benefits that they couldobtain from their alumni base beyond the merefinancial. The alumni base contains a wealth ofcapabilities that could be tapped to further theHEIs’ KE agenda. For example, many alumni go onto work for relevant companies and developnetworks of contacts that could be of great use tothe HEI. They develop specific expertise inparticular areas of knowledge that could be used toadvise current students on projects, careers or,importantly, academics on the potential industrialuses of new/emerging technologies. There are signsthat this is starting to occur in a number of HEIs.

HEFCE 2008/35 27


For example one of the aims of the University ofSurrey is to ‘nurture staff, students and alumni andto build life-long relationships’, with a specificobjective for the HEI being to ‘increase theengagement of alumni in KE’. The university hasimplemented an interesting initiative to help achievethis (see Panel 2.3).

2.3 Target sectors andorganisations for knowledgeexchange2.3.1 HEIs are targeting their KE activities toparticular sectors and types of externalorganisations to a greater or lesser extent. Onceagain, an important caveat is required. As with themain KE activities, an omission of a sector in asubmission does not mean that an HEI does notengage with it. Great caution is therefore advisedwhen interpreting which sectors are ‘mostcommonly’ targeted. In addition, many HEIsinterpreted the question as relating to the private,public or third sector, rather than specific marketsectors. Lastly, there was no conformance with thesectors defined by the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) codes. As such, an attempt hasbeen made to group the broad range of sectors intothose presented by the HEIs rather than force theminto SIC coded sectors. Lastly, of the 90 HEIs thatprovided information on target sectors, the sectorsspecified in 10 submissions could not be allocateddue to generality (e.g. ‘not limited to specificsectors’, ‘industry’, ‘innovation’, ‘consulting’ and‘technical and business’). These are captured withinthe ‘Other’ category in Table 2.5.

2.3.2 It is evident from Table 2.5 that a widevariety of sectors are being targeted by the KEactivities of HEIs. The creative and cultural sector ismentioned by 81 per cent of all respondents. Thisincludes, among other sub-sectors, art and heritage,performance arts, animation and games design,fashion, and design (including industrial design andinterior design). Energy and theenvironment/environmental technologies was thesecond most cited sector (38 per cent of HEIs) withthe unspecified public and third sectors mentioned by36 per cent of submissions. A proportion of the‘Health and Healthcare’ sector (34 per cent of HEIs)

may also be accounted for by public sector users suchas Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts.This emphasises HEIs engagement with the public andthird sectors. The next group of important sectors arethe hi-technology sectors such as advancedengineering (including aerospace and automotiveengineering), other engineering and manufacturing(33 per cent), other science and technology (whichincludes sub-sectors such as nanotechnology,microelectronics, marine technology, digital industries,chemicals and materials) (30 per cent), ICT (23 percent) and biotechnology/biomedical science andpharmaceuticals (22 per cent).

2.3.3 The most common type of users of KEactivities cited in the strategies are SMEs, with 83 per cent of HEIs mentioning them as targetedorganisations. Public sector organisations are thesecond most targeted users (72 per cent of HEIs).This supports similar evidence from the analysis ofthe targeted sectors, which suggests that there is atargeting of KE activities towards the public sector.Fifty per cent of HEIs engage with largecorporations, while 18 per cent engage withcharities and 30 per cent engage with othervoluntary sector organisations. Only 13 per centmention engaging with freelance workers.

2.4 Geographical focus2.4.1 The strategy submissions give an indicationof the target geographies for HEIs’ KE activities.Table 2.7 shows that the main geographies targetedby KE activities are the regional (85 per cent) andlocal (65 per cent). (Note that the strategy templatefrom HEFCE did not include a definition of the‘local’ geographical area.) Approximately half ofHEIs consider their geographical focus to benational or international.

2.4.2 The information provided in the strategiesenables HEIs to be classified as having a ‘regional’or ‘national/global’ KE remit. Table 2.8 shows thatapproximately 40 per cent of HEIs have a regionalKE remit, while 60 per cent perceive themselves asengaging nationally/globally. One note of caution ininterpreting these figures: it was very difficult todisentangle the commentaries on ambitions of HEIsfrom their current state. Many currently regionalHEIs have national or international ambitions.

28 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 2.5 Sectors targeted by HEIs’ knowledge exchange strategies

Sector Number of HEIs % of total respondents

Creative & Cultural sectors (including Design) 73 81

Energy and Environment/Environmental Technologies 34 38

Public and Third sectors (not specifically defined) 32 36

Health and Healthcare 31 34

Advanced Engineering (including Aerospace and Automotive), 30 33

other engineering and Manufacturing

Financial/Business Services and Management 28 31

Other Science and Technology 27 30

ICT 21 23

Biotechnology/Biomedical Science and Pharmaceuticals 20 22

Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism 16 18

Agriculture, Food and Drink 14 16

Medical Science/Technology/Equipment 12 13

Marketing, Advertising, Media and Broadcasting 11 12

Education 10 11

Development and Sustainability 8 9

Construction and Building Services 7 8

Transport & Logistics/E-Commerce 6 7

Retail 5 6

Social and Rural Enterprise 4 4

Sports and Sport Science 4 4

Defence and Security 3 3

Community Development and Regeneration 2 2

Law 2 2

Other 28 31


HEFCE 2008/35 29


Panel 2.4 Encouraging engagement with SMEs

Aston University – INDEX

The INDEX innovation voucher programme, launched by Aston in 2007, has been an unparalleled success. It has resulted

in the Government deciding to establish a similar programme for SMEs across the country. By December 2008 Aston will

have brokered links between 220 SMEs and all 13 HEIs in the West Midlands. It is proposed to use a relatively small

proportion of the university’s HEIF 4 funding to build on the success of the INDEX programme and launch a voucher

scheme targeted specifically at social enterprises, an area falling outside of the current INDEX funding criteria. Early

discussions with partners indicate that there will be considerable interest from social enterprises in this initiative.

Table 2.7 Target geographical areas for HEIs’ knowledge exchange activities


Regional 105 85

Local 80 65

National 67 54

International 63 51


Table 2.6 Type of external organisations targeted by the HEI’s knowledge exchange strategies.

Number of HEIs Percentage of total

respondents

SMEs 104 83

Public organisations 90 72

Large corporations 62 50

Other voluntary sector 38 30

Other private sector 31 25

Charities 22 18

Freelance workers 16 13


30 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 2.8 Overall geographical focus of HEIs’ knowledge exchange strategies


Regional HEIs 49 40

National/international HEIs 75 60


This chapter explores the role and importance thatcollaboration, partnerships and networks play insupporting and delivering KE in the HE sector. Itwill look at the different types of organisations thatHEIs partner with, the benefits that thesecollaborations bring to HEIs and the extent towhich HEIs seek to develop new partnerships overthe course of HEIF 4 compared with continuingexisting partnerships. It will also look at the extentto which the large collaborative projects initiatedunder the HEIF 3 competitive bidding process arebeing continued under HEIF 4 and similarly for theCentres for Knowledge Exchange that were set upunder previous rounds of HEIF funding.

It is worth making one caveat before beginningthis discussion. The strategy template, and indeedmany of the institutional strategies submitted toHEFCE for this funding, uses the terms‘collaboration’ and ‘partnership’ interchangeably.Because this distinction was not made in thesubmissions, it was not possible to understandthe extent to which the external engagementsundertaken by HEIs were truly collaborative (i.e.two or more partners contributing to the sameobjectives) or whether the engagements were‘strategic partnerships’ where HEIs and externalpartners develop mutual understandings of eachothers capabilities and needs, with high levels ofknowledge/information exchange between them,but where the work (e.g. consultancy, contract

research) typically flows in one direction(undertaken at and by the HEI for the externalpartner). Therefore, for the purpose of this report,the terms ‘collaboration’ and ‘partnership’ will beused interchangeably to signify a close workingrelationship between partners covering bothaspects described above.

3.1 Key types of external partners3.1.1 HEIs partner with a number of differenttypes of external organisations, whether in acollaborative relationship or strategic partnership,in the private, public and third sectors, to achievetheir strategic aims and objectives.

3.1.2 Table 3.1 shows that the most commonlyformed collaborative partnerships identified werewith other HEIs, at 88 per cent. RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) were identified askey collaborative partners by approximately twothirds of HEIs with other public sector bodycollaborations being nearly as common (59 percent). Local government partnerships were in placein 43 per cent of HEIs, while only 17 per centcollaborated with central government.Approximately half of the HEIs reported having keycollaborative partnerships with large industrialcorporations while only 39 per cent claim to havepartnerships with SMEs. This reflects the difficultiesthat HEIs perceive in collaborating and partneringwith SMEs, a recognition that is reflected in the

HEFCE 2008/35 31

3 Collaboration, Partnerships and Networks


Table 3.1 Key collaborative partners of HEIs by type of organisation


Other HEIs 112 88

RDAs 79 62

Other public sector bodies 75 59

Local government 55 43

Central government 22 17

Industrial partners: large corporations 62 49

Industrial partners: SMEs 50 39

International partners 48 38


risks associated with delivering their strategies.However, despite the difficulties in partnering withSMEs, they are still an important target for HEI KEservices, as Table 2.6 (see Chapter 2) demonstrates.Thirty-eight per cent of HEIs reported havinginternational collaborations.

Accessing SMEs through the supply chain3.1.3 Table 3.1 shows that partnerships withSMEs are not very common in the HE sector, withonly 39 per cent engaging in such partnerships.However, a number of larger HEIs describe howtheir KE activities are impacting SMEs indirectlythrough the supply chains of larger corporations. Apotential mechanism for this is that a largecompany forms a strategic partnership with an HEI,perhaps deciding to locate nearby on a technologypark. The close working relationship leads toinnovations that require the buying in of specialistservices or components from small companies.However, the design of these services or componentsrequires knowledge that has been generated insidethe HEI and passed on to the large corporationthrough the strategic partnership. This knowledgemust then be passed down to the SME providingthe specialist services or components, thusimpacting their capability. In addition, a decision bya larger corporation to locate an outpost near anHEI may result in the SMEs in the supply chain co-locating, thus bringing new jobs to the area.

Table 3.2 Geographical focus of collaboration

Number Percentage of

of HEIs total respondents

Regional 113 89

Local 78 61

National 78 61

International 78 61


3.1.4 Many of the collaborations andpartnerships created are regional or local in naturewith 89 per cent and 61 per cent of HEIs pursuingsuch partnerships, respectively (see Table 3.2).Approximately 61 per cent of HEIs pursuednational and international partnerships.Unsurprisingly, the geographical distribution ofcollaboration corresponds very closely to thegeographical focus of HEIs’ KE strategies providedin Table 2.7. HEIs will pursue collaborativeinitiatives to help achieve their KE objectives. Ifthese are national or global in nature, then this willprompt partnerships on this scale to be created.

3.1.5 Almost all HEIs planned to build uponexisting collaborations and partnerships, while only46 per cent are planning to develop newpartnerships (Table 3.3). A number of commentswere made in the submissions regarding thedifficulty in setting up large collaborative initiatives,not least the cost involved. In addition, it can bevery hard to ensure that the objectives of eachpartner are well aligned, which is crucial toensuring the success of the venture and maintainingthe collaboration.

3.1.6 However, HEIF funding has previouslystimulated large-scale collaborations, includingthrough the funding for ‘Centres for KnowledgeExchange’ and through the competitive awardproportion of HEIF 3 funding. Some informationregarding these projects is provided in the HEIF 4submissions. It is clear from Table 3.4 that themajority of projects are continuing and will receivesome funding through HEIF 4 from at least some oftheir partners4. An important caveat is that anomission of the details of engagement with acollaborative project from a submission does notnecessarily mean that an HEI is not supporting orengaging with the collaboration.

32 HEFCE 2008/35


4 Full details are given in Appendix B.

3.2 The role and benefits ofcollaboration3.2.1 It is very clear from the submissions thatHEIs perceive collaboration and developingpartnerships to be central to delivering their overall

KE strategies. Seventy-eight per cent of HEIsimplied in their submissions that this was the casewith only 22 per cent believing it to be of minorimportance. No strategy implied or stated that itwas of no importance.

HEFCE 2008/35 33


Table 3.3 Continuation of partnerships


Build upon previous partnerships 122 97

Develop new partnerships 58 46


Table 3.4 Continuation of collaborative projects funded under previous rounds of funding

Centres of HEIF 3 collaborative

Knowledge Exchange projects

Total number of projects initially funded 22 11

Percentage with evidence on continuation in HEIF 4 strategies 86 82

Table 3.5 Importance of collaboration


Yes: central to strategy 101 78

Yes: minor to strategy 28 22

No 0 0


3.2.2 The most frequent benefit of collaborationcited by HEIs is that it provides complementarycapabilities that can be deployed (70 per cent ofHEIs). This helps widen the market that the HEI canserve and will help entry into new markets, which isthe third most frequently cited benefit. Collaborationand partnership can also often be a requirement offunding for projects and initiatives. Developingpartnerships can therefore provide access to newfunding streams that are unobtainable acting alone.Fifty-seven per cent of HEIs claimed this as a benefitto partnerships. Another important reason why HEIs

engage in collaboration is the development ofeconomies of scale; for example, by sharinginfrastructure, training costs, support infrastructure,etc. Forty per cent of HEIs claimed that they find iteasier to access new geographies through partneringwith other organisations rather than trying to enterthem single-handedly. In addition, a number of HEIsclaimed that their industrial partners can find iteasier to enter new geographical markets if theypartner with the institution. Interestingly, only 3 percent of HEIs pursued collaboration explicitly toachieve greater impact.

34 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 3.6 Benefits of collaboration


Provides complementary capabilities 81 70

Provides/enables access to additional resources/funding 66 57

Opens new geographies 46 40

Opens new market sectors 37 32

Provides economies of scale (e.g. sharing infrastructure, training) 27 23

Ensures better coordination of activities 18 16

Provides market intelligence 18 16

Achieves value for money 11 9

Shares good/best practice 9 8

Develops graduate employability/graduate enterprise activity 5 4

Offers complete (one-stop-shop) solutions 3 3

Achieves greater impact 3 3

Benefits and broadens research base 3 3

Develops networks and further collaborations 2 2

Increases capacity for KE 2 2

Increases visibility; raises profile 2 2

Aligns capabilities with needs of employers 1 1

Become preferred suppliers of research and KE services 1 1

Provides a source of advice 1 1

Other 4 3


3.2.3 A number of HEIs mentioned the ambitionto move beyond mere transactional relationshipswith their partners to much more strategicrelationships. Such a move is seen as providing amuch more demand-led interaction. This is becausethe HEI gains a much better understanding of therequirements and direction of the company atstrategic level. In addition, the company gains abetter understanding of the capabilities of the HEI.This two-way flow of information helps target theresources much more effectively. Eventually, if thepartnership develops sufficiently, the HEI should beable to effectively identify the opportunities where itcan add most value for a company, drawing on the

plethora of capabilities available within the HEIthat the company may have little knowledge of.Through the strategic relationship, the two partnersdevelop a mutually beneficial KE engagement thatadds significant economic value. However, creatingsuch strategic partnerships is extremely difficult andcostly. Steps that are being taken to address this,such as the introduction of client relationshipmanagement systems, are discussed later in thisreport. Lastly, a number of HEIs are also striving tobecome ‘preferred suppliers of services’ to clients,particularly RDAs and councils (see, for example,the University of Northampton).

HEFCE 2008/35 35


Panel 3.1 Developing economies of scale through collaboration

St George's, University of London (SGUL) – Clinical Trials Unit

SGUL is co-located with St George’s NHS Trust – the only tertiary hospital in SW London and which also serves a large

section of Surrey and Sussex. Neither institution has a dedicated Clinical Research Facility, nor is there one of any

significance within this catchment area. Both institutions have active clinical study programmes that, though hampered

by lack of adequate support, test new ideas generated within SGUL, carry out joint studies with the pharmaceutical or

medical device industry or implement studies that are essential for training clinicians in research methodology and

clinical academics of the future. The new Clinical Trials Facility will be supported by a Clinical Trials Unit. These units will

serve as part of the research infrastructure of SGUL in the same manner as SGUL’s Biological Research Facilities and

Biomics Centre.

This chapter looks at the monitoring andevaluation systems in place in the HE sector toensure that progress against KE objectives isbeing maintained and that projects are deliveringthe desired economic and social impacts andimpacts to the HEI. In general there was someconfusion in this section of the submittedstrategies, between the monitoring of projects andperformance and the evaluation of the outputsand outcomes.

4.1 Monitoring systems in the HEsector4.1.1 Almost all HEIs have some form ofmonitoring system in place to track their KEperformance. Structures and responsibilities havebeen developed which are linked to the overallactivities of the HEIs, and performance indicatorshave been developed or are in the process of beingdeveloped.

4.1.2 The most common mechanisms are the useof key performance indicators (KPIs) (80 per cent ofrespondents) and regular reviews by seniormanagement or other committees (77 per cent). In addition, 45 per cent of HEIs regularly collect

and analyse data, including the metrics for the HE-BCI survey. Forty-one per cent of HEIs also monitorproject performance against initial targets andobjectives while 41 per cent set some form oftargets for their KE activities. Twenty-eight per centof HEIs seek feedback from the users of their KEservices. The extent of this feedback is unknownbut could be a powerful tool not only formonitoring performance, but also for the evaluationof impacts. Twenty-three per cent of HEIs haveundertaken some form of benchmarking againstpeers or comparator groups of HEIs. Many of theseHEIs participate in the UNICO benchmarkingactivity while others use HE-BCI data to undertakethis exercise. Twenty per cent of HEIs either have,or are planning to introduce, Client RelationshipManagement (CRM) systems to help monitorperformance of KE activity.

4.1.3 Lastly, 6 HEIs have introduced a balancedscorecard approach to monitoring KPIs andensuring that progress against strategic objectives isbeing met. An example of such an approach isprovided by the University of Westminster (seePanel 4.1).

36 HEFCE 2008/35

4 Monitoring and Evaluation Systems


Table 4.1 Monitoring systems for HEI knowledge exchange activities


Use of KPIs 102 80

Regular reviews by senior management or other committees 99 77

Regular collection/analysis of data 57 45

Project performance monitoring against initial targets/objectives 53 41

Setting of targets 52 41

Feedback of participants 36 28

Benchmarking 30 23

Customer Relationship Management System 25 20

Balanced scorecard 6 5

None 1 1

Other 8 6


HEFCE 2008/35 37


Panel 4.1 An innovative monitoring system using a balanced scorecard approach


The academic schools of the university will be monitored through a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach including profile, key

and target Science partners, key and target KE partners, national and international prominence, revenues, sponsorship

and measures relative to the competition ‘benchmarking’. Each platform or school will have unique comparators

(periodically reviewed and changed as appropriate) – one to beat, one to keep ahead of and one to keep up with – for

each of its KPIs.

4.1.4 Use of KPIs is one of the most commonmethods for tracking progress against intendedoutcomes. Table 4.2 provides a list of KPIsidentified by HEIs in their submissions. The mostfrequently identified KPI is income from KEactivities (e.g. consultancy, contract research, CPD,etc.), which is used by 76 per cent of respondents.The number of contracts with industry (forexample, the number of contract research contracts,consultancy contracts, etc.) is used byapproximately 46 per cent of HEIs. A proxy forcollaboration and partnerships, the number ofexternal engagements/partners, is tracked by 40 percent of HEIs, while income from IP licensing isanalysed in 37 per cent of cases. This correspondsapproximately to the number of HEIs whoundertake IP licensing activity. This suggests thatalmost all of those pursuing the licensing of IP trackthe income generated from it. Thirty-five per cent ofHEIs track the number of spin-outs and enterpriseactivity within their HEI, while 30 per cent of HEIsmonitor the number of staff/students engaged withthe third stream to ensure that wideningparticipation remains on track. The broad range ofHE-BCI survey metrics were cited by 28 per cent ofHEIs as forming the basis of their KPIs. Throughputof students through courses is only mentioned by 25 per cent of HEIs, which is a little concerninggiven the much higher number of HEIs offeringCPD, other short courses and entrepreneurshipeducation. However, the income from CPD may becaptured within the ‘income from KE activitiescategory’. Lastly, the number of strategicpartnerships is considered by 24 per cent of HEIs tobe a KPI worth tracking. It will be interesting to seewhether this increases over the coming years, giventhe increased weight being put on such partnershipsby many HEIs.

4.2 Evaluation of knowledgeexchange activity4.2.1 Some of the HEIs are moving towards theex-post evaluation of their strategies and initiatives.This reflects a recognition of the importance ofevaluation, which could be strengthened.

4.2.2 The primary purpose of evaluations in thiscontext is to gather evidence of the additionalimpacts and benefits of third stream activities andvalue for money so as to examine:

• The overall strategic direction of policy and theportfolio of initiatives

• The effectiveness, outputs and outcomes ofpolicy and the initiatives

• The efficiency and economy of expenditure

• The costs and benefits and value for money

• The synergies with other activities at the HEI

• Partnership development and the contribution ofother organisations

• Developmental and training needs.

4.2.3 The evaluation process and its outputsprovide an opportunity to build up the stock ofknowledge about the choice and implementation ofinitiatives and their relative effectiveness.

4.2.4 An evaluation framework and plan alsoprovides a useful tool to budget for and to guideresources.

38 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 4.2 Key performance indicators

Number Percentage ofof HEIs total respondents

Income from KE activities (consultancy, collaborative research, CPD etc.) 83 76

Number of contracts with industry 50 46

Number of external engagements/partners 44 40

Income from IP licensing/patents/copyrights 40 37

Number of spin-outs/enterprise activity 38 35

Number of staff/students engaged with third stream 33 30

HE-BCI survey metrics (may encompass some of the above) 31 28

Average value of contracts 27 25

Through-put through courses 27 25

Number of licenses/patents/copyrights 26 24

Number of strategic partnerships 26 24

% of academics’ time engaged with the third stream 20 18

Income by organisation type (e.g. large corporations, SMEs) 16 15

External investment made in spin-outs 16 15

Amount of other funding leveraged 13 12

Number of KTPs 10 9

Number of placements/graduate recruitment 10 9

Engagement with external committees 9 8

Levels of awareness 8 7

Occupancy rate of innovation centres/business incubation centres/ 8 7

technology parks, etc.

Attendance of events 8 7

Number of industrially sponsored studentships including PhDs 6 6

GVA & job creation 5 5

High profile/regional impact 5 5

Number of degrees/short courses/CPD courses 4 4

Stakeholder/customer/employer feedback 4 4

Other 27 25

Not yet defined 5 5


Number of KPIs identified 599

Evaluation mechanisms in the HE sector4.2.5 While good monitoring systems are in placein many institutions, the evaluation of KE activitiesin terms of the impacts that they deliver to the HEI,the economy and society is much less developed. Asin Table 4.3, 27 per cent of HEIs have no obviousevaluation system in place while 12 per cent claimto have evaluated KE yet provide very littleinformation on how they do this (for example,whether they evaluate inputs and outputs orwhether they take the difficult next step to attemptto evaluate the impact of the activity). Twenty-eightper cent of HEIs evaluate only the inputs andoutputs of KE activities using, for example, the KPIsdeveloped to monitor performance or through usingHE-BCI data. HE-BCI data does not providemeasures of economic and social outcomes, butrather indicators of the outputs of knowledgeexchange activities.

4.2.6 Approximately one-third of HEIs haveintroduced some form of evaluation system toattempt to capture the outcomes of KE activities.One HEI has developed an Impact Assessment Tool,using its in-house capabilities to attempt to capturepotential impact areas such as HEI profile, strategicfit, staff development and research aspects as well ascommunity and economic impact. Other HEIs,rather than undertaking the difficult task ofestablishing outcomes on a very regular basis,commission large impact studies using externalspecialist consultancies at defined instants (e.g. theUniversity of Cambridge undertakes an economicand social impact study every five years, the

University of Central Lancashire will develop anannual Social and Economic Impact Survey).

4.2.7 Many of the HEIs that attempt to evaluateoutcomes systematically seek feedback from theusers of their KE services. For example theUniversity of Bradford seeks feedback from allclients on completion of individual contracts. This isused not only to determine both the relative successof the project and develop the relationship betweenthe university and its client for future services, butalso tries to obtain information on economic impact(e.g. increased sales, profitability, job protection andcreation).

4.2.8 Other methods used by HEIs to capture theimpacts of their knowledge exchange activitiesinclude conducting case studies of engagements. Forexample, case studies of both successful andunsuccessful engagements would provide very usefulinformation on the factors driving the success orfailure of a particular KE project or initiative. Casestudies of successful projects can also be usefullydisseminated to raise awareness of KE within theHEI and beyond.

Exploiting in-house capability in evaluation4.2.9 There was little evidence provided in thestrategy submissions that HEIs were takingadvantage of the internal wealth of knowledge thatsome of them have with respect to evaluation.Many business schools, applied economics faculties,institutes of public policy, etc. will likely haveexpertise in evaluation techniques yet many HEIs donot appear to be exploiting this.

HEFCE 2008/35 39


Table 4.3 Evaluation of knowledge exchange in the HE sector


Evaluates outcomes 41 34

Evaluates only inputs and outputs 33 28

Yes but with little supporting evidence 14 12

No or little evidence for evaluation 32 27


4.2.10 The University of Bristol and LeedsMetropolitan University provide good examples ofHEIs that have used in-house expertise:

‘The University is, and will continue to be, a majorcontributor to the debate on the best measures andmetrics for Knowledge Transfer and EconomicImpact, with a view to ensuring that the metricsused by Government best represent and measure theimpact of activity, and also do not promoteinappropriate behaviours and cultures.’

University of Bristol

‘Monitoring and evaluation is undertaken by the[Commercial Services Office] CSO (regardingongoing monitoring and data collection) and alsoby in-house evaluation experts working for LeedsMet’s Policy Research Institute (national panelexperts on evaluation for the Department for Workand Pensions).’

Leeds Metropolitan University

40 HEFCE 2008/35


The following chapter considers the broad range ofmechanisms being pursued to increase staffengagement in KE and the types of methods beingintroduced by HEIs to improve performance in KE.While these two issues were distinct questions instrategy submissions, they frequently resulted in verysimilar types of answers, suggesting that HEIsbelieved that there was a direct linkage between thosemechanisms that were being introduced to increaseparticipation in KE and those to improve performance.

Once again, an omission of a particularmechanism by a submission does not mean thatthe HEI does not have it. For example, in manycases HEIs that have long-standing consultancypolicies did not mention them.

5.1 Methods for increasing staffengagement in knowledge exchange5.1.1 A wide variety of mechanisms for furtherengaging staff have been introduced by HEIs (Table 5.1). Many HEIs have changed their policiesto incentivise staff to engage in KE (61 per cent).Typical changes include making the financial termsof consultancy policies and intellectual propertyrights policies more favourable to academics. Asmall number of HEIs monitored policies ofcomparator HEIs to ensure that they were offering‘industry standard’ terms. In addition, HEIs areincreasingly accounting for KE engagement inworkload planning to ensure that KE is seen as amainstream activity rather than ‘extra-curricular’.

HEFCE 2008/35 41

5 Increasing Engagement and ImprovingPerformance in Knowledge Exchange


Table 5.1 Methods for increasing staff engagement

Number Percentage of of HEIs total respondents

Incentives schemes (incl. time allowed, IPR policies, etc.) 79 61

Incorporation of KE into recruitment/assessment/reward/promotion structure 72 56

Workshops/CPDs/short courses/training sessions 67 52

Marketing/raising of awareness (e.g. through publications/awards/networking events) 65 50

Provision of support to academics 59 46

Consultation with academics in defining projects 48 37

KE Champions 36 28

Sharing of good/best practice 34 26

Provision of support to academics by KE staff 33 26

Competitions/feasibility funds to incentivise ideas and engagement 27 21

Representation of academics on KE committees 23 18

Involvement with external partners 19 15

Mentoring 15 12

Buying-out academic time/workload planning 6 5

Staff secondments & student placements 5 4

KE audits (incl. skills and technology audits) 5 4

Lead from senior management/visibility of KE at strategic level 2 2

Other 26 20


HEIs are also introducing incentive schemes to buyout academics from their teaching duties to allowthem time to engage in KE; for example, by fundinga part-time lecturer while the academic undertakesKE. In addition to these, 21 per cent of HEIsmention competitions for funds (including businessplan competitions) and feasibility funds asperforming an incentivisation function to increasestaff engagement in KE.

5.1.2 The second most common method forincreasing participation of staff was to introducechanges to recruitment, assessment, reward andpromotion criteria, with 56 per cent mentioning thisin their submissions. However, the extent to which KEis incorporated depends on the particular institution.Some believe that KE should form a requirement formost academics, while many believe that academicsshould perform to their strengths. In the latter casethe criteria are constructed to ensure that those thatare willing to participate in KE are encouraged and

rewarded (e.g. by promotion or financially, etc.) fordoing so. A number of HEIs also mentioned how theyare starting to consider industrial credentials in theirrecruitment policies in addition to research andteaching capabilities. This reflects a growingacceptance of KE within the structure of the HEI.

5.1.3 A number of methods for improvingparticipation in KE among academics revolvearound raising the capability of academics toengage: through training and staff development (52 per cent), mentoring (12 per cent) and provisionof other types of support to academics (26 percent). In addition, mechanisms for sharinggood/best practice are mentioned in 26 per cent ofHEIs’ submissions as helping to increase staffengagement.

5.1.4 Other methods centre on increasingparticipation through raising awareness of KE. Thisis achieved through marketing and awareness

42 HEFCE 2008/35


Panel 5.1 Increasing the capability to engage with knowledge exchange

University of Cambridge – Rising Stars

Rising Stars is a public engagement training programme for Cambridge postgraduates, post docs and early-career

faculty. It is intended for those wishing to pursue an academic career and wanting to hone their communication skills in

order to integrate public engagement with their academic discipline.

Rising Stars is the first of its kind in the country and has three novel aspects:

1. The scheme is wide ranging, covering working with ‘hard-to-reach’ communities, methods of engagement,

identifying and creating opportunities to communicate, evaluation, clear communication of technical subject in print

and broadcast media

2. The course is multidisciplinary, integrating the sciences with the arts, humanities and social sciences

3. The participants put their new skills into practice by organising a real-life public activity.

University of Cambridge – Enterprise Tuesday

Enterprise Tuesday began six years ago with about 30 students attending a ‘basics of building a business’ course.

This has now grown to attendances of over 300 from across the university. Aimed at postgraduates and postdocs, the

course aims to familiarise the student body with enterprise, skills, opportunities and networks. It links with the business

plan competition and is now being videoed – with selected lectures being put on the web. The course has around

1,500 registered participants. It has also been copied extensively by other universities (Oxford, Reading, Sussex, Essex,

UEA, Bedford, Auckland, Sunshine Coast (Australia), Laurea (Finland), etc.)

Enterprise Tuesday makes a very positive contribution to the enterprise culture of the university.

raising events, publications, awards and networkingevents (50 per cent) and introducing academic KEChampions into faculties (28 per cent). Many HEIsare also bringing academics into the decisionmaking process relating to KE policies andengagement, with 37 per cent of HEIs consultingacademics in defining projects, and includingacademics on KE committees (18 per cent). Thesemechanisms are designed to make academics feel

more involved with the process, hopefully toinformally champion the particular KE initiativeswithin their faculties.

5.1.5 Lastly, 4 per cent of HEIs mentionconducting KE audits of their skills/technologies tohelp provide a detailed register and understanding,both internally and externally, of the capabilitiesthat exist within the HEI.

HEFCE 2008/35 43


Table 5.2 Methods for improving performance in knowledge exchange



Workshops and training sessions 76 61

Sharing of best practice through collaboration/networks/fora 69 56

Improved KE infrastructure 59 48

Incentives schemes 55 44

Improved KE support to academics 52 42

Training with professional bodies (e.g. Institute of Knowledge exchange, Praxis, 52 42

UNICO, AURIL, EARMA, etc.)

Improved visibility of HEI KE activities (e.g. through newsletters/awards/celebrations 41 33

of success, etc.)

Performance management systems 35 28

Increased engagement with staff/students 31 25

Collaboration with other partners 25 20

Simplification of procedures for engagement 23 19

Benchmarking 20 16

Mentoring 17 14

Improved marketing/PR 16 13

Staff secondments into industry 12 10

Improved registers of KE activity 11 9

Other 5 4


5.1.6 The second set of mechanisms introducedby HEIs relates to improving performance in KE.Many are similar to those introduced to increasestaff engagement in KE. The most common methodfor improving performance is the use of workshopsand training sessions to improve the capability ofthose engaging in KE (61 per cent). In addition,raising the capability of KE staff through trainingwith professional bodies such as Praxis, AURIL andUNICO is cited in 42 per cent of HEI submissions.

5.1.7 Sharing good/best practice is the secondmost frequently mentioned mechanism forimproving performance. The sharing of best practiceis occurring both within HEIs between faculties andKE initiatives to ensure that the lessons learnt andexperiences in one area can be transferred to otherareas, as well as externally between HEIs.Collaborations, partnerships and networks greatlyfacilitate this and are mentioned by 20 per cent ofHEIs as helping to improve performance. Therelationship between collaboration and sharing bestpractice is evidenced by the experience of the HEIsin the WestFocus consortium:

‘The partnership brings particular value by virtue ofthe extensive sharing of best practice betweeninstitutions, the high regional profile and visibility ithas achieved and the access to third stream andseed-corn funds it has facilitated.’

Brunel University

‘Through the WestFocus collaboration and itsKnowledge Exchange there is sharing of bestpractice in a number of areas includingcommercialisation and incubation.’


5.1.8 Improved KE infrastructure and KE supportto academics were also seen as importantmechanisms for improving KE performance.Support for patent applications, bid writing,handling contract negotiations, helpingidentification of KE opportunities, support forproject management and relationship managementare just some of the types of support that HEIs areinvesting in to help improve performance in KE. Inaddition, 28 per cent of HEIs believed thatperformance management systems helped improveperformance, which is reflected by the level ofawareness of the need for good monitoring systemsdescribed earlier. Benchmarking was mentioned by16 per cent of HEIs as helping improveperformance, while simplifying the procedures forengagement was cited in 19 per cent of cases. Thelatter should help to encourage staff to engage inKE by lowering the barrier associated with theopportunity cost of engagement sufficiently tofacilitate participation. It will also help raise theoverall efficiency and productivity of engagement.

5.1.9 Incentive schemes are also seen as importantmechanisms for improving performance in 44 percent of HEIs while 25 per cent mention increasingengagement with staff and students as necessary.Fourteen per cent of HEIs are looking to mentoringas one of the complement of mechanisms forimproving performance.

5.1.10 Another group of mechanisms focus on thevisibility of KE activities. Some HEIs are deployingnewsletters, awards to engage in KE, celebrations ofsuccess and other methods for helping to raiseawareness both of KE as a legitimate activity foracademics, but also of the benefits that academicscan extract from engagement. Related to this is theimproved marketing and PR required to raiseawareness both internally and externally amongstpotential users.

44 HEFCE 2008/35


HEFCE 2008/35 45


Panel 5.2 An innovative method for improving performance in knowledge exchangethrough healthy rivalry

University of Westminster – Platforms

Platforms will be the main vehicle, or flagship, for increasing the scope and scale of Knowledge Transfer. Leading the

way at present is the Institute for Health and Well-being and there are other platforms which are competing to be the

flagship platform e.g. Sustainability, China Media Centre. Key features of platforms are that they are strongly anchored in

a solid research base from which they engage with policy makers and practitioners to bed into society the benefits of

new knowledge, drawing from that activity income to reinvest in improving the research base. They differ from classic

HEI-industry interactions in that contact is not confined to exchange through contract research with clients but will

include broad contact with the sector at all levels including SMEs and non-clients through their own Knowledge

Business Development Network.

46 HEFCE 2008/35

6 Knowledge Exchange Funding in the HE Sector


Table 6.1 Average three-year HEIF 4 allocation by region, HEI type and arts/non-arts base

Total Allocation Allocation perNumber of allocation per HEI academic

HEIs (£M) (£k) FTE (£)

Region North East 5 23 4,671 4,178

South East 17 60 3,558 3,309

East Midlands 9 31 3,446 3,579

Yorkshire and the Humber 11 37 3,407 3,344

East of England 9 30 3,327 3,372

West Midlands 12 40 3,308 4,428

North West 14 41 2,953 3,086

London 40 101 2,519 3,898

South West 13 32 2,456 3,948

All regions 130 396 3,046 3,636

HEI type Ancient 5 26 5,271 1,667

Redbrick 13 64 4,921 2,438

Plateglass 16 74 4,634 5,050

Modern 50 165 3,309 4,548

Other 11 28 2,559 2,675

HE College 35 38 1,084 7,165

All types 130 396 3,046 3,636

Arts Non-arts HEIs 112 381 3,401 3,576

Arts HEIs 18 15 841 6,239

All HEIs 130 396 3,046 3,636

KE activities within the HE sector are being fundedby a wide range of funding sources, with the HEIFfunding contributing to the overall investment. Thischapter provides an analysis of the HEIF 4 fundingallocations along with a consideration of thevariety of other funding sources that are beingused to support KE activities and infrastructurewithin the HE sector. It also looks at thedistinctiveness of HEIF 4 funding compared withthese other sources.

6.1 HEIF 4 funding allocations6.1.1 The £396 million of HEIF 4 fundingavailable to HEIs for third stream initiatives is to be

provided over three academic years from 2008/09to 2010/11. £112 million will be allocated in yearone rising to £134 million in year two and £150 million in year three.

6.1.2 The method for allocating the funding5

comprises two components and is outlined belowtogether with other features of the formula:

a Component 1: 40 per cent of the allocation isfocused on capacity building and an HEI’spotential; it is based on full-time equivalent(FTE) academic staff numbers.

b Component 2: 60 per cent of the allocation isbased on performance, using various measures of

5 Extracted from pg. 5: HEFCE (2008) ‘Higher Education Innovation Fund round 4: invitation and guidance forinstitutional strategies’, HEFCE publication 2008/02

income from business and non-commercialsources as a proxy for the value placed on anHEI’s activities by the users of knowledge in thewider economy and society. SME income isdouble-weighted within this component.

c A minimum allocation of £100,000 per year isawarded to all HEIs.

d There is a maximum (absolute cap) of £1.9million on an individual formula allocation in2010/11 with a linear progression between anHEI’s 2007/08 HEIF 3 allocation and the finalyear HEIF 4 allocation.

e There is a maximum increase (relative cap) of150 per cent allowed between 2007/08 HEIF 3formula allocations and final year HEIF 4allocations in 2010/11.

f No HEI’s allocation is allowed to fall below 80 per cent of its 2007/08 award to prevent anunmanageable drop in funding between HEIF 3and HEIF 4 (‘transition’ funding).

6.1.3 The breakdown of allocation by differentcharacteristics is provided in Table 6.1. The averageallocation was highest in the North East and lowestin the South West, although the South West secured

the third highest allocation per academic FTE.London received the highest total allocation of allregions due to the disproportionately large numberof HEIs in the region. Interestingly the average sizeof allocation is correlated with HEI age, with theancient HEIs securing the highest average allocationwith £5.3 million over 3 years, followed by redbrickHEIs, plateglass HEIs and modern HEIs. HEcolleges secured the lowest average allocation with£1.1 million over 3 years. Interestingly, the ancientHEIs secured the lowest allocation per academicFTE of all HEI types while HE colleges received thehighest. Specialist arts HEIs, on average, secured asignificantly lower allocation, being smaller andwith more limited histories of KE, although, whennormalised by the number of academic FTE staff,they receive more than non-arts HEIs.

6.2 Other funding sources forknowledge exchange6.2.1 A range of other funding sources is beingmarshalled to complement investments throughHEIF 4 funding (Table 6.2). These are typicallyfocused on supporting capacity within HEIs to doKE, for example by helping fund the necessary KEinfrastructure to engage.

HEFCE 2008/35 47


Table 6.2 Other sources of funding sought for knowledge exchange activities



RDA or other local funding 79 71

Other 54 49

Internal resources 50 45

EU funding 48 43

Private sector funding 48 43


6.2.2 The main other source of funding for KEactivities is from RDAs or other local publicfunding sources with 71 per cent of HEIs claimingto seek such funding. Approximately half of allHEIs sought private sector funding, internalresources and EU funding and other types offunding to help implement the KE strategies theyare pursuing.

6.3 The distinctiveness andimportance of HEIF funding forHEIs6.3.1 HEIF funding is distinct from other sourcesof funding in many ways that are greatly valued byHEIs as they attempt to increase their KEengagement. The most frequently citedcharacteristics of HEIF funding that make it distinctare its stability and predictability, its discretionaryuse and flexibility, and the riskier initiatives itallows to be pursued.

6.3.2 The stability and predictability of HEIFfunding allows HEIs to take a much longer termview when making strategic decisions about whichactivities or initiatives to fund. This allows formuch more coherent planning to be undertaken andimplemented, and helps HEIs achieve longer termobjectives such as embedding a truly entrepreneurialculture. The coherence of the planning process hasenabled HEIs to think more about how best tointegrate the previously fragmented KEinfrastructure that may have been funded bynumerous other funding sources, many of whichmay have had differing objectives. Similarly, it hasallowed them to think in a more cross-sectoralmanner and has catalysed cross-faculty engagement.The project-specific nature of other sources offunding has likely hindered these developmentsfrom taking place. In addition, conventionalfunding sources are often predicated on specific KEoutputs. Many of the speculative activities that aredesirable from a long-term strategic standpoint orthat could realise significant benefits but are as yetunproven would be precluded from such funding.HEIF funding greatly contributes to suchinvestments and facilitates the creation of a moreefficient innovation ecosystem.

6.3.3 The stability and predictability of thisfunding stream also facilitates the sustainabledevelopment of KE infrastructure and initiatives,giving HEIs confidence to invest in longer-termstructures and support mechanisms. Crucially, thestability provides HEIs with the ability to attract,secure and retain high-quality staff with theprofessional expertise necessary to successfullyengage in KE. HEIs are now in the position to offera real career path to those wishing to engage fulltime in KE. The formula funding approach to HEIFalong with the movement to a three-year timeframewill support this development.

6.3.4 The discretionary use of the funding at thelocal level and its flexibility were also frequentlycited as important distinctive characteristics of HEIFfunding compared with other funding sources. Thesecharacteristics allow HEIs to respond effectively tothe changing requirements of the nationalinnovation system and other regional priorities, andenable them to allocate their resources in the mostefficient manner based on both the internal andexternal pressures buffeting the institution. This isespecially important when HEIs are targeting sectorswhere KE is not well developed or which are subjectto very rapid change. Another benefit of thediscretionary and flexible nature of the funding isthat it allows HEIs to explore and validate higherrisk or innovative schemes for which there are veryfew other funding sources. It encourages them to becreative and experimental in their approach to KE,accepting a greater degree of learning and doingwhat other funding streams would deemunacceptable. HEIF funding enables HEIs to investin activities and initiatives that may be required tofurther the KE agenda, but are not appreciated bythe wider academic body as necessary until theyactually need it. For example, a number of strategiesmention the investment in legal advice for patentapplications or development funds for innovationprovided through proof-of-concept funds. Both ofthese would be difficult to fund through othersources but are increasingly being recognised asextremely important. Lastly, the discretionary natureand flexibility of HEIF allows HEIs to support theirwider institutional mission without skewing it in anyparticular direction. Other sources of funding are

48 HEFCE 2008/35


usually more initiative based with very specifictimeframes and outputs. Whilst these are valuablefor growing particular elements of KE capacity inparticular areas, they run the risk of creating missiondrift towards particular external objectives.

6.3.5 The fact that the funding is ring-fenced forKE is an important characteristic of HEIF, preventingit from being appropriated for other uses within theHEI. Some claim that this characteristic has meantthat, while HEIF allocations are only a smallproportion of the total overall HEFCE allocation toHEIs, they have had a large impact on HEIs.

6.3.6 HEIF funding, compared to other sources offunding, has been important for HEIs for a numberof other reasons. Table 6.3 shows that 51 per centof HEIs believed that the funding was critical to thesuccess of their KE strategy, with a further 38 percent believing it to be very important. No HEIthought that it was of little importance.

6.3.7 HEIF funding has provided not only thestimulus for collaborations to emerge between HEIsand other partners, but has also enabled HEIs topursue sustainable collaborations where previouslythe opportunity cost would have been too high. It isallowing HEIs to invest in long-term relationshipbuilding with partners, such as large corporations,moving from the mere transactional relationship toa much more strategic interaction which deliversincreased benefits both to the HEI and to thepartner. It is also facilitating cross-disciplineresearch and KE both within an HEI and withexternal partners since there is a decreased concernabout apportioning costs to individual budgetcentres or at the expense of other activities.

6.3.8 HEIF funding has also been very importantin influencing the strategic direction of HEIs. Anumber of strategies mentioned how the presence ofthe funding has provided a focus for the HEIaround which it has developed its overall strategy. Ithas helped bring KE into the foreground andallowed HEIs to create a separate campaign aroundKE rather than it being seen as a secondary priority.It has also provided the credibility for the HEI todemonstrate to academics that they are seriousabout KE engagement. The importance of thefunding stream is highlighted by the followingquotes:

‘HEIF funding endorses throughout the institute theimportance of knowledge transfer activities. Thefact that these activities can command their ownfunding emphasises their importance’

Institute of Cancer Research

‘[HEIF] funding gives credibility to projects andcommands the attention of possible collaborators.Given that some of our collaborators commandonly the slimmest of financial resources, HEIFfunding makes possible collaborations whichotherwise simply could not take place’

Heythrop College

‘Without HEIF’s underpinning funding we wouldfind it difficult to attract and retain quality staff, todemonstrate to a wider university audience that KEis a ‘serious’ agenda, to engage in sustainablecollaborations and to lever the additional fundsrequired to deliver the totality of our KE Strategy’

University of Bradford

HEFCE 2008/35 49


Table 6.3 Importance of HEIF funding


Critically important 64 51

Very important 47 38

Moderately important 14 11

Slightly important 0 0

Not important 0 0


6.3.9 All the aspects of HEIF funding described insection 6.3 are helping HEIs to achieve greaterculture change, further embedding KE into thefabric of the HE sector.

6.3.10 In addition to the above, HEIF fundingallows HEIs to pursue activities that cannot be self-financing, but which nevertheless provide importanteconomic and social benefits, or benefits within theHEI. Many ‘third stream’ engagements producemeagre (if any) financial return and as such it wouldbe difficult for academics to construct a businesscase for other sources of funding (including securinginternal resources). This also applies to cases wherethe benefits (including financial) to the HEI may notaccrue for many years, or where the investment isrisky but with a large potential payoff, thus limitingthe ability to construct a strong business case forfunding. HEIF funding has therefore been able toprovide the seed funding for activities that wouldotherwise have been very difficult to fund throughother means. This is particularly the case inindustries that are populated with micro-businessesand SMEs and where the benefits of HEIengagement are largely societal such as in thecreative sector.

6.3.11 Many HEIs commented on how HEIFfunding has helped lever-in other sources offunding. In some cases, this was due to thecapabilities of KE staff recruited and fundedthrough HEIF either spotting opportunities forfunding or through improved business plan or bid-writing skills. In other cases, HEIF funding hasfunded the initial stages of the project, which mayhave been too risky for other sources. Once proven,other sources of funding have stepped in. It has alsoproven useful as a source of matched funding tolever-in other sources of public funding for KE.Lastly, HEIF funding has, in some cases,demonstrated to other funders the seriousness withwhich the HEI is pursuing KE and this has aidedthe levering-in of funds.

50 HEFCE 2008/35


This chapter turns to the types of activities andinitiatives that are to be funded through HEIF 4funding. It will also discuss how these activitieswill help deliver and support the implementation ofthe overall KE strategies within HEIs. One shouldbe aware that the following discussion presentsthe investments that receive HEIF funding andonly captures the HEIF investment component. Asdescribed in the previous chapter, knowledgeexchange is supported by a variety of other funds(see Table 6.2) including internal funds, EU moniesand RDA funding. Therefore, the distribution of theallocation of HEIF funding is likely not the same asthe distribution of total KE expenditure.

7.1 The allocation of HEIF 4funding7.1.1 Tables 7.1 and 7.2 show how the HEIFfunding will be allocated over the period 2008–11.Much of the HEIF 4 funding is to be spent ondedicated KE staff, with over £200 million beingallocated over the three years. In addition,approximately £60 million will be allocated tosupporting staff engagement in KE activities,including the buy-out of academic time.

£21.6 million will be allocated to seed and proof-of-concept funds while only £4.1 million will be spenton investment in spin-outs. £17.2 million is to bespent on PR and marketing of the KE activitieswithin HEIs. £10 million is allocated to trainingand staff development, which will help improve thequality, productivity and scope of engagement.

7.1.2 A large amount of HEIF 4 funding,approximately £53 million, does not fall into any ofthe standard categories outlined in Table 7.1. Thebreakdown of this allocation is provided in Table 7.3.HEIs are planning to invest approximately £10 million of HEIF funding in support ofcollaborations with other HEIs (e.g. SPEED StudentPlacements for Entrepreneurs in EDucation,SETSquared partnership, WestFocus and LCACE),strategic partnerships with businesses or other users,or other forms of networks. Within this, there are alsofunds committed to encouraging innovation networksto form (University of Worcester) and to fosteringgreater cross-faculty collaborations within HEIs. Anumber of HEIs emphasise the importance ofcontributing to regional collaborations andpartnerships (e.g. Association of Universities in theEast of England or i10).

HEFCE 2008/35 51

7 Building Capacity and Capability toEngage with the Third Stream


Table 7.1 Allocation of HEIF 4 funding (£ millions)

Activity overview Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Dedicated KE staff 62.6 68.8 76.0 207.4

Support for staff engagement 15.8 20.1 23.4 59.3

Seed/PoC funds 5.9 7.4 8.3 21.6

PR/Marketing 5.0 5.8 6.4 17.2

Training/staff development 2.8 3.4 3.8 10.0

Investment in spin-outs 0.8 1.4 1.9 4.1

Other pump priming expenditure – total 5.8 7.9 9.2 22.9

Other total 14.0 18.0 21.3 53.3

Unaccounted 0.0 1.2 -0.3 0.9

Total 112.8 133.9 150.1 396.7

7.1.3 The £7 million allocated to ‘engagementsupport services’ includes support for KEengagement (e.g. consultancy and contract research),legal and patent support, the cost of external advice,consultancy and other external specialist advice, andthe cost associated with engaging with SMEs. Theallocation of approximately £6.4 million to ‘generalKE support costs’ consists primarily of genericoperating costs, IT support and other office relatedexpenditure for KE activity, travel and subsistenceand other indirect costs of engagement.

7.1.4 The allocation of approximately £3.5 million to ‘projects’ include creating ‘activityfunds’ allowing academics to bid for projectsupport, small grants to support a wide range of KEengagement, flagship initiatives and other specialprojects (e.g. science park support).

7.1.5 The £1.2 million allocated to ‘staff’ in theother category is somewhat distinct from the‘dedicated KE staff’ in Table 7.1. This allocationconsists primarily of funding for corporateindustrial advisors, the cost of other externalbusiness advisory boards and visiting fellows, etc.

7.1.6 Approximately £23 million was allocated toother pump-priming expenditure that could not beclassified in any of the categories specified in thestrategy template. The breakdown of this ‘other’category is provided in Table 7.4.

7.1.7 The £6.5 million allocated to ‘developmentfunds’ includes funds to incentivise innovation, tostimulate the commercialisation of intellectualproperty and other faculty investment funds thatacademics can bid for to pump-prime specificinitiatives. A number of these funds are specificallydesigned for new initiatives, thus building in someflexibility into the allocation for priorities thatemerge in the future.

7.1.8 £4.7 million will go towards creating orsupporting centres that focus on exploiting researchwith high degrees of knowledge exchange and othercentres that are dedicated to the exploitation ofresearch for economic and social benefit (see, forexample, the University of Reading, LoughboroughUniversity and Southampton Solent University).£1.1 million will help pump-prime collaborativeinitiatives, with one particular HEI dedicating aproportion of its allocation to stimulatingcollaborations with SMEs.

7.1.9 The ‘KE initiatives’ allocation of £1.5 million includes projects and initiatives thathave been specified as opposed to the developmentfunds which are for future projects yet to bedetermined. This allocation also includes somefunding for the continuation of previous KEinitiatives under HEIF.

52 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 7.2 Allocation of HEIF 4 funding (% of total)

Activity overview Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Dedicated KE staff 55.6 51.4 50.6 52.3

Support for staff engagement 14.0 15.0 15.6 14.9

Seed/PoC funds 5.2 5.5 5.6 5.4

PR/Marketing 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3

Training/staff development 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5

Investment in spin-outs 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.0

Other pump-priming expenditure – total 5.1 5.9 6.2 5.8

Other total 12.4 13.4 14.2 13.4

Unaccounted 0.0 0.9 -0.2 0.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

HEFCE 2008/35 53


Table 7.3 Allocations in ‘Other’ category (£ thousands)

Other – breakdown Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Collaboration/partnerships/networks 2,690 3,189 3,856 9,734

Engagement support services 2,111 2,272 2,592 6,976

General KE support costs 1,749 2,114 2,560 6,424

Enterprise education and student enterprise 1,665 2,057 2,531 6,252

Projects 770 1,153 1,532 3,454

Institutes and research centres 399 996 1,051 2,446

Incubation 485 575 620 1,680

Staff 292 424 448 1,164

Graduate employability 323 343 367 1,033

Internships 270 290 305 866

KE units 230 264 299 793

Community outreach 150 217 248 614

CPD 173 235 206 613

Monitoring and evaluation 194 200 207 601

New opportunities/products 81 213 276 570

Membership fees 112 154 174 440

Awards/events/culture change initiatives 65 164 190 419

Publications 80 85 78 243

Other 1,167 1,746 2,365 5,278

Unaccounted 1,028 1,272 1,389 3,689

Total 14,033 17,962 21,292 53,287

7.1.10 Interestingly, £1.1 million is to be allocatedto collaborative initiatives within the ‘other pump-priming expenditure’ in addition to £10 millionallocated under ‘other’ in Table 7.3.

7.2 Supporting the implementationof knowledge exchange strategies7.2.1 The strategy templates submitted by theHEIs in anticipation of HEIF 4 funding provided awealth of information on how HEIs will use their

HEIF allocations described in the previous sectionto implement their overall KE strategies. The rangeof methods is discussed below.

Focusing the strategic thinking of HEIs7.2.2 The existence of HEIF funding has helpedfocus the strategic views of HEIs. It has provided astimulus for many HEIs to develop a KE strategyand created a level of enthusiasm and ambition toachieve the visions being set. As mentioned earlier,it has allowed a separate campaign to be created

54 HEFCE 2008/35


Table 7.4 Allocations in ‘Other pump-priming expenditure’ category (£ thousands)

Other pump-priming expenditure Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Development funds 1,785 2,211 2,508 6,504

Support for KE units and research centres 914 1,650 2,113 4,677

CPD and enterprise education 497 653 699 1,849

KE initiatives 231 529 688 1,448

Internal and external KE support 308 393 468 1,168

Collaborative initiatives 325 380 415 1,120

Student enterprise and employer engagement 245 229 267 740

Consultancy 170 209 292 671

Community 158 210 262 630

Incubation 71 92 172 335

Awards and events 30 85 55 170

Other 455 697 757 1,909

Unaccounted 575 555 525 1,655

Total 5,762 7,893 9,222 22,877

Panel 7.1 Building knowledge exchange infrastructure

University of Nottingham – Ingenuity Centre

The Ingenuity Centre will be located in the Gateway Building of the University of Nottingham Innovation Park,

alongside Research Innovation Services technology transfer and business engagement staff. Together this will become a

central focus for implementing and coordinating new approaches to innovation and KE. The Ingenuity Centre will

implement a methodology established by UNIEI to bring together a range of business research and design organisations

to interact with staff and students. It will promote creative approaches to innovation. HEIF will provide some of the core

funding for this initiative and we will plan for the centre’s activities to be delivered internationally.

around the KE agenda, which hitherto lacked somelegitimacy. Crucially, it has enabled HEIs to createstrategies that are backed up by the necessaryresources to implement them.

Building support services and infrastructure7.2.3 HEIF funding has enabled and encouragedHEIs to build the necessary support infrastructureto engage in KE and this appears to be continuingunder HEIF 4. It has enabled HEIs to createcapacity to support academics in the pursuit ofconsultancy and contract research and other formsof commercialisation; for example, through helpingto identify opportunities, write business plans andapplications, costing funding proposals, handlingcontract negotiations, etc. HEIF funding hasallowed HEIs to develop expertise in patent supportand other legal support necessary when engaging inKE. Adequate expertise in these areas is becomingextremely important, especially for large multi-partner contract research projects where valuableintellectual property is being produced. Good legalsupport and strong negotiating capabilities arerequired to ensure that each HEI secures a fair shareof the subsequent royalties or income streams fromthe venture.

7.2.4 Other forms of support services beingimplemented include support for CPD courses,creating training and staff developmentprogrammes, support fellowships to encourage staffto engage with KE, creating support materials,support for volunteer, placement and internshipprogrammes and supporting new business creationfrom within the HEI. In addition, some HEIs areproviding project management support and otherforms of delivery support to ensure that deliveryoccurs in a timely and efficient manner.

7.2.5 Building up these support services creates aprofessional atmosphere for businesses andcommunity groups who wish to engage with theHEI. It also helps demonstrate to academic staffinternally that the HEI is serious about engagementin KE thus helping to encourage greaterparticipation.

7.2.6 In addition to the support services beingdeveloped, HEIF funding has helped fund thebuilding of core infrastructure that underpins KE

engagement. It has funded KE units (e.g. businessdevelopment offices or equivalent), consultancyunits, knowledge transfer partnership (KTP) centres,centres for entrepreneurial learning and CPD units.Much of this infrastructure enables the supportservices (described above) to be provided andhouses many of the dedicated KE staff fundedthrough HEIF.

7.2.7 It has also supported many enterprise andentrepreneurship programmes, allowing HEIs toexpand their capabilities in these areas. It hashelped fund student enterprise programmes,business plan competitions, initiatives for graduateemployability and the development of enterpriseeducation modules for courses. HEIF funding hasalso been used to support other specific initiatives.Examples include new schemes of KE through CPDin the museum and heritage sector and thedevelopment of new HESA non-credit bearingcourses (Courtauld Institute of Arts), as well asmaking better use of CASE studentships, KTPs,mini-KTPs, postgraduate training (University ofLiverpool) and workforce development initiatives(University of Hertfordshire).

Increasing knowledge exchange capacitythrough dedicated staff7.2.8 Many of the above support services,infrastructure and initiatives are provided bydedicated KE staff. As Table 7.1 shows, the mainallocation of HEIF 4 funding is to this area, withapproximately £207 million being spent on suchstaff. However, within this category, HEIs areutilising KE staff in a variety of ways to supportacademics in their KE engagement and inimplementing their overall KE strategies. Such staffmay be based centrally, providing support to allfaculties, or be embedded within each facultyproviding localised advice and support.

7.2.9 Many HEIs use core teams of KE staff torelieve the administrative and other support-relatedburdens of KE engagement. In some HEIs, theseofficers overlap with research administrators whilein others they are separate. KE staff typicallyprovide many early support services, particularlyhelping with the writing of business plans andfunding proposals, the costing and pricing of

HEFCE 2008/35 55


funding proposals and, importantly, providingsupport for or handling the negotiation of contracts.The HEIF funding stream has enabled a number ofHEIs to develop the critical mass of KE staffnecessary to provide professional expertiseapplicable to a variety of disciplines and sectors andthereby to successfully engage with a range of users.

7.2.10 The dedicated KE staff also perform a veryimportant coordination role to ensure that the KEengagement process, from opportunity identificationthrough to completion of the engagement, occurs inan efficient and effective manner. Creating acoordinated approach to KE that facilitatesinteractions between the HEI and partners will beimportant for securing the long-term strategicpartnerships described earlier in this section.

7.2.11 KE staff in some HEIs also regularly reviewKE opportunities (both from within the HEI andexternally) and analyse them to help identify thosethat will be successful, thus improving the successrate of engagement and a more efficient allocationof resources.

7.2.12 Many HEIs now believe that KE staff,particularly Business Development Managers

(BDMs) or equivalent, are integral to building andsustaining relationships with business, which isimportant for raising the their KE-related income.BDMs are, in some places, partly funded out ofcentral funds or from overheads, while in others,HEIF funding provides the bulk of the funding.They are critical for developing a goodunderstanding of the requirements and needs oftheir clients and, importantly, areas in which theHEI can most usefully contribute. City Universityclaims that such staff are the ‘catalyst for leveragingadditional research and commercial funds fromexternal sources’. In addition to building suchrelationships, they provide a high level of clientmanagement, creating a single point of contact forcorporate clients. There is some evidence to suggestthat this is increasingly being seen as important forencouraging larger companies to engage with HEIs.The creation of ‘central gateways’ or dedicated‘portals’ by HEIs complements the BDMs,providing a clear entrance into the KE activities ofHEIs. The University of Leicester claims that thecreation of an institution-wide gateway has helpedthem respond rapidly to external partner/user needsand helped build a closer relationship with them.

56 HEFCE 2008/35


Panel 7.2 Building innovative knowledge exchange infrastructure and supportservices

Norwich School of Art and Design – Right Brain Thinking

Right Brain Thinking is Norwich School of Art and Design’s creative consultancy service that focuses on

complementary skills and ambitions by bringing together academic staff, students and the business community. It

matches the expertise of business with creative ideas and methods, so that a different set of skills are applied to,

sometimes, conventional business problems. The consultancy can advise on and run continuing professional

development on creative thinking related to management and strategy, as well as provide creative solutions for image

and presentation to ensure that business remains innovative and competitive.

University of Hertfordshire – UH Graduate Consulting Unit

The UH Graduate Consulting Unit is meeting needs in market areas we traditionally found harder to serve. Staffed by

a team of recent graduates, supplemented by a growing roster of part-time students and mentored by senior

academics, it implements client projects of a scale and urgency that fall between traditional academic consulting and

student projects or placements. Its services are highly relevant to small companies and third sector organisations.

Covering areas such as market research, creative design, web design and ICT, it exposes graduates and students to

real business cases in a fully commercial context, as well as allowing academics to oversee a rich mix of interventions.

Consulting activity develops graduates’ and students’ confidence, enhancing their portfolio of employer-relevant skills

and experience.

7.2.13 KE staff are also becoming important indeveloping a stable and credible interface betweenacademics and the external partners. To successfullyachieve this, they require particular skills; the abilityto converse successfully with academics in verynarrow fields can be very different from thatrequired to interact with senior management oflarge corporations about their future needs.However, evidence is mounting that many HEIs arestarting to successfully deploy their KE staff tofacilitate this interaction. Where successfullydeployed, KE staff are able to increase theconfidence of academics to engage in KE as well ashelp enthuse them about the benefits of engagement,thus helping to mobilize the capacity and expertiseof academics. They can be very important tools inthe awareness raising campaigns pursued by seniormanagement of HEIs to increase participation in,and the quality of, KE.

7.2.14 The centrally located KE staff in HEIswhich operate a ‘hub-and-spoke’ system, where asmall office providing some central services supportsBDMs and other KE staff embedded in faculties,can play extremely important roles for ensuring thatthe strategic objectives of the HEI are met and, forexample, that best practice is shared. In such asystem, where KE staff are discipline focused ratherthan sector focused, there is a danger that they missopportunities where technologies can be applied tonon-related sectors. Regular networking betweenKE staff mitigates this risk while also ensuring thatbest practices are being shared. That said, ifdeployed successfully, they can be the conduit toincreased multi-disciplinary collaborative researchwithin the HEI.

7.2.15 Dedicated KE staff are also being used toliaise with the regional regeneration and economicdevelopment agenda, providing an important linkbetween the RDAs, other agencies and the HEI. Thefunding has encouraged some HEIs to align theirstrategies with the high-level regional objectives,increasingly recognising regional drivers and theimportance of strategic and co-ordinatedpartnerships with other regional players. Forexample, the University of Oxford funds theRegional Liaison Office out of HEIF funding, whichforms a vital role in maintaining relationships on

behalf of the university with the South East EnglandDevelopment Agency, and the City and CountyCouncils.

7.2.16 In addition to the typical businessdevelopment role described above, dedicated KEstaff are also being funded to operate centres whichsupport specific aspects of KE (such as the Centrefor Entrepreneurial Learning at the University ofDurham) to contribute to enterprise education orCPD (e.g. in Leeds College of Music) and tosupport academic work undertaken by staff (eg inthe Centre for Innovation, Business and Communityat the Norwich School for Art and Design).

7.2.17 Another key role that dedicated KE staff canplay is that of KE Champion (a role that is, in manyHEIs, typically played by academics). HEIs aredeploying such Champions to help mentoracademics in KE engagement, promote the benefitsof engagement and, ultimately, to increaseparticipation in third stream activities. TheseChampions can also play an important role inlinking up the variety of KE services in the differentacademic domains and networking and joining upactivities and knowledge across the HEI’s researchand KE community. Importantly, they typically alsoprovide the first point of contact for an academicwishing to engage in KE. In HEIs where KEChampions have been installed, dedicated KE stafftypically provide the support back-up to ensure thatthose academics that decide to engage with KE forthe first time receive the required training andsupport. The joint efforts of KE Champions,mentors, dedicated KE staff providing supportservices and other relevant staff are crucial todeveloping the confidence required by suchacademics to successfully engage in KE.

Supporting collaboration, networks andpartnerships7.2.18 The previous section indicated that over £11 million will be invested to supportcollaboration, networks and partnerships withexternal organisations, including the ability of HEIsto pump-prime the early stages of newcollaborations. In addition, HEIF funding explicitlysupports increased cross-faculty working, forexample through the £7.1 million support of

HEFCE 2008/35 57


Research Centres and other KE focused institutesthat carry out interdisciplinary work (see Tables 7.3and 7.4). However, the impact that HEIF has oncollaboration extends much more widely than this.

7.2.19 HEIF funding has provided the stimulus andcapability for many HEIs to establish collaborationsand partnerships with external organisations. It hasalso enabled and encouraged networking betweenacademics and external partners that helps ensurethat emerging technologies are brought to market. Ithas allowed HEIs to develop more integrated,holistic approaches to collaboration andpartnerships than would otherwise have been thecase. In addition, some HEIs claimed that the merepresence of HEIF funding provided the necessarycredibility and funding stability for partners toengage with the HEI in a collaborative venture.

7.2.20 It has allowed a number of HEIs to seek outmajor research collaborations, which require timeand significant amounts of effort to bring tofruition. The funding of dedicated KE staff enablesthem to pursue such initiatives and, in addition,HEIF funding can sometimes provide the necessarypump-priming funding to get the collaboration offthe ground. It has enabled HEIs to think muchmore proactively about multi-disciplined researchcentres and cross-faculty packages of research thatare focused on demand-led problems rather than onthe traditional subject disciplines.

7.2.21 Some HEIs are now beginning to moveaway from mere transactional relationships withexternal organisations to much more strategicpartnerships, enabling them to engage, develop andcoordinate relationships with corporate partners atthe senior management level or board level. Thisleads to a much more focused provision of KEactivities because there is a much betterunderstanding of the user requirements by the HEIand of the capabilities of the HEI by the corporatepartner. One HEI noted that the continuity of staffmanaging these relationships was very important;providing consistency in both the internal interfacewith academics and the external interface withpartners crucial to sustaining high-impact strategicpartnerships and relationships with these partners.

7.2.22 An important enabler for these strategicpartnerships to develop has been the HEIF-fundedinvestment in improved project managementcapabilities and performance management systems(e.g. Client Relationship Management systems),which allow HEIs to present a much moreprofessional, reliable business service to users bothin the business and wider community.

New models of knowledge exchangeengagement7.2.23 HEIF funding has allowed HEIs to exploredifferent, innovative models for engaging in KE.HEIs are increasingly able to offer intelligent,sophisticated and effective mechanisms for KE thatgo far beyond the traditional ad hoc method ofengagement. They are beginning to offer much morecoordinated, flexible and integrated deliverymechanisms rather than the fragmented capabilitythat was previously typically on offer. It is alsoallowing some to think about how to integrate theirvarious KE products to generate increased valueadded for the user. For example, the University ofReading is seeking to promote and develop linkagesbetween placement opportunities, mini-KTPprogrammes and entrepreneurship training. Thesepoints are highlighted well by the followingstatements:

‘As KE grows as an activity and as the BusinessDevelopment and Technology Transfer teamsmature we are able to provide an increasinglyintelligent, sophisticated and effective mechanismfor KE.’

King’s College London

‘It will allow us to further develop ourinfrastructure to support this strategy and developcrucial innovative platforms to deliver our desiredoutcome.’

University of Plymouth

‘The fund will operate to incentivise new andinnovative forms of knowledge transfer.’

London School of Economics and Political Science

58 HEFCE 2008/35


Buying out academic time7.2.24 Another way in which HEIF funding hassupported the implementation of KE in the HEsector is through the freeing up of academics’ timeto allow them to increase their engagement in KE.Many academics face high burdens on their timethrough their teaching and research commitments.The creation of funds by many HEIs to allow staffto buy out these commitments by bidding for ‘timeand expenses’ to develop their KE capabilities e.g.in consultancy, contract research and communityout-reach. The funds allow, for example, the HEIsto employ part-time lecturers to cover for academicswhile they engage in KE. This also acts as anincentive to academics, helping to widenparticipation as it brings KE into the mainstreamrather than being seen as ‘additional’ to teachingand research.

7.2.25 The buying out of academic time hasfacilitated the development of major research and

enterprise partnerships in some HEIs (e.g. KeeleUniversity, University of Leicester), while it hasallowed other HEIs to provide a wider focused CPDoffering.

Validating demand for knowledge exchangeofferings and being responsive to demand7.2.26 Many HEIs have used HEIF funding toassess the feasibility and sustainability of investmentsinto new areas of KE activity by, for example,conducting market research for CPD courses,surveys of employers to understand theiremployability requirements or ensuring that the HEIhas an informed understanding of the market’sneeds. It has allowed HEIs to validate their KEproducts to a greater extent before ‘going to market’thus improving the success rate (however defined).

7.2.27 In addition to validating demand, it hasallowed HEIs to create a much more responsiveoffering to the needs of the sectors and employers

HEFCE 2008/35 59


Panel 7.3 Bringing partners together in open innovation models

Cranfield University – Multi-client open innovation centres of excellence

Cranfield’s principal KE mechanism is through the development of long-term relationships between our embedded

‘intrapreneurs’ and the business sponsors of their work. Over many years we have moved a large proportion of these

up the value-chain from transactional interactions to strategic partnership. We have demonstrated the step-change in

value of such business-engagement to all parties, across Cranfield’s offerings of research, consultancy and education,

and will build on these pilots in the next development phase of our KE activities.

It is our intention to increase proactively the number of such strategic partnerships based around either key sectorial

requirements or platform technologies – ‘Centres of Excellence’ which are truly demand-led. These may be bilateral in

nature, but it is our recent experience that they are more likely to be multi-client, pre-competitive and therefore based on

‘open innovation’. These partnerships will continue to develop the deep sectorial engagement and impact of Cranfield,

maintaining our key differentiation from the rest of the UK’s HEIs.

Panel 7.4 An innovative knowledge exchange model for creative industries

University of the Arts London – Enterprise Centre for the Creative Arts

The Enterprise Centre for the Creative Arts (ECCA) is open to students and graduates of the University of the Arts

London and to any existing creative business based in London. ECCA's website highlights all the latest events for

creative businesses in London and contains a huge collection of online resources including factsheets, templates, a

directory of support organisations and now also podcasts of previous ECCA events that cover all aspects of business

from setting up to getting clients to basic accounting – a knowledge toolkit to help a creative start-up manage its

business. In addition, the ECCA website can be used to book one-to-one advice sessions with specialist business

advisors from its panel of business experts. Under HEIF 4, ECCA will be a pan-university service.

that they serve. The pump-priming funds and otherdevelopment/opportunities funds allow the HEIs tofund new ideas as and when they emerge in responseto the needs of their ‘clients’. In addition, the KEinfrastructure, including dedicated KE staff, facilitatesthe identification of demand-led opportunities forKE, which can then be matched to the internalcapabilities of the HEI. The London School ofEconomics and Political Science provides aninteresting example of this by holding a series offormal KE opportunities (seminars, workshops, paneldiscussions) to identify areas of demand and need onthe part of research users across the public sector.

Changing culture and embedding knowledgeexchange in the HEI7.2.28 HEIs are using their HEIF allocations to helpchange culture, further embedding KE and enterpriseinto the fabric of their institutions. This change istargeted not only at academics, to encourage greaterparticipation in KE, but also at increasing studententerprise and entrepreneurship. Achieving thisculture change requires infrastructure to be put inplace to create an environment that nurtures KEengagement, as well as demonstrating to academicsthe value of engagement. As described earlier,dedicated staff play an important role in achievingthis change in culture. However, this is not sufficientto achieve culture change. HEIs are introducingmany measures to improve the engagement of staffin KE and bring about culture change.

Training and staff development7.2.29 HEIF funding continues to help HEIs inbuilding up the capabilities of academics to engagein KE. £10 million has been allocated to trainingand staff development (Table 7.1), which is requiredto increase both the volume and quality of KE. Thistraining is targeted at both academics, to improvetheir KE capabilities and enable them to deliver toan employer-biased audience, and to dedicated KEstaff, who require increasingly specialisedprofessional training to successfully engage in KE.

Diversifying and growing income7.2.30 The capacity and capability installed throughHEIF 4 funding is allowing HEIs not only to growthe volume and value of their income, but

importantly, it is also enabling them to diversify theirincome sources away from their traditional relianceon public funds for research and teaching. Thededicated KE staff play an important role here inidentifying revenue-generating opportunities. Theavailability of funds to pump-prime new initiativesand test their feasibility, and for building up theHEIs’ profile for providing high-quality KE products,is also crucial for developing new income streams.

Improving relationship management7.2.31 The client relationship is becoming thelynchpin of long-term success in KE engagement. AsHEIs seek to move to more strategic partnerships,managing these relationships successfully willbecome ever more crucial for generating repeatbusiness. To achieve this, a number of HEIs areintroducing relationship management systems, suchas Client Relationship Management (CRM) systems,especially for their large corporate clients, althoughSMEs are starting to be included. CRM systems notonly help HEIs manage their external relationships,but can also improve the effectiveness of theirinternal relationships between offices and faculties.In addition, case studies and demonstrators ofsuccess can be identified to help encourage greaterparticipation.

7.2.32 Other management information andmonitoring systems have been introduced to bettermarshal KE data and monitor progress. Thesesystems, supported by the parallel development ofother KE capability, infrastructure and changes toinstitutional policies, are helping to further embed aculture of KE into HEIs.

Integration of teaching, research andknowledge exchange7.2.33 HEIF funding is helping to bring KE intothe mainstream activity of HEIs. It has helpedembed enterprise and entrepreneurship courses inthe curriculum in a number of HEIs (e.g. SouthBank University, Thames Valley University), whileintegrating student enterprise with the research andteaching agenda in others.

7.2.34 Where the integration of KE into thecurriculum is not as strong, there are signs thatHEIs are starting to align the three strands. Some

60 HEFCE 2008/35


are beginning to revise courses to make them morerelevant to the requirements of employers, whileothers are encouraging more interaction betweenteaching, research and KE engagement. In aninteresting development, the University of Sussex isdeveloping SussexPlus to recognise studentachievement outside the curriculum in, for example,enterprise activities.

Identifying new areas of work andresponding to new opportunities7.2.35 The HEIF allocations, particularly thefunding of dedicated KE staff to support KEengagement and the creation of pump-primingfunds, as well as the cultural change underway inHEIs towards KE, have helped HEIs access newmarkets, develop new KE products and unlockopportunities in, for example, consultancy, thatwere hitherto unexploited. It has allowed them todevelop the product, ‘go-to-market’ supportcapability, and the profile necessary to enter newmarkets. It has also created opportunities to identifynew research themes and projects that will generatefurther KE opportunities. The University of Yorkreports that the White Rose Health InnovationPartnership has helped accelerate the developmentof innovative technologies and their take up withinthe health sector. The ring-fenced funding has alsohelped HEIs respond much more quickly to thedemands of businesses and the community. Pump-priming funds and other development funds havebeen particularly important at developing thisflexible, responsive mode of delivery.

7.2.36 A small number of HEIs claimed that HEIFfunding has enabled them to pursue more

innovative, riskier activities that other fundingsources would not permit.

7.2.37 The funding has enabled some HEIs tobetter stimulate new business creation anddevelopment of spin-out companies and develop amuch healthier KE pipeline for commercialisation.Some HEIs reported that investment in incubationfacilities has been important for achieving this.

7.2.38 Proof-of-concept funding was similarlyclaimed by one HEI to be an ‘essential prerequisite’to developing and exploiting the intellectualproperty produced within the HEI. While someproof-of-concept funds are used to provide smallgrants to many projects to test the feasibility oflarge numbers of ideas, other HEIs use their fundsto fund fewer, but larger strategic projects.

‘Proof of concept will provide a vital source offunding to bring new, innovative, ideas to themarket.’

University of Gloucestershire

7.2.39 Strategic proof-of-concept funds were citedby a number of HEIs as providing good incentivesfor academic staff, encouraging greater participationin KE. These funds support and pump-prime KEinitiatives and provide opportunities for academicsto engage.

‘These funds [HEIF] are critical to support theinternal promotion of the KE strategy. In thatregard having earmarked funds for awards andgeneral initiatives is essential in encouraging andrewarding KE.’

University College London

HEFCE 2008/35 61


Panel 7.5 An incubator targeting social enterprise

Newman University College – The Voluntary Sector Incubator

The Voluntary Sector Incubator takes the principle and practice of business incubators and applies them to third

sector start-ups. The aim is to support small community organisations and social enterprises through the early stages of

development. This idea has strong backing from Birmingham Voluntary Services Council and from the voluntary and

community sector in south-west Birmingham. The initial model is of a ‘virtual’ incubator, through which different partners

will provide elements of support in areas such as desk space, payroll, communications, legal advice, training and fund-

raising. It is hoped that, with time and access to relevant sources of funding, it will be possible to create dedicated

premises and access to seed corn funding as well as support in kind.

Raising the profile of HEIs’ knowledgeexchange activities7.2.40 The presence of HEIF funding, theallocation of funding to marketing and PR and theinvestments made into infrastructure and othercapacity within HEIs have all helped raise theprofile of KE with external partners. For example,the University of Northampton claims that thefunding has helped raise the profile of theuniversity’s image as a research and knowledgeexchange provider and to enhance its visibility.Similarly, it has helped some HEIs create a clearidentity to the external world while in others,particularly smaller HEIs, it has helped enhance thecredibility of projects that command the attentionof potential collaborators. It has helped raise theprofile of HEIs with local companies regarding thetypes of services being offered. Networking eventscan be an important contributor to achieve this.

7.2.41 While the raising of the profile of KEexternally is extremely important for stimulatingdemand, an equally important awareness campaignhas been taking place internally. This is required topromote KE engagement to academics and formsone of a complement of mechanisms for wideningparticipation in KE.

Improving the efficiency and productivity ofthe knowledge exchange engagement process7.2.42 HEIF funding has enabled a variety ofsupport infrastructure, mechanisms and systems tobe created that has improved the efficiency ofengagement with external partners. For example,project management systems and better supervisionand support services help ensure that KE projectsare delivered efficiently, helping to maintain andimprove the reputation of the HEI as a reliableprovider of knowledge exchange services.

7.2.43 In addition, some HEIs are focusing onsimplifying processes (for example relating tocontract research or spinning-out companies) andstreamlining the KE workflow to help improve theefficiency of engagement.

7.2.44 The above, in addition to the investment insupport infrastructure and dedicated KE staff, helpsto reduce the administrative burden of engagementand thus reduce the opportunity cost of undertakingKE activities. This leads to an increase in theproductivity with which academics can engage andhopefully a growing KE participation.

62 HEFCE 2008/35


This chapter turns to the key risks facing HEIs inthe pursuit of their knowledge exchangestrategies. On the whole, HEIs presented goodrisk assessments in their strategy statements withthe better responses including not only adescription of the risks and planned actions tomitigate them, but also an estimation of thelikelihood and potential impact of the risk on thedelivery of the strategy.

8.1 Key risks8.1.1 HEIs face both internal and external risks inthe delivery of their KE strategies. These arepresented in Table 8.1.

8.1.2 The first key internal risk is the lack ofacademic engagement and interest in undertakingknowledge exchange activities (57 per cent of HEIs).Related to this is the risk that HEIs fail to

HEFCE 2008/35 63

8 Key Risks and Challenges FacingKnowledge Exchange in the HE Sector


Table 8.1 Key risks facing the knowledge exchange strategies of HEIs


Internal risks

Lack of academic engagement/interest 71 57

Lack of capacity to deliver KE 63 50

Inability to recruit/retain high-calibre KE staff 58 46

Inability to generate sufficient income from target markets 28 22

Governance of KE activities 16 13

Project management inadequate 15 12

Cost structure of engagement is prohibitive 15 12

Managing demand for services 14 11

Collaborations/partnerships are not successful 14 11

Failure to demonstrate value of KE engagement to academics 13 10

Coordination of staff difficult 10 8

Lack of technological opportunities 10 8

IP related risks 5 4

Inability to recruit students 3 2

KE strategy and mission drift 3 2

External risks

Lack of engagement/demand by industry 50 40

Change in government policies 25 20

Economic downturn 25 20

Falling external funding for KE 24 19

Inability of SMEs/micro businesses to engage 21 17

Increased competition from UK/overseas HEIs for KE 20 16

Low perception within target markets of ability to deliver 8 6

Other 13 5


demonstrate the value of KE to academics (10 percent), which would prevent an increase inparticipation. HEIs have taken many steps to raiseawareness of KE amongst staff and encouragegreater engagement, as noted in earlier chapters.

8.1.3 The second major internal risk is the lack ofcapacity to deliver KE (50 per cent of HEIs). Asusers within the business community, public sector,third sector and wider community become moreaware of the knowledge embedded within HEIs andthe increasing ability of HEIs to translate it intoeconomic and/or social gains, demand for suchservices may quickly outstrip the ability of HEIs tosupply them. HEIs are funding the building up ofrequired capacity to help mitigate any capacityconstraints although it was unclear as to the extentto which they are reviewing where potentialbottlenecks may occur in order to target resourcesappropriately.

8.1.4 The emergence of KE as a mainstreamactivity within HEIs and the rapid building up ofcapacity facilitated by HEIF funding have led to avery high demand for high-calibre KE staff.Successful KE staff require a particular set of skills,combining knowledge of the academic disciplines inwhich they are working with a good knowledge ofthe sectors which they are targeting. In addition,they must be able to converse easily with both typesof partners (academics and users). There areconcerns that there is a shortage of such people andhence competition will be high to recruit and retainthem, particularly in the short term. Forty-six percent of HEIs view this as a key risk, with manybelieving that its likelihood is medium to high, witha high potential impact on the delivery of theirstrategies. HEIF funding has helped mitigate thisrisk by providing the necessary funds to offercompetitive salaries. The culture changes withinHEIs are successfully creating new career pathwaysfor such individuals.

8.1.5 Another internal risk facing HEIs relates tothe inability to generate sufficient income from KEactivities to make them self-sustaining in the longerrun (22 per cent). This is closely related to theinternal risk of ‘cost structure of engagement isprohibitive’ (12 per cent) and the external risk of‘falling external funding for KE’ (19 per cent). All

of these risks will hamper HEIs’ ability to secure thenecessary income to continue to fund, expand anddevelop their KE activities.

8.1.6 The primary external risk facing HEIs is thelack of demand by industry for the KE activitiesthey offer. Forty per cent of HEIs cited this as a keyrisk. In addition, there are other demand-sideproblems such as the inability of SMEs and microbusinesses to engage with HEIs: either through notbeing aware of the benefits that interactions withHEIs could bring or because of the prohibitive costof engagement.

8.1.7 Twenty per cent of HEIs were alsoconcerned that changes in government policies mayaffect their ability to deliver their KE strategies.These include the changing views on the roles ofHEIs in providing business support.

8.1.8 The second major area of governmentpolicy related risk relates to the way in which HEIscan classify KE activity for tax purposes subsequentto the changes made to the Charities Act 2006. TheBritish Universities Finance Directors Group(BUFDG) is currently undertaking a HEFCE-fundedproject investigating these issues. HEIs are advisedto keep abreast of this issue and the results of thisproject.

8.1.9 The current economic downturn is cited as akey risk by 20 per cent of HEIs. The impact oncollaboration with industry in an uncertaineconomy is well described by the followingcomment:

‘Reduced demand from industry for collaborationwith UK universities or technology transfer, forexample as a result of the current macroeconomicenvironment, more rigorous implementation of fulleconomic costing rates, etc. Note that ourexperience from the years 2001-3 was that therewas a slowing of both investment and technologylicensing in the context of an uncertain economy. Itis possible that we will experience the same declinein pull for knowledge transfer if the economicconditions decline.’

Imperial College London

64 HEFCE 2008/35


9.1.1 An interest that always arises during anevaluation of a funding stream relates to whatwould have happened had it not existed. WouldHEIs have been able to achieve the same levels ofcapacity and capability building? Would academicshave still engaged in KE activities to the levels beingwitnessed now? This final chapter simply presentssome quotes from the submissions that illuminatethe views within the HE sector regarding thecounterfactual.

‘Without HEIF funding it is difficult to see howthese activities would be funded; these activities arenot self financing with the exception in the longterm (over 10 years) of technology transfer but eventhis is contingent on having one or moreexceptional revenue generating cases in theportfolio. With this one future exception, thebenefits, economic and social, do not bringeconomic benefit to the university on a time scalethat would allow a business case to be made tofund them.’

University of Cambridge

‘Without HEIF monies, supporting the initialgrowth and development of creative businesseswould be impossible to fund.’

Arts Institute at Bournemouth

‘Without the HEIF funding the BusinessDevelopment Manager and new Business SupportOfficer roles would not have been possible.’

Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln

‘The institute’s ability to carry out all these [KE]activities to a high standard is dependent on HEIFfunding. Without HEIF we believe that our successrate would be much lower.’

Institute of Cancer Research

‘In the absence of HEIF funding it would have beendifficult to develop high-quality professionalsupport systems whilst at the same time improvingthe volume of activity. This is particularly importantto allow planning and alignment with other moreproject-specific external funds and engaging withexternal partners.’

Newcastle University

‘Without HEIF 4 monies, the university would notbe able to develop and consolidate its KTPportfolio, especially with respect to setting in placenew ‘mini-KTPs’ in the creative industries.’

Northumbria University

‘Without the [HEIF funded] specialist knowledgerequired to access these programmes and initiativesthe university recognises that many collaborationswith business would not take place.’

University of Sunderland

‘The college could not maintain its high level ofemployability, innovation and entrepreneurshipteaching or fulfil its future ambitions for incubationactivity without HEIF funding.’

Ravensbourne College of Design andCommunication

‘… without HEIF 4 funding, the aspirationaldevelopments outlined in this strategy would nothappen. HEIF 4 funding should be regarded as thecatalyst for the realisation of these aspirations.’

Royal Northern College of Music

‘Without the HEIF 4 funds it would not be possibleto pursue these important [KE] agendas in aneffective and organised manner. The absence of acore team of skilled knowledge transfer staff tosupport academics and build links with business,the public and third sectors and relevantintermediaries would severely limit the impact ofmany of our knowledge transfer activities.’

University of Essex

‘Without HEIF funding [the University ofPortsmouth’s] approach would not be possible andas a result the university would not be able toengage in its current and planned levels ofknowledge transfer.’

University of Portsmouth

9.1.2 These examples provide an indication of theimportance of HEIF funding in facilitating changewithin HEIs and delivering a superior quality andhigher volume of KE to users in the businesscommunity, public sector and third sector as well asin wider society.

HEFCE 2008/35 65

9 The Counterfactual: What Would HaveHappened Without HEIF Funding


A1 MethodologyA1.1 The assessment methodology divides intothree key modules:

Module 1: Scorecard methodology developmentand tests

Module 2: Review of each institutional strategy

Module 3: Assessment and feedbackdevelopment of strategies

A2 Module 1: Scorecardmethodology development and testsA2.1 This first module presents the developmentand refinement of the scorecard methodology alongwith the specific tests that were used to assess thestrategies. The key output of this module, thedevelopment of the scorecard, forms the bulk of thismethodology paper.

Scorecard test developmentA2.2 The tests were developed using a bottom-upapproach from the strategies. Initially, the questionsfrom the strategy template were mapped to fourcriteria based on how each question informedparticular issues relating to the criteria. A test wasthen created which assesses the extent to whichstrategies provide sufficient, relevant evidence onthe issue.

A2.3 The set of tests is provided below. Each testis explicitly mapped to a specific question number(or sub-question) in order to ensure efficientassessments given tight timescales.

66 HEFCE 2008/35

Appendix A Assessment Methodology


Criterion A: Sound strategic approach

HEFCE 2008/35 67


1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

Is there a statement of the aims

and outcomes?

Is there evidence that the

knowledge exchange strategy

fits with the institutional

mission?


strategy has a clear focus in

terms of its investments, target

sectors, geographical focus,

target organisations?

Have other funding sources

been considered?

Has a sound evidence base been

used to formulate the strategy?

Are the investments consistent

with the priority aims and

outcomes of the KE strategy

outlined in 1.1?

(Refer to bold part of question):


allocation of HEIF funding

outlined in Q9 will help achieve

the overall KE strategic aims

and deliver the outcomes

summarised in Q1?

1.1

1.2

1.3–1.6

1.7

2

9

11 (+1+9+10)

Summarise the key aspects of your overall

knowledge exchange strategy over the next

three years, including:

i) priority aims and intended outcomes.




ii) relationship to institutional mission

(research and teaching etc).



three years, including: iii) main activities

(contract research, enterprise education,

continuing professional development etc); iv)

target sectors (in business or public services

or the third sector); v) any geographical focus

(international, national, regional, local); vi) any

focus on particular kinds of target

organisations (e.g. SMEs).




vii) main funding sources.

Describe the rationale and evidence base

used to formulate these strategies.

How do you plan to allocate HEIF 4 funds?

Please fill in table A below, by category of

expenditure. (See guidance notes for further

explanation of information sought in Q9 and

Q10.)

Explain how these allocations will support the

implementation of your strategy as described

in Section A. Please also explain whether

HEIF funds will make a distinctive

contribution in comparison with other funding

sources and, if so, what and why?

Strategic focus

Institutional fit

Strategic focus

Commitment to

third stream strategy

Soundness of

strategy

Consistency (also

informs capacity

building in criteria

C & D)

Consistency (also

informs capacity

building criteria

C & D)

Test # Test Source Q # Source Q Issue

HEIs have a sound strategic approach to knowledge exchange, in line with their individual corporate strategies, core

institutional missions, key partners and locations.

68 HEFCE 2008/35


2.1

2.2

2.3

Is there evidence that adequate

monitoring systems are in place

to evaluate progress in KE,

including capturing lessons

learned from past experience?

Are there adequate KPIs for

capturing the benefits of KE?

Are there adequate measures in

place to manage the risks in

implementing the KE strategy?

5

6

12

How does your HEI monitor and evaluate its

progress in knowledge exchange, including

assessing outputs, outcomes and economic

and social impacts, and how does evaluation

inform future strategy and activity?

Have key performance indicators for

knowledge exchange been defined? If so,

what are they?

What do you consider to be the key risks in

implementing your knowledge exchange

strategy and achieving plans for HEIF 4?

Please describe their likelihood, potential

importance and how they will be managed.

Performance

management

systems

Performance

metrics

Risk management


Criterion B: Performance management systems, data collection, planning, risk management,monitoring and evaluation

Management of HEIs’ knowledge exchange activities includes appropriate and robust systems for performance

management and data collection (including those relating to making returns to the HE-BCI survey), planning, risk

management and monitoring and evaluation.

HEFCE 2008/35 69


3.1

3.2

Is there an effective use of

collaboration which delivers

significant value-added to KE

activities?

Is there evidence that the HEIF

funding will help further develop

capacity to deliver KE inline

with the strategic objectives?

3+4

10 (+1)

Describe your approach to collaboration and

any key partners which have been involved in

the development of strategy or will be

involved in delivery. In particular, what will

they contribute which adds to economic and

social impacts or contributes to value for

money?

Are these partnerships building upon

previous alliances, or will new partnerships be

established during the period?

Are you able to associate any HEIF 4 funds

with specific knowledge exchange activity

outputs (e.g. ring-fenced funds for capacity-

building and support of enterprise education,

schemes to embed industry or public

professionals in HEI departments, continuing

professional development or consultancy

support)? If so, please describe (with

indications of levels of funding).

Use and

effectiveness of

collaboration

Capacity building

(also informs

criterion D)


Criterion C: Capacity and capability

HEIs are committed to the continued improvement and further development of their capacity to deliver economic and

social impact, including effective use of collaboration, so as to achieve value for money in use of public funds.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Is the HEI building upon

previous KE investments,

particularly previous HEIF

investments and, if not, is there

justification for a departure from

previous strategies?

Is there evidence that the HEI

seeks to learn from experience?

Is there evidence that the HEI is

actively seeking to increase

participation in KE activities?

Is there evidence that the HEI is

seeking to improve

performance in KE, including

capturing key lessons learned

from past experiences and from

other sources of good practice?

(Refer to bold part of question):

Is there evidence that the HEIF

funding will make a distinctive

contribution to the

implementation of the KE

strategy?

2.1–2.3

5

7 (+3)

8

11 (+1+9+10)

Describe the rationale and evidence base

used to formulate these strategies including

the extent to which:

i) the current strategy represents a

continuation of, or a departure from, previous

strategies

ii) the strategy maintains existing capacity for

knowledge exchange or seeks to develop

new capacity (e.g. to engage with creative

industries or service sectors)

iii) the strategy builds on legacies and lessons

learnt from previous HEROBC and HEIF-

funded activity.

How does your HEI monitor and evaluate its

progress in knowledge exchange, including

assessing outputs, outcomes and economic

and social impacts, and how does evaluation

inform future strategy and activity?

How do you seek to engage academic staff

in knowledge exchange activities?

What approaches are you taking to improve

performance in knowledge exchange (e.g.

through policies, improvements to processes

or practices, specific staff developments or

activities to draw on and share good

practice)?

Explain how these allocations will support the

implementation of your strategy as described

in Section A. Please also explain whether

HEIF funds will make a distinctive

contribution in comparison with other funding

sources and, if so, what and why?

Build on previous

achievements/Soun

dness of strategy

Further develop and

release KE benefits

to economy and

society

Further develop and

release KE benefits

to economy and

society

Further develop and

release KE benefits

to economy and

society

Importance of HEIF


70 HEFCE 2008/35


Criterion D: Meets HEIF 4 objectives

HEIF 4 funding will be spent in line with the overall objectives of the programme, to achieve maximum impact and to

respond flexibly to changing priorities and opportunities for innovation.

1

2

3

4

A3 Module 2: Review of eachinstitutional strategyA3.1 The second module deployed the scorecardin reviewing each institutional strategy. Each HEIstrategy was assessed according to the above tests.The score for each test (except the test relating tothe overall view – see below for details) was basedon a rating 1–4 (1=lowest, 4=highest) determined bythe ‘test score decision tree’ summarised in FigureA3.1. The highest score of 4 implied that theanswers were explicitly both clear and relevant,while a score of 3 meant that some of theinformation required had to be inferred fromstatements or it was implied by the response. A testreceiving a score of 2 meant that it was verydifficult for the assessor to glean the required

information from the response. The lowest scorewas only awarded in cases where no informationwas provided. The assessment methodology workedon the premise that (a) HEIs could not be expectedto provide information that was not asked of themin the template, however desirable that informationwould have been to complete the understanding ofthe situation; and (b) that all the questions meriteda response. If an HEI believed that a particularquestion was not relevant to them, an explanationas to why would have been expected.

HEFCE 2008/35 71


5 Please provide an overall view

of strategy including its overall

strength and suitability for HEIF

4 funding?

Test # Test Resubmit? Comment

Overall view of HEI strategy

Please provide your overall view of the HEI strategy, including its overall strength and suitability for HEIF 4 funding,

based on the assessments above and a general impression from reading the strategy.

Developmental feedback

Short developmental feedback based on the above assessment and overall impressions of the strategy.

A3.2 The test relating to the overall view is abinary score (Yes or No, see Figure A3.1) relating towhether the expert assessor (PACEC) believed,based on an overall reading of the strategy and thescores to all of the previous tests, that the strategyhas been successful. Successful strategies prompt therelease of the HEIF 4 funding. For those strategiesthat the assessors felt required further clarificationor information prior to the release of funding, arequest for resubmission was flagged.

A3.3 The qualitative evidence from the strategiesthat justified the score was recorded alongside. Thisgreatly reduced the time required for the reviewingprocess, which was very important given the tighttimescale for the initial assessment phase.

A4 Module 3: Assessment andfeedback development of strategies

Strategy assessmentA4.1 The third module used the completedscorecards for each HEI strategy to determinewhether it could be recommended for fundingrelease or whether it should be recommended forresubmission. By using a scorecard approach, asystematic, fair and robust assessment can be madeagainst highly transparent criteria.

A4.2 The decision to recommend a strategy forfunding release or resubmission was made using thescorecard criteria outlined in Figure A4.1 anddiscussed below.

A4.3 HEIs that achieved a score of greater than orequal to three on each test and a recommendationfrom the assessor to release funding automaticallypassed the assessment. Such HEIs provided astrategy that is at least relatively or very clear in itsintentions on how to use the HEIF 4 fundingaccording to the criteria and objectives set byHEFCE. The overall view, which was assessedaccording to the binary score to resubmit or not,also provided an indication of whether the strategyreflects an appropriate use of funds.

A4.4 HEI strategies that scored up to a maximumof three scores of two on the set of tests weredeemed acceptable if and only if the assessor’soverall view was that it should be recommended forfunding release. Such strategies were deemed to bemarginal. In such cases, if the assessorrecommended resubmission then the strategy wasput forward for resubmission.

A4.5 HEI strategies that scored more than threescores of two on the set of tests or any HEI strategythat scored a one on any test were automaticallyrecommended for resubmission and clarification.

72 HEFCE 2008/35


Figure A3.1 Test score logic tree

Source: PACEC

HEI answer totemplate question

Yes

No

No comment –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1

Clear HEI answer ––––––––––––– 4

Relatively clear HEI answer ––––––––––––– 3

Unclear ––––––––––––– 2

Clear HEI answer ––––––––––––– 4

Relatively clear HEI answer ––––––––––––– 3

Unclear ––––––––––––– 2

A4.6 In any case where resubmission wasrequired, further information and/or clarificationwas requested from the HEI. The areas ofclarification were identified qualitatively based onthe test scores and evidence provided in thescorecard. Once the strategies had beenresubmitted, they were reassessed according to themethod set out in Modules 2 and 3 and a newscorecard and assessment produced.

HEFCE 2008/35 73


Figure A4.1 Recommendation decision criteria

Source: PACEC

Scorecard forHEI strategy

All scores of 3 or 4

Scores of 3, 4 anda maximum of

three scores of 2

Assessor’s decisionto release funding

Any score of 1 or

More than threescores of 2

Assessor’s decisionto resubmit

Automaticrecommendation forresubmission

Automatic recommendationfor funding release

Recommendation forfunding release

Recommendation forresubmission

Test scores Recommendation

74 HEFCE 2008/35

Appendix B Major Collaborative Initiatives


Innovation

Xchange

Carbon

Connections

Business

Edge

IXC-UK is a

knowledge-exploitation

company.

Successfully brings

together HEIs and

SMEs through its

funded projects and

stimulates engagement

with Chinese

universities on the

transfer of carbon

reducing innovations

from the UK.

Embedding

entrepreneurship

throughout education

and enterprise.

Business Edge

provides a channel for

HEIs to make their

expertise easily

accessible to aspiring

and existing

entrepreneurs.

Lead: University of

Birmingham


Imperial College

University of Manchester

Lead: University of East

Anglia

University of Essex

Cranfield University


Newcastle University

Writtle College

Open University

Lead: University of

Essex


University of Leeds

University of Liverpool

Open University

University of Warwick

£3,612,000

£4,863,538

£4,632,174

IXC will continue under HEIF 4 with the

University of Wolverhampton joining the

initiative, providing £30,000 per annum for

years 2 and 3.

Carbon Connections will continue under HEIF

4. The University of East Anglia will incorporate

this programme under the Low Carbon

Innovation Centre, allocating £350,000 per

annum to support this new centre. UEA will

continue to support this initiative beyond HEIF

3 through engaging directly with all the

HEFCE-funded institutions around a fund

made up from private and public sector

sources and the reinvestment of income

generated in the first phase of Carbon

Connections. The synergies between Carbon

Connections and CRed (UEA's Carbon

Reductions project) will be enhanced through

the Low Carbon Innovation Centre.

Other HEIs mentioning this initiative include:

• Cranfield University

• St George's will become a member of this

initiative in order to engage with the

environmental agenda, much of which has

health implications

• University of Hertfordshire will also partner

with Carbon Connections to supplement

their Proof of Concept activity

• University of Essex

• Keele University.

Business Edge will continue under HEIF 4 with

new partners being invited to join the

partnership.

Project Description Partners HEIF 3 Continuation under HEIF 4name under HEIF 3 funding

B1 Continuation of HEIF 3 Collaborative Projects

Table B1.1 Continuation of Collaborative Projects funded through HEIF 3

This appendix describes projects funded under HEIF 3 and Centres of Knowledge Exchange, and describesany continuation plans for these reflected in HEIF 4 strategies.

HEFCE 2008/35 75


White Rose

Health

Innovation

Partnership

Creative

Capital -

World City

Opportunities

for Meeting

the

Environmental

challenge of

Growth in

Aviation -

OMEGA

White Rose Health

Innovation Partnership

brings together

academics, clinicians,

businesses and KE

professionals to deliver

exciting new

opportunities in

medical technologies

innovation.

Creative Capital –

World City will provide

the specialist business,

economic, technical,

creative and cultural

expertise required to

support the UK

creative industry’s

expansion into key

world markets.

OMEGA is engaged

with a wide range of

stakeholders in

transferring knowledge

from academia to

industry that has the

potential to impact

upon both the local

and global effects of

aviation.

Lead: University of

Leeds


University of Sheffield

University of York

Lead: University of the

Arts London

King's College London

London Business School

School of Oriental and

African Studies

Lead: Manchester

Metropolitan University

University of Oxford



University of Leeds


University of Southampton

Loughborough University

£4,731,000

£5,000,000

£5,000,000

The White Rose Health Innovation Partnership

will be maintained:

• University of Leeds will allocate £435,000

• University of York will contribute

approximately £77,000 to the central costs

of the collaboration.

The initiative is also mentioned by:

• University of Bradford

• University of Sheffield.

There is no mention of this project in any of the

partners' submissions.

OMEGA will continue under HEIF 4 with

Manchester Metropolitan University allocating

£100,000 per annum of its allocation to the

programme. It is intended to ring-fence

£100,000 to maintain the administrative hub as

it reaches sustainability over the next three

years. Key objectives of this initiative include

the embedding of industry professionals within

partner university departments and widespread

stakeholder engagement to support the

development of a more sustainable air

transport system.

The initiative was also mentioned by:

• Cranfield University (which will continue to

support OMEGA using HEIF 4 funding)

• University of Leeds

• University of Sheffield.

Oxford Brookes University will continue to lead

the CommercialiSE project through the HEIF 4

period.


76 HEFCE 2008/35


CommercialiSE

Innovation

China UK

(ICUK)

UK Centre of

Excellence in

Customised

Assembly

(CECA)

Provide a

commercialisation

framework for

innovators who exploit

the knowledge base

of the region's

universities.

ICUK is the first

collaborative research

and knowledge

exchange partnership

between the two

countries, supporting

academic and

business partners in

forging collaborations,

funding proof-of-

concept research and

commercialising joint

intellectual property

across the UK and

China.

CECA is an industry-

driven facility to assist

the adoption of new

technologies to

reduce assembly

times and costs,

whilst improving

quality and

productivity.

Lead: Oxford Brookes

University

University of Brighton

Buckinghamshire New

University

University of Chichester


University of Greenwich

University of Kent

Kingston University

Oxford Brookes University



University of Sussex

Lead: Queen Mary,

University of London

King's College London

Royal Veterinary College

University of Nottingham

University of Southampton

Lead: University of

Sheffield

Loughborough University


£5,000,000

£4,978,784

£4,792,054

Other HEIs that mention continued support

and engagement in this consortium include:

• University of Sussex

• Kingston University

• University of Brighton

• University of Chichester

• University of Portsmouth

• Buckinghamshire New University (which

will provide £35,000 in year 1 rising to £90,000

in year 3 in support of this collaboration).

ICUK will be supported by HEIF 4, with Queen

Mary allocating £40,000 per annum to proof-

of-concept funds and £20,000 to ensuring

coordination across its KE programmes and

ICUK. There are two key objectives: (i) to

secure follow-on funding from September

2009 from, for example, RCUK Science

Bridges competition; and (ii) to modify ICUK in

line with lessons learnt so far. These include

more flexibility in securing funds for projects

within China; greater focus on priority

technology areas (e.g. renewable energy) and

a more strategic approach to the awarding of

partnership grants to facilitate collaborations.

The collaboration was also mentioned by:

• University of Nottingham

• Royal Veterinary College

• University of Southampton.

The University of Sheffield will continue to lead

CECA under HEIF 4.


HEFCE 2008/35 77


Building

Sustainable

Communities

SPEED

[Student

Placements

for

Entrepreneurs

in Education]

Building Sustainable

Communities aims to

ensure that new

developments in

London and the South

East of England make

use of the latest

research to enable

them to be formed as

sustainable

communities.

SPEED gives students

the opportunity to

improve their business

skills through the

development of a

business idea in a

supportive

environment.

Lead: University

College London

University of East London

London Metropolitan

University


Trinity Laban

Ravensbourne College

Goldsmiths College,

University of London

Rose Bruford College

Lancaster University

London School of

Economics & Political

Science

Oxford Brookes University

Queen Mary, University of

London

Harper Adams University

College

Lead: University of

Wolverhampton

University of Birmingham

University of Central

England

Coventry University

University of Derby

Nottingham Trent

University

Southampton Solent

University

Staffordshire University

Thames Valley University



£5,000,000

£5,000,000

There is no mention of this project in any of the

partners' submissions.

University of Wolverhampton will continue to

lead the SPEED initiative and is allocating

£130,000 per annum to it. SPEED will be

jointly funded by HEIF and ERDF during the

HEIF 4 period.

SPEED was mentioned in other submissions:

• Keele University will be allocating £319,000

• University of Worcester will allocate

£94,000 per annum

• Nottingham Trent University will invest

£135,000

• University of Northampton will allocate

£300,000

• Coventry University will allocate £300,000

• Bishop Grosseteste University College

Lincoln will invest £34,000

• University of Birmingham

• Thames Valley University

• Staffordshire University

• Southampton Solent University.


Sources: HEIF 4 strategies, HEIF 3 competitive bids, internet searches, PACEC analysis

78 HEFCE 2008/35


Brighton &

Sussex

Community

Knowledge

Exchange

(BSCKE)

WestFocus

Centre for

Knowledge

Exchange

(WFCKE)

i10 Centre for

Knowledge

Exchange (i10)

Contact:

Knowledge

Exchange

(ContactKE)

Lead: University of Brighton

University of Sussex

Lead: Kingston University

Brunel University

Royal Holloway, University of

London

St George's Hospital Medical

School

University of Surrey Roehampton

Thames Valley University


Lead: University of Cambridge

Anglia Polytechnic University


University of East Anglia

University of Essex

University of Hertfordshire

University of Luton

Norwich School of Art

Open University

Writtle College

Lead: Birmingham City

University

Aston University


University College Birmingham

Coventry University

Harper Adams University College

Keele University

Staffordshire University


University of Wolverhampton


£370,000

£1,000,000

£1,000,000

£997,706

BSCKE will continue into HEIF 4 and is mentioned in the

University of Brighton submission.

Westfocus will continue into HEIF 4, with all its existing

partners mentioning it in their strategies including:

• Kingston University: £15,000 in year 1 rising to £50,000 in

year 3

• Brunel University: £40,000 per annum in years 2 and 3

• Royal Holloway: contribute to costs

• St George’s: £55,000 in year 1 rising to £100,000 in year 3

• University of Surrey Roehampton: £15,000 in year 1 rising

to £45,000 in year 3

• Thames Valley University: £15,000 in year 1 rising to

£55,000 in year 3

• University of Westminster: £110,000 for Westfocus staff.

i10 will continue into HEIF 4 although it is not mentioned by all

the partners. Submissions in which it is included are:

• Anglia Ruskin University

• University of East Anglia

• University of Essex

• University of Hertfordshire

• Norwich School of Art and Design

• Open University

• Writtle College.

ContactKE will continue into HEIF 4 but it is only mentioned

by Birmingham City University and Keele University, which will

use part of its HEIF 4 funding allocation to support it.

Project Partners CKE award Continuation under HEIF 4name 2006-08

B2 Continuation of Centres for Knowledge Exchange

Table B2.1 Continuation of Centres for Knowledge Exchange funded through HEIF 4

HEFCE 2008/35 79


Crime Solutions

East Midlands

NTI Centre for

Knowledge

Exchange (NTI-

CKE)

KnowledgeEast

National Rural

Knowledge

Exchange

(NR-KE)

Film and Digital

Media

Exchange

(FDMX)

Lead: University of Central

Lancashire


University of Salford

Lead: De Montfort University

University of Derby

University of Lincoln

Nottingham Trent University

Lead: University of East

London

Goldsmiths College, University of

London


London Metropolitan University

Queen Mary, University of London

Ravensbourne College

Trinity Laban

Lead: Harper Adams University

College


Bournemouth University

University of Central Lancashire


University of Hull

Keele University

University of Newcastle upon Tyne


Royal Agricultural College


University of the West of England


Writtle College

Lead: University of

Hertfordshire

Anglia Ruskin University

University of East Anglia

Norwich School of Art and Design

£300,000

£1,000,000

£1,000,000

£1,000,000

£1,000,000

Not mentioned in strategy submissions of the partners.

NTI-CKE will continue into HEIF 4 funding and is mentioned in

the following submissions:

• University of Derby

• University of Lincoln

• Nottingham Trent University.

Knowledge East will continue into HEIF 4. UEL aims to support

the evolution of KnowledgeEast (and its London networks) from

a grant-aid model to a subscription model which emphasises

collaboratively adding value to partner HEI aims.

The following HEIs provide information:

• University of East London: £25,000 per annum in years 2

and 3

• Trinity Laban: £12,000 per annum for years 2 and 3

• University of Greenwich: continue to contribute to costs

• London Metropolitan University

• Goldsmiths College

• Queen Mary

• Ravensbourne: committed to an increased financial

contribution from 2009-10, which it will have to find from

other sources.

NR-KE continues into HEIF 4 with Harper Adams committed

to supporting its information sharing aspects, enabling the 14

HEI partners to use the project’s web portal for the long-term

promotion of their KE events and services.

In addition, it is mentioned in the following submissions:

• Royal Agricultural College

• University of Worcester

• Writtle College.

FDMX continues into HEIF 4 and is mentioned in the following

strategies:

• University of Hertfordshire

• Anglia Ruskin University

• Norwich School of Art and Design.


80 HEFCE 2008/35


West Yorkshire

Knowledge

Exchange

(WYKE)

Business and

Community

Knowledge

Exchange

(BACKE)

Merseyside

Centre for

Knowledge

Exchange

Activity

Exchange:

London’s

creative

knowledge

exchange

M1 Knowledge

Exchange

East Midlands

Bioscience

Knowledge

Exchange

(BioKneX)

Motorsport

Knowledge

Exchange

(MKE)

South East

Knowledge

Exchange

(SEKE)

Construction

Knowledge

Exchange (CKE)

Lead: University of Huddersfield


University of Leeds


Lead: University of Hull

Lead: Liverpool John Moores

University

University of Liverpool

Liverpool Hope University College

Lead: University of the Arts

London

Goldsmiths College, University of

London

London Metropolitan University

Royal College of Art

Lead: University of Luton

(Bedfordshire)

Lead: Nottingham Trent

University

University of Leicester


Lead: Oxford Brookes

University

Brunel University


University of Hertfordshire

Lead: University of Portsmouth

University of Brighton

Buckinghamshire New University

Lead: University of Salford

University of Central Lancashire


London South Bank University

University of the West of England

University of Wolverhampton

£425,000

£1,000,000

£500,000

£850,000

£1,000,000

£650,000

£367,179

£1,000,000

£1,000,000

WYKE continue into HEIF 4. The UoH is the lead in WYKE,

which is progressing well towards long-term sustainability and

has received recognition for its work.

BACKE will continue into HEIF 4. University of Hull is ensuring

that BACKE achieves sustainability through external funding

by 2010.

Not mentioned in strategy submissions of the partners.

Exchange will continue into HEIF 4, albeit in a modified form

reflecting operational requirements.

Not mentioned in strategy submissions.

BioKneX will continue into HEIF 4 and is mentioned by:

• Nottingham Trent University

• University of Leicester.

Oxford Brookes will continue to lead the MKE into HEIF 4.

SEKE will continue into HEIF 4.

CKE will continue under HEIF 4.

CKE is mentioned in the following submissions:

• University of Salford

• London South Bank University.


HEFCE 2008/35 81


Software

Factory

Global

Automotive

Technology

Exchange

(GATE)

Digital

Knowledge

Exchange (DKE)

Knowledge

West (KW)

Lead: Sheffield Hallam

University


Lead: University of Sunderland

University of Durham

University of Teesside

Lead: University of Teesside

University of Sunderland

Lead: University of the West of

England

University of Bath

Bath Spa University

University of Bristol


Royal Agricultural College

£500,000

£483,363

£396,500

£1,000,000

Some evidence that Software Factory will continue into HEIF 4

from both partners’ submissions.

Some evidence that GATE will continue into HEIF 4 provided

by University of Teesside.

DKE will continue into HEIF 4.

KW will continue into HEIF 4, providing an alternative gateway

to higher education for business within the region through

Quickmark, Non-Executive Director placements and

VentureFest.

KW is also mentioned by:

• University of the West of England

• University of Bath

• University of Bristol

• Royal Agricultural College.


Source: HEIF 4 strategies, internet searches, PACEC analysis

Higher Education Funding Council for EnglandNorthavon HouseColdharbour LaneBRISTOLBS16 1QD

tel 0117 931 7317fax 0117 931 7203www.hefce.ac.uk

Date post:	23-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamberto-coccioli
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

HEIF Round 4 institutonal strategies

Documents