Topic Hub: Innovation
During November I was able to attend two events in Bangkok, looking at Knowledge and Technology Transfer. It brought together 41 people from 27 national associations for Knowledge and Technology Transfer to share best practice.
This is indicative of the global interest in supporting innovation ecosystems and the central and the evolving role of TTOs in creating economic and societal value. The first was the annual Knowledge and Technology Transfer Leadership Summit, jointly organised by AUTM and WIPO.
We heard a keynote from Marco M. Alemán, WIPO’s Assistant Director General for IP and Innovation Ecosystems, underlining the importance of on building knowledge-led transfer for institutional and ecosystem impact.
Shared principles and approaches in Global Technology Transfer:
I had the privilege of moderating an international panel on creating effective technology transfer, with contributions from Italy, New Zealand, and the USA. We explored new approaches anchored around:
- 6Ps: propositions (ideas) people, programmes, places, pounds (money) and policies.
- 3Ds: demand/pull, development/translation, defining the third mission.
- 2Cs: community and connection, with Kathy Ku, who ran the Stanford TTO for 20 years underling the value of national associations.
Furthermore there continues to be a great deal of interest in the UKs approach to spin outs following the government review. Mainly, due to the subsequent progress we have made on the spin-out register, shared TTOs, equity position and university-investor relations.
We also heard the WIPO share their thoughts on an institutional competency framework. Which I am happy to say relates strongly to the ideas already being deployed in the UK with our metrics work, Knowledge Exchange Framework and KE Concordat.
The second event was the WIPO Thailand Innovation Policy Forum which was a reminder of the power of national communities coming together to share best practice and build a common understanding of how to deliver innovation in their own context.
I was invited to moderate a panel on: “What constitutes an appropriate size and quality of Knowledge/Technology Transfer Offices (K/TTOs)? Key factors and support mechanisms.”
Here’s a look at what we explored:
- What’s needed to set up and grow a TTO.
- The challenges of starting from scratch.
- How to measure success.
- The importance of training, funding, and collaboration.
What struck me most was:
- How each country tailors its approach to local culture, economy, and opportunity
- How they are all working with the same ingredients to make innovation happen, just the availability of those ingredients and the recipes used varies where you are in the world.
- How looking for a neat comparison of which country is doing best is hard as a good comparison depends on similarity in the factors above alongside the maturity of the system
In the UK, we shouldn’t take for granted the decades of progress we’ve made as demonstrated by:
- 50 years of KTPs, bringing together businesses and universities.
- 40 years of universities managing the IP arising from their research.
- 25 years of data collection at on Business and Community engagement at a national level for universities.
All in a system involving research organisations, funders, industry and investors that has evolved over that time to include a broadening of scope and to include all academic disciplines and a breadth of pathways.
Overall, the UK is well-placed to have many of the ingredients needed and a collaborative effort across funders, investors, research organisations and investors to continue to develop our ecosystem and ultimately deliver economic and social benefit through the application of ideas for impact.
We also support the recommendation that Welsh innovation is given a more prominent voice in UK policy alongside other devolved nations. The promotion of good practice in knowledge exchange (KE), wherever it is located, is a principal of the PraxisAuril network and we are pleased to be able to support Welsh KE colleagues as work to reform the nation’s research and innovation landscape continues. Our purpose contributing to the Reid Review consultation was to underline the importance of maintaining a professional, skilled network in universities to help to stimulate innovation, productivity and growth both locally and nationally, for economic and social benefit and with a wide range of external stakeholders. With policy now focusing also on stimulating collaboration between universities (the ‘Connecting Capabilities Fund’ and ‘Strength in Places’ scheme) it is important that there is sufficient resource for engagement across the UK and the capacity for sharing good practice.
The value of innovation funding
The value of, and return from, HE innovation funding in England (HEIF) was recognised in the UK’s Industrial Strategy. The Reid Review, quoting HEFCW, says this is because “it supports knowledge transfer infrastructure in English universities and supports REF impact agenda”. We fully support this statement and have long-called for the reintroduction of innovation funding in Wales to give parity of resource to Welsh universities in knowledge exchange activity. This is about people, skills and capacity for knowledge exchange. In analysis of HEIF strategies (RSM PACEC for HEFCE, 2017) HEIF was one of the most frequently cited key enablers of KE activity, with a substantial amount being spent on staff who are dedicated to knowledge exchange activities of various kinds. This does not only support the status quo but to enables universities to be aspirational, more proactive and risk-taking in their KE activities to support diverse partners and new engagement models. Welsh universities have maintained a level of KE staff despite the lack of innovation funding but the consequence has been that appointments are often made on a fixed-term project-by-project basis. This has negative impacts on both long-term role security and the resilience of service provision. Furthermore, such projects are highly reliant on European sources of funding and so further at risk post Brexit.
Mapping innovation ‘hot spots’ and cluster analysis , such as in the NCUB’s Growing Task Force Wales report and NESTA’s ‘Arloesiadur’ is useful but KE is a people business and in a relatively small geography such as Wales the value of having a dedicated KE network – Welsh Industry Liaison Officers (WILO) – supported by and feeding into PraxisAuril’s UK-wide network is highly beneficial for overall good practice and the research-business interface. This has been demonstrated in Scotland, where the equivalent Universities Scotland Research Commercialisation Directors’ Group has worked together to issue a joint statement on spin-out formation, for example. Although the Reid Review does not refer to KE professionals in its analysis, we would encourage greater focus on the roles, skills and connections that Welsh KE professionals have, and the insight they can bring to innovation funding, policy and implementation discussions.
National performance and UK innovation metrics
We note that the TERCW proposals are linked to a review of performance monitoring in the sector, recently concluded (The Weingarten review) and the desire to create a system that can assess institutional and sector-wide attainments against national objectives. The review notes that any system created in Wales must “accommodate the reality that Wales must be in a position to compare itself to other relevant jurisdictions”. HEFCW has indicated that it will work with Research England on development of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) which will be a UK-wide benchmark of institutional level knowledge exchange performance. Welsh universities compete on a global stage, for students and research collaborators, participate in both the REF and TEF, and submit annual KE data to the HEBCI survey. Welsh HEIs should, therefore, be able to use the KEF as a benchmarking tool in the Welsh context but also with a non-Welsh ‘peer group’.
Here, the value of the WILO network working with PraxisAuril’s UK network, benefits both national and UK-wide conversations around metrics and impact: we all agree that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach but we can all learn from different approaches taken by; individual HEIs, in collaboration for an industry sector or regional benefit, or at the national policy level.
The geography of collaboration and innovation strategy
Welsh university collaboration does not necessarily respect geographical boundaries and should be allowed to flourish where there are common interests, research strengths and infrastructure; such as GW4 in the south, and the nuclear cluster in north Wales and the North West. In Wales, as in any devolved nation or indeed English region, UK Industrial Strategy needs to strike a balance between localised needs, strengths and ambitions within a national framework; addressing how national and regional industrial strategies contribute to and are recognised at UK level. The need for leadership and a ‘Team Wales’ spirit comes through in the Reid Review. This extends to Welsh representation in UK-wide initiatives, such as development of the KEF. Where an initiative has its genesis in Research England but applies to the UK as a whole it is important that devolved nation views are taken into account but also that there is the capacity to engage: innovation funding has a role here and devolved nations’ eligibility for the new ‘Strength in Places’ fund is to be welcomed.
Restructuring and implementation
The Welsh Government has issued a technical consultation for its White Paper proposals to restructure FE and HE governance under a Tertiary Education and Research Commission for Wales (TERCW) which would be responsible for higher and further education, work-based learning, adult learning, and potentially sixth form education. Within the Commission, Research and Innovation Wales (RIW) would be established. The aim of the reforms is to provide oversight and co-ordination of research and innovation funding but also attend to the needs of the skills-base to create a future pipeline of ideas and innovators for Wales, ensuring that there is a workforce to keep innovative companies and clusters in Wales and attract inward investment. The description of RIW’s ambitions around funding modes and recipients (para 293-301) presents a logical progression from un-hypothecated to project-based funding but, as the following paragraphs (302-305) make clear, this is a broad scope to cover.
PraxisAuril welcomes the consultation’s reference to the Haldane principle and the extension to innovation and knowledge exchange “such that appropriate innovation, business, technical and commercial expertise is brought to bear for decision making involving innovation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange and other appropriate activities.” (p.92, 313). We underline again the expertise of KE professionals in HEIs in this respect.
Implementing both the recommendations of the Reid Review and those of the TERCW White Paper is a tall order that raises concerns about the speed of change and the resources (not least financial) required. However, there may be benefits to bringing research and innovation activities into a single organisation which can then link to UKRI and have some parity of remit whilst raising the profile of research and innovation in Wales as the Welsh Government wishes, and in-country reviews recommend. Given the need for Welsh HEIs and their partners to engage with UK Industrial Strategy funding initiatives as well as meeting expectations of the Welsh government for national innovations and growth, the need to implement the Reid Review recommendations is urgent. The complexity of structural changes proposed in the TERCW consultation should not disrupt that as the proposed enhanced level of investment in the Welsh KE community will undoubtedly enhance the nation’s future economic development and international competitiveness.
PraxisAuril has responded to the Reid Review of Government Funded Research & Innovation in Wales (June 2018), underlining the importance of KE professionals in delivering the ambition of the report recommendations. The response, which was delivered in consultation with Welsh KE professionals, represented by the WILO network, particularly welcomes recommendations for the reintroduction of dedicated innovation funding for Wales where there is currently no equivalent to the much-valued Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). PraxisAuril and WILO also support the recommendation that Welsh innovation is given a more prominent voice in UK policy alongside other devolved nations. The promotion of good practice in knowledge exchange (KE), wherever it is located, is a principal of the PraxisAuril network and we are pleased to be able to support Welsh KE colleagues as work to reform the nation’s research and innovation landscape continues.
Our purpose contributing to the Reid Review consultation was to underline the importance of maintaining a professional, skilled network in universities to help to stimulate innovation, productivity and growth both locally and nationally, for economic and social benefit and with a wide range of external stakeholders. With policy now focusing also on stimulating collaboration between universities (viz the ‘Connecting Capabilities Fund’ and ‘Strength in Places’ scheme) it is important that there is sufficient resource for engagement across the UK and the capacity for sharing good practice. Continue reading on the blog…
PraxisAuril’s original response to the Review’s consultation phase can be read here.
Put together by Beauhurst, who research UK startups and scaleups, the report is the first to examine Innovate UK funding in detail, with analysis of the recipient companies as well as the universities that work with them to win grants.
Author: Ben McLeod, Beauhurst
The regional picture
The business growth process requires many ingredients. Where can you find all of those in one place? London. The capital has education, diverse talent, abundant innovation, and a rich supply of capital. For now, these ingredients don’t have critical mass elsewhere in the UK.
It makes sense then that the capital took 45% of all equity funding between 2011-2016. Behind this statistic is an even bigger gap between London and everywhere else in the UK: 8% of London equity rounds had some level of public sector backing, compared with 73% in the North East. Fortunately, the Government is aware of the reasons for London’s dominance, and is ecosystem-building elsewhere – particularly by feeding innovators money. Innovate UK exemplifies this push of government cash to other centres of innovation, with eight of the top ten grant-winning universities found outside of London. Over time, private investors will follow. But until then, prospective unicorns need one foot in London.
Being a great partner
Of the top 10 grant winners, only three are non-Russell Group universities. The general industry consensus is “no surprise there”. The Innovate UK projects most likely to succeed draw together a talented academic, top research infrastructure, and a business leader to solve a problem. And while the ability to craft good grant applications is essential to securing funding, infrastructure and decades of research certainly help. Our enquiries showed that company leaders care that their university partners both understand business and have exceptional research – but that many companies are not even aware of grant funding as an option. With the right strategy, other universities could exploit this niche in
the market to generate more partnerships.
Grants and equity — the best of both worlds?
Businesses that secure both grants and equity outperform those that secure only grants or equity. They tend to raise more money and achieve higher valuations. Why? Stories abound of companies getting ‘hooked’ on grants. Yet due to the time-intensiveness of applying for them and the limited capital on offer, dependence has a high opportunity cost. And when it comes to equity investment, overly optimistic assessments of technology may hinder returns.
Clearly, adopting either model in isolation has risks. But the due diligence processes of Innovate UK and an equity fund focus on different aspects of a business, and so help mitigate these risks. The former is designed to pick products that are technologically novel and achievable, while the latter picks businesses that have potential to make money. A business that wins grants and equity has therefore proven it has the two key factors for success – a product and a market. The pedigree of the founding entrepreneurs is also important. A team that has the skill to find, apply for and win two very different, very
competitive investments is more likely to be a team with a strong advisory panel and full start-up skill set. These conclusions have recently been validated by Innovate UK itself, which has just launched an ‘investment accelerator’ competition for entrepreneurs. Winners will receive simultaneous Innovate UK grant funding and venture capital investment from the private sector. We look forward to seeing innovative businesses
take advantage of this powerful combination in the future.