Topic Hub: Technology Transfer
Part of the Global Perspectives on Knowledge Exchange webinar series, delivered in partnership with Knowledge Exchange UK and AUTM, this session explored the role of technology transfer in delivering value from publicly funded research and how that impact can be understood, measured and communicated.
Government research funding represents a substantial investment by taxpayers. The session considered the return on that investment, from new businesses and job creation to national security and improvements in quality of life through innovation.
Leaders from across the world discussed different approaches to measuring the impact of research funding and its contribution to the next generation of innovations.
Watch the recording to explore global perspectives on demonstrating the value of publicly funded research.
Speakers
- Erwin Gianchandani – Assistant Director for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships, National Science Foundation (NSF)
- Simon Hepworth – Director of Knowledge Exchange, Research England
- Varinka Farren – Executive Director, Andes Pacific Technology Access
- Steve Susalka – CEO, AUTM (Moderator)
Please find below the recording:
Stuart Wilkinson RTTP, Chief Executive Officer of Knowledge Exchange UK, is speaking today, Thursday 9 July 2026, at the IGNICIA Forum: The United Kingdom Knowledge Transfer Model in Santiago de Compostela, Galicia.
The forum focuses on UK policies, organisational models and best practices in knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange. The programme brings together senior representatives from the UK and Galician innovation ecosystems, including speakers from UKRI, NCUB, GOTT, Oxentia and TenU in addition to KEUK.
From Birmingham to Santiago de Compostela
The invitation followed a visit by a Galician delegation to KEUK’s 2025 Annual Conference in Birmingham where they heard more about the UK’s approach to knowledge exchange and professional development. Their interest in sharing UK experience with the Galician knowledge transfer community helped shape this year’s IGNICIA Forum, which places the United Kingdom in focus as the guest ecosystem.
Fostering professional development and community
For KEUK, Stuart is delivering a session titled ‘Fostering Professional Development and Building Community in Knowledge Exchange.’ His talk explores the skills required by effective knowledge transfer and exchange professionals, how professional excellence can be supported at both individual and institutional levels, and how best practice can be developed, shared and sustained across a collaborative community.
The session reflects KEUK’s mission to advance excellence in knowledge exchange by empowering people and organisations across academia, industry, government and the third sector to develop skills, connect, collaborate and create impact. It considers how structured frameworks, peer learning and community-building can strengthen recognition, capability and impact across the knowledge exchange profession.
A meaningful return to Galicia
Stuart’s participation also marks a meaningful return to Galicia. Earlier in his career, while working with Oxentia, he supported activity in the Galician innovation ecosystem through technology transfer training and proof-of-concept work linked to the Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza Technology Fund. More than a decade later, his return highlights the long-term value of investing in people, capability and collaboration.
Stuart said:
“Knowledge exchange depends on people. Professional development, peer learning and strong communities are essential if we want to translate research and innovation into lasting economic and societal impact. I am delighted to return to Galicia and to contribute to a forum focused on sharing experience between the UK and Galician ecosystems.”
Strengthening international knowledge exchange
The forum provides an opportunity to reflect on how national and regional innovation systems can support knowledge transfer professionals throughout their careers, from early-stage development to leadership. For KEUK, the invitation highlights the growing international importance of professionalisation, community and shared standards in knowledge exchange.
Evaluation partners KEUK and Research Consulting welcome the publication of the ‘Connecting Capability Fund Shared Technology Transfer Office Pilot Programme’. The work was completed in the autumn of 2025, shortly after completion of the pilot funding. The evaluation was conducted against the background of wider (and ongoing) financial pressures across the UK university sector, with high expectations put on research commercialisation. But the level of enthusiasm that the project team saw through engagement with pilot institutions and partners was both rewarding and inspiring, and many groups indicated that pilots would be sustained beyond pilot funding because of the value they demonstrated to KE staff, to academics and to investor partners. We hope that they will inspire wider activity across more universities to sustain change and innovation in commercialisation for the long-term.
Unblocking the pipes
Research England launched the CCF Shared Technology Transfer Office pilot in May 2024, responding to a recommendation in the Independent Review of University Spinout Companies (2023). Aimed primarily at universities with smaller research portfolios and a lower critical mass of intellectual property, it sought proposals for more effective ‘spinning out’ of existing IP pipelines to address a perception of pent-up potential for new company creation in universities beyond the research-intensive usual suspects.
The pilot emphasised collaboration, requiring at least one other HEP and one partner with relevant skills and experience, diversity of approach, sustainability (potential for support beyond the pilot), and greater effectiveness and efficiency of existing services rather than creating new TTOs. Funding could be used to access expertise (people, but not new staff posts) and/or to improve operating procedures (systems and processes).
The call was clear that this was neither about creating a joint TTO for a group of universities, which might have been an initial assumption behind the ‘shared TTO’ headline, nor about providing Proof of Concept funding (a separate programme). Instead, universities could propose solutions for problems that they recognised and which they may have begun to address via deployment of HEIF or other CCF funds.
Taking the initiative
“This pilot…delivered a range of proposals demonstrating that knowledge exchange functions are willing to try to do things differently and change institutional culture or introduce novel processes to unlock potential in their research base.”
Just as the previous CCF programme generated diverse initiatives, so this pilot delivered a range of proposals demonstrating that knowledge exchange functions are willing to try to do things differently and change institutional culture, or to introduce novel processes and systems to unlock potential in their research base. This, as much as the outcomes of the pilot itself, should give confidence in the ambition of commercialisation functions.
Speed and focused activity were significant factors in the pilot, which funded just six months of project time. This led to the involvement of consultancies, accustomed to working across multiple institutions to tight deadlines, alongside legal and IP professionals. For small or generalist KE functions, this expertise gave confidence to frontier proposals (such as using AI) but also provided project management resources to drive projects forward and undertake tasks that could not be done by a single HEP staff member (cross-partner IP audits). It shouldn’t be a surprise that funding spent on project management achieves outcomes that, whilst not particularly novel, have never been prioritised for lack of (staff) time. The challenge is prioritisation beyond the funding window.
“Funding spent on project management resources can achieve outcomes that may not appear particularly novel, but which have never been prioritised for lack of (staff) time”
In this respect, projects arising from HEPs with pre-existing geographic, disciplinary or industry sector associations may prove more sustainable: the Manchester-Salford Commercialisation Consortium (MCC) has a tight urban association as well as being in the Northern Gritstone investment region; Pathways towards a shared TTO capability for the North East pilot builds on the Northern Accelerator grouping; STAGE uses expertise from the successful ASPECT CCF project. STTOAEMM and DigiSpin, both focused on advanced manufacturing in the Midlands, making the most of that region’s industrial heritage and modern-day investment via Midlands Innovation.
Seeding potential
“The pilot provided a kick-start to projects that demonstrated potential as to what might work, but further support is needed to capitalise on achievements in the short term and to see them really flourish.”
Our evaluation explores geographic and sector links and relationships to some extent, but it was beyond the scope of the evaluation to fully explore the multiple layers of funding and initiatives that contribute to building a successful and sustainable ‘Shared TTO’. One of our conclusions is that the pilot provided a kick-start to projects that have demonstrated potential as to what might work, but further support is needed to capitalise on achievements in the short term and to see them really flourish. We also note that our focus was on the pilot period alone, but many of the projects are ongoing and continue to advocate for shared resources in various ways.
“The level of enthusiasm that the project team saw through engagement with pilot institutions and partners was both rewarding and inspiring for the future of research commercialisation.”
Throughout the evaluation period, we were acutely aware of the expectations and spotlight put on research commercialisation, against the background of wider (and ongoing) financial pressures across the UK university sector. But the level of enthusiasm that the project team saw through engagement with pilot institutions and partners was both rewarding and inspiring for the future of research commercialisation, and we know that many pilots are being sustained beyond pilot funding because of the value they demonstrated to KE staff, to academics and to investor partners. We hope that they will inspire wider activity across more universities to sustain change and innovation in commercialisation for the long-term.
Tamsin Mann, Associate Director, Knowledge Exchange UK
Dan King Director, Research Consulting Ltd
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.
In late July over 60 representatives from across 13 Shared TTO pilot projects, funded by Research England’s (RE) Connecting Capability Fund – Research England Development (CCF RED) fund, gathered at Woburn House for a project evaluation workshop. The workshop, convened by Knowledge Exchange UK who have been commissioned by RE to conduct an independent evaluation of the funded programme, and co-delivered with Research Consulting, brought together a range of partners involved in the projects including universities, consultancy organisations, professional services and industry, as well as observers from Research England and DSIT. It was an invaluable opportunity to see how universities can create models to support sharing the functions and services of a Tech Transfer Office, which allowed projects to not only respond to formal questions posed by the evaluation team but also create connections between project teams.
The evaluation is being conducted through multiple methods including a workshop and an online survey, which will aim to answer a key question, highlighted by Tamsin Mann, Associate Director at Knowledge Exchange UK (KEUK) at the outset: ‘Are shared TTOs the answer to supporting universities with smaller research portfolios to combine expertise and capabilities to create and support spin outs?’
The task was not to arrive at a neat answer to that question but, rather, to draw out evidence to look at how universities have the capability and capacity to make a shared TTO work.
From the workshop early findings have shown:
- Timescales had both positive and negative impacts on the pilots with one project being enthusiastic about the short, sharp timescale for application and delivery.
- Project ambitions have been met, with some exceeding goals, including through securing further funding to support ongoing activities.
- Continued legacy of projects was highlighted through ongoing collaboration agreements and shared principles and guidance.
Already, some very tangible outputs are clear. The wider impact of allocating funding – always in short supply – to dedicate to collaborative, commercialisation activity is also demonstrable from the survey and feedback in the room.
The Shared TTO pilot: Addressing scale and collaboration in spinouts
The Shared TTO pilot was launched in May 2024 and responds to a recommendation in the Independent Review of University Spinout Companies (November 2023). The Review identified a need to build scale and critical mass in the spinout space, either by incentivising collaboration between large TTOs and institutions with few or no commercialisation staff, or by stimulating collaboration along other lines such as region, industry sector or discipline. Thirteen projects encompassing 81 unique organisations were funded up to £500,000 for a six-month pilot to demonstrate the viability (or otherwise) of their approach. HEPs from all Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) clusters were represented, which was important in the context of the original ‘ask’. Equally importantly, investors were amongst the external partners involved in many projects.
This pilot continues to underline the appetite for collaboration between universities shown in earlier CCF-RED projects. They also show how universities are open to sharing expertise when it comes to spin-outs – understanding the high value that is put on this activity by the UK government – and the value of external partners to drive that change against tight timescales, ‘laying the ground’ through preparatory work – such as an audit of commercialisation policies – for the benefit of multiple HEP partners.
Louise Wall, Head of Knowledge Exchange Strategic Projects & Partnerships at Research England said:
“Today’s workshop with these 13 exciting collaborations has brought together a wide variety of partners across all regions of England, to provide valuable insights and learnings on the opportunities of sharing tech transfer functions which will be captured through this evaluation process. These successful pilot projects support the Government’s economic growth agenda, and form a key part of Research England’s role in delivering the recommendations from the independent review of university spin-out companies published in 2023.”
Stuart Wilkinson, CEO at Knowledge Exchange UK said:
“It is important for the Knowledge Exchange ecosystem to support the commercialisation of research from a diverse range of institutions, enabling commercial impact that drives growth across the UK. The shared Research England TTO pilot projects provide a valuable opportunity to explore and learn from different models that can help a wide variety of institutions collaborate and share expertise. As the UK’s professional body, Knowledge Exchange UK is pleased to support the evaluation of these pilots and to share the resulting best practice.”
The Shared TTO pilot projects evaluation report will be published in the autumn.
The UK’s first register of spinout companies created from the university research base has been released by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), part of Jisc. The register has been developed with expertise from the Policy Evidence Unit for University Commercialisation and Innovation at the University of Cambridge, and in consultation with many of KEUK’s commercialisation professional members across the UK’s research base, who supported the register’s creation through in-depth consultation and by providing detailed feedback.
The register is a major milestone in Research England’s knowledge exchange metrics programme and meets a recommendation arising from the Independent Review of University Spinouts (2023). Knowledge Exchange UK welcomes the register’s publication and looks forward to using it in partnership working with UKRI, UCI and many of our members to create new data products and insight on the spinout landscape.
Stuart Wilkinson, CEO of KEUK said:
“The publication of the UK’s first register of university spinout companies represents a major milestone for the knowledge exchange community. KEUK members, past and present, should be proud of the achievement that this register represents in terms of company creation, economic contribution and job creation. Behind each company is a team of commercialisation professionals working with academics, professional service providers and investors to ensure that there is sustained impact arising from our world-class research base.”
You can read the full press-release and access the register on Research England’s website here https://www.ukri.org/news/world-leading-register-of-uk-university-spin-outs-published/
The Government’s response to the Independent Review of University Spinouts was published immediately after the Review itself. The Government welcomed the recommendations of the Review and accepted them all. Implementation of the recommendations started immediately focusing on improved data for spinouts and the creation of a national spinout register, a TenU guide for software-based spinouts, and exploration of shared TTO services for less research-intensive universities.
The response can be downloaded here or accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-university-spin-out-companies.
The Independent Review of University Spinout Companies has been released this week. While it is aimed primarily at the traditional STEM commercialisation context, it talks explicitly about Arts, Humanities and Social Science throughout and there are some very salient points that chime closely with the work of our Community of Practice (CoP). Here is a run-down of what it will mean for us as we codesign professional standards and practice for AHSS commercialisation and social venture building.
“Whilst the review focusses on science and technology, we note that the UK has particular strengths in the humanities, social sciences, and the arts, which have already shown spin-out capability. This presents the UK with a unique opportunity to build a world-leading innovation ecosystem that draws from all academic institutions and disciplines, and is more ambitious than a replica of Silicon Valley.”
-Independent Review of University Spinout Companies
The main aim of the CoP is to connect professionals from across the sector so that we are all working together to make practical, impactful outcomes a normal part of research in every discipline. It is crucial that the capacity and techniques to make this effective, especially in AHSS in its much more embryonic stage, are codesigned and shared equally. It is vitally important that this is not just a ‘nice to have’ for a small number of larger universities. We have seen our CoP grow very quickly and the engagement from across the sector is a fantastic marker for both its success and its need.
When we turn to the specific recommendations within the spinouts review, there are a number of topics and details that are encouraging to hear as it matches directly with conversations and themes that we are seeing as important in making the right changes for the sector.
a) Recommendation 2 focusses on registering spinouts and the HE-BCI data collection. There is a need for dedicated and effective monitoring of the increasingly diverse forms of commercialisation inherent in supporting social value development through more robust assessment criteria for these routes. This will mean that all three barriers of academic values, professional services process, and institutional recognition are each tackled head on. How to balance these in the right way in the official return process and metrics within the forms is something we are very ready to explore and advocate detailed solutions for as a community.
b) Recommendation 4 calls for more collaboration and sharing of capacity, potentially across a region or on a sector basis. It is not a secret that internal politics and even official policy within institutions make this a tricky recommendation to address but as a community we have already seen that there is a huge opportunity here. The ‘customers’ within AHSS commercialisation and social venture building will mean developing more formalised relationships with public services, local authorities and local charities. Many of those stakeholders are going to need to hold a very different perception of universities as more integrated players in society and incubators of organisations/ventures with social value at their core. This change will only be successful if we are united in outreach for these new relationships. On a technical capacity level, working collaboratively will mean that each individual professional is not having to go and navigate this new world to broker new connections each time in isolation. Also, looking into how sector specific TTO roles could be defined is a very fruitful conversation for our CoP to explore.
c) Recommendation 6 explicitly references spin outs and commercialisation as a form of impact that will be a huge part of the next REF round, which is important for two reasons. First, the work coming out of AHSS especially when considering commercialisation revolves principally around impact over profit. This is the value system academics will hold and is fundamental to the ‘products’ or services developed from these disciplines, which are societal changes not the next generation of medicines, software or robotics. Second, REF is one of the cornerstones of modern HEI funding and to have the processes and practices we are codesigning be rewarded by the system not only acknowledges their importance but places them within the very centre of designing the future of commercialisation. We also see this echoed in the ESRC’s ongoing support in developing conventions for commercialisation as a way to have impact sustain itself longer term.
A final point to reflect on is how the review talks about the grand challenges that the world faces. This is interesting because it ties together all of the other nuts and bolts aspects of this topic as well as introducing inter-disciplinary considerations i.e. matching technological advancement with human behaviour, policy and implementation. Academics who are experts in Social Science, Humanities and Arts are invaluable in understanding how the world needs to change – and will change – as universities everywhere become more practical, impactful players; determining how we anticipate and handle the huge challenges faced by people and the planet today.
Make sure you are a part of our Social Venture and AHSS Commercialisation CoP here https://ke.org.uk/events/cop-registration and reach out to me through Arnie.king@praxisauril.org.uk especially if you are interested in talking about what leadership and collaboration in your area might look like.
PraxisAuril welcomes today’s publication of the Independent Review of University Spinouts and its recommendations for spinout practice in UK universities in partnership with external investors.
Engagement between PraxisAuril members and the Review team has been open and constructive since the launch of the Review in March 2023, providing opportunities for PrA members working in university research commercialisation posts across the country to be part of the debate and contribute their perspective on commercialisation practice.
PraxisAuril members have unique insight into the day-to-day practicalities, technicalities and challenges of engagement between universities, other research organisations, investors and stakeholders of many kinds. Our members promote a broad range of knowledge exchange activities including research commercialisation, which is almost without exception pursued at a cost to the university. This cost can be justified because other values are created by spinouts such as further research collaborations, papers and Impact case studies. It is also important to acknowledge that spinouts are not a KE priority for many universities where KE is a mission critical activity.
David Russell, CEO at PraxisAuril said:
We recognise the need for continuous improvement in the processes surrounding university spinouts, and our members have shown through their commitment to this Review that they want to engage positively and proactively to create the best possible environment for university spinouts.
PraxisAuril will now reflect on the Review with members and propose a course of action to deliver the commercialisation skills and standards needed for a flourishing KE community in the long-term. We also look forward to working with sector stakeholders, including TenU and the University Commercialisation and Innovation Policy Evidence Unit (UCI), on pathways for implementation of specific recommendations.
You can read our previous commentary on the Review here
The Government’s Independent Review of Spinouts is likely to report this month. I expect publication both of the review itself and of the Government’s response by the time of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement at the latest.
What will it say? And what will it mean for the Knowledge Exchange community?
I have no secret inside track on the review – and anyone who tells you they do is fooling either themselves or other people. But I have been closely involved in three high profile Government-commissioned reviews and their official responses over the years: the Leitch Review of Skills (for Gordon Brown), the Wolf Review of Vocational Education (for Michael Gove) and the Richards Review of Apprenticeships (for Gove and Vince Cable). So I have a fair idea of how this work will be playing out behind the scenes.
As I travel around the country talking to PraxisAuril members, I have encountered two main responses to the Review. One is a certain degree of jaded exasperation (“what another review?!”); the other is a level of anxiety about what the review might say and whether it will be overly influenced by vocal critics of universities and their spinout records.
I think neither of these reactions are well-founded, and that there will probably be good reasons for our sector to welcome this review and its findings. How can I say this in advance of publication? Well, a few general observations about independent reviews might be of interest.
1. A Review can be a vehicle for Government action; or a substitute for it
It is true that Governments often use independent reviews to help them drive policy further and faster than it would otherwise move. An independent review led by the right people can create the policy space, the analytical resource and the stakeholder engagement needed to set out a bold policy agenda and get broad buy-in to it. But equally it can be a way of neutralising persistent pressure from one political faction or set of stakeholders. If you are constantly being needled to enact certain reforms but you are unsure of their wisdom, a well-constituted independent review can create the right forum for looking closely at the issue and examining constructive alternatives to the problem.
2. ‘Independent’ is a relative term, but a very useful one
Ministers and officials are often at pains to emphasise the independence of their reviewers, and the Spinouts Review is no different. After all, there is no point in enticing some Big Beasts into the policy arena and then keeping them visibly on a short leash. But in truth an independent review cannot make recommendations that the Government of the day finds unpalatable. I have seen one instance where this was the result (none of the three reviews mentioned above, this one will remain nameless!). It spells disaster for the credibility of the Reviewer and for progress in the policy area, as Government simply will not publish a report it finds unhelpful. This means that while a review has the independence to float reforms that officials might never have recommended under their own steam, they will always be carefully worded to ensure decision-making power remains firmly with Ministers (eg. “the Government should seriously consider doing X,Y and Z” or “the Government should look again at the problem of X and take action to address it somewhere on a spectrum between A and E”). This is turn allows the Government to show that it has been completely open-minded in its approach, allowed independent reviewers free reign to float radical ideas, but ultimately can put some presentational space between Review and Response to preserve the sanity and workability of the detail of public policy.
3. The commissioners of a Review don’t get a free pass from the Prime Minister
It is important to take a short detour here into the inner working of Government. Any document such as a Government Response to a Review, even if written by one or two departments only, has to be cleared by the whole of Government. It is not possible for an activist Secretary of State (or even Chancellor) to use an independent review to push through their own personal policy agenda. There are cross-departmental structures called Cabinet Committees that must approve all significant policy announcements, they are all chaired by the PM or Deputy PM, and they will withhold approval until they are happy that every part of Government can live with the policy. It is a powerful part of our Collective Responsibility system of government, and on the whole it works very well and prevents private peeves or passions becoming public policy.
4. The Civil Service machine is more impressive than you may think
On my travels around the sector I have heard voiced more than once a certain condescension towards the civil service, usually based on the belief that they don’t know much about KE, tech transfer or commercialisation, and so are liable to come up with something daft if left alone too much. This is a mistake. It is true that an official in Whitehall can never have the deep professional experience of someone who has been spinning out successful business from university research for 25 years; but one thing the Whitehall machine is excellent at is assimilating many other people’s knowledge and understanding and identifying the big picture that emerges from it. Above all, the civil service has a powerful bias towards evidence-based policy, and in the case of this review it has access not only to some very smart policy officials, but also a wealth of in or near-sector experience across UKRI, RE and the PraxisAuril community. They will see self-interested critics bandying about partial data and skewed surveys for what they are: stakeholders to be managed, not gurus to be followed.
5. Reviews are always opportunities more than they are threats
There is a natural tendency for those working in any sector or profession to worry about having their world turned upside down by the latest Review or policy response. But in truth even the most powerful and sticky review is only a time-limited intervention into an ecosystem that it does not control. What actually happens in a sector once the dust has settled and the reviewers have gone back to their day jobs depends entirely upon the professionals working in that sector. Only the most self-satisfied – or self-deluded – practitioner in KE would believe that there is nothing we can improve upon in our nascent profession. Therefore we should stand ready to seize upon any new recommendations with gusto and use the momentum they generate to help us with our own improvement agenda. Almost any recommendation stands or falls on the quality and detail of its implementation, and that will fall to us in the KE sector, and to PraxisAuril as the sector’s professional body, as well as other stakeholders.
In summary, the Spinouts Review is likely to represent a great opportunity for our sector to show we can absorb evidence-based critique and take hold of a positive reform agenda to improve the quality and impact of our work. The Government response to the Spinouts Review is almost certain to be measured, constructive and evidence-led, and we in the KE community should stand ready to embrace it and take forward its findings in a positive and collegiate way.
