Industry and higher education, 2006 december

How a regional broker canimprove industry demandfor university interaction

A case study of the London TechnologyNetwork

Peter Reid and Matt Schofield

Abstract: UK university research produces highly cited publications (DTI,2004), but demand from UK business for commercial ideas fromacademia is weak (HM Treasury, 2003). This paper reviews factors in thedevelopment of one regional UK technology broker, the LondonTechnology Network (LTN), which has achieved significant and auditedbusiness demand. The authors highlight the implications of LTN’sexperience for future practice and further research.

Keywords: knowledge transfer; innovating regions; technologymanagement; industrial research

Peter Reid is founder and Chief Executive Officer and Matt Schofield is Head of ClientServices and Technology Consultant, Informatics and Design, London TechnologyNetwork, 17 Linhope Street, London NW1 6HT, UK. E-mail: [email protected].

The London Technology Network (LTN) is a non-profitjoint venture of University College London (UCL)and the London Business School, whose missionis to ‘stimulate the transfer of technology-basedinnovation’. Founded in July 20021 with funding fromthe UK government’s Higher Education InnovationFund, LTN is based on the idea that a networkproviding standardized operation to aggregate thecapabilities of thirty universities and research institutesacross London and South East England (includingfour of the largest research-intensive universities in theUK) will improve contacts between businesses andthese universities. LTN has since received fundingfrom the European Union, the London DevelopmentAgency, the South East England Development Agency,the East of England Development Agency and theHigher Education Funding Council for England.

However, the final design emerged from iterativediscussions with the LTN board, which includesthe heads of technology transfer for ImperialCollege London, King’s College London, UCL and theLondon Business School. The design can besummarized in a few basic, well-documentedassumptions:

• Direct contact with academics is more attractive toindustry than contact with intermediaries, such as atechnology licensing office (Thursby and Thursby,2000) or review of a published directory (Cohenet al, 2003).

• Industry engages with academics through a widerange of mechanisms, including research orteaching, rather than principally through licensing(Agrawal and Henderson, 2002; Thursby and

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006 413

Thursby, 2004; Allott, 2006). Even for licensing, theintroduction of prospective licensees by theacademic inventor (Jansen and Dillon, 1999)leads to more completed deals than pushmarketing by an intermediary (Thursby andThursby, 2000).

• Industry engages differently with the life sciencesthan with other disciplines because the life scienceindustry typically seeks to start projects withacademics, while other industries typically seekacademic support to complete projects (Cohen et al,2003). Life science disciplines have a narrowindustry appeal for pharmaceutical andbiotechnology companies compared to the broaderappeal of physical sciences and engineeringdisciplines – such as material science, computerscience and mechanical engineering (Cohen et al,2003).

• Both industry and universities have scaleeconomies in technology transfer. Largein-licensing business units can afford regularly tocanvas universities for technologies (Thursby andThursby, 2000). Large universities with highexpenditure on research and development arestatistically likely to generate enough exploitableintellectual property to make technology transfereconomically self-sustaining, according to currentUK government guidelines based on US experience(NHS, 1998).

Based on these assumptions, the final design includesfour basic tenets: (1) allow research scientists to liaisedirectly with filtered technology acquirers, (2) beagnostic about the mechanism for engagement, (3) splitlife sciences from physical sciences and engineering and(4) capitalize on regional scale economies. We nowexamine each of these more closely.

Research scientists liaise directly withfiltered technology acquirers

LTN helps technology-acquisitive businesses to gaindirect access to research-active scientists. Its BusinessFellows (BFs) are recruited from tenure-track researchscientists in departments with well-regarded research inbroadly defined ‘technology’ disciplines (see Table 1)across universities in London and the South East andEast of England, and are paid and trained to consult forhalf a day per week as liaisons for industry in theirdepartments. LTN identifies departments withworld-class research in universities in the region andcontacts both department heads and technology liaisonoffices (TLOs) to ask for candidates for fellowships.Candidates are then interviewed to identifyresearch-active professors, readers and lecturers with thetime to help their colleagues improve business contacts.Most BFs are recommended by their universitytechnology transfer office, and all have their contractcountersigned by their head of department to ensure thatthey have institutional support.

LTN does not publish the contact details of eitherBFs or the senior executives in technology-acquisitivecompanies, so all parties receive only filtered andappropriate technology opportunities, and can choosewhom they want to contact. However, LTN does offertwo mechanisms to bring together industry executivesand academics who share technology interests. First, itprovides free monthly evening networking events onspecific technology topics (see, for example, the2005 events listed in Table 2) with around fifty invitedsenior executives from technology-acquisitivecompanies and fifty leading academic technologists.BFs present posters summarizing their departmentalcapabilities in a standard format – as they do for anyLTN event – and may also bring senior academic

Table 1. Research-active staff (full-time equivalents) in the UK.

Discipline Some world-class Someworld-class

Noworld-class

TotalLondon SE England East England Other UK

Medicine (1–11) 2,529 579 278 3,147 6,532 1,403 7,935Biological sciences (12–17) 560 599 343 2,437 3,940 737 4,677Physical sciences (18–24) 673 742 493 3,041 4,949 753 5,701Engineering/design (25–34, 64) 1,193 866 488 3,999 6,545 1,866 8,411

Technical disciplines 4,955 2,786 1,601 12,624 21,966 4,758 26,724

Humanities (35–63, 65–69) 2,920 2,246 1,223 9,837 16,226 5,070 21,296

Total 7,875 5,032 2,824 22,461 38,192 9,828 48,020

Note: World-class=a grading of 5*, 5 or 4 in the Research Assessment Exercise.Source: Research Assessment Exercise, 2001.

How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interaction

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006414

colleagues. LTN sometimes also funds BFs’ travel coststo present at other meetings with strong industryattendance. Second, LTN generates technology inquiriesfrom industry executives via a central ‘TechnologyTeam’ of former industry executives and recent doctoralgraduates. These enquiries are passed to BFs and theirTLOs through an electronic bulletin board. BFs areprompted and helped to develop appropriate shortresponses that are aggregated and provided in aconsolidated report to the industry executive, who thenconsiders them and identifies those BFs and theircolleagues he or she wants to meet. LTN staff membersfollow up with both sides to ensure that meetings occurand that deals progress to conclusion, but they do notnegotiate for either side.

Keeping the mechanism agnosticLTN does not direct university departments to anyparticular kind of interaction, but instead trains,monitors and coaches BFs to support whatever kind ofinteraction is most appropriate for their peers.

All BFs are trained initially for three and a half dayson the risks and opportunities of all teaching, researchand commercial mechanisms for engaging withindustry. Subsequently, they can attend refreshersessions on spin selling, negotiation, time managementand other topics.

BFs regularly report activities with industry that theyhave helped stimulate with their departmentalcolleagues, along with the mechanism used and the

value when the deal is concluded. This includes directinteractions with industry covering a wide range ofteaching, research and commercial interactions, and alsoindirect activity between academics that improves theirreadiness to engage with industry. These activities arereported by LTN only at an aggregate level to protectconfidentiality, but comparison among BFs is used toprioritize coaching by the Technology Team.

BFs are also supervised by the Technology Team toproduce a technology map for their departments,resulting in a database with keywords covering alltechnologies across the base (see Table 3) which LTNstaff can search to prompt activity by the relevant BFsin relation to events and other opportunities.Technologies include facilities (such as testbeds ortoolsets) and experts as well as intellectual propertyadvice. For each technology, the BF documents existingindustrial applications, the lead academic, the number ofstaff involved, past publications and other details thathelp the Technology Team to present its capabilityhonestly to industry.

Split life sciences from physical sciences andengineeringThere is a split within the LTN Technology Teambetween life sciences and physical sciences andengineering. Staff is recruited with relevant technicaland industry experience. BFs are coached byTechnology Team staff from the sub-team familiar withthe mechanisms normally used for their technologies.

Table 2. 2005 events.

Event title Speaker organizations

‘Vascular health: how do we detect, treat, and avoidcardiovascular problems, thrombosis, and vascular disease?’

University of Oxford; King’s College London; Pfizer; LombardMedical

‘Grid computing and Web services’ Imperial College London; University College London; FujitsuLaboratories; BT group

‘Technology developments and drug discovery: advancementsand challenges in structural biology’

Birkbeck College, University of London; Imperial CollegeLondon; Astex Therapeutics; AstraZeneca

‘Ensuring food safety through traceability and shelf-life controlsystems’

London South Bank University; Institute of Food Research;Simmons of Hatfield; Leatherhead Food International

‘Sensor technology: new applications for cost-effective systems’ City University London; SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems;University College London; Philips Electronics Nederland

‘Emerging technologies for waste management: technologicalsolutions for solid and liquid waste’

Imperial College London; DEFRA; BIFFA Waste Services;University of Greenwich; BP Remediation Management

‘Assessing the technologies driving the take-up of digital media’ Royal College of Art; Electronic Arts; Queen Mary University ofLondon; Symbian

‘Micro-electronics in medical devices: innovation and applicationin medical practice’

University College London; Unipath; Brunel University; BTGroup; Zarlink Semiconductor

‘Targets, molecules and medicine: assessing the interfacebetween industry and academia’

Imperial College London; University College London;GlaxoSmithKline; Agilent Technologies R&D

‘Exploring the latest technology developments that supportenvironmentally sustainable transport’

PSA Peugeot Citroën; Rolls Royce; Horiba; Imperial CollegeLondon; Brunel University



However, all LTN events and LTN inquiry-handlingare interdisciplinary. Events are organized by a singlemarketing team using a single database of industry andacademic contacts, since businesses often seektechnology expertise unrelated to their core capabilities(for example, a major pharmaceutical company may belooking to establish an information systems architecturefor medical image storage and analysis). Inquiries aretaken by the most appropriate Technology Teamspecialist (this would be, for instance, an informationtechnologist in the case of the above pharmaceuticalcompany inquiry) and are published on an electronicbulletin board accessible to all BFs and TLOs. Anintegrated technology map covering capabilitiesacross all BFs (Table 3) is used to identify potentialacademic partners and to pursue responses fromparticular BFs.

This interdisciplinary focus increases the chanceof novel connections compared to the complete lifescience/other disciplines split in industry-facingactivity sometimes observed in UK universities’TLOs.

Regional scale economiesLTN offers technology-acquisitive businesses fromanywhere in the world a simple way to meet academicsfrom one-third of the UK university research base. Itoffers fellowships to researchers in all departments withhighly-regarded technology research across London andthe South East and East of England, one or two eachfor 124 departments. This covers about 9,340

research-active staff in departments with well-respectedresearch in technology disciplines, about 43% of the UKuniversity research base in this type of academicdepartment in the UK government’s 2001 ResearchAssessment Exercise (see Table 1).2

All LTN events are held in central Londonlocations with excellent public transport links forthese academics as well as businesses across theGreater South East (London, South East England,East England) – which accounted for more than half ofUK business expenditure on R&D in 2002 (Owens,2004).

The build-up to this scale from 2002 to 2005 wascritical, because LTN, while reliant upon well-trainedBF liaison academics, had to show early results and anattractive concentration of technologies. BFs wererecruited in waves of fifteen to forty for training andcoaching to form a cadre of like-minded academics whocould support one another. These waves were scheduledto coincide with the university trimester, starting withthe most broadly-demanded disciplines (materialscience, computer science, biological sciences – Cohenet al, 2003), to create an interdisciplinary core thatwould attract many businesses to attend events andsubmit inquiries. Complementary disciplines(mechanical engineering, electrical and electronicengineering, medicine, design, etc) were then added inlater waves. The success of early events led torecommendations from attending academics andexecutives, and these were critical to the signing-up ofBFs in more departments and the viral marketing ofevents to more executives.

Table 3. 2005 LTN technologies.

Physical sciences and engineering technology Number Life sciences technology Number

Electronics, microelectronics 100 Cardiovascular 47Information processing and system workflow 58 CNS 140Information technology and telematics applications 50 Dental/cosmetics 17Multimedia 126 Dermatology 3Telecommunications, networks 52 Gastrointestinal 3Industrial manufacturing, material and transport 150 Immune/autoimmune 36Other industrial 35 Infectious diseases 66Energy 45 Metabolic 7Physical and exact sciences 23 Musculoskeletal 28Biological Sciences 21 Oncology 113Measurements and standards 41 Opthamology 10Protecting man and environment 11 Pain 10

Reproductive medicine 7Respiratory 7Veterinary sciences 7Agri/food/environmental 13Various applications 161Other applications 82

Total 712 757



Data gatheringLTN requires standard reporting across all BFs, and thecombination of close follow-up by the TechnologyTeam and anonymity ensure that this is complete.

All BFs are required to report their business-facingactivities, without prescribing which kinds of activity toperform and with the assurance of anonymity. They arecontracted to provide activity reporting on a monthlybasis for interactions with industry of their colleagues inwhich they have played a role. This activity reportingcovers both direct interactions related to a specificindustry negotiation and indirect interactions, such asencouraging colleagues to engage in negotiations orarranging for industry attendance at departmentalseminars. It also covers non-cash-denominated andgoods-in-kind interactions in addition to those that havea cash value. The BFs report explicitly if the industrialclient is new to the department in order to establish abaseline. Industry-facing activities in which the BF hasnot played a direct role in introducing, negotiating orcompleting the work are excluded from the reporting.

LTN Technology Team staff review activity reportsand coach BFs to report completely and accurately: theaccuracy and completeness of all activity reports areconfirmed verbally by the Technology Team duringeach six monthly aggregation exercise and externallyaudited annually. However, the reports are keptconfidential between LTN and the BF concerned toencourage full disclosure.

Between September 2002 and January 2007, LTNrecruited and trained over 250 academics as BFs. It nowcovers over 120 academic departments. However, thedata analysed here are drawn from the 97 BFs whoreported activity for the period July 2004–June 2005, thesecond year in which activity was gathered. As the nextsection will show, the results of this analysis confirmfactors identified by researchers elsewhere. Full-yearresults for the third year, ending in June 2006, confirmthe same trends and scale, while quality control andauditing did not allow us to include the data in this paper.

ResultsLTN has experienced strong demand from seniorexecutives in industry for interaction with academicsthrough a wide range of mechanisms across alltechnology disciplines:

• Direct contact with academics appears to be effectivein generating new interactions. Ninety-seven BFshandled 1,294 negotiations and closed 297 dealswhich generated more than £12 million in incomefor their departments from July 2004 to June 2005.More than 70% of negotiations were with businesses

new to the department. This suggests that thebusiness community does value the researchcapabilities available from the departments ofresearch-active BFs.

• Research, consulting and teaching mechanisms aremore widely used than licensing. Fifty-five per centof negotiations and 46% of closed deals were forresearch collaborations, 16% of negotiations and23% of closed deals were for consulting and 8% ofnegotiations and 15% of closed deals were foreducation – but only 4% of negotiations and 3% ofclosed deals were for licensing.

• BFs in physical science and engineering disciplinesreport three times as many industry interactions (215)as their life science peers (69), but the total value ofinteractions is comparable, with physical science andengineering generating approximately £6·4 millionand life science generating about £5·8 million.

• Aggregation across London and the South East ofEngland appears to be highly attractive to industry,and most deals happen with companies located inthe local Greater South East region (see Table 4).LTN’s invitation-only events have attracted a seniorgroup of executives, and most of the concluded dealshave been local. Since February 2003, LTN hasattracted 2,374 event attendees, 1,151 frombusinesses. Of these business attendees, 43% werefrom the R&D function, 16% were chief executiveofficers or managing directors, 15% were frombusiness development/licensing, 10% were fromoperations, 9% were from engineering and 7% werefrom other functions. Attracting such localexecutives to regular meetings seems worthwhile,since more than half of the concluded deals werewith companies based in London, South EastEngland and East England, while fewer than aquarter were outside Europe (see Table 4). Overall,small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than250 employees account for 41% of deals – except inLondon, where they account for 57%.

Table 4. Region of business for concluded business–university transactions, July 2004–June 2005.

Region ofbusiness

Physicalsciences/engineering

Lifesciences

London 85 30South East England 22 6East England 18 5Other UK 24 8Europe 15 9North America 19 8Asia 9 2NA 23 1



These aggregate results show the scale of new contacts,but a few detailed cases in which both parties haveagreed to public disclosure may illustrate the sources ofleads for a few of the major mechanisms listed above(further cases and more detail are available atwww.ltnetwork.org).

Industry enquiry resulting in collaborative research:Kodak and the University of Greenwich. Kodakexecutives had attended an LTN event on displays andhad requested help in extending the lifespan ofelectroluminescent phosphor powders in a range ofdisplays for use in cameras or handheld games. LTNpresented work from a number of units, including theUniversity of Greenwich, a London university that wasnot familiar to Kodak. Within three months, Kodakagreed to provide £300,000 of funding as part of anoverall programme costing more than £1 million.

Industry enquiry resulting in testing: Carbonate Ltd andQueen Mary University. Carbonate Ltd, a productdesign company, had designed a new intravenous pumpthat was expected to reduce the costs of infusions bymore than 50%, but needed extensive testing. LTN putcompany executives in touch with a range of clinicalunits around London, and it concluded an agreementwith St Bartholomew’s Hospital and Queen MaryUniversity. In addition, LTN helped Carbonate to securelocal government funding through the Jump Startprogramme. As a result, four new jobs were created inthe company and its product improved in clinical trials.

Event meeting resulting in a consultancy: University ofWestminster College and Bromcom. A BF atWestminster College met the chief executive ofBromcom, an information company, at an LTN eventand discovered that he needed expert-witness support ina patent case. Within a month, the BF had found acolleague who completed the consultancy for Bromcomwithin two more months.

Event meeting resulting in a joint venture: Canesis andUniversity College London. A BF at University CollegeLondon had invented a textile for infection control inhospitals and, meeting an executive from Canesis, acompany which researches new textiles for industry,presented the opportunity for the joint development of aproduct to market in only eighteen months.

LTN’s indirect contribution. Obviously case studies areavailable when LTN is the direct source of the lead,either through an event or an enquiry. However, aroundtwo-thirds of the leads resulting in negotiations betweenBFs and industry come from other sources, eitherintroductions by academic colleagues or personal

networks of the BFs themselves. We know that suchdeals are concluded, both through direct discussion withBFs and external audit, but we do not have directcontact with the companies concerned and have notnegotiated for case studies.

This raises the question of whether these deals wouldhave occurred anyway, without LTN intervening.Interviews with the BFs responsible for many such dealssuggest that they would not have had the time or wouldnot have assumed that they had institutional permissionto pursue the leads without the half day per weekcontracted to LTN to work on behalf of their departmenton industry liaison, and that the continuing training andcoaching of LTN staff has improved their ability toconclude deals. Perhaps it is the ‘warm’ nature of manyof the leads which LTN BFs have with industry thatexplains why 23% of negotiations result in deals.

Implications for practice and furtherresearchLTN has extended its service across approximatelyone-third of the UK university research base, withauditable results. It is, therefore, worth examining howother practitioners can achieve the same results, andwhether this large-scale trial throws up further issues forresearch.

Limitations of the study

This is a case study, not a controlled experiment. Theauthors are practitioners seeking to establish a modelthat adds value, rather than dispassionate scientificobservers. Some obvious factors may raise concern in aresearcher seeking to replicate these results.

First, the four basic tenets of the LTN – the directcontact approach, agnostic mechanisms, the splitbetween life sciences and the physical sciences andengineering, and regional-scale economies – were alltested at once. Therefore, it is impossible to tell whichcaused the measurable success of LTN, and so it isdifficult to propose direct causality.

Second, the authors actively selected the best-suitedavailable academic volunteers to become BFs, trainedand coached them to generate a wide range ofinteractions, and supported them with the best availablecentral event marketing and technology staff. It is,therefore, hard to say that this would work with arandom selection of academics without strong centralsupport.

Third, LTN collaborates actively with TLOs in allthe universities where it has BFs, and in some where itdoes not. It would, therefore, not be right to claim thatuniversity interaction works with a regional brokeralone.



Finally, LTN covers two-fifths of the highly-regardeduniversity technology research base of the UK, one ofthe most productive academic populations in the world(with 11% of world academic citations in 2004). WhileUK business spends less on R&D than other countries,more than a half of the R&D spent in UK industry isalso concentrated in the Greater South East. It is hard tosay that a regional grouping of universities in arandomly selected area of the world would be asattractive to industry.

Implications for practiceDespite the limitations of a single case study, themeasurable success of LTN and its rapid growth tocover more than 120 departments and a significantproportion of the UK university research base arepromising. We believe some key lessons emerge.

Paying academics part time to represent theircolleagues is an effective way of generating a widerange of teaching and research as well as commercialinteractions with industry. By contrast, the practice ofmaking the TLO or business development office (BDO)the initial contact point for all business enquiries may beless effective. The high rate of success enjoyed by theBFs suggests that they are well-connected toresearch-active academics and their capabilities, andcomplement their TLOs.

Measuring all forms of interaction with companiesencourages academics to build serious relationshipswith a company via low-risk and straightforwardinteractions. By contrast, short-term financial goals forresearch services and licensing may lead to pushmarketing of services that companies really cannotevaluate because they do not yet know and trust theacademics concerned.

Interdisciplinary events and enquiry forwardingidentify novel academic–industry matches andemphasize the great advantage of working withacademics who are constantly applying techniques fromone discipline to another. By contrast, the widespreadpractice of separating life sciences, even to the point ofhaving an independent TLO (for example, as at Harvardor UCL) may add few novel connections to establishedrelationships with major pharmaceuticals, which fundmany doctorates in life science departments anyway.

Regional aggregations of university expertise mayattract new industry interactions and improve thecommercialization of university ideas. However, otherregional brokers were funded by the UK government atthe same time as LTN to cover other regions, and yetrecent reviews of knowledge transfer effectiveness inthese organizations have shown that formal reporting isvery limited and results are hard to find. This leads us to

posit that LTN’s success relative to the other regionalbrokers is due in part to its standard contracts, reporting,and auditable results – all of which required carefulnegotiation with the many universities involved.

Further researchBased on our limited reading of the academic researchin this field, some key questions emerge for furtherresearch:

• Can better filters be put in place using ontologiesthat properly link academic disciplines withcommercial technology applications? Technologyontology is constantly changed by both academicsand business people. Academics need novelty topublish in specialist journals and find funding undernew government programmes. Business peoplere-label their technologies to evoke different benefitsfor particular customers (relational databases becamedata mining, which in turn became customerrelationship management). We have adopted a codingsystem (see Table 3) based on standards establishedby the European Union and Websites offering lifescience technologies. Would more academics andmore industrialists engage if they had a clearercommon understanding of what was relevant?

• What combinations of interactions normally build upto a serious engagement with a company? Ourlimited dataset shows some sequences from low-costand low-commitment interactions to high-valuerelationships, with the majority of interactionsfalling into very standard mechanisms (for example,funded doctorate students, student placements,faculty consulting). Could universities setacademics’ discretionary powers more appropriately,and could academics follow up more effectively tobuild relationships if we had a better understandingof the bundles of interactions?

• What is the maximum distance that a regionalnetwork can cover? Analysis of our limited datasetshows little fall-off in attendance at events by moredistant industry executives (Chapman et al, 2005),and yet our dataset shows that most concludedtransactions are local (see Table 4). Perhaps this isbecause many interactions require visits by studentsand academics with limited travel budgets and thetime overhead of long-distance travel prevents thelow-cost and low-risk interactions that are precursorsof serious engagement. Could government betterevaluate the local commercial impact of universityresearch and set appropriate technology transferboundaries if we understood more clearly thesignificance of distance for different types ofinteraction?



ConclusionOne regional technology matchmaker, LTN, has grownquickly to cover one-third of the UK’s university baseto ‘stimulate the transfer of technology-basedinnovation’, and has generated more than £12 million inindustry income from July 2004 to June 2005, 70% of itfrom businesses new to the department concerned.These audited results are in clear contrast to the generallack of evidence of university interaction from UKbusiness stimulated by other UK government-fundedinitiatives in this area. We believe that these resultsderive from the consistent implementation of four basictenets for technology transfer matchmaking – the directcontact approach, agnostic mechanisms, the splitbetween life sciences and the physical sciences andengineering, and regional-scale economies. This hasobvious implications for other practitioners, but we havealso endeavoured to identify further questions forresearch in light of our dataset.

Notes1Co-author Peter Reid founded LTN based in part on hisexperience of contracting university researchers while managingthree engineering businesses. Co-author Matt Schofield, in hisrole as head of client services for LTN, planned much of theoperations of the network based on his experience as anorganizational consultant and his research on technologytransfer between a major UK semiconductor design licenser,ARM, and its global network of partner companies.2The Research Assessment Exercise is a peer-reviewed audit ofpublications and is used by the UK government for fundingdecisions.

ReferencesAgrawal, A., and Henderson, R. (2002), ‘Putting patents in

context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT’,Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 44–60.

Allott, S. (2000), ‘From science to growth’, City Lecture, HughesHall, Cambridge, www.trinamo.com/articles/City_Lecture_060306.pdf.

Chapman, D., Besussi, E., and Weber, P. (2005), ‘Assessing thegeographical dimensions of London’s innovation networks:consultancy report for the London Technology Network’,paper presented at the British Academy of Management,Oxford.

DTI (2004), Autumn Performance Report, Licensing Division,Department of Trade and Industry, London, pp 2–16.

HM Treasury (2003) Lambert Review of Business–UniversityCollaboration: Final Report, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,London.

Jansen, C., and Dillon, H.F. (1999), ‘Where do the leads forlicenses come from?’, Journal of the Association ofUniversity Technology Managers, Vol 11, pp 51–56.

NHS (1998), The Management of Intellectual Property andRelated Matters, National Health Service Executive, London,pp 53–55.

Owens, J. (2004), ‘Research and experimental development(R&D) statistics 2002’, Economic Trends, No 610.

Research Assessment Exercise (2001), www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Results/.

Thursby, J., and Thursby, M. (2000), ‘Industry perspectives onlicensing university technologies: sources and problems’,Journal of the Association of University TechnologyManagers, Vol 12, pp 9–12.

Thursby, J., and Thursby, M. (2004), ‘Are faculty critical? Theirrole in university industry licensing’, Contemporary EconomicPolicy, Vol 22, No 2, pp 162–178.

Wesley M. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J.P. (2002),‘Links and impacts: the influence of public research onindustrial R&D’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1,pp 1–23.

The authors would like to thank the UK Department of Trade andIndustry, the Office of Science and Technology, the HigherEducation Funding Council for England, the European UnionInnovation Relay Centre Network, the London DevelopmentAgency, the South East England Development Agency, theEast of England Development Agency, and their manyacademic collaborators for their active participation and ongoingsupport. They also acknowledge the AUTM Journal editorialteam for its patience and support in the original publicationprocess.

This paper was first published in the Journal of the Associationof University Technology Managers, Vol XVIII, No 1, Summer2006, pp 45–60, and is reproduced here by kind permission ofthe Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) andthe authors. © 2006 Peter Reid and Matt Schofield.



Industry and higher education, 2006 december

Business

Transcript of Industry and higher education, 2006 december