Question 18 What would be the main activities of a single knowledge exchange office? What activities are best left to the individual universities?

P16/48 – Scottish Agricultural College

A Research Scotland Knowledge Exchange brand could be established across the HEIs that attempts to be a one-stop shop for good practice in KTE and engagement with business. This could set out policies, procedures and protocols for the commercialisation of research that could be accessed by the HEIs and Colleges. In addition to all the legal and administrative protocols, the brand would require to have a collective identity that would encourage business and the SME community to appreciate the range of research, consultancy, training and other skills hosted by the HEI sector. Some form of referral service for its customers and a strong marketing and media presence would be essential. The existing diversity of the HEI sector offerings to the business community is very broad and varies across the geography of Scotland. Thus it is unlikely any single Knowledge Exchange Office could on its own ‘increase business innovation and productivity’. Such an office could however, help in ensuring best practice across the Scottish HE sector by providing relevant contacts to assist with, eg Intellectual Property and brokerage.

Consideration could be given to aligning KTE with research pools and/or along economic sectors. Generally, KTE is most successful when delivered by those closest to the knowledge generation. The provision of services, as done by SAC, is also an important mechanism for KTE.

The Universities by the nature of their individual research strengths, cultures and geographic locations will dominate their patterns of support into innovation and enterprise. Universities are well-placed to respond to funding incentives for KTE, innovation and enterprise. The needs of various industry sectors are different and the diversity of research and KTE programmes can be a strength. For example, in the food and drink sector

1

business are often small, dispersed across Scotland and occupy different positions on the food supply chain. The needs of these businesses in innovation and enterprise may be distinct from other industries. The role of the mini-TICs could be very relevant in such cases.

P16/46 – Scotland’s Landbased Colleges

A Research Scotland Knowledge Exchange brand could be established across the HEIs that attempts to be a one-stop shop for good practice in KTE and engagement with business. This could set out policies, procedures and protocols for the commercialisation of research that could be accessed by the HEIs and Colleges. In addition to all the legal and administrative protocols, the brand would require to have a collective identity that would encourage business and the SME community to appreciate the range of research, consultancy, training and other skills hosted by the HEI sector. Some form of referral service for its customers and a strong marketing and media presence would be essential. The existing diversity of the HEI sector offerings to the business community is very broad and varies across the geography of Scotland. Thus it is unlikely any single Knowledge Exchange Office could on its own ‘increase business innovation and productivity’. Such an office could however, help in ensuring best practice across the Scottish HE sector by providing relevant contacts to assist with, eg Intellectual Property and brokerage.

Consideration could be given to aligning KTE with research pools and/or along economic sectors. Generally, KTE is most successful when delivered by those closest to the knowledge generation. The provision of services, as done by SAC, is also an important mechanism for KTE.

P16/001 – James Somerville

• Work with the SFC and enterprise bodies as appropriate to review support for knowledge exchange

2

and innovation to ensure it is effective, well aligned and genuinely joined up.

KEI needs to be industry led: industrial partners need solutions and innovations that bolster their business success and this success then feeds back to the universities. A single KE office will go some way towards providing a focused picture.

P16/012 – David Innes

One stop shop – single point of contact for information to ebb and flow resulting in, the quality of information being improved. Degree level programmes and research nothing below this.

P16/018 – Educational Institute of Scotland – David Belsey

A Knowledge Exchange Office is something which already exists in the South of Scotland and is funded by the SFC and Europe. It is a partnership between Heriot Watt (Gala), UWS, Glasgow and SAC for HE and Borders College, Dumfries & Galloway, Barony and for the FE sector. Whilst the EIS supports this initiative it does have concerns regarding the centralisation of all Knowledge Exchange Offices.

Put simply, such an office is not going to have the same the knowledge and contacts (especially local for SMEs) as individual university KEOs. The EIS would prefer a central KEO coordinating the work of University KEOs.

The EIS also suggests: o Construction and maintenance of a research ‘who’s who’. o Clearly identifying customer needs and relaying this information to universities. o Advising on funding.

P16/020 – Abertay – John Palfreyman

3

Commercialisation of IP. Assessing the value of IP. Working on major cross University commercialisation projects. Projects involving single Universities would be best left to individual Universities. A central office would help overcome the difficulties that Universities have when they try to work together, for example difficulties with IP ownership.

P16/021 – Scottish Lifesciences Association /Scott Johnstone

Despite our misgivings about the current multiple TTO structure, we are also aware of the good work done in places by some of them. We believe that the new organisation should take the form of an Integrated, rather than a Single, Knowledge Exchange Office (an IKEO), which will be designed to perform better than the existing TTO set up. We have found in discussion with members, including the universities and investors, that there is strong opposition to a single organisation based in one location, remote from the universities, especially those not in the central belt, and not aware of what is happening among academic researchers. We see the solution as being an organisation with commercially minded representatives in the universities who link to an Integrated Knowledge Exchange Office which handles the interface with businesses. And from this Association’s point of view, that organisation should employ people with knowledge of life sciences, not least within the universities with medical schools.

It goes without saying that care would have to be taken not to replace the existing complex multiple bureaucracy with a single bureaucracy which did not improve the performance. But there are plenty of exemplars – if all of the Californian universities, covering a population of 24 million people, can operate through one TTO, then so can Scotland.

P16/031 – Association for Learning Technology

4

Knowledge exchange activities are now electronically based and global. The concept of a“KE office” is already anachronistic and will become more so over time. Money may besaved if it is left off the agenda.P16/037 – University of AberdeenC5.4a This is worthy of further consideration as long as there is recognition that previous efforts for centralisation have not to date yielded the results hoped for e.g. Intermediary Technology Institutes. There must be a carefully considered balance between central and regional provision. A single Knowledge Exchange Office should concentrate on providing a virtual window to the Scottish University Knowledge base. It could consolidate the roles of Interface and UT.com. The University Knowledge Transfer offices are already working very closely on standardisation of research agreements and easy access Intellectual Property licensing. This will supplement what is already in place through Interface and UT.com. All other activities are best left at a local level to ensure the staff are engaged with their own academic community to ensure that maximum support is given towards securing research funding, securing valuable IP protection and facilitating interaction with local, national and international industry and commerce. There could be a case for closer co-operation on a Regional basis, with potentially two or three Universities sharing functions but one single office would not be well placed to provide detailed and prompt local support. P16/038 – CBI ScotlandWhile we fully support further work to ensure that universities’ intellectual property is accessible to business and promotes sustainable economic growth, we would be seriously concerned about the creation of a new intermediary bureaucracy which would be counter to the current experience that knowledge exchange is best achieved when universities’ knowledge exchange offices are closely connected in to the academic communities of their particular institution, and often work best when knowledge exchange professionals are devolved within the university to be as close as possible to the various research professionals.

5

P16/042 – University of Abertay Dundee

P16/055 – British Academy

Scotland has very high quality research both in the humanities and the social sciences. For example, Scotland has higher success rates than either England or Wales in competitive funding from AHRC and ESRC (in 2010/11). However, maintaining this success requires considerable input from the Research Excellence Grant (REG) so, while we recognise the importance of only funding excellence it is essential that this is understood to mean excellence across the full range of academic disciplines and that sufficient funds for the humanities and social sciences be maintained in the REG.

We note with interest the proposals to deregulate the fees charged by Scottish institutions to students from the rest of the UK. With education policy devolved to national administrations, it is right that the Scottish Government considers how it reacts to changes taking place in other parts of the UK sector. We have previously raised some concerns about the changes to tuition fees taking place in English universities in responses to consultations published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills . We believe that it is important to consider carefully such fundamental changes and be mindful of the impact on student mobility and progression. Governments need to be prepared to alter policies or introduce additional support if it appears that changes to the funding regimes are having an adverse effect on student participation.

We have the same concerns with the Scottish Government’s proposals for changes to the undergraduate tuition fee regime as we do with the UK Government’s proposals for English universities. The changes to the undergraduate regime will impact on the

6

postgraduate regime with the risk that students will be deterred from progressing to further study. The UK as a whole needs to ensure a sufficient supply of postgraduate students in order both to maintain and develop the excellence of the research base and to exploit the fruits of that research for the benefit of society at large. We are wary of the long-term impact of these changes on postgraduate study and research, which has not received the level of support and consideration that is due in a period of substantial.

In our response to the consultation on the UK Government’s White Paper for English higher education we voiced concern that those changes could have a detrimental effect on UK higher education as a whole, potentially leading to resentments about different institutional and student statuses, and reducing mobility and choice. We also raised the possibility that research and teaching budgets for institutions in the other nations will be reduced as a consequence of tuition fees at English institutions. We strongly urge the Scottish Government to assess how the changes to funding and tuition fees in English universities affect investment in Scottish universities. There is a burden on all administrations to monitor trends carefully, so as to safeguard UK higher education as a whole.

P16/059 – The Glasgow School of Art

We cannot support the proposal for a single Knowledge Exchange Office for Scotland. Whilst we accept that there is a need to improve significantly the information which is available to business about how and why to engage with Universities, this can be achieved through web portals, better digital signposting, consistent and more standardised contracts etc without the concentration of KE activity into a single monolithic office. In creative disciplines, for example, the kind of innovation models used, often based on co-creation and user centred development, tend not to fit the standardised policies and procedures which a single KE office would inevitably tend to develop.

7

P16/061: E.Chirnside – Private Individual

The Scottish Governments (SG) proposals to form a single KE Office is based on hearsay and comment not evidence, and before any such move the SG should work with all the players in the innovation ecosystem to determine how this could and should be modified and better, more useful support to Scotland’s companies provided – rather than a shot in the dark about a sKEO.It is evident from the present business statistics that there is very little demand from Scottish companies for University-led innovation or knowledge:

The focus must be in putting power into the hands of Scotland’s businesses so that they are motivated to seek out new innovation wherever it might support their business – to encourage a user-led system rather than the present knowledge-push system

P19/064: University of Edinburgh• Whilst we recognise there is certainly scope for closer collaboration between Universities to make it easier for business to access University resources, expertise and outputs, we also believe that there is danger in tampering with already efficient models of working.• Whilst we fully support the desire to make it easier to facilitate collaboration between industry and the academic sector, we do not believe that a single knowledge exchange office (KEO) is the answer.• Where a single KEO may add value in activities such as those undertaken by Interface http://www.interface‐online.org.uk acting as a single point of contact for business to approach all Scottish universities and research institutions to find the expertise, knowledge and facilities that the business requires. The existence and success of Interface are such that an additional single KEO should be unnecessary.

P16/067: Energy North

8

For employers – the ability to visit a ‘one-stopshop’ for their consultancy and research needswould be appealing – especially for small SME’s.

P16/079 Brodies LLPMy motivation in making this short submission to the post-16 consultation process is to ensure that the proposal for a single knowledge exchange office for Scotland be tested against evidence about the most effective models for maximising knowledge exchange activity by universities around the world. Based on both the available evidence and my own substantial experience of the process by which university .IP emerges, its commercial potential is recognised and the subsequent process of commercial exploitation, Ido not see a clear case for a single knowledge exchange office for Scotland and believe the proposal has the potential to do considerably more harm than good.

The key piece of evidence to which I would direct your officials is the report I initiated, which was produced by Gregson and Harrison in association with my former firm, Lindsays WS, as part of a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP). An analysis of commercialisation activity across the UK, US and Canada, the report makes clear that devolving responsibility for knowledge exchange activities within regions and institutions has a positive effect on the identification of IP for potential commercial exploitation. These findings areconsistent with my own personal experience in the field. Those universities that embed knowledge exchange personnel (who typically possess hands-on business experience) within laboratories and departments not only identify a greater number of opportunities, they are also the most effective in engendering a more entrepreneurial culture around commercialisation amongst academics and PhD students. To remove knowledge exchange funding, functions or staff from universities and relocate them to a central office would damage identification of commercialisation opportunities in the short term and reverse the significant advances made in terms of

9

embedding a culture of commercialisation in Scotland's universities.

Further to this, I foresee a number of practical challenges which an externally imposed, centrally located single office would face in delivering increased knowledge exchange activity. These would include:• Either a lack of knowledge of research/potential research with commercial application on the ground in Scottish universities or, alternatively, a burdensome and bureaucratic system intended to capture such information• Academic staff and students involved in licensing or company formation typically retain an ongoing relationship with the department in which they have been based and help embed the culture of commercialisation - a remote office and remote commercialisation support would not be as effective• Related to the above, the contribution of university commercialisation to regional economies and to the formation of business clusters relies on collaborations between researchers and companies, and on the local availability of finance, legal and commercialisation professionals. To locate such professionals remotely would be an unnecessary hindrance• The staff of such an office inevitably being perceived as outsiders to both the department and university and the consequent willingness of academics to engage with them

However, there is merit in exploring the potential of a common resource to provide a single "front door" for business, and to standardise or share best practice between universities; the experience of Interface in providing a single point of entry to universities for the uninitiated would be highly relevant. On this last point it should, however, be noted that those industry sectors which are the heaviest users of university IP already have established contacts and long term relationships with Scottish universities.

P16/078 South Lanarkshire College BoardAgain it seems odd that the question on knowledge exchange is limited to universities. There are many

10

excellent examples of colleges taking forward award-winning knowledge-exchange initiatives at minimal price to the public purse. For example the knowledge exchange project on low-energy construction at South Lanarkshire College has resulted in better commercial products being developed, engagement with around 1000 representatives from industry to improve environmental approaches, engagement with ministers and cabinet secretaries to influence change and education and training and engagement with mortgage lenders to release funds through a government-backed green housing summit at the college. At a recent UK award ceremony it was the only Scottish project across universities and colleges to win an award. I have no idea what a knowledge exchange office would do.P16/73 InterfaceIn response to the consultation on knowledge exchange in maintaining Scotland as a global leader the Interface Advisory Board would like to make the following points: • Universities and businesses are already working closely to ensure the economic benefits of innovation and discovery are harnessed for the whole Scottish economy. • Knowledge exchange encompasses a spectrum of activities and methods of business – academic engagement from accessing facilities to longer term research collaborations. The activities supported by Interface largely concern facilitation of early stage business -

University collaborations and are distinct from developing spinouts and licensing deals which are negotiated by the individual HEIs. • Interface currently provides a unique national model to simplify the academic landscape for businesses to engage and access knowledge, expertise and facilities. The impartial mode of operation and neutrality is seen by the private sector and by our academic partners as key to exploring the benefits of knowledge exchange. Demand by businesses to engage via Interface as an impartial broker has risen by 73% over the past 6 years with a 96% increase in collaborative projects facilitated.

11

• Interface is a model whereby the Scottish Universities and Research Institutions have come together by mutual consent to help facilitate easier access by the business community to their knowledge and expertise. • Interface provides a valuable service on behalf of the 24 Scottish Universities and Research Institutions as a cost effective means to identify SMEs and other companies for collaborative working and the opportunity to build lasting relationships. • The follow up monitoring and outcome management by the Interface team provides valuable intelligence on the efficiency, effectiveness and drivers of academic–business partnerships. For example for 464 Interface opportunities, the companies held discussions with potential academic partners and then decided not to proceed to a contract. For 75% of these cases, this was due to a change in priorities for the company (eg. need to focus more on sales, no longer a viable project, change of ownership of company, in administration etc.). Only 7% did not proceed because a mutually beneficial project/contract could not be agreed with the academic institution, with the remaining 18% not progressing for a variety of other reasons. • Stimulating demand by industry to engage with academia through appropriate incentives such as the impartial brokerage of Interface and the Scottish Funding Council’s Innovation Voucher Scheme is crucial to their growth and developing innovative capacity. • Academic partners have been able to respond to increasing numbers of business requirements as Interface has developed over the past 6 years. For the 1500 Interface specifications presented to academic groups in less than 1% of the cases capability and capacity could not be identified. The ability and capacity of the academic partners to continue to develop industrial partnerships should not be compromised.

P16/120 – University of Abertay Dundee Students’ Association/ William Mohieddeen

12

Concentration of research, as proposed by the review would only serve to restrict what this nation’s higher education sector may achieve. Rather than have industry direct the research options of the sector, the role of universities should be to pursue research in which business and industry would react to and take advantage of. The creation of a “one-stop shop” Knowledge Exchange Shop, may also restrict the ways in which Universities will pursue their research endeavours. Students should have as much opportunity as possible to enter an innovative, research active university that will benefit their learning experience. In this sense, it is important that universities are supported in continuing to pursue their own research, that has been shown will benefit business and industry.

P16/136 Shetland Island Council A single knowledge exchange office should concentrate on research which is directly linked to the economy, business innovation and productivity.

Individual universities should continue to concentrate on specialist areas of research, which are aligned to their specialist areas of delivery (e.g. medicine).

P16/138 – University of DundeeUnsurprisingly, the University very much welcomes the commitment in the paper to maintaining Scotland’s position in research; the University is also broadly supportive of the notion of concentrating funding in areas of research excellence, wherever they may be. This chimes with our own initiatives to increase the quality of research and its impact. The alignment of research focus to Scottish national priorities can in one sense be supported, in that it can provide the necessary impetus, with Government support, to address issues of greatest concern to the nation. However, it also runs the risk of undermining the autonomy of institutions to determine for themselves areas of research focus and potentially limits unnecessarily the focus of institutions whose research impacts have relevance at the UK, European

13

and/or international level. It is important therefore that an entirely appropriate emphasis on enhancing alignment with Scotland’s priorities does not run counter to the commitment to retain our world-class position on research and our abilities to harness, for the benefit of Scotland, the expertise and acumen of our international partners be they from education, industry or both. The issue of national alignment might more efficiently be addressed by competitive bidding in areas of strategic importance in discussion between HEIs, the SFC and the Government.

We note the paper’s concern around the exploitation of research and links with business, enterprise and industry. It is true, that taken as a whole, the Scottish HE sector is not always as forward-thinking and innovative in this area as it could be. And yet there are very good examples at research intensive universities of novel collaborations and partnerships with industry which are bringing real benefits to society. The Division of Signal Transduction Therapy (DSTT) at the University of Dundee is one of the most powerful examples of putting intellectual property to work and has created a knowledge exchange partnership that has locked investment of upwards of £50 million into Scotland. Supported by five of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, the DSTT is widely cited as a model of effective interaction between a university and the commercial sector. Elsewhere, the University of Strathclyde is creating a technology innovation centre to drive Scotland’s commitment to renewable energy. These two examples use world class expertise, built up by our universities over decades, to drive the uptake of our intellectual property by business and commerce and feed the research and development needs of those industries back into the research effort. Importantly they also induce global industries to invest and spend in Scotland, which in turn enhances the conditions for the creation of new businesses and future growth of the Scottish economy.

In Dundee’s case, these successes have arisen from the determination and drive of academics to forge links with

14

industry. And these have been well-supported by the University and by our own research and innovation support service. We therefore remain sceptical of the benefits of a central knowledge exchange office, and in particular how it would envisage emulating the subject knowledge and innovation of individual academics and departments, which is the seed-corn for truly novel and ground-breaking partnerships such as the DSTT. It is unlikely, we feel, in practice, that universities will cease KE activity within their own institutions and for their own purposes, to exploit their own intellectual property to their best advantage. It would seem therefore debatable that a central office would bring anything additional, or more importantly contribute to the efficiency agenda, since local KE offices at the larger universities are likely to remain. Given the likely removal of funding for anything but 3* and 4* research, we acknowledge that the KE activity at smaller institutions may decline with less research investment and this may very well support the notion of a central office, although this could also just equally be delivered on a regional, collaborative basis. However this issue is resolved, the solution should not be to the detriment of larger universities, who already perform this activity well and who have strong links with industry and business. A lot of discussion remains to be had on the role, purpose and benefit of such an office, and this should be undertaken in partnership with Universities Scotland and industrial partners.

P16/140 – Carnegie College Knowledge exchange is vital to the broader understanding and identification of opportunity created by the sharing of not only ideas but expertise. Therefore all knowledge exchange could be supported through a single partnership, which engages all stakeholders engaged in the process.

P16/ 153 Society of BiologyWe do not see the value in creating a single Knowledge Exchange Office. Knowledge exchange is best done locally, and there are many examples (Dundee, Glasgow) which support this: the best examples of successful

15

knowledge exchange are where universities have forged direct links with industry, rather than worked through a distant office.

P16/157 Institute of Engineering and Technology

The current arrangements involve duplication andinternal competition between universities anddepartments, militating against the value of scale. Atthe same time, rigid centralisation has great hazards.The aim should be sensible aggregation and sensiblecooperation.Innovation is best left to the universities.Administration of IP could be centralised as couldpromotion of technology transfer and legal servicesassociated with IP. However, centralisation shouldbe pivoted on facilitation, not on control. Theinnovators should be left in control.A major issue is the overvaluation of IP by theinventors and the legal services in universities. TheOpen IP model propounded by Glasgow Universityshould be encouraged; IP is only worth whatsomeone is prepared to pay for it.

P16/158 QMU

We recognise that the proposal for a single Knowledge Exchange Office has received a cool response from the sector. However, we believe that further discussion may help to alleviate some concerns particularly if the emphasis of the Office was to fall on advice and a source of information. For example, a single Knowledge Exchange Office with expertise in advising on complex EU bids and a co-ordinating role in supporting University ERDF funded projects could be a good first step.

The current system to support university-industry engagement is becoming fragmented with too many intermediary agencies thus resulting in dispersed investment with a lack of sustainable funding. We hope a single Knowledge Exchange Office may address this and

16

go someway in supporting Universities who are being inexorably drawn into fulfilling economic development voids left by the retraction of agencies such as Scottish Enterprise.

The proliferation of SPIRIT, SEEKIT and ERDF initiatives are adversely restricting Universities in: SME engagement; investing in long term capability and capacity building; realising the full potential of their assets; recruiting and retaining the best staff; and translating excellent research. The significant levelsof funding injected into these initiatives is increasingly resulting in Universities taking major responsibility for the support and success of tech and non-tech based SMEs.

We see a role for the single Knowledge Exchange Office in co-ordinating Scottish Government sector specific business development advice and possible back office support in the following areas:

• Intellectual Property• Spin Out• Company formation• European Funding Support• Equality and Diversity advice• Assistance in NHS research support – information governance, research passports etc.

P16/161 Uni Scotland

We welcome the continued emphasis on knowledge exchange, building on a distinctive Scottish success story. When compared with the top 11 US universities, the top eight research universities in Scotland require less than half the amount of funding to produce a spin-out company ($46.7M compared to $95.1M), and just over half to produce one license ($7.5M compared to $14.2M).18 Any system is capable of improvement. Greater collaborative activity in this area is desirable but will need to be developed with some subtlety to avoid displacing existing bilateral or collaborative forms of

17

interaction with business where these are working effectively and could be damaged by having to be routed through a new and unproven intermediary. There are a number of existing and new initiatives where Scottish universities are working together to make it easier for business and other potential partners to work with our members; the best known of these is Interface – the knowledge connection for business (http://www.interface-online.org.uk/3 ), but they also include: • The website www.universitytechnology.com, which has been re-launched as a single access point to a wide range of Scottish university-generated IP • The new development of a single standard set of contracts which any company wishing to engage with a Scottish university can choose to use • Knowledge Exchange offices shared across partner institutions in the research pools • Collaborative efforts to support new spin-out companies which enables the sector to draw on individual universities‟ expertise • The KE Step Change Programme of Early Career Researcher Development, (http://www.napier.ac.uk/randkt/kestepchangeDevelopment/Pages/home.aspx which won a Times Higher Education Supplement Award in 2010

We look forward to working very closely with SFC to ensure that the sector can build on these important initiatives in ways that can command broad support in the sector and will therefore best contribute to universities‟ capacity to drive sustainable economic growth. However, a „single Knowledge Exchange Office‟ conceived as a monopoly entry point for businesses wanting to exploit universities‟ intellectual property does not appear to be the right model – universities have distinctive IP assets and a range of relationships with business which in many cases are better managed directly between the parties and in line with universities‟ own moves to embed commercialisation staff at the research coalface. Experience has demonstrated that knowledge exchange is most effective when it is highly

18

devolved, even within institutions. Also, universities‟ knowledge exchange offices are important drivers of regional economic growth because of universities‟ distinct local connections. Crucially, knowledge exchange must be seen as a core activity of every university – and this would be damaged by centralisation into a new intermediary body. We are, however, committed to building from the initiatives listed above to ensure that, where it is the best option, businesses and investors can get access to university intellectual property through a single access point and by means of standardised contracts which make it easier for SMEs in particular to engage with universities. This must not introduce additional bureaucracy and must not divert knowledge exchange funding from its current role in supporting academics‟ direct engagement with industry and others. Any revised „front end‟ can only be successful – like Interface in its current role – through close access to universities‟ own knowledge exchange offices.

P16/184 – Glasgow Caledonian University

Given the diversity of HE institutions in Scotland and the breadth of their expertise, we are concerned that a single knowledge exchange office could actually act to limit the development of potential knowledge hubs in the future, and work against each HEI developing its unique competitive advantage, based on the particular strengths of its academic institutional assets. A single knowledge exchange office would be expected to reflect the multiplicity of services including Intellectual Property, contracts, foresighting, research management, knowledge transfer funding, CPD, and EU engagement, thereby largely duplicating services that would still need to be offered at an institutional level. We feel that more collaborative working across this sector, for example through the recent development of www.university-technology.com to engage with business and employers, could achieve more effectively the intended objectives of a single knowledge exchange office.

19

There are also difficult issues (such as conflict of interests) surrounding how a single KEO would deal with competitive commercial contracts where Scottish HEIs are competing head to head for projects. This would equally apply for research funding calls where a single KEO was dealing with bids from a range of institutions all competing for the same funding. These issues have been discussed recently by the Research and Commercial Directors Group of Universities Scotland.

P16/191 – University of Stirling

We do not see any particular value in the creation of a single Knowledge Exchange Office (KEO) (paragraph 110). We are concerned firstly about the creation of possible additional layers of bureaucracy which might hinder the development and nurturing of relationships with local businesses and commercial partners. We are concerned that this would reduce, rather than enhance, the impact of research delivered by Scotland’s universities. We would therefore endorse the comment made by Universities Scotland which states that “a single KEO conceived as a single monopoly entry point for businesses….does not appear to be the right model.” We would also be concerned about the potential impact on the KE grant, specifically that the grant might be reduced because a proportion would be directed at the establishment and running of the KEO.

P16/194 – University of St Andrews/Lorna Milne

6. There has been significant progress towards developing simpler contracts and IP agreements in the area of Knowledge Exchange, and in having closer links with the Fife Economy Partnership. The size and the role of the proposed single Knowledge Exchange Office for Scotland (para.110) are still unclear, and so it remains difficult to evaluate whether investment in such an office offers the most cost effective way to build closer links between university research and industry.

20

P16/204 – Heriot-Watt University

For the continued success of Scotland’s economy, it is important that collaboration on knowledge exchange across Scotland’s universities grows, as a natural consequence of increasing research pooling, co-teaching graduate students and other activities. However, as an institution which has worked with business and industry for almost 200 years, Heriot-Watt strongly emphasises that great care must be taken not to displace individual universities or collaborative groups of universities and other institutions working with business independently, where these partnerships are working well and productively. Many of the partnerships now delivering real value have taken many years to evolve to full effectiveness and could be disrupted by hasty action.

There are already a number of organisations providing focal points for business contact with Scotland’s Universities, particularly Interface, the Scottish knowledge connection for business (http://www.interface-online.org.uk/3) and the university-managed www.universitytechnology.com, recently re-launched as an access point to a wide range of Scottish University generated intellectual property as well, of course, as the KTP Centres which provided a valuable service to companies when there was a steady flow of Technology Strategy Board funding through this route to Scottish companies.

There may be a case for rationalising Scotland’s outward facing independent sites and increasing the linkages between these and the research and enterprise offices in Scotland’s universities. However, based on our extensive experience of successful work with business and industry, Heriot-Watt does not believe that the concept of a single physical location and structure for Knowledge Exchange across Scotland is viable or realistic in the context of the multifold relationships that each University has with partner companies.

21

5.6 Similar organisations have been set up in the past, such as the British Technology Group, or the British Expertise in Science and Technology (BEST) database. They have not proved effective as their size made the distance between the academic staff producing new intellectual property and the interface too great.

5.7 Heriot-Watt would propose instead that a model in which some elements of central resource and contributions from university-based expertise could be used to create - and possibly more importantly, to brand - a federated or distributed structure linking the research and enterprise and technology transfer offices of all the Universities in Scotland.

5.8 These Offices know their communities well, including the businesses already associated with the Universities, which can often be powerful advocates to involve others. They know the University’s sponsors and are well linked into the University’s relationships with its alumni. They already have connections reaching across the world. Little of this is available to a pan-Scotland organisation. Already, Scotland’s Universities’ Research and Enterprise and Technology Transfer Offices work together when opportunities arise and are fully open to sharing good practice.

5.9 A strong example of Heriot-Watt’s own willingness to work collaboratively in the field of commercialisation is the establishment of the Converge Challenge, a competition that aims to support the next generation of Scottish research entrepreneurs in business and technology and offers the first prize winner a business start-up package worth over £45,000 to help make their business idea a reality. This includes expert help and mentoring. Applicants can be from any of the Scottish Research Pools of which Heriot-Watt is a member, as well as from the University itself.

5.10 Working from this knowledge and experience base, Heriot-Watt therefore proposes that the Research and

22

Enterprise and Technology Transfer Office Directors are asked to work with the SFC and others as appropriate, to produce a federated or distributed model promoting the use of Scotland’s Intellectual Property, which could have, amongst other things:• A single brand for access to expertise, including a single umbrella website linking to all universities in Scotland and where appropriate to Scotland’s research institutes and Colleges, as the two organisations cited above do;• Agreed protocols and standardised documentation and practices to be adopted within an agreed operating framework;• Shared services such as legal advice, patent development etc.By assigning each function of the office eg company formation or business development to a lead director, who would perform this function alongside his/her role for their own university, this structure could be particularly cost-effective.

P16/213 GTCS

While the KEO is clearly aimed primarily at business the GTCS would urge that a similar model should be developed for public sector areas such as education. Having such a mechanism to share, disseminate encourage practical use of educational research would be very positive

P16/219 – Scottish Enterprise

SE's position on maintain Scotland as a global leader in university research is articulated in our response to the previous HE consultation, Building a Smarter Scotland. We are pleased that the current proposals reflect the importance of focussing resources on those areas of research which can have the greatest impact on Scotland's sustainable economic, and are working alongside SFC, HIE and SG to implement these proposals.

23

We add to this earlier response our recommendations concerning the single Knowledge Exchange office and mini-Technology Innovation Centres.

A single Knowledge Exchange office.

This concept provides opportunities to reduce the complexity for businesses in accessing knowledge, advice and support through increased collaboration across higher education institutions. Scottish Enterprise welcomes this approach especially in the ambition to maximise the effectiveness of Universities in helping businesses to aquire, and implement, innovative solutions that improve/advance their products, processes and business models. Any proposals to develop a single Knowledge Exchange office need to be directly informed by a clear understanding of the key issues and opportunities to be addressed. Scottish Enterprise, through our access to Industry Advisory Groups, and the wider business base, has an important role to play in ensuring an approach is taken which ensures strong business benefits are realised, alongside benefits to the univerities and the economy as a whole.

mini-Technology Innovation Centres.

We welcome the concept of developing mini Technology Innovation Centres associated with Scotland's HEI research infrastructure. We believe these Centres should be designed to meet both present and upcoming industrial demand and that a funding model should be developed which ensures strong business engagement is achieved from the outset. Scottish Enterprise welcomes the opportunity to work together with SFC, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scotlands HEI's and business sectors that represent the demand-side in developing this new inititiative. There are considerable opportunities to develop these Centres on thematic, sectoral and/or regional priorities which will require careful consideration.

24

P16/226 – Cardonald CollegeThe creation of a single point of contact would beneficial for employers but would be of no value if universities were unable to be open with each other. Colleges are engaged in actionresearch and consideration should be given to recognising this contribution to businessdevelopment.

P16/242 – Institute of PhysicsKnowledge exchange between universities and businesses can be a complexprocess; however, a strong research base, comprising both pure and more appliedscience is necessary to create the ecosystem which will result in knowledge beingexchanged between academia and industry in a way that is beneficial to bothplayers, and also to Scotland as a whole. A KEO should set broad principles andseek to simplify and speed up the interactions between universities and industry. Itshould act as a single portal to coordinate the activities of the BDMs in the individualuniversities. A model where support was continued for Interface, commercialisationoffices and knowledge transfer teams should continue to produce good results in thisarea.

P16/250 – Aberdeen defend Education CampaignMaintaining Scotland as a global leader in university research• We fully recognise the importance of university research and it is right that this is properly funded. This funding, however, should never come on an ad-hoc basis with businesses, and research should never overshadow the education aspect of universities. [Q15/16/17/18]• Business should have absolutely no say in the direction university research whatsoever, it is wrong and dangerous for the state to subsidise private research for

25

private gain and examples of where this has been a disaster abound. [Q15/16/17/18]• It is, however, right that business should contribute financially towards university research, as the benefit of this are still reaped by business. This financial contribution should take the form of an increase in corporation tax to be used to fund university research. [Q15/16/17/18/27]• The products of university research should never be privatised. Where, for example, a medication is developed in a publicly-funded University, this medication should never be licensed to a private company to then sell at enormous profits at the expense of people’s lives. [Q15/16/17/18]

P16/258 – University of Strathclyde(Q18)

The University of Strathclyde is renowned for its performance across the spectrum of knowledge exchanging activities. Successful collaboration between industry and academia is only partly about the academic research that will be applied; it rests even more on the culture of both academic and industry institutions and on personal relationships between the people who will make the collaboration happen.

Knowledge exchange at Strathclyde is firmly embedded and depends on multiple contacts by all of out staff with outside organisations as the platform for our success, and for this reason Strathclyde is opposed to a single knowledge exchange office for Scotland. It is critically important that the professionalism, niche expertise and established collaborative research and knowledge exchange relationships of individual Universities are not undermined by unnecessary bureaucracy and process delays that can deter industry and business engagement.

Strathclyde’s success in this area rests entirely on an embedded institutional culture of being pro-active in

26

developing links with companies and other users of our knowledge and out willingness to adapt to the expectations of the organisations we work with. Our flexibility, timeliness and innovative approaches are already allowing us to attract investment in Scotland from companies such a Scottish & Southern Energy plc, Scottish Power, Rolls-Royce and GlaxoSmithKline plc. The University of Strathclyde is committed to working with the Scottish Government and others to promote and deliver greater collaboration on knowledge exchange across Scotland for the benefit of Scotland’s economy and society.

Our emergent model for the translation of world-class research into high impact outcomes in new technologies, methods and systems are being recognised internationally. We are happy to share our learning experiences but are strongly of the opinion that, like other active Universities in this domain, there are benefits in retaining significant flexibility and autonomy in establishing the most effective frameworks and collaboration agreements that serve to secure long-term funding commitments from our private sector partners – with the concomitant value of attracting related RCUK, EU and other public sector funding.

P16/ 263– Voluntary Arts Scotland

Having all opportunities and contacts in one place would be very useful. We feel that the pricing may be best left up to individual Universities but maybe some sort of guide to likely prices (based on previous ones) could be produced.

P16/272 – British Medical Association In terms of the main activities of a single knowledge exchange office and what activities are best left to individual universities, we agree that matching university research skills with industrial needs is best dealt with centrally in order to fully support the development, delivery and dissemination of research and knowledge

27

exchange activities across the Scottish Medical Schools. However, increased commercial and pharmaceutical funding has significantly increased academic patenting. Issues around patenting, licensing and intellectual property inevitably involve a degree of competition and secrecy which would continue to be best dealt with at individual university level.

P16/236 – Scottish Council for Development and Industry

Maintaining Scotland as a Global Leader in University Research

1. Scotland’s academic research base is one of its major global strengths. This must be maximised. Expenditure on research in the higher education sector in Scotland is 12.45% of the UK total. By contrast, business R&D conducted in Scotland under-performs the rest of the UK, contributing 0.56% of GDP in 2006 compared with 1.08% for the UK as a whole. Scotland’s universities should, in consequence, have key roles in raising the level of business birth rates and business R&D in Scotland.

2. Consideration should be given to how funding can be distributed in order to promote innovation in the higher education sector under a broadened definition of innovation to encompass training, testing and organisational change.

3. In our Blueprint for Scotland , SCDI proposed that a combined approach by all of Scotland’s universities should be taken to managing the exploitation of their intellectual property rights, including the creation of a Single Office of Technology Transfer. University research in Scotland is world-leading, but business research and development under-performs the rest of the UK and most of the OECD. This proposal was made because Scotland’s universities must, in consequence, have key roles in fostering and supporting innovation in new and high-growth SMEs which will be increasingly important to generate growth in the Scottish economy.

28

4. The Single Office of Technology Transfer was one of a range of proposals, on both the supply and demand sides, which SCDI made in its Blueprint for Scotland aimed at driving higher levels of innovation in the economy. These included:

• Consideration of how funding could be distributed to the higher and further education sectors to promote innovation and maximise their economic impact;• Addressing limits to Knowledge Transfer Partnership funding in Scotland to encourage further links between university and business research and make them more attractive particularly to SMEs;• Support for academics to participate directly in spin-outs and start thinking commercially at a much earlier stage in the innovation cycle;• Building more concentrated communities of entrepreneurs and academics, helping to secure new talent; and• Refocusing public sector funding schemes for businesses on the most effective, with Proof of Concept funding expanded to include business innovation across the economy.

5. There are fundamental, long-term challenges about the capacity of the Scottish business base to absorb internationally-lauded research. No measure on the supply-side of research will, therefore, be a silver bullet. The Scottish Government must also focus on the demand side, even though – especially as – its efforts to increase business’ capacity will take many years to bear fruit.

6. SCDI welcomes the significant progress which has been made by Scotland’s universities in recent years towards greater collaboration, including the launch of Interface and University Technology as single point for intellectual property, and the introduction of standard contracts to address inconsistencies. The universities are clear that there are further improvements which can be made.

29

7. While many businesses have positive relationships with universities on research commercialisation and innovation, the main challenges which some raise are:

• Speed of decision making • Inconsistency of service between universities • Over complication / bureaucracy in the process • Over valuation of the license

8. It would be fair to say that challenges are also experienced by universities in dealing with businesses e.g. on the speed of decision making and valuations.

9. Before focussing on which structure would be best placed to address the challenges which are raised by businesses, while also meeting the needs of universities, it is essential to identify its core purpose. This should include: • Greater sharing of and delivering best practice across the sector• Central support for those universities (and colleges) which have fewer resources, particularly knowledge transfer professionals• Provision of common/ shared resources and information on commercial norms and royalty rates e.g. for different technologies and compounds• A single “shop window” – preferably on a sectoral basis, though recognising the increasing inter-disciplinary nature of research • Sharing/ pooling of industry contacts• A set of standard contracts e.g. for routine matters and repeat business

10. It is apparent that a range of structures might be able to deliver these, including:

• A Single Knowledge Exchange/ Technology Transfer Office• A sectoral approach• Regional collaborations of universities, colleges and businesses, creating a single, joined-up point of access for

30

skills and research for businesses – these could be based on the existing Knowledge Transfer Partnerships• Regional collaborations, led by a university with the greatest resources• Access to IP through research pools

11. These reforms might go alongside making intellectual property available at a “reasonable rate” and dissemination of information on best practice widely which could be a condition of public funding.

12. SCDI welcomes the discussion on a Single Knowledge Exchange Office, but would seek to avoid the creation of any new bureaucracy which would create a barrier to the efficient exploitation of universities’ intellectual property. It recognises that universities have been decentralising knowledge transfer professionals closer to researchers based on international evidence of what works. It did not envisage that a Single Office of Technology Transfer would run contrary to this process. Rather, some central functions might be brought together to raise practices across the sector as a whole to the levels of the best, provide strategic leadership aligned with national and international priorities, act as a single point of contact for businesses, including SMEs and inward investors, and encourage research pools to be more focussed on commercial outputs. However, concerns have been raised that there is a risk of creating a disconnect between those processing the matter and understanding the commercial potential and value; and how best to exploit it, and of a new layer of bureaucracy.

13. SCDI believes that the options should be carefully considered with reference to:

Experience and Evidence: • Trends within the most successful Scottish and UK universities • Evidence of what has worked and has not worked in other countries• Previous reports on this issue e.g. the Lambert Review and Lambert Tree

31

• The forthcoming review by Sir Tim Wilson for the UK Government on how to make the UK the best place for university-industry collaboration • Lessons from ventures which formerly existed for the collaborative commercialisation of research in the UK e.g. British Technology Group

Economic Priorities:• The specific views and needs of individual industry sectors i.e. are they shared or different? • How the changes would work with measures to increase the capacity of businesses in Scotland to utilise and capitalise on research outputs• The specific aims of the reforms e.g. greater large company involvement, more start-up/ spin-outs, increased SME engagement, job creation, dissemination of knowledge more widely across the business base • The current availability of capital and barriers to investment in spin-outs• The appetite of and the potential to encourage greater participation of the business angel community in helping to identify technology of value• The scope to make benefits to the Scottish economy a condition of free/easy access to intellectual property - as pioneered via Easy Assess IP by Glasgow University - looking at the potential short and long term benefits and disbenefits to businesses, universities and research

University/ Research Priorities:• Potential incentives to drive and shape behaviours from universities• Generating higher commercial income from spin-outs and/ or research funding as wealth-generators for Scotland• Reputations as academic communities of excellence• The balance and cost-benefits of funding from the Scottish Funding Council for research pooling and knowledge exchange activities• The implications for charity, privately or part-privately funded intellectual property and EU funded research, which may have particular conditions attached

32

• Ensuring that, following licensing, universities still have the freedom to undertake ongoing research activities and additional funded research• Competition issues among universities

14. With our cross-sectoral membership, SCDI has instigated discussions between universities and businesses on this issue and will continue to play a constructive role. We would be pleased to work with, provide a forum for and research business views on behalf of a wide range of government, academic and industry partners to help identify the optimal structure and policies on this key question and opportunity for sustainable growth for the Scottish economy in the future.

15. Following the announcement by the previous UK Government of its intention to double Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) activity and introduce shorter KTPs, limits to funding in Scotland should be addressed to further encourage links between university and business research. This should also make KTPs more attractive, particularly to SMEs. Academics should be supported to participate directly in spin-offs without compromising their academic careers, start thinking commercially at a much earlier stage in the innovation cycle and build more concentrated communities of entrepreneurs and academics, helping to secure additional talent.

16. Students should also be able to benefit from the concentration of global research expertise within Scotland's universities. Further work must be undertaken to ensure that cutting-edge research developed in Scotland can have a direct translation to the quality and depth of education delivered in universities.

33