Originally Published EMDM
September 2003
A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR
Academe Can Learn from the Business World
The healthcare industry has had a positive history of collaboration with academe. But it is the exception, not the rule. The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration published in August examines the state of industrial and academic interaction. The report focuses on the UK. Its findings and recommendations, however, apply equally well to many other countries.
Collaboration between higher education and business has been growing, writes Richard Lambert, a former editor of the Financial Times. A number of government incentives involving technology transfer, R&D tax credits, and other programmes have helped. Much remains to be done, however.
Relatively few British companies are research driven, he points out. Given a global trend toward outsourcing R&D activities, the role of universities in economic development is gaining importance. Because many UK companies lack an R&D focus, overall demand for knowledge generated from universities is weak, he notes. Where the demand does exist, it is often undermined by what industry perceives to be barriers to collaboration. These obstacles have a disproportionate impact on small to medium size (SME) companies.
Many firms surveyed by Lambert expressed frustration trying to find out “who does what” within universities. “Large multinational companies [have] built up relationships with individual academics,” writes Lambert. “But they commented on the difficulties of maintaining those links if the individuals moved on. They also recognized the challenges that an SME would face in navigating these complex institutions.”
Should they find safe passage, SMEs are still not out of the water. “Getting the wrong research result for a multinational means nothing,” a spokesman for a regional development agency told Lambert. “Getting it wrong for an SME can mean the difference between staying afloat or going under.”
In his report, Lambert makes several suggestions on how universities might improve their interactions with the business world. Applying a concept that EMDM readers know well—a one-stop shop for industrial liaising—is a simple yet effective means to resolve the who-does-what issue. “A number of universities have put in place single first ports of call that businesses can access,” notes Lambert. Businesses that have experienced this approach, he adds, generally saw it as a positive development.
Lambert also recommends that universities build on and improve processes for technology transfer. Issues related to ownership of intellectual property (IP) are a major concern in this regard. Universities often overvalue IP, according to the report, and do not appreciate the development costs involved in bringing IP to market. This disconnect may be caused by a misunderstanding of what these transfers truly mean for a university. “Many see revenue generation as one of the main objectives of technology transfer,” writes Lambert. “This is despite clear evidence from the United States that even the most successful universities earn only small sums from such activities.” The main goal for many US colleges, explains Lambert, is to move technology to the private sector. “Revenue generation is seen as a secondary objective.”
Not surprisingly, the US model is often referenced in the report. “The UK performs well in terms of the academic quality of its science and technology base,” writes Lambert. “But it is not as good at commercializing the knowledge generated in its universities as . . . the United States.” Taking a cue from across the pond, many companies surveyed by Lambert urged universities to behave in a more entrepreneurial and outward-looking fashion and to make strategic decisions in a timely manner.
That may be easier said than done. As Jim Kelly of the Financial Times pointed out in his article on the Lambert report, “those who want the UK to mimic the United States in placing enterprise centre stage may discover some barriers are cherished.” Quoting a senior academic administrator, Kelly writes: “Academics are motivated by personal credibility . . . and the judgment of their peers. Exploitation of knowledge will always, therefore, be a minority interest.”
Copyright ©2003 European Medical Device Manufacturer
