Industry and higher education, 2006 december


Published on

Societal impact is always claimed for world-class research, but rarely benefits the local community that funded the researchers. In London UK we developed a network to help businesses commercialise ideas from half the world class research in the UK.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Industry and higher education, 2006 december

  1. 1. How a regional broker canimprove industry demandfor university interactionA case study of the London TechnologyNetworkPeter Reid and Matt SchofieldAbstract: 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 researchPeter 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: London Technology Network (LTN) is a non-profit However, the final design emerged from iterativejoint venture of University College London (UCL) discussions with the LTN board, which includesand the London Business School, whose mission the heads of technology transfer for Imperialis to ‘stimulate the transfer of technology-based College London, King’s College London, UCL and theinnovation’. Founded in July 20021 with funding from London Business School. The design can bethe UK government’s Higher Education Innovation summarized in a few basic, well-documentedFund, LTN is based on the idea that a network assumptions:providing standardized operation to aggregate thecapabilities of thirty universities and research institutes • Direct contact with academics is more attractive toacross London and South East England (including industry than contact with intermediaries, such as afour of the largest research-intensive universities in the technology licensing office (Thursby and Thursby,UK) will improve contacts between businesses and 2000) or review of a published directory (Cohenthese universities. LTN has since received funding et al, 2003).from the European Union, the London Development • Industry engages with academics through a wideAgency, the South East England Development Agency, range of mechanisms, including research orthe East of England Development Agency and the teaching, rather than principally through licensingHigher Education Funding Council for England. (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002; Thursby andINDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006 413
  2. 2. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interactionTable 1. Research-active staff (full-time equivalents) in the UK.Discipline Some world-class Some No Total London SE England East England Other UK world-class world-classMedicine (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 8,411Technical disciplines 4,955 2,786 1,601 12,624 21,966 4,758 26,724Humanities (35–63, 65–69) 2,920 2,246 1,223 9,837 16,226 5,070 21,296Total 7,875 5,032 2,824 22,461 38,192 9,828 48,020Note: World-class=a grading of 5*, 5 or 4 in the Research Assessment Exercise.Source: Research Assessment Exercise, 2001. Thursby, 2004; Allott, 2006). Even for licensing, the Research scientists liaise directly with introduction of prospective licensees by the filtered technology acquirers academic inventor (Jansen and Dillon, 1999) LTN helps technology-acquisitive businesses to gain leads to more completed deals than push direct access to research-active scientists. Its Business marketing by an intermediary (Thursby and Fellows (BFs) are recruited from tenure-track research Thursby, 2000). scientists in departments with well-regarded research in• Industry engages differently with the life sciences broadly defined ‘technology’ disciplines (see Table 1) than with other disciplines because the life science across universities in London and the South East and industry typically seeks to start projects with East of England, and are paid and trained to consult for academics, while other industries typically seek half a day per week as liaisons for industry in their academic support to complete projects (Cohen et al, departments. LTN identifies departments with 2003). Life science disciplines have a narrow world-class research in universities in the region and industry appeal for pharmaceutical and contacts both department heads and technology liaison biotechnology companies compared to the broader offices (TLOs) to ask for candidates for fellowships. appeal of physical sciences and engineering Candidates are then interviewed to identify disciplines – such as material science, computer research-active professors, readers and lecturers with the science and mechanical engineering (Cohen et al, time to help their colleagues improve business contacts. 2003). Most BFs are recommended by their university• Both industry and universities have scale technology transfer office, and all have their contract economies in technology transfer. Large countersigned by their head of department to ensure that in-licensing business units can afford regularly to they have institutional support. canvas universities for technologies (Thursby and LTN does not publish the contact details of either Thursby, 2000). Large universities with high BFs or the senior executives in technology-acquisitive expenditure on research and development are companies, so all parties receive only filtered and statistically likely to generate enough exploitable appropriate technology opportunities, and can choose intellectual property to make technology transfer whom they want to contact. However, LTN does offer economically self-sustaining, according to current two mechanisms to bring together industry executives UK government guidelines based on US experience and academics who share technology interests. First, it (NHS, 1998). provides free monthly evening networking events onBased on these assumptions, the final design includes specific technology topics (see, for example, thefour basic tenets: (1) allow research scientists to liaise 2005 events listed in Table 2) with around fifty inviteddirectly with filtered technology acquirers, (2) be senior executives from technology-acquisitiveagnostic about the mechanism for engagement, (3) split companies and fifty leading academic sciences from physical sciences and engineering and BFs present posters summarizing their departmental(4) capitalize on regional scale economies. We now capabilities in a standard format – as they do for anyexamine each of these more closely. LTN event – and may also bring senior academic414 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006
  3. 3. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interactionTable 2. 2005 events.Event title Speaker organizations‘Vascular health: how do we detect, treat, and avoid University of Oxford; King’s College London; Pfizer; Lombardcardiovascular problems, thrombosis, and vascular disease?’ Medical‘Grid computing and Web services’ Imperial College London; University College London; Fujitsu Laboratories; BT group‘Technology developments and drug discovery: advancements Birkbeck College, University of London; Imperial Collegeand challenges in structural biology’ London; Astex Therapeutics; AstraZeneca‘Ensuring food safety through traceability and shelf-life control London South Bank University; Institute of Food Research;systems’ 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: technological Imperial College London; DEFRA; BIFFA Waste Services;solutions for solid and liquid waste’ 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 of London; Symbian‘Micro-electronics in medical devices: innovation and application University College London; Unipath; Brunel University; BTin medical practice’ Group; Zarlink Semiconductor‘Targets, molecules and medicine: assessing the interface Imperial College London; University College London;between industry and academia’ GlaxoSmithKline; Agilent Technologies R&D‘Exploring the latest technology developments that support PSA Peugeot Citroën; Rolls Royce; Horiba; Imperial Collegeenvironmentally sustainable transport’ London; Brunel Universitycolleagues. LTN sometimes also funds BFs’ travel costs value when the deal is concluded. This includes directto present at other meetings with strong industry interactions with industry covering a wide range ofattendance. Second, LTN generates technology inquiries teaching, research and commercial interactions, and alsofrom industry executives via a central ‘Technology indirect activity between academics that improves theirTeam’ of former industry executives and recent doctoral readiness to engage with industry. These activities aregraduates. These enquiries are passed to BFs and their reported by LTN only at an aggregate level to protectTLOs through an electronic bulletin board. BFs are confidentiality, but comparison among BFs is used toprompted and helped to develop appropriate short prioritize coaching by the Technology Team.responses that are aggregated and provided in a BFs are also supervised by the Technology Team toconsolidated report to the industry executive, who then produce a technology map for their departments,considers them and identifies those BFs and their resulting in a database with keywords covering allcolleagues he or she wants to meet. LTN staff members technologies across the base (see Table 3) which LTNfollow up with both sides to ensure that meetings occur staff can search to prompt activity by the relevant BFsand that deals progress to conclusion, but they do not in relation to events and other opportunities.negotiate for either side. Technologies include facilities (such as testbeds or toolsets) and experts as well as intellectual property advice. For each technology, the BF documents existingKeeping the mechanism agnostic industrial applications, the lead academic, the number ofLTN does not direct university departments to any staff involved, past publications and other details thatparticular kind of interaction, but instead trains, help the Technology Team to present its capabilitymonitors and coaches BFs to support whatever kind of honestly to industry.interaction is most appropriate for their peers. All BFs are trained initially for three and a half dayson the risks and opportunities of all teaching, research Split life sciences from physical sciences andand commercial mechanisms for engaging with engineeringindustry. Subsequently, they can attend refresher There is a split within the LTN Technology Teamsessions on spin selling, negotiation, time management between life sciences and physical sciences andand other topics. engineering. Staff is recruited with relevant technical BFs regularly report activities with industry that they and industry experience. BFs are coached byhave helped stimulate with their departmental Technology Team staff from the sub-team familiar withcolleagues, along with the mechanism used and the the mechanisms normally used for their technologies.INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006 415
  4. 4. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interactionTable 3. 2005 LTN technologies.Physical sciences and engineering technology Number Life sciences technology NumberElectronics, 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 7 Respiratory 7 Veterinary sciences 7 Agri/food/environmental 13 Various applications 161 Other applications 82Total 712 757 However, all LTN events and LTN inquiry-handling research-active staff in departments with well-respectedare interdisciplinary. Events are organized by a single research in technology disciplines, about 43% of the UKmarketing team using a single database of industry and university research base in this type of academicacademic contacts, since businesses often seek department in the UK government’s 2001 Researchtechnology expertise unrelated to their core capabilities Assessment Exercise (see Table 1).2(for example, a major pharmaceutical company may be All LTN events are held in central Londonlooking to establish an information systems architecture locations with excellent public transport links forfor medical image storage and analysis). Inquiries are these academics as well as businesses across thetaken by the most appropriate Technology Team Greater South East (London, South East England,specialist (this would be, for instance, an information East England) – which accounted for more than half oftechnologist in the case of the above pharmaceutical UK business expenditure on R&D in 2002 (Owens,company inquiry) and are published on an electronic 2004).bulletin board accessible to all BFs and TLOs. An The build-up to this scale from 2002 to 2005 wasintegrated technology map covering capabilities critical, because LTN, while reliant upon well-trainedacross all BFs (Table 3) is used to identify potential BF liaison academics, had to show early results and anacademic partners and to pursue responses from attractive concentration of technologies. BFs wereparticular BFs. recruited in waves of fifteen to forty for training and This interdisciplinary focus increases the chance coaching to form a cadre of like-minded academics whoof novel connections compared to the complete life could support one another. These waves were scheduledscience/other disciplines split in industry-facing to coincide with the university trimester, starting withactivity sometimes observed in UK universities’ the most broadly-demanded disciplines (materialTLOs. science, computer science, biological sciences – Cohen et al, 2003), to create an interdisciplinary core that would attract many businesses to attend events andRegional scale economies submit inquiries. Complementary disciplinesLTN offers technology-acquisitive businesses from (mechanical engineering, electrical and electronicanywhere in the world a simple way to meet academics engineering, medicine, design, etc) were then added infrom one-third of the UK university research base. It later waves. The success of early events led tooffers fellowships to researchers in all departments with recommendations from attending academics andhighly-regarded technology research across London and executives, and these were critical to the signing-up ofthe South East and East of England, one or two each BFs in more departments and the viral marketing offor 124 departments. This covers about 9,340 events to more executives.416 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006
  5. 5. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interactionData gathering Table 4. Region of business for concluded business–LTN requires standard reporting across all BFs, and the university transactions, July 2004–June 2005.combination of close follow-up by the Technology Region of Physical LifeTeam and anonymity ensure that this is complete. business sciences/engineering sciences All BFs are required to report their business-facing London 85 30activities, without prescribing which kinds of activity to South East England 22 6perform and with the assurance of anonymity. They are East England 18 5contracted to provide activity reporting on a monthly Other UK 24 8basis for interactions with industry of their colleagues in Europe 15 9which they have played a role. This activity reporting North America 19 8 Asia 9 2covers both direct interactions related to a specific NA 23 1industry negotiation and indirect interactions, such asencouraging colleagues to engage in negotiations orarranging for industry attendance at departmental new to the department. This suggests that theseminars. It also covers non-cash-denominated and business community does value the researchgoods-in-kind interactions in addition to those that have capabilities available from the departments ofa cash value. The BFs report explicitly if the industrial research-active BFs.client is new to the department in order to establish a • Research, consulting and teaching mechanisms arebaseline. Industry-facing activities in which the BF has more widely used than licensing. Fifty-five per centnot played a direct role in introducing, negotiating or of negotiations and 46% of closed deals were forcompleting the work are excluded from the reporting. research collaborations, 16% of negotiations and LTN Technology Team staff review activity reports 23% of closed deals were for consulting and 8% ofand coach BFs to report completely and accurately: the negotiations and 15% of closed deals were foraccuracy and completeness of all activity reports are education – but only 4% of negotiations and 3% ofconfirmed verbally by the Technology Team during closed deals were for licensing.each six monthly aggregation exercise and externally • BFs in physical science and engineering disciplinesaudited annually. However, the reports are kept report three times as many industry interactions (215)confidential between LTN and the BF concerned to as their life science peers (69), but the total value ofencourage full disclosure. interactions is comparable, with physical science and Between September 2002 and January 2007, LTN engineering generating approximately £6·4 millionrecruited and trained over 250 academics as BFs. It now and life science generating about £5·8 million.covers over 120 academic departments. However, the • Aggregation across London and the South East ofdata analysed here are drawn from the 97 BFs who England appears to be highly attractive to industry,reported activity for the period July 2004–June 2005, the and most deals happen with companies located insecond year in which activity was gathered. As the next the local Greater South East region (see Table 4).section will show, the results of this analysis confirm LTN’s invitation-only events have attracted a seniorfactors identified by researchers elsewhere. Full-year group of executives, and most of the concluded dealsresults for the third year, ending in June 2006, confirm have been local. Since February 2003, LTN hasthe same trends and scale, while quality control and attracted 2,374 event attendees, 1,151 fromauditing did not allow us to include the data in this paper. businesses. Of these business attendees, 43% were from the R&D function, 16% were chief executiveResults officers or managing directors, 15% were from business development/licensing, 10% were fromLTN has experienced strong demand from senior operations, 9% were from engineering and 7% wereexecutives in industry for interaction with academics from other functions. Attracting such localthrough a wide range of mechanisms across all executives to regular meetings seems worthwhile,technology disciplines: since more than half of the concluded deals were• Direct contact with academics appears to be effective with companies based in London, South East in generating new interactions. Ninety-seven BFs England and East England, while fewer than a handled 1,294 negotiations and closed 297 deals quarter were outside Europe (see Table 4). Overall, which generated more than £12 million in income small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than for their departments from July 2004 to June 2005. 250 employees account for 41% of deals – except in More than 70% of negotiations were with businesses London, where they account for 57%.INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006 417
  6. 6. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interactionThese aggregate results show the scale of new contacts, networks of the BFs themselves. We know that suchbut a few detailed cases in which both parties have deals are concluded, both through direct discussion withagreed to public disclosure may illustrate the sources of BFs and external audit, but we do not have directleads for a few of the major mechanisms listed above contact with the companies concerned and have not(further cases and more detail are available at negotiated for case This raises the question of whether these deals would have occurred anyway, without LTN intervening.Industry enquiry resulting in collaborative research: Interviews with the BFs responsible for many such dealsKodak and the University of Greenwich. Kodak suggest that they would not have had the time or wouldexecutives had attended an LTN event on displays and not have assumed that they had institutional permissionhad requested help in extending the lifespan of to pursue the leads without the half day per weekelectroluminescent phosphor powders in a range of contracted to LTN to work on behalf of their departmentdisplays for use in cameras or handheld games. LTN on industry liaison, and that the continuing training andpresented work from a number of units, including the coaching of LTN staff has improved their ability toUniversity of Greenwich, a London university that was conclude deals. Perhaps it is the ‘warm’ nature of manynot familiar to Kodak. Within three months, Kodak of the leads which LTN BFs have with industry thatagreed to provide £300,000 of funding as part of an explains why 23% of negotiations result in deals.overall programme costing more than £1 million.Industry enquiry resulting in testing: Carbonate Ltd and Implications for practice and furtherQueen Mary University. Carbonate Ltd, a product researchdesign company, had designed a new intravenous pump LTN has extended its service across approximatelythat was expected to reduce the costs of infusions by one-third of the UK university research base, withmore than 50%, but needed extensive testing. LTN put auditable results. It is, therefore, worth examining howcompany executives in touch with a range of clinical other practitioners can achieve the same results, andunits around London, and it concluded an agreement whether this large-scale trial throws up further issues forwith St Bartholomew’s Hospital and Queen Mary research.University. In addition, LTN helped Carbonate to securelocal government funding through the Jump Start Limitations of the studyprogramme. As a result, four new jobs were created in This is a case study, not a controlled experiment. Thethe company and its product improved in clinical trials. authors are practitioners seeking to establish a modelEvent meeting resulting in a consultancy: University of that adds value, rather than dispassionate scientificWestminster College and Bromcom. A BF at observers. Some obvious factors may raise concern in aWestminster College met the chief executive of researcher seeking to replicate these results.Bromcom, an information company, at an LTN event First, the four basic tenets of the LTN – the directand discovered that he needed expert-witness support in contact approach, agnostic mechanisms, the splita patent case. Within a month, the BF had found a between life sciences and the physical sciences andcolleague who completed the consultancy for Bromcom engineering, and regional-scale economies – were allwithin two more months. tested at once. Therefore, it is impossible to tell which caused the measurable success of LTN, and so it isEvent meeting resulting in a joint venture: Canesis and difficult to propose direct causality.University College London. A BF at University College Second, the authors actively selected the best-suitedLondon had invented a textile for infection control in available academic volunteers to become BFs, trainedhospitals and, meeting an executive from Canesis, a and coached them to generate a wide range ofcompany which researches new textiles for industry, interactions, and supported them with the best availablepresented the opportunity for the joint development of a central event marketing and technology staff. It is,product to market in only eighteen months. therefore, hard to say that this would work with a random selection of academics without strong centralLTN’s indirect contribution. Obviously case studies are support.available when LTN is the direct source of the lead, Third, LTN collaborates actively with TLOs in alleither through an event or an enquiry. However, around the universities where it has BFs, and in some where ittwo-thirds of the leads resulting in negotiations between does not. It would, therefore, not be right to claim thatBFs and industry come from other sources, either university interaction works with a regional brokerintroductions by academic colleagues or personal alone.418 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006
  7. 7. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interaction Finally, LTN covers two-fifths of the highly-regarded posit that LTN’s success relative to the other regionaluniversity technology research base of the UK, one of brokers is due in part to its standard contracts, reporting,the most productive academic populations in the world and auditable results – all of which required careful(with 11% of world academic citations in 2004). While negotiation with the many universities involved.UK business spends less on R&D than other countries,more than a half of the R&D spent in UK industry is Further researchalso concentrated in the Greater South East. It is hard to Based on our limited reading of the academic researchsay that a regional grouping of universities in a in this field, some key questions emerge for furtherrandomly selected area of the world would be as research:attractive to industry. • Can better filters be put in place using ontologies that properly link academic disciplines withImplications for practice commercial technology applications? TechnologyDespite the limitations of a single case study, the ontology is constantly changed by both academicsmeasurable success of LTN and its rapid growth to and business people. Academics need novelty tocover more than 120 departments and a significant publish in specialist journals and find funding underproportion of the UK university research base are new government programmes. Business peoplepromising. We believe some key lessons emerge. re-label their technologies to evoke different benefits Paying academics part time to represent their for particular customers (relational databases becamecolleagues is an effective way of generating a wide data mining, which in turn became customerrange of teaching and research as well as commercial relationship management). We have adopted a codinginteractions with industry. By contrast, the practice of system (see Table 3) based on standards establishedmaking the TLO or business development office (BDO) by the European Union and Websites offering lifethe initial contact point for all business enquiries may be science technologies. Would more academics andless effective. The high rate of success enjoyed by the more industrialists engage if they had a clearerBFs suggests that they are well-connected to common understanding of what was relevant?research-active academics and their capabilities, and • What combinations of interactions normally build upcomplement their TLOs. to a serious engagement with a company? Our Measuring all forms of interaction with companies limited dataset shows some sequences from low-costencourages academics to build serious relationships and low-commitment interactions to high-valuewith a company via low-risk and straightforward relationships, with the majority of interactionsinteractions. By contrast, short-term financial goals for falling into very standard mechanisms (for example,research services and licensing may lead to push funded doctorate students, student placements,marketing of services that companies really cannot faculty consulting). Could universities setevaluate because they do not yet know and trust the academics’ discretionary powers more appropriately,academics concerned. and could academics follow up more effectively to Interdisciplinary events and enquiry forwarding build relationships if we had a better understandingidentify novel academic–industry matches and of the bundles of interactions?emphasize the great advantage of working with • What is the maximum distance that a regionalacademics who are constantly applying techniques from network can cover? Analysis of our limited datasetone discipline to another. By contrast, the widespread shows little fall-off in attendance at events by morepractice of separating life sciences, even to the point of distant industry executives (Chapman et al, 2005),having an independent TLO (for example, as at Harvard and yet our dataset shows that most concludedor UCL) may add few novel connections to established transactions are local (see Table 4). Perhaps this isrelationships with major pharmaceuticals, which fund because many interactions require visits by studentsmany doctorates in life science departments anyway. and academics with limited travel budgets and the Regional aggregations of university expertise may time overhead of long-distance travel prevents theattract new industry interactions and improve the low-cost and low-risk interactions that are precursorscommercialization of university ideas. However, other of serious engagement. Could government betterregional brokers were funded by the UK government at evaluate the local commercial impact of universitythe same time as LTN to cover other regions, and yet research and set appropriate technology transferrecent reviews of knowledge transfer effectiveness in boundaries if we understood more clearly thethese organizations have shown that formal reporting is significance of distance for different types ofvery limited and results are hard to find. This leads us to interaction?INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006 419
  8. 8. How a regional broker can improve industry demand for university interactionConclusion Chapman, D., Besussi, E., and Weber, P. (2005), ‘Assessing the geographical dimensions of London’s innovation networks:One regional technology matchmaker, LTN, has grown consultancy report for the London Technology Network’, paper presented at the British Academy of Management,quickly to cover one-third of the UK’s university base ‘stimulate the transfer of technology-based DTI (2004), Autumn Performance Report, Licensing Division,innovation’, and has generated more than £12 million in Department of Trade and Industry, London, pp 2–16. HM Treasury (2003) Lambert Review of Business–Universityindustry income from July 2004 to June 2005, 70% of it Collaboration: Final Report, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,from businesses new to the department concerned. London.These audited results are in clear contrast to the general Jansen, C., and Dillon, H.F. (1999), ‘Where do the leads for licenses come from?’, Journal of the Association oflack of evidence of university interaction from UK University Technology Managers, Vol 11, pp 51– stimulated by other UK government-funded NHS (1998), The Management of Intellectual Property andinitiatives in this area. We believe that these results Related Matters, National Health Service Executive, London, pp 53–55.derive from the consistent implementation of four basic Owens, J. (2004), ‘Research and experimental developmenttenets for technology transfer matchmaking – the direct (R&D) statistics 2002’, Economic Trends, No approach, agnostic mechanisms, the split Research Assessment Exercise (2001), Results/.between life sciences and the physical sciences and Thursby, J., and Thursby, M. (2000), ‘Industry perspectives onengineering, and regional-scale economies. This has licensing university technologies: sources and problems’,obvious implications for other practitioners, but we have Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, Vol 12, pp 9–12.also endeavoured to identify further questions for Thursby, J., and Thursby, M. (2004), ‘Are faculty critical? Theirresearch in light of our dataset. role in university industry licensing’, Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol 22, No 2, pp 162–178. Wesley M. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J.P. (2002),Notes ‘Links and impacts: the influence of public research on1 industrial R&D’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, Co-author Peter Reid founded LTN based in part on his pp 1–23.experience 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 an The authors would like to thank the UK Department of Trade andorganizational consultant and his research on technology Industry, the Office of Science and Technology, the Highertransfer between a major UK semiconductor design licenser, Education Funding Council for England, the European UnionARM, and its global network of partner companies. Innovation Relay Centre Network, the London Development2 The Research Assessment Exercise is a peer-reviewed audit of Agency, the South East England Development Agency, thepublications and is used by the UK government for funding East of England Development Agency, and their manydecisions. academic collaborators for their active participation and ongoing support. They also acknowledge the AUTM Journal editorial team for its patience and support in the original publicationReferences process.Agrawal, A., and Henderson, R. (2002), ‘Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT’, This paper was first published in the Journal of the Association Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 44–60. of University Technology Managers, Vol XVIII, No 1, SummerAllott, S. (2000), ‘From science to growth’, City Lecture, Hughes 2006, pp 45–60, and is reproduced here by kind permission of Hall, Cambridge, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and City_Lecture_060306.pdf. the authors. © 2006 Peter Reid and Matt Schofield.420 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION December 2006