Author: Dr Nigel Lockett, Brunel University
Abstract: Commissioned by the EPSRC this study consisting of 20 interviews, from across academic and non-academic knowledge transfer roles at Salford University, was undertaken in order to confirm and challenge the main findings of the previous InfoLab21 study.The findings from the second study broadly align well with the previous study but importantly proposes four additional contributions, namely: i) the proposed definition developed of knowledge transfer would benefit from modification, ii) evidence of the development of appropriate motivation and reward mechanisms, iii) awareness of the importance of evaluation mechanisms; iv) evidence of knowledge transfer activities becoming embedded in the university leadership, governance and management structures. In conclusion, this study highlights the efforts being made at Salford University to establish an enterprising culture within the academic community. In this regard much has been achieved through strong leadership and the use of the UPBEAT model to embed appropriate evaluation mechanisms to help motivate and reward staff. However even though many interviewees are positive regarding the progress made they also acknowledged that much is still to be done and also how important being part of a supportive group is in achieving this goal.
Author: Dr Nigel Lockett, Brunel University
Abstract: Commissioned by the EPSRC this study consisting of 33 interviews, takes three distinct perspectives on these knowledge transfer activities, namely academics, non-academics and businesses, in order to identify key issues relating to the understanding of, practices of, barriers to, drivers for, benefits of and the measuring and evaluation of knowledge transfer. The research highlights four overarching issues relating to KT, namely: i) motivation and reward mechanisms; ii) process management and evaluation; iii) clustering and brokerage; iv) trust and bridge building. The study provides some comfort regarding iii) and iv) in that there is considerable evidence that these two inter-related issues are being addressed. What does appear to be of some concern now is, firstly the challenge of developing appropriate motivation and reward mechanisms, particularly for academics, to encourage engagement in KT activities. And secondly, the apparent lack of evidence of appropriate evaluation mechanisms surrounding the area of knowledge exploitation generally. Whilst there is some evidence of good practice within InfoLab21, there should be concern that clear policy and practice have yet to emerge more widely. A notable exception to this is the UPBEAT project. In short, whilst much progress has been made, both this study and other commentators remain concerned about key aspects of knowledge transfer. The focus of research should therefore move from defining and justifying KT to its exploitation, through commercialisation, and evaluation.