Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

The issue of what indicators are most appropriate in order to measure the performance of universities in knowledge transfer (KT) activities remains relatively under-investigated. The main aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the limitations to the current measurements of university–industry KT performance, and propose some directions for improvement. We argue that university–industry KT can unfold in many ways and impact many stakeholders, and that, especially in highly differentiated university systems, choosing indicators focused on a narrow range of activities and impacts might limit the ability of universities to accurately represent their KT performance. Therefore, KT indicators should include a variety of activities and reflect a variety of impacts so as to allow comparability between different institutions and avoid the creation of undesirable behavioural incentives. To illustrate these issues empirically, the authors discuss the case of the United Kingdom's Higher Education–Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey.

[1]  I. Ràfols,et al.  Towards indicators for ‘ opening up ’ science and technology policy , 2012 .

[2]  R. Watermeyer.  Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: the responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment , 2014 .

[3]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[4]  Frank Ziegele,et al.  Multidimensional ranking : the design and development of u-multirank , 2012 .

[5]  N. Harabi,et al.  Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis , 1995 .

[6]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[7]  S. Merry,et al.  Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance , 2010 .

[8]  Paul Hannon,et al.  Enterprise and entrepreneurship in English higher education: 2010 and beyond , 2012 .

[9]  Pedro N. Teixeira,et al.  Funding reforms and revenue diversification – patterns, challenges and rhetoric , 2013 .

[10]  Claudia De Fuentes,et al.  Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico , 2010 .

[11]  S. Merry.  Measuring the World , 2011, Current Anthropology.

[12]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[13]  Fumi Kitagawa,et al.  Knowledge exchange: a comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education , 2013 .

[14]  Birgitte Andersen,et al.  Intellectual property (IP) governance in ICT firms: strategic value seeking through proprietary and non-proprietary IP transactions , 2012 .

[15]  Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing preferences for knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[16]  Mike Wright,et al.  Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries , 2008 .

[17]  C. Schmitz.  Assessing the Validity of Higher Education Indicators , 1993 .

[18]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Cinzia Daraio,et al.  The differentiation of the strategic profile of higher education institutions. New positioning indicators based on microdata , 2008, Scientometrics.

[20]  Ainurul Rosli,et al.  What indicators to assess universities' knowledge transfer performance? Problems in the transition from theory to practice , 2016 .

[21]  P. Boardman,et al.  University researchers working with private companies , 2009 .

[22]  Matthias Meier,et al.  Knowledge Management in Strategic Alliances: A Review of Empirical Evidence , 2011 .

[23]  Stelvia Matos,et al.  Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? , 2006 .

[24]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences , 2003 .

[25]  H. Grupp,et al.  Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance , 2010 .

[26]  J. Molas-Gallart,et al.  Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators , 2006 .

[27]  D. Mowery.  Economic theory and government technology policy , 1983 .

[28]  Nicholas O'Regan,et al.  Scholarship That Matters: Academic–Practitioner Engagement in Business and Management , 2011 .

[29]  Gordon Kingsley,et al.  Technology transfer and absorption: an 'R & D value-mapping' approach to evaluation , 1996 .

[30]  G. Dowling,et al.  Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance , 2002 .

[31]  P H Abelson,et al.  Science and Technology Policy , 1995, Science.

[32]  Richard A. Jensen,et al.  University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting , 2010 .

[33]  Nancy Knowlton.  Outcomes of higher education: Quality relevance and impact , 2008 .

[34]  S. Hatakenaka.  Development of third stream activity Lessons from international experience , 2005 .

[35]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation , 2000 .

[36]  Sally Engle Merry,et al.  Measuring the World Indicators , Human Rights , and Global Governance by , 2011 .

[37]  T. Hughes,et al.  Scholarship That Matters : Academic – Practitioner Engagement in Business and Management , 2011 .

[38]  Ammon Salter,et al.  Measuring third stream activities , 2002 .

[39]  Jill Ann Tarzian Sorensen,et al.  Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated––defining an access metric , 2008 .

[40]  Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance , 2012 .

[41]  H. Sharifi,et al.  Higher education system and the ‘open’ knowledge transfer: a view from perception of senior managers at university knowledge transfer offices , 2014 .

[42]  Philip Ternouth,et al.  Universities, business and knowledge exchange , 2008 .

[43]  Mark O. Sellenthin.  Beyond the Ivory Tower A Comparison of Patent Rights Regimes in Sweden and Germany , 2006 .

[44]  Charles J. Fombrun,et al.  Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image , 1996 .

[45]  U. Kelly.  Exploring the evidence base: an overview of the literature on the economic impact of knowledge transfer , 2008 .

[47]  A. Kleinknecht,et al.  Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: an exploration of CIS micro data , 1999 .

[48]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[49]  R. Lambert,et al.  Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report , 2003 .

[50]  P. Romer,et al.  Human Capital and Growth: Theory and Evidence , 1989 .