The value of this resource

This rich and practical resource demonstrates the benefits of a more progressive and less proprietorial approach to knowledge transfer, and makes a strong case for a new, open, technology-enabled approach which has potentially wide applicability across the sector and across a range of BCE activities. Woven throughout the resource are a number of sound key principles which reflect leading thinking in the area and which will resonate widely in the current climate of austerity and public accountability:

1. achieving more with less
2. a broader, outward-looking, networked perspective on KT requires adjustment from the more habitual and internalised cultures
3. the importance of a team rather than individualist approach to KT
4. universities are often not best placed to determine the application of an idea
5. the benefits of an open innovation approach, for example accessing new knowledge and perspectives through crowd-sourcing
6. the value of generalists in facilitating the application of an idea
7. the benefits of being pulled towards addressing real market/social problems and opportunities rather than pushing technology towards the market
8. lack of suitable skills, infrastructure and clarity of purpose often undermine KT
9. new market opportunities and necessary critical mass can be created through collaboration between institutions
10. the value proposition to each party involved needs to be clearly understood and communicated.

Utilisation and further development of this resource

Brian McCaul, the originator of this approach to knowledge transfer and author of this resource, is engaging with a dozen or so universities and helping them explore the possibilities; some are further along the road than others with implementation. As these progress, we hope to add case studies to supplement the online resource.

The KT2.0 approach applies equally to the further education sector and we would be pleased to hear from colleges who are interested in this approach.

Although this resource is aimed mainly at those staff who have responsibility for knowledge transfer (eg Knowledge/Tech Transfer Offices), others may also find it of interest, for example IT Services staff involved in the implementation of the technology and Learning Technologists have experience of using some of these tools in a learning and teaching context.

A community of practice is forming and there will be a face to face meeting in Spring 2012 to discuss developments in the KT2.0 arena, which may lead to further events and workshops. Please contact JISC infoNet at jiscinfonet@northumbria.ac.uk

BCE and JISC

This resource was funded by JISC as an extension to the 'Trialling of Collaborative Online Tools for BCE' project, which resulted in the Using Collaborative Online Tools for Business & Community Engagement infoKit.

It focuses on a particular subset of Business and Community Engagement (BCE) - knowledge transfer and exchange, especially inventions and disclosures - but the tools and approaches recommended have wider applicability for diverse aspects of BCE in all types higher and further education institutions.

JISC defines Business and Community Engagement in broad terms, placing the strategic management of partnerships at its core and recognising the wide range of institutional types and services involved in BCE, as well as the vital issue of translation from the academic to the lay context. Since 2007, the JISC BCE programme has been supporting institutions in developing a strategic approach to engagement, and a serious consideration of the value of innovative approaches, such as open access and open innovation, through the effective use of ICT.

Institutions undertake a wide range of BCE activities, the most remunerative of which are contract and collaborative research, continuing professional development provision and consultancy¹. Recent research has highlighted the limitations of traditional assumptions about and approaches to research commercialisation and knowledge transfer. The Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey 2009-10 shows that while income from the commercialisation of intellectual property (IP) has increased over recent years, as has the commensurate cost of IP protection, this income remains a relatively minor part of institutions' income through BCE activities.

¹ See figure 3 on this page: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2011/11_25/