The difference between Knowledge Transfer 1.0 and Knowledge Transfer 2.0

The fundamental change in approach is: to always look to eliminate aspects of the process that are not adding value; to find better skill sets from external players; and to increase and scale capacity. This approach has been presented to various professional bodies, and consequently adopted by a number of universities, including York, Portsmouth, and many others in earlier stage of engagement.

The core principles of KT 2.0 can be summarised in a table as follows:

This infoKit will take each of these new principles and show in concrete ways how to do more commercial KT with less. The important context is that this is based on a track record, first at the University of Leeds, where significant return on investment (ROI) has been proven, and now by other universities that are adopting it.

For example, at the University of Leeds the following ROI was achieved via this approach:

• Licence income was increased tenfold in three years from a declining base, and a pipeline of 'work in progress' that is likely to sustain significant increase in this income stream over a number of years
• Proof of Concept Income was significantly increased which allowed many more commercial projects with external funding
• More companies were formed with significant investment, despite operating against the backdrop of one of the worst investment markets for decades

Beyond these simple metrics, accelerated IP exploitation has the potential to play into several key HE agendas, including impact, research quality, industrial and Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) collaboration, as well as national economic renewal.

Much of the approach used to achieve this has been formalised via the use of an online network - the Leeds Innovation Network. Consequently, other universities have expressed an interest in the model and are looking to deploy a similar approach. The University of York has already deployed a York Innovation Network, and other universities are in the process of deploying a similar platform and KT 2.0 approach, including the University of Portsmouth (and others). As similar results are replicated, or new lessons learned, this resource will be updated as progress is made and case studies from other universities will be provided.

The problems with the old model of knowledge transfer

Experience has shown that there are structural inefficiencies that manifest themselves in three pinch points that need to be cracked to increase successful Knowledge Transfer (KT) and IP exploitation:

• The project selection pinch point
• The business development pinch point
• The early-stage proof of concept pinch point

Fortunately, each one of these pinch points can be unblocked using some new approaches: a blend of open innovation, crowd sourcing and crowd wisdom. Each of these will be addressed in turn.

Changing context and factors

Beyond these inherent inefficiencies, there are a series of environmental and economic factors that will only accelerate the need to find a new model for KT. These are already being felt, and some KTOs have already had to make cuts. They include:

1. Greater selectivity and reduced resource is reinforcing the 'to those that have, shall be given' effect, specifically in relation to HEIF funding

2. Volatility of the investment markets is making early-stage venture capital (VC) funding unpredictable and harder to secure

3. Modern innovation thinking and open innovation has opened up the innovation process and demonstrated the benefits of mass collaboration

4. The Explosion of social media and its impact on knowledge exchange has provided the tools necessary to coordinate that mass collaboration

5. Advantages of social capital for individuals & enterprises are empirically demonstrating that 'People and groups who do well are somehow better connected'

6. Behavioural economics has revised our understanding of motivation, cooperation and competition, and overturned some of the old orthodoxies