Introduction
The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) has commenced an internal examination of the issues relating to knowledge transfer activities and funding as they relate to Australian universities and publicly funded research agencies (PFRAs). The Department commissioned PhillipsKPA to:
(a) Work with the Department to help develop a clear definition and scope for knowledge transfer activities in Australia.
(b) Provide the Department with a systematic analysis of current policies, programmes and funding arrangements to determine the extent to which knowledge transfer activities are already supported and promoted in Australia.
(c) Provide the Department with ten to fifteen case studies drawn from Australian universities.
Following preliminary consultations with the Department, the scope of the project was further clarified by DEST as follows:
The definition and scope of knowledge transfer
Universities and PFRAs are knowledge organisations; their core objectives are to generate, acquire and transfer knowledge. These objectives are realised through the full range of functions performed, including research, teaching (or extension activities in the case of PFRAs) and community service or engagement.
Effective knowledge transfer strategies rely on the capacity of institutions to shape their knowledge transfer approaches and activities in partnership with their various communities, and to respond creatively to the distinctive needs of those communities. From this perspective, a ‘healthy’ system of knowledge transfer should demonstrate considerable diversity in knowledge transfer approaches and activities, both within and across institutions and across disciplines and national research priorities.
It is this diversity that makes knowledge transfer difficult to define in precise terms. It also highlights the risks involved in attempting to over-prescribe the definition of knowledge transfer. We have been conscious of these factors in developing a proposed set of principles and definitions of knowledge transfer. The challenge has been to add clarity to the current discussion and debate to assist in future knowledge transfer policy and programme development whilst not ‘straightjacketing’ the concept.
For this project, our brief is to focus only on research and research-related knowledge transfer. After considering the literature and the views of Australian stakeholders, however, we have formed the view that the exclusion of teaching from the definition of knowledge transfer risks omitting important aspects of knowledge transfer.
We suggest that DEST give further consideration to those aspects of knowledge transfer that are linked to the teaching and extension missions of universities and PFRAs, for possible inclusion in future knowledge transfer policy frameworks.
For the purposes of this project, we have been asked to adopt the nomenclature of ‘knowledge transfer’. Our desktop research has led us to conclude that the emerging preferred language internationally is ‘engagement’. Some Australian stakeholders have expressed a strong preference for the language of ‘engagement’. Concerns about the ‘knowledge transfer’ term appear to relate to its:
- historical usage in the knowledge commercialisation domain, thus potentially limiting the scope of the activity it covers; and
- inference of a one-way flow of knowledge, versus a two-way negotiated flow of knowledge for mutual benefit which is usually stressed as a key feature of ‘engagement’.
We suggest that DEST give further consideration to the benefits and risks associated with different terminologies before settling on a final language for the purposes of policy development.
Proposed definitions of knowledge transfer
We propose the following definitions of knowledge transfer.
For the purposes of the definitions:
- ‘Knowledge’ should be interpreted to incorporate knowledge, skills, technologies and other capabilities related to an institution’s areas of academic specialisation.
- ‘Commercial enterprises’ should be interpreted as including the commercial operations of universities and PFRAs as well commercial enterprises and industry sectors more broadly.
In developing the definitions, we have drawn on the Allen Consulting Group’s typology of benefits available from publicly funded research: material, human, social and environmental (Allen Consulting Group, 2005a).
-
The focus for the project is on knowledge transfer from research or research-related activity.
-
It would be helpful for the analytical framework adopted by the project to separately examine knowledge transfer in partnership with industry and business for commercial benefit and knowledge transfer in partnership with other sectors aimed at broader economic, social and environmental benefits.
Definitions of Knowledge Transfer Applicable to Universities and PFRAs
Knowledge transfer is the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance material, human, social and environmental wellbeing.
Knowledge transfer for commercial benefit is the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business or government to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance the success of commercial enterprises.
Research Specific Definitions of Knowledge Transfer Applicable to Universities and PFRAs
Knowledge transfer is the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government or the community to plan, conduct, apply and make accessible existing and new research to enhance material, human, social and environmental wellbeing.
Knowledge transfer for commercial benefit is the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business or government to plan, conduct, apply and make accessible existing and new research to enhance the success of commercial enterprises.
Principles to underpin the definition and scope of knowledge transfer
Based on our desktop research and the views expressed by stakeholders in the consultation phase of this project, we propose nine principles which underpin the proposed definition and scope of knowledge transfer:
1. Knowledge transfer is significantly integrated with the academic domains of research, scholarship and learning and teaching, which are themselves overlapping and integrated.
2. Knowledge transfer requires capabilities, infrastructure and relationships that extend beyond the traditional academic domains of research, scholarship and learning and teaching.
3. Knowledge transfer is distinguished from the traditional academic domains by its requirement for mutually-beneficial engagement with a wide range of non-academic users of knowledge.
4. Knowledge transfer represents a major component of the community’s return on public investment in universities and PFRAs and should consequently be valued and actively encouraged across all disciplines and all institutions.
5. Knowledge transfer within Australian publicly funded institutions is ultimately directed towards enhancing Australia’s material, human, social and environmental wellbeing.
6. Knowledge transfer for commercial benefit represents a specific sub-set of the broader concept of knowledge transfer which is directed towards enhancing material, human, social and environmental wellbeing.
7. Knowledge transfer for commercial benefit is directed, in the first instance, towards enhancing the success of commercial enterprises.
8. Knowledge transfer occurs through multiple inter-connected and overlapping processes.
9. High quality knowledge transfer activities will be encouraged if valid knowledge transfer performance measurement systems can be developed. If they are to encourage knowledge transfer across all disciplines and all institutions, such systems will need to reflect the diversity of university and PFRA knowledge transfer activities, approaches, partners and outcomes.
Knowledge transfer conceptual framework
Drawing on the above principles, we have developed the following knowledge transfer conceptual framework.
The framework highlights that:
- Knowledge transfer is integrated with the three academic dimensions of research, scholarship and learning and teaching, but also extends beyond them.
- Knowledge transfer involves engagement with a diversity of non-academic users of knowledge.
- Knowledge transfer can occur at local, regional, state, national and international levels.
- Knowledge transfer for commercial benefit represents a sub-set of the broader concept of knowledge transfer for material, human, social and environmental benefit.
Scope of knowledge transfer
As noted in our eighth principle, knowledge transfer occurs through multiple inter-connected and overlapping processes. We have drawn on the recent work of Howard Partners (2005), which identified four knowledge transfer processes, to propose the following scope of knowledge transfer. The examples provided under each knowledge transfer process are intended to be indicative rather than comprehensive.
The adequacy of existing public policy support for knowledge transfer
In the report, we provide a summary description of existing public policy programmes supporting knowledge transfer, including those provided through:
- the Education, Science and Training portfolio;
- the Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio;
- the Health and Ageing portfolio;
- other Australian Government portfolios;
- other national programmes and knowledge transfer organisations; and
- State Governments.
We also briefly describe:
- the views of stakeholders in relation to the adequacy of existing programmes;
- demand-side and supply-side barriers to knowledge transfer; and
- perspectives on current gaps in public policy support for knowledge transfer as described in recent Australian reports.
After considering the above, we have reached a number of conclusions in relation to the adequacy of current support measures.
We have not identified any immediately evident gaps in the structure of funding support for the PFRAs, principally on the basis that their governing Acts specify knowledge transfer as one of their core functions. However, in the course of this project the PFRAs provided us with little evidence beyond what is available on the public record. We therefore hesitate to make a definitive statement about the overall adequacy of funding support for knowledge transfer in PFRAs.
Our mapping of existing programmes demonstrates that current public policies are providing some support to universities in their knowledge transfer activities. We conclude, however, that there is justification for the views of many stakeholders within the higher education system that current funding arrangements and programmes do not support the full range of actual and potential knowledge transfer activities. In particular, funding programmes have focused mainly on knowledge transfer for commercial benefit rather than knowledge transfer for other human, social and environmental benefit.
There is also evidence of unmet demand in some existing higher education programmes, such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage schemes and the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) programme.
Recent reports on knowledge transfer and views from stakeholders point to perceived shortfalls in support for commercialisation infrastructure and support in the early stages of the commercialisation process where institutions are most exposed to the risk of making investments with little or no financial return. However, it is important to place these perceived gaps and shortfalls in perspective. The emphasis of most higher education stakeholders in their input to the project was on the deficit of support for knowledge transfer targeted at human, social and environmental outcomes, rather than any shortfalls in existing support for knowledge transfer for commercial benefit.
There are three types of rationale for government intervention through the provision of public policy support for knowledge transfer. The gaps and shortfalls in existing public policy which we have identified for each type of rationale are summarised below.
1. To achieve cultural change
The major gaps we have identified are:
- Support for capacity building at the institution level – development of the culture, strategies, structures, skills, support mechanisms and policies required to establish knowledge transfer as a function commensurate with research and teaching.
- Support for knowledge transfer capacity building at the system level – for example:
- establishment of commercialisation ‘centres of excellence’ that provide services across universities and/or PFRAs
- development of systems to measure knowledge transfer performance
- development of best practice resources to assist institutions and their non-academic partners.
2. To overcome market failure and instigate demand from users
The major gaps we have identified are:
- Support for the conduct of productive and beneficial knowledge transfer activities and projects with business and community partners which are not in a position to meet the full costs of knowledge services.
- Support for the development of national information resources and intermediary mechanisms that enable business and community, especially the SME sector, to locate sources and sites of knowledge within the university system and negotiate mutually beneficial knowledge transfer partnerships.
- Additional support for the early stages of commercialisation.
- Additional support for existing knowledge transfer programmes experiencing high levels of unmet demand.
We wish to highlight here the importance of demand-side initiatives. The research literature and experience in Australia (e.g. through models such as the Rural R&D Corporations) consistently points to the relative success of knowledge transfer initiatives that are driven by industry or other groups of knowledge users. There is scope for DEST to work with other government portfolios to assess the feasibility of extending these models to other industry sectors and to develop other demand-side models that will facilitate knowledge transfer.
3. To provide pump priming to support start up activities and experimentation in new activities
The major gap we have identified is:
- Support for the initiation and development of new knowledge transfer partnerships of mutual benefit with both commercial and non-commercial partners.
Case studies
The project brief requires us to identify case studies of knowledge transfer activities currently being undertaken in Australian universities.
Through existing sources such as published material and institutions’ websites, we quickly identified in excess of 120 case study examples for possible inclusion in the report, excluding those related to CRCs or Research/Technology Parks. We are confident that a comprehensive survey of knowledge transfer activities across all universities would reveal a much larger number of examples. In determining the case studies to include in the report, we sought to provide a diversity of examples demonstrating the range of knowledge transfer activities and processes and the varieties of organisational frameworks adopted by universities to facilitate knowledge transfer. We also sought to present case studies that located knowledge transfer within regional, state, national and international settings.
We have included 12 case studies in the report: five demonstrating knowledge transfer for commercial benefit; and, seven demonstrating knowledge transfer for other material, human, social and environmental benefit.
The case studies are specific examples of knowledge transfer, making what can otherwise be an esoteric concept ‘real’. They also lend support to the conclusions we have reached in relation to: the principles that underpin the definition and scope of knowledge transfer; the definition and scope of knowledge transfer; and the assessed gaps in public policy support.