The potential and limitations of university-business collaborations

Finally, two giants are stirring.  The subject: Business-University Research Collaboration.

The giants in question are the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and the Group of Eight (G8) research universities.  G8/BCA sponsored a visit to Australia by Richard Lambert, author of a recent UK review of Business-University collaboration.

Last week in Canberra, Richard Lambert participated in a one-day forum on this important subject, which I see as part of a necessary third wave of economic reform. Lambert's views about the UK, it was generally agreed, could also be applied fairly directly to Australia.  They certainly accord closely with the views of the Australian Institute of Commercialisation (AIC).  My presentation is available on the AIC website.

During the forum, Lambert spoke about things that better University-Business collaboration cannot do.  This list includes:

• Be expected to generate large sums of money for universities.
• Be allowed to reduce focus on long-term, curiosity-based research - of the sort that led to the discovery of the double-helix structure, for example.
• Limit academic freedom to participate fully in the community of scholars, to publish, to speak freely, etc.

Financing long-run, curiosity-based research cannot be left entirely to market forces and, in particular, university assistance to business cannot be left to market forces - hence the "third-stream" funding in the UK.

Assistance to industry is not about funding near-term commercial needs.  Furthermore, existing measures of the success of collaboration such as numbers of spin-outs from universities is at best only a very partial measure of success, and in fact excessive focus on numbers of spin-outs will be counter-productive.  The AIC advocates measuring "Value added", which will be more difficult but which will give a far better picture of achievements and potential.

Lambert stressed that none of this is easy, to which we give a hearty "hear hear."  In the UK, serious commitment to the cause of Business-University collaboration has been driven by Treasury and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.  In my talk I emphasised, as I have been doing for several years, that it is vital for the research sector to engage with Treasury to make the case for more funding and new programs in language that Treasury understands and with arguments that Treasury finds compelling.  (I recommend the AIC-sponsored papers by Gans and Stern and that on "The economic impact of commercialisation ..." - available on the AIC website - for our attempts on this front to date.)

During the lunch break, Lambert spoke at the National Press Club. Sadly, there is no press report that I have yet seen. Here he emphasised the convergence of views around the world on University-Business collaboration. He cited, in addition to his UK review, initiatives in the European Commission, Germany, Sweden, China, Russia and Japan. Clearly giants other than G8 and the BCA are stirring.

He asked "Why should we care?".

• There are big changes in how business does its research - outsourcing to universities and research agencies is increasingly the case for major companies.
• Society generally is giving universities a bigger role - and universities are struggling to keep pace with demands made upon them.
• Governments everywhere are trying to create more innovative economies.

Australia, like the UK, fights above its "natural weight" in science and technological research.  But neither country has a good record in bringing to market the results of the ideas generated by this research.

Australia's spending on public sector R&D is about the average for the OECD but business spending is well below that of other OECD countries.  Lambert hinted that the UK may be about to greatly increase government funding in this area, which would give the UK a great push that is not currently on the policy agenda in Australia, where Backing Australia's Ability (II) has maintained the existing policy thrust without adding to it.

Barriers to doing better in Australia are very similar to those in the UK - in fact we are dealing with issues that are "spookily similar" in each country:

• Business leaders are ignorant of the benefits from University collaboration,
• There is a generic cultural  "fear of failure",
• There are "cultural clashes" between the mindsets of business and universities, and
• There are many difficult issues in the pricing and management of intellectual property (IP).

The key findings from the Lambert review are as follows:

• We cannot rely on market forces to solve these issues.
• Knowledge transfer is best created by movement of talented people between the sectors.
• Diversity is good - all regional universities (for example) cannot expect to play the role of Oxbridge.
• Competitive funding mechanisms are needed to foster excellence.
• Universities have a "basic public good" role in society.
• Successful university-business collaboration needs "careful and consistent" management.

Richard Lambert's review of the UK scene is required reading for all those involved in seeking to make Australia an innovative economy and to foster the policies needed to maintain Australia's stellar recent economic performance.  I sincerely hope this vital issue does not get lost in the fog of the coming federal election.