4.5.1 A critical issue is the extent to which the impact of HEIF and KE on the skills and practices of University staff would have occurred anyway if the HEIF funding had been considerably less or had not existed, and how the outputs would have been affected. The context for the discussion was that the Universities had developed their KE policies and been engaged in KE activities for over 20 years. Hence they had built up their capacity, skills, and practices in response to internal and external requirements.
4.5.2 Around one in three University staff interviewed considered that they would not have developed their KE policies and activities at all without HEIF funding, which in turn would have negatively impacted on their skills and practices for KE as well as reducing the benefits for organisations that participate in KE activities. (See Table 4.1.) For the 62% that would have developed some KE activities and subsequent skills, the nature of activities would have been different and not so effective. Just 5% would have continued in the same way. However, for half who would have gone ahead the activities would generally have been smaller in scale (i.e., fewer activities and a smaller number of participants), for almost half they would have been narrower in scope and nature, and for 38% the activities would have taken place later in time. Some one in 10 interviewees were not sure what the alternative course of action would have been.
“Maybe we’re in a group of universities where, if that funding hadn’t come, we’d have probably not have embedded our business thinking and strategies in the way that we have. […] We’re much further on than we would be [chronologically], than if we hadn’t received this money.” [University view.]
4.5.3 Overall the results show significant additionality attributable to HEIF funding, in spite of the view that KE capacity and skills have been built up in the Universities over time. Many of the University staff said it would have been very difficult to support the KE teams and the KE initiatives. There were few other sources of funding available in spite of the income generated primarily from of the research projects.
“If the research wasn’t there, we wouldn’t have the knowledge to take through to commercialisation for practical impact, but if HEIF money wasn’t there we could end up in a situation where we’d got the research but it was actually very difficult to take it to concept development and then on to market. I think there is a symmetry between the two funding streams, and one without the other wouldn’t be as good.” [University view.]
Table 4.1 Counterfactual. KE Activities and Benefits without HEIF
Funding
Percentages of all respondents By Cluster Total Top Six
research High research Medium research Low research Arts
Not gone ahead at all 29 26 7 43 33 53
Gone ahead to some extent 62 72 73 57 57 34
Where activities went ahead and benefits resulted (% of 62% above):
- in the same way 8 39 10 0 5 0
- smaller in scale 92 67 92 100 88 97
- later in time 61 56 55 60 88 0
- narrower in scope/nature 74 56 55 100 82 32
Don't know 9 2 20 0 10 13
Respondents could select several options; so percentages in any column may sum to more than 100 Source: PACEC Interviews with University staff
5
The Benefits to Business
Panel 5.1 Summary
The key findings from the research with businesses are as follows: –
● Most of the businesses had introduced new or significantly improved products or services in the last few years, and six in 10 had introduced new processes. ● The most important aims that businesses had, which motivated them to engage
with the Universities, were developing new or existing processes, participating in seminars, conferences, and networking, and undertaking collaborative research. ● It was a key aim of businesses from the outset to improve their practices and
performance as a result of KE. In this context, some nine in 10 thought that their interaction with the University was important (for almost a fifth, critically so). ● Overall, businesses who paid said the services they used were value for money.
Some 33% of businesses who had paid for services said there were benefits over and above what had been paid for.
● The Universities usually focussed their activities on key sectors rather than spreading them across all sectors. Target sectors included the following: – - Creative industries
- Health, pharmaceuticals, life sciences - Engineering and materials science - Environmental science.
● As a result of the interactions with Universities, two thirds of the businesses had developed more positive attitudes to KE. Just over six in 10 recognised the role of Universities, and around about half were more willing to engage with them and recognised the benefits.
● Almost two thirds of the businesses thought they might not have been able to achieve these outcomes without the University involvement, with a little over half saying they probably or definitely would not have been successful.
● The overwhelming majority of businesses said Universities had become more willing to engage with businesses than they used to be.
5.1.2 One of the fundamental issues for the HEIF/KE activities is the extent to which external organisations, especially businesses, benefit from the engagement with Universities. These are softer benefits and impacts in that they are not monetised, i.e., they may not attract an income stream, or participants do not pay the full cost in the sense that the Universities do not maximize their income.24 Neither have they been converted into estimates of Gross Value Added (GVA to the local, regional, or national economies.25 Through the process and stages of engagement (from events to advice and research) there can be impacts on their skills and practices, innovation, and the development of products and services, leading to business performance improvements. The subsequent generation of net additional sales/turnover, income, and jobs ultimately benefits the wider regional and national economy. To assess
24 Monetised impacts comprise income paid by participants in KE initiatives, although not necessarily the full amount as charges may not be made by Universities.
25 GVA is the income generated by organisations and individuals as full employment costs and profits where appropriate.
these KE impacts, this chapter covers the views of the c.180 businesses interviewed and the Universities. It sets out:–
● The characteristics of business. ● Engagement with the Universities. ● The business benefits.
● Non-monetised benefits. ● Business performance impacts. ● Changes in business attitudes to KE. ● Constraints to participation.
● The role of Universities in innovation. ● The counterfactual.
5.1.3 The benefits arise as a result of the engagement between Universities and businesses and the joint shaping of activities. The supply of activities by Universities helps shape demand and the benefits that flow.