A Faculty benchmark for ‘Academic Enterprise’ activities Faculty Technology & Knowledge Transfer Sub Committee

UU definition of Academic Enterprise (AE) “innovative activities and partnerships that result in the exploitation (and transfer) of knowledge and expertise. …enhances relevance of teaching and research activities within the subject area.” a 3rd strand for promotion

improved businesstechnology transfer Engagement with our wider community for mutual benefit wider community influenced policy ambassadors for UU improved practice increased skills’ levels increased capability provided expert advice inspired next generation access to state-of-art facilities Making money is not the main driver for this Needs to be greater clarity on how we engage cost effectively

1.Familiarity with UU definition of Academic Enterprise 2.Current involvement in: –Services for Business and Community –Research commercialisation –Outreach 3.Degree to which staff feel involved in AE 4.Awareness of AE activities at UU, Faculty & School levels 5.If you are not involved in AE activities –Why not? –Would you like to be? Faculty benchmarking survey

Survey response & AE familiarity Survey Response Rate (%) School n= out of 427 responded in the Faculty Lessons for skills’ audit project Knock on doors (5 minutes of time) Avoid the summer Examples which subjects can relate to Balance too much towards business Familiar with UU AE definition (%) 54.4% of all respondents in the Faculty Definition of AE is a barrier to many: Wider AE familiarity in BMS and HLT as greater recognition of exploitation PSY, ENV & NUR identify with knowledge transfer but NOT enterprise PVC (R & I) is aware, and “terminology” is being reviewed n= School

10 (5%) staff offer facilities related services (5 BMS) 19 (9%) staff commercialise their research (9 BMS) 20 (9%) staff improve businesses (11 BMS) 48 (22%) staff run CPD/short courses (17 NUR) 49 (23%) staff engage in consultancy (21 NUR) 58 (27%) staff innovate in curriculum for B/C (26 NUR) 60 (28%) staff do collaborative research (22 NUR) 67 (31%) staff do contract research (27 NUR) 74 (34%) staff run public events (26 NUR & 24 PSY) 101 (47%) staff active in Professions/Boards (43 NUR) 127 (59%) staff involved in placement visits (40 BMS) Current Faculty involvement Based on responses from 217 staff

Degree of feeling involved Degree of Involvement by staff (%) School n =

Awareness of academic enterprise activities Awareness of Academic Enterprise by staff (%) Level with the University

Reasons for non involvement BMS Never really discussed My work is not easily applied It takes years to develop something useful Enough of other things to do Not a business person – Professional Did not think I was involved but it appears I am

Reasons for non involvement ENV More than happy to engage on other things (2) Time - Too heavy a T & L load (2) General lack of interest & time ! Not enterprise but with Local authorities Approaching end of my service

Reasons for non involvement HLT New staff – Got to find feet in T, L & R(5) Time – heavy workload as is (2) Difficult for contract researchers (2) Not appropriate to current job duties (2) Lost opportunities with demise of ABS (2) Opportunity has not arisen Time taken up by UU Clinic

Reasons for non involvement NUR New to the university (4) Opportunity has not arisen (3) Time – heavy workload as is (3) Lack of familiarity with AE (2) Difficult for a contract researcher

Reasons for non involvement PSY Time – Other commitments (6) Opportunity has not arisen (4) Not aware of activities (2) Not particularly relevant to my area

Uninvolved staff who would like to be involved Number of staff School Identifying these 15 staff is a significant benefit from the study

Discussion points Perception rules that AE is “business and tech transfer oriented” and thus at best 40 (~10%) staff feel involved, and some see business as “tainted” Reality is significant AE activity within our wider community with up to 80 (~20%) staff involved, and thus significant under-reporting Professional and Placement networks are strong with up to 130 (~one third) staff involved, and this presents opportunities

Discussion points At best 20 staff (~10%) are involved in offering services based on excellent in-house facilities, and this presents more opportunities Communication of AE within Schools is OK, but across Schools and Faculties is weak No wonder it is “the same old faces” in AE activities, because if you do not have a head start on the UU career ladder and the motivation, it would be difficult to justify and find the time

Discussion points AE for new and contract staff is a difficult thing, and they might be more open to opportunities Bring in some opportunities and there probably are staff (NUR & PSY) who would take them up. Bring more clarity to what AE is (inclusive of public, community and voluntary sectors) and there are probably more staff (NUR, PSY & ENV) who would engage

A bottom-up-approach at School level is the key to growth in AE activities, and not a top-down approach from the UU centre Champions of AE at School level are important The 2006 Distinguished Business & Community Fellowships illustrate that AE is very much alive within the Faculty and recognised by the Centre: –Dr Neveille McClenaghan and Dr George McKerr, BMS (Business) –Prof Christine Liddell, PSY & Prof Roy McConkey, NUR (Community) Discussion points

Actions Your help to change AE from “never really discussed” to “discussed/reported on its merits” UU/Faculty to bring greater clarity to what is AE, mechanisms of support and funding opportunities UU/Faculty to bring AE opportunities to Schools AE champions to provide advice & encouragement Schools’ support to monitor & report AE activities