As a Public Good CRC, much of the Desert Knowledge CRC's
business is in knowledge transfer.
The Emerging Business of Knowledge Transfer
From
The Department of Educaiton, Science and Training.
The ways in which universities and research organisations
benefit the economy and society is a long-standing and important
concern both for policy-makers and the general community. Over
recent decades a particular perspective has arisen in
prominence—the notion of research commercialisation.
‘Research commercialisation’ refers to the treatment of
knowledge as a commodity—an asset over which property rights
can be, and are, asserted. The increased prominence given to this
‘capitalised’ knowledge and the role played by
universities and research organisations in generating this asset
mirrors the attention paid to the ‘knowledge economy’
by economic and social commentators.
This report has been prepared for the Department of Education,
Science and Training by Dr John Howard, the founder and Managing
Director of Howard Partners. The report proposes a framework for
identifying, tracking and understanding the economic contribution
of universities and research organisations in the twenty-first
century. This framework is characterised by the emphasis placed
upon the plurality and the complexity of the channels and
mechanisms through which universities and research organisations
generate economic benefits.
The report argues that the ‘standard’ research
commercialisation model, associated with a linear sequence linking
basic research to commercial outcomes, is largely specific to the
biomedical sciences. Like the ‘linear model’ of
research and development (R&D) itself (basic
research—applied research—experimental development) to
which it relates, the standard model is easily grasped, and the
outputs easily measured, which in turn helps to secure funding. A
range of external interests also benefit from the promulgation of
this model as the model of how universities and research
organisations generate economic benefits.
Lawyers, consultants, venture capitalists and the biomedical
researchers themselves all stand to gain from increased resources
devoted to this type of commercial focus within universities and
research organisations. The standard model also has the advantage
that it is compatible with the current emphasis on performance
metrics within government. As ‘capitalised knowledge’,
patents and licenses are easy to count—and the temptation to
set targets, such as a planned numbers of patents and associated
spin-out companies, can be hard to resist.
The challenge for policy-makers is that the standard model does not
in fact adequately reflect the wide range of circumstances through
which universities impact upon the economy. Consequently, if
performance measures are based exclusively on this standard model,
then there is a risk that other, perhaps more important channels
for generating economic benefits, will be given insufficient
recognition, thereby potentially distorting policies and practice,
including misallocation of resources across the spectrum of
research-industry interaction.
The report addresses this challenge by proposing a more
comprehensive and realistic framework for understanding research
commercialisation and knowledge transfer. The framework consists of
the following four ideal typical models:
* Knowledge diffusion
Universities and research organisations generating useful economic
and social outcomes via encouraging the broad industry-wide
adoption of research findings through communication, building
capacity within industry through extension, education and training,
creating standards relating to production and distribution.
* Knowledge production
Universities and research organisations generating useful economic
and social outcomes by selling or licensing the results of research
in the form of commodified knowledge—directly exploiting
‘knowledge products’ embedded in intellectual property
and other explicitly codified formats. This is a
‘standard’ model of research commercialisation.
* Knowledge relationships
Universities and research organisations generating useful economic
outcomes by providing services that indirectly exploit broad
intellectual property (IP) platforms consisting of trade secrets,
know-how and other forms of tacit knowledge. This approach centres
on cooperation, collaboration, joint ventures and partnerships.
* Knowledge engagement
Universities and research organisations generating useful economic
outcomes as a by-product of shared interests and concerns that
transcend the boundaries of the university per se.
The report shows how current Australian Government support for
science and innovation covers all four of these areas. It is
therefore not desirable to restrict measures of performance to
‘knowledge production’ processes—the easiest area
to measure performance.
