120 likes | 257 Views
Mark Gray (Middlesex University). HEIF and the capacity of modern universities. The evolution of “third stream” funding 2000-2011. KT and BCI, 2011. Community engagement. Knowledge transfer. Business engagement. BCI activities include.
E N D
Mark Gray (Middlesex University) HEIF and the capacity of modern universities
KT and BCI, 2011 Community engagement Knowledge transfer Business engagement
BCI activities include • Collaborative research involving public funding and funding from business (e.g. CASE awards and KTPs) • Contract research for business and non-commercial organisations, where business/non-commercials are commissioners of the work. • Consultancy contracts • CPD, continuing education and other courses • Funded regeneration activities • Granting technology licenses for exclusive or non-exclusive use by business or non-commercial organisations • Income from all other sources of intellectual property • Spin-offs with various degrees of ownership • Graduate business start-ups • Social, community and cultural engagement by means of free and chargeable events
Characteristics of engagement • Outputs of third stream work must not include core teaching provision or funded research, but may build upon them • Outputs must have an economic impact or community/social impact that goes beyond the existing benefits of meeting the teaching and research expectations • Outputs are market-related: they find a price determined by the interaction of largely unfettered forces of supply and demand • Outputs from the third stream benefit a wide range of ‘clients’, including business and community agencies.
HEFCE’s (2008) perception of the role of HEIF Source: HEFCE circular October 2008/35, p. 5
HEIF outputs: patents, licences and spinouts from UK higher education
Planned Science and Research funding in the UK, 2011-2015 Source: BIS Annual Innovation report 2010
New HEIF round (August 2011- 2015) • Formula approach maintained from HEIF4 • ‘incentivising performance, moving away from the capacity-building element’ in the formula • Increasing the maximum level for allocations • Setting a threshold allocation (removing HEIF allocation from some institutions entirely) • Funding maintained at cash level from end of HEIF4, in each year of the new round
The March-April consultation • HEFCE is calling upon institutions to respond to proposals for the future management and disposition of the HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Fund). • HEFCE invites comment on the following questions: (i) ‘Is our proposal of a threshold HEIF allocation a satisfactory and appropriate response to the need now to focus HEIF on the most effective KE [knowledge exchange] performers?’ (ii) ‘Are there additional metrics available now that capture the breadth and benefits from KE activity, including activity primarily leading to non-monetised benefits, and that could be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of KE performance and could be collected in a fairly low-burden way?’ (iii) ‘Do you have any other comments on any aspects of the policies, method and funding for HEIF 2011-15?’