January 2004/07
|
|||||||||||||||
| To: | Heads of publicly-funded higher education institutions in the UK |
| Of interest to those responsible for: | Links with business and the community, Research, Continuing vocational education, Funding, Planning |
| Reference: | 2004/07 |
| Publication date: | January 2004 |
| Enquiries to: | Adrian Day tel 0117 9317428 e-mail a.day@hefce.ac.uk |
Table of contents and executive summary (read on-line)
Download
Main text and annexes D-I
[ MS Word 962K | Zipped Word 276K | Adobe PDF 459K | Zipped PDF 426K ]
Annex A
[ MS Excel 207K | Zipped Excel 64K ]
Annex B
[ MS Excel 146K | Zipped Excel 44K ]
Annex C
[ MS Excel 222K | Zipped Excel 56K ]
Contents
Executive summary
Background and purpose
Deductions and outcomes
Next steps
Data analysis
Section A: Institutional strategy and economic development
Section B: Collaborative research with business
Section C: Intellectual property
Section D: Consulting activities
Section E: Spin-off firms
Section F: Training and personnel links
Section G: Support for economic development activity (national and regional)
Section H: Administration of the questionnaire
Annex A Full results by area 2001-02 and 2000-01 (English regions 2001-02 only)
Annex B Full results by research profile 2001-02 and 2000-01
Annex C Questionnaire
Annex D International comparisons
Annex E List of abbreviations
Annex F HE-BI Stakeholders group
Annex G List of respondents
Annex H Method (process) and robustness
Annex I Benchmark descriptions
Executive summary
Purpose
1. This report presents and analyses the results of the 2003 Higher education-business interaction (HE-BI) survey of all UK higher education institutions (HEIs).
Key points
2. The survey is based on information for the academic year 2001-02, and builds on previous surveys published as HEFCE 01/68 and 2003/11. The objectives of the survey were:
- to update the previous survey
- to begin to identify trends
- to develop the reliability of selected indicators of HEIs’ third stream activity (that is, enhancing their contribution to the economy and society) which might be used annually to inform funding decisions
- to develop low burden processes for collecting data.
The data collected by the survey and the process itself are useful as management information for HEIs’ own use, permitting benchmarking within the overall HE sector and revealing needs for further development of data management systems.
3. The survey incorporates both numerical metrics – some of them financial – and objective qualitative indicators. Together, these cover aspects of policy, activities and outputs. Data are categorised in two main ways: by country and English region (collectively referred to as ‘by area’ throughout this publication), and by ‘research profile’ (or RP, described in the 2002 HE-BI survey as research intensity). Note that the term research profile in this context does not carry any implications about the type of research undertaken (and see Annex H paragraph 16). Individual HEIs are not named at any point; this anonymity will be reviewed for the 2004 survey.
4. The Government, HEFCE and the HE-BI Stakeholders group (see Annex F) are committed to the permanent third stream of funding for higher education (HE) and to developing a standard, low burden, annual process for indicating its effectiveness. The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration (see paragraph 17) also calls for an increased and further embedded third stream of funding for HE and for a related ‘basket’ of metrics.
5. The HE-BI survey covers the whole of the UK higher education sector; 100 per cent of institutions responded to it in 2003. Changes to the 2003 questionnaire were kept to a minimum to enable valid comparison of data between years. The emphasis has been on achieving robust data to permit confident deductions. To ensure the data were robust a range of checks was carried out: follow-up contact with HEIs was made in some cases; and some data were compared to those from other sources, such as from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Overall, the completion rate was better than in the previous survey (although some institutions still found it difficult to provide full data, for example related to contracts with small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) or spin-off companies that are legally distinct entities). The 2003 survey is therefore both more complete and more reliable than previous HE-BI surveys.
6. The 2003 survey shows continuing improvement in HE-business interactions by almost every indicator. This is the case even after taking into account the small increase in number of respondents and the increased completeness and accuracy of HEIs’ data gathering. Comparisons have been made between years, regions and research profile only where data are judged to be robust.
7. It is possible that HEIs are becoming more selective in developing their third stream actions. They have been encouraged to do so through the HE Innovation Fund (HEIF) and elsewhere. The use of indicators and metrics, especially with their potential for use related to funding decisions, will inevitably influence HEI activity, but it would be impossible to quantify these effects.
8. Analysis of the survey data has shown the following key changes over the previous year:
- increased planning for business support provision
- working with public sector bodies has become a key priority
- increases in CASE studentships, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (formerly Teaching Company Scheme) and the financial value of collaborative research partnerships with SMEs
- 61 per cent of HEIs have in-house licensing activity, and total intellectual property revenues have risen steeply
- development of consultancy activity, with an 18 per cent increase in income generated
- increased provision of courses for business and related involvement of employers
- greater deployment of regeneration funds (from UK rather than EU sources) overall, particularly for institutions with a higher research profile
- 19 per cent increase in HE staff dedicated to commercialisation and related activities, many supported through third stream (business and community) funding, including the Higher Education Reach-out to Business and the Community (HEROBC) Fund and HEIF.
9. HEFCE and the HE-BI Stakeholders group will review the HE-BI content and process in preparation for the 2004 survey (which will be based on 2002-03 data). The aims of the review are to adapt the survey to developments in policy, funding and practice over the last three years, while further minimising burden on HEIs. Specific areas being considered are reduction of ambiguity, complementarity with related surveys and studies, and relevance to HEIs’ own management and monitoring processes.
10. To ensure coverage of the full range of third stream partnership types and deliverable benefits to the economy and society, and to move further towards indicators of impact, requires continuing development work beyond the 2004 survey. Further input to this process from business and community partners will be welcome in informing the development of funding policy.
Action required
11. This report is for information.