Written evidence submited by the University
of Liverpool (TIC 24)
SUMMARY
The University of Liverpool greatly welcomes the
proposals to establish a UK network of Technology Innovation Centres
(TICs) and the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee's
enquiry. The University would emphasise that:
- TICs should be built on existing infrastructure
and located where there is genuine world-class research, a strong
or emerging industrial capability and a track record of effective
collaboration and delivery.
- effective implementation will require careful
consideration of how a UK network will map onto and complement
the UK's current innovation "culture", its existing
"infrastructure" and any overarching innovation policy
to enhance success in commercialisation, exploit the value of
knowledge assets more fully and secure future international economic
competitiveness.
- initiatives will only succeed where there is
a focus upon a sustainable area of technology in which the barriers
for business to undertake projects themselves are prohibitive.
- TICs have the potential to anchor globally-mobile
knowledge-intensive companies and form an integral part of the
innovation "infrastructure" within given localities.
Consideration should be given to how any UK co-ordinating body
will engage at local level to ensure that growth opportunities
and benefits of TIC location in a given area are maximised.
- as hubs of engagement and interaction, TICs have
the potential to offer a range of mutual benefits to establishments
engaged in elite "pure" research, whose outputs form
an essential part of the "commercialisation supply chain".
INTRODUCTION
1. The UK's exceptionally strong fundamental
science base, of which the University of Liverpool forms part,
provides an ideal foundation upon which to build a TIC network
and deliver a major boost to the UK's innovation "infrastructure".
Founded in 1881, the University has an impressive history of pioneering
education and research, with a particular emphasis on "education
for the professions". As one of the UK's top research-led
universities, and a member of the Russell Group of major research-intensive
universities, it has an enviable international reputation for
innovative research.
2. Ranked 5th for KTPs in the UK, the University
has a successful track record of harnessing its knowledge, expertise
and equipment to help commercial and public sector organisations
meet the challenges entailed in innovation. It has helped organisations
to achieve their objectives by providing access to a wide range
of expertise and transforming ideas into creative solutions, new
technologies, applications, products and skills.
What is the Fraunhofer model and would it be applicable
to the UK?
3. Any consideration of the value of the Fraunhofer
model needs to proceed from a clear understanding of what purpose
such Institutes would serve in the UK. The analysis presented
here assumes that the development of a UK network of Fraunhofer-type
Institute would be one response within a broader integrated
policy to address the UK's comparative lack of success in commercialisation,
exploit the value of its knowledge assets more fully and secure
its future international economic competitiveness.
4. The success of Fraunhofer Institutes as elite
organisations which provide a business-focused capability that
bridges research and technology commercialisation needs to be
understood within the broader environment within which they exist
in Germany. Any development of a network of similar Institutes
in the UK needs to be sensitive to the particularities of this
context. Effective implementation will require careful consideration
of how a networks of Institutes will map onto and complement the
UK's current innovation "culture", its existing "infrastructure"
and ongoing cross-sector innovation activities.
5. The Coalition Government's ambitions for more
balanced and sustainable future growth would make the establishment
of a UK network highly timely. The capacity of Fraunhofer-type
Institutes to ensure that new technology is market-ready and deliver
a step change in commercialisation could form an integral part
of the drive towards an economy driven by a more dynamic private
sector delivering export-driven growth. The UK's academic community
has a strong entrepreneurial spirit and this could be harnessed
if Institutes provide attractive opportunities for development
and career progression.
6. It will be important to give close consideration
to the levels of core funding which will be provided to Institutes.
It is essential that Institutes supplement this by winning additional
income from sources such as contract research, commercialisation
and subscriptions as reliance on demand from end users is crucial
to encouraging innovation and boosting efficiency.
7. To assist with this objective, there should
be an explicit sweet spot for engagement (eg 40% income from industry),
with core funding then being proportionally withdrawn if this
is not achieved. Institutes could become overly focused on the
short-term and ultimately unsustainable if they are required to
generate too great a percentage of their revenue from commercial
sources.
8. In this respect, it should be emphasised that
one of the key purposes of TICs will be to develop the high value
technologies of the future, which will safeguard the UK's international
competitiveness of the UK economy. Whilst emphasising the importance
of TICs developing a commercially responsive "offer",
this overarching national objective raises a corresponding question
of the users of TICs and how their approach to engagement with
Institutes might help to reinforce this longer-term goal.
9. Similar facilities operated by the University
of Liverpool have benefited from having a physical presence, providing
an opportunity for researchers and businesses to work on projects
side by side. The ability to undertake short-term work in a flexible
manner is important as it helps to build relationships and establish
trust between partners. This can be achieved through core funding
for postdoctorate-level staff capable of delivering large as well
as smaller commercial projects. A second important lesson is that
initiatives will only succeed where there is a focus upon a sustainable
area of technology in which the barriers for business to undertake
projects themselves are too high. Finally, physical centres must
be effectively embedded within pre-existing networks, with a capacity
- virtual or otherwise - to access and export relevant expertise,
wherever mutually beneficial.
10. TICs should be built on existing infrastructure
and be located where there is genuine world-class research, a
strong or emerging industrial capability and a track record of
effective collaboration and delivery. The establishment of a UK
network should be driven by these factors and the potential to
deliver comparative advantage rather than geographical distribution.
Are there existing Fraunhofer-type research centres
within the UK and, if so, are they effective?
11. Whilst there are no direct UK comparators
for Fraunhofers, the University has led initiatives with similar
objectives. Often funded from regional or European sources, these
programmes have had a positive impact on the Liverpool City Region
and UK economy. However, sustainability has remained an issue.
12. The newly established Virtual Engineering
Centre (VEC) is currently catalysing virtual engineering activities
within regional SMEs and encouraging joint research programmes
between industry and academia. Financed by the European Regional
Development Fund, Northwest Regional Development Agency and the
University, it assists the North West aerospace sector and wider
industry by providing a focal point for world class virtual engineering
technology, research, education and best practice. It is improving
business performance throughout the supply chain and has key strengths
in digital simulation and modelling and managing simulation, an
area of increasing demand for industry.
13. The ability to test and model new products
and production processes virtually reduces both risk and cost.
The VEC catalyses virtual engineering activities and joint research
programmes across the sector and between industry and academia.
It provides:
- a physical centre with "best practice"
facilities, which display integrated, interactive simulation and
modelling software across the full range of virtual capabilities;
- a research partnership that will add value to
existing research activities within the city region and beyond
by providing a commercially relevant focus;
- a knowledge exchange centre to increase awareness
and give potential users an opportunity to "try before they
buy" so they can become more confident of the business advantages
that can accrue from using VE tools; and
- an educational centre to help meet the current
skills shortages in VE in the UK.
14. The VEC is strategically located at Daresbury
Science and Innovation Campus (DSIC), facilitating access to the
high performance computational facilities and scientific expertise
in specialist software development. It is now incorporated within
tours for UK and international delegations visiting the campus
and is connected to research expertise at the University via six
academic leads and links across the Faculties.
15. Strategic Partners of the VEC include the
Science & Technology Facilities Council, North West Aerospace
Alliance and BAE Systems. This upstream engagement with industry
has proved extremely beneficial and provided an effective foundation
for the VEC's operations.
16. Although it has a current focus upon aerospace,
the VEC's overall ambition is to establish a centre of excellence
in and hub for Advanced Manufacturing and other sectors - investing
in "Virtual" Advanced Manufacturing would be a logical
position before investment in large capital facilities. Its current
successes and anticipated future trajectory suggest that there
would be scope to replicate this approach on an expanded scale.
What other models are there for research centres
oriented toward applications and results?
17. The Centre for Materials Discovery (CMD)
opened in January 2007 through a combination of £9.6 million
funding from the University, NWDA, EU Objective 1 and industry.
Located on the University campus, the Centre provides research
and knowledge transfer services to academia and industry in the
area of high throughput materials discovery.
18. The focus of CMD is to use state-of-the-art
robotics and automation technologies for the accelerated discovery
of new functional materials in applications such as energy, health,
home and personal care. Working closely with other universities,
the centre aims to provide access to leading-edge equipment for
research, training for industry personnel. It is accessible to
all businesses across the North West and UK and has enabled small,
medium, and large industries across a range of sectors to move
rapidly into the next generation of materials science.
19. Since its establishment, the CMD has created
35 jobs, filed 33 patents, assisted 72 businesses and brought
£9 million net value to the North West region. A suite of
automated facilities has provided major leverage for the University's
research both on academic levels and also in terms of research
and economic exploitation.
20. The Centre has pioneered new modes of interaction
and working-level integration with industry; it functions as the
major research base and working environment for 10 Unilever staff
co-located on the site. This presence of industry staff has offered
opportunities for research students to gain an insight into industrial
best practice.
21. The CMD was recently invited to become an
affiliate of an international Polymer Institute as a result of
its activity: it will explore the strong potential for staff/expertise
exchange to expand the centre's global presence and enhance its
impact. Other objectives will be to extend the very successful
model to new industrial partners. An increased focus will also
be placed on intellectual property exploitation.
22. The Knowledge Centre for Material Chemistry
(KCMC) is a virtual centre of expertise providing a single point
of contact for companies of all sizes to access a substantial
range of facilities and expertise in applied materials chemistry.
This includes the molecular modelling capabilities of the Science
and Technology Facilities Council at Daresbury as well as relevant
expertise at the University - including the CMD, University of
Manchester and the University of Bolton. By operating in a business-engaged
and business-enabling manner, KCMC has established a model that
draws on linkages between world-class research strengths and those
of other providers in a flexible way.
23. In its start-up phase of its operation, KCMC
funding has been broadly comparable to the Fraunhofer benchmark;
the revenue funding profile to date (representing c 18 months
of operation) has been:
| Core Public Sector Contribution:
| £2.6 million |
| Additional Grant income: | £2.7 million
|
| Industry income: | £2.1 million
|
| Total Income: | £7.4 million
|
This has been supplemented with income in excess of £16 million
for applied research and materials chemistry grants for knowledge
generation.
24. Much like the Fraunhofer model, KCMC brings new ideas
and technologies to market through R&D collaboration between
top quality applied research capabilities with innovator companies
in the manufacturing and process industries. However, the approach
adopted by the KCMC enables leading research expertise in the
universities to be directly integrated in its activity - a core
advantage over the German model. In addition, the focus of KCMC
is to seek the engagement of industry partners on the scale-up
and exploitation of new product concepts rather than investing
KCMC resources in large scale prototyping and pilot scale facilities.
This sector-specific selection of resource deployment is key to
minimizing investment risk.
25. The impact of KCMC in outputs relative to Fraunhofer benchmarks
illustrates the viability of this approach:
| KCMC output | Comparable Fraunhofer
(assuming same core funding)
|
| Applied research income | £4.8million (65%)
| £5.2million (66%) |
| Commercial Opportunities | 11 patents, 2 licences
| 3 licences |
| Spin-outs | 1 | <1
|
Crucially, in addition to successful engagement with a number
of major multinational enterprises, KCMC has established a number
of key relationships with SMEs and delivered immediate benefits
to their commercial prospects via these collaborative arrangements.
This approach has the potential to deliver a "win-win"
for Universities and UK Plc as, whilst SMEs are the subject of
renewed focus in economic policy, they also now contribute a substantial
proportion of industry research income (c 17%).
Whose role should it be to co-ordinate research in a UK-wide
network of innovation centres?
26. The position of the TSB as a body which occupies a position
between business, government and the research community, its UK-wide
remit and its role to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of
innovation-enabled by technology mean that it would be well placed
to lead on the co-ordination of a UK-wide network. A national
strategy should be welcomed in that it would provide coherence;
reduce duplication of effort; and, deliver centres of true international
- rather than national - critical mass.
27. In order to deliver an effective network, which maximises
potential synergies and realises new collaborative opportunities,
this function should not be undertaken in isolation. Relevant
stakeholders with whom the TSB should engage would include RCUK
and UKTI as well as Government Departments, notably DBIS. In view
of the emphasis on excellence, a positive relationship with the
Russell Group would be welcomed.
28. TICs have the potential to anchor knowledge-intensive
activities of globally mobile companies and form part of a wider-ranging
innovation architecture within given localities. In this respect,
it is essential that consideration be given to how any co-ordinating
body will engage at local level to ensure that growth opportunities
and the benefits to the UK of TIC location in a given area are
maximised; there is also a corresponding imperative that localities
and their Universities establish how they wish to engage with
any UK network.
29. By way of illustration, within the Liverpool City Region,
any TIC development should be brought forward within the context
of established business capabilities in Materials Science, Advanced
Manufacturing and Life Sciences alongside other key facilities
such as Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus, Liverpool Science
Park and the proposed Biomedical Health Campus and BioInnovation
Centre on the site of the Royal Hospital. The existence of a Knowledge
Economy Group for the Liverpool City Region, which is chaired
by the University's Vice-Chancellor and will be aligned to future
Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) structures, has proved to
be a highly beneficial vehicle in taking a strategic overview
and identifying how research excellence complements commercial
strength and demand; the Group would provide a mechanism for future
dialogue at UK level.
30. The advantages of such a vehicle are reinforced by the
recent Government White Paper on Local Growth, which announced
that LEPs will be given opportunities to make proposals in relation
to the innovation infrastructure in their locality. The presence
of senior HE representation as well as business leaders on several
LEP boards, including that of the Liverpool City Region, should
therefore be viewed positively.
31. Care should be taken to ensure that funding is not spread
too thinly within any UK network, particularly in the current
straitened context. The connection between local growth agendas
and UK innovation policy suggests that consideration should be
given to how TIC funding may be leveraged against the Regional
Growth Fund to maximise economic impact and assist the transition
towards sustainable private sector-led prosperity.
What effect would the introduction of Fraunhofer-type institutes
have on the work of Public Sector Research Establishments and
other existing research centres that undertake Government sponsored
research?
32. Fraunhofer-type institutes will be a welcome addition
to the portfolio of UK research establishments and should be positioned
effectively within this context as part of the UK's global knowledge
"offer". In this respect, it will be important to identify
where they will complement and compete with existing facilities.
33. As hubs of engagement and interaction, TICs have the potential
to offer a range of mutual benefits to establishments which are
engaged in elite "pure" research. The outputs of these
establishments lay the foundation for comparative advantage by
forming an essential part of the "commercialisation supply
chain". They generate international profile in their own
right and help to attract leading researchers, knowledge workers
and investors.
34. These strengths should continue to be recognised and aligned
effectively with any development of a UK network of Institutes.
In this respect, the fact that the UK's fundamental research base
remains under-resourced in relation to international competitors,
notably in physical sciences, should not be overlooked; transferring
resources from fundamental science to commercialisation risks
curtailing the flow of new technologies.
35. The UK's academic community has a strong entrepreneurial
spirit to drive the success of TICs. A crucial consideration therefore
- beyond the relationship between centres - is how academic staff
will view their relationship with the Institutes and what opportunities
they will provide for career development. The orientation of UK
and institutional performance systems can militate against staff
engaging in knowledge exchange activities. The establishment of
a high-profile UK network will not alleviate this by itself and
should therefore be considered within the context of broader UK
HE policy.
John Flamson
Director of Partnerships & Innovation
The University of Liverpool
1 December 2010
| 
